Every jot and tittle

[expos4ever]

These dietary rules were never meant to be moral laws; they were health and hygiene rules for a time when people didn't understand microbes and parasites and sterilization.

I disagree - they were instituted to set the Jew apart from the nations:

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26 Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I have addressed this matter in detail in post 47. No point in repeating the entire argument. But I will ask you this question:

If Jesus is still concerned specifically with the addition of man-made traditions to Levtical food laws, why is He challenging the very premise of the Levitical food laws, which is that foods that go into the man defile him?

I will be very interested to read your reply.

The kosher laws were not even spoken of in any of those verses. It was CLEARLY regarding eating without washed hands. Your question is like if I asked you "why is the moon flooded with water"...

 

[John Helpher]

In John 16:2 Jesus says a time is coming when people will kill the followers of Jesus and even believe they are doing so for God! It sounds so outrageous. One wonders how people could become so deceived. And yet, it's not that hard.

This issue of stubbornly clinging to the old law is an example of such a thing could happen. I've seen pretty clear examples of people twisting the information to suit their personal bias. This happened when someone quoted as Jesus saying, "take this yoke upon you" (as opposed to take my yoke upon you) in reference to the Mosaic law. The implication is that it was the Laws of Moses that Jesus wanted people to follow.

Another example is that of Peter's experience where God showed him a bunch of unclean animals and told him to kill and eat, and that he should not call them unclean anymore. The response was that this experience wasn't really about unclean animals at all, but rather something to do with people.

Another example is that of the sabbath day; Jesus worked for God 7 days per week. He said we cannot work for God and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other and that our new, full time Job is to seek God's kingdom, first. This is what the disciples did; it's what we should do because this is a demonstration of the values of the Kingdom of Heaven. The old bottles argue that this is not really what Jesus wanted from us; that what he really wanted was for us to continue just giving God 1 day per week (while we use the other 6 days to work for money).

In all these cases, the stubbornness persists because they have convinced themselves that to change their thinking on these issues equates to disobedience to God. The more you push them on it, the more angry they will become, to the point that, as Jesus suggested, they'll think they are doing God a service to silence you.

 

[John Helpher]

I disagree - they were instituted to set the Jew apart from the nations:

But, that would imply that now that these foods are no longer "unclean", then we're no longer set apart from the nations.

This is exactly what Jesus was getting at; it's not what goes into the mouth that makes a person unclean (or set apart). It never was. That was a misconception the people developed over time because we humans invariably love to turn these kind of outward behaviors into holier-than-thou legislation. It's what comes out of the heart that sets us apart.

 

[expos4ever]

But, that would imply that now that these foods are no longer "unclean", then we're no longer set apart from the nations.

Here is my take on this:

1. God has chosen Israel to play a central role in His plan of redemption;
2. The Law of Moses sets the Israelite apart from the Gentile - it serves to identify Israel as a distinct group;
3. Israel's role is fulfilled by Jesus - the Israel project is now over
4. Therefore, no more need for the Law of Moses.

You may not agree with this, but I hope at least I have been clear about my position.

 

[John Helpher]

3. Israel's role is fulfilled by Jesus - the Israel project is now over
4. Therefore, no more need for the Law of Moses.

Just a small distinction here. I'm not saying the Israel project is over. I'm saying it has changed focus. The original Israel was meant for goodness. However, the lesson we can look back on now is that being part of the correct nation, race, or religion does not guarantee faithfulness.

The idea of a "people set apart" is still there; it's just expanded to include anyone who practices the values of the kingdom of Heaven. The children of Israel are those who "follow the lamb withersoever he goeth". That is part of the fulfillment that Jesus brought; to show the world what Israel was supposed to have been all along.

I would also say it's not a matter of there being no more need for the law of Moses, but rather that we have outgrown it. When we were in kindergarten we learned important lessons, simplified so that children can understand. That is how I see the teachings of Jesus; he represents a graduation from spiritual kindergarten (where our behavior is controlled by clearly defined rules written on the wall) into adulthood where our behavior is determined by an examination of the context and choices made through wisdom.

Those lessons from kindergarten are still there (i.e. do not steal) but now, as adults, we can understand that perhaps a poor, starving man stealing bread isn't the same as a wealthy man who embezzles from the company. This is the problem I see with those people who keep hanging on to the old testament when we have something more advanced with Jesus; they are adults who want to go back to kindergarten-like thinking where they never need to think beyond a simplistic list of rules on the wall.

 

[parousia70]

T.
What God's defined as sin back then, is still sin today, He does not change.

You mean like the sin of eating shellfish and wearing clothing made from Mixed Fibers?

 

[klutedavid]

Two things.

1. Lev 19:18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

>>Is the idea of loving your neighbor new to the NT? No... he was repeating an existing commandment. Which leads to...

2. The word for "new" is kainos which means "new in regards to freshness, renewed." The word "neos" is "new in regards to AGE, i.e. brand new. But kainos is more like renewed... made fresh.

Thus, messiah took a commandment that already existed and revealed the depth behind it... made it fresh.

Just because an English translation says "new" doesn't mean it is brand new, David.

Blessings.
Ken

A new (kainos) commandment or a renewed commandment from the Old Testament?

I looked up the Greek 'kainos' (new) and here is what the Lexicon stated.

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Greek: kainos

translation: new
a as respects form; recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn
b as respects substance; of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon

There is no mention of the word 'renewed' in that Lexicon.

You must cite the Lexicon that you referenced.

 

[klutedavid]

There are two ENTIRELY different priesthoods, David. The Levitical does work on the Sabbath but Yeshua is not a Levite. He is a priest of another order, and he did not break any Sabbath commands found in the bible. Instead of any back and forth or risking anyone getting offended... just show me the TORAH (God's law) commandment he broke and then I will concede your point.

Matthew 5:2
But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.”

Matthew 12:5
Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?

Matthew 6:6
But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.

Matthew 12:8
For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

So the disciple were breaking the law but were innocent!

 

[Der Alte]

Two things.
1. Lev 19:18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
>>Is the idea of loving your neighbor new to the NT? No... he was repeating an existing commandment. Which leads to...
2. The word for "new" is kainos which means "new in regards to freshness, renewed." The word "neos" is "new in regards to AGE, i.e. brand new. But kainos is more like renewed... made fresh.
Thus, messiah took a commandment that already existed and revealed the depth behind it... made it fresh.
Just because an English translation says "new" doesn't mean it is brand new, David.
Blessings.
Ken

If you are citing Strong's it has been found to have about 15,000 errors and omissions. Here is the definition of "Kainos" from Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich one of, if not the, most highly accredited Greek lexicons available.

καινός, ή, όν (Aeschyl., Hdt.+; ins, pap, LXX, TestSol; TestAbr A 7 p. 84, 27 [Stone p. 16]; Test12Patr; JosAs 14:13 and 15; Philo, Joseph., Just., Mel.) comp. καινότερος; prim. sense ‘new’.
① pert. to being in existence for a relatively short time, new, unused (X., Hell. 3, 4, 28; PGM 36, 265; Judg 15:13; 2 Km 6:3; 4 Km 2:20) ἀσκοί wineskins (Josh 9:13) Mt 9:17; Mk 2:22; Lk 5:38. ἱμάτιον (Artem. 2, 3 p. 86, 3; 3 Km 11:29f) vs. 36. μνημεῖον Mt 27:60; J 19:41 (w. ἐν ᾧ οὐδέπω οὐδεὶς ἦν τεθειμένος added). τὸ κ. the new piece=πλήρωμα Mk 2:21; Lk 5:36. καινὰ καὶ παλαιά Mt 13:52 (perh. with ref. to coins; cp. PGrenf II, 74, 9; 77, 7f).
② pert. to being not previously present, unknown, strange, remarkable, also w. the connotation of the marvelous or unheard-of (Pla., Apol. 24c; X., Mem. 1, 1, 1 ἕτερα καὶ καινὰ δαιμόνια; Just., A I, 15, 9; Orig., C. Cels. 1, 58, 15) διδαχή Mk 1:27; Ac 17:19. ἐντολή (κ. νόμος: Menand., Fgm. 238, 3 Kö.; Diod S 13, 34, 6) J 13:34; 1J 2:7f (Polyaenus 2, 1, 13 οὐ καινοὺς νόμους … ἀλλὰ τ. παλαιούς); 2J 5. ὄνομα (Is 62:2; 65:15) Rv 2:17 (here w. ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ μὴ ὁ λαμβάνων, perh. as antidote to adversarial magic); 3:12. ᾠδή 5:9 (Ps 143:9; cp. Is 42:10; Ps 32:3; 39:4.—Philo, Vi. Cont. 80 ὕμνος κ. [opp. ἀρχαῖος]); 14:3. γλῶσσαι Mk 16:17. κ. γένος of Christians Dg 1. θεώρημα AcPl Ox 6, 1f (διήγημα Aa I, 241, 11). θέαμα GJs 19:2f (Mel., P. 19, 127). Christ as ὁ κ. ἄνθρωπος the new kind of human being IEph 20:1. ἢ λέγειν τι ἢ ἀκούειν τι καινότερον either to hear or to say someth. quite new (=‘the latest thing’) Ac 17:21 (s. Kühner-G. II 306f; Norden, Agn. Th. 333ff [but s. HAlmqvist, Plutarch u. d. NT ’46, 79f, w. ref. to Plut.]; B-D-F §244, 2; Rdm. 70 and s. Demosth. 4, 10 ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι … λέγεταί τι καινόν; γένοιτʼ ἄν τι καινότερον … ; also Theophr., Char. 8, 2; BGU 821, 6 [II A.D.] ὅταν ᾖ τι καινότερον, εὐθέως σοι δηλώσω; Simplicius, Coroll. De Tempore, in Aristot., Phys. p. 788, 36ff καινοτέραν ἐβάδισεν ὁδόν=he traveled a rather new road [of interpretation]; Jos., Ant. 14, 104; Iren. 1, 18, 1 [Harv. I 169, 3]).
③ pert. to that which is recent in contrast to someth. old, new
ⓐ w. no criticism of the old implied (Herodas 4, 57 καινὴ Ἀθηναίη; Lucian, M. Peregr. 12 κ. Σωκράτης): of the Son of God or Logos, who is old and new at the same time Hs 9, 12, 1ff; Dg 11:4.
ⓑ in the sense that what is old has become obsolete, and should be replaced by what is new. In such a case the new is, as a rule, superior in kind to the old ἡ κ. διαθήκη the new covenant or declaration (Jer 38:31; Just., D. 11, 4 al.; Did., Gen. 46, 4; 156, 5) Mt 26:28 v.l.; Mk 14:24 v.l.; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Hb 8:8 (Jer 38:31), 13; 9:15. κ. νόμος (Timocles Com. [IV B.C.] Fgm. 32, 4 κατὰ τὸν νόμον τ. καινόν; Just., D. 12, 3; Mel., P. 7, 46) B 2:6. λαὸς κ. 5:7; 7:5; cp. 15:7.—Esp. in eschatol. usage κ. οὐρανοί, κ. γῆ (Is 65:17; 66:22) 2 Pt 3:13; Rv 21:1; Ἰερουσαλὴμ καινή vs. 2; 3:12. καινὰ πάντα ποιεῖν 21:5. καινὸν πίνειν τὸ γένημα τῆς ἀμπέλου Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25.—Of the renewing of a pers. who has been converted κ. ἄνθρωπος Eph 4:24; Dg 2:1. κ. κτίσις a new creature 2 Cor 5:17a; cp. 17b (Ps.-Pla., Axioch. 11 p. 370e ἐκ τῆς ἀσθενείας ἐμαυτὸν συνείλεγμαι καὶ γέγονα καινός=out of weakness I have brought myself together and become new; cp. Orig., C. Cels. 6, 67, 33); Gal 6:15; cp. B 16:8. All the Christians together appear as κ. ἄνθρωπος Eph 2:15.—RHarrisville, The Concept of Newness in the NT, ’60; GSchneider, Καινὴ Κτίσις (Paul and background), diss. Trier, ’59, Neuschöpfung oder Wiederkehr? ’61. Qumran: DSwanson, A Covenant Just Like Jacob’s, The Covenant of 11QT 29 and Jeremiah’s New Covenant: New Qumran Texts and Studies, ed. GBrooke/FMartínez ’94, 273–86.—B. 957. Schmidt, Syn. II 94–123. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. S. νεό.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 496–497). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.​

 

[Soyeong]

I have offered several points; each of which you have dismissed. You deliberately distorted Jesus' words about his yoke, insisting that what he really wanted most from his followers is that they follow Moses. If you are willing to distort his words in that area, then you will be willing to distort them in others areas.

This is what you quoted from me:

"A disciple had the goal of coming under a rabbi and learn from him how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, and in Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus was inviting people to become his disciples and to come to him for rest by taking this yoke upon them,"

And this is my full sentence with bold to show the difference:

"A disciple had the goal of coming under a rabbi and learn from him how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, and in Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus was inviting people to become his disciples and to come to him for rest by taking this yoke upon them, not by rejecting his yoke."

You deliberately stopped quoting me in mid sentence right before I spoke about his yoke, so you need to distort my words in order to accuse me of distorting Jesus' words. When Jesus was inviting people to come under his yoke, the issue at hand is what we should understand this yoke to be, and that is what I spoke in regard to. If Jesus lived in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law and did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, then why should we think that what he was wanting people to learn from him was something other than what he taught by word and by example? Especially given what it meant to come under a rabbi's yoke with in the context of Judaism and his reference to Jeremiah 6:16-19, there any room for what else coming under his yoke could have been referring to.

Jesus said the law and the prophets were up until John the Baptist and from there the Kingdom of Heaven is preached. Jesus said that he is the cornerstone. He said that he is lord even of the sabbath, indicating that he's the one to tell us how to rightly apply the sabbath, but you do not want to hear that. You want Moses to be the boss who tells Jesus how to apply the sabbath.

In Luke 16:16-18, Jesus said that the law was until John and that since then the Gospel of the Kingdom has been preached, namely to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, so the fact that he was speaking about the law still being taught after John means that he was not speaking about it ending with him. Furthermore, Jesus went on in verses 17-18 to teach obedience to the law and to say that it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the least part to disappear from the law, so he was not speaking about a law that he thought had already ended. Lastly, neither John or Jesus taught people to stop repenting from their sins, but just the opposite.

If you agree that Jesus Lord of the Sabbath, then you should live in a way that testifies about who is by keeping the Sabbath holy in obedience to God's command in accordance with Jesus' example. I said nothing against keeping the Sabbath holy in accordance with how he taught to apply it.

I told you about Jesus' teachings on money and you dismissed them because Jesus is not your boss. Moses is your boss. You merely use Jesus as a figurehead to legitimize loyalty to Moses. It's basically the same thing Catholics do with Mary where Jesus' role is to bring glory to Mary.

Jesus is my boss, so the reason why I dismissed what you said was not because he isn't my boss, but rather I dismissed what you said because no one in the conversation said anything about tithing.

Moses acted as mediator who communicated God's words to the Israelites, so my loyalty is to God as the boss and to Jesus as the same boss. Jesus was not in disagreement with what the Father had commanded to Moses.

 

[Soyeong]

@Soyeong

I will address the passages you quoted.

1. Deuteronomy 30:11-20 is followed by Deuteronomy 31:16-22 explaining how God knows the people will fail.

You should not interpret Deuteronomy 31:16-22 as undermining Deuteronomy 30:11-20, especially when it was also predicted that they would return to God. The whole point of the song was so that when they saw themselves in those conditions they would remember the song and repent. In any case, the reason why they disobeyed God was not because what God commanded was too difficult for them to obey.

2. 1 John 5:3 is in reference to 1 John 3:23 "And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment."

Jesus expressed his love through His actions and what that looked like was sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is how we are to love as he loved. In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized the Mosaic Law as being about how to love God and our neighbor, so it is the Law of Love. The way to love God is by obeying His commandments, which is the same throughout both the OT and the NT (Exodus 20:6, Deuteronomy 7:9, Deuteronomy 11:1, Joshua 22:5, Nehemiah 1:5, John 14:15, John 14:21, John 15:10, 1 John 5:3, 1 John 1:6).

4. You are wrong about Acts of the Apostles 15:1 because in 15:5 it specifically states how the false argument was, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” So 15:10 is not solely about circumcision but includes the law of Moses.

I already demonstrated that Acts 15:1 was speaking about a requirement that was being added on top of what God had commanded. To give another example, there are 24 chapters worth of traditions in the Mishnah for how they taught to correctly rest on the Sabbath, which ranged from how much someone could lift to how far they could walk before it counted as work, which they then put a fence around to scale it back in order to prevent someone from accidentally doing something that could be counted as work. Teaching someone to follow these traditions was in their mind teaching them how to obey the Mosaic Law, so they had a very different understanding of teaching the Mosaic Law than you do.

Finally you write:

I agree, if we are speaking in the context of living under the old covenant. Peace was found in being obedient. Today peace is found in being obedient also (as in the Hebrews passage). But today we are obedient to the law of love. Because the word "rest" is a spiritual word, and we find rest in Jesus.

Love has always been in important character trait of God throughout the Bible, so the Mosaic Covenant was just as much about love as the New Covenant, which is precisely why Jesus said that those were the greatest two commandments of the Mosaic Law.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I think we have agreement here. The whole point of saying the law is fulfilled is not to say that there no longer is any law, but rather that Jesus represents a graduation into a fuller understanding of God's ways. Jesus expected obedience. He gave his followers instructions on what to do. That is the purpose of the video; to demonstrate that it is Jesus' teachings we need to follow; in doing that we will not only be covering the old ways, but also the new (because the new is a more advanced version of the old).

My apologies. I thought your previous words were supporting the popular view of Christianity today. I watched the video. We are in agreement that the Old Law is no more. We are in agreement if you believe we have to follow the commands of Jesus Christ. I have just run into too many today who say that we do not have to obey the commands given to us by Jesus as a part of salvation (See: Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:25-28). Paul warns us of certain sins like murder, hate, theft, etc. and how they which do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21) (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). This is why I believe salvation is conditional and it is not a forever thing forced upon us by our doing a one time prayer. While we do need God's grace in order to be initially and ultimately saved, I believe His grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and that we should live righteously and godly in this present world (Titus 2:11-12). Many today think they can sin and still be saved just by having a belief alone on Jesus. But I do not believe that is how salvation works.

 

[klutedavid]

My apologies. I thought your previous words were supporting the popular view of Christianity today. I watched the video. We are in agreement that the Old Law is no more. We are in agreement if you believe we have to follow the commands of Jesus Christ. I have just run into too many today who say that we do not have to obey the commands given to us by Jesus as a part of salvation (See: Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:25-28). Paul warns us of certain sins like murder, hate, theft, etc. and how they which do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21) (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). This is why I believe salvation is conditional and it is not a forever thing forced upon us by our doing a one time prayer. While we do need God's grace in order to be initially and ultimately saved, I believe His grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and that we should live righteously and godly in this present world (Titus 2:11-12). Many today think they can sin and still be saved just by having a belief alone on Jesus. But I do not believe that is how salvation works.

John 5:24
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

 

[John Helpher]

You deliberately stopped quoting me in mid sentence right before I spoke about his yoke,

This is word games. You talked about "this yoke" in the context of Mosaic law. By doing this, you're setting the context of what the yoke is; Mosaic law. When, toward the end of the sentence, you say, "my yoke" the meaning of what the yoke is has already been changed to the law of Moses. Tacking on "my yoke" at the end is a technicality so you can claim that you've used Jesus' words, but you haven't really. You make Moses the savior and Jesus merely the messenger who is meant to promote Moses.

"A disciple had the goal of coming under a rabbi and learn from him how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, and in Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus was inviting people to become his disciples and to come to him for rest by taking this yoke [Which yoke? Mosaic law] upon them, not by rejecting his yoke [mosaic law]."

 

[John Helpher]

In Luke 16:16-18, Jesus said that the law was until John and that since then the Gospel of the Kingdom has been preached, namely to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, so the fact that he was speaking about the law still being taught after John

Can you see how you've twisted the sentence? You acknowledge that Jesus said the law and the prophets were up until John, and since then the Kingdom of Heaven is being preached, but then you carry on from that to state as fact that Jesus carried on teaching the very law that he'd just said finished with John the baptist. That is irrational.

 

[John Helpher]

My apologies. I thought your previous words were supporting the popular view of Christianity today. I watched the video. We are in agreement that the Old Law is no more. We are in agreement if you believe we have to follow the commands of Jesus Christ. I have just run into too many today who say that we do not have to obey the commands given to us by Jesus as a part of salvatio

It's all good, BH. Thanks for watching the video and sharing some comments on it.

This is why I believe salvation is conditional and it is not a forever thing forced upon us by our doing a one time prayer.

For sure. Conditions get a bad name, but they aren't bad at all. Conditions are what separates something from what it is not.

 

[Soyeong]

Can you see how you've twisted the sentence? You acknowledge that Jesus said the law and the prophets were up until John, and since then the Kingdom of Heaven is being preached, but then you carry on from that to state as fact that Jesus carried on teaching the very law that he'd just said finished with John the baptist. That is irrational.

Luke 16:16-18 “The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void. 18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Nothing that Jesus said after the "Law and the Prophets were until John" is consistent with interpreting that as saying that the law is finished. In Matthew 4:17-23, Jesus called for people to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which is the good news of the kingdom that verse 16 refers to being preach, and God's law is how his audience knew what they should repent from doing, so he was referring to it still being taught after John. Furthermore, Jesus said in verse 17 that it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than the least part to pass away from the law, which would be irrational if he thought that the law had already finished with John. Likewise, in verse 18, he taught how to understand the law in regard to divorce and there would be no point in teaching about how to obey a law that was now finished. Therefore saying that the Law and the Prophets were until John should not be interpreted as saying that the law was finished with John.

In addition, it wouldn't make sense why no one tried to stone him for saying that or why Jesus continued to teach about the law throughout the rest of his ministry. For example, when Jesus was asked about what the greatest two commandments were, he didn't respond saying that it was a moot point because they were all finished. Or in Luke 17:14, Jesus instructed the people that he had cleansed to go present themselves to the priests, which was in accordance with what the Mosaic Law instructs. Not once did he ever try to discourage someone from obeying the law, but rather he lived in sinless obedience to it.

This is word games. You talked about "this yoke" in the context of Mosaic law. By doing this, you're setting the context of what the yoke is; Mosaic law. When, toward the end of the sentence, you say, "my yoke" the meaning of what the yoke is has already been changed to the law of Moses. Tacking on "my yoke" at the end is a technicality so you can claim that you've used Jesus' words, but you haven't really. You make Moses the savior and Jesus merely the messenger who is meant to promote Moses.

"A disciple had the goal of coming under a rabbi and learn from him how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, and in Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus was inviting people to become his disciples and to come to him for rest by taking this yoke [Which yoke? Mosaic law] upon them, not by rejecting his yoke [mosaic law]."

I had no intention of misrepresenting his words or playing games, so if you think that I did, then I apologize. My point was simply to talk about what it meant for a disciple to come under a rabbi's yoke and what they were seeking to learn from their rabbi within the context of Judaism. If you agree that Jesus was born under the law (Galatians 4:4), so he was obligated to obey it, that he was sinless, so he set a perfect example of how to obey it, and that he did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, then I see no good reason to object to thinking that this is what he was referring to when he was inviting people to come under his yoke and to learn from him.

From: Yoke
In Rabbinic Literature
In rabbinic theology the yoke is a metaphor of great importance. It is the symbol of service and servitude, and in accordance with the principle that the Jew should be free from servitude to man in order to devote himself to the service of God, the "yoke of the kingdom of man" is contrasted with "the yoke of the kingdom of heaven." The doctrine is fully enacted in the statement of *Neḥunya b. ha-Kanah : "Whoever takes upon himself the yoke of the Torah, they remove from him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns, and whoever breaks off the yoke of the Torah, they place on him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns" (Avot 3:5). The "yoke of the Torah" here presumably refers to the duty of devoting oneself to study but "yoke" is used in a more specific and restricted sense. The proclamation of the unity of God by reading the *Shema is called "accepting upon oneself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven," while the acceptance of the fulfillment of the Commandments as a whole, referred to in the second paragraph of the Shema. is called "accepting the yoke of the Commandments," and it is this which determines the order of the paragraphs. In Avot 6:6 the phrase "bearing the yoke with one's fellow" means "sharing his burdens."

The Gospel of Christ is accepting the yoke of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 4:17-23) and sharing one another's burdens is the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2). It was the same God who gave the Mosaic Law who sent Jesus to die for our sins, so I don't see a good reason to think that Jesus was in disagreement with what was commanded to Moses. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so there is no sense in wanting Jesus as our savior from living in transgression of God's law while wanting nothing to do with repenting and living in obedience to it by faith.

Note also how the quote used "fulfillment" in regard to the Commandments.

 

[Oldmantook]

You misunderstand what Paul was saying in Romans 7.

Paul was a dead man even though he served God in his mind.

Just like you, on the one hand you know what the law requires. Yet you sin because you exist in a body of death. Your flesh cannot stop sinning.

Unless of course you want to claim that you are free from sin?

The law only condemns, obedience to the law saves no one.

Gentiles were never under the law.

Did you actually read Romans 7?? If you bothered to do so you would find that instead of condemning the law as you allege, Paul commended the law.
Rom 7:12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good.
Rom 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin
Rom 7:17 And if I do what I do not want to do, I admit that the law is good.
Rom 7:22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law.
Rom 7:25 So then, with my mind I serve the law of God, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

I prefer to believe Paul's opinion over yours.

 

[Oldmantook]

First, I am not sure exactly which text you are referring to when you say "both parties must be present" - can you please tell us?

Why don't you do your own homework and look through your Old Testament? Tell me what you find. I won't do you homework for you. If you are incapable, let me know and I'll cite you chapter and verse.

I have already explained my position in post 47. You are not really addressing my argument. Let me ask you this question: If Jesus is still concerned specifically with the addition of man-made traditions to Levtical food laws, why is He challenging the very premise of the Levitical food laws, which is that foods that go into the man defile him?

Problem is, your premise is without warrant. Jesus challenged their ORAL LAW; otherwise known as the tradition of men in Mk 7:7-8. Jesus did not challenge the Levitical food laws as you claim. Carefully read v.9 He went on to say, “You neatly set aside the commandment of God to maintain your own tradition. The Jews - not Jesus - set aside the commandment of God (Levitical law) in order to maintain their own oral tradition (Talmud). Hint: the Talmud is not Scripture and in fact contradicts Scripture in many ways; yet the Jews would rather follow their oral law instead of the written law of God.