Jesus Didn't Do Away With the Torah (Law)

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

This Thread Has Been Moved

We are moving this thread to a section where it is a better fit, from General Theology to Sabbath and the Law

Please continue the discussion here, thank you.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[bugkiller]

Why do Jews have such a hard time accepting that Jesus is the Messiah?

Because, according to Deuteronomy 13, if Jesus did teach against Torah, and teach His disciples that they no longer had to keep Torah, then He cannot be the Messiah. In fact, if this is what Jesus taught, then the Pharisees were right in trying to stone Him. Granted, they should have brought Him before a judge, and had His case tried instead of mobbing up against Him as often as they did, but seeking to stone Him wouldn't of been unrighteous if He taught against Torah.

Why? Because according to Deuteronomy 13, if a prophet comes along, teaching anything other than the Torah that Moses gave Israel, they were false, lying, and deserving of death. Therefore, if Jesus did teach against Torah, He'd be breaking Torah, and therefore would be guilty of sin. BUT, we all know this isn't the case. He wasn't breaking Torah, because He was perfect, therefore He didn't teach that the Torah was done away with, as we see all throughout the New Testament, when the apostles kept and observed the Torah.

In fact the apostles observed Torah to the extent that they offered a sacrifice, they observed the feast days, the 7th day sabbath, they circumcised people, and they even kept the observance of clean foods. Things that would've condemned not only themselves, but also those they were teaching, considering Paul gave instructions on how to keep the feast of unleavened bread to gentiles.

The idea that the law was done away with, came about after 321 ad, when constantine placed a law in to effect that gave him power to excommunicate torah observing converted "gentiles" (in parenthesis, because conversion makes you part of Israel, no longer a gentile), and Jews/scattered Israelites that knew their lineage. Constantine even eventually used this law to kill those observing the 7th day sabbath instead of the 1st day sabbath he enacted in 321 ad. But, 321 ad was the start of the "torah being done away with". He even forced torah observant believers to observe Easter, instead of Passover, and again, death ensued if they were discovered. He was a big part of why we observe christmas, but it wasn't just him, so I can't talk too badly about him there. It definitely was ushered in because of him, but there were others that established it after him for sure.

What gives you the idea Jesus taught the law?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I can agree. The only reason I say that he's responsible for so much, was because while there was turmoil, he was the first to create a law that gave him power to kill those practicing Torah. He's the reason we stopped observing Torah all together. There was still a Torah observant fire kindling, and growing, but then he snuffed it out. Obviously some remained, but most were forced into either modern christianity, or to death.

Then the reality is you are not promoting Christianity.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Joshua 8:33 All Israel with their elders and officers and their judges were standing on both sides of the ark before the Levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, the stranger as well as the native. Half of them stood in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, just as Moses the servant of the LORD had given command at first to bless the people of Israel.

In this verse, Israel is inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles, so the covenant was also made with those Gentiles who affiliated themselves with Israel. However, I will agree that we are not under the Mosaic Covenant, but we are still followers of the same God, so we are still required to walk in His ways. If Gentiles are not required to avoid what God has instructed to be sin, then Gentiles are free to sin, but Gentiles are not free to do what God has revealed to be sin, so Gentiles are still under God's Law. If Gentiles were never under God's Law, then Gentiles have never needed Christ to give himself to redeem them from all Lawlessness.

You can argue for then if you like. But I am interested in a current day and covenant with God.

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Rom 7

bugkiller

 

[Devin P]

You can argue for then if you like. But I am interested in a current day and covenant with God.

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Rom 7

bugkiller

Depart from me, ye who work lawlessness - Jesus.

There's no "current day" with a God that doesn't change. There's the way it's always been. What I'm promoting is the grace of our Messiah, the ways of God, and torah observance.

God prophesied about the eaters of swines flesh being condemned to hell, and this was referring to those who ate swines flesh in the last days. Can't be condemned for food laws that don't exist, unless, they weren't done away with and people have been misled into thinking they were. There's no point for the law to exist since creation, to be practiced when Jesus returns, but for it to disappear for 1700 years before His return? The law isn't done away with, the curse that we were under for our disobedience was, and that's what is being referred to in that verse.

We were cursed to be kept from God until after His death, according to the law of divorce, but He died to free us from this curse, that kept us from Him. Not the perfect, holy, eternal law of God. Breaking His law, is sin, so for Him to say we don't follow the law, is for Him to say, Go sin.

 

[bugkiller]

Depart from me, ye who work lawlessness - Jesus.

There's no "current day" with a God that doesn't change. There's the way it's always been. What I'm promoting is the grace of our Messiah, the ways of God, and torah observance.

Yes the new covenant is current day material.

Jesus said it is not what goes in the mouth and comes out in the drought that defiles a man. Jesus said it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles a man. Jesus was not talking about vomit.

God prophesied about the eaters of swines flesh being condemned to hell, and this was referring to those who ate swines flesh in the last days. Can't be condemned for food laws that don't exist, unless, they weren't done away with and people have been misled into thinking they were. There's no point for the law to exist since creation, to be practiced when Jesus returns, but for it to disappear for 1700 years before His return? The law isn't done away with, the curse that we were under for our disobedience was, and that's what is being referred to in that verse.

Yes I know you do not accept Jer 31:31-33, LK 22:20; 24:44.

We were cursed to be kept from God until after His death, according to the law of divorce, but He died to free us from this curse, that kept us from Him. Not the perfect, holy, eternal law of God. Breaking His law, is sin, so for Him to say we don't follow the law, is for Him to say, Go sin.

Yes we were cursed before the law which came because of sin.

bugkiller

 

[Devin P]

Yes the new covenant is current day material.

Jesus said it is not what goes in the mouth and comes out in the drought that defiles a man. Jesus said it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles a man. Jesus was not talking about vomit.Yes I know you do not accept Jer 31:31-33, LK 22:20; 24:44. Yes we were cursed before the law which came because of sin.

bugkiller

Jesus couldn't of done away with clean and unclean foods there, because to do what Torah says not to is sin. Therefore He'd be sinning by teaching people to sin.

He's referring to the fact that if you eat food without washing it, it isn't going to defile you. The Pharisees of the day took what defiled them as dirt, as the physical, not the spiritual. They had everything down to an action, not the heart. If your heart desires things God warns you against then you've got a problem, not if you eat an apple without washing your hands or the food first.

 

[Bob S]

Questions to all who believe that Jesus didn't fulfill Torah. If Jesus didn't fulfill Torah and He made the following statement found in Matt5: 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law... how then could you possibly remove the sacrificial system? Remember not one jot.... Did Adam and Abraham need Temples to sacrifice? Where did God suddenly abbreviate Torah not to include what you feel is not necessary to observe? Not having the Levitical priesthood is not a reasonable answer nor is that the ceremonial part has been abolished. If Jesus didn't fulfill all the law then He hasn't fulfilled any part of the law. Where am I wrong?

 

[Devin P]

Questions to all who believe that Jesus didn't fulfill Torah. If Jesus didn't fulfill Torah and He made the following statement found in Matt5: 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law... how then could you possibly remove the sacrificial system? Remember not one jot.... Did Adam and Abraham need Temples to sacrifice? Where did God suddenly abbreviate Torah not to include what you feel is not necessary to observe? Not having the Levitical priesthood is not a reasonable answer nor is that the ceremonial part has been abolished. If Jesus didn't fulfill all the law then He hasn't fulfilled any part of the law. Where am I wrong?

Because the priesthood changed.

When you read Torah you understand that only the priests could make atonement for sins, only the priests could work in the tabernacle, and only priests could offer up the sacrifices. It was a priesthood headed by the sons of Levi.

When the priesthood changed from Levi, to Judah (sons of Levi, to the Son of God) the responsibilities that were on man (atoning for sins via sacrifices), were given to our Savior, and it's something that He did once and for all, hence why He is sitting down at the right hand of the Father.

No one, no man, can make sacrifices anymore if you read and understand Torah, because before Jesus came, only the tribe of Levi, and more specifically, the sons of Aaron could do this. This is what Korah's rebellion was about. They thought since they had a relationship with God as well that they could justify themselves and offer up sacrifices without Aaron and the Levitical Priesthood, but God killed them and caused the ground to swallow up them and their families and friends. Now, the priesthood is occupied, and can only be occupied by Jesus. This is why we don't do sacrifices anymore, and it's why I'm so anti-catholicism. Because there are priests pretending to have the authority to "forgive sins" by prescribing 20 hail Mary's, or this or that. Not only is it not their place, because Jesus is our Priest, but those atonements were not written about in the bible. Complete man-made tradition, but I digress.

I'm not saying Jesus didn't fulfill Torah. I know He did. But what I'm saying, is that He couldn't of done away with the levitical food laws, because if He did, then He'd be sinning, and would have then not fulfilled Torah.

 

[Devin P]

Questions to all who believe that Jesus didn't fulfill Torah. If Jesus didn't fulfill Torah and He made the following statement found in Matt5: 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law... how then could you possibly remove the sacrificial system? Remember not one jot.... Did Adam and Abraham need Temples to sacrifice? Where did God suddenly abbreviate Torah not to include what you feel is not necessary to observe? Not having the Levitical priesthood is not a reasonable answer nor is that the ceremonial part has been abolished. If Jesus didn't fulfill all the law then He hasn't fulfilled any part of the law. Where am I wrong?

That, and if He did do away with them, why then a decade after Jesus ascended, did Peter still not eat any unclean or common animal? In fact, in acts 10, not only does this reveal to us that the arguably closest disciple to Jesus kept the food laws a decade after the ascension of Jesus, but also, Peter reveals the meaning of this vision - it was that the man made law prohibiting Jews from fellowshipping, communicating, or eating with gentiles was exactly that - man-made and to be done away with.

 

[Bob S]

Because the priesthood changed.

When you read Torah you understand that only the priests could make atonement for sins, only the priests could work in the tabernacle, and only priests could offer up the sacrifices. It was a priesthood headed by the sons of Levi.

When the priesthood changed from Levi, to Judah (sons of Levi, to the Son of God) the responsibilities that were on man (atoning for sins via sacrifices), were given to our Savior, and it's something that He did once and for all, hence why He is sitting down at the right hand of the Father.

No one, no man, can make sacrifices anymore if you read and understand Torah, because before Jesus came, only the tribe of Levi, and more specifically, the sons of Aaron could do this. This is what Korah's rebellion was about. They thought since they had a relationship with God as well that they could justify themselves and offer up sacrifices without Aaron and the Levitical Priesthood, but God killed them and caused the ground to swallow up them and their families and friends. Now, the priesthood is occupied, and can only be occupied by Jesus. This is why we don't do sacrifices anymore, and it's why I'm so anti-catholicism. Because there are priests pretending to have the authority to "forgive sins" by prescribing 20 hail Mary's, or this or that. Not only is it not their place, because Jesus is our Priest, but those atonements were not written about in the bible. Complete man-made tradition, but I digress.

I'm not saying Jesus didn't fulfill Torah. I know He did. But what I'm saying, is that He couldn't of done away with the levitical food laws, because if He did, then He'd be sinning, and would have then not fulfilled Torah.

Hold on there brother, you just cracked open the not "one jot..." and the "until" The priesthood could not change until all was fulfilled and as of yet I have not read where you agree that all has been fulfilled. If the law has been accomplished it would seem to me we are not under it. Under your theory the priesthood could not have changed. Not on jot.....

 

[Devin P]

Hold on there brother, you just cracked open the not "one jot..." and the "until" The priesthood could not change until all was fulfilled and as of yet I have not read where you agree that all has been fulfilled. If the law has been accomplished it would seem to me we are not under it. Under your theory the priesthood could not have changed. Not on jot.....

Brother, it's not my "theory", it says it in the bible.

Hebrews 7:11-17

12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

It then goes on

Hebrews 22:27
22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

 

[Bob S]

That, and if He did do away with them, why then a decade after Jesus ascended, did Peter still not eat any unclean or common animal? In fact, in acts 10, not only does this reveal to us that the arguably closest disciple to Jesus kept the food laws a decade after the ascension of Jesus, but also, Peter reveals the meaning of this vision - it was that the man made law prohibiting Jews from fellowshipping, communicating, or eating with gentiles was exactly that - man-made and to be done away with.

You really cannot use an example like Peter to solve the problem of not one jot. Paul also observed the feasts and we have no reason to believe he did it because he thought he was still under the law. Why do you think He opened his letter to the Galatians3 with 3 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

 

[Bob S]

Brother, it's not my "theory", it says it in the bible.

Hebrews 7:11-17

12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

It then goes on

Hebrews 22:27
22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Exactly my friend. So , in fact, Jesus did fulfill the law. To fulfill means to "bring to an end". Jesus brought the law to an end at Calvary. "It is finished". We Christians are not subject to Torah, Period. Thank you for making my point. You may have your reasons for doing as you do , but to try to instill those beliefs on others as you can see doesn't hold water.

 

[Devin P]

You really cannot use an example like Peter to solve the problem of not one jot. Paul also observed the feasts and we have no reason to believe he did it because he thought he was still under the law. Why do you think He opened his letter to the Galatians3 with 3 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Because they fell victim to Jews teaching that through the law they'd be saved, which isn't true. They taught that you had to obey the law to be saved, when it's not so. You're saved, but as a proof of that faith you should keep Torah. You don't have to be circumcised to be saved, but once you're saved, you should desire to be circumcised. Will you? Eventually, you should feel it's important to be circumcised yeah. But are you getting circumcised for salvation? No, but because you're saved. You should desire to keep Sabbath not for salvation, but because you are saved. Same thing with food laws. If you desire lawlessness, Jesus said

Depart from me ye who practice lawlessness.

So, while keeping the law won't save you, if you don't desire to keep it, it should cause us to question our salvation, because His spirit will cause us to desire to be walking in the Torah.

 

[Devin P]

Exactly my friend. So , in fact, Jesus did fulfill the law. To fulfill means to "bring to an end". Jesus brought the law to an end at Calvary. "It is finished". We Christians are not subject to Torah, Period. Thank you for making my point. You may have your reasons for doing as you do , but to try to instill those beliefs on others as you can see doesn't hold water.

No, it doesn't mean bring to an end.

Matthew 5:17 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

He says, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

If fulfill meant bring to an end, that would literally have the same definition as destroy. So he's saying, I am not come to end, but to end?

No. He didn't come to do away with the law, He came to show us it. Because even back then, there was man-made traditions everywhere that hid the truth. He came to reveal it, so people could get back to the truth, to the spirit of it, and rid themselves of traditions they didn't even realize that they had. They weren't fulfilling the law, because they didn't understand how to, because there was so much false teaching, tradition and blatant lies everywhere.

He came to fulfill it, as in be perfect in it, so we would have a perfect example of what to do. He didn't do away with the law, because heaven and earth haven't passed away. He only occupies what was formerly occupied by Levitical priests of the lineage of Aaron. Everything else, stands.

We see this by the apostles keeping the feasts, teaching gentile churches to keep the feasts, sacrificing animals, and keeping the sabbath over 80 times in the NT.

If we take up the idea that fulfill means abolish, or do away with, well, that's literally what He said He wasn't going to do. Do not think that I have come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it doesn't mean Do not think I have come to do away with the law, but to do away with it.

 

[Devin P]

Exactly my friend. So , in fact, Jesus did fulfill the law. To fulfill means to "bring to an end". Jesus brought the law to an end at Calvary. "It is finished". We Christians are not subject to Torah, Period. Thank you for making my point. You may have your reasons for doing as you do , but to try to instill those beliefs on others as you can see doesn't hold water.

That, and the fulfill He's talking about is the law of the adulterous bride.

Israel was adulterous, and finally God divorced them. In the Torah, we learn that if a husband divorces his wife for reasons of adultery (the only reason divorce is permitted according to Torah)

Then, that wife was cursed to live the rest of her life unmarried, alone, and despised as a curse in all of the land wherever she went. The only way that she could've ever married, is if she died (which obviously she can't marry at this point) or if her husband dies. Then she'd be free to remarry. But, Israel's husband was God. God can't die. So they'd be waiting for a long time. But, when Jesus came, He freed Israel from this curse, and it was one of the laws that He fulfilled, not to mention all of the others that He was able to. Even Jesus wasn't able to fulfill each law though. Because there are some only given to women, some only given to wives, some only given to farmers, to kings, to judges, slave owners, slaves, etc.

 

[Bob S]

In your opinion what does fulfill mean?

 

[Bob S]

That, and the fulfill He's talking about is the law of the adulterous bride.

Israel was adulterous, and finally God divorced them. In the Torah, we learn that if a husband divorces his wife for reasons of adultery (the only reason divorce is permitted according to Torah)

Then, that wife was cursed to live the rest of her life unmarried, alone, and despised as a curse in all of the land wherever she went. The only way that she could've ever married, is if she died (which obviously she can't marry at this point) or if her husband dies. Then she'd be free to remarry. But, Israel's husband was God. God can't die. So they'd be waiting for a long time. But, when Jesus came, He freed Israel from this curse, and it was one of the laws that He fulfilled, not to mention all of the others that He was able to. Even Jesus wasn't able to fulfill each law though. Because there are some only given to women, some only given to wives, some only given to farmers, to kings, to judges, slave owners, slaves, etc.

I didn't see anything about an adulterous wife in Matt 5. The theme was the law and prophets and fulfilling those things. Please do not get into something that cannot be proven from scripture.

 

[Devin P]

In your opinion what does fulfill mean?

To do. To complete.

If I'm married, and I ask my wife to do the dishes, and she fulfills the task of doing dishes, that doesn't do away with every dish we ever have to do again. That means that she, for that night, has fulfilled her task of doing the dishes.

To say that fulfill means to abolish, to get rid of, or to do away with, is literally saying that it means exactly what He said He didn't do in the first place.