The Commandments

[Dkh587]

It is the ministration of the law that has changed. It went from Tables of stone and parchment (the Book of the Law) to the fleshly tables of the heart. Thus saith the Word in Romans 9:30-33

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

As seen above Faith is the issue. Faith is the stumbling stone in which Israel stumble on.

Let's continue. Romans 10:6-8,4

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ (THE WORD) down from aboveView attachment 255020 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ (THE WORD) again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word (CHRIST)is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
(Rom 10:4-8 KJV)

For Christ (the Word in the heart and mouth; which is the faith in which we speak) is the end of the law (on tables of Stone and and on parchment) for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Do we then make void the Law through Faith? Nay we establish it!

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(Heb 8:10 KJV)

GOD'S Laws, HIS Word, Christ in the heart, mind and mouth. A New Ministration! A new Manifestly declared to be the Epistle of Christ!

In that he saith, A new he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
(Heb 8:13 KJV)

Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
(2Co 3:3-5 KJV)

Christ being the “end” of the law, is not exactly the best word to use. It is more accurate to use the words “goal” or “aim”.

And you’re right - the administration of how God gives His law & commandments is different in the new covenant: He writes them on the heart instead of stone.

That is one of the superior aspects of the new covenant, is Him giving us the Holy Spirit & administering His laws, statutes & commandments via our heart rather than on stone.

 

[HIM]

Christ being the “end” of the law, is not exactly the best word to use. It is more accurate to use the words “goal” or “aim”.

Me likes the Greek too!

And you’re right - the administration of how God gives His law & commandments is different in the new covenant: He writes them on the heart instead of stone.

That is one of the superior aspects of the new covenant, is Him giving us the Holy Spirit & administering His laws, statutes & commandments via our heart rather than on stone.

Amen! Tis the GOOD NEWS! True Salvation!

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
(Heb 8:10,11; Joh 17:3)

 

[Shimshon]

I am not familiar with your posts or your religion; I see in your reply the “Law abrogated” theme.

Having past sins forgiven is a function of Law, a legal decision. It doesn't change the person except to remove the burden of guilt; if the person continues to sin then further forgiveness is required and this is not without cost.

I believe you are thinking of Leviticus. Without considering the rest of Moses, David, Yeshua and his disciples. The law never had the power in and of itself, by carnally following the law in the flesh, to forgive anyone's sins. The law sanctified them through 'faith'ful observance. It was a prototype of, by faith in, the acts the Messiah alone will and has accomplished to forgive the sins of the world. The only reason a person was found righteous in God's sight by observing the Torah was because of the faith they applied in following it. Habakkuk 2:4 Psalms 40:6-8 Romans 3:25 Hebrews 9:9-10 Hebrews 9:12 Hebrews 9:14

“We walk by the law of the Spirit.” Does this mean we do not do all of the commandments; if not which ones are not required, and where does scripture say so?

There are a whole lot more commandments than the Ten. Sadly, it appears your message contains the classic 'Israel abrogated' replacement theology theme. Why are you not arguing for observing the building of the tabernacle and all it's items? Or for establishing a nation of people. IF you can see these things fulfilled through Jesus why can't you see the rest of the law in this way?

It can be argued that one cannot earn salvation by keeping the Law, but one can forfeit ones salvation by not keeping the commandments. The allegiance to god required for salvation requires the Law be kept.

Not according to Romans 3:21 You are mixing covenants. The new covenant does not require allegiance to keep the old. It's not a renewed covenant, it's new. 'The Law' of God is ministered in a completely different manner and way in the new than the old. Jeremiah 31:32

It is by Jesus's authority that our sins are for given; and in the OT it was by the authority of the God that became Jesus in the carnal flesh that sins were forgiven.

The sins committed under the old covenant were never forgiven by the acts of following the Torah. Romans 3:25 They were forgiven by faith in the Grace of God who would in the future atone for all the sin of mankind in one sacrifice.

 

[Shimshon]

The first thing I notice is everything is about carnal issues.

Jesus is throughout it. Within it. The blessings are from him and all relate to his blessing for Israel and the nations of the world. The curses are what happens when you don't 'believe' in his words. I see everything carnal has a spiritual tangent. Jesus is where God meets humanity. Your fear seems to be having a carnal being operated by spirituality. It's either one or the other because you can't see how they are formed as one.

Both God and man.
1 Timothy 3:16
Colossians 1:21-22
Philippians 2:6-7

The replacement theology is strong in you ACE, Israel = carnal Church= spiritual...? correct? People stumble when they believe the message of God is to divide out. Because the message of Jesus is one of reconciliation, not division.

2 Corinthians 5:18-19
Ephesians 2:14-16

 

[Shimshon]

Not making the spiritual connection is where Israel failed but not all failed: there were them with whom the covenant was confirmed.

Individually some of them did, but as a nation they did not. The righteousness of a few did not cover the sins of many. But the righteousness of one did cover the sins of all. And before the nations know the Holy one of Israel, Israel will be redeemed. It's the act that causes the nations of the world to see the salvation of God in person and realize the heart of God. The love you know he has for you and the world is equal to the love he has for Israel, as a nation. He swore his undying love and devotion to keep and restore her. You can't love God, Yeshua and claim the inspiration of the Spirit if you forsake his firstborn.

Really? I don't think the Scripture will support that.

Individually some of them did. Hebrews 11
The righteousness of the few faithful did not cover the sins of the many, but the righteousness of the One covered the sins of all. Hebrews 10
Israel's redemption causes the nations to truly know the holiness of Jesus, the Lord.
Ezekiel 36:22-23

Then the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Sovereign LORD, when I am proved holy through you before their eyes.​

Romans 11:1-2 Romans 11:25-32

 

[Shimshon]

I believe it reads more accurately with an "and" after "Moses".

Makes no difference really. The statement is plain. Grace and truth did not come through the law given Moses. And, the law did not come through Yeshua. To try and prove otherwise is to try and prove God a liar. Yeshua never gave Moses the law to bring about grace and truth through the law. God gave Moses the law, it 'spoke about' and prototyped the law that would be given through Yeshua. The law given Moses is NOT the idential law Yeshua now operates and ministers within our hearts.

 

[Tone]

The law given Moses is NOT the idential law Yeshua now operates and ministers within our hearts.

Western thought will automatically interpret "but" as a contrast and set the two (law and grace) at odds with each other, when Hebrew thought involves a more organic interpretation as one growing out of the other...as likened to a tree.

I said that too. What I never said is that they are identical, just like branches are not identical to roots.

 

[ace of hearts]

Christ being the “end” of the law, is not exactly the best word to use. It is more accurate to use the words “goal” or “aim”.

And you’re right - the administration of how God gives His law & commandments is different in the new covenant: He writes them on the heart instead of stone.

That is one of the superior aspects of the new covenant, is Him giving us the Holy Spirit & administering His laws, statutes & commandments via our heart rather than on stone.

What happens when a goal is met? If you hit the target you aim at, do you keep shooting it?

 

[ace of hearts]

Me likes the Greek too!

Amen! Tis the GOOD NEWS! True Salvation!

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
(Heb 8:10,11; Joh 17:3)

But what happened to Heb 8:6-9?

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,


9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

These laws written on the heart aren't the same laws given to Israel according to verse 9.

 

[ace of hearts]

Jesus is throughout it. Within it. The blessings are from him and all relate to his blessing for Israel and the nations of the world. The curses are what happens when you don't 'believe' in his words. I see everything carnal has a spiritual tangent. Jesus is where God meets humanity. Your fear seems to be having a carnal being operated by spirituality. It's either one or the other because you can't see how they are formed as one.

Both God and man.
1 Timothy 3:16
Colossians 1:21-22
Philippians 2:6-7

The replacement theology is strong in you ACE, Israel = carnal Church= spiritual...? correct? People stumble when they believe the message of God is to divide out. Because the message of Jesus is one of reconciliation, not division.

2 Corinthians 5:18-19
Ephesians 2:14-16

In the blessings and curses of Deut 28, show me Jesus.

 

[sparow]

On the contrary, the righteousness God requires is a direct result of being born again. The only prerequisite for being born again is is being dead in sin needing redemption. IOW no one can qualify for salvation/redemption by their own merit. Jesus only came for those needing help.

Any verse quoted by anyone is generally out of context, out of the context of the chapter it comes from out of the context of the book and out of the context of the word of God. Yet there is always a context and the people using the quote will usually provide their own context.

<<What does this verse, out of context mean:

(NKJV)
17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Does it mean that the God who created the heavens and the earth and man, is ungraceful and a liar.>John 1:17>

I should not have mentioned the out of context thing now seeing the confusion wrought.

I have tried to use this verse in the context of the debate; are there two covenants or one; are there one mediator of the Law/covenant moderating between God and man; OR are there two, three or four moderators; AND are there one two , three or four sets of Laws one for each mediator?

Because I do not use Paul, this is the only verse I can find, that out of it's context in scripture, could suggest the are two distinct covenants, each producing the same kingdom, the same King, but not the same Law.

Who is our mediator, Moses, Christ, Paul or the Pope?

“”(NKJV)
Jn 1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Does it mean that the God who created the heavens and the earth and man, is ungraceful and a liar.”' The point I was considering was IF a division is implied in this verse what is the division; between Christ and Moses or between Christ and the God who gave the Law to Moses and who became Christ in the flesh. Because grace and truth came through Jesus, is the implication then that disgrace and lies came though Moses. Else what is the division, apart from who is mediator and who is the Law applied to.

<<The only prerequisite for being born again is is being dead in sin needing redemption. >> If this were true everyone would be saved; there would be no special group sanctified or set apart for redemption; there would be no resurrection of the wicked and no second death.

 

[sparow]

I believe you are thinking of Leviticus. Without considering the rest of Moses, David, Yeshua and his disciples. The law never had the power in and of itself, by carnally following the law in the flesh, to forgive anyone's sins. The law sanctified them through 'faith'ful observance. It was a prototype of, by faith in, the acts the Messiah alone will and has accomplished to forgive the sins of the world. The only reason a person was found righteous in God's sight by observing the Torah was because of the faith they applied in following it. Habakkuk 2:4 Psalms 40:6-8 Romans 3:25 Hebrews 9:9-10 Hebrews 9:12 Hebrews 9:14

There are a whole lot more commandments than the Ten. Sadly, it appears your message contains the classic 'Israel abrogated' replacement theology theme. Why are you not arguing for observing the building of the tabernacle and all it's items? Or for establishing a nation of people. IF you can see these things fulfilled through Jesus why can't you see the rest of the law in this way?

Not according to Romans 3:21 You are mixing covenants. The new covenant does not require allegiance to keep the old. It's not a renewed covenant, it's new. 'The Law' of God is ministered in a completely different manner and way in the new than the old. Jeremiah 31:32

The sins committed under the old covenant were never forgiven by the acts of following the Torah. Romans 3:25 They were forgiven by faith in the Grace of God who would in the future atone for all the sin of mankind in one sacrifice.

I agree with you without retracting what I have said. The Law is a device, when God speaks the Law, God is the authority. When the Law is projected ahead of God then the authority is delegated; Moses had delegated authority to implement the Law. All authority concerning the Kingdom of God is delegated to Christ, and I assume the delegator could withdraw that delegation if the covenant was broken beyond repair, such as another war in heaven.



Habakkuk 2:3-5 (NKJV)
3 For the vision is yet for an appointed time; But at the end it will speak, and it will not lie. Though it tarries, wait for it; Because it will surely come, It will not tarry.
4 "Behold the proud, His soul is not upright in him; But the just shall live by his faith.
5 "Indeed, because he transgresses by wine, He is a proud man, And he does not stay at home. Because he enlarges his desire as hell, And he is like death, and cannot be satisfied, He gathers to himself all nations And heaps up for himself all peoples.



This is loaded with assumption. What is faith? In this case FAITH is the waiting for something to happen; having a conviction that the something will happen that is the covenant will be confirmed, brought to fruition. And the covenant is: God will provide the kingdom, and the King for those who keep the commandments. If a person's faith and convictions were in a lie, such as the commandments are superseded, or abrogated, then the saying would be, ”The unjust shall die by his faith”. The same applies to Jn 3:16.; “believes”, means to keep the covenant.

Psalm 40:6-8 (NKJV)
6 Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require.
7 Then I said, "Behold, I come; In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
8 I delight to do Your will, O my God, And Your law is within my heart."

As I understand the point you are making, I do not believe this scripture makes your point. Is God mad, did God say burnt offerings and sin offerings are required and then moments later say they are not required; did the unchangeable God change.

First we have David the greatest sinner, who becomes the prodigal son; and the psalm says, “You did not require sin offering”; David refers to a one off event, had he said, “You do not require sin offerings”, then Christ's sacrifice would be in vane. God detests offerings that are not sincere nor relatively significant.


Luckily for me I have heard of replacement theology before, or to say it another way, replacement science of God. I am normally naive regarding theology and its Jargon and my opinion is that theology is the most Godless thing I have encountered. I don't see Israel abrogated any more than anyone else being abrogated. The new Jerusalem has only 12 gates one for each of the twelve tribes. Those of the first resurrection are called Israel and will occupy the new Jerusalem.

Why the descendants of Israel were chosen to be a light unto the nations is a mystery the solution of which I believe has something to do antiquity preceding Adam. Israel's role as light unto the world probably ended or completed with the arrival of Christ; that light is still in scripture and available for all to see. The covenant was renewed with the lost sheep of Israel by Christ and extended to Gentiles at Pentecost. Most of the inherited blessings ended up with the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh who today number the sands of the sea.

The Ten Commandments written on stone are a foundation and an abstract that can be expanded to cover and be applied to, the infinite range of the behaviour of mankind.

It is God who is building the house and it is composed of people, everyone who enters into the new Jerusalem is represented as a masonry component.


I am not mixing covenants; there is only one covenant that provides the Kingdom of God, the king of the kingdom and eternal life and it stretches from Moses to the end of time but the time of the end is where the covenant is fully confirmed or bought to fruition. What you call the new covenant and what others call the old covenant are two halves of one thing and the two halves are in agreement, complementary not contrary to each other. I see the contract called the Law or the covenant like this; God provides the kingdom, the King and eternal life for those who keep the commandments; would you articulate the new covenant like this, God provides the Kingdom, the King, and eternal life for those who do not keep the commandments. On the side are you one who throws the seventieth week down to the time of the end and have Satan confirm the covenant.


<<The sins committed under the old covenant were never forgiven by the acts of following the Torah. Romans 3:25 They were forgiven by faith in the Grace of God who would in the future atone for all the sin of mankind in one sacrifice. >>

Words fail me; I do not disagree with what Paul has said; I myself would never use Paul as an authority. You seem to think that the Sanctuary with God in the box, services were in vain.

 

[ace of hearts]

Any verse quoted by anyone is generally out of context, out of the context of the chapter it comes from out of the context of the book and out of the context of the word of God. Yet there is always a context and the people using the quote will usually provide their own context.

<<What does this verse, out of context mean:

(NKJV)
17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Does it mean that the God who created the heavens and the earth and man, is ungraceful and a liar.>John 1:17>

I should not have mentioned the out of context thing now seeing the confusion wrought.

I have tried to use this verse in the context of the debate; are there two covenants or one; are there one mediator of the Law/covenant moderating between God and man; OR are there two, three or four moderators; AND are there one two , three or four sets of Laws one for each mediator?

Maybe you haven't gotten to my post where Heb 8:8-13 was quoted.

Because I do not use Paul, this is the only verse I can find, that out of it's context in scripture, could suggest the are two distinct covenants, each producing the same kingdom, the same King, but not the same Law.

Who is our mediator, Moses, Christ, Paul or the Pope?

“”(NKJV)
Jn 1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Does it mean that the God who created the heavens and the earth and man, is ungraceful and a liar.”' The point I was considering was IF a division is implied in this verse what is the division; between Christ and Moses or between Christ and the God who gave the Law to Moses and who became Christ in the flesh. Because grace and truth came through Jesus, is the implication then that disgrace and lies came though Moses. Else what is the division, apart from who is mediator and who is the Law applied to.

<<The only prerequisite for being born again is is being dead in sin needing redemption. >> If this were true everyone would be saved; there would be no special group sanctified or set apart for redemption; there would be no resurrection of the wicked and no second death.

Israel isn't the only group set aside for redemption. Gen 3:15, Mat 28:19-20, JN 3:16, 5:24

 

[sparow]

Maybe you haven't gotten to my post where Heb 8:8-13 was quoted.Israel isn't the only group set aside for redemption. Gen 3:15, Mat 28:19-20, JN 3:16, 5:24

I recall you quoting Heb 8:8-13; I didn't see it as having relevance to our discussion. Heb 8:8-12 quotes Jeremiah; Jeremiah received it directly from God, that is he didn't interpret it from scripture or make it up; so the author of Hebrews is interpreting his view from scripture plus making it up; verse 13 is the authors conclusion based on those four verses from Jeremiah.

The author of Hebrews makes a big deal of the order of Melchizedek and mentions it seven times. The only significance that I can see about the order of Melchizedek is that the appointment is made by
God and not from men as with the Levite appointments.

Hebrews 7:11-12 (NKJV)
11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

I am not aware of any law that said priest had to be Levites. Moses and Aron and their tribe were Levites and already the government before the Law came and the Levites were numbered differently than the rest of Israel as a special army; a pre-established custom preceding the Law.


<<Israel isn't the only group set aside for redemption. Gen 3:15, Mat 28:19-20, JN 3:16, 5:24>>

I am not sure what you are arguing for or against here. Jacob was called Israel because he overcame; his descendants are called Israel because they are his descendants. Those set aside for redemption are called Israel because they have overcome as did Jacob.

 

[ace of hearts]

I recall you quoting Heb 8:8-13; I didn't see it as having relevance to our discussion. Heb 8:8-12 quotes Jeremiah; Jeremiah received it directly from God, that is he didn't interpret it from scripture or make it up; so the author of Hebrews is interpreting his view from scripture plus making it up; verse 13 is the authors conclusion based on those four verses from Jeremiah.

Please read my post carefully. You posed a question are there two covenants. I responded with Heb 8:6-13. This shows there are two covenants. I've also posted more verses showing these two main covenants. So I don't see how you could pose such a question.

The author of Hebrews makes a big deal of the order of Melchizedek and mentions it seven times. The only significance that I can see about the order of Melchizedek is that the appointment is made by
God and not from men as with the Levite appointments.

Not from anything I mentioned. I've no idea why you're bringing it up.

Hebrews 7:11-12 (NKJV)
11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

What does this show except the law has changed? This is brought up often in response to your idea of Mat 5:17-18. It successfully disproves that idea or the passage is false and not inspired by God. I ask for proof it isn't inspired by God.

I am not aware of any law that said priest had to be Levites. Moses and Aron and their tribe were Levites and already the government before the Law came and the Levites were numbered differently than the rest of Israel as a special army; a pre-established custom preceding the Law.

Please read Leviticus. Under the law covenant with Israel a priest has to be from the tribe of Levi. Thus Jesus being a Jew can't be in accordance with the law if He's a priest. It's undeniable that Hebrews is speaking directly to Jews about their law here.

<<Israel isn't the only group set aside for redemption. Gen 3:15, Mat 28:19-20, JN 3:16, 5:24>>

I am not sure what you are arguing for or against here. Jacob was called Israel because he overcame; his descendants are called Israel because they are his descendants. Those set aside for redemption are called Israel because they have overcome as did Jacob.

Those verses show that the new covenant made with Israel includes the complete world or all mankind.

 

[sparow]

Please read my post carefully. You posed a question are there two covenants. I responded with Heb 8:6-13. This shows there are two covenants. I've also posted more verses showing these two main covenants. So I don't see how you could pose such a question.Not from anything I mentioned. I've no idea why you're bringing it up.What does this show except the law has changed? This is brought up often in response to your idea of Mat 5:17-18. It successfully disproves that idea or the passage is false and not inspired by God. I ask for proof it isn't inspired by God.Please read Leviticus. Under the law covenant with Israel a priest has to be from the tribe of Levi. Thus Jesus being a Jew can't be in accordance with the law if He's a priest. It's undeniable that Hebrews is speaking directly to Jews about their law here.Those verses show that the new covenant made with Israel includes the complete world or all mankind.

<<Please read my post carefully. You posed a question are there two covenants. I responded with Heb 8:6-13. This shows there are two covenants. I've also posted more verses showing these two main covenants. So I don't see how you could pose such a question. >>


My question about two covenants was an argument in a debate God has made many covenants with Israel, the one containing the Ten Commandments has been renewed many times; each time Israel crashed and a remnant came out, the covenant was renewed; the covenant was renewed with the house Judah in Daniel 9:24. t is the word “new” that is confusing you; in many of the “original” (all copies) manuscripts of the Gospels, Jesus says, “this is the blood of the covenant”; it is later copies that “New” is edited in; I do not have a problem with new covenant it is just that new means something different to me than it means to you. The writer of Hebrews appears to be speaking to those Jews who were refusing to change; the worst thing he could have said was, “there was a need for the Law to change.” There was a reason why Jesus said, “not a comma or full stop may be changed in the Law,”


<<What does this show except the law has changed? This is brought up often in response to your idea of Mat 5:17-18. It successfully disproves that idea or the passage is false and not inspired by God. I ask for proof it isn't inspired by God. >>


It shows that the author erroneously made that claim in the Heat of debate; if Hebrews (which is a private communication (not a catholic epistle)) was inspired by God Hebrews would not contradict Jesus.


<<Please read Leviticus. Under the law covenant with Israel a priest has to be from the tribe of Levi. Thus Jesus being a Jew can't be in accordance with the law if He's a priest. It's undeniable that Hebrews is speaking directly to Jews about their law here.>>


Good idea, but I don't have time at the moment;l you should have quoted the relevant verse. Have you considered Jesus may have been as much Levi as Jew; the name “Levi” appears in Mary's linage given in Luke 3 and 5. Mary's father and uncles were priests I believe.