None of the law is abolished.
I know; I never said it had been.
The law is still here. But for Jews, it has been fulfilled in Jesus, and Gentiles were never required to keep it anyway.
However, regarding your question which you keep repeating hasn’t been answered (Your question: Where does it say that Christ said gentiles had to keep Jewish law?). It has been answered – multiple times. You just refuse to see.
No, it hasn't been answered, and I have explained why not.
Clearly you think that the verses you have posted answer my question, but they don't.
You have been given the answer from Soyeong and B-man and Sparrow, the OP and others
I've been given a number of random verses which I am told answer my question, but they don't. And I disagree with the interpretation given.
I have already explained this, but will do so again.
I am assuming here that by "law" we are talking about everything in the Torah - including all the food and hygiene laws - since I have already said that I fully accept the 10 commandments.
1. Christ said that He only did what the Heavenly Father did and taught what His Father taught Him. And what did the Father give/teach? – His Law.
In Mark 7 when the Pharisees complained to Jesus that his disciples were eating food with unclean hands, did Jesus say "thank you for telling me", rebuke his disciples, quote Leviticus to them and tell them to be sure to teach, and obey this law always? No. He called the Pharisees hypocrites, told the whole crowd that nothing that goes into a man's mouth can make him unclean and explained it to the disciples later. Mark adds the comment that in saying this, Jesus declared all foods to be clean.
Declaring that food cannot make a person unclean, is NOT teaching, or upholding, the OT law, in Leviticus, which lists a lot of "unclean" animals. So Jesus DIDN'T teach that certain food is unclean.
When Jesus was approached by a man with leprosy, did he say, "go away; you are unclean, should not be near me and I cannot touch you"? No; he touched him and healed him, Luke 5:13.
When he was approached by the woman with the issue of blood, did he say, "go away; you are unclean and you are making other people unclean", quote the relevant verses from Leviticus and explain the law to her? No; he healed her and called her daughter, Luke 8:48. So Jesus did NOT teach the law that a woman is unclean when she is bleeding.
When the Pharisees brought a woman before Jesus and said, "we caught her in the act of committing adultery, Moses commanded that we stone her"; did Jesus say, "you are quite right, the law must be upheld - go ahead"? No; he said "let the one who is without sin cast the first stone", John 8:7, and then snet her on her way. Jesus told her to sin no more, but he did not condemn her or allow her to be punished according to the law. So Jesus DIDN'T teach the law that says a woman should be put to death for committing adultery.
Yahshua is certainly not teaching in opposition to His Father’s Law who said on the mountain, “This is My beloved Son, listen to Him.” Or at His baptism, “This is My beloved Son in whom I Am well Pleased.” What pleased the Father? Obedience rather than sacrifice. Obedience to what? His own Law, God’s Law. The Father’s law is Christ’s law; Christ’s law if the Heavenly Father’s law. If Christ was teaching Galilean men how to keep His Father’s laws (as all the below verses say), then what were they going to teach the gentiles to whom they were sent in the Great Commission? – God’s laws, the same ones Christ explained fully to them.
What laws, then? Because I have just given 3 examples of OT laws written in the Torah which Jesus did not keep himself, never mind instruct others to teach.
God said, "this is my Son, in whom I am well pleased". Of course he was pleased with Jesus, he was his SON who had been obedient to him, taken on flesh and been born as a human being and was about to go to Jerusalem and fulfil his Father's will - which was that he should die for the sins of the world. Jesus said, in John 10, that he had received a command from his Father to lay down his life for the sheep. The words "I desire obedience rather than sacrifice" were written to a rebellious nation of Israel who were breaking God's laws, and apparently believed it was ok to do so, as long as they kept offering the appropriate sacrifice. They were not written about Jesus - God had planned all along that Jesus lay down, or sacrifice, his life for the sheep. Jesus obeyed God by making that sacrifice.
a. John 5:30 As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
b. Joh 8:28 Jesus therefore said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [He,] and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me. 29 "And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him."
c. Joh 12:48 "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. 49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me commandment, what to say, and what to speak. 50 "And I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me."
d. Joh 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; otherwise believe on account of the works themselves.
Yes, I know what these verses say.
But you have not demonstrated that what the Father told Jesus to say was all the words of the Mosaic law. How many times did Jesus say, "you have heard it said ............. , but
I say to you ..............?"
Why would he say that if he was - essentially - teaching them to obey he Mosaic law, as written?
f. Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
As I have already said, this verse does not say "teach them to obey everything that Moses taught, and all the commands in the law".
You have made a connection that's not there and concluded that this was what Jesus meant - but he didn't say it. And actually, why would he?
Why would he have called disciples, taught them about the Kingdom of God, allowed them to drive out demons, showed them miracles, taught many things, like the sermon on the Mount, and that he was the Lamb of God, the Way to God, the light of the world etc etc, died on the cross and been raised again, and then said "Go into all nations and teach them everything Moses commanded you"?
Why would he have told them to be HIS witnesses?
Why would Peter have said, "we need to appoint someone who was a witness to Jesus", if what he really meant was "we need someone who thinks it important to obey the law"?
Why was Paul persecuted by the Jews? He was a Pharisee, a "Hebrew of Hebrews", and in legalistic righteousness; faultless, Philippians 3:5-6. If anyone knew the law and knew how to keep it; it was Paul. Why didn't he just say, "there was someone who kept the law perfectly, and has taught us how to keep it all perfectly and be good little Jews; his name is Jesus"?
2. You said in an earlier post that Paul cast down the ‘food sacrificed to idols’ ruling, mentioned in Acts 15. You have said repeatedly that gentiles don’t have to keep the law.
No I haven't.
I've said, repeatedly, that the 10 commandments were repeated, taught and upheld by Jesus in the NT, and that we need to obey them. Of course we do; Jesus told us to love God with ALL our heart, mind and so on, and love our neighbour as ourselves. If we blaspheme, worship idols (and Jesus said "you cannot serve God and money") and cheat and steal from our neighbours - how are we showing love to them and God?
What I have said is that all the food and hygiene laws given at Sinai; laws about sacrifices, stoning people to death, not wearing clothes of certain fabrics etc etc were given specifically to the group of people that were rescued from Egypt by God. They were for THEM to show THEM how to live as God's holy people.
I was not brought up a a Jew; Jesus is my Lord, tells and shows me how to live and makes me holy.
Since I doubt Paul is wrong, you must be misunderstanding what Paul is saying.
How do you know you're not? It doesn't follow that if we disagree on a doctrine it must be me who has misunderstood.
Revelation was the revelation given to John, not Paul.
b. 1 Corinthians 10:19-21 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
.
In 1 Corinthians 8:4 Paul has already said, "we know that an idol is nothing", and says that if they eat food sacrificed to one, it is permissible, UNLESS it hurts someone's faith. He also says that food does not bring us near to God and we are no worse, whether we eat or not, 1 Corinthians 8:8.
If a person does not believe this, then they may be sacrificing to what they believe is another god. But there is no other God but the Lord - what they think is a god, therefore, may be a demon. And a Christian cannot serve two masters; we cannot walk in the light and still cling onto darkness.
c. On top of that Paul wrote in 2Ti 3:14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned [them]; 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Of course the sacred writings - the OT, which was all they had - point to Jesus. The law and the prophets pointed to him and spoke of his coming, so Jews would recognise him when he came. So yes, the "sacred writings" gave Timothy, and others, the wisdom to see this and lead to their salvation.
Also, Timothy’s non-circumcision is evidence that his father and mother followed non-believing gentile customs, which his grandmother opposed with her OT scriptural teachings. This made Timothy basically a gentile, if you follow lineage through the father as most of the scriptures do.
Timothy had a Greek father and Jewish mother. The Gospels trace genealogies through the male, but it was apparently in fact the woman who gave a person their Jewish identity. Timothy may not have been circumcised because his father was head of the household and didn't practice it.
What does this prove?
d. 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. What is the scripture that Paul is talking about? The only scripture they had at this time was the OT, which is the very thing Paul references in 2Ti 3:14 (sacred writings). The law and the prophets are the very thing that leads to salvation by pointing to Christ.
Yes, they do.
But not all the intricate food and hygiene laws written in Leviticus. The instruction not to trim your beard, does not produce holiness nor point to Christ. Nor the command to stone people for breaking the Sabbath. Both of these, + others, are included in the "all Scripture" which you have heavily emphasised.
4. Finally, you have stated that there was no law before Moses.
No I haven't.
Some posts have said that sin is lawlessness, and that without the law, there would be no sin.
I said that people were sinning before the Mosaic law was given. See post #487 - Cain, the people of Noah's day etc did not have the Mosaic law; we aren't told they had any law - yet they still sinned.
Sin was in the world before the Mosaic law was.
Between this post and the dozens of others on this issue, this subject matter has been thoroughly explained.
No it hasn't. Certain verses have been put forward to "prove" certain points, but they don't.
Just to make it absolutely clear, my position is;
I am not Jewish and was never taken to Synagogue. I went to Sunday school at the age of 4 where I heard about OT stories, people who had great faith in God and Jesus, who was God. I heard about the things that Jesus taught, and did, why he came and who he was. I learned how to become a Christian - believe that he IS the only way to the Father and giver of eternal life; that, as he said, he came to give his life as a ransom for many and lay down his life for the sheep. At some point I said "yes", received the Lord and the Holy Spirit, read his word, pray and ask him to help me grow in faith.
At no point has he, Christian clergy or any books I've read, said, "now that you believe, have eternal life and are a child of God, go and read the book of Leviticus, because there you will find instruction on how to live.
Am I "under the law?" No. The Mosaic law, at Sinai, was given to the Hebrews who had been rescued from Egypt. THEY were told to teach the commands to their children, write them on their foreheads etc.
The exception to that is the 10 commandments, which Jesus taught in the NT. These commandments tell us to love God and our neighbour and, as John says, these commandments are not burdensome because I have been born again - born of God - and have no desire to deliberately and wilfully break them and live in lawlessness. Jesus also taught many other things, but "go into the world and teach the law of Moses and food laws to all nations", was NOT one of them.
As another poster has already pointed out, Gentiles were not under the law and under no obligation to keep it.
So no; there is NO passage where Jesus says, "now that you have received eternal life, go and keep all the intricate food/hygiene/clothing laws". I suppose you could argue that being a perfect Jew means believing in Jesus the Messiah AND doing all these things. But Jesus didn't say so, and I'm nt a Jew.
And if you're saying that if, after nearly 40 years as a Christian, knowing, loving, serving and walking with Jesus, being born again by, and filled with, his Spirit, and being a child of God, I need to abstain from pork in order to have fulness of life - I don't believe you and it's not going to happen.