That is not true. Jesus abolished ed the commandment that commanded men to apply an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, because Jesus said "whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also," then no man should injure or kill other men. Therefore, the "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was annulled by Jesus:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also, and whosoever want to get to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your coat also, and whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (Matthew 5:...)
The verses you cited do not contradict what I said. The phrase "eye for an eye" was intended to be used as a guideline by judges for fair sentencing where the punishment was not lesser or greater than the crime, but it was not intended to be used by us to justify personal revenge, and it was this abuse that Jesus was speaking against in those verses.
That is not true, for Jesus was saying to cast the first stone against the woman any man who had never sinned among those men who wanted to kill the woman, and Jesus did not say anything about who was free from sin in the matter that they were witnessing, hat is an interpretation of you, not what Jesus said:
"But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst". (Juan 8:3-12)
As you see, Jesus said: " He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". So no man should kill other men, and nor no man should have killed other men in any age, for all men are sinners.
And Jesus, who is the only one free from sin, did not condemn the woman either:
"And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee? And she said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more". (Juan 8:3-12)
The witnesses in a trial needed to be sinless in the matter they were testifying against or else they would also condemn themselves, but it was not needed for the witness to have lived a completely sinless life, otherwise no one could act as a witness. It would make no sense whatsoever for God to give commands that called for them to enforce the death penalty and in regard to witnesses if it were impossible for them to obey that commands.
You must understand that Jesus, with his teachings and his own example, annulled the Old Testament laws that commanded men to kill people, since Jesus abolished from the old testament all the commandments that were not true Law of God, but precepts of men, because Jesus did not come to abolish the true Law of God.
The Law that Jesus came not to abolish, from which shall pass not one jot or one tittle, is the Law of the Gospel, which is the true Law of God. But Jesus Christ abolished many commandments of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:31-48, Matthew 12:1-8, John 5:8-11, John 5:16-18, John 8:3-11 and the whole context of the Gospel). And He abolished them because weren't God's commandments, but precepts of men.
When Jesus quoted from Scripture, he proceeded by saying "it is written", but when he was quoting from what his audience had heard being taught about Scripture, he proceeded it by saying "you have heard that it was said". So Jesus was not speaking against any OT Laws, but against the precepts of precepts of men that were being incorrectly taught about them. According to Deuteronomy 4:2 and Deuteronomy 12:32, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God had commanded, by suggesting that Jesus annulled OT laws, you are suggesting that he sinned and therefore is not our Savior. And if he was just a man, then we should follow what God commanded instead of what he said, so either way we should follow OT laws. For example:
Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Are you really suggesting that in this verse Jesus was nullifying the human precept against adultery and that we are now free to do that? Rather, Jesus was not saying anything brand new, but was correctly teaching how to understand God's law against adultery and against coveting.
Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
Again, are you really suggest that Jesus was nullifying to human precept to love our neighbor? Rather, it is God who commanded us to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), but nowhere did He command us to hate our enemy, so Jesus was correcting what was wrongly being taught about how to obey the Law.
In John 5:8-18, Jesus was not sinning or suggesting that we are free to sin by breaking the Sabbath, but rather he was speaking against what was wrongly being taught about how to keep the Sabbath.
Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and God's Law was given to reveal which things are sins that we should repent of doing, so repentance from our disobedience to the Mosaic Law is an integral part of the Gospel message. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from the Law, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for doing good works.
The Gospel says: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets.... one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law" (Matthew 5:17-20) .
Pleroo: to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment
In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus said he came to cause God's will as made known in the Law to be obeyed as it should be and the proceeded to fulfill the Law six times by doing just that.
In these words are based many religions to tell us that Jesus Christ came not to abolish the commandments of the Old Testament, but that is a mistake because these gospel words do not refer to the law of the Old Testament, because Jesus Christ abolished many commandments of the Old Testament, as we see in Matthew 5: 21-48 and other parts of the Gospel.
You are essentially saying that Jesus said he came not to abolish the Law and said that not the least part would disappear from the law until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished, and then immediately proceeded to abolish the least of them.
The words of Jesus Christ in this famous verse (Matthew 5: 17), which tells us that He did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, refers to the true Law of God, which is the Law that Jesus Christ himself taught us in the Gospel. Jesus Christ teaches that the law and the prophets that He did not come to abolish is the following:
"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7: 12) .
Therefore, this is the law that God gave to Israel because Jesus Christ himself says that "this is the law and the prophets". This is the law that remains in effect, that Jesus Christ came not to abolish ("Think not that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets"). And of this law did pass "not one jot not one tittle", of the Law that Jesus Christ teaches us in the Gospel and that is the true Law that God gave to Moses.
Jesus was sinless, and sin is defined as Lawlessness, which means that Jesus lived in perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law, which means that he taught obedience to it both by word and by example. He did not go off on his own and teach his own thing, but rather He said that he came only to do the Father's will (John 6:38), and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father (John 14:23-24).
True.
