Why the Law was set aside !

Let's get back to the OP, shall we?

"Why the Law was set aside"

Please justify this claim in light of Matthew 5:18

Please use only Yeshua's teachings, and the Tanach, as I don't accept anything written by paul or his associates as being scripture.

I can do this, as this is the Scriptural Debate forum, and not everyone has the same Scripture. If you desire debate only among people who accept the same scripture as you do, there is a sub-forum under Scriptural forum called Biblical Debates. I would be more than happy to move your thread there, if you want.

* Crickets Chirp *

tumbleweed41 said:

So, Paul trumps Jesus?

Click to expand...

I guess so!

dan p said:

Hi to all and most believers do not know why the Law of Moses was set aside .

In Heb 8:7 explains why the Old Covenant was set aside ;

#1 , a New Covenant is going to be inacted and inplemented when Christ comes back and saves Israel at the end of the Tribulation ,

#2 , No more circumcision for today

#3 , no more animal sacrifices for today

#4 , no more Temple , today

#5 , But the main reason is to pay for all the sins that Isarel had committed UNDER the Law of Moses .

Heb 9:15 , " that by means of death , for the REDEMPTION of the TRANSGRESSIONS that were under the FIRST TESTAMENT ( or Old Covenant ) .

dan p

Click to expand...

dan p,
You are right to some extent, but you are missing some very important information about Jesus and the Law of Moses.
In the first place, Jesus was born a Jew so he was under the Law of Moses, Gal 4:4. Because the vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah or Christ, Jesus said that their House, The Temple, was abandoned to them, Matt 23:37,38.
The Law of Moses was a temporary Covenant, it was to last only until the coming of the Messiah, Jere 31:31-34, Gal 3:19-25.
The truth is: No Christian has ever been under the Law of Moses, that Covenant was only between God and the nation of Israel, Deut 5:1-3, Ps 147:19,20. Israel was to be God's special possession out of all the nations of the earth, Ex 19:5,6, Deut 7:6. When Jesus died the Mosaic Law Covenant ended, Col 2:13,14.
When Paul mentioned the Covenants, as he was talking to the newly instituted Christian Congregation, he mentioned that He nor they, were not under the Mosaic Law Covenant, Rom 6:14,15.
One of the main things that Jesus died for was to remove the Mosaic Law because it condemned to death all under it, because no man could obey the Law perfectly, so all deserved to die, Rom 6:23, Gal 3:10-14, 8:1-4, 2Cor 3:3-8.
On the night before Jesus' death he instituted the NEW COVENANT, Matt 26:26-28, Luke 22:20, Heb 8:6-13. Notice that verse 13 says that the New Covenant made the Old Covenant Obsolete, it was superceded by the New Covenant, Heb 10:16-18.
Jesus put sin away by dying for us, so that our sins are no longer charged to us, but toward the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus, Heb 9:26-28, 1John 2:1,2, Matt 21:28, Acts 13:38,39, Eph 1:7, 2Cor 5:14,15.
God accepts Jesus life as a Ransom for all true Christians, so se do no have to die, if we are still alive when Jesus comes to earth to start the 1,000 year Judgemant Day mentioned at Rev 20:4-15. Then a paradise earth, Rev 21:3,4.

jtartar said:

dan p,
You are right to some extent, but you are missing some very important information about Jesus and the Law of Moses.
In the first place, Jesus was born a Jew so he was under the Law of Moses, Gal 4:4. Because the vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah or Christ, Jesus said that their House, The Temple, was abandoned to them, Matt 23:37,38.
The Law of Moses was a temporary Covenant, it was to last only until the coming of the Messiah, Jere 31:31-34, Gal 3:19-25.
The truth is: No Christian has ever been under the Law of Moses, that Covenant was only between God and the nation of Israel, Deut 5:1-3, Ps 147:19,20. Israel was to be God's special possession out of all the nations of the earth, Ex 19:5,6, Deut 7:6. When Jesus died the Mosaic Law Covenant ended, Col 2:13,14.
When Paul mentioned the Covenants, as he was talking to the newly instituted Christian Congregation, he mentioned that He nor they, were not under the Mosaic Law Covenant, Rom 6:14,15.
One of the main things that Jesus died for was to remove the Mosaic Law because it condemned to death all under it, because no man could obey the Law perfectly, so all deserved to die, Rom 6:23, Gal 3:10-14, 8:1-4, 2Cor 3:3-8.
On the night before Jesus' death he instituted the NEW COVENANT, Matt 26:26-28, Luke 22:20, Heb 8:6-13. Notice that verse 13 says that the New Covenant made the Old Covenant Obsolete, it was superceded by the New Covenant, Heb 10:16-18.
Jesus put sin away by dying for us, so that our sins are no longer charged to us, but toward the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus, Heb 9:26-28, 1John 2:1,2, Matt 21:28, Acts 13:38,39, Eph 1:7, 2Cor 5:14,15.
God accepts Jesus life as a Ransom for all true Christians, so se do no have to die, if we are still alive when Jesus comes to earth to start the 1,000 year Judgemant Day mentioned at Rev 20:4-15. Then a paradise earth, Rev 21:3,4.

Click to expand...

Hi , and you mis-understand what Matt 26:26-29 is saying ,

#1 , As verse 18 , says , it is the Passover , which has nothing to do with Gentiles , for they are not in view .

#2 , Nor is the Body of Christ or Christians in View at all ?

#3 , Verse 28 , " for the remission of sins Conflicts with Eph 2:8 .

#4 , Then New Covenant has no0thing to do or written to Gentiles as Eph 2:12 points out to all .

#5 , And in verse 29 Christ will Not drink henceforth of this Fruit of the vine , until that Day when I drink it new with you the ( the disciples ) in My Father's kingdom , or the Millennium .
But I expect this from those that believe in Covenant Theology or hold to one gospel or believe that the Body of Christ began in Acts 2 , dan p

Christians have no covenant is correct!!!
They must become adopted sons of God, if they wish to have a stake in the covwenant.

Ronald said:

Christians have no covenant is correct!!!
They must become adopted sons of God, if they wish to have a stake in the covwenant.

Click to expand...

Hi Ronald , and how can you say that " Christians have no Covenant " and they has to have a " stake in the Covenant " , they must become adopted sons of God ?

Where is that verse that you will explain ?

You , means that Eph 2:12 , means nothing ?
dan p

dan p said:

Hi Ronald , and how can you say that " Christians have no Covenant " and they has to have a " stake in the Covenant " , they must become adopted sons of God ?

Where is that verse that you will explain ?

You , means that Eph 2:12 , means nothing ?
dan p

Click to expand...

Outside the gospels, the NT is all just as the Oral Torah, Commentary. Or "how to". Has to comply with Torah! One law for all. A gentile who becomes a part of Israel now is entitled to a sons share in the covenant.
Give up idols.
Learn Torah.
Bring a sacrifice(Yeshua/Lamb of God)
Go to a Mikveh/baptism.
A son of God.
If your god is Greek you may have a different way to do things, but remember that Greek gods are no gods. But Ba'al's
The God of Abraham, Issac and Jaccob is the ONE and Only GOD/Almighty/Creator.
He does not change. It is written!!!

dan p said:

Hi Flankerl , then , Israel , truly has been set aside , as written in Rom 11:25 , until the fulness of the Gentiles come in , dan p

Click to expand...

According to Matthew, you're on the right track ... although the differential isn't between Jew/Gentile, it's between righteous/unrighteous. For Matthew, there are righteous/unrighteous in both Jewish and Gentile camps. Additionally, Matthew asserts that, in God's kingdom, we're not to worry about that differentiation. God will separate the chaff from the wheat in God's own time.

sojourner said:

According to Matthew, you're on the right track ... although the differential isn't between Jew/Gentile, it's between righteous/unrighteous. For Matthew, there are righteous/unrighteous in both Jewish and Gentile camps. Additionally, Matthew asserts that, in God's kingdom, we're not to worry about that differentiation. God will separate the chaff from the wheat in God's own time.

Click to expand...

Hi soj , we have the WHO will enter the Millennial Kingdom

What the standard will be used for that Judgment , verses 37-40 .

The ones on His lelt hand , in verse 46 , go into everlasting punchisment .

And these that are judged are all GENTILES .

The , ONLY Jews left from the Great Tribulation will be Kings and Priests in the 1000 year reign of Christ , Rev 1:6 . dan p

dan p said:

Hi soj , we have the WHO will enter the Millennial Kingdom

What the standard will be used for that Judgment , verses 37-40 .

The ones on His lelt hand , in verse 46 , go into everlasting punchisment .

And these that are judged are all GENTILES .

The , ONLY Jews left from the Great Tribulation will be Kings and Priests in the 1000 year reign of Christ , Rev 1:6 . dan p

Click to expand...

I don't see how you figure that. Gentiles/Jews are not mentioned in the passage in question. What is mentioned is, as I said earlier, a differentiation between the righteous and the unrighteous. And the righteous are all those who do acts of love.
Once again, Matthew is not cogent to your argument. At all.

#1 , As verse 18 , says , it is the Passover , which has nothing to do with Gentiles , for they are not in view .

Click to expand...

Sooo... if that's the case, what good is it for anyone but a Jew to be a Christian? Why would Matthew embrace that paradigm, then waste his time with sending the disciples out to make "us" out of "them?"
I think it is you who do not understand the passage.

As for the statement that Jesus died to remove the Law, that, too is a misunderstanding. The self-sacrifice fulfilled the Law, which -- as Jesus says -- depends upon love. Since self-sacrifice is the ultimate example of love, that ultimate act fulfilled what was supposed to have been a covenant of love in the first place.

sojourner said:

I don't see how you figure that. Gentiles/Jews are not mentioned in the passage in question. What is mentioned is, as I said earlier, a differentiation between the righteous and the unrighteous. And the righteous are all those who do acts of love.
Once again, Matthew is not cogent to your argument. At all.

Click to expand...

Hi soj , and I believe that I am right , so you tell me who those NATIONS are ?

The Sheep and the Goats ??

Who are those that go into Punishment ??

What Gospel will be preached , during the Tribulation ?

dan p

dan p said:

Hi soj , and I believe that I am right , so you tell me who those NATIONS are ?

The Sheep and the Goats ??

Who are those that go into Punishment ??

What Gospel will be preached , during the Tribulation ?

dan p

Click to expand...

"Nations" is a very generic term, derived from the Greek ethne. It has nothing to do with specific borders or political systems. It has everything to do with kin. And, as is clear from the rest of Matthew, that kin isn't a blood kin but a kinship of righteousness.
The unrighteous go into punishment, according to this passage. But we don't know who "they" are, do we! That's Matthew's message: That the kingdom is made up of good and evil and you can't always tell which is which.
The only gospel Jesus ever preached was "Turn your lives around, because God's Rule has come near."

sojourner said:

Sooo... if that's the case, what good is it for anyone but a Jew to be a Christian? Why would Matthew embrace that paradigm, then waste his time with sending the disciples out to make "us" out of "them?"
I think it is you who do not understand the passage.

As for the statement that Jesus died to remove the Law, that, too is a misunderstanding. The self-sacrifice fulfilled the Law, which -- as Jesus says -- depends upon love. Since self-sacrifice is the ultimate example of love, that ultimate act fulfilled what was supposed to have been a covenant of love in the first place.

Click to expand...

Hi soj , why not explain Heb 9:15 ???

Or , explain John 19:30 , " it is finished " and what that means ??? dan p

dan p said:

Hi soj , why not explain Heb 9:15 ???

Or , explain John 19:30 , " it is finished " and what that means ??? dan p

Click to expand...

I thought we were discussing Mathew. Obviously, Hebrews comes from a completely different standpoint -- written by a different author for a different audience. The imbedded theology of Hebrews is far different from that of Matthew. I don't see how exegeting Hebrews (or John) will help us out here.

sojourner said:

"Nations" is a very generic term, derived from the Greek ethne. It has nothing to do with specific borders or political systems. It has everything to do with kin. And, as is clear from the rest of Matthew, that kin isn't a blood kin but a kinship of righteousness.
The unrighteous go into punishment, according to this passage. But we don't know who "they" are, do we! That's Matthew's message: That the kingdom is made up of good and evil and you can't always tell which is which.
The only gospel Jesus ever preached was "Turn your lives around, because God's Rule has come near."

Click to expand...

Hi soj , and the bible has a not to be learned about ETHNOS and how it is used and portions , like Matt 10:5 amd Matt 28:19 will color what is convenual wisdom , that ETHNOS in Matt 28:19 means Gentiles . ETHNOS does not alway mean GENTILE as John 10:48 , 50 , 51 , very sharply points out , so you are WRONG ,

And I see that silence is golden , as you can not tell in Matt 25 :14-30 , that it is talking about Jews , for shame , soj .

The gospel that will be preached during the Tribulation is in Matt 24:14 .

When does that Kingdom of Heaven be in operation ?? dan p

Well, yes -- in a sense it is about Jews vs. Gentiles, since heretofore salvation was limited to the Jews. However, since the thrust of Matthew is the establishment of the true Israel (which is not dependent upon blood kin or geopolitical, cultural, or sociological boundaries), the doors of salvation are open, not to Jews particularly, but to anyone who is righteous. That broadens the scope of the meanings of laos and ethne to include, not just the Gentiles, but Samaritans, and even Jews who are not yet righteous.

As for Matt. 25, it's a parable. Jews are not mentioned explicitly, but are included implicitly. Again, it signifies a shift from salvation due to cultural heritage to salvation due to acts of righteousness.

The upshot here is that, while you are using Matthew to posit that salvation is for the Jews, I say that Matthew is telling us that salvation is for the righteous, whether Jew, Gentile, or what-have-you. Matthew just does not support your argument, given its thrust toward God's kingdom including both the righteous and the unrighteous until it becomes time for God to sort it all out.

sojourner said:

Well, yes -- in a sense it is about Jews vs. Gentiles, since heretofore salvation was limited to the Jews.

Click to expand...

I've got a question.
How do I say that someone is lying without being unfriendly?

Flankerl said:

I've got a question.
How do I say that someone is lying without being unfriendly?

Click to expand...

To what post are you referring?

Oh to the post you wrote.

That "salvation" was limited to israel/hebrews/jews is not true. Therefore a lie.