Did Jesus free us from the Law?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, does your "Oy Vey!" come from a practicing Jew, a cultural Jew, or a totally unbelieving Jew, or a mocker of Jews? I ask because it would help to formulate an answer for you.

Absolute bullpuckie. Scott, there is no extra-Biblical evidence of Moses or of the Exodus/Conquest, it is absurd to think that "the words of Moses can be heard in the Torah", and only a small group of minimalists would argue for a 200 BCE date for the Torah. The "Oy vey" comes from someone exaspirated that people so willing speak with false authority of things that they know so little about.

 

[Popeyesays]

Absolute bullpuckie. Scott, there is no extra-Biblical evidence of Moses or of the Exodus/Conquest, it is absurd to think that "the words of Moses can be heard in the Torah", and only a small group of minimalists would argue for a 200 BCE date for the Torah. The "Oy vey" comes from someone exaspirated that people so willing speak with false authority of things that they know so little about.

So the "Oy vey" is meant to be mocking? Okay.

Here's how I see it.

You are asking for historical and physical evidence of Jesus, and Moses. Do you doubt the existence of Muhammed?

Well, all over the world is historical record of the effect of the teachings of Moses and Jesus on out culture. Look where you will. Even the Polos found Christian and Jewish priests in the court of Kublai Khan. I find it hard to believe a non-existent person could have such a profound effect upon the world.

As to history, I personally, have plenty of proof of the historical record of the founder of my faith - Baha`u'llah. He was born in Mazindaran in 1817, was instrumental in the founding of the Babi Faith from 1844 until the death of the Bab in 1850. Was exiled as a leader of the Babi's in 1852 and spent His life in exile and prison being moved from Baghdad to Constantinople to Adrianople and finally to the foulest Turkish prison in the old fortress of Akka in Palestine in 1868. He passed on in 1892. There are all His writings in His own hand or transcribed by the handful of secretaries who took down His dictation. There are drawings, personal interviews with people including the renowned orientalist E. G. Browne, and even His passport photos to authenticate His existence.

Now I believe that He is the source of knowledge in all things spiritual. He tells me that Muhammed, Jesus, Zoroaster, Buddha, Krsna, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Salih, Hud and Muhammed were all also Manifestations of God. And there were others Whom HAVE been lost to history - both their peoples, their names and their books.

So to me, I do not need any other authority for the existence of Moses and Jesus. I accept the fact.

You don't. That's fine, but to expect me or others to bow to your "common sense" and "pragmatic wisdom" just ain't gonna happen. To me you do not possess that authority.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So the "Oy vey" is meant to be mocking? Okay.

I believe that the word I used was 'exasperation'. Don't ask questions if you're unwilling to pay attention to the response.

You are asking for historical and physical evidence of Jesus, and Moses. Do you doubt the existence of Muhammed?

The question is irrelevant.

Well, all over the world is historical record of the effect of the teachings of Moses and Jesus on out culture. Look where you will. Even the Polos found Christian and Jewish priests in the court of Kublai Khan.

You have no "teachings of Moses and Jesus". You have teachings attributed to Moses and Jesus.

I find it hard to believe a non-existent person could have such a profound effect upon the world.

Kali ... Krishna ... Ba'al ... El ... Marduk Shang-Ti ... Isis ... Ahura-Mazda ... Zeus ... Mitras ... Sol Invictus ... Apollonius of Tyana ...

As to history, I personally, have plenty of proof of the historical record of the founder of my faith - Baha`u'llah.

That's nice.

Now I believe that He is the source of knowledge in all things spiritual. He tells me that Muhammed, Jesus, Zoroaster, Buddha, Krsna, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Salih, Hud and Muhammed were all also Manifestations of God.

I'm unimpressed. If he told you that the Torah was written circa 200 BCE, then I'm even less impressed.

So to me, I do not need any other authority for the existence of Moses and Jesus. I accept the fact.

Nor do you require evidence for your views. The word of your guru is sufficient. I find that disgusting and contemptible.

You don't. That's fine, but to expect me or others to bow to your "common sense" and "pragmatic wisdom" just ain't gonna happen.

I expect you to bow to nothing, least of all evidence and reason. I expect you to cling to willful ignorance with the same tenacity found among all dogmatists.

So to me, I do not need any other authority for the existence of Moses and Jesus. I accept the fact. To me you do not possess that authority.

I possess no authority and, in my opinion, your guru deserves even less. Scholarship, however, does possess and deserve authority, and your ignorance of and contempt for such scholarship speaks volumes.

 

[Popeyesays]

I believe that the word I used was 'exasperation'. Don't ask questions if you're unwilling to pay attention to the response.

The question is irrelevant.

You have no "teachings of Moses and Jesus". You have teachings attributed to Moses and Jesus.

Kali ... Krishna ... Ba'al ... El ... Marduk Shang-Ti ... Isis ... Ahura-Mazda ... Zeus ... Mitras ... Sol Invictus ... Apollonius of Tyana ...

That's nice.

I'm unimpressed. If he told you that the Torah was written circa 200 BCE, then I'm even less impressed.

Nor do you require evidence for your views. The word of your guru is sufficient. I find that disgusting and contemptible.

I expect you to bow to nothing, least of all evidence and reason. I expect you to cling to willful ignorance with the same tenacity found among all dogmatists.

I possess no authority and, in my opinion, your guru deserves even less. Scholarship, however, does possess and deserve authority, and your ignorance of and contempt for such scholarship speaks volumes.

Something I find funny is the aggressive agnostic, who - clinging tightly to his own dogma - tells everyone else they are using their beliefs for a crutch.
Then I suppose there is nothing for us but to wish each other the best and to mutually "bugger off" from further discussion.

Regards,
Scott

 

[BM5]

lets get back to the original thread shall we ?
The law came through Moses, grace and truth came through the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who took flesh of the sinless Virgin Mary. Since the One Almighty Triune God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost ( Yahweh ) gave the laws to Moses for the establishment of order, worship and morality and given that God is perfect and is incapable of error or change, then is follows that His instructions should stand as given.
Our Lord fullfilled the law and we to have a part in Him must do the same. This includes circumscision and all the rest.
The big problem comes in the NT with the many condratictions. He came not to destroy the law in one place and in another place He tears down a part of it, i.e. the women caught in adultery, according to the law she was to be stoned. It is witten an eye for an eye etc, i.e. severe justice for wrongdoers, He changes it forgiveness of enemies etc. which effectively delivers us into the hands of our enemies.
Then of course we have the Saul of Tarsus situation: here we have a murderer of Our Lords' sheep claiming a miracle conversion coming from God, well what does Gods' own law say to do to murderers ? How amiable was Our Lord to the Pharisees when He accused them of being the children of the devil, a liar and murderer from the begining ? If Tarsus had been repentant and submissive to the teachings of Peter and the others, which the recieved from Our Lord than it might be different but what did Tarsus do, well we all know the story don't we. This was the breakdown of the Pristine Church, the breaking of the continuity between the Mosaic Law from God to Moses and the grace and truth from Our Lord. Our Lord added to Deut. He took nothing away so why these changes in policy ? Adulteration of scripture by liars is really the only rational expalnation. Saul of Tarsus was an agent of the Sanhedrin sent in to undo and take over the Church, he and his gang intimidated their way in, forced the Apostles ( to their shame ) to drop Deut. He followed Peter to Rome and actually lived under the protection of Nero while the butchery was going on. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out who was supplying Nero with inside information. The persecution was aimed at those who held to the Old and the New, at Monophysites ( single nature believers - Divine ) till it was all gone. The process took some time but eventually all was lost and the Pauline Church dominated . Everything was hopelessly lost in 325 when the Roman state under Constantine threw out their shelf-gods and took control of Christianity. Constantine of course claimed a similiar dramatic vision as Tarsus. As the Emperors more or less faded away the control shifted to the Vatican.
All this was fortold in Our Lords parable about the field with good grain being replanted with weeds at night while men slept. He instructed both to grow together till the harvest. Well men of God, it is time to wake up, because the harvest is nearing .

 

[YmirGF]

Not being a theologian I cannot offer a learned opinion on this matter. But, it's not like that stops me.

Did Jesus free us from the Law? Evidently not. With 9 pages of entries dissecting the subject it would appear we live under a lot of unexpected rules. Unexpected to me at least.

I don't live my life based on "Christian" law, but I do happily live under democratic law.
For spirital law, karma works for me. I really don't see a need for any other law.

Karma: Whatever you do, is gonna come right on back to you. Action; reaction.

Kill someone. You kill a part of your self.
Steal from one. You steal from yourself.
Cheat on someone. You cheat on yourself.
Lie to someone. You lie to yourself
<insert list item here...>

Please forgive my juvenile intrusion. Please continue your learned debate.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So BM5... are you suggesting that we need to be circumcised to have salvation???

 

[BM5]

It is a sign of the everlasting covenant established with Abraham and is critical to complete acceptance.

Moses found out how sensitive Yahweh is about it when He was going to kill him over it.

Our Lord Himself fullfilled the rite.

But if you follow Tarsus, it means nothing.

If we say our purpose is to know, love and serve God and do not do as He says then we become hypocritical.

As far as necessary for salvation the answer is no, it is not absolutely necessary but, there are three levels of Heaven and three levels of Hell, each has its own degrees of reward and punishment. Lack of fullfillment of the rite may effect the final outcome. With Moses there was no choice, no prophet goes forth without it !

 

[Super Universe]

The old testament laws were full of human misunderstandings of angelic revelence. The truth has never changed. Some angelic revealer's at different times are better than others but none compare to Jesus.

The Old Testament has some truth but as a whole it should not be included with the New Testament.

 

[wmam]

After all, the Judaizing tendency in the early Church was defeated at the Council in Jerusalem and as our Lord Himself said:

'Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.' - Matthew 15:11

James

So are you saying that Yahshua ate pig? Shrimp? Lobster? Lizards? Spiders? Buzzards?

 

[Quiddity]

No He didn't 'free' us from the Law. For a start, unless you're of Jewish extraction, neither you nor your ancestors were ever under the Law to begin with, so it's rather difficult to be freed from it. Secondly, freeing us from the Law makes it sound like He abolished it and allowed us to do whatever we like. That's just plain wrong. The two commandments to love God with all our heart and to love our neighbours as ourselves contain and indeed go beyond the Law (at least if you are referring, as most Christians do, to the Decalogue. Levitical laws are a different matter and, as I said, gentiles have never been bound by them anyway). If anything Christ made the Law stricter by making us aware that internal thoughts and dispositions could be equally sinful to outward actions, so hate becomes equivalent to murder, lust to adultery etc. Now, I think some Protestants mean precisely what I just said when they say we're 'freed' from the Law, but I find the term misleading and dangerous.

James

Very well said and agreed....:clap

~Victor

 

[wmam]

Peter's Dream

Acts 10:9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." 16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. NIV

So we are OVIOUSLY not constrained by any food laws.

I would also suggest reading Galations 3, 4 & 5 for a cogent treatise on being set "Free" from the requirements of the law.

LOL .... Read that which was written before and that after what you posted and it is clear that the three times it was said was to do with the three gentiles that were knocking at the door. The message was not about food but rather man. He was making a point for us not to make unclean that which He has made clean. He has never made pig, shrimp, lobster, lizzards or spiders clean for us to eat.

 

[Popeyesays]

LOL .... Read that which was written before and that after what you posted and it is clear that the three times it was said was to do with the three gentiles that were knocking at the door. The message was not about food but rather man. He was making a point for us not to make unclean that which He has made clean. He has never made pig, shrimp, lobster, lizzards or spiders clean for us to eat.

What about other substances, wmam? Do you still consider women in their courses unclean? How about semen?
"God hath decreed, in token of His mercy unto His
creatures, that semen is not unclean. Yield thanks unto
Him with joy and radiance, and follow not such as are
remote from the Dawning-place of His nearness."
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 46)
"In some earlier religious Dispensations, women in
their courses were considered ritually unclean and were
forbidden to observe the duties of prayer and fasting. The
concept of ritual uncleanness has been abolished by
Bahá'u'lláh (see note 106)."
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 173)



I am fortunate to be of a faith where no substance created by God is unclean. Since all substance was created by God, I don't have to worry. The only food restrictions I have are not to "plunge my hands into a communal bowl - like the rice dishes of the Bedouins, or the Poi bowl of Hawaiian custom. Oh . . . and I can use the skin or fur of a creature found dead in a trap, but may not eat it, as the flesh may have gone foul in the time since it died. And I am permitted to hunt for food if I wish, but I have not hunted for more than thirty years.

As to food, well, I have never been interested in eating a spider - though all spiders are poisonous, I would suppose it to be an unpleasant act, but not because the spider is "unclean". Buzzard would taste rank, since bird flesh in particular takes on the taste of what it eats. But lobster, crab, pork are all tasty to me, and perfectly clean.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Scuba Pete]

WMAM,

It was about the LAW. All of the former laws had been condensed into TWO. Love God and Love everyone else! There was no need for the dietary laws just as there was no need to keep the lineage of the saviour secure. The laws were designed to get Israel through the desert and into the promised land.

BTW, do you have any scripture that tells us to ignore this ones dietary freedom? I have a couple that support it.

Colossians 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. NIV

So please, if you want to belong to the world and live as though you still belonged to it, you won't find me stopping you. I, on the other hand, will be enjoying the freedom Jesus has given me. His laws are written on my heart and I have no need of your pharisaical approach to Christianity.

 

[jeffrey]

Net Doc, Victor, James, thank you all. I learned something new reading this thread!

 

[wmam]

What about other substances, wmam?

Yes. Yahshua only killed the sacrificial laws of transgression. All laws other than that of laws of sacrifice still stand.

 

[wmam]

WMAM,

It was about the LAW. All of the former laws had been condensed into TWO. Love God and Love everyone else! There was no need for the dietary laws just as there was no need to keep the lineage of the saviour secure. The laws were designed to get Israel through the desert and into the promised land.

BTW, do you have any scripture that tells us to ignore this ones dietary freedom? I have a couple that support it.

Colossians 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. NIV

So please, if you want to belong to the world and live as though you still belonged to it, you won't find me stopping you. I, on the other hand, will be enjoying the freedom Jesus has given me. His laws are written on my heart and I have no need of your pharisaical approach to Christianity.

There is in no way that the verse quoted has to do with the doing away with the food laws. It is as I stated and has to do with the 3 Gentiles. Like it or not it is the Truth.

As far as Col. 2:22...........

It is correct. I myself will not subject myself to that of man made traditions and laws where it is not valid to that of the Truth of Elohim. I rather choose to obey the True Word of Elohim.

If it would be o.k. to touch unclean things then why in the same book do we find........

2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

You have chosen your path and that it fine as I have chosen mine.

I just didn't want the readers to see one verse that had nothing to do with the food laws twisted into falsehood but rather show light on the Truth of YAH my Elohim.

Shalom

 

[jeffrey]

But that's the problem, you see wman, the TRUTH of Jesus Christ is what we follow. Funny how your prophets can change 'the law' but the son of God can't.... go figure.

 

[Scuba Pete]

There is in no way that the verse quoted has to do with the doing away with the food laws. It is as I stated and has to do with the 3 Gentiles. Like it or not it is the Truth.

You sound JUST like Peter in the first dream!

Acts 10:14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." NIV

Now listen to Paul:

Romans 14:13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. NIV

I just didn't want the readers to see one verse that had nothing to do with the food laws twisted into falsehood but rather show light on the Truth of YAH my Elohim.

What a pompous, legalistic and arrogant statement. You THINK you understand God, but like the Pharisees you want to BIND the law on those who are free. Stop trying to steal my Freedom in Jesus!

Here is what Paul says about those trying to obey the law:

Galations 5:1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. NIV

Feel free to wear your yoke of slavery (the law), and I will revel in the Freedom that is Jesus.

 

[jeffrey]

(Makes mental note to give ND Frubals when I can pass out more!) What a well thought out post. I agree with you 110%!