For the Christians (Abrahamic only)

[dantech]

Yes it pretty much does.

If you have sinned, then you are not blameless (God can blame you), if you have sinned than you are not perfect.

Regardless however if they sinned they were still called blameless before God...lol perhaps Gods standards aren't as high as we think they are.

Generations matter. If everyone around you is committing adultery, theft, and murders, then that one man who does neither of the three, could be considered righteous, even if he isn't by today's standards.

 

[Shermana]

I do not believe that Gentile Christians are now a part of the lost sheep of Israel, the new Israel, or a replacement of Israel. I think the biblical view is that only literal descendents of Abraham. Issac, and Jacob are a part of the house of Israel. Jesus came first to and for Israel in fulfillment of prophecy as the promised Messiah, as one born under the law to redeem those who were born under the law (Gal.4:4-5). Yet, the salvation He offered was not limited only to Israel ...

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19)

And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. (John 10:16)

Obviously not, as Jesus reiterated all the ten commandments, except keeping the sabbath and He wrapped up the law in these two commandments...

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”(Matt. 22:37-40)

“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29-31)

So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”(Luke 10:27)

No one who has placed their trust in Christ, repented of their former sinful life, died to self and risen to new life in Christ would think that it is okay to participate in the behaviors you listed above. Instead of practicing sinful behaviors believers are to live according to the Spirit of the law of Christ loving God with all one's heart, soul, strength, and mind and neighbor as oneself as did Jesus and as He does when living through the lives of those submitted His power.

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4)

[/QUOTE]
That doesn't really answer my question. Are you saying that Christians who claim to be saved simply won't have any desire to do what is against the Law? I don't think I've ever met a sin-free Christian, in fact almost every Christian I've met is cool with fornication for example. So what's that mean? They aren't really saved? Only those who obey God's laws are saved? If so, we're almost on the same boat.

And by the way, Jesus's female disciples obeyed the Sabbath after he was crucified, so there's good reason to believe he did in fact teach to do this even if it didn't make it in the final cut of the Gospels. There's all kinds of things that Jesus said and did that didn't make it into the Gospels, says John 21.

 

[roger1440]

Also from Dvarim 13

1. Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.

The law is perpetual it can not be added to nor subtracted from.

So by Jesus saying he "fulfilled the law" it directly contradicts G-D.

Then as Dan pointed out Jesus contradicts himself by saying that not one iota shouldn't be done.

"So by Jesus saying he "fulfilled the law" it directly contradicts G-D."

You would be right if “fulfilled the law” meant to make it obsolete. That is not what the author of the Gospel of Mathew meant. Most Christians combine this verse with the theology of Paul to mean Jewish Law is no longer in effect because Jesus fulfilled the Law. Mathew’s original audience did not have Paul’s writings as reference. This gospel was written by a Jew or a person who was very familiar with Judaism. His audience was meant to be Jews. He quotes many times from the Torah. Therefore this Gospel must be in agreement with the Torah. No Jew would accept this Gospel if it was in conflict with the Torah. This Gospel is complete and understandable on its own. The confusion comes in when its theology is blended with the other books of the New Testament. Re read the gospel of Mathew using only Jewish scripture as reference and it will have a totally different meaning. Read it through a Jewish lens and not a Christian or Gentile lens.

 

[roger1440]

The fulfillment of the Law is the love of God and your fellow man. The achievement of this does not nullify the Law. This was the message of Mathew’s Jesus. This message is in full agreement of the Law.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

"So by Jesus saying he "fulfilled the law" it directly contradicts G-D."

You would be right if “fulfilled the law” meant to make it obsolete. That is not what the author of the Gospel of Mathew meant. Most Christians combine this verse with the theology of Paul to mean Jewish Law is no longer in effect because Jesus fulfilled the Law. Mathew’s original audience did not have Paul’s writings as reference. This gospel was written by a Jew or a person who was very familiar with Judaism. His audience was meant to be Jews. He quotes many times from the Torah. Therefore this Gospel must be in agreement with the Torah. No Jew would accept this Gospel if it was in conflict with the Torah. This Gospel is complete and understandable on its own. The confusion comes in when its theology is blended with the other books of the New Testament. Re read the gospel of Mathew using only Jewish scripture as reference and it will have a totally different meaning. Read it through a Jewish lens and not a Christian or Gentile lens.

Wasn't Matthew written in 70 C.E? That would make it younger than Paula's writings

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

Basically, my question to you is this.

After reading these verses, it is pretty clear that Jesus agrees that the Old Testament is the true word of God. He goes even further and says that we should fulfill these laws, and not ignore a single "iota" or "dot" from these laws.

But if that is true, how is it that Christians don't follow all the laws that the Jews do. How is it that they don't do the Sabbath, that they don't keep Kosher, or let the earth rest every 7 years?

Also another thing I was thinking to myself. If we know the Messiah needs to be a descendant of King David, how could it be that Jesus was both a descendant of David, and the son of God.

Again, this is not meant in disrespect, Just honest curiosity as to how your scholars have interpreted these issues.

This is how people learn on some level, in my opinion. I do the same the other way around. I don't think I can learn about Jewish tradition unless I try and adopt it, or at least open my arms to it, for fear I am missing some understanding. Kudos to you.

I am not sure I am much help to you questions however. You seem to be discussing one particular point. Namely, the lives of Christians, on the most part seem to be lived very differently than the lives of Jews.
You then give some verses to bring light to your query.

Allow me to offer the following:

Many Christians believe Jesus taught that entering the kingdom of God, is the same as being granted eternal life. So that when one dies, they live with Christ and God forever.
This can be obtained two ways according the many Christians. The first way is to live a perfect life. Doing as you suggest, and hitting every laws, practice, etc... just right. We will then be found sinless. Since Christians define the wages of sin as death, we can see never sinning means never dieing.
The other ways to eternal life, is to believe in Jesus Christ. Of course many Christians believe this method allows for sin in a persons life, and indeed requires sin to be in our life.

So then, why you ask are all those quotes in the OP present? Many Christians interpret those to point out, that Jesus is indeed saying the law stands. If the law stands we are still all guilty. If we are all still guilty, we all still need salvation from death.
The book of Hebrew comes into view here, as it talks much about this topic from a Christian perspective.

I ask then that you consider the actions recorded about Jesus, where he ate the corn on the sabbath, and he discussed David eating from the temple when he was hungry. Jesus gave his judgment that it is the heart of man that God judges and not just blind rituals and commandments. For example, David has a pure heart when he ate the bread. He was hungry.

All this indicates two things. One, the law still stands, and we are still guilty. Two, Jesus asks only two main things from us, since he knows we will never follow the law perfectly. To love God with all our heart, mind and soul, and to do to our neighbors as we would want done to us. This in conjunction with faith in Jesus will keep us right with God as we finish out this life.

On a side note, if a Christian wants to keep Kosher or other things that you indicated, they can do it for personal reasons, but if it becomes some act to try and get right with God, it becomes something bad at that point in the eyes of God, according to some Christians. Again this is explained more in the book of Hebrews.

 

[captainbryce]

Most Christians were Jewish... How were they not under the covenant of Israel?

The key word in your statement is "were". The few Christians (all 12 of them) that were alive when Christ first came were obviously Jewish. But the religion spread to the Romans, pagans, and all manner of other Gentiles shortly thereafter. The number of Gentile Christians FAR outweighs the number of Jewish Christians. So my point stands. Most Christians are not under the old covenant.

First issue... Where do you get that a new covenant will replace the old one.

From the bible!

Jeremiah 31:31-33
31 “The day is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. 32 This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt. They broke that covenant, though I loved them as a husband loves his wife,” says the Lord. 33 “But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the Lord. “I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Luke 22:20
After supper he took another cup of wine and said, “This cup is the new covenant between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with my blood, which is poured out as a sacrifice for you.

Hebrews 8:13
When God speaks of a “new” covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear.

Why didn't Moses' covenant replace Abraham's in the first place?

Moses had no specific "covenant". He merely gave laws to the Jewish people (who were still under the first covenant of Abraham). The laws of Moses were simply an extension of the old covenant. Nothing had been "replaced", for the messiah had not yet come.

Because once a binding, everlasting covenant, always a binding, everlasting covenant. (That's what everlasting means...)

The promise of an everlasting covenant was "God's promise", not Abraham (or any of his descendants). The covenant would have been everlasting had the Jews not continually broke it. Again, refer to Jeremiah 31:32.

Find me, in the Torah which was binding to Jesus and his followers, a verse that says that we will make a new covenant, that will REPLACE the old one. Key word being REPLACE

That's already implied by the fact that a new one has to be created because the old one was BROKEN. Paul says exactly that in Hebrews 8:13. Jesus says he came to fulfill the law of the prophets. He came, and he died, therefore the law was fulfilled (unless you don't accept him as the messiah)

Alright. So there is a verse in the Torah which says : YOU HAVE TO CIRCUMCISE, THROUGHOUT YOUR GENERATIONS. THIS IS AN EVERLASTING COMMANDMENT. Jesus comes, years later, dies on a cross, and that means everyone who is not circumcised is fine?

There are only two possible answers to the question of salvation.

1) Either Jesus' words are true, and that everyone who believes in him will not perish and have eternal life

OR

2) Jesus' words are untrue, and only the people who are circumcised and believe in him will have eternal life, while everyone else perishes.

The question is, which one do you believe

If the Jews broke the covenant, and the death of Christ saves Gentiles who exercise faith in him, then what is the point of circumcision anymore?

Romans 4:11-12
11 Circumcision was a sign that Abraham already had faith and that God had already accepted him and declared him to be righteous—even before he was circumcised. So Abraham is the spiritual father of those who have faith but have not been circumcised. They are counted as righteous because of their faith. 12 And Abraham is also the spiritual father of those who have been circumcised, but only if they have the same kind of faith Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Question: What was the point of circumcision for anyone who believes in Christ?

But how can one prophet come and change the word of another prophet.

It isn't a matter of changing the word of another prophet, it's about fulfilling that word. Christian's believe that Jesus WAS the word. Therefore, his word would supersede ALL other prophets. But it has already been established that Jesus didn't come to "change" the law, he came to fulfill it's purpose. So again, you have to ask yourself what was the purpose of circumcision? If the death of Christ renders that purpose obsolete, then the law has been fulfilled.

I'm sure Paul, or Matthew or whoever it was had the authority to change what Jesus believed was God's word.

Well you'd be wrong. Nobody can destroy the word of Christ, since Christ is the word of God.

That's all fine, but you should add on the the previous ones, not neglect and ignore them.

Add on the previous "what"?

Today, yes this is true. But would this mean that you believe that the first Jews to follow the Christianity wave and convert were in the wrong?

No. It doesn't matter if you are Jew or Gentile. Anyone who follows Christ is saved. The point is, a follower of Christ now belongs to the new covenant, not the old. You cannot belong to both covenants because at some point they are contradictory. If you are placing faith in circumcision, then you are NOT placing faith in Christ alone for salvation.

Galatians 5:2-6
2 Listen! I, Paul, tell you this: If you are counting on circumcision to make you right with God, then Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 I’ll say it again. If you are trying to find favor with God by being circumcised, you must obey every regulation in the whole law of Moses. 4 For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God’s grace. 5 But we who live by the Spirit eagerly wait to receive by faith the righteousness God has promised to us. 6 For when we place our faith in Christ Jesus, there is no benefit in being circumcised or being uncircumcised. What is important is faith expressing itself in love.

Romans 2:25-29
25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

How can we be certain that Paul was right?

Jeremiah 4:3-4
3 This is what the Lord says to the people of Judah and to Jerusalem:

“Break up your unplowed ground and do not sow among thorns. 4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, circumcise your hearts, you people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, or my wrath will flare up and burn like fire because of the evil you have done—burn with no one to quench it.

Now you are contradicting yourself. Why not work on the Sabbath if these laws don't apply to you. Do these people live in the USA, but follow the laws of Afghanistan?

I'm not contradicting anything. You have conveniently cut off the first part of my answer (which answers this):

Remember, most Christians are Gentiles who were never part of the Old Covenant. We were never bound by these laws in the first place (the Jews were). In addition, most Christians do not work on Saturday and most businesses are closed on Saturday. So many do in fact observe the Sabbath.

All of the commandments which are applicable to Christians are expressed in the New Testament.

Jews believe that too. Which is why we wake up every day before work and go to synagogue to pray.

Therefore the commandment singling out a specific day becomes irrelevant since you ARE keeping the Sabbath by doing this everyday.

Really??? Do you honestly believe what you are saying or are you just trying to convince yourself?

I absolutely believe it! :yes:

If a Cohen or Levite adopts a child, is that child a Cohen or Levite?

By definition, YES. That's what "adoption" means!

Who cares what the family name is. We are talking about tribal inheritance.

Consider this, if a Gentile boy is adopted by Jews, given the family name, circumcised, bar mitzvah, and raised into Jewish customs, is he or is he not part of the old covenant? Yes or no?

Appreciated. Unfortunately I disagree with your interpretation.

Fair enough! Cheers...

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Generations matter. If everyone around you is committing adultery, theft, and murders, then that one man who does neither of the three, could be considered righteous, even if he isn't by today's standards.

I would say that the average person goes through life without doing these things.

 

[Shermana]

That's already implied by the fact that a new one has to be created because the old one was BROKEN. Paul says exactly that in Hebrews 8:13. Jesus says he came to fulfill the law of the prophets. He came, and he died, therefore the law was fulfilled (unless you don't accept him as the messiah)

Did you catch my link on the meaning of the word and concept of "Fulfilled"?

Are you teaching people to break the least of the commandments? You know what Jesus said about that.

What's your explanation on why James and the Jerusalem Church grilled Paul over rumors he was teaching Jewish Christians to abandon Moses? Did Jesus leave them all out of the loop?

 

[Shermana]

"So by Jesus saying he "fulfilled the law" it directly contradicts G-D."

You would be right if “fulfilled the law” meant to make it obsolete. That is not what the author of the Gospel of Mathew meant. Most Christians combine this verse with the theology of Paul to mean Jewish Law is no longer in effect because Jesus fulfilled the Law. Mathew’s original audience did not have Paul’s writings as reference. This gospel was written by a Jew or a person who was very familiar with Judaism. His audience was meant to be Jews. He quotes many times from the Torah. Therefore this Gospel must be in agreement with the Torah. No Jew would accept this Gospel if it was in conflict with the Torah. This Gospel is complete and understandable on its own. The confusion comes in when its theology is blended with the other books of the New Testament. Re read the gospel of Mathew using only Jewish scripture as reference and it will have a totally different meaning. Read it through a Jewish lens and not a Christian or Gentile lens.

Blessings be upon you Roger, may you be granted authority and clout to effectively fight and slay the vicious heresies of Antinomiansm that pollute and misrepresent the message of Yeshu.

 

[captainbryce]

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)

The law is written to be everlasting, forever and ever. This includes Kosher rules, Circumcision rules, etc...

That is incorrect. First of all, Jesus declared all foods clean before he died. Second, anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved (not just Jews), therefore the law of circumcision is fulfilled.

Both these sentences make it seem like the law is to be accomplished, and then no longer binding. Or maybe I misunderstand. Let me know.

That is correct. But the purpose of the law WAS accomplished because Jesus died (for the sins of all mankind) and was resurrected three days later. The new covenant is established, therefore the law was fulfilled. The phrase "until all things have taken place" does not mean "until heaven and earth pass away". The latter phrase simply means that the law can never be abolished "until it is fulfilled". Jesus is making the point that so long as he is alive, nobody can make a claim that he is "abolishing" the law (which is what some suspected at the time). However, the law is fulfilled upon the death and resurrection of Christ. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law, not the destruction of it.

 

[captainbryce]

Did you catch my link on the meaning of the word and concept of "Fulfilled"?

No, that wasn't necessary. I already know the meaning of the word an concept of "fulfilled". You're free to disagree with me if you like, but it's very clear to me that Jesus fulfilled the law.

Are you teaching people to break the least of the commandments?

No. That's what YOU say I'm doing, just as the Jewish leaders said that Jesus himself was doing that. But that wasn't the case then, and it isn't the case now.

What's your explanation on why James and the Jerusalem Church grilled Paul over rumors he was teaching Jewish Christians to abandon Moses? Did Jesus leave them all out of the loop?

No explanation is required. I concede that this indeed happened. But the fact that it happened is irrelevant. If you can find a flaw in Paul's logic about Christ dying for the Gentiles as well as the Jews, please feel free to share it. Otherwise, I see no relevance to this question. Did Christ die for the Gentiles as well as the Jews, yes or no?

 

[captainbryce]

Blessings be upon you Roger, may you be granted authority and clout to effectively fight and slay the vicious heresies of Antinomiansm that pollute and misrepresent the message of Yeshu.

Seeing as how you completely ignored his point (and mine frankly), I see no reason to continue debating this issue with you. Might be best to just agree to disagree at this point. :yes:

 

[Shermana]

No, that wasn't necessary. I already know the meaning of the word an concept of "fulfilled". You're free to disagree with me if you like, but it's very clear to me that Jesus fulfilled the law.

I agree Jesus fulfilled the Law. What I don't agree with is your interpretation of what it means to be fulfilled. And apparently Peter and James didn't agree with this either. I fulfill the Law every Friday night when I obey Sabbath, according to the proper definition of "Fufill" ("To fill up").

Jesus said Heaven and Earth would collapse before a single letter of the law becomes void. That doesn't include excuses for why the Law is no longer in effect.

No. That's what YOU say I'm doing, just as the Jewish leaders said that Jesus himself was doing that. But that wasn't the case then, and it isn't the case now.

No, unlike the Jewish leaders who simply understood the law incorrectly, in this case, I am correct that you are in fact teaching people to break the commandments of Moses, you are in fact saying they are no longer in effect. It most surely is the case now, as sure as God lives.

No explanation is required. I concede that this indeed happened. But the fact that it happened is irrelevant. If you can find a flaw in Paul's logic about Christ dying for the Gentiles as well as the Jews, please feel free to share it. Otherwise, I see no relevance to this question. Did Christ die for the Gentiles as well as the Jews, yes or no?

Irrelevant? Why is it possibly irrelevant? It's not irrelevant whatsoever. It proves you wrong. Dead wrong. You're making a strawman and a false dichotomy. What does no one having to obey the Law have to do with it?

Christ did die for gentiles who adopt the Torah, that's for sure. However, your idea of what it means for him to "Die for them" and its implications are on the table here.

What do you think Christ meant by "I have only come for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel".

 

[Shermana]

Seeing as how you completely ignored his point (and mine frankly), I see no reason to continue debating this issue with you. Might be best to just agree to disagree at this point. :yes:

What point of his did I ignore, and what point of yours did I ignore? Did I misread what he said? I think I read what Roger said just fine, perhaps it's you who is ignoring his point.

Are you confusing disagreement with ignoring? Is this related to you thinking that James and the Jerusalem church's reaction to Paul is "irrelevant"?

 

[Shermana]

That is incorrect. First of all, Jesus declared all foods clean before he died. Second, anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved (not just Jews), therefore the law of circumcision is fulfilled.

First of all, the translations that say Jesus declared all foods clean are in monstrous error, for they deliberately change the present tense into past to get it to say what they want. The KJV and Douay Rheims have it right.

I highly recommend this article.

http://messianicpublications.com/robert-roy/did-jesus-declare-all-foods-clean/

Compare:

New International Version
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Notice the past tense for "cleansing all foods" there becomes "Declared" (It is in fact "cleansing" in the present tense in the text, Katharizon.) Now also, I don't believe there's much basis for saying that "Cleansed" or "Cleansing" is synonomous with declaring them to be cleansed. This is one of the most glaring examples of the sheer disregard for accuracy and confirming their anti-law biases for the sake of their doctrine that they are willing to throw the Greek itself under the bus.

Mark 7:19 Greek Text Analysis

Now look at the KJV and Douay Rheims.

The only answer is that these modern antinomian translations have mischeviously altered the translation to suit their antinomian biases, may they be brought to great shame and exposed. May these translators from Wallace to the NASB that change it to "He made all meats clean" have no meat to eat but rats and maggots.

King James 2000 Bible
Because it enters not into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the drain, purging all foods?

American King James Version
Because it enters not into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the draught, purging all meats?

^ THAT is the correct translation. Let me add to their curse, may they all have great difficulty "purging" their foods. GREAT difficulty!

Second of all, Jesus was just talking about ritual handwashing. If he was making any point beyond that, he'd be changing the subject out of context. He was simply saying that all foods end up coming out the other end so if you swallow some dirt or a tiny bug, it's not the end of the world. This is why he said "You strain for gnats while swallowing camels". Context is key, once again, but context seems to rarely matter for Antinomians.

Third of all, Jesus would be contradicting himself and violating his own precepts.

That is correct. But the purpose of the law WAS accomplished because Jesus died (for the sins of all mankind) and was resurrected three days later. The new covenant is established, therefore the law was fulfilled. The phrase "until all things have taken place" does not mean "until heaven and earth pass away".

Oh it most certainly does mean all things until heaven and earth pass away. Why would Jesus even say until heaven and earth pass?

The latter phrase simply means that the law can never be abolished "until it is fulfilled". Jesus is making the point that so long as he is alive,

Why would he possibly only mean so long as he is alive?

nobody can make a claim that he is "abolishing" the law (which is what some suspected at the time). However, the law is fulfilled upon the death and resurrection of Christ. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law, not the destruction of it.

And what exactly is the difference between "Abolishing" and "fulfilling" in your terms?

 

[CMike]

That is incorrect. First of all, Jesus declared all foods clean before he died. Second, anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved (not just Jews), therefore the law of circumcision is fulfilled.

That is correct. But the purpose of the law WAS accomplished because Jesus died (for the sins of all mankind) and was resurrected three days later. The new covenant is established, therefore the law was fulfilled. The phrase "until all things have taken place" does not mean "until heaven and earth pass away". The latter phrase simply means that the law can never be abolished "until it is fulfilled". Jesus is making the point that so long as he is alive, nobody can make a claim that he is "abolishing" the law (which is what some suspected at the time). However, the law is fulfilled upon the death and resurrection of Christ. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law, not the destruction of it.

You need to pick your god.

Either you believe the G-D from the Torah who said do not add nor subtract from jewish law or you pick jesus who added and subtracted at will.

They are mutually exclusive.

Deuteronomy - Chapter 13 (Parshah Re'eh) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

Dvarim 13

1. Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.

 

[CMike]

No, that wasn't necessary. I already know the meaning of the word an concept of "fulfilled". You're free to disagree with me if you like, but it's very clear to me that Jesus fulfilled the law.

No. That's what YOU say I'm doing, just as the Jewish leaders said that Jesus himself was doing that. But that wasn't the case then, and it isn't the case now.

No explanation is required. I concede that this indeed happened. But the fact that it happened is irrelevant. If you can find a flaw in Paul's logic about Christ dying for the Gentiles as well as the Jews, please feel free to share it. Otherwise, I see no relevance to this question. Did Christ die for the Gentiles as well as the Jews, yes or no?

No. He died because he was caught by the romans and executed.

 

[Shermana]

You need to pick your god.

Either you believe the G-D from the Torah who said do not add nor subtract from jewish law or you pick jesus who added and subtracted at will.

They are mutually exclusive.

Deuteronomy - Chapter 13 (Parshah Re'eh) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

Dvarim 13

1. Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.

Jesus didn't really add or subtract anything, he just had a more Shammai-ish view of things. He repeatedly said that not a single iota of the Law was to be made void, and that anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments will be called the Least in the Kingdom, and that "doers of lawlessness" will be told to get lost even if they perform miracles in his name. The problem is these rascally translators and gentile-church interpreters who have a mad rabid passion to make the Jewish Messiah un-Jewish. It's been that way since the initial Dejudaizers.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

But the writer of Matthew if the time line is correct would have been writing to an Audience with access to Pauls writings, wouldn't he?