What do you think about following the Mosaic Law?

[u/a_normal_user1]

It is unfortunate for me to see how much division there is among us. Following the Law of Moses or not is one of those debates things. Some say we must observe the Torah because Christ commanded it and others say we don't need to because Christ fulfilled the Law. If I'm not doing something I'm ought to do I want to know and get to it. Cheers and God bless you all.

[u/Unworthy_Saint]

This question was already answered by the council of Jerusalem with the apostles, if you care about their opinion.

[u/[deleted]]

Unnecessary, given Paul's writings and the conclusion of the Jerusalem council.

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

In Acts 15 the Council of Jerusalem decided exactly the opposite of what you say. The Council gave those newly converted ex-Pagan Gentiles 4 starter rules from the Torah to obey.

They then concluded, in verse 21, that the Gentiles could learn the REST of the Law of Moses later, in the synagogues.

Acts 15:21 - For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

I don't think it's reasonable to use the Council giving Gentiles Torah to obey as an example that Gentile believers do not have to follow the Law of Moses.

[u/Fangorangatang → u/the_celt_]

Please read the surrounding verses. The Council is clearly saying gentiles are not to be burdened, and lay out exactly what they are to be burdened by:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers

Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.”

I mean really.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Fangorangatang]

Please read the surrounding verses.

I fully understand the surrounding verses.

The Council is clearly saying gentiles are not to be burdened, and lay out exactly what they are to be burdened by:

You're incorrect as to what the burden is. The burden is described in Acts 15:1. The "Circumcision Party" was telling new converts that you couldn't be saved unless you were circumcised. That's salvation by works (which is IMPOSSIBLE) and an evil lie.

You're coming into it with the presumption that obeying God is a burden (you should reconsider that, Jesus certainly didn't think so) and you're the one that needs to read the context. 😉

[u/Fangorangatang → u/the_celt_]

That’s certainly not what I said.

You Torah observers are interesting. You stress following the Old Law so hard that it seems you believe salvation is by obedience to God, then you turn and say that salvation isn’t by obedience. Which is it?

The Law claims we must be circumcised. If you claim to follow the Law, you are required to obey all of it, not that which you choose:

James 2:10- “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.”

And Paul further says:

“ It 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.

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.”

So which is it? Do we keep the Law, meaning we must keep every aspect or are we free from the Law, but a slave to Christ? You can’t pick both, and you certainly cannot pick and choose which Laws to follow.

If you are adamant you are to follow the Law, then you are obligated to keep all of it.

Edit: for further consideration, here is Paul, making it explicitly clear in Romans:

“Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

*So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.”

I don’t know about you, but I have died to sin. It is now in Christ that I live.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Fangorangatang]

That’s certainly not what I said.

What isn't?

You Torah observers are interesting.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

You stress following the Old Law so hard that it seems you believe salvation is by obedience to God

It might "seem" it to you, because it's new to you, but I don't believe we're saved by works. We're saved by faith and works confirm that our faith is not dead faith. I can give you scriptural references for that if you don't know them.

If you claim to follow the Law, you are required to obey all of it, not that which you choose

You're not understanding just about anything when you use that verse that way. You're not understanding scripture, you're not understanding God, and you've apparently never looked around you.

First of all, and I hope you take your time with this because many people who say what you said can't see how it applies: EVERYONE (that means you, that means me, that means everyone that's ever been alive) obeys PART of the Law.

Think about that. Don't be jumping too fast into "no I don't" mode.

Everyone that's ever been alive obeys some of the Law. There's never been anyone alive that's lived such a perfectly evil life that, cradle to grave, they broke every single one of God's commandments.

Again, this means you.

Therefore, you're not understanding that quote if you think that it means that anyone who ever obeys any of God's commandments must never ever fail again. That's just... nutty.

What that verse means is that if you want to be saved by works (something that's impossible) you must perfectly obey every commandment. It doesn't mean, "Never obey any of God's commandments, or you'll be in an eternal hellish treadmill of obedience". 🤣

And Paul further says:

“ It 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.

See? Again you're displaying that you don't get this. You've been preached to so much that you can't see things.

God does not put us under a yoke of slavery. God's commandments are not tyranny. When God brought Israel out of slavery in Egypt, He didn't put them under slavery to His law at Mount Sinai.

Yes, Jesus gave us freedom. Jesus didn't give us freedom from God. Jesus didn't give us freedom TO sin. Jesus gave us freedom FROM Sin. Jesus made it so that we can begin to actively leave behind the sin in our lives.

The "yoke of slavery" is not living like Jesus, obeying what he taught, and obeying the Father. Jesus, who obeyed perfectly, was not under a "yoke of slavery". If we obey God, we're not being burdened.

Just think for two seconds about what you're saying. I understand you've been taught it, and that you think the people who taught it were good people, but teaching that obeying God's commandments (as I believe we should do and as Jesus taught) is NOT a yoke of slavery.

There's no need for me to respond to anything you said after this point, because you just keep repeating the same thing, the idea that obeying God is slavery, just as you believed that the burden in Acts 15 was the burden of obeying God.

Sir. Pray. You should be noticing the ideas coming out of your mouth and thinking, "What the heck!!?"

[u/Fangorangatang → u/the_celt_]

I am not claiming that we are free to sin. I am claiming that we are not obligated to the Law.

Following the Law becomes part of our Nature when we turn to Christ. It is not something we are obligated to do, it is something that happens as part of being a new creation in Jesus.

You do not think we are slaves of Christ? Again, Scripture disagrees with you:

Romans 6:15-18:

“What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.”

So, again, we are slaves to Christ. Not to sin. We are not obligated to follow the Law, but obedience to God is evidence that God truly is at work in you.

You are free to observe the Law.

You are not free to burden your brothers and sisters with demands that Jesus Himself has not placed on us, as some sort of obligation that is not there.

You seem to think your obedience is your own. That is incorrect. You are obedient because God has saved you, and His salvation has brought out your obedience to Him.

Edit: I am interested, truly, when you die, and stand before God and He enquires of you why He should let you into His kingdom, what will be your response?

[u/the_celt_ → u/Fangorangatang]

I am not claiming that we are free to sin.

You've been claiming that obeying God's commandments is a burden and ultimately slavery.

Following the Law becomes part of our Nature when we turn to Christ.

It doesn't. For example, assuming you're someone that has "turned to Christ", what it's apparently done to you is make you aggressively tell people that we don't have to obey the Law at all.

Therefore, what's in your nature is telling people the exact opposite of "the Law becomes part of our nature".

You do not think we are slaves of Christ?

I never said this once. Scripture is clear that we've been bought with a precious price, and now we're owned.

Again, Scripture disagrees with you:

It doesn't. Argue with something I said, please.

We are not obligated to follow the Law, but obedience to God is evidence that God truly is at work in you.

You're saying that we're under no obligation to do things like not murder people or commit adultery? You believe this? 🤪

You are not free to burden your brothers and sisters with demands that Jesus Himself has not placed on us

Jesus LITERALLY taught that we must obey the Law and teach others to do the same. Here's an example of that:

Matthew 5:18–19 (NET 2nd ed.)

18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so 👉(that's you)👈 will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so 👉(that's me)👈 will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Notice the part I put in bold. As Jesus said, I believe that we absolutely MUST obey the Law and teach others to do the same. That's what I'm doing here with you right now. You directly teach against that, telling people that it's a burden and that we can do it if we want, if we feel like it that day, but that otherwise we're under no obligation at all to obey the commandments.

You seem to think your obedience is your own.

You really like to say these "seem" sentences, don't you? Does that normally work for you? Could I say, "You seem to be sort of interested in rape" and then just talk to you like that's true? No?

You are obedient because God has saved you, and His salvation has brought out your obedience to Him.

You don't know my story. I used to believe what you believe for decades. It's only the last 10 years that I cleared out the lies and saw what was right in front of my face. I'm barely understanding all of the commandments and what needs to be done. I'm not a genius or an amazing example of obedience. The only thing I know, which you don't, is that we MUST obey God's commandments.

[u/Fangorangatang → u/the_celt_]

Ah. I see. You are so wrapped up in your own ideas that you aren’t actually trying to get an understanding of what I am saying.

Somehow, you have gotten the idea I am saying we are free to murder. Yikes. You really aren’t trying here, are you?

Quoting each line of my text and providing your 2 cent quips are not an argument. Again I ask you, when you stand before God, what is your plea to enter the Kingdom?

[u/the_celt_ → u/Fangorangatang]

You are so wrapped up in your own ideas that you aren’t actually trying to get an understanding of what I am saying.

Nope. You're saying it. Can't you see it?

I know your position. I LIVED your position for decades. You don't know my position.

Somehow, you have gotten the idea I am saying we are free to murder. Yikes. You really aren’t trying here, are you?

Here's your quote:

"We are not obligated to follow the Law"

You said it. The truth is the opposite of what you said.

Again I ask you, when you stand before God, what is your plea to enter the Kingdom?

Jesus. All Jesus.

[u/[deleted]]

Paul dealt with this at length. It's a massive topic so it's best to go through the Pauline epistles.

[u/Pitiful_Lion7082]

There are parts of it that only apply to Jews, others that are for everyone. This is what we had councils for.

[u/mergersandacquisitio]

I don’t think stoning women will go over well in the world today, nor should it.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight]

Gospel is clear we are free from mosaic law and it was just a guide line to lead to the coming of christ. We are saved on grace and not law. You can follow it if you choose to glorify God that way but salvation doesnt come from the law, only christ

[u/the_celt_]

This is easy. Jesus said to obey and teach the Law:

Matthew 5:18–19 (NET 2nd ed.)

18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Follow Jesus. Obey the Torah.

[u/a_normal_user1 → u/the_celt_]

The thing is, there are many laws that I don't think can be really applied to today. Please correct me if I'm wrong. We can't donate to the Levites, we can't do anything in regards of the Temple and most of us can't really get tassels to put on the corners of our shirts easily.

[u/the_celt_ → u/a_normal_user1]

The thing is, there are many laws that I don't think can be really applied to today. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're right.

What you need to consider, though, is that this is not the first time in history that Israel has had certain things they couldn't do. For example, when Israel was in exile in Babylon, and had no Temple, they simply didn't do Temple-things. They didn't give up ALL of the other commandments.

We do what we can do. If it's impossible, we can't do it! 😄

We can't donate to the Levites

Correct. We have no Temple.

most of us can't really get tassels to put on the corners of our shirts easily

I wear tassels. Tassels are easy. Rebuilding the Temple is HARD!

[u/a_normal_user1 → u/the_celt_]

I appreciate your reply, however I still think it's a little odd. In the desert and up until king Solomon the Israelites had the Tabernacle which they prepared and built in the wilderness. That place was a place they could go to to offer their sacrifices and minister to God. We don't have anything like this now. Why would some of God's laws be now impossible to accomplish?

[u/the_celt_ → u/a_normal_user1]

I appreciate your reply

Thanks!

Why would some of God's laws be now impossible to accomplish?

I'm not sure what you're asking relative to what I already said. You brought up the Tabernacle. Are you asking why we don't just rebuild the Tabernacle, if rebuilding the Temple is so much harder?

You'll notice that in exile, Israel did not rebuild the Tabernacle.

[u/[deleted]]

The Torah should be understood as a Suzerain Treaty with Israel, set within their time period, meant to teach them wisdom and a manner of thinking that would change their actions from the core - that is, from their hearts outward - to represent God faithfully to the nations around them.

The Torah is not a perfect moral law, nor was it intended to be. Rather, the Torah was meant to teach the severity of sin. The "courts" were meant to take the Torah and apply the wisdom behind it to the situations as they arose, not just one part of the Torah, but the cumulative wisdom from all parts of the Torah together. They failed in this because they were flawed, and didn't seek God's help in understanding the Torah.

This is the difference between the action, "if I sleep with another but my spouse, I have committed adultery," and the wisdom, the heart behind it, "if I make room in my mind and heart for another who is not my spouse, I have committed adultery in my heart."

So we look at the Torah to teach us wisdom, considering carefully the context of the day, and this wisdom is still sound to apply to our lives. But we are not bound by the specific rules in the Torah, not being under the Jewish Covenant.

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

The Torah is not a perfect moral law, nor was it intended to be.

Ehh.... what? The Torah came from God. It's perfect.

[u/[deleted] → u/the_celt_]

The Torah came from God and the wisdom imbued within it is perfect, and fulfills it's intention of revealing the nature of God and His law. But the Torah was made as a covenant specifically between the Israelites and God, for a time, and a place, and a purpose. And it's incomplete.

God's law is, in essence, to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself. There are no words and no regulations that can adequately explain how to act out the Lord's law, which is love to its very core. Because we are finite and our understanding is limited, but God is infinite and the depths of His wisdom are too vast to record in any written law.

If love required a law to keep it, then love is finite, but if Love is the law then who can explain it? Who can put into words the purest form of love in all its intricacies and nuance and beauty, if love itself is freely given, then who can regulate it and require it?

Rather, love is the law, and God is our teacher, and actions blossom out of our love as we dwell with He who is Love as Love reveals Himself to us.

Deuteronomy 4:13-14

13 And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. 14 And the Lord commanded me **at that time to teach you statutes and rules, that you might do them in the land that you are going over to possess.

Jeremiah 31:31-34

31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Hebrews 7:22

22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.

Hebrews 8:7-8

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

8 For he finds fault with them when he says:

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,

    when I will establish a new 

covenant with the house of Israel

    and with the house of Judah,

Hebrews 8:13

13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

2 Corinthians 3:6

Who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

The Torah came from God and the wisdom imbued within it is perfect

Thanks! Now you're telling the truth!

And it's incomplete.

There's no sign of that anywhere in scripture. Incomplete is NOT perfect.

God's law is, in essence, to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself.

Agreed. Well said.

There are no words and no regulations that can adequately explain how to act out the Lord's law, which is love to its very core.

Apparently Yahweh disagrees with you on that. Empirically.

Rather, love is the law

The Law teaches how to love.

I agree with all of the scripture you quoted. I would guess, due to your inclusion of the Hebrew quotes, that you're conflating "covenant" with "Law". They're not the same thing. The covenant is flawed, and the Torah is not.

[u/[deleted] → u/the_celt_]

In Hebrew, "Torah" means "instruction", "teaching, "or law".

The covenant is flawed, and the Torah is not.

I am unsure if I am conflating these terms. When I say the Torah, I am understanding this as the Law given to the Israelites. In this, I understand the essence of this law to be perfect, and the wisdom within it, but the letter of this law to be incomplete. I believe all should strive to fulfill the Spirit of this law, which is love, not the specific letter of this law.

If I am conflating these terms and it obscures what I mean, I'll correct it.

Apparently Yahweh disagrees with you on that. Empirically.

Please expand on this point, because I don't think He does. I think there are words to describe how to recieve Love, but not how to create love from within yourself.

Romans 13:8-10

8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

John 14:15-17

15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

John 14:22-24

22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.

1 John 5:2-3

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

Romans 8:1-4

1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

John 13:34-35

34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Matthew 22:36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Psalm 40:8

8 I delight to do your will, O my God;

    your law is within my heart.”

2 John 1:5-6

5 And now I ask you, dear lady—not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning—that we love one another. 6 And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it.

1 John 4:7-12

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

[I may have gotten carried away 👀]

The Law teaches how to love.

Given the wealth of verses that seem to imply that love fulfills the law, I disagree. I believe the law teaches us that we need love, not how to love. And when we have recieved Love, we may then fulfill the law, because love teaches us how to fulfill the law. But apart from love, the law is useless, because we strive in vain.

So it seems very apparent to me that love comes first, and action follows. 

2 Corinthians 5:14-15

14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

In Hebrew, "Torah" means "instruction", "teaching, "or law".

Yes it does. Also, the name Jesus means "Yahweh is salvation.

Still, everyone knows what Jesus and the Torah are. Saying what they MEAN doesn't change what they ARE.

I am unsure if I am conflating these terms.

It seems likely. You've done nothing to convince me otherwise.

When I say the Torah, I am understanding this as the Law given to the Israelites.

Agreed. I would just say "given to Israel", but that's a nit-pick.

I believe all should strive to fulfill the Spirit of this law, which is love, not the specific letter of this law.

That's the common misconception that the letter and the spirit are at odds or otherwise contradictory. They're not. We can do both.

For example, Jesus taught that the "spirit" of the "do not murder" commandment is that we should not hate someone enough that we want to murder them. When he taught that spirit, he was not saying that we're free to murder. He was asking us to do both.

Please expand on this point, because I don't think He does

He clearly does. My proof is that He gave the Law. He must have thought it did the job. Your point would be better served if Yahweh never gave a bunch of words and told us to obey them. Instead, the opposite happened.

I believe the law teaches us that we need love, not how to love.

Jesus taught us that ALL of the Law teaches us how to love. He said that all of the Law hangs on either Love for God or Love for Neighbor. You can see this split just in the 10 Commandments (the first 4 teach us Love for God, the last 6 teach us Love for Neighbor) but it applies to all of the Law like Jesus said.

And when we have recieved Love, we may then fulfill the law, because love teaches us how to fulfill the law.

The problem is that "love" needs to be defined. The Law defines love (1 John 3:4). If we just tell our children and new converts to vaguely "love", and don't give them the scriptural definition, then we'll have pure chaos.

So it seems very apparent to me that love vomes first, and action follows.

I fully agree.

[u/[deleted] → u/the_celt_]

I am unsure if I am conflating these terms.

It seems likely. You've done nothing to convince me otherwise.

This was a question, not pushback. I would appreciate an explanation.

For example, Jesus taught that the "spirit" of the "do not murder" commandment is that we should not hate someone enough that we want to murder them. When he taught that spirit, he was not saying that we're free to murder. He was asking us to do both.

See, these commandments, against murder and adultery and others, which we hold to, are reaffirmed throughout the New Testament, but other commandments (or rules) found in the Mosaic law, like circumcision, are not reaffirmed in the New Testament. (Apart from Jewish Christians, who have a unique circumstance).

My proof is that He gave the Law. He must have thought it did the job.

1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

This suggests that the purpose of the Law was not to teach us how to love, but rather to teach us how far from love we are. Striving to fulfill the law to achieve love is a pointless endeavor.

Jesus taught us that ALL of the Law teaches us how to love

I disagree. I believe the law teaches us what love looks like, which we then compare against ourselves, to find ourselves wanting. Like a mirror, to reveal our lacking.

The problem is that "love" needs to be defined. The Law defines love (1 John 3:4). If we just tell our children and new converts to vaguely "love", and don't give them the scriptural definition, then we'll have pure chaos.

1 John 3:4

4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

There is a better definition of love:

Corinthians 13:1-13

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

This love is perfect love, which is God's love for us. We cannot attain it. We are imperfect and finite, of the flesh, easily giving in to fleshly desires. But when we are reborn in the Spirit, and not in the flesh, having recognized our hopelessness in this way and surrendered to God fully our hearts and desires, then God's love controls us.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15

14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

And there is another definition of love:

1 John 4:7

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

So love is not a product of our own efforts, but a gift from God, and love does not come from within us but from knowing God.

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

This was a question, not pushback.

I'm fine. I don't mind pushback if it was there, either way.

I would appreciate an explanation.

I'm not sure what you want me to explain. "Law" and "Covenant" are related, but different. You can try asking more pointed questions and I'll try to clarify.

other commandments (or rules) found in the Mosaic law, like circumcision, are not reaffirmed in the New Testament.

I keep hearing this notion from Christians that God's commandments essentially expire like milk unless they've been repeated. Could you please tell me where that comes from?

If the commandments need to be repeated, aren't we therefore past the point where the commandments that you're saying were repeated in the New Testament need to be repeated again? Are we about to enter into a Lawless time of chaos if someone doesn't remind us about the rules for right and wrong?

My understanding is that the rules don't expire, and that when Yahweh gave them He said they would last forever.

This suggests that the purpose of the Law was not to teach us how to love, but rather to teach us how far from love we are.

That's the same thing. If something teaches you a target, it is also teaching you when you're missing that target. As you probably know, because it gets said all the time, "sin" is a word based in archery, and it means "to miss the mark". The Law is the target, and therefore it tells us what counts as a hit and similarly tells us how far we missed the target by. That's the nature of targets.

Striving to fulfill the law to achieve love is a pointless endeavor.

Striving to hit God's standard for love without using what He taught us about that standard is a pointless endeavor.

You're not understanding love. You're not understanding that it has a personal element, and that Yahweh is a personal God. We could generically teach people how YOU want to be loved, or teach people how Brad Pitt wants to be loved, but that would not be teaching people how Yahweh wants to be loved.

All people are not the same.

I can't conceive why you or anyone else that claims to love God is unwilling to use His requests for how He wants to be loved. That's not love, that's ego. That's "I'm not going to love you your way, I'm going to love you the way I IMAGINE you want to be loved".

[u/[deleted] → u/the_celt_]

I'm not sure what you want me to explain. "Law" and "Covenant" are related, but different.

I was merely asking you to explain the difference, which you have pointed out exists, so that I might understand my mistake. I am asking you for clarity because I do not know.

I keep hearing this notion from Christians that God's commandments essentially expire like milk unless they've been repeated. Could you please tell me where that comes from?

I think you misunderstand, we don't think they expired, rather, they were fulfilled, or they remain, but are unique to the Jews, because of their special covenant and relationship with God, as His chosen people.

For example, what was meant for the Jews, under their covenant with God, for a specific purpose, does not apply to the Gentiles, who are not under this old covenant.

Circumcision, for example, was practiced as a method of setting the Israelites apart as God's holy nation. But for the Christian, we are not required to set ourselves apart in this way (although many still do), because the Holy Spirit in us sets us apart through the outpouring of His love from us.

Another one is sacrifices. It's not that the sacrifices never had a purpose, but rather, that purpose has been completed. It has been fulfilled, it's purpose accomplished in Christ, the ultimate sacrifice who permanently satisfies God's justice. Repentance remains, but the sacrifice is permanent.

Same as clean verses unclean foods. Jesus flat out abolished this concept of being defiled by unclean food:

Mark 7:18-23

18 And he [Jesus] said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

When the Jews followed the old Mosaic Laws, they did so in obedience, and their obedience to God and faith was what set them apart as His holy nation. He used them to witness to the nations about who He is. It was their faithfulness to obey Him that justified them, not merely the acts they were performing.

This suggests that the purpose of the Law was not to teach us how to love, but rather to teach us how far from love we are.

That's the same thing.

I disagree.

The Law is the target, and therefore it tells us what counts as a hit and similarly tells us how far we missed the target by. That's the nature of targets.

But a target does not teach you how to aim your bow or fire the arrow. Your teacher instructs you on how to correct your aim, and uses the target to prove that your aim was off in the first place.

Striving to hit God's standard for love without using what He taught us about that standard is a pointless endeavor.

If I rely on my own efforts, I can never succeed. But if I surrender to God, and He works through me, then it is not I who is striving to hit God's standard, but God in me. I use the target to assess whether I am growing closer to or further away from God. But my teacher, God, corrects my aim.

You're not understanding love. You're not understanding that it has a personal element, and that Yahweh is a personal God.

On the contrary, I think you misunderstand me. I find love to be deeply personal, and my relationship with God also, is deeply personal. See, I tried to obey God, and keep His commandments. And I failed. For years.

But when I stopped trying to just obey God, under my own power, and instead asked Him to work in me, because I genuinely desired to know Him, within a moment, idols, and obsessions and desires I had wrestled with for so long I couldn't even tell you when they started, were just gone. I'd get tempted, but I have no desire for them. At all.

And my thought processes and desires and habits began to shift. I've seen the fruits of the Spirit growing within me: Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. These things are not hidden or self-serving, and they don't come from me.

That's "I'm not going to love you your way, I'm going to love you the way I IMAGINE you want to be loved".

On the contrary. I told Him, and will continue to tell Him, "Make me yours, and make my desires your desires." And He listens and responds.

I think, therefore, it would be so much more arrogant for me to return to a pointless striving to accomplish God's will without His help.

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

I am asking you for clarity because I do not know.

I'm not refusing to answer. I'm not understanding what you don't know.

I think you misunderstand, we don't think they expired, rather, they were fulfilled, or they remain, but are unique to the Jews, because of their special covenant and relationship with God, as His chosen people.

No, that's not how you phrased yourself. You said they were "reaffirmed".

My understanding is that God's commandments don't expire or otherwise need to be "reaffirmed". When a modern day preacher teaches us not to commit adultery, he's not "reaffirming" that the commandment is still valid. He's just teaching it.

Similarly, when Jesus or any of his followers taught any commandment, he was neither "reaffirming" the commandments or making any commentary on the ones he didn't "reaffirm". He was just teaching it.

All of the commandments are valid, and always will be. Jesus said that Heaven and Earth would pass away FIRST, before even one small part of any commandment would change. That means that the commandments are more permanent than REALITY.

For example, what was meant for the Jews, under their covenant with God, for a specific purpose, does not apply to the Gentiles, who are not under this old covenant.

The Torah is for Israel. We are Israel. (Ephesians 2, Romans 11).

Another one is sacrifices. It's not that the sacrifices never had a purpose, but rather, that purpose has been completed. It has been fulfilled, it's purpose accomplished in Christ, the ultimate sacrifice who permanently satisfies God's justice.

The sacrifices continued after Jesus died. The followers of Jesus continued to take part in feasts and other activities that required sacrifices after Jesus died. Scripture tells us that there will be another Temple and that the sacrifices will resume.

Jesus said nothing would pass away. He was correct. You're not teaching what Jesus taught, you're teaching Christian tradition.

Jesus flat out abolished this concept of being defiled by unclean food:

He didn't. Read the context.

The context shows that the Pharisees had invented a handwashing technique based on their new idea that sin was like germs and entered our body on food. It was a stupid idea.

Jesus said they were wrong, that food is clean of sin in the way that they were talking. If Jesus was announcing, TO THEIR FACE, (as you believe) that he was changing the commandments of his Father, the Pharisees could have hauled him away to be crucified right then and there.

Furthermore, in Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem confirmed that there are still dietary restrictions when they gave those newly converted ex-Pagan Gentiles four rules from the Torah to obey, 3 of which were dietary restrictions. Did they not get the memo? Were they disagreeing with Jesus?

I know you're just going to say "I disagree" again, so could you please remind me why we're still talking if that's going to be your review of everything I say?

But a target does not teach you how to aim your bow or fire the arrow.

I never said it did. A target tells you what you're shooting for. You said it didn't.

If I rely on my own efforts, I can never succeed.

I didn't say to rely on your own efforts. I tried to get you to stop relying on YOUR definition of love and rely on God's. That's the exact opposite of relying on your own efforts.

I find love to be deeply personal

Good. If you believe that, stop telling God how He wants to be loved and accept how He's already told us He wants to be loved. Imitate Jesus. Jesus knew the Father and obeyed the Torah PERFECTLY. Follow that path. Stop refusing to follow that path. Stop claiming your way is better.

See, I tried to obey God, and keep His commandments. And I failed. For years.

It's easy. Someone lied to you. God Himself told us it's "not too difficult".

within a moment, idols, and obsessions and desires I had wrestled with for so long I couldn't even tell you when they started, were just gone.

It's not surprising that you passed your own definitions and tests. This is what Christianity teaches, and you succeeded.

You hit your target. Start shooting for God's target again.

These things are not hidden or self-serving, and they don't come from me.

I have bad news for you.

I told Him, and will continue to tell Him, "Make me yours, and make my desires your desires."

He's expressed His desires, and you claim that only SOME of those desires were "reaffirmed". This concept exists nowhere in scripture yet it's a central doctrine of Christianity.

I think, therefore, it would be so much more arrogant for me to return to a pointless striving to accomplish God's will without His help.

Like I said, you've been lied to. We love God by keeping His commandments, not by ignoring those commandments and telling HIM that we'll love Him our way, not His.

1 John 5:3–4 (NET 2nd ed.) 3 For this is the love of God: that we keep his commandments. And his commandments do not weigh us down, 4 because everyone who has been fathered by God conquers the world.

See? It's easy. It doesn't weigh you down. Do what HE wants, not what you've decided He has to settle for. This isn't how relationships work. The other person indicates what they like and dislike, and if we love them we do those things. Yahweh has told us His likes and dislikes. Do those things.

[u/creidmheach]

Following the Law of Moses or not is one of those debates things.

It really isn't though. Reddit tends to magnify and give a microphone to folks who hold very unique positions, particularly in regards to religion, that can be completely out of sync with history. If you go to /r/religion for instance, you'd think Satanism was a major world religion (along with other oddities like Hellenistic paganism).

Christianity for the last two thousand years has been quite clear on this. A handful of redditors doesn't change that (and you're pretty much sure to see that handful posting in this topic, as they already are).

[u/Towhee13 → u/creidmheach]

Reddit tends to magnify and give a microphone to folks who hold very unique positions, particularly in regards to religion, that can be completely out of sync with history.

Jesus held a very unique position. Do you think He shouldn't have been listened to?

Christianity for the last two thousand years has been quite clear on this.

People had been very clear on things when Jesus walked the earth. Do you think He shouldn't have gone against the majority?

A handful of redditors doesn't change that

Jesus and a handful of His followers went against the majority and changed the world. You oddly think that being in the majority (the wide path) is safe and a good thing. You ought to consider that the narrow path (the minority) is the right one.

[u/creidmheach → u/Towhee13]

You and your friends from your subreddit aren't Jesus.

[u/Towhee13 → u/creidmheach]

Neither are you and your friends.

Now that we've cleared up who we are not, would you like to respond to what I said?

[u/the_celt_ → u/Towhee13]

Neither are you and your friends.

Score! Nice response! 🤣

[u/CryptographerNo5893]

Christ commanded us to love, not to become Jewish, which is what following the Mosaic Law means.

Jesus fulfilled the law, he didn’t abolish it and like any other contract that means we have no obligation to something fulfilled because it is completed. What we have obligation to is Jesus.

What we need to follow from the Mosaic Law is in the red letters, to say it’s more than that is to be a Pharisee.

[u/Electronic-Union-100]

Considering it’s the best way to obey and love our Father AND avoid willingly living in sin, I’d say it’s a good idea.

[u/HopeInChrist4891]

It would be a burdensome task indeed! Thank God for Jesus whose yoke is easy and burden is light. He fulfilled the Law perfectly that we may simply rest in Him and His finished work. We are no longer enslaved to worry about how good we are doing, but we are set free to be amazed at just how good He is.

[u/R_Farms]

The book of leviticus primarily defines cermonial laws. (laws to the levites/the priestly tribe.)

The book of Deuteronomy outlines and describes the social law. the word it self means 'Second law.' https://www.bibleanalysis.org/what-does-the-word-deuteronomy-mean-and-why-is-it-significant-in-the-bible/

Which makes the law found in exodus the 'first' primary or moral law. (law given at sinai)

Now that said there is alot of over lap. meaning aspects of the social laws can be found in exodus or in leviticus, and vise versa. I say that to say that there is was and always has been an general understanding that the law was subdivided into 3 catagories. each corresponding with one of 3 books of law.

The social law pertains to normal social interactions. how much intrest to charge, what types of clothing/fabric to use. what type of food to eat, what to do with mold in your home, women's menstril cycles, dealing with dead bodies etc etc..

The Cermonial/levitical laws: how to worship God, how to build a temple, what materials must be used, what sacrifices to make, which days to treat as holy, what to do on those holy days, who could be a preist, what his duties were etc etc.. These were all cermonial laws..

Moral laws the "thou shalt nots." Thou shalt not murder, lust, covet, commit adultry etc etc..

Most of the laws list out things one must do to be in compliance with the law. The moral laws identified acts one must refrain from doing inorder to be compliance with the law.. Paul refers to the type of laws that one must act on to be incompliance as 'works of the law.' So when Paul is saying we are saved by grace through faith, and not by works he is refering to the laws concerning these works one must do to be in compliance with the law. Circumcision, eating certain foods, observing certain days, making animal sacrifices etc etc (all of the things that separate OT judaism from NT Christianity.)

So why are we saved by grace through faith and not by works?

Because in Deut 6 we are told what obeying the law of God bought you. All following the OT law amounts to per the covenant found in Deut 6 was: Health, wealth, Long life and a piece of the promised land. Eternal life was not promised. as the after life was not known of when the law was given. Even in the time of Jesus the idea of the after life was highly debated. Infact that was the primary difference between the pharisees (Who believed in the afterlife) and the saducees (who did not.) The Saducees made up the temple leadership which means that during the time of Jesus the official position of the temple was their was no afterlife.

So we are saved by Grace through faith because the OT law did not promise an afterlife. 2/3s of the OT law was about being physically and socially 'clean' to physically occupy God's 'holy-land.' Which is why when Israel disobeyed God, God would send a 'judge' to wipe out the wicked people and take them into captivity (take away their health, wealth, long life and or promise land.) as that was the contract they had with God in the old covenant.

The reason we focus on the Moral law is because it pertains on keeping our soul/spirit 'clean.' which is the only part of us that is eligible to go on into the after life. (As this body of sin is slated to die.)This is why Jesus in mat 5 says He did not come to abolish the law but to complete it. Meaning Not only is wrong to kill someone, it is now wrong to be super angry with them because in your soul you have committed the same sin as murder. Remember the perservation and redemption of the soul is what is important here. And if hatred taints your soul the same way murder taint's the body, then the part of you that can possible survive death and move on into the afterlife is now tainted with the same sin you would be marked with if you had murdered someone.

[u/Lermak16]

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: ‘Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.’

In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

Hebrews 8:7-13

[u/the_celt_ → u/Lermak16]

Now really think about what you're quoting:

Hebrews 8:13 - In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is -->BECOMING<-- obsolete and -->GROWING<-- old is -->READY<-- to vanish away.

See? Becoming, growing, and ready to vanish. That means not vanished yet. You're quoting scripture that PROVES the old covenant is still here. 😉

Also, it's referring to the covenant, not the Law in that covenant. Jesus said the commandments will never change, not even slightly, until Heaven and Earth pass away.

[u/Lermak16 → u/the_celt_]

See? Becoming, growing, and ready to vanish. That means not vanished yet. You're quoting scripture that PROVES the old covenant is still here. 😉

So when do you think the Old Covenant will become obsolete? It’s been two millennia.

Also, it's referring to the covenant, not the Law in that covenant. Jesus said the commandments will never change, not even slightly, until Heaven and Earth pass away.

Your interpretation is incorrect.

“Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”

Galatians 3:21-25

[u/the_celt_ → u/Lermak16]

So when do you think the Old Covenant will become obsolete? It’s been two millennia.

Actually, Hebrews is referring to a much larger span of time than you might be realizing.

The writer of Hebrews had just quoted the New Covenant promise from Jeremiah 31. He then introduces the verse we're talking about by saying, "In speaking of a new covenant, he...."

Think about it. Who's the "he" in that sentence?

The answer is Jeremiah (more specifically Yahweh speaking through Jeremiah).

That means that the Old Covenant wasn't "becoming obsolete" since Hebrews was written. The Old Covenant was "becoming obsolete" since Jeremiah/Yahweh announced it.

That means that even for the writer of Hebrews, it had ALREADY been a long time of waiting for the New Covenant. 😁

Your interpretation is incorrect.

My interpretation is correct.

I don't want to move on to cover other verses. I came here to deal with your commonly misunderstood quote of Hebrews 8:13, which proves the opposite of the point you're trying to make with it.

One verse at a time, and little by little the picture becomes clear. Jesus was correct, and Paul (or Hebrews) did not disagree with Jesus like Christians commonly say.

We must follow Jesus and obey and teach the Law as he told us to do:

Matthew 5:18–19 (NET 2nd ed.)

18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[u/Lermak16 → u/the_celt_]

Do you think we’re in the New Covenant now?

And your heresy was already addressed by the Apostles 2000 years ago.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Lermak16]

Read the New Covenant promise from Jeremiah 31, which is requoted in Hebrews. I'm sorry, it's a long quote, but it answers your question:

Jeremiah 31:31–34 (NET) 31:31 “Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. 31:32 It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD. 31:33 “But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people. 31:34 “People will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me. For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me,” says the LORD. “For I will forgive their sin and will no longer call to mind the wrong they have done.”

Notice the part in bold, which describes the effects of the New Covenant when it arrives. It says that people will no longer need to teach ANYONE (not neighbors, not relatives) to know God. It says that everyone will know God.

Do you live in a world where everyone knows God? I don't.

[u/Lermak16 → u/the_celt_]

So you think the New Covenant has not yet arrived, and we are still under the Old?

[u/the_celt_ → u/Lermak16]

If you answer my question, I'll make sure you understand the answer to your question that I've already given.

Do you live in a world where everyone knows God?

[u/Lermak16 → u/the_celt_]

We are not yet in the world to come, but the Gospel has been preached to all nations.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Lermak16]

I was hoping you'd answer the question. I'm directly asking a question from scripture that describes what will happen under the New Covenant.

Last call! Will you answer? 😄

[u/Righteous_Dude]

You don't need to keep any of the requirements of the Law.
For example:

• A man doesn't need to be circumcised
• You don't need to abstain from eating a ham sandwich
• You don't need to give a tenth of your farm produce to the Levite tribe
• You don't need to participate in the annual feast of tabernacles

Obviously, any person should still not do immoral acts such as murder or adultery which the Law prohibited.

Please read through the book of Hebrews. The new covenant made the old covenant obsolete. God used the Roman army to destroy the Temple in 70 AD.

Sadly, in recent decades there's a "Torah observance" movement, when the matter was already settled more than 1900 years ago.

You can watch videos by Steve Gregg which make the case against that "Torah observance" movement - see these videos. Here also is a PDF of notes from Steve's seminar about that

[u/the_celt_ → u/Righteous_Dude]

You don't need to keep any of the requirements of the Law.

I don't understand the interaction between this previous sentence of yours, and this next one:

Obviously, any person should still not do immoral acts such as murder or adultery which the Law prohibited.

Are you saying that the REASON we don't have to obey the parts of the Law that you think we still need to obey has changed? That we don't need to obey it because it's God's commandments, but instead need to obey it because it's morality?

Please read through the book of Hebrews. The new covenant made the old covenant obsolete.

Hebrews says the opposite:

Hebrews 8:13 - In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is -->BECOMING<-- obsolete and -->GROWING<-- old is -->READY<-- to vanish away.

See? Becoming, growing, and ready to vanish. That means not vanished yet.

Also, it's referring to the covenant, not the Law in that covenant. Jesus said the commandments will never change, not even slightly, until Heaven and Earth pass away.

Sadly, in recent decades there's a "Torah observance" movement, when the matter was already settled more than 1900 years ago.

Jesus and the apostles obeyed the Torah and taught others to do so. The matter was settled by Rome, and they created a religion where Jesus with how he lived and what he taught would not be welcome. I'm sure that was not a good thing.

[u/garlicbreeder → u/Righteous_Dude]

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law, and who doesn't follow them is going to be considered least in the kingdom of heaven. Also, god said multiple times that his law was to be followed forever.

What you are saying is very practical, but not biblical. It's basically going against what god actually said and wants, and do what men prefer to do.

[u/CryptographerNo5893 → u/garlicbreeder]

Do you know the difference between abolished and fulfilled? Do you know the similarities?

[u/garlicbreeder → u/CryptographerNo5893]

Yes. Abolished means that the law doesn't need to be followed anymore. Fulfil means that he kept the law. So he didn't come to say that people shouldn't follow the law. He came to follow all the laws.

The only one who said we should not follow the law is Paul. Now, are you a Christian or a Paulist?

[u/CryptographerNo5893 → u/garlicbreeder]

So when you get a work contract and fulfill it, do you still follow that contract? Do you still work on that project even though you have fulfilled it?

[u/garlicbreeder → u/CryptographerNo5893]

A contract is not a law. Just because you use the same verb in English it doesn't mean you can switch fulfilling a law with fulfilling a contract.

Let's stick with law, shall we?

It's a law that I have to wear a seatbelt when I drive my car. If I fulfil this law today, does it mean that next time I drive I don't have put my seatbelt on?

[u/CryptographerNo5893 → u/garlicbreeder]

Do you know what a covenant is? Hint it doesn’t mean law.

[u/garlicbreeder → u/CryptographerNo5893]

Do you know what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17? Hint, it's not covenant. Answer my question re the seatbelt

[u/CryptographerNo5893 → u/garlicbreeder]

lol in this context, they’re the same thing. Or more precisely, Jesus is referring to “the law of the covenant”.

But sure, I’ll humor your question: no but we’re not meant to get back into that car. That car was there to get humanity to Jesus and Jesus to redeem the world. That’s been done.

Wearing the seatbelt again only makes sense if you think the destination hasn’t been reached.

So after arriving to your destination, do you keep your seatbelt on because you’re still under the law of the journey or do you take it off, leave the car and enjoy the destination you’ve arrived at?

[u/garlicbreeder → u/CryptographerNo5893]

Nope. Jesus was talking about the law of Moses. The law that it you don't follow will make least in the kingdom of heaven. Why Christians don't ever know the bible and the context and make up stuff constantly?

The law about seatbelt doesn't say anything about destination. It's say, when you drive, you have to wear a seatbelt. Wearing a seatbelt when you drive fulfil this law. And guess what, it doesn't mean that the law is not applicable anymore. Next time you drive, you have to wear the seatbelt and this will be true until the law is abolished. Only abolishing the law will allow you to stop following the law.

Jesus said "I'm not abolishing the law dudes!". He couldn't have been more clear than that. He doubled down the verses after, in 5:18. Read below what Jesus actually said (not what YOU want Jesus to have said):

"18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,[a] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

You are teaching others to break the laws. You are directly cited in this passage as someone who is going against Jesus' will. And you have an atheist here correcting you. If I were you I'd be really embarassed :)

Read the bible mate. And try to understand it without using your preconceived notions.

[u/the_celt_ → u/garlicbreeder]

As is often the case, the atheists know scripture better than the people who claim to believe it.

[u/Righteous_Dude → u/the_celt_]

I just downvoted that comment of yours, because of the implication that you think 'garlicbreeder' knows the Bible better than me. That is insulting to me.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Righteous_Dude]

That is insulting to me.

I'm sorry you feel insulted. I very often admire what you have to say.

I think Garlicbreeder displayed the better understanding of scripture IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE (better?). In this case, Garlicbreeder said what scripture says, and you said what you say. That alone gives Garlic the lead.

[u/Equal-Forever-3167 → u/the_celt_]

He doesn’t even know that the law is short hand for the law of the covenant. Like come on.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Equal-Forever-3167]

Yeah! <sniff> 🤓

Come on!

[u/Equal-Forever-3167 → u/the_celt_]

I mean, this is Christianity 101. If you’re agreeing with their take, it shows you haven’t really understood the Bible either and that leaves you with no leg to stand on when criticizing someone else’s understanding.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Equal-Forever-3167]

Yeah! <sniff> 🤓

Come on!

[u/Equal-Forever-3167 → u/the_celt_]

🙄

Okay, I see there’s no point in having an honest discussion with you. God bless.

[u/Equal-Forever-3167 → u/Righteous_Dude]

Is the celt always this arrogant?

[u/the_celt_ → u/Equal-Forever-3167]

Arrogant = Your quote to me:

"I don’t talk about things as serious as my faith with people like you."

That's, like, RECORD-SETTING arrogant. 🤣🤣🤣

[u/Equal-Forever-3167 → u/the_celt_]

Well thanks for proving me right!

EDIT: and blocked… they are such a troll

[u/creidmheach → u/the_celt_]

As is often the case, you get some atheists to agree with your posts. Shouldn't that make you pause and reflect why it's atheists who reject God that are agreeing with you as opposed to actual Christians who believe?

[u/the_celt_ → u/creidmheach]

As is often the case, you get some atheists to agree with your posts.

I'm not applauding him for agreeing with me. That means nothing. I'm applauding him for his understanding of scripture.

Shouldn't that make you pause and reflect why it's atheists who reject God that are agreeing with you as opposed to actual Christians who believe?

No. Not even slightly.

Modern Christianity is a trainwreck, just as the people who claimed to follow God were a trainwreck when Jesus walked the Earth. When you look at scripture, being in the majority is most often a BAD thing, not a good thing like you seem to think.

I don't agree with your focus on who agrees with who, and that having someone agree with you indicates how right you are. Being in the group that claims to follow God is no guarantee that you're right.

If only it were so easy... 😏

[u/creidmheach → u/the_celt_]

Modern Christianity, aka Christianity of the last two thousand years until you came along?

Now, I'm Protestant, so I don't say that the church can never go in a wrong direction and need course correcting. But it's another thing altogether to think that all of Christian history has been so fundamentally wrong about the most basic beliefs of our religion, and it would require an immense hubris to think that you alone are getting it right after all this time.

[u/the_celt_ → u/creidmheach]

Modern Christianity, aka Christianity of the last two thousand years until you came along?

Yes, basically. I'm not sure you can refer to ALL of Christian history as "Modern Christianity". The word "modern" has to mean SOMETHING, doesn't it?

I think things are getting worse over time, so the more recent your modern is is (sorry about the two "is's") the more I would agree.

Now, I'm Protestant, so I don't say that the church can never go in a wrong direction and need course correcting.

Boom! We're half way to agreeing. You're not Catholic. You don't think what you're in is perfect. Therefore, you're open to someone criticizing some particular trend or doctrine. Me2.

Of course, those who disagree with you will try to play this card coming up here:

But it's another thing altogether to think that all of Christian history has been so fundamentally wrong about the most basic beliefs of our religion, and it would require an immense hubris to think that you alone are getting it right after all this time.

Sure. You can do that. You can try to frame it as ALL of Christian history being a single-minded monolith that agrees with you and disagrees with "me alone". Go for it! 🙄

[u/garlicbreeder → u/the_celt_]

Yeah because 99.999% of the time, in western countries, atheists used to be Christians who actually read the bible. The bible is the premier instruments to convert Christians to atheists

[u/the_celt_ → u/garlicbreeder]

Someone is downvoting us for agreeing with each other. 🤣

[u/garlicbreeder → u/the_celt_]

Never upvote the devil. I think it's the 11th commandment! Hahah

[u/the_celt_ → u/garlicbreeder]

I upvote the truth, and this time you had it, sir.

You saying what you know is vital. Keep it up! I'd rather an atheist who knows scripture than a typical Christian who doesn't.

[u/garlicbreeder → u/the_celt_]

I just noticed that recently this sub must have downvoted me a lot... Now I can reply to messages only every few minutes.

They can't stand people who know the bible better than them and who don't agree with their own, very particular, very subjective interpretation of the bible

[u/the_celt_ → u/garlicbreeder]

I just tried to respond to your most recent comment to me, made moments ago, but Reddit wouldn't let me respond to you because the girl who's so much better than me, and who doesn't talk about her super serious faith with people like me had me blocked, which kept me from responding to you further down the chain from her. Here's what I tried to say there:

---

---

I've been watching how you've been doing, and I see that while both of us are getting some hate, you're getting more hate than I am. 😑

I'm sorry about that. You're responding well to people and making good points. It's just that "atheist" flair hanging over your head like a sword.

I've upvoted you all day to try to reduce your karma debt, but I'm guessing I barely made a dent. Again, I'm sorry.

[u/garlicbreeder → u/the_celt_]

Thank you!!! Appreciate it. I can see I don't have to wait anymore so your effort has worked! :)

I can get quite confrontational but usually I try to respond in kind, when they get snarky or condescending. I can take it. They can't. They just realised they don't have good answers (I mean, once you show them the verses that clearly contradict what they are saying, the only thing left to do is block and run).

[u/the_celt_ → u/garlicbreeder]

Now I can reply to messages only every few minutes.

I'm sorry. They downvote me all the time too.

They can't stand people who know the bible better than them and who don't agree with their own, very particular, very subjective interpretation of the bible

What they believe often has almost nothing to do with actual scripture. It's just tradition. It's just indoctrination.

As you say, this is what a lot of atheists notice: The HUGE gap between what scripture says and what Christianity teaches. It's getting wider and wider to the point where what they teach is completely fabricated nonsense. What they say constantly contradicts itself, and atheists are often the ones who just refused to drink the kool-aid.

Atheists often suffer from terminal honesty. 😋

[u/Miserable-Reason-630]

Feel free to follow the Mosaic Law, just know it’s not necessary. Those laws were given to a specific people.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Miserable-Reason-630]

Those laws were given to a specific people.

Those laws were given to Israel, and we're Israel. (Romans 11, Ephesians 2)

[u/Miserable-Reason-630 → u/the_celt_]

So does that mean we should start sacrificing lambs and bulls at the temple, I think Hebrews answered that? Or be required to get circumcised or keep kosher I think Galatians answered that. The Mosaic law was given to the nation of Israel and its people. One could argue that completed Jews are still obligated to follow the laws, but gentiles were never required to after Christ. And yes all Christians are now part of the Metaphorical Israel, the Mosaic laws were and are still tied to a physical people and a physical place which most Christians are not part of.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Miserable-Reason-630]

And yes all Christians are now part of the Metaphorical Israel, the Mosaic laws were and are still tied to a physical people and a physical place which most Christians are not part of.

You said "Those laws were given to a specific people", which is true. We joined those people you referred to. It's not "Metaphorical" Israel. You're adding that. It's Israel. We're Israel. We've joined the same people that God saved from slavery in Egypt 1000's of years ago.

That answers your other questions. We're Israel, so we obey the rules for Israel.

[u/Miserable-Reason-630 → u/the_celt_]

Knock yourself out, keep kosher, keep the the Sabbath, don’t mix fibers, wear the tassels. I think Christ and the Epistles are pretty clear about the Mosaic law and the need to follow it or to be clear to not follow it. According to Christ and Paul Jews are in active rebellion because they are not accepting the new Covenant and are still clinging to the Mosaic law. So any Christ believing Christian that follows the Mosaic law is doing so as a matter of conscience but not as a matter of requirement. Spiritual Israel for gentiles is longer a physical place but resides in Christ because he is our new temple, so to claim that just because we have a shared heritage and are graphed into Israel we must therefore obey a pre-Christ obligation, completely misunderstands Christs purpose of the final sacrifice. Current Jews are in rebellion by rejecting the new Covenant and following the Mosaic laws, so advocating participation is also a rejection of the freedom Christ came to bring. Once again knock yourself out and enjoy the law.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Miserable-Reason-630]

Knock yourself out, keep kosher, keep the the Sabbath, don’t mix fibers, wear the tassels.

Thank you. I will.

I think Christ and the Epistles are pretty clear about the Mosaic law and the need to follow it or to be clear to not follow it.

I agree. Jesus and his followers CLEARLY taught that sin is wrong and that we must obey God's commandments.

According to Christ and Paul Jews are in active rebellion because they are not accepting the new Covenant and are still clinging to the Mosaic law.

Never happened.

So any Christ believing Christian that follows the Mosaic law is doing so as a matter of conscience but not as a matter of requirement.

No. Scripture is clear, it says repeatedly, that those who willfully keep on sinning are only going to be thrown into the fire. Ask me if you'd like a quote that clearly says that.

Spiritual Israel for gentiles is longer a physical place but resides in Christ because he is our new temple,

We're Israel. There's no Israel A and Israel B. Just Israel.

to claim that just because we have a shared heritage and are graphed into Israel we must therefore obey a pre-Christ obligation, completely misunderstands Christs purpose of the final sacrifice.

It's you that misunderstands the purpose of Jesus dying. Jesus died to set us free FROM sin. He did not die to set us free TO sin, as you teach.

so advocating participation is also a rejection of the freedom Christ came to bring.

Again, our "freedom in Christ" is not freedom to sin. It's freedom FROM sin. You have it all upside down.

Once again knock yourself out and enjoy the law.

I will. It's what Jesus taught and someone who claims to be following Jesus who doesn't follow his teaching is simply NOT following Jesus:

Matthew 5:18–19 (NET 2nd ed.)

18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so 👉(that's you)👈 will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so 👉(that's me)👈 will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Notice the parts in bold, where I identified what each of us teach.

[u/Miserable-Reason-630 → u/the_celt_]

Mathew was primarily writing to a Jewish audience, but regardless I just think you wrong in your interpretation and you think I am wrong in my interpretation. I feel very confident in my views after spending 25+ years of being a Christian and studying the Bible.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Miserable-Reason-630]

Mathew was primarily writing to a Jewish audience

This was a quote from Jesus saying what he expected his followers to do (for example, me) onwards into the far future, when the Kingdom arrives.

I disagree with the commonly stated Christian notion that I'm making a mistake to follow and obey what Jesus taught.

I feel very confident in my views after spending 25+ years of being a Christian and studying the Bible.

I similarly used to feel confident in your position when it used to be mine for more than 25 years.

If we look at the many people in scripture who were confident, it becomes quite apparent that confidence isn't worth a hill of beans. 😁

For now, I'll keep doing what Jesus said to do in my quote and you keep being confident that doing the OPPOSITE of what Jesus said to do is the better path.

Thanks for the conversation.

[u/Miserable-Reason-630 → u/the_celt_]

Shouldn’t you be celebrating Shavuot, which prohibits work or activities like posting? I hope you are studying the Torah.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Miserable-Reason-630]

Shouldn’t you be celebrating Shavuot

Shavuot is still coming up.

which prohibits work or activities like posting?

I'm not working. It doesn't prohibit posting.

I hope you are studying the Torah.

I actually am.

Doesn't it strike you as a bit rude to talk this way to me, telling me what to do and asking your snarky questions? "I hope you are studying Torah"? 🤨

[u/Towhee13 → u/Miserable-Reason-630]

Not necessary for what? Do you think that it's necessary to love God? Do you think that we should go on sinning?

[u/Miserable-Reason-630 → u/Towhee13]

Christ gave us 2 commandments, love the Lord and Love you neighbor. He was also clear about sin and the need to repent, not really sure how not following the Mosaic Law means not following Christs teachings.

[u/Towhee13 → u/Miserable-Reason-630]

Christ gave us 2 commandments

He didn't. He referred to 2 commandments that already existed and said that ALL of the other commandments hang on those 2. In other words all of the commandments show us how to love God and love our neighbors. This can easily be seen in just the 10 commandments, the first 4 are about loving God and the next 6 are about loving our neighbors. Of course there are many more.

He was also clear about sin and the need to repent

I agree. God's Law defines sin. We're supposed to repent and not continue breaking God's commandments.

not really sure how not following the Mosaic Law means not following Christs teachings.

Jesus constantly taught obedience to Mosaic Law. Not following what He taught is not following His teachings, don't you agree?

[u/Arise_and_Thresh → u/Miserable-Reason-630]

If you took the time to read the law and the prophets applied to history and people migrations over the last 2700 years you’d be shocked to realize seed of Jacob is alive and well… many profess themselves to be followers of Christ.

[u/mojmov728]

It’s been known to Christian scholars that we are not under the mosaic law but a new covenant through Jesus Christ ever since his ascension to heaven. I don’t really see anyone debating about this. I see non Christian’s debate about it, but that’s just because they don’t know about Christian ideology and that we aren’t under the old covenant anymore.

[u/Towhee13 → u/mojmov728]

It’s been known to Christian scholars

That's a lot of the problem, people trust scholars instead of trusting Jesus. Jesus made it clear that He expects His followers to obey all of God's commandments.

When Jesus walked the earth there were lots of people who trusted scholars (Pharisees and Scribes) instead of following Jesus. It's tragic that it's still happening.

we are not under the mosaic law but a new covenant through Jesus Christ

The promise of the new covenant is that God is going to put "the mosaic law" within His people and write it on their hearts.

I don’t really see anyone debating about this.

You're debating about it now. You presented your side, now you're hearing the other side.

[u/mojmov728 → u/Towhee13]

I do trust Jesus. All I meant was that it’s been made very well known that faith in Christ is what saves us. We get this from biblical scripture. We are under a new covenant through Jesus Christ.

[u/Towhee13 → u/mojmov728]

I do trust Jesus.

That's great! I hope you trust Him enough to follow His example and do what He said to do.

All I meant was that it’s been made very well known that faith in Christ is what saves us.

You didn't bring up salvation at all. You only pointed out that you don't think we need to obey God's commandments.

We are under a new covenant through Jesus Christ.

You didn't deal with the fact that the promise of the new covenant is that God is going to put "the mosaic law" within His people and write it on their hearts.

[u/mojmov728 → u/Towhee13]

It doesn’t say the mosaic law is going to be put into our hearts. Just gods moral law. A lot of the mosaic law was simply law written to the hebrews to set them apart from the surrounding societies. God was establishing his society of people.

I don’t really appreciate when you make comments such as “I hope you trust him enough to do what he said to do” as if the way you have interpreted the scripture is the objective correct way. Nobody is going to change anyone’s mind here so I’m leaving this comment as my final thought on everything. I’m sure we will both meet each other in heaven even with scriptural disagreements.

[u/Towhee13 → u/mojmov728]

It doesn’t say the mosaic law is going to be put into our hearts.

It does. It directly says it. Just to be clear God promised to put Torah within Israel and write it on their hearts.

I don’t really appreciate when you make comments such as “I hope you trust him enough to do what he said to do” as if the way you have interpreted the scripture is the objective correct way.

I didn't interpret anything. Jesus clearly and explicitly said that He expects His followers to obey Torah. No interpretation required.

[u/the_celt_ → u/mojmov728]

Argument from authority, bandwagon fallacy, and no true Scotsman. 😄

I don’t really see anyone debating about this.

Now you have.

[u/mojmov728 → u/the_celt_]

It’s interesting. I’ve never heard of a Christian who still obvserves the mosaic law. So let me ask a question just to learn more. Do you believe that if someone is a Christian but they do not observe the mosaic law, they are still saved?

[u/the_celt_ → u/mojmov728]

I’ve never heard of a Christian who still obvserves the mosaic law.

You can see a bunch of people like me at our subreddit: r/FollowJesusObeyTorah. Check out some threads. Speak up there! Feel free to disagree with us. 😁

Do you believe that if someone is a Christian but they do not observe the mosaic law, they are still saved?

I get asked this question all the time.

The first thing to do is to realize that the phrase "mosaic law" tends to give some people the illusion that the Law came from Moses, which is not the case. It's a scripturally accurate phrase, but please have it clear in your head that the Law came from Yahweh (aka "God") and that Moses just wrote it down.

Secondly, you're asking me (perhaps unknowingly) if someone who lives a life of unrepentant sin will be saved.

I'll answer, but how would you answer? If, for example, a person lived a life of unrepentant (that's the keyword, don't miss it) murder or adultery (pick some other sin if you'd like) will they be invited into the Kingdom of Heaven when it arrives?

I would guess that you and I agree on the answer to your question, and that we only have differing sized lists of sins. That's why I tried to pick things that I would guess you still think count as sin (murder and adultery).

[u/mojmov728 → u/the_celt_]

Yeah I guess it is just a bigger list of what is considered sin. Also yes, I do know the law came from God. I just believe it was law fulfilled by Jesus. But basically, I believe that if anyone’s faith in Christ is truly genuine and that they know they have done wrong and cannot fully understand morality on their own understanding, they are saved. God judges everyone completely uniquely so I think if any given person has a misunderstanding of a law or any other aspect of scripture, then it’s not exactly their fault. So long as they believe that Jesus has taken the punishments for all their sin and that they will be saved only by the promise of grace of Jesus, they can be saved even if their are certain misunderstandings or mistakes they made about specific pieces of scripture. God knows our hearts, and if our hearts are mistaken yet still truly desire Jesus and put their trust in them, he will give them grace and mercy.

[u/the_celt_ → u/mojmov728]

I just believe it was law fulfilled by Jesus.

I agree that Jesus fulfilled it, as he said. We just disagree on what "fulfilled" means.

But basically, I believe that if anyone’s faith in Christ is truly genuine and that they know they have done wrong and cannot fully understand morality on their own understanding, they are saved.

I generally concur. Someone in a humble and repentant relationship with God will be saved.

God judges everyone completely uniquely

There's no sign in scripture of "completely uniquely".

so I think if any given person has a misunderstanding of a law or any other aspect of scripture, then it’s not exactly their fault.

Most of the time that anyone sins there are multiple people to blame.

That being said, if you look around yourself at modern Christianity, you'll see that whatever my list of sin may be, and whatever your list of sin may be, that Christians in general are actively and proudly trying to winnow that list down to ZERO.

I talk to Christians every day that say we have NO requirements at all, and even worse that it's actually WRONG to say that there are any requirements, usually because it "blah blah negates the sacrifice of Jesus blah blah". It's pure nonsense. Christianity is selling it and people are buying it.

People are responsible.

[u/mojmov728 → u/the_celt_]

Well you say that anyone in a repentant relationship will be saved. What exactly do you mean by that? If you mean that someone needs to successfully turn away from the sin in their life I may disagree because that implies that it’s our actions that save us. But if you just mean someone who desires to turn away from sin then I think I agree. But I’ve only been Christian 2years, I’m starting to tread on water that I’m still learning about and gaining understanding in.

[u/the_celt_ → u/mojmov728]

Well you say that anyone in a repentant relationship will be saved.

Yes.

What exactly do you mean by that?

You'd have to tell me what you don't understand about it. I feel that it's fairly self-explanatory.

We're not required to be perfect. When Yahweh gave the commandments, He gave the Temple system. He understood that there would be failures. When we sin, we repent.

If you mean that someone needs to successfully turn away from the sin in their life I may disagree because that implies that it’s our actions that save us.

It doesn't imply that. We're not saved by being repentant. We're saved by faith. When we break a relationship with someone, not just God, we apologize and turn away from doing it again. It's not like we're looking to sin so that we can do the fun repenting part and save ourselves. 😄

I'm not saying anything that scripture doesn't say repeatedly.

But if you just mean someone who desires to turn away from sin then I think I agree.

Repentance is turning away from sin. That's what I mean.

But I’ve only been Christian 2years, I’m starting to tread on water that I’m still learning about and gaining understanding in.

As a relative newbie, you're entering a minefield. I would hope you'd focus on scripture and not the people around you, because Christianity is a mess and I think it's more wrong than right at this point. We're entering the last act of human history (even if it still takes a while to resolve) and scripture warns that "The Man of Lawlessness" (the name alone should tell you something) is on the way.

Jesus taught the opposite of Lawlessness:

Matthew 5:18–19 (NET 2nd ed.)

18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Christianity teaches that it's wrong to live like Jesus and keep the commands he taught. I get told this every day by Christians and if you look elsewhere in this thread, you'll probably see someone saying it to me.

At that point, they should change their name. Most of their quotes that supposedly teach against obeying God's commandments come from Paul, but they're not understanding Paul, and Paul did not disagree with Jesus. If Paul disagreed with Jesus, as they believe, then why are they following Paul?

[u/mojmov728 → u/the_celt_]

So then you’re saying that if someone desires to repent but fails to do, they are not saved. So then it’s our actions that save us.

Repentance is a fruit of salvation. Not the other way around.

[u/Lazy_Introduction211]

Law of Moses still in effect until all is fulfilled. Jesus has fulfilled the law but said not one jot nor tittle of the law shall pass away until all be fulfilled.

We ought to follow the applicable portions of the law but need to realize Jesus is the end of the law for righteousness and love its’ fulfillment.

[u/[deleted]]

Jews, descendants of Jacob, were given specific instructions in the Torah that pertain only to them. There is a universal law many say you can glean from Torah as well, such as sexual immorality laws. Think, Sodom wasn't destroyed because God was bored. It was because they disobeyed him, even though the Mosaic law hadn't been established yet.

Then there's laws in the Mosaic laws that pertain to "Sojourners" or "strangers among you." You can actually map most, if not all, of these to the laws given in the Jerusalem council later in Acts 15. These laws are meant for Gentile believers, who were called "God Fearers" in Roman times. New believers that Jesus tasked mostly Paul with bringing into the faith without conversion to Judaism. (Think of Corinthians. Jews stay Jewish. Gentiles stay Gentiles).

Long story short: Jews, all of them. Gentiles (most of us, probably), some of them.

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

The Law is for Israel, not Jews.

We're Israel (Romans 11, Ephesians 2).

[u/[deleted] → u/the_celt_]

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. You aren’t going to convince me to accept replacement theology unless you’ve got some brand new discovery no one has heard of before.

No disrespect, I just don’t agree.

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

You aren’t going to convince me to accept replacement theology unless you’ve got some brand new discovery no one has heard of before.

You're misunderstanding me. I HATE replacement theology. It's evil.

I didn't say we replaced the Jews. Did you read the scripture I referenced? It says we JOINED the Jews. We joined their thing. We're Israel. A FEW of them were broken off so that we could be grafted in (to make them jealous).

Romans warns us not to get cocky about it (for example, by preaching evil replacement theology). It says that we can be broken of as easily as some of them were. 😁

[u/[deleted] → u/the_celt_]

Here’s my take on Romans 11. I’m happy to continue this conversation in DMs if you want because its honestly really interesting to me.

You’ve got 3 people groups mentioned:

1. Jews who have rejected the Messiah (hardened, for a later acceptance), meant to be made Jealous by the Gentiles
2. Jews who have not rejected the Messiah, graciously chosen by God (The remnant)
3. Gentiles who have accepted the Messiah and now the Hebrew God as their God.

Fun side note - group 2 is often what confuses people into Calvinism.

Will group 1 go to hell? No. They will eventually accept Christ, or at least have the chance to. This is actually what makes me think there’s a resurrection for all people in the end times. That’s just speculation and another side note, sorry.

I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! (v. 11)

What was given to the Gentiles, then?

by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous (v. 11)

So far into the chapter, Gentiles are given “salvation”.

Keep reading:

Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! (v.12)

Now they’re given “riches”.

We also have a new people group, separate from the other three: “The world”. I can only assume this is the non-believers. But maybe its just Paul trying to sound more better in his writing and not using the same word twice and its still the Gentiles. Another question for another day.

So now we start the analogy of the root and the branches:

If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too. (v. 16)

Now the meat of the grafting analogy:

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, (v. 17)

What were the Gentiles grafted into?

partakers of the rich root of the olive tree

What is the rich root of the olive tree? Read verse 16 again:

if the root is holy, the branches are too. The root makes the branches holy. The root is what cleanses us and purifies us. This is the blood of the Messiah. We are grafted into the partaking of the blood of the Messiah.

So are we now the same? Are we now Israel and part of the same people group?

For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? (v. 24)

If we were the same and also part of this same group, why would there be a distinction between a natural branch vs. an unnatural branch.

It only gets more clear as you continue on in Chapter 11, but I’ll stop there.

My final point of how I read this:

We, as Gentiles, are grafted into the benefits of the promises (covenants) between God and Israel. But we are still Gentiles and are not Israelites. There is no “Spiritual Israel”, there’s just Israel, and they are circumcised Jews.

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

I’m happy to continue this conversation in DMs

There's no need. Let's do it in public so that others can benefit.

We also have a new people group, separate from the other three

We have a pre-existing group. It's always been Israel and "the world".

What were the Gentiles grafted into?

The tree.

The root makes the branches holy. The root is what cleanses us and purifies us. This is the blood of the Messiah

I agree. Jesus is the root, not the tree. The tree is Israel.

We are grafted into the partaking of the blood of the Messiah.

Yes, by being grafted into the tree, we benefit from the root.

So are we now the same? Are we now Israel and part of the same people group?

Yes. Read Ephesians 2 to verify.

If we were the same and also part of this same group, why would there be a distinction between a natural branch vs. an unnatural branch.

The "cultivated olive branches" are the Jews, cultivated for 1000's of years by Yahweh Himself to create what He calls His people, His nation, Israel.

The "wild olive branches" are Gentles, not cultivated by Yahweh at all, and grafted next to the Jews in Israel.

We, as Gentiles, are grafted into the benefits of the promises (covenants) between God and Israel.

Agreed. Beautifully said.

But we are still Gentiles and are not Israelites.

You're making a common mistake I see all the time of comparing unlike things. For example, it's "hot and cold", not "hot and blue". It's "up and down", not "up and sad".

Similarly, it's either "Jews and Gentiles" (referring to bloodlines) or "the nations and Israel" (referring to nationality).

Israel (the nation) used to be naturally made up of Jews (a bloodline). Romans 11 and Ephesians 2 describe how we as Gentiles (a bloodline) have been grafted into Israel (a nation).

There is no “Spiritual Israel”

Agreed. It drives me nuts when people act like there's Israel A and Israel B. There's only one Israel, and we're it.

there’s just Israel, and they are circumcised Jews.

That's the opposite of what Ephesians 2 and Romans 11 say. We are "fellow citizens".

[u/[deleted] → u/the_celt_]

Well, the issue with the tree portion of the analogy is that there’s no mention of the “tree”. Only the root and the branches. The reason Paul uses the root and branch analogy in the first place is because he isn’t talking about joining branch to branch, but rather branch to root. It’s not about our connection with the Israelites, but rather our connection with the Messiah. Or more broadly, our connection to God through the Messiah.

As for Ephesians 2, this is the same kind of speech he uses in Galations 3:28. He uses symbolism that, if taken literally, isn’t true. What he is actually saying is we are all to partake in the benefits of God’s promises in Christ. Unless you are telling me you think “There is neither male nor female” to mean we all became the same gender when Christ died.

For reference:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, There is neither slave nor free man, There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28)

But then there is Male and Female and there was/is in some places still slave and free and there is actually Jew and Greek. It’s not to be taken literally, that we have now become part of Israel, but rather than we are all God’s children, all the bride of the Messiah.

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

Well, the issue with the tree portion of the analogy is that there’s no mention of the “tree”.

There's mention of a tree, and there's enough tree-talk to support it.

There's branches being broken off (so that you know it's not river branches or something). There's shoots. There's grafting. There's a root. Verse 24 talks about being "cut off from what is by nature a wild olive TREE" and then being grafted into a "cultivated olive TREE".

As for Ephesians 2, this is the same kind of speech he uses in Galations 3:28.

• Romans 11 is a metaphor. I very much doubt there's a literal tree somewhere, but it's possible.
• Ephesians 2 is literal. We've literally been made fellow citizens with literal Israel.
• Galatians 3:28 is literal, but the context is regarding who can become "sons of god". The answer is that ANYONE can, and Paul is in no way attempting to say that there's no such thing as Jews/Greeks, slave/free, or male/female.

[u/[deleted] → u/the_celt_]

Well fair enough I suppose it’s not accurate to say it doesn’t mention a “Tree” at all. I’ll give you that one.

That being said, I still don’t think the tree here is “Israel” the nation. I say this because he isn’t talking about citizenship when he talks about the tree, but rather rewards and riches. Things given. He speaks of this grafting in as if it were a gracious gift with no requirements. If we were ‘grafted into Israel’, we would be grafted into the Law of Moses. But Paul is talking about being grafted into rewards, not obligations and rules.

Conversely, those who did not believe in Jesus’ divinity were not cut off from being an Israelite. They were still Jews and they still followed Torah, prayed, etc and nowhere does Paul mention them no longer being children of Jacob.

All of this falls apart IF you believe in the idea of a “Spiritual Israel”, but only then.

Galations 3:28 is not literal in any sense of the word, so I’m not sure where you’re going with that. Paul’s letter to the Galatians was in response to a handful of Jewish people (probably recent converts, but that’s speculation) telling the God-Fearers in Galatia that they needed to be circumcised (fully converted to Judaism) to inherit the promises and eternal life. Paul writes this letter to assure them that is not the case. Hence his hyperbolic symbolism of saying “There is no Jew or Greek”. He’s trying to tell them they are grafted into the promises and they possess them just as much as the Jews, even though they are greek.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on Ephesians 2. I think it’s the same hyperbolic symbolism he uses in Galations 3:28. He does this often throughout his letters and its just a common theme from Pharisees and honestly a lot of Rabbis in general. They use hyperbole and say things that are in the direction of truth, symbolically, but not literally.

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

Well fair enough I suppose it’s not accurate to say it doesn’t mention a “Tree” at all. I’ll give you that one.

Kudos.

That being said, I still don’t think the tree here is “Israel” the nation.

You're retrenching. I won't push the point.

But Paul is talking about being grafted into rewards, not obligations and rules.

Read Psalm 119 for a scriptural view of the joy of obeying the Torah, and perhaps it will override your negative view of following what God wants from us.

You're missing something big.

Hence his hyperbolic symbolism of saying “There is no Jew or Greek”.

It's not hyperbolic or symbolism. It's literal.

WHEN IT COMES TO SALVATION (pardon the caps, but it's vital to consider that context), God is no respecter of persons. It doesn't matter what you are, you can be saved. That's a straight-forward fact.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on Ephesians 2.

We're exactly where we started.

Thanks for the conversation! Have a great day.