Does Jesus bring a new Torah with the New Covenant?

[Ne'arYah]

Quote:I am of the view that very little of the prophets,if any, remain to be fulfilled.We have some threads that deal with this topic and I'll see if I can find some of them for you to save myself retyping everything out.

As to the where Matthew 5:17-18 says
.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

It is referring there to both the law and prophets in respect of endorsing their validity.He wasn’t to put aside the Prophets or Law as irrelevant or go against them.He was the fulfillment of what the two had pointed to.
In verse eighteen we see that the Law (note He says just law not law and prophets) wil pass away and this would be once what they pointed to was fulfilled.Once Christ came suffered ,died and resurrected they were fulfilled.

In respect to your view I wanted to point out a few things. Once again I thank you for responding. It helps me see where I maybe wrong and etc. Let’s re-read this once more starting with verse 17. The key to verse 18 is a small known secret only given to a chosen few, it’s called reading verse 17 J Just joking but seriously, if we take what you’re saying as accurate then you simply made Jesus double talk over himself, yet alone cut off 366 passages of the new testament that are a result of the law being handed over to the proselyte believer through quotation from the old. I’ll continue after your next paragraph, because it speaks more as to what we see being mentioned here in 17 and 18.

Quote:Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.





Joh 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

So what you’ve just present us with was the full meaning of what he was teaching the people in Matthew 5:17-18. We now see Yahushua explaining himself through the law and prophets “concerning him,” which is what I mentioned yesterday if you re-read my comments.

I hate doing this because it comes across like I’m trying to prove you wrong, but notice in Luke 24:44 how your position of him only referencing the law being fulfilled falls apart. He plainly explains “himself” according to the law and “the prophets”. So this would tell us through simple comprehension that we cannot detach the two because some man decided to label one verse 17, and the other 18 in reference to Matthew 5:17-18. I want to keep in mind what you gave me to believe you think…

Quote:He was the fulfillment of what the two had pointed to.

Yesterday I tried to explain myself quickly by stating that in Matthew 5:17 he tells the people until “all” the law and “ALL” the prophets are fulfilled, and for the record here is where we differ. This goes beyond what he accomplished the first time around when we include the term “all.” At this point (today) he has fulfilled the portion containing to him being the Sacrifice, priest, and etc. We know he couldn’t have fulfilled the full meaning of “ALL” the feast because we haven’t gone through judgment to get his full-imputed righteousness. Nor have we seen or heard the last trump blow signaling us that our Messiah has come.

As far as prophecies go that are not complete you can start where we begin. Have the nations become one again? Has Jer 31 been fulfilled completely? Has the anti-Christ come to do the temple wrong according to Ezk 44 through – nearly 7 chapters of reading? Has Jesus rightfully come back as the King of Kings lord of Lords to claim his people, which is to be written on his thigh according to Revelations? Mind you this is what we see taking place in the book of Revelations, that started back in the Prophets)? I don’t want to get on a straw man’s kick, so let us look at some who we should be able to agree knew better than you or I.
So when they had come together, they asked Him, "Lord, at this time are You restoring the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or periods that the Father has set by His own authority (Acts 1:6-7)

I’ve brought us into the story after the cross- Yet we “still” have the disciples asking him about fulfilling all that was mention in prophecy about him. Let us not forget, as you’ve explained, he walked with them for 40 days explaining himself through the law and the prophets. So why this question - and more importantly why did Yahushua answer in the manner that he did (rhetorical question). Yahushua knew his role of what he has and have not fulfilled, and answered them correctly. He told them that he didn’t even know when the time would be because that is not up to him, it’s up to the Father, and only he knows.

On a side note: This is why most if not every single Jew found in Judaism doesn’t believe in Jesus. They fill that his coming for his people was going to be in one big motion not two. However, if one studies the feast days they can see clearly that there are a gap in the feast, which have been fulfilled and those that have not. Knowing that he is the substance of those things leads to the understanding that he will complete the other feast days like (atonement) making us full of his imputed righteousness and more in that time.
The very reason why I use Luke 16:17 over Matthew 5:17-18 is because it leaves no wiggle room for misconception. It tells you everything I’m saying without taking the reader with ways to work around it, well at least believe they can work around it.

Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter in the law to drop out.


The point I’m pointing too is that his aim in Matthew 5:17-18 was not about only the law. It was about the whole pie as he explained in verse 17. To our privilege we have the fact that he didn’t complete all the prophets because I’m teaching you today about Yah, and your teaching me (Jer 31:33-37). More importantly we see that even after his resurrection he admits to not fulfilling “all” the prophets; however, he does explain to them that he fulfilled all things concerning him, in reference to him being the HaMashyiach (the Messiah). This is from the horse’s mouth, not my opinion. In order for you to be correct we would need to rip-out Acts 1 and replace a few words. Then go back in the Old Testament, and remove the temple to be built and a great deal more of scripture that links us to the end-time events. You may as well take the spirit (Ruach) away as well because the other half to that is that we are to be in the land.

Quote:Nearyah if we really were bound to the laws of Moses do you not think God would have provided a way of keeping them…ie retained the priesthood Temple etc.If we were really bound then all of us would be in sin for so many jots and titles that we'd be missing.

This sounds like a trick question but I’ve played the role of bait before… I don’t mind.

Yes.


What you ask can be answered by going back in the many times the temple was destroyed. When the temple was destroyed did they simply remove the 221 laws that were associated with how to operate in it. Or did they reserve them so that when those called Ezra and Nehemiah would come and rebuild it, they would know what to do. When they rebuilt the city, they continued in the way of Yah fully. Furthermore, we see his feast being kept clearly before the law was even given to the Levites specifically outside the land (Exodus 12:14) each person did the slaying of their own lamb and so on. I’m thinking of the story of David keeping the feast outside of the city, but I cannot think of its address biblically. If I can before the day is out I’ll give you that scripture for research.

Quote:Yet another point, is Jesus not affirming there in the Matthew verse the word of God as standing forever?
Jeremiah who promised a "new " covenant " (because the old one Israel broke) is as much a part of what Jesus affirmed .So to me that verse cannot be used to say that we are still under Mosaic covenant and law. Jesus didn’t say just the Law, he said the Law and the Prophets, which include Jeremiah and his promise to make a New Covenant.
If we say that the Mosaic Laws and covenant will always be in force how does Jeremiahs prophecy get fulfilled?

I think most of what I already offered explains your final point above. However, I want to comment on something that I feel you did by the way you word your point. I often answer your last question by pointing to some obvious signs in reference to all of Gods covenants. Is there a rainbow in the sky after water drops from heaven? Is that not a sign of how eternal God’s covenants are? So when we see him say do something forever does he really mean it?
Jesus coming, dying, and resurrecting did nothing more but confirm the continuation of the old covenant, which is why a great population of believers call it the renewed covenant (a term I don’t use) to help others grab the truth. When he came he didn’t just jump on the cross for the new comer. The “good news” was the fact that Yisra’el was being restored to good standing through his blood sacrifice from all the hellish things they did to transgress the law (sin). The covenant that needed Yahushua’s blood was the blood covenant that was taken by their forefathers and broken from them down to them that day on. The need of Jesus blood was for God, not you or I. God needed that blood because it was set-apart and pure, and it was the only blood that could remove the law of sin and death. I say this to point to the fact that he didn’t end the covenant with Israel he fix it! And he did so on a better promise (blood). I thank Yah for it! He brought his nations back to standing so that they could now have no condemnation before Yah, and keep the very Torah that most throw away. However, the sin that took them to this subverted place is still called sin today. If you lie, cheat, mix with idolatry, or any such thing according to the law of Moses- you are transgressing the law. This is the same law written on your heart, meaning that the same lies, cheating, and mixing with idolatry will still place you out of Yah’s kingdom i.e., outside of his will.
So when you read the book of Hebrews and it speak of a new law given to a new priesthood, it is not referring to the entire law given by Moses. It is referring to the law (singular) given to the priesthood for offering sacrifices. Another way to say it would be the following.

Hebrews 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, as He was coming into the world, He said: You did not want sacrifice and offering, but You prepared a body for Me.
(pick-up in verse 18)

Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:18).

Understanding the book of Hebrews, and what it pertains to
(sin offering) makes the whole book fit perfectly with the other 65 books in the bible. If we take the Law of Moses being taken away from us fully, then we need to explain why we have several laws, feast of Yah, and understanding how to deal with members of the body; let alone the Sabbath day being given to the Greeks from Acts to Revelation. We need to redefine sin if the law of Moses is no longer with us today, and what other way would we know what sin is if not through the law of Moses, be it on a tablet or in your heart. The only time to not love, or not steal, or not honor your mother and father will be when you are in heaven, because then all things in the law have a need no more. This change in law (sacrifice) by no means takes away from the law because Yah told us it was going to happen. So excluding it is actually part of keeping the law and the prophets.

Daniel 9:27
He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing (of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator."

What we don’t have in the Old Testament is God saying that his law will be removed he tells us the exact opposite. It will be placed on your heart according to Jer 31:33 and more.


I will put My Spirit in you, and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I am the LORD. I have spoken, and I will do [it]." [This is] the declaration of the LORD.
(Ezekiel 36:14)

I will place My Spirit within you (and cause you to follow My statutes and carefully observe My ordinances. Then you will live in the land that I gave your fathers; you will be My people, and I will be your God.
(Ezekiel 36:27)

So by no means does Jeremiah suffer because of the Law of Moses being active while it is coming to fullness.

EDIT:
Still waiting on the scripture that says Christ does not have to keep the law.

[Mary]

(04-22-2011 12:52 PM)NearYah Wrote:  

Quote:I am of the view that very little of the prophets,if any, remain to be fulfilled.We have some threads that deal with this topic and I'll see if I can find some of them for you to save myself retyping everything out.

As to the where Matthew 5:17-18 says
.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

It is referring there to both the law and prophets in respect of endorsing their validity.He wasn’t to put aside the Prophets or Law as irrelevant or go against them.He was the fulfillment of what the two had pointed to.
In verse eighteen we see that the Law (note He says just law not law and prophets) wil pass away and this would be once what they pointed to was fulfilled.Once Christ came suffered ,died and resurrected they were fulfilled.

In respect to your view I wanted to point out a few things. Once again I thank you for responding. It helps me see where I maybe wrong and etc. Let’s re-read this once more starting with verse 17. The key to verse 18 is a small known secret only given to a chosen few, it’s called reading verse 17 J Just joking but seriously, if we take what you’re saying as accurate then you simply made Jesus double talk over himself, yet alone cut off 366 passages of the new testament that are a result of the law being handed over to the proselyte believer through quotation from the old. I’ll continue after your next paragraph, because it speaks more as to what we see being mentioned here in 17 and 18.

Quote:Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.





Joh 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

So what you’ve just present us with was the full meaning of what he was teaching the people in Matthew 5:17-18. We now see Yahushua explaining himself through the law and prophets “concerning him,” which is what I mentioned yesterday if you re-read my comments.

I hate doing this because it comes across like I’m trying to prove you wrong, but notice in Luke 24:44 how your position of him only referencing the law being fulfilled falls apart. He plainly explains “himself” according to the law and “the prophets”. So this would tell us through simple comprehension that we cannot detach the two because some man decided to label one verse 17, and the other 18 in reference to Matthew 5:17-18. I want to keep in mind what you gave me to believe you think…

Quote:He was the fulfillment of what the two had pointed to.

Yesterday I tried to explain myself quickly by stating that in Matthew 5:17 he tells the people until “all” the law and “ALL” the prophets are fulfilled, and for the record here is where we differ. This goes beyond what he accomplished the first time around when we include the term “all.” At this point (today) he has fulfilled the portion containing to him being the Sacrifice, priest, and etc. We know he couldn’t have fulfilled the full meaning of “ALL” the feast because we haven’t gone through judgment to get his full-imputed righteousness. Nor have we seen or heard the last trump blow signaling us that our Messiah has come.

As far as prophecies go that are not complete you can start where we begin. Have the nations become one again? Has Jer 31 been fulfilled completely? Has the anti-Christ come to do the temple wrong according to Ezk 44 through – nearly 7 chapters of reading? Has Jesus rightfully come back as the King of Kings lord of Lords to claim his people, which is to be written on his thigh according to Revelations? Mind you this is what we see taking place in the book of Revelations, that started back in the Prophets)? I don’t want to get on a straw man’s kick, so let us look at some who we should be able to agree knew better than you or I.
So when they had come together, they asked Him, "Lord, at this time are You restoring the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or periods that the Father has set by His own authority (Acts 1:6-7)

I’ve brought us into the story after the cross- Yet we “still” have the disciples asking him about fulfilling all that was mention in prophecy about him. Let us not forget, as you’ve explained, he walked with them for 40 days explaining himself through the law and the prophets. So why this question - and more importantly why did Yahushua answer in the manner that he did (rhetorical question). Yahushua knew his role of what he has and have not fulfilled, and answered them correctly. He told them that he didn’t even know when the time would be because that is not up to him, it’s up to the Father, and only he knows.

On a side note: This is why most if not every single Jew found in Judaism doesn’t believe in Jesus. They fill that his coming for his people was going to be in one big motion not two. However, if one studies the feast days they can see clearly that there are a gap in the feast, which have been fulfilled and those that have not. Knowing that he is the substance of those things leads to the understanding that he will complete the other feast days like (atonement) making us full of his imputed righteousness and more in that time.
The very reason why I use Luke 16:17 over Matthew 5:17-18 is because it leaves no wiggle room for misconception. It tells you everything I’m saying without taking the reader with ways to work around it, well at least believe they can work around it.

Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter in the law to drop out.


The point I’m pointing too is that his aim in Matthew 5:17-18 was not about only the law. It was about the whole pie as he explained in verse 17. To our privilege we have the fact that he didn’t complete all the prophets because I’m teaching you today about Yah, and your teaching me (Jer 31:33-37). More importantly we see that even after his resurrection he admits to not fulfilling “all” the prophets; however, he does explain to them that he fulfilled all things concerning him, in reference to him being the HaMashyiach (the Messiah). This is from the horse’s mouth, not my opinion. In order for you to be correct we would need to rip-out Acts 1 and replace a few words. Then go back in the Old Testament, and remove the temple to be built and a great deal more of scripture that links us to the end-time events. You may as well take the spirit (Ruach) away as well because the other half to that is that we are to be in the land.

Quote:Nearyah if we really were bound to the laws of Moses do you not think God would have provided a way of keeping them…ie retained the priesthood Temple etc.If we were really bound then all of us would be in sin for so many jots and titles that we'd be missing.

This sounds like a trick question but I’ve played the role of bait before… I don’t mind.

Yes.


What you ask can be answered by going back in the many times the temple was destroyed. When the temple was destroyed did they simply remove the 221 laws that were associated with how to operate in it. Or did they reserve them so that when those called Ezra and Nehemiah would come and rebuild it, they would know what to do. When they rebuilt the city, they continued in the way of Yah fully. Furthermore, we see his feast being kept clearly before the law was even given to the Levites specifically outside the land (Exodus 12:14) each person did the slaying of their own lamb and so on. I’m thinking of the story of David keeping the feast outside of the city, but I cannot think of its address biblically. If I can before the day is out I’ll give you that scripture for research.

Quote:Yet another point, is Jesus not affirming there in the Matthew verse the word of God as standing forever?
Jeremiah who promised a "new " covenant " (because the old one Israel broke) is as much a part of what Jesus affirmed .So to me that verse cannot be used to say that we are still under Mosaic covenant and law. Jesus didn’t say just the Law, he said the Law and the Prophets, which include Jeremiah and his promise to make a New Covenant.
If we say that the Mosaic Laws and covenant will always be in force how does Jeremiahs prophecy get fulfilled?

I think most of what I already offered explains your final point above. However, I want to comment on something that I feel you did by the way you word your point. I often answer your last question by pointing to some obvious signs in reference to all of Gods covenants. Is there a rainbow in the sky after water drops from heaven? Is that not a sign of how eternal God’s covenants are? So when we see him say do something forever does he really mean it?
Jesus coming, dying, and resurrecting did nothing more but confirm the continuation of the old covenant, which is why a great population of believers call it the renewed covenant (a term I don’t use) to help others grab the truth. When he came he didn’t just jump on the cross for the new comer. The “good news” was the fact that Yisra’el was being restored to good standing through his blood sacrifice from all the hellish things they did to transgress the law (sin). The covenant that needed Yahushua’s blood was the blood covenant that was taken by their forefathers and broken from them down to them that day on. The need of Jesus blood was for God, not you or I. God needed that blood because it was set-apart and pure, and it was the only blood that could remove the law of sin and death. I say this to point to the fact that he didn’t end the covenant with Israel he fix it! And he did so on a better promise (blood). I thank Yah for it! He brought his nations back to standing so that they could now have no condemnation before Yah, and keep the very Torah that most throw away. However, the sin that took them to this subverted place is still called sin today. If you lie, cheat, mix with idolatry, or any such thing according to the law of Moses- you are transgressing the law. This is the same law written on your heart, meaning that the same lies, cheating, and mixing with idolatry will still place you out of Yah’s kingdom i.e., outside of his will.
So when you read the book of Hebrews and it speak of a new law given to a new priesthood, it is not referring to the entire law given by Moses. It is referring to the law (singular) given to the priesthood for offering sacrifices. Another way to say it would be the following.

Hebrews 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, as He was coming into the world, He said: You did not want sacrifice and offering, but You prepared a body for Me.
(pick-up in verse 18)

Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:18).

Understanding the book of Hebrews, and what it pertains to
(sin offering) makes the whole book fit perfectly with the other 65 books in the bible. If we take the Law of Moses being taken away from us fully, then we need to explain why we have several laws, feast of Yah, and understanding how to deal with members of the body; let alone the Sabbath day being given to the Greeks from Acts to Revelation. We need to redefine sin if the law of Moses is no longer with us today, and what other way would we know what sin is if not through the law of Moses, be it on a tablet or in your heart. The only time to not love, or not steal, or not honor your mother and father will be when you are in heaven, because then all things in the law have a need no more. This change in law (sacrifice) by no means takes away from the law because Yah told us it was going to happen. So excluding it is actually part of keeping the law and the prophets.

Daniel 9:27
He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing (of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator."

What we don’t have in the Old Testament is God saying that his law will be removed he tells us the exact opposite. It will be placed on your heart according to Jer 31:33 and more.


I will put My Spirit in you, and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I am the LORD. I have spoken, and I will do [it]." [This is] the declaration of the LORD.
(Ezekiel 36:14)

I will place My Spirit within you (and cause you to follow My statutes and carefully observe My ordinances. Then you will live in the land that I gave your fathers; you will be My people, and I will be your God.
(Ezekiel 36:27)

So by no means does Jeremiah suffer because of the Law of Moses being active while it is coming to fullness.

EDIT:
Still waiting on the scripture that says Christ does not have to keep the law.

You have been very articulate and subtle, but nevertheless Scripture has been twisted in your response.
Do you have nothing to say on the Good Samaritan story in light of your post above? And what about the book of Galatians = especially from chapter 3 to verse 2 of chapter 6?

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:We need to redefine sin if the law of Moses is no longer with us today, and what other way would we know what sin is if not through the law of Moses, be it on a tablet or in your heart. The only time to not love, or not steal, or not honor your mother and father will be when you are in heaven, because then all things in the law have a need no more. This change in law (sacrifice) by no means takes away from the law because Yah told us it was going to happen. So excluding it is actually part of keeping the law and the prophets.

You so miss the aim of the New Covenant where God said He would put His Spirit in us and we would walk in His ways.In the NT we have the Holy Spirit directing believers and causing them to walk in His ways.For the past 2000 years God's Holy Spirit has been changing our hearts from hearts of stome into hearts of flesh changing around lives that were once subect to the destructive power of sin.
In the New Covennant its not wwhat we do..but what we allow God to do in us once we realise that we cannot change ourselves.
As to not knowing what sin would be if we didn't have the Law of Moses, that is so silly.We have a conscience and the Laws of Moses defined how Israel was to walk in the Land God gave them conditionally.It was not an exhaustive list of sins.
There are things that were not sin under the Law of Moses but were still wrong.Things permitted under the Law of Moses are now defined as in in the New Covenant.Divorce being one example of this.
To me your post shows that you still do not understand the New Covenant.As Mary suggested go and read the book of Galatians

Gal 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?


Its the Holy Spirit that is at work in us and around us helping us to obey God and changing us within so that we do so because we want to not because we have to.That is sooo important.

Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Galatians also compares the two covenants

Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.


Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
No longer under the law it says it very clear and that the Law was only until Messiah came.
Nearyah sometimes one can come close to idolising the Law and making it more important than Messiah's words.I have seen many in hebrew roots fall prey to that.

[Ne'arYah]

Quote:You so miss the aim of the New Covenant where God said He would put His Spirit in us and we would walk in His ways.In the NT we have the Holy Spirit directing believers and causing them to walk in His ways.For the past 2000 years God's Holy Spirit has been changing our hearts from hearts of stome into hearts of flesh changing around lives that were once subect to the destructive power of sin.
In the New Covennant its not wwhat we do..but what we allow God to do in us once we realise that we cannot change ourselves.
As to not knowing what sin would be if we didn't have the Law of Moses, that is so silly.We have a conscience and the Laws of Moses defined how Israel was to walk in the Land God gave them conditionally.It was not an exhaustive list of sins.
There are things that were not sin under the Law of Moses but were still wrong.Things permitted under the Law of Moses are now defined as in in the New Covenant.Divorce being one example of this.
To me your post shows that you still do not understand the New Covenant.As Mary suggested go and read the book of Galatians

Gal 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

As always I thank you for responding.
I have no problem with the book of Galatians, and I accept every word of it to be true. A point I do want to make is one that has nothing to do with the topic, but more so the personality we use in words to explain ourselves. If we are to operate in love as the scriptures and epistles teach, I personally don’t expect the first thing I read to be “you miss the aim of the new covenant”.
It seems like you’re claiming you don’t need the Law of Moses, and I’m including “the prophets” because you say you have the spirit in you? If this is correct then how do you teach the new person to walk in the spirit without the law and the prophets? I mean how would you even know what’s right on topics like the law, if we are both relying on the spirit “only”. I think we’d all find ourselves lost trying to explain how Yahushua has fulfilled the law if this were the case, since we’d have nothing to go by. Can you imagine Paul teaching the Bereans with the “hearing of faith” and them not having the scriptures to fall back on? Do you really think they would have believed (Acts 17:11-12)? What of Timothy? Did he not have the spirit, and did Paul not admonish him to hold on to the scriptures that he knew from his youth (2 Tim 3:14-16). Didn’t Peter tell us to use the scriptures (Genesis through Malachi) for doctrine (2 Peter 3:15-16). The passage doesn’t say you have the spirit, so go and walk in it, he’s telling him and us to hold fast to it. I can go on and on into some of the meaning about what we learn from Ephesians and girding ourselves in the truth, which is the word and so on. Obviously, the people who helped graft the original new comers taught differently. They looked at the spirit as being a guide, or a comforter that would assist us in our way. Those two (scripture and spirit) come together to help us find our way i.e., each man works out his own salvation, if you will. That’s my two cents on that.

Quote: the New Covennant its not wwhat we do..but what we allow God to do in us once we realise that we cannot change ourselves.

I can only assume you said this as a set-up for Galatians, and how our works cannot grant us salvation given the majority of passages you give below. I just want to be clear; I never said anything about works getting us into the kingdom by what “we do”. In fact, only a fool would say or think a think about the Law of Moses. Works have never played a role in salvation, which is a heavy misconception I bump into a lot when talking to others about the law. At this point I can’t say that you fit the bill like many others, but this is what Galatians is all about. To your credit, God has always been about what we allow him to do in us, and this fact never change.

Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day. (Psalms 25:5)

So this is not something new, it’s actually anciently old dating back to the likes of Abraham when we can see that even he was made righteous through faith before the Law God gave to Moses.


Galatians 3:5
He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?


You can’t just throw anything out from the book of Galatians. If we do that we can dismiss the entire bible from one line, or think Peter was some loser-follower of those from Judea (Gal 2:11-14).

Example: I just agreed with you that faith in Yahushua is only done through him in the new covenant. I’ve even attached that same faith (as his name means salvation) to the Law of Moses by providing a scripture to show the two covenants offer the same salvation through faith, not works. Well these zealous boys of the law in Galatians didn’t live by that code, nor did they teach it. They taught “ Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (acts 15:1)” This is totally out-of-line, and nothing more but a work of the law, no different than how some misuse baptism today. So yes Paul says this to the people in Galatians, because they were about to be subverted from Christ by those who desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh (Gal 6:13). So does that apply to our conversation and what I’m explaining to you? Not at all, we are talking about something much bigger than that (1 Cor 7:19), which was the gospel that Paul taught.

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God (1 Cor 7:19)

Quote: Its the Holy Spirit that is at work in us and around us helping us to obey God and changing us within so that we do so because we want to not because we have to.That is sooo important.

Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

I bold lettered a few things in the passage to focus on to show the following.
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
(Romans 7:14-8:2)

So Paul just made Galatians 5:16-25 crystal clear. He repeatedly mentioned “works of the flesh” and how we are to live according to the spirit of Christ. This can easily be seen through the epistle as being the law of sin and death that we are now no longer bound to. He speaks of those same evils in Romans 7 continuing to Romans 8, so we cannot use the above as a theological reason to dismiss Yah’s Torah. Paul is not talking about the Torah as in all law, but the law of sin and death, that kept Yisra’el as a whole separated from Yah. This is a law that we are now free from through the sacrifice that has been made through Jesus. This does not mean you are free to walk in liberty and decide if you are going to honor your mother or steal. Galatians 3 does not mean we’re no longer bound to acknowledge Torah by any means. I’m repeating myself in another way, but the torah really is “the” only doctrine we have been told to acknowledge by God, Jesus, and the disciples.

Quote: Galatians also compares the two covenants

Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Good point. Nonetheless points like this truly aren’t associated with what “we” are discussing. Remember Paul wrote this letter to the people because those zealous of the law were trying to subvert them by taking a teaching from torah “circumcision,” and make it “the way” much like some branches of faith treat baptism or speaking in tongues today. In other words, they used circumcision as their means of salvation, and “not Jesus”. This is the very reason why he called it “another gospel”( they thought it was the saving factor), because their hope and salvation was through the “circumcision” not JESUS. I’m not pushing that or even coming close to it, what I’m saying is that we ought to take those things new and old - combine them into one, (Matthew 13:52) much like Shavuot becomes Pentecost, and then walk in the spirit by them. So what does that mean? It means the following

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
(Revelations 12:17)

It means that the person you just read about in Revelations didn’t keep Jesus commandments as you try to slide in your points in a subtle way from Matthew 5, but they kept the commandments of God that “Jesus instructed us to keep”, and they also kept Jesus as their testimony in faith, just like the Old Testament (scriptures) said they should…

- But the just shall live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4).

Quote:Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

So what do we say? Do we say that loving God was a school master given to us? Does that still work for today because that is part of the torah? The schoolmaster was not the entire Torah the way you seem to present it here through these 4 lines. If we back-up to verse 13 we get a few more signs as to what that school master was, or shall I say the lesson that the school master was to teach.
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Gal 3:13)

Plainly without going a step further we see that the Torah that he calls Good and holy in Romans 7:12 is not what’s being eliminated. It more so is the curse of the law, or the power and conviction that sin and death had. Curse is the man who “hangs on a tree” I wonder why?

And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.(Deut 21:22-23)

This starts to fall back into what I was trying to explain earlier with Paul’s use of the term “law of sin and death”= the penalty that stood against you “if you broke torah”. I assume we all know this, but the Torah has two sides to it, one that offers life, and one that offers death. He is referring to the curse which we know for a fact because he mentions cursed is everyone who hangs from a tree i.e penalty for transgressing torah.

Let’s work our way to the point of scripture you've focused on.
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator
( Galatians 3:19)

This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush. He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him (Acts 7:35-40) and also read (Exodus 23:20-22) So now we have a need to appeal for our sins, or one could say we see the beginning of the end starting with the transgression made here.


Then we get to your passages in verses 23-26

I’m assuming you know that Yah’s original plan was to use every 1st born child to serve him. However, after the nasty little deed they did (Yisra’el) in Moses disappearance while he was on the mountain top. All that changed, God calls the people to see who is on his side (Please read Exodus chapters 12 for first born reference, and Numbers 3, and 8:14-19 for the change). From there the tribes of Levi (Aaron) stood with God, and are then deemed to be the Priesthood, which was to replace the original priesthood, making them a temporary priesthood. So what did they do in their position? They served the temple, and in their serving the temple they were responsible for the sin sacrifice (this is the lesson that was to be learned from the school master). Not the entire law, or even the ending of that feast. This is what we were shut-up to “until the seed would come”….

The- seed- would- come.

There are many lessons to learn from the school master and the sin offering that Jesus serves as the seed for.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. (Daniel 9:27)

We learn through simple illustration that the goats or animal placed on the altar for our sin is to be us; the term scapegoat should start to ring a bell. We should have been the ones to die on the cross. Another lesson to learn from the school master is that God loved us so much that he was willing to kill his son in our place. As I alleged to a few days ago, this is the law or the purpose of the change in law dealing with the priesthood, which is associated with Hebrews 7. This by no means shines light on the point you’re trying to make with the torah (instructions of God) being diminished, obsolete, set-aside, or fulfilled in such a way that it’s not for the modern day person. If anything it gives me a greater purpose in keeping the feast in knowing what they are for. HalleluYah (misspelled on purpose) We should be holding that feast annually to remember what Yahushua has done for us. I get excited every time I read it…



I have responded to nearly every question and comment thrown my way. Yet I am still waiting on the passage that shows us that Jesus did not have to keep the Torah made by you. @ ROSE
Still waiting.>>?

---

(04-21-2011 07:19 PM)Mary Wrote:  I was thinking that we might gain more understanding of how the Law of Christ replaced/annulled the Law of Moses by examining the story Jesus gave of the Good Samaritan, and the context in which he told it:

Luke 10: 22 - 37

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see:
For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

So what do I get from this story?
Several things, if list them all they would have to give me a copyright on this site.
I could go on for days as to why the bible says the man tempt, or tested Jesus, as some bibles read, in verse 25 alone.
My quick answer to you is this. The man answered to love the lord your God and Love your neighbor the same (Luke 10:27).

This is at the heart of most if not all the commandments given in the torah. Each person has a wife husband, or someone that we love in our lives, I hope. These people tell us what is acceptable to them, or how to treat them. For example, you and my wife are completely different, so how I love or care for her more than likely will not feel or be the same way if I were married to you. So if we love the Father he has provided away for us to know how to love him through his word and his Ruach haKodesh (Holy Spirit).
Torah is Yahweh’s guide telling you how to love him, not how to boast and say look at me, but-to-love him. Rose, indirectly made this point; however, wrongly applied it to my words. This principle is one of old (Lev 19:18). I can say that it is the royal law or the principle law that all things are to be done through. This is why Yahushua tells us that the rest of the laws hang from them. It would be very similar to me telling you no matter what you do when you drive to buckle your seat belt. Does this mean you don’t drive, put on your turn signal, or for that matter start the car? By no means, it means this is the primary thing I’m telling you to do with those things in mind also.
In other words do not keep the Sabbath because it’s simply written in a book. Keep it with the understanding of love and hope reflecting on the love that was given to you that we rest in.

Hope this helps
Shabbat Shalom!
--
Oh I almost forgot, you said I spoke wrongfully. If you wouldn’t mind showing me where I’m wrong I would appreciate it. It seems that people say things around here and don’t really say them if you know what I mean (no pun intended)

{{{duplicate post to Mary deleted. Ne'aryah could you please answer different posters in individual responses. It makes it easier to read and see who is being dialogued with and who should be responding. Thank you, Vic }}}}

[Rose of Shushan]

Nearyah it is not that I have been ignoring your question but that the reply is a bit complicated and there is not just one verse that will explain it fully.
The Law of Moses was a covenant between the children of Abraham and God right? Now ifJ esus is the son of God does He really need to obey all the Laws given for man? It was a covenant with certain terms and conditions and since Christ was no ordinary man He was not subject to those terms and conditions.
One example is in


Mat 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
Mat 17:25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
Mat 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
Mat 17:27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.


Jesus did not need to "keep this" since the money was to make atonement for one's soul

Exo 30:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Exo 30:12 When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.
Exo 30:13 This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD.
Exo 30:14 Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD.
Exo 30:15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.
Exo 30:16 And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

The Law was there to convict man of sin and to make him aware of his need for salvation.Tell me how does this apply to Christ who was born into this world to save us from our sins.
Christ came to magnify the Law and in the Sermon on the Mount He explicitly epands on the Law of Moses and shows how He now enlarges on it and shows how it was insufficient for righteousness.Therefore while the Law is still good the Law of Christ transcends it.It ups the bar for righteousness and expands on the Law of Moses.

[Ne'arYah]

Rose in all love and respect for you I’m going to do my best to answer you quickly. This is totally inaccurate and the questions you’ve provided are not even worth going into with scripture. Ultimately, we’d end up on the same point that answers to the question “why did Jesus stay on the cross”. He was obedient to the Father. This is the answer to all of your questions in your previous post without going through it all. In short his Elohim is your Elohim.
Personally, I’m a little happy that this is your response… Nothing you said was actually scripture showing Jesus broke a law. What you provided was a list of hypothetical situations, which are not factual. If you want to show me what you meant, all you have to do is show me one passage where Jesus breaks the law, or a scripture that says he would be allowed to break the law.
I’ll admit I don’t want you to be right on either of those points. Especially the one where you’re showing me he broke a law, because if you’re right that means I believed in the wrong thing.
Personally I would have been ecstatic if you would have said “I don’t have passage in mind, but it’s something I learned in concept”.

If there are more please share. If not, I will never mention it again unless you do first.
>>>>[duplicate post deleted again. Ne'aryah, please stop duplicating your posts. Thank you. Vic]<<<<

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:Rose in all love and respect for you I’m going to do my best to answer you quickly. This is totally inaccurate and the questions you’ve provided are not even worth going into with scripture.

You say it is totally innacurate but won't tell me why?

Quote:He was obedient to the Father. This is the answer to all of your questions in your previous post without going through it all. In short his Elohim is your Elohim.

That doesn't make sense to me could you explain which question you were addressing or at least why this answers it or them?.

Quote:Personally I would have been ecstatic if you would have said “I don’t have passage in mind, but it’s something I learned in concept”.

I was actually trying to explain the concept and I did say there is not one verse that will explain it fully.There are so many things that cannot be explained in just one verse.

Quote:If there are more please share. If not, I will never mention it again unless you do first.

Yes I will take the time to detail why Christ did not always follow or teach the letter of the Law although He always cut through to the spirit of the Law.

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:Nothing you said was actually scripture showing Jesus broke a law. What you provided was a list of hypothetical situations, which are not factual. If you want to show me what you meant, all you have to do is show me one passage where Jesus breaks the law, or a scripture that says he would be allowed to break the law.

The example I gave you was Jesus showing why He didn't have to obey that particular law in Exodus and He even gives the explanation.That was not a hypothetical situation that was something that actually happened.
If you were meaning something else can you expand on it as I am not understanding what you meant.

[sari83]

(04-20-2011 11:41 AM)NearYah Wrote:  For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven, that person is My brother and sister and mother (Matthew 12:50)
Jesus answered them, "My teaching isn't Mine but is from the One who sent Me. If anyone wants to do His will, he will understand whether the teaching is from God or if I am speaking on My own.
(John 7:16-18)

I mention these two verses to help you see that Jesus doctrine was very much the Torah’s doctrine and nothing else. Did he elaborate on Torah to get people to see the intent? Yes, but he did not establish his own doctrine. He commonly used the phrase “you’ve heard” but I say”. Why did he do this? Well when we understand that the Jewish tradition was passed down, which they call torah too, better known as the Talmud or rabbinical traditions, it begins to make all of this make sense. Jesus was correcting the rabbinical interpretation on some laws and giving deeper insight to others.

I would go as far to say that it’s a fact that Jesus could not have been teaching another law. Especially because doing so would have disqualified him as being the Messiah. If he began to teach something different from the father (Torah) then he is now pulling people away from the father and to his own will separate from the fathers will. We know he couldn’t do that because it’s not in the prophets. Prophecy does not allow him to do such a thing,

You're correct in saying Jesus' law is from the Father.

Ps 40:6-8
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.(KJV)


I don't think Christ was teaching another law, but that He was teaching the perfect law, one that has been from the beginning....


I Jn 2:7
Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
(KJV)


The Sinai Covenant contained statutes and ordinances that were for the nation of Israel only for a specific time.

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:You're correct in saying Jesus' law is from the Father.

Ps 40:6-8
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.(KJV)

I agree that the words of Jesus and the Laws of Moses both came from the Father but just as the commandemnts to Abraham were not the same as those of Moses the ones of Jesus were not the same as the ones of Moses.Otherwise why would Jesus refer to the sacrifices and burnt offerings in one breath saying God doesn't require them and in the next say His Law is in His heart...it seems that God's will is also His Law right.Are not instructions from God His LAw? So if Jesus obeys God's instructions He is following God's Law, just that it is not the Law of Moses.

Quote:I don't think Christ was teaching another law, but that He was teaching the perfect law, one that has been from the beginning....

I Jn 2:7
Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
(KJV)

That verse is the apostle John speaking, not Christ and he is saying he is not giving them any more instructions or commandments in addition to what they had already heard.

I do agree with you that Christ was teaching the perfect law the law that had underlied the Laws of Moses but were not the same.Moses Law made allowances for the people's hardness of hearts because it was a schoolmaster.In the same way that we allow our children leeway when disciplining them because we take other things into consiederation.

Quote:The Sinai Covenant contained statutes and ordinances that were for the nation of Israel only for a specific time.

I totally agree that the Sinai Covenant was to the nation of Israel, while they were to live in the land God gave them and under certain terms and conditions.If these were not abided by, they would incur curses upon them that would culminate in the covenant being broken and them being driven out of the land.