Does Jesus bring a new Torah with the New Covenant?

[Ne'arYah]

(04-21-2011 08:39 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  

Quote:So are we saying that the Law of Moses is done away with or are we saying something else?

Yes I say that the Law of Moses is no longer binding.Law of Sinai was the old covenant, a shadow of the reality and sacrifices of animals. The New Covenant of Christ is the reality, it was His blood that was shed and sacrifices are spiritual.

Hey Rose, I wanted to respond to what you’re saying since you’ve taken time to provide a very detailed response.

The Law of Moses not only served as a shadow of things to come before Christ, but it also serves as a shadow of things to come in the last of last days. Given the loads of scripture you’ve provided I’m more than sure you’re aware of the many end time prophecies that have not been fulfilled according to the prophets, let alone the nations being brought back together again. Scripture in prophecy foretells that this will have to take place in order for the law to officially be done away with. This is only if we accept what Jesus tells us plainly in the gospels.

On the note of the new covenant being made of spiritual sacrifices that started with the resurrection of Christ. There have always been sacrifices spiritually made to Yah even in the old covenant. There are more but I’m providing two to keep this response short as possible.

Psalms 52:17
The sacrifice pleasing to God is a broken spirit.
God, You will not despise a broken and humbled heart.

Psalms 141:2
May my prayer be set before You as incense,
the raising of my hands as the evening offering

Before moving to the next point you raise I want to support what I’m saying about the law not being done away with completely the way most assume. Before I even go into this I want to make a small note for you, and whoever is reading. We witness those that had a better revelation of Christ, then we probably would ever have given the fact that they walked with him (literally), and played a role in setting the foundation, or understanding of who he is for all those that who would follow. These disciples were so privilege that they not only saw him die on a cross and witnessed him raised from the dead, but they also were blessed to walk with him for an additional 40 days tills his final appearance we see in Acts 2. This becomes very startling when we consider that Jesus walked with them for 40 days leading to a high Sabbath (feast day) Unleavened bread, yet he did not stop them from preparing their homes for the feast. Nor did he tell them that he was their first fruit so they don’t need to observe it anymore because the comforter is coming. He knew he was the reality of these feast, but we have no scripture discouraging them from keeping it. Lev 23:2 tell us that these feast are “HIS” meaning that they are attached to him. So when I read passages like the one found in Col 2:17 and understand all the feast have not been fulfilled, I truly get why we are encourage to move forward in these acts.

Col 2:17
These are a shadow of what was to come; the substance is the Messiah.

Understanding that he is the substance of the things to come makes this make sense even more when we understand that his feast actually sets-up the end time events i.e., trumpets tabernacles, and day of atonement. Starts to make sense as to why they all pertain to him.

Quote:

Quote: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.

For one, the Talmud had not been invented yet but there was the tradition of the elders which is what you may have been really meaning to say.
The thing is there are times when Jesus calls them out for neglecting or even breaking Gods laws in favour of their traditions.However in many instances He overturns Moses Law altogether.

I think I spoke clearly about my intentions of what I meant to say. I clearly stated “Talmud or rabbinical traditions,” which can easily be identified as the elders traditions, sense they were rabbis, Pharisee’s, or any other high minded name you’d like to link to them. On your point of Jesus overturning Moses law altogether. I know why you’re saying this, but I don’t think you are fully grasping what you’re teaching Jesus was living under the law (clearly) during his walk of life, I don’t think that’s a debatable topic. So if you are telling me he overturned Moses law, which I take to mean that he over ruled it, threw it to the side and said it doesn’t matter… You are making our Messiah a sinner.

Now if you want to stick to scripture as far as what the father told us he would come and do which is to Magnify and make the torah honorable ( Isaiah 42:21) I agree.

Quote:


Mat 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Mat 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.


Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.



Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Rose, I don’t oppose any of this. It all fits into the category of making torah honorable by displaying the intent behind the laws. By no means do any of these scriptures replace Torah. Furthermore, you started at verse 33. Ironically before he goes into this spill, he specifically tells you himself. He, Jesus the Messiah said.

Matthew 5:17-18
"Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished.

This is an important piece of information to understand before moving into the portion of scripture you’ve provided. He didn’t say until “all the law containing to me”, but he said all the prophets have been fulfilled. This means until “ALL” have been complete, meaning we are no longer here looking for him because we will be with him. There is no looking for him to come back when “all is fulfilled” because all things containing to us in his plan will be no more. In other words this takes place after all the ugly stuff in the book of Revelations.

Quote:
Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.



The Old Covenant permitted divorce
Yet to us Christians divorce is only allowed in the case of fornication and whoever marries a divorced woman is also guilty of adultery. This was not so in the Old Covenant.

You’ve answered your own question or statement in (verse 8). Moses didn’t do this out of will he suffered them. Jesus himself tells you what the will and law were from the beginning, and explains it according to the law. We would need to get into the scriptures to understand why this took place, but in so many ways I’ll call it a form of grace in Torah. So lets just pick on this topic without picking on the topic.

Lev 19:12
You must not swear falsely by My name, profaning the name of your God; I am the LORD.
Numbers 30:2
When a man makes a vow to the LORD or swears an oath to put himself under an obligation, he must not break his word; he must do whatever he has promised

I offer these two passages in hopes that we agree marriage was a vow. Indirectly we see that this vow (any vow) was to be honored with good intent, and yes the story starts to thicken from there, which may be worth another thread concerning why the change for the vow of marriage.

Quote:There is one place that we could say that Jesus was referring to tradition but if we look at the passage a bit closer we see that that is not the case[/color][/b]
Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Mat 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

There Christ could have said to them something that referred to their traditions but instead he gives an explanation of why He broke it(so to speak) and why He did not have to abide by that law or that it didn't apply to him.
In the first case Christ explains that David also transgressed the law at one time and why it was justified.Then Christ explains that just as the high priests appeared to break the law by working on the Sabbath since that service was mandated by God and was in service to God that they hadn't really transgressed anything. As Christ said the Sabbath was made for man,not man for the Sabbath.

Considering what you’ve just stated, you’re telling me that Jesus explained to them that it was okay for the priest to eat this food and he relates his point to scripture through David. In all honesty, this does not require a response you pretty much answered your own question, and I don’t mean to come across sarcastic, but you honestly did.

Quote:

Many messianics say that Jesus never broke the Torah well to that I say that although He appeared to break it the law didn't really apply to Him because being the Son of God and divine it does not really apply to Him in the sense that it would any other orfinary Israelite.Hope that makes sense :D

Can you please provide me with a scripture that says he did not have to keep the law because it did not apply to him?




Until you present a passage explaining what you believe I will state that I believe he couldn’t break something that he is.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning

It is his keeping of the law that makes him a perfect sacrifice. If he presented himself with any form of blemish then we may as well go back and sacrifice goats looking for the Messiah that can present themselves with out spot or wrinkle. This is the very reason why he is mentioned more than 29 times as the lamb of Yah in the book of Revelation.