Does Jesus bring a new Torah with the New Covenant?

[Ne'arYah]

Quote:The sin offering was part of the Law of Moses.You cannot just say some parts are now invalid.The people had obey all the Law and you cannot now say the sin offering is taken away as is the priesthood.That doesn't leave you with the Law of Moses, my friend.

Before I give my official response to, I want to point out something that many people dismiss due to the teachings of Catholicism that are very much part of the Reformed and Protestant churches in America. Our true church fathers “the Apostles” had no problem keeping these feast and Sabbath’s unto Yahuah, and they walked with HaMashyiach and were the privilege that not only walked with him, but also caught the fresh revelation through the Spirit. They actually had their cake and ice cream as the saying goes. We see this being documented in the bible, which shows us that these convocations were carried out nearly 30 to 35 years after the resurrection. They very well understood what the offering of Yahusha meant
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
(2 Peter 2:5)

So what gives? They knew the spiritual significance just as well as you and I.
So why in the world would they continue in what most believe was done with. We see them carrying “his” feast all the way over to the book of Jude 1:12. We can even dabble through Revelations and the prophets and see these feast still being honored during the end times.

You would have a good point if the sin offering actually took away sin. However, we know through Hebrews that the offering is now no longer a goat, but it now comes through Yahusha, forever. To your question, I ask you this first in return. Why do you allegedly go to church on the Shabbat or Sun-Day, though Yahusha is around you 24-7? It’s because it is to serve biblically as a reminder of how we rest in him daily, and if you are sincere about it, I’m sure it represents a great deal of other things (Hebrews 4:4-11). Since we see that the law that points to the sacrifice of blood for animals would never cover our sin (blood covenant) what would be the reason for me keeping that today?
1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
(Hebrews 10:1-4)
Yahuah’s purpose in this was, and is for our benefit, not his. Remember I said a while back that Yahusha really came for Yahuah not us because he needed blood to cover us. However, the reminder portion is for us. Do we not still need the lesson until we are made completely righteous with his imputed righteousness? Each man is his own but according to Yahuah we do. We are still sinning, every time you speed down the road your sinning, when you cut your eyes at a lady or disrespect your husband we’re sinning. This doesn’t mean that you wait until “a” day to remember your sins no more than it means you don’t put cloths on every day. What it means is that on this day, or during that time of year you are trying to make sure you put the right outfit on, or that you took that extra moment in the mirror to remove all the mess out you’re hair.

Quote:How about instead you give me your opinion on the following

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.

I read this and see that nothing in this passage applies to the Torah. It all applies to man’s law, not the Torah’s law.

Quote:Nearyah if you want to be under the Mosaic Law still then your High Priest wouldn't be Christ but instead an earthly one from the tribe of Aaron.

Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

If you agree the priesthood has been changed, then there are a whole lot of jots and titles there wouldn't you say. And how do you reconcile that with the not one jot or tittle shall pass away?

I take it as you are speaking of the 221 commandments that were ordered within the temple for the “Priests” to follow, which would not have included us in the first place. This goes back to my analogy that I gave one guy and maybe even here. I’ve wrote on these boards so much that I forget what I have shared. Nonetheless, the analogy of laws like driving the speed limit, and buckling your seat belt only apply to the driver. You and I in relation to the priest in my analogy are not driving. We are pedestrians; better yet we are before our computers not even worried about the street, traffic, or any law containing to MVA.

Keeping that in mind your question deserves a real answer though it wouldn’t have applied to you. I’ll ask you what changed?


For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
(Hebrews 7:14)


This is telling me that we have a new high priest through oath (verse 28) and not the order of Aaron. But Yauah never says “we” get rid of the physical representation of the worldly tabernacle what he did was bring the worldly one to a head by showing us it’s spiritual significance, which 2 Peter 2:5 and the book of Hebrews teaches (Hebrews 9:11). So does that mean we should through it in the trash like yesterday’s news? No. Do we not still see how we are baptized in water that shows us a spiritual reality? The principles between these two are the exact same and we would be wise to heed to them.



Furthermore look what the prophets say about the covenant listed in Jer 31:31. Some read Jer 31 and simply stop at verse 31 and say that’s us, but let us not be so ignorant, let’s read a little deeper into the end times to see what the Father has in store.


Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
(Jer 33:14-21 KJV)

The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: "This is what the LORD says: If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night so that day and night cease to come at their regular time, then also My covenant with My servant David may be broken so that he will not have a son reigning on his throne, and the Levitical priests will not be My ministers.
(Jer 33:19-21 Holman Christian Standard Bible)



So if we are saying that the day and night no longer exist on earth than you’re right. We throw it all away and start over from scratch. Fact of matter is there is no temple right now, and furthermore the (true) children of Yisra’el are not in their land. So these are all signs to show us that the covenant Yahuah promised has not been complete. This also adds more to your question as to what has and has not been fulfilled yet in the prophets. Taking us back to the original points I made in reference to Matthew 5:17-19.

Quote:In Luke were you said you preferred it to the Matthew verses well look what it says

Luk 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Luk 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.


The law and the prophets were until John. Until..then John came preaching the Kingdom of God….so John was the last Prophet of the Old Covenant and then Christ came bringing the New Covenant and rendering the old one obsolete.

So what was preached?

While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
(Matthew 12:46-50)


If I didn’t know any better, I would think you’re saying when Jesus came into ministry that the law and the prophets were no longer. This would be a high contradiction because he lived and taught according to the Torah. He pushed people to do the true will of the Father. Not the rabbinical corrupted will that we see taking place opposite of what he taught from the Father. I said it yesterday, and I will say it again, Yahusha is the living Torah he did not do any wrong by it whatsoever. He told people that the Torah was the pathway to keeping the Father’s will, and wouldn’t you know it, he was also in that Torah.


For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
(John 5:46-47)

What I think is happening here is that you’re not considering everything Torah had to offer. Is mercy not grace?


Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
(matthew 23:23)

So obviously Jesus truth is connected to Moses words… Could it be because he is the truth and the truth is the torah?

Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
(Psalms 119:142 and John 14:6)


The connection of the Torah being written on your heart should start to make more since with these two being paired together alone.

Quote:Note that the next verse Jesus says something that is different to the written law…
Putting away one's wife and then marrying another leads to adultery. According to the Law of Moses(not just tradition) that was allowed.

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Deu 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. Deu 24:3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
Deu 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Simply put this is not true. You fail to realize that the law already said do not covet after someone else wife. The new law, or deeper understanding was right there all-along. And as I mentioned before is marriage not a vow before Yahuah (Numbers 30:2-3)? Did Yahuah not explain the intention of the vow’s in the covenant being made? Yahusha tells the people, neither Moses or Yahauh wanted divorced, but it was suffered for their ignorance (Matthew 19:7). If you can’t accept that then I do not know what to tell you.

Quote:Next let's see where Christ talked about clean and unclean.

Mar 7:14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
Mar 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
Mar 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Mar 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
Mar 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Mar 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mar 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.


His disciples asked Him again concerning the parable since there He was saying that nothing that a man could eat could defile him when they all knew well that the Law of Moses said that certain foods would make an Israelite unclean or defiled until evening. Christ reiterated what He has said before. That food could not defile someone.
Christ there was not teaching the Law of Moses but seems to be teaching people about the deeper concept of what really makes the people clean and unclean. The Law of Moses, having been the schoolmaster, taught the people already about clean and unclean .Now Christ develops on that concept to teach about what really defiles the soul.

Let’s dive into this a little deeper. I will present chapter Mark 7:1-24 with no missing passages and bold a few things to hopefully pull out what’s going-on.

1Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
14And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
18And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
24And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.

(Mark 7:1-24 KJV)
So with this being said, I ask you was the tradition being mentioned in these verses the scripture that tell us what we should eat, or the Pharisee tradition of how they wash their hands? You’re thinking similar to the disciples who almost were confused on the real issue being discussed. The issue wasn’t the food, it was the fact that they had dirty hands, (in the Pharisee’s eyes) and they were eating unclean because their hands were dirty. If you read this passage closely you don’t even have a type of food being mentioned.

Quote:Let's now consider the case of the woman that was caught in adultery and brought before Christ. The Law demanded that she be stoned. What did Christ say? That He didn't condemn her.Yet the Law of Moses did.

Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Christ said let He who is without sin cast the first stone but He did not condemn Her.If He had taught Moses Law He would have said that she had to be put to death right?

Joh 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
Joh 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Joh 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
Joh 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
Joh 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.



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.

I thank Yahuah you were not a Pharisee because according to your interpretation on this, you see it right to stone this woman. I want to read the law one more time, but before I do. I want to ask you how many people were present with her.
I count 1, and it was her all by herself


And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Lev 20:10)

She could not be convicted simply because the other wasn’t there. Those that were waiting to stone her were simply doing so with no just cause? They needed both to know she was guilty, if they would have killed her alone. Then it would have been by the testimony of one, and for all we know that one could have been the one that was with her. Exodus 21 has nothing to do with this.



I’ll say this to your attempt of trying to convict Jesus of breaking the Torah. You will fail every time. This is the reason (1B) that Jews do not accept Jesus, because Christians think that Jesus taught another law separate from the Father. Doing this according to the law makes him no Messiah. And your thinking represents believers all over that try to persuade people to accept this, simply because they do not like the word Torah. I told you I wouldn’t mention this unless you did first. Yet here you are constantly trying to discredit the savior, are you a follower of Judaism or something, I mean you do believe in Yahusha, right? If so, why bother with this? According to the Torah you are going to prove yourself to be without a Messiah if you can find yourself to be right which you will not, to simply prove that you don’t have to keep the Father’s commandments.


The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thingfollow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
(Deut 18:15-22)


Again, I ask you to let it go and I will not mention it again?