Does Jesus bring a new Torah with the New Covenant?

[Mary]

(04-25-2011 09:42 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  

Quote: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.

I don't believe that jews don’t believe in Christ for the reason you say but to give you the reasons would derail the topic too much.
You ask me if Im a follower of Judaism and then in the next sentence you say that according to the Torah I will prove myself right if I indeed were right in that He broeke Torah and I would find myself without a Messiah. It seems that it is you that is borrowing from Judaism no?
Since that is something that anti missionaries like to rile Christians with ..saying that if Christ broke the Torah then He wouldn’t be the Messiah. Can you please find me a Scripture that says that? Don't worry you wont find one .The traditional Judaic list today of what Messiah is meant to accomplish is only partly based on the bible since it takes some messianic verses and excludes other very important ones.

I actually feel uncomfortable saying Christ broke Torah because technically He didn’t break anything..He just didn't always follow or teach the letter of the Law and He didn’t have to- He was here to end that set of laws and give us new and better ones.The letter of the Law was for the Israelites and all had to be adhered to. Christ didnt have to obey the letter of the Law since a lot wouldn’t apply to Him (and I don’t just mean the parts that wouldn’t apply for example those to women, priests, levites etc)..Ill try to explain what I mean with an analogy.
Lets say I have a house for rent by the sea and I rent it out to people not of my family under certain terms and conditions. However my son now wants to go and stay at that house for a while. Is he subject to the same rules, restrictions and rent as the people I rent it out to. Or does He opt out because He is my son and its also his by inheritance and the contract that I made with the renters wasn’t made with him so it doesn’t apply.

I know this is Rose's post that I'm replying to, but I'm really adding my bit in response to Ne'arYah: You accuse Rose of attempting to convict Jesus of breaking the Torah. ( I assume this accusation may extend to other Christians too) but in none of her posts do I see Rose doing that. What I do see is you twisting her words to lead up to this very accusation, which is one that conveniently helps your argument against the New Covenant. I think you have totally missed the point that the Law of Moses was from uBabaUmkulukulu to the people of Israel for a time. In that time they could not keep the Law, and still today they cannot. However with the coming of uJesu, the law of Moses is replaced by the Law of the uMoya of uJesu. That is clearly stated in the Scriptures (and provided in posts in the thread). I think you know this, but cannot reconcile it to your beliefs, which is why you did a sidestep on the Good Samaritan question. (Which I will deal with separately, and soon).

p.s. apologies to any who do not understand Zulu, one of my home languages. uBabaUmkulukulu means the great Father or Father of fathers. UMoya is the Holy Spirit, or Spirit. Jesus is also called at times Nkosi.

p.p.s I think if an issue is to be made about the true name of God and Jesus then I think we should also be really careful, and consistent about spelling... it's confusing enough when people use non English words on this site, but even more so when the spelling of those words differs from post to post. I apologise for being pedantic, but since a whole thread is devoted to the issue of the "real" name of God, it would certainly be respectful to maintain an English translation until the discussion in that thread is concluded. I raise the matter here only because the inconsistent usage is occurs mostly in this thread.