Does Jesus bring a new Torah with the New Covenant?

[Ne'arYah]

(04-25-2011 08:45 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  

Quote: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?

So that means you pick and choose what part of the law you still keep then? That's an awful lot of jots and titles that you are doing away with there.If you maintain that not one jot or title has passed away then you would be bound to obey the whole law.

Deu 27:26 Cursed be he that confirms not ALL the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

What I see happened is that the former covenant and its accompanying laws are made obsolete and a new one is put in its place .You instead want to say that the old covenant is still inplace but that we choose which ones we keep and which we discard.That is not how it worked and Christ affirmed that not one jot or title would pass from it til all was fulfilled.
If we were still bound to the Old one we would all be guilty of sinning as some would not be being kept and God is allowing this since He allowed the Temple to be destroyed and it hasn’t been rebuilt since..You want to pick and choose but that to me is violating Torah. Since it was meant to be kept as a whole and also by the people as a whole.
Deu 27:26 Cursed be he that confirms not ALL the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Amen.

Rose you had to either bypass my point, or simply dismiss it to think that I’m telling you that we don’t have a need for the law. The mere purpose of me taking the time to explain things the way I did was to point to not only now, but futuristically how we see God, not me, not dismissing his priesthood (the Levites). As far as me not cutting up goats and more… To my knowledge I am not from the tribe of Aaron, so if these are “the jots” that I’m deciding over and choosing “not to do,” then it does not refer to me. Nor can you think that way with others that aren’t within the Aaronic Priesthood. And to the one tribe these laws are made for, as I said somewhere before, there is no temple for these things to literally be done. This by no means dismisses the Torah. Again, I remind you that there was a time that torah was in full operation as we view it from history, and Daniel and Nehimiah had no access to the temple (much like today). In those moments Yahuah (God) did not dismiss his commandments.

Here is the ending point of my previous point that I believe you missed.

Quote: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

So I deleted your last comment about the Levites being around in the telephone book and more. I only wanted to address what I thought you did not understand on certain points. I’m not trying to go back and forth and make things bitter, so I more than likely will not respond to some of the things you challenge. I feel that anyone should be able to read your point, and mine, and walk away with a made-up mind to research both.

One new thought your brought-up was that you don’t believe what I say about Israelites not believing (my paraphrase).



The only thing you can call to question is if the reasons are the #1 reasons for Judaism being against Christianity. If you want to quote me on the ranking order, then that’s acceptable. Truth is its my rank of order of those that I speak with, not some poll taken from some generic statistic. Each group has their own set of thoughts on how they defend their faith, which normally develops from the normal objections they get from the nearest or most known arguments. I get so many excuses when I talk with Judie’s (my name for those who follow Judaism) that I really can’t tell you which one is the highest ranked. Most of them believe that gentiles should not be told to keep Torah. This has been the topic of my last two discussions with them. In case you don’t believe me about that too, I’m sending you a quote from my personal email. This thought (gentiles not being required to keep torah) comes from Judaism because of the bad blood (literally) of the Jew and Romans rejecting torah in its infantile state of the two coming together after the cross. It runs so much so, that both sides caution to such a thought. The “gentile no law” thing is very easy to dismiss because we see the type of people that left Egypt with the children of Israel. And those same groups of people were called to the covenant equally the same. For the life of me I do not know what they thought the sojourner was doing when they were all called to the mountain. (Exodus 12:38, 48). So no, I don’t know what the quote on quote #1 reasons are, but what I tell you does stand as true reasons. Insert of Jews point below….

Quote:quote from Jewish brethren:

The 613 mitz’vot of Torah given to am Yis’raél at Sinai by God himself were given explicitly and exclusively to the children of Yis’raél. It is clearly stated at Sh’mot/Exodus 20:2 that the audience God was addressing were the people He brought out of bondage in Egypt. Not only are non-Jews not required to observe the 613 mitzvot, they are forbidden to observe most of them.

The Avrahamic Covenant, aka circumcision, is required by all male descendants of Avraham. This would include the descendants of his sons Yish’maél, Zim’ran, Yaq’shan, M’dan, Mid’yan, Yish’baq and Shuaḥ as well as Yitz’ḥaq and his sons Yaʿăqov and ʾÉsav. It is quite clear that God’s covenant of circumcision is not exclusive to Jews; however it is required by all natural Jews as well as all legal converts to Judaism.

The only laws requiring observance by gentiles are the shevaʿ mitz’vot b’nei Noaḥ or the seven commandments of the sons of Noah. These seven categories of commands are further subdivided into 66 individual mitz’vot. The seven categories are 1. No Idolatry; 2. Do not blaspheme God; 3. Do not steal; 4. Do not murder; 5. No unlawful sexual conduct; 6. Set up courts of justice; 7. Do not eat any part of a living creature (i.e. containing blood) The sub-divisions are as follows:

So before you get any ideas about him having a point. I answered him differently, but one of the main problems with his understanding is that gentile does not mean (person that is not a Jew or Israelite). This is why the woman at the well said “for my fathers worshipped in the mountain…” She was an Israelite! And much is the same case for those mingled among the gentile in verse 15 of Acts. Understanding this makes his point – pointless.

---

(04-26-2011 06:11 AM)Mary Wrote:  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!

I'm glad you got that out of it, but sadly you missed what I was hoping would help you in your understanding of how Jesus has brought a new law - the law of Christ.

vs 25:And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

- here Jesus is being asked a question by a lawyer, who we assume knows the law. The law, by the context, we know to be the law of Moses.

vs 26: He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

- Jesus' answer shows the lawyer that Jesus knows he knows the law.

vs 27: 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.

vs 28: And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

vs 29: But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

- the interesting phrase here is "willing to justify himself" . I think he knows full well he has not kept this law, and wants to excuse himself because the "terms are not well defined" - i.e. an excuse.

Jesus' answer is not specific: surely he could have said that everyone is your neighbour, and in that way shown the Spirit of the law? But He chooses to tell a story. Why do you think he did that?

---

lets go back to what Jesus was saying before the Lawyer asked his question: vs 23 -24.
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.

- a typical phrase Jesus used to indicate that not everyone will get the point, so it's important to pay close attention!

In the story of the good Samaritan, we see two people who should know the Law of Moses, who pass the injured man by. Why? Are they mean, wicked, unkind? Or did they believe that to help the man would break one of the laws? (and we know to break one is to break all). After all, the law of Moses was for the people of Israel, and enabled them to keep separate from other peoples - was there something unclean about this injured man? Whatever the reason, it is the Samaritan, who knew not the law of Moses, who enacted the Spirit of the law of Christ. So let me repeat, the Samaritan, who didn't know the Law, could keep it, but the priest and the Levite, who did know the law, and supposedly lived it everyday, could not.

That's what I got out of this parable, and it confirms for me that the Law of Christ is something different from the Law of Moses.

Shalom Mary!

Listen I think it’s great that you got what you did from this story equally the same; however, I’m not seeing where this is telling us that Yahusha (Jesus) has a new law given to us. I’ve provided a few verses back as to what that law will cause us to do through Ezekiel 36:27. The law points us back to the fathers law. His law is the Torah. I’m really having a hard time seeing how we break that cycle and insert Yahusha laws in there when his laws come from the Torah, which I also provided previously Lev 19:18 and Deut 5.

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. Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
(1 John 2:7-8)


Mary, the point of this story has nothing to do with the law in the sense that it is something new.

For the torah reads even more toward the brethren we are not fond of.

To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.
(Deut 32:35)

Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the LORD, and he shall save thee.
(Proverbs 20:22)

Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
(Romans 12:17)

So is he changing Torah here, or is he trying to change the way man see’s torah. The story says that he tried to pump himself-up. This is why that portion should be highlighted. We see this in its fullness when Yahusha (Jesus) is on the cross and he forgives those who are putting him to his death; under torah may I mind you.


This is nothing more but what I said here from day one. He came to magnify the torah and make it honorable.

Isaiah (42:21)


This is more to the same point I made with Rose in regards to what Yahusha (Jesus) calls the heavier matters of the torah. Please read.

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. 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 23:14-23)
If this does not show you what Yahusha ( Jesus) did was not his own law, but the torah’s law I have nothing more to offer you. What I offer you is not my personal understanding,but this is what he tells us his word has to offer. And I repeat again he is the word (John 1).
--
I also want to address a post you made saying that I was twisting Rose words to prove my point.
Not true. Rose alleged that (Jesus) Yahusha broke the torah and that is something that groups such as the Messianic’s think he couldn’t do. Then Rose proceeded on to say that he doesn’t have to abide by the law because he was God and Man. I simply said prove it. Show me where. We know that I’m not placing words in Rose mouth because Rose then proceeds to offer passages from the gospels to prove this point, not me.

I don’t need to condem anyone to get my point across or embaress them for personal gain. That is not love that’s called being a jerk. I even ask Rose to let it go before turning the heat-up a little. And why should I not turn the heat-up for someone says my Mashyiach is a sinner? Do you realize the repercussion that has for all of us? More importantly, I don’t need to prove that no man can keep the law by downing someone else’s view that is called childish. More importantly the bible says otherwise on that very point.
THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless
(Luke 1:6)
I’ll say the same as I have said to Rose, but in another way. I didn’t come here to kick dirt in your clean water; I’m simply here to seek understanding. So far no one has really addressed the main topic on Christ new law. In fact, most of what is being presented all goes back to Torah. Nonetheless, this is how I see it, and Yahuah (God) has blessed you with your own eyes to see what you will.

Shalom!