Jesus broke the law of Moses

[Studyman]

I know this isn't going to be popular but "hear me out" for a moment. I remember as a young Christian trying to defend some of the actions of Christ that were contrary to what the Pharisees claimed were blaspheme. They often claimed that Christ broke the "law of Moses". Which He did. However, Christ was never bound by the law of Moses. Never.

The religious practice of blaming or accusing God, or those who God sent, of misconduct or incompetence is a popular tactic employed by men who profess to know God. It is employed for the purpose of justifying ones own selfish desire to feed their own flesh. The Scriptures first recorded instance of this popular tactic was when Adam was trying to justify his refusal to honor God with simple obedience.

Gen. 3: 12 And the man said, The woman "whom thou gavest to be with me", she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

This same fleshy tactic was used against Moses several times, including judging Moses, who God sent to them, for marrying an Ethiopian woman, and therefore gave them an excuse to speak out against him.

Num. 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

Of course, God's law had already told them that any stranger that sojourned among them, "shall be unto you as one born among you". But it was never about God's Law, it was about justifying the feeding of their own wicked flesh.

The Pharisees also employed this tactic by accusing Jesus, who God sent, of breaking God's Laws and therefore unworthy of their honor and respect. And this to justify their own religion which transgresses God's Commandments by their own traditions. And they didn't like it that Jesus was exposing their religion as wrought in man, and not in God, even though HE grew up among them.

As Jesus Himself pointed out. Luke 4:24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

In like manner, the religions of this world I was born into, in their lust to justify their own religion, employ the same tactic. They promote the philosophy that Jesus rejected/broke God's Laws, which of course the entire Bible teaches HE didn't. They attempt to mask this by calling God's Law, "the Law of Moses". But as anyone who has ever actually read the Bible knows, Moses never created even one Law. The LAW this poster accuses Jesus of Breaking, was God's Law, which is to be expected behavior from the promoters of this world's religions, as clearly shown in the Holy Scriptures from the very beginning and throughout the Bible.

This in no way is an attempt to show Christ sinful. He is ABOVE sin. Impeccable and perfect. However, He did not become the perfect sacrifice for sin because He keep the law of Moses. He TOOK the penalty of the law and was judged for our sins. The approval of the Sacrificial offering of Jesus Christ was solely at the discretion of God the Father. It is the nature of Divinity with Christ Jesus that meet the requirement of God. Literally God Incarnate dying for mankind. Not an adherence to the law of Moses.

We can see this tactic clearly employed here. Sin is transgression of God's Law. Notice the subtle deception. Sin is not defined as transgression of the "Moses Law". Therefore, a man can justify any religious behavior or tradition by simply saying, "it's against the law of Moses", not the Law of God.

Furthermore, it has NEVER been a requirement for the "Lawgiver" to adhere to the law that He gives to those subject to Him. The LawGiver has right sand privileges not afforded to the subject of any law.

I refuse to make such a judgment against God, that HE placed burdens on the necks of men who trust Him, that HE Himself will not lift with one finger. Especially given the commandment given to us and Abraham, that the Son of God promoted.

Matt. 5: 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine;

John 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine:

( what a wonderful proof of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. )

This is one of the reasons that Calvinism has such a hard time actually understanding Romans 9. Romans 9 isn't establishing their view of God's choice in them. It is setting forth God's choice in Himself. The work of Jesus Christ.

Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

There are other examples but I ask of you. Show me how Jesus didn't break the law of Moses by claiming to be God.

This post is founded on several untruths.

#1. God's Law is the Law God gave to men through God's humble servant Moses. He didn't give Abraham Children "Moses Law". The accusation being made here in that Jesus broke God's Laws, which HE didn't.

#2. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, not God the Father.

John 10: 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, "I am the Son of God"?

Peter understood this, even if you don't.

Matt. 16: 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, "the Son of the living God".

And God Himself, according to the eye witnesses.

Matt. 3: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Jesus didn't break God's Laws that God gave Him through Moses. And HE never called Himself God, rather, HE gave us the Words He Father gave Him. And HE saved those men who were "Learned of the Father" that His Father gave to Him At least this is what the Jesus "of the Bible" teaches.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The religious practice of blaming or accusing God, or those who God sent, of misconduct or incompetence is a popular tactic employed by men who profess to know God. It is employed for the purpose of justifying ones own selfish desire to feed their own flesh. The Scriptures first recorded instance of this popular tactic was when Adam was trying to justify his refusal to honor God with simple obedience.

Gen. 3: 12 And the man said, The woman "whom thou gavest to be with me", she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

This same fleshy tactic was used against Moses several times, including judging Moses, who God sent to them, for marrying an Ethiopian woman, and therefore gave them an excuse to speak out against him.

Num. 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

Of course, God's law had already told them that any stranger that sojourned among them, "shall be unto you as one born among you". But it was never about God's Law, it was about justifying the feeding of their own wicked flesh.

The Pharisees also employed this tactic by accusing Jesus, who God sent, of breaking God's Laws and therefore unworthy of their honor and respect. And this to justify their own religion which transgresses God's Commandments by their own traditions. And they didn't like it that Jesus was exposing their religion as wrought in man, and not in God, even though HE grew up among them.

As Jesus Himself pointed out. Luke 4:24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

In like manner, the religions of this world I was born into, in their lust to justify their own religion, employ the same tactic. They promote the philosophy that Jesus rejected/broke God's Laws, which of course the entire Bible teaches HE didn't. They attempt to mask this by calling God's Law, "the Law of Moses". But as anyone who has ever actually read the Bible knows, Moses never created even one Law. The LAW this poster accuses Jesus of Breaking, was God's Law, which is to be expected behavior from the promoters of this world's religions, as clearly shown in the Holy Scriptures from the very beginning and throughout the Bible.



We can see this tactic clearly employed here. Sin is transgression of God's Law. Notice the subtle deception. Sin is not defined as transgression of the "Moses Law". Therefore, a man can justify any religious behavior or tradition by simply saying, "it's against the law of Moses", not the Law of God.




I refuse to make such a judgment against God, that HE placed burdens on the necks of men who trust Him, that HE Himself will not lift with one finger. Especially given the commandment given to us and Abraham, that the Son of God promoted.

Matt. 5: 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.



This post is founded on several untruths.

#1. God's Law is the Law God gave to men through God's humble servant Moses. He didn't give Abraham Children "Moses Law". The accusation being made here in that Jesus broke God's Laws, which HE didn't.

#2. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, not God the Father.

John 10: 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, "I am the Son of God"?

Peter understood this, even if you don't.

Matt. 16: 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, "the Son of the living God".

And God Himself, according to the eye witnesses.

Matt. 3: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Jesus didn't break God's Laws that God gave Him through Moses. And HE never called Himself God, rather, HE gave us the Words He Father gave Him. And HE saved those men who were "Learned of the Father" that His Father gave to Him At least this is what the Jesus "of the Bible" teaches.

It is a small thing to be judged of you.

Jesus called it Moses's law right? Moses had authority from God but didn't speak FOR God. God speaks Himself.
God Himself spoke in the Person of Jesus Christ. You don't believe this fact is true. I'll take your judgement of me as an honor when you care so little about Christ.

The descendents of Abraham rejected God at Sinai. God even offered to kill everyone of them and start alone from the seed of Moses. Moses rejected God's offer. Moses owned them.

 

[praise_yeshua]

If He broke the law of Moses then that would make Him guilty of sin and a sinner.

I understand how most would believe this. However, Moses wasn't the judge of Christ. Who is the judge of Christ?

When the disciples of Christ broke the law of Moses by breaking the Sabbath by traveling on the Sabbath day., Jesus told those that accused them that a greater Person than Moses was there. That Person was their Judge. Jesus even appealed to how David broke the law of Moses and was guiltless.

Laws such as the law of Moses could never accurately and fully represent the Character of God to humanity. Christ alone did. Which brings us to the law of Christ fully and perfectly represented among them Incarnate in Christ Himself.

One of these days we should have a lengthy discussion on this. I understand your position but sinfulness relative to God isn't found in absolute purity among laws given to man. There was no duty for Christ to keep the law of Moses. The Eternal Character of God is how God valued the sacrifice of Christ. Not adherence to the law of Moses.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I agree with this much, at least.

Christ was the promised heir of Abraham's covenant.

Moses' covenant came later and was "added because of transgressions." It was meant to be a temporary covenant for the PUNISHMENT of Israel.

The prophet Jeremiah was already declaring the dereliction of Moses' covenant and the establishment of a "New Covenant" in the 8th century BC.

9 centuries later, some bass-ackwards Israelites were still clinging to their covenant of PUNISHMENT out of false-piety. Moses' Law gave them the opportunity to ESTABLISH THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS against that of their neighbor.

The sole heir for righteousness sake. The only child of Sarah with an inheritance.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Jesus is saying that the pharisees were imposing their traditions of men as the Law of God. God’s Law included the Spirit of the Law. The traditions of men majored on the LETTER +++ of the Law. In Mathew 5 Jesus gave several examples where he was properly restoring the spirit of the law, ie filling it full back to the way God originally intended it. As he said he didn’t come to abolish or overturn the Law - He propey interpreted what they had fouled up. Same with the Sabbath.

What does fulfilling the law do to that law? Isn't it superceded?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Gods Law serves to reveal God's holy standard, expose and define human sinfulness (showing our need for a Savior like Jesus), guide believers in righteous living (love God, love neighbor), restrain societal evil, and demonstrate how to live a blessed life in relationship with God and others, ultimately reflecting God's character. They function as a mirror to show our flaws and a guide for a life of freedom and peace, NOT a means to earn salvation.

God wrote His law in tablets of stone. Where did Moses write his law?

There is a sense of allegory in the law of Moses but it was not an absolute. In many ways, It was a detailing of endless failures by the children of Israel.

It is not in the Character of God to murder his own children even if they curse Him.

God's law concerning the cursing of our fathers is a law intend to force self reflection.

 

[praise_yeshua]

In Deuteronomy chapter 30, they were give given a choice, blessings or curses. They chose curses. God’s commands were not a burden or difficult. They were INTENDED as blessings. It was all their choice. They blew it. I was told all my life that no one could obey the Law. God said I was told wrong as per Deuteronomy 30.

Do you wear the clothing required in the law of Moses. If not, then why not?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Hello. I certainly wasn't implying God has moral obligations to obey his own Law, but when Jesus submitted himself to becoming a man he did bind himself to the Law of God. We are all required to keep that Law of God, and failure to do so is called "sin." When God commands a ceremonial law, it becomes at the time he commands it a moral law. Because obedience is a moral issue. So the OT Jews could not simply ignore God's ceremonial laws as irrelevant to morality. However the laws were not meant to be kept legalistically—that was not their intent. Thus, the things that Christ does only seem to the legalistic Pharisees to be breaking the Law—they were not actually breaking the spirit of the Law at any point. There may be some cases where the Messiah is given special exemption, however in the main I firmly believe Jesus truly kept the Torah. And on the Cross the Old Covenant ended.

I am no longer posting here, this is an exception.

You should still post here. Things change. People change.

The old covenant still works in death among all of humanity. It a testament of death and inability. It invokes the desires of the will of men to prove themselves that always ends in failure.

Christ dying fulfilled the demands of the law. Not any sense of "proving ourselves worthy".

 

[civic]

I understand how most would believe this. However, Moses wasn't the judge of Christ. Who is the judge of Christ?

When the disciples of Christ broke the law of Moses by breaking the Sabbath by traveling on the Sabbath day., Jesus told those that accused them that a greater Person than Moses was there. That Person was their Judge. Jesus even appealed to how David broke the law of Moses and was guiltless.

Laws such as the law of Moses could never accurately and fully represent the Character of God to humanity. Christ alone did. Which brings us to the law of Christ fully and perfectly represented among them Incarnate in Christ Himself.

One of these days we should have a lengthy discussion on this. I understand your position but sinfulness relative to God isn't found in absolute purity among laws given to man. There was no duty for Christ to keep the law of Moses. The Eternal Character of God is how God valued the sacrifice of Christ. Not adherence to the law of Moses.

That would make for a good topic one if these days on the video chat

 

[Soyeong]

He repeatedly broke the Sabbath Law and even told others to - "take up your pallet and go home." He acknowledged that when His disciples were picking the heads of grain on the sabbath Day, they were breaking the Law - not by picking the heads of grain (Deut.23:25), but by doing it on the sabbath day. Matthew 12:1-8 We know that, because He likened what they were doing to David and his men eating the shewbread, which was unlawful, yet He declared them innocent. He also declared His disciples innocent, even though they were unlawfully working on the sabbath - verse 7.
Notice verse 8 - "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." That means He is not subservient to the sabbath, but the sabbath is subservient to Him.
This idea that the Creator of the universe must be obedient to the laws that He gave man is ridiculous. That in itself is legalism - demanding more from Jesus that He requires of Himself. Of course He would not go against a moral law, because that would violate His own character, but the sabbath was a ceremonial law, not a moral law. He could violate the ceremonial laws all day long and not incur any guilt whatsoever. He touched dead bodies and lepers, which was unlawful. He even acknowledged that if any man had a sheep fall into a pit on the sabbath day, that man would work to get that sheep out, implying no guilt whatsoever. He also said that the Jews would untie their animals on the sabbath and lead them away to water them, again incurring no guilt. He also said that the priests in the temple worked on the sabbath and were innocent.

How is it that you can make an exception for a man getting his sheep out of a pit, or leading his animals away to water them, or for the priests in the temple - but somehow you can't make an exception for Jesus, The Lord of the Sabbath? Is that a double standard or what?

Jesus and the Apostles quoted the OT hundreds of times in order to support what they were saying, so it doesn't work for someone to take the position that we should follow just what they said but not what they considered to be an authoritative source. For example, Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3), so he affirmed God as being an authoritative source and he should not be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God spoke in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 in regard to keeping the Sabbath holy. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, in Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying the law, and in 1 John 3:4, sin is the transgression of God's law, so there are major problems with interpreted Jesus breaking and speaking against obeying God's law.

There are a number of laws that appear to conflict with each other such as with God commanding to rest on the Sabbath while also commanding priests to make offerings on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), however, it was not the case that priests were forced to sin by breaking one of the two commands no matter what they chose to do but that the lesser command was never intended to be understood as preventing the greater command from being obeyed. This is why Jesus said in Matthew 12:5-7 that priests who did their duties on the Sabbath were held innocent, why David and his men were held innocent, and why he defended his disciples as being innocent. Jesus defending his disciples as being innocent of breaking God's law is the opposite of acknowledging that they were breaking it. This is also why it is lawful to circumcise a baby on the 8th day if it happens to fall on the Sabbath, why it is lawful to get an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath, and so forth.

The Hebrew word "yada" refers to intimate relationship/knowledge gained by experience such as with Genesis 4:1 where Adam knew "yada" Eve, she conceived, and gave birth to Cain. God's way is the way to know Him and Jesus by being in His likeness through embodying His character traits, which is the narrow way to eternal life (John 17:3), and which is the basis for morality. For example, in Genesis 18:19, God knew (yada) Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in His way by being doers of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know (yada) Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to graciously teaching us how to know God and Jesus by walking in His way. So everything in God's law is inherently are moral law and God does not transgress His law because it is His instructions for how to know Him by embodying His character traits.

Holiness is one of God's character traits, so holiness is a moral issue. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes keeping His Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3). While all sin makes someone unclean, not everything that makes someone unclean is sin, so it was not a sin for Jesus to become unclean by touching a dead body, touching someone who had tzaraat, or touching the woman who was suffering from bleeding, but it would have been a sin if Jesus had entered the Temple while being unclean. The Bible does not command against becoming unclean but commands against entering the Temple while unclean.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Jesus and the Apostles quoted the OT hundreds of times in order to support what they were saying, so it doesn't work for someone to take the position that we should follow just what they said but not what they considered to be an authoritative source. For example, Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3), so he affirmed God as being an authoritative source and he should not be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God spoke in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 in regard to keeping the Sabbath holy. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, in Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying the law, and in 1 John 3:4, sin is the transgression of God's law, so there are major problems with interpreted Jesus breaking and speaking against obeying God's law.

There are a number of laws that appear to conflict with each other such as with God commanding to rest on the Sabbath while also commanding priests to make offerings on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), however, it was not the case that priests were forced to sin by breaking one of the two commands no matter what they chose to do but that the lesser command was never intended to be understood as preventing the greater command from being obeyed. This is why Jesus said in Matthew 12:5-7 that priests who did their duties on the Sabbath were held innocent, why David and his men were held innocent, and why he defended his disciples as being innocent. Jesus defending his disciples as being innocent of breaking God's law is the opposite of acknowledging that they were breaking it. This is also why it is lawful to circumcise a baby on the 8th day if it happens to fall on the Sabbath, why it is lawful to get an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath, and so forth.

The Hebrew word "yada" refers to intimate relationship/knowledge gained by experience such as with Genesis 4:1 where Adam knew "yada" Eve, she conceived, and gave birth to Cain. God's way is the way to know Him and Jesus by being in His likeness through embodying His character traits, which is the narrow way to eternal life (John 17:3), and which is the basis for morality. For example, in Genesis 18:19, God knew (yada) Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in His way by being doers of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know (yada) Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to graciously teaching us honow to know God and Jesus by walking in His way. So everything in God's law is inherently are moral law and God does not transgress His law because it is His instructions for how to know Him by embodying His character traits.

Holiness is one of God's character traits, so holiness is a moral issue. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes keeping His Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3). While all sin makes someone unclean, not everything that makes someone unclean is sin, so it was not a sin for Jesus to become unclean by touching a dead body, touching someone who had tzaraat, or touching the woman who was suffering from bleeding, but it would have been a sin if Jesus had entered the Temple while being unclean. The Bible does not command against becoming unclean but commands against entering the Temple while unclean.

The argument you're making is self defeating. It only "works" when you obey. Any sense of failure requires extreme judgement.

Have you ever been judged by your law?

 

[Soyeong]

The argument you're making is self defeating. It only "works" when you obey. Any sense of failure requires extreme judgement.

Have you ever been judged by your law?

How is it self-defeating? If someone disobeys God's law, then they can repent and return to obedience to it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

How is it self-defeating? If someone disobeys God's law, then they can repent and return to obedience to it.

You ignored the other part of my response.

Have you ever been judged by your law?

 

[Studyman]

It is a small thing to be judged of you.

It's not you that I am instructed to judge, it is the doctrines and philosophies you are promoting, that I am instructed to judge. Namely, that Jesus broke His Father's Laws.

Jesus called it Moses's law right?

Can you show me where Jesus called God's Laws, "Moses Law"?

He called them God's Word, He called them "The Commandments", HE said "Moses gave you the Law", and HE said to do and observe all those who read Moses on the Sabbath days instructed to observe. He said to Live By Every Word of God. I look forward to you showing me where Jesus called god's commandments, "Moses Law"? And if you can't, will it change anything?

Moses had authority from God but didn't speak FOR God. God speaks Himself.

I am more interested in what the Scriptures actually say, that is why I posted to show the contrast between this world's popular religious philosophies you promote, and what the Scriptures actually teach. Here is what God and Moses relationship was, according to what is actually written.

Ex. 4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? 12 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.

15 And thou shalt speak unto him (Aaron), and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.

So your attempt to divide the Law and Prophets into "God's Law" and "Moses Law", might be popular in this world's religions, and an excuse used by "many" who profess to know God to reject many of His Judgments, statutes and commandments. But Jesus and the Apostles never engaged in such a behavior.

God Himself spoke in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Again, here is what the Jesus "of the bible" actually taught.

John 17: 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As "thou hast given him" power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as "thou hast given him".

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work "which "thou gavest me" to do".

8 For I have given unto them the words "which thou gavest me"; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that "thou didst send me".

So clearly God spoke to us "Through His Son", at least according to the Words of the Jesus "of the bible".

You don't believe this fact is true. I'll take your judgement of me as an honor when you care so little about Christ.

I believe what is written, that you can't seem to bring yourself to even acknowledge. And the judgment is against this world's religious philosophies you are promoting, that Jesus broke God's Laws. I showed you how this religious tactic of accusing and demeaning God and those HE sent to speak His Words, has been used for centuries to justify man-made doctrines, philosophies and traditions.

And instead of discussing these things, you make your usual accusations against me, just as you do against God and His Son, the Jesus of the Bible. I am truly honored, although I deserve it, and God and His Obedient Son do not, in my view.

Nevertheless, it seems prudent from time to time, to point out what is actually written in Scriptures, for those reading along, who might not swallow the popular judgments against the Lord's Christ of rebelling against His Father's Laws.

The descendents of Abraham rejected God at Sinai.

Again, the Jesus "of the bible" defines for you who the Children of Abraham are. I can show you if you like. And none of Abraham children, as defined by the Jesus "of the Bible", rejected God at Mt. Sinai. Caleb didn't reject God, Joshua didn't reject God. Why would a man who professed to know God, completely ignore one of the most important Truths of the Exodus?

God even offered to kill everyone of them and start alone from the seed of Moses. Moses rejected God's offer. Moses owned them.

Again, according to what is actually written, Moses didn't "reject God's Offer". In your religion, this is what is taught. But in the actual Scriptures, this doctrine doesn't exist.

Here, let me show you what transpired on Mt. Sinai, according to what is actually written.

Ex. 32: 9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:

10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

11 And Moses "besought the LORD his God", and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

Clearly Moses pleaded on their behalf, surely something even you, must hope God's Mediator will do for you "in that day".

31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, "out of thy book which thou hast written".

Where is your philosophy that Moses "Rejected God Offer"? It doesn't exist in Scripture, like so much of this world's religious traditions and doctrines. Moses was willing to give up his own life for these people, but God didn't take Moses up on the offer. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know why.

And what did God say?

33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. 14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

 

[praise_yeshua]

It's not you that I am instructed to judge, it is the doctrines and philosophies you are promoting, that I am instructed to judge. Namely, that Jesus broke His Father's Laws.



Can you show me where Jesus called God's Laws, "Moses Law"?

He called them God's Word, He called them "The Commandments", HE said "Moses gave you the Law", and HE said to do and observe all those who read Moses on the Sabbath days instructed to observe. He said to Live By Every Word of God. I look forward to you showing me where Jesus called god's commandments, "Moses Law"? And if you can't, will it change anything?


I am more interested in what the Scriptures actually say, that is why I posted to show the contrast between this world's popular religious philosophies you promote, and what the Scriptures actually teach. Here is what God and Moses relationship was, according to what is actually written.

Ex. 4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? 12 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.

15 And thou shalt speak unto him (Aaron), and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.

So your attempt to divide the Law and Prophets into "God's Law" and "Moses Law", might be popular in this world's religions, and an excuse used by "many" who profess to know God to reject many of His Judgments, statutes and commandments. But Jesus and the Apostles never engaged in such a behavior.



Again, here is what the Jesus "of the bible" actually taught.

John 17: 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As "thou hast given him" power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as "thou hast given him".

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work "which "thou gavest me" to do".

8 For I have given unto them the words "which thou gavest me"; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that "thou didst send me".

So clearly God spoke to us "Through His Son", at least according to the Words of the Jesus "of the bible".



I believe what is written, that you can't seem to bring yourself to even acknowledge. And the judgment is against this world's religious philosophies you are promoting, that Jesus broke God's Laws. I showed you how this religious tactic of accusing and demeaning God and those HE sent to speak His Words, has been used for centuries to justify man-made doctrines, philosophies and traditions.

And instead of discussing these things, you make your usual accusations against me, just as you do against God and His Son, the Jesus of the Bible. I am truly honored, although I deserve it, and God and His Obedient Son do not, in my view.

Nevertheless, it seems prudent from time to time, to point out what is actually written in Scriptures, for those reading along, who might not swallow the popular judgments against the Lord's Christ of rebelling against His Father's Laws.



Again, the Jesus "of the bible" defines for you who the Children of Abraham are. I can show you if you like. And none of Abraham children, as defined by the Jesus "of the Bible", rejected God at Mt. Sinai. Caleb didn't reject God, Joshua didn't reject God. Why would a man who professed to know God, completely ignore one of the most important Truths of the Exodus?



Again, according to what is actually written, Moses didn't "reject God's Offer". In your religion, this is what is taught. But in the actual Scriptures, this doctrine doesn't exist.

Here, let me show you what transpired on Mt. Sinai, according to what is actually written.

Ex. 32: 9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:

10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

11 And Moses "besought the LORD his God", and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

Clearly Moses pleaded on their behalf, surely something even you, must hope God's Mediator will do for you "in that day".

31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, "out of thy book which thou hast written".

Where is your philosophy that Moses "Rejected God Offer"? It doesn't exist in Scripture, like so much of this world's religious traditions and doctrines. Moses was willing to give up his own life for these people, but God didn't take Moses up on the offer. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know why.

And what did God say?

33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. 14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Mat 8:4 And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”

 

[Jaime]

What does fulfilling the law do to that law? Isn't it superceded?

Awesome question!

According to my Blue Letter Bible App,
In Mathew 5:17, the Greek word translated “fulfill” is plēroō, which in strongs means:

to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally.

I abound, I am liberally supplied
to render full, i.e. to complete
to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
to consummate: a number
to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
to carry through to the end, to accomplish

In the context of the Pharisees actually emptying or abolishing the Law by polliting it with their Traditions of Men, and Jesus RESTORED IT, or FILLED IT FULL, ack to its original extent as God intended.

In my opinion fullfill DOES NOT mean to end or abolish, but to bring it to its full realization or intent, with the spirit as well as theblettermof the Law that they had perverted.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Awesome question!

According to my Blue Letter Bible App,
In Mathew 5:17, the Greek word translated “fulfill” is plēroō, which in strongs means:

to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally.

I abound, I am liberally supplied
to render full, i.e. to complete
to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
to consummate: a number
to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
to carry through to the end, to accomplish

In the context of the Pharisees actually emptying or abolishing the Law by polliting it with their Traditions of Men, and Jesus RESTORED IT, or FILLED IT FULL, ack to its original extent as God intended.

In my opinion fullfill DOES NOT mean to end or abolish, but to bring it to its full realization or intent, with the spirit as well as theblettermof the Law that they had perverted.

The best way to understand languages and words is to reason the thoughts those words convey. For example. I know Hebrews 8:13

Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away

Can you consider Hebrews 8:13 in your response please?

Also, do you believe Christ had to die for humanity? If someone could have kept the law, would Christ had to have died?

I don't like the very idea of Christ dying in vain.

Gal 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

 

[Jaime]

The best way to understand languages and words is to reason the thoughts those words convey. For example. I know Hebrews 8:13

Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away

Can you consider Hebrews 8:13 in your response please?

Also, do you believe Christ had to die for humanity? If someone could have kept the law, would Christ had to have died?

I don't like the very idea of Christ dying in vain.

Gal 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

 

[Studyman]

Mat 8:4 And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”

Matt. 8: 4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

No, you can't use the Law of the Leper as "Moses Law".

Lev. 14: 1 And "the LORD spake" unto Moses, saying, 2 "This shall be the law of the leper" in the day of his cleansing: "He shall be brought unto the priest".

In your religion, who gave the leper to the Prophesied Priest of God, (Like unto Moses) "in the day of his cleansing"? Of course you will not answer.

It's OK PY. I know how important it is for one to justify their philosophies. I only posted for the reasons I said I posted. I know you cannot be persuaded that Jesus didn't break God's Laws, Jesus Himself told me.

Luke 16: 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

[Jaime]

Hebrews 8:13 talks about the Old covenant becoming obsolete, the New covenant will be written on hearts as Jeremiah predicted. Jesus FILLING FULL God’s Law was separate from the Old Covenant of the blood of bulls and goats becoming obsolete making way for Jesus’s blood being sufficient once and for all times.

In Deuteronomy 31:24-27 it speaks of the Handwritten ordinances (Mosaic Law)

24 ¶ When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book to the very end,
25 Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD,
26 “Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against you.
27 For I know how rebellious and stubborn you are. Behold, even today while I am yet alive with you, you have been rebellious against the LORD. How much more after my death!

This Mosaic Law (handwritten ordinances held as a witness against) us was NAILED TO THE CROSS.

God’s moral law remains as he intended FILLED FULL to it’s original extent and meaning, with the spirit as well as the letter.

Thanks for your inquiry!