Jesus "under the law"????

[Soyeong]

More weasel words from you. You have endless described your beliefs. I don't need to ask you whether you believe something or not. You have extensively described your beliefs. I have told you this over and over again. Why can't you accept the obvious? If someone accurately describes what vehicle they saw in an accident, then the police/law don't have to wait for you to confirm who they arrest. You have given me extensive detail. I don't need to ask your opinion of yourself. Your opinion of yourself doesn't matter. You can't see yourself for what you are. Which is why I have repeatedly told you that you're not self aware. You are an addict to Jewish delusional introspection. You have obviously had it so ingrained in your thinking that you're not going to listen to what I have to say nor actually deal with arguments. You're endlessly deflecting. I can only leave you to God. Which is what I'm going to do.

You pretend like my words are the problem when you when you continue to dismiss the things that I've said without interacting with them to explain why you think that they are wrong. I endlessly describe my beliefs because because you endlessly ignore what I've said about my beliefs and refuse to interact with what I've said and instead prefer to make up things about what I believe. You do not come even remotely close to describing my beliefs, you won't listen to me tell you otherwise, and you don't care about accurately describing my beliefs. You are endlessly deflecting is when you accuse me of using weasel words instead of dealing with my arguments. You pretend like there is something wrong with me for needing to endlessly deflect your false accusations.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

It does. Where does it say that in the law?

Levi paid tithes IN ABRAHAM to Melchizedek, establishing Melchizedek as Levi's superior.

So no example of Jesus breaking the law.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Levi paid tithes IN ABRAHAM to Melchizedek, establishing Melchizedek as Levi's superior.

So no example of Jesus breaking the law.

You're misquoting the writer. Abraham didn't tithe to Melchizedek. He gave the King of Salem money from the spoils that he claimed was not his own money.

Heb 7:4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

Gen 14:23 That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

That is not how tithing works.

Melchizedek was a Priestly King. The Hebrew writer contrast the order of Melchizedek and the order of Aaron. You're combining them. That is your invention. Not what the Scriptures teach.

Read what is actually written.

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 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Pay close attention to....

Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Do you see that word "DISANNULLING"?

What was DISANNULLED? A commandment......

There is a reason that Jews sought to kill Christ. There is reason Jews sought to kill Paul. They taught that the law wasn't their hope.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

You're misquoting the writer. Abraham didn't tithe to Melchizedek.

Gen 14:18-20 deal with it. Melchisedek IS the "king of Salem". You're playing "word games".

Heb 7:4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

I thought Abraham didn't tithe to him???

Melchizedek was a Priestly King. The Hebrew writer contrast the order of Melchizedek and the order of Aaron. You're combining them. That is your invention. Not what the Scriptures teach.

According to your theological Paradigm. You need to study Hebrews a bit more. Melchizedek ESTABLISHED the existence of a priesthood on a higher level than that of Levi - that Jesus fit right into as Messiah.

Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Do you see that word "DISANNULLING"?

What was DISANNULLED?

The OLD COVENANT, of course. The destruction of the Temple veil was an indication that THE OLD covenant had been "disannulled", and Jesus' Resurrection was proof that His SIN OFFERING had been honored by Father.

There is a reason that Jews sought to kill Christ. There is reason Jews sought to kill Paul. They taught that the law wasn't their hope.

Certainly a contributing factor. However THE LAW is eternal, since it's God's WILL.

Of course you may have forgotten that the Jewish religious theologians had "enhanced" the LAW with many things which weren't the "law" at all.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Gen 14:18-20 deal with it. Melchisedek IS the "king of Salem". You're playing "word games".

I thought Abraham didn't tithe to him???

Pay attention to what I said. The Order of Aaron were never Kings. NEVER. Melchisedek was a Priestly King. You're the one that made the mistake in

No Abraham gave the King of Salem a tenth. Not a tithe. A tenth. There is a difference between a tenth and a tithe. The money wasn't Abraham's money to tithe. Abraham refused to take any money from the spoils of war.

According to your theological Paradigm. You need to study Hebrews a bit more. Melchizedek ESTABLISHED the existence of a priesthood on a higher level than that of Levi - that Jesus fit right into as Messiah.

Which had NOTHING to do with Levi. You're connecting Levi when he has no relation to Christ. Christ is of the tribe of Judah. Not my mistake. It is your mistake.

The OLD COVENANT, of course. The destruction of the Temple veil was an indication that THE OLD covenant had been "disannulled", and Jesus' Resurrection was proof that His SIN OFFERING had been honored by Father.

Glad you agree.

Certainly a contributing factor. However THE LAW is eternal, since it's God's WILL.

No. The law of Moses is not Eternal. It was disannulled and changed. Things that change are not ETERNAL. They are temporal.

Of course you may have forgotten that the Jewish religious theologians had "enhanced" the LAW with many things which weren't the "law" at all.

The order of Aaron was established by Moses. Moses was the Mediator of that law. He died and his body is still in the grave. Christ is alive forever more. He is the Mediator of an Eternal Covenant which speaks better things than Moses. Notice the word BETTER!!!!

Things that need improving are not perfect. That includes the law of Moses.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Pay attention to what I said. The Order of Aaron were never Kings. NEVER. Melchisedek was a Priestly King.

Totally unimportant.

No Abraham gave the King of Salem a tenth. Not a tithe. A tenth. There is a difference between a tenth and a tithe.

Word games.

Which had NOTHING to do with Levi. You're connecting Levi when he has no relation to Christ.

Wrong again. LEVI WAS the priesthood, and LEVI when he was IN ADAM tithed to Melchizedek, establishing Melchizedek's priesthood as SUPERIOR the Levi's. Jesus was of Melchisedek's priesthood.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Totally unimportant.

If the Scripture declare something. It is always important.

Word games.

No. You tithe from that which is your's to give. You take what you earn and give to God.

Wrong again. LEVI WAS the priesthood, and LEVI when he was IN ADAM tithed to Melchizedek, establishing Melchizedek's priesthood as SUPERIOR the Levi's. Jesus was of Melchisedek's priesthood.

I agree that the Priestly heritage of Christ is better. Never said otherwise. The law established Levi. An oath established Christ. You're the one that tried tie Christ to Levi. Not me.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

If the Scripture declare something. It is always important.

Only if you pay attention to the CONTEXT. Abraham TITHED TO MELCHISIDEK whether you like it or not.

No. You tithe from that which is your's to give. You take what you earn and give to God.

WHich is exctly what Abraham did. the "Spoils were HIS". You're just playing "WOrd Games".

I agree that the Priestly heritage of Christ is better. Never said otherwise. The law established Levi.

Nope, GOD CHOSE LEVI to be the priesthood. (Deut 21:5)

An oath established Christ. You're the one that tried tie Christ to Levi. Not me.

The OLD COVENANT was Levi. Melchisedek established the EXISTENCE of a higher priesthood than Levi. ANd Jesus, with His Sacrifice (Sin offering) moved into that position.

 

[Soyeong]

In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, which is why Christians teaching that Jesus did that is one of the biggest reasons why Jews consider him to be a false prophet, and if Jesus actually had done that, then they would be correctly acting in accordance with what God instructed them to do.

 

[e v e]

there is God speaking
that is His law, His Words
and everywhere
that was His paradise
which He spoke
was Good
and all nature had His signature.


then there started the fall
and His gorgeous reality was
deeply affected
and His souls hurt by the evil ones
and sent faraway from home:
all of this our situation Now
in a foreign land whose
nature does not have His signature

there is His law

and there is this realm of death
this earth where we are.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

If the Scripture declare something. It is always important.



No. You tithe from that which is your's to give. You take what you earn and give to God.



I agree that the Priestly heritage of Christ is better. Never said otherwise. The law established Levi. An oath established Christ. You're the one that tried tie Christ to Levi. Not me.

SO - where's your evidence that Jesus didn't keep the LAW?? we're still waiting. you said it was "All over the Scriptures".

 

[praise_yeshua]

WHich is exctly what Abraham did. the "Spoils were HIS". You're just playing "WOrd Games".

No. That is why I mentioned that Abraham give the spoils to those who owned them. Read the Scriptures again.

Gen 14:23 That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

You're making Abraham into a thief. A thief would chase down a group of thieves and murders that had stolen all that that Sodom had and then keep it all for himself. You really haven't given this much thought. You're just repeating what you've been taught.

The OLD COVENANT was Levi. Melchisedek established the EXISTENCE of a higher priesthood than Levi. ANd Jesus, with His Sacrifice (Sin offering) moved into that position.

Correct. The law of Moses made Levi priest. Christ did not spring forth from the law. He is the law giver. He was never under the law. The law did not establish His priesthood. Did you notice the words "HIGHER" in what you said?

 

[praise_yeshua]

SO - where's your evidence that Jesus didn't keep the LAW?? we're still waiting. you said it was "All over the Scriptures".

I gave you examples that you ignored.

Jesus said He greater than Moses. Did Korah do the same? What happened to Korah?

Jesus said He was greater than the Temple.

Mat 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

You should realize that Jews to this day reject Christ because He committed blasphemy by claiming to be God. You believe what they consider the be blasphemy.

By the law of Moses. They are right. There is no provision in law of Moses that allows a man to claim equality with God. What they didn't realize was, that He is the LAW GIVER. He was more than just a man.

The law was inadequate in many respects. It set requirements for men that God never was bound by Himself. The Law Giver has no requirement to live under the same laws as His subjects. The Law Giver is privileged.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.


Luk 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
Luk 2:42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
Luk 2:43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
Luk 2:44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
Luk 2:45 And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
Luk 2:46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
Luk 2:47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

How does Jesus's actions fulfill Exo 20:12?

They don't. In fact, you see his father and mother rightfully declaring "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us"...... They were right to be upset.

However, read Jesus's answer.

I must be about my Father's business?

Jesus was not bound by the law. He was the Law Giver. He rightfully answered them that His real Father was leading him. As a man, he broke the law. As God, He was never bond to the law

He fulfilled the law by submitting to the penalty of death required by the law. He took our penalty upon Himself.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

No. That is why I mentioned that Abraham give the spoils to those who owned them. Read the Scriptures again.

Gen 14:23 That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

You're making Abraham into a thief. A thief would chase down a group of thieves and murders that had stolen all that that Sodom had and then keep it all for himself. You really haven't given this much thought. You're just repeating what you've been taught.

Of course Abraham only gave Melchizedek (the King of Salem) 10% of the spoils, and returned the balance to the king of SODOM. And since LEVI gave 10% to Melchizedek (being inside Abraham at the time), The PRIESTHOOD of Melchizedek established the existence of a GREATER Priesthood than that of Levi. SO according to your evaluation, Abraham only "stole" 10%

Correct. The law of Moses made Levi priest. Christ did not spring forth from the law. He is the law giver. He was never under the law.

FALSE!! Jesus, in his physical walk on earth, was UNDER THE LAW just like every other human. And that He kept it perfectly rendered His sacrifice VALID before God. remember that the NEW COVENANT wasn't in existence until AFTER Calvary.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I gave you examples that you ignored.

Jesus said He greater than Moses.

Which isn't a PROBLEM at all - Jesus IS Greater than Moses.

Jesus said He was greater than the Temple.

Which isn't a PROBLEM at all - Jesus IS Greater than "the temple".

You should realize that Jews to this day reject Christ because He committed blasphemy by claiming to be God.

Which isn't a PROBLEM at all Jesus IS GOD.

You believe what they consider the be blasphemy.

What IGNORANT religious people consider doesn't mean SPIT.

By the law of Moses. They are right. There is no provision in law of Moses that allows a man to claim equality with God. What they didn't realize was, that He is the LAW GIVER. He was more than just a man.

SO their opinion was / is WORTHLESS, and they MURDERED their Messiah, without even knowing who HE was.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Paul is right. Jesus was made under the law. However, it is important to understand how Christ was made "under the law".

"Under the law" is a reference to the penalty of the law that Christ suffered. Christ dying for humanity

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

We know that Jesus Christ did not keep the law of Moses. Examples of this are found throughout the Scriptures. I know that this statement offends many of you. You believe that I'm "soiling" the work of Christ because of this. I'm not. It is not the law that made Christ righteous. Christ is Impeccable and Divine. God Incarnate.

Keeping the law could never impart righteousness. It hasn't for us and it didn't for Jesus Christ.

I've mentioned this several times recently and it has been ignored....

Christ was NOT a Priest after the order of Aaron. Yet, it is by the law that the order of Aaron was DEDICATED ALONE to the Priestly work. Only the order of Aaron could attend for man under the law.

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.

God, destroyed the "Holy of Holies" of Aaron.

Mat 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

The Lawgiver doesn't have to abide by the law given to His subjects. In fact, we KNOW that Christ didn't. He is the Lawgiver dying for humanity. It is the penalty of the law (DEATH) that Christ was made under.

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

There is a reason why the term "substitution" is used in Atonement concept and practice. The Jews were under the requirement to obey the Law but could not. The Law showed them they were sinners.
So, under Covenant as the Jews were and Jesus becoming a Jewish man by birth to be the Jews' substitution and as such was also under requirement to obey the Law and it did. But it didn't kill Him because of the Holy Spirit 'rested' upon Him. And the fact that Jesus was sinless the Law could not touch Him.
In this same way when the Holy Spirit saves someone He dwells within that person and the Law cannot touch that person. But for a person without the Holy Spirit the Law will kill him/her. The Law/Holy Spirit will kill every person that is not anointed by the Spirit and will kill every person without the anointing.
So, yes, Jesus was required to obey the Law and was the substitution for the Jew in all ways.

 

[Behold]

"Under the law" is a reference to the penalty of the law that Christ suffered. Christ dying for humanity

All humans are born into this world under the Law, exactly the same.

Yeshua, being a virgin born man, was no exception.

He, The Lord, had to fulfill all the law, perfectly, so that we can now become this... "not under the Law, but under Grace"..

The Cross is our redemption from the Law.. Its our escape from the "curse of the Law".

"Christ is the END OF THE LAW.... for righteousness, for everyone who believes"..

He, Yeshua, had to fulfill the law perfectly so that by HIM<.. the born again are "made free from sin" and from the "dominion of the Law".

The born again are "NOT under the LAW"... but "Under Grace".

 

[praise_yeshua]

All humans are born into this world under the Law, exactly the same.

Yeshua, being a virgin born man, was no exception.

He, The Lord, had to fulfill all the law, perfectly, so that we can now become this... "not under the Law, but under Grace"..

The Cross is our redemption from the Law.. Its our escape from the "curse of the Law".

"Christ is the END OF THE LAW.... for righteousness, for everyone who believes"..

He, Yeshua, had to fulfill the law perfectly so that by HIM<.. the born again are "made free from sin" and from the "dominion of the Law".

The born again are "NOT under the LAW"... but "Under Grace".

I don't see any evidence to establish that the law of Moses made Jesus an acceptable sacrifice. Prove it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There is a reason why the term "substitution" is used in Atonement concept and practice. The Jews were under the requirement to obey the Law but could not. The Law showed them they were sinners.
So, under Covenant as the Jews were and Jesus becoming a Jewish man by birth to be the Jews' substitution and as such was also under requirement to obey the Law and it did. But it didn't kill Him because of the Holy Spirit 'rested' upon Him. And the fact that Jesus was sinless the Law could not touch Him.
In this same way when the Holy Spirit saves someone He dwells within that person and the Law cannot touch that person. But for a person without the Holy Spirit the Law will kill him/her. The Law/Holy Spirit will kill every person that is not anointed by the Spirit and will kill every person without the anointing.
So, yes, Jesus was required to obey the Law and was the substitution for the Jew in all ways.

Evidence? Jesus obeyed the law by suffering the penalty of the law. Death frees man from the law.