He also recorded what they believed.
It is a historical document which included what the first Christians believed.
How did Luke know that these early Christians were walking in the fear of the Lord (Acts 9:31)?
Last edited:
On The Question of Matthias
- Thread starter jeremiah1five
- Start date
He also recorded what they believed.
It is a historical document which included what the first Christians believed.
How did Luke know that these early Christians were walking in the fear of the Lord (Acts 9:31)?
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
If he did then it's not a history book.
It's a historical document regardless of what you want it to be.
Luke recodes the history of the Jewish Church Christ was building before He stopped, blinded Israel, and began to save uncircumcised, non-covenant Gentiles without a covenant. There are no overall historical documents detailing events if the Gentile believers in Scripture. If you want that you have to go outside the New Covenant Scriptures because the book of Acts details what transpired (selectively) the events and people of the early Jewish Church that Christ promised to build.
When the Times of the Gentiles ends - and it's right around the corner with the destruction of the Gentile nations - God turns His full attention back to Israel His Church and Bride, removes their blindness, and continues to build His Church as promised and as per covenant.
As I said above, Luke - whom many think was Jewish, even myself - records about the first 30 years of the Jewish Church Christ promised Israel He was going to build. Everything about salvation is of the Jews, not the Gentiles. God has covenant with Israel not Gentiles and the first 30 years Christ built His Church which documents for the most part the early Jewish Church. Up until the destruction of their Temple everything taking place in Israel and among the Jews was the result of covenant and prophecies God made with Israel.
4 Who are Israelites;
to whom pertaineth the adoption,
and the glory,
and the covenants,
and the giving of the law,
and the service of God,
and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh
Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom. 9:4–5.
None of the above pertain to Gentiles. Gentiles have no covenant with God to speak of and God is saving Gentiles without a covenant (Matt. 22.)
They couldn't because as we now know righteousness doesn't come by the Law. So, pay careful attention to what Saul is saying to Jewish Christians who are the recipients of his letters. He might talk about the salvation and bringing in of non-covenant Gentiles being saved (in small numbers) but he is addressing Jewish Christians in these cities and towns like Corinth, Ephesus, Galatian region, etc., whose churches were founded by Jews who became saved at Pentecost and returned home to their homes and synagogues in these cities and due to their split with the Judaizers founded home church fellowships soon before they were persecuted by these same Judaizers.
Strawman, because fearing the Lord (Acts 9:31) is also taught in the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 5:11; Colossians 3:22).
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied. Acts 9:31.
11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. 2 Cor. 5:10–11.
OK. Why the Scripture?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Peter made more than one mistake. So have I. So have you. The apostles were men just like all of us. We can rightfully recognize their mistakes but we can't ignore our own.
Paul was the 13th apostles but most all the apostles resisted spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles. Thank God some Jews didn't.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
There's the trouble Peter created in appointing Mattias an apostle to replace Judas.
Had Peter been obedient and waited until he was endued with power from on high as Messiah commanded things would have turned out differently than they have.
The names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are the names of the twelve apostles when Jesus Christ was a Lamb: Luke 6:12-13.
12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor. Lk 6:12–16.
These will have their names in the foundation of the wall of the New City coming down from heaven.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Rev. 21:14. (Judas included.)
When Christ resurrected, He conquered death. He went from Lamb (Isaiah's Suffering Servant) to Isaiah's Lion (Conquering King.)
Christ doesn't replace, He adds. If Christ replaces those that die the Jewish Church would forever be 3000 Jewish Christians. But Christ builds His Church by adding, not replacing.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I reject the concept of "church ages". The seven churches referenced in Revelation existed in the 1st century.
I agree with some of what you're saying. I see salvation before "Jews" even existed.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
Prophecy is as Jesus Christ, yesterday, today, and forever (tomorrow).
I never said anything about those seven churches representing seven church ages.
Then, let's go to the beginning:
Salvation is of the Hebrews.
13 And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; Gen. 14:13.
That's where it all started. Gentiles do not come from the loins of Abraham or "out of thee" (Abraham.)
Gen. 17.
Because when I asked this:
You responded by saying this: They couldn't because as we now know righteousness doesn't come by the Law.
Those two passages (2 Corinthians 5:11 and Colossians 3:22) are New Covenant laws.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
I think you have me twisted up.
YOU SAID: Strawman, because fearing the Lord (Acts 9:31) is also taught in the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 5:11; Colossians 3:22).
I must've been looking at another response and clicked the wrong one and gave my answer to that comment to you. As you can see you were asking about "fear" of the Lord and I was addressing "righteousness by the Law" which righteousness doesn't come by the Law.
No, the New Covenant Laws are the Mosaic Laws. There are no new laws in the New Covenant era which began at Pentecost. And if any of the New Covenant writers are trying to establish "new" laws they would be in error. They would be adding to the Bible and lose all credibility.
No they aren't because physical circumcision is no longer required.
Doing everything in the Name of Jesus was not an Old Covenant law (Colossians 3:17).
Complete
Well-known member
Subject Heading:- 'On The Question of Matthias'
of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Until the day in which He was taken up,
.. after that He through the Holy Ghost had given commandments
.... unto the apostles whom He had chosen:
...... To whom also He shewed Himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs,
........ being seen of them forty days,
.......... and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
And, being assembled together with them,
.. commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem,
.... but wait for the promise of the Father,
...... which, saith He, ye have heard of Me.'
(Act 1:1-14)
And said unto them,
"Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer,
and to rise from the dead the third day:
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name
among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
And ye are witnesses of these things.
And, behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you:
but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem,
until ye be endued with power from on high.'
(Luke 24:46-49)
Hello @jeremiah1five,
The disciples had received 40 days of instruction from the risen Lord concerning the kingdom of God, and had received commandments, through the Holy Ghost, from Him. Finally telling them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, that they had heard of Him. This was Luke's divinely inspired summary of the Lord's last days with His disciples.
The actual words spoken, by the Lord were:-'And, behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high'.
* Where are we told that the words of the New Testament scriptures should be scrutinised with this object in mind? How can we be considered to be more able to detect an error, than those who were contemporaries of Luke at the time, had witnessed the event in question, new the Old Testament Scriptures from their youth, and had the indwelling Holy Spirit?
* In the summary of Acts 1-14, as I have said (above), Luke summarises the word of our Lord by saying that the disciples were 'not to depart from Jerusalem'. Thus agreeing with the translation of the word kathezomai, as to 'tarry', in Luke 24.
* How was Peter acting in disobedience by merely standing up? Surely he would have stood up and sat down innumerable times during that period, if only to perform natural bodily functions. He 'stood up' in order to address the others gathered there in the upper room. and was not acting in disobedience by so doing. For the Lord had not told him to remain sitting (which would have been impossible to obey), but to merely stay in Jerusalem.
* In this Divinely inspired record by Luke, The Holy Spirit through Peter refers to the Psalms, and He Who inspired the writing of the Psalms, surely can be trusted to know their prophetic application, and use them appropriately.
* This human reasoning pales into insignificance, when we realise that Luke, who wrote this narrative of the Acts of the Apostles by Divine inspiration: was Himself filled with the Holy Spirit at the time of it's writing: and received His information from those who were eye witnesses of the events he recorded; Who were also filled with the Holy Ghost.
* How dare we question the written word in this way. Using our flawed human reasoning. If the Holy Spirit allowed this narrative to remain, and become part of the Biblical record, then the events recorded should not be doubted, and torn apart in this way.
* If that act of Peter's was not of the Lord, then the Holy Spirit would assuredly have made that known to us, as was the case elsewhere in Scripture, when Peter spoke or acted unadvisedly.
In Christ Jesus
Chris
'The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus,
of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Until the day in which He was taken up,
.. after that He through the Holy Ghost had given commandments
.... unto the apostles whom He had chosen:
...... To whom also He shewed Himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs,
........ being seen of them forty days,
.......... and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
And, being assembled together with them,
.. commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem,
.... but wait for the promise of the Father,
...... which, saith He, ye have heard of Me.'
(Act 1:1-14)
And said unto them,
"Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer,
and to rise from the dead the third day:
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name
among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
And ye are witnesses of these things.
And, behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you:
but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem,
until ye be endued with power from on high.'
(Luke 24:46-49)
Hello @jeremiah1five,
The disciples had received 40 days of instruction from the risen Lord concerning the kingdom of God, and had received commandments, through the Holy Ghost, from Him. Finally telling them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, that they had heard of Him. This was Luke's divinely inspired summary of the Lord's last days with His disciples.
The actual words spoken, by the Lord were:-'And, behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high'.
* Where are we told that the words of the New Testament scriptures should be scrutinised with this object in mind? How can we be considered to be more able to detect an error, than those who were contemporaries of Luke at the time, had witnessed the event in question, new the Old Testament Scriptures from their youth, and had the indwelling Holy Spirit?
* In the summary of Acts 1-14, as I have said (above), Luke summarises the word of our Lord by saying that the disciples were 'not to depart from Jerusalem'. Thus agreeing with the translation of the word kathezomai, as to 'tarry', in Luke 24.
* How was Peter acting in disobedience by merely standing up? Surely he would have stood up and sat down innumerable times during that period, if only to perform natural bodily functions. He 'stood up' in order to address the others gathered there in the upper room. and was not acting in disobedience by so doing. For the Lord had not told him to remain sitting (which would have been impossible to obey), but to merely stay in Jerusalem.
* In this Divinely inspired record by Luke, The Holy Spirit through Peter refers to the Psalms, and He Who inspired the writing of the Psalms, surely can be trusted to know their prophetic application, and use them appropriately.
* This human reasoning pales into insignificance, when we realise that Luke, who wrote this narrative of the Acts of the Apostles by Divine inspiration: was Himself filled with the Holy Spirit at the time of it's writing: and received His information from those who were eye witnesses of the events he recorded; Who were also filled with the Holy Ghost.
* How dare we question the written word in this way. Using our flawed human reasoning. If the Holy Spirit allowed this narrative to remain, and become part of the Biblical record, then the events recorded should not be doubted, and torn apart in this way.
* If that act of Peter's was not of the Lord, then the Holy Spirit would assuredly have made that known to us, as was the case elsewhere in Scripture, when Peter spoke or acted unadvisedly.
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Last edited:
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
Circumcision was commanded in the Abrahamic Covenant. I'm talking about the Mosaic Law, which presently Israel practices and with the 3rd Temple will begin to offer sacrifices. The New Covenant is the Mosaic Law(s) which is type and shadow of the Holy Spirit. It is He whom the Lord promised to put in the inward parts of covenant Israel as per Jeremiah 31. However, this circumcision is of the heart as per Ezekiel.
The Name of Jesus is the English for Yeshua which transliterates to Yahweh. They didn't have to "ask in His Name" because they already had command and the thing to do was obey.
It was also commanded in the Mosaic Law.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
The New Covenant writings were scrutinized when they were putting together the canon. Some writings made the cut, others did not. Some of those that put together the canon believed certain writings should be included, others disagreed. Some disagreed certain writings should be included, others agreed they should. There's nothing wrong with me securitizing the wrings of Saul or James, or Simon Peter. They are mere men. I have found several statements by Saul that contradicts something he said elsewhere or disagrees with an overall doctrine we have. It's clear cut. Saul even changes a word in Isaiah's prophecy to another word thereby changing its meaning to suit his purpose (whatever that is.)
But for the most part Luke records the early history of the Jewish Church. He doesn't teach, and he wouldn't change the truth of what happened to suit any purpose. That is not the object of a historical writing or book. We don't look at text books as possessing doctrine and we should do "it" the way it was written. That's not the purpose of historical writings. Otherwise, we would read a section on World War 2 and it describes what the Germans did in exterminating Jews through murder, torture, gas chambers, firing squads, and other methods of killing. Are we to look at what had been recorded as happened in that war and take it as doctrine and do it the same way it was recorded? No, we don't do that. But there are some kooks who may read a section on the Kennedy assassination and take it as teaching to kill a president the same way in a certain future. The book of Acts is a historical document which records what transpired in approximately 30 years of the beginning of the Jewish Church Christ promised to build. What happened in Acts 1:15-26 took place BEFORE the Advent of the Holy Spirit of Promise and before any body of Christ existed. What the hell was Peter doing? The eleven were commanded to go back to Jerusalem and WAIT for the Promise from the Father. Jesus is clear.
49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. Lk 24:49.
Peter didn't "tarry" (wait.) Brash, impetuous Peter rushed headlong and convened a meeting or officiated a gathering of the brethren and proceeded to appoint an apostle or a treasurer to REPLACE Judas. You know, what Peter did makes me think about how the Lord and His disciples returned to their base of operations (Peter's house) and before entering sent Peter to fish out a fish, open its mouth, and take out a coin to pay a tax. While he was gone the disciples are bickering about who's the greatest in the kingdom of God. Jesus places a child on His lap and tells them the greatest in the kingdom would have to be like this little child, whom I take to be Peter's child. If Peter was there and witnessed that what do you think he would think about his child that Jesus said the disciples had to be like to be the greatest in the kingdom of God? Peter wouldn't have taken it in stride. Peter would have exalted that child, or some other special accommodation placed on that child. Jesus' disciples were knuckleheads. If they were seeking to pray down fire on certain people for rejecting Jesus' presence in their city, or promising they'd never deny Him and bolt when they arrested Jesus, they were arguing who should be the greatest. No, no, what Peter did the Gentile Church has been paying for his mistake and disobedience ever since. A historical documenting events and people and places does not teach doctrine. What we as students of the Word do is scrutinize what is recorded and hold it up to other writings to see whether they got it right or where they got it wrong. And Pete was wrong.
The Lord didn't authorize him to make appointments if they were supposed to WAIT UNTIL they were endued with POWER from on high. In absence of that power from God whatever Peter did would be Peter calling the shots and not God.
Do you know grammar? IF there's a prophecy about Judas it would fit Judas perfectly. That's the nature of prophet and prophecy. Taking a prophecy of the destruction of Israel PLURAL to make it fit Judas SINGULAR is grammatical error. NO PROPHET ever did that and no prophecy ever came true in such a manner. It also says in Psalms "THEIR tents" plural. Peter tries to make it say "His (Judas) tent" singular. Bad grammar here, too. The book of Acts may be inspired but Peter's actions WITHOUT the Holy Spirit was not.
That's right: witnesses of the events RECORDED. If I'm going to write a historical about the Lincoln assassination, I'm going to question people that were there and document WHAT HAPPEN not tell people what I THINK should have happened. That's not a history book.
Yes, so that we can see what the EARLY BABY Church got right and what they got wrong. And then do it the right way. Let's look at the ramifications IF Peter did not do what he did. There would be no biblical record and there would be many cults and false churches that would make up methods in order to establish an authority in their cults and false churches and what will Christians who hold the truth say? "IF it's not chapter and verse it's chattter and worse." Even here at Berean and forum across the internet. What do we say when someone makes a claim about God or this so-great salvation? We ASK FOR THE SCRIPTURE, the AUTHORITY that backs up their comments. But there are those like you who take what is recorded and say "THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE DONE!" Just as the Catholics. We challenge their existence of Popes and what do they say? Peter did it that way and it's in the bible so we do it that way too regardless if the even is found in a writing documenting historical events, people, and places.
Study this. Because there are at least two places in Catholicism in which they err seriously: Salvation and Church government.
Who replaced James? Who replaced Saul? Who replaced John? Using what Peter did in disobedience what is the official position of Catholics? WHO replaced Jesus?
The POPE, the Vicar of Christ.
Thanks, Peter, edited !
Last edited by a moderator:
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
It was CONTINUED in the Law of Moses.
The covenants were progressive. Line upon line, precept upon precept, a little here a little there.
Progressive over time to finally come to THE Seed.
Thus, it is a part of the Law of Moses that has been forever abrogated (Hebrews 8:13).
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
Then you 'abrogate' the Holy Spirit.
The Word of God is Eternal, Everlasting. It has no expiration date. But what was "letter" has now become "spirit." The issue Jesus had with the religious leaders was that they understood and taught the "letter" of the Law. Jesus spoke and taught the "spirit" of the Law. Without the Holy Spirit the religious leaders thought Jesus was a heretic, teaching things not contained in the Law. They thought the same thing of Saul.
I said the Law is type and shadow of the Holy Spirit. HE is the Law God promised Israel to put in their inward parts (kingdom of God within you.) Instead of leading, guiding, commanding the believer from without with words written in stone, He leads, guides, commands the believer from within Himself being written on fleshly tables of the heart. Saul said, "the Law is spiritual..." God is Spirit and His Law originated from Him. Thus, His Law spoken is spiritual but mere words on paper are not spiritual. Even if it is His Word(s). Our thoughts are spiritual. They are immaterial. You can't see them but at times you can feel them. "I love you" spoken is spiritual and if done in sincerity can bring a woman to tears of joy. God's word on paper in black and white is 'natural, physical, material." Until the Holy Spirit within 'you' applies a word to your "heart" and then we not only hear His word but also His voice!
I stop here.
The Law is spiritual, eternal. "We" went from stone to spirit. Same Law, different communicative value. The Law written on our hearts. The Law of Moses. The Law of God. THAT Law.
That's what you are doing because He inspired what is written in Hebrews 8:13.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Heb 8:12–13.
Reading on:
God?
9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
10:1 For 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.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.
34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.
35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
Heb 9:14–10:39.
The First Covenant had no power to take away sins only cover them. That's why it was taken away in the sense of no longer useful for salvation. But it had other uses which Scripture describes, and the Law exists for those other purposes. The Law is still in use for "instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Ti 3:17.
It was a shadow of good things to come. It was in place until that which is perfect should come, that is Christ, to enter into the Holy of Holies [with His own blood] and put away sins for all time.
And the Law is still in use and effect except not for salvation.
Similar threads
