JESUS AFFIRMED THAT THERE WAS NOTHING MISTAKEN IN THE EVIL DIVINE LAW OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Jesus said he wants to fulfil Moses' Law to the least detail.
Jesus expressly condemned in Matthew 5 any attempt to improve the law of Moses.
QUOTE FROM PACKER'S FUNDAMENTALISM AND THE WORD OF GOD
[Jesus] did not hesitate to challenge and condemn, on His own authority, many accepted Jewish ideas which seemed to Him false. But He never opposed His personal authority to that of the Old Testament. He never qualified the Jewish belief in its absolute authority in the slightest degree. The fact we have to face is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God incarnate, who claimed divine authority for all that He did and taught, both confirmed the absolute authority of the Old Testament for others and submitted to it unreservedly Himself. There is no lack of evidence for our Lord's attitude to the Old Testament. He prefaces with his regular formula of solemn assertion ('Verily [amen] I say unto you') the following emphatic assurance : 'till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law'. He quotes Gn. ii. 24—in its context a comment passed by Adam or (more likely) the narrator—as an utterance of God : 'have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning . . . said…?' He treats arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he says 'it is written', that is final. There is no appeal against Scripture, for 'the scripture cannot be broken'; God's Word holds good for ever. He constantly upbraids the Jewish theologians for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture; 'Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures?' 'Have ye not read . . .? 'Go ye and learn what that meaneth . . .'
When He comes to disentangle principles of the Mosaic law from the
perversions of scribal exegesis, He prefaces a word of warning, lest His purpose
be misunderstood. 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets'—you must not suppose that when I contrast what 'was said to them of
old time' with what 'I say unto you', I am cancelling Scripture; 'I am not come
to destroy, but to fulfil'—to expound Scripture, to exhibit and implement its
true meaning, and thus, so far from annulling it, to vindicate and confirm its
abiding authority.
Christ's answer to the problem of authority can be summed up as follows : The
Old Testament is to be received on His authority (over and above its own witness
to itself) as the authoritative written utterance of God, abidingly true and
trustworthy. Its divine authority and His confirm each other, so that not to
accept both would be to accept neither.
END OF QUOTE
No man who condones or ignores or even blesses evil commandments in the name of God is fit to be honoured. Jesus Christ was one of those kind of men and the world worships at his feet. It is evidence for how religion is simply a pack of lies that you imagine you believe in.
Religion lies about how inspiring the Bible is. In fact believers think they are better than the Bible though they use it. When you follow their religion they are flattered for they think they are so inspiring and good that you will be like them and even if the Bible is bad it will not corrupt you as long as you follow them for they are wonderful. Don't be a fool and get out of Christianity.
Take how rising knife crime makes some think the answer is the Bible.
How is God who said "If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity" meant to inspire those of a violent disposition to put away the knives? Read Deuteronomy 25 and read how Jesus gave it full divinely inspired authority.
Scripture by definition means writings from God which supersede any other books in value and importance. Jesus himself canonised the Torah, the law of Moses, as infallible scripture and more emphatically than he canonised anything else. He did not canonise himself as explicitly!
Jesus quotes Deuteronomy as inspired and to be obeyed on ten occasions in the
gospels, and it’s the only Old Testament book Jesus quotes when he speaks to the devil.
People didn’t follow Jesus only because of his supposed miracles. He prioritised
his teaching and his core doctrine that the Old Testament was written by God
through man. The teaching drew people in first and foremost. He
quoted the nastiest filthiest books of the Bible more than any others.
In regard to the savage Jewish Law which purports to have come from God, Jesus
said that he had not come to abolish it but to fulfil it. Thus even if the law
is changed nobody is allowed to say it was wrong before. They are not allowed to
notice and must keep holding that the law is as valid as ever. It can be
updated but never questioned.
If Jesus changed the law then he acted as its superior meaning it was right when
he wanted it to be. This confirms the rightness of the law – nothing in Jesus
ever condemns anything in the law as sin. The notion that Jesus altered
the law in any way is not in the New Testament.
Jesus referred to the Hebrew Bible non-stop and even used it to make
parables. Compare Matthew 21:33 and Isaiah 5:1-2. Jesus deeply loved his Bible.
He was besotted with the Old Testament and neglected no part of it at all and
even mentioned the laws commanding the death penalty for sin. He sang the Psalms
on Saturdays in the synagogue and at the Temple and would have used Psalm 119
where the singer tells God who much he is consumed with longing and love for the
commandments of the law. The psalms often seem to be romantically in love with
the Old Testament law.
It is wrong to think Jesus ever meant to contradict the law. He could have done
accidentally for the law contradicts itself so why would he be guaranteed to be
consistent? Some think he did contradict the law but many disagree. Even if he
did, he never once said that the law was wrong. On the contrary he said his
intention was to promote it without watering it down. Any contradictions were
unintended.
There is nothing in the New Testament that says the law is ever wrong.
Even when Jesus made all foods clean it could be meant to mean that he magically
took away whatever it was that made them dirty or unclean. It would not amount
to saying, "Food is clean no matter what the law says." Jesus told the
adulteress that she deserved stoning - he just got those who were to stone her
to see that they should leave her alone for they were no better themselves. The
story only says she was saved then. The would be stoners were not going to kill
her according to the law but were going to stone her without authority. But what
about after that? If she had been in danger of being stoned and the law was
applied correctly Jesus would have told them to stone her.
He was not a good role model - it is Christian lies that try to make out he was.
www.disproven.net/rolemodel.html
Jesus said: "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I
am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and
earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be
fulfilled" (Matthew 5:17-18).
Some use the word abolish instead of destroy. But it is clear that either word
will do. He is clear that the law will bind completely until Heaven and earth
pass away - a metaphor for literally forever. All is to be fulfilled until then.
The texts that say we are no longer under law and the law is obsolete reflect
the New Testament doctrine that God enables us to live the law spontaneously.
The law is not law any more in the sense that forcing will be necessary. But
that does not imply a right to disobey. It is just making the point that
joyfully refusing to murder is better than being forced by the law not to
murder.
The Church is clear that the moral edicts are still correct but the provisional
stuff has been dropped because the law decreed it was provisional. An example of
provisional stuff would be the decrees on animal sacrifice.
Some say that Jesus when he said the law needs to be fulfilled meant that the
law being fulfilled could bring about its passing away or becoming obsolete. If
so Jesus said the law will pass away but only when it is fulfilled.
Those who think the law is not for us feel it was kept for us in our place by
Jesus. It binds us to obedience but Jesus takes that commitment on itself. So in
practice for us the law is obsolete but for Jesus it is not. And for none of us
is it obsolete in principle.
A Catholic bishop said "Our Lord emphasizes that He has not come to overthrow or
destroy the Law. His actions are actually in continuity with the Law, insofar as
the Law itself was meant to be fulfilled by the Messiah. Jesus did not come to
destroy the Law. He came to fulfill its precepts, obligations and prophecies to
the last letter. Jesus does not "break" the Law; He is the incarnation of the
Law."
The bishop says that because Jesus was clean he was able to touch unclean
lepers. The law forbade touching them but that did not apply to Jesus for Jesus
was "sterile". That is an example of Jesus seeming to break the law but without
having broken it.
At least he makes it clear that Jesus wholly and personally identified himself
with the terrible cruel law of Moses and made it his core mission. That is true
whether or not you think Jesus released us from the precepts of the law or not.
The New Testament is clear that the Holy Spirit came around the time of Christ
and is extremely powerful and this is the prime reason according to some that
the Church needs only spiritual weapons against evil. This is the prime reason
Christianity argues that it is unnecessary to stone people to death any more.
Evil does not need to be violently removed like a cancer but dealt with by the
power of the Spirit. Notably Gleason Archer promotes that kind of argument in
his apologetics. So it is not that killing people or stoning them to death is
wrong. It just obsolete. That means the Christian who does not stone is no
better than the religious fanatic who looks for the right to stone or who lifts
the rocks.
APPENDIX: Conspectus: The Journal of the South African Theological Seminary Volume 3 March 2007
The key biblical text is Matthew 5:17-20, with verses 21-48
forming a broader pertinent scriptural context. A pivotal
interpretative issue
concerns whether Jesus was taking umbrage with the Mosaic law
recorded in
the Old Testament or the Pharisaic interpretation of the same. In
this
discussion, I am siding with the latter premise; in other words, the
Messiah
was challenging the Halakha, the collective body of Jewish religious
law,
including talmudic and rabbinic ordinances, customs, and traditions.
In verse 17, Jesus’ collectively referred to the Hebrew sacred
writings as “the
Law” and “the Prophets”, which mirrors how religious experts of the
day
would have talked about the entire Old Testament. Some think the
Messiah
wanted to abrogate, supersede, or replace the Mosaic legal code.
Others
conjecture that He radicalized the demands of the law and
intensified its
requirements, and in the process nullified some longstanding
injunctions. Still
others maintain that Jesus introduced demands that go beyond and in
different
directions from those found in the law
(cf. Banks 1975:210, 229-230, 235;
Barth 1976:153-159; Davies 1962:33-34, 39;
Geisler 1989:204-207; Guthrie
Lioy, The moral law from a Christ-centered perspective 60
1981:676-677;
Fanning 1994b:431; Jeremias 1971:206; Lowery
1994a:47-48;
Marshall 2004:118-119; Menninger 1994:104-108; Moo 1992:450,
454-456;
Moo 1993:350-353; Pate 2000:350-351; Sanders 1985:260; Sanders
1990:93-
94; Thielman 2005:87, 89-90).
None of these options are acceptable, for they contradict Jesus’
statement that
He did not “come to abolish the Law and the Prophets”. “Abolish”
renders the
Greek verb katalyo, which means “to put an end to the effect or
validity of
something”. The idea is that during the Saviour’s first advent, He
did not seek
to annul, repeal, do away with, or make invalid the Mosaic legal
code. Instead,
His primary concern was to dismantle incorrect views about the law,
especially faulty interpretations promulgated by the religious
specialists of the
day. This included a works-based form of righteousness in which
strict
adherence to the law would gain people their salvation (cf. Rom
9:30-33).
