The OT was the schoolmaster to lead us to Christ.
Gal 3:24 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."
Yes, but once a lesson is learned the teachings are not abandoned, are they?
If you studied classical Hebrew and passed your final exam would you do away with every lesson you ahd learned or would you take what you had learned and use it to deepen your studies with something more meaningful?
I'm not even sure what the means. Christ fulfilled all prophesy. Maybe that was what you are making reference.
He was crucified on Passover, resurrected on First Fruits and ascended on Shavuots.
Shavuot was the 50th day after the weekly Sabbath following Passover; seven weeks, plus one day. Pentecost, translated, is "50th day." The Book of Acts even notes people were in Jerusalem to mark that festival.
Each major event of the Passion resides within the Jewish liturgical calendar. Is this mere coincidence or is it part and parcel of the narrative?
Is it merely a crass irony that the pillar of flame that issued the 10 Commandments 50 days after the 1st Passover appeared as a tongue of flame over the congregants in Jerusalem (who were markedly devoid of goyim at the time)?
Can ignorance of the Jewish liturgical calendar be condoned when the church has spent centuries tying itself into interpretive knots trying to justify a Sunday resurrection when the reality is Passover is one of 7 annual "high Sabbaths" in addition to the weekly Sabbath. Thus the need to twist the 2 sabbaths mentioned in the NT while still maintaining the Sabbath resurrection 3 days later becomes obviated.
Christians are not uder the Old Law, but the New. And Paul was an Apostle. The Apostles were called ambassadors. The were also called earthen vessels. It was through the Apostles that the Spirit of God continued to instruct the saints after Christ had assended back to the Father. That was their purpose. Paul even notes that the very things he said when presenting the gospel were of God.
Apostle, by definition means: eye witness, not ambassador. Evangelicals would be a more exacting term and that requires no eyewitness observations.
Even still there are no new commandments, save, "love one another as I have loved you." No NT writer ever invented a new commandment. The prohibitions against drunkeness, adultery, unwarranted violence, lying etc were already well established...in the OT.
I Cor. 2:4 "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power."
I repeat, no human since Moses has communicated a wholly new commandment.
Please quote that book, chapter and verse. I think you're confusing the term "end of the age" to mean the end of all time, but until you point out where you formed the idea, that's just a guess.
Ex 31:16 calls the sabbath observance the reminder of a perpetual covenant.
Now, some "replacement" theologians have argued that Israel has been--well--replaced and thus any reference to Israel means "christians." I find fault with this argument on several grounds:
* In Romans Paul says one day all Israel will be saved. If Israel = christian this becomes a mindless tautalogy that says, "One day the saved will be saved."
* the Sabbath is still the Sabbath and that ain't Sunday.
* such doctrines seem to accuse God of having chosen poorly
* if Israel can be replaced...so can you
* such difficulties are compounded in light of the doctrine of the trinity. If Jesus is God and God is Jesus then Jesus was the author of the Mosaic laws. Correct if I am wrong but no member of the trinity sits above the others.
Personally, it seems to have been more of a problem with the early church as there were "judiazing teachers" that wanted to mix Jewish law with the law of Christ. Specifically, they were teaching that circumcision was still required under the New Law, which it wasn't.
Understood, but who should I fear more: judaizing teachers or paganizing teachers?
Or both?
I would reason that if the OT was the "letter" of the law and the NT would be the "spirit" of the law. In such a discussion we are told that looking on a woman lustfully is as much a sin as adultery. "But I never touched her!" seems a poor defence when the charge is, "You sexually objectified one of my beloved creations." It still betrays a corrosion of the soul that dehumanizes a woman into a mere sexual outlet to be used and discarded with no concern for her as a unique person with an eternal destiny.
Now, this spiritual aspect of the commandment "Thou shall not commit adultery" does nothing to abrogate the original letter of the law. It raises the bar, not lower or abolish the bar. Indeed, if all woman were viewed as unique beings with eternal destinies, beloved by their creator and not to be objectified to one's selfish gain then commandments against adultery would be unwarranted.
It seems Jesus is telling people 1) do the right thing FOR THE RIGHT REASON, not just because you're trying to demand a place in heaven as if God were a subway ticket machine and 2) oh, by the way, get off your high horse cuz I know y'all are guilty as sin
If a man held murderous hate towards his brother but never struck him down would that make him a pious man or simply a man that feared the consequences of civil (or spiritual) authorities? If only the latter it would serve him poorly to stand before his maker and claim rights to Heaven based on having never struck a fellow man in anger.
(NOTE: I feel very peculiar making this line of argument as I am pretty much an avowed nihilistic hedonist. Still, I can
understand why certain commandments would be given if one were to take a spiritual tack. Sort of a "devil's advocate" if I may be permitted the ill-fitting pun.)
Thank-you for your conversation.