Did Jesus' Teachings Abolish the Old Testament Laws?

Colossians Chapter 2 (NIV)

13)When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14)having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15)And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

16)Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17)These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

20)Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules[...]?

reply to post by holywar


Paul is a fraud. Nothing he says has any real merit. All he does is praise Jesus while telling people to do things that are not what Jesus talked about.

So, can you show the same things in the words of Jesus? What you say may hold merit among those who accept Paul. But many many people do not accept Paul and think he is a fraud. He is constantly contradicting Jesus.

reply to post by Locoman8


Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's wrong to keep applying some parts of the law like you are doing, and you have answered some important questions about that for me.

But I know your not going to have your kids stoned to death if they are bad, and you can't control them, that was part of the law too.

The point is there are some parts of the law you can keep today, and others if you did, you would be in jail, if you did them, whether it be sacrificing animals, or stoning an adulterer, something I highly doubt you would advocate.

Basically they are matters of conscience. We don't have to do them to please God, but if we do them that's ok too.

Locoman we have had some descent discussions, and I am not going to say much more on this topic, because you want to do this, and it's ok, but to expect other Christians to do it is really imposing your conscience on them and really is an unfair expectation of them.

My suggestion to you is to focus on the scriptures that reflects God's thinking on morality codes and conduct and attitudes AFTER Jesus died for for us. I will list few for you to think about.

Bad Traits and Habits and Practices with the end result

#1- 1 Corinthians 6 verse 9-11
9 Don't you know that wicked people won't inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals, 10 or thieves, those who are greedy or drunk, who use abusive language, or who rob people will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 That's what some of you were! But you have been washed and made holy, and you have received God's approval in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

#2 - 2 Timothy 3 Verses 1-5
1BUT UNDERSTAND this, that in the last days will come (set in) perilous times of great stress and trouble [hard to deal with and hard to bear].
2For people will be lovers of self and [utterly] self-centered, lovers of money and aroused by an inordinate [greedy] desire for wealth, proud and arrogant and contemptuous boasters. They will be abusive (blasphemous, scoffing), disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy and profane.
3[They will be] without natural [human] affection (callous and inhuman), relentless (admitting of no truce or appeasement); [they will be] slanderers (false accusers, troublemakers), intemperate and loose in morals and conduct, uncontrolled and fierce, haters of good.
4[They will be] treacherous [betrayers], rash, [and] inflated with self-conceit. [They will be] lovers of sensual pleasures and vain amusements more than and rather than lovers of God.
5For [although] they hold a form of piety (true religion), they deny and reject and are strangers to the power of it [their conduct belies the genuineness of their profession]. Avoid [all] such people [turn away from them].

#3-Galatians 5 verses 18-21
18But if you are guided (led) by the [Holy] Spirit, you are not subject to the Law.
19Now the doings (practices) of the flesh are clear (obvious): they are immorality, impurity, indecency,
20Idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger (ill temper), selfishness, divisions (dissensions), party spirit (factions, sects with peculiar opinions, heresies),
21Envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you beforehand, just as I did previously, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

# 4-Revelation 21 verse 8
8 But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and fornicators and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death.”

Good Traits, Habits and Principles

Matthew 7 verse 12
12So then, whatever you desire that others would do to and for you, even so do also to and for them, for this is (sums up) the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 22 verses 34-40
34 When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 One of them, an expert in Moses' Teachings, tested Jesus by asking, 36 "Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in Moses' Teachings?" 37 Jesus answered him, " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the greatest and most important commandment. 39 The second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself.' 40All of Moses' Teachings and the Prophets depend on these two commandments".

Galatians 5 verses 22-23
22But the fruit of the [Holy] Spirit [the work which His presence within accomplishes] is love, joy (gladness), peace, patience (an even temper, forbearance), kindness, goodness (benevolence), faithfulness,
23Gentleness (meekness, humility), self-control (self-restraint, continence). Against such things there is no law [that can bring a charge].


When you read all these scripture's many of the old testament laws obviously cross over, but some don't.

[edit on 2-6-2009 by Blue_Jay33]

[edit on 2-6-2009 by Blue_Jay33]

reply to post by badmedia


(Words in caps are for added attention)

Matthew 11:12-13 (New International Version)

12From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. 13For all the Prophets AND THE LAW prophesied UNTIL John.


Luke 16:16 (New International Version)

16"THE LAW and the Prophets were proclaimed UNTIL John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.


Matthew 5:17-18 (English Standard Version)

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to FULFILL them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, WILL PASS from the Law UNTIL all is accomplished.

ONE example: (of many)

Recall the occasion when he was approached by a woman afflicted with a flow of blood. According to the Mosaic Law, anyone she touched would become unclean, so she was certainly not supposed to mix with a crowd of people! (Leviticus 15:25-27) But she was so desperate to be healed that she made her way through the crowd and touched Jesus’ outer garment. The bleeding stopped immediately. Did he rebuke her for violating the Law? No; instead, he understood her desperate circumstance and demonstrated the Law’s greatest precept—love. Empathetically he told her: “Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be in good health from your grievous sickness.”—Mark 5:25-34.

reply to post by holywar


The easiest way to add attention to parts is to use the bold code. It's pretty simple to use. Just highlight the text you want to add attention to, and click the B button up there. You can also just type in the code around the text you want to bold. It makes things stand out alot more and catches people attention much better.

As I was saying before, there is a difference between the laws and doctrines of men, and the laws of god. When Jesus fulfills the law, he is bring understanding. By doing that, his example shows what are the commandments of god, and what are the doctrines of men.

So with your example of a woman, he is showing that it was not a commandment of god, but a doctrine of man.

So if by mosaic law we mean all the laws the Jews went by, then many of those were exposed for what they are. However, the commandments and those that were true were fulfilled and those were certainly not abolished.

Again, the way to tell is based on the 2 principles Jesus gives. Rather than list them out, he gives understanding on how to know and recognize them. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Pretty much the golden rule known to all cultures. Treat others as you would like to be treated. So, if a law does not match that criteria, then it was never a law of god. It was a doctrine and tradition of man. But if it does match that criteria, then it was a law of god before, and is still a law.

In fact, all you need to do is this. And this I was doing when I had my vision. Look out into the world. Try to see how all people can get along and be peaceful. And without infringing on the free will of another. So that rules out everyone being alike and so forth, no "system" that all people follow like ants etc. Do this, and you will see the true laws of god right before your eyes, and the understanding behind them. Which is not perverse and so forth.

Now, be that change and live up to it. Because you certainly can't live in a such a society if you yourself do not do them. As your very presence makes the place no longer exist. Then you will see the path.

Eating shellfish, pork or touching that woman is not something which breaks those commandments. As such, they are exposed as doctrines of men, not of the father.

[edit on 2-6-2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

it is really imposing your conscience on them and really is an unfair expectation of them.

If you have been promoting the seventh day Sabbath for a long time you get to some very low expectations about acceptance of it. You can easily argue it from both sides so it is hard to convince someone who feels they have so much evidence on their side.
People look at the Sabbath as a burden and rail against it and can get vicious about it. To me, it tells me that it is something important when you see otherwise reasonable people act possessed when confronted by an actual demand of recognition from their creator.
Everyone should have the opportunity to experience the normally quiet demons that are inside of them, so they need to be poked at by people going around teaching the true Sabbath.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

. . . or any other man before moses observe the sabbath?

Job had seven sons.
Each day, he would go to one of his son's house for dinner.
Each day, he would go to a different sons house.
After seven days, he would have eaten at all of his son's houses.
At the end of each cycle, or every seven days, he would offer a sacrifice to God.

thats abit of a stretch

first, job had ten sons.

second, it doesnt say what day he offered sacrifices.

and third, there was no commandment to observe the seventh day

Originally posted by badmedia
Paul is a fraud. Nothing he says has any real merit. All he does is praise Jesus while telling people to do things that are not what Jesus talked about.

So, can you show the same things in the words of Jesus? What you say may hold merit among those who accept Paul. But many many people do not accept Paul and think he is a fraud. He is constantly contradicting Jesus.

i have yet to see anything that backs that claim up. i heard you and several others bring this up time and time again, but usually the only evidence you have is "i dont think paul is correct"

Originally posted by badmedia
So if by mosaic law we mean all the laws the Jews went by, then many of those were exposed for what they are. However, the commandments and those that were true were fulfilled and those were certainly not abolished.

you accuse most of the law (given directly from god)of being the law of men, but you ignore actual historic occurances.

the pharisees were adding things to the law.

for example, they were getting upset because jesus was only washing his hands up to his wrists, unlike the pharisees that felt that hands should be washed to the elbows.

the pharisees were adding commentaries to every facet of the law making it more difficult to follow. this lead jesus to say

matt 23:[1] Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
[2] Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
[3] All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
[4] For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
[5] But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

so while it is convenient for you to say things like "thou shall put him to death" is "law of men", it simply isnt true.

Originally posted by miriam0566
i have yet to see anything that backs that claim up. i heard you and several others bring this up time and time again, but usually the only evidence you have is "i dont think paul is correct"

Are you kidding? I have posted tons of contradictions and manipulations from what Jesus says, and what Paul says. As well as pointing out his false visions and so forth. If you don't agree with me, that is fine. But I have given evidence on multiple occasions.

you accuse most of the law (given directly from god)of being the law of men, but you ignore actual historic occurances.

the pharisees were adding things to the law.

for example, they were getting upset because jesus was only washing his hands up to his wrists, unlike the pharisees that felt that hands should be washed to the elbows.

the pharisees were adding commentaries to every facet of the law making it more difficult to follow. this lead jesus to say

matt 23:[1] Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
[2] Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
[3] All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
[4] For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
[5] But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

so while it is convenient for you to say things like "thou shall put him to death" is "law of men", it simply isnt true.

What about where Jesus mentions they do not kill the child? He does that to point out that while the pharisees claim to be doing things in the name of god, they are really just doing whatever they wanted. If they cared so much for those laws, they would keep all of them etc.

But Jesus did not kill the child, and he didn't follow many other things mentioned either. He didn't go around killing people who sinned, he did the opposite of that. How can he fulfill the law, if he doesn't fulfill all of them? As such, the only thing that makes sense is that what he did and his example was the proper way of following the law.

If they were supposed to kill those people as that scripture says, then Jesus doesn't fulfill the law. He isn't doing what is said. Which leads me to believe that what he did was the way it was supposed to be followed the entire time. Because again, if that was the law then he breaks the law by not killing and judging the sinners he comes across.

Combine that with "vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord", and I have to believe that somewhere along the lines someone gets "the wager of sin is death", and then somehow misunderstand that to mean "kill those who sin". Which then leads to hypocrisy and so forth that Jesus points out. And so Jesus fulfills the law and brings proper understanding.

Originally posted by badmedia
What about where Jesus mentions they do not kill the child?

im sorry, which account?

reply to post by miriam0566

Mark 7

7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

14And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:

15There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

16If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

reply to post by badmedia

How can he fulfill the law, if he doesn't fulfill all of them?

Do you think Jesus fulfilled the Law, or is that just rhetorical? If he really did, do you think Jesus was at one time a High Priest? Wouldn't he have to have done the laws given for the High Priest, since there are certain instructions on how to carry out that office?
I happen to think he was, but that is all based on circumstantial evidence. I just figured I would put that out there at some point, for consideration, and this looked like an opening for it.
If you have ever seen Mel Gibson's Passion movie, you see how the High Priest and his group plotted against Jesus but it never explains why they seemed so threatened by him. I think they were afraid that at some point he was going to take his old position back.



[edit on 3-6-2009 by jmdewey60]

this is actually the account i was speaking of.

[1] Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
[2] And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

the disciples were not washing their hands the way the rabbinical tradition dictated. namely that they should wash up to the elbows. at the time, they didnt understand exactly why washing hands was important (since germs wouldnt be discovered for centuries later). they interpreted it as a spiritual sanctification. therefore, they set a ridiculous rule, and since the apostle's following jesus' example (who was only washing his hands), this meant that they werent washed at all.

[3] For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
[4] And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

the pharisees were taking a simple law: wash your hands before you eat (god's law) and putting traditions and ceremonies to it to make it complex (man's law). verse 4, they were even washing their hands when it wasnt required, even making a big deal about washing certain vessels.

[5] Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

so the pharisees confront them, confusing man's law (traditions) with god's law (wash your hands)

[6] He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

the traditions and ceremonies were there to make the pharisees look more holy. they didnt wash their hands out of any concern or love for god. jesus then rebuts pointing out how ridiculous the washing traditions really are.

[7] Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctines the commandments of men.
[8] For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

these traditions not only made it hard on the people, but it clouded the reason for the laws in the first place.

[9] And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

to the pharisees, these traditions were more important to them that the actually commandments of god. this sets a precedence for christians today. do we follow the sabbath because of tradition? or do we understand exactly what the sabbath was purposed for?

[10] For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

this is what the law says, black and white as handed from god. but then jesus shows how they misapply it

[11] But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
[12] And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

the pharisees were missing the point of the law. they basically said that if a man donates to the temple, that his obligation to take care of his parents was void. they were making an exception to the law!

they were saying that it was OK to dishonor their parents if they were doing it in the name of the temple and of god.

since the kingjames translation is hard to read....
Bible in Basic English---
But you say, If a man says to his father or his mother, That by which you might have had profit from me is Corban, that is to say, Given to God, You no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother;

[13] Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

jesus is showing that they destroy the law with tradition, missing the point of the law.

------------------------

there is nothing in this passage that says that jesus disagreed with the judgement that a person would receive for cursing their parents.

Originally posted by miriam0566
this is actually the account i was speaking of.

Yes, part of the trouble with 4 books of the same story. I think you were mentioning Matthew, and I'm pretty sure I've seen it in Matthew as well, but Mark came up on my search.

jesus is showing that they destroy the law with tradition, missing the point of the law.

------------------------

there is nothing in this passage that says that jesus disagreed with the judgement that a person would receive for cursing their parents.

I'm going to shorten the quote down for space.

Jesus did not go around killing the children who cursed their parents. If the laws mentioned were the laws of god, then Jesus was not following the laws if he did not kill the child. If he didn't kill the child, and meant for or agreed that it was appropriate, then Jesus is a hypocrite for bringing it up to them, if he himself does not follow/do it.

In the passages above, Jesus is using hyperbole in order to prove a point. The Pharisees claim to uphold the law of god and so forth. Jesus is pointing out their hypocrisy, and showing that if they actually cared so much about the laws of god, then they would be following them as well.

In the modern age, this would be the equivalent of someone who would bring up leviticus in the argument of gay marriage and saying "the bible says it's wrong". And then the person is acting like they are against gay's because the bible says it. And in response someone else might say - well do you also kill the man who plants his crops wrong etc. As such, that person is using hyperbole to prove a point. You aren't saying you should kill the man who plants crops, but you are proving that the person doesn't really care about the topic "because the bible says so", or because it's "god's law", but it is just based on their own biases, and they are simply using "god's law" as an excuse to justify their actions. Because if they did care about upholding god's law so much, then they would also uphold those which we deem ridiculous.

And so this is also what Jesus was exposing with the pharisees. The hypocrisy of it. That their reasons had nothing to do with the laws of god, but rather their own laws, traditions and biases. They were simply using god as justification for their actions, and they were nothing but hypocrites.

However. Once again, if the law stated that you must kill the man who does these things, and that you must suffer the child who curses the parents and so forth, then Jesus does not fulfill those laws. He doesn't kill anyone. So he obviously did not keep those commandments. If he was following those laws, and fulfilling those laws, then he would have went around and killed those people - as the law supposedly states you should. But he does not. So if he fulfills god's law, and he doesn't follow those laws, then how could those have been god's law?

If he says he doesn't change the law, but fulfills it, then I don't see how it could be anything other than - what he followed was gods law, any others were not. The commandments are certainly still valid. Do we not say the man who kills has sinned? The man who steals has sinned and so forth?

Can't have it both ways. You can't say it was god's law that people kill the man who killed, and then claim Jesus fulfills the law if he doesn't do that. In order for him to fulfill that law, then he would have had to kill those who sinned.

And we can see this in understanding when it says - vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord. Which means, it's not our place to punish or judge those who sin. Not our place to kill the man who killed. And that is what Jesus fulfills as well.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by jmdewey60


He fulfills gods law. He is the example on how to properly follow god's law. Thus, he is "the way". But we can't have it both ways. One can't say he fulfills the law, and then say the laws that say the opposite of what he does and says are god's law. If those were god's law, and he doesn't do them, then he doesn't fulfill them. The only way he can fulfill god's laws and not do those things is if those things weren't god's laws, but the laws and traditions of men.

Because those laws don't just say - don't do this. It says kill those people who do this.

Have you ever read my 2 posts about how the universe works, how you "reap what you sow", and how the path works? It explains and gives understanding of most of these things.

even Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus helps us understand that THE LAW was to be NO MORE!

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

But I know your not going to have your kids stoned to death if they are bad, and you can't control them, that was part of the law too.

The point is there are some parts of the law you can keep today, and others if you did, you would be in jail, if you did them, whether it be sacrificing animals, or stoning an adulterer, something I highly doubt you would advocate.

This is exactly what I'm talking about is DONE away with. Jesus, through His teachings and examples made the carrying out of the breaking of the Laws a judgement only worthy of those who have never sinned. Remember the harlot in the street? Jesus asked the Jewish leaders (who were getting ready to stone her), "let he who has never sinned cast the first stone." Only Jesus was still there with the woman after those words. Judgement is for God and His family..... not man. This was the lesson Jesus was trying to teach here.

I know you know that animal sacrifices are no longer needed because of the sacrifice of Christ.

Know that I'm not under the "physical" law of the Old Testament but the "spiritual" law of the New Testament. This applies the Old Law with Jesus' teachings. Lust = adultry. Hatred = murder. Turn the other cheek. Divorce (other than for sexual immorality) = adultry. The 11th commandment "Love me as I have loved you." Take the commandments and laws and add the Testimony of Jesus Christ and you have a great ingredient for peace. In the words of John, "here is the patience of the saints, who have the commandments of God and the Testimony of Jesus Christ." (Revelation).

So you see, the FULFILLMENT of the LAW is not an absence of the law but an ADDITION of the law. Jesus MAGNIFIED the Law and made it whole. That's what's meant when He said "I did not come to destroy but to fulfill the Law." Get it out of your head that I'm in the state of stoning people or sacrificing animals. Combine the two testaments and you have the PERFECT LAW.

reply to post by holywar

16)Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17)These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

I love it when people use this verse because it does not mean what most people think. This comes from colossians and the church in Colossia which was a Pagan city in the Roman empire. The Gentile christians of this town were being criticized for Sabbath worship (as opposed to sunday worship) and refraining from unclean meats, celebrating the holy days instead of pagan holidays (modern day christmas and easter). Paul was telling these gentile christains to not let anyone Judge them for their practices. Most of Paul's writings concerning sabbath worship and foods concern this subject matter. Of course, I'm sure you have your own twisted opinion on this.

reply to post by Locoman8


Sorry, you should prayerfully read it again, the scripture plainly explains itself.
There is no twisting on my part. You are obviously reading another meaning into it.

What part of:

"having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross."

don't you get?

Originally posted by holywar
reply to post by Locoman8

 

Sorry, you should prayerfully read it again, the scripture plainly explains itself. There is no twisting on my part. You are obviously reading another meaning into it.What part of:
"having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross."
don't you get?

Here is a pretty good explanation of this from John Gill:

rather (with others) it signifies the ceremonial law, which lay in divers ordinances and commands, and is what, the apostle afterwards speaks of more clearly and particularly; and may be called so, because submission to it was an acknowledgment both of the faith and guilt of sin; every washing was saying, that a man was polluted and unclean; and every sacrifice was signing a man's own guilt and condemnation, and testifying that he deserved to die as the creature did, which was offered in sacrifice: or rather the whole law of Moses is intended, which was the handwriting of God, and obliged to obedience to it, and to punishment in case of disobedience; and this the Jews call (bwx) (rjv) , "the writing of the debt", and is the very phrase the Syriac version uses here: now this was as a debt book, which showed and testified the debts of men; that is, their sins, how many they are guilty of, and what punishment is due unto them.

If one wants to believe that this verse, Colossians 2:14, is saying that it was the Law itself, as in the 10 Commandments, that was nailed to the cross, they are missing the point, in my opinion.
Paul is saying those ordinances that were established for dealing with sin have been superseded by Christ and his sacrifice. The debt owed for obedience were paid by Jesus through his obedience which is imputed to our account, and our punishment was experienced in a substitutionary manner (takes our place) by his death.


[edit on 3-6-2009 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by badmedia
Jesus did not go around killing the children who cursed their parents. If the laws mentioned were the laws of god, then Jesus was not following the laws if he did not kill the child.

even according to the law, it wasnt jesus' place to go around killing people. the judgement and alot of time the execution came the the elders.

so frankly, jesus not killing people has nothing to do with it.

However. Once again, if the law stated that you must kill the man who does these things, and that you must suffer the child who curses the parents and so forth, then Jesus does not fulfill those laws. He doesn't kill anyone. So he obviously did not keep those commandments. If he was following those laws, and fulfilling those laws, then he would have went around and killed those people - as the law supposedly states you should. But he does not. So if he fulfills god's law, and he doesn't follow those laws, then how could those have been god's law?

again, it would not have been his place to.

If he says he doesn't change the law, but fulfills it, then I don't see how it could be anything other than - what he followed was gods law, any others were not. The commandments are certainly still valid. Do we not say the man who kills has sinned? The man who steals has sinned and so forth?

what does it mean to fulfill a contract? is the contract still active after it has been fulfilled?

what does it mean to fulfill a promise? is the promise still binding after it has been fulfilled?

what about fulfilling a prophecy?

fulfilling expectations?

its in plain english.

the law had a purpose, that purpose was fulfilled.

And we can see this in understanding when it says - vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord. Which means, it's not our place to punish or judge those who sin. Not our place to kill the man who killed. And that is what Jesus fulfills as well.

after jesus fulfilled the law, yes. it changed. it was no longer our place to execute judgement.

here's why.

the law required works. you broke the law, if it was witnessed, you paid.

jesus' sacrifice changed that. because sins could now be forgiven, this added another level to it. it requires the judge to "read the heart" which is something that only jesus and GOD can do.

it also meant that if a sin was able to be forgiven, that works did not carry the same weight judicially as they did in the past.

this means that humans would not be able to correctly judge other humans anymore.

so of course there would be a change in policy after christ