Why don’t Jews accept Jesus as Lord?

Your quotes from Romans 10:4 onwards leave no doubt that the law is abolished. ALL of them are declarations by Paul. In my search for Biblical statements abolishing the law I have come across more than what you have quoted. Again ALL from Paul, including his command in Galatians 5:1 saying "Now MAKE SURE THAT YOU STAY FREE, and don't get tied up again in SLAVERY TO THE LAW" and his warning in Galatians 3:10 that "All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse." So for the vast majority of Christians there is no excuse whatsoever to go back to the law. Paul's writings are full of criticisms of the law and those who want to bring it back.

However, in my search I could not find anywhere where Jesus was so opposed to the law. In fact his statements lean the other way. In Matthew 5:17 which you quote, Jesus warns everyone "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets" He repeats to make clear and for emphasis, "I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them." The word "but" tells us that the verb fulfill is supposed to convey a meaning that is opposite to that of the word abolish. It's like saying "I have not come to lower you, but to raise you" or saying "I have not come to empty the containers, but to fill them" Jesus carries emphasising the same thing, "for I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the law until everything is accomplished." Further along, in Matthew 5:19, Jesus warned, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven” There are other verses in which Jesus upholds the law of God, explains them and teaches his followers to observe them. There is nowhere where Jesus discourages any of his followers from following the law at any time. He never teaches that after the first phase of his earthly ministry, which ended with his ascension, his followers will be justified by faith or that the law will be cursed and abolished.

There are thus two distinct sets of teachings. One set taught by Paul, meant for Gentiles and one taught by Jesus and followed by James and the Elders and thousands of Jews who did not just follow the law but were zealous in doing so, as James pointed out to Paul in Acts 21:20 saying, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe (in Jesus); and they are all zealous of the law"

Paul was just as inspired as the rest of the Bible writers. 
I cannot ignore the other Bible writers that are cohesive to what you complain about. As I said:
The Mosaic Law was binding for the Jews at that time. As prophesied, after Jesus death after his 3.5 year or half week ministry after his anointing, he was to cause sacrifice and such to cease. 

(Daniel 9:24-27) ...27 “And he will keep the covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week, he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease. “And on the wing of disgusting things there will be the one causing desolation; and until an extermination, what was decided on will be poured out also on the one lying desolate.”

Matthew 5 '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. 18 for I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the law until everything is accomplished.

(John 19:30) When he had received the sour wine, Jesus said: “It has been accomplished!” and bowing his head, he gave up his spirit.


What do you make of Muhammad adding more allowed lashes? 40-Deut 25:3 100-Surah 24:2
Also, didn't you say that Muhammad abolished some of the required sacrifices?


Pretty sure we have been through this before:
There Is Nothing to the Rumors” (Acts 21:22-26)
9 What about the rumors stating that Paul was teaching Jews among the nations “neither to circumcise their children nor to walk in the solemn customs”? Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles, and to them he upheld the decision that Gentiles did not have to submit to the Law. He also exposed the error of any who tried to persuade Gentile believers to undergo circumcision as a sign of submission to the Mosaic Law. (Gal. 5:1-7) Paul also preached the good news to Jews in the cities he visited. He certainly would have explained to responsive ones that Jesus’ death had made the Law obsolete and that righteousness was attained by faith, not by works of Law.—Rom. 2:28, 29; 3:21-26.
10 Nevertheless, Paul showed understanding toward those who felt comfortable observing some Jewish customs, such as abstaining from work on the Sabbath or avoiding certain foods. (Rom. 14:1-6) And he did not set down rules about circumcision. Indeed, Paul had Timothy circumcised so that the Jews would not be suspicious of Timothy, whose father was a Greek. (Acts 16:3) Circumcision was a matter for personal decision. Paul told the Galatians: “Neither circumcision is of any value nor is uncircumcision, but faith operating through love is.” (Gal. 5:6) However, to get circumcised so as to come under the Law or to present the practice as being necessary in order to obtain Jehovah’s approval would betray a lack of faith.
11 Hence, although the rumors were gross distortions, Jewish believers were still disturbed by them. For that reason, the older men offered Paul this direction: “We have four men with a vow upon themselves. Take these men along and cleanse yourself ceremonially with them and take care of their expenses, that they may have their heads shaved. And so everybody will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly, you yourself also keeping the Law.”—Acts 21:23, 24.
12 Paul could have objected that the real problem was, not the rumors about him, but the zeal of those Jewish believers for the Mosaic Law. But he was willing to be flexible, as long as he did not have to compromise godly principles. Earlier he had written: “To those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, that I might gain those under law.” (1 Cor. 9:20) On this occasion, Paul cooperated with the Jerusalem elders and became “as under law.” In so doing, he set a fine example for us today to cooperate with the elders and not insist on doing things our own way.—Heb. 13:17.

The first part of your post is a repeat of what I already responded to. Obviously we've neither crossed the "until heaven and earth pass away" [they're both still here] nor reached the "until everything is accomplished" [life and everything are still continuing]

You then make a statement about what Mohammed did. I don't see how what Mohammed or Buddha or Krishna did affects the issues under discussion.

The long paragraph you posted after that doesn't invalidate anything in my post. Your closing statement says, "In so doing, he [Paul] set a fine example for us today to cooperate with the elders and not insist on doing things our own way." It won't escape anyone who truly wants to follow the "fine example for us today to cooperate with the elders and not insist on doing things our own way." that Paul ONLY “To those under law I became as under law, though [in reality] I myself am not under law" In other words Paul, the fine example to follow, did it just to please the elders he did not change his beliefs nor his teachings.

Finally, I don't think you're saying that I need to change anything in my last post where I set out the two different sets of teachings, and I am not suggesting that you do or even can change from one set to the other.

(Luke 16:17) Indeed, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to go unfulfilled.
(Matthew 5:17-19) “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place. 19 Whoever, therefore, breaks one of these least commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens.
(Luke 24:27) And starting with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.


Matthew 5 '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. 18 for I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the law until everything is accomplished.

(John 19:30) When he had received the sour wine, Jesus said: “It has been accomplished!” and bowing his head, he gave up his spirit.

Is that what you understand Jesus to be saying at John 19:30, life and everything are over?

(John 19:30) When he had received the sour wine, Jesus said: “It has been accomplished!” and bowing his head, he gave up his spirit.

erm... almost the whole of your post is a repetition of verses which I have either quoted myself or indicated that I'm already familiar with. So I don't see where you want us to go with that, apart from just going round in circles.

The only new thing is in your final paragraph where you've resorted to name calling. However, I don't see how you calling me a hypocrite or even a thief or a murderer changes the validity of the points I made. 

From you previous post, you seemed to have missed the scriptures posted and the context.

This will seem repetitive to you but you seem to have missed this as well:
[Is that what you understand Jesus to be saying at John 19:30, life and everything are over?
(John 19:30) When he had received the sour wine, Jesus said: “It has been accomplished!” and bowing his head, he gave up his spirit.]

I didn't call you any name although the shoe sure fits, but a Muslim crying about the need to hold to the least letter of the law while ignoring that the founder of Islam didn't think it was harsh enough so hanged it to add 60 more lashes as well as other changes that you have told me that I can't remember the details of and likely other changes that you haven't told me is hypocritical. 

So what is the punishment for Mohammad for changing the law on lashes and such?

That's kinda like me telling you that you should give every bit of your means of living to the poor while I live in a big house, wear the best clothes and eat the best delicacies. Hypocritical, yes?

My main point was made in my post time stamped December 17, 2017 4:34 PM PST.

Whereas there are numerous verses in which Paul teaches the abandonment of the law when we look at the teachings of Jesus we find that he does the opposite. He emphasises the importance of the law, and warns against abandoning even the least of the laws. No one has yet drawn my attention to any passage where Jesus even once says that after they crucify him on trumped up charges his followers will be free of the law.

After that the discussion seems to have descended into you resorting to name calling. That says a lot about your reactions but I don't think it will shed any further light on the teachings of either Jesus or Paul on the subject of the law.

Where did I call you a name? Saying your stance or post is hypocritical is not calling you a name, is it?
There are several verses that show that the law would pass away after Jesus fulfilled his earthly mission. "until all things take place"] You cry that I am repetitive yet you don't acknowledge the post like in Daniel and others that show as much.

So what is the punishment for Mohammad for changing the law on lashes and such?

What benefit has Islamic teachings brought Muslims or those around them?
Has following the parts of the Mosaic law that Mohammad changed made Muslims peaceful? 

We're having difficulty closing this one.

I note your claim that "There are several verses that show that the law would pass away after Jesus fulfilled his earthly mission. "until all things take place"] You cry that I am repetitive yet you don't acknowledge the post like in Daniel and others that show as much."

However, nothing you've posted invalidates the facts in my post time stamped December 17, 2017 4:34 PM PST.

Let me add that as far as I'm aware Jesus did not say to his followers that after he is crucified [on trumped up charges] they must not follow the law. If you know of any verses where he did then let me know. Paul on the other hand leaves no doubt at all that the law should not be followed. He goes as far as to call the law a curse and compares following it to slavery.

Furthermore, Paul is aware that neither Jesus nor God taught against the law. That is why we read in Acts that when he was summoned by James and the elders, told about how zealous the followers of Jesus are about the law and questioned about his rumoured opposition to the law, he never puts up any defence. He never said that the Lord [Jesus] had forbidden observation of the law after his crucifixion. In fact, in the many verses in which he warns and speaks against the law, I'm not aware of any in which he says that Jesus, or God, had said so.

So far in my studies of the Bible and discussions with Christian I have not come across any verses where Jesus or God has given clear, unambiguous commandments against following the law after the crucifixion of Jesus. If you know of any such verses I'd be glad to learn about them. 

I cannot comment on the rest of your post about my stance being hypocritical, about Mohammed and about Muslims as they do not shed any further light on the Biblical teachings of Jesus and Paul about the law.

Well you don't even consider the context of the verse you quote so what can I say. My subsequent post after your "post time stamped December 17, 2017 4:34 PM PST" should help clarify but you choose to ignore.
Here is part of my very next post that highlights part of what you ignored that is very relevant:
[Paul was just as inspired as the rest of the Bible writers. 
I cannot ignore the other Bible writers that are cohesive to what you complain about. As I said:
The Mosaic Law was binding for the Jews at that time. As prophesied, after Jesus death after his 3.5 year or half week ministry after his anointing, he was to cause sacrifice and such to cease. 

(Daniel 9:24-27) ...27 “And he will keep the covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week, he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease. “And on the wing of disgusting things there will be the one causing desolation; and until an extermination, what was decided on will be poured out also on the one lying desolate.”

Matthew 5 '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. 18 for I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the law until everything is accomplished.

(John 19:30) When he had received the sour wine, Jesus said: “It has been accomplished!” and bowing his head, he gave up his spirit.]

In my next post, I then even gave you a better translation in modern English to see if that helped you.

Notice what Jesus says:
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place

Compare that to your understanding:
17 “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy. 18 Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law.
Just take out: [, but to fulfill.] and [until all things take place]


Nice dodge about Mohammad and Muslims changing the law, I mean, what can you say?

I don't know why we're having difficulty closing this discussion about the place of Mosaic law in modern Christianity.

I have no problem you believing what you want to believe in or you using whatever justification you do [the two you keep highlighting are Daniel 9:24-27 and Matthew 5:17] for your beliefs. Those are your choices and do not concern me if that's worrying you and stopping us closing this discussion. I've already explained my understanding of Matthew 5:17 in detail. Even Paul makes no references to such sayings of Jesus in justification of his very strong opposition to the Mosaic law nor to the verse in Daniel.

If you're worried that we'll be closing the discussion when one or more of the statements I've made regarding Mosaic law is wrong then let me know and I will review them.

If you think the person most concerned that the Mosaic law should be abandoned was not Paul, as my studies show, but Jesus or God then list the verses where Jesus or God repeatedly and unambiguously express their concerns as, or more than, Paul does.

I said that it is clear from the book of Acts that James, the elders and the thousands of followers of Jesus did not believe that either God or Jesus wanted the law to be abandoned after the crucifixion of Jesus. If you think that is wrong present your evidence and I'll be glad to consider it.

If you have any other concerns that is holding you from closing this discussion list them clearly and let's get them out of the way.

Why are you having difficulty in closing the place of the Mosaic law in modern Christianity? Do you profess to be Christian now? Are you Jewish or of the Nation of Israel who were born under law? Even Muslims don't follow the full extent of the law, yes?

Do you remember this:
[There are many aspects of the Mosaic law that the HQ, as handed down by Mohammed, does not have, for example the strict observance of the Sabbath and dietary laws that Jews were subject to.

• Report

Deu 4:8) And what great nation is there that has righteous regulations and judicial decisions like all this law that I am putting before YOU today?
 

Exodus 34:27) And Jehovah went on to say to Moses: “Write down for yourself these words, because it is in accordance with these words that I do conclude a covenant with you and Israel.”

(Deuteronomy 31:24) And it came about that as soon as Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book until their completion,

(2 Kings 23:2) After that the king went up to the house of Jehovah, and also all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and also the priests and the prophets and all the people, from small to great; and he began to read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that had been found in the house of Jehovah.

(Deuteronomy 5:15) Remember that you became a slave in the land of Egypt and that Jehovah your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. That is why Jehovah your God commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.
(Exodus 31:13) “Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘Especially, you are to keep my sabbaths, for it is a sign between me and you during your generations in order that you may know that I, Jehovah, am sanctifying you.

TY for that.

Hopefully your post has allowed you to say whatever else you wanted to say on the subject and we can close this particular discussion.

I do not see anything in your post that invalidates any of the statements I have made so far. It is thus obvious from your post that the findings of my studies do not need any correction. The person most concerned that the Mosaic laws must not be followed after the crucifixion of Jesus, and therefore the person who has spoken most voluminously and most strongly against them is neither God, nor Jesus but Paul. This is also the understanding of James, the elders and the thousands of followers of Jesus who not only continued to observe the Mosaic law after the crucifixion but did so zealously. 

That I think is the most accurate representation of what the Bible is saying. Of course if I come across verses that show another person said more against the Mosaic law than Paul and more strongly than Paul then I will HAVE to modify my understanding and will very gladly do so, and very easily too, because it will not require any change in practice for me.

We are not discussing the basis of the laws that Muslims follow so I won't prolong our discussion by opening that new subject.

Funny thing is that you are the one that changed the subject to include the law and Muslims:

I did not CHANGE the subject. I tried to avoid argument over who was meant at Deuteronomy 18 by saying Muslims have no objection to believing in Jesus. They believe in all prophets because at the core, the message of all prophets was essentially the same including the necessity to do God's will, by following His laws.

In your response to that post of mine you started off with your claim that "The Mosaic Law was binding for the Jews at that time. As prophesied, after Jesus death after his 3.5 year or half week ministry after his anointing, he was to cause sacrifice and such to cease." It is that which caused us to focus on the subject of the Mosaic law and its fate as Christianity was born, evolved and grew [with Paul being the chief midwife and nanny] following the crucifixion of Jesus.


This post was edited by CLURT at December 20, 2017 3:11 PM MST

So I commented on what you brought up and now we are not discussing it? 

Which of these comments of yours in this thread would you like for me to pretend I didn't see:
"Muslims accept that the law of God is binding"
"We are not discussing the basis of the laws that Muslims follow"

Which of your following contradictory comments would you like to stand by?
"...Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed all lived by God's laws and taught their followers to do likewise. In Matthew 5:19 Jesus warned, “Whosoever therefore shall  break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven” So Jesus too taught that we should do God's will, keep his commandments and said, “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50). Muslims accept that the law of God is binding..."

[There are many aspects of the Mosaic law that the HQ, as handed down by Mohammed, does not have, for example the strict observance of the Sabbath and dietary laws that Jews were subject to]

I now find myself getting pulled deeper and deeper into discussing who said what and when and why and NONE of it has anything to do with the subject we finally finished discussing, that is, the subject of the Mosaic law and its fate as Christianity was born, evolved and grew [with Paul being the chief midwife and nanny] following the crucifixion of Jesus.

That is a significant subject which I AM interested in. If you have any further light to shed on that subject do let me know.

Honestly you appear to only be interested in what you can fit into your brand of Islam of which Mohammad is the chief midwife, nanny to and inventor of. Of course you disagree with Paul. Paul was against children getting married while Mohammad promoted it and did it himself. Paul was against vengefulness while Mohammad was for it in the worst inhumane ways. Paul felt the Mosaic law, although harsh as written, had and served its purpose. Mohammad didn't think it was harsh enough and increased lashes form 40 to 100 as well as felt the need to change other things to his liking while his followers want to quote that not one 'jot or one tittle' was to be changed. 
A bit odd that someone wants to belittle the beliefs of others while ignoring their own beliefs that are at odds with their own premise. 

Because nothing in your post is a constructive addition to the subject we discussed and concluded, but they all seem to want to provoke a confrontational argument, I will not be responding to them. I will only offer the following observations:

"Honestly you appear to only be interested in what you can fit into your brand of Islam" >>> I will let any interested reader judge your honesty by seeing for themselves whether I have based any of my arguments on Islam or whether I have confined myself to quotes from the Bible itself

"Paul was against vengefulness" >>> but it's a shame that your latest post seems to say the opposite about you.

Since I confined myself to showing how, on the subject of the Mosaic law, the teachings of Paul were overwhelmingly at odds with the teachings of God and Jesus and against the beliefs of James, the elders and the thousands of others then the "someone [who] wants to belittle the beliefs of others" must be referring to Paul because it was his arguments that I presented not mine, and they came word for word from the Bible. 

Quote: [...

With all ofyour taunts about changing the dot or tittle of the Law, I wonder why the Quran says you can eat camel? (Sura 22:36) And you always want to talk about the words of Jesus as if Christians don't accept it and what did Jesus say about those that strain out the gnat (dot or tittle?) but gulp down the camel?(Muslims)

 

(Matthew 23:23, 24) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!(You know who) because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was necessary to do, yet not to disregard the other things. 24 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel!

https://quran.com/22/36

And the camels and cattle We have appointed for you as among the symbols of Allah ; for you therein is good. So mention the name of Allah upon them when lined up [for sacrifice]; and when they are [lifeless] on their sides, then eat from them and feed the needy and the beggar. Thus have We subjected them to you that you may be grateful.

 

 

(Leviticus 11:4-7) “‘But you must not eat these animals that chew the cud or have a split hoof: the camel, which chews the cud but does not have a split hoof. It is unclean for you. 5 Also the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not have a split hoof. It is unclean for you. 6 Also the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have a split hoof. It is unclean for you. 7 Also the pig, because it has a split hoof and a cleft in the hoof but does not chew the cud. It is unclean for you.
(Deuteronomy 14:7, 8) However, you must not eat the following animals that chew the cud or that have split hooves: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not have split hooves. They are unclean for you. 8 Also the pig because it has a split hoof but does not chew the cud. It is unclean for you. You must not eat their flesh or touch their carcasses.
(Leviticus 11:23) All other winged swarming creatures with four legs are something loathsome to you.

With all due respects to you after hundreds of exchanges between you and me I have decided I do not want to engage with you any more. What I post tends to be too emotionally upsetting for you to handle and what you relentlessly and repeatedly post I sometimes find too exasperating for me.

If I choose to respond it will be because I have seen a question genuinely seeking clarification of my view of Jesus or the Bible or Islam.

Islam teaches respect for all Biblical prophets including Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus.

I have never expressed any insulting or offensive remarks against any Bible character.

I do not support anti-Christian sites or post anything from such sites

I post my understanding of the Biblical Jesus story with backing from the Bible

Any Biblical information I post can be readily verified from the work of respectable Bible scholars and researchers.

You can call my posts "attacks against Paul and the Bible",  “jabs” and “taunts” if you want to and post insulting and offensive comments, some from hate sites. Perhaps all that is designed to stop me from posting what I do 

I have said this to you many times before if my posts get you fuming and wanting to insult then don't read them.

Sincere men of faith should show respect and should not act out of spite.

Sorry if you find the Bible and the Quran to be insulting or emotionally upsetting for you. You can choose not to reply, that's fine.

Your words: [ Jesus carries emphasising the same thing, "for I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the law until everything is accomplished." Further along, in Matthew 5:19, Jesus warned, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven”]

Words of Jesus: [(Matthew 23:23, 24) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was necessary to do, yet not to disregard the other things. 24 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel!]

Muhammad's words: [And the camels and cattle We have appointed for you as among the symbols of Allah ; for you therein is good. So mention the name of Allah upon them when lined up [for sacrifice]; and when they are [lifeless] on their sides, then eat from them and feed the needy and the beggar. Thus have We subjected them to you that you may be grateful.]


Notice who literally advocates literally gulping down the camel while straining out the gnat?

Thank you :)

You are welcome.