>>3575
>In greek the word for nomon/nomos is law.
>Now the thing the link you posted was trying to say is that the wall between Jews and gentiles is broken. Either way THAT STILL GOES AGAINST THE WORDS OF JESUS. This is because of a specific verse in scripture.
You clearly haven't read the link. Nomos in this instance doesn't refer to THE Law. The Law of Moses.
<Nomos (the dictionary form of nomon) is the Greek word for law. It can refer to the Torah and in many cases it does. For example, in the Matthew five passage discussed previously, Jesus refers to the Law (nomos) and the Prophets. However, nomos is not limited to the Torah but can also refer to any governing law or set of rules. In his discussion of nomos in The Dictionary of New Testament Background, scholar L.A. Jervis says the following:
< The Greek word usually rendered “law” by the translators of the NT is nomos. This word meant both “law” and “custom” and so could refer to the laws of a society and to that society's habits and customs (632).
<​There are examples even within the New Testament where nomos does not refer to the Mosaic Law. For example, Paul refers to a nomos of works versus a nomos of faith in Romans 3:27. Here Paul uses nomos to point out that some are governed by works whereas others are governed by faith. Even if you think that a nomos of works refers to the Mosaic Law (which is contrary to what the Mosaic Law itself says – see our discussion on Romans 9-11), you must admit that there is an additional nomos of faith. They cannot both refer to the Mosaic Law, but they can each refer to a governing set of rules.
<Similarly, in Romans 8:2, Paul refers to the nomos of sin and death, which is juxtaposed against the nomos of the Spirit of life. One law is based on a government (if you will) of sin and death, the other based on a government of the Spirit. Clearly Paul understood that nomos does not have to refer to the Mosaic Law. He sometimes used it in different ways. Might he have done so in Ephesians 2:15?
<Also, in extra-biblical sources, nomos does not necessarily refer to the Torah. For example, Josephus refers to a “nomos of war” (War 3:363) and a “nomos of nature” (War 3:374). Even within Judaism, nomos does not refer simply to the Torah, but can also refer to the entire Hebrew Bible. Further, nomos can refer to the “two branches of divine revelation—the written Torah and the oral Torah, which are traditionally viewed as having been given to Moses on Mt. Sinai” (Grossfeld, 1242). The oral Torah is separate from the first five books of the Bible. These are extra laws that were set in place by the Pharisees after the return from the Babylonian exile to prevent Israel from going into exile once again. They functioned as a fence to prevent Israel from disobeying the Torah. These laws were by nature more restrictive than the Torah. The idea was that if these were not disobeyed, then the Torah would not be disobeyed. Initially given orally, they were later written down and collected in the Talmud. When Jews refer to the Torah, they are often including the Oral Law.
So no, Paul wasn't saying that the Law was abolished with its commandments. His Epistles are in perfect agreement with Matthew 5.
Romans 7:12.
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good
Paul even instructed the Corinthians not to be disturbed when observing the Sabbath, full moon, etc., because the church in Corinth was clearly following the Law. He never told them to stop following it.
>That is still paul telling them to follow his doctrines as opposed to Jesus' doctrine
He's saying that his doctrine is Jesus's doctrine. Just as for example a national socialists' doctrine is Hitler's doctrine, or that a Bolshevik's doctrine is Lenin's doctrine.