Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Jesus condems apostle Paul's annulment of the Law

Expand Messages
  • Dave Wave
    Jesus says whoever annuls the Law, or teaches others that it should be, will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven. 17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 1, 2006
      Jesus says whoever annuls the Law, or teaches others that it should be, will be least in the
      Kingdom of Heaven.

      17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to
      fulfill.
      18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke
      shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
      19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be
      called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called
      great in the kingdom of heaven.
      20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees,
      you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5, NASB)

      Notice in verse 19, while the NASB says "annuls", the KJV has the much stronger "break". Was
      Jesus saying "whoever annuls" or "whoever breaks"? Since breaking a commandment is not quite the
      same thing as annuling it.

      Greek Strong's Number: 3089
      Greek Word: luw
      Transliteration: luo
      Phonetic Pronunciation: loo'-o
      Root: a root word
      Cross Reference: TDNT - 2:60 & 4:328,543
      Part of Speech: v

      1) to loose any person (or thing) tied or fastened

      1a) bandages of the feet, the shoes,
      1b) of a husband and wife joined together by the bond of matrimony
      1c) of a single man, whether he has already had a wife or has not yet married

      2) to loose one bound, i.e. to unbind, release from bonds, set free

      2a) of one bound up (swathed in bandages)
      2b) bound with chains (a prisoner), discharge from prison, let go

      3) to loosen, undo, dissolve, anything bound, tied, or compacted together

      3a) an assembly, i.e. to dismiss, break up
      3b) laws, as having a binding force, are likened to bonds
      3c) to annul, subvert
      3d) to do away with, to deprive of authority, whether by precept or act
      3e) to declare unlawful
      3f) to loose what is compacted or built together, to break up, demolish, destroy
      3g) to dissolve something coherent into parts, to destroy
      3h) metaph., to overthrow, to do away with
      ============

      If the universally esteemed Strong's concordance has anything to say about it, Jesus was talking
      about those who would ANNUL the Law, not just who merely BREAK the law.

      Notice now, Jesus says until heaven and earth pass away, not the least part of the will pass away.

      Didn't Paul teach vigorously, before heaven and earth passed away, that the Law is annuled?

      2nd Corinthians 3 --
      13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not
      stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
      14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the
      reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
      15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
      16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

      Galatians 2 --
      15 "We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles;
      16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in
      Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ,
      and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.
      17 "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is
      Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!
      18 "For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.
      19 "For through the Law I died to the Law, that I might live to God.
      20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and
      the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and
      delivered Himself up for me.
      21 "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ
      died needlessly."

      Galatians 3 --
      21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given
      which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
      22 But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ
      might be given to those who believe.
      23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which
      was later to be revealed.
      24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.

      25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

      Ephesians 2 --
      15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;
      for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

      Colossians 2 --
      13 And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you
      alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
      14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was
      hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
      15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having
      triumphed over them through Him.
      16 Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival
      or a new moon or a Sabbath day—
      17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
      18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of
      the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,
      19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together
      by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.
      20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were
      living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
      21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!"
      22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using)—in accordance with the
      commandments and teachings of men?



      Hebrews 7 --
      18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside (annulment) of a former commandment because of
      its weakness and uselessness
      19 (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better
      hope, through which we draw near to God (Jesus).

      Hebrews 8 --
      13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming
      obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

      Hebrews 10 --
      18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.
      19 Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
      20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,
      21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
      ===================
      =============

      I think my cites from Ephesians 2 and Hebrews 7 most powerfully prove that Paul (if you agree he
      authored those two epistles), certainly taught that the Law has been ANNULED, that is; set aside,
      made void.

      Which places him in diametric opposition to Jesus, who said the law wouldn't pass away (i.e., it
      would be wrong to teach that it was annuled) until heaven and earth did.




      __________________________________
      Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
      http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/
    • rosariodsouza
      Dave: Jesus says whoever annuls the Law, or teaches others that it should be, will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven. Notice in verse 19, while the
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 2, 2006
        Dave:

        Jesus says whoever annuls the Law, or teaches others that it should
        be, will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

        < cut >

        Notice in verse 19, while the NASB says "annuls", the KJV has the
        much stronger "break". Was Jesus saying "whoever annuls" or "whoever
        breaks"?

        < cut >

        If the universally esteemed Strong's concordance has anything to say
        about it, Jesus was talking about those who would ANNUL the Law, not
        just who merely BREAK the law.

        Ross:

        Yes, it is "annul" and not "break."


        Dave:

        Notice now, Jesus says until heaven and earth pass away, not the
        least part of the will pass away.

        Didn't Paul teach vigorously, before heaven and earth passed away,
        that the Law is annuled?

        < cut >

        I think my cites from Ephesians 2 and Hebrews 7 most powerfully
        prove that Paul (if you agree he authored those two epistles),
        certainly taught that the Law has been ANNULED, that is; set aside,
        made void.

        Which places him in diametric opposition to Jesus, who said the law
        wouldn't pass away (i.e., it would be wrong to teach that it was
        annuled) until heaven and earth did.

        Ross:

        Is that really what Paul taught?

        Let us see.

        First you must understand what the meaning of keeping the Law is.

        Jesus said that to love God and your neighbor is equivalent to
        keeping the Law.

        Mt 22:35-40 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing
        Him, 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And
        He said to him, " `YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR
        HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is
        the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, `YOU
        SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 40 "On these two commandments
        depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

        Now let us see what Paul taught. Let's begin with Rom 8:3-4.

        Rom 8:3,4 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was
        through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of
        sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the
        flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us,
        who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

        Notice the part where Paul says "so that the requirement of the Law
        might be fulfilled in us?"

        Clearly, Paul expects the requirement of the Law to be fulfilled in
        us. So he is not annulling the Law.

        But wait, there's more. See what Paul says in Rom 13:8.

        Rom 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he
        who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

        Clearly, again, Paul commands that we fulfill the Law.

        Now for those of us who didn't get it the first time, Paul repeats
        himself in Rom 13:10.

        Rom 13:10 Rom 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love
        is the fulfillment of the law.

        Well, Paul is patient. If one didn't get it these two times, he
        writes again a third time in Gal 5:14.

        Gal 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the
        statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

        So, Paul is commanding is to love. He is also saying that to love is
        to fulfill the Law. In other words, Paul is commanding us to fulfill
        the Law.

        We also saw that Jesus and Paul are in agreement that "to love is to
        fulfill the Law."

        Why, even James tells us that to love is to fulfill the Law.

        Jas 2:8 Jas 2:8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law
        according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS
        YOURSELF," you are doing well.

        So why then do you say that Paul contradicts Jesus?

        ..Ross.
      • Dave Wave
        ... Moses never ever said that by loving your neighbor and loving god, you have fulfilled your obligation to keep the law. Jesus and Moses have radically
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 3, 2006
          --- rosariodsouza <rjds@...> wrote:
          > Ross:
          >
          > Is that really what Paul taught?
          >
          > Let us see.
          >
          > First you must understand what the meaning of keeping the Law is.
          >
          > Jesus said that to love God and your neighbor is equivalent to
          > keeping the Law.
          >
          > Mt 22:35-40 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing
          > Him, 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And
          > He said to him, " `YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR
          > HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is
          > the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, `YOU
          > SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 40 "On these two commandments
          > depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

          Moses never ever said that by loving your neighbor and loving god, you have fulfilled your
          obligation to keep the law. Jesus and Moses have radically different ideas about what "keeping the
          Law" meant. Ever wonder how many drugs Moses was on when he got the Laws from God in Leviticus
          about sacrifices? After all, if you simply love your neighbor and love god with all your heart,
          on these two hang all the Law, right?

          If that's true, then what does loving your neighbor and loving god have in the slightest to do
          with animal sacrifice?

          > Now let us see what Paul taught. Let's begin with Rom 8:3-4.

          > Rom 8:3,4 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was
          > through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of
          > sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the
          > flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us,
          > who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
          >
          > Notice the part where Paul says "so that the requirement of the Law
          > might be fulfilled in us?"

          No, I notice "what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh" and immediately see a
          contradiction with "if we keep god's commands, we shall be righteous" from Moses in Deuteronomy
          6:25.

          > Clearly, Paul expects the requirement of the Law to be fulfilled in
          > us. So he is not annulling the Law.

          Oh yes he is. The requirement of the Law according to Moses contradicts Paul's understanding of
          it.

          > But wait, there's more. See what Paul says in Rom 13:8.
          >
          > Rom 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he
          > who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
          >
          > Clearly, again, Paul commands that we fulfill the Law.

          Only after arbitrarily excising 99% of the Law away for no good reason, and saying that loving one
          another fulfills the law, which is not certain at all (does loving your neighbor fulfill the law
          believing in God? Can you pay your neighbor's rent so that two elderly people don't get throw out
          into the street, without being a Christian?) does paul then say we need to fulfill the law.
          Contradicts Moses yet again.

          > Now for those of us who didn't get it the first time, Paul repeats
          > himself in Rom 13:10.
          >
          > Rom 13:10 Rom 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love
          > is the fulfillment of the law.
          >
          > Well, Paul is patient. If one didn't get it these two times, he
          > writes again a third time in Gal 5:14.
          >
          > Gal 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the
          > statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

          Oh, i get it now. Paul believes that by repeating the same contradiction to Moses' understanding
          of fulfilling the law, he can make his particular understanding even more true?

          > So, Paul is commanding is to love. He is also saying that to love is
          > to fulfill the Law. In other words, Paul is commanding us to fulfill
          > the Law.

          And Paul's version of the law is missing about 99% of it, wouldn't you say that's just a bit
          suspicious?

          > We also saw that Jesus and Paul are in agreement that "to love is to
          > fulfill the Law."

          They agree together against Moses' understanding of it in Deuteronomy 6:25, yes, I see that.

          > Why, even James tells us that to love is to fulfill the Law.
          > Jas 2:8 Jas 2:8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law
          > according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS
          > YOURSELF," you are doing well.

          Wrong again, James says you are fulfilling the ROYAL law to love one another. and he defines that
          as one particular law "love your neighbor as yourself" in that very immediate context. he is not
          talking about fulfilling the whole law, just that law.

          > So why then do you say that Paul contradicts Jesus?
          > ..Ross.

          Thank you for pointing out to me that in other gospel passage Jesus reduced the law to just two
          points, love god and neighbor.

          Now you have to explain Jesus specifying that whoever annuls or teaches other to annul even THE
          LEAST LITTLE PART...of the law....is least in the kingdom of heaven.

          Jesus, in my orignal cite from Matthew 5, specifically includes every little part of the law down
          to the smallest stroke of a letter, when talking about whoever would annual any part of the law.

          So if Jesus and Paul later say that love fulfills the whole law, that is irrelevant to the fact
          that Jesus said teaching others to annul the least letter of the law would make you least in the
          kingdom.

          And Paul definitely taught that the Old covenent has been made obsolete, Hebrews 8, so you've
          answered nothing and only proved that Jesus contradicted himself.




          __________________________________________
          Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
          Just $16.99/mo. or less.
          dsl.yahoo.com
        • rosariodsouza
          Dave: Moses never ever said that by loving your neighbor and loving god, you have fulfilled your obligation to keep the law. Jesus and Moses have radically
          Message 4 of 5 , Jan 3, 2006
            Dave:

            Moses never ever said that by loving your neighbor and loving god,
            you have fulfilled your obligation to keep the law. Jesus and Moses
            have radically different ideas about what "keeping the Law" meant.
            Ever wonder how many drugs Moses was on when he got the Laws from
            God in Leviticus about sacrifices? After all, if you simply love
            your neighbor and love god with all your heart, on these two hang
            all the Law, right?

            Ross:

            Actually, I am wondering how many drugs you are on. Have you never
            read Deut 6:5?

            Deut 6:5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and
            with all your soul and with all your might.

            And here is Lev 19:34, where Moses tells the Israelites to love
            strangers and natives (i.e. neighbors) as themselves.

            Lev 19:34 'The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the
            native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were
            aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.




            Dave:

            If that's true, then what does loving your neighbor and loving god
            have in the slightest to do with animal sacrifice?

            Ross:

            The Law had two parts. One was the moral code (what is right and
            wrong), and the other dealt with what to do if you break the moral
            code (the law of sacrifices).

            If you loved God and your neighbor you would try not to break the
            moral code.

            If you broke the moral code, and yet loved God and your neighbor you
            would try to get right with God and your neighbor by keeping the
            laws regarding sacrifices.

            If a person did not love God or his neighbor he did not need to keep
            either part of the Law.

            That is why the Law and Prophets hang upon loving God and your
            neighbor.



            Old Ross:

            Now let us see what Paul taught. Let's begin with Rom 8:3-4.

            Rom 8:3,4 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the
            flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh
            and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that
            the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk
            according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Notice the part
            where Paul says "so that the requirement of the Law might be
            fulfilled in us?"

            Dave:

            No, I notice "what the law could not do, weak as it was through the
            flesh" and immediately see a contradiction with "if we keep god's
            commands, we shall be righteous" from Moses in Deuteronomy 6:25.

            Ross:

            Drugs can indeed make us see contradictions where there are none.

            To see why there is no contradiction, ask yourself, "What if one
            cannot keep the Law?"

            Jesus kept the Law and was declared righteous, which validates ""if
            we keep god's commands, we shall be righteous".

            The Law could not make you and I righteous because we both broke the
            Law.

            So I have shown you an example of where both items are true and they
            do not contradict each other.



            Old Ross:

            Clearly, Paul expects the requirement of the Law to be fulfilled in
            us. So he is not annulling the Law.

            Dave:

            Oh yes he is. The requirement of the Law according to Moses
            contradicts Paul's understanding of it.

            Ross:

            The Law that Paul is annulling is the portion about sacrifices for
            the forgiveness of sins.

            The Law that Jesus was talking about not annulling, is the moral
            code.

            You have confused the two.

            Moses says do A, and if you can't do A then fix it up by doing B.
            Jesus says doing A is still important. Paul says doing B is no
            longer important because Jesus did B for you.

            There is no contradiction there at all.

            And then you come along and say Moses and Jesus and Paul are all
            contradicting each other.

            And to top it all you think Moses was on drugs.

            Not to mention that you probably think that Einstein was also on
            drugs – while pretty much everyone think Einstein was a genius.

            I think I have a good idea as to who is really on drugs :-)



            < cut >

            Dave:

            Thank you for pointing out to me that in other gospel passage Jesus
            reduced the law to just two points, love god and neighbor.

            Now you have to explain Jesus specifying that whoever annuls or
            teaches other to annul even THE LEAST LITTLE PART...of the law....is
            least in the kingdom of heaven.

            Jesus, in my orignal cite from Matthew 5, specifically includes
            every little part of the law down to the smallest stroke of a
            letter, when talking about whoever would annual any part of the law.

            Ross:

            Jesus was talking about the moral Law. Why do I say that? Because in
            Mt 5:20, just after Jesus talks about the importance of keeping the
            commandments, He says, "Unless your **righteousness** surpasses..."

            The word "righteousness" refers to the moral law – the law of what
            is right and wrong.


            Dave:

            So if Jesus and Paul later say that love fulfills the whole law,
            that is irrelevant to the fact that Jesus said teaching others to
            annul the least letter of the law would make you least in the
            kingdom.

            Ross:

            Not the whole Law, but the Law pertaining to righteousness. You have
            ignored context, and boy, see where it has taken you :-)


            Dave:

            And Paul definitely taught that the Old covenent has been made
            obsolete, Hebrews 8, so you've answered nothing and only proved that
            Jesus contradicted himself.

            Ross:

            Yes, the Old covenant for the forgiveness of sins, not the old moral
            law.

            I have answered all your questions – and have shown that your
            understanding lacks depth.

            But hey, who am I to condemn you for that? If it weren't for the
            mercy of God, I would be no different from you. In fact, once upon a
            time, I was on your side. May be it is now time for you to come to
            my side.

            ..Ross.
          • Dave Wave
            ... from ... Ok, so Jesus picked out two laws from the OT upon which he said hang all the Law (and the prophets). So? Moses says ALL the Law needs to be
            Message 5 of 5 , Jan 3, 2006
              --- rosariodsouza <rjds@...> wrote:
              >>Dave: Ever wonder how many drugs Moses was on when he got the Laws
              from
              > God in Leviticus about sacrifices? After all, if you simply love
              > your neighbor and love god with all your heart, on these two hang
              > all the Law, right?
              >
              > Ross:
              >
              > Actually, I am wondering how many drugs you are on. Have you never
              > read Deut 6:5?
              >
              > Deut 6:5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and
              > with all your soul and with all your might.
              >
              > And here is Lev 19:34, where Moses tells the Israelites to love
              > strangers and natives (i.e. neighbors) as themselves.
              >
              > Lev 19:34 'The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the
              >
              > native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were
              > aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.

              Ok, so Jesus picked out two laws from the OT upon which he said hang
              all the Law (and the prophets).

              So? Moses says ALL the Law needs to be obeyed (Deuteronomy 6:25) and
              that obeying ALL of it was "not too difficult" (Deuteronomy 30:10-11)

              The idea that the whole Mosaic Law is fulfilled when you "love god"
              and "love your neighbor" is just as foreign to the OT as is the idea
              that Jesus "fulfilled" any messianic prophecy.

              >> Dave:
              > If that's true, then what does loving your neighbor and loving god
              have in the slightest to do with animal sacrifice?

              > Ross:
              > The Law had two parts. One was the moral code (what is right and
              > wrong), and the other dealt with what to do if you break the moral
              > code (the law of sacrifices).
              >
              > If you loved God and your neighbor you would try not to break the
              > moral code.

              Agreed.

              > If you broke the moral code, and yet loved God and your neighbor
              > you
              > would try to get right with God and your neighbor by keeping the
              > laws regarding sacrifices.

              Exactly.

              > If a person did not love God or his neighbor he did not need to
              > keep
              > either part of the Law.

              > That is why the Law and Prophets hang upon loving God and your
              > neighbor.

              We agree so far. Now the problem is Paul's specific statements that
              the Law has been taken out of the way, it has been made obsolete.
              How does "he has made the first (covenant) obsolete" harmonize with
              "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so
              teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven..." ?

              I guess Paul is the least in the kingdom of heaven?

              > Dave:
              > No, I notice "what the law could not do, weak as it was through the
              >
              > flesh" and immediately see a contradiction with "if we keep god's
              > commands, we shall be righteous" from Moses in Deuteronomy 6:25.
              >
              > Ross:
              >
              > Drugs can indeed make us see contradictions where there are none.
              >
              > To see why there is no contradiction, ask yourself, "What if one
              > cannot keep the Law?"

              A better question is "why did Moses say that the keeping of ALL god's
              laws was not too difficult (Deuteronomy 6:25)

              > Jesus kept the Law and was declared righteous, which validates ""if
              we keep god's commands, we shall be righteous".

              Jesus did not keep the law. He viewed himself as a sacrificial lamb,
              but the OT distinguishes sharply between the sinner who needs the
              passover, and the passover itself.

              You will insist that Jesus fulfilled the Law. But under the likes of
              Moses' statements that the law would be eternally
              applicable(Leviticus 16:30-31), it seems that Jesus' contradicted
              Moses' law diametrically. How can you fulfill a law and thus make
              the Law obsolete, when God says that law shall be an eternal statute
              for you to obey?

              > The Law could not make you and I righteous because we both broke
              > the
              > Law.

              That contradicts Moses in Deuteronomy 6:25, who said that obedience
              to the Law makes one righteous.

              Moses was a sinner and broke the law just as often as you and me, yet
              he still thought obedience to all the laws made you righteous.

              Also, you are now alluding to specifically Pauline doctrine when you
              say the law cannot make us righteous because we break it. Breaking
              the law does NOT suddenly mean that the Law cannot make you
              righteous. Using the Law to see that you are a sinner doesn't
              suddenly argue that the Law is nothing but a tutor that we escape
              from as soon as we put faith in Christ. This reasoning from apostle
              Paul is ridiculous.

              > Dave:
              >
              > Oh yes he is. The requirement of the Law according to Moses
              > contradicts Paul's understanding of it.
              >
              > Ross:
              >
              > The Law that Paul is annulling is the portion about sacrifices for
              > the forgiveness of sins.
              > The Law that Jesus was talking about not annulling, is the moral
              > code.

              Wrong, Jesus said that not even the least portion of the law would
              pass, 'till heaven and earth pass. Therefore you cannot choose which
              parts Jesus referred to. He referred to the whole entire body of
              Laws, not just certain portions.

              > You have confused the two.

              No, I have kept them together, as did Jesus when he said that even
              annuling the least bit of the Law makes you least in heaven.

              > Moses says do A, and if you can't do A then fix it up by doing B.
              > Jesus says doing A is still important. Paul says doing B is no
              > longer important because Jesus did B for you.

              How do you reconcile Paul's "you don't have to do b" with Leviticus
              16:34, which says the animal sacrifice law shall be an eternal
              statute?

              "Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement
              for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year." And just
              as the LORD had commanded Moses, so he did."

              > Now you have to explain Jesus specifying that whoever annuls or
              > teaches other to annul even THE LEAST LITTLE PART...of the
              > law....is
              > least in the kingdom of heaven.
              >
              > Jesus, in my orignal cite from Matthew 5, specifically includes
              > every little part of the law down to the smallest stroke of a
              > letter, when talking about whoever would annual any part of the
              > law.
              >
              > Ross:
              >
              > Jesus was talking about the moral Law. Why do I say that? Because
              > in
              > Mt 5:20, just after Jesus talks about the importance of keeping the
              >
              > commandments, He says, "Unless your **righteousness** surpasses..."
              >
              > The word "righteousness" refers to the moral law – the law of what
              > is right and wrong.

              But Leviticus 16 has another verse where god personally calls a
              person clean of sin (i.e., righteous) in his sight....it is when they
              go through the animal sacrifice ritual.

              "...for it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to
              cleanse you; you shall be clean from all your sins before the LORD."

              So "righteousness" doesn't suddenly limit Jesus' intent in Matthew 5
              to the moral law alone.

              > Dave:
              >
              > So if Jesus and Paul later say that love fulfills the whole law,
              > that is irrelevant to the fact that Jesus said teaching others to
              > annul the least letter of the law would make you least in the
              > kingdom.
              >
              > Ross:
              >
              > Not the whole Law, but the Law pertaining to righteousness. You
              > have
              > ignored context, and boy, see where it has taken you :-)

              But righteousness is NOT restricted to the moral law, just read
              Leviticus 16:30. Righteousness also comes from having gone throught
              ceremonial acts of animal blood sacrifice.

              > Dave:
              > And Paul definitely taught that the Old covenent has been made
              > obsolete, Hebrews 8, so you've answered nothing and only proved
              > that
              > Jesus contradicted himself.
              >
              > Ross:
              >
              > Yes, the Old covenant for the forgiveness of sins, not the old
              > moral
              > law.

              Of course Paul didn't think the moral portion of the OT laws were
              made obsolete, but this still runs you into the problem of your using
              "righteousness" in Matthew 5 to limit Jesus' warning to merely having
              to do with annuling the moral law, when righteousness in Jewish law
              didn't only come from the moral law, but also the ceremonial, as one
              complete whole.



              __________________________________________
              Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
              Just $16.99/mo. or less.
              dsl.yahoo.com
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.