Thou Shalts and Thou Shalnts

I would like to say that I find myself standing in between jar's and holmes' thoughts.I may be wrong, but like jar I think people get a little too hung up with The Law aspect of the Scriptures. However, I don't believe that Christ dumped the Law. I think he fulfilled it for us.I admit that many seem to make the Law into a sole issue of morality. While I do think that morality is covered in the Law, what many seem to forget is that the Law's focus also appears to be the resolving of the separation of the Jewish people's culture until the coming of Christ.In this sense, at least as far as I understand it, when Christ came, he fulfilled the Law not so much so that Christians were no longer considered guilty when they sinned. Rather, through Christ, the Gentiles could now enter into the fold and believe alongide the Jews.What I mean by this is that through Christ the Gentile's were now considered Israelites and co-heirs to salvation. Whereas formerly one had to be strictly an Israelite in order to preserve the seed of the Messiah, now, since the Messiah had come, the walls of division were forever broken.The end result of this, as far as I understand, is that the rules and regulations which were specifically targetting the preservation of the Jewish identity no longer held together. As such, if I'm understanding this correctly, Jesus now exclusively held out the way to enter into the kingdom -- whereas formerly it was strongly associated with the Israelites.In short, Christ appears to have brought in the Gentiles by fulfilling their Jewish identity for them. For example, a Jewish male may still choose to be circumcized if they chose to carry on tradition. However, this aspect of the Law appears to be fulfilled by Christ and no longer necessary for proper worship. In fact, a Gentile appears to have not had the requirement of The Law whereby they needed to be circumcized in order to belong to God's chosen people. Since Christ was circumcized, he fulfilled that aspect of the Law for them -- and all people who wanted to enter from then on in.Although there are many other things that I would like to note as a Catholic (such as my belief of the transformation of the covenants into sacraments), speaking from my own Christian perspective, that's generally how I see it anyway.

I don't think that iano is suggesting that Christ's words aren't universal. I think he's suggesting that Christ gave Paul some authority to make universal statements in Christ's name.Consequently, speaking of "the end", Peter speaks of "the end" in II Peter -- using quite spectacular language I might add: Peter, speaking of "the end", appears to have been aware of Paul's writings and approved of them. Just sayin'

Buh? Could you elaborate on this one a bit more?

Ahh...I see.I guess I don't agree that the purpose of the Law was to condemn in the first place.It seemed to me that the law was intended to show where one was positioned spiritually in relation to God's will for those who gazed upon it deeply -- like a man looking into a mirror and seeing how much conformed to God's image on a spiritual level. Or, using another analogy, the law was like a measuring stick whereby one measured their soul in comparison to God's will.In my opinion when one compares themselves to God they are going to be found to be severely lacking -- but I don't think that this was the sole puropse of the law.Rather, instead, it seems to me that the law was put forward by the Father so that his Son (in his incarnation) could recognize that he himself was the Messiah who fulfilled the law for all others.In this sense I think that the law was a tool for salvation by Christ's power -- and not by our own ability to fulfill it.Again, I do agree that we cannot maintain the law. I think most people would agree with me on this. But I don't think that the fact that we couldn't fulfill it was its ultimate purpose. Rather, in my opinion anyway, the law was set forth to reveal Christ -- therefore pointing to salvation.Or, stated simply, those who "keep the law" are essentially manifesting the motion of the Holy Spirit -- Christ moving them via his descent into sheol and rising to new life throughout all human history, effectively filling up the whole universe. Anyway, not sure if this helps much. That's how I see it anyway.

cool.Here's something else to think about as well. Iano, you might be interested in this too. Although I certainly think anyone reading the law will tend to have their conscience seared a bit by realizing how much we do wrong, I don't think its necesarilly the main reason for reading it. I guess my point in this is that the law seems to be the device left behind by the Father to point us toward Christ when he came.The Law seems to be designed to outline the Gospel's forgiveness -- but the Gospel's forgiveness can still very easilly occur without the Law.Case in point, one of my favorite passages:

Here's another passage... There's this... Here's another... And finally this... Again, I do agree that we cannot maintain the law. I think most people would agree with me on this. But I don't think that the fact that we couldn't fulfill it was its ultimate purpose. Rather, in my opinion anyway, the law was set forth to reveal Christ -- therefore pointing to salvation.

ok...let's see ok. I did quote that already. ok...points to Christ. ok...points out the dangers.But do we have to beat people over the head with it to the point that the law itself ends up being more dangerous than the dangers that the law itself is trying to protect us against?Proverbs 13:24 says, "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."Some think this passage means that one should literally beat their son with a heavy metal rod in order to discipline him.Other think this reference to a rod is more spoken in a metaphorical sense, implying a standard of measure that one should compare themselves too.Which view do you think is intended by this passage -- or is there another way of interpreting it that makes more sense? The exact opposite danger of thinking that one has lived up to the full measure of the law without God -- the sin of pride and vanity which the adversary himself fell prey too -- THE VERY SIN WHICH CAUSED ALL OTHER SIN TO SPRING FORTH. And yet the exact opposite message can be read as well -- a) the law can only be fulfilled by God b) Only God can keep the standard c) he who loves his fellowman is moved by God to fulfill the law d) those who love much will be forgiven by God. And yet the Scriptures say, "Where there is no law there is no transgression."They also say, "Sin is not taken into account when there is no law."And Galatians quite plainly states, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."Do you not know non-Christians who have expressed genuine love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control?If they have these things, are they not manifesting the fruit of the Spirit? Yes it can -- the law can be set aside -- and the Scriptures quite plainly state this. Is it just to hold someone accountable to God's will even though they apparently don't know God's will?That doesn't sound like justice to me. Unless, of course, Christ was active in them all along -- and we just didn't know it.Proverbs 19:17 says, "He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done."Apparently this person's reward, if they don't know Christ, is a less hot place in hell.My point is that if someone is genuinely kind as God defines kind, then they do know Christ's actions even if they don't know Christ's name.Besides that, Christ comes to us in many ways that we might not immeadiately recognize.For example: See, I kind of do agree with you here...kind of.If we look at some of the laws we see things such as... It can be summarized with the phrase, "Hate the sin."However, if we look at some of the gospel we see things such as... It can be summarized with the phrase, "Love the sinner."This isn't to say that we doing these things earn our way into heaven. Rather, when we do these things in true fashion according to God's will, we are manifesting God's glory -- showing that we are moving according to the Holy Spirit. The most noble, worthwhile and important purpose for the law could be to learn how to love your enemies -- and be willing to die for those who hate you if you believe that your death will result in their salvation. Then think outside the box a little bit.

I tend to agree with you, but just one reminder:Paul does explain some things in the preceeding chapter: If God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- are not references to his Spirit, then I'm not sure what else it could be refering to.My point is that the Spirit's motion does not seem to be limited to Christians as iano seems to be claiming.

There's more to it than that, but I don't feel like arguing about it here in this thread.For the record, however, jar noted a good thought above when he said: If creation itself is proof enough that God exists, does this not mean that people's actions are proof enough that God exists?

I've responded to this in the "trying thread".I'm quite sure that jar is very capable of defening his own thoughts regarding the aspects of trying.See you in the other thread iano.