In article <1993Apr21.234159.1206@ualr.edu>  NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally) writes: >> When are we going to hear a Christian answer to this question?  >> In paraphrase:  >> On what or whose authority do Christians proclaim that they >> are above the Law and above the Prophets (7 major and 12 minor) and not  >> accountable to the Ten Commandments of which Jesus clearly spoke His opinion  >> in Matthew 5:14-19? What is the source of this pseudo-doctrine? Who is >> the pseudo-teacher? Who is the Great Deceiver? >OK, here's at least one Christian's answer: >Jesus was a JEW, not a Christian.  In this context Matthew 5:14-19 makes >sense.  Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I [Jesus] came to abolish the Law or >the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."  Jesus lived >under the Jewish law.  However, He was the culmination of the promises >of the Prophets.  He came to *fulfill* the prophecies and fully obey >God's purposes. >Verse 18 says "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."  The key to this verse IMHO is the last  >phrase.  Jesus, as the fulfillment of the law, "accomplished" what the  >Law was supposed to accomplish.    Jesus did not say that he was the fulfillment of the Law, and, unless I'm mistaken, heaven and earth have not yet passed away. Am I mistaken? And, even assuming that one can just gloss over that portion of the word of Jesus, do you really think that "all is accomplished?"  >Verse 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."  Taken in the context of Jesus teaching Jewish  >people about living lives under the law, this makes sense.  Then why didn't Jesus say "Any Jew who annuls ..." in v. 19? Are you saying that all of Jesus' recorded words mean nothing to Gentiles? Are you really saying that Jesus only spoke for and to the Jews? Jesus didn't mention your name, does that mean he wasn't speaking to you? When you read the words of Jesus, do you think he is speaking to someone other than you?  >In general, it appears that Jesus is responding to some criticism he  >must have received about "doing away with the Law."  That was not  >Jesus' intent at all.  You said above that Jesus was the "fulfillment" of the Law. Are you saying that does not mean "doing away with the Law"?  >He had come to earth to live the Law as it  >should be lived and fulfill the promises made by God to his  >people all the way back to Eve [Gen 3:15-The serpent will bruise your  >heel, but *He* will bruise his head.]  Gen3:15(JPS) I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; they shall strike at your head, and you shall strike at their heel.  Gen3:15(NRSV) I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel."  Gen3:15(KJV) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.  Looks like your translation has taken a few liberties with the Word?  >Jesus appeared to be "doing away with the Law"  >because he did not honor the traditions of men as  >equal to the Law of God.  He regularly locked horns with the religious  >leaders of the day because he would not conform to *their* rules, only  >God's Law. >In the Matthew passage Jesus is defending his dedication to the Law  >and defending himself against his accusors.  Almost the entire Sermon  >on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) is dedicated to helping the Jewish people  >understand the true intent of the Law, sweeping away the clutter which  >had been introduced by the Pharasees and their traditions.  Only "helping the Jewish people?"  >In Galatians 3:23-26, Paul describes the relationship of Jesus to the  >Law in this way: >[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.  [26] For you are all sons of God through faith  >in Christ Jesus. >I believe this says that after Christ was revealed, the Law had  >served it's purpose, i.e. "our tutor to lead us to Christ," and >now, "we are no longer under a tutor."  The law has been "fulfilled"  >as Christ said he would do.  You are using your interpretation of Paul as an argument against the clear words of Jesus?  >God, the author of the old Law, and the Christ/Man, Jesus, are the same >personality.  Therefore, the old Law and the new Testament (the "last >will and testament" of Jesus) are based on the same moral principles.  >It makes sense that many of the principles in the old Law are >re-expressed in Christianity.   "Re-expressed?" Care to define that a bit better?  >On the other hand, now that the Law has fulfilled it's purpose and   What? Are heaven and earth gone away? Where did they go? Is all accomplished, for example Revelations? Explain please.  >Christians relate to God through Christ, not the Law, it also makes  >sense that new practices and new symbolisms were established to  >represent the "mysteries" of this new relationship.  i.e. Baptism  >representing Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-8), >The Lord's supper as a memorial to His sacrifice (I Cor. 11:26), and >Sunday as a day of worship commemorating His resurrection (Matt 28:1ff, >Acts 20:7)  Again, your interpretation of Paul versus the clear word of Jesus. Do you see any problems here? When did heaven and earth go away? When was all accomplished?