Old Laws Still Valid?

Actually, Matt 5:17-19 pretty clearly states that Jesus came to change the law, even if he didn't come to abolish it. The part that says "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it," is literally to "bring it to fullness, expand it, or fill it up." He then goes on, in the rest of the chapter, to explain exactly what he means by that. Instead of a law against adultery, even looking to lust is forbidden. Instead of a limit on divorce, there's a ban on them. Instead of fulfilling our oaths, we have to fulfill every word.I don't think there was ever a problem with the Law being flexible. The Law requires that sacrifices be offered at the temple or tabernacle. Yet God received offerings from David and Samuel, neither Levites, in all sorts of places. The Law requires the exposure and stoning of adulteresses, but Joseph is called good for being minded to put away Mary, his betrothed, privately and prevent her from being shamed.Sure, the Law of Moses is said to be a revelation from God, but is there anything saying that the revelation wasn't only an appropriate one for their time and culture? Couldn't things that are "good" to us become honored as good over time, such as Joseph's actions?The Letter to the Hebrews says that Jesus brought a new Law (7:12). Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah predict a time when the covenant with Israel would be changed.The Law, according to Jesus, was not done away with, it was "filled up." It was brought to a standard fit for those who would live by the Spirit of God and not merely by law.Unfortunately, what passes for Christianity these days knows nothing about these things and certainly does not demonstrate these things. It shouldn't be a surprise, though. The Christianity we see around us could hardly be the real product of Christ's teachings, because Christ said few would find the path of life, not many, and Christianity is certainly "the many."May God grant the world to see a real demonstration of Christ's teachings. More Christians like Gandhi would provide a powerful testimony to the laws of Christ and end a lot of arguments against them.

Modern Christians universally say that animal sacrifices were done away with by Christ's final sacrifice. However, on this issue like so many others, there was a time that Christians universally said something different.In the second century the standard argument was that God never wanted sacrifices. It was always a concession to man. In fact, in a verse that was utterly bizarre to me when I was a more mainstream Christian, Jeremiah says that God said he never told the Israelites to sacrifice when he brought them out of Egypt (he didn't???). The early church quoted that verse all the time, as well as Ps 51, of course, about God not desiring sacrifices.The sacrifice of Christ, then, was not a sacrifice to God, who needs no sacrifice, but a sacrifice in the way that diving on a grenade to save others is a sacrifice. The early Christians described it as an example, but also as an act that somehow purified and affected the whole earth spiritually, not just Christians.I know that sounds like I'm presenting a theology, but I'm just trying to offer an alternative--once the standard Christian alternative--to God requiring a sacrifice to forgive sin, which he repeatedly said he does not need, even in the Tanakh (OT). Normally I don't point out people's misspellings, but this word has thrown me for years. Why I have so much trouble remembering where to put the u is beyond me. In your case, maybe this was just a typo, but in my case there's only a couple words I've had horrible problems memorizing, and this is one of them. I have things that don't make a lick of sense to me, too. On the other hand, the faith I live has been so effective that I can't reconcile not believing, either.

Maybe. I don't think spiritual things are so easy to figure out. The early church believed Christ's death exercised an influence that affected the whole world and calmed it. Irenaeus explained that Christ went through every part of man's life in order to purify it all, becoming a baby, young man, grown man, and older man (he believed Christ lived to near 50) and then going through death to purify it and break its power.If you're assuming none of that is true, then what matter if it makes any sense. If it is true, then do I really understand enough of how such a thing would work to say that it doesn't make sense?I most definitely do not believe that God exists within a universe that constrains him by its rules.

Would I be amiss in saying that you have to ask these questions, because Romans 7 is not something that you believe? The whole subject of whether the Law can be kept is at issue here, I think. Paul's response to Romans 7 is "What the Law could not do, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, as a sin offering, to condemn sin in the flesh" (Rom 8:3,4).What's blowing up is people & society. Christ has a better way for people to live: where conflict between teenagers and their parents is not the norm; where every third death among young people is not suicide; where people don't have to turn their hat sideways and drop to eye level with the dashboard in the driver's seat to feel good about themselves.

Again, that's only true if you don't believe Rom 7.

I can imagine it's an issue. Luther's doctrine of justification by faith was brand new. You'll find nothing like it in early church history. In order to defend it, he called James an epistle of straw with nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it and picked and chose what he agreed with in the New Testament. The result of his teaching was a church that really had no positive fruit in the way of changed lives. There's really nothing about Martin Luther to indicate that what he taught is Scriptural or blessed by God. Yet it's so widely accepted that in evangelical circles it is less heretical to disagree with the Bible than to disagree with Martin Luther.Martin Luther's version of justification by faith is nonsense with no foundation in church history. It's as ineffective at changing lives today, for the most part, as it was in Luther's day.Edited by truthlover, : correct spelling

If Christ's death is tied to our ability to live following Christ's example, then all the things I said completely hinge on his death.

Well, we (here at Rose Creek Village) don't ignore the lessons of Jesus' life, and we believe that we are responsible for our behavior, even if many Christians don't.The reason I would belabor the point is that I think living up to the standard of Christ's life requires something more than good behavior. It requires grace, the power supplied by God's Spirit, and it allows the church to live supernaturally, not just morally. We believe the standard Jesus requires is a standard higher than that of the Pharisees. Obeying the Law of Christ requires a new wineskin, a real being born again.In whatever way, Jesus' death is the source of our deliverance from ourselves so that we, too, can walk in newness of life by his Spirit. It's a very large step beyond merely living morally or following his good examples.Edited by truthlover, : added parentheses and a little extra to distinguish "we" from Christians in general.

Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:26,27