Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    >What is "the Law" as Jesus and Paul refer to it?
    
    Since Jesus was speaking to his contemporaries, I'd guess that the law
    would be the Torah?  If you believe he was speaking to people of the
    future, the meaning becomes less clear.
                                                  vv
    As for Paul, since his statement begins with "So the law was...", I'd
    take the meaning of "The Law" to be whatever he was talking about in 
    his previous paragraph(s).  No point in guessing when there's a good
    indication there.
    
    
    
    >How does "the Law" differ, if at all, from "Scripture,"...
    
    It may not differ at all.  I'd expect it was meant to mean however the
    speaker (Jesus, Paul) thought his audience would interpret the word.
    Maybe it means scripture in Jesus' passage, maybe it means early
    christian law in Paul's.
    
    
    
    >With the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, has everything been
    >accomplished?
    
    In Jesus' passage he said "until heaven and earth disappear" and then
    "until everything is accomplished".  Might this equate the two?  
    
    I often get bogged down in twisted syntax like this.  Maybe the meaning
    was clear to the ancients, but as time passes, and as language evolves,
    the words become more and more foreign to those of us who are not
    scholars of ancient language.
    
    -dave
    

    Keep in mind also that when God established the law, particularly the
    ten commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy, on both occasions he
    followed it by saying, "I AM the Lord thy God who hath taken thee out
    of Egypt..."  This would imply that the law, or the Ten Commandments
    was directed strictly at the nation of Israel and no other. 
    
    Paul directed many of his messages at gentiles.  In the case of the
    Galatians, the church was being infiltrated by Judaizers claiming they
    must go back to the law in order to be justified.
    
    -Jack

    
    > ...God established the law

    But my question is what *is* the law? Can you tell be "these books are
    the law and these are not?" Isn't the entirety of the Old Testament, the
    law?

    Eric

    Well, I believe the Law is the entire Torah which comprises of civil
    laws as well as ceremonial laws.  So in short, it is the 300 laws
    written in the Mosaic texts.
    
    However, my personal belief is that the law was established to signify
    Gods holiness...and that it is impossible for humans to establish this
    holiness on our own.  This is why the sacrifices were established and 
    why Paul spoke of Jesus Christ in Galatians 3 by saying that Jesus
    removed us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us.  Jesus
    fulfilled the law for us by becoming a sacrifice for us.  
    
    As Paul also stated in Romans 7, "...when the law was established, sin
    became evident and I died."  This is paraphrased.
    
    -Jack

    Didn't Jesus simplify the definition of the law for the common man with
    "love God and neighbor"?   All else would be a rehash of a detail of
    this core concept, would it not?

    Also, didn't he teach that the internalization of "love God and neighbor"
    was what was important, not the letter of the *old* law (written in
    stone)?  Would not "the law" then be defined as more of a state of mind
    rather than a list of rules?  And wouldn't this apply to everyone...
    Jesus' contemporaries, Paul's, us?

    -dave

    It never ceases to amaze me that the 10 commandments are listed as
    important by so many, yet at the same time the same people say mosaic
    law only applied to the decsendants of Abraham and Sarah.  
    
    One or the other, ok?  Either get rid of the whole mosaic piece and
    quit using it as semi-rationalisations for some things, or follow the
    whole law, realizing that if the bible is true, all are descended from
    two people and all are subject to the same laws.
    
    meg

re .5

	Dave,

	Hebrews 8:10 NWT confirms what you are saying, it reads "'For this
	is the covenant that I shall covenant with the house of Israel
	after those days,' says Jehovah. 'I will put my laws in their
	mind, and in their hearts I shall write them. And I will become
	their God, and they themselves will become my people.'"

re .6

	Meg,

	What replaced the Law covenant was the new covenant which is 
	spoken about in the above verse. Though the Law covenant which
	includes the Ten commandments has passed away, this doesn't
	mean that Christians are not under any moral restraint, as
	Romans 6:15-17 NWT reads "Shall we commit a sin because we are
	not under law but under underserved kindness? Never may that
	happen! Do you not know that if you keep presenting yourselves
	to anyone as slaves to obey him, you are slaves of him because
	you obey him, either of sin with death in view or of obedience
	with righteousness in view? But thanks to God that you were 
	slaves of sin but you became obedient from the heart to that
	form of teaching to which you were handed over." 

	The new covenant has new commands, such as found in John 13:34.
	But there are principles for it's adherents, which Jesus taught 
	based on the Law covenant. For example, in verses 21-24 of 
	Matthew 5 NWT (btw which is in context with verse 18 mentioned 
	in the initial note of this string) reads "You heard that it
	was said to those of ancient times, 'You must not murder; but
	whoever commits a murder will be accountable to the court of
	justice.' However I say to YOU that everyone who continues 
	wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court
	of justice; but whoever addresses his brother with an
	unspeakable word of comtempt will be accountable to the Supreme
	Court; whereas whoever says, 'You despicable fool! will be liable
	to the fiery Gehenna. If, then, you are bringing your gift to
	the alter and you there remember that your brother has something 
	against you, leave your gift there in front of the alter, and go
	away; first make your peace with your brother, and then, when
	you have come back, offer up your gift." Jesus, teaches the 
	underlying principles of 'you must not murder', showing that
	if one harbours resentment against ones brother then their worship
	is in vain (compare 1 John 4:20).

	Ofcourse, to come under the new covenant one would have to dilligently
	learn Jesus' teaches so that one could observe them. Making application
	of such teachings in ones lives in turn would reap fine fruitage 
	(compare Matthew 7:17, John 13:35).

	One should note that when a new constitution or laws are introduced not 
	all the laws from the previous one are discarded. Some are and some are
	carried on.  

	Phil.
	

    One of the problems with static law is that it doesn't evolve with the
    times.  Which of the 10 commandments speaks directly to the moraility
    of money laundering?  Which to physician assisted suicide?  Which to
    genetic manipulation of offspring?  Which to chemical manipulation of
    personality?  Which to killing animals for testing cosmetics?  And which 
    to global warming?  You may map some of these to commandments, but the 
    link is weak and falls prey to valid debate.  Were the Ten Comandments 
    written to address all moral contingencies of the ancients only?  us
    too?  the future?
    
    BTW, it seems that Jesus' "Love God and neighbor" speaks to all of these 
    by avoiding the quagmire of detailing.  It's simplicity is very
    admirable.
    
    -dave

    re .7
    
    > One should note that when a new constitution or laws are introduced
    > not all the laws from the previous one are discarded.

    In deed, Jesus himself said *none* of them are discarded. Jesus is
    quite unequivocal in the requirement to follow the law (Mat 5:18-19).

    I cannot resolve the views expressed by Jesus and the views expressed
    by Paul. I cannot understand the arguments made here to do so.

    Eric

    I am not an expert on this subject, but I do have few thoughts that
    I would like to offer to those who are interested.  I am state these
    things without qualification, but please understand that I know there
    are other views on these, and I'm not trying to sound like an authority
    on this.

    First, from a more Jewish perspective.  (I'm not Jewish, but have done
    some study)

    Generally, the words "the law" refer to the commandments given by God
    in the five books of Moses.  In Hebrew, this is the Torah.  The word
    torah has been translated "law", but it means "the way to live", or
    directions or instructions for life. It comes from a root meaning to
    shoot an arrow direct at target (hitting the bull's eye).  The word 
    din as in beit or beth Din is more akin to our English word law. A
    beit din would be a house or court of law.  The rest of the Tanakh
    (Hebrew Bible or Old Testament or whatever you want to call it) consists
    of the writings of the prophets, historical books, wisdom literature, and
    poetry.  The word Tanakh is actually a Hebrew accronym, because the
    Hebrew Bible is divided into three main sections, the Torah (ta), the
    Nebi'im (na) (means prophets), and the Ketubim (kh)(writings) which are
    the historical books, wisdom literature, and poetry.

    Judaism holds that there is the written Torah, found in the Bible, and
    there is the oral Torah which was also given through Moses at Mt. Sinai.
    In the written Torah there are 613 laws which some have arranged in 
    different catagories.  I think I have a listing at home.  The oral torah 
    expands on the written Torah which does not always give a lot of detail. 
    The oral Torah was in oral form to allow it to change (within boundries) 
    to fit the current times.  However, after the destruction of the 2nd 
    temple in around 70 CE (AD) and the diaspora, the rabbis felt they needed 
    to write it down so that it would not be lost.  Of course, in the process 
    of doing so, they did codify it to some extent.  The once oral law is now
    written down in the Talmud.  However, even today, there is a certain amount 
    interpretation of how to apply a certain law.  How to apply the law, how
    to put it into practical practice is something that comes under an area
    known as halacha, and people are often instructed to see their rabbi when
    they have questions about halacha.

    Judaism holds that most of the commandments given in the Torah are
    specifically for the Jewish people, not for those outside Judaism.  In
    fact there are many, especially within Orthodox circles, who feel that
    a non-Jew should not be taught anything about the oral law, and that a
    non-Jew should not be allowed to do certain Jewish practices which are
    part of the law.  However, they do think there are certain principles or 
    laws which apply to both Israel and to the nations.  These are sometimes
    called the Noachide laws because their source is the commandments God
    gave to Noah after the flood (See Genesis 9).  Noah was not Jewish 
    because there were no Jews until God established the Jewish line through 
    Abraham.  Maimonides, a Jewish sage, author, and leader during the Middle 
    Ages (I think), defined roughly 7 things based on God's commandments to 
    Noah that he thought should be observed by all peoples.  I'm not sure I
    can remember them all, but will try to list as many as I can:

                 1) establish a fair and just form of government 
                      with courts of law
                 2) do not be cruel to animals
                 3) do not practice sexual immorality
                 4) do not worship idols
                 5) do not murder

    Well, I think those 5 are all I can remember at this time.

    Later, when I have more time, I'll try to explain my perspective of the 
    law, as non-Jew who is a believer in God and who feels the law was not 
    thrown out or abolished after Jesus.  However, I will say a little, now.
    There is nothing in the Tanakh that ever says that the purpose of the law 
    was so that by following it perfectly, one could obtain justification or
    eternal life.  God first redeemed the people from their captivity in 
    Egypt, and then gave the law. The law showed a redeemed people how they
    ought to live.  I think it has a similar function today.

    Leslie  

Eric,

Notice that Paul did not say that the Law has "passed away". Rather, he
says that Christians are no longer subject to its penalty.

I realize the following is rather lengthy but I believe I should clarify
the matter and is worth reading.  The use of the them "law" as used by both
Jesus and Paul is given in context.  This is an excerpt from the "New Bible
Dictionary".

Michael

    
LAW:
In the New Testament

a. The meaning of the term

There is much flexibility in the use of the term 'law' (nomos) in the
NT.

1. Frequently it is used in the canonical sense to denote the whole or
part of the OT writings. In Rom. 3:19a it clearly refers to the OT in
its entirety; Paul has quoted from various parts of the OT in the
preceding context, and he must be understood as culling these quotations
from what he calls 'the law'. But the flexibility of his use of the term
is apparent. For, when he speaks of those 'under the law' in the next
clause, 'law' in this instance has a different meaning. It is likely
that this broader denotation comprising the OT as a whole is the sense
in Rom. 2:17-27. It is likewise apparent in the usage of our Lord on
several occasions (cf. Mt. 5:18; Lk. 16:17; Jn. 8:17; 10:34; 15:25).

But the term is also used in a more restricted canonical sense to
designate a part of the OT. In the expression 'the law and the prophets'
it will have to be understood as comprising the whole of the OT not
included in 'the prophets' (cf. Mt. 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Lk. 16:16;
Acts 13:15; Rom. 3:21b). In a still more restricted sense it is used to
denote the Pentateuch as distinct from the other two main divisions of
the OT (cf. Lk. 24:44). There are some instances in which it is
uncertain whether 'the law of Moses' refers merely to the Pentateuch or
is used in the more inclusive sense to denote the rest of the OT not
included in 'the prophets' (cf. Jn. 1:45; Acts 28:23). It is possible
that, since the simple term 'the law' can be used in a more inclusive
sense, so 'the law of Moses' could even be understood as embracing more
than was strictly Mosaic. This again is symptomatic of the flexibility
of terms in the usage of the NT, arising, in this connection, from the
fact that the expression 'the law and the prophets' is a convenient
designation of the OT in its entirety.

2. There are instances in which the term designates the Mosaic
administration dispensed at Sinai. This use is particularly apparent in
Paul (cf. Rom. 5:13, 20; Gal. 3:17, 19, 21a). Closely related to this
denotation is the use by Paul of the expression 'under the law' (1 Cor.
9:20; Gal. 3:23; 4:4-5, 21; cf. Eph. 2:15; 'of the law' in Rom. 4:16).
This characterization, in these precise connections, means to be under
the Mosaic economy or, in the case of 1 Cor. 9:20, to consider oneself
as still bound by the Mosaic institutions. The Mosaic economy as an
administration had divine sanction and authority during the period of
its operation. This use of the term 'under law' must not be confused
with another application of the same expression which will be dealt with
later.

3. Frequently the term is used to designate the law of God as the
expression of God's will. The instances are so numerous that only a
fraction can be cited (Rom. 3:20; 4:15; 7:2, 5, 7, 8-9, 12, 16, 22; 8:3-
4, 7; 13:8, 10; 1 Cor. 15:56; Gal. 3:13; 1 Tim. 1:8; Jas. 1:25; 4:11).
The abiding obligation and sanctity of the law as the expression of
God's such references. The obligation for men involved is expressed in
terms of being 'under law' (1 Cor. 9:21, ennomos).

4. On occasion 'law' is used as the virtual synonym of law specially
revealed in contrast with the work of the law natively inscribed on the
heart of man (Rom. 2:12-14). It is to be understood that law in the
other senses is law specially revealed. But in the instance cited
attention is focused on this consideration because of the contrast
respecting mode of revelation. There is no indication that a different
law is in view. The emphasis falls upon the greater fullness and
clearness of special revelation and the correlative increase of
responsibility for the recipients.

5. In varying forms of expression 'law' is used in a depreciatory sense
to denote the status of the person who looks to the law, and therefore
to works of law, as the way of justification and acceptance with God.
The formula 'under law' has this signification (Rom. 6:14-15; Gal.
5:18). As indicated above, this use of the formula is not to be confused
with the same when applied to the Mosaic dispensation (cf. Gal. 3:23 and
others cited). Interpretation of the NT, particularly of the Pauline
Epistles, has been complicated by failure to recognize the distinction.
The person who is 'under law' in the sense of Rom. 6:14 is in bondage to
sin in its guilt, defilement and power. But this was not the consequence
of being under the Mosaic economy during the period from Moses to
Christ. Nor is 'under law', in this sense, to be confused with a similar
term as it applies to a believer in Christ (1 Cor. 9:21). Of the same
force as 'under law' in this depreciatory sense is the expression 'of
the law' (Rom. 4:14; Gal. 3:18; Phil. 3:9); and the phrase 'by works of
the law' (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10) refers to the same notion.
'Apart from works of law' (Rom. 3:28) expresses the opposite. Several
expressions are to be interpreted in terms of this concept and of the
status it denotes. When Paul says, 'the righteousness of God has been
manifested apart from Law' (Rom. 3:21), he means a righteousness apart
from works of law, and therefore antithetical to a works-righteousness.
When he says that we have been put to death to the law and discharged
from the law (Rom. 7:4, 6), he refers to the breaking of that bond that
binds us to the law as the way of acceptance with God (cf. also Gal.
2:19). Law as law, as commandment requiring obedience and pronouncing
its curse upon all transgression, does not have any potency or provision
for the justification of the ungodly. The contrast between law-
righteousness, which is our own righteousness, and the righteousness of
God provided in Christ is the contrast between human merit and the
gospel of grace (cf. Rom. 10:3; Gal. 2:21; 5:4; Phil. 3:9). Paul's
polemic in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians is concerned with
that antithesis.

6. Law is sometimes used in the sense of an operating and governing
principle. In this sense Paul speaks of 'the law of faith' (Rom. 3:27,
av; rsv 'principle'), which is contrasted with the law of works. The
contrast is that between the principle of faith and that of works. It is
the same idea that offers the best interpretation of the word 'law' in
Rom. 7:21, 23, 25b; 8:2.

There is thus great diversity in the denotation of the word 'law', and
sometimes there is deep-seated difference in connotation. The result is
that a meaning totally diverse from that intended by the NT speaker or
writer would be imposed upon his words if we did not appreciate the
differentiation which appears in the usage. There are instances,
especially in Paul, where transition from one meaning to another appears
in adjacent clauses. In Rom. 3:21, if we did not appreciate the two
distinct senses of the word, their would be patent contradiction. In
Rom. 4:14 the expression 'of the law' is exclusive of faith. However, in
v. 16 'of the law' is not exclusive of faith, for those of the law are
represented as having the promise made sure to them. Different senses
are thus demanded. There are other classifications beyond those given
above that other nuances of meaning and application would suggest. And
on numerous occasions it is difficult to ascertain what the precise
denotation is. In the main, however, when the distinctions given above
are recognized, interpretation will be relieved of frequent distortions
and needless difficulties will be resolved.

b. Law and gospel

The foregoing analysis makes it apparent how important is the question
of the relation which a believer sustains to the law of God. To be
'under law' in one sense (Rom. 6:14) excludes a person from the
enjoyment of the grace which the gospel imparts; to be 'under law' is
the opposite of being 'under grace' and means that the person is the
bondslave of the condemnation and power of sin. In this sense,
therefore, it is by the gospel that we are discharged from the law (Rom.
7:6) and put to death to the law (Rom. 7:4) 'we are . . . dead to that
which held us captive' (cf. Gal. 2:19). The gospel is annulled if the
decisiveness of this discharge is not appreciated. In that event we have
fallen away from grace and Christ becomes of no effect (cf. Gal. 5:4).

But this is not the whole account of the relation of law and gospel.
Paul said also in the heart of his exposition and defence of the gospel
of grace, 'Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On
the contrary, we uphold the law' (Rom. 3:31). As a believer he protests
that he agrees that the law is good, that he delights in the law of God
in his inmost self, that with the mind he serves the law of God (Rom.
7:16, 22, 25), and that the aim of Christ's accomplishment was that the
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in those who walk not
according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:4). An
example of the law he had in mind is in Rom. 7:7. And no doubt can
remain that in Rom. 13:9 he provides us with concrete examples of the
law which love fulfils, showing thereby that there is no incompatibility
between love as the controlling motive of the believer's life and
conformity to the commandments which the law of God enunciates. The
conclusion is inescapable that the precepts of the Decalogue have
relevance to the believer as the criteria of that manner of life which
love to God and to our neighbour dictates. The same apostle uses terms
which are to the same effect as that of being 'under law' when he says,
'not being without law toward God, but under the law of Christ' (1 Cor.
9:21). In respect of obligation he is not divorced from the law of God,
he is not lawless in reference to God. And this is validated and
exemplified in his being bound to the law of Christ.

When Paul says that 'love is the fulfilling of the law' (Rom. 13:10) it
is obvious that the commandments appealed to in the preceding verse are
examples of the law in view. But by the words 'and any other
commandment' he intimates that he has not enumerated all the
commandments. The distinction is, therefore, that 'the law' is the
generic term and the commandments are the specific expressions. Hence,
although the apostle John does not speak in terms of fulfilling the law,
the emphasis placed upon the necessity of keeping and doing the
commandments (1 Jn. 2:3-4; 3:22, 24; 5:2-3) is to the same effect. And
when he writes that 'whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God
is perfected' (1 Jn. 2:5), he is pointing to what he elsewhere defines
as that of which the love of God consists, namely, that 'we keep his
commandments' (1 Jn. 5:3). The sum is that the keeping of God's
commandments is the practical expression of that love apart from which
we know not God and our Christian profession is a lie (cf. 1 Jn. 2:4;
4:8). John's teaching is the reproduction of our Lord's, and it is John
who records for us Jesus' corresponding injunctions (Jn. 14:15, 21;
15:10). It is also significant that our Lord himself should enforce the
necessity of keeping commandments by appealing to his own example of
keeping the Father's commandments and thus abiding in and constraining
the Father's love (cf. Jn. 10:17-18; 15:10).
No NT writer is more jealous for the fruits that accompany and vindicate
faith than James. The criterion by which these fruits are to be assessed
is 'the perfect law of liberty' (Jas. 1:25). James, like other NT
writers, is well aware that love is the motive power. The 'royal law' is
'You shall love your neighbour as yourself' (Jas. 2:8). But for James
also neither love nor law is conceived of apart from the concrete
examples of law and expressions of love in commandments, instances of
which he provides (Jas. 2:11). It is by this law that we shall be judged
(Jas. 2:12); it is in this law we are to continue (Jas. 1:25); it is
this law we are to keep in each of its demands (Jas. 2:10); it is this
law we are to perform (Jas. 4:11).
The reason for this sustained appeal to the law of God as the norm by
which the conduct of the believer is to be judged and by which his life
is to be governed resides in the relation of the law to the character of
God. God is holy, just and good. Likewise 'the law is holy, and the
commandment is holy and just and good' (Rom. 7:12). The law is,
therefore, the reflection of God's own perfections. In a word, it is the
transcript of God's holiness as the same comes to expression for the
regulation of thought and behaviour consonant with his glory. We are to
be holy in all manner of life because he who has called us is holy (1
Pet. 1:15-16). To be relieved of the demands which the law prescribes
would contradict the relation to God which grace establishes. Salvation
is salvation from sin, and 'sin is lawlessness', (1 Jn. 3:4). Salvation
is, therefore, to be saved from breaking the law and thus saved to
conformity unto it. Antinomian bias strikes at the nature of the gospel.
It says, in effect, let us continue in sin.
A believer is re-created after the image of God. He therefore loves God
and his brother also (1 Jn. 4:20-21). And because he loves God he loves
what mirrors God's perfection. He delights in the law of God in his
inmost self (Rom. 7:22). Obedience is his joy, disobedience the plague
of his heart. The saint is destined for conformity to the image of God's
Son (Rom. 8:29) and he is remade after the pattern of him who had no sin
and could say, 'thy law is within my heart' (Ps. 40:8).


New Bible Dictionary / J.D. Douglas, organizing editor. Second
edition. Wheaton, IL : Tyndale House Publishers, c1982.

    I'll have to go through Michael's note in detail, but at first glance
    it seems to define more layers of obfuscation as to make the whole use
    of the term "the law" ambiguous at best and meaningless at worst.

    According to the "New Bible Dictionary," Paul uses six different
    connotations of the word 'law' in Romans alone. I can't help but wonder
    if this isn't reading *too* much between the lines, inferring
    connotations that may or may not be there. But I am certainly no
    scholar on this or any other Biblical matter, so I'll reserve further
    opinion making for now.

    Eric

    Sorry, Eric.  It IS a bit much.  Dictionary definitions tend to be
    exhaustive and dry.  You might just want to find the passage references
    your interested in.  I included the entire text for the purpose of
    reference.  After all your title is 'What is "The Law" and what is
    not?'  Just be glad I left out the Old Testament meanings :).
    
    Michael
    

    It all seems a bit daunting, don't you think?  Is this complexity
    by design or an artifact of some sort?  Did God mean for the "law" to
    be this confussing?  I mean the scholars quibble over what the law is.
    What's the common man to think or do?
    
    Not sure about theology, but in science, the more complex a theory or
    explanation is, the less likely it is to be rooted in truth.  Is there
    a simple, elegant theological law?

    I believe for example, Jesus spoke in parables for the purpose of
    generating interest and intrigue.  It seems scripture is set up in such
    a way to prompt more questions!!!
    
    -Jack

    RE -.1
    
    Are you saying that the law is something to be sought or discovered? 
    If so, then what does one follow in the meantime (while the search is
    going on)?
    
    -dave

    Dave:
    
    It depends on your motive for following the law.
    
    In the Old Testament, the law was a standard that determined God's
    holiness in the eyes of man.  Secondly, it was present to reveal
    sin...and it did this quite effectively.  "For where there is no law,
    sin is not imputed."  Also, "For where there was law, sin became
    evident and I died"  Paul Speaking to the church of Rome.  
    
    So we come back to the original question.  Is the law to be followed
    out of obligation or out of reverence?  Allegorically speaking, the
    first option can be compared to a slave who follows orders...compelled
    out of fear.  The second option is as a husband serving his wife out of
    sheer love for the wife, no conditions attached.
    
    The law in it's original form, establishing Gods holiness, is
    completely ineffective to a Christian as far as justifying ourselves.
    Jesus fulfilled or met this obligation for us because he was the only
    person able to do this.  Therefore, since Jesus already did the dirty
    work, the law we need to follow is the law of Love.  Now the word Love
    is a word that is very broad in definition.
    
    -Jack

I think the written word is most readily understood by the writer's
cultural contemporaries.  We living in 1996 are removed from the
original texts by hundreds of years and more than one ancient language.

Shalom,
Richard

re Note 1237.14 by CNTROL::DGAUTHIER:

>     Is there
>     a simple, elegant theological law?
  
        I'm not sure what you mean by "theological" in this context,
        but Jesus offered a very simple formulation of the foundation
        of "the law and the prophets" in Matthew 22:37-39:

        "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
        all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 
        This is the first and great commandment.  And the second [is]
        like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

        Bob

    Re .19
    
    Yes, that's what I was driving at earlier.  If this is what Jesus said,
    then the details of earlier "law" and the multiple meaning of Paul's
    references to the "law" are really not important from the standpoint of
    how one should behave or feel.  
    
    Think of it this way.  Jesus says "1+1=2", then someone asks you what
    1+1 equals.  You reply "2", because that's what Jesus said in very
    simpla and clear terms.  Now, other sources might say 1+1 = 
    (((((1+3)**2)-1)/6)-1)+((((1+12)/6)*3.14)**0) which, BTW, =2.  So why 
    get bogged down in all the confussion and detail of the latter when it 
    was so simply and clearly said by Jesus?
    
    -dave  

    Re .20
    
    Hi Dave,
    
    Ironically, Paul was saying much the same thing.  He his simplifying
    things not complicating them. His context and meaning may have varied
    depending on who He was writing to but he was indicating that they
    (Christians) no longer need to observe the Mosaic Law in all its detail
    and are no longer subject to the penalty of sin. He can not help but
    refer to the complicated system of Law when speaking of this matter.
    
    Rather we are to "love God with all are heart, mind, and soul".  A desire
    to obey God flows from this.
    
    Michael

	"For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me from the law of 
sin and of death." Romans 8:2

	The law was outward, formal, placing demands on man but lacked the
ability to empower man to keep them in that it was weak according to the
flesh. Therefore, it functioned as a tutor to reveal to us God's righteous
character. God never intended for man to keep the law, He intended for man
to break it. By breaking it, man would be exposed as to his real sinful,
fallen, and weak condition leaving him no alternative but to take God as
his righteousness, holiness, in short his very Person.

	Only one man ever fulfilled the law to every detail and that was
Jesus Christ. He was both God and man and lived a perfect sinless life. 
Through the process of death and resurrection he became a Life-giving
Spirit (1 Cor 15:45), even the Lord Spirit (2 Cor 3:17-18), and now he who
is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Through this joining of God 
with His believers, they (His believers) satisfy the righteous requirements
of the law by living according to the law of the Spirit of life. Through
the indwelling Spirit, you do not need to told what to do, how to live,
what's sinful, rather you have God inside you directing your walk, your talk,
your thinking and your living. And not only so, it is the same Spirit who
empowers the believer to overcome sin, uncomeliness, and unrighteousness.
The law of the Spirit of life is inward, subjective, instant, current, 
enabling, and enpowering.

regards,
ace

	

	 

Eric, sorry for the long delay.

RE. 9
    
.7> One should note that when a new constitution or laws are introduced
.7> not all the laws from the previous one are discarded.

.9>    In deed, Jesus himself said *none* of them are discarded. Jesus is
.9>    quite unequivocal in the requirement to follow the law (Mat 5:18-19).

.9>    I cannot resolve the views expressed by Jesus and the views expressed
.9>   by Paul. I cannot understand the arguments made here to do so.

	Eric, one would have to agree that Jesus had a firm view that the
	Law was binding on himself and his audience. However, there are
	a couple of factors to take note of. One, the Law covenant was 
	solely binding on the nation of Israel, Psalms 147:19,20 NWT conveys
	this "He is telling his word to Jacob, his regulations and his
	judicial decisions to Israel. He has not done that way to any other
	nation." (also compare Ezekiel 31:16,17). Two, in the preceding 
	verse to Matthew 5:18,19 Jesus' indicates that the Law covenant
	would at sometime come to an end in agreement with Paul. Matthew 
	5:17-18 NWT reads "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the 
	Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; for truly I say 
	to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than the smallest 
	letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any 
	means and not all things take place."

	Jesus, says, that he came to fulfill the Law. Once fulfilled it 
	would be set aside. As a nation the Israelites were made well
	aware of the need of a redeemer because of being bound to the
	Law covenant. The reason being that it highlighted their imperfection
	and weaknesses. However, Jesus fulfilled the Law in every detail,
	so that persons could put faith in him as the Messiah and be redeemed.
	Paul explains this in Galations 3:19:24 "Why, then, the Law? It was 
	added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to 
	whom the promise had been made.... Consequently the Law has become a 
	tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared faithful due to 
	faith." 

	As I understand it, by saying "for truly I say to you that sooner 
        would heaven and earth pass away than the smallest letter or one 
	particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and 
	not all things take place." is that Jesus was giving a guarantee
	that it would fulfilled in all it's detail, he would remain spotless
	without blemish unto his death.

	If one is under the Law, then one will be judged by it. Paul shows
	that Jesus released those under the Law and their obligation to it
	(Galations 4:4,5). Just think of the consequences if he hadn't.

	This doesn't mean that a Christian is not past any moral restraint.
	Jesus, conveys in the Sermon on the mount many of the underlying 
	principles based on the Law convenant and the need to be guided by 
	these. The Apostles also restate many of the Law's requirements
	to be carried as principles into the New convenant, for example
	"Thou shalt not steal" Exodus 20:15 and "Let the stealer steal no
	more," Ephesians 4:28 NWT. I think most of us have stolen at some time
	or other (either wittingly or unwittingly) and if persons were put
	under the Law convenant they would have failed, how much better to
	be judged by ones faith in Jesus and his teachings. By applying
	Christian principles one becomes the type of person God wants us
	to be (compare Matthew 7:21-23). In otherwords God judges us by
	what is in our hearts.

	Some of the Law convenant, however was specific to the Jews only.
	There is an interesting account in Acts 15 relating to this. For
	a similar debate went on back then and the introduction of the
	uncircumcised Gentiles to the Christian congregation.

	Hope this helps 

	Phil.	
	 
	 

re.23

Hi Phil,

>By applying Christian principles one becomes the type of person God 
> wants us to be (compare Matthew 7:21-23).

If you don't mind, please illustrate this with an example from your personal
experience. 

Thx,
Ace

re .24

>By applying Christian principles one becomes the type of person God 
> wants us to be (compare Matthew 7:21-23).

;If you don't mind, please illustrate this with an example from your personal
;experience. 

Hi Ace,

I know you asked for just one example but I'll share two. This is 
one that all married couples can relate to "let the sun not set with
you in a provoked state," Ephesians 4:26b NWT. Though Paul was relating
this in regard to the congregation, having only been married 4 years
I have found this principle to be of great value within the marriage.
Alternatively, I have found that failure to apply this after an
arguement leads to continued friction and the problem becomes blown
out of all proportion. God wants persons to be the type who work at
making a marriage, not those who shy away in self pity. So he lovingly
gives guiding principles in the pages of the Bible that help promote
family unity. 

The second and a prime example, is that of the "Golden rule" which
has a vast amount of practical applications, take for example the 
thing I have come to treasure most dear. That is coming to an accurate 
knowledge of God, Jesus Christ and the good news of God's kingdom with 
the grand blessings that it will bring. Applying the golden rule, I 
would not keep such information to myself but direct other peoples 
attention to what God's Word trully has to say. They can decide for
themselves whether or not God's Word is of any practical use for 
them. To conclude, by participating in the preaching work, one can 
begin to follow in Jesus' footsteps as God wants us to do (compare 
1 Peter 2:21, John 4:34).

Phil.

btw I realise that you may disagree that I have come to an accurate
knowledge of God's Word, but you did ask for my personal experience.

re. 25

Hi Phil,

	Thanks for those good examples.

	When you are restraining yourself from arguing with your wife
before the sun goes down 8*), how do you accomplish this? By what means do
you not argue with your wife? How are you empowered to do this? What is
your source?

	By the golden rule do you mean "do unto others as you would have 
them do unto you"? (The term golden rule is a secular term not in the
Bible but I think you mean that the principle is there). If so, how do you
accomplish this? What are your considerations in carrying this out?

Thanks,
Ace 

	

    Hi Phil,

>I know you asked for just one example but I'll share two. This is 
>one that all married couples can relate to "let the sun not set with
>you in a provoked state," Ephesians 4:26b NWT. Though Paul was relating
>this in regard to the congregation, having only been married 4 years
>I have found this principle to be of great value within the marriage.

    Man!  That's gotta be one of the hardest things I've ever done.
    When we (my wife and I) have a disagreement - sometimes I don't *want*
    to talk to her.  But the times I have I've had to give up my
    anger and work it through like mature adults.  The ego doesn't
    want to do that.  It's well worth it.  It's simple but not easy.

    As my minister said last night, "I'm glad it's *your* turn to
    grow (and not mine :-)."

    Working these things through will ultimately bring you closer
    to God.

    Tom

RE .26

Hi Ace,

Lots of further questions, I hope you don't mind me giving just a few succinct 
answers.

;	When you are restraining yourself from arguing with your wife
;before the sun goes down 8*), how do you accomplish this? By what means do
;you not argue with your wife?

Allow oneself to be erred, say sorry, listen rather than always giving a solution 
to a problem, count to 10, bite ones tongue, try to communicate daily, be forgiving
and DONT recall old transgressions. If one prays for God's spirit and act in accord 
to ones prayers, then God will help supply the needed qualities to cope with such 
difficult situations, eg self control, mildness, long-suffering, peace, and love 
(Galations 5:22,23). 

One thing, that really helps applying the principle of being at peace before 
the sun sets, is that of praying together at the end of the day. If unresolved
still pray, for it might be resolved by the end of the prayer.

Further one can look to Jesus' example and how he dealt with the apostles when
they had heated discussions about who was the greater among them.

Use other Christian principles like the "golden rule", for the needs of ones
wife are often different to ones own.

;	By the golden rule do you mean "do unto others as you would have 
;them do unto you"? (The term golden rule is a secular term not in the
;Bible but I think you mean that the principle is there). If so, how do you
;accomplish this? What are your considerations in carrying this out?

Yes, I was thinking of Matthew 7:12 NWT "All things, therefore, that YOU want
men to do to YOU, YOU also mut likewise do to them; this, in fact, is what
the Law of the Prophets mean.". It all depends on the situation, but take
the example that I gave. It would mean being discerning, my needs and interests
are not the same as another persons. Try to stimulate their interest in God's
Word, show interest in them, listen, question and wait for an answer, be 
enthusiastic, but not over bearing, important to be friendly, neighbourly, smile. 
Don't use ones own opinion or tell them but direct the person to the portion of 
scripture, asking questions so that they can reason for themselves. Most 
important is prayer to God asking that his spirit might help one in this all 
important work. I have a bad memory, but it may be jogged so that I can recall 
a scripture that may be of help to those I'm conversing with. 

At the end of the day, if bible based, Christian principles are from
God helping one in their walk (compare Jeremiah 10:23) and he also gives
a helping hand to those who endeavour to live in harmony with them and
have asked for his holy spirit to do so.

Phil.

re.28

Hi Phil,

I appreciate brief answers to long winded questions. 8*)

In your last reply you began to touch upon the key points of my questions. 

When you say "God will help supply the needed qualities to cope..", 
exactly what transaction happens between you and God? What happens
essentially?

Thx,
Ace 

re .27

	Tom,

	Agreed, it's very hard to apply. You should be complemented
	for it's not always easy to recognise ones own ego is a 
	stumbling block. But, I hope you see why I felt compelled
	to comment in the other notes string, these principles
	are found in the Bible and have not dated at all but are
	still appropriate and beneficial for today as they were when 
	they were penned.

	I think were we differ is that "All Scripture is inspired
	of God and beneficial for teaching" oneself (2 Timothy 3:16a NWT).

	Phil.

re .29

;When you say "God will help supply the needed qualities to cope..", 
;exactly what transaction happens between you and God? What happens
;essentially?

Hi Ace,

Your asking some searching questions.I'm not fully sure what you 
are looking for but here goes, in Luke 11:1-13 Jesus relates
the model prayer when asked how one should pray, but he also
emphasises the need for persistence with prayer and supplication.
So there must be a turning towards God to begin with and through
study of the Bible God can open things to oneself, through 
meditation it effects ones heart the seat of motivation (compare
Psalms 1:1-3). The bible writers say that they were directed by
God's spirit when they penned their books, so additionally one
can be effected by his spirit through dilligent study of the 
Bible (compare Hebrews 4:12).

Through his spirit, God is molding persons, helping them put on
a new personality (compare Ephesians 4:23,24). I think a difficulty
may arise in you understanding my explaination in that we have
a different interpretation of God's holy spirit. In that it's
not a person but rather his "active force" or tool if you like
for directing things from his abode in heaven (compare Genesis
1:2). So figuratively speaking, through his spirit God is directing
persons in the way they should walk. As Galations 5:25 NWT reads
"If we are living by spirit, let us go on walking orderly also
by spirit." A person requires full trust in that God's ways are
the best ways (compare Proverbs 3:5).


Hope this answers your question to some degree.

Phil.

    What meaning would you expect there is in a prayer from an agnostic?
    Not a prayer of accolade or one of asking for grace, rather one along
    the lines of "Hello?  Are you there?".  
    
    Did Jesus speak at all on this?
    
    -dave

    I'm not real sure what you're asking Dave, but Jesus said He stands 
    at the door and knocks, and if anyone opens the door, He will come in 
    --- I would think that a "Hello? Are you there?" request from one who 
    sincerely wants to know Jesus but currently does not would be the 
    opening of the door.  There are many other places in the Bible where
    it says God will make Himself known to those who truely seek Him. And
    I have heard so many personal stories from people who did just that,
    and found out for themselves how much God loves them.

    Leslie

re.31

> I think a difficulty may arise in you understanding my explaination in 
> that we have a different interpretation of God's holy spirit. 

Hi Phil,

	Yes, you are correct. Though we may use the same words our meaning
is entirely different for our base definitions are not the same. Therefore,
our actual understanding is different. Thanks for clarifying this. 

	My view on this matter is written in .22 of this topic. I don't
really understand what you (as a real time representative of Jehovah 
Witnesses) believe. My experience with Jehovah Witnesses has mostly been
with the beligerent ones who knock on my door. 8*) The only exception is
Mark Sornson who was nice enough to bring a copy of the hard to get
ASV translation to my house. 

	Here's the situation as I see it. Many Bible believers do not understand
the reality of living the christian life. They practice the new covenant in the
old covenant way. That is, they accept Bible teachings as the standard to attain
to and they attempt live up to those standards according to their flesh (even
their good flesh). "The law was given by Moses, but grace and reality came
through Jesus Christ (John 1)".  It was impossible to live perfect under the law
(only One succeeded) because though the law was perfect it could not empower
those under it to live up to its standard. When the Lord came He raised the
"bar" so to speak, even higher than the law (compare Matt 5-7). If anyone
thought they were successfully satisfying the  righteous requirements of the
law, that all was blown away by the Lord's speaking Matt 5-7. There is only one
way for man to live a life that will satisfy the righteous requirements of the
law, and that is to live out God's life through his own life. This is grace and
reality. "I came that that may have life and have it abundantly" (John 10).
God's goal is saving man is to give man *life*. Not a force, but God Himself.
Only God was able to satisfy the righteous requirements of the law. 

Phil, do you believe that God has put His very life into His many sons and that
it is through this union that man is able to live a holy life according to God's
highest standard?

thanks,
Ace 

re .34

Hi Ace,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

;	My view on this matter is written in .22 of this topic. I don't
;really understand what you (as a real time representative of Jehovah 
;Witnesses) believe. My experience with Jehovah Witnesses has mostly been
;with the beligerent ones who knock on my door. 8*) The only exception is
;Mark Sornson who was nice enough to bring a copy of the hard to get
;ASV translation to my house. 

Yes, I remember reading it. To be honest, likewise , I don't quite understand
your viewpoint. For example, "God never intended for man to keep the law, He 
intended for man to break it.", now I would agree that no imperfect man could
fulfill the Law but I can't understand why he intended man to break it. Why?,
because of Moses' opening comments "See, I am putting before YOU today blessing
and malediction: the blessing, provided YOU will obey the commandments of
Jehovah YOUR God that I am commanding YOU today; and the malediction, if YOU
will not obey the commandments of Jehovah YOUR God and do turn aside from the
way about which I am commanding YOU today, so as to walk after other gods
whom YOU have not known." (Deuteronomy 11:26-28 NWT) before they were to 
go into the Promised Land. Moses was emphasising the vital importance of
trying to keep the Law covenant as much as possible, failure to do so would
mean that they would draw away from God and serve other false gods. So I 
wouldn't say that he intended man to break it. Just as a loving parent tries
to instill principles of safety in their children, but from time to time
the child may neglect to take note even so it was not the parents intention 
that they ran into the road but the opposite (compare Isaiah 48:17,18).

I like Mark also and would love to meet up with him, face to face. I'm suprised
that you have found many of my friends beligerent, what warmed me to Jehovah's 
Witnesses was that I found many are like Mark.

;Phil, do you believe that God has put His very life into His many sons

No, for a couple of reasons, firstly God's residence is shown to be in
the heavens and not in a person's heart (Isaiah 66:1). Further, the 
heart God's Word effects is figurative, therefore how can he put his
very life into something that is not literal?. Secondly, his name
Jehovah or Tetragrammaton has a meaning of "He causes to become", in
otherwords he is a God of purpose. His purpose is for his intelligent
creation, is to enjoy life in imitation of him not that he lives our
lives for us (compare Genesis 1:26, Ephesians 5:1). That is being a 
loving God he wants us to enjoy the pleasure of living. 

;that
;it is through this union that man is able to live a holy life according to God's
;highest standard?

As I don't agree with this union that you describe then I would have
to say no. Jesus reiterated the command "'You must love Jehovah your
God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole
mind.'" Matthew 22:37 NWT the emphasise being on ones own "heart,soul 
and mind" not God's. I realise that you feel that it is futile to "accept 
Bible teachings as the standard to attain to and they attempt live up 
to those standards according to their flesh (even their good flesh)." (.22) 
and I agree. However, one can excercise faith by showing a willingness to 
live to a high standard (again compare Isaiah 48:17,18 ) knowing that
his discipline is given out of a loving concern. Obviously, one cannot do 
so under ones own strength, for we need help from God. For example, it may
be easy for a person in perfect health to climb a hill, but maybe impossible
for a person with a broken leg. However, if someone was to give them a
helping shoulder then they may make it if they put their trust in the
person helping them. As John 14:26 NWT reads "But the helper, the holy 
spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach YOU all 
the things and bring back to YOUR all the things I told YOU." Imperfect 
humans soon forget things, even wonderful teachings such as Jesus', the 
spirit can jog ones memory reminding a person what God's requirements and 
will are. As mentioned yesterday, God's spirit will help one instill the
right qualities to cope and even apply God's high standards (Galations 5:22,
23). At the end of the day, one has to choose which course to take.
Does one hobble along not even attempting to climb the hill. Or try to 
climb the hill but push the helper aside. Or excercise faith and take the
shoulder of the one who wants to help us. When Jesus said "take my yoke" 
(Matthew 11:29) he fully intended getting under the yoke with us, that is 
the carrying of the burden of being a footstep follower of Jesus Christ
(1 Peter 2:19) which would include observing God's righteous standards 
just as Jesus did (eventhough it is a new covenant now, and judgment will
be based on faith and not the keeping to the letter of the law). 

To conclude "For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his 
commandments and yet his commandments are not burdensome,"
1 John 5:3 NWT. 

Phil.

re.35

Hi Phil,

	I'll explain what I mean by God intended for man to break the law, not
keep it. Hopefully, by this you will understand by perspective on this. 

	The utility of the law was to train like a school teacher. It brought
to those under it, the knowledge of sin. All were in sin since the fall, but
by the giving of the law, sin became apparent. Probably you don't disagree with
this. The Lord commanded those to whom the law was given to keep it. But He
knew it was impossible to keep it. It was impossible to keep because the law
is just a portrait of God Himself. The Lord Jesus reiterates this when He 
says "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" (John). The standard then
is to be perfect as God is. Anything less than this standard is substandard
to what God expects. The law could not justify anyone because no one could keep
it. To justify means to stand before Him as righteous. "Because by the works of
law no flesh shall be justified before Him; for by law is knowledge of sin." Rom
3:2. The law provided no enabling ability to keep it. It provided conviction of
sin. The law was an expectation external to the individual. The sinner could
never keep the law. When you say an imperfect man with a broken leg can't climb
the hill, do you understand by this analogy that we all are imperfect with two
broken legs? God's requirement is that we climb the hill, however, He knows that
we have two broken legs. In other words, it is impossible to stand righteous
before God by our efforts no matter how hard we try. So even though God
commanded to keep the law, He knew we never could and therefore never intended
it. Everytime we attempt to keep the law (even a derived New Testament law), it
will reassure us that we can't keep it. 
	"But now without law the righteousness of God has been manifested,
being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God
through faith of Jesus Christ to all those who believe; for there is no
difference; For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" 
Rom 3:20-26. 
	"For if a law was given which was able to give life, righteousness would
have indeed been of the law." Galatians 3:21

	By these two verses we see that God's goal was to give us life and
this giving of His life to us manifests His righteousness. We appropriate
His life by believing into Him (Gal 3:23) and we are justified and stand
righteous before Him. The purpose of the law then...  

	"So the law has become our child-conductor unto Christ, that we might be
justified by faith. But faith having come, we are no longer under a
child-conductor; for you are all *sons* of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:24-26.

	Phil you are a Yerkess because you received the life of your human
father. In the same way a christian becomes a son of God because he recieves the
very life of God. Not figuratively, but in reality. Perhaps you will agree that
Jesus was the only perfect one. I don't know if you meant that He is the one who
helps us climb the hill. In a sense this is correct, however, the transaction
that takes place is that he terminates the old man and creates a new man. Every
believer becomes a new man in Christ. A new man is just a fallen sinner that has
been recreated by God into a new creation and constituted with the very life and
nature of God as a son. In this way the believer becomes one of the many
brothers of Christ, He being the Firstborn. "..that He should be the Firstborn
among many brothers" Romans 8:29b.  As He overcame, we also overcome possessing
the very same divine life and nature as He.

	Do you understand how and why I believe what I do?

	Sorry for this long reply, it took longer to explain the point than
I anticipated. 

Regards,
Ace

re .36

	Ace,

	Thanks your thoughts, I would like to comment on them
	as I feel this has been a good discussion of each others
	views. However, I'm out of the office next week and have
	had no time today to formulate a reply.

	I would appreciate if we could continue this discussion
	after the 28th.

	Phil. 

re.37

Phil,

	Okay. Talk to you the week of the 28th.

Regards,
Ace

re 1237.36 

Ace,

Thanks for being patient and sorry for the delay.

;	I'll explain what I mean by God intended for man to break the law, not
;keep it. Hopefully, by this you will understand by perspective on this. 

I now understand your perspective a little better.

;	The utility of the law was to train like a school teacher. It brought
;to those under it, the knowledge of sin. All were in sin since the fall, but
;by the giving of the law, sin became apparent. Probably you don't disagree with
;this. The Lord commanded those to whom the law was given to keep it. But He
;knew it was impossible to keep it. It was impossible to keep because the law
;is just a portrait of God Himself. The Lord Jesus reiterates this when He 
;says "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" (John). The standard then
;is to be perfect as God is. Anything less than this standard is substandard
;to what God expects. The law could not justify anyone because no one could keep
;it. To justify means to stand before Him as righteous. "Because by the works of
;law no flesh shall be justified before Him; for by law is knowledge of sin." Rom
;3:2. The law provided no enabling ability to keep it. It provided conviction of
;sin. The law was an expectation external to the individual. The sinner could
;never keep the law. 

I agree with alot of what you have stated above, in Romans 7:7 Paul shows that
he came to know sin through trying to keep the Law. Those whom were faithful 
would have come to realise the need of a Messiah.

Even so, one shouldn't discount that the Law in itself was a protection for
the Israelites. When they would endeavour to apply it they would benefit
from it and they would be blessed by doing so. Moses even pointed out that
it was a matter of life or maledition and that they should choose life and
endeavour to do things Jehovah's ways (Deuteronomy 11:26,27). Jehovah wanted
them to have willing attitude so as to apply the Law (Psalms 1:1-3), it would
set them apart from other nations. Just looking at the hygene laws for example
shows that they would reap benefits, long before the neccessity of hygene
became common knowledge in the modern era. So the Bible indicates that Jehovah
did want them to try and apply these laws.

;When you say an imperfect man with a broken leg can't climb
;the hill, do you understand by this analogy that we all are imperfect with two
;broken legs? God's requirement is that we climb the hill, however, He knows that
;we have two broken legs. In other words, it is impossible to stand righteous
;before God by our efforts no matter how hard we try. So even though God
;commanded to keep the law, He knew we never could and therefore never intended
;it. Everytime we attempt to keep the law (even a derived New Testament law), it
;will reassure us that we can't keep it. 

Though man is imperfect, he can still display God's qualities eventhough
the image is blemished or warped hence my analogy of one broken leg. A
Christian can "stand firm" if they put on the suit of armour God supplies
(Ephesians 6:11-13). I feel the need to clarify something, everlasting life
is a gift that God gives one can do nothing to earn it. However, it is
Jesus who leads Christians to everlasting life and perfection (Matthew 7:14).
The hill is "conquering this world" that is being no part of it, Jesus
encourages those under his yoke "I have said these things to YOU that by
means of me YOU may have peace. In the world YOU are having tribulation, but
take courage! I have conquered the world." John 16:33 NWT God wants Jesus'
followers to come off victorious also (compare Revelation 21:7, Proverbs 27:11).

;	"But now without law the righteousness of God has been manifested,
;being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God
;through faith of Jesus Christ to all those who believe; for there is no
;difference; For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" 
;Rom 3:20-26. 
;	"For if a law was given which was able to give life, righteousness would
;have indeed been of the law." Galatians 3:21

;	By these two verses we see that God's goal was to give us life and
;this giving of His life to us manifests His righteousness. We appropriate
;His life by believing into Him (Gal 3:23) and we are justified and stand
;righteous before Him. The purpose of the law then...  

;	"So the law has become our child-conductor unto Christ, that we might be
;justified by faith. But faith having come, we are no longer under a
;child-conductor; for you are all *sons* of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
;Gal 3:24-26.

;	Phil you are a Yerkess because you received the life of your human
;father. In the same way a christian becomes a son of God because he recieves the
;very life of God. Not figuratively, but in reality. Perhaps you will agree that
;Jesus was the only perfect one. I don't know if you meant that He is the one who
;helps us climb the hill. In a sense this is correct, however, the transaction
that takes place is that he terminates the old man and creates a new man. Every
;believer becomes a new man in Christ. A new man is just a fallen sinner that has
;been recreated by God into a new creation and constituted with the very life and
;nature of God as a son. In this way the believer becomes one of the many
;brothers of Christ, He being the Firstborn. "..that He should be the Firstborn
;among many brothers" Romans 8:29b.  As He overcame, we also overcome possessing
;the very same divine life and nature as He.

;	Do you understand how and why I believe what I do?

Ultimately, I owe my life to God the source of life. But I am also grateful 
for life because of my parents procreating. I disagree that Jesus was 
the only perfect one, for Adam was created perfect. Adam could have given
an inheritance of perfection to his offspring, instead he gave a legacy of
imperfection. The word sin has a meaning of "to miss" as in miss the mark
as to perfect obedience. Adam *chose* to sin hence we have now inherited sin
from him, for he sold us into slavery of sin. Hence Jesus is spoken of as the 
second or last Adam and will apply the value of his ransom to buy back what
Adam had forfeited (Matthew 20:28). We view Jesus as "Eternal Father" in that
he adopts his followers whom excerise faith in his ransom sacrifice. 

Your comment "however, the transaction that takes place is that he terminates 
the old man and creates a new man." reminded me of Paul's words in Ephesians
4:22-24 KJV "That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man,
which is corrupt according to deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit
of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God created in
righteousness and true holiness." Rather than living in a person, Paul likens
the putting on of the new man to that of putting on a coat which God has 
created for them. The emphasis is on the person, not God, to put off the old 
man and put on the new on. Personally I prefer how the NWT renders these 
verses "that YOU put away the old personality which conforms to YOUR former 
conduct and which is being corrupted according to it's deceptive desires; but 
that YOU should be made new in the force actuating YOUR mind, and should put 
on the new personality which was created according to God's will in true 
righteousness and loyality."

Thanks for sharing your view and I understand it but I would have to disagree 
with it. The bible does speak of anointed Christians as being a new creation 
but I don't believe it is in the way you have spoken of. Even so Jehovah's
Witnesses do believe that God will give a new spirit life to anointed 
Christians whom after death are then resurrected to the heavenly realm.

Phil.