Evidence for God from Science

Felgar, I'm simply going to direct some questions to you which I'd like a responses to in order to clarify before diving in again.

Felgar wrote:But finally, here's the punch line:

Romans 8:1-4
1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

[paraphrase]
But we are no longer condemned by the law now that we are in Christ Jesus. Jesus implemented the law of the Spirit, which sets us free from the law of sin and death. So the law which could not save because of our sinful nature is done away with - because Jesus condemned sin in sinful man. And here it is: in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us!!!

To bring it also back to the law of the old covenant, what do you define as "law"? Does this include the ten commandments, and others given to Israel? Does this include the Levitical law? If you believe some of the laws no longer apply, what is it that enables you to know which ones remain, and which ones don't?

Now given that the question of what "the law" consists of is settled, how are the righteous requirements of the law fully met in us?

Felgar wrote:Can't you see? We no longer live by the law in order to be saved. That was impossible from the start because of our sinful nature. But now that we ARE saved, our sinful nature is replaced by the Spirit of life. And for this very reason we are now capable of fullfilling ALL the righteous requirements of the law!!! And this brings us full circle to where we started... We fulfill the law because of our Spirit of life which is love for the Lord - we adhere to righteousness because we now can and not because we need to.

Do you fulfill ALL the righteous requirements of the law? Was Paul fulfill ALL the righteous requirements of the law after receiving the "Spirit of life"? What does it mean about us if we choose not to, or are unable to, fulfill ALL the righteous requirements of the law?

Kurieuo.

Felgar wrote:Same as drinking. Go ahead because you're free and justified by Christ. But should I choose to abstain out of love for the Lord and as a precaution to the sin that drinking can cause, then it's very likely that my faith, my relationship with the Lord, and my bearing witness of God are all the better for it.

This can easily be reversed. Should I choose to drink or not keep the sabbath day (seventh day of the week), out of love for the Lord and others? I can think of situations where my bearing witness, faith, and even relationship with God might be better for drinking or breaking the sabbath!

For example, my next door neighbour who may not be a Chrisitan might drink. If I go to spend time with him, and he offers me a drink, should I insult the offer setting up a stumbling block in our relationship by rejecting his fellowship over a drink? Of course there are limits we should not go beyond, but I see no harm in having a drink, only benefits. One in particular I've noticed, is that people after a few drinks love to talk more deeply about things. The perfect opportunity for understanding more about them and witnessing truths about God!

Additionally, what if someone desperately requires my help on the sabbath? Should I skip worship or rest by breaking the sabbath to go and help them? Seems to me like we're going right back to the additional man-made laws of the Pharisees.

Kurieuo.

It's unbelievable to me that you still don't see. The law is holy; we've established that. To live according to the law is to live a righteous and holy life. Are we required to live according to it on order to be saved? No! Are we required as Christians to strive for holiness? Yes! It's about your heart for God - you are a slave to righteousness now, because you are dead to sin. And the law still defines righteousness. I'm inclined to leave it at that and not even answer your questions, but out of respect for a fellow believer I'll address them.

Kurieuo wrote: To bring it also back to the law of the old covenant, what do you define as "law"? Does this include the ten commandments, and others given to Israel? Does this include the Levitical law? If you believe some of the laws no longer apply, what is it that enables you to know which ones remain, and which ones don't?

Fair question... Mainly the Ten, because they are most clearly linked to the two greatest commandments. I'll admit I'm a little sketchy here on how far it enxtends, but isn't the rest of the law dealing with the consequences of breaking one of the Ten? This explains why we don't see Jesus offering sacrifices to God.

Kurieuo wrote:Now given that the question of what "the law" consists of is settled, how are the righteous requirements of the law fully met in us?

What does it mean about us if we choose not to, or are unable to, fulfill ALL the righteous requirements of the law?

The righteous requirements of the law are met in us because through the Holy Spirit we are no longer bound by sin, but rather we are enabled to live life for God - to establish a relationship with Him and to serve Him by having hearts after Him and living righteously.

If you choose not to live righteously then you are in trouble, because you are making a choice in direct conflict of loving the Lord and loving your neighbours. If you stumble (not if, but when) then you're free from condemnation through grace; and you repent and start over living righteously again. "Go, and leave your sin."

Your scenario about helping someone on the Sabbath would clearly violate loving your neighbour. The laws are based on love, not the other way around. Therefore, help your neighbour in accordance with the Holy Spirit - just like Jesus did. Did Jesus ever break the Law? Did He ever Sin? Nope - even though He healed on the Sabbath. Nice try at a straw man there, btw.

Again I must reiterate - Jesus set the example for EVERYONE, and as much as humanly possible we MUST emulate Him. He did not obey the Law because He was Jewish, He obeyed it because He was sinless. How you can argue against this is unfathomable to me.

Another strong verse came to mind...

Matthew 5:17-19
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Hey Guys I see we are stating to get into the Law again...

I am going to post two Quotes from a Fellow believer again to take this back to what the Scriptures say and rely on them and not on our own understanding.

Many Christians today, when asked if the Church is required to keep the 10 Commandments will unhesitatingly answer "yes." This is true partly because of what we have been taught and also partly because of the place of reverence that the 10 Commandments have been given in our society. Our laws are ultimately based upon the expression of morality that we see in the Old Testament Torah. This is some of the reasons that lead to differing opinions such as those that have been expressed in this thread.

However, the issue is always, "What do the scriptures say? Do the scriptures teach that Old Testament law is binding upon Christians? Or, do the scriptures teach that part of the Old Testament Law passed away but part of it did not? Or, do the scriptures teach that we are not under the law?

The question of Gentile believers being required to be circumcised and to follow the Old Testament law came up in the early Church after the gospel was preached to the Gentiles in Caesarea (Acts 10:21-48) and Antioch (Acts 11:19-26). This controversy came to a head in Acts 15:1-2 which precipitated the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. I encourage everyone to read this chapter in full.

James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, gives his decision in Acts 15:13-21. He concludes that the Gentiles should not be required to keep the law but that they should be instructed and encouraged to abstain from "pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." (verse 20) James reason for making this request is that there are Jews in every city (verse 21). Paul, James, and other Jewish believers in the early Church had a heart that longed for the salvation of their "kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rom 9:3). James, through this letter recorded in Acts 15:23-29, asks the Gentile brethren to abstain from certain actions which would deeply offend the Jews living in those cities where the Gentile congregations had arisen. James in effect is saying, "Don't offend those for whom Christ died by your liberty!" Paul echoed this sentiment in Galatians 5:13 where he writes, "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." Note that the book of Galatians is a direct outcome of the Council at Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15.

Acts 15:23-29 contain the text of the letter that was sent to the Gentile Christians from the Jerusalem Church. This letter was delivered to the Church in Antioch by Paul and Barnabus along with representatives of the Jerusalem Church who would testify of the matter in person. From this passage of scripture, it seems clear what the Apostles' intent was. I encourage each of you to read these scriptures yourself and prayerfully consider what God is saying to you through them.

The results of the Council of Jerusalem show that the Gentile believers were not required to keep the Old Testament law, including the Ten Commandments. Jewish believers continued to keep the law but in a modified form--they did not offer sacrifices for sin because they understood that Jesus' death ended the necessity for that.

In Christ's Love!

Ken

Another Person answered with this question or comment

It is one of the ten COMMANDMENTS, and a command doesn't mean, oh, maybe i will do it. You are commanded to, and the ten commandments always apply. We all break the commandments, but this one really shouldn't too tough to keep

Ken then said

Many Christians today, when asked if the Church is required to keep the 10 Commandments will unhesitatingly answer "yes." This is true partly because of what we have been taught and also partly because of the place of reverence that the 10 Commandments have been given in our society. Our laws are ultimately based upon the expression of morality that we see in the Old Testament Torah. This is some of the reasons that lead to differing opinions such as those that have been expressed in this thread.

However, the issue is always, "What do the scriptures say? Do the scriptures teach that Old Testament law is binding upon Christians? Or, do the scriptures teach that part of the Old Testament Law passed away but part of it did not? Or, do the scriptures teach that we are not under the law?

The question of Gentile believers being required to be circumcised and to follow the Old Testament law came up in the early Church after the gospel was preached to the Gentiles in Caesarea (Acts 10:21-48) and Antioch (Acts 11:19-26). This controversy came to a head in Acts 15:1-2 which precipitated the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. I encourage everyone to read this chapter in full.

James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, gives his decision in Acts 15:13-21. He concludes that the Gentiles should not be required to keep the law but that they should be instructed and encouraged to abstain from "pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." (verse 20) James reason for making this request is that there are Jews in every city (verse 21). Paul, James, and other Jewish believers in the early Church had a heart that longed for the salvation of their "kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rom 9:3). James, through this letter recorded in Acts 15:23-29, asks the Gentile brethren to abstain from certain actions which would deeply offend the Jews living in those cities where the Gentile congregations had arisen. James in effect is saying, "Don't offend those for whom Christ died by your liberty!" Paul echoed this sentiment in Galatians 5:13 where he writes, "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." Note that the book of Galatians is a direct outcome of the Council at Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15.

Acts 15:23-29 contain the text of the letter that was sent to the Gentile Christians from the Jerusalem Church. This letter was delivered to the Church in Antioch by Paul and Barnabus along with representatives of the Jerusalem Church who would testify of the matter in person. From this passage of scripture, it seems clear what the Apostles' intent was. I encourage each of you to read these scriptures yourself and prayerfully consider what God is saying to you through them.

The results of the Council of Jerusalem show that the Gentile believers were not required to keep the Old Testament law, including the Ten Commandments. Jewish believers continued to keep the law but in a modified form--they did not offer sacrifices for sin because they understood that Jesus' death ended the necessity for that.

In Christ's Love!

Ken

Sorry to quote him so much but like I said before he has a Great Understanding. Felgar could I ask a Question. Do you believe that we should worship on Saturday (the Sabbath). If you believe in that do you then believe that the WHOLE Law regarding the Sabbath should therefore be followed? In the Above Quotes you do notice there is a DISTINCT difference between a Jewish Believer and a Gentile Believer. Does this still hold true today?

Thanks
Tim

bizzt wrote:Felgar could I ask a Question. Do you believe that we should worship on Saturday (the Sabbath). If you believe in that do you then believe that the WHOLE Law regarding the Sabbath should therefore be followed?

You are doing the same that Kurieuo did; introducing a straw man by trying to liken my position that of the Jewish Pharisees of Jesus' time. Jesus rebuked them and revealed that their concepts of keeping the law were completely wrong.

The law defines sin, and we're to do our best to live without sinning, and therefore we should keep the sabbath out of Love for God and our neighbours. It's about being servants of God.

I've said all I'm going to on the matter... It still baffles me that I'm arguing with people who will not recognize Jesus as our ultimately example of godly living.

Felgar wrote:Another strong verse came to mind...

Matthew 5:17-19
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Irrelevant. Jesus gives us a timespan in which this is true. Since everything was accomplished when Jesus was sacrificed, the bolded part becomes irrelevant, as it is still a part of the whole.

Felgar wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: To bring it also back to the law of the old covenant, what do you define as "law"? Does this include the ten commandments, and others given to Israel? Does this include the Levitical law? If you believe some of the laws no longer apply, what is it that enables you to know which ones remain, and which ones don't?

Fair question... Mainly the Ten, because they are most clearly linked to the two greatest commandments. I'll admit I'm a little sketchy here on how far it enxtends, but isn't the rest of the law dealing with the consequences of breaking one of the Ten? This explains why we don't see Jesus offering sacrifices to God.

Felgar, have you not read the Levitical law? Sin offerings, peace offerings, friendship offerings and the like? Man being unclean for seven days after lying with a woman who had her period? And if intentional, they were to be cut off being apart of God's people. (Leviticus 20:18) What of keeping kosher, and the other laws given to Israel?

The point I'm making if it hasn't become obvious, is if one rejects "any" of the old law, then they need valid reason(s) to justify such rejection. Otherwise one is simply picking a choosing what they wish to be law, and what they don't. I really recommend you focus attention looking into theology surrounding the two covenants. As this discussion is really futile, and perhaps leaves you confused on my beliefs, if you do not grasp such theology.

Some pages I came across which I'd recommend to you and all who might be reading for information are:
- The Old or New Covenant
- The New Covenant
- Which Law, God's or Moses?

Felgar wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Now given that the question of what "the law" consists of is settled, how are the righteous requirements of the law fully met in us?

What does it mean about us if we choose not to, or are unable to, fulfill ALL the righteous requirements of the law?

The righteous requirements of the law are met in us because through the Holy Spirit we are no longer bound by sin, but rather we are enabled to live life for God - to establish a relationship with Him and to serve Him by having hearts after Him and living righteously.

So it is through the Holy Spirit we are made righteous—that the righteous requirements are met? I'm not sure whether you are really meaning this, as you place a "but" half way through... but I think I know enough of what you mean to be able to respond to one part. I don't think it is our living righteous (if that were possible!) with the aid of the Spirit that makes the righteous requirements of the law met within us.

Felgar wrote:If you choose not to live righteously then you are in trouble, because you are making a choice in direct conflict of loving the Lord and loving your neighbours.

How would one be in trouble—would it mean they were truly never saved or? I'll be honest right now and say that there are sins I've commited purposefully. Infact sin generally is freely choosing to commit an action against God. And I don't believe I'm alone in this. We choose not to live righteously many times. Paul even talks of himself doing what he ought not do, even though he wishes he didn't do it:

• Romans 7:14-24—
  14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
  
  21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
  
  So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

If the Spirit allows us to live entirely righteous, then why couldn't Paul? Why can't we? Don't we have the "Spirit of life" which you previously said makes us "now capable of fullfilling ALL the righteous requirements of the law!!!"? Yet, this is going way off-topic. The original topic was about whether the sabbath should be kept, and I presented numerous scriptures which clearly mention it is no longer applicable (Colossians 2:13-14,16-17; Galatians 4:9-11), and have introduced the two covenant theology Scripture mentions.

Felgar wrote:If you stumble (not if, but when) then you're free from condemnation through grace; and you repent and start over living righteously again. "Go, and leave your sin."

You appear to be playing two sides of the field here. Which side are you on? Are we able to now fulfill all the righteous requirements of the law!!! (your exclamation), or will we continue failing to fulfill all the righteous requirement of law as we stumble in sin?

Felgar wrote:Your scenario about helping someone on the Sabbath would clearly violate loving your neighbour. The laws are based on love, not the other way around. Therefore, help your neighbour in accordance with the Holy Spirit - just like Jesus did. Did Jesus ever break the Law? Did He ever Sin? Nope - even though He healed on the Sabbath. Nice try at a straw man there, btw.

Actually, I did not create a strawman and I'll explain why. You made an argument based on the "reason" that such a day allows us to focus more on God. You then apply such a reason to the sabbath as being a natural extension of the commandment to love God, and therefore someone who loves God should keep the sabbath. Yet, surely it does not follow that if saying prayers 777 times a day to God is a natural extension of the commandment to love God, that saying prayers to God 777 times a day becomes a universal law all Christians should keep?

Now what I wrote revealed the inadequacy of your reason for keeping the sabbath. You reasoned that one should keep the sabbath because in certain circumstances such a day is a natural extension of loving God. I reasoned that there are certain circumstances where such a day if kept would not be a natural extension of loving God (i.e., if someone desperately requires your help). Therefore why is your "certain circumstances" enough reason to make keeping the sabbath a universal law Christians should keep?

In addition, your reason that it allows us to focus more on God doesn't necessarily sanction the sabbath day. Why worship or rest on the seventh day of the week, and not days 1-6? Your same reasoning can be applied to any day, and not simply the sabbath day.

Felgar wrote:Again I must reiterate - Jesus set the example for EVERYONE, and as much as humanly possible we MUST emulate Him. He did not obey the Law because He was Jewish, He obeyed it because He was sinless. How you can argue against this is unfathomable to me.

You say I'm arguing against something I'm clearly not. I do not know where you draw such impressions. I agree Christ is the example for "EVERYONE," because Christ was perfect. It is just incredulous how you drew I denied this, and makes me think this discussion with you is really not worth it. And while I understand what you might be saying, you are wrong to say He obeyed the Law because He was sinless. Rather, it is the other way around—He was sinless because He fulfilled the Law completely.

Kurieuo.

Felgar wrote:

bizzt wrote:Felgar could I ask a Question. Do you believe that we should worship on Saturday (the Sabbath). If you believe in that do you then believe that the WHOLE Law regarding the Sabbath should therefore be followed?

You are doing the same that Kurieuo did; introducing a straw man by trying to liken my position that of the Jewish Pharisees of Jesus' time. Jesus rebuked them and revealed that their concepts of keeping the law were completely wrong.

If I understand correctly, Bizzt raised a valid point. He in no way appears to have created a strawman, that is, he never setup something you didn't believe in to knock it down. Infact he only asked a questions without assuming your belief. Additionally, I do not see how he equated your position with that of Jewish Pharisees—a strawman of your own perhaps? Rather he appears to be wondering on what basis you accept only some of the law, although I am a little confused by what he means in saying "WHOLE Law regarding the Sabbath"?

Kurieuo.

Perhaps by "whole law" he is referring to keeping everything(including stoning people who work on the sabbath), or just the stuff that is legal.

Kurieuo wrote:You say I'm arguing against something I'm clearly not. I do not know where you draw such impressions. I agree Christ is the example for "EVERYONE," because Christ was perfect. It is just incredulous how you drew I denied this, and makes me think this discussion with you is really not worth it.

How you deny this is simple. You agree that Jesus kept the Sabbath. You don't agree that we should. Therefore you don't agree that we should behave like Christ. How have I misrepresented you here?

Kurieuo wrote: If I understand correctly, Bizzt raised a valid point. He in no way appears to have created a strawman, that is, he never setup something you didn't believe in to knock it down. Infact he only asked a questions without assuming your belief. Additionally, I do not see how he equated your position with that of Jewish Pharisees—a strawman of your own perhaps?

Jesus obeyed the entire law, even though the Pharisees objected to his behaviour. That tells us that the Pharisees were wrong in their extremely burdensome and intricate rules that they set up originally for the purpose of obeying the law. They were saying that you couldn't heal on the Sabbath because that might constitute work, while Jesus showed that you could. Bizzt is introduces a similar concept - strict guidelines on the day of week when the Sabbath can be observed. Yet following a big list of rules is NEVER what I was arguing for; has that not been made clear?

What I've been saying is that we must follow Jesus' behaviour as much as possible. That universal and timeless principles of righteousness and morality are contained in the 10 commandments.

Jesus obeyed the law because it was still in effect. It isn't anymore.

Felgar wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You say I'm arguing against something I'm clearly not. I do not know where you draw such impressions. I agree Christ is the example for "EVERYONE," because Christ was perfect. It is just incredulous how you drew I denied this, and makes me think this discussion with you is really not worth it.

How you deny this is simple. You agree that Jesus kept the Sabbath. You don't agree that we should. Therefore you don't agree that we should behave like Christ. How have I misrepresented you here?

Again the sabbath found its reality in Christ, and therefore I fulfill the requirements of the sabbath by coming to Christ who will give me an everlasting rest: "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17)

Additionally I've reasoned but been ignored that the ten commandments were apart of/are the Old Covenant:

• Exodus 34:27-28: “Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.” The 10 commandments are the Old Testament covenant.
  
  Deuteronomy 4:13: “So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.” The tablets of stone are the covenant.
  
  Deuteronomy 9:9: “When I went up to the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the Lord had made with you, then I remained on the mountain forty days and nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water. V.11 “And it came to pass, at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.

Now Christ introduced a New Covenant, and the Old (the Law) no longer applies to those in Christ:

• Hebrews 7:11-12—
  11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
  
  Hebrews 7:18-22—
  18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
  
  20And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.'” 22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
  
  Hebrews 8:6-13—
  6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
  
  7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said: “The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. 10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
  
  13By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
  
  Colossians 2:13-14—
  13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
  
  Ephesians 2:14-15—
  14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.
  
  Galatians 2:19-21 (our righteousness does not come by observing the law!)—
  "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. "I have been crucified with Christ; 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 gave Himself for me." I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

You can continue believing what you want, but I've based my entire position on Scripture which appears to be continually ignored. One can reason against my position all they like, but I think Scripture is clear that the Old Covenant (the Law!) is done away with. It was weak in that it never produced perfect righteousness in us. Therefore the covenant of faith was installed with Christ, and those who are under it now live by the spirit of the law in love, not the letter which brings death and condemnation.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:And while I understand what you might be saying, you are wrong to say He obeyed the Law because He was sinless. Rather, it is the other way around—He was sinless because He fulfilled the Law completely.

He is sinless because He is God. It is in God's nature to follow His own law...pre or post crucifixion!
.
.

Kurieuo wrote:the covenant of faith was installed with Christ, and those who are under it now live by the spirit of the law in love, not the letter which brings death and condemnation.

Right. Finally. That's what I started saying at the very start. We live by the spirit of the law in love, not the letter. This is what the Pharisess couldn't see, and what Jesus demonstrated.

Is not setting a day of the week apart from the drudgery of daily life for the purpose of encouraging believers and worshiping the Lord a part of the spirit of the law? This is all I'm saying. Maybe we've found some common ground?