Evidence for God from Science

Hello all. I have not posted on here much but I have lurked for quite some time. I love the site and I have become a great admirer of many of the members here with the wisdom and understanding of the Scriptures they exhibit.
I'm hoping some of may be able to give me some insight on something that stumped me recently:

I was active in a discussion forum on another site in a thread regarding Christianity. One of the other members, a Jew, said that despite Jesus saying that he did not come to change the law, etc, his introduction of the "sin in the mind" doctrine was, in fact, a change to the law-- that in the hebrew scriptures sin was viewed as behavior that diverged from or was abhorent to God, and that by raising the standard to mere thoughts, Christ was indeed changing the rules. I wasn't really sure how to respond to this. Was he right in his characterization of the law and sin in the OT? If so, what do you make of his reasoning with regard to Jesus and the law?

My thanks and many blessings,
Bill

To dear Bill,

The Protector wrote:despite Jesus saying that he did not come to change the law, etc, his introduction of the "sin in the mind" doctrine was, in fact, a change to the law-- that in the hebrew scriptures sin was viewed as behavior that diverged from or was abhorent to God, and that by raising the standard to mere thoughts, Christ was indeed changing the rules.

,
In Matthew, it is clear that Jesus did not came to abolish the law, but to fufill it. Yes, tis true the O.T says do no commit adultery or fornication, and does not mention the thought processes that can come along. However, scripture that is overlooked is the 10 commendments. As we all know, one of them states do not covet your neighbor's donkey, wife etc...
Here, the word Covet is most important to understand. When God said do not covet your neighbor's wife we can infer he was referring do not lust or desire?
In my sincere opinion, i believe jesus came to fufill the Law. The one difference is that Jesus did not only focus on the outward actions, but the inward motivations.

Let us take an example, shall we?
In matthew, Jesus goes on saying how the pharisees gave a tinth of everything they had, followed the law (which focused heavily on outwardly actions) and seemed to be good individuals. However, when it came to upholding justice, refusing briberies (moral integrity) helping the widows, the needy (compassion) they seemed to ignore them. All of those things are actions, but those actions derive from motives. Jesus wanted to make it clear that God does not only sees one's actions, but also looks at the Heart, which no other men, angel, or Satan can do.

I think Fearless has out it very well. I would just like to add that Jesus showed the original intent of the law rather than the action, the intent was to not harbor sin, even if it was in thoughts. If the old testament said, do not commit adultery, Jesus reinforced the law with more clearer meaning which was "don't even go there, do not even think of it."

The whole "sin in the mind" thing leads us to the issue of salvation by grace alone and not be deeds or works.
The intent, the motivation behind our good works, is what truly counts and what God sees.
We can't do good works with the sinful intent of "bribing" God with them.
Because we are so fallen, so full of pride, what we do outside of Grace is driven by selfishness and while good works are the RESULT of grace and salavation, they do NOT BRING us to grace and salvation.
God knows our minds and hearts and even though we do all these great acts, the REASON we do them is so that "God owes Us", when in fact, we owe God everything.

That is an easy one. And I think the answers we have are on the right course. I would add a couple of things.

First I would ask, where did Jesus say that he didn't come to change the law? Hint, he didn't. I guess we could call this the straw Jesus argument. He said, do not think I have come to destroy the law?

Never did he say, do not think i have come to change the law.
I'm surprised no one else at your discussion caught this.
Next, the Jewish scriptures themselves prophecy a change in the covenant.
Jeremiah prophesied of the New Covenant in 31:31-34 that the Apostle Paul restates in Hebrews 10:16-17. “Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh-Elohim, that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah: NOT according to the Covenant that I made with their fathers (the Old Covenant) in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which My Covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith Yahweh-, But this shall be the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel: AFTER THOSE DAYS (after the Birth, Life, Death, Burial, Resurrection and Ascension of Yahshua the Messiah), saith Yahweh, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their Yahweh Elohim and they shall be my people.”

Isaiah also prophesied of a Redeemer and a New Covenant. He states: “And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith Yahweh (the LORD). As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith Yahweh (the LORD); My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith Yahweh (the LORD), from henceforth and for ever (Isa. 59:20-22)."

Thank you for all your excellent replies. It seems I was headed in the right direction on this, having a decent understanding of the concepts involved from a Christian perspective, but I wasn't quite sure how to get through his legalistic perspective of it as a Jew. When he refered to Jesus claiming he wasn't "changing the law," I assumed he was making reference to Matthew 5:17 (usually translated as "I come not to destroy/abolish the law, but to complete/fulfill it.")

The OT prophecies really help. I must admit that I don't know the Scriptures as well as I should, and I probably know/understand the OT prophetic books least of all.

Again, thanks to all for your very helpful responses!