That was a typo, I meant to say "Cross". The idea is that they think "everything was accomplished" when Jesus died. This view is commonly used to justify the idea that the Law is now "void", which basically contradicts Jesus's emphasis on it, they are even willing to say often that he only meant it to be valid for a few days, and that his "Heaven and Earth will pass" was some kind of past tense indicator. Nevermind the fact that the Law is also commanded for "All generations". If Jesus taught to disobey a single iota of the Torah while comparing himself if not calling himself a "prophet", he'd be rightfully a target for a stoning.
What I am going to show in this exchange, is how it can be seen that Paul did not void the law. I do not belong to a group that thinks Paul tried to void the law, but quite the opposite, brought more light and power to the law, so much that we can understand it better than ever before. I will offer more on my views as I respond to the rest of your post.
The term "Eternal" is another question, the word is "Age-like", I believe Yashua is talking about "eternal life" as a reincarnation of a good afterlife in the Earthly kingdom and avoiding Gehenna and the Age of tribulations. Now what do you think this "acutality and proof" was precisely? When the dead rose from their graves in Matthew?
The actuality, as described in the bible, is when Jesus was witnessed alive again after death. At that point, the power of sin was defeated. Not in that we will never sin again, but that we live after the power of Jesus and salvation (which does include the law, but in a different way, to which I will explain soon enough)
The word "Completed" is another issue. It can mean "done away with" or "final touches that result in the perfected whole" which is the definition I go by. "The end of the Law", Telos, is often read as "The termination of the Law", but Telos is often read more as "the finishing touches to finalize the lasting result". I have no idea how you would even reach that conclusion that it's "Completed" from what you said. The commandments tell how to avoid offending G-d and avoid receiving a Providential death sentence. They aren't just optional suggestions. They are for all generations. Anyone who calls himself a "prophet" and says to break a single one is to rightfully receive a healthy dose of flying rocks to the face. If you say G-d meant something other than "For all generations" like "for 50 generations until the end of the Hasmonean kingdom", then that's basically calling the OT text false.
Jesus was quite clear that we are "saved" through our obedience. By sinning we bring death on ourselves. We save ourselves through obedience to G-d's will. There's no way around that. Do you think "Christians" have no Heavenly responsibility for their actions? Do you think G-d suddenly changed his mind and allowed all things the law forbids? Did you notice that I said that even Paul said "As the Law says" in making a point?
This is a very important area of the discussion. It is very complex, and takes a genuine and honest opening of our comprehension to try and understand.
Before the Law came, we were not under sin in the sense that we were when the Law came. Once the Law came, we were now made aware of all our sins, and were now under the power of the Law and Sin. For many years, we attempted to follow laws, ordinances, dates, and so forth to atone for our sins. Yet, if the law could have blotted out our sins or made us a new creature that didn't sin, we would not need to continue under it, because we would have been cleansed so to speak.
For example, if a Law could have been written to give salvation, then a Law would have been written. However, the Law does not have that power, which is evident in all our lives that we keep sinning. So the power of the Law is not salvation, it is a power that convinces each of us for what we are, sinners. That is the true power of the Law.
Now, when we are forgiven through the offering Jesus did, we become a new creature. In that in our minds and heart, we serve God. Yet, because we are still in this fleshy body, we will continue to sin from time to time, but all that is forgiven. (I know you are going to have an issue with this, but I would rather you ask me questions before telling me how wrong I am, so you can at least truly understand what I am saying).
So then, when Jesus and Paul said the whole law can hang on two commandments, "to love God with all your heart and mind" and to "love your neighbor as yourself", they were in essence saying the ENTIRE law was created to make you that kind of person. Or said another way, if you COULD follow the entire LAW, you would be a person that loved God with all your heart and mind, and also loved your neighbor as yourself. Because if you did that, you would not cheat, steal, fornicate, kill, etc...
So until Jesus came, we had no choice, but to try and gain salvation through "doing the law" yet, it always would fall short, because it never was attainable. Yet, Jesus brought the law to new heights, and spoke true that the law in no wise shall be void, because without the law, we would not know we are under the power of Sin.
I would bet my life savings that Jesus would condemn in harsh terms any organization or idea that says He meant to abolish obedience to the Law or to diminish its value in our Heavenly treasure.
To me this is a misunderstanding of what I am saying. I have not suggested anything like this. Jesus, brought freedom and peace of mind, in that he explained the power of the Law was to convince us of sin, and it does exactly that. And up until Jesus came, we were to try and follow it.
The reason, we don't have to be so strict about it now, is that Jesus fulfilled the law, was resurrected, and now acts on his children's, brothers and sisters behalf to God. Jesus said, to God, in effect, these chosen people are mine, and their sins are blotted out. I will pay the price for their sins, so please don't judge them.
When that happens in a persons life, they no longer want to sin anymore, they have a deep desire to please God. So the new commandments aren't really new, but they are realistic. Love God and Love your neighbors. The rest will work itself out.
Well it's wrong. What do you think Paul meant by "Fulfill the Law of Christ" then by your interpretation of "Fulfill" as I asked?
That is exactly what Jesus says. The issue is the "Til all things are accomplished", where many Pauline "Christians" like to weasel some interpretation that the sacrifice at the cross was everything being accomplished, a totally baseless view that essentially says Peter and James never got the memo.
Again, please know this is not my view. I just met you, and have but barely begun to type with you.
When you make the statement that "everything was accomplished by the sacrifice at the cross" you then have to follow up by what that is suppose to mean. Not just, it is baseless, but why is it baseless.
I have already given detail to what happened at the cross. My view of the bible, again, is that the LAW is still around convincing anyone that gives it credence, that we are all under sin. We all steal a little, cheat a little, lust a little, etc... That is never going to change in this life.
What happened at the cross, was simply what was foretold long before. A savior would come. We wouldn't need a savior if the Law alone could have saved us. So we find then, that a Law was needed to convince us of sin, and next a savior to save us from Sin. The mistake here, is to twist that and think Jesus is saving us from the Law. I think that is where you are getting hung up, and most likely many Pauline Christians as well, thinking something they ought not to about the Law.
Through the Law we avoid death and punishment and plague and sieges and ruin and disaster. "He who turns his ear from the Law's prayer is an abomination". It is how we stay good with G_d. Even in 1 John 5:3, "Love of G-d is obedience to the Commandments". Therefore, perhaps the common view of "Salvation "is the problem, how many "Christians" are so sure on what one must do to get into Heaven in terms of behavior, other than the idea that anyone who claims to believe in Jesus regardless?
Again, you and I are closer in ideology than it may appear. I agree that the Law is Holy, and the chosen of God will have a DEEP desire to please God and do what is right. So until Jesus arrived, the best we could do is follow the law. Jesus came and as God granted him, expounded on a deeper meaning of the Law. Just think of all the times in the OT, where God tells the people how awful they are at follow the law, understanding the law, practicing the Law. Jesus brought clarity to the Law, and used Paul through his writing to help us understand that.
However, IF your understanding of Paul is that he voided, or abolished the law, than I would say your teacher might be found wanting when face to face with God, because Paul does not teach anything like that.
Saying that you don't try for salvation by obeying the Law is like saying you don't try to avoid getting hit by the train anymore by avoiding the tracks. Why do you think Ananias and Saphra were struck dead for lying about the value of their home? They had offended G-d. G-d is still offended by things like defrauding the Spirit and the Chosen, which is not the same as "stealing" exactly. Nothing changed.
Again, if we put our trust in the Law, we must follow it ALL. That is impossible. They died because they lied to God. Just another sin, and all sin is reason enough to die. The wages of sin is death. However, if Jesus is your salvation, you propitiation for sin, you are in a whole different category.
