Jesus And The Law

[smokydot]

Please give scripture and verse where it says Paul got it PERSONALLY from Jesus!

I've already given them.

Therefore you have reneged on the agreement, see your statement below:
Again , please give scripture and versewhere it says Paul got it PERSONALLY from Jesus!
You are the one brought the Hebrew Bible into the discussion:
If you make a reference you have to defend it. Not attempt to deflect my response to your statement.
Who came back from the dead in this parable? Also the verse says "even if someone came back from the dead. Not did come back. Please read and understand.
Again you made the statement that it was a "Jewish tweak" and I said Christian's make "tweaks". If you can not accept that I have the right to challenge your prejudice, then this needs to go no further.

 

[esmith]

I've already given them.

No you haven't. The only NT scriptures that you reference are :"Paul is saying what the NT reports that Jesus said: Mt 16:21, 26:34, 31, 54, 56: Mk 9:12.: You have NO reference to the Pauline Epistles where Paul says he received PERSONALLY from Jesus the "religion" of Jesus. Just because you reference the Synoptic Gospels is not valid. They were not written yet; where did Paul PERSONALLY receive information from Jesus (scripture and verse please)

 

[Ben Masada]

To me your interpretation reads valid. Just out of curiosity I looked up the interpretation that the NIV Study Bible says. They have come to the conclusion that: "If people's minds are closed and Scripture is rejected, no evidence--not even a resurrection-- will change their minds." They also say that Luke's account seems to imply that Jesus was speaking of his own resurrection.
I also agree with your statement about the "Pauline" theology. To me, Paul changed the religion of Jesus to the religion about Jesus. Was this because he had to change the religion to be about Jesus so that the gentiles/pagans could accept this new religion without become Jewish? (something about adult males having to be circumcised might have been a "deal breaker")

Paul's whole object was to replace the whole Jewish religion with a new religion that he had founded in the city of Antioch, about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. IMO, the Church tried to fix the whole of the NT in the 4th Century and added a few interpolations as a result of pious forgeries blessed by the Church as long as they served the interests of the Church.(Acts 11:26)

 

[Ben Masada]

Just curious, how do you think people were saved before the Law?

Salvation from what? If it is from sin, nobody is saved. Even Jesus sinned sometimes by breaking the Golden Rule even more than several times. If it is salvation from Hell, rest your mind, there is no such a thing. If it is salvation from death, you can also rest sure that nobody is or will be. When Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden, the reason was because they could not live forever by metaphorically eating from the tree of life. (Gen. 3:22) So, what do you mean by salvation?

 

[james2ko]

No you haven't. The only NT scriptures that you reference are :"Paul is saying what the NT reports that Jesus said: Mt 16:21, 26:34, 31, 54, 56: Mk 9:12.: You have NO reference to the Pauline Epistles where Paul says he received PERSONALLY from Jesus the "religion" of Jesus. Just because you reference the Synoptic Gospels is not valid. They were not written yet; where did Paul PERSONALLY receive information from Jesus (scripture and verse please)

Gal 1:11-12 "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Is this what you are looking for?
​

 

[Ben Masada]

(John 3:16) "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

The only begotten Son of God is Israel, according to Exodus 4:22,23, and he was given as the pledge to guarantee God's promise to Noah that Manking would never be hit again with another catastrophe of the size of the Flood. And about eternal life, this is an attribute that belongs to God only. Man doesn't have it. That's the reason why Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden; so that they should not eat of the tree of life and live forever. (Gen. 3:22)

If you believe in Christ, you have faith. (James 2:24) "See that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." If you have faith, you have works. (John 14:15) "If you love me keep my commandments." (I John 3:24) "One who keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in him.

The only way to set things right with God is by repentance and obedience to God's Law. (Isa. 1:18,19) Faith equals lack of knowledge and it can mean death as almost a thousand of the faithful of Jim Jones were psychologically forced into mass suicide. No wonder people perish for lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6)

We know by this that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us."

Therefore, if you truly believe in Christ, you have his Holy Spirit, and do his works. (Mark 16:17-18)

Jesus has been dead for about 2000 years. This of believing in Christ is Pauline rhetoric which no longer holds any water.

And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in my name they will cast out demons; they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover."

Demons do not exist; and to cure someone by laying of hands is against natural law.

I wonder how many followers of Christ have casted out demon, and healed the sick...

When you find one, don't let the Doctors know; or they will go out of business.

Here is a relative scripture to John 3:16.
I John 4:9,16: "The love of God was manifested in us that God has sent his only begotten son into the world so that we might live thorugh him. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him."

This is the Son of God that we live in harmony with nature because of him: Israel. Read Exodus 4:22,23. Jeremiah himself said that as long as Israel remains as a People before the Lord forever, the sun will be everyday in the sky for light, and the moon and stars for light during the night. (Jer. 31:35-37)

Paul was indeed divinely inspired, however that too is a matter of interpretation.

Who inspired Paul to preach against God's Law and God's People? (Acts 21:21, 28)

 

[Ben Masada]

It is true, imo, that Christians do not give enough attention to the Law and the Prophets, and I'll add, we don't give enough attention to the Gospels and Letters either.
By and large, it seems that we are lazy scripturalists who cast about for reasons to discard Paul, and or the Law, and or the Prophets; some even discard the Gospels in favour of Paul.

It is easy for us, as Christians, to lose sight of the unity of the Bible, of the OT and NT in their totality, despite the fact that the Gospels and the Letters insist on that unity.

The opposite is true. Paul rather insists on the replacement of the Jewish Covenant with Christianity, which he founded in the city of Antioch about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. Read Acts 11:26
　
So, yes, the prophecy/parable of the Richman and Lazarus does have application to Gentile Christians.

But its principal application is to those Jews who were refusing to accept Jesus as a teacher come from G-d (the covetous Pharisees who derided him, vs 14).

Jesus was speaking to Jews about the things they were missing in Moses and the Prophets that point to him.

Sorry, but I don't agree with you. The object of that parable was to confim what Jesus had started with Matthew 5:17-19. A return to the Law and the Prophets, even
as a reason to prevent from falling in Hell.
　

The thing to be noted about Paul and 'salvation by faith only' is that he doesn't endorse the idea.

That salvation is by faith and not works of law (for Gentiles) is his emphasis but any honest reading, or even a cursory reading, of Paul will assure the reader that he most definitely insisted on standards of behaviour, and even of thought, that would not bring shame on the name of Christ or alienate the Jewish brethren.

If Paul ever cared not to alienate the Jewish People, he would not set up the allegory of the woman who got free through the death of her husband as a simile for Christians who were free of God's Law with the death of Jesus. (Rom. 7:1-7)
　

Simply put Jesus taught Jews that salvation is by faith and observance of the Law, while Paul taught Gentiles that salvation is by faith and an upright life.

98 percent of Paul's missionary work was among the Jews; 2 percent among the Gentiles could hardly identify him as an apostle to the Gentiles.

It is important, imo, to recognise that Jesus came to the House of Israel and sent Paul as his Apostle to the Gentiles.

I don't know what you are talking about. Jesus and Paul never even saw each other. Paul was still a child about 8 or 10 years old when Jesus was crucified.

It is therefore little wonder that Paul has such a poor reputation amongst Jews; he taught Gentiles and his message was tailored for Gentiles.

No, Paul's poor reputation among the Jews was due to the fact that he preached agaist Moses, circumcion and the Jewish customs. (Acts 21:21, 28)

And Gentiles are not obliged to keep the Law, though, Paul teaches, they are expected to understand something of its precepts and principles,

They were not Gentiles but already Jews converted by Peter from the Sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 15:7) . Paul would rob the Nazarenes of their converts and revert them to the condition of Gentiles as they were before. (Gal. 1:4-9)

 

[Ben Masada]

That's a nice Jewish gloss. . .especially the "secret" part. . .let's take a closer look at the parable.

1) The parable says nothing about why the rich man was in Hades. You have added your personal conjecture to the parable (in blue).

2) The issue is the rich man's ignoring the teachings of Scripture, which he now feared his brothers would also do.
Abraham told him his brothers already had the teachings of Moses and the Prophets (the whole OT, not just the Law of Moses ).
But the rich man replied no, that wasn't enough, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they would repent.
To which Abraham responded that if they did not listen to Moses and the Prophets (the whole OT, not just the Law of Moses),
they would not be convinced if someone rises from the dead.

3) And that was precisely the situation with the Jews, who had Moses' promise of a prophet like Moses who was to come (Dt 18:15, 17-18),
and who had all the prophecies from the Prophets regarding the Messiah.
As did the rich man, they ignored the teachings of Scripture, and rejected the Messiah whom God sent to them (Lk 9:22). . .even when he rose from the dead.

The "tweaking" of the parable to make it about obedience to the Law of Moses, instead of about ignoring the teachings of all the Scriptures regarding the Messiah,
even rejecting his rising from the dead, is a Jewish gloss.

You, absolutely missed the point of the parable. Jesus' intent was to show that nothing had changed about salvation through the obedience of God's Law. And Jesus had not come to abolish even a letter of it. (Mat. 5:17-19)

 

[Ben Masada]

To me your interpretation reads valid. Just out of curiosity I looked up the interpretation that the NIV Study Bible says. They have come to the conclusion that: "If people's minds are closed and Scripture is rejected, no evidence--not even a resurrection-- will change their minds." They also say that Luke's account seems to imply that Jesus was speaking of his own resurrection.
I also agree with your statement about the "Pauline" theology. To me, Paul changed the religion of Jesus to the religion about Jesus. Was this because he had to change the religion to be about Jesus so that the gentiles/pagans could accept this new religion without become Jewish? (something about adult males having to be circumcised might have been a "deal breaker")

You are not too far from the truth.

 

[astarath]

This is still going on huh?

 

[esmith]

Gal 1:11-12 "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Is this what you are looking for?
​

No, the statement was that Jesus "personally" told Paul. A "revelation" is to revel. This would not be a "face to face" discussion. You would have to take it on "faith" that Jesus did this. I started this discussion with smokeydot with the understanding that it had to be "fact"

Quote of smokeydot.
So the only facts (as opposed to faith) left to determine is what the NT does and does not actually report

 

[smokydot]

The only begotten Son of God is Israel, according to Exodus 4:22,23,

Israel is not called the begotten Son of God in Exodus.

and he was given as the pledge to guarantee God's promise to Noah that Manking would never be hit again with another catastrophe of the size of the Flood. And about eternal life, this is an attribute that belongs to God only. Man doesn't have it. That's the reason why Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden; so that they should not eat of the tree of life and live forever. (Gen. 3:22)

The only way to set things right with God is by repentance and obedience to God's Law. (Isa. 1:18,19) Faith equals lack of knowledge and it can mean death as almost a thousand of the faithful of Jim Jones were psychologically forced into mass suicide. No wonder people perish for lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6)
Jesus has been dead for about 2000 years. This of believing in Christ is Pauline rhetoric which no longer holds any water.
Demons do not exist; and to cure someone by laying of hands is against natural law.
When you find one, don't let the Doctors know; or they will go out of business.
This is the Son of God that we live in harmony with nature because of him: Israel. Read Exodus 4:22,23. Jeremiah himself said that as long as Israel remains as a People before the Lord forever, the sun will be everyday in the sky for light, and the moon and stars for light during the night. (Jer. 31:35-37)
Who inspired Paul to preach against God's Law and God's People? (Acts 21:21, 28)

 

[dmgdnooc]

Ben
Paul did not insist that the Jewish Covenant be replaced with Christianity.
When he writes to Gentiles he urges them to not become circumcised because it is superfluous, in Christ, whether or not a Gentile be circumcised.
So Paul could be said to insist that Gentiles in Christ not become Jews.
But when he writes to Jews he upholds the Law and their position in the Law and the continuing obligation that a Jew has to keep the Law whether he be a Christian Jew or not.
　
You send me to Acts 11.26 which shows that Paul, at the behest of Barnabas, was in Antioch.
I knew that.
But where is your support for saying that Paul 'insists on the replacement of the Jewish Covenant with Christianity'?
　
Jesus did urge a return to the Law and the Prophets and that message was well received by the Pharisees who were scripturalists themselves and spent much time in studying the Law and the Prophets.
The Pharisees needed no urging to a scriptural revival they owed their origins and position to that very thing.
　
They had listened as Jesus related the parable of vs 1-13.
Having no reasoned answer to it and being covetous (therefore wounded by its teaching) they laughed at, ridiculed, derided, Jesus.
So he turned to them and spoke plainly; they were proud that the people held them in such high regard, as being the best of men, yet they had discounted John and missed the changing of the times that Jesus' presence and preaching signified.
Now the meek would inherit, the poor be made rich.
And G-d knew their hearts, what was inside them, He would not be impressed by their knowledge and position as were the people.
He held the Law up to them as immutable and unfailing and contrasted with the precepts of his teaching by again speaking to them of the practice of divorce.
The Law made allowance for the hardness of a man's heart; but the Gospel does not, it requires an abiding faithfulness and love in marriage, and beyond.
　
The fact was that they were covetous and derided Jesus because his preaching undermined their aspirations to wealth and drew away the adulation of the masses; not because they were opposed to the idea of a scriptural revival.
They are figured in the parable as the 'Richman'.
　
The Pharisees had Moses and the Prophets yet they could not be persuaded of the things that are said therein.
They did not accept mercy, compassion, love and faithfulness, even in the figure of death they did not accept their just fate.
Their study was directed towards finding a way out of their predicament, how to get out of a difficult marriage, what sacrifice could be made in place of exercising mercy, how to maintain their pride over humility, derision over compassion.
How to maintain the hardness of their heart and avoid its circumcision.
It was a struggle against the principles behind the Law, that energised the Law, and were brought out so vividly in Jesus' teachings.
They were engaged in a struggle against submission to G-d and using the Law and the Prophets as their weapon.
　
You make a few more unsupported statements about Paul and quote Acts 21 where Paul was at great pains to demonstrate to the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem that he did indeed honour and keep the Law.
How can you accept the emotion charged opinions of the crowd in the face of Paul's actions?
But I've already made a long post.
　

 

[Civil Shephard]

They were engaged in a struggle against submission to G-d and using the Law and the Prophets as their weapon.

Ben Masada,

Are you tempted by secret wisdom... Did Paul do anything in secret? Did Peter? They didn't have to because God sent them both. Just like God sent Moses, Joshua, Jeremiah and Obediah God sent them and they spoke openly and directly when possible. They had a mission from God and accomplished it to the best of their abilities.

Paul did not change the Gospel but it would seem it is your mission to prove that he did. I do not see you responding with any real scriptural evidence that Paul preached another 'Gospel because it's just not there.

It must be a secret revealed to you... a very tempting secret indeed. But to quote a lesser being "Paul I know... Jesus I know... but who are you?"

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Salvation from what?

Well, gee, i thought I was quoting you on that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Masada
IMHO, that was a prophecy of Jesus' in the form of a parable which has been fulfilled by Christians in general. They do believe that Jesus rose from the dead; nevertheless, they just can't be persuaded to listen to Moses and the Prophets, which means the Law, in order to prevent themselves from falling in Hell. They prefer the Pauline policy of salvation by faith only.
Ben

What were you talking about?

 

[smokydot]

Ben, Paul did not insist that the Jewish Covenant be replaced with Christianity.
When he writes to the Gentiles, he urges them to not become circumcised because it is superfluous, in Christ, whether or not a Gentile be circimcised.
So Paul could be said to insist that Gentiles in Christ not become Jews.

"Could be said" is human conjecture. You are orthodox Reformed Christianity, nooc, on so many things of the NT, but on this point, you are so unorthodox. . .
you have succumbed to a Jewish gloss, and are trying to have it both ways. . .grace for Gentiles, but law keeping for Jews. That is a dichotomized false gospel,
against which Paul emphatically warns, even anathemizing (Gal 1:7-9). God does not have two ways of salvation. . .one for Gentiles and another for Jews.

For Paul, the issue was not about becoming Jews, it was about requiring law-keeping for right standing with God.

But when he writes to Jews, he upholds the Law and their position in the Law and the continuing obligation that a Jew has to keep the Law whether he be a Christian Jew or not.

Which law is that? The ceremonial laws, the feasts, the cleansings? The Decaglogue?
Nooc, that is a completely unorthodox, gospel-eradicatng misunderstanding of Rom, chp 9, and it contradicts Rom, Chp 11.
Christians, whether Jew of Gentile, do not have an obligation to keep the OT ceremonial laws, the feasts, or the cleansing laws.
Their obligation, as evidence of their true saving faith, is only to the Decalogue and the commands of the NT (which include the Decalogue).

Paul insisted that law keeping (circumcision) was not required for right standing with God, as the Judaizers were insisting. Not only was law-keeping not required,
it was contrary to grace, and automatically excluded grace for right standing with God.
For the Judaizers, it may have been about becoming a Jew by circumsion, but for Paul it was a much bigger issue.
Circumcision was really about requiring law-keeping for right standing with God, and on that there is absolutely no compromise for anyone.

And then there is the NT letter to the Hebrews, written to Jews, which completely overthrows the unorthodox dichotomy you present here.

Ro 9:30-32 -- "What then shall we say? That the (believing) Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel,
who pursued a law of righteusness (to put God in one's debt), has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursue it not by faith but as if it were by works.
They stumbled over the 'stumbling stone.'
As it is written: 'See I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.' "

Ro 11:1-10 -- "I ask then: did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah--how he appealed to God against Israel: 'Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me'? And what was God's answer to him? 'I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.' So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer works; if it were (works),
grace would no longer be grace.
[As in Gal 5, Paul makes grace and works mutually exclusive, the one automatically excludes the other. . .for Jew and Gentile alike.
There is no mixture of the two in the gospel, and they should not be mixed in presenting the gospel, for that is to present a false gospel. Anathema!--Gal 1:7-9.]
What then? What Israel sought so earnestly (a right standing before God) it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened (because they pursued righteousness by works instead of by grace alone, through faith, 9:30-32)), as it is written:
'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day.'
And David says: 'May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs bent forever (results of the divine hardening from God, as punishment for rejecting right standing with God by grace alone, through faith).

But where is your support for saying that Paul 'insists on the replacement of the Jewish Covenant with Christianity'?

Ro 10:4 -- "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness (right standing with God) for everyone who believes."

And then there is the NT letter to the Hebrews which in chps 7-9 clearly teaches the setting aside of the Mosaic (Sinaitic) Covenant, the Levitical priesthood
and the cermonial laws, because the purpose for which they were given no longer exists. . .it has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

See http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2318469-post513.html -- Outline of Letter to Hebrews

Jesus did urge a return to the Law and the Prophets

"The Law and the Prophets" means the whole NT, not just the Law. Jesus was referring to the whole OT's testimony to him, he was not referring to keeping the Law.

 

[esmith]

It would be correct to say that Paul had a split idea of which "Laws" should and should not be followed. He believed that the laws meant just for Jews to preserve their Jewish identity (ceremonial) need not be followed and the laws(ethical) for everyone who wanted to worship the God of Israel should be followed. However, salvation could only come through faith in Christ. Thus, if you are not a "Pauline" Christian you will not have salvation. "Do it my way or be damned" was his message.

 

[dmgdnooc]

smokydot
Well that, in a small way pleases me, that I don't neatly fit into one of the prefabricated boxes of your imagination.
Aren't I just a Reformed Christian if my orthodoxy is unorthodox?
And, if you apply the tag 'reformed' to myself and not my Chritianity I would whole heartedly agree.
　
Quite clearly the 'continuing obligation that a Jew has to keep the Law' is the obligation that Paul and all the Apostles fulfilled. Which is the whole Law, excepting the sacrifice for sin.
If this contradicts scripture, not merely offending the sensibilities of your tradition, then show me the scripture.
None that you point to support the passing away of a Jew's obligations, and most especially when it is considered that the Jews who wrote those scriptures kept the Law.
　
I have heard what you are saying on previous occasions over the years.
I accept that the righteousness of G-d is imputed for faith by grace and is independent of works (of law or otherwise). And uphold and defend that truth when required.
But this is not one of those times.
　
The argument here boils down to, and let Ben correct me if I'm wrong, whether or not a 'Christian' with no standard of personal righteousness is a Christian at all.
　
It is at the core of why the name 'Christian' is evil spoken around the entire world.
It is the device used by the Churches to allow their wolves and dogs to engage in the most disgusting and predatory activities, to the day-to-day detriment and misery of any who are unfortunate enough to fall within the range of their gaze.
The truth that is 'salvation by grace' is perverted in order to clear the concsiences of these animals and provide a place for them in 'Christian' society; so that they can go the next day and do it all over again.
Speak to the Chinese about how the predatory 'Christians' savagely raped and looted their glorious and ancient civilisation without a twinge of remorse or regret. 'Their religion' will be the answer you receive 'it lets them do anything'.
And so too ask the Indians, Africans, Arabs, Jews, and you will hear that a 'Christian' doesn't have to live his religion, it isn't reflected in their actions, they're beasts during the week and saints, among themselves, on Sunday.
This is my beef about the wonderful truth of 'salvation by grace', its perversion to the point that it has made the name of Christ evil spoken the world over.
　
And speaking about 'salvation by grace' in the absence of balancing words about 'the fruits of the Spirit', or similar, merely perpetuates the perversion.
　
Now, as to the things that I said about the parable under discussion.
I take your silence as agreement,
But wonder why you didn't add to or flesh out my points.
　

 

[smokydot]

smokydot
Well that, in a small way pleases me, that I don't neatly fit into one of the prefabricated boxes of your imagination.
Aren't I just a Reformed Christian if my orthodoxy is unorthodox?
And, if you apply the tag 'reformed' to myself and not my Chritianity I would whole heartedly agree.
　
Quite clearly the 'continuing obligation that a Jew has to keep the Law' is the obligation that Paul and all the Apostles fulfilled. Which is the whole Law, excepting the sacrifice for sin.
If this contradicts scripture, not merely offending the sensibilities of your tradition, then show me the scripture.

The scripture would be from the letter to the Hebrews.

Melchizedek was priest of God Most High. Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life,
like the Son of God he remains a priest forever. (Heb 7:1-3)

The law was given to the people on the basis of the Levitical priesthood. So why was there still a need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron (Levite)? When there is a change in priesthood, there also must be a change of the law. It becomes even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of external ceremonies (regulations as to his ancestry) but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. For it is declared, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." (Ps 110:4)
The former regulation (the law) is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. Christ became priest with an oath when God said to him, "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.' " Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. (Heb 7:11-22)
The priesthood Jesus has received is as superior to the Levitical priesthood (which was the basis for the Law) as the covenant of which he is mediator
is superior to the old covenant. For if there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God said,
"The time is coming when I will make a new covenant." By calling this covenant "new," God has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. (Heb 8:6-13)
According to the letter to the Hebrews, all the Levitical laws, not just the sacrifices, have been set aside, because the Levitical priesthood has been set aside.

"The continuing obligation that a Jew has to keep the whole Law excepting the sacrifice for sin" has been set aside, with the setting aside of the Levitical priesthood (Heb 7:11-19).

None that you point to support the passing away of a Jew's obligations, and most especially when it is considered that the Jews who wrote those scriptures kept the Law.

And you know this, how?

I have heard what you are saying on previous occasions over the years.

I accept that the righteousness of G-d is imputed for faith by grace and is independent of works (of law or otherwise). And uphold and defend that truth when required.
But this is not one of those times.

So when is one of those times?

The argument here boils down to, and let Ben correct me if I'm wrong, whether or not a 'Christian' with no standard of personal righteousness is a Christian at all.

It is at the core of why the name 'Christian' is evil spoken around the entire world.
It is the device used by the Churches to allow their wolves and dogs to engage in the most disgusting and predatory activities, to the day-to-day detriment and misery of any who are unfortunate enough to fall within the range of their gaze.
The truth that is 'salvation by grace' is perverted in order to clear the concsiences of these animals and provide a place for them in 'Christian' society; so that they can go the next day and do it all over again.
Speak to the Chinese about how the predatory 'Christians' savagely raped and looted their glorious and ancient civilisation without a twinge of remorse or regret. 'Their religion' will be the answer you receive 'it lets them do anything'.
And so too ask the Indians, Africans, Arabs, Jews, and you will hear that a 'Christian' doesn't have to live his religion, it isn't reflected in their actions, they're beasts during the week and saints, among themselves, on Sunday.
This is my beef about the wonderful truth of 'salvation by grace', its perversion to the point that it has made the name of Christ evil spoken the world over.
And speaking about 'salvation by grace' in the absence of balancing words about 'the fruits of the Spirit', or similar, merely perpetuates the perversion.

The remedy for the name 'Christian' being evil spoken around the world is not to de-emphasize the gospel of free grace, it is to emphasize the importance of obedience
as the necessary evidence of true faith, which is the means of free grace.

Now, as to the things that I said about the parable under discussion.

I take your silence as agreement,
But wonder why you didn't add to or flesh out my points.

If you are speaking of the rich man and Lazarus, I do not agree that it is about law-keeping. The parable hinges on listening to (believing) one who has come back from the dead. The parable is about believing the testimony of the Law and the Prophets (which means the whole OT) regarding the Messiah who was come, and would rise from the dead.
Tweaking the parable to make it about law-keeping is a Jewish gloss.

 

[smokydot]

It would be correct to say that Paul had a split idea of which "Laws" should and should not be followed. He believed that the laws meant just for Jews to preserve their Jewish identity (ceremonial) need not be followed and the laws(ethical) for everyone who wanted to worship the God of Israel should be followed. However, salvation could only come through faith in Christ. Thus, if you are not a "Pauline" Christian you will not have salvation. "Do it my way or be damned" was his message.

Since Paul got all his knowledge from Jesus Christ, "Do it Jesus' way or be damned" was his message.