Jesus and the Law - Rebuttal

Daniel's rebuttal
So after a blistering attack on Christianity full of mockery, condescension, and elitism, Daniel got upset. He didn’t expect someone else to strongly fire back at his claims that Christians are ignorant hypocrites who don’t even know the teachings of their own God, so he decided to label my rebuttal “ad hominem.” Apparently it’s not ad hominem if atheists do it. Although I did let him know, that I will bite back. However, if Daniel can’t handle the heat of the debate then he really should just go home and his puny attempt at a rebuttal shows exactly that: he can’t handle true debate. Instead what we received from Daniel was a series of incoherent, incomprehensible sentences carelessly and thoughtlessly thrown together in a vain hope that someone else will try to make sense of them. Talk about my "ad hominem" and "red herrings" his little "and/or" when he keeps talking in circles, (If you read his very first blog about "circular reasoning" he accuses Christians of talking and reasoning in circles. Interestingly enough, this is what he's doing as well.), asking questions as if he never received answers to them, and posting links that contradict his own argument. I must confess, I did try to figure out what he is saying.
Now, I would like to refer Daniel back to my original article because it seems like he didn't read it thoroughly. For example, Daniel continues to say that Jesus said the Law is here to stay and must be followed. Do I really need to repeat every point I made regarding that in my previous blog? Jesus was very clear about His views and attitudes pertaining to the Law, but Daniel says he doesn't care about this… Which just confuses me as to how he thinks he can get inside the mind of Jesus without actually analyzing the actions that Jesus took. I mean it really isn't all that “tricky” and difficult. It’s rather straight forward. Jesus fulfilled the purpose of the Law. But if you're still a bit confused, I'll elaborate once more. Daniel asks if "until everything is accomplished” and “until heaven and earth disappear” is synonymous, or if they are contradictory... Well let me make this as clear as possible: yes it is synonymous. What Jesus means is that even if the world changed and everything was completely different, but the Law was still not accomplished, then the Law would stay. However, Jesus DID fulfill the Law. Anyone still confused?  My analogy regarding test taking explained it very well, but if you ask me what sort of analogy Daniel tried to make regarding test taking, I really couldn't tell you (in fact, I’m beginning to question what type of school(s) Daniel has been attending throughout his life.) Now of course just because the Law’s purpose was fulfilled, does not mean Jesus gave the go ahead for people to go out and murder and steal. This is exactly what the Apostles were referring to in their clarifications that they made regarding the Law to their Gentile brothers. But they were very clear that the more specific and symbolic details of the Law (such as circumcision and sacrifice) were now obsolete and unneeded.
But Daniel continues to insist that this was just a clever marketing strategy by the Apostles to get more of those silly Gentiles to join their cult. Or a way for modern Christians to not do certain aspects of the Law that they dislike. He still hasn't decided which theory he likes better, but he seems to believe that he made a radical discovery: Christians aren’t perfect. Wow. Eureka. Mind blowing information. Christians fall and make mistakes just like any other person in their own standards that they set for themselves. You’re the new Christopher Columbus of religion, Daniel.  But in spite of this amazing concept that Daniel just found for himself, he completely ignores everything I said regarding both of this theories. Judaism is already easier than paganism because pagan gods had the same amount of rules that the God of the Jews had, multiplied by ten (oh and no pagan religion ever allowed everybody to just go around and kill and steal what they wanted to.) They also had other interesting things, like human sacrifices, sometimes of newborn babies. But Daniel believes that violence makes for good advertisement. He claims that being violently and viciously ripped apart by wild animals was an attractive part of Christianity! Wow, talk about a great Superbowl ad.
Now Jesus did take these things very seriously. He explained in detail to His followers the tough trials and tribulations they would encounter for believing in Him and He gave hope and assurance that a better place will be waiting for them at the end of their path. Contrast this with Daniel’s approach. Daniel lacks the very thing he asks from his audience: an open mind. He has set an agenda to discredit Christianity and make Christians out to be crazy and ignorant. However, he makes a poor effort at this. He fails to read through his own sources (his link regarding Jesus’s actions with the adulteress disproves his own argument), latches on to silly differences in vocabulary (I didn’t know there was such an enormous difference between “ignore” and “find reason to ignore”), and employs an interpretation of Scripture more insane than that of the Westboro Baptist church (which he promises that we’ll get more of when he discusses women in the Bible.) He closes out his article with a ridiculous comment about how he wrote first and I responded. Truth is we agreed beforehand that my blog would be a response to his. However, he knows he’s failing at advancing his agenda, so he makes sorry and petty excuses for himself in his conclusion. It’s not working Daniel and we’re not buying it. He who is without sin can cast the first stone.

Jesus and the Law

Daniel's Assertion

It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out. - Carl Sagan

As you'll soon be able to tell, this blog will be an unapologetic rebuttal to Daniel's blog attacking Christianity. Now Daniel has asked all of you to keep an open mind. I'd like to ask you to make sure your brain is still in its place throughout the process.

I also felt it necessary to warn you. Throughout Daniel's blog, we are going to receive the most fundamentalist and literal interpretation of the Bible that we've ever encountered. This is not unique to Daniel, but is really a common trait among atheists. They seem to read Scripture in such an extreme manner that it makes the Westboro Baptist Church look like liberal skeptics in comparison. But that's a topic for another blog. For this one, Daniel has decided to look at a passage from one of the most powerful sermons ever given by Christ: the Sermon on the Mount. Let's dive into our analysis and discussion.

Daniel used the NIV version in his blog. I prefer the Amplified Bible.

17 Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass from the Law until all things [it foreshadows] are accomplished. 19 Whoever then breaks or does away with or relaxes one of the least [important] of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least [important] in the kingdom of heaven, but he who practices them and teaches others to do so shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness (your uprightness and your right standing with God) is more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Daniel is correct in his assessment of what Jesus is referring to. He is referring to the Old Testament. And Jesus does say that He did not come to repeal the Law, but notice that (in spite of Daniel's numerous attempts to claim otherwise) nowhere does He say that His followers are obligated to follow the Law as mandated by the Pharisees and the Scribes, but in fact, His followers need to do something differently than those 2 groups (their righteousness needs to be above them.) It obviously follows that the followers of Christ need to depend on something other than the Law for their righteousness. But what could possibly supercede the Law in this regard? Apostle Paul elaborates in this regard in Galatians 2:16.

16 Yet we know that a man is justified or reckoned righteous and in right standing with God not by works of the Law, but [only] through faith and[absolute] reliance on and adherence to and trust in Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One). [Therefore] even we [ourselves] have believed on Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law [for we cannot be justified by any observance of the ritual of the Law given by Moses], because by keeping legal rituals and by works no human being can ever be justified (declared righteous and put in right standing with God).

Paul goes on to say in Gal. 3:10-13:

10 And all who depend on the Law [who are seeking to be justified by obedience to the Law of rituals] are under a curse and doomed to disappointment and destruction, for it is written in the Scriptures, Cursed (accursed, devoted to destruction, doomed to eternal punishment) be everyone who does not continue to abide (live and remain) by all the precepts and commands written in the Book of the Law and to practice them. 11 Now it is evident that no person is justified (declared righteous and brought into right standing with God) through the Law, for the Scripture says, The man in right standing with God [the just, the righteous] shall live by and out of faith and he who through and by faith is declared righteous and in right standing with God shall live. 12 But the Law does not rest on faith [does not require faith, has nothing to do with faith], for it itself says, He who does them [the things prescribed by the Law] shall live by them [not by faith]. 13 Christ purchased our freedom [redeeming us] from the curse (doom) of the Law [and its condemnation] by [Himself] becoming a curse for us, for it is written [in the Scriptures], Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree (is crucified);

This is what Jesus means when He says that He fulfilled the Law. He completed its purpose. He achieved it's goal. It is now no longer needed. When we complete tests or projects that are assigned to us, it would be silly to say that we have abolished that particular assignment from the face of the earth. It would be equally ridiculous to claim that because we haven't abolished the test, we need to keep retaking it till the end of time (though maybe some of the more special of us might require such methods in order to pass high school, and I'm looking at you Daniel). The similar concept can be applied to the Law. Because it has been fulfilled by Christ, Christians are no longer obligated to follow it.

Well why have the Law to begin with? Paul discusses this in Gal. 3:19-21:

19 What then was the purpose of the Law? It was added [later on, after the promise, to disclose and expose to men their guilt] because of transgressions and [to make men more conscious of the sinfulness] of sin; and it was intended to be in effect until the Seed (the Descendant, the Heir) should come, to and concerning Whom the promise had been made. And it [the Law] was arranged and ordained and appointed through the instrumentality of angels [and was given] by the hand (in the person) of a go-between [Moses, an intermediary person between God and man]. 20 Now a go-between (intermediary) has to do with and implies more than one party [there can be no mediator with just one person]. Yet God is [only] one Person [and He was the sole party in giving that promise to Abraham. But the Law was a contract between two, God and Israel; its validity was dependent on both]. 21 Is the Law then contrary and opposed to the promises of God? Of course not! For if a Law had been given which could confer [spiritual] life, then righteousness and right standing with God would certainly have come by Law.

He elaborates in Hebrews 10:1-9:

For since the Law has merely a rude outline (foreshadowing) of the good things to come—instead of fully expressing those things—it can never by offering the same sacrifices continually year after year make perfect those who approach [its altars]. 2 For if it were otherwise, would [these sacrifices] not have stopped being offered? Since the worshipers had once for all been cleansed, they would no longer have any guilt or consciousness of sin. 3 But [as it is] these sacrifices annually bring a fresh remembrance of sins [to be atoned for], 4 Because the blood of bulls and goats is powerless to take sins away. 5 Hence, when He [Christ] entered into the world, He said, Sacrifices and offerings You have not desired, but instead You have made ready a body for Me [to offer]; 6 In burnt offerings and sin offerings You have taken no delight. 7 Then I said, Behold, here I am, coming to do Your will, O God—[to fulfill] what is written of Me in the volume of the Book. 8 When He said just before, You have neither desired, nor have You taken delight in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings—all of which are offered according to the Law— 9 He then went on to say, Behold, [here] I am, coming to do Your will. Thus He does away with and annuls the first (former) order [as a means of expiating sin] so that He might inaugurate and establish the second (latter) order.

Really can't say it any better than the Apostle Paul. However, what about some of the other claims made by Daniel, especially regarding the attitude of modern Christians towards ancient Mosaic Law? Well Daniel strongly implies that believers willfully chose to ignore the words of Christ concerning the Law because of a desire to attract Gentiles to their faith by making it "easier." I'd have to inform Daniel, that Judaism was already easier than the polytheistic paganism of the Gentiles (appeasing one God vs. appeasing hundreds), that Gentiles had no trouble flocking to Christianity, and that getting burned alive and eaten in arenas by wild animals doesn't really make stellar advertising for an "easy" religion. Early Christians had many concerns. Putting on a good marketing campaign was not one of them. Daniel second argument is that Christians ignored the words of Christ because they found Mosaic law incompatible with modern society. What Daniel doesn't say is when Christians started to do this. He mentions the early church, but the early church didn't develop in a modern society. And the early church "changed the rules" to bring in more Gentiles, which means that the early church was already "changing the rules" before modern society came along. So which one is it? Either early Christians changed the rules to be more marketable to Gentiles or contemporary Christians changed the rules to fit in with modern society. It's either one or the other and Daniel has already conceded that early Christians were rejecting Mosaic law, which really begs the question of whether Christianity did have to catch up to society or was it the other way around? But I have to correct Daniel. The early church wasn't the first to give up on Mosaic Law. The first person to change the rules was a lowly carpenter from Nazareth who was brought a woman caught in adultery. Mosaic law demanded that she be stoned to death. This carpenter however, demanded that the person without sin cast the first stone at her. Her accusers ended up leaving until it was just that carpenter and her. He turned to her and told her that he does not pass judgment on her and then, in direct violation of the law, he let her go. Daniel might recognize this man. It was His words that He was quoting at the beginning of His blog. That carpenter's entire ministry was based on grace, forgiveness, and love to whomever was willing to accept it and He ended up giving His own life in order to fundamentally change the rules forever.

Daniel's Rebuttal