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.