Promise-Law connection

[Fenris]

The "but" makes me think you're understanding my analogy (sorry if you do, I'm not trying to be redundant). Christians aren't monolithic; Catholics are one branch. And even then, Catholics aren't monolithic. Jesuits are a branch of the branch. Paul came from an apocalyptic branch of the Pharisees, which was a branch of Judaism. It was not monolithic, and its branches were not monolithic. Saying Paul wasn't a Pharisee because he believed X but centuries later Rabbinic Judaism believed Y is an anachronistic imposition of later definitions (of what it mean to be a "Pharisee" or even a "Jew") onto an earlier time when those definitions didn't exist.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. I think it's reasonable to say that Paul wasn't a Pharisee based on things that he said that were very far from what Pharisees believed. To use your analogy, Catholics aren't monolithic, but if someone doesn't believe in the Catholic church, they're not Catholic. That's by definition. If a Jewish person doesn't believe in the divine origin and importance of upholding the law, in the first century Judea they weren't a Pharisee. I consider that by definition. The whole of the Mishna and Talmud, written by and quoting Pharisees is about upholding the law to the smallest detail. Paul is trying to overthrow the law. It's the exact opposite of what a Pharisee would do.

"Christianity" didn't exist yet.

No, and Paul invented it in part by such concepts saying that we require "justification".

We have many Jewish contemporary with Paul, pre-dating Rabbinic Judaism by centuries

I don't think this is an accurate point either. Rabbinic Judaism quotes and follows first century Jews like Hillel, Rabban Gamliel, and so on.

The only substantially unique thing is how he framed the "salvation" component of his eschatology around a person he believed had been sent by God.

Which is, as I say, a new concept. Which is why I consider Paul and not Jesus the creator of Christianity.

Paul wasn't saying Gentiles need an abstract faith compartmentalized from behavior and action. His epistles constantly talk about how Gentile followers of Jesus were supposed to live according to their faith. (The key points of contention seem to have been sexuality and idolatry, in both personal and community spheres.) My argument is Paul was only saying -- in contrast to the apparent majority of other Jesus-following Jews -- that Jesus-following Gentiles could be faithful to God without needing to observe the Torah (and he uses Abraham's faithfulness to God before the Torah as the main picture in his slideshow). The idea that Gentiles don't need to observe the Torah to be counted righteous by God is standard in Judaism even today (the whole "Noahide laws" concept).

But there is still the expectation of Noahides behaving morally, and nobody believes that Noahides can be saved via "faith".

The only real distinction with Paul is that he both categories -- Jews who observe the Torah and Gentiles who don't -- have to believe God sent Jesus to be the messiah.

Which again, is unusual in that nobody in Judaism has the idea that someone has to "believe" in the messiah. Either someone is or isn't.

You seem to have sympathy for Paul's positions even though you're a self professed agnostic. Which is, again, interesting.

[agnostic]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you here.

You don't need to apologize for disagreeing with me.

If a Jewish person doesn't believe in the divine origin (of the law)

Paul did. "For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self."

and importance of upholding the law,

Paul did. "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."

Paul is trying to overthrow the law.

Where?

No, and Paul invented it in part by such concepts saying that we require "justification".

I understand that you think Paul was not an "orthodox" Jew, but outside of theologically conservative Christians, scholars don't agree Paul "invented" a new religion. It genuinely is an outdated way of framing Christian origins, even among critics. He was a leading figure in a very small apocalyptic branch of second temple Judaism. He made an unusual effort to bring Gentiles into this branch -- probably because of his belief the end times were near -- which ended up causing a dramatic shift in the branch's demographics, resulting in a religious community that over a few decades had increasingly weaker connection to its parent religion (which he definitely didn't expect to happen).

Rabbinic Judaism quotes and follows first century Jews like Hillel, Rabban Gamliel, and so on.

I suppose this is a point we may not come to any mutual agreement on. I find it difficult to accept teachings of leaders were accurately carried on through oral tradition for several centuries before being written down. It doesn't comport with what we know about the fallibility of oral communication, human memory, and the natural evolution all religious traditions go through (including the ones who say they don't).

Which is why I consider Paul and not Jesus the creator of Christianity.

The formation of a new religion called "Christianity" was a slow-moving process, not a singular event undertaken by a specific person. Neither of them invented Christianity.

You seem to have sympathy for Paul's positions even though you're a self professed agnostic.

I don't have to agree with a text/author to find the quest for an accurate understanding of that text/author a worthwhile pursuit.

I actually agree with you that there's a certain disconnect between Paul and the original disciples of Jesus. Paul remained Torah observant, and expected Jews who followed Jesus to remain Torah observant. But where Paul expected Gentiles who followed Jesus not to begin observing the Torah, Jesus' original disciples did expect Gentiles followers of Jesus to begin observing the Torah. Paul admits as much in Galatians. You'd think the guys who actually knew Jesus in person would have a stronger claim to know what Jesus (would have) taught on the matter.

[Fenris]

You don't need to apologize for disagreeing with me.

We're being so polite here. Anyway...

Paul did. "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."

Romans 7 " we have been released from the law" and " I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death".

I understand that you think Paul was not an "orthodox" Jew, but outside of theologically conservative Christians, scholars don't agree Paul "invented" a new religion. It genuinely is an outdated way of framing Christian origins, even among critics. He was a leading figure in a very small apocalyptic branch of second temple Judaism. He made an unusual effort to bring Gentiles into this branch -- probably because of his belief the end times were near -- which ended up causing a dramatic shift in the branch's demographics, resulting in a religious community that over a few decades had increasingly weaker connection to its parent religion (which he definitely didn't expect to happen).

I appreciate that Christianity is a daughter religion of Judaism. But it isn't the same religion. The early followers of Jesus were certainly Jewish, and doubtless perceived him to be the messiah. After all, there were many such messiah claimants in first century Judea. Even that after his death  some of his followers expected him to come back isn't that far out. But once Paul came along and claimed that people needed to be "justified" and following the law was essentially optional, the break with Judaism was complete.

I suppose this is a point we may not come to any mutual agreement on. I find it difficult to accept teachings of leaders were accurately carried on through oral tradition for several centuries before being written down. It doesn't comport with what we know about the fallibility of oral communication, human memory, and the natural evolution all religious traditions go through (including the ones who say they don't).

Then we'll agree to disagree.

The formation of a new religion called "Christianity" was a slow-moving process, not a singular event undertaken by a specific person. Neither of them invented Christianity.

Shrug. OK.

I don't have to agree with a text/author to find the quest for an accurate understanding of that text/author a worthwhile pursuit.

Fair.

I actually agree with you that there's a certain disconnect between Paul and the original disciples of Jesus. Paul remained Torah observant, and expected Jews who followed Jesus to remain Torah observant. But where Paul expected Gentiles who followed Jesus not to begin observing the Torah, Jesus' original disciples did expect Gentiles followers of Jesus to begin observing the Torah. Paul admits as much in Galatians. You'd think the guys who actually knew Jesus in person would have a stronger claim to know what Jesus (would have) taught on the matter.

Maybe they did, though.

You're not addressing my point about Paul inventing "justification".

[agnostic]

Romans 7 " we have been released from the law"

He was still addressing Gentiles. They never followed the Torah's law to begin with. Paul's epistles shift between a specific use of the word "law" (Torah) and a generalized use of the word. He does a similar thing with the word "flesh," sometimes literally the human body or the material it's made from as opposed to the mind (as in 7:25), and sometimes instead an expression referring to corruption or moral failure (7:14).

and " I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death".

He has a severe view of the function of law, but just the next verse he blames sin and not the law itself, and the verse after that is when he directly says law is "holy and just and good," and a few paragraphs after that he says "I delight in the law in my inmost self." He's not saying Jews should stop observing the Torah's commandments. He's making a metaphysical claim about sin.

But once Paul came along and claimed that people needed to be "justified" and following the law was essentially optional

This isn't what he was saying. He was telling Gentiles not to begin observing the Torah upon becoming followers of Jesus. He never says Jews can or should stop observing the Torah just because they follow Jesus.

Maybe they did, though.

Oh, they certainly did.

You're not addressing my point about Paul inventing "justification".

He didn't invent it. He innovated upon it, but he didn't come up with it himself. This idea of "justification", especially in an end times context -- people justified or condemned in a final judgment -- definitely existed within second temple Judaism before Paul came around. Some examples

Community Rule He shall not be justified by that which his stubborn heart declares lawful, for seeking the ways of light he looks towards darkness. He shall not be reckoned among the perfect; he shall neither be purified by atonement, nor cleansed by purifying waters, nor sanctified by seas and rivers, nor washed clean with any ablution.

Community Rule As for me, my justification is with God. In His hand are the perfection of my way and the uprightness of my heart. He will wipe out my transgression through His righteousness. ... From the source of His righteousness is my justification, and from His marvellous mysteries is the light in my heart. ... For mankind has no way, and man is unable to establish his steps since justification is with God and perfection of way is out of His hand. ... He will draw me near by His grace, and by His mercy will He bring my justification. He will judge me in the righteousness of His truth and in the greatness of His goodness He will pardon all my sins.

Thanksgiving Hymn Let them say: Blessed be God, Author of majestic [w]onders, who reveals might splendidly, and justifies with knowledge all His creatures, so that goodness is on their faces.

Songs of the Sage Thou hast placed on my lips a fount of praise and in my heart the secret of the commencement of all human actions and the completion of the deeds of the perfect of way and the judgements regarding all the service done by them, justifying the just by Thy truth and condemning the wicked for their guilt.

Apocalypse of Abraham And (I saw) there the earth and its fruit, and its moving things and its things that had souls, and its hostf of men and the impiety of their souls and their justification, and their pursuit of their works 'and the abyss and its torments,' and its lower depths and (the) perdition in it.

Testament of Abraham And if the fire burns up the work of anyone, immediately the angel of judgment takes him and carries him away to the place of sinners, a most bitter place of punishment. But if the fire tests the work of anyone and does not touch it, this person is justified and the angel of righteousness takes him and carries him up to be saved in the lot of the righteous.

This kind of apocalyptic mindset might not be a typical focus of later Rabbinic Judaism, but it wasn't uncommon in second temple Judaism before and contemporary to Paul. The innovation of the Jesus-followers (maybe Paul, maybe someone before him) was this justification depended on acting on the faith that Jesus was the messiah sent by God.

[RandyPNW]

You seem to claim I'm being disingenuous by claiming that "God called the Law temporary" when we see Him clearly stating that the Law would fail. To fail is the cessation of the Law, meaning that it is temporary.

God doesn't call the law temporary, and as best I can tell, neither does Jesus. Paul is the only one who paints the law as unnecessary at best and in negative terms generally.

In Christianity, the Law was fulfilled in Christ--not in Israel. Nobody could fulfill the Law but the one from God who could, on God's behalf, forgive all sin committed against God and against Man.

In saying this surely you understand the Christian position that nobody under the Law could do what Christ did? All of mankind were condemned as having been born with a sin nature. All men are predisposed to sin, even if they can do good, as well.

Jesus' entire message was that he would have to die, due to the incapacity of Israel to dispose of sin both within their nation and within themselves. Christ's death proved that the endpoint of all human sin was national murder committed against Christ.

It is for this reason that Christ had to come as a Man and die for Israel, to bring about his own personal forgiveness on behalf of God, to bring about eternal atonement for Israel. Up until then, the Law was just a foreshadowing of this crucial event. Animal sacrifice could only bring a temporary cover for sin.

So as much as Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law *in his own person,* he did indicate that the Law had eternal value. But that value resided in Christ's salvation, consisting of his own divine virtue and of the virtue that he distributes, willingly, to his followers.

As such, those who have chosen to remain under the Law or outside of a relationship with Christ are by necessity separated from the hope of eternal life. The Law was a step in the direction of eternal life, but only up until Christ came to fulfill that hope.

The entire Law pointed out that Israel would fail, from Deut 31 and on, and even before. Israel would fall. All men would have to die. And the only hope of eternal life for Israel was in following the Law in hope that God would provide a means, beyond the Law, to bring about a lasting salvation. Nothing done under the Law accomplished that.

[RandyPNW]

Here's the thing I've observed from Christians, in treating Paul's theology. They fail, largely, to see the positive elements in the Law behind Paul's denunciation of those continuing to be justified by the Law.

Paul neither rejected the moral values contained in the Law for Christians nor did he deny the value of the Law as a covenant while that system remained in place. So he dealt "negatively" with the Law only in the sense that as a covenant system it had been superseded by its intended fulfillment, the sacrifice of Christ.

Far be it for me to tell you what's in your holy books, but that's not what he says.

"...the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression."

Yes, Fenris, you don't understand the Christian Scriptures. You might be able to, however, since you're Jewish and Paul was Jewish?

Paul was not teaching antinomianism. Rather, he was using a logical argument. If under a law you commit a sin against me, and I declare a dispensation of forgiveness against all who have committed that particular sin against me, then I have in effect forgiven an entire class of people, defined by that particular law.

If 7 people have stolen something from me, and I forgive all who have stolen from me, then I'm forgiving not just people who have sinned against me, but more specifically, those who have committed the sin of theft against me.

That's what Paul is saying, that the Law was designed to expose Israel's specific sins against God, and that when God creates a dispensation of grace on behalf of all those who have broken the Law, then where that class of law applies no guilt can any longer be found.

Whoever has broken the Law can be forgiven of that particular trespass, assuming they meet the terms of the New Covenant. And the New Covenant, not being based on the Law, continues to apply this dispensation of grace towards those who have broken the Law, while at the same time determining the terms by which the new standard applies.

He was negative only in the sense that after the Law had been superseded by Christ, those claiming to be "in Christ" were inconsistently falling back into the OT legal system, which falls short of eternal life in Paul's theology.

But, and this seems to be a really big deal, not in Jesus's theology. For example, in Matthew 5.

It's important to recognize that Matt 5 presents Jesus' teaching for Israel *while they were still under the Law of Moses.* Jesus, therefore, was not dismissing the Law--on the contrary, he was upholding every detail of it.

But in terms of its "fulfillment," he indicated only *he* himself would fulfill it. Israel would have to continue obeying it, including every detail of the Law, including his own fulfillment of the same. And when he fulfilled it, the Law, as a foreshadowing of Christ, was superseded by Christ as the thing that was foreshadowed. Instead of animal sacrifice, Christ's own sacrifice sufficed. In place of the temple, unity between God and Israel was no longer separated by walls and veils. The Law was *fulfilled* in Christ--not destroyed. It was superseded when Jesus said, "It is finished." That's when the veil of the temple was ripped from heaven downward.

And Paul argued this not just as a religious preference but also as a scholastic Jew who really believed that the Jewish Scriptures were teaching a faith that transcended the Law.

But in his musings, he seems to come up with this himself. Because the Torah doesn't say this. As a corollary, it's interesting to observe that Paul receives a much chillier reception by the common Jews than Jesus does.

Death on a cross is "lighter treatment" than Paul's rejection by the Jews?

Otherwise, Christians are put right back under a system that prevents one from obtaining God's eternal promises. In other words, he was emotionally attached to the idea that the Law *had to be* superseded by Christ, so that the purpose of the Law as a stepping stone could actually result in eternal salvation.

This seems to me to be begging the question.

[RandyPNW]

You seem to claim I'm being disingenuous by claiming that "God called the Law temporary" when we see Him clearly stating that the Law would fail. To fail is the cessation of the Law, meaning that it is temporary.

God doesn't call the law temporary, and as best I can tell, neither does Jesus. Paul is the only one who paints the law as unnecessary at best and in negative terms generally.

Well, that's at least admitting that what Paul and Jesus said was not anti-Semitic! In fact, both of them condemned Israel for their anti-Christian attitude, as well as for conduct that warranted the destruction of both Jerusalem and the temple.

The point is, this condemnation of Israel in their time did indicate that both Jesus and Paul foresaw the devastation that Israel saw in 70 AD, and following. This I've explained is a *divorce* between God and Israel.

But God has provided a way out apart from the Law, which I call "mercy." Actually, that's what Jesus called it. He said, "Go and find out what this means. 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' "

What Jesus was saying was that the practice of the Law would fail to keep Israel in relationship with God and in control of their land. Just "offering animal sacrifices under the Law" would not bring about peace in their land.

Rather, it would require God's mercy, extended to Israel after their failure under the Law, in order to restore them, as a nation, to their land forevermore. The Law would not be the means of eternal salvation for their nation. Christ would have to extend mercy to them for their failure under the Law.

[RandyPNW]

Paul definitely had a complex understanding of the law and its function, but I genuinely don't think he believed it was "temporary." Even after believing Jesus was the messiah, Paul continued to think of himself as not just a Jew, but a Pharisee. (I'm not interested whether his later critics agree with the accuracy of his self-assessment.) He continued observing the law. His letters are small windows into his thoughts, and I suggest that Galatians lacks the clear-headed nuance of Romans, which is where he says

Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Romans 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.

The key component in reading Paul's epistles is something almost universally overlooked by his average reader today: he wasn't writing to Jews, he was writing to Gentiles. He makes occasional statements on him and his fellow Jews, but by and large his letters are to and about Gentiles. He didn't think Jews should stop observing the law because they follow Jesus "instead," he thought Gentiles shouldn't start observing the law when they became followers of Jesus.

I do agree that the average reader, including the average Christian, most likely fails to understand the deeper part of Paul's arguments. But I've also found that even new-born Christians benefit from Paul, because they instinctively recognize the focus on Christ as the sum of all spiritual things. That pretty much drives away the clouds.

To say that we're not under the Law, with its elemental regulations of washing with water, etc. is also easy to understand. It's easy to understand how these things are external, and do not purify in their essence. True cleansing is internal and spiritual.

That being said, I don't think evangelizing on behalf of Christ is antinomian. There is always moral law associated with Christ, even if he extends beyond the Law of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice. God has called Man, from the beginning, to live in His image. And as long as we are "Men," we have an obligation to the associated morality connected to that.

[RandyPNW]

You seem to have a problem with ultra-literalism.

You have a severe problem with dancing around very straightforward questions. "The Law says it would be cancelled permanently." Where? "Here are nineteen paragraphs that don't once cite any actual statements from the Law regarding the Law's duration."

I've answered you repeatedly, and you seem incapable of understanding. I thought perhaps you were looking strictly for those exact words, "I'm cancelling the Law, because it is temporary." As I said, while the Law was in effect, it remained in effect and nothing said discouraged Israel from following the Law.

But here is the crucial argument, which you continue to ignore. From the start, at least form Deut 31, Moses said Israel would *fail* under contract of the Law. It was a covenant, a contract. As such, if either of the 2 parties failed to meet the conditions of the contract, it failed.

Not only was it predicted that Israel would fail but it did fail! And the evidence of its failure was Israel's being exiled from their land, where God and Israel had contracted to live together.

Now, don't argue this with me any further unless you understand that I am indeed answering your questions. If you don't see that, then what are we arguing about, that I'm still not answering the question? In that case, you're being disingenuous--not me!

when we see Him clearly stating that the Law would fail.

God literally says the Law is easy to keep.

You see, you're not saying I'm not answering you--you're just disagreeing with me, and then using the ruse that I'm "not answering you." I'm saying that Moses' claim that Israel would fail under the Law was a clear statement that the Law was temporary, and that mercy would be required to reinstate it. It would not continue unabated, but would be halted, and need to be restored. The evidence that it had stalled would be Israel's captivities, ie their exile form the land of their "marriage" with God.

Yes, the Law said Israel could obey the requirements...obviously! Why would God ask Israel to do something if they couldn't do it?

But Israel could obey the Law. That doesn't mean they would not fail under the Law as a nation. And they did! Their Law, as a contract, was broken. The covenant failed. The divorce certificate was issued.

The fact God started over, apart from the Law, is a different matter. Mercy came apart form Israel's observance of the Law, because under the Law they had failed and were not worthy of restoration. So Israel was restored by God's mercy quite apart from the Law so that they could try again under the Law.

They were not restored *by the Law,* or by their *successful observance of the Law.* Rather, they were restored by God's mercy *despite their failure under the Law.*

This was evidence that the Law, as a contract, had failed. It was proof positive that God foreknew, in advance, that the Law would be a temporary phenomenon. If it had to be restored, then it had only been temporarily in effect until it could be restored again.

If it had remained in even partial observance, during the time of Captivity, it was still, in effect, a failed contract, with only the means of "holding on" until restoration. Keeping the Law during the Captivity was evidence of a failed contract that had only worked temporarily, while Israel was in the land. The fact they were in exile was evidence that that system had failed.

The continuation of observance under the Law was an indication that God provided a path towards restoration, not due to Israel's obedience under the Law, but only because God was mercifully willing to restore the Law.

[agnostic]

he indicated only *he* himself would fulfill it.

Where?

But God has provided a way out apart from the Law, which I call "mercy."

This is another example of how disingenuous you're being about what the Bible says about the Law. You're literally saying that "the Law" and "Mercy" are mutually exclusive concepts. As if the Law and the Prophets never talk about mercy. Like... that's not a defensible misrepresentation of the Old Testament.

[RandyPNW]

he indicated only *he* himself would fulfill it.

Where?

Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

But God has provided a way out apart from the Law, which I call "mercy."

This is another example of how disingenuous you're being about what the Bible says about the Law. You're literally saying that "the Law" and "Mercy" are mutually exclusive concepts. As if the Law and the Prophets never talk about mercy. Like... that's not a defensible misrepresentation of the Old Testament.

I am not being disingenuous. James indicated that even during the era of the Law, God demonstrated that mercy could be provided when it failed. That is, the Law could operate in the midst of its failure by showing  that God's mercy transcended the Law.

Jam 2.12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

I've already showed you that Moses foresaw the failure of Israel under covenant of the Law in Deuteronomy.

Deut 31.16 They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them.

Indeed, that's exactly what happened. Israel forsook God as a nation and broke the agreement they had made with God through the Law. In other words, the agreement of the Law utterly failed. And it was indicated by Israel's exile from the land where they lived with God and had been blessed by God, where they had been blessed by this relationship with God. Exile had taken them away from the very covenant that had blessed them. Going into exile meant that they had fallen away from the covenant of blessing.

And so, the Law of Liberty means that there is an exercise of God's Law that transcends the failure of the Law. It means that their failure at performing works of justification can be redeemed by Christ, who did the work of justification for them, liberating them from the need to do any work of redemption.

But this is not going to be articulated while the Law remained in force, in the OT era. It was strictly a Christian phenomenon, which the lessons of the OT history of Israel pointed to by necessity. Israel could not do the work of redemption themselves, because they failed under the Law. They remain under the Moral Law of God, but not under the Law of Moses, which required work of redemption from them--work that failed. They were liberated from doing these works by Christ who did the work for them.

James made a big deal out of the need for Christians to follow the Law of God in the sense of performing works with our faith. This had nothing to do with the Law of Moses because this Law was liberated from any need to do the work of redemption. It strictly required obedience to the moral mandates of Christ, who called upon his followers to love God and to love others with a whole heart.

Matt 9.13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

The lesson of the OT era is that Israel failed under the Law, and learned that they could go on, serving God under the Law, even though that Law had failed. God desired to have mercy upon them, and to forgive them for their failure under the Law. He wanted to keep them in service to His laws and provided redemption for all who fail. He knew from the start that nobody could, by the Law, achieve eternal salvation.

[agnostic]

he indicated only *he* himself would fulfill it.

Where?

Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

The qualifying word you used was "only," and I don't see Jesus saying only he could fulfill the law in that verse. Seems to me you're adding a word to change what he says.

I am not being disingenuous.

Refusing to provide book, chapter, and verse when asked over and over, but pretending you already did, is 100% disingenuous.

James indicated

I wasn't asking about James. At the very beginning, you claimed, "The Law says this." James is not a book of the Law. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are.

I've already showed you that Moses foresaw the failure of Israel under covenant of the Law in Deuteronomy.

Deut 31.16 They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them.

We finally have a book, chapter, and verse.

Except it doesn't say what you claim it says. All this verse says is Israel will someday disobey the stipulations of the covenant. It doesn't say the covenant will be abrogated and replaced. And since literally just the previous chapter says, plain as day, that disobedience to the covenant will be followed by a restoration of obedience to the covenant, your interpretation of this verse is simply wrong. As Fenris and I have pointed out from the very start, you keep purposely ignoring that part: the covenant expected disobedience, yeah, but it also spells out that restoration is also part of the covenant. There is no permanent abrogation ever anticipated in the Law. That is a much later Christian concept you're jamming backwards into the Law while completely disregarding whole chunks of the Law which talk about failure and restoration, which is why you took so long to scrounge up a single verse that still doesn't say what you claim it does.

[Fenris]

Community Rule He shall not be justified by that which his stubborn heart declares lawful

If I may ask, what is the source of these documents?

[Fenris]

In Christianity, the Law was fulfilled in Christ--not in Israel.

the law is not something to be "fulfilled". Its something that you do. Every day. As circumstances apply. I mean, if I give a lot of charity one day, is my obligation to give charity "fulfilled"? Am I no longer obligated to care for the poor?

Nobody could fulfill the Law

Well, the entire law didn't apply to any one person. Some parts of the law apply to men, some to women, some to priests, some to non priests, some to farmers, some to businessmen, etc

[Fenris]

Yes, Fenris, you don't understand the Christian Scriptures.

I think I do understand them fairly well. I just don't believe them. So.