Christians, Jesus Says The Law Continues, But Paul Says No?

Question

Jesus, the true teacher, taught us that he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.  Paul teaqches otherwise.  IF the Bible is the word of God, why do so many of Pauls' and Jesus' teachings differ?  Who was God talking to, Jesus, or Paul.  I personally ONLY read the words as Christ spoke them.  This is the only truth in the Bible.  I believe the Apostles distorted Jesus' teachings to suit their own needs....  READ ON IF YOU ARE INTERESTED.....


CAVEAT: The Law given Moses applicable to "foreigners/sojourners" (Gentiles) is a relatively small set of moral commands primarily from Leviticus, incorporating most of the Ten Commandments. So if the Law given Moses applies to Gentiles, it is not a burdensome list. Yet, we are still applying literally the Law, just as James did in Acts 15, by treating the term "foreigner/sojourners" versus "Israel" as literally as possible. This distinction perfectly explains why James said circumcision does not apply to Gentiles, i.e., Leviticus 12:1-3 only requires sons of "Israel" to be circumcised. See this webpage where we discuss this issue in more depth.
Jesus's View on the Law. Jesus emphasized the validity of the Law up through the passing away of Heaven and Earth, thus confirming its inspiration and ongoing validity. In Matthew 5:17-19 we read:
(17) Think not that I came to destroy the Law [of Moses] or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the Law, till all things be accomplished [i.e., all things predicted appear on the stage of history]. (19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (ASV)
Thus, Jesus can never be accused of seducing any Christian from following the Law. Jesus cannot be a false prophet under Deuteronomy 13:5 (false prophet is anyone who has miracles and wonders but seduces you from following the Law). Jesus said the Law remained valid until the Heavens and Earth pass away. This passing of heaven and earth occurs at the end of the Millennium. This is 1000 years after Christ's Second Coming, according to the Book of Revelation.
Paul's View on the Law. Paul says the opposite.
Paul is blunt in Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14, 2 Cor. 3:11-17, Romans 7:1-3 et seq, and Galatians 3:19 et seq. The Law is "abolished," "done away with," "nailed to a tree," "has faded away,' and was "only ordained by angels...who are no gods." If we were to cite Paul's condemnations of the Law in one string, the point is self-evident that Paul abrogated the Law for everyone. See Eph. 2:15 ("setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations"); Col. 2:14 ("having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross;") 2 Cor. 3:14 ("old covenant"); Gal. 5:1 ("yoke of bondage"); Rom. 10:4 ("Christ is the end of the law"); 2 Cor. 3:7 ("law of death"); Gal. 5:1 ("entangles"); Col. 2:14-17 ("a shadow"); Rom. 3:27 ("law of works"); Rom. 4:15 ("works wrath"); 2 Cor. 3:9 (ministration of condemnation); Gal. 2:16 ("cannot justify"); Gal. 3:21 (cannot give life); Col. 2:14 ("wiped out" exaleipsas); Gal. 3:19, 4:8-9 ("given by angels...who are no gods [and are] weak and beggarly celestial beings/elements").
Finally, in Romans 7:1-6, Paul claims when Jesus died, the husband died and this dissolved the Law's bonds between the husband (God of Sinai) and wife (God's people). This henceforth made the "law dead to us." (Romans 7:4.) This death-of-God-the-husband released the Jews, Paul contends, and when Christ resurrected the bonds of marriage with the old God were not renewed.  (The implication, we contend, was Paul meant a new God emerges or otherwise if the same husband-God resurrected, why wasn't the bond to the Law renewed? Paulinists come near to admitting this is the only logical meaning while even confessing they are uncomfortable with the passage's 'seemingly' polytheistic explanation... Uggh. On our thorough analysis of Romans 7:1-6, see our webpage discussion.)
For more discussion on Paul's abrogation of the Law, see chapter five of Jesus Words Only excerpted at this link.
How do those devoted to every word from both Paul and Jesus resolve the contradiction? Here is a perfect example:
If [Jesus] is saying [in Matt 5:17 by saying He fulfilled the Law, and meant] he is the 'end of the Law' [as Paul taught in Romans 10:4], then why does he say in the next vers

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

good grief!  Take a writing class.  One huge paragraph that runs on and on....on..and on...  Don't expect me to read your dribble like that.

Jamar · Answer

Ok, you need to study your bible and not go by what people tell you because thats what it sounds like you're doing.  Anyway I only needed to read half of your post to know that you don't understand what you are reading.  Paul did not mean that the law is abolished but "fulfilled".  Think about it.  Jesus would not have to die if we could all be blameless.  And in Galatians, Paul did not say that the law is abolished.  He was speaking hypothetically, raising a question.  You can find that out by just reading on a little further.  He goes on to say "of course not the law is good and so on"

As for the angel comment.  Same thing.  You just have to read the rest of the verses.

Galatians 3:20
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

I could go on all day proving why you are wrong but I'll just say this.  The law is not abolished nor did Paul preach it.  He is saying that it is fulfilled.  Jesus said it Himself:

Matthew 5:18  "For truly, I say to you, suntil heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until ALL IS ACCOMPLISHED."

People just misunderstand the guy lol.  Back then and even today, Paul says it himself also.

1 Corinthians 1:12-15
12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[a]”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name.

Anonymous · Answer

Yes Jesus did come to fulfill the law and through him reform the religion that was inspired by God and created by Abraham, Moses etc. etc. God is not one to contradict himself in the true teachings of Christianity. After all without the wealth of knowledge in Christ how could that be so?

Paul to some see him as a false teacher and to some extent who know he quite could be. His accounts on Jesus are extremely different from the true writings of him. He makes Jesus look like a forceful commanding person rather than an all loving God who is open to those who seek forgiveness.

God can only open up to you and you return the favor.

If the teachings are of different dialect we cannot understand that would verify the Bible's validation.

imacatholic2 · Answer

There is no contradiction. "Fulfill the Law" does not mean the "Law Continues" as is.

More importantly, you cannot pick part of the New Testament and throw the rest away. 
Either all the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit or none of them were. 
Either the people who picked all of the documents were inspired by the Holy Spirit or they were not. 
Who are you or I to question the actions of the Holy Spirit almost 2,000 years ago? 
What makes us "smarter" or "Spirit-filled" then every generation of Christians since Jesus Christ?

The Catholic Church uses three criteria for interpreting Scripture:
+ Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture" 
+ Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church"
+ Be attentive to the analogy of faith

In addition, the four senses of Scripture insure that we receive all its richness. These senses are:
+ Literal - the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis
+ Allegorical - a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism
+ Moral - Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction"
+ Anagogical - we view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem

For more information, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 101 and following: http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml#100

With love in Christ.

keniray · Answer

There's no contradiction between Jesus and Paul. Paul merely elaborates the difference between self-righteousness (under the law) and righteousness by faith which permits obedience as a work of the Holy Spirit. (Read for example Hebrews chapters 8 and 10).

Hobgoblinoid · Answer

To paraphrase President Reagan "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall of text!"

muzzammil · Answer

Plz see this video, it has the answer about jesus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OEU9B3V-Fg

kickindevilbutt · Answer

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lawrole.html

Anonymous · Answer

yes, you'll notice the bible does have a lot of contradictions

Trending News

Christians, Jesus Says The Law Continues, But Paul Says No?

9 Answers