Biblical literalists-To Law or not to Law

[Gawen]

In America, many Christians have as a point of pride to have as literal an interpretation of the Bible as possible. From these uncompromising and unyielding readings come controversial subjects as young earth creationism, denial of rights for gays, a pseudo-historical context for the flood, Jesus' relationship to the divine, a dismal apocalyptic future of mankind and a plethora of unfastidious topics. However, there are plenty of details biblical literalists miss and/or omit from their worldview and acceptance of the so called word of god. But we have to start somewhere in our examination. Why not start...

Why don't Christians observe Mosaic Law? They do not sacrifice animals to god, they don't keep the Sabbath holy and they stopped stoning people for transgressions against god's law. Talk to any Christian and he will tell you how Christ' death on a cross saved them from the old ways of the Hebrews - meaning, Christians are not under the authority of Mosaic Law because Jesus replaced that system of salvation with a new and improved one. At first glance, this seems to have answered the question, but there is a problem with it and it is nevertheless the Christ figure.
Matt 5:17-19: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
It is worth pointing out that the majority of Christians agree that Jesus did not abolish the Law, but in the same breath, claim that his alleged fulfillment of it has rendered it unobservable. In effect, He didn't abolish the Law, He made it obsolescent for believers. As absurd as this vain attempt at reconciliation is, it's not even remotely true that Christ himself fulfilled the Law by Biblical example.
Matthew 12:1-8: Jesus violates the Sabbath.
Matthew 12:46-50: Jesus openly dishonors his mother.
Mark 7:18: Jesus violates the food law.

One may contend that Christ's death was the fulfillment of the Law but it is very odd indeed when one reads:
Psalm 119: 151-152: which tell us that the Hebrew God established His commandments forever.
Deut. 4:2: which tells the Hebrews to not add or subtract from the Law.

To complicate this further, St. Paul utters that Jesus is the end of the Law.

So what's really going on here? Did Jesus fulfill the Law, replace the Law or are Christians still subject to its authority? Once again, refresh your memory by reading Jesus' words in:
Matt 5:19: Jesus tells the people that anyone who breaks even the least of the commandments and teaches others to do so, will be called least in Heaven.
This is a strong encouragement for the people to obey the Law.

What is the significance of this and what can it mean to a Biblical literalist and to an observing Christian?

[AnimatedDirt]

Why don't Christians observe Mosaic Law? They do not sacrifice animals to god, they don't keep the Sabbath holy and they stopped stoning people for transgressions against god's law. Talk to any Christian and he will tell you how Christ' death on a cross saved them from the old ways of the Hebrews - meaning, Christians are not under the authority of Mosaic Law because Jesus replaced that system of salvation with a new and improved one. At first glance, this seems to have answered the question, but there is a problem with it and it is nevertheless the Christ figure.

You misunderstand (as do lots of Christians)  The system of sacrifice was never a method to salvation.  It was a tool to teach the sacrifice Christ would ultimately make for us.  No animal's life can save a human life in this matter, much less the human race.  Is it cruel to take life from the innocent?  Of course.  Why MUST it be so?  I've gone over this somewhat in the past.  I don't care to mull it all over again as it didn't make much of a difference to most here anyway.  Do I fully understand it?  No.

Matt 5:17-19: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
It is worth pointing out that the majority of Christians agree that Jesus did not abolish the Law, but in the same breath, claim that his alleged fulfillment of it has rendered it unobservable. In effect, He didn't abolish the Law, He made it obsolescent for believers. As absurd as this vain attempt at reconciliation is, it's not even remotely true that Christ himself fulfilled the Law by Biblical example.

I agree with you to a degree, but you are mixing laws here.  The 10 and the sacrificial law are not the same.  In short, the only law that remains is that law that is kept in the ark of the covenant.

Matthew 12:1-8: Jesus violates the Sabbath.

According to who's law?  It is very well explained in those texts.  Read especially vs. 12

Matthew 12:46-50: Jesus openly dishonors his mother.

It's a difficult one for me.  However it seems to me in context of his work, his mother is also human and in need of a Savior...of which He was about "His Father's business."  He didn't necessarily dishonor his mother, but rather put whatever "trivial" matter they wanted to speak to him about, below in importance to what he was doing atm.

Mark 7:18: Jesus violates the food law.

There is a dual teaching here.  While it may be more wise to stay clear of certain foods, salvation itself is not a matter of what food one eats or doesn't eat because it's not what goes in a man, but what comes out (character).  So in context of salvation, all foods are "clean", but some may "violate" your body.  (see also 1 Corinthians 6:19)

This is all I'm doing at this time...I remember now one reason I quit making long replies...this damn reply box is really screwy and difficult.

Edit:  As a Seventh Day Adventist, I do endeavor to keep the Sabbath holy.  Since I am human, I cannot keep it perfectly.  Thankfully it is not my righteousness that God will see me by, but through Jesus' righteousness.

[Gawen]

You misunderstand (as do lots of Christians)  The system of sacrifice was never a method to salvation.

That's not quite true as you'll read below.

It was a tool to teach the sacrifice Christ would ultimately make for us.

You are saying that the ancient Jewish sacrifices were a tool to teach about the sacrifice of Christ?  

No animal's life can save a human life in this matter, much less the human race.

The Jews were not bothered about saving one's life for an after life...however, they did have salvation in mind. It just does not have to stigma attached to it like the Christian version.

Is it cruel to take life from the innocent?  Of course.  Why MUST it be so?  I've gone over this somewhat in the past.  I don't care to mull it all over again as it didn't make much of a difference to most here anyway.  Do I fully understand it?  No.

So be it.

According to who's law?  It is very well explained in those texts.  Read especially vs. 12

It isn't explained very well at all. Jewish tradition recognizes the 10 C's as the theological basis for the rest of the commandments. Traditional Rabbinical Jewish belief is that the observance of these commandments and the other mitzvot are required solely of Jews. Exodus 20 represents God's first inscription of an entire corpus of law that is revealed to Moses within which the 10C's are included. The 10 C's were revealed )per Exodus 20-23), along with a miscellany set of laws called the "Book of the Covenant".  The rest of the Law was not named until Exodus 24, which refers to the "book of the covenant"(Exodus 24:7) and "stone tablets" (Exodus 24:12).

The Tanakh, or in the Christian vernacular, the Old Testament, is seen as presenting moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The civil laws are seen as having expired with the end of OT Israel. Jesus' statement quoted above is seen as eliminating the ceremonial law's applicability. The Law, all of it remains in full force and effect and it makes one wise, gives life, protects you from evil, fills you with joy and provides salvation.

It's a difficult one for me.  However it seems to me in context of his work, his mother is also human and in need of a Savior...of which He was about "His Father's business."  He didn't necessarily dishonor his mother, but rather put whatever "trivial" matter they wanted to speak to him about, below in importance to what he was doing atm.

As I said above, Christians try to spin this every way they can in order to have their cake and eat as well.

There is a dual teaching here.  While it may be more wise to stay clear of certain foods, salvation itself is not a matter of what food one eats or doesn't eat because it's not what goes in a man, but what comes out (character).  So in context of salvation, all foods are "clean", but some may "violate" your body.  (see also 1 Corinthians 6:19)

I'm glad you brought in Paul. As our dialogue progresses, I will show just how wrong he was.

This is all I'm doing at this time...I remember now one reason I quit making long replies...this damn reply box is really screwy and difficult.

No worries. I find the quote system here lacking as well.

Edit:  As a Seventh Day Adventist, I do endeavor to keep the Sabbath holy.  Since I am human, I cannot keep it perfectly.  Thankfully it is not my righteousness that God will see me by, but through Jesus' righteousness.

Lucky for you you don't believe that those who violate the Sabbath are no longer stoned. But I will show you how you are wrong in thinking that.

Prepare yourself for a long read.

Actually, the OT laws, all of them, are binding forever. Every one of them:  
Psa 119: 152: Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.  153: Consider mine affliction, and deliver me: for I do not forget thy law. 154: Plead my cause, and deliver me: quicken me according to thy word. 155: Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes. 156: Great are thy tender mercies, O LORD: quicken me according to thy judgments. 157: Many are my persecutors and mine enemies; yet do I not decline from thy testimonies. 158: I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word. 159: Consider how I love thy precepts: quicken me, O LORD, according to thy lovingkindness. 160: Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.[/b]
Note above that the Jews were indeed concerned with salvation.

The Law is perfect:
Psa 19:7: The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.[/i]
There has to be at least half a dozen passages similar to these in the bible. When will Christians start reading them? More importantly when will they consider the implications of badmouthing God's Law? Notice that it doesn't say the first 10 commandments. Note that it doesn't say never mind, really, about the food laws because I'm going to have a saviour do away with them anyway. Paul actually didn't know what he as talking about (as always). If he had bothered to read the Hebrew scripture he was mauling, he would have discovered that the expected Messiah would not be the end of the law but would bring in a new era of compliance with the law.

A few more examples:
Ezek 37:24: And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them[/b].
Ezek 36:27: And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.[/b]
This next one is rather important:
Psa 111:7-8: The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.
You see, there was never a need for a human sacrifice.
Exo 15:18: The LORD shall reign for ever and ever
Psa 10:16: The LORD is King for ever and ever...
Note the last two denote God's sovereignty and by default, all his commandments/Law are just as sovereign.

If Christians want to keep saying over and over and over again that the bible is the word of God and that they love this God then they should not ignore the instructions he gave to his followers long before some guy named Paul showed up with his new doctrine of faith in a human blood sacrifice.

Perhaps a few more examples:
This one just about says it all
Deut 11:1: Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always.
Deut 6:2,5,24-25: That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged. And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

What I don't understand is why Christians call themselves Christians when the man they keep citing is Paul. Paul may have said the law is over or fulfilled, but that is not what Jesus said. In Revelation Jesus makes it clear that the law is the ticket to salvation:
Revelation 14:12 (KJV): Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God[/b], (along with) and the faith of Jesus.
Revelation 22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. [/i]
Jesus himself says he has not come to destroy the law which is what, in effect, Paul did.

Matthew 5:17-20: Think not that I am come to destroy the law...
Now you may argue that Jesus does say he came to fulfill but what does that mean? Well if he meant to negate the law than he is an idiot because he flatly contradicts himself flatly in the next verse in this passage and in Revelation. Jesus here makes it clear you have to obey every iota of the commandments. Every single commandment is binding and valid:
Matthew 5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
The word "fulfilled" here is clearly a bad translation to put it mildly. The context of the passage requires that the word actually be "uphold" or "continue" or "enforce". The rest of the passage has Jesus stating that his law lasts forever and that his law is the key to salvation. If you insist on the word "fulfill" you are reducing Jesus to an incoherent blathering idiot (not that it's difficult to do mind you) who says one thing at the beginning of the passage:
Matthew 5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy...
And then proceeds to contradict himself violently with his next three words:
...but to fulfill...
And then proceeds to backtrack from that momentary lapse in reason and continue his original train of thought for the balance of the passage stating in no uncertain terms that God's Law saves and that no one may seek to change it or teach others to do so:
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Do you have any idea how nonsensical the idea of fulfilling a law is? There is no scriptural support for the assertion that Jesus fulfilled God's Law. Has all been fulfilled? Was it all fulfilled with Jesus' death? No. How do we know all has not been fulfilled? Easy. We take a look at the Book of Revelation. The Book of Revelation states quite clearly that all will be finished and accomplished at some mysterious indeterminate point in the future. For example, Revelation 17:17 (KJV) shows that all - the word of God - has not been fulfilled:
For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
Have heaven and earth passed away? No. And the law is to be obeyed until they do. If everything were accomplished already, the following verse is meaningless:
Rev 10:7: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished (accomplished), as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
Obviously, Jesus' death accomplished nothing and the Law is still binding just as it was the day God delivered it to Moses.

I have a great deal more but should probably stop here. That is, unless you wish to read all of it in its entirety before posting. It doesn't matter either way with me.

[AnimatedDirt]

Just at reading the first few points you posted (I've not read it all yet), you are confusing the 10 C's and the rest of the law.  Please note that in the NT it is clear that they are distinct in nature where one comes DIRECTLY from God's own hand and never are to be "gone" even when in heaven.  The rest of the sacrificial laws, celebrations, sabbaths (note 's' vs. 'S' in differentiating between the Sabbath of the 10 C's and the sabbaths of days/years, etc.) which were a shadow of things to come.

I'll keep reading...

[AnimatedDirt]

That's not quite true as you'll read below.

Again...you'll have to prove from scripture that sacrifice of an animal equated to salvation.  The NT is clear in that Abraham's righteousness was credited to him from belief and not from following the law (necessarily) nor by circumcision as the sign itself is meaningless to one who's belief is simply in a "sign" of salvation or an outward appearance of salvation.  Again...it's what comes out...not what goes in, or for that matter, "going through the motions".

You are saying that the ancient Jewish sacrifices were a tool to teach about the sacrifice of Christ?

Yes.  One need not look any further than when God clothed Adam and Eve with animal skin.  They received the knowledge of the plan to save humanity by God himself...although only the words that God clothed them is in the text.  We conclude that since they were so close to God, they witnessed the shedding of blood (consequence(s) of sin).  

The Jews were not bothered about saving one's life for an after life...however, they did have salvation in mind. It just does not have to stigma attached to it like the Christian version.

My ignorance here is what you are trying to state with this.  I have no clue.  Sorry.

Again...one must differentiate between the 10 C's and the rest of the law(s).  You are quoting lots of verses that apply to the 10 C's and some that apply to the rest.

[AnimatedDirt]

Do you have any idea how nonsensical the idea of fulfilling a law is? There is no scriptural support for the assertion that Jesus fulfilled God's Law. Has all been fulfilled? Was it all fulfilled with Jesus' death? No. How do we know all has not been fulfilled? Easy. We take a look at the Book of Revelation. The Book of Revelation states quite clearly that all will be finished and accomplished at some mysterious indeterminate point in the future. For example, Revelation 17:17 (KJV) shows that all - the word of God - has not been fulfilled:
For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
Have heaven and earth passed away? No. And the law is to be obeyed until they do. If everything were accomplished already, the following verse is meaningless:
Rev 10:7: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished (accomplished), as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
Obviously, Jesus' death accomplished nothing and the Law is still binding just as it was the day God delivered it to Moses.

I have a great deal more but should probably stop here. That is, unless you wish to read all of it in its entirety before posting. It doesn't matter either way with me.

Again...you are equating two different ideas of what is fulfilled and trying to make them one when in actually they differ greatly.

The death of Jesus, the sacrifice He was, was what all the past sacrifices pointed to.  Where the believers prior to Christ were saved on the promise of a Savior (their belief in...and so they practiced and showed their belief in carrying out the animal sacrifices) the believer after Christ is saved on the already sacrificed Lamb which is Christ and whose belief is now "measured" in the character or "what comes out of a man" and not on reverting to an "old and (now) useless" set of laws (not the 10 C's of which there is no mention of sacrifice) or old covenant, if you will, which is not changed, but now fulfilled in Christ.  He therefore, fulfilled the law (kept it perfectly) and died as an innocent Lamb for the sinner and it is His righteous keeping of the Law that is credited to the believer, prior to Christ on the promise of a coming Redeemer and to the new believer on a Risen Christ having paid the penalty of sin for us.


This is getting difficult as I cannot see what I am typing withou having to stop and check..

[Gawen]

The death of Jesus, the sacrifice He was, was what all the past sacrifices pointed to. 

There is no scripture alluding to this in the Hebrew Bible. If you are going to use the NT as proof of this, you may rest assured that this is circular reasoning. Not only that, thinking this way co-opts thousands of years of Jewish theology.

This is getting difficult as I cannot see what I am typing withou having to stop and check..

You should be able to just scroll down and read previous posts? Either way, I'm in no hurry.

[Gawen]

Just at reading the first few points you posted (I've not read it all yet), you are confusing the 10 C's and the rest of the law.  Please note that in the NT it is clear that they are distinct in nature where one comes DIRECTLY from God's own hand and never are to be "gone" even when in heaven.  The rest of the sacrificial laws, celebrations, sabbaths (note 's' vs. 'S' in differentiating between the Sabbath of the 10 C's and the sabbaths of days/years, etc.) which were a shadow of things to come.

I'll keep reading...

Let me say again...
"Exodus 20 represents God's first inscription of an entire corpus of law that is revealed to Moses within which the 10C's are included. The 10 C's were revealed (per Exodus 20-23), along with a miscellany set of laws called the "Book of the Covenant".  The rest of the Law was not named until Exodus 24, which refers to the "book of the covenant"(Exodus 24:7) and "stone tablets" (Exodus 24:12)."

I do not think the confusion is on my part, AD.

[Gawen]

Again...you'll have to prove from scripture that sacrifice of an animal equated to salvation.

Apparently, AD, Christians deny the Hebrew Biblical teaching that the law is the vehicle of salvation. But on what basis? The sacrifice of Jesus (belief in barbarous human torture and a reprehensible and sinister blood sacrificial execution), doesn't save anyone. The sacrifice of Jesus wasn't even a legal sin sacrifice according to the law that he was living under as a Jew.

Here's what the OT says about salvation:
Ezek 18:20-27: Each person will die for their own sins, there is no vicarious atonement.
A person can save their souls by repenting and obeying the law of God.
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD:
and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
Yet ye say, The way of the LORD is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.[/i]

God and Jesus spoke of the law as a universal binding and permanent principal that brings salvation. The only antidote to this argument is to show that they did not. No exception to the rule trumps the rule.
Now, if you want to deny this passage and claim it's outdated or replaced that's up to you. But there isn't anything in the definition of the new covenant (Jer 31) that says anything about the law being replaced by faith in a human sacrifice. There is not one word about such a scenario. I think what we have here is yet another example of how the Bible will mean whatever a believer wants it to mean.

Paul is the architect of the doctrine which Christians say gives them a pass on the Law and I would not be writing this if it were not for Paul.

[Gawen]

I forgot...

If you are referencing Jeremiah 31 as the scripture that alludes to a human sacrifice, does it really say the laws will be abolished with the new covenant?

Jer 31:33:
This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

This does not say he will abolish or even "fulfill" his laws and regulations. He says he will write it on their hearts and put it in their minds. IOW, the Jews will not need the written Mosaic Laws because they will now know them by heart. That doesn't mean they can stop doing them, but with the new covenant they will be able to perform them by heart, which is what God wanted all along.

Another illustration of that meaning is in Ezekiel 11:19-20:
I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. 20 Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God.

When God brings the Jews back from scattered exile, he promises to take away their hearts of stone and give them a new heart and put a new spirit in them. IOW, he will make a new covenant with them. With this new heart they receive in the new covenant, he will also put his spirit in them and write his laws and decrees on their hearts. Then... Then they will be able to follow his decrees and be careful to keep his laws.

It seems the "new covenant" has nothing to do with abolishing God's laws. On the contrary, according to the Hebrew Bible, this new covenant consists of God giving his people new hearts and writing his laws on their hearts so they will be successful in keeping his laws.

Christianity in many cases, of course, changes this to mean Jesus and his work on the cross is the new covenant, but there is scriptural evidence that teaches God's laws are still very much in effect, and why wouldn't they be? These laws and regulations were "eternal".

The sacrificial and purity laws of the Torah are foundational theology. By Christian thinking, the sacrifices of Israel and the purity laws should have no place in the "Age of Grace". Many Christians regard these as throwbacks to an era of paganism and ritual worship; that these have no place - now that 'worship in the spirit is here'.

A survey of verses from Ezekiel's description of the Third Temple gives the lie to such a notion of doing away of the Law. The only way to dismiss these verses and maintain a theology where purity laws have no place in God's great future is to deny that Ezekiel's vision will ever come to pass or to suggest his detailed descriptions are mere allegories. (Ezek. 44:23, Ezek. 43:19-20, Ezek. 44:15-16, Ezek. 45:17-18, Ezek. 42:14, Ezek. 44:6-7)

The world of the 'Age to Come' is not yet the Final Age (Rev. 20-22). In the Age to Come (the thousand-year kingdom of the Messiah) there will still be death and sin. Isaiah 65 says the young will die at 100 years old and that there will be sinners (65:20). Thus, with sin and death still on the earth, there will still be a need for a Temple, a Torah, the Law, and a Sacrificial System, for God's glory will be in that coming Temple with the Messiah.

[AnimatedDirt]

[Apparently, AD, Christians deny the Hebrew Biblical teaching that the law is the vehicle of salvation. But on what basis?

Indeed the Law IS a vehicle for salvation...as long as the individual has never sinned, the Law then testifies (in that no Law has been broken) that the individual is sinless and so is proven righteous.  However, as all are born sinful, (from conception we are sinful...there is not one without sin), the Law then is what is against the individual.  The Law cannot save a sinner.  It cannot be a vehicle to salvation for a sinner.  It only serves as a beacon of what righteousness is that a sinner would strive towards, but never be able to measure up to to save him/herself. (Rom. 3:20)  Hence the need for another means unto salvation.  (Rom. 3:21) (Gen. 15:6)

Here's what the OT says about salvation:
Ezek 18:20-27: Each person will die for their own sins, there is no vicarious atonement.
A person can save their souls by repenting and obeying the law of God.
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD:
and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
Yet ye say, The way of the LORD is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.[/i]

God and Jesus spoke of the law as a universal binding and permanent principal that brings salvation. The only antidote to this argument is to show that they did not. No exception to the rule trumps the rule.
Now, if you want to deny this passage and claim it's outdated or replaced that's up to you. But there isn't anything in the definition of the new covenant (Jer 31) that says anything about the law being replaced by faith in a human sacrifice. There is not one word about such a scenario. I think what we have here is yet another example of how the Bible will mean whatever a believer wants it to mean.

If this is all that existed as "Bible", then we would agree.  However it's not.

Paul is the architect of the doctrine which Christians say gives them a pass on the Law and I would not be writing this if it were not for Paul.

It may be that you've overlooked some of Paul's words, namely, Romans 3:31.

I'm slow at catching up and replying to all your comments.  I'm working on it though.  =)

[Davin]

However, as all are born sinful, (from conception we are sinful...there is not one without sin), the Law then is what is against the individual.

What sin does a baby commit? Grand larceny comes to mind, maybe being selfish little parasites is a sin or how about murder? Really though, where does the bible say all are born sinful?

Sying we are all born in sin brings up a lot of problems. The fixed game god plays to send all those sinful little babies to hell who've had not but taken breath themselves before dying. And where is free will in regards to being able to choose god or even to sin if the babies can make no choice whether they sin or not... so much for free will if without our choice we're sinners.

[AnimatedDirt]

However, as all are born sinful, (from conception we are sinful...there is not one without sin), the Law then is what is against the individual.

What sin does a baby commit? Grand larceny comes to mind, maybe being selfish little parasites is a sin or how about murder? Really though, where does the bible say all are born sinful?

Psalm 51:5, Romans 3:23.  Every person born since Adam and Eve sinned are tainted with sin.

Sying we are all born in sin brings up a lot of problems. The fixed game god plays to send all those sinful little babies to hell who've had not but taken breath themselves before dying. And where is free will in regards to being able to choose god or even to sin if the babies can make no choice whether they sin or not... so much for free will if without our choice we're sinners.

The Bible does not speak of specifics in regard to babies dying before actually knowing their own sin.  I cannot conclude what will or will not happen.  What I do know is that God is merciful in that He has made a path to return as He created us. (humanity).  If it was a fixed game, you would have no choice in the matter.  But you do have a choice and it is all yours.  (do you deny choosing to disbelieve?) We all have a choice.  I choose to believe, you choose to disbelieve.  If there was no choice either all would be saved or none would be saved...seems logical to me.

Again, about the babies and their death before they "know" or make a choice.  I cannot speak for God.  Only He knows what He will do.  You seem to pass judgment without even knowing the end...which is odd.  You are angry at God for something that you (or I) have no evidence for...isn't that interesting given the fact you* (the Atheist) finds no evidence for God) Well, I find that interesting anyway.  Hell is not a place that exists now, as in people suffering now.  (and Hell is another discussion altogether on whether it is a perpetual suffering or an end to life and complete separation from that which sustains life)

[AnimatedDirt]

I forgot...

If you are referencing Jeremiah 31 as the scripture that alludes to a human sacrifice, does it really say the laws will be abolished with the new covenant?

I wasn't. I don't recall any allusions to human sacrifice there anyway. No, it doesn't say it, however the allusion to that point is made (which wasn't necessarily understood by the OT Jew/Hebrew) when God instructed the Testimony (the 10 C's) be put into the ark (Exodus 25:16, 21, 1 Kings 8:9, 21, 2 Chronicles 5:10) and not the rest of the commands, decrees, but is later understood by the OT Jewish writers (with the possible exception that Luke was a Jew)

[Davin]

However, as all are born sinful, (from conception we are sinful...there is not one without sin), the Law then is what is against the individual.

What sin does a baby commit? Grand larceny comes to mind, maybe being selfish little parasites is a sin or how about murder? Really though, where does the bible say all are born sinful?

Psalm 51:5, Romans 3:23.  Every person born since Adam and Eve sinned are tainted with sin.

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

That is David talking and doesn't say anything about all babies, just him. And he doesn't even sound very confident about it.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Doesn't say anything about babies or even about conception.

Sying we are all born in sin brings up a lot of problems. The fixed game god plays to send all those sinful little babies to hell who've had not but taken breath themselves before dying. And where is free will in regards to being able to choose god or even to sin if the babies can make no choice whether they sin or not... so much for free will if without our choice we're sinners.

The Bible does not speak of specifics in regard to babies dying before actually knowing their own sin.  I cannot conclude what will or will not happen.  What I do know is that God is merciful in that He has made a path to return as He created us. (humanity).  If it was a fixed game, you would have no choice in the matter.  But you do have a choice and it is all yours.  (do you deny choosing to disbelieve?) We all have a choice.  I choose to believe, you choose to disbelieve.  If there was no choice either all would be saved or none would be saved...seems logical to me.

This bit of rhetoric does nothing to address either of the points I just made. Let's start again: You're claiming that babies have sinned at the time of conception, before they even have a chance to make a choice, you're calling them sinners... let alone that many of those likely won't even reach a state where they even have a brain. How can a person make a choice, let alone sin without even having a brain?

Again, about the babies and their death before they "know" or make a choice.  I cannot speak for God.  Only He knows what He will do.

But you speak for this god all the time, like the previous verses you just cited here, you're putting more into the verses than is there in themselves.

You seem to pass judgment without even knowing the end...which is odd.  You are angry at God for something that you (or I) have no evidence for...isn't that interesting given the fact you* (the Atheist) finds no evidence for God) Well, I find that interesting anyway.

I am not angry at all, just pointing out what doesn't make sense about what you said. Refrain from making assumptions about me and I will continue do you the same honor.

Hell is not a place that exists now, as in people suffering now.  (and Hell is another discussion altogether on whether it is a perpetual suffering or an end to life and complete separation from that which sustains life)

If a person is sinful before even given a chance to make a choice and that sinful people get punished, then the game is fixed. If the person can sin before even given the chance to choose to sin, then where is the free will? This god forces the people to sin at their conception then punishes them for that sin (even if they never commit another one), which is ridiculous.