In Catholicism/Orthodoxy, "salvation" is "appropriated." This being the case, the difference between the "new law" and the "old law" is merely quantitative, not qualitative. If you merit salvation, you're "working your way in" and have no business criticizing Judaism at all.
But you never merit salvation. Christ gives salvation. Obeying the Church (i.e. the new Law) is subsidiary to faith. A Catholic who never misses a feast day, etc. -- all the works of law -- is still saved, if at all, because of the work of Christ in him.
You're engaging in word games. You can say that J*sus "opens the door" and you have to "respond," but that's no different from HaShem "opening the door" and mankind "responding" by keeping the Noachide or Mosaic covenent. All you're doing is replacing HaShem with J*sus and one law (the Biblical one) with another (a post-Biblical one).
What use is an "inerrant" Bible that isn't literally true?
It is inerrant as it leads us to Christ, and that is the purpose of the scripture.
So it's no more "inerrant" than anything else that might move a person to accept chr*stianity--like pious art or The Chronicles of Narnia? Were they also created under "inspiration?"
[Sin]ce the Torah came first and was already acknowledged as Divine Revelation it is the Torah that sits in judgement on the claims of chr*stianity, not vice versa.
No. That puts God, -- Christ, -- subject to judgement of His own and earlier revelation. God revels himself progressively, first to Adam, then to Noah, then to the Jews and finally to all men. You cannot subject God to the judgement of His earlier revelation than you can tell me what my mind is today based on what I posted 7 years ago on FR, especially if I am here now to tell you myself.
G-d changes His mind quite often, then? How do you know you won't change it again, other than the chr*stian arrogance that chr*stianity is "self-evidently true" (like evolutionism)?
You've actually made a very damning admission. You have admitted that chr*stianity is based on "progressive revelation," an early form of "process theology" in which G-d and His Message is constantly changing and evolving, with the latest "revelation" always trumping earlier and "inferior" revelations. The trouble with this is, as the Sages say, "`al 'achat kammah vekhammah" (roughly, "if that were so, there would be no end to the matter"). Just as chr*stianity fulfilled Judaism, islam would fulfill chr*stianity (or perhaps Protestantism would fulfill Catholicism), sikhism would fulfill islam, bahai would fulfill sikhism, etc.
The fact is that unlike all other religions, Judaism teaches the opposite of "progressive revelation." It is the first rather than the "final" revelation that is the definitive Revelation. The Nevi'im (Prophets) were not written via Divine dictation but via prophetic visions (one step lower), whereas the Ketuvim ("Hagiographa") were written under Ruach HaQodesh (the Holy Spirit), one step further down still. In fact, outside the Torah and the Book of Esther, the writings of the TaNa"Kh apply as Scripture only until they are fulfilled at which time they will have served their purpose. Only the Torah is eternal. After all, there is no end of squabbling about where G-d's revelations ended, but the identity of where it began is much more objective and certain! (The you can always add another number, but you have to begin with "one".)
I take it you consider it unreasonable that G-d not radically contradict Himself. I'd like to know on what chr*stianity is based if not the prophecies of the Torah and Hebrew Bible. No, don't answer that--you'll insist that the "truth of chr*stianity" is so "beautiful" or something that it is "self-evidently true. Bible Belt Fundamentalism knows of chr*stianity only from the Bible, and not because it "created our civilization" or "is the faith of our fathers" or is "poetry" or some such (and compared to the Fundamentalism's understanding of J*sus' vicarious damnation, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are quite clumsy).
I actually wish you success in getting Fundamentalist Protestants to believe you. Then they'll desert chr*stianity for G-d's True Covenent with mankind--one that He has kept faithfully without contradiction.
[next post:] your FReeper home page references the "necessity of works" (as in "necessary for salvation?"). Therefore you contradict yourself.
Works of love -- which includes obedience to church law among other things, -- are necessary because without them faith is dead. But faith is what ultimately saves. Since I usually debate Reformed Protestants and not Jews, I underscore their errors rather than yours. It happens to be the distinction that the Reformed blur in their polemic with the Catholics, and they insist that the Catholics believe in salvation by works alone. We don't.
Gasoline is necessary if you want to drive to Potland. But it is a car that puts you there.
You have admitted that chr*stianity is based on "progressive revelation," an early form of "process theology" in which G-d and His Message is constantly changing and evolving, with the latest "revelation" always trumping earlier and "inferior" revelations [...] Just as chr*stianity fulfilled Judaism, islam [for example] would fulfill chr*stianity
Progressive revelation does not mean contradictory revelation, nor does it mean endless revelation. In fact, the revelation of Christ contains the statement of its finality, and it builds up on the Torah rather than annuls it. Note that the Christians do not say that the Jews were foolish to obey the entirety of Mosaic law. They merely note that when God speaks to a Jew as a Jew, He is not necessarily speaking to a Greek. At the same time Christianity believes that the revelation to the Jews -- the Old Testament, -- is true revelation, not contradicted by Christ, despite what the Rabbis might think.
Hashem revealed himself to Abraham but did not reveal the whole of the law until he gave the Torah to Israel at Sinai.
And over time the Sages have learned more and more about the Torah, both Oral and Written, as they have studied and shared what they have learned with the rest of Israel.
Likewise Hashem has acted progressively - choosing a transient tabernacle as a dwelling and then declaring the Temple Mount as his habitation among His people.
(2) Too much focus has been put on terms of debate defined by Protestants. The faith of which the Christian Scriptures speak, pistis, does not simply mean the mental act of assenting to propositions. This leads to sterile debates about "works" or "works of the law" vs. "faith" - ZC points out the obvious: an act of mental assent to the proposition that Jesus is Lord is a "work" every bit as much as baptism is a "work."
Faith is the grace (gift) from God of being placed in a relationship with Him by Him. Faith is a relationship. When you say to your wife "I have faith in you" you are not simply saying that you assent to the assertion that she exists and that she bears a relationship toward you that requires certain mutual obligations. It is much more than that.