[magisterium]

Perhaps you are speaking hyperbolically, or perhaps just with imprecision, but, for you to say that God "raised up" Protestantism to be a thorn in the side of Catholics and Orthodox implies, according to my lexicon, anyway, that He did so by way of approval of its tenets. This would certainly indicate that, according to the usual understanding of the term, God thereby gives approbation to Christ being His Son, part of the eternal Godhead, since all classical Protestants believed at least this much. Further, He had to "raise up" Protestantism ex nihilo, as opposed to, say, "raising up" in power some already-existing group to smite those pesky Catholics and Orthodox.

If there is still a "law" in effect, then there was no need to do away with Torah/Noachide law and no new religion was necessary. If a new religion was necessary, it would have to be an antinomian (or at least post-nomian) one in order to have an excuse to replace the religion already in existence.

It seems to me, in the last paragraph of my post 107, I did address the Catholic (generic, really, it is hardly restricted to just Catholics) take on why the Law was abrogated. That you don't accept that is fine, as the grace of faith is needed, and you don't have that sort of faith. But my thumbnail sketch of the matter at hand, it seems to me, should give you a coherent reason why Christianity feels empowered to consider the Mosaic Law, as it bound the Jews, to be moot. The Decalogue is still in force, as it applies to all men as an encapsulation of the natural law writ large in each man's conscience, so I don't see how you conclude that we are "antinomian." I object, not to the fact that you reject the conclusions of the Church in this matter (that faith thing again), but that you do so in such a condescendingly dismissive fashion that it is clear to me that your take on this makes our position so transparent to your eyes that there is no position at all. This, to me, makes you look obsessive about this, since you seem to be railing against a vacuum, or, at least making a mountain out of a molehill.

That Judaism and Christianity should differ on numerous key points is part of the "speciation" that, by definition, is inherent in two faiths that have different names. That Christianity attaches a specific "setting apart" of the chosen people to the Law, and that, once the Messiah who was to come out of that people had accomplished His earthly mission, the purpose for His ancestral people to be set apart no longer applied, is hardly something I'd expect someone of your beliefs to simply accept. But, while you may not accept it, in the context delineated by the Church, it certainly has coherency. But your position makes it sound little different from saying that the Church believes that the Law was abrogated because Oreo cookies have a creme-filled center. In other words, that our reasoning is founded entirely on a non-sequitur. While you labor to explain your position to us who wallow out here in the hustings of idolatry, you in turn, might do well to at least try to understand - even if you cannot accept - how a Christian interprets the abrogation of the Mosaic Law as a perfectly natural and temporally necessary action. The Jews needed it to set themselves apart from other men, and keep Revelation (up to the point of the Messiah) and their bloodline as pure as possible. But Christ came for all men, and, once His earthly mission was accomplished, and the sending forth of His disciples into the whole world commenced, the "setting apart" of any particular race was no longer needed. Ergo, the behavioral, hygienic and dietary restrictions once in place for the Jews could be dispensed with.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Perhaps you are speaking hyperbolically, or perhaps just with imprecision, but, for you to say that God "raised up" Protestantism to be a thorn in the side of Catholics and Orthodox implies, according to my lexicon, anyway, that He did so by way of approval of its tenets.

I'm very sorry to learn you feel this way, because it's nonsense. The TaNa"KH very plainly states that G-d rose up pagan enemies of Israel at various times as a punishment for them. Does this mean He approved of their paganism? Not at all. Nevertheless Assyria was the rod of His anger, though it was punished in due turn.

The raising up of scourges to punish Israel is so much a part of the resume of the Biblical G-d that I cannot help but wonder if you are too liberal to believe in such a Deity. Do you also reject His right to order the exterminations of entire nations of people, including children, sucklings, and animals? Are you among those who say "obviously G-d would never do such a thing, so He didn't, but the primitive Israelites thought He did because that's how people thought back then"?

It seems to me, in the last paragraph of my post 107, I did address the Catholic (generic, really, it is hardly restricted to just Catholics) take on why the Law was abrogated. That you don't accept that is fine, as the grace of faith is needed, and you don't have that sort of faith.

I used to, but back then I thought that G-d no longer used laws, rituals, or traditions of any kind. I had to reject this to become Catholic. Thing was, once I started along this path there was no logical reason to stop short fo the ultimate conclusion.

So why, after the Torah was "abrogated" (chas vechalilah!) did G-d feel compelled to replace it with something else that isn't even in the Scriptures?

The Decalogue is still in force, as it applies to all men as an encapsulation of the natural law writ large in each man's conscience, so I don't see how you conclude that we are "antinomian."

True, though the `Aseret HaDibberot (the Decalogue) does not now and never has applied to non-Jews (the Seven Noachide Laws do). What you don't want to admit is that the Torah is still in force in its entirety for Jews and always will be. And the Catholic Church is only "antinomian" in that it believes the Torah has been abrogated. Protestants are much more antinomian, and they have their problems with consistency too. I think at the end of the day only Jews/Noachides (one one side) and Fundamentalist Universalists (on the other) are truly consistent.

But your position makes it sound little different from saying that the Church believes that the Law was abrogated because Oreo cookies have a creme-filled center.

Hmm. I suppose I can see how it looks that way to you, but my point is simply that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if the Torah was abrogated, then Paul's condemnation of "works" in Galatians should apply to all rituals, all oral traditions, all holidays, all ceremonials, etc. However, if these rituals, oral traditions, holidays, and ceremonials of the churches are valid, then how much the more so (`al 'achat kammah vekhammah) are those of the Torah, towards which your attitude is identical to that of Luther's towards Catholicism.

Just a word to all: I realize I got on late today, but I was away from my computer and logged on later than usual. I also want to thank you, Magisterium, for being willing to discuss these issues with me.