Jedi Mind Trick

Certainly, the factions that were law oriented, like the Ebionites for instance, were critical of the establishment and its attitudes regarding the law. These were radicals, Essenes, Zealots, they were the community that Qumran was built around and they were the heart of early Christianity before Paul got a hold of it.

Gawen

But Chris, your average Christian doesn't nit-pick the Bible in this way. Most (at least where I live) don't even know what you'd be talking about...sources and all. So how does one go about discussing what Matt says/means with people that believe one person wrote the entire letter and inspired by God to boot?

seven8s

Well! We wouldn’t want anyone thinking for themselves now would we? Imagine the anarchy, no indian’s, all chiefs (which has nothing to do with insurrection, in the sense of violent uprising as Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Jesus have shown).

Crucify those little bastards, we don’t want them figuring out what they really think, or who they really are, correct?

Like a glove, white ones, clean hands, strong minds.

Gudjonsson

When Jesus raised the bar saying that you should not be angry with your brother, did he abolish "do not murder"? When he said you should not look lustfully at a women, did he abolish "thou shall not commit adultery"? - he does not seem to abolish anything if you ask me.

I think he meant to say, (according to Matthew), that the Mosaic Law was to be upheld, and than people should go the extra mile. He is saying "this is what the Mosaic Law really means" - not "now you can disregard the Mosaic Law"

Clouseau

If the law reduces the max. permitted alcohol level in drivers' blood, is the old one abolished? Of course it is- Jesus said the old law was inadequate, so the old Law does not apply. A more searching one now applies, though in fact it always did, and those who were and are never given the Mosaic Law will have hatred and lust on their consciences for eternity, unless they have faith in Christ's cross. The secret thoughts of mankind are what counts, not the external standards of Moses which were never intended to be permanent. No doubt some would prefer a lax standard, but it is a fatal delusion.

No Robots

First, you have to recognize that the Hebrew word Torah is translated in the Septuagint as Law, whereas it should be Teaching. Second, Christ is constantly making over popular expressions, filling them with his own meaning:

As I fulfill it [the Torah], so will it be forever. But as it is now, it is not yet proper and complete, and so I abolish it all, as it is now interpreted and practiced.—Brunner, Our Christ, p. 218.

gstafleu

Matthew is rather clear in the passage about what he intends, so I'd say it is a safe bet that he, or whoever put the passage into the gospel, intended just what it says: the law remains in force. Much more interesting is the tactics used to get around this by that Christian website quoted in the OP. Consider this little gem:
Notice how the idea that fulfill=abolish is smuggled into the argument by the clever tactic of simply not saying that that is what they are doing. The word "fulfill" hasn't been given any definition or meaning, but here it is simply assumed that whatever it means, one of its consequences is abolishment, at least when "fulfill" is applied to the Mosaic law: the law is fulfilled, we are now done with it, so out it goes. Sort of like a Kleenex. This argument does of course work rather well in the disposable consumer society. But then the same reasoning could be applied to the fulfiller: once he is done, what is the further need for him? But I sort of doubt if the site would go for that.

The next sentence rubs this in by a clever appeal to authority:
(my bold) By referring to Jesus as "the Lord" he is given an aura of authority that is then also supposed to apply the the site's interpretation of the passage in question.

The Jesuits would have been proud .

Gerard Stafleu

Clouseau

Indeed it does; those who do not have the righteousness of Christ have the full force of law to deal with.

'We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious.' 1 Ti 1:9 NIV

gstafleu

Well, duh. But that is begging the question: you are righteous if you don't break the law, so it doesn't affect you. If you break the law you are unrighteous and then the law does affect you.

Gerard Stafleu

Gudjonsson

What has 1 Tim 1:9 have to do with anything? The author of Timothy might have completely different understanding than the author of Matthew and vice versa, and they might not have even know the writings of each other. It is like quoting Rudy Giuliani in order to interpret the intent of Shakespeare.

EmpiricalGod already made the point: