JoeWallack

JW:
Where does Paul claim that Jews following the codes is optional? Hey, this is fun (and easy too).

JW:
So Implications can not be persuasive? C'mon Doug, you're beyond that.

My position is that Paul thought Jews should no longer follow the Law. Your position is that Paul thought it was optional/not necessary/insufficient. You're retreating Doug but I Am afraid I must insist on an unconditional surrender. Your general response could not be an adequate counter to my Detailed post so I must still have the better argument and need do nothing more at this point. However, I'm still willing to emphasize the difference in the quality of our arguments:

Evidence previously given that Paul thought Jews should no longer follow the Law:

Criticism of the Law = 13

The Law is an Obstacle to Salvation = 9

The Law is dead = 4

No difference between Jew and Gentile = 6

All evidence that the Law was counter-productive towards salvation. I'll remind you Doug that I'm only saying "should no longer follow" and not "could no longer follow".

Here's the choicest evidence that Paul thought Jews should no longer follow the Law:


1:4 "who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father:

1:5 to whom [be] the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

1:6 I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel;

1:7 which is not another [gospel] only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ."

JW:
This sets the Theme for the whole Epistle. Jesus' sacrifice is Salvation, anything else "perverts". Sounds like something more than "optional/not necessary/insufficient".


2:4 "and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

2:5 to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."

JW:
"bring us into bondage"


3:1 "O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified?

JW:
"O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you". I think Paul has an attitude towards the Law.


3:10 "For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.

3:11 Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is evident: for, The righteous shall live by faith;

3:12 and the law is not of faith; but, He that doeth them shall live in them.

3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"

JW:
"the curse of the law". Still waiting for you to explain how this only applies to those (Gentiles) not under the Law.


3:16 "Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

JW:
Not that you can afford it Doug but Paul keeps repeating that there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles regarding Jesus. Therefore, if Gentiles should not follow the Law, Jews should not either.


3:28 "There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one [man] in Christ Jesus.

3:29 And if ye are Christ`s, then are ye Abraham`s seed, heirs according to promise."

JW:
Can't have both Doug. Ya in, ya out?


4:9 "but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again?

4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years."

JW:
"weak and beggarly rudiments"


5:1 "For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage.

5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.

5:3 Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

5:4 Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.

5:5 For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.

5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love."

JW:
"if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing." As Roger Pearse would say, "The cruncher".

"Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace."

Should have looked at the detail Doug.

5:11 "But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away."

JW:
"the stumbling-block of the cross been done away."



Joseph

PAULMISTRY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

Amaleq13

Except, unlike my question, yours has no connection to my assertion. Paul quite clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly states that circumcision (ie following purity codes) is ineffectual given the sacrifice of Christ. The message to Jews is clear. The fact that they are circumcized and careful about what they eat will not benefit them if they lack faith in Christ.

"For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." (Gal5:6, KJV)

Paul explicitly denies the implication and focuses on the idea of "necessity" of adherence. Paul is emphatic that the error is considering the purity codes sufficient and/or required for salvation when faith in Christ is the only sufficient requirement. He doesn't tell believing Jews to stop their traditions. He tells them to stop considering them more important for salvation than faith in Christ. Just as the Jerusalem group appears content to let Paul preach his exception to gentiles, Paul appears content to let the Jerusalem group continue to preach the requirement to Jews.

"Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Rom 3:29-31)

I don't think Paul would necessarily argue against the notion but he simply does not advocate it in his letters.

I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not "retreating" from anything. This has been my position throughout and is simply a repetition of what Paul explicitly and repeatedly states.

You misidentified several passages and I correct the identifications. Your work became my support.

As I've already pointed out, this evidence does not say that but repeats, in various ways, Paul's theme that the Law was no longer sufficient or required for salvation.

All evidence that considering the Law a necessary requirement for salvation was actually counter-productive to salvation.

That is certainly telling since it offers nothing to support your position. Paul is writing to gentiles and complaining that some of them were accepting, contrary to Paul's "good news", that adherence to the purity codes was a requirement for salvation.

Christ's sacrifice is freedom from the requirements of the purity code and anyone who claims those requirements are still in force is perverting and opposing Paul's gospel.

Yes, you are in bondage to the Law if you consider it a requirement for salvation.

Paul has an attitude toward the Galatians who are denying his "good news" and treating the purity codes like a requirement for salvation.

Don't hold your breath because Paul makes it clear that anyone who considers the Law a requirement has taken on "the curse" of necessary obedience.

3:10 "For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.

Paul goes on to repeat his assertion that faith in Christ removes the requirement of the Law (ie the curse of necessary obedience).

Believing Jews are just as free from the curse of necessary obedience as believing gentiles but being free from "necessary obedience" is not the same as being instructed to avoid obeying.

You are seriously confused if you think Paul's repeated emphasis on the equality brought about by faith in Christ is contrary, in any way, to my position.

Neither must follow the purity codes to obtain salvation if they have faith in Christ.

But that is precisely what Paul is trying to accomplish. He is arguing that believing gentiles obtain all the benefits of being Jewish but with none of the annoying requirements of being Jewish. Your reply appears to be how "those of the circumcision" responded to Paul.

In terms of providing salvation, yes.

Not really since it says nothing contrary to my position. Paul is specifically addressing his gentile audience and he is entirely correct to argue that their acceptance of circumcision negates everything Paul taught about Christ. The true cruncher is 5:6 where Paul explicitly states that circumcision and uncircumcision are irrelevant given faith in Christ. This is no diatribe against circumcision but a continuation of what I've been pointing out throughout. Paul opposes the requirement of circumcision not the tradition, itself.

You should take your own advice, Joe. Paul specifically identifies those who are "severed from Christ" as those who "would be justified by the law". What do you think that latter phrase means? If you think you are justified by the law, you think that the law is sufficient and necessary for salvation. If you think that, you have entirely missed or directly oppose Paul's gospel and are, as far as Paul was concerned, "severed from Christ".

Again, the emphasis is on the requirement of following the Law but you consistently misinterpret it as referring to the Law, itself.

"if I still preach circumcision"

JoeWallack

JW:
"Except, unlike my question, yours has no connection to my assertion." Jesus (the) Mortis crisis has spread to IIDB. Your AAA rating has been downgraded.

"The message to Jews is clear."? Galatians is specifically to non-Jews. But there is a point to Jews also as you have indicated. So the message is the same to Jews and Gentiles. Thanks Doug. Your stumbling block continues to be that Assertians that the Law is worthless towards Salvation is compatible with Assertians that the Law is an Obstacle to Salvation (my position) and Assertians that the Law is optional is not compatible with the Assertian that the Law is an Obstacle to Salvation (your position, - you just deny/ignore the Obstacle Assertians).

JW:
There's nothing Explicit Doug. If there was you would quote it. Again, all the Detail of Galatians implies that Jews should not follow the Law. And again, Assertians that the Law does not Save is compatible with Assertians not to follow the Law.

"Rom 3:29-31". Bingo! In Galatians he states the the Law is dead. I don't even see how your quote helps you anyway.


JW:
Why don't you just answer the question Doug, do you think Paul thought Jews should no longer follow the Law?


JW:
Okay, so your position is that Paul thought the Law was optional/not necessary/insufficient. Is this it or do you need to improve it?

JW:
Yea baby! (chink). I rest my case your honor. What more is there to say? You confess that Paul thought the Law was worthless towards Salvation and that if someone followed the Law because they thought it helped Salvation than the Law was counter-productive. So why wouldn't Paul think that no one should follow the Law? There was no benefit and only possible costs (a big one). It would also set a bad example for Paul's targets. Why were others following the Law? If you were a Gentile how would you know why Jews were following the Law? Wouldn't you assume that the Jews thought they were required to?

JW:
The real problem for Paul is that any following of the Law indicates a lack of Faith in Jesus, right? So how can Paul mean that following the Law is optional, you can do it as long as you think it is meaningless? Why would there be such an exception for Gentiles who didn't have the Tradition. Paul likely means don't follow the Law, period.

JW:
My point with this type of wording is that it expresses a Negative attitude towards the Law rather than Neutrality. You are also making qualifications that Paul never specifically makes.

JW:
What if some would just prefer to be Jews like Jesus was and follow the Law like Jesus did and there was no related change in their Faith? This doesn't seem to be an option for Paul. Why not (if following the Law was optional)? Paul's details are consistently "don't follow the Law". You are the one who keeps adding the qualifications.

JW:
Your qualification (again). And "curse", sounds judgmental.

JW:
And the difference between Jews and Gentiles regarding the Law is...?

JW:
So you agree that Paul thought there should be no difference regarding whether Jews or Gentiles should follow the Law?

JW:
So the difference is...?

JW:
Completely consistent with my position that Paul's attitude was "don't follow the Law." There's no reconciliation with your position that the Law was optional if not done out of necessity. "Paul explicitly states that circumcision and uncircumcision are irrelevant given faith in Christ." So why the ban on circumcision if it is irrelevant. You've just used the cruncher on yourself. Ouch! Why do you keep having to add qualifications, even for your cruncher?

JW:
"If you think you are justified by the law, you think that the law is sufficient and necessary for salvation." You need to rethink this Doug in order for me to respond. Obviously these Galatians still had Faith in Jesus and didn't think the Law was sufficient for Salvation.

JW:
Per Paul, if you are circumcised, Faith in Jesus is worthless. Doesn't sound optional to me. There's the related problem of why than Paul is okay with Peter preaching circumcision to Jews.

In summary Doug you want/need a contextual qualification that Galatians only applies to Gentiles, but the details never give this qualification and keep indicating no difference between Jews and Gentiles.



Joseph

PAULMISTRY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

Amaleq13

Yes. I've never denied this. Paul's message to everyone about following the purity codes is this:

"For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." (Gal 5:6)

IOW, faith in Christ renders circumcision irrelevant to salvation.

Whether it is "compatible" or not is irrelevant to whether Paul makes any such statement. He simply does not. What he does repeatedly insist is an obstacle to salvation is considering the purity codes a requirement.

Paul gives no indication that he has a problem with believing Jews following the purity codes as long as they don't consider them a requirement for salvation. This is a fatal problem for your position since it means Paul never supports you.

There is and I did. Rom 3:29-31 is explicit but Gal 2:9 makes it clear that Paul didn't have a problem with their mission "unto the circumcision".

There is simply no indication whatsoever that Paul obtained opposition to a desire for Jews to stop following the Law and, in the context of your position, it is simply ridiculous to think that he wouldn't.

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. All the details of Galatians emphasize that the Law was no longer a requirement and that considering it as such was both contrary to Paul's gospel and an obstacle to salvation. There is nothing in Paul that either states or even implies that there was anything wrong with choosing to follow the Law. Paul clearly has no problems with the Jerusalem group preaching to the circumcised. He certainly gives no indication that he thought they should be telling Jews to stop following the Law.

It certainly is but establishing compatibility falls far short of your claim. It is also compatible to declare the Law evil but putting that in Paul's mouth has about the same support from the text.

On my card! That passage makes it explicitly clear that Paul did not consider Jewish adherence to the purity codes an obstacle to salvation as long as they had faith in Christ.

No, he doesn't. Paul says that, through the law, he is dead to the law. The preceding context makes it clear what Paul means by being "dead to the law" and that is that it means he is no longer bound to it as a requirement (ie not under "the curse").

You don't see that Romans 3:29-31 indicates that Paul accepted that believing Jews who followed the law could still obtain salvation through faith in Christ? How about Rom 2:26? The passage clearly denies your suggestion that Paul considered following the Law, alone, to be an obstacle to salvation.

What question? I was responding to a statement you made. Paul doesn't say that Jews should no longer follow the Law and apparently (Romans 3:29-31) has no problem with believing Jews continuing to keep their traditions.

Paul's repeated and consistent emphasis is on the Law no longer being a requirement for salvation given faith in Christ.

That you don't read carefully enough? Please note the phrase "considering the Law a necessary requirement" and notice that the inclusion of it only supports my position.

Paul is explicit on this. There is no need to "confess" on my part as I've held this position throughout.

No. If someone followed the Law because they thought it was a requirement, that belief was an obstacle to salvation. Paul says this repeatedly in several different ways. Romans 2:26 indicates no problems for a gentile believer who simply chose to "keep the righteousness of the law".

Because following the Law isn't bad but considering a requirement for salvation is. Paul consistently condemns considering the Law a requirement and never condemns simply following it.

Wrong. The real problem for Paul was accepting the requirements of the Law when his "good news" was that they were no longer necessary for salvation.

It clearly expresses a negative attitude toward considering the Law a requirement. Paul says nothing negative about simply following the Law and appears to have no problems with a gentile simply following the Law.

That is simply and demonstrably false. Paul repeatedly qualifies his condemnation as being specifically against considering the Law a requirement. Just read the passages. The "curse" is required obedience. The "bondage" is required obedience. The "stumbling block" is required obedience. The inadequacy of "work" is about required obedience. It takes enormous effort to ignore Paul's repeated and explicit qualifications of his condemnation. Try putting that effort into just reading what Paul actually says without importing your preferences.

We have nothing from Paul that suggests he would have a problem with this and several passages (Rom 2:26, 3:29-31; Gal2:9) that suggest he accepted it. There is no basis for your conclusion that this wasn't an option for Paul.

You've yet to offer a single passage that supports your position, Joe, so this assertion rings quite hollow. As I have shown with explicitly stated passages, Paul's details are consistently "don't believe the Law is required". You are the one ignoring what he clearly and repeatedly states.

No, your failure to read Paul (again). Specifically, you need to read how he defines "the curse":

"...Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (Gal 3:10, KJV)

Then, you need to figure out what this convoluted sentence means:

"The Scriptures say, "Everyone who doesn't obey everything in the Law is under a curse." (CEV)

The "curse" is quite clearly and explicitly the requirement of total obedience to the Law.

The "curse" is definitely a judgmental description by Paul but you have failed to grasp exactly what is being judged. It is not the Law, per se, but required obedience to it that is a "curse".

As far as Paul is concerned, there is no difference with regard to whether it was a requirement for salvation.

No, that does not follow from what I said.

Paul thought there should be no difference among believers regarding whether the Law was a requirement for salvation.

It certainly is not. In that passage, Paul is clearly indicating that both groups (those who do and do not follow the Law) can obtain salvation through faith in Christ and that is entirely contrary to your claim that Paul considered simply following the Law an obstacle.

There is no ban on circumcision. There is only a ban on accepting circumcision as a requirement for salvation.

If you stop ignoring them every time Paul offers them, I won't have to keep putting them back for your attention.

I have no idea how anyone can read Galatians and come away thinking that is "obvious" since it entirely negates the explicit purpose of the letter!! It is clear that Paul considered any Galatian who agreed to be circumcised as accepting it as a requirement for salvation and, as a result, a rejection of his "good news".

No, that is not "per Paul". It is "per Joe". Per Paul, gentiles who accept circumcision as a requirement for salvation deny the faith in Christ they proclaimed upon accepting Paul's gospel.

That is only a problem for you and only because you are not reading Paul correctly.

I cannot emphasize enough how important I think it is for you to reread Galatians while making a conscious effort to only take what Paul actually says into consideration. You are ignoring crucial phrases throughout your argument.

dog-on

Why does Paul appear to show such high regard for the will of Yahweh? For example:

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

or;

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

Is it usual that someone will classify the instructions for life and living, given by one's god in such terms?

JoeWallack

Got To Pay Your Dues If You Want To Be The Jews

JW:
Hi Doug. Thanks for explaining your position, I understand it better now. You think that Galatians has an Implied context that what Paul says only applies to Gentiles and since Gentiles would not have the Tradition of the Law (which would include following the Law out of habit and custom and not for religious reasons/Salvation) this in turn Implies that there is always a qualification to Paul's advice not to follow the Law which is only if you think it is necessary/helpful for Salvation.

I have to confess that Paul is dishonest and a poor writer so this does open up possible meanings based on what he wrote. For all the reasons I've given in this Thread though I don't think your qualification is the Likely meaning:

1) Paul does not state at the start of Galatians that he has a separate/different Gospel for the Gentiles. What he does state is that he has been called to preach his Gospel to the Gentiles. So you lack the distinction you need at the start.

2) Paul never makes your qualification in his details in Galatians.

3) Paul consistently is extremely Negative towards the Law.

4) Paul makes it clear that there is no difference now between Jews and Gentiles.

5) In his "reasoning" regarding the Law Paul normally starts with following the Law before Jesus so he is normally referring to Jews and not Gentiles.

6) Paul claims to be Jewish and he is clear that he should not follow the Law anymore.

7) Paul and everyone would have the Practical problem that if someone was following the Law only because of Tradition it would still give the appearance that it was necessary. How could you tell the difference?

If there is any not always stated contextual Implication in Galatians I think it is rather whether Gentiles who accept the authority of the Jewish Bible and become followers of Jesus but don't follow the Law, are Jewish. The only distinction that Paul accepts between Jews and Gentiles is that Jews are also Jewish by Natural descent. This is the need and distinction for Paul's Gospel, telling/convincing Gentiles that they are Jewish even if they don't follow the Law. Unlike your qualification this fits the start of Galatians and the theme is repeated and Explicitly adressed in the Details:


3:28 "There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one [man] in Christ Jesus.

3:29 And if ye are Christ`s, then are ye Abraham`s seed, heirs according to promise."


4:4 "but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

4:5 that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

4:6 And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father."


4:22 "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman.

4:23 Howbeit the [son] by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the [son] by the freewoman [is born] through promise."



Joseph

PAULMISTRY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

Amaleq13

You misundertand the nature of the "curse" even though it is right there in black & white. "All who rely on observing the law" are cursed. This clearly goes beyond simply following the law to focus on those who rely on it (ie for salvation). It is certainly not a condemnation of the law, per se.

You are incorrectly identifying what Paul is condemning. The "curse" is required obedience.

Paul clearly considers the Law to be valuable though primarily because it leads one to Christ:

"Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." (Gal 3:19, KJV, emphasis mine)

Is it usual for someone to classify something they abhor as "ordained by angels"?

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (Gal 3:24, KJV)

Sounds like a good thing here, too.

You've got no traction for this odd notion you're trying to peddle.

Amaleq13

De nada but let's wait until your grade is posted.

No, this context is quite blatantly explicit. Paul describes his gospel consistently as being specifically intended for gentiles.

No, Paul does not tell anyone to "not follow the Law". They are repeatedly told not to believe that following the Law is necessary for their salvation.

Please explain why because it isn't apparent to me that one should refrain from allowing the rest of the letter to inform one about things stated earlier. In fact, doing so seems quite daft to me. Paul explicitly describes his gospel as that which he preached to gentiles, explicitly identifies where he preached and explicitly describes the agreement between himself and the "pillars". All of this informs us that Paul considered his gospel to be specifically intended for gentiles.

That simply isn't true, Joe. I've pointed them out every time. The emphasis is explicitly on faith in Christ negating the Law as a requirement for salvation and the efforts of others to convince Paul's people otherwise.

We can see from Gal 2:9, 3:19 and 3:24 that this is simply not true. He had no problem with a gospel preached to "those of the circumcision" and he clearly considered the Law as something given by God and he clearly considered it something necessary prior to faith in Christ.

Paul is consistently extremely negative towards considering the Law a requirement for salvation.

Given faith in Christ, yes. Neither should consider the Law a requirement for salvation.

I don't see how Paul's acknowledgment of the long-standing nature of the tradition is relevant to the discussion. He is telling gentiles they can inherit what was specifically promised to Jews in that tradition so he kinda has to mention it, don't ya think?

No, he is clear that he is no longer under the curse of required obedience.

You don't complain about uncircumcised gentiles or try to convince them that they have to get circumcised.

It is the same theme, Joe, and I've already discussed this previously. :huh:

Paul is consistently arguing throughout the letter that gentiles can inherit the promises made specifically to Jews without meeting the traditional requirements. They can do so because they have met a greater requirement than adherence to the Law. Paul's opponents clearly had a problem with this entire notion.


Doug

dog-on

So God cursed his people by making them, his people, follow "his" law. Again, interesting regard for the will of Yahweh...

Huh?

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us

The interpolations are confusing you, as they were no doubt meant to...

The curse of the law...pretty clear to me...

Amaleq13

Yes, your refusal to deal with what the text actually says will leave you perpetually confused.

You haven't established the existence of any interpolations.

Clear isn't the same as correct and the passages I have presented clearly deny your conclusion. It is not the Law, per se, but notion of it being a requirement for salvation that Paul opposes. Neither you nor spin have produced any passage from Paul that says otherwise when appropriately taken into the larger context of the entire letter.