Did Jesus Observe the Sabbath?

[jriccitelli]

Look2, I appreciate your questions, glad your still there. So as long as I'm here;

"The Sabbath rules became irrelevant (excepting as they are to be observed spiritually "in Christ") after their fulfillment.
(This is abit of a contradiction, I dont break the Sabbath by entering into it)

"The same could be said for Jesus forgiving sins during His ministry and before His death"
(Are you saying the rules for forgiving sins became irrelevant? Jesus was offered just as the Law and Prophets fortold)

It is not against the Law for ‘God’ to forgive sins. Not ‘because’ God is ‘above’ (Or not subject to the Law), this thinking is not necessary, because Gods forgiveness is ‘in’ the Law. It is not necessary to break the Sabbath to forgive sins, Gods forgiveness is 'the way to enter' the Sabbath, for God forgave sins every Sabbath.

The Law of Priesthood and Sacrifice was not broken in what Jesus did.
The Priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus was not known to all, but it had been told *.

He had a different priesthood but still He fulfilled the Mosaic Law. Although the Mosaic Law and the Levitical priesthood were subject to Melchizedek priesthood, Melchizedek would have no reason or validity to break the subject’s Law. Abraham offered unto Mel a gift and it was good, and it was accepted, in other words it was Holy and pure, for you do not give to a Priest something that even by ‘your own standard’ is impure. You give the best.

God does not ‘break’ the Mosaic Covenant to establish the New, He fulfills the Old to establish the New, so also Melchizedek does not break the Old to establish the New, but He fulfills also in the sense that His offer of fellowship was ‘His willing offering’ of the symbols of fellowship to Abraham. It could be said that the sacrifice shared between Abraham and Melchizedek was ‘offered’ by Melchizedek;
* “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High.19 He blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram of God Most High… (Gen 14:18)
So as Abraham predated Moses and Levi, so Jesus predated Abraham. And Jesus had said to them;
* “Before Abraham I am” (So, He did tell them)
And also in the Law, His Word, God had told them already that;
* ‘He would provide a Lamb’

Also 'if' it had been written in the Law that ‘only’ the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins, then I would have to reject Jesus sacrifice, but it is written in the Law 'that with the blood of bulls and goats He was not pleased'.

I will not be dogmatic concerning Christ’s revealing Himself as the Sacrifice, but a lot could be said about what was noted by John the Baptist; *"Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”

All though a lot can be said about the Levitical Priesthood, very little information is given about Melchizedek.
There is another character in this we know less about than Melchizedek and that is the sacrifice.
What would the Lamb or the goat or the bull have to say to us concerning their own sacrifice?
(Please bear with me on the following, it is hard to perceive from the viewpoint of the Sacrifice, the animal that is, but it should be considered, in fact God I am sure meant for us to consider the sacrifice)
Now if an animal sacrifice could talk you would ask them; ‘why are you being sacrificed?’ And they would say ‘it is Gods will’, and you would ask; ‘are you going willingly?’ And they would say; ‘No, I have no say in the matter’

Where in the case of Christ; Christ ‘did’ have a choice.
So does the one offering His own life and blood have the right to say I forgive you?
(A Priest without a sacrifice could not forgive sins, but a priest with a sacrifice could)
He was afterall the lamb prescribed in the Law, and it was the worshippers 'faith' in the sacrifice that justified the offerer. Therefore I do not see how Jesus could 'not' forgive sins of those who had 'faith in Him', it was Lawful.
(I.e. As 'the sacrifice', Jesus said ‘Father forgive them they know not…’)

(I am out of time but) although He had not died yet, all forgiveness was tied to the future cross.
Q. Was another Priest offering atonement for sins a breaking of the Law?
No, if that Priest had authority it was Lawful, as the Jews simply did not recognize or believe in Jesus' authority as Priest or the Lamb… and they had not considered Melchizedek’s Priesthood.

[Homer]

JR,

If Jesus actions were bound by the Law of Moses, He could not perform any priestly function; He was not descended from the Levites. If He acted as a priest He broke the law.

[look2jesus]

jriccitelli,

"The Sabbath rules became irrelevant (excepting as they are to be observed spiritually "in Christ") after their fulfillment.(This is abit of a contradiction, I dont break the Sabbath by entering into it)

I believe John's statement that Jesus broke the Sabbath was only related to the outward, observable keeping of the Sabbath as prescribed in the Old Covenant. Jesus, being Lord of the Sabbath, because of His fulfilling of the Sabbath, was Himself, no longer under the Sabbath rules. There is no contradiction. The Sabbath law had at least begun to be fulfilled in Himself. Therefore, He was no longer obligated, under the Law, to observe it.

"The same could be said for Jesus forgiving sins during His ministry and before His death"(Are you saying the rules for forgiving sins became irrelevant? Jesus was offered just as the Law and Prophets fortold)

My point was (and is) that, Jesus, during His ministry, was not only breaking the Sabbath, but was also forgiving sins outside of the dictates of the Law of Moses. According to how you have presented your argument, Jesus had no authority to forgive sins during His ministry, because He was under the Law of Moses until His death. It wasn't until His death that the New Covenant came into effect in any sense (according to my understanding of your argument). Therefore, under your scheme, you can't argue that it wasn't o.k. for Jesus to break the Sabbath (because Jesus was bound by the Law of Moses to follow it), but it was o.k. for Him to forgive sins (because the Law of Moses had prescribed the rules under which those who were subject to it were to deal with sins). That was my point.

l2j

[jriccitelli]

The Law of Moses prescribed that a 'Priest' offer Sacrifices, now Jesus was of a different lineage but He did not break the Law, rather it was 'necessary' for a 'better' Priest to come along in order to fulfill the law.
I agree, If it wasn't for Melchizedek there would be a problem with Jesus' performing Priestly duties under the Law.
(All priests must also have a sacrifice or a gift to offer, Jesus had indeed brought the sacrifice with him to offer)

Jesus' atonement had not yet been made, which would seem to be the difficulty with His forgiving sins, yet technically all the 'worshipper' had to do was 'offer' the body to the priests, it was then the responsibility of the Priest not the worshipper, thus the one offering received forgiveness based upon his gift and faith in Gods promise.
All sins had to be atoned for with blood, but even so, no sin had thus yet ever 'really' been atoned for, all forgiveness was the reward of 'faith' in Gods 'promise' to forgive based on the sacrifice to come.

Time after time the priests offer sacrifices, was it the sacrifice offered last week or the one offered next week that covered their sins? So all forgiveness looked forward to the cross, or back to the cross in our case.
God told them their sins were forgiven all throughout His word, often without waiting for or alluding to a specific sacrifice, Nathan told David his sin was forgiven without any specific sacrifice being made.

Joseph Smith made the mistake of thinking the Aaronic Priesthood came first.
The Melchizedek priesthood 'always' had preeminence over the Aaronic.

The greater Priest does not break the Law of the lesser Priests anymore than the High Priest breaks the Law of the regular Priests of Levi.
The Priesthood was changed because of the failure of the Priests to keep the Law, not changed so they wouldn't have to.
As Melchizedek, Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses (which the Levitical Priests could not because of sin), it was not necessary to break the law to fulfill it, but after having 'been' fulfilled, the Law was changed 'because' Jesus 'remains' as priest forever.
Another mistake would be to think that Mel's Priesthood ended at some point, only to be started again. We don’t know where he went but Mel was always a Priest, in fact David said so in Psalm 110; "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."
Remember Jesus alluded to this Psalm after asking the Pharisees "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" (Matt 22)

What if Mel came and collected a tenth from the priests, would Mel be breaking the Law?

No because he had a greater priesthood, none the less He was obedient in all His office as a Priest of the most high God, and yet still as a man not 'necessarily' as God, to make intercession for man, yet through the power of an endless life.

[look2jesus]

jriccitelli,

The Law of Moses prescribed that a 'Priest' offer Sacrifices, now Jesus was of a different lineage but He did not break the Law, rather it was 'necessary' for a 'better' Priest to come along in order to fulfill the law.

That's an interesting idea but it has no basis in scripture. Before the establishment of the New Covenant, the Law of Moses was the only covenant in force (according to your argument). Please demonstrate where, under the Old Covenant, a 'better' Priest was prophesied to come along in order to fulfill the Law of Moses. Jesus' priesthood commenced in full after the OC was abolished. The NC is not a fulfillment of the OC, it is a replacement of it.

I agree, If it wasn't for Melchizedek there would be a problem with Jesus' performing Priestly duties under the Law.(All priests must also have a sacrifice or a gift to offer, Jesus had indeed brought the sacrifice with him to offer)

Again, please demonstrate from scripture where it says that the Melchizidekian priesthood had anything to do with the OC and the law of Moses.

Jesus' atonement had not yet been made, which would seem to be the difficulty with His forgiving sins, yet technically all the 'worshipper' had to do was 'offer' the body to the priests, it was then the responsibility of the Priest not the worshipper, thus the one offering received forgiveness based upon his gift and faith in Gods promise.All sins had to be atoned for with blood, but even so, no sin had thus yet ever 'really' been atoned for, all forgiveness was the reward of 'faith' in Gods 'promise' to forgive based on the sacrifice to come.

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Under the OC, sins were expiated based upon obedience within the Levitical sacrificial system and the blood of the sacrifices. Jesus had not yet shed His blood when He forgave sin during His ministry. And, yes, under the OC the sins "really" were atoned for. Just ask the animal who died upon the altar.

Time after time the priests offer sacrifices, was it the sacrifice offered last week or the one offered next week that covered their sins? So all forgiveness looked forward to the cross, or back to the cross in our case.

Present sacrifices covered past sins. New sins required new sacrifices. I agree that all forgiveness looked forward to the cross, but that's part of my argument; you must explain how it is under the OC, Jesus could forgive sins, before the cross.

God told them their sins were forgiven all throughout His word, often without waiting for or alluding to a specific sacrifice, Nathan told David his sin was forgiven without any specific sacrifice being made.

I agree that God the Father could declare someone's sins forgiven whenever He chose to but were not talking about God the Father; were talking about Jesus, born of a woman, born under the Law. According to you, Jesus always obeyed the Law of Moses. Where in the law does it state that someone could have their sins forgiven outside of the Levitical system?

The Priesthood was changed because of the failure of the Priests to keep the Law, not changed so they wouldn't have to.

And where is it stated that the priesthood was changed because of the failure of the priests to keep the law? Your second clause would suggest that since the New Covenant, it is still necessary to keep the law. Are you serious?

As Melchizedek, Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses (which the Levitical Priests could not because of sin), it was not necessary to break the law to fulfill it, but after having 'been' fulfilled, the Law was changed 'because' Jesus 'remains' as priest forever.

As Melchizidek, Jesus didn't fulfill the law of Moses, He obliterated it. His priesthood is separate from the Levitical priesthood. It is different in kind and high above it (cf. Heb.7). And besides, according to your argument, once again, His priesthood didn't commence until He died. How is this an answer to the question of how Jesus could forgive sins outside of the law of Moses that He was born under and remained under until His death (according to you)?

Another mistake would be to think that Mel's Priesthood ended at some point, only to be started again. We don’t know where he went but Mel was always a Priest, in fact David said so in Psalm 110; "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."

This is not relevent to the question under consideration. Levi (and all the sons of Jacob) paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, demonstrating that Melchizidek was greater than Abraham. But Jesus was born under the law of the Levitical priesthood ((Heb.7:11) and didn't (according to you) assume His priesthood until after His death. For all we know, His identification with Melchizidek was just another privilege that He set aside at the incarnation.

Remember Jesus alluded to this Psalm after asking the Pharisees "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" (Matt 22)

How is this relevent? Jesus alluded to Ps.110:1 in order to show that David called the Messiah his Lord. He was not making any reference to other parts of the Psalm or Melchizidek.

What if Mel came and collected a tenth from the priests, would Mel be breaking the Law?No because he had a greater priesthood, none the less He was obedient in all His office as a Priest of the most high God, and yet still as a man not 'necessarily' as God, to make intercession for man, yet through the power of an endless life.

First of all, Melchizidek wasn't under the Law of Moses. Secondly, the writer of Hebrews alluded to the Levites paying tithes to Melchizidek, only showing that his was a greater priesthood, this has nothing to do with those who are under the law of Moses. Even under the Law of Moses, it is not unlawful to pay respect to those greater than you. The rest of what you wrote, is irrelevent, as far as I can understand it.

I would submit that you still haven't provided any answer's to how it could be that Jesus, before the cross, was not violating the Law of Moses (again, according to your argument), when He was forgiving sins outside of the Levitical system during His earthly ministry.

l2j

[jriccitelli]

I have very little time this morning
But I never said "the Law of Moses was the only covenant in force", but it is good you brought it up. All the Covenants were in force, and were to be fulfilled, not by man but by God. The promise to Adam, the promise to Noah, the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, and the Davidic Covenants would all be fulfilled. All the covenants agree with one another and complete each other in context and framework.
God promises to keep His side of the promises regardless of our keeping them.
The Sabbath was a memorial, a symbol and one of the preeminent statutes of the covenants.
Breaking the Sabbath would be tantamount to God breaking all His Covenants with man.
What hope would man have if God did that?

You have read Nehemiah 9, 10… 13:17…
"Then I reprimanded the nobles of Judah and said to them, "What is this evil thing you are doing, by profaning the sabbath day?18 Did not your fathers do the same, so that our God brought on us and on this city all this trouble? Yet you are adding to the wrath on Israel by profaning the sabbath."

And Isaiah 56:1-2;
"Thus says the LORD, "Preserve justice and do righteousness, For My salvation is about to come And My righteousness to be revealed.2"How blessed is the man who does this, And the son of man who takes hold of it; Who keeps from profaning the Sabbath, And keeps his hand from doing any evil."

And Jeremiah 17:22…
"You shall not bring a load out of your houses on the Sabbath day nor do any work, but keep the Sabbath day holy, as I commanded your forefathers.23 Yet they did not listen or incline their ears, but stiffened their necks in order not to listen or take correction… 27 But if you do not listen to Me to keep the Sabbath day holy by not carrying a load and coming in through the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates and it will devour the palaces of Jerusalem and not be quenched."

How could Jesus be guilty of this, when these are His Words, as He condemns others?

The separateness of the Father and the Son, and of Jesus and God, certainly gets blurred with Jesus during His ministry, so it is hard to discern if Jesus is forgiving sins or if The Father is forgiving sins. If Jesus as God is forgiving sins or if Jesus as Priest is forgiving sins. Further more Jesus said I only speak what the Father commands him to speak, yet Jesus also seems to speak as the One I Am, never the less Jesus had the authority to forgive, and by 'authority' He means 'legal' authority, how else would you use the term 'authority' except in a legal sense?

You wrote;" Where in the law does it state that someone could have their sins forgiven outside of the Levitical system"[/i
God is not outside of the Levitical system he was the center.

[steve]

JR,

All the Covenants were in force, and were to be fulfilled, not by man but by God...Breaking the Sabbath would be tantamount to God breaking all His Covenants with man.

I am not sure that I understand you correctly, but it sounds as if you are saying that all of God's covenants are in force simultaneously, and for God to nullify the Sabbath would be to void all of His covenants. I do not follow you here.

In your opinion, is circumcision a requirement today? It was required under the Abrahamic and the Sinaitic covenants. If God no longer requires it, would this mean that God has broken all of His covenants with man? Is it not the case that ritual circumcision today has given way to the circumcision of the heart (Rom.2:28-29 / Phil.3:3 / Col.2:11)?

To the Jews, circumcision was even more important than Sabbath observance. Jesus said that, when the requirements of circumcision were in conflict with those of Sabbath observance, circumcision trumped the Sabbath (John 7:22-23).

If God, without violating His covenants, could replace ritual circumcision with a spiritual circumcision, why would it do violence to God's covenants if He were to allow for ritual Sabbath observance to give way to the spiritual rest of Hebrews 4?

Your suggestion that all the covenants are in force simultaneously (if that is indeed what you said—I am not sure) would not seem to agree with Hebrews 7:12 and 8:13.

[jriccitelli]

It's good to see that being a Newlywed hasn't distracted you completely.

I said; "All the Covenants were in force, and were to be fulfilled, not by man but by God"
That seemed pretty clear, so I suppose the problem is the word 'fulfill'.
The Mosaic Law was in force, that is, until it was fulfilled, right?
Just as the Abrahamic Covenant is in effect until it is fulfilled.
I am saying the Covenants aren't thrown out (Or obliterated) they are fulfilled.
'The wrath was paid and the promises made', the Law is done with, 'because' it was fulfilled.

I am saying; that Jesus said; "I did not come to abolish but to fulfill", and indeed He fulfilled it in every jot and dot being the unblemished Lamb, the freewill offering, the burnt offering, the first born male without spot, He even subjected himself to the curse of the Law becoming a curse for us, thus He pleased all the requirements of the Law for us, and made peace (Melchizedek) with God for us through the circumcision of his own flesh, thus satisfying the requirements, enduring the wrath and obtaining the blessings of the Law all in Himself. Therefore 'freeing' those who are in Him from the Law.

But this is the problem; while Christians know (hopefully) that we are not to put ourselves under the Law they often go too far and dismiss the Law, as well as missing the intent and purpose of the Law. The result is Christians seem to misinterpret the Law as bad, and use their freedom as a license to sin without consequence or regrets. I have heard you teach and agree that Christians do sin and disregard being holy, as Paul also warned us would happen in verses such as Romans 6:1 and 15, and Peter in 1Peter 4, etc.

And I perceive that some have misinterpreted; 'Christ freeing us from the Law' as;
'He himself was free from the Law', rather than; 'Christ coming in order to fulfill the Law'.

"For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us" (Romans 8:3-16)

In defense of 'He himself was free from the Law' I have only seen two verses which some would think seem to implicate Jesus as a Law breaker, but I was trying to demonstrate why this need not be the case, thus making sense out of the hundreds of verses that would teach otherwise.
I compliment your scholarly approach to biblical study, rather than being carried along by traditions and commentators. You don’t allow anything to hinder your adherence to scripture, except scripture itself, and that is why I was drawn to your radio program.
I noticed in your lecture on Nehemiah 8 that you commented on the discrepancy between what the verse says about the Jews not keeping the law of booths, yet they did keep the law of booths as it says in 2 Chron. 8 and Ezra 3. I am saying it is much the same for John 5:18, other verses show that Jesus did keep the whole Law, even unto death.


Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"--14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it… 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor… 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
(Galatians 3:13-29)

So what I am saying is that the Law is good and profitable, but since many reject it not knowing it's purpose, they sweep it under a rug. It says 'If' you are led by the Spirit, the Law reveals our sin and should draw us to Christ, with that I know you agree;

But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?...
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh… 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident… that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.22 …faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Galatians 5:11-24)

The Law is spiritual, but the principles are life and Godliness, even circumcision is kept, that is 'if' we die in Him, and recieve the circumcision of our heart for it also says he submitted himself to circumcision (The Cross as well);
"Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God.8 For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers" (Romans 15:7)

For even the Sabbath is 'kept' (Not broken) spiritually 'in Christ', as are all things kept 'in' Him.

[steve]

But this is the problem; while Christians know (hopefully) that we are not to put ourselves under the Law they often go too far and dismiss the Law, as well as missing the intent and purpose of the Law.

I am confused about your position. On one hand, you say we are not to put ourselves under the Law; on the other, you say we should not dismiss the Law.

Now it is the nature of law that one is either under its jurisdiction or one is not. I agree with you that we are not under the (ritual) Law. But this seems to mean the (ritual) Law has no jurisdiction over us—that is, it does not define any mandate for our behavior.

Of course, since morality never changes, the moral issues embodied in some of the Old Testament laws would have to be included in any just legal system, and we are not at liberty to tinker with universal moral principles.

I do believe that the (ritual) Law is spiritual, in that its actual relevance to us today is spiritual (not ritual) in nature. Thus, circumcision, sacrifices, priesthood, laws of clean and unclean things, sacred places, sacred orders, and sacred days—all of which belong to the ritual laws of the Old Testament—are no longer ritually required. They correspond to spiritual realities which are, in fact, required under the New Covenant.

It seems clear to me, by declaring all foods clean, by considering attendance at a prescribed feast as optional, by continuing in His normal work on the Sabbath, and by assuming non-Aaronic priestly functions (generally, the way John 17 is understood), Jesus, even in His lifetime, was phasing in the New Covenant economy, as a replacement to the Old Covenant economy. This, I realize, is not as clear to you as it is to me.

[jriccitelli]

I did not want to detail my beliefs about the 'Law and Christians' on a thread about the 'Law and Jesus', but since I did express my motive in this thread as coming from what I experience as a lack of respect and interest in the Law among Christians I should explain.

Also, I appreciate your gracious inquiry about my comments, or motivation, behind my position on the Law, but as this is a different aspect of this theology, with the following you may agree, or not agree, I sincerely don't know.

I want to keep in mind that 'Keeping the Law spiritually' is a different subject than the 'perfection of Christ' (Or debate over Jesus keeping the Law).
I do not want to make it seem as though my understanding of 'Christians and the Law' would define my view of 'Jesus and the Law', although the reverse is probably true, that is;
Since I have always been of the opinion that Jesus kept and fulfilled the Law, so I have a high regard for the Law and 'as' a Christian I want, as I mature, to do Gods will, and Keep His commandments (And you’ve heard the following line's before);
Not to become a Christian, but because I am a Christian.
Not to become saved, but because I am saved.
Not to stay forgiven, but because you are forgiven.

"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments"…
"He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him" (John 14:15, 21)

"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love" (John 15:10)

You know the commandments, 'Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'" (Luke 18:20)

(Please don’t attack me yet, remember I have these verses thrown at me 'all the time' by Mormons, and I then show them that 'all have sinned', 'none keeps the Commandments', no one could, and no one can. And I refer them again to the fact that God tore down the Temple, the Veil and the Priesthood. What Mormons miss is that we must die to ourselves and the Law and we must be born again, 'then' we can do His will 'by His Spirit', 'for without Him you can do nothing')

My conclusion, so far, on the Law; is that it was given to 'sanctify' us and set us 'apart' from the world and bring us 'closer' to God, for that was the reason the Law was given to the Jews. But because of mans sin the Law could not fulfill the purpose.
Yet, what we could not do, Christ did, thus sanctifying us, setting us apart from the world and uniting us with God.
Christ not only fulfilled the Law, but He was the Law, He was the Law made flesh.
Christ not only fulfilled what man was supposed to do, Christ also fulfilled what God said God would do;

"Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44)

Christ is 'who' the Law and the Prophets described to us in His Word.
The Law was Holy, laid out, and detailed for a reason, and as the coming of the Messiah was fulfilled, and the prophecies fulfilled, so also were the laws fulfilled.
As the prophecies were brought 'to pass' so it was the Law was brought 'to pass'.
Jesus was the Word, and isn't it true that the Law was His Word.
Jesus put flesh and blood on the written Word, so that we could see the Word made flesh.

I would not want this thread to change topic because of my opinion on the Law (So I will post my explaination on a different thread), and yet I would like to hear others opinions on my agreement with the Law, that it is good, and profitable for;
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16)