>>244
>Love thy neighbour, but hate thy enemy, that is the Law and it is blatant contradiction of Jesus' teachings.
Sure, that's what Jesus was correcting. However, the actual passage in Leviticus was:
<Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself
"Hate thy enemy" is nowhere. So he could only he correcting a certain teaching, and it isn't the Law itself.
Gal 2:20 etc. doesn't literally mean "crucified with Christ", even in the original Greek that Paul wrote in.
>Babtism is ritual death and rebirth also. By accepting Christ you legally die.
You think that "death to sin" is literally "cleansing your sins"?
>Not justified so you can go back to doing the Law, there were ways to remove your transgressions in the Law already
Like animal sacrifice. Jesus filled this gap for all of us.
>The Law has been fulfilled. You cannot fulfill it any more than it already is.
So is that not what Paul did in the purification in the temple (after the crucifixion) or told the Corinthians to keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread?
>The Levitical Law appeared only in a certain nation in a certain period of time
Sure, maybe not literally for a thousand years.
>If the Law is a way to live God made it impossible for everyone before it had appeared to live a life acceptable to Him but we know that in every nation he who is fearing Him, and is working righteousness, is acceptable to Him and we know that Abraham was justified by Faith. Not the one who does the Law!
Again, this is talking about justification, of course you're justified by faith alone. This has nothing to do with the Law being a way to live or not.
>You cannot do the Law without the temple