This here thread is an expansion of a recent forum conversation and sparked by a video I just watched.  The subject seems important enough to discuss further and in its own thread.  

** you do not have permission to see this link **

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

-Matthew 5,17-20 NRSV

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not gentile sinners, yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through the faith of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.  But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ,  and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.  I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

Galatians 2,15-21 NRSV 

As I’ve noted repeatedly I was raised in a hardcore fundamentalist church community.  It was tacitly assumed that even given some differences in emphasis, the Bible was univocal, essentially telling one story from start to finish, centered on Christ, who was either being predicted or described.  

Of course this viewpoint doesn’t survive any kind of serious scrutiny.   One of the real accomplishments of modern historical-criticism of the Bible is to demonstrate the diversity of the early Jesus community.   The early church was formed in controversy both externally and internally. The Apostle Paul is constantly arguing with others about what he regards as essential doctrines of the Faith.  It is interesting to realize that the folks he is arguing with are not outsiders but fellow Christians!  Christians who take the same testimonies and traditions that Paul received but interpret them differently.  Most fascinating of all, some of the folks Paul is in controversy with seem to be the leaders of the Mother Church in Jerusalem, Jesus own immediate disciples, presumably the ones who knew Jesus’ teachings best.  

One of those early controversies (perhaps the earliest?) was how converts to the Faith stood in relation to the Jewish Law.  Do Christians have to be Torah observant?  Now we need to be careful here.  I don’t think there is any place in Paul’s surviving authentic letters where he actually tells Jewish converts to stop being Torah observant.   But he definitely believes the coming of Christ puts the believer in a different relationship with God’s righteousness, a relationship not dependent on Torah observance.  This clearly contradicts Jesus’ own teaching as recorded in the passage I quoted from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew.

This raises all kinds of questions.  Did the “Pillars” in Jerusalem, James, Peter & John, really understand what Paul was teaching his converts?  Were they all really one big happy family, as depicted in Acts?  Could there have been, in fact, a schism, as is slightly hinted at in Galatians?  Whatever outcome we imagine, Paul’s view won the day, and interpreters have been eliding Jesus’ words in Matthew ever since.   I remember the first time I read Matthew with understanding myself, when the proverbial lightbulb went off.  I was flabbergasted.  That’s not what I had been taught! Somehow we had transformed “fulfill” to mean “done away with”.   

This also brings up another point.  Growing up I can remember very few sermons taken directly from Jesus’ teachings in the gospels.  The overwhelming number of sermons were drawn from Paul’s writings. Understandable perhaps since Paul and his imitators were dealing with issues that arose within the community.  Lots of “problem” passages were dealt with by simply being ignored.  

The clear conclusion here is that any consensus achieved by the Church was hard won after decades of debate and controversy.  None of the doctrines of the Church sprang complete and unmodified from the mouths of the first generation of believers.  I suppose people who are comfortable with the idea of Progressive Revelation will have an easier time of it than my bunch would have.