----- Original Message ----- 
From: <malajaa@...>
>You overemphasize the presence of Law
> in the New Testament, and ignore, and even insult the use of Paul's
> statements in Romans, Galatians, Colossians, and etc.
>The progress of
> revelation demands that we give Paul some priority in my opinion.

So... in the progress of redemptive history, was 1 Corinthians 9:21 & 1 
Corinthians 14:34 written before or after Romans and Galatians and 
Colossians?   :-)

I don't believe I have ignored anything.  It's the traditional/classic CT 
explanation that ignores Romans 6, IMHO (Kline does not, IMHO).  I'm merely 
suggesting that both are true at the same time... under the law of Christ/no 
longer under law.  But it's also true I'm not willing to ignore the numerous 
instances in which the OT law is referenced in present tense of the NT.  We 
have to account for them.

>When Paul says,
> 'you are not under this, but you are under this' he sounds awfully
> 'Greek' doesn't he?

It would not have sounded Greek to his original audience.

>By the way are we talking
> about Buddah or Christ?  In answer to this question I suggest a single
> meaning hermeneutic.

Christ.  I'm not sure I know what you're getting at, but at the very least, 
even Christ and the NT authors acknowledged the intended double meaning of 
the OT authors (1 Cor. 10:4, nearly all of Heb. 11 - esp. v. 26, Matt. 
12:40, John 8:56, Matt. 2:15, Mark 14:34, etc.).

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH