Why is Faith/Belief a Moral Issue?

[orangebox21]

In my book it means the Old Covenant is still very much to be taken as law. But I'm no christian, so I got no horse in the race anyway.

It's only that I find it amazing that some christians take parts of both books literally and interpret the hell out of certain passages to make ends meet. That's the classic case of cherry picking.

Do I have this right?

Your answer to the question of what Jesus meant when he said "I have not come to abolish but to fulfill the law" is that the Old Covenant is still very much to be taken as law.

If I do have this right, I don't understand your answer.  In what way did Jesus fulfill the law so that the Old covenant is still very much to be taken as law?  What does it mean to fulfill something?

You haven't answered the question: what is the purpose of the law?

It's a shame they didn't include the answers at the back of the book.

Not at the back, but throughout.

It would only matter what Jesus meant when he said that he did not come to "abolish but to fulfill" the law.

How would a Nazarene, a Catholic, or a gnostic answer these questions?

Well, as I understand their doctrines, Nazarenes would say that the law absolutely still applies because it was clearly delivered by God in established scriptures and nowhere specifically does he announce, through the proclamations of the prophets or his son, that the law would be abolished during man's continuance on earth.

If that's true then what does it mean in Romans 7:6, "6But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that [the law] by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter?"

Catholics would say the law is no longer relevant because what the covenant pointed towards in its requirements for faithful obedience has been fulfilled through Christ and replaced by his perfect example of selflessness and gift of salvation.

If that is true then how can we find salvation?  " 19Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:19-20)

 
Gnostics would say the Old Testament, in general, was a period of ignorance in which an evil despotic bastard named Jehovah kept men enslaved by superstition and fear, and the revelation of Christ has thrust open the gates of enlightenment. Or, something like that anyway.

You're almost correct.  Gnostics view the serpent, the light bearer, Lucifer as the one who has thrust open the gates of enlightenment, not Jesus.  They deny that Jesus came in the flesh, and "2By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." (1 John 4:2)

@abaris

If you reject lkingpinl's answers, then:

What does it mean when Jesus said he did not come to "abolish but to fulfill" the law?

What is the purpose of the law?

Did god tell Moses to tell the people that the day would come when they would no longer have to obey the Law? If such a day were not foretold, how could Jesus be fulfilling the law when he taught his disciples to break it?

Your claim is a non-sequitur:

Moses didn't tell the people that the day would come when they would no longer have to obey the Law, therefore Jesus couldn't be fulfilling the law when he taught his disciples to break it.