what being apart from the law means.

[Drich]

In Mat 5 Christ says:To full fill means two things here, to complete the law (by extending the law to cover thought and intentions, and to be the final sin sacerfice.)

I would suggest that "Law" here is referring to "Torah", sometimes referred to as the Book of the Law, and he is not speaking of Prophets, in the sense of speaking of human beings, but of their words, so as "Do not think that I am hear to destory the Holy Torah, or the words of the Holy prophets, but I am here to fulfill thier words" - meaning the words of the prophets, not the Torah. And since these is a proponderence of messianic references in the words of the prophets he was inferring: "I am not here to violate the holy words, but I am the fulfillment of it's prophetic messengers, for I am the Messiah".

Which not only points to the law itself, but to the part of the law that speaks or provides for attonement.

Again, I would suggest that again, he is speaking of a Messianic prophecy, that once the Messiah comes, only after that things can be changed, which is a radical idea, but not unheard of. Centuries later, a con man, Sabbatai Tzvi, would be seen as a Messiah and would drop and change laws of the Torah, and his followers accepted blindly. They eventually became Muslims.

Now there does seem to be a contradiction between "I am not here to break the Torah" and "nothing in the Torah will change until the Messiah comes", whereas one seems to be more radical than the other, but not contradictory, just expanding the intent.

And since Christianity doesn't hold but the tiniest number of those laws, this is certainly one way to justify that. On the other hand, only if Jesus said "Ok, the following items are no longer true, and the following items we will keep." All of that came from later leadership.

As for the rest of it, there was a lot of political unreast, primarily within the House of Shammai and the zealots who had integrated with them to enforce religious doctrine by the threats, and he was most likely addressing the fact that they were being jerks.

Ah, no.
I'll ask you the same thing I askd chad. If the Mat 5 says what you have repersented it to say here, then why have you only used 1/2 of 1 verse and had to self interpret the rest?
When you speak as the the bible speaks, then doesn't it make sense to let it do most of the talking?

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

In order for your arguement to work one has to completely ignore verses 19 and 20 (which you did in your version.) Because Even if the word for "law" (νόμος/nomos) here in the Greek was interpreted in to meaning the Torah, (Which when it is, the word Torah appears in english rather than the word law.) Christ in 19&20 focouses on the actual rule part of the law. Hence "Your righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharaisees." At that time the only way to obtain righteousness was obeying the rule part of the law. Which means God in this instance is Speaking of the Law as orginally translated.

That said the other reason your arguement does not work is because If Christ nullifies the Law and perserves the Torah/Phrophets then His sacerfice means nothing. Because it is through the law that His sacerfice has power and meaning. In that it is the Law that calls for blood/death to attone for sin. Christ's purpose here was to become that sacerfice thus full filling that law. Kinda how verse 17 says..