I know we've had a lot of threads going, so I thought I'd repost these so you can get around to answering without having to search for the questions:
-------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hdolan:
<STRONG>I am having fun...I'll continue in a while

"I'm not trying to tie everything together to your "law" argument. That would be foolish on my part, because I haven't seen exactly what it is just yet. "

Oh. I bet you have...
</STRONG>
If I have (or even if I haven't), how 'bout spelling it out for me. I'm not going to assume I know what you mean.

-------------------------------------------
Howard, we've got a basic problem here. We're going about this in different fashions.
I'm trying to ask you specific questions about your objections, but you're only answering by posting Scripture references and saying they conflict. Could you please be more specific. I'm pretty stupid. Or else I just have a hard time understand your references. Instead of my doing an exposition on text after text, could you please give me some clearer details on these points of contention in the passages. Otherwise, this just becomes what I like vs. what you like. I thought you were looking for a bit more depth than that.
Legalistic in demanded to be treated as a Roman citizen, which he certainly was...
Let's define some terms: Legalism in theological terms is the dependance upon obiedence to the law for salvation. I live near a couple of Amish communities. The reason they live like that is because they believe that they have to be obedient to the law (and a rather odd interpretation of it at that!) They are an extreme example.
Did Paul use the law to his advantage? Nope. It was actually to his disadvantage to appeal to Rome as a Roman citizen. He would have been acquitted and set free. (Acts 26:32) However it was to the advantage of the Gospel that he appealed to Caesar.
Glad you brought that up...Galatians 3: 19-25 as compared to his letter to the Romans seem to be 180 out to me...
Really? Seriously, Howard, really? Perhaps you need to tell me what you think these passages are about. I'm at a loss.
Gal. 3:19-25 is a great passage about why the law exist/existed in the first place. The law shows us how depraved we are. It shows us that we are not nor can be perfect. Once we realize that we cannot be good enough for salvation on our own (i.e. God does NOT grade on a curve) then we turn to try to find someone who can save us -- Jesus Christ. "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." -- Gal 3:24-25 (NIV).

That's Gal 3. Can you show me where this conflicts with Romans?

As far as Hebrews is concerned, yes, ther is evidence that Paul did not write it. However, many early writers maintain he did...I would admit that the stauch defense of the law would suggest he didn't...that said, however, his, as you suggested I am, being all over the board, would lend support to me that he did write the letter...
Howard, Paul has a great respect for God's Law, but readily states that it is nothing in comparison to God's Grace, available only through faith in Jesus Christ. To use a poor analogy, bicycles are great, but if I'm trying to get to England from here, they pale in comparison to taking a plane.

A discussion of the authorship of Hebrews, although interesting, is not essential to the point.

PS: Wanna discuss Daniel sometime?
Maybe later. I think we've got plenty on our plate right now.

BTW II: Isn't it interesting that although Franklin said basically the same thing as Falwell, he gets treated much easier...
All I have to go by is second hand information. I still haven't seen a quote from Franklin Graham. Do you or anybody have a link to it? I'd like to see it.