Longhenry/Billingsley Debate on The Sermon on the Mount

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the "Sermon on the Mount," Matthew chapters 5 through 7, is 
exclusively Old Testament doctrine.
Affirm:  Dan Billingsley
Deny:  Ethan Longhenry

Dan and Religious Debates-
 
I see that yet again Dan has difficulty staying on topic.  We are speaking of the Sermon on the Mount and 
the Sermon on the Mount alone.  Therefore, for the sake of the specificity of the debate, I will focus on the 
material presented to us from Dan on the Sermon on the Mount.
 
First, Dan says the following: 
Then Ethan states, "Certainly the idea that "all things" (in Matthew 7:12, like Matthew 22:34-40) represents 
the whole law and the prophets." Thank you, Ethan, that is my argument on Matthew 7:12 exactly!
 
ELDV: I will ask you this directly then: When Jesus says that "for this is the Law and the Prophets" in 
Matthew 7:12, is He referring to the statement He made in verse 12 (the "Golden Rule") or does He refer to 
the whole discussion held previously?
 
Dan then asserts the following :
Ethan then asks where Jesus' six statements about "the law and the prophets" in Matthew, chapters 5 through 
7, are found in the Old Testament law of Moses. Answer: The six statements are the response, explanation 
and commentary on the meaning of the law of Moses by the Son of God, the Messiah, the teacher of the law 
in Israel during MMLJBC. Jesus was the "last" divinely inspired Old Testament "prophet" that God sent to 
Israel, I will not question his teaching of the law to that "last generation" of Jews.  Tell us Ethan, if as you 
claim these six statements are New Testament doctrine, where are they found in Acts 2 through Revelation 
22?

ELDV: I find it highly interesting that although I asked for specific references from the Old Testament 
"Law" and "Prophets" that prove that Jesus' six comments are Old Testament doctrine, Dan now asks me to 
prove that the six statements are from the New Testament.  Unfortunately for Dan, there are many specific 
references in the New Testament for Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount!
 
Jesus says the following in Matthew 5:22:
 
but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and 
whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou 
fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.

And John says in 1 John 3:15:

Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Jesus says in Matthew 5:37:

But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.

And James says in James 5:12:

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: 
but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment.
 
Jesus says in Matthew 5:39-42:
 
but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the 
other also.  And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.   
And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two.  Give to him that asketh thee, and from 
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
 
And Paul says in Romans 12:19-20:
 
Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance 
belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord. But if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give 
him to drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.
 
Therefore, there is ample proof that the sayings of Christ are also found in the New Testament.  However, in 
the end, this does not matter: it is not my job to prove a single thing.  You are affirming the proposition that 
Christ is teaching ONLY Old Testament doctrine in the Sermon on the Mount-- if the six sayings of Christ 
in question are from Old Testament doctrine, as you assert, it should be an easy thing to find specific 
references in the Old Testament Law and Prophets that prove that Christ speaks of Old Testament Law.  
Why, Dan, are you not providing these references if your proposition is true?
 
Dan says the following:
Readers, what does Ethan mean by Jesus "assisted" Gentiles and that he "spoke to" a Samaritan? Does 
Ethan mean that Jesus offered covenant and spiritual blessings to the Gentiles in MMLJBC?
 
ELDV: Matthew 8:5-6:
 
And when he was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, and saying, 
Lord, my servant lieth in the house sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

The centurion is a Gentile, no?
 
Matthew 8:10-13:

And when Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not 
found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and the west, 
and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: but the sons of the 
kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. 
And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And the 
servant was healed in that hour.

1. Was the centurion's servant healed?  Yes.
2. Why was the centurion's servant healed?  The petition of the centurion.
3. Is the centurion a Gentile?  Yes.
4. Does this mean that Jesus did assist those of the Gentiles?  Absolutely.
 
Therefore, the Scriptures DO teach that Jesus had dealings with those outside of the fold of Israel.

Dan then asserts the following:
Because the Bible consists of a series of covenants that God has made with mankind, and because each 
book, chapter and verse belongs to one specific covenant and covenant age, to scripturally understand and 
interpret the Bible all books, chapters and verses must be "rightly divided" into their proper Old and New 
Covenants,  then each whole covenant must be interpreted by what it teaches, (not by what another covenant 
teaches), and that teaching applied only to the people who were in that  specific covenant.
 
ELDV: I would like to see the evidence that proves beyond a doubt that "each book, chapter and verse 
belongs to one specific covenant and covenant age?" I do not believe I have read that in the Scriptures.  If 
each book belongs to the same covenant, and  you teach that Acts 2-22 is the "New Covenant" and Acts 1 is 
the "Old Covenant," have you not just contradicted yourself?

Dan then asserts the following:
3. The six chapters of  Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20, 21and Acts 1 describe the fifty day period 
of time between the Old and New Testaments. This was a period when no covenant for justification and 
salvation from sin existed between God and man.
 
ELDV: There was NO covenant between God and man during this period?  So if a man were to die at this 
time, he would be without any form of covenant with God?  Where is this taught?

I believe this clearly shows the difficulty with Dan's premise-- in his desire to draw lines in the sand, there is 
a gap that leaves many souls without any hope!  Perhaps there is a period of "covenantal overlap," 
exemplified in Acts 21?
 
Dan then gives some rules for us:

1. Which covenant was in force at the time,  with whom did God or Christ make the covenant described in 
the book, chapter or verse, and to whom does this covenant teaching apply?
 
ELDV: Evidence for this?

Dan:
Matthew 5:1-12: For centuries sectarian churches have labeled Matthew 5 through 7 "the sermon on the 
mount," and subsequently attached great emotion to this passage. However, this "title" is not found in the 
Scriptures. The facts are that this passage holds no more weight in the teaching of the law of Moses by 
Christ in MMLJBC than any other passage of his teaching.  Everything in this passage relates to Christ the 
Messiah, the law of Moses and the old covenant people of Israel. It contains absolutely no New Testament 
doctrine.
 
ELDV: Great assertion!  We already know that this is your assertion, because it is the proposition at hand.  
You have by no means proven this, however, since (1) you refuse to give specific verses from the Old 
Testament that correlate with Jesus' specific teachings in Matthew 5 and (2) you neglect to see that many of 
the comments made by Jesus are directly confirmed by the authors of the undisputed "New Testament."

Dan:
This passage also confirms that the Old Testament law of Moses was still intact and in force in Israel as 
Christ states that he came to "fulfill" the law. Does this not also prove that Malachi, who lived 430 years 
before Christ, could not possibly have been the "end" of the Old Testament law of Moses?

ELDV: There is a massive difference between asserting that Christ spoke with those under the old covenant 
(which is true and indisputable) and saying that everything said by Christ confirmed the words of Moses 
(which clearly cannot be true in light of Matthew 5 and 19:8).
 
Dan again asserts:
When Jesus said, "Ye have heard it said of them of old time..." he was referring to the false "traditional" 
rabbinical doctrines  -- not the law of Moses.
 
When Jesus then said, "But I say unto you..." -- as the Messiah, he was referring to the true law of Moses 
which he was teaching in Israel.
 
ELDV: I would like to make it known that Dan has continually spoken these words despite the fact that the 
message quoted by Christ, time and again, are the EXACT words of Moses in the Old Testament.

Jesus quotes in Matthew 5:31:
 
"It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement"
 
which are the exact words of Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1 and confirmed in Jeremiah 3:1.

Jesus then says in verse 32:

"but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh 
her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery."

which is (a) a different message and (b) confirmed as such in Matthew 19:8:

He saith unto them, "Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the 
beginning it hath not been so."
 
I am sure that Dan will again ask what examples exist that Jesus and Moses taught different things 
concerning marriage and divorce.  Expecting this, I will say that (a) if Jesus and Moses say the same thing, 
it sure is strange for Jesus to say in Matthew 19:8 that what Moses "suffered [them]" from the beginning 
"has not been so" and (b) Jeremiah 3:1 demonstrates that a man could put away his wife and she would 
become another man's wife-- yet Jesus says in Matthew 5:32 that anyone who is put away and remarries is 
an adulterer and anyone who marries such is in adultery!  Therefore, there is no other conclusion possible 
than that the message of Moses is NOT the same as the message of Christ in Matthew 5:31-32!  Jesus 
cannot possibly be teaching the "true teaching" of Moses when He points away from Moses and to the 
beginning!
 
This is made further evident in other passages in Matthew 5:

verse 33: "Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, 'Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but 
shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths,'"
 
a quotation of Moses in Leviticus 19:12, and Jesus says not only to not swear in verse 34, but in verse 37:
 
"But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one."
 
...where any form of swearing is of the evil one!  And yet Dan would have us believe that these two verses 
are in complete harmony?
 
Further, in verse 38:
 
"Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"
 
an abridged quotation of Moses in Leviticus 24:20, and then says in verse 39:
 
"but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the 
other also."
 
When we read the Scriptures and let those Scriptures speak for themselves, we see clearly that Jesus is 
quoting Moses and then demonstrating the higher path that men ought to travel.  Where is the idea of 
rabbinical tradition in these quotations?  Only in the mind of any who wish to twist and pervert the words of 
our Lord.
 
Dan again:
Rabbi Hillel was teaching that if a Jewish husband did not like the way his wife kept the house, cared for the 
children, cooked the meals or baked the bread, that was "cause" enough to divorce her. At the same time, 
Rabbi Shammai was teaching that the only "cause" for divorce in Israel was, as Moses taught "some 
uncleanness" (sexual immorality), a wife's "infidelity."
 
In Matthew 5:31-32: Jesus now defines and teaches the same "cause" (sexual immorality) or "fornication" 
for divorce as established by God and Moses in Deuteronomy 24. He then shows that any Israelite that 
"unlawfully" divorced his wife for the trivial "causes" taught by some rabbis  would commit adultery -- a sin 
against one's own marriage covenant. This unlawful divorce would then cause his wife -- who was "put 
away" unlawfully -- if  she married again to also commit adultery.
 
ELDV: Dan first says that Jesus is contrasting the "true Law of Moses" with the rabbinical traditions and 
then uses those same traditions to define the term "some uncleanness!"  Is this not hypocritical on his 
account?  Where in the Old Testament is "some uncleanness" defined, Dan?  How come Jeremiah speaks of 
women that have been divorced and yet remarry, and the only defilement comes when the original husband 
wishes to have her back? Finally, how can Moses and Jesus teach the same doctrine when Jesus says that 
MOSES, not the Pharisees, not the Sadducees, nor the scribes, but MOSES suffered them to divorce their 
wives, and from the beginning it had not been so?

Dan has not yet demonstrated that Jesus is teaching "only" Old Testament doctrine in the Sermon on the 
Mount, for he will not confront the issues directly.  Dan, YOU must prove YOUR proposition, and the only 
way to do so is in the following way:
 
What verses from the Old Testament Law and Prophets specifically confirm that the six sayings of Christ 
that have been given previously (Matthew 5:21, 28, 32, 34, 39,44) are "Old Testament" doctrine?  Where 
did Moses or any prophet affirm those six statements?
 
I have a feeling that since Dan has not yet provided these scriptures, it is plainly evident that they must not 
exist.  If not, Christ must not be teaching "Old Testament" doctrine, since Moses specifically said that no 
one of God would add to the Law that had been given!  The proposition cannot stand, and it is evident that 
Christ speaks of more than the Old Testament doctrine when He gave the Sermon on the Mount.
 
I await Dan's last affirmative.
 
Ethan R. Longhenry