Dismiss Notice

Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus kept the law

Discussion in 'Spirit-Filled / Charismatic' started by Yitzchak, Jun 19, 2013.

  1. Yitzchak

    Yitzchak יצחק

    Messages:
    19,642
    Likes Received:
    440
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    CA-Conservatives
    Faith:
    Charismatic
    Riddle me this.... Jesus kept the law and yet he was not corrupted by keeping the law. There have been many posts on here that suggest that if a person does anything which was contained in the law such as tithing , keeping the sabbath , eating kosher or not stealing then they are under the law and not under grace. As though the two are mutually exclusive.

    The false dilemma is set up as ---choose faith or choose the law. So how did Jesus keep the law and yet had perfect faith and was perfectly justified ?

    On what basis was Jesus justified ? Where does his righteousness come from ?

    Also Abraham , Moses and Elijah were all circumcised and yet were justified. So riddle me this . If keeping the law and doing works undermines faith and grace , then how did Jesus do the works that he did without being corrupted ?
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2013
  2. jehoiakim

    jehoiakim Servant

    Messages:
    1,188
    Likes Received:
    2
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Messianic
    I riddle you nothing because I agree with you! Yeshua came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it:) Great points
     
    Yitzchak likes this.
  3. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    272
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Pentecostal

    Jesus is the only Person who has been able to keep the entire Law without one failure. He was able to do that because He is the sinless Son of God. It was important for Him to keep the entire Law, so He could be a true substitute for us. A person who has tried to keep the Law and has failed could not be our substitute.

    The curse with the the keeping of the Law is because when, as sinful people, we will fail, and are cursed because of our failure to keep the Law. The standard that Jesus taught involved more than just the external keeping of the Law that the Pharisees taught. He taught that true keeping of the Law was from the heart. But humans, because of the Fall, have sinful hearts, and trying to keep the Law with a sinful heart brings the curse of God on them.

    Because Jesus did not have a sinful heart, because of the virgin birth, He could keep the entire Law with a pure, sinless heart. Therefore He could be our true substitute.

    Jesus didn't need justification. He was already pure and sinless and therefore in Himself was already approved of God. When He died and took our sinfulness and curse upon Himself, God raised Him from the dead to show that He approved of what Jesus did for us. I guess that is a type of justification.

    Jesus was always perfectly righteous. It was our sin that He took upon Himself on the cross. We are righteous before God because Jesus' righteousness has been bestowed on us in exchange for our sin. But Jesus died, taking the penalty of death for us, and went down into hell. Then God raised Him from the dead. This meant that our sin has been totally dealt with never to emerge again.

    Our sinful natures will cause us to die physically, but we will be raised to sinless glory in the same way that Jesus was raised from the dead.

    The OT saints were justified through faith. They were looking forward to the work of Jesus on the cross. We are looking back to it. Our faith is the same as theirs - centred on Christ. They were not justified on their own merits. Their faith in itself did not justify them. But their dependence on the Christ to come justified them in the eyes of God.

    This is why Moses and Elijah spoke with Jesus during His transfiguration about His coming death. They were explaining to Him that it was important that He goes through death on the cross so their justification can be confirmed. If Jesus did not die, Moses and Elijah and the rest of the OT saints who were trusting in Jesus would not have been justified. But because Jesus did go to the cross and died, they will be joining us believers in glory.

    Jesus taught that the Law is not abolished. It is still in force because it is God's holy Law. The fact that it is still a requirement on us, means that we still need to live holy lives. But we cannot do it perfectly by our own efforts. The fulfilment of the Law is that He kept the Law for us, enabling us to come to Him in our weakness and failure to depend on Him to keep us holy and pure through His grace.

    We do not keep the Law to gain approval from God. We are already approved. Legalism is not keeping the Law as part of our developing sanctification. Legalism is anyone or church imposing the Law on believers as a requirement for salvation. Paul dealt with this in Galatians. But knowing that we need to live holy lives and trying our best, with God's grace to live worthy of the calling that we have received, is not legalism. Sometimes God leaves us in failure in some areas of our lives in order to keep us humble and aware of our dependence on Christ.

    This is why we have a promise: "If we say we have no sin, we lie, but if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:8,9).
     
  4. Yitzchak

    Yitzchak יצחק

    Messages:
    19,642
    Likes Received:
    440
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    CA-Conservatives
    Faith:
    Charismatic
    Exactly. What if it is just that simple ? That God meant exactly what He said when He gave us these commandments.

    Point number one ....We see here that Abraham was justified by faith and not by works.




    Point number two...Why was Abraham circumcised ? To complete the inner work of faith that had already been accomplished.

    I hope that we all know that Abraham received the physical circumcision out of obedience to God and as a sign of the covenant which was entered by faith. He did not neglect the commandment , but instead circumcised everyone in his household.


    Point number three...The way some talk and teach , they present the commandments of God and doing the works of God as something evil. But the Bible teaches that these works are a sign of real faith.

     
  5. Yitzchak

    Yitzchak יצחק

    Messages:
    19,642
    Likes Received:
    440
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    CA-Conservatives
    Faith:
    Charismatic

    Thank you. I agree 100%. Very clear answer.
     
  6. nephilimiyr

    nephilimiyr I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

    Messages:
    22,451
    Likes Received:
    202
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    During the episode when John the Baptist baptised Jesus, John says something to the effect, you come to me while I should be coming to you:
    Matthew 3:15, Jesus replied, let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness. Then John consented.

    I just love it how people now days believe that because Jesus followed laws and rules that this means we have to too. Jesus, no matter that He was God in the flesh, was on the other side of the cross, meaning, the work of salvation was not yet complete and the laws still had to be obeyed. Therefore, yes, Jesus obeyed all the laws and all the feasts, why? Because as a Jew He had to just like everyone else during his day. Yet, when Jesus shead his blood on the cross, died and rose again from the dead, a new and everlasting covenent had been born! No more regulations, no more laws! Those laws are now written in your heart, in your born again spirit. Those laws are no longer external but internal. Those laws aren't on a page you can read but in your spirit, they are apart of your new nature. It's all about goodness, forgiveness, love, and kindness. Throw out the old and put on the new!!
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2013
  7. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    272
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Pentecostal
    I couldn't help responding to this but here I go.

    It is quite true that the law is written in our new hearts, but this does not mean that we ignore what is written in the Scriptures where the law of God is explained to us. Paul taught that the Law is not abolished. If there was no more Law and we followed just what was in our hearts, we could lapse into antinomianism - which is in essence, "we are saved so now we can do what we like." This is not true. Paul teaches that God's Law is holy, and to live a life of holiness, we need to pay attention to God's Law and make it a guide for our lives. There is no alternative to God's Law. Departing from it means that we become laws to ourselves and we could very well end up departing from the will of God for our lives if we thought we could live without God's Law governing our behaviour and conduct.

    I said "pay attention" to the Law of God, because we know that we cannot keep fully to it because of our sinful nature. Because we have already broken the law before our conversion anyhow, outside of Christ, we were under the curse, guilt and punishment of the Law. This would not have changed even if we had been able to keep the Law for the rest of our lives. We have already broken it, so in the natural we are guilty, condemned, under God's curse, and could only expect punishment.

    However, as I have explained before in this thread, Jesus died on the cross as our substitute and through that delivered us from the guilt, curse and punishment of failing to keep the Law. Jesus kept the Law for us, so when we sin (failing to keep the Law), God has provided His throne of grace where we might run boldly to and throw ourselves on the mercy and grace of God. There, we confess that we are weak and have failed to keep His Law in the specific area where we have failed. He then forgives and cleanses us. We can do this more than seventy times seven times a day because His grace is infinite.

    The standards of the Law are always before us. We never depart from them. It is our new heart that makes the Law even more important to us. Before we got our new heart, we were rebelling against God and His Law, but now we are wanting to live by it. That's what Paul said: "In my heart, I delight in the Law of God" (my paraphrase). We now love the Law and do all we can to keep it. We grieve and mourn that we come so far short of it, and that we fail so many times. That sense of grief and mourning comes because of our new heart, and this is what makes us running to Christ for His grace to keep us walking worthy of our calling in Him.

    So, I am not disagreeing with you, but clarifying the point, so that some do not think that we don't have to live according to God's Law.

    Legalism is someone or a church requiring us to abide by God's Law or their set of religious rules in order to be saved or to be accepted into membership. We don't keep the Law to be saved and to be approved of God because we are approved already in Christ, and we are covered by the righteousness of Christ.

    But we try to keep God's Law out of love and reverence for Him, because we are already saved and approved of by His mercy and grace. We do it because of our love, gratitude, and respect for His standards. Our greatest desire is to be holy believers worthy of bearing His Name. This is why we often pray, "I love your Law. They are a delight to my heart. Enable me, by Your grace to walk in your statutes that I might praise and honour your Name."
     
  8. Yitzchak

    Yitzchak יצחק

    Messages:
    19,642
    Likes Received:
    440
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    CA-Conservatives
    Faith:
    Charismatic
    One false premise that comes up a lot is the false idea that doing a good works and obeying God is somehow legalistic. But this is not how the Bible presents it. The Bible presents it as the inner heart attitude being what really matters.

    Take the Sabbath , as an example. Some speak of it as though it is some kind of a sin to keep the Sabbath and automatically legalistic. But the Bible teaches that a person can do something both out of a place of faith or out of a place of legalism.

    Taking this extreme and incorrect position that a Christian cannot do anything contained in the Old Testament or commanded of the Jews is ridiculous and easily exposed , as such. take for example , the passage in Matthew...Should we conclude from the fact that Jesus was correcting their legalistic way of praying and giving that praying and giving are legalistic , in and of themselves ? Should we conclude from the fact that God commanded the Jews to pray , that it is therefore a part of the law and Christians should not pray ? Why pick and choose ? Why is eating kosher seen as somehow legalistic and praying is not ? Riddle me this ....

     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2013
  9. Simon_Templar

    Simon_Templar Not all who wander are lost

    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    205
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Catholic
    There are a couple of points I'd make

    #1 - when Paul talks about "works of the law" he isn't talking about the moral law, or good works, he is talking specifically about ceremonial aspects such as circumcision.

    #2 - All people must obey the moral law and live rightly. We are only able to do this by God's grace through Jesus Christ, but it still must be done.

    #3 - The ceremonial/ritual aspects of the Law, the Mosaic Covenant of Sinai, has been fulfilled and renewed in Jesus Christ and his New Covenant. While there is nothing inherently wrong with observing things like the sabbath, circumcision and feasts, this does become wrong when these things are observed in place of their New Covenant incarnation. At that point you are essentially rejecting the New Covenant in favor of the old. Paul talks about this in Hebrews where he says that the "servants of the tent" meaning Jews who still adhere to the Old Covenant, have no right to partake of the altar of Christianity. In other words, they are not permitted to Christian communion.

    As Jesus said to the pharisees, if they had believed Moses, they would have believed Jesus. In rejecting the New Covenant, you also reject the Old, even if you still uphold the letter of the Law.
     
  10. nephilimiyr

    nephilimiyr I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

    Messages:
    22,451
    Likes Received:
    202
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    One question, how do you ignor your new nature? I know it's possible but how do you?

    You're new nature enables you to live a righteous life because within that nature is also where the law is, so the answer is to live by the spirit, not by the law. The law was given mearly to show wrong doing, the Spirit was given to enable you to live by it.

    I don't really mean this but, if you want the law you can have it. This I do mean, I'd rather have just the Spirit, because within the Spirit are both the law and the ingredients for overcoming sin. With the law you only have the law, you can't have both if you chose to follow the law. You can have both if you chose to follow the Spirit.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2013
  11. Alithis

    Alithis argue all you can-JESUS is STILL LORD

    Messages:
    9,272
    Likes Received:
    202
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    i agree that it is no riddle - he had no sin to begin with .

    he was not born in sin .
     
  12. REPHAIAHPEDAHEL

    REPHAIAHPEDAHEL Newbie

    Messages:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    Romans 8:1-4 NASB
    Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. [2] For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. [3] For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, [4] SO THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW MIGHT BE FULFILLED IN US, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
     
  13. Yitzchak

    Yitzchak יצחק

    Messages:
    19,642
    Likes Received:
    440
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    CA-Conservatives
    Faith:
    Charismatic
    Yes. What you say is true.

    However , a problem comes in for many in today's church though because they follow a flawed logic. The logic goes something like this. Take as an example , our responsibility as a parent. Premise ....we are not saved by being a parent to our children. Conclusion... we will be in works and not in faith and lose our salvation if we parent our children. This logic is systematically applied to every command that God gave and thus becomes lawlessness in practice. This bizarre view that God somehow uses " reverse Psychology " on us by telling us that we do not have to do anything is very dangerous to the spiritual life of many in today's church. Some even take it so far as to suggest that things like prayer and fasting are works and therefore wrong for the Christian.

    Dividing the law into ceremonial and moral aspects helps to minimize and bring some sanity to the issue.

    I would also point out though that there is also a divide between those parts of the law which were intended to cover sin such as animal sacrifices versus obeying God's commands about the Sabbath. The Sabbath was never intended to forgive or cover sins and that is the main issue when we speak of trusting the law for salvation. There is the issue of obedience to God's commands and disobedience is sin. But the covering for sin was not to do the commands , it was the sacrificial system.

    When we speak of the context of scriptures such as the letter to the Hebrews and Galatians , we need to understand that the context was Jewish Christians making animal sacrifices for their sins and also coming under the authority of the Pharisaical Jewish system. The circumcision was not just about performing a ceremony. It was and still is a conversion ceremony which says that a person is identifying themselves as under the Jewish system. Paul's objections were more than just an objection against a ceremony. He recognized the significance of placing ourselves under the spiritual authority of the Jewish leaders. This meant an acceptance of The Old Testament and also the traditions of the Jewish leaders including , at that time , animal sacrifices.

    If I showed up for church next Sunday and some were offering animal sacrifices to cover their sins just in case Jesus was not enough , I would be confronting that just like the Apostle Paul did. We need to understand the context was not a North American Jewish Christian deciding to keep the Sabbath.

    As you pointed out , the moral law still stands and it is also debatable as to whether all of the ceremonial law is done away with. As you have pointed out in some of your other posts , the Hebrew thinking is multiple fulfillment of things and not just a linear Greek model of either or. It is possible for Jesus to fulfill things and still have other purposes in those things. Take communion as an example of this.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2013
  14. tzadik

    tzadik Follower of the Messiah

    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    1
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Messianic


    Do you believe that the Law of God is Spiritual? (Romans 7) How does that work in your argument?

    John 16:13 tells us that the Spirit of God, leads us in All truth! Do you believe that the Law of God is the truth?
     
  15. Simon_Templar

    Simon_Templar Not all who wander are lost

    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    205
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Catholic
    It probably isn't much of a secret to those familiar with me or my posts that I don't accept the standard protestant/evangelical soteriology (doctrine of salvation). Though I was raised with those ideas and teachings, and I believed them well into my adult life.

    I can remember even when I firmly believed the protestant doctrines in this area, there were a number of things that simply didn't make sense either logically or Biblically... but I accepted it because I had faith and I assumed that either I was just thinking wrong, or there were things I hadn't learned yet that would eventually make sense of it all.

    One of the things that didn't make sense to me was that on the one hand protestant doctrine clearly taught that we were not saved by works and yet the New Testament routinely says that God Judges people by their deeds. To my knowledge, every description of final judgement in the New Testament, including those given explicitly to Christians, say explicitly or strongly imply that we are all going to be judged by our deeds. There seems to be a clear disconnect between the scriptures and the teaching there.

    Another thing was similar that the New Testament routinely emphasizes the absolute necessity of obedience and bearing fruit, yet protestant doctrine always taught that we were saved without obedience and without bearing fruit etc.

    For a while I considered Calvinism because it was more logically consistent within its own doctrines, but eventually I came to the conclusion that while it was consistent within itself it had two problems. First it contradicted scripture explicitly and in those instances required interpreting scripture in ways that I did not think were consistent with the text. In other words, their doctrine was consistent, but I didn't think the Bible itself was consistent when forced into the Calvinist framework of interpretation.

    Lastly, and most recently I came to the conclusion that the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, which is the absolute foundation of much of protestant soteriology and related doctrine, is fatally flawed.

    This is one of those objections I had long ago but I dismissed it because the doctrine seemed to foundational to my faith. More recently I came to understand that it is only foundational to protestant and particular Calvinist and some Lutheran doctrines.

    In fact, PSA doctrine is essential to some protestant doctrines of salvation because it is needed to justify exactly the problem that you are talking about. You can't have the attitude and the idea that you are talking about without PSA.

    My point regarding the ceremonial aspects is that all of those things were given in the Old Covenant to be types of or almost prophecies of things that were going to come under the New Covenant. Circumcision, for example, is a type that foreshadows and foretells baptism. The Passover Feast is a type that foreshadows and foretells the Communion Feast.

    While I don't think it is objectively wrong to circumcise, or to observe passover, there is a danger in the propensity of some to value circumcision over baptism, or value Passover above Communion. In doing this, in my opinion, they are replacing the New Covenant with the Old.

    I do agree that the ceremonial aspects continue, but I believe that they have been renewed and transformed. They are part of the New Creation, just like we are. God said, for example, that the Passover sacrifice would be an eternal ordinance. The feast would be observed forever. This has been fulfilled beginning with the Last supper, culminating on the Cross on Calvary, and continuing in the Communion. Christ's Passover sacrifice is perpetual and is perpetually being celebrated both on earth in the Communion and in Heaven as Christ offers it in the temple in Heaven.

    I don't have a problem with observing a Saturday Sabbath if you want, but I think the same danger exists in failing to see the fulfillment of the Sabbath in Jesus Christ and his New Covenant. It is not that the Sabbath came to and end (as with Passover) but the old type has been fulfilled and transformed into its eternal form in the New Creation.
     
  16. Alithis

    Alithis argue all you can-JESUS is STILL LORD

    Messages:
    9,272
    Likes Received:
    202
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    ? are you supposed to teach here?

    seems such a contradiction that you would disagree with some valid or intellectually perceived errors in Protestantism ( fruits are a result of salvation not a requirement to receiving it) and then align yourself with a group who follows practices so far removed from the bible they cannot even be found in the scriptures .
     
  17. The Unforgettable Fire

    The Unforgettable Fire Regular Member

    Messages:
    1,823
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Doing doesn't nullify grace. Dependence and confidence in doing for obtaining brownie points from God is what gets us into trouble .
     
  18. Yitzchak

    Yitzchak יצחק

    Messages:
    19,642
    Likes Received:
    440
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    CA-Conservatives
    Faith:
    Charismatic

    Good point.
     
  19. Simon_Templar

    Simon_Templar Not all who wander are lost

    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    205
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Catholic
    First of all, this is not a denominational forum per say. Spirit Filled people come from all denominations, including Catholics. As a result, as far as I know, there is no prohibition against discussing and debating either protestant or catholic doctrine here.

    Second, I also used to be of the opinion that Catholicism was unscriptural. However as I studied, beginning with historic Christianity and what the early Christians really believed etc, I began to find out that most of my understandings of Catholic doctrines were wrong, that I had been misrepresenting what Catholics actually believed. Also I began to find out that virtually every doctrine of Catholicism had strong scriptural basis. It was simply that in many cases the interpretation of scripture was different. Eventually I came to the belief that in all the cases I saw, the Catholic interpretation was better.

    Third, it is an interesting irony that Catholicism doesn't demand that all doctrine be directly represented in scripture because Catholicism believes the teaching authority of the Church itself to be authoritative and infallible (over the whole, not in specific cases necessarily). Protestantism, on the other hand does demand that all doctrine be directly represented in scripture. Yet, most if not all Catholic doctrine can be supported by scriptural teaching, while key protestant doctrines can not. Most notably the doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself, a keystone of protestantism, can't be scripturally supported, it must simply be assumed.

    Fourth, there is BIG difference between having a doctrine which is not explicitly mentioned in the bible and having a doctrine which directly contradicts what the Bible says.


    But, nothing I said in my previous post was exclusively Catholic. There are plenty of protestants who also deny PSA for example. There are also plenty of protestants who believe that living rightly and pursuing holiness is necessary to salvation.


    I would like to clarify a point that is often misunderstood, however. The Catholic Church does not believe or teach that works are necessary to earn salvation. The Church teaches that Grace always precedes our action. In other words, we can do nothing worthy, without first receiving grace from God. What the Church does teach is that the fruit of grace, ie good works and obedience, are necessary for grace to be "alive" and effective.
     
  20. Alithis

    Alithis argue all you can-JESUS is STILL LORD

    Messages:
    9,272
    Likes Received:
    202
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    heard it all before ... but sorry - better in your eyes does not truth make.

    and its still does not wash ... the scriptures are inspired .. so if you cannot show me the basis of a doctrine by using plain scriptural reference - then all you are presenting is something man made - and that will not ever hold any authority .
    just because a man gives another man a title a hat and a robe ..that does not validate what he teaches in the sight of God .
    his words can never replace nor override what is already written .

    ie- the pope is NOT infallible
    he is not the mediator between man and god
    praying to dead saints is not in the bible
    praying to(or thru')Mary is not in the bible
    midnight mass is not in the bible
    praying to (or thru') angels is not in the bible
    making and kissing statues is opposed to the bible
    infant baptism is not in the bible
    the term "queen of heaven" is opposed to the bible
    there are probably so many more ..
    so you found fault with protestant doctrine and followed an organisation
    which practices all these things that are not even in the bible .. then you come to these forums and tell us your way is more correct ?

    but based on what ? not the bible that is certain .which leaves only intellectual understanding ... and that is certainly fallible.

    you say " Also I began to find out that virtually every doctrine of Catholicism had strong scriptural basis."- and then else where you were not able to show ONE SINGLE direct verse from the bible to validate so many doctrines .. not one verse which states it plain and clear ..only ambiguous external reference --
    not one single direct quote from the bible.

    Example:- of plain simple direct scripture
    we break bread and partake of communion ..you know why? because any one can plainly show you the direct scriptures that tell us to

    -"And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.-"

    no ceremony , no priest , no hierarchy,no pomp .. no ambiguous interpretation required .
     
Loading...