Oh, That's The Old Testement

[RHEMtron]

Even as a xian I really had no idea what "fulfill" meant in the context of a law. How does one fulfill a law so that the law is null and void? Driving the speed limit on the highway does not nullify the law from that point on. I was told that jesus lived the perfect life to prove it could be done. Shouldn't that mean the laws are still in effect since we now know they can be kept? But instead now that jesus kept them they are cancelled and we just need to believe in him. I never truly understood it. I just accepted it and I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer.

 

Anyhow, if the Rabbi that wrote this is correct, then using the proper rabbinic "jargon" jesus truly did mean that the law was eternal and all xians are in error. Paul, not being a rabbi, would not be aware of this and has led many astray. This whole explanation just makes so much more sense to me.

 

mwc

Great... that means Jesus was a liar considering he broke the Mosaic Laws of honoring the Sabbath, divorce laws, dietary plans, festival celebrations, etc.

 

On another note, i was just look up in wikipedia that "fulfill" in the Greek translation is interpreted as establish and obey, among many other things.

 

Expounding the Law

 

okay i found some sites that state your claim mwc :

 

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/ww...re/gospels2.htm

http://www.therefinersfire.org/yeshua_fulfilled.htm

http://www.servant2000.org/articles/papers..._teacher03a.htm

[FirstInTheDance]

Christians HAVE to cherry pick, otherwise they'd all be in jail for stoning their disobedient kids, or unchaste wives, or something. Quite a few of the OT laws are illegal nowadays.

[pseudovillain]

Jesus may have said that he came to fulfill the law, but then he pretty much told the Pharisees that OT law doesn't matter and people could eat whatever they want, so long as their hearts were in the right place.

 

This doesn't sound like upholding the law to me.

[Ouroboros]

Maddie, what do you mean, "we don't have to do that stuff anymore"? Exactly what stuff are you talking about?

[pseudovillain]

its true though. jesus fulfilled the law so we don't have to do that stuff any more. it was necessary then because people needed to see just how bad sin was and is. god hates it and it earns us all death. unless the world had gone through that then they wouldn't know how much they need jesus and how much he loves them. the old testament was before jesus. jesus changed everything with love.

 

So, basically, what you're saying is...

 

Homosexuality and eating pork are totally okay? And if eating pork is okay, but homosexuality isn't, why the selectiveness?

[Ouroboros]

Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality, and he didn't give any commands about it. But Jesus said, "love your neighbor".

 

Paul did. You trust Paul more than Jesus?

 

What about tithing? Abortion? 10 commandments?

[pseudovillain]

Paul did. You trust Paul more than Jesus?

 

Heh heh... most Christians do trust Paul more than Jesus. I like to call Paul the fourth part of the Trinity.

 

The new testament says homosexuality is wrong, but you can eat anything now. its that way cause god says so.

 

It's that way because God says so? Why did God say that?

 

Also, why did God tell the Israelites to wipe out tons of civilizations?

[mwc]

like sacrifices and diet laws and stuff. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice and now they are all over because of his love.

Oh, and is his love going away when the second kingdom is set up and the law is put back in place for all to follow (including animal sacrifices)? Because, you know that's what's going to happen or did you forget to read that part?

 

mwc

 

okay i found some sites that state your claim mwc :

 

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/ww...re/gospels2.htm

http://www.therefinersfire.org/yeshua_fulfilled.htm

http://www.servant2000.org/articles/papers..._teacher03a.htm

Thanks for doing my homework.

 

Now I'll have to read through them all. So many links...so little time.

 

I went over the Wikipedia link you gave and it made some good points especially about the Greek (I'll have to read it again when I'm not so tired). I still think that contextually the rabbinical argument addresses the "fulfullment" issue a bit better though especially if you consider that the xians in Jerusalem still observed the law after the supposed death of jesus. It seems to me that if anyone should have left the tradition at that time it would have been them since god himself would have sanctioned it (in public, since it's in the bible and being public certaintly he would have told them again in private probably numerous times that the end of the observance of the law was near. This would have been no small event in their lives by any means. Second only to god being on earth I would imagine). However, it's Paul that leads the revolt against the law and not the apostles. This is later apologized by theologians (again, who make some good, and from what I can see quite valid points). Of course, I may have missed the entire point of the article.

 

mwc

[RHEMtron]

Thanks for doing my homework.

Youre welcome. I couldnt wait. I just had to read it for myself.

 

This is later apologized by theologians (again, who make some good, and from what I can see quite valid points). Of course, I may have missed the entire point of the article.

I commend them for apologizing and making good points. Jesus said he came to "fulfill" the law. I just dont agree with the whole Jesus expanded the law bit. I think my disagreement is more of a he wasnt supposed to do that thing.

 

Because:

Deut 4:2

You shall not ADD to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which i command you.

Deut 4:40

So you shall keep His statutes and His commandments which I am giving you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you...

[mwc]

I commend them for apologizing and making good points. Jesus said he came to "fulfill" the law. I just dont agree with the whole Jesus expanded the law bit. I think my disagreement is more of a he wasnt supposed to do that thing.

I guess I took the word "expanded" to mean "explain" or something along those lines (I've hear that it's common in rabbinic tradition to argue over the meaning of the texts to derive the true or deeper meanings...so to expand in this fashion wouldn't really be adding to it but just to see it in a different way perhaps...as long as you don't destroy the meaning/intent...which jesus tried and failed to do in his example of helping on the Sabbath since the OT clearly shows god killing people for lesser reasons than he offered). In my mind adding to the law would mean to actually mean more laws would come into existance so the 11 commandments (instead of 10) and so on (a silly example but you get the point) or changing the meaning of an original law. I remember some of these points being hammered away at me in my school days though so there might be some things I'm not seeing quite clearly.

 

So did jesus really add to the law or significantly change the meaning of the law? I think that's debatable (and that's where I need to re-read that web page). Paul certainly did. On this jesus and Paul definately clash and xians follow Paul without question. This is one of the reasons I like the explanation I found. Xians just assume that jesus died and the law was cancelled (and said so via Paul), but if jesus never intended at any point to remove the law, then Paul is in error and all xians are in error to this day. If this can be proven what do you think the odds are xians will reinstate the law and start sacrificing in temples again? Right around zero? Sounds about right. They'll just pretend jesus never said a word. I wonder how I did that? I know I must have but it must have been subconcious because I don't remember trying to block things out.

 

mwc

[RHEMtron]

i think Jesus expanded the law when he said one of the commandements was no defrauding

[weary traveler]

Ya know, while discounting the OT may not be sound theology, I think the Christians that discount the OT aren't really the ones causing most of the problems. It's the ones that stand up and proudly defend the brutality, the ones who say it is alright for God to mass-murder because God gave life and can take it away- I think those are the bigger threat.

 

 

I must totally agree with this comment. I have been looking at a lot of stuff on church history, as well as history of all kinds of organized religious structures throughout time, and I have noticed that unfortunately, you can get people to do all sorts of strange and even evil things IF they really are led to believe that it is from God's authority, when if you look at it, it's usually some people who seek political power or otherwise who USE the excuse of 'well this is what God says or wants" or some such thing. I looked at how the Christians in Germany were some of the biggest supporters of the hitler regime, all because the church goers were preached to bout obeying the authorities set up by god (Supposedly even Hitler's regime was set up by God i was told by another christian and that god will judge the evil leaders at the judgement). But you know, we humans often don't learn from the past (especially when past history has been covered up!). THe same thing is actually in the works now. FEMA has already got a plan in place to use pastors as tools to keep the people obedient to even the most henious acts and orders that they will be carryign out soon (and no I'm not trying to sound freaky...it's just seeing things for what they are). Churches are nothing more than 501c3 corporations anyway(yes it is really true!). http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

 

 

Anyway, all the OT stuff that is troubling...well, yeah i have been looking at that for a few months now and it is eye-opening. The NT stands or falls on the OT, so if someone says "Oh that doesn't count because it's the OT, then remind them of the fact that the GOd of the OT is SUPPOSED to be the same God of the NT, and all those prophecies of Christ stand or fall on the OT. They usually mean that the plan of salvtion is different than the OT, when saying this, but the Law of God WAS NOT supposed tobe done away with, according to Christ. So, they can't get God 'off the hook' so to speak with that line!