Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gudjonsson · 10-19-2007, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

A few posts later someone asked about the tense of the Greek 'whoever shall break the least blah blah' in verse 19 where Jesus explains exactly what he means, i.e. keep the law. The word is our old friend λὑω from earlier and it is written as an aorist subjunctive. A good translation, in my opinion, would be 'whosoever would break' since the subjuntive moves it to the realm of the hypothetical and aorist has no time sense associated with it. Especially not when it is not an indicative.

Julian

I guess that would be me. Thanks for explaining.

And just for fun...
Youtube - Brick Testament - Jesus on Moses' Law

Clouseau · 10-19-2007, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

The jewish laws are quite unpleasant so the Christians did away with them. They are unable to give a good reason for this so that leads to the goofy apologetics that were exemplified in the OP.

The verb λὑω means 'loosen, or destroy' as it says in the OP mentioned article. When rendered as καταλὑω it is merely a more emphatic reading adding strength to the verb. Like most words, it has some secondary and tertiary meanings that we can ignore here. In this case, Matthew really means to destroy or disintegrate. The opposite word in this context is πληρόω which is 'fill, fulfill, satisfy, finish, verify' and so on. There is no real reason, especially in context, to read this as anything other than the obvious meaning, i.e. that Jesus will not get rid of the law but that he will fulfill it in the sense of fulfilling its requirements. Live like a perfectly observing Jew, in other words. The main reason why fulfill cannot mean to 'fulfill and therefore complete and therefore make obsolete and irrelevant' in this case is simple. Jesus says that the law will not be abolished. If he fulfills it and makes it go away, he just did exactly that! His fulfilling it will abolish it when fulfill is read in the manner of the apologists.

A few posts later someone asked about the tense of the Greek 'whoever shall break the least blah blah' in verse 19 where Jesus explains exactly what he means, i.e. keep the law. The word is our old friend λὑω from earlier and it is written as an aorist subjunctive. A good translation, in my opinion, would be 'whosoever would break' since the subjuntive moves it to the realm of the hypothetical and aorist has no time sense associated with it. Especially not when it is not an indicative.

Hope this helps.

Julian

Quote:

But he also says that the Law will not be abolished until all is fulfilled.

When that occurs depends on who one is. If one fulfils the law by trusting in Christ, and being seen with only his righteousness, then the law is as dead as a dodo. But if one refuses Christ, the law applies until one's judgement and condemnation. So yes, with enormous irony, the law applies to those who are trying to tell Christians that it applies to them.

Julian · 10-19-2007, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

But he also says that the Law will not be abolished until all is fulfilled.

He says this for emphasis, IMHO. In that sentence, he starts by saying that 'until heaven and Earth pass,' the law is cool, 'until all has happened.' Why would I not simply read πάντα as 'all' or 'everything'? I read it as, all of history passes and then the Earth ends, the law will stand for all that time, i.e. always.

Quote:

Early Christians/the Evangelist were not Marcionites. They knew that Jesus came from the Old Testament. They knew about the laws. They didn't want them destroyed. With the destruction of the Temple (which precluded Christians or Jews from performing certain laws relating to sacrifice), Christians needed something in its place. That was Jesus.

They were not Marcionites but Marcion wasn't the first to have issues with the Jewish legacy. Paul certainly whines enough about their intrusions and their 'faith through works' idea. If we place Matthew in a thoroughly Jewish community, then the audience would be okay with the law. If Matthew held broader appeal early on then we would have some conflict.

Julian

Gudjonsson · 10-19-2007, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

If one fulfils the law by trusting in Christ, and being seen with only his righteousness, then the law is as dead as a dodo. .

And, btw, Matthew does never, nor any of the Synoptics, talk about trusting in Christ to fulfill the law

Here is a verse that I must also point at with regard to what Matthew means to say about the validity of the law:

Matthew 19

Quote:

16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" ... Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[a] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[b]"... 21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

The only reason I have seen presented that points to Matthew wanting to say that the law does not hold valid (for Christians that trust in Christ), is that the veil of the temple was torn in two. That is a very significant point. I guess Matthew is compiled from sources that disagree on this maybe? If Matthew meant to say that the law is now "dodo" for Christians that trust in Christ and have therefore fulfilled the law, I would say that a large amount of the alleged teachings of Jesus found in Matthew (and also elsewhere like Luke 10:25-28, but we are talking about Matthew not Luke) have very little practical importance for modern Christians. I still suspect that many of the verses from Matthew I have quoted in this thread stem from Jewish Christians that did not want Christianity to abolish their customs.

seven8s · 10-19-2007, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Clouseau
Countless millions of 'Christians', Muslims, atheists, what-have-you go into deep shock and mourning annually because of the incarnation of the Christian and Jewish deity, drinking themselves into a stupor in many cases. It is hard to find anywhere in the world where this is not the case.

Yes, well in Philadelphia they are particularly generous. If you are lucky you get to go to the Mummers Day Parade as well and do it all over again. Everyone seems to particularly like the Comedy section.

Clouseau · 10-19-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gudjonsson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

If one fulfils the law by trusting in Christ, and being seen with only his righteousness, then the law is as dead as a dodo. .

Quote:

And, btw, Matthew does never, nor any of the Synoptics, talk about trusting in Christ to fulfill the law

Why did Matthew bother to write about Jesus, then?

Quote:

Here is a verse that I must also point at with regard to what Matthew means to say about the validity of the law:

Matthew 19

Quote:

16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" ... Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[a] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[b]"... 21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

And what does that do, but add to the Law?

Quote:

The only reason I have seen presented that points to Matthew wanting to say that the law does not hold valid (for Christians that trust in Christ), is that the veil of the temple was torn in two. That is a very significant point. I guess Matthew is compiled from sources that disagree on this maybe?

That really would be a guess. It could be to exclude the whole point of writing. All the synoptics mention this, and John certainly believed in its implication.

Quote:

If Matthew meant to say that the law is now "dodo" for Christians that trust in Christ and have therefore fulfilled the law, I would say that a large amount of the alleged teachings of Jesus found in Matthew (and also elsewhere like Luke 10:25-28, but we are talking about Matthew not Luke) have very little practical importance for modern Christians.

They have limited importance for any Christian. One needs to read the gospels in the context of their time, which was post John the Baptist but pre-resurrection. Jesus' purpose was often to carry on from J the B, to give a sense of inadequacy, to prick the bubble of complacency that more often than not characterised Israel from Sinai onwards. Relying on outward respectability was not what Jesus wanted; indeed it was his enemy.

Quote:

I still suspect that many of the verses from Matthew I have quoted in this thread stem from Jewish Christians that did not want Christianity to abolish their customs.

All of this is anachronistic.

gstafleu · 10-19-2007, 08:06 AM

Does this word "fulfill" carry any meaning of itself, or is it just a free for all? According to Julian the meaning of the Greek simply is to implement the requirements of the law. Is there any reason to believe it means anything else?

Gerard Stafleu

Clouseau · 10-19-2007, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Does this word "fulfill" carry any meaning of itself, or is it just a free for all? According to Julian the meaning of the Greek simply is to implement the requirements of the law. Is there any reason to believe it means anything else?

No-one disagrees about the meaning of the word. The disagreement comes over the implication of the meaning of the word.

Clouseau · 10-19-2007, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seven8s

Quote:

Clouseau
Countless millions of 'Christians', Muslims, atheists, what-have-you go into deep shock and mourning annually because of the incarnation of the Christian and Jewish deity, drinking themselves into a stupor in many cases. It is hard to find anywhere in the world where this is not the case.

Quote:

Yes, well in Philadelphia they are particularly generous. If you are lucky you get to go to the Mummers Day Parade as well and do it all over again.

Quite an event, I see. 15,000 marchers and lots of money.

Quote:

Everyone seems to particularly like the Comedy section.

The "I'll go out giggling" response, perhaps.

seven8s · 10-19-2007, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Clouseau
The "I'll go out giggling" response, perhaps.

Well there is the Fancy's. That'd be strutting, correct? lol

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-19-2007, 08:06 AM	#47
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	Does this word "fulfill" carry any meaning of itself, or is it just a free for all? According to Julian the meaning of the Greek simply is to implement the requirements of the law. Is there any reason to believe it means anything else? Gerard Stafleu

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.