Magdlyn

OT:I've never heard of or seen Dr Scott, but ye gods I wish I could!

Dean Anderson

Except, of course, for the times when he does. For example, breaking the Sabbath law (John 9), or commanding his disciples to steal him a donkey (Matt 21)

Although I admit the second one might not be a good example, the passage may be implying that he has magically created a donkey for them, rather than commanded them to steal one. You would think, though, that if he was magically creating one he would do so where they are, rather than in a neighbouring village...

Okay, you now appear to be just putting random holy-sounding words together here. You aren't even putting them in sentences. Does the second half of what you wrote have a meaning, and if so could you let me know what it is - because I can't glean one. 'Type of sinlessness'? 'without spot or wrinkle/firstborn'? What do these phrases have to do with the rest of the paragraph?

He seems very eager to sacrifice himself to himself to replace laws that he put in place and he enforces.

Still, this isn't the place to go into that theology. The relevant point is that you think that the passage means Jesus is saying he is there to 'kill' or 'replace' the old law.

That is the very apologetic that my OP was about - it blatantly contradicts the following verse where he says the old laws will remain in effect until the end of time.

How do you reconcile that verse with what you have just said? Jesus says he is NOT there to 'destroy' the law - which will remain until Heaven and Earth pass away, so 'fulfil' cannot mean that he is getting rid of the old law and replacing it with something better.

It's a nice analogy, although unfortunately it doesn't seem to fit the text even remotely. Could you point me to the actual verses where Yahweh likens himself to a wife-murderer? I can't seem to find them in any of my Bibles.

This sounds very plausible. Basically this would render the verse pair as being approximately (my paraphrasing)...

I am not here to twist the law but to clarify the law. The law will remain in effect until the end of time.

dado

one of the problematic passages: healing someone's blindness is not a violation of Shabbat.

Magdlyn

(PHV, I rather fancy Legolas myself...)

Ahem. The above refs to the obtaining of a donkey for J's triumphal entrance to Jerusalem, need not be seen as a breaking of Torah or a supernatural creation of said donkey.

J may have arranged ahead of time with his girlfriend Mary to leave a donkey tied up outside her house for his disciple to go and get. Mary M (also of Bethany, as I see it) is said to have financially supported J and his traveling homies.

Dean Anderson

True. I should have used the earlier (Mark 2) version of the Sabbath breaking story, before the healing elements were added (as we see in Matt 12 and Luke 6, before the John 9 version removes the original Sabbath breaking by gathering from fields and leaves the healing act by itself).

Iconoclastithon

fact is that christians tend to stop short there.
completely glossing over/ignoring or metaphorizing the rest of those verses where Jesus talks about not one stroke of the pen dissapearing and that whoever disobeys one of the LEAST of these{the law} shall be called LEAST.
Jesus himself did'nmt obey the crueler laws, so this obviuosly makes Jesus{though 'maybe' kindhearted} a hypocrite.