Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clouseau · 10-17-2007, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

'We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious.' 1 Ti 1:9 NIV

Quote:

Well, duh. But that is begging the question: you are righteous if you don't break the law, so it doesn't affect you. If you break the law you are unrighteous and then the law does affect you.

Everyone, angels, men, even God is judged by the law, natural law, not Mosaic Law. But only one kept the law, so only those who identify with that one have righteousness imputed to them. 'There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.' Those who do not so identify have to rely on their own righteousness when judged.

Clouseau · 10-17-2007, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gudjonsson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Indeed it does; those who do not have the righteousness of Christ have the full force of law to deal with.

'We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious.' 1 Ti 1:9 NIV

Quote:

What has 1 Tim 1:9 have to do with anything?

Is it irrational to state that lawbreakers will be judged under law?

EmpiricalGod · 10-17-2007, 01:10 PM

I had another Christian for some reason trying to argue aswell that the law in Matthew was intended to remain.
he pointed out that

Quote:

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. "

Which does kinda render the whole argument that Jesus Resurrection fufills everything meaningless, hence the law shouldn't be inforced. Heaven [sky probabyl] and Earth are still here.

Cheerful Charlie · 10-17-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmpiricalGod

Here is the verses in question

Matthew 5:17-18

Quote:

"17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

I was talking to someone who is a Christian, and was asking him about how this passage should be interpreted in the light of the idea that OT laws are not followed by Christians.

He linked me to this christian site that said.

Quote:

In Matthew’s record of what is commonly called, “The Sermon on the Mount,” these words of Jesus are recorded: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18).

It is frequently argued that if Jesus did not “abolish” the law, then it must still be binding. Accordingly, such components as the “Sabbath day” requirement must be operative still, along with perhaps numerous other elements of the Mosaic Law. This assumption is grounded upon a misunderstanding of the words and intent of this passage. Christ did not here suggest that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain forever in effect. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament record (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15). Consider the following points.

Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term “kataluo,” literally meaning to “loose down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Corinthians 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., to “render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate.”

It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” The meaning is this. Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, he revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience, or else imposed a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10,13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.

If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, as it did before Christ came, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what he came “to do.” On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish what he came to accomplish, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal institution today. Further, if the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ, and thus remains as a binding legal system for today, then it is not just partially binding. Rather, it is totally compelling system. Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus fulfilled all of the law. We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.

http://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html

I read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrmen and he seems to imply that those verses actually show that Jesus intended the law to remain for the Christians.
But then again , we have examples of Jesus also in gospel of Matthew breaking the Sabbath etc.

So i am really interested to see whether the information stated in that site is accurate, the etymology of 'abolish' .

Jesus is clear. As long as heaven and Earth have not passed away,not a jot nor tittle of ""the law' will pass away.

That is the operative key command of Jesus.
When did Paul outrank Jesus?

How do we know Paul is not a clever Satanic counterfeit meant to lead us away from God?

CC

Dutch_labrat · 10-17-2007, 01:53 PM

Can I just insert a related question?

As far as I know all biblical statements supporting the idea that the law (thora) was abolished after Jesus come from writings from Paul. The quote in the OP mentions Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15.

Isn't this very telling? It look like after Jesus when Paul was bringing the gospel gentiled that he had to get rid of those awkward jewish laws.

But am I right? Is it true that the gospels support upholding the old laws and that the writings after that (acts, letters) mostly support abolishing it?

Clouseau · 10-17-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch_labrat

Can I just insert a related question?

As far as I know all biblical statements supporting the idea that the law (thora) was abolished after Jesus come from writings from Paul. The quote in the OP mentions Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15.

Isn't this very telling? It look like after Jesus when Paul was bringing the gospel gentiled that he had to get rid of those awkward jewish laws.

How many Jewish laws did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph and Judah have to put up with?

Quote:

But am I right? Is it true that the gospels support upholding the old laws and that the writings after that (acts, letters) mostly support abolishing it?

The gospels support upholding Mosaic law at the time that Jesus spoke. So mention of 'the seat of Moses' was appropriate at time of mention. It cannot be taken to be universally appropriate. Only a tiny proportion of the human population were ever subject to Mosaic Law. People get fixated about it, no doubt because obeying the Decalogue is less demanding than Christianity.

Clouseau · 10-17-2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

Jesus is clear. As long as heaven and Earth have not passed away,not a jot nor tittle of ""the law' will pass away.

What was Jesus' purpose, then?

Chris Weimer · 10-17-2007, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

Jesus is clear. As long as heaven and Earth have not passed away,not a jot nor tittle of ""the law' will pass away.

What was Jesus' purpose, then?

This is why I stressed the importance of keeping quotes in context. Cheerful Charlie has actually truncated the text: For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Jesus came to fulfill the law, not destroy it, in his very own words.

EmpiricalGod · 10-17-2007, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

What was Jesus' purpose, then?

This is why I stressed the importance of keeping quotes in context. Cheerful Charlie has actually truncated the text: For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Jesus came to fulfill the law, not destroy it, in his very own words.

But what is 'all'? did Jesus fulfill all? or only some. does it refer to all the other prophecies etc, that haven't yet occurs which would signal the return of Christ? Or is that not part of the law?

Chris Weimer · 10-18-2007, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmpiricalGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

This is why I stressed the importance of keeping quotes in context. Cheerful Charlie has actually truncated the text: For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Jesus came to fulfill the law, not destroy it, in his very own words.

But what is 'all'? did Jesus fulfill all? or only some. does it refer to all the other prophecies etc, that haven't yet occurs which would signal the return of Christ? Or is that not part of the law?

Please elaborate. This is an actual paper I'm working on, so the more information you supply, the better. Sorry if I won't be as active or detailed, my time this next week is very limited.

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

10-17-2007, 01:53 PM	#25
Dutch_labrat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Leiden, The Netherlands Posts: 970	Can I just insert a related question? As far as I know all biblical statements supporting the idea that the law (thora) was abolished after Jesus come from writings from Paul. The quote in the OP mentions Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15. Isn't this very telling? It look like after Jesus when Paul was bringing the gospel gentiled that he had to get rid of those awkward jewish laws. But am I right? Is it true that the gospels support upholding the old laws and that the writings after that (acts, letters) mostly support abolishing it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.