Gamera

You appear to be arguing with Jesus and/or the gospel writers that quoted him. The Greek word means what it means, and I have accurately rendered it as such.

Most definitely. Any Christian who is attempting the follow the law is in need of a gut-check. Christians do not follow law. They are enjoined to love others, and that's why, they don't kill, steal, covet, etc.

Jesus states plainly, that if you are not killing people because of the Law, but don't love others, you're as guilty of murder as if you killed them.

Matthew 5:22-et seq.

Prester John

emphasis mine

You'll forgive my relatively lowbrow approach, and misunderstandings, but your two remarks seem diametrically opposed to each other. Also you didn't explain why the OT uses phrases that indicate the law would be around for ever when it actually means for a couple of hundred years?

I don't think i have the neccessary doublethink for all this.

Soul Invictus

I asked you to explain your usage of the word complete. Can you also provide references where Jesus asserts that the the law was incomplete?

TomboyMom

1. So the OT laws are all out the window then, and we start over? Why do you think Christians are so eager to have them posted in public places? Or only the ones Jesus specifically modifies? In which case why don't Christians keep kosher?

2. What does Jesus say about homosexuality?

Chili

The laws were given to Moses to convict man of sin for which 'goodies' must be targeted and homosexuality obviously is not one such 'goodie.' I mean, if you are not a home such a law could never convict you of sin and be useless for the purpose intended. Right?

Gamera

1. No real Christian should want the 10 Commandments posted any where since Jesus died to free us from the Law. I personally find it bizarre, but in my opinion the religious right has nothing to do with Christianity, but is a political movment in opposition to the gospel message.

2. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality at all. Not one word.

Gamera

My usage is irrelevant since I'm relying on what Jesus said, are at least the depiction of what he said in the NT, and he said it it was incomplete since, he said it needed to be "fulfilled" i.e. it was incomplete. However, my interpretation is that the Law was incomplete because its purpose was not fulfilled until the coming of Jesus, that purpose being that no one can end one's estrangement with God by following the Law, because no one can follow the Law, and hence a savior is needed.

I think I gave the link to the discussion of the passage in Greek, but happy to give it again.

http://net.metadynamics.com/JesusOnInerrancy.asp


"Jesus testified that God’s inspiration permeated the Law and the Prophets, and in The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus proclaimed:

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 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.

Matthew 5:17-18 NKJV [emphasis mine]

The word fulfill seems to suggest that Jesus came to fulfill prophecy, but as we look back at the Greek root word, plhrwsai (plerosai, Strong’s Index 4137 pleroo, related to pleroma), translated as fulfill in the above passage, we see that Jesus’ meaning in this passage is not so clear. Strong’s Index lists all of the following translations as possible meanings for the last word in the passage:

Literally to make replete/complete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.:--accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfill, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.

When we study the rest of the context of his message that this proclamation introduced in The Sermon on the Mount, we discover that Jesus meant that he would restore, complete and fulfill the Law and the Prophets; He would provide their full and correct meaning and eliminate the errors in their current understanding (Restore the Truth); He would add teachings to them to complete them (Complete the Path); and He would serve as a perfect example of how to live by them (Fulfill the Law; Provide the Light).

It is only this restored and completed Law that Jesus proclaims will never perish and that he wants us to take as our foundation of rock."

Gamera

I think I explained this many times, but happy to do it again.

The Law is eternal for those who don't choose to avail themselves of grace through the gospel message. They are stuck with the Law as a means to end their estrangement with God. And according to the gospel they will fail. So it's cold comfort that the Law is eternal.

For those who accept the gospel message the Law is simply irrelevant, whether eternal or not. You seem to be confusing what is eternal to what is applicable. The Law isn't applicable to Christians; indeed, such is at the core of what it means to be a Christian.

Gamera

Jesus by his statements manifestly overturned the Law. You or somebody criticized Jesus for not practicing what he preached because he was angry. OK, let's assume you're right. That goes to practicing what he preached, not to his claim that he overturned the law.

I don't think so. His sermon overturns the law on its face. If he conceptualized the law as eternal to those who don't accept his teachings, that's not inconsistent with his teachings.

With explanations that show he didn't care about the law.

For example, he pays the temple tax so as "not to offend," but makes clear he doesn't need to pay it.

By redefining it, he overturned it. By definition if the law were perfect it would rebuff redefinition.

I think you have misread what you claim are contractions, so I don't agree.

Gamera

Well, I agree with the distinction between the gospels and the other NT writings, and between the gospels themselves. I don't know if that changes the conclusion, however. Assuming Jesus added, and any of the gospels accurately depicts his teachings about that, adding indeed overturns law conceived as "perfect" and "eternal," which I think some of the posters asserted was the issue.