RRoman

Hello all, I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for this question so feel free to move this thread wherever it belongs.

Anyway, I'm "debating" some Christians on my bus and they say that the laws of the old testament do not apply anymore because Jesus fullfilled them or something. Could any of you give me some suggestions about refuting that and arguing in general? I've found some verses at skepticsannotatedbible.com but I'm not sure if that will be enough. Thanks anyway.

Edit:
I've thought of using
Matthew 5:18
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
but they will probably just say that Jesus "fullfilled" it by getting killed on the cross. Any suggestion?

YHWHtruth

Due to limited time, I will not be presenting opposing
viewpoints in this post. I will simply give my take on
Mt 5:18 and cite one scholar, who seems to posit a
view that's in harmony with the NWT rendering. There
is plenty of material out there on this verse. Some
side with the rendering found in the NWT, others do
not (cf. Hagner's Word Commentary on Matthew).

First, let us compare how different Bible translations
render this passage:

"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" (NKJV).

"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass
away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass
from the Law until all is accomplished" (NASB).

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass
away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law
until all is accomplished" (RSV).

"for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and
the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may
not pass away from the law, till that all may come to
pass" (YLT).

"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" (NIV).

"Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away,
not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a
letter will pass from the law, until all things have
taken place" (Catholic NAB).

As you can see, translators often choose to translate
the first occurrence of hEWS AN in a manner that
suggest "heaven and earth" will or might eventually
pass away.

The Greek of Mt 5:18 reads:

amhn gar legw umin ews an parelqh o ouranos kai h gh
iwta en h mia keraia ou mh parelqh apo tou nomou ews |
[an] | an | panta genhtai

You can see this text online for yourself at
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/GNT/Matthew.html

Ulrich Luz (Matthew 1-7: A Commentary. Translated by
Wilhelm C. Linss. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989)
reviews the translational possibilities for the Greek
of Mt 5:18. He observes that the words hEWS AN PARELQH
hO OURANOS KAI hH GH can either be a periphrastic way
of saying "never" (see Luz, p. 265ff) or it may "limit
the validity of the law until the end of the world."

Luz points out that the decision between these two
alternatives is "very difficult" since in Mt 24:35,
Jesus is reported to have said: "Heaven and earth will
pass away, but my words will not pass away."
Elsewhere, however, we read:

"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away,
than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be
dropped" (Lk 16:17 NRSV).

The Hebrew Scriptures also teach us concerning the
Messiah:

"In his days may the righteous flourish, And abundance
of peace till the moon is no more" (Ps 72:7 NASB).

Yet, we read in Jeremiah 31:35-36 (ASV):

"Thus saith Jehovah, who giveth the sun for a light by
day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars
for a light by night, who stirreth up the sea, so that
the waves thereof roar; Jehovah of hosts is his name:
If these ordinances depart from before me, saith
Jehovah, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from
being a nation before me for ever."

The passages in Matthew 24:35; Lk 16:17 and the OT
usage of hEWS AN in the LXX might have influenced the
NWT handling of Mt 5:18. But, going back to Luz'
discussion, knowing exactly how to construe Mt 5:18
does seem difficult. As Luz says:

"Does the evangelist mean that--in contrast to the
words of Jesus--the law is to be valid only until the
passing of heaven and earth? Matthew then would follow
a sparsely documented Jewish idea that the law would
be abolished in the future eon" (ibid).

In order to resolve the apparent or imagined
difficulties associated with translating and
understanding Mt 5:18, Luz goes into a number of
text-critical and source issues that I will not
concern myself with here. Suffice it to say that he
thinks hEWS AN PARELQH hO OURANOS KAI hH GH basically
means "never." This view is based, in part, on a
comparison of both material and linguistic parallels
found in the LXX. To find out each example referred to
in the commentary, see Luz 265ff.

Linguistic parallels to Mt 5:18 are scanty. Luz cites
two, however, Job 14:12; Ps 72:5, 7, 17. The one at
Job 14:12 is really good, I think. Even if one
translated hEWS AN there as "until," it could still
carry the meaning "never."

You might also want to check out BDAG and Louw-Nida on
this point.

Max

Calzaer

It's really, really funny listening to Protestants.

They bash the hell out of Catholics for believing that oral and church tradition is just as important as the Bible, and subscribe to a sola scriptura belief....

...and then, when confronted with the inadaquacies of sola scritura, they go back to extra-Biblical sources to tell them what the Bible says (much of it nothing more than tradition, oral and otherwise). But of course, they continue to bash the Catholics for doing the same thing.

YHWHtruth

This is just a sample of the attitude Cal has displayed over the past couple of months. I could list others, but I hate listing any since we are supposed to be discussing the meaning of Scripture, not wasting time with these petty things. However, in my experience it is not at all uncommon for someone to attack their opponent when they feel their position weakening. It reminds me of an old saying, "He who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out."


Max

Calzaer

Hey, either the Bible is all you need to read to understand God, or you're a Catholic in disguise. Pick one. You either need extra-biblial explanation for certain verses, or you don't.

Wayin

RRoman,

Heres some thoughts from my Messianic days - maybe something in this reasoning may help in your request....
I`ll start with Paul as he is the one that the lawless preachers like to use...

Might sound weird, although, Paul himself believed in keeping the Law:



Acts 24:14 (NKJV) "But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the Elohim of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

Acts 25:8 (NKJV) while he answered for himself, "Neither against the Law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all."

Acts 18:21 (NKJV) but took leave of them, saying, "I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem; but I will return again to you, Yahweh willing." And he sailed from Ephesus.

Roma 7:25 (NKJV) I thank Yahweh--through Yahushua the Messiah our Master! So then, with the mind I myself serve the Law of Yahweh, but with the flesh the Law of sin.


Paul taught the disciples not to let anyone judge them for observing the Law:



Colo 2:16 (NKJV) So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the body of the Messiah.


Paul says that the doers of the Law will be justified and those who break it will be judged.



Roma 2:12 (NKJV) For as many as have sinned without Law will also perish without Law, and as many as have sinned in the Law will be judged by the Law 13 (for not the hearers of the Law [are] just in the sight of Yahweh, but the doers of the Law will be justified;


The word that is translated "without Law" here is word #460 which means "not amenable to the Jewish/Mosaic Law". (See Thayers and Strong's lexicon)


Paul says that we know His will and approve the things that are excellent when instructed out of the Law.



Roma 2:17 (NKJV) Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the Law, and make your boast in Yahweh, 18 and know [His] will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the Law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the Law.


Here he says that when we break the Law, we dishonor Yahweh and blaspheme His name.



Roma 2:21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say, "Do not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who make your boast in the Law, do you dishonor Yahweh through breaking the Law? 24 For "the name of Yahweh is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," as it is written.


Here Paul twice states that we learn what sin is from the Law. This backs up the statement in 1John 3:4 that Sin is transgression of the Law.



Roma 3:20 (NKJV) Therefore by the deeds of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the Law [is] the knowledge of sin.

Roma 7:7 (NKJV) What shall we say then? [Is] the Law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the Law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the Law had said, "You shall not covet."


Here is a key scripture proving that Paul believed that thru faith we do not make the Law void, but rather we establish the Law (To cause or make to stand, #2476).



Roma 3:31 (NKJV) Do we then make void the Law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the Law.


Here is another key scripture like the one above proving that Paul did not believe that once we are under grace, that we can continue to sin (break the Law)



Roma 6:15 (NKJV) What then? Shall we sin because we are not under Law but under grace? Certainly not!
16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin [leading] to death, or of obedience [leading] to righteousness?


Here Paul is equating "the Law" with "the commandment" and stating his opinion of them



Roma 7:12 (NKJV) Therefore the Law [is] holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.


Here is an unpopular statement of Paul's. Many christians like to believe that the Law is of the flesh.



Roma 7:14 (NKJV) For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.


Paul delights in the Law of Yahweh



Roma 7:22 (NKJV) For I delight in the Law of Yahweh according to the inward man.


Now we will move on to where Paul uses the term "Lawlessness". The word that is translated "Lawlessness" in the following verses is the greek word "anomia" which carries the following definition:


BDB/Thayers # 458
458 anomia {an-om-ee'-ah}
from 459; TDNT - 4:1085,646; n f
AV - iniquity 12, unrighteousness 1, transgress the law + 4060 1,
transgression of the law 1; 15
1) the condition of without law
1a) because ignorant of it
1b) because of violating it
2) contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness


Now for a second witness here is the definition of this in the Strong's Hebrew Lexicon:

458. anomia, an-om-ee'-ah; from 459;
illegality, i.e. violation of the law or (gen.) wickedness: --- iniquity X transgress (ion of) the law, unrighteousness.

Now note that both lexicons it states that both of these words come from the greek word #459. This word means "To be destitute or in violation of the Mosaic or Jewish Law" (See Thayer's and Strong's Lexicons). Now the word #458 is translated "transgression of the Law" in the King James version of 1john 3:4



1Joh 3:4 (av) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the Law: for sin is the transgression of the Law.


Yes, this was written by John but it is surely showing that this word is certainly the definition of sin. For sin is anomia (condition of being without the Law or violation of the Law, transgression of the Law)

In these verses he shows that righteousness is the opposite of Lawlessness (#458 in violation of the Law). Therefore if one is keeping the Law, they must walking in righteousness. (Though this is confirmed already by many verses I have already shown.) Please also remember this for later in the study.




Roma 6:19 (NKJV) I speak in human [terms] because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members [as] slaves of uncleanness, and of Lawlessness [leading] to [more] Lawlessness, so now present your members [as] slaves [of] righteousness for holiness.
2Cor 6:14 (NKJV) Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with Lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?


Here again, Paul equates this word (#458) Lawless with SIN.



Roma 4:7 (NKJV) "Blessed [are] [those] whose Lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;


Now here is an example where this word is used when translating the Old Testament.



Hebr 1:9 (NKJV) You have loved righteousness and hated Lawlessness (#458);
Therefore Elohim, Your Elohim, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."



Now this is interesting...here is an example of where the New Testament is quoting from the old testament. (From the Hebrew to the greek). Now what word does this greek word #458 translate from? Let's find out:


Psal 45:6 (av) Thy throne, O El', [is] for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom [is] a right sceptre.Psal 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickednessFrom the greek #458) therefore El', thy El', hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.



So it comes from the Hebrew word reshah (#7562) which means "Wickedness" !! Now how is this word used in other places in scripture? Here we seen an example of a Psalm that makes wickedness the opposite of righteousness. (Just as Paul taught).
Now this study might go on forever and ever proving that the meaning of what Paul meant by "righteousness" was obedience to the Law but lets look at some examples.



Roma 6:16 (NKJV) Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin [leading] to death, or of obedience [leading] to righteousness?


Here obedience is equated with righteousness (as defined by the Law)



Roma 10:5 (NKJV) For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the Law, "The man who does those things shall live by them."


Here are many other scriptures then where Paul says that we ought to walk in righteousness:



Ephe 5:8 (NKJV) For you were once darkness, but now [you] [are] light in Yahweh. Walk as children of light Ephe 5:9 (for the fruit of the Spirit [is] in all goodness, righteousness, and truth),
Ephe 5:10 (NKJV) finding out what is acceptable to Yahweh. Ephe 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose [them].

Ephe 6:14 (NKJV) Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness,

Phil 1:9 (NKJV) And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, Phil 1:10 that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of the Messiah, Phil 1:11 being filled with the fruits of righteousness which [are] by Yahushua the Messiah, to the glory and praise of Yahweh.

2Tim 2:22 (NKJV) Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on Yahweh out of a pure heart. 23 (NKJV) But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.


Here is an example where Paul takes another step forward in showing that ALL SCRIPTURE (which must include the Law of Yahweh because there was no written "new testament" at that time) is given by Yahweh, profitable for doctrine, for reproof and instruction in righteousness.




2Tim 3:16 (NKJV) All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of Yahweh, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,17 that the man of Yahweh may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


Now in conclusion I must say that there would have to be very little doubt that according to these verses in which Paul spoke, he certainly upheld the Law as the very definition of righteousness and holiness. And he taught that breaking these commandments were Unrighteousness, Lawlessness, wickedness, and most importantly, SIN. Therefore we can conclude that whenever Paul speaks of Sin..he most certainly is talking about disobeying the commandments in the Law. How many more scriptures could be added where Paul speaks against sin? This study would certainly be many pages long!

Therefore, we can see that it must have been obvious to Paul as well as quite obvious to his followers that Law obedience was expected. I believe that many of the details of Law observance were worked out in their public meetings as well as in the synagogues (see where James made the decision in Acts 15 that the Gentiles would learn the Law on the synagogues every Sabbath).

One final quote:


Roma 8:6-7 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against Yahweh; for it is not subject to the Law of Yahweh, nor indeed can be.




And life goes on!
Wayin

YHWHtruth

But the real purpose of the Law was, as stated by the apostle Paul, “to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive.” It was a “tutor leading to Christ.” It pointed to Christ as the objective aimed at (“Christ is the end of the Law”). It revealed that all humans, including the Jews, are under sin and that life cannot be obtained by “works of law.” (Ga 3:19-24; Ro 3:20; 10:4) It was “spiritual,” from God, and “holy.” (Ro 7:12,_14) At Ephesians 2:15 it is called “the Law of commandments consisting in decrees.” It was a standard of perfection, marking the one who could keep it as perfect, worthy of life. (Le 18:5; Ga 3:12) Since imperfect humans could not keep the Law, it showed that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Ro 3:23) Only Jesus Christ kept it blamelessly.—Joh 8:46; Heb 7:26.

The Law also served as “a shadow of the good things to come,” and things connected with it were “typical representations,” causing Jesus and the apostles to call upon it often to explain heavenly things and matters concerning Christian doctrine and conduct. Therefore, it provides an essential and necessary field of study for the Christian.—Heb 10:1; 9:23.

Jesus said that the whole Law hung upon the two commandments, to love God and to love one’s neighbor. (Mt 22:35-40) It is interesting that in the book of Deuteronomy (where the Law was modified somewhat to govern Israel’s new circumstances upon settling in the Promised Land) the Hebrew words for “love,” “loved,” and so forth, appear more than 20 times.

The Ten Words (Ex 34:28), or the Ten Commandments, were the basic part of the Law but were combined with about 600 other laws, all of which were of equal force and binding power upon the Israelites. (Jas 2:10) The first four of the Ten Commandments defined man’s relationship to God; the fifth, to God and to parents; and the last five, to one’s fellowman. These last five were named in apparent order of severity of harm done to one’s fellowman: murder, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, and covetousness or selfish desire. The tenth commandment makes the Law unique in comparison with the laws of all other nations in that it prohibits selfish desire, a command in reality enforceable only by God. It actually got at the cause of violation of all the other commandments.—Ex 20:2-17; De 5:6-21; compare Eph 5:5; Col 3:5; Jas 1:14,_15; 1Jo 2:15-17.

The Law contained many principles and guiding statutes. The judges were given latitude to investigate and consider motives and attitude of violators, along with the circumstances surrounding the violation. A deliberate, disrespectful, or unrepentant violator received the full penalty. (Nu 15:30,_31) In other cases a lighter judgment might be determined. For example, whereas a murderer was to be put to death without fail, an accidental manslayer could receive mercy. (Nu 35:15,_16) The owner of a bull that habitually gored people and that killed a man might die; or the judges might impose a ransom. (Ex 21:29-32) The difference between a deliberate thief and a wrongdoer who voluntarily confessed evidently accounts for the difference between the penalty stated at Exodus 22:7 and that of Leviticus 6:1-7.

Max

mark9950

are you state,federal and local laws,mainly because the bible was written for people who believe in the gods not the God.

There is a big difference between the gods and the God.The gods are just myths like the gods of the so called God elohim(not elowah).

Kilgore Trout

YHWHtruth said:

If Jesus always kept the law, why was it that in Matthew 12, he was picking wheat on the sabbath? Then when the Pharisees asked him about it all he gave was excuses like "I am lord of the sabbath." He also said in Mark 7:14 that people can eat anything they want. The law had lots of food that could not be eaten. So in other words he obeyed "all" the laws unless he didn't like them. Pretty clever. I love those standard christian apologetic lines. Just say Jesus kept the law and who cares that there is lots of evidence that he didn't keep it.

YHWHtruth

<<<If Jesus always kept the law, why was it that in Matthew 12, he was picking wheat on the sabbath? Then when the Pharisees asked him about it all he gave was excuses like "I am lord of the sabbath." >>>

Religious leaders in Jerusalem had just sought to kill Jesus for alleged violations of the Sabbath. Now Pharisees bring an accusation. “Look! Your disciples are doing what it is not lawful to do on the sabbath,” they charge.

The Pharisees claim that picking grain and rubbing it in the hands to eat is harvesting and threshing. But their strict interpretation of what constitutes work has made the Sabbath burdensome, whereas it was meant to be a joyous, spiritually upbuilding time. So Jesus counters with Scriptural examples to show that Jehovah God never purposed such an unduly strict application of His Sabbath law.

Jesus says that when David and his men were hungry, they stopped at the tabernacle and ate the loaves of presentation. Those loaves had already been removed from before Jehovah and replaced by fresh ones, and they were ordinarily reserved for the priests to eat. Yet, under the circumstances, David and his men were not condemned for eating them.

Providing another example, Jesus says: “Have you not read in the Law that on the sabbaths the priests in the temple treat the sabbath as not sacred and continue guiltless?” Yes, even on the Sabbath the priests carry on butchering and other work at the temple in preparing animal sacrifices! “But I tell you,” Jesus says, “that something greater than the temple is here.”

Admonishing the Pharisees, Jesus continues: “If you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.” Then he concludes: “For Lord of the sabbath is what the Son of man is.” What does Jesus mean by that? Jesus is referring to his peaceful Kingdom rule of a thousand years.

<<<<He also said in Mark 7:14 that people can eat anything they want. The law had lots of food that could not be eaten. So in other words he obeyed "all" the laws unless he didn't like them. Pretty clever. I love those standard christian apologetic lines. Just say Jesus kept the law and who cares that there is lots of evidence that he didn't keep it. >>>

This qualification is not accurate at all kilmore.

(Mark 7:14) So, calling the crowd to him again, he proceeded to say to them: “Listen to me, all of YOU, and get the meaning.

OPPOSITION to Jesus becomes stronger. Not only do many of his disciples leave but Jews in Judea are seeking to kill him, even as they did when he was in Jerusalem during the Passover of 31_C.E.

It is now the Passover of 32_C.E. Likely, in accordance with God’s requirement to attend, Jesus goes up to the Passover in Jerusalem. However, he does so cautiously because his life is in danger. Afterward he returns to Galilee.

Jesus is perhaps in Capernaum when Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem come to him. They are looking for grounds on which to accuse him of religious lawbreaking. “Why is it your disciples overstep the tradition of the men of former times?” they inquire. “For example, they do not wash their hands when about to eat a meal.” This is not something required by God, yet the Pharisees consider it a serious offense not to perform this traditional ritual, which included washing up to the elbows.

Rather than answer them regarding their accusation, Jesus points to their wicked and willful breaking of God’s Law. “Why is it you also overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition?” he wants to know. “For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Let him that reviles father or mother end up in death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have by which you might get benefit from me is a gift dedicated to God,” he must not honor his father at all.’”

Indeed, the Pharisees teach that money, property, or anything dedicated as a gift to God belongs to the temple and cannot be used for some other purpose. Yet, actually, the dedicated gift is kept by the person who dedicated it. In this way a son, by simply saying that his money or property is “corban”—a gift dedicated to God or to the temple—evades his responsibility to help his aged parents, who may be in desperate straits.

Properly indignant at the Pharisees’ wicked twisting of God’s Law, Jesus says: “You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you, when he said, ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”

Perhaps the crowd had backed away to allow the Pharisees to question Jesus. Now, when the Pharisees have no answer to Jesus’ strong censure of them, he calls the crowd near. “Listen to me,” he says, “and get the meaning. There is nothing from outside a man that passes into him that can defile him; but the things that issue forth out of a man are the things that defile a man.”

Later, when they enter a house, his disciples ask: “Do you know that the Pharisees stumbled at hearing what you said?”

“Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted,” Jesus answers. “Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

Jesus seems surprised when, in behalf of the disciples, Peter asks for clarification regarding what defiles a man. “Are you also yet without understanding?” Jesus responds. “Are you not aware that everything entering into the mouth passes along into the intestines and is discharged into the sewer? However, the things proceeding out of the mouth come out of the heart, and those things defile a man. For example, out of the heart come wicked reasonings, murders, adulteries, fornications, thieveries, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things defiling a man; but to take a meal with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

Jesus is not here discouraging normal hygiene. He is not arguing that a person need not wash his hands before preparing food or eating a meal. Rather, Jesus is condemning the hypocrisy of religious leaders who deviously try to circumvent God’s righteous laws by insisting on unscriptural traditions. Yes, it is wicked deeds that defile a man, and Jesus shows that these originate in a person’s heart.

Max