|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 15:50:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 15:51:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 15:51:15 GMT -5
A
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 15:52:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 15:52:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 15:54:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 15:54:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 15:54:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 15:55:39 GMT -5
X
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 15:55:50 GMT -5
QUESTION: Many claim that Paul is contradicting Jesus when he explained that the law had been abolished with the death of Christ but is that really so?Jesus said he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. To destroy has been defined as " # So is it possible to abolish something without destroying it? In the above definition we see that the word of "destroy" carries the meaning of altering the original condition of something to it exists in a less than optimal state [1]. If you for example tear up a book so that it can no longer serve the purpose for which it was made (to be read), you have "destroyed" it. So Jesus was saying he did not come to degrade the condition of the law, ruining it so that it could not longer serve its purpose. Yes but doesn't "destroy" also carry the meaning of put out of existence [2]? Yes, or rather it can. But we are talking about laws, you cannot "kill" a law in a literal sense, since it is not a living thing (like a horse or a man). A law is the application of commands, a command "exists" in the absolute term as long as there is a memory of it. While in colloquial language we say an abolished law no longer exists, in reality what we really mean is that the law was created, and then (not "UN-created" which is impossible), but that it was either abrogated or its application terminated. If one would want to go back and read or refer to that law from the past one can because it still exists albeit in the annals of history, but longer having any influence or power. So if Jesus didn't come to degrade and ruin the law, and didn't come to render it inexistent what did he come to do? He came to in his own words "fulfill" the law.  # Would the law continue operation after is has been "fulfilled"?Firstly it should be noted that to "fulfill" actually carries the meaning of "bring an end". This is logical because the word implies the completion (full) of something. The Mosaic Law was created to serve a particular purpose. Jesus indicated that he would neither alter or degrade the law nor render it non-existent, but that he would in fact "fulfill" it. In doing so, like a father keeping his promise or a builder fulfilling a contract, he (Jesus) ensured that the law completed its purpose and thus brought it to its natural end. CONCLUSION while "abolish" CAN mean "destroy" (just as destroy can mean kill) neither is applicable to in this case, the primary meaning of " abolish": "to end the observance or effect of : annul <abolish a law> <abolish slavery>" is applicable to Jesus' words at Matthew 5:17 with not contradiction of meaning or implied intent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 15:56:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 15:56:11 GMT -5
X
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 15:56:56 GMT -5
Z
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2018 16:06:52 GMT -5
|
|
