How did Jesus fulfil the law and the prophets?

[zephcom]

The starting point should be discovering what the Law actually is. Only then it may be ascertained if any one man can "fulfil" it all.

Regardless, we have a direct quote from Jesus which says He will fulfill it. I think the issue is really the meaning of that statement and did He actually do that.

 

[Barney2.0]

Then how did he "fulfil" those laws which didn't apply to him?

He fulfills the law in its entirely by how it applies to him he kept perfectly what was required of him thus he fulfilled the whole law in its essence. He doesn’t need to literally follow every law even those that don’t apply to him, to fulfill it in its essence.

 

[FireDragon76]

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17

For example, a popular Christian site states "Jesus’ purpose was to establish the Word, to embody it, and to fully accomplish all that was written ... the holy standard of the Law would be perfectly upheld by Christ, the strict requirements personally obeyed, and the ceremonial observances finally and fully satisfied ..."

It is obvious that Jesus could not have observed all of the strict requirements of the law to fulfil and satisfy them, since, for example, many of the laws applied only to women.

Of course... but when Christian orthodoxy was established, women simply did not matter.

I think Christians mean to say they think Jesus is super-awesome so God accepted his sacrifice. But when they try to come up with a legal theory to elaborate, it falls apart, as you note.

Eastern Orthodox have a different view of Jesus mission on earth, but the juridical view of western Christianity, I believe, is a major obstacle for me because it basically constructs a shell game where a human being cannot win without accepting a dubious religious authority on blind faith. Salvation has nothing to do with how you live, for instance, but what you believe- how you live is secondary.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course... but when Christian orthodoxy was established, women simply did not matter.

I think Christians mean to say they think Jesus is super-awesome so God accepted his sacrifice. But when they try to come up with a legal theory to elaborate, it falls apart, as you note.

Eastern Orthodox have a different view of Jesus mission on earth, but the juridical view of western Christianity, I believe, is a major obstacle for me because it basically constructs a shell game where a human being cannot win without accepting a dubious religious authority on blind faith. Salvation has nothing to do with how you live, for instance, but what you believe- how you live is secondary.

It's so heartening to think that Mary and Priscilla, and other ladies mentioned in the N.T. (Martha?) ... didn't matter.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's so heartening to think that Mary and Priscilla, and other ladies mentioned in the N.T. (Martha?) ... didn't matter.

Please.. until the last few decades, Mary Magdalene was considered a prostitute (see The Passion of the Christ for the usual treatment of her).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Please.. until the last few decades, Mary Magdalene was considered a prostitute (see The Passion of the Christ for the usual treatment of her).

I'm not even sure what you're getting at here. Whether she was a prostitute or ... "just" possessed by demons, Jesus helped her, and she had some honor by being mentioned for her work and care in Jesus' ministry and in His resurrection (i.e. in the Gospels).

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not even sure what you're getting at here. Whether she was a prostitute or ... "just" possessed by demons, Jesus helped her, and she had some honor by being mentioned for her work and care in Jesus' ministry and in His resurrection.

For most of Church history, women were regelated to second-class status. Even their presence in the NT was minimized. ("Junias" in 16:7 being the perfect example of mansplaining away a female voice in the Bible).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For most of Church history, women were regelated to second-class status. Even their presence in the NT was minimized. ("Junias" in 16:7 being the perfect example of mansplaining away a female voice in the Bible).

So, you think Origin "man-splained" things about ol' Junia, here?

Could be. But that doesn't cover over all of the other names of women we find in the N.T., nor even the occasional one in the O.T. .... like Deborah, or Lilith. (Just kidd'n on that very last name. )

 

[ToBeLoved]

"
It is obvious that Jesus could not have observed all of the strict requirements of the law to fulfil and satisfy them, since, for example, many of the laws applied only to women.

If a law applies only to a woman, why would anyone say He did not fulfill them as He was a man?

That seems odd.

To fulfill, He followed and kept perfectly.

 

[ToBeLoved]

For most of Church history, women were regelated to second-class status. Even their presence in the NT was minimized. ("Junias" in 16:7 being the perfect example of mansplaining away a female voice in the Bible).

It’s not even proven that this person was female.

Lol

 

[ananda]

If a law applies only to a woman, why would anyone say He did not fulfill them as He was a man?

That seems odd.

To fulfill, He followed and kept perfectly.

If he didn't fulfill the laws applying to women, then how could he have been a sacrifice for women?

 

[ToBeLoved]

If he didn't fulfill the laws applying to women, then how could he have been a sacrifice for women?

What was Gods criteria?

God told Israel that they had to follow the Law perfectly.

Does it mean it wasn’t followed if it does not pertain to a person?

No. Each individual must follow God’s Law perfectly.

We cannot make up criteria for God.

If Jesus has to come as a human being, than He has to be either male or female.

If God says the sacrifice is sufficient, than why would we doubt God, who will judge mankind.

The sacrifice is for all mankind, not one specific sexual orientation of mankind

 

[FireDragon76]

It’s not even proven that this person was female.

Lol

It's now widely recognized by most biblical scholars.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It's now widely recognized by most biblical scholars.

I don’t find that. But if that’s your understanding

 

[Verv]

It is possible that divine inspiration of the NT was at the end of the process rather than the beginning. This scenario is an oversimplification, but imagine people of varying sanities and sincerities and inspiration levels writing Christian scriptures. Then Christian leaders gather and pray for inspiration in deciding how to glean the scriptures that God wants in a NT canon from the pool of popular Christian scriptures. Maybe God made a special effort to inspire the gleaning rather than the sprouting of texts? ... If that is the case then maybe there is only one interpretation that we should apply to these texts - the interpretation of the Christians involved in canonizing the texts. If those people canonized Matthew with a certain understanding of what Matthew meant then that should be the understanding we take. What Matthew himself intended is irrelevant, because maybe that wasn't the stage when God's inspiration happened. Maybe Matthew was written by many people over many decades, and maybe none of them were actually inspired by God (aside from the inspiration that every living creature receives to unknowingly adhere to God's ultimate purpose). That's an extreme case of course. Probably inspiration happened at every stage of the process from sprouting to gleaning at varying intensities.

This is very speculative about how you believe the text is potentially to be treated.

We can tell from the fierce debates and the really quite developed concepts among Christians early on that a huge level of consensus was being reached. The letters of St. Paul and the sub-apostolic writings of people like St. Ignatius of Antioch show this.

Of course, debate did exist, but the texts that were canonized were considered definitive and supporting a narrow, singular perspective in terms of Trinitarian Christianity and the concepts that many would find to be Orthodox & Catholic.

What St. Matthew intended was identical to how he was interpreted by St. Paul and subsequent church fathers, and the only areas where debate remained were areas that are generally non-essential.

 

[cloudyday2]

What St. Matthew intended was identical to how he was interpreted by St. Paul and subsequent church fathers, and the only areas where debate remained were areas that are generally non-essential.

Of course the Gospel of Matthew was not written until after St. Paul was executed. Maybe some embryonic and possibly oral Gospel of Matthew existed at the time of St. Paul though. One of my pet theories is that there were two versions of Matthew. Matthew version 1 was identical to Q, and it was written in Aramaic as Papias claimed. After Mark became popular, somebody decided to combine Matthew version 1 and Mark into a single gospel, and that became Matthew version 2 which was the sayings of Matthew version 1 (Q) plus the narrative of Mark.

But I disagree with your assertion that Catholic/Orthodox theology matched the theology of the early Christians. I think the early Christians were pretty confused about what they believed, and that is why there were so many varieties of Christianity almost from the very beginning.

 

[FireDragon76]

Of course the Gospel of Matthew was not written until after St. Paul was executed. Maybe some embryonic and possibly oral Gospel of Matthew existed at the time of St. Paul though. One of my pet theories is that there were two versions of Matthew. Matthew version 1 was identical to Q, and it was written in Aramaic as Papias claimed. After Mark became popular, somebody decided to combine Matthew version 1 and Mark into a single gospel, and that became Matthew version 2 which was the sayings of Matthew version 1 (Q) plus the narrative of Mark.

But I disagree with your assertion that Catholic/Orthodox theology matched the theology of the early Christians. I think the early Christians were pretty confused about what they believed, and that is why there were so many varieties of Christianity almost from the very beginning.

From what I gather, I don't believe early Christianity was all that different from Mahayana Buddhism in terms of how texts were regarded, which is to say, people chose them more in terms of popularity or usefulness than critical scholarship.

With the rise of the imperial religious consensus, the canon was more or less closed and serious debates within Christianity ended. That doesn't help the credibility of anyone who wants to argue that early Christianity was identical to what we find in the New Testament.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

From what I gather, I don't believe early Christianity was all that different from Mahayana Buddhism in terms of how texts were regarded, which is to say, people chose them more in terms of popularity or usefulness than critical scholarship.

With the rise of the imperial religious consensus, the canon was more or less closed and serious debates within Christianity ended. That doesn't help the credibility of anyone who wants to argue that early Christianity was identical to what we find in the New Testament.

.....it also seems to go without saying that some amount of what passed for "Christianity" was cited by the N.T. writers themselves as not being "identical" with the overall asserted (...I hate to say "variably asserted") Kerygma in the N.T.

On the other hand, if I remember right from my class on Eastern Philosophy/Religion, unlike Christianity, Siddhartha Guatama wasn't really seen to be "divinized" for roughly 3 centuries after the fact, whereas with Jesus of Nazareth, it was pretty quick. So, let's not hop-skip-and jump over that contrast.

 

[FireDragon76]

.....it also seems to go without saying that some amount of what passed for "Christianity" was cited by the N.T. writers themselves as not being "identical" with the overall asserted (...I hate to say "variably asserted") Kerygma in the N.T.

On the other hand, if I remember right from my class on Eastern Philosophy/Religion, unlike Christianity, Siddhartha Guatama wasn't really seen to be "divinized" for roughly 3 centuries after the fact, whereas with Jesus of Nazareth, it was pretty quick. So, let's not hop-skip-and jump over that contrast.

In Buddhism, Buddha is not a creator god or anything like that. He was never "divinized". The Trikaya doctrine does posit an eternal Buddha-body of ultimate reality, the Dharmakaya, but this should not be understood as Christians do as a reified concept of a personal God.

The book of Acts betrays the reality that early Christians did not agree on what was, and wasn't orthodox. James basically set up Paul for his arrest, because James didn't believe Paul was faithful to his religion. Yet James never even really followed Jesus during his life. This suggests a disorganized movement with a variety of interpretations of who Jesus was, what his mission was, and so on.

Calling Jesus a "Son of God" is not a metaphysical statement, in my mind. Lots of people can be called "sons of God" in second temple Judaism. It just means a holy person who is God-like. Just like in Semitic idiom a "son of the road" means a traveller, rather than being a metaphysical statement about a person.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In Buddhism, Buddha is not a creator god or anything like that. He was never "divinized". The Trikaya doctrine does posit an eternal Buddha-body of ultimate reality, the Dharmakaya, but this should not be understood as Christians do as a reified concept of a personal God.

Yes, I understand that. I've studied some of that in college.

The book of Acts betrays the reality that early Christians did not agree on what was, and wasn't orthodox. James basically set up Paul for his arrest, because James didn't believe Paul was faithful to his religion. Yet James never even really followed Jesus during his life. This suggests a disorganized movement with a variety of interpretations of who Jesus was, what his mission was, and so on.

I hate to sound sarcastic, FD, but you know this exactly how? I think you're reading something into the biblical text that's not there.

Calling Jesus a "Son of God" is not a metaphysical statement, in my mind. Lots of people can be called "sons of God" in second temple Judaism. It just means a holy person who is God-like. Just like in Semitic idiom a "son of the road" means a traveller, rather than being a metaphysical statement about a person.

Could be, but I'm going to go with my sources over and above what you're all too briefly stating on this: I'm going to have to remain standing on the side of the Historic Church, in all of its both Trinitarian Splendor and its Diversity and its even its mistakes, rather than placing a toe over on your side of things.