• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

I'm tired of the "abolished" argument...

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,130
3,439
✟997,456.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Christ said he came to fulfill the law not abolish. So let's clear the air

1. Christ came to fulfill the law
2. Christ did not come to abolish the law

now that we got that out of the way can we stop using the word abolished? Christ said he came to fulfill so let's shift the language so we are talking about what Christ said he actually came to do not what he said he wasn't going to do.

let's all agree the law is NOT abolished. Now let's start the conversation on what it means for Christ to fulfill the law (and please, please, please stop using the word abolished because no one is saying that)
 

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Christ said he came to fulfill the law not abolish. So let's clear the air

1. Christ came to fulfill the law
2. Christ did not come to abolish the law

now that we got that out of the way can we stop using the word abolished?

Depends. Let's take an example --

"Do not taken God's name in vain" Ex 20:7

Do you claim it is "fulfilled" but not deleted? not abolished?

please stop using the word abolished because no one is saying that)

Paul says our faith does not "abolish" God's Law - so he is actually the one pointing that out in Rom 3:31.

In fact Paul says our faith "establishes the Law" Rom 3:31

So in Rom 3:31 God's Law is "established" not "abolished" by our faith. If we can start using "established" instead of "abolished" I think that is the right direction.

We see that spelled out for us in Romans 8 where we find "the requirement of the Law is FULFILLED in us who WALK NOT after the flesh but rather according to the Spirit"

I think we can all agree that Jesus fully complied with God's Law but did not delete/abolish it. That's how it works with prescriptive imperatives such as "Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5 and "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7. So having one person comply with it does not delete/remove/abolish set-it-aside. This is true in general in the case of that unit of TEN having "'honor your father and mother' as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2

On the other hand predictive laws regarding animal sacrifices do get taken away once the event they are predicting is fulfilled.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

guevaraj

an oil seller in the story of the ten virgins
Site Supporter
Mar 31, 2019
2,383
188
54
South Bend, IN
Visit site
✟703,842.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Let's all agree the law is NOT abolished. Now let's start the conversation on what it means for Christ to fulfill the law (and please, please, please stop using the word abolished because no one is saying that)
Brother, happy Sabbath! Jesus came to "fulfill" the Sabbath by rescuing His "rest" from the Sabbath tradition of Judaism since Joshua when Jesus calls us to enter His true Sabbath "rest" in Hebrews 3 and 4.

Now if Joshua had succeeded in giving them this rest, God would not have spoken about another day of rest still to come. (Hebrews 4:8 NLT)​

This changes the Sabbath from the human tradition of a weekday since Joshua to the original teaching that we all enter together when God "rested" on the week of creation.

For all who have entered into God’s rest have rested from their labors, just as God did after creating the world. (Hebrews 4:10 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,130
3,439
✟997,456.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Depends. Let's take an example --

"Do not taken God's name in vain" Ex 20:7

Do you claim it is "fulfilled" but not deleted? not abolished?



Paul says our faith does not "abolish" God's Law - so he is actually the one pointing that out in Rom 3:31.

In fact Paul says our faith "establishes the Law" Rom 3:31

So in Rom 3:31 God's Law is "established" not "abolished" by our faith. If we can start using "established" instead of "abolished" I think that is the right direction.

We see that spelled out for us in Romans 8 where we find "the requirement of the Law is FULFILLED in us who WALK NOT after the flesh but rather according to the Spirit"

I think we can all agree that Jesus fully complied with God's Law but did not delete/abolish it. That's how it works with prescriptive imperatives such as "Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5 and "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7. So having one person comply with it does not delete/remove/abolish set-it-aside. This is true in general in the case of that unit of TEN having "'honor your father and mother' as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2

On the other hand predictive laws regarding animal sacrifices do get taken away once the event they are predicting is fulfilled.
Let me repeat because it seems you didn't pick it up in the op. please stop using "abolish" in your arguments.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

guevaraj

an oil seller in the story of the ten virgins
Site Supporter
Mar 31, 2019
2,383
188
54
South Bend, IN
Visit site
✟703,842.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Well that is not true but you have free will and can any POV you wish.
Brother, happy Sabbath! The scholarly paper by Amanda McGuire in 2008 is wrong in its conclusion: both true together was never considered! Her paper is online at the following link: “digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3017&context=auss”. Prejudices when reading the Bible prevent the reader from seeing a greater truth! When both truths have evidence, Amanda’s paper rejects one truth for the other, saying that one truth has “weak” support, when overlooked it is that both are true because both have support. Her paper assumed that both together cannot be true when the Bible shows that both are true. The greater truth includes both examples of when the Sabbath begins. Summarized are the two truths below:
  1. The Sabbath in Eden begins at sunrise and ends at sunrise.
  2. The Sabbath in Israel begins at sundown and ends at sundown.
To choose one truth and discard the other is to take your favorite parts and discard what does not fit, when the full truth is only found when you have used the entire word of God and not just a part. What Amanda did not consider is that there is evidence from both truths and that the greater truth must fit all the evidence. I include below the part of her conclusion that I object to.

Clearly, the evidence shows that the morning theory is weak if it uses Gen 1:5 as its foundation. The rest of the biblical data is inconclusive as to when the Jewish day begins, though the texts that we have examined either support the evening theory or only weakly support the morning theory. (J. Amanda McGuire, page 214)​

Our faith is trust in what God says! The author helped by gathering all the evidence for both truths, but because she assumes that only one truth is correct and the other is incorrect, she weakens our confidence in God’s word. She used the word “weakly” to decrease the value of the support for one truth, acknowledging that there is support, but setting aside what she considers weak support for the other truth. The whole truth is found when you accept both truths together. In the following passage warned are we that people will tend to ignore the truth in favor of what they “desire”, this is how traditions remain even after God's word clearly corrects them.

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. (2 Timothy 4:1-5 NIV)​

When you understand that a day of the week defined by God is from morning to morning in the Bible, you learn that Jesus rose a Saturday night, before Sunday began in the morning. This removes the reason to keep the human Sunday tradition to celebrate the resurrection because Jesus rose on Saturday and not on Sunday.

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” (John 20:1-2 NIV)​

Judaism didn't have to reason because God gave them specific instructions to keep the Sabbath in Israel. For those who think that the beginning of the first day is more important than its end, God corrects that thought by emphasizing the end of the Sabbath and not the beginning when He begins the Sabbath the day before. God began the Sabbath of the tenth day in the ninth day: from the evening of the previous day until the evening of the Sabbath day. When you understand that the Sabbath ends as it begins, with two evenings, God's decision to begin the tenth-day-Sabbath on the ninth day puts the emphasis on the end of the first day and not the beginning of the first day.

The Lord said to Moses, “The tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. Hold a sacred assembly and deny yourselves, and present a food offering to the Lord. Do not do any work on that day, because it is the Day of Atonement, when atonement is made for you before the Lord your God. Those who do not deny themselves on that day must be cut off from their people. I will destroy from among their people anyone who does any work on that day. You shall do no work at all. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live. It is a day of sabbath rest for you, and you must deny yourselves. From the evening of the ninth day of the month until the following evening you are to observe your sabbath.” (Leviticus 23:26-32 NIV)​

The first day ends in a morning, telling us that it begins in a morning when you understand that a 24-hour Sabbath ends as it begins. Why didn't God make things easier for us by writing a first day from morning to morning instead of from first light until morning? God is right in what He writes! The word morning is not used at the beginning of the first day because it happened faster than the meaning of the word morning. The first change from darkness to light was faster than the word morning, but all other days after are from morning to morning.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was MORNING—the first day. (Genesis 1:3-5 NIV)​

From evening to morning, it's only half a day. The night-half that ends each day with God not having anything to report because He only creates each day of creation week during the earlier light-half from morning to evening. Each day ends with a night in which God rests from having created earlier for that day during the light-half. The evening comes in the middle of the first day and not at the beginning. The first day is from first light to light again in the morning. The reason this is not accepted is because supposed it is that a Sabbath in Israel is a day of the week as it was in Eden. The Sabbath in Israel is not a day of the week and actually falls between two days of the week in Israel. Everyone can publicly join the conversation on the forum link: “christianforums.com/threads/8210692”. Actively study the Bible letting it teach you without letting prejudices blind you, there is nothing more important than knowing the word of God written by His prophets to prepare those who will see the soon return of Jesus. Links to my book available on all major platforms are at: www.guevaraj.com.

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
5,128
1,155
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟177,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Christ said he came to fulfill the law not abolish. So let's clear the air

1. Christ came to fulfill the law
2. Christ did not come to abolish the law

now that we got that out of the way can we stop using the word abolished? Christ said he came to fulfill so let's shift the language so we are talking about what Christ said he actually came to do not what he said he wasn't going to do.

let's all agree the law is NOT abolished. Now let's start the conversation on what it means for Christ to fulfill the law (and please, please, please stop using the word abolished because no one is saying that)

What if instead of "fulfill the law" the text actually says and means "fill up the law"? Most who like to argue that word which you wish not to be used also use that word too, "fulfill", for they often say that he fulfilled the law so that he could then ******* it.

Look up G4137 (pleroo) in a lexicon: it does have that meaning, that is, to cram, to stuff to the full, to fill up completely, etc.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,263
7,555
North Carolina
✟345,853.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Christ said he came to fulfill the law not abolish. So let's clear the air
1. Christ came to fulfill the law
2. Christ did not come to abolish the law
now that we got that out of the way can we stop using the word abolished? Christ said he came to fulfill so let's shift the language so we are talking about what Christ said he actually came to do not what he said he wasn't going to do.
let's all agree the law is NOT abolished. Now let's start the conversation on what it means for Christ to fulfill the law (and
please, please, please stop using the word abolished because no one is saying that)
Do you know where I can purchase the proper cutting tool for cutting texts out of my Bible?

I need to excise Ephesians 2:15: ". . .by abolishing (Gr: katargeo) in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances. . ."
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,130
3,439
✟997,456.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What if instead of "fulfill the law" the text actually says and means "fill up the law"? Most who like to argue that word which you wish not to be used also use that word too, "fulfill", for they often say that he fulfilled the law so that he could then ******* it.

Look up G4137 (pleroo) in a lexicon: it does have that meaning, that is, to cram, to stuff to the full, to fill up completely, etc.
I don't accept the asterisks either or some other substitute for abolish (so please stop doing it). the point is to stop talking about it because it's a strawman, no one is saying Jesus fulfilled the law so it could be abolished, no one is saying Jesus abolished the law, no one is saying abolished. however, it seems it's the only thing people know how to defend against, an argument that doesn't exist. But I do applaud the conversation focused on "fulfill" let's keep that going... not specifically your conclusions, which you are welcome to introduce, but the focus on the thing Jesus said he was going to do (not on the thing he said he wasn't going to do)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Nux
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Christ said he came to fulfill the law not abolish. So let's clear the air

1. Christ came to fulfill the law
2. Christ did not come to abolish the law

now that we got that out of the way can we stop using the word abolished? Christ said he came to fulfill so let's shift the language so we are talking about what Christ said he actually came to do not what he said he wasn't going to do.

let's all agree the law is NOT abolished. Now let's start the conversation on what it means for Christ to fulfill the law (and please, please, please stop using the word abolished because no one is saying that)

Thank you for the question!

Trust that Jesus fulfilled the law and has paid the wages/ taken the punishment on himself.
bfcb4fd8-fe6a-4878-91dd-93952e4c454e.jpg


Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death,
but the free gift of God is eternal life
in Christ Jesus our Lord.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,130
3,439
✟997,456.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Do you know where I can purchase the proper cutting tool for cutting texts out of my Bible?

I need to excise Ephesians 2:15: ". . .by abolishing (Gr: katargeo) in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances. . ."
the proper cutting tool would be in a Greek dictionary. Jesus uses the word kataluó not katargeo. kataluó means to destroy, katargeo is softer and means more to render inoperative. both, unfortunately, are translated into abolished but they are not the same word. Both are also in different contexts and I would rather focus on Christ's words.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,130
3,439
✟997,456.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Thank you for the question!

Trust that Jesus fulfilled the law and has paid the wages/ taken the punishment on himself.
bfcb4fd8-fe6a-4878-91dd-93952e4c454e.jpg


Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death,
but the free gift of God is eternal life
in Christ Jesus our Lord.
thanks for listening to the OP, let's keep this momentum and continue to focus on fulfill... not abolish.
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
5,128
1,155
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟177,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
I don't accept the asterisks either or some other substitute for abolish (so please stop doing it). the point is to stop talking about it because it's a strawman, no one is saying Jesus fulfilled the law so it could be abolished, no one is saying Jesus abolished the law, no one is saying abolished. however, it seems it's the only thing people know how to defend against, an argument that doesn't exist. But I do applaud the conversation focused on "fulfill" let's keep that going... not specifically your conclusions, which you are welcome to introduce, but the focus on the thing Jesus said he was going to do (not on the thing he said he wasn't going to do)

Sorry, this is just too ridiculous: you just used the word abolished in your post number 11 above. Have a nice thread.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,130
3,439
✟997,456.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Sorry, this is just too ridiculous: you just used the word abolished in your post number 11 above. Have a nice thread.
Yes, but as a request to stop using the word in a Matthew 5:17 defense. I'm not saying abolished is an offensive word, I'm saying no one is saying Jesus came to abolish the law.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,263
7,555
North Carolina
✟345,853.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
the proper cutting tool would be in a Greek dictionary. Jesus uses the word kataluó not katargeo. kataluó means to destroy, katargeo is softer and means more to render inoperative. both, unfortunately, are translated into abolished but they are not the same word. Both are also in different contexts and I would rather focus on Christ's words.
So if I understand you correctly,

1) You are setting the word of the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16) against themselves, choosing Matthew over Ephesians because it better suits your sentiments. . .and this to you is good exegesis?

2) Agreed, the word kataluo used in Ephesians 2:15 is "softer" and means more "to render inoperative" which, nevertheless, does not alter the effects of the cross on the law; i.e., to render it inoperative--a distinction without a difference.

3) An ordinance fulfilled is an ordinance rendered inoperative.
The OT ordinances of sacrifice were fulfilled in Jesus and are, therefore, inoperative.
The OT ordinances of the feasts are fulfilled in the NT and are, therefore, inoperative.
The OT cleansings from ceremonial defilements (sin) are fulfilled in Christ and are, therefore, inoperative.
The Law is fulfilled in Christ (Matthew 5:18) and is, therefore, inoperative (Ephesians 2:15).

Keeping in mind that the Decalogue and Levitical laws were the condition of the Mosaic Covenant, which had been temporarily added (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20) to the Abrahamic Covenant of grace (Genesis 15:6, Genesis 15:18).
Those laws were given for the purpose of revealing sin (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7) and of leading to Christ (Galatians 3:24), they were not given to make righteous, because from the beginning with Abraham, righteousness had always been by faith (Genesis 5:6; Romans 4:3), never by law-keeping, for "all who rely on observing the law are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10).

Now that faith in Christ has come (the Mosaic law fulfilling its purpose and now being fulfilled in the NT law of Christ, Matthew 22:37-40), we are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant (Hebrews 8:13) nor under the supervision of the Mosaic law (Galatians 3:25).

The law has done what it was intended to do. . .the old covenant is now obsolete. . .and we are back to a covenant of grace alone, (Ephesians 2:8-9) just as it was with Abraham.

It is for freedom (from the yoke of slavery to the law, Galatians 2:4, Galatians 5:1b) that Christ has set us free (Galatians 5:1a) and taken us back to a covenant of grace alone.

Likewise keeping in mind that loving your neighbor as yourself is not new to the NT, but it was not part of the Mosaic law on which the temporary Mosaic Covenant was conditioned and, therefore, it remains in the New Covenant--as the law of Jesus Christ (Matthew 22:37-40), and which now fulfills that temporary Mosaic law "and any other commandment there may be." (Romans 13:8-10).
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
5,128
1,155
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟177,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
I'm saying no one is saying Jesus came to abolish the law.

Right, I understood that in your previous post:

no one is saying Jesus fulfilled the law so it could be abolished,

And yet, from the post above, the following poster just said precisely what I stated in my first post in this thread, but used inoperative to say the same thing, (as also explained in the post above from the same poster).

3) An ordinance fulfilled is an ordinance rendered inoperative.
The OT ordinances of sacrifice were fulfilled in Jesus and are, therefore, inoperative.
The OT ordinances of the feasts are fulfilled in the NT and are, therefore, inoperative.
The OT cleansings from ceremonial defilements (sin) are fulfilled in Christ and are, therefore, inoperative.
The Law is fulfilled in Christ (Matthew 5:18) and is, therefore, inoperative (Ephesians 2:15).

There are indeed many people who say what you say no one is saying.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Nux
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,130
3,439
✟997,456.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Right, I understood that in your previous post:



And yet, from the post above, the following poster just said precisely what I stated in my first post in this thread, but used inoperative to say the same thing, (as also explained in the post above from the same poster).



There are indeed many people who say what you say no one is saying.
Agreed, there is an ambiguity in the biblical presentation of abolished as it pertains to law at least in the English and it causes a lot of confusion. I'm not anti Ephesians/Paul but the op is addressing Christ words in Mat 5:17 not Paul's words. Paul in fairness is adressing a different context and audience not to mention a different word. Often, when I read the defence against abolish, the words of Christ are quoted saying he didn't come to abolish the law. So I am speaking to that argument that I agree Christ did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill. So let's start talking about what the fulfill part that Christ is speaking of looks like before we paulsplain it away.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Nux and daq
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,130
3,439
✟997,456.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So if I understand you correctly,

1) You are setting the word of the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16) against themselves, choosing Matthew over Ephesians because it better suits your sentiments. . .and this to you is good exegesis?
You mean the words of Paul and the words of Christ that are not the same? I'm confused why you think I'm pitting scripture against itself? Christ says he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Paul does not negate Christ's words he affirms them, the unfortunate thing we have is this shared word "abolished" that seems to always come back to Mat 5:17 saying Christ didn't come to abolish the law. It's a circular argument and is fruitless so if we can't tell the difference between the two different greek words being used in scripture then we probably should stop using them in arguments.
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
5,128
1,155
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟177,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Agreed, there is an ambiguity in the biblical presentation of abolished as it pertains to law at least in the English and it causes a lot of confusion. I'm not anti Ephesians/Paul but the op is addressing Christ words in Mat 5:17 not Paul's words. Paul in fairness is adressing a different context and audience not to mention a different word. Often, when I read the defence against abolish, the words of Christ are quoted saying he didn't come to abolish the law. So I am speaking to that argument that I agree Christ did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill. So let's start talking about what the fulfill part that Christ is speaking of looks like before we paulsplain it away.

If the statement in Matthew 5:17 means to fill up, instead of fulfill, then the argument from the opposing perspective is invalid. We can see how all over the Gospel accounts the Messiah is expounding the true meanings and interpretations of the Torah: why therefore would he come to fill up the Torah, and then turn around and render it all entirely idle or inoperative? He wouldn't. This is the answer to those who say what Clare73 was saying above.

Moreover, in the entire Matthew passage which follows, he then proceeds to teach the correct understandings and interpretations of things that were taught incorrectly from the Torah by the sages, ancients, or those of old time, ("You have heard that it was said by them of old time"..."But I say unto you"). He proceeds to do precisely what he had just said that he had come to do: completely fill up the Torah.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,263
7,555
North Carolina
✟345,853.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You mean the words of Paul and the words of Christ that are not the same? I'm confused why you think I'm pitting scripture against itself? Christ says he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Paul does not negate Christ's words he affirms them, the unfortunate thing we have is this shared word "abolished" that seems to always come back to Mat 5:17 saying Christ didn't come to abolish the law. It's a circular argument and is fruitless so if we can't tell the difference between the two different greek words being used in scripture then we probably should stop using them in arguments.
Circular, or contradictory?

The whole issue is presented and reconciled in post #15, above.
 
Upvote 0