What people believe does not change the truth...

[Alawishis]

Has the prophesy of Christs return been fulfilled? Have the other prophetic events in revelation been fulfilled. How do you reconcile what you say this means in the light that there are many things yet to be fulfilled?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Has the prophesy of Christs return been fulfilled? Have the other prophetic events in revelation been fulfilled. How do you reconcile what you say this means in the light that there are many things yet to be fulfilled?

Jesus told us that He came to fulfill the law. In contrast, you seem to conclude that He must come twice before the law can be fulfilled. If your hypothesis is true, then I must conclude that none of the jots and tittles have passed and that I should:

* Observe all of the feasts;
* Offer animal sacrifices;
* Get circumcised;
* Wear tzitzit
* Etc.
​

Is that what you are doing?

BFA

 

[Alawishis]

We spoke of this before "fulfil", like almost all words. have more than one meaning. You say in the case of Math 5:17 it means to complete or finish. This truly is one meaning of fulfil. However, when you look at the context of the sentence he says "I am not come to destroy", so fulfil must be a meaning that is opposite of destroy, or at the very least not meaning the same as destroy or abolish.

"I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

How do you destroy a law? You do away with it, is there another way. A law that is invalidated is destroyed. So if a law is not destroyed by Jesus, as he said. "I am not come to destroy" then fulfil cannot mean finish off because that would mean destroying the law or doing away with it.

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

So if "fulfil" has to have a meaning that means to "not destroy"

I hate doing this because it may come off condescending which is not my intention. I took the initiative to take a look at an online dictionary:

ful·fill also ful·fil tr.v. ful·filled, ful·fill·ing, ful·fills also ful·fils
1. To bring into actuality; effect: fulfilled their promises.
2. To carry out (an order, for example).
3. To measure up to; satisfy. See Synonyms at perform, satisfy.
4. To bring to an end; complete.

SRC :www thefreedictionary com /fulfil
(sorry I'm not allowed to paste the URL drectly.

Definition 4. "bring to an end" cannot fit because it would be 'I have not come to destroy, but to bring to an end', which makes no sense. Destroying is bringing to an end.

Definition 1. 2. 3. Are somewhat synonyms and they all seem to fit. IMHO definition 2. Fits perfectly.

Jesus told us that He came to fulfill the law. In contrast, you seem to conclude that He must come twice before the law can be fulfilled. If your hypothesis is true, then I must conclude that none of the jots and tittles have passed and that I should:

* Observe all of the feasts;
* Offer animal sacrifices;
* Get circumcised;
* Wear tzitzit
* Etc.
​

Is that what you are doing?

BFA

Not exactly what I said, or intended to say if it came off that way.

It doesn't say "Not one jot or tittle will change in the law until Jesus fulfils the law' it says, "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 . " "ALL", being the operative word here. So Jesus came and he kept the law and lived without sin which was what he needed to do, in that way he fulfilled the law; definition 2. and 3. above if you will. So there is still many things to be done so although Jesus accomplished much while he was here, there is still many things yet to be fulfilled. So "all things" are not yet fulfilled.

So where does that leave us? If all things are are not yet fulfilled and the law will not change before they are...either we still need to do the things of the old covenant (sacrifice animals etc.) or the 10 commandments are considered separate. Later in the chapter Jesus mentions many of the 10 commandments so we know what law he's talking about, but makes no mention of the Mosaic laws. Why would Jesus reinforce this so late in his ministry if they were soon to be no more?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

So if "fulfil" has to have a meaning that means to "not destroy"

We've reached a point where we're circling back over the same ground. That's not a pattern I'd like to continue. You know my perspective on this and the reasons why I've reached my conclusion. I understand that you've reached a different conclusion.

You wish to limit your options in a way that I cannot.There are many concepts that mean something other than "to destroy." For example, the concepts of "filled full" or "fully met" mean something other than "to destroy" and have their basis in the greek.

So where does that leave us? If all things are are not yet fulfilled and the law will not change before they are...either we still need to do the things of the old covenant (sacrifice animals etc.) or the 10 commandments are considered separate.

As we've already discussed at length, I cannot reach the latter conclusion because I've found much evidence of the comingling of laws and no evidence of the division of laws.

Later in the chapter Jesus mentions many of the 10 commandments so we know what law he's talking about, but makes no mention of the Mosaic laws.

Not true. In verse 24, He discusses offerings made at the altar. In verse 25, He discusses dispute resolution. In verse 33, He discusses oaths. In verse 40, He discusses lawsuits. In the next chapter, He discusses fasting. In Chapter 7, He discusses passing judgment. These are all God-given concepts set out in the old covenant (i.e the covenant given by God, not Moses).

Further, Jesus not only taught old covenant concepts, but He also observed old covenant feasts. Here are a few examples among many:

Feast of Booths (John 7)
Feast of Unleavened Bread (Matthew 26)
Passover (John 13)
​

Should we do as He did?

BFA

 

[Alawishis]

We've reached a point where we're circling back over the same ground. That's not a pattern I'd like to continue. You know my perspective on this and the reasons why I've reached my conclusion. I understand that you've reached a different conclusion.

You wish to limit your options in a way that I cannot.There are many concepts that mean something other than "to destroy." For example, the concepts of "filled full" or "fully met" mean something other than "to destroy" and have their basis in the greek.



As we've already discussed at length, I cannot reach the latter conclusion because I've found much evidence of the comingling of laws and no evidence of the division of laws.



Not true. In verse 24, He discusses offerings made at the altar. In verse 25, He discusses dispute resolution. In verse 33, He discusses oaths. In verse 40, He discusses lawsuits. In the next chapter, He discusses fasting. In Chapter 7, He discusses passing judgment. These are all God-given concepts set out in the old covenant (i.e the covenant given by God, not Moses).

Further, Jesus not only taught old covenant concepts, but He also observed old covenant feasts. Here are a few examples among many:

Feast of Booths (John 7)
Feast of Unleavened Bread (Matthew 26)
Passover (John 13)
​

Should we do as He did?

BFA

Lets take this from the opposite angle then. What does it take to destroy a law?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Lets take this from the opposite angle then. What does it take to destroy a law?

Since I don't believe that any Biblical laws have been "destroyed," I honestly wouldn't know.

I do sense, however, that if we are going to base our current practices on that which Jesus did, then it makes sense that we would do all of the things that he did. Like the feast of booths, the feast of unleavend bread and the passover.

BFA

 

[Alawishis]

Since I don't believe that any Biblical laws have been "destroyed," I honestly wouldn't know.

I do sense, however, that if we are going to base our current practices on that which Jesus did, then it makes sense that we would do all of the things that he did. Like the feast of booths, the feast of unleavend bread and the passover.

BFA

OK, let me say it this way. How do you destroy any law?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

OK, let me say it this way. How do you destroy any law?

I really don't know the answer to this question. I am not familiar with the concept of destroying laws. Is there something specific you have in mind?

Back to my previous post, should we do as Jesus did?

BFA

 

[Alawishis]

I really don't know the answer to this question. I am not familiar with the concept of destroying laws. Is there something specific you have in mind?

Back to my previous post, should we do as Jesus did?

BFA

Well burning a paper that a law is written on does not destroy the law. I could burn all the law books in my city and they would still arrest me for doing wrong. A law exists beyond the written word. The only essence of a law is it's enforcement. Would you agree?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Well burning a paper that a law is written on does not destroy the law. I could burn all the law books in my city and they would still arrest me for doing wrong.

Yup. If a person was passionate about finding a way around the law so s/he can keep doing wrong, that person would have to go after the online records as well.

[Note: It isn't my passion to find a way around the law so I can keep doing wrong.]

A law exists beyond the written word.

God existed before the law was added. He continues to exist since the Seed came.

The only essence of a law is its enforcement. Would you agree?

No, I really don't. We can learn many things by studying the laws of previous cultures and civilizations.

I take it that you're no longer interested in 2-way dialogue????

BFA

 

[Alawishis]

Yup. If a person was passionate about finding a way around the law so s/he can keep doing wrong, that person would have to go after the online records as well.

[Note: It isn't my passion to find a way around the law so I can keep doing wrong.]



God existed before the law was added. He continues to exist since the Seed came.



No, I really don't. We can learn many things by studying the laws of previous cultures and civilizations.

I take it that you're no longer interested in 2-way dialogue????

BFA

Bear with me, I want to boil this down to a single thread of thought to make a singlular point.

If I burned all the books, destroyed all the online records. Even then without any written record the law would still exist because the police and judges would still know the law and enforce it. This is what I mean by, the statement that the law transcends the written word. I'm speaking in general terms here, not about any specific law.

The ONLY way to destroy a law,any law, is to remove it`s enforcement. To destroy a law you have to make it null and void, the police will no longer enforce it, judges will no longer convict on it. When it is no longer enforced, it is no longer a law, it is destroyed.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The ONLY way to destroy a law,any law, is to remove it`s enforcement. To destroy a law you have to make it null and void, the police will no longer enforce it, judges will no longer convict on it. When it is no longer enforced, it is no longer a law, it is destroyed.

I would assume that -- when you conclude that it is no longer incumbent upon you to offer animal sacrifices and to observe the feast of unleavened bread -- your conclusion isn't built upon a desire to destroy the law. Your thought process on the concept of "destroying the law" does not resonate with me because I -- like you -- have no interest in destroying the law.

Bear with me, I want to boil this down to a single thread of thought to make a singlular point.

In doing so, you have moved us away from 2-way dialogue and toward an approach that is solely 1-way. As a result, you seem to be attributing beliefs to me that aren't actually mine. Unless you're willing to resume 2-way dialogue, "bearing with you" is no longer something I'm willing to do. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed.

BFA

 

[Alawishis]

I would assume that -- when you conclude that it is no longer incumbent upon you to offer animal sacrifices and to observe the feast of unleavened bread -- your conclusion isn't built upon a desire to destroy the law. Your thought process on the concept of "destroying the law" does not resonate with me because I -- like you -- have no interest in destroying the law.



In doing so, you have moved us away from 2-way dialogue and toward an approach that is solely 1-way. As a result, you seem to be attributing beliefs to me that aren't actually mine. Unless you're willing to resume 2-way dialogue, "bearing with you" is no longer something I'm willing to do. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed.

BFA

This is still two-way, but as I said I wanted to keep it on this single idea thread to clarify something. OK. So you do not agree with what I have said. How then , in your words, does one destroy a law? Remember I'm talking in general, not specifically God's law but any law. How do you destroy any law?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

This is still two-way

Truly, it is not.

but as I said I wanted to keep it on this single idea thread to clarify something. OK. So you do not agree with what I have said. How then , in your words, does one destroy a law? Remember I'm talking in general, not specifically God's law but any law. How do you destroy any law?

We're going in circles. I've already answered all of the questions you've raised above. At this point, unless you'd like to begin to answer some of my questions, I'm done.

BFA

 

[fellowbeliever]

Truth is relative to one's interpretation of scripture and denominational affiliation.

 

[Alawishis]

Truly, it is not.



We're going in circles. I've already answered all of the questions you've raised above. At this point, unless you'd like to begin to answer some of my questions, I'm done.

BFA

I did ask for some leeway while I tried to clarify the central point. I'm sorry if this is not possible for you.
You have avoided answering my question directly. I can only guess the reason your being evasive is you know where I'm going with this. That's OK. Let me finish my thought and if you don't want to continue, I'm OK with that.

If the only way to destroy a law is to invalidate it, and Christ said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Then he, in no way, invalidated the law, because to invalidate a law is to destroy it. So to say that fulfill in this context means to, "pay off" the law so that it is no longer binding is a contradiction of the context of the sentence. If I break a law then serve my time, when I get out of jail I am not free to break the law again. The law is not destroyed but it has been fulfilled by me paying the penalty. It has been, "fulfulled" or maintained, so fulfill in this context means to uphold. Like I fulfill my marriage vows, that does not destroy or invalidate my marriage. The Greek word used in this context of "fulfill" is "plerosai" (πληρῶσα&#953 it has a parallel meanings to the English word "fulfilled" [accomplish, complete, fully carry, made complete, to perform fully,]

So if you say the law is not destroyed but we are no longer obligated to keep it, that is a contradiction.

Furthermore, Jesus goes on to emphasize v18, that not even the tiniest part of the law" is done away with, and that he expects us to keep every single one. That is until heaven and earth are no more.

To what you were saying earlier:
I was not able to find anything that says specifically that says we are no longer to keep the feast days, so it could be you are correct that this is expected of us also. I will keep looking, if anyone finds or knows of it please post for our benefit.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

To what you were saying earlier:
I was not able to find anything that says specifically that says we are no longer to keep the feast days, so it could be you are correct that this is expected of us also. I will keep looking, if anyone finds or knows of it please post for our benefit.

You won't find it because it does not exist. The Old Testament is full of law that God gave to Israelites. Either one jot or tittle of these laws has passed and it has been fulfilled or no jots or tittles have passed and none of it has been fulfilled. If this is the case, then we would not only need to observe feast days but also animal sacrifices and circumcision.

BTW, is the above response an answer to my question where I asked:

Jesus not only taught old covenant concepts, but He also observed old covenant feasts. Here are a few examples among many:

Feast of Booths (John 7)
Feast of Unleavened Bread (Matthew 26)
Passover (John 13)
​

Should we do as He did?

I did ask for some leeway while I tried to clarify the central point. I'm sorry if this is not possible for you.

We are going over the same ground again and again. I'm sure both us have better ways to use our time.

You have avoided answering my question directly.

To my knowledge, I have answered each and every one of your questions.

If the only way to destroy a law is to invalidate it, and Christ said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Then he, in no way, invalidated the law, because to invalidate a law is to destroy it.

The phrase "invalidate" is very foreign to Scripture and to my understanding. Clearly, the SDA denomination teaches that we no longer need to offer animal sacrifices. Is that invalidation or fulfillment?

So to say that fulfill in this context means to, "pay off" the law so that it is no longer binding is a contradiction of the context of the sentence. If I break a law then serve my time, when I get out of jail I am not free to break the law again.

In this case, you have not illustrated the fulfillment of law. Rather, you have illustrated the completion of punishment. In your scenario, no law has been fulfilled.

The Greek word used in this context of "fulfill" is "plerosai" (πληρῶσα&#953 it has a parallel meanings to the English word "fulfilled" [accomplish, complete, fully carry, made complete, to perform fully,]

Well said. Jesus Christ completed it. He performed it fully.

So if you say the law is not destroyed but we are no longer obligated to keep it, that is a contradiction.

The only contradiction that I can find results from believing and teaching that the law is fulfilled but I must still try and keep it.

BFA

 

[Alawishis]

You won't find it because it does not exist. The Old Testament is full of law that God gave to Israelites. Either one jot or tittle of these laws has passed and it has been fulfilled or no jots or tittles have passed and none of it has been fulfilled. If this is the case, then we would not only need to observe feast days but also animal sacrifices and circumcision.

BTW, is the above response an answer to my question where I asked:

Jesus not only taught old covenant concepts, but He also observed old covenant feasts. Here are a few examples among many:

Feast of Booths (John 7)
Feast of Unleavened Bread (Matthew 26)
Passover (John 13)
​

Should we do as He did?

We are going over the same ground again and again. I'm sure both us have better ways to use our time.

To my knowledge, I have answered each and every one of your questions.

The phrase "invalidate" is very foreign to Scripture and to my understanding. Clearly, the SDA denomination teaches that we no longer need to offer animal sacrifices. Is that invalidation or fulfillment?

In this case, you have not illustrated the fulfillment of law. Rather, you have illustrated the completion of punishment. In your scenario, no law has been fulfilled.

Well said. Jesus Christ completed it. He performed it fully.

The only contradiction that I can find results from believing and teaching that the law is fulfilled but I must still try and keep it.

BFA

Well you have still not answered what it takes to destroy a law.

As for a, 'jot or tittle in nowise passing from the law till heaven and earth are no more', I believe what Jesus said. So if Jesus is telling the truth, there is a separation and we need keep the ten commandments, or there is no separation and we need to keep it all. By what he said those are the only two options.

By what you say we don't have to keep any of it, none of the law is any longer binding (do away with/destroyed), is a contradiction to what Jesus says in these passages.

I gave an example of what fulfilled means in this context in a way that does not contradict the context of the sentence, if you are not willing to accept that meaning is a different matter. I was talking to a Messianic Jew yesterday about this very passage. I know he reads a different translation of the bible than you or I but he also reads the Greek text. He told me this passage is so misunderstood because people just do not understand the word translated as fulfil, and make it read exactly as you are. In his words it more accurately means to uplift or uphold. Now Messianic Jews are an interesting case because they do believe we should be keeping the feast days, though I did not ask him his stance on circumcision.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Well you have still not answered what it takes to destroy a law.

As I indicated previously, I do not believe the law was destroyed. Further, the Bible seems to confirm that the law was not destroyed. Instead, it was fulfilled. I've already shared my thoughts on the concept of fulfillment.

As for a, 'jot or tittle in nowise passing from the law till heaven and earth are no more', I believe what Jesus said. So if Jesus is telling the truth, there is a separation and we need keep the ten commandments, or there is no separation and we need to keep it all. By what he said those are the only two options.

Not sure what you mean by "there is a separation." However, I would agree that He seems to allow for two options. Either jots and tittles have passed and all is fulfilled or no jots or tittles have passed and none is fulfilled. This does not seem to allow for the SDA view that the law was divided into "the moral" and "the ceremonial."

By what you say we don't have to keep any of it, none of the law is any longer binding (do away with/destroyed), is a contradiction to what Jesus says in these passages.

Which passages?

What are your thoughts on the book of Galatians? In particular:

1. The concept of the school master as described in Chapter 3?
2. The concept of "you are no longer a slave, but an heir" as described in Chapter 4?
3. The concept of "special days and months and seasons and years" as described in Chapter 4?
4. The concept of Hagar, the slave woman, as described in Chapter 4?
​

BFA

 

[M-Class]

As I see it, the law can be "fulfilled" and no longer be binding on Christians today without calling it done away with!

The law still exists, and we do still uphold the law... for the purpose in which it was created. The law was never intended as a means to salvation, but as a device to teach us that we need a savior. It is a standard to bring people into repentance and acknowledgment that they can't obtain their own salvation by their own law keeping.

Jesus Himself again describes the fulfillment of the "law and the prophets" in the past tense after the cross:

Luke 24:27 -
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Luke 24:44-45 -
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

Paul explains this further in Romans 3:21-24

Romans 3:21-24 -
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Michael