The issue here is whether Jesus abolished the law or not. The words attributed to him state that he had not come to abolish the law, that the law would stand and ''all is fulfilled'' - the latter is assumed by many Christians mean that the blood sacrifice fulfilled the law, which therefore no longer applies which, if true, means that Jesus had in fact come to abolish the law. So we have a problem, where both views cannot be true.
You’re equivocating. Clearly. And you’re clearly not considering what He meant. At all. You’re only voicing what you want it to mean.
The ‘only’ one with a problem is you. Clearly.
DBT, that is your interpretation of what Jesus stated....YOUR INTERPRETATION, and I do not see why Christians cannot have their interpretation....as I've said many, many times before....you have your ideas, thoughts perceptions, and Christians have theirs. So, why can't you agree to disagree and be done with it, or do you just want to go on and on and on and on like the energizer bunny that we see in ads on TV?
It's not my interpretation. I quote the verse without interpretation.
Again; 17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.''
And of course, it is the Christian who interprets ''until everything that is accomplished'' to mean the blood sacrifice, and that this abolished the law of the prophets even though it is clearly stated: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.
Can you see the dilemma? Jesus states that he had not come to abolish the law of the prophets, yet proceeds to do so.
This hinges on the interpretation of ''until everything is accomplished.'' - which if taken to mean that the blood sacrifice abolished the law of the prophets, the promise Jesus made - Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets- is false.
This is not my ''interpretation'' because the terms and conditions are set in the quotes verses. It is the Christian who interprets and creates a contradiction.
There is no contradiction if what Jesus said is true, and he did not abolish the law of the prophets as stated.
Again, again, again.... when the law you are referring to was introduced, it was never intended to be the instrument by which man would save himself, but it was the instrument through which man was to be saved. In a very real sense, man is saved through the fulfillment (keeping) of the law. When Christ fulfilled the law, he earned the privilege of life. Those who are in Christ, likewise, share in his righteousness and are declared righteous right alongside him. In that sense, the law has always stood and will continue to stand.
That being said, though, it's important to realize that we basically choose whether the law applies to us individually or not -- through grace, we can choose to be in Christ, or we can choose to stand on our own merits when we're judged. In that sense, too, the law still stands.
Why can't you agree to disagree and be done with it, or do you just want to go on and on and on and on like the energizer bunny that we see in ads on TV?
