Where Christianity Diverges from Scripture

[The Pixie]

You won't take 'correction' as you've shown throughout this thread.

Oh, but I can.

I've already shown you....yet here you are, saying you weren't shown.

No substance again.

OOF.....Gods laws are in those books. I'm not sure where anyone has argued otherwise.

The point is that "The Law" in Mat 5:17 refers to the Torah, rather than the laws contained therein. This is why most Bible capitalise it.

Yet you didn't tell us what fulfilled means.

I missed that sentence when I copy-and-pasted (so apologies for that). However, I did say what it means back in post #45.

In my view "fulfilled" in this context, means completed. Here is the verse again:​

So yes, 4Him, I have told you what fulfilled means in that context.

You've already been told...so you are proving you can't take correction.

Do you honest believe you have stated what "fulfilled" means on this thread, 4Him, because, to be frank, I am having problems believing you. Please, show me wrong I am wrong, and quote the post where you did that.

I did.

You claimed I had not stated what the definition is, and, in response, I both quoted the text and linked to the post. If you have really told what the meaning is, then you will be able to do that too - and I will admit I was was wrong, and abandon the thread. But as far as I recall, the closest you have come to that is linking to a page on CARM that was less than explicit.

 

[4Him]

No substance again.

Your entire op is void of substance.

The point is that "The Law" in Mat 5:17 refers to the Torah, rather than the laws contained therein. This is why most Bible capitalise it.

The Mosaic law....that is what 'the law' is.

I missed that sentence when I copy-and-pasted (so apologies for that). However, I did say what it means back in post #45.

In my view "fulfilled" in this context, means completed. Here is the verse again:​

So yes, 4Him, I have told you what fulfilled means in that context.

Has anyone said Jesus didn't complete the law? He did, in EVERY way.

Do you honest believe you have stated what "fulfilled" means on this thread, 4Him, because, to be frank, I am having problems believing you.

To be frank, I don't care. You've been told, my many, yet you are unable to understand.

If this doesn't clear it up for you, then nothing will....

What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it? | GotQuestions.org

What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it? Are followers of Jesus today under the authority of the Law, or free from the Law?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[The Pixie]

The Mosaic law....that is what 'the law' is.

No, in that verse "the Law" refers to the whole Torah, not just the rules contained in it.

Has anyone said Jesus didn't complete the law? He did, in EVERY way.

So you could not quote where you said that before? How odd, when you were so insistent you had.

But at last we are getting somewhere.

• Christianity says: Jesus "completed" the laws that are contained in the Old Testament - whatever that is supposed to mean
• I believe the text actually says: Jesus completed the prophecies in the Old Testament

So there is a clear difference there. It is interesting that the page you linked to seems to want to have it both ways:

Next, consider what Jesus did do. Jesus says that He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. In other words, Jesus’ purpose was to establish the Word, to embody it, and to fully accomplish all that was written. “Christ is the culmination of the law” (Romans 10:4). The predictions of the Prophets concerning the Messiah would be realized in Jesus; 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.​

We see both "to fully accomplish all that was written" and "The predictions of the Prophets concerning the Messiah would be realized in Jesus", indicating this is about fulfilling, or completing, prophecies.

But also "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" which appears to be the usual Christian view. Did Jesus perfectly uphold those strict requirements? Not really, he had quite a flexible view of the Sabbath, but never mind that!

And it is interesting that here, "fulfill" means to perfectly uphold, and yet you said it means "to complete". Do you think those two are the same? I suppose you must. See, this is what I meant in the OP about a weird definition; I have never seen a definition of "fulfill" in a dictionary that is anything like to perfectly uphold. To my mind, this is a great illustration of how Christianity forces its own position on the text when convenient.

 

[4Him]

No, in that verse "the Law" refers to the whole Torah, not just the rules contained in it.

The law is the Mosaic law.

So you could not quote where you said that before? How odd, when you were so insistent you had.

Was insistent I had what? Fulfill means complete...where did anyone say Jesus didn't do that?

But at last we are getting somewhere.

• Christianity says: Jesus "completed" the laws that are contained in the Old Testament - whatever that is supposed to mean

I told you what that means.

• I believe the text actually says: Jesus completed the prophecies in the Old Testament

He fulfilled the law and was the fulfillment of the prophecies.

So there is a clear difference there.

Is there?

It is interesting that the page you linked to seems to want to have it both ways:

Next, consider what Jesus did do. Jesus says that He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. In other words, Jesus’ purpose was to establish the Word, to embody it, and to fully accomplish all that was written. “Christ is the culmination of the law” (Romans 10:4). The predictions of the Prophets concerning the Messiah would be realized in Jesus; 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.​

We see both "to fully accomplish all that was written" and "The predictions of the Prophets concerning the Messiah would be realized in Jesus", indicating this is about fulfilling, or completing, prophecies.

The law is the Mosaic law, which He fully kept....all of it.

But also "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" which appears to be the usual Christian view. Did Jesus perfectly uphold those strict requirements? Not really, he had quite a flexible view of the Sabbath, but never mind that!

He perfectly upheld the law.

And it is interesting that here, "fulfill" means to perfectly uphold, and yet you said it means "to complete".

If you want to debate Christianity, you may want to look up words in the original language.

No one has argued that it doesn't mean to complete.

Do you think those two are the same?

Yes.

I suppose you must. See, this is what I meant in the OP about a weird definition; I have never seen a definition of "fulfill" in a dictionary that is anything like to perfectly uphold. To my mind, this is a great illustration of how Christianity forces its own position on the text when convenient.

That you look to a dictionary to understand scripture is part of your problem.

pléroó: to make full, to complete
Original Word: πληρόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: pléroó
Phonetic Spelling: (play-ro'-o)
Definition: to make full, to complete
Usage: I fill, fulfill, complete.

"to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment": Matthew 5:17;

 

[Howie]

Thanks, the usual believe-me-or-suffer-in-hell argument. Seen it before and not convinced.

Thanks, the usual, "nobody knows Christianity better than your resident, theologically ignorant atheist." 👍

And note, no refutation to my post ... 😉

 

[The Pixie]

The law is the Mosaic law.

That is certainly what Christianity wants us believe, but more likely it refers to the whole Torah.

Was insistent I had what? Fulfill means complete...where did anyone say Jesus didn't do that?

Previously you claimed you had already stated what fulfilled means:

Pix: How about you? Can you state what "fulfilled" means in that context? Or can I expect more and more evasion?​

​

4Him: You've already been told...so you are proving you can't take correction.​

When challenged, however, you were unable to say where or to quote the text. I strongly suspect that your statement "You've already been told." was not true. I would love for you to show me I am wrong, but I am losing hope.

I told you what that means.

Eventually, yes. But you claimed to have told me in post #59, when, as far as i can see, that was not true.

He fulfilled the law and was the fulfillment of the prophecies.

Because in Christianity it makes sense that a law can be "completed", and once a law has been "completed" it no longer needs to be observed.

It is fair enough, right? If one guy perfectly observed all speed limits, then that law would be "completed" and thereafter that law will be repealed, and we can all drive as fast as we want. Admittedly, that makes zero sense to me, but I guess it makes sense to you?

The law is the Mosaic law, which He fully kept....all of it.

So picking corn on the sabbath (Mark 2:23) is okay according to Mosaic Law, but picking up sticks warrants the death sentence (prior to the law being "completed" of course)? Is that right?

No one has argued that it doesn't mean to complete.

Right, the issue, I now realise is this idea that when a person perfectly keeps a set of laws, that set of laws is then "complete", and no long has to be observed.

Interesting to know adultery is now allowed according to Christianity. The prohibition against adultery is in the OT, it is part of the Mosaic Law, which Jesus "completed", and so no longer needs to be observed, Jesus perfectly obeyed the Ten Commandments, so they are now "complete", and no longer need to be observed.

Or is the Christian position that Jesus "completing" the law only repeals the inconvenient ones?

 

[4Him]

That is certainly what Christianity wants us believe, but more likely it refers to the whole Torah.

Which contains what? The Law.

Who was the law given to and for what reason?

Previously you claimed you had already stated what fulfilled means:

Pix: How about you? Can you state what "fulfilled" means in that context? Or can I expect more and more evasion?​

​

4Him: You've already been told...so you are proving you can't take correction.​

When challenged, however, you were unable to say where or to quote the text. I strongly suspect that your statement "You've already been told." was not true. I would love for you to show me I am wrong, but I am losing hope.

Maybe you should read this thread more carefully.

Eventually, yes. But you claimed to have told me in post #59, when, as far as i can see, that was not true.


Because in Christianity it makes sense that a law can be "completed", and once a law has been "completed" it no longer needs to be observed.

When you learn the difference between the law and grace let me know.

The law was never meant to save.

It is fair enough, right? If one guy perfectly observed all speed limits, then that law would be "completed" and thereafter that law will be repealed, and we can all drive as fast as we want. Admittedly, that makes zero sense to me, but I guess it makes sense to you?

You think Christians are surprised that God haters doesn't understand the things of God?

So picking corn on the sabbath (Mark 2:23) is okay according to Mosaic Law, but picking up sticks warrants the death sentence (prior to the law being "completed" of course)? Is that right?


Right, the issue, I now realise is this idea that when a person perfectly keeps a set of laws, that set of laws is then "complete", and no long has to be observed.

Interesting to know adultery is now allowed according to Christianity.

It is?

The prohibition against adultery is in the OT, it is part of the Mosaic Law, which Jesus "completed", and so no longer needs to be observed, Jesus perfectly obeyed the Ten Commandments, so they are now "complete", and no longer need to be observed.

You just keep spouting your ignorance of all things Christian.

 

[The Pixie]

Which contains what? The Law.

It also contains prophecies.

I maintain that Jesus is saying he completes the prophecies in the OT. Which, by the way, Christianity does claim to be the case.

You maintain that Jesus is saying he completes the laws in the OT. Whatever that means.

Who was the law given to and for what reason?

You tell me. Then tell me how Jesus "completing" the law means Christians do not have to keep it.

If it sounds like I am dodging, then yes, I will admit it. But so are you.

I do not see how this is relevant. If God gave the laws only to the Hebrews, then what has Jesus "completing" the laws got to do with Christians not observing them? It looks to me like this is an entirely different argument.

Maybe you should read this thread more carefully.

I have. I see nothing to help you.

I guess you cannot or you would present it.

When you learn the difference between the law and grace let me know.

Again, this is relevant how?

The law was never meant to save.

Again, this is relevant how? We are not talking about grace or who gets saved, we are talking about Jesus supposedly "completing" the law, and the claim that therefore Christians do not have to laws of the OT.

You think Christians are surprised that God haters doesn't understand the things of God?

Given the way you duck and evade, I have to suppose this is what they want.

You just keep spouting your ignorance of all things Christian.

And you keep failing to say what Christians really believe to help me understand.

I have to assume you do not want me to understand, because on some level you know it does not make sense.

You seem insistent that Jesus completing the law means Christians no longer have to observe the law, and yet where is your explanation of why they still observe the prohibition against adultery? You could have explained the Christian position, but chose not. I strongly believe that was because the Christian position does not stand up to scrutiny - and you know it.

Christianity pick-and-chooses what it wants of the OT laws based on what is convenient to Christianity. Sure we want "do not steal" and "do not murder", but at the same time we want to eat pork and shellfish, so we will find some rationale to allow that. Ah, here is a verse where Jesus says he fulfills the law - that will do nicely, We will just ignore the real meaning, and go eat that pork chop.

Have I misunderstood Christianity? Perhaps. But I am certain YOU will not be able to tell me what it actually believes about that verse, and how "completing" a law means itr no longer needs to be kept.

 

[4Him]

It also contains prophecies.

I maintain that Jesus is saying he completes the prophecies in the OT. Which, by the way, Christianity does claim to be the case.

Both....He fulfilled THE LAW and the Prophets.

You maintain that Jesus is saying he completes the laws in the OT. Whatever that means.

He did.

You tell me.

The Israelites.

Then tell me how Jesus "completing" the law means Christians do not have to keep it.

I already provided a link that explains it.

I have. I see nothing to help you.

I'm not the one needing help.

Again, this is relevant how?

Gentiles weren't under the law.

Again, this is relevant how? We are not talking about grace or who gets saved, we are talking about Jesus supposedly "completing" the law, and the claim that therefore Christians do not have to laws of the OT.

Yet it is about grace.

Given the way you duck and evade, I have to suppose this is what they want.

Except no one ducked or evaded except you.

And you keep failing to say what Christians really believe to help me understand.

I did....you aren't able to understand.

I have to assume you do not want me to understand, because on some level you know it does not make sense.

I can't MAKE you understand...and you don't WANT to.

You seem insistent that Jesus completing the law means Christians no longer have to observe the law,

Christians never were commanded to observe the Mosaic law. The law was not given to 'Christians'.

You could have explained the Christian position,

I did....not only can you not understand the things of God, you don't want to.

Christianity pick-and-chooses what it wants of the OT laws

No, that's not even remotely true.

Have I misunderstood Christianity?

Undoubtedly.

 

[The Pixie]

Both....He fulfilled THE LAW and the Prophets.

Right. And you will be explaining what "completing" a law means, and why a "completed" law no longer needs to be observe any moment now, right? And I am sure you will explain why only some of the OT laws were affected too.

I already provided a link that explains it.

Well, you provided a link...

It did not explain, however. If it did, you would be able to quote here. If it did, you would be able to present it in your own words.

Again and again you fail to do.

I'm not the one needing help.

Really? That is great. So explain in your own words what "completing" a law means, and why a "completed" law no longer needs to be observed. And why only some of the OT laws were affected.

Not that you need help, but the answer is in the web page you linked to. Or so you assure me. Of course, if that was not true, then you might be in trouble... No, I am sure that is not the case. You are insistent that the article explains it, and there is no way a Christian would say somethuing he knew was not true, right?

Gentiles weren't under the law.

What does that have to do with Jesus supposedly "completing" the law?

Yet it is about grace.

What does that have to do with Jesus supposedly "completing" the law?

Except no one ducked or evaded except you.

What have I evaded, 4Him?

Please be specific, so I can address the claim. It is entirely possible I have missed something, and if so I will try to correct that.

I will admit I ducked your questions about grace and gentiles under the law, but only because I think that are red herrings. If you explain how they are relevant to Jesus supposedly "completing" the law, I will try to address them.

• On the other hand, I have previously asked how they are relevant, and you have failed to explain. So that is evasion right there.
• I asked why the law on adultery is still observed, given Jesus supposedly "completing" the law, and you have no answered.
• I repeatedly ask you to explain what "completing" a law means, and why a "completed" law no longer needs to be observed and why only some of the OT laws were affected. No reply apart from a link that fails to actually say.

Do you honestly think there is no evasion on your part, 4Him?

 

[4Him]

Right. And you will be explaining what "completing" a law means, and why a "completed" law no longer needs to be observe any moment now, right? And I am sure you will explain why only some of the OT laws were affected too.


Well, you provided a link...

It did not explain, however. If it did, you would be able to quote here. If it did, you would be able to present it in your own words.

Again and again you fail to do.


Really? That is great. So explain in your own words what "completing" a law means, and why a "completed" law no longer needs to be observed. And why only some of the OT laws were affected.

Not that you need help, but the answer is in the web page you linked to. Or so you assure me. Of course, if that was not true, then you might be in trouble... No, I am sure that is not the case. You are insistent that the article explains it, and there is no way a Christian would say somethuing he knew was not true, right?


What does that have to do with Jesus supposedly "completing" the law?


What does that have to do with Jesus supposedly "completing" the law?


What have I evaded, 4Him?

Please be specific, so I can address the claim. It is entirely possible I have missed something, and if so I will try to correct that.

I will admit I ducked your questions about grace and gentiles under the law, but only because I think that are red herrings. If you explain how they are relevant to Jesus supposedly "completing" the law, I will try to address them.

• On the other hand, I have previously asked how they are relevant, and you have failed to explain. So that is evasion right there.
• I asked why the law on adultery is still observed, given Jesus supposedly "completing" the law, and you have no answered.
• I repeatedly ask you to explain what "completing" a law means, and why a "completed" law no longer needs to be observed and why only some of the OT laws were affected. No reply apart from a link that fails to actually say.

Do you honestly think there is no evasion on your part, 4Him?

All of the above has been addressed....that you can't discern what was provided to you is your problem, not mine. I have been telling you this from the get go. You have no ability to understand the spiritual.

 

[The Pixie]

All of the above has been addressed....that you can't discern what was provided to you is your problem, not mine. I have been telling you this from the get go. You have no ability to understand the spiritual.

No it has not. You have evaded and ducked at every turn, and then pretend to have answered the questions.

I appreciate we are never going to convince each other here, but in all these discussions, I think about what the casual visitor to CARM will think. I think I have presented my position fully and - despite your claims to contrary - have answered the questions posed to me. To me, that stands in stark contrast to what you have done, and I think the casual visitor will see that very readily.

If this is the best Christianity can muster to justify its claims, it really does not amount to much at all.

So I guess if you have nothing of substance to add, I will drop it here, confident that I have presented my case as well I can. Can you say the same? Well, I suppose so, in the sense that you have nothing better to offer.

 

[J regia]

All of the above has been addressed....that you can't discern what was provided to you is your problem, not mine. I have been telling you this from the get go. You have no ability to understand the spiritual.

Jesus, however, said that every jot and tittle of OT law still applies till heaven and earth pass when all is fulfilled (Matt 5:17-19), and as far as I am aware heaven and earth have not passed yet.

 

[Howie]

No it has not. You have evaded and ducked at every turn, and then pretend to have answered the questions.

I appreciate we are never going to convince each other here, but in all these discussions, I think about what the casual visitor to CARM will think. I think I have presented my position fully and - despite your claims to contrary - have answered the questions posed to me. To me, that stands in stark contrast to what you have done, and I think the casual visitor will see that very readily.

Above is the standard response of the uninformed unbeliever. In his mind, he is the brightest star in the universe, yet he lives and moves and is in total darkness. He is shut out of the Kingdom of God, cutoff from God's people and without hope, and when he is told this, he responds with laughter and mockery. 🤔

 

[4Him]

No it has not.

Yes, it has.

You have evaded and ducked at every turn, and then pretend to have answered the questions.

I'm sure that's what you think...that's what you have to think.

I appreciate we are never going to convince each other here, but in all these discussions, I think about what the casual visitor to CARM will think. I think I have presented my position fully and

You have presented a caricature of what you are unable to understand.

If this is the best Christianity can muster to justify its claims, it really does not amount to much at all.

No one other than the Holy Spirit can 'convince' you of God's truths, regardless of how many times you hear it.

So I guess if you have nothing of substance to add, I will drop it here, confident that I have presented my case as well I can. Can you say the same? Well, I suppose so, in the sense that you have nothing better to offer.

I can say the same, knowing full well the reason you 'don't get it'.

 

[4Him]

Jesus, however, said that every jot and tittle of OT law still applies till heaven and earth pass when all is fulfilled (Matt 5:17-19), and as far as I am aware heaven and earth have not passed yet.

The law was fulfilled...in Him.

You are a perfect example of why we repeatedly say unbelievers are so biblically ignorant....

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, TILL heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

 

[J regia]

Even though the biblical laws and commandments are obviously just man-made since they didn't apply to Abraham et al and their ancestors, Jesus said "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" which is when heaven and earth pass.

If you believe otherwise, where does the bible say that heaven and earth have passed and therefore all be fulfilled? Or is Jesus and what he said irrelevant?

 

[4Him]

Even though the biblical laws and commandments are obviously just man-made since they didn't apply to Abraham et al and their ancestors, Jesus said "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" which is when heaven and earth pass.

If you believe otherwise, where does the bible say that heaven and earth have passed and therefore all be fulfilled? Or is Jesus and what he said irrelevant?

You can't even understand this simple passage, but you want us to listen to you lecture about the meaning of scripture.

 

[J regia]

Anyone who is familiar with the English language, however, can easily see that Matt 5:18 clearly says that every jot and tittle of OT law still applies till heaven and earth pass when all is fulfilled and DOES NOT say that all has been fulfilled.

If you believe otherwise, then why did Jesus refer to heaven and earth passing if you believe that it is totally irrelevant?

 

[SteveB]

Anyone who is familiar with the English language, however, can easily see that Matt 5:18 clearly says that every jot and tittle of OT law still applies till heaven and earth pass when all is fulfilled and DOES NOT say that all has been fulfilled.

If you believe otherwise, then why did Jesus refer to heaven and earth passing if you believe that it is totally irrelevant?

Two things that are of great importance here.

1- Jesus fulfilled the Law.
2- you have not, and as such you are under condemnation from your failure to do so.

You can indeed continue your mind games, and then suffer the consequences for your actions and attitudes towards God and Jesus and their words.

Or, you can turn to YHVH from your sin and place your trust in Jesus Christ and YHVH will apply the righteousness of Jesus and his 100% obedience to the Law, to your account, making you as righteous as Jesus.

So, please turn to YHVH from your sin and place your trust in Jesus. You were not created to endure the ignominy of your sin in eternity.