+-+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 89503
Latest: Reirric
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 894043
Total Topics: 89953
Most Online Today: 70
Most Online Ever: 12150
(Tue Mar 18, 2025 - 06:32:52)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 62
Total: 63

What will happen to Christians who reject the Sabbath?

Started by Hobie, Wed Dec 13, 2023 - 14:05:00

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Wycliffes_Shillelagh

Quote from: Jaime on Mon Jan 13, 2025 - 18:40:55Fulfill here cannot mean complete or end or 5:18 &19 are ridiculous statements.
We agree on this much.

Quote from: Jaime on Mon Jan 13, 2025 - 18:40:55Why would Jesus use the abolish and fulfill idiom if it wasn't a well known idiom in the first century used in discussions of the interpretation of Torah. He pointed to many examples of the Pharisees incorrectly interpretting Torah or in effect emptying it of God's intended meaning and describing how he would fill it full with proper interpretation back to what God intended.
I don't find it to be about interpretation, but about performance.  To fulfill the Law is to rehearse the Law, to perform what is written there.

Jaime

Jesus was telling them the Pharisees had been prescribing or performing the Law incorrectly from what God intended. Jesus restored the spirit of the Law as God originally intended rather than the stripped down Letter only of the Law pushed by the Pharisees.

What if fulfill means fill full or fill up, like my Blue Letter App indicates. The notion of "completing" or thereby ending the Law would make Mathew 5:18 and 19 totally ludicrous in my opinion, in light of what he proclaimed he DIDN'T come to do in 5:17. How is "end" or "complete" the Law different than abolishing the Law which is what he said he DIDN'T come to do. 🤪 To me "fulfill HAS to mean here something other than end or do away with. Fill full or fill up doesn't seem far fetched in that vein, since as Jesus pointed out, the Pharisees had perverted the Law by stripping the Spirit from it. Jesus proper interpretation of the Torah or Law served to restore or fill it back up to what God originally intended, it seems to me.

Hobie

Christ came to fulfill the promise He had made from the beginning and had spoken through the prophets, and He did..

4WD

Quote from: Jaime on Wed Jan 15, 2025 - 10:57:10Jesus was telling them the Pharisees had been prescribing or performing the Law incorrectly from what God intended. Jesus restored the spirit of the Law as God originally intended rather than the stripped down Letter only of the Law pushed by the Pharisees.

What if fulfill means fill full or fill up, like my Blue Letter App indicates. The notion of "completing" or thereby ending the Law would make Mathew 5:18 and 19 totally ludicrous in my opinion, in light of what he proclaimed he DIDN'T come to do in 5:17. How is "end" or "complete" the Law different than abolishing the Law which is what he said he DIDN'T come to do. 🤪 To me "fulfill HAS to mean here something other than end or do away with. Fill full or fill up doesn't seem far fetched in that vein, since as Jesus pointed out, the Pharisees had perverted the Law by stripping the Spirit from it. Jesus proper interpretation of the Torah or Law served to restore or fill it back up to what God originally intended, it seems to me.
Jaime, Jesus fulfilled the law when He paid the price for the sins of the world.  Law has two components, the command and the punishment if the command is not obeyed. That is highlighted in the old saying, "do the crime, do the time" He came to do the punishment.  On the cross just before He died, Jesus said, "It is finished". That is what He came to earth to do.  We "did the crime", He "did the time".

He fulfilled the law.

Amo

I have an idea, why don't we take in just a little more context of what Jesus said, and let Him expound upon what He meant. Plain and simple like. Not to exclude the deeper and more profound aspects of that being discussed which are true, but not to miss the plain and simple point He was making as well. As highlighted in the following quote.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 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. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Jaime

4WD, I contend that when Jesus said it is finished on the cross, he was referring to the blood covenant back in Genesis 15 with Abraham, where God walked both sides of the covenant because Abraham was unable to. In Mathew 5, the sermon on the Mount, Jesus clearly demonstrsted how the Pharisees had emptied or abolished the Law by stripping it of the spirit of the Law. Jesus did the opposite and filled it full by reinterpreting the Law to include the spirit of the Law back to God's intended status.hence his statement in Mathew 5:17 makes sense. He didn't come to abolish or end the Law, but to fulfill or fill it full. A somewhat different sense of fulfill than what Jesus accomplished and consummated on  the cross with His promised death from the symbology of Abraham's vision of Genesis 15, consummating the blood covenant as God as the flaming torch of Genesis 15, in my opinion because  neither Abraham nor any of his countless decendants were capable of keeping the covenant by walking before God and remaining  uprignt and blameless. Abraham KNEW he wasn't capable of keeping the blood covenant, so God the son walked the obligation of the blood covenant FOR Abraham and his decendants, finally consummated (it is finished) with Christ's death on the cross. The penalty for Abraham's lack of blamelessness that God's Son Jesus was obligated for the sake of all of mankind WAY back in Genesis 15 many centuries earlier. By the way, it has amazed me the level of God's grace demonstrated in the Old Testament!  God's grace was not just a New Testament phenomenon.

https://www.chorusinthechaos.com/blog/covenant-god-genesis-15?format=amp

Jaime


Hobie

The Old and the New Covanent are the same written in our hearts and minds and followed in faith and showed by our works, and all in love for God and our fellowman...

+-Recent Topics

Part 4 - Recapturing The Vocabulary Of The Holy Spirit by 4WD
Today at 03:27:37

1 Chronicles 16:34 by garee
Yesterday at 08:25:00

Revelation 12 by garee
Yesterday at 07:40:00

Matthew 7:15 by garee
Yesterday at 07:38:06

Pray for the Christians by pppp
Wed Oct 29, 2025 - 11:52:08

Charlie Kirk by garee
Wed Oct 29, 2025 - 07:23:53

Why didn’t Peter just kill and eat a clean animal in Acts 10 by garee
Tue Oct 28, 2025 - 18:02:53

Texas Conservative by Texas Conservative
Tue Oct 28, 2025 - 15:28:52

The Beast Revelation by garee
Tue Oct 28, 2025 - 08:22:20

Is He Gay? by garee
Mon Oct 27, 2025 - 10:51:12

Powered by EzPortal