Did Christ cancel the OT, or teach us how to use it?

[Bookends]

2. The argument from Matthew 5 turns primarily on what we take the word 'fulfill' to mean. It is interesting to note that every other use of the word fulfill (πληρόω) in the gospel of Matthew is always to do with prophecy, and specifically prophetic eschatology. (cf Matthew 2:14-17, Matthew 4:14, Matthew 8:17, etc). Therefore, while it is fair to say that Jesus is not baldly saying that he has fulfilled the law in the sense that it is now 'vanishing', it is almost certain that he has in view a fulfilment in the sense that the Law and the Prophets are texts which are primarily about him, and which it is his job to exemplify and 'complete'

Amen, the two witnesses, the Law and the Prophets.

Revelation 11
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.” [SUP]4 [/SUP]These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the God[SUP][b][/SUP] of the earth. [SUP]5 [/SUP]And if anyone wants to harm them, fire proceeds from their mouth and devours their enemies. And if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this manner. [SUP]6 [/SUP]These have power to shut heaven, so that no rain falls in the days of their prophecy; and they have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to strike the earth with all plagues, as often as they desire.

 

[RedTent]

lol. Do you read what anyone says?

We STUDY the OT. And Hebrew. How else can we learn about God?

This is not the same as doing vein repetitious prayer, and religious repetative feasts and ceremonies of things which have already been fulfilled.

How much did they help Israel? they had them all and STILL rejected Christ.

I guess both us need communication lessons! You study the OT and know Hebrew, but did you know that Hebrew changed over the years? English changed in just 600 years, I can't for the life of me understand Shakespeare even if my kids always could. Hebrew REALLY changed. I'll bet you haven't looked into it enough to even know that.

You accuse Feast and ceremonies as vain repetition. They can be, so can the Lord's Prayer. They aren't always used that way.

They rejected Christ because their scholars read scripture as saying what they wanted It to say, and they were wrong. Not because the devout used everything they did every day to relate to God. Some used rituals wrong, and some Christians use scripture wrong. It is the wrong use, not such as scripture. I used the Lord's Prayer as an example. Something with that much teaching, that much power, that much love can be used wrong. Surely! you wouldn't blame the Lord's Prayer for the wrong use. And don't even think about accusing me of comparing a simple ritual to the Holy Lord's Prayer. I'm not. I am comparing the possible use of both.

I am trying to make this as clear as I can, I hope it isn't turned around. But scripture itself is often misread.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

When you say purpose of the law, you must include all purpose, not just one.

Hello Sister RedTent

forgive me i really don't understand your question or statement.could you make it more clear to me.To me all purpose means don't break any law,or it meant death.

So if you say grace is through faith, you are saying you believe in all of God and you act on that.

if i understand you then yes i agree.

None of this is adding to scripture by saying man came to fulfill the law. Or anything about man fulfilling it.

i don't understand

But there is scripture saying God is in the law. Not the letter of the law, but the law as it explains love. And there is scripture to say we are to obey the law.

forgive me sister i don't want to attempt to answer without being sure of what you are saying

 

[Bookends]

When we read it to discount law for instruction, we are not following the scripture to obey. We can't do that.

We are not discounting anything, we can read it for instruction. We can't perform it for instruction anymore, it has no value in our performance. What is the one work of God?
John 6:28-29
[SUP]28 [/SUP]Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”

[SUP]29 [/SUP]Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

 

[Bookends]

ALL HEBREW MEN SPEAKING:

John 1:41
The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ).

John 1:45
Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

etc.

and a Samaritan woman:

John 4
” The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” 26Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”



oh rly?

I think this passage of Jesus' conversation with the blind man whom he Healed, and the pharisees overheard, also suggests that the pharisees knew who Jesus was. They just didn't want to give up their traditions and power, for it was their traditions what gave them their power.

John 9
[h=3]True Vision and True Blindness[/h][SUP]35 [/SUP]Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, “Do you believe in the Son of God?”[SUP][/SUP]

[SUP]36 [/SUP]He answered and said, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?”

[SUP]37 [/SUP]And Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you.”
[SUP]38 [/SUP]Then he said, “Lord, I believe!” And he worshiped Him.

[SUP]39 [/SUP]And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.”

[SUP]40 [/SUP]Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, “Are we blind also?”

[SUP]41 [/SUP]Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.

 

[RedTent]

]

Hello Sister RedTent
forgive me i really don't understand your question or statement.could you make it more clear to me.To me all purpose means don't break any law,or it meant death.

I think we must read all of God's word about any subject, so when we understand something as "all" or "only" we are reading it wrong. The purpose of the law is explained in many scriptures, all of them are truth. Any time we say it "all" means something without reading every scripture about the law, we can not really understand. I agree that the bible says that breaking the law means death (That is why Christ is so precious!)

So if you say grace is through faith, you are saying you believe in all of God and you act on that.
if i understand you then yes i agree.

Because when we have faith we step out on that faith with our actions,

None of this is adding to scripture by saying man came to fulfill the law. Or anything about man fulfilling it . i don't understand

. You are right man certainly did not fulfill law. I said: "But there is scripture saying God is in the law. Not the letter of the law, but the law as it explains love. And there is scripture to say we are to obey the law. " Lets see if I can do better. The law expresses God, it expresses love and teaches us to express love. If we use law in such a way that it only tells us strict ways to do, like how many steps to walk on Sunday to obey rest, that is the letter of the law. We aren't to obey law that way.

Does that make what I think God tells us clearer?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I guess both us need communication lessons! You study the OT and know Hebrew, but did you know that Hebrew changed over the years? English changed in just 600 years, I can't for the life of me understand Shakespeare even if my kids always could. Hebrew REALLY changed. I'll bet you haven't looked into it enough to even know that.

You accuse Feast and ceremonies as vain repetition. They can be, so can the Lord's Prayer. They aren't always used that way.

They rejected Christ because their scholars read scripture as saying what they wanted It to say, and they were wrong. Not because the devout used everything they did every day to relate to God. Some used rituals wrong, and some Christians use scripture wrong. It is the wrong use, not such as scripture. I used the Lord's Prayer as an example. Something with that much teaching, that much power, that much love can be used wrong. Surely! you wouldn't blame the Lord's Prayer for the wrong use. And don't even think about accusing me of comparing a simple ritual to the Holy Lord's Prayer. I'm not. I am comparing the possible use of both.

I am trying to make this as clear as I can, I hope it isn't turned around. But scripture itself is often misread.

All I can say is read Hebrews.

A whole book written by a man of God begging pleading and warning the hellenistic jews NOT to mix the new covenant with the old. That God does not desire those things. He provided a new and better way to do things.

I like what someone said once about religious tradition, found in alot of churches. People do them so they can drive their life. they have control, because they can know they are doing good. And god will bless them. Well if God is your copilot. You better pull over and let him drive, because your going to be in deep trouble,.

 

[Nick01]

These posts are basically expressing two major sides. On one side are people who love their creator, a triune God that includes both Christ as Christ showed Himself since the year 30 and before, even. They love their Creator and listen to Him in all of scripture, not dividing it as scripture into before and after Christ but as a unit of scripture. They want to follow their God.

The others say they like their God as one that is only spiritual. Christ didn't interfere with any of daily living, He just made it better because He added joy, love, and a way to eternal life to living, and you don't have to do one thing about it except change your attitude towards life. Scripture says that is enough, so they say don't hand me any of the God principles behind this from any additional picture of God. They say they read that, toss out some, don't understand some, and Christ tossed out some. They say when Christ gave his blood to use instead of animal blood, and gave the HS, it wasn't adding to make life better it was a completely new life. God said fulfilled. They say cancelled.

I'm curious, Red Tent. You haven't responded directly to my previous post, so I'd like to know which of these two (and only two) camps of yours you would put me in?