@pilgrim

, I've made abundantly clear that my discussions are not based on seeing anything in this regard as a "requirement".

what the helldou tinkhis topic is all about?
This topc is about criminals like u trying to steal money from innocent victims based on the obsolete mosaic law

Pastor AIO:

I didn't say they were the same thing.

Okay, first let me apologise unreservedly - I might have misread your post. The part I took out for my explanations following was to make the point that both words do not mean the same thing, not even when carefully considered in contexts of the verses I already cited to the point. Sorry about that.

Did you read my post?  What do you make of it?  Fulfillment can lead to a discarding of it.  That is my point.  What do you think?

Well, I appreciate your point. What do I think? I may agree with you in some context - but not in the light of what we (chukwudi and I) have been considering. Outside of those verses, I may agree that fulfillment could lead to the idea of discarding something (and there are numerous examples, such as you had given).

But within the context of what Jesus said, 'fulfillment' would be hard to translate into 'discarding'. Especially in the example of "fulfilling all righteousness" - that would not give the sense at all of "discarding all righteousness", get my point?

This is quite a very simple matter; and one of the explanations may have been highlighted in your previous input:

Pastor AIO:

So we need to look at the purpose of the law.  The law is there to guide us in righteousness.  Yet it is defective.  We are merely managing it for want of something better.  If we can find another means to walk in righteousness then it is best to discard the law and go with the better means.

That point resonates with me - the "purpose" of the Law. Without wanting to risk technicalities here, wouldn't it be true to say that the purpose of the Law is not discarded? If we have the idea that it should be thus discarded, we shall find huge and innumerable problems in our Christian faith. It could be argued one way or the other that the Law is defective - but I'm rather of the view that the Law itself (in its intinsic nature) is not defective: rather, the problem is with man. This is why the NT says that the Law is good, spiritual and holy (Rom. 7:12-16). That certainly does not mean that the Christian is under the Law in a literal sense.

I don't know about you but for me I find guidance in righteousness from the spirit of God.  It is superior to anything in the law and therefore I have no qualms about discarding the law completely.  I have got myself the upgrade.  Where the law is the v.1 the Spirit is the V. 2000.  The purpose of the law is thoroughly fulfilled and so the law can be discarded.

Lol, I also find my guidance in righteousness from the Spirit of God. Dare I also observe that it is the same Spirit that shows us why we cannot discard the law completely? How? Tell me: what "law" is said to be hold in Christian marriages, such as 1 Corinthians 7:39? Tell me: what "law" is spoken of concerning loving our neighbour and loving God in Matthew 22:36-40? By just those two examples, should we maintain the idea that we discard the law "completely"? If that is so, then those verses ought not to be referred to in matters concerning Christian mariages and Christians loving God and neighbour - it does not matter any other claim that we are guided by the Spirit while completely discarding what the same Spirit shows us in the NT.

chukwudi44:

@pilgrim
what the helldou tinkhis topic is all about?
This topc is about criminals like u trying to steal money from innocent victims based on the obsolete mosaic law

Twerp, incase you are still scratching your dustbrain, I have not stolen money from you nor asked it from any of your miserable clowns. I entered this thread with a verse that speaks about the topic of the thread itself: firstfruits - see my post #6. And even in that post, I did not make it a "requirement". Mooncalves like you are too challenged to understand simple statements, so nothing new there. Next!

viaro:

Okay, first let me apologise unreservedly - I might have misread your post. The part I took out for my explanations following was to make the point that both words do not mean the same thing, not even when carefully considered in contexts of the verses I already cited to the point. Sorry about that.

Well, I appreciate your point. What do I think? I may agree with you in some context - but not in the light of what we (chukwudi and I) have been considering. Outside of those verses, I may agree that fulfillment could lead to the idea of discarding something (and there are numerous examples, such as you had given).

But within the context of what Jesus said, 'fulfillment' would be hard to translate into 'discarding'. Especially in the example of "fulfilling all righteousness" - that would not give the sense at all of "discarding all righteousness", get my point?

You're quite incredible. Who has translated fulfillment to into discarding? 'fulfillment can lead to discarding' is what I said. Not the word fulfillment means discarding.

viaro:

That point resonates with me - the "purpose" of the Law. Without wanting to risk technicalities here, wouldn't it be true to say that the purpose of the Law is not discarded? If we have the idea that it should be thus discarded, we shall find huge and innumerable problems in our Christian faith. It could be argued one way or the other that the Law is defective - but I'm rather of the view that the Law itself (in its intinsic nature) is not defective: rather, the problem is with man. This is why the NT says that the Law is good, spiritual and holy (Rom. 7:12-16). That certainly does not mean that the Christian is under the Law in a literal sense.

No, the law is defective. It is a poor attempt to instruct in righteousness. Without the Spirit to properly guide you in righteousness no codes or laws will do the job. No one is talking about discarding the purpose of the Law which is Righteousness. I am talking about the means to achieve righteousness and I say that as a means the law is defective. It is defective intrinsically and extrinsically. The problem is with the Law. It doesn't cut it.

What does Holy mean? It means complete. Whole. Without contamination. How do you fulfill something that is already Whole?

viaro:

Lol, I also find my guidance in righteousness from the Spirit of God. Dare I also observe that it is the same Spirit that shows us why we cannot discard the law completely? How? Tell me: what "law" is said to be hold in Christian marriages, such as 1 Corinthians 7:39? Tell me: what "law" is spoken of concerning loving our neighbour and loving God in Matthew 22:36-40? By just those two examples, should we maintain the idea that we discard the law "completely"? If that is so, then those verses ought not to be referred to in matters concerning Christian mariages and Christians loving God and neighbour - it does not matter any other claim that we are guided by the Spirit while completely discarding what the same Spirit shows us in the NT.

We should also consider the possibility that we are not talking about the same God or about the same spirit.


The marriage of a christian is not bound by legalities but by the spirit of God. Likewise the Love exhibited by a Christian is a spontaneous phenomenon the Christian is not forcing himself to adhere to a law that he read in a book. It is less a commandment and more a welling up from within.

Gal 3:23-25
(23)  But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
(24)  Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster[b] to bring us unto Christ[/b], that we might be justified by faith.
(25)  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The words in bold can be seen as the purpose of the law; . . . to bring us to Christ..

Mat 5:17
(17)  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Just as Pastor AIO said, it was to fulfil the purpose of the law that Christ came; so that we could be in/with/through him.

Verse 25 of the galatian passage shows strongly that after that purpose has been fulfilled, we are no longer under the law.
This means we do not need that law to function.

The life in the Spirit(life in Christ) is a life superior to that within and by the law of Moses.
It is an advanced level; we do not require the stuff of the beginners level(law of Moses) to function, . . .we can only remember/treat the beginners level stuff as we progress in the advanced level(life in Christ,through the Spirit) as the stuff that got us to the level which we currently are; in Christ.

Our life in Christ or the way we are in that life is a response to the Spirit and not obedience to written laws.
We do not respond to the law of Moses; rather we respond to the law of Christ which is written in our hearts.

The law will and can only serve its purpose; . . . and that is to bring people to Christ, not lead people through Christ. 

Pastor AIO:

No, the law is defective.  It is a poor attempt to instruct in righteousness.  Without the Spirit to properly guide you in righteousness no codes or laws will do the job.  No one is talking about discarding the purpose of the Law which is Righteousness.  I am talking about the means to achieve righteousness and I say that as a means the law is defective.  It is defective intrinsically and extrinsically.  The problem is with the Law.  It doesn't cut it. 

What does Holy mean?  It means complete.  Whole.  Without contamination.  How do you fulfill something that is already Whole?

 
We should also consider the possibility that we are not talking about the same God or about the same spirit. 


The marriage of a christian is not bound by legalities but by the spirit of God.  Likewise the Love exhibited by a Christian is a spontaneous phenomenon the Christian is not forcing himself to adhere to a law that he read in a book.  It is less a commandment and more a welling up from within. 

GBAM!!

Pastor AIO:

You're quite incredible. Who has translated fulfillment to into discarding? 'fulfillment can lead to discarding' is what I said. Not the word fulfillment means discarding.

How am I incredible, AIO? Did I not clearly state this: "I may agree that fulfillment could lead to the idea of discarding something"? Was that point not made in my reply above?

No, the law is defective. It is a poor attempt to instruct in righteousness. Without the Spirit to properly guide you in righteousness no codes or laws will do the job. No one is talking about discarding the purpose of the Law which is Righteousness. I am talking about the means to achieve righteousness and I say that as a means the law is defective. It is defective intrinsically and extrinsically. The problem is with the Law. It doesn't cut it.

I'm sorry; perhaps you're arguing on personal grounds - and that's okay. However, I don't see how the Law is defective - which was why I quoted Romans 7 to show you the context of what I meant. If after seeing those verses and still maintain that you're directly against what they state, I can allow you to hold your ideas personally. No big deal to me. The problem is with man, not the Law - see again Romans 7:14 - "we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal".

What does Holy mean? It means complete. Whole. Without contamination. How do you fulfill something that is already Whole?

You are not clear here. The word "holy" in my reply was pointing to the Law as being that categorically - "the law is holy" (v. 12). Now if you're saying that I should read "holy" as "complete", then where does that leave your assertion that the Law is "defective"? This was why I am asking that you carefully look at the context of what the references have stated - which I have variously pointed out.

If 'holy' = 'complete'; where then is your argument that the Law is 'defective' since the same Law is 'holy' (ie, 'complete')? Do you see where I'm coming from?

We should also consider the possibility that we are not talking about the same God or about the same spirit.

Oh, I see. In which case it's pointless trying to hold a discourse on such assumptions. Ciao.

ttalks:

Gal 3:23-25
(23)  But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
(24)  Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster[b] to bring us unto Christ[/b], that we might be justified by faith.
(25)  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The words in bold can be seen as the purpose of the law; . . . to bring us to Christ..

Mat 5:17
(17)  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Just as Pastor AIO said, it was to fulfil the purpose of the law that Christ came; so that we could be in/with/through him.

Thank you, ttalks. Christ came to fulfil the Law; but does that mean the same thing in Matthew 5:17 as He came to "abolish" the Law? If that is so, why then did He categorically say that He did not come to abolish them?

Verse 25 of the galatian passage shows strongly that after that purpose has been fulfilled, we are no longer under the law.

I did not argue to make anyone to be under the Law. I made that point clear just incase anyone might assume otherwise: (see post #33 - "That certainly does not mean that the Christian is under the Law in a literal sense".

This means we do not need that law to function.

The life in the Spirit(life in Christ) is a life superior to that within and by the law of Moses.
It is an advanced level; we do not require the stuff of the beginners level(law of Moses) to function, . . .we can only remember/treat the beginners level stuff as we progress in the advanced level(life in Christ,through the Spirit) as the stuff that got us to the level which we currently are; in Christ.

Our life in Christ or the way we are in that life is a response to the Spirit and not obedience to written laws.
We do not respond to the law of Moses; rather we respond to the law of Christ which is written in our hearts.

The law will and can only serve its purpose; . . . and that is to bring people to Christ, not lead people through Christ. 

Many thanks. For all that, how does Christ's 'fulfilling' the Law translate into the idea that He 'abolished' the Law? You guys should realise that I have not ignored the word "fulfil" - which in post #26 I clearly distinguished from "abolished", using an example from Matthew 3:15. I have not read anyone trying to reconcile these two obviously contrasted statements:

(a) chuks said: "jesus christ abolished the mosaic law"
(b) Jesus said: "I have not come to abolish them"

I certainly trust that we know the difference between "fulfil" and "abolish" - and at the end of the day, they do not mean the same thing at all. If they did, then Jesus would clearly have stated that He actuall came to "abolish" the Law. The point is that the statement in (a) is trying to make Jesus' statement into something directly opposite to what He stated in (b). That being the case, I asked chukwudi to reconcile both statements if he could.

Viaro,

Jesus didn't say,"I didn't come to abolish. . . ." .
Instead he said, "I didn't come to destroy. . . ."

Abolish in greek - καταργέω - katargeō
Destroy in greek - καταλύω - kataluō

They are two obviously different words with different meanings,although almost similar.

Abolish in the sense of what we're talking about would mean - making no longer a standing requirement towards a particular purpose (we know this is the case of the law as a requirement towards our salvation or living the life within).
Destroy in the sense of what we're talking about would mean - demolish,disintegrate (but we know this isn't the case of the law since it still serves it purpose to bring/point people to Christ).

ttalks:

Viaro,

Jesus didn't say,"I didn't come to abolish. . . ." .
Instead he said, "I didn't come to destroy. . . ."

Abolish in greek - καταργέω - katargeō
Destroy in greek - καταλύω - kataluō

They are two obviously different words with different meanings,although almost similar.

Abolish in the sense of what we're talking about would mean - making no longer a standing requirement towards a particular purpose (we know this is the case of the law as a requirement towards our salvation or living the life within).
Destroy in the sense of what we're talking about would mean - demolish,disintegrate (but we know this isn't the case of the law since it still serves it purpose to bring/point people to Christ).

Nice.

Obviously, I quoted the ESV on Matt. 5:17 - "I have not come to abolish them". However, your help in distinguishing between 'destroy' and 'abolish' is quite appreciated.

Now I may not know what meaning chukwudi meant for his bold statement that Jesus "abolished" the law. And if I take your meaning, it would seem queer to draw the inference you made; because I have not found anywhere in the Bible where the Law was given as a "requirement" in terms of our salvation. What then happens to those who were never given the Law in the first place? This is why it would be difficult for me to hold the view that the Law is "no longer" a standing requirement - because it was never that in the first place!

But thanks for your helpful inputs (it would make me search a bit more on the subject). However, all points considered, it appears that we're saying the same thing: Jesus did not come to 'destroy/abolish' the Law, quoting Him directly from Matthew 5:17.

Based on what i said above, the law is abolished(meaning it is no longer a requirement) in the life of a Christian.


2Co 3:7-14
(7)  But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
(  How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
(9)  For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
(10)  For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
(11)  For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
(12)  Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
(13)  And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
(14)  But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

Also, the law still exists(meaning it isn't destroyed)to continue its purpose of pointing/bringing people to Christ.

Mat 5:17
(17)  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

viaro:

Nice.

Obviously, I quoted the ESV on Matt. 5:17 - "I have not come to abolish them". However, your help in distinguishing between 'destroy' and 'abolish' is quite appreciated.

Now I may not know what meaning chukwudi meant for his bold statement that Jesus "abolished" the law. And if I take your meaning, it would seem queer to draw the inference you made; because I have not found anywhere in the Bible where the Law was given as a "requirement" in terms of our salvation. What then happens to those who were never given the Law in the first place? This is why it would be difficult for me to hold the view that the Law is "no longer" a standing requirement - because it was never that in the first place!

But thanks for your helpful inputs (it would make me search a bit more on the subject). However, all points considered, it appears that we're saying the same thing: Jesus did not come to 'destroy/abolish' the Law, quoting Him directly from Matthew 5:17.

I never meant that the law was a requirement for salvation.What i meant to imply is that:

Without the law, there wouldn't have been any knowledge or indication for the need for salvation through Christ.
That's what it means by saying; the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ

ttalks:

Based on what i said above, the law is abolished(meaning it is no longer a requirement) in the life of a Christian.

What do you mean by "no longer"? That gives me the idea that it was at one time made a requirement for salvation, but now it is "no longer" so. If that was the case, then what happens to those who were never given such a requirement in the first place? Why should only some people be given such a "requirement" as far as salvation was concerned and others are not given such a requirement?

I don't think the idea of "no longer" is valid - because what you're making it is not what it was made to be in the first place.

2Co 3:7-14
(7)  But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
(  How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
(9)  For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
(10)  For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
(11)  For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
(12)  Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
(13)  And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
(14)  But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

Also, the law still exists(meaning it isn't destroyed)to continue its purpose of pointing/bringing people to Christ.

Mat 5:17
(17)  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Let's look at 2 Cor. 3:7-14 you quoted. My question is this: what exactly was "abolished"?

There are several things contrasted there; but for all that, I don't think it makes sense to just insert "the Law" in verse 13 to make it read "abolished". Think on the following:

(a) verse speaks about a glory that was to be done away:
      "which glory was to be done away"

(b) verse 13 speaks of "that" which is abolished, but does not say it is the Law;

(c)  verse 14 speaks of a vail which was to be done away -
      "which vail is done away in Christ"

Again, what appears here seems to be (pls note: "seems to be" that those verses are made to argue that the Law is "abolished" whereas that does not stand in light of what they say.

ttalks:

I never meant that the law was a requirement for salvation.

Fair enough, I take it back. My mistake may have been taken from your statement that -
"(we know this is the case of the law as a requirement towards our salvation or living the life within)". Apologies.

What i meant to imply is that:

Without the law, there wouldn't have been any knowledge or indication for the need for salvation through Christ.
That's what it means by saying; the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ

Okay. Let me leave it there with this subscript:
There are people who were never at any time given "the Law" - they didn't have "the Law" in order to have a knowledge or indication for the need for salvation. I have in mind just an example: Paul's preaching to the heathen. When he said that he "might preach [Christ] among the heathen" (Galatians 1:16), we know that he did not try bring a knowledge of the heathen's need for salvation from the Law. Rather, what he did was skillfully approach his subjects from the common experiences of those he preached to - such as the philosophers at Athens in Acts 17. Go through that chapter, and you won't find Paul trying to highlight their need for salvation from the Law.

But that's just where I should leave that matter on your last quote. However, I'll still look at the "abolish" issue. Thanks.