Christ fulfills many aspects of the law and the prophets, however they also prophesied a second coming. You see, this is why Jews didn't accept Christ, because He didn't come in the way they thought He would.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do Christians really think about the Qur'an
- Thread starter MathewJames
- Start date
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
The Jews don't accept Jesus as he failed. There were various ideas about the Messiah. What was known was that the Messiah would free the Jews from foreign rule. Instead, Jesus died as a criminal. There was no thought of a suffering Messiah.
What aspects of the Law did he fill? A law can not be fulfilled. That is like saying that it's okay to kill, because that law was fulfilled. It doesn't happen.
The point of the OT law was to ultimately show the need for Christ. You see it is impossible for humans to fulfill or follow throughout their life the law of the OT. That is why there were sacrifices in the OT, to sacrifice something for their sin. Ther sin is lawlessness as said in the NT, and thus this grand law was to show the need for a Messiah that would fulfill it or live by it within His life to every letter. Christ did that, and thus it shows through OT context He is the Son of God.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Christ was the fulfillment of the law in that the law, everything written, pointed to the coming messiah. With the Messiahs arrival, the law had been fufilled.
Yes there are still aspects awaiting further fulfillment....but the jews should have known that there would be a delay in all the promises being fulfilled because their scriptures told them as much at Psalm 110:1“Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”
basically the one thing that the law lacked was the one it promised, the Messiah.... with the arrival of that one then it can be said that the law was fulfilled.
Yes there are still aspects awaiting further fulfillment....but the jews should have known that there would be a delay in all the promises being fulfilled because their scriptures told them as much at Psalm 110:1“Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”
basically the one thing that the law lacked was the one it promised, the Messiah.... with the arrival of that one then it can be said that the law was fulfilled.
Last edited:
Blackheart
Active Member
Jesus did free the Jews by bringing them Christianity. If they refuse to accept it then how can you blame him?
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
The OT Law is not to show a need for Christ. Yes, it is not possible to fully follow the law at all times. And neither does God expect one to do so. That wasn't the point of the law.
Yes, there were sacrifices prescribed through the law, but that was a small part. Even today, the law is practiced, and there are no animal sacrifices. There are other ways for atonement.
The sin wasn't lawlessness though. The NT may say that, but it is wrong. There were many sins described in the NT. It was doing evil in the eye of God (the book of Judges is a great example of this).
The need for the Messiah had nothing to do with the Law though. It had nothing to do with fulfilling the law. The Law, for Jews, was not something to be abolished. It was a blessing. It was a gift. And they followed the law out of love for God. God commanded it, and they followed it out of love.
The need for the Messiah began after the Jewish people were conquered. The Messiah was suppose to save the Jews from foreign rule, and make the a great nation once again. When the law was first handed down, there was no need for the Messiah. It was later, when the people were conquered, that the need for the Messiah arose. It had nothing to do with abolishing the law, or fulfilling the law.
Finally, Jesus did not obey the complete law. On one occasion, he directly taught against the law (in the case of divorce). On another occasion, he broke the law by disrespecting his mother.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
The law did not point to the coming Messiah. The Law was in existence before the concept of the Messiah, or the need for a Messiah. Thus, it wasn't pointing to something that didn't exist.
There was never the idea that the Messiah would have to come twice. That was completely foreign to the Jews. Why? Because none of the Messianic prophecies ever mentioned such a thing. And there is no reason.
More so, the law can't be fulfilled. It simply doesn't work that way. And the Messiah was never said to have to fulfill the law, because Jews understand that is nonsensical. And it poses a massive problem. If the law is fulfilled, and we don't have to follow it, then it would be alright to kill, cheat, lie, etc. Yet, no one accepts those to be alright. So basically fulfilling the law only means taking out the laws that one doesn't like. And that is exactly the opposite of what Jesus was teaching.
OK. You say it is wrong, even though it says that? That is a perfect example of reading your own views into the text.
This again has no foundation in Scripture.
A claim with no source.
Messiah refers to one anointed by God. This is quite different than you saying that there was no need of a Messiah. In fact the whole Jewish religion is built on it.
Again be specific.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Jesus didn't bring Christianity. Christianity didn't exist until later on. The first followers of Jesus were Jews. Jesus was a Jew, and never even suggested bringing about a new religion.
Instead, Jesus had a Jewish message intended for fellow Jews. More so, he commanded his followers to follow the law completely.
More so, the Jews had nothing to be freed from. Judaism isn't something one needs to be freed from. It's a great religion. So why would they even want to be freed from it?
Christianity is no more than a term to describe those who follow Christ. It does not matter when it originated.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
How am I reading my own views into the text? I'm telling you about Judaism. I'm a former Jew. I've talked with many Jews. I'm giving you the Jewish view on this. You're just sidestepping the issue.
Most of what you say has no foundation in Scripture. No point in nit picking. And yes, what I said has a strong foundation in scripture.
That differs from your claims how? Don't sidestep the issue.
You have no idea about Judaism then. The Messiah referred to a specific figure. That figure was suppose to free the Jews from foreign rule, and once again make them a great nation. This idea did not occur until after they were conquered.
If you actually want to continue with this discussion, please research Judaism a little bit. At least get a basic understanding of the religion.
I was specific. More specific than you've been. This silly game of sidestepping the issue doesn't work.
The word Messiah means anointed.
Usage: anointed(34), anointed ones(2), Anointed(1), Messiah.
And you have nothing again, no scriptural references. You just say it says what I pointed out, but that it is wrong. That is your view, and does not rebut/refute any argument that I have pointed out.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Actually it does, because it means more than those who follow Christ. Because Christianity does not describe Jews who subscribed to the idea that Jesus was the Messiah. Those individuals were still Jews, who practiced Judaism, but though the Messiah came.
The origination of Christianity matters as the movement first began as a sect in Judaism. As in, the first followers of Jesus were Jewish. They continued to practice Judaism, but thought that the Messiah had already came. Later on, with the help of individuals such as Paul, the movement changed. Instead of being just Jews, who followed Judaism, Pagans were allowed to join. These individuals did not have to convert to Judaism in order to become Christians or followers of the Jesus movement.
More so, later on, Judaism pushed away the Jews of the Jesus movement. This was especially apparent after the first Jewish revolt, when followers of Jesus were deemed heretics.
For a more in depth look, check out L. Michael White's book, From Jesus to Christianity.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I don't care what the dictionary definition meant. The Messiah, according to Jews, meant more than that. I've already explained this.
You have provided very little substance. Why should I waste my time to do something you won't even try? You've provided no scriptural references. You've provided no sources. When I've done, you've simply dismissed them outright.
You won't even debate what I have to say, instead, you just sidestep the issue. I've shown why you're wrong. You have never offered a rebuttal. Instead, you sidestep the issue.
Wrong again. They did not practice it like the OT documents show, namely failure by humanity to follow the Law. Rather how Christ revealed it. And thus the NT is what they follow.
Christs teachings were for jew and gentile, point blank. That is what Paul elaborates on.
Your pointing things out, lacks the proper biblical study and context.
I have little substance, yet here you are saying, I dont' care about definitions from dictionaries, etc, etc, lol.
Blackheart
Active Member
Christianity is Jesus's teachings. Its not an institution as many people seem to think these days. It was intended as the next step and not only for the Israelites.Therefore Jesus was a Christian from the day he began expressing the NT.
The law was to stone a woman for adultery. Some laws needed to change to recognise that God is the only one worthy.
I have no doubt that you can be a jew and be free but to be free from sin you need to follow the message sent throught Jesus wether you see him as a messiah, prophet or the Son of God.
Exactly. Although scripturally he is Son of God, coexisting, coeternal with the Godhead, etc.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I've provided a source, From Jesus to Christianity, that offers a thorough rebuttal of what you're saying. The Birth of Christianity, by John Dominic Crossan will also support this point. Or you can watch the PBS special, From Jesus to Christ. All of which show offer a thorough rebuttal of what you're saying, as well as a scholarly view.
Paul disagrees with Jesus. It is as simple as that. Jesus says that his followers have to follow the law. Paul says they don't. Jesus said specifically that his message was not for the gentiles (Matthew 10:5) and that it was for Jews.
So articulate it and lets go. Until then meh...
Mathew 10:5 merely means that they are not to adopt the ways of the Gentiles. Also Pauls letters were written before the synoptic gospels, thus Paul has the initial teachings chronologically and thus because mathew 10:5 means not to adopt the ways of the gentiles that is against the will of God. Jesus agrees with Paul. You reading introduces manufactured inconsistency.