The Old Rugged Cross

[_dogmatic]

But when the Bible teaches the sacrifice of Christ did away with the law of Moses and carnal commandments, why should we think it did away with laws given before the law of Moses?

First off, he didn't do away with the law:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Second: he says the "Law or the Prophets" in this verse. Which would go back before Moses to the prophets.

third. There are several passages that use "law" in general in saying that he fulfilled them. The Law, the Prophets, and Moses's law work interchangeably. They all mean the law of God in some aspect either in relation to the Jews or all men.

I'm really not getting your direction. The law before moses is the same laws that existed with moses. God gets on to people before Moses for breaking his, quote "Laws and Commandments." So they did exist before Moses. I think you splitting hairs to try to denigrate Jesus fulfilling the law doctrine..

[_dogmatic]

But when the Bible teaches the sacrifice of Christ did away with the law of Moses and carnal commandments, why should we think it did away with laws given before the law of Moses?

also, I can't find the verse that explicitly uses "law of Moses," can you point that out for me. got go home!

[_consiglieri]

First off, he didn't do away with the law:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Matthew has a pro-law stance quite unlike Paul.

But if you consider them of equal authority, doesn't this Matthean quote somewhat undermine your position?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Buffalo]

First off, he didn't do away with the law:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Matthew has a pro-law stance quite unlike Paul.

But if you consider them of equal authority, doesn't this Matthean quote somewhat undermine your position?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

What does "fulfill" mean here?

[_consiglieri]

What does "fulfill" mean here?

That is an excellent question, mi amigo!

When contemporary Christians (Mormons included) define it, it is usually understood to mean being fulfilled with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

In other words, it got "fulfilled" and hence "done away with" 2,000 years ago.

This interpretation suffers from the fact that Matthew has Jesus say he has not come to abolish the law, and yet many contemporary Christians believe that is exactly what he did.

In the context of Matthew's gospel, however, it seems more likely that he meant the law would continue in full force and effect until the end of the world, which was the point at which it would be "fulfilled."

Historically Matthew's gospel was favored by the Ebionites, if I recall correctly, who were a group of Christians who believed continued adherence to the law of Moses was a prerequisite of being a true Christian.

These were likely the "Judaizers" who opposed Paul's teaching in the New Testament.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Buffalo]

What does "fulfill" mean here?

That is an excellent question, mi amigo!

When contemporary Christians (Mormons included) define it, it is usually understood to mean being fulfilled with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

In other words, it got "fulfilled" and hence "done away with" 2,000 years ago.

This interpretation suffers from the fact that Matthew has Jesus say he has not come to abolish the law, and yet many contemporary Christians believe that is exactly what he did.

In the context of Matthew's gospel, however, it seems more likely that he meant the law would continue in full force and effect until the end of the world, which was the point at which it would be "fulfilled."

Historically Matthew's gospel was favored by the Ebionites, if I recall correctly, who were a group of Christians who believed continued adherence to the law of Moses was a prerequisite of being a true Christian.

These were likely the "Judaizers" who opposed Paul's teaching in the New Testament.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Thanks consig. I seem to recall reading about this several years ago. Of course, at the time I wasn't willing to let myself believe that the Matthew text meant what it seemed to say - that the law was not to end.

[_consiglieri]

Thanks consig. I seem to recall reading about this several years ago. Of course, at the time I wasn't willing to let myself believe that the Matthew text meant what it seemed to say - that the law was not to end.

I know what you are talking about.

I experienced a personal revolution in scripture understanding a number of years back when I finally decided to try to understand what the authors were saying rather than making them say what I believed.

Closely linked to this revolution was the idea that different authors should be allowed to express their own views without feeling the necessity of making them harmonize with every other author whose words happened to get included in the canon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_stemelbow]

Hey mr. Consiglieri,

I just wanted to chime and say, I think you have a point there.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Matthew has a pro-law stance quite unlike Paul.

Yes and no, at least with respect to Paul.

In my view everyone in the ancient world, Paul included, took it as a given that the Jews had to live the law. That was what made them Jews, and being a Jew meant living the law. Being a Jew and a Christian simply meant to believe that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God.

The real questions were the following 1) What does it mean for a gentile to be a Christian? and 2) After you answer #1, How can Jewish Christians and gentile Christians co-exist? A lot of Paul's epistles are meant to answer these questions.

This is a big debate in scholarly circles nowadays, so my position is necessarily controversial. But I think it's defensible, and it has the virtue of making the most sense out of the greatest number of New Testament passages.

[_Buffalo]

Thanks consig. I seem to recall reading about this several years ago. Of course, at the time I wasn't willing to let myself believe that the Matthew text meant what it seemed to say - that the law was not to end.

I know what you are talking about.

I experienced a personal revolution in scripture understanding a number of years back when I finally decided to try to understand what the authors were saying rather than making them say what I believed.

Closely linked to this revolution was the idea that different authors should be allowed to express their own views without feeling the necessity of making them harmonize with every other author whose words happened to get included in the canon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It's too bad I wasn't able to do that as a believer - I'm sure it would have been a freeing experience.