• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Semantics: fulfill vs. abolish.

29A

Active member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
450
Reaction score
171
Location
St. Louis, MO.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Attempts to discount the prescriptions of the Old Testament often hinge on this verse.

Matthew 5:17-18 NIV 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. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Fulfill – To bring into actuality; effect.
Abolish – To do away with; annul.

Definitions from the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.
 
Attempts to discount the prescriptions of the Old Testament often hinge on this verse.

Matthew 5:17-18 NIV 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. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Fulfill – To bring into actuality; effect.
Abolish – To do away with; annul.

Definitions from the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

And....?
 
He is trying to justify the use of Old Testament "laws" as reasoning for promoting or rejecting modern secular laws.

I see. A waste of time and bandwidth. Why not laws from another old story book?
 
Surely a thread like this is actually better in the religious section where we can ignore it.
 
Surely a thread like this is actually better in the religious section where we can ignore it.

I agree. They can wallow in their fantasy there,safe from logic and criticism.
 
Surely a thread like this is actually better in the religious section where we can ignore it.

Your perogative; ignore it if you wish. DP has rules. The rule for the religious section means it can't go there.

This forum is dedicated and limited to discussions of religion, faith, and spirituality. Threads/posts critical of religion and spiritual aspects are not allowed here and will result in a B/F/T Infraction + Thread Ban.
 
Attempts to discount the prescriptions of the Old Testament often hinge on this verse.

Matthew 5:17-18 NIV 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. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Fulfill – To bring into actuality; effect.
Abolish – To do away with; annul.

Definitions from the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

Jesus fulfilled the Ceremonial Law, which served to provide insight into the beauty of God and foreshadow the Christ. Jesus also repaired the understanding of Moral Law, as a fruit of the Spirit and not a means of salvation.
 
Jesus fulfilled the Ceremonial Law, which served to provide insight into the beauty of God and foreshadow the Christ. Jesus also repaired the understanding of Moral Law, as a fruit of the Spirit and not a means of salvation.

So the myth has it. Reality, no.
 
So the myth has it. Reality, no.

What?

If you don't understand the difference between ceremonial and moral law, then you have no means of understanding the passage.

Whether the Bible is myth or "truth" is not relevant to understanding the context and thus meaning. I've always been an atheist and I've never believed anything supernatural, still... this is a rather simple and basic concept within Christianity - no faith is required to 'get it'.

If one believes it's some sort of a contradiction or incongruity, one is simply ignorant. If one has it explained to them, and still cannot understand, then one is stupid.
 
Last edited:
What?

If you don't understand the difference between ceremonial and moral law, then you have no means of understanding the passage.

Whether the Bible is myth or "truth" is not relevant to understanding the context and thus meaning. I've always been an atheist and I've never believed anything supernatural, still... this is a rather simple and basic concept within Christianity - no faith is required to 'get it'.

If one believes it's some sort of a contradiction or incongruity, one is simply ignorant. If one has it explained to them, and still cannot understand, then one is stupid.

Something either happened or it didn't.
 
Something either happened or it didn't.

That's impossibly dense. Go ask a Christian kid to explain it. I figure about 10 years old is sufficient to grasp the concept, perhaps a kid explaining it will make it easier to understand.
 
It's a semantic excuse to pick and choose supposedly divine and unchanging commands. This kind of thing makes me think that a lot of these so-called believers don't really believe a lot of what they're saying. They look for loopholes and excuses as if they were really dealing with fallible human ideas, rather than absolute commandments.
 
It's a semantic excuse to pick and choose supposedly divine and unchanging commands. This kind of thing makes me think that a lot of these so-called believers don't really believe a lot of what they're saying. They look for loopholes and excuses as if they were really dealing with fallible human ideas, rather than absolute commandments.

I really like how you claim esoteric knowledge in regard to Judaism by way of having been raised such, and then pretend you're the expert on the Bible... by way of what?

When a non-Jew tries to tell you something about the OT you freak out, and you pontificate on the "truths" of the NT.

Can you not see the hypocrisy?
 
That's impossibly dense. Go ask a Christian kid to explain it. I figure about 10 years old is sufficient to grasp the concept, perhaps a kid explaining it will make it easier to understand.

At what age do these kids become Christians? After all, we are all born as atheists. Why are there so many arrogant and rude people here? I have not insulted you, why do feel the need to insult me?
 
Last edited:
At what age do these kids become Christians? After all, we are all born as atheists. Why are there so many arrogant and rude people here? I have not insulted you, why do feel the need to insult me?

I was referring to them possessing basic knowledge and reasoning ability. That's all that is required to understand the passage.
 
Jesus fulfilled the Ceremonial Law, which served to provide insight into the beauty of God and foreshadow the Christ. Jesus also repaired the understanding of Moral Law, as a fruit of the Spirit and not a means of salvation.

I would point out that Jews don't classify any of their laws as "Ceremonial Law"; it is Christians who have. Kind of like the Christian idea of Original Sin; the Jews don't have it; or like the classifications the Jews use for the prophets, again Christians differ.

But what do you consider to be Ceremonial Law? Sacrifice? Certainly not dietary, clothing, or circumcision laws.

Evidence the Jews didn't consider the laws to be ceremonial.
Deuteronomy 32:45-47 NIV
When Moses finished reciting all these words to all Israel, he said to them, “Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words for you—they are your life. By them you will live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess.”

And the continuation of Jesus' words quoted in the OP seems to be evidence Jesus expected the entire law to be followed.
Matthew 5:19 NIV
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
 
But what do you consider to be Ceremonial Law? Sacrifice? Certainly not dietary, clothing, or circumcision laws.

You don't know anything about the Bible, do you. It's so embarrassing when someone spews crap about stuff they have no knowledge or understanding regarding. What, did you read a blog or something? Did your girlfriend put you up to this?
 
You don't know anything about the Bible, do you. It's so embarrassing when someone spews crap about stuff they have no knowledge or understanding regarding. What, did you read a blog or something? Did your girlfriend put you up to this?

Ad hominem is all you've got? I see.
 
Ad hominem is all you've got? I see.

Look, I don't understand why you don't get it, except for thinking food, clothing and circumcision are not ceremonial law (which clearly indicates total cluelessness). You need to learn the basics about the difference between them and the NT passages that make this clear (each has specific passages).

It's ridiculous for you to expect someone to educate you regarding this when you're determined to spam blog references without any understanding of context or even basic meaning whatsoever.

Feel free to start a thread in the Religion subforum and I'm sure someone would be happy to go through the basics with you.

Again, I'm not a Christian and I never have been, but I've spent some time studying the Bible and, honestly, you're not even at step one to gaining an understanding of the tenets therein.

I'm being honest when I tell you how embarrassing such positions are. I feel like I'm watching the SNL Cheerleading skit.

Best of luck.
 
Last edited:
It's ridiculous for you to expect someone to educate you regarding this when you're determined to spam blog references without any understanding of context or even basic meaning whatsoever.

Accusation, without proof. Seriously, I came to DP for good discussions/debates, not browbeating, put-downs and pettiness, which you can't seem to avoid. But, have yourself a nice day too.
 
Accusation, without proof. Seriously, I came to DP for good discussions/debates, not browbeating, put-downs and pettiness, which you can't seem to avoid. But, have yourself a nice day too.

Perhaps you should stick to questions and not pretend to know something regarding subjects with which you are totally unfamiliar.

This is not a "coddle petulance" website. It's a debate website. You're really gonna have to bring something other than "I've no idea what I'm talking about" if you want to win a debate.

If you didn't expect a debate, and simply wanted to rant aimlessly about things you have knowledge regarding, well... this isn't the place for that either (perhaps Facebook would be more appropriate).

Again, best of luck.
 
I tell you what. To show there's no ill will, I'll give you an idea about how to explore this subject. Hold a debate regarding whether weekly Sabbath is a ceremonial or moral law. This is probably the most debated classification of the laws and will provide insight regarding the qualifications and pertinent verses.
 
Back
Top Bottom