I do not come to abolish the Law, but FULFILL it.

[John 8:32]

At the time Paul wrote this, the NT didn't even exist! He was referring to the OT here!

And when any NT writer uses the word "now", he's not using it to mean 2,000 years later!

The ignorance of such things simply leaves one breathless. 2

So there goes the entirety of the N.T.? Just toss it right out. Just exactly what scriptures do apply to us today?

 

[Hitch]

So there goes the entirety of the N.T.? Just toss it right out. Just exactly what scriptures do apply to us today?

LOL@John

 

[John 8:32]

LOL@John

Well, how about answering instead of snickering. Put your keyboard where your mouth is.

 

[reba]

Remember the TOS guys . The rules we agree to when we sign up. reba

http://www.christianforums.net/f64/announcement-terms-service-tos.html

 

[Hitch]

Well, how about answering instead of snickering. Put your keyboard where your mouth is.

As soon as you quit being ridiculous and actually have something to add. I know you're capable of it.

 

[John 8:32]

As soon as you quit being ridiculous and actually have something to add. I know you're capable of it.

OK, I am sincerely asking, what do we apply today and what do we not apply today?

 

[John 8:32]

Remember the TOS guys . The rules we agree to when we sign up. reba

http://www.christianforums.net/f64/announcement-terms-service-tos.html

Sorry, got carried away.

 

[Webb]

Lets return to Matt.24. The expression "the end of the world" in Matt.34:3 and Matt. 28:20 are exactly the same in the Koine Greek. If "the end of the world in Matt.24:3 means the end of the Jewish system or nation, then Matt.28:20 would mean the practice of baptism also ended.

 

[Hitch]

Lets return to Matt.24. The expression "the end of the world" in Matt.34:3 and Matt. 28:20 are exactly the same in the Koine Greek. If "the end of the world in Matt.24:3 means the end of the Jewish system or nation, then Matt.28:20 would mean the practice of baptism also ended.

I think there is a contextual problem Webb ,considering the events that took place betweeen the time M24 was spoken and M28. As in any case some some subjectivity is involved but there is no doubt the writer of Hebrews says Christ came 'in the end of the world. '

 

[Hitch]

OK, I am sincerely asking, what do we apply today and what do we not apply today?

Everything applies is one way or another. And if we can grasp the specifics of who and how a given passage was aimed at originally we have made the first step toward understand the best application for our time.

 

[Webb]

Hi Hitch--There is no sarcasm in this reply but I don't have my concorsance handy at present and my memory fails. Where does Hebrews say Christ came at the end of the world? Again, no sarcasm in my question. Thanks

 

[Drew]

"Heaven and earth" is metaphorical on the level that it describes the Temple, the OT dwelling place of God on earth (literally where heaven met earth), but the phrase also refers to the entire "heaven (sky) and earth (land)" of the land God gave to Abraham to give to his descendants, as it was all considered holy (sanctified, set apart) to both God and His Old Covenant people.

I think you are bang on correct. While I was aware of the Hebrew notion of the temple as the place where heaven and earth meet, and while I am aware that Jesus preached imminent judgement for Israel, I never put the two together this way (i.e. as providing the appropriate interpretive matrix for the Matthew 5:18 teaching).

In short, I think you bring up a very powerful point.

 

[Hitch]

Hi Hitch--There is no sarcasm in this reply but I don't have my concorsance handy at present and my memory fails. Where does Hebrews say Christ came at the end of the world? Again, no sarcasm in my question. Thanks

2

4For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

The 'end' here is in context directly related to the continual sacrifices necessary under the old covenant , the point here is the clear use in NT terminology of the 'end of the world' when the demise of the planet is certainly not in view.

 

[Webb]

Thanks Hitch--
I'm now back and have access to my Bible.

The term "the end of the world" may refer to the end of the OT as it was on the cross where His sacrifice was made, thus nailing the OT to the cross. OR, it may refer to the New Covenant, the New Testament which began on the 1st Pentecost following the crucifixion. The promise God made to Abraham culminated in the covenant God made at Sinai with Israel, and the covenant made at Sinai culminated in the New Testament. The New Testament age in which we live is the last age and may thus be refered to as the "end."

I do not subscribe to the idea that "all" of Matt.24 has to do with only the end of the Jewish nation.

 

[John 8:32]

The 'end' here is in context directly related to the continual sacrifices necessary under the old covenant , the point here is the clear use in NT terminology of the 'end of the world' when the demise of the planet is certainly not in view.

You do know (of course you do) that the word used for world in this phrase is

G165
αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn'
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.

in every case in the N.T.

It is not referring to the demise of the planet, but to the end of an age.

 

[Stormcrow]

but to the end of an age.

What age (worldly order, era, eon, epoch) ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70 AD?

Here's a hint: Book of Hebrews has the answer.

 

[smaller]

What age (worldly order, era, eon, epoch) ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70 AD?

Here's a hint: Book of Hebrews has the answer.

The Law still condemns all lawlessness and sin.

If you think those measures of Gods Words went away, they didn't.

The Law always demanded Perfection. The Law shows us that we are NOT, and unto WHOM we must look to in our hearts to RECEIVE same in FAITH and the HOPE of the REDEMPTION of our SINNING bodies and a FINAL RELEASE from that working.

The Law is a pretty basic fulcrum to the Gospel. The entire Gospel came from the Old Testament Law and Prophets, culminated in The Perfect Word, God Himself in the flesh of Jesus Christ, The Living Word, who by the way STILL LIVES as does HIS WORD.

enjoy

smaller

 

[John 8:32]

What age (worldly order, era, eon, epoch) ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70 AD?

Here's a hint: Book of Hebrews has the answer.

The problem with that is that the prophecies of Mat 24 were not fulfilled at 70 AD.

 

[Stormcrow]

The problem with that is that the prophecies of Mat 24 were not fulfilled at 70 AD.

In your opinion. I think they were and have the evidence to support it.

BTW, did you even read the book of Hebrews? That's where the answer to your question is.

 

[Drew]

The problem with that is that the prophecies of Mat 24 were not fulfilled at 70 AD.

Really?

What does Jesus prophecy in Matthew 24? He prophecies that the temple - yes the very one they were looking at - would be flattened within a generation.

When did the temple get destroyed?

70 AD.

Now I will expect people to somehow try to say that Jesus was talking about some other temple and/ or that he was talking about some other generation?

Well, they were sitting looking at the first-century temple. It is going to take a very inventive argument to make the case that some other temple is at issue.

Same thing with the reference to a "generation". A general principle of exegesis - be aware of those who will deny the plain sense of a text simply to make the text fit to a model that they bring to the text. Now, let's be clear: I have argued in other threads for the use of literary devices. But the case needs to be made on grounds other than "force-fitting" to pre-conceived model.