How exactly did Jesus fulfill the law NOT the prophecies.

by mP 229 Replies latest watchtower bible

mP

MYELAINE
you are right, the law of moses does not name Jesus Christ. But Jesus did fulfil the law. you will have to understand the law to see this however.
MP:
The law does not mention Jesus or any of his actions or purpose. How can you say the OT is setting up a basis for Jesus life on earth if he never gets a mention. Does that make anysense. How exactly did Jehovah write 1000 pages and never mention Jesus, my Son and so on ?
Thats really wrong almost as wrong as Jehovah never appearing in the NT.
How exactly can such a fundamental belief and claim not be mentioned in the smallest part anywhere in Moses ?
mP

MYELAINE:
paul goes on to say that both jews and gentiles have been confined under sin. (romans 3:9-18)
MP:
Paul is just a man he can make stuff up just like all the other frauds today start their own Christian BIble based religions.
He is entitled to make up anything he wishes, just like other cultures made up stories about their worlds to explain stuff.
Paul never heard of jesus our hero of the gospels. He knows nothing of Bethlehem, apostles, miracles or anything from the gospels. The only mention is he met James and Cephas in Galatians. If you read all his writings and write down the facts about Jesus you end up with basically a dozen words.
Paul is talking about a Messiah, there were many in the past. Every religion had their own dying gods.
You can see this yourself, just search for Jesus or Christ or Messiah in his writings and write down the facts you learn from them about jesus. The only thing he says is Jesus died for us and variatnts.
mP

MYELAINE
How did Jesus fulfill the law? mark 2:6-7
when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic: “Child, your sins are forgiven.”
MP:
Since he is alive here and has not died then by your own definition he didnt need to die. Thats another error in the Christian theology. SHouldnt he be forgiving sins "AFTER" his death. He cant do that in Mark because theres no resurrection in Mark.
The original Mark did not write about a resurrection. YOu can confirm this by checking the last chapter. Everything after and including 16:8 is an addtion. Even the NWT admits that.
If theres no resurrection, then by your own definition Mark did not believe in your death, resurrection and ransom story, because he didnt write one down.
mP

MYELAINE
Remember the priests who caught a woman in adultery? they had a stack of sins that hadn't been covered over and forgiven by God yet (john 8:1-9)
MP:
All scholars admit this is an insertion. Even the NWT admits this text is not found in the originals.
Jesus never said that story, but its been kept dishonestly because what would people think ? If this part was changed what else has been altered ?
Now your quoting fraudulent text, so much for BIble and its unchanging truth.
Your bible is not perfect its been changed many times, people insert stuff to match new thoughts. The dying for sin is another new creation that does not exist, which is why your having such a tough time quoting.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/john/8
Manuscripts ?BSy s ? omit verses 53 to chapter 8, verse 11, which read (with some variations in the various Greek texts and versions) as follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery
Textual history

John 7:52–8:12 in Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 (c. 350 AD): lines 1&2 end 7:52; lines 3&4 start 8:12.
The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P 66 and P 75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century. It is also the earliest surviving Latin manuscript to contain it; 17 of the 23 Old Latin manuscripts of John 7-8 contain at least part of the Pericope. Papias (circa AD 125) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of ma
mP

MYELAINE
however the Good News is - God the Father sent His Son, Jesus, to pay the penalty for those sins for ANYONE who would accept that free gift...the blood sacrifice that would cover over all those sins so that those sins would be forgiven by God in a similar manner as that in the jewish sacrifice that covers over their sins.
MP:
Your again spending a lot of time telling me but you cant actually show me from the BIble.
Christians claim That jesus was foretold in the OT but they cant actually find the words. It seems you again fail just like then. You are free to belive this but note that the Jews do not accept this because its wrong and not to be found in the OT. The Muslims who accept much of the OT also do not believe because this is also not in the OT and made up stuff.
Deputy Dog

mP:

I thought we were using the understanding that it ONLY refers to the writings of Moses, which are supposed to be Gods thoughts. COmmentaries while interesting are not divine.

No, I share the first type of belief, “ it can (I believe it does) most specifically mean the first five books of the Tanakh”. Moses was not just a rabbi, he was a prophet. Any other understanding is meaningless to me.

I agree about commentaries, the “comments” of Rambam (like other rabbis) are just that, “interesting” not divine.
mP
Im not asking for a history of how long this belief has existed im asking for evidence. Go check what belief means in a dictionary. I notice you have failed to include a quote from Moses. Please try again.

OK I’ll try again.

From: page 4 As I quoted from the Torah/ Law of Moses
DD"
Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
MP:
Given the text mentions a woman, when did Jesus fight or kick or bruise a woman ? When did a women hit , scratch whatever bruise him ? Where is jssus mentioned ? How does "HE" equate to jesus when jesus is never mentioned by name or by title (son of god) anywhere in the OT let alone Gensis.
Please quote the scripture, otherwise apologise for lying.
Genesis 3:15 is a quote from the “LAW of Moses” where Moses quotes God’s declaration to the serpent. As a Christian I believe, God was telling the serpent he would put “enmity” or hostility between the offspring of the serpent (natural men) and the offspring of the woman (Christ).
Jesus wasn’t named in this declaration, this is a curse/sentence (legal). Satan “bruised” (or better translation is crushed) Christ’s heel at the cross. Christ bruised/crushed Satan’s head at the resurrection.
You could think of it as case law of sorts, about how God dealt with the braking of the very first LAW of God -- Gen 2:16 The LORD God commanded the man. He said, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden. 17 But you must never eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because when you eat from it, you will certainly die."
According to the New Testament (if you want the scriture references see the list Christ Alone provided earlier in this thread), this is one of many ways in which Jesus “fulfills” the Law of Moses or Torah.
You may not agree with me (that's fine), but, that's how I believe Jesus fulfills "THE LAW OF MOSES".
myelaine

dear mP...
the point of mark 2:6-7 is that the jews knew only God could forgive sins. their argument wasn't about the fact that Jesus hadn't died and been resurrected yet to forgive sins.
Jesus had the authority to forgive sins because He WAS God in the flesh not because He died and was resurrected.
In Christ (after His death and resurrection) there is no distinction between jew and gentile because at His death, for the jew, His shed blood was the final sacrifice for the covering over of sins (any one of the 613 that weren't observed to the letter) to gain the forgiveness of God. For gentiles (without the 613 laws) His shed blood covered over all sins that were committed against man and God. (without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin hebrews 9:22)
whether jew or gentile, sins are not forgiven until they are covered over. that is why in the jewish system you brought a sacrifice to God for forgiveness. psalm 32:1-2
Jesus, by forgiving the sins of both the jews and the gentiles who believed in Him fulfilled God's side of the law(without doing away with one jot or tittle of the jewish law). That is why I quoted mark 2:6-7 "only God can forgive sins"...that is how Jesus fulfilled or put into action the law. In a court of law it is one against another but the law isn't fulfilled or enacted until the judge judges and calls down the sentence.
love michelle
mP

mP:
I thought we were using the understanding that it ONLY refers to the writings of Moses, which are supposed to be Gods thoughts. COmmentaries while interesting are not divine.
Deputy:
No, I share the first type of belief, “ it can (I believe it does) most specifically mean the first five books of the Tanakh”. Moses was not just a rabbi, he was a prophet. Any other understanding is meaningless to me.
MP:
Thats fine. Im glad we have established some basic definition of Moses writings hold the law.
mP

DD:
From: page 4 As I quoted from the Torah/ Law of Moses
DD"
Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
MP:
Given the text mentions a woman, when did Jesus fight or kick or bruise a woman ? When did a women hit , scratch whatever bruise him ? Where is jssus mentioned ? How does "HE" equate to jesus when jesus is never mentioned by name or by title (son of god) anywhere in the OT let alone Gensis.
Please quote the scripture, otherwise apologise for lying.
DD:
Genesis 3:15 is a quote from the “LAW of Moses” where Moses quotes God’s declaration to the serpent. As a Christian I believe, God was telling the serpent he would put “enmity” or hostility between the offspring of the serpent (natural men) and the offspring of the woman (Christ).
Jesus wasn’t named in this declaration, this is a curse/sentence (legal). Satan “bruised” (or better translation is crushed) Christ’s heel at the cross. Christ bruised/crushed Satan’s head at the resurrection.
MP:
I like most people have heard many different pov on Gen 3:15. Christians always refer to it as Jesus and Satan. The strange thing is why is Jesus the woman and Satan the snake ? Where else in the Bible are either of these characters ever stated to be either ? Satan is not even mentioned by name or title in Genesis, the snake that talked to Eve was just that a snake. If you check Jewish culture, they believed Snakes were special and were messengers of God. You can see this in words like seraphim and the images of flying firey snakes who were angels or messengers between our world and the other levels of heaven.
I have also heard mentioned that the woman and snake here is a direct reference to Virgo the virgin who has her foot bitten by Drako the Dragon in the sky. Given Drako is considered evil, this and the remaining text actually make this a perfect fit. I have heard Muslims say Gen 3:15 is about Mohammad and their version of Satan(sorry cant recall his name).
Lots of different people have different opinions and they are all equally right and wrong because everybody is just making it up. If im wrong there should be many many scriptures that comment or enhance this thought but there are not any.
Why couldnt God simply get Moses to write down Jesus my son and Satan instead of the woman and the snake? The simple answer is its not about either of them thats why they are not mentioned here. Jesus does not appear i n the OT and Satan makes but a few appearances in mostly Job. Satan does not exist in Genesis.
mP

DD:
You could think of it as case law of sorts, about how God dealt with the braking of the very first LAW of God -- Gen 2:16 The LORD God commanded the man. He said, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden. 17 But you must never eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because when you eat from it, you will certainly die."
MP:
Well Rabbis do not consider part of the law of Moses simply because the tree of good and evil had disappeared by the time the law was presented to him. The jews couldnt very well break this law considering the tree is gone, thus it is no t in the 613. That makes perfect sense.

How exactly did Jesus fulfill the law NOT the prophecies.

Textual history

Share this