Posted by Pangea (22.214.171.124) on April 18, 2004 at 14:21:05:
In Reply to: To Pangea on fulfillment part 3 posted by Christian Scholar on April 17, 2004 at 21:20:33:
Yes, I understand what you're getting at. However, you are still reading a lot into it.
But that's OK. I have no essential problem with the gospels telling us that Jesus came to "fulfill" the law any sense we choose to use the term. After all, the whole point of the gospels and other NT writings is to show a break between the Judaic way of interpreting and/or following God's Law and the Jesist (or Christian) way of doing the same.
One evolved from the other according to Christian tradition, correct?
I thought at one time that you had posted that Jesus' death on the cross made Mosaic Law more relevant than ever. Perhaps this is just a semantic argument at this point, but it appears that either I misunderstood what you said or meant, or that you have backed off on that point.
Obviously, according to everything Jesus appears to stand for in the NT writings, he had NO intention of stoning the woman (or the man, had he been brought forward also) for the sin of adultery. I don't think the circumstances of the crowd's motives were important to the story at all. Had the woman (and man) been found guilty by a duly constituted Jewish court, and had both admitted their guilt and said they were unrepentant, do you believe Jesus would have joined in with the stoning?
See my point? Jesus represents a fundamental break with Mosaic Law. At least, this is consistent with my theological education back when I was a believer.
Post a Followup