Ask Him when/if you meet him. It is not known why.
that's not a very good answer. It is one that allows you to escape having to think about the ramifications. You have a confusing and apparently irrational scenario. A god doing weird and arbitrary things.
An inportant skill as a rationalist is to notice your own confusion.
When reality confuses you it means you are holding an incorrect belief. Either the input is wrong or your model is wrong.
The Old Law almost always ended up with people dying for their sins. Jesus supposedly died for our sins. He took our place. Law fulfilled.
Eh, I'm not convinced. For starters, people didn't die for their sins. See sinner extraordinaire, David.
Secondly, jesus H - aka The Lamb of God - was supposed to be a sacrifice
. You know, like a sacrifical lamb? But sinners, even when they were killed, were not sacrificed
. So jesus H wasn't taking their place.
Third, in what way does jesus H dying "fulfill the law". If I use Strong's concordance, the word used for fulfill is "pleroo". It means:
1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the fullhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4137&t=KJV
a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. to complete
a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
b) to consummate: a number
1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
c) to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
1) of matters of duty: to perform, execute
2) of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
3) to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment
none of the uses under 1) make any sense. 2a is meaningless in this context. 2b is too. 2b1and 2 would make sense if he were either adding to the law (to complete it) or fulfilling a prophesy
. If the former, that does not abolish the law, it only adds to it. If the latter, well, that is irrelevent since it does not say prophesy, it says law.
2c fails in the same way as 2b2. 2c1 fails in the same way as 2a. 2c2 fails in the same way as 2b2. 2c3 is obviously untrue. yhwh's will, as made known in the law, is not obeyed as it should be.
So, nothing fits. It looks like the writer of Matt just got carried away with flowery language and someone later down the line interpreted it to mean what they wanted it to mean.
Yes it does . I just showed you earlier. Look it up. I did.
Oh crud. I totally missed that. You are completely right. It does say prophets. My error.
No. He said that it will not be abolished until the law AND the prophets were fulfilled.
No. He said (quoting from your post): "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."
He said twice
they would not be abolished. There was no condition that said "they'll be abolished once they're fulfilled..." There was no "until" regarding abolition.
It's not weird if you understand it.
Yes, but I would say anyone who claims to understand it is mistaken. xians latch on to the "fulfill" part and kind of shoehorn it into the meaning they want or find convenient.
He died for our sins.
Don't you find that immoral and repugnant? How can someone else pay for your misdeeds?
I find the whole concept selfish. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24974.msg556714.html#msg556714