I never cease to be amazed at
(i) An Almighty god who cannot make himself understood in all the languages he created at Babel
(ii) The lame excuses that Christians offer for him
(iii) The way Christians will bend over backwards to corrupt verses and language, merely because they are embarrassing to them.
It appears we have another misunderstanding of the text here.
Here is the answer:
At this point we all realise that Skeptic has
(i) never before thought of this question,
(ii) has suddenly realised that his god might be fallible and
(iii) has hit the Google search button.
(iv) has copy-pasted the first thing that he found.
Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term kataluo, literally meaning “to loosen down.”
But that is not the only meaning, is it?
The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Corinthians 5:1).
Mat 26:61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy
the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
2Co 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved
, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., “to render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate.”
I am not sure if this is true, but, in any case, it still means that Jesus was not going to upset or interfere with the law.
It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfil.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfilment.
Here, anyone with an amount of intelligence, will see how the “liar for Jesus” has changed what Jesus said, “…but to fulfil it” which is quite different from “not to prevent its fulfilment.”
For example, I am not going to prevent the fulfilment of the law, but I, myself am not going to fulfil it either.
… who Rather, He revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding Himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience under threat of a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10, 13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.
So now we have a Jesus who does fulfil the law… but remember, that was not the point, was it?
The point was “Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy,
but to fulfil.
I bet a lot of people, when reading from that pathetic apologist website, would forget that the original question was the question that remains unaddressed… Yes, Jesus did not come to change the Old Testament: Jesus believed every word of the Old Testament was the absolute truth and so did all around him.
Don’tcha just love idiot apologists?