[corals_punkin]

I didn't quite know what to call this thread. I found something in the Bible earlier today and it was a bit strange. it seems Paul was equating Jesus and the Laws of the OT. he used an almost exact quote from Deuteronomy. look.

Romans 10:6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, ‘WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7or ‘WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,

Deuteronomy 30:11“For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12“It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 13“Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 14“But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

he makes a clear reference to a writing that his listeners knew well. Could it be this passage from the OT? I want to know your thoughts guys. explain this to me.

[Ax]

The Word =/= the Law.

Originally Posted by John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The message being sent here is that there's no reason for people to say "I'm going to retrieve Jesus" because Jesus is with us already.

[corals_punkin]

Originally Posted by Ax

The Word =/= the Law.



The message being sent here is that there's no reason for people to say "I'm going to retrieve Jesus" because Jesus is with us already.

but this makes no sense as to why paul used the reference.

and I would argue that word=law in that jesus is the living word of God. well in the bible what words did God speak with his lips? the only words spoken by the mouth of God in the bible are the law. and where he states that he is proud of his son.

[Ax]

I don't get the jump from Word to Law?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by corals_punkin

but this makes no sense as to why paul used the reference.

and I would argue that word=law in that jesus is the living word of God. well in the bible what words did God speak with his lips? the only words spoken by the mouth of God in the bible are the law. and where he states that he is proud of his son.

This is rather a large leap, since Christ is not the law, but rather the end of the law...
Romans 10
1Brothers,[a] my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2For I bear them witness that(A) they have a zeal for God,(B) but not according to knowledge. 3For, being ignorant of(C) the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4For(D) Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.[b]

Also, it is not possible to be more wrong about what words God spoke in scripture.

2 Timothy 3
16(AF) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that(AG) the man of God[b] may be competent,(AH) equipped(AI) for every good work.

In short, you have no good biblical basis for what you are stating. But you are stating the antithesis of several scriptures.

Paul noticeably changes the focus and thrust of the deuteronomy passage changing several things about it, most noticeably changing the subject from law to Christ.

The New Testament has a very strong contrast of Christ v law.

[corals_punkin]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

This is rather a large leap, since Christ is not the law, but rather the end of the law...
Romans 10
1Brothers,[a] my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2For I bear them witness that(A) they have a zeal for God,(B) but not according to knowledge. 3For, being ignorant of(C) the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4For(D) Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes"

I'm not sure if Pigeon-holing the definition of the greek "Telos" (which has many different definitions) is such a good thing to do. sure it says end. But it can also translate as "Goal" or finish line as it were. and that would cause it to read very differently. also I ask. Why would Paul make such a reference? what was hhhe trying to say by doing this?

]Also, it is not possible to be more wrong about what words God spoke in scripture.

I believe you just demonstrated how it is possible and I mean no offense by that but I will soon explain.

2 Timothy 3
16(AF) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that(AG) the man of God[b] may be competent,(AH) equipped(AI) for every good work.

This would concur with your hypothesis if the Writer had a copy of the New Testament. The simple fact is that they didn't. non of Pauls letters were thought of as scripture at the time. when any books of the NT reference "the Scriptures" it is most certainly referencing what they thought of as the scriptures which would be the Old testament. Simple common sense bring us to this conclusion. In fact. even today Jews who Come to Christ still do not accept Pauls writings as "Inspired" because they contain so much "mishna" and they recognize this.

In short, you have no good biblical basis for what you are stating. But you are stating the antithesis of several scriptures.

I saw you state two verses one of which you have pigeon holed the definition of a pivotal word to say what you want the verse to say and the other verse you just didn't seem to have the best understanding of in a very contextual sense. If there are several other verses that actually validate what you are saying I would much love to take a look at them to gain further understanding. please post them for me.

Paul noticeably changes the focus and thrust of the deuteronomy passage changing several things about it, most noticeably changing the subject from law to Christ.

The New Testament has a very strong contrast of Christ v law.

see idk. Matthew 5:17-20 doesn't seem to support what you said here. also Matthew 23:1-3 as well as Acts 15:19-21. All of which seem to be saying that the law is good. Romans 7 states as much in plane english written on the black and white. If I have misunderstood these please show me how. I want to be a better follower of Christ and am open to learning.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by corals_punkin

This would concur with your hypothesis if the Writer had a copy of the New Testament. The simple fact is that they didn't. non of Pauls letters were thought of as scripture at the time. when any books of the NT reference "the Scriptures" it is most certainly referencing what they thought of as the scriptures which would be the Old testament. Simple common sense bring us to this conclusion. In fact. even today Jews who Come to Christ still do not accept Pauls writings as "Inspired" because they contain so much "mishna" and they recognize this.

Greetings! I don't think we've met. My name is Jonathan. Welcome to the board. Bill's completed seminary training, and I'm currently in seminary. We've read people who have argued what you have, and --if one follows my older posts-- I've argued what you have even on this board not tooooo long ago. That said, I want to at least communicate that we're not ignorant or unsympathetic to your criticisms and worries which you identify as "common sense."

It is interesting to note of Paul's declaration of 2 Tim 3:16 that, while he is speaking with the OT in mind, he's speaking about what constitutes Scripture is its being breathed out by God (theopneustos). It is not as if he is speaking merely of what is recognized is inspiring or godly or approved by God. He's statement refers more to the idea of what God's word is: the word God has spoken to equip us to instruct, rebuke, etc.

This means that If it is Scripture, Then it is breathed-out-by-God; the reverse may not always be true.

Paul's letters were recognized as Scripture very early on, and how we know is pretty lengthy. First, Paul was an apostle. As an office similar to a prophet, they wrote and lived by God's commission. The prophets of the OT were not perfect, yet God literally spoke through them -- not that they ceased to be human, or that their writings were merely approved; rather, they were carried by the Spirit. As coming from God himself, the Scriptures reflect his infallible nature and authority.

Second, they were read publicly, in practice, just as Scripture was. The Jewish tradition did not treat everything the same when it came to public reading. Rather, the Church treated it as authoritative on the basis of his apostolicity and other factors. This caught on quick. As far as manuscript evidence, they were certainly compiled in such a way to be a collection of authoritative Church teaching just as Scripture was. Moreover, the "apostolic fathers" (a misnomer) also quote Paul's letters as Scripture.

Third, Paul's writings were orthodox and were the traditions and teachings of Christ. The big-three recognized Paul as teaching what they were, and sent him to the Gentiles on that basis. But even before doing so, Paul was commissioned by God in person. The orthodoxy of Paul's letters is very key to their inclusion with Scripture.

Even so, the fact that Paul's letters were recognized as Scripture is echoed when Peter also writes, in the context of describing Paul's letters, that Paul's letters were Scripture. The way Peter describes the situation has unique wording:
"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."

What's going on here is that not only are Paul's letters passed around and well known, but Peter is approving them (Peter is speaking by the authority he has been given too, as an apostle sent by God). Moreover, Paul's wisdom captured in the letters is given by God. And the letters' meaning is distorted or twisted by people "as they do the other Scriptures." By saying "the other Scriptures," Peter means that Paul's letters are a sub-set of the same Scriptures: this Scripture he has written is treated the same as the other Scriptures that have been written.

To deny that Paul's letters were Scripture is either to deny his apostolicity (which is to toss out Church history and the repeated defense of his apostolicity in Gal, 2 Cor, and others), or fail to recognize that apostles were ones who spoke the words of God much like the prophets did of old. A third possibility, is that one recognizes the apostolic office as being like a less-symbolic prophetic office, but then one flattens the Scriptures of the OT into being man's fallible attempt to capture or record what God has said.

In reality, the mouthpiece of God can legitimately be an angel, prophet or apostle without losing their creatureliness nor the divine infallibility. Angels spoke and it was the word of the Lord. Prophets spoke, wrote, and acted-out the word of the Lord. Apostles also spoke and wrote the word of the Lord. It is kind of eerie how synonymous they seem to be in the OT; we should not expect otherwise in the NT.

Thank you for reading.

[corals_punkin]

Originally Posted by athanatos

Greetings! I don't think we've met. My name is Jonathan. Welcome to the board. Bill's completed seminary training, and I'm currently in seminary. We've read people who have argued what you have, and --if one follows my older posts-- I've argued what you have even on this board not tooooo long ago. That said, I want to at least communicate that we're not ignorant or unsympathetic to your criticisms and worries which you identify as "common sense."

It is interesting to note of Paul's declaration of 2 Tim 3:16 that, while he is speaking with the OT in mind, he's speaking about what constitutes Scripture is its being breathed out by God (theopneustos). It is not as if he is speaking merely of what is recognized is inspiring or godly or approved by God. He's statement refers more to the idea of what God's word is: the word God has spoken to equip us to instruct, rebuke, etc.

This means that If it is Scripture, Then it is breathed-out-by-God; the reverse may not always be true.

Paul's letters were recognized as Scripture very early on, and how we know is pretty lengthy. First, Paul was an apostle. As an office similar to a prophet, they wrote and lived by God's commission. The prophets of the OT were not perfect, yet God literally spoke through them -- not that they ceased to be human, or that their writings were merely approved; rather, they were carried by the Spirit. As coming from God himself, the Scriptures reflect his infallible nature and authority.

Second, they were read publicly, in practice, just as Scripture was. The Jewish tradition did not treat everything the same when it came to public reading. Rather, the Church treated it as authoritative on the basis of his apostolicity and other factors. This caught on quick. As far as manuscript evidence, they were certainly compiled in such a way to be a collection of authoritative Church teaching just as Scripture was. Moreover, the "apostolic fathers" (a misnomer) also quote Paul's letters as Scripture.

Third, Paul's writings were orthodox and were the traditions and teachings of Christ. The big-three recognized Paul as teaching what they were, and sent him to the Gentiles on that basis. But even before doing so, Paul was commissioned by God in person. The orthodoxy of Paul's letters is very key to their inclusion with Scripture.

Even so, the fact that Paul's letters were recognized as Scripture is echoed when Peter also writes, in the context of describing Paul's letters, that Paul's letters were Scripture. The way Peter describes the situation has unique wording:
"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."

What's going on here is that not only are Paul's letters passed around and well known, but Peter is approving them (Peter is speaking by the authority he has been given too, as an apostle sent by God). Moreover, Paul's wisdom captured in the letters is given by God. And the letters' meaning is distorted or twisted by people "as they do the other Scriptures." By saying "the other Scriptures," Peter means that Paul's letters are a sub-set of the same Scriptures: this Scripture he has written is treated the same as the other Scriptures that have been written.

To deny that Paul's letters were Scripture is either to deny his apostolicity (which is to toss out Church history and the repeated defense of his apostolicity in Gal, 2 Cor, and others), or fail to recognize that apostles were ones who spoke the words of God much like the prophets did of old. A third possibility, is that one recognizes the apostolic office as being like a less-symbolic prophetic office, but then one flattens the Scriptures of the OT into being man's fallible attempt to capture or record what God has said.

In reality, the mouthpiece of God can legitimately be an angel, prophet or apostle without losing their creatureliness nor the divine infallibility. Angels spoke and it was the word of the Lord. Prophets spoke, wrote, and acted-out the word of the Lord. Apostles also spoke and wrote the word of the Lord. It is kind of eerie how synonymous they seem to be in the OT; we should not expect otherwise in the NT.

Thank you for reading.

very pleased to meet you Jonathan

I do respect the fact that you both are going through the schooling for theology and going to be going one day myself. however i understand that i don't exactly need to pay lots of money to sit in a room and hear someone tell me to read a list of books about the bible just so I can get a piece of paper in 8 years stating that I'm a pro. why not just read the Books on my own while I can since I can't afford the piece of paper right now? I truly have the utmost respect for credentials. in turn I also ask that you do not tout such things as proof that your argument is more valid. it is what we call a faulty appeal to authority.

most of what you said did make sense to me though. although I'm not sure about your definition of the word scriptures used in the NT which is the Greek graphe(1124 in the strongs) which explicitly refers to "the holy scriptures". now what you said can still make sense if Paul is actually being so cocky as to state his own writings as God breathed but unfortunately there is no recorded instance where he makes such a statement and we didn't live with him to know his personality on the issue. Being that Paul was a Pharisee (Philipians 3:5) it makes sense that his writings would contain so much mishna. also being such he would have had a very strict perspective on what the "scriptures" were and would not in any way ever claim his own to be "scripture" being that they contained so much mishna and he knew this. lets not forget that his rabbi was the grandson of Hillel the great. the man who's teachings were called the "spirit of the law". this brings a very new light to the portions of scripture where Paul uses that phrase.

As for what Peter wrote? Well if peter stated it about Pauls writings that is a very different thing. also remember power was given to him to bind and loose. I would wager that Pauls writings weren't scripture until Peter said so for that very reason. one more reason for this is the Bereans who would not take Pauls letters seriously until they had read through them to make sure they were consistent with what they called "the scriptures"(graphe-1124 in the Strongs)

Just a few things that still don't make sense with the issue. we are getting a bit off topic though. I would much like to know your thoughts on what Paul said where he referenced the OT passage.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by corals_punkin

I'm not sure if Pigeon-holing the definition of the greek "Telos" (which has many different definitions) is such a good thing to do. sure it says end. But it can also translate as "Goal" or finish line as it were. and that would cause it to read very differently. also I ask. Why would Paul make such a reference? what was hhhe trying to say by doing this?

That Christ was the end of the Law. True, Telos can mean many things. Paired with Galatians 3, which very clearly states that the work of the schoolmaster, the law is finished for those with faith, there is only one reasonable meaning of telos here.

I am sorry to say this, but you are committing the totality transfer fallacy. A word in context only has its meaning and usage, and in this instance, telos means end, finish, completion. A word does not mean 15 different options in one context, thus interpreting it correctly is by no means pigeon-holing it.

Being that Paul also uses the same words in a different epistle to describe something in more depth we actually can see what he meant very clearly, even if you desire to obfuscate the truth.

I believe you just demonstrated how it is possible and I mean no offense by that but I will soon explain.

No I didn't. You were and are 100% wrong. In fact you are committing heresy.

The apostle Paul claimed his writings were inspired amongst other things, and was an apostle. He claimed to write by the will of the Holy Spirit. Most notably this is evident when he makes parenthetical statements which he is claiming are not inspired.

But frankly, if you reject scripture and Christian orthodoxy, there isn't much to discuss.

This would concur with your hypothesis if the Writer had a copy of the New Testament. The simple fact is that they didn't. non of Pauls letters were thought of as scripture at the time. when any books of the NT reference "the Scriptures" it is most certainly referencing what they thought of as the scriptures which would be the Old testament. Simple common sense bring us to this conclusion. In fact. even today Jews who Come to Christ still do not accept Pauls writings as "Inspired" because they contain so much "mishna" and they recognize this.

This is lies. Plain and simple. Since this is patently untrue. (And can be demonstrated)

[Thrash]

Originally Posted by corals_punkin

I'm not sure if Pigeon-holing the definition of the greek "Telos" (which has many different definitions) is such a good thing to do. sure it says end. But it can also translate as "Goal" or finish line as it were. and that would cause it to read very differently.

I don't think he is pigeon-holing the word at all. I think you need to demonstrate how this would change the verse. In fact, I don't think any significant changes occur with changing
????? to "end, goal, conclusion, or outcome". In fact, I think the verse more richly expresses that Christ is the end, the fulfillment, of the law.

Edit: well, I was going to expand this thought, but I think Bill beat me to the punch concerning words and their use in context, and rightly points out that a word doesn't contain the full range of meaning at all times it is used.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by corals_punkin

very pleased to meet you Jonathan

I do respect the fact that you both are going through the schooling for theology and going to be going one day myself. however i understand that i don't exactly need to pay lots of money to sit in a room and hear someone tell me to read a list of books about the bible just so I can get a piece of paper in 8 years stating that I'm a pro. why not just read the Books on my own while I can since I can't afford the piece of paper right now? I truly have the utmost respect for credentials. in turn I also ask that you do not tout such things as proof that your argument is more valid. it is what we call a faulty appeal to authority.

most of what you said did make sense to me though. although I'm not sure about your definition of the word scriptures used in the NT which is the Greek graphe(1124 in the strongs) which explicitly refers to "the holy scriptures". now what you said can still make sense if Paul is actually being so cocky as to state his own writings as God breathed but unfortunately there is no recorded instance where he makes such a statement and we didn't live with him to know his personality on the issue. Being that Paul was a Pharisee (Philipians 3:5) it makes sense that his writings would contain so much mishna. also being such he would have had a very strict perspective on what the "scriptures" were and would not in any way ever claim his own to be "scripture" being that they contained so much mishna and he knew this. lets not forget that his rabbi was the grandson of Hillel the great. the man who's teachings were called the "spirit of the law". this brings a very new light to the portions of scripture where Paul uses that phrase.

As for what Peter wrote? Well if peter stated it about Pauls writings that is a very different thing. also remember power was given to him to bind and loose. I would wager that Pauls writings weren't scripture until Peter said so for that very reason. one more reason for this is the Bereans who would not take Pauls letters seriously until they had read through them to make sure they were consistent with what they called "the scriptures"(graphe-1124 in the Strongs)

Just a few things that still don't make sense with the issue. we are getting a bit off topic though. I would much like to know your thoughts on what Paul said where he referenced the OT passage.

A degree in theology does a lot more than just get you a paper that means nothing at the end of an 8 year sitting session. In fact, Seminarians study harder than most law students and doctors. It's not just reading a bunch of books about the Bible, a large part is studying the theory behind interpretations and how conclusions are drawn about texts. It's also about contextuality, translations, period study, etc. One does not get that degree without a profound understanding of these things and to dismiss them demonstrates extreme hubris.

Furthermore, Strongs concordance is not even close to an end-all be-all tool. Not only that but using it in such way is mildly abusive and completely off base of how it should be used. It also should not be used alone unless the person using it already has a pretty good understanding of contextuality, and the hebrew/aramaic/greek languages and their grammar.

[Thrash]

Exactly. Strong's concordance is a highly inadequate tool if one is attempting to accurately translate scripture. You need to be well-rounded in the actual language and have a grasp of syntax and grammatical niceties. It doesn't come down to only what word os used, but a multitude of other information as well.

[corals_punkin]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

That Christ was the end of the Law. True, Telos can mean many things. Paired with Galatians 3, which very clearly states that the work of the schoolmaster, the law is finished for those with faith, there is only one reasonable meaning of telos here.

Now my friend. I am afraid I am questioning whether not you actually did go to seminary. first off "the law is the goal for all who believe" is also very reasonable in context of the verse. Second: had you gone to seminary you would most certainly know that the Greek Paidagogos does not in anyway translate as "schoolmaster" but more accurately it means "Body gaurd" Paidagogos was a well trusted servant who would transport his masters sons back and forth from school so that they wouldn't get raped.(that was common in that day) now that being understood it completely changes galations 3. paired with Matthew 5:17-20 and Matthew 23:1-3 you now have a very big problem in your theology sir. At least from what i have understood by those passages.

I am sorry to say this, but you are committing the totality transfer fallacy. A word in context only has its meaning and usage, and in this instance, telos means end, finish, completion. A word does not mean 15 different options in one context, thus interpreting it correctly is by no means pigeon-holing it.

I agree. but when the context itself becomes very up for discussion by reason of the fact that a different definition changes the context completely gives reason to believe that you just might be and probably are insisting that the words means what you want it to mean so that it fits your theology.

Being that Paul also uses the same words in a different epistle to describe something in more depth we actually can see what he meant very clearly, even if you desire to obfuscate the truth.

source needed.

No I didn't. You were and are 100% wrong. In fact you are committing heresy.

The apostle Paul claimed his writings were inspired amongst other things, and was an apostle. He claimed to write by the will of the Holy Spirit. Most notably this is evident when he makes parenthetical statements which he is claiming are not inspired.

Source needed.

But frankly, if you reject scripture and Christian orthodoxy, there isn't much to discuss.

scripture I do accept. christian orthodoxy however is very up for discussion because it in some eraes does not fall in line with scripture as you have well demonstrated.

This is lies. Plain and simple. Since this is patently untrue. (And can be demonstrated)

source needed.

Originally Posted by Thrash

I don't think he is pigeon-holing the word at all. I think you need to demonstrate how this would change the verse. In fact, I don't think any significant changes occur with changing
????? to "end, goal, conclusion, or outcome". In fact, I think the verse more richly expresses that Christ is the end, the fulfillment, of the law.

Ah....fulfill. I was waiting for someone to bring me to this word. the greek pleroo. you have just grossly miss-interpreted the word by attempting to define it with the same definition as the Greek Kataluo(which Jesus stated he didn't come to do.) so lets take that Greek pleroo and find it in the septuagint. 1 kings 1:13-14 the Hebrew Malei translates into the greek Pleroo. now that Hebrew malei translates to the english "confirm". Now since Jesus didn't speak greek we cannot look to the greek for understanding of what he meant. the septuagint is a helpful key to unlock the Hebrew thought behind the words written in the Greek text. our best assumption would be to assume that since jesus spoke Hebrew that he used the word Malei. so if jesus didn't come to Kataluo(destroy,take out of force, anull,abrogate, make no more) the law but that he came to Malei(establish or confirm) the law. this makes the verse shine a very different shade of color.

Edit: well, I was going to expand this thought, but I think Bill beat me to the punch concerning words and their use in context, and rightly points out that a word doesn't contain the full range of meaning at all times it is used.

maybe you would like to beat to the punch of sourcing his claims?

Originally Posted by Ax

A degree in theology does a lot more than just get you a paper that means nothing at the end of an 8 year sitting session. In fact, Seminarians study harder than most law students and doctors. It's not just reading a bunch of books about the Bible, a large part is studying the theory behind interpretations and how conclusions are drawn about texts. It's also about contextuality, translations, period study, etc. One does not get that degree without a profound understanding of these things and to dismiss them demonstrates extreme hubris.

I didn't dismiss them. if you read I stated that I had the utmost respect for them. however. they still have yet to give me an answer that makes sense in light of what the Bible says.

Furthermore, Strongs concordance is not even close to an end-all be-all tool. Not only that but using it in such way is mildly abusive and completely off base of how it should be used. It also should not be used alone unless the person using it already has a pretty good understanding of contextuality, and the hebrew/aramaic/greek languages and their grammar.

so......because I've pointed out a hole in your theology the book is no good...but it's actually ok, I just don't know how to use it? Thats really the sum up of what you just said. I wont give you a response on what you said about strongs since it is still very widely accepted among the greatest scholars. But one thing I will say. your criticism of it is just a bit hypocritical in that you just above spoke many praises of schooling in theology. and then you talk down about a book written by very well known scholar.

think about it. I'm not the one attempting mental and logical contortions to make my theology fit into the bible.

[Thrash]

Originally Posted by corals_punkin

Ah....fulfill. I was waiting for someone to bring me to this word. the greek pleroo. you have just grossly miss-interpreted the word by attempting to define it with the same definition as the Greek Kataluo(which Jesus stated he didn't come to do.) so lets take that Greek pleroo and find it in the septuagint. 1 kings 1:13-14 the Hebrew Malei translates into the greek Pleroo. now that Hebrew malei translates to the english "confirm". Now since Jesus didn't speak greek we cannot look to the greek for understanding of what he meant. the septuagint is a helpful key to unlock the Hebrew thought behind the words written in the Greek text. our best assumption would be to assume that since jesus spoke Hebrew that he used the word Malei. so if jesus didn't come to Kataluo(destroy,take out of force, anull,abrogate, make no more) the law but that he came to Malei(establish or confirm) the law. this makes the verse shine a very different shade of color.

maybe you would like to beat to the punch of sourcing his claims?
.

This has nothing to do with what I had put at all. Beyond that, you have made several significant errors. Firstly, Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. Secondly, what you are talking about has nothing to do with what I posted. I wasn't discussing any of the Gospels, but was talking directly about the use of telos in the passage you and Bill were discussing. Your understanding of the possible uses of the words is severely limited to what you find in one antiquated and unscholarly concordance (anyway, concordances aren't made for translation. That is not their purpose.)

I don't understand why you are bringing up pleroo. Certainly you don't assume that this is the only word that has connotations of "fulfill"? If so, your understanding of languages is quite, quite limited.

Really, I don't understand what you are trying to communicate in the least because you didn't actually dialogue with anything I had written. Truthfully, your errors seem to be a common one: the error of gaining information without haveing the ability to properly systematize or structure the information so as to come to correc conclusions given the evidence. You make naive statements about scritprue, and the purpose of scripture, for instance with your claim that we must retranslate what the Gospels say into Hebrew (even though Jesus and his contemporaries in the area spoke Aramaic). The writer's had a purpose in writing the documents in Koine. It was the common language of the people, for common people, and they were expressing what they were trying to express in this specific language. There is absolutely no point in retranslating Greek into Hebrew and finally into English. All this does is obfuscate the text because of your two main errors: incorrectly assuming Christ spoke Hebrew, and assuming that the intepreter must distort the language of the writer in order to somehow reveal the true message.

[Thrash]

Originally Posted by corals_punkin

maybe you would like to beat to the punch of sourcing his claims?

.

Claims about how to correctly intepret? Ok, well let's start out with a few introductory books:
-Grasping God's Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible, by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays.
- Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, by Milton S. Terry.
-Protestant Biblical Interpretation, by Bernard Ramm
-Biblical Exegesis, by John H. Hayes and Carl R. Holladay
-History of Biblical Interpretation, by William Yarchin.
-How to Read the Bible as Literature, by Leland Ryken
And this last one is essential, and I actually think would help you immensely.
- From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew, by Robert B. Chisholm, Jr.

There are dozens of other good books out there that can help you grasp more adequately how to interpret scripture.