Posted: Apr 21, 2017 7:17 pm
Thomas Eshuis wrote:PensivePenny wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:
There's nothing theological about it.
It's about language, laws and reason.
If something is fulfilled, it's done and over with.PensivePenny wrote:
"Fulfilled." What does it mean? Depends on the individual I suppose.
Nope, that's not how language works.
I can start defining chairs as 'four legged animal', but that will mean I cannot participate in conversations about chairs or mammals.PensivePenny wrote: I take it that it isn't referring to "laws" being fulfilled, rather the prophecies.
Then it is irrelevant to the question of whether the OT is still valid.
Because that's what that verse is being used as an excuse for.
So there is only one possible interpretation?
No. The point is that apologists bring up the bit about 'fulfill' to claim that Jesus fulfilled the laws of the OT and for that reason the bits of the OT they don't like, can be ignored. Which is cherry-picking, because when you pointed that also invalidates the 10 commandments, they start all manner of mental gymnastics to square the circle.
I agree! But, are they any less Christian, these apologists? Aren't they paring down the bible? Should that disqualify them from use of the christian moniker?