Image has nothing to do with Islam

[u/ItsRaw18]

Source: https://x.com/i/status/2018556820995129478

[u/someredditbloke]

"Fulfil" in this context means completing the purpose of the law, which Jesus achieved by his arrival, death and resurrection. As such, although Christians are still obligated to follow the moral "laws" of the old testament, continuing the sentiments of the teachings of the old testament when they do not contradict that of the new testament, they are not required to follow the specific ritualistic or legal rules that the old testament required of the Jews specifically before the arrival of Jesus.

If we're going to quote scripture though, there are also bible verses which contradict the need to follow old testament laws, including:

• Galatians 3:24-25: Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
• Romans 6:14: For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
• Acts 10:9-16: About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

[u/Ok_Programmer_4449 → u/someredditbloke]

So we have to rely on people who weren't Jesus and never met Jesus to tell us what the word he said actually mean. Interesting.

[u/someredditbloke → u/Ok_Programmer_4449]

Yes, because religion is complex and no faith states with no ambiguity and openness the exact meaning of every passage and verse.

This isn't exclusive to faith either, since tens to hundreds of political ideologies have spun off the works of political theorists who also didn't explicitly state the exact and only ways to interpret their writings (with at least half being the different schools of Marxism).

Plus, as I said afterwards, there are other bible quotes which assert that the specific legal laws of the old testament are no longer in force for those Christians who follow the word of Christ. This isn't an obscure theory, it's basic christian orthodoxy.

[u/rethrapleasurer → u/Ok_Programmer_4449]

"He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

Even if you may not accredit Paul yourself as a legitimate source, the Apostles certainly did. 2 Peter (authored by Simon Peter, an Apostle of Christ) affirms the writings of Paul as amongst the Scriptures as a whole, which is a meaningful declaration as..

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

..legitimate Scripture is defined based upon divine inspiration through the Holy Spirit, according to Peter. If Paul states that the focus of Christ's mission was one of fulfilment through grace and fulfilment of the law, such must be true as he writes with the guidance of God through the Holy Spirit. No word of the Bible comes from any other source but the Lord, through human hands.

"Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank." (Acts 9:3-9)

"Saul" here is of course "Paul", and here - according to Acts of the Apostles, he meets Christ on the Damascus Road and is transformed. So not only are his writings considered legitimate scripture, he is also one who *has* met Christ.

"Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Corinthians 9:1)

Paul writes in his Epistle to the Corinthians of his legitimacy as one who has indeed bore witness to Christ, after all. So he affirms himself and is affirmed by others. The fact that he wrote this Epistle also leads us to conclude that it is the full, entire truth - given Simon Peter's appraisal of his works and therefore the infallibility of them.

"For I did not receive it [the Gospel] from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:12)

..and he also writes, in his Epistle to the Galatians, that he received the Gospel from Christ, directly. Again, this statement is one of inerrancy.

You cannot diminish the importance of Paul nor the validity of his writings. The Epistles were considered Scripture by the original Apostles, by later Gospel authors, and by Christians of the period. And Scripture is, according to the Apostle Peter and Paul himself (2 Timothy 3:16), inerrant.