NationStates Jolt Archive

Skip down to the final paragraph if you're not terribly interested in an analysis of a bible passage. ^^;

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest iota, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
A rough introduction to a topic you might say, and you'd be right. This quote from the sermon on the mount is quite possibly the most controversial in the bible, though few people realise its importance. What does it mean? Well, broken down, it says "Old Testament still valid. How well you keep the laws is what judges your position in the afterlife". Many in contemporary Christianity nowadays use this as sufficient evidence to link the ideas of the Old Testament to the New, treating all of it as inalterable truth.

Now, I don't know about you, but I feel this to be an unwise statement to take at face value. To assume that Jesus meant we are judged by our response to the laws runs contradictory to almost any given interpretation of his own death that a Christian would care to propose. The ultimate validation of this claim is in the stoning of the adultress. Jesus denied the crowd the chance to stone the woman, which under the law of Leviticus 20 they had every authority to do. Had Jesus personally believed in the upholding of the Law to the Letter, he would have thrown the stone. He refused to do so, turning his back on scripture in favour of empathetic treatment of other humans.

Here's my proposition; one that seems to be backed up by the NIV study bible I have sitting nearby. We take this in context and say that this sermon was aimed specifically at the people of Israel within the understanding of their existing belief structure, encouraging them to stick to the divine instruction they claim to have received and to live in the spirit of the law of their people, which their spiritual leaders had so far failed to do.

So, to the point. If Jesus gave this sermon as something to be listened to by the Jewish people, but not to be taken as factual information to everyone else, just who exactly did Jesus believe God was? How can this double meaning apply if Jesus believes the God of Israel is the One True God?

Or, to ask the more direct question, why do people seem to think that the God figure depicted in the Old Testament must be that which Jesus knew and loved? Sure, Jesus knows a lot about the old Laws, was raised in a Jewish family and focuses on the temples a lot, but someone who knows the Gospels, comes from a Christian background and discusses matters of spirituality with Christians is not necessarily a Christian him or herself, right?

*BUMP*
Lotta work for no one to comment.
*nods*

Skip down to the final paragraph if you're not terribly interested in an analysis of a bible passage. ^^;


A rough introduction to a topic you might say, and you'd be right. This quote from the sermon on the mount is quite possibly the most controversial in the bible, though few people realise its importance. What does it mean? Well, broken down, it says "Old Testament still valid. How well you keep the laws is what judges your position in the afterlife". Many in contemporary Christianity nowadays use this as sufficient evidence to link the ideas of the Old Testament to the New, treating all of it as inalterable truth.

Now, I don't know about you, but I feel this to be an unwise statement to take at face value. To assume that Jesus meant we are judged by our response to the laws runs contradictory to almost any given interpretation of his own death that a Christian would care to propose. The ultimate validation of this claim is in the stoning of the adultress. Jesus denied the crowd the chance to stone the woman, which under the law of Leviticus 20 they had every authority to do. Had Jesus personally believed in the upholding of the Law to the Letter, he would have thrown the stone. He refused to do so, turning his back on scripture in favour of empathetic treatment of other humans.

Here's my proposition; one that seems to be backed up by the NIV study bible I have sitting nearby. We take this in context and say that this sermon was aimed specifically at the people of Israel within the understanding of their existing belief structure, encouraging them to stick to the divine instruction they claim to have received and to live in the spirit of the law of their people, which their spiritual leaders had so far failed to do.

So, to the point. If Jesus gave this sermon as something to be listened to by the Jewish people, but not to be taken as factual information to everyone else, just who exactly did Jesus believe God was? How can this double meaning apply if Jesus believes the God of Israel is the One True God?

Or, to ask the more direct question, why do people seem to think that the God figure depicted in the Old Testament must be that which Jesus knew and loved? Sure, Jesus knows a lot about the old Laws, was raised in a Jewish family and focuses on the temples a lot, but someone who knows the Gospels, comes from a Christian background and discusses matters of spirituality with Christians is not necessarily a Christian him or herself, right?

THis was a massive debate for the early church. THe orthodox (catholic) church said it is indeed the same God as the Israelites, where the Marcian and Gnostics stated that THe Father was a different and higher God than THe Hebrew God. It is now accepted that Yahweh (The Hebrew God) is the same God Jesus spoke of.

THis was a massive debate for the early church. THe orthodox (catholic) church said it is indeed the same God as the Israelites, where the Marcian and Gnostics stated that THe Father was a different and higher God than THe Hebrew God. It is now accepted that Yahweh (The Hebrew God) is the same God Jesus spoke of.
Erm... okay, but what's the justification behind that? The only evidence that seems obvious to me is the passage quoted and contextual supposition, neither of which seem convincing. Are there other reasons?

And thanks Straughn. =)

Erm... okay, but what's the justification behind that? The only evidence that seems obvious to me is the passage quoted and contextual supposition, neither of which seem convincing. Are there other reasons?

And thanks Straughn. =)

I am confused by what you mean i am very sorry, can you clarify your question more so i can try and discuss this more wiht you? I mean do you want to know the history of why people assume Yahweh and the father are the same or a justification that they are different?

...but someone who knows the Gospels, comes from a Christian background and discusses matters of spirituality with Christians is not necessarily a Christian him or herself, right?

That'd be my cue....

I am inclined to agree with your assessment. The Old Laws never applied to anyone BUT Israel... and Jesus said he had not come to change them... thus, Israel would still (theoretically) be needing to fulfill the old law (as much as was ever possible... many argue that it was NEVER possible to truly fulfill the old laws... and that they were never intended to be actually fulfilled)... but the 'Christian' would not be required to fulfill the entirety of Levitical law (unless he or she might also be of Israel).

My heretical side tells me that there are too many differences between the alleged god of the new testament, and that of the old, to believe that they COULD be the same actual entity. Indeed, if they ARE the same entity, then one testament seems to be doing a great disservice to the other... although it would be a matter of interpretation as to which is making a liar of which.

I guess, THAT decision would have to come down to which of the two versions of 'god' you accept.

While I'm here... I'm not sure that it is totally correct to say that "Jesus denied the crowd the chance to stone the woman". What he did was draw something in the sand (I'm inclined to believe this is supposed to be a reference to Jesus sketching out the sins of the stone-throwers), and actually saying 'okay - if you haven't sinned, yourself... go for it'.

(My thought that he sketched their sins in the sand, is because he appears to be calling their bluff slightly... so - he's saying 'throw if you are without sin'... but he's showing that he KNOWS that none are without sin... and he has the evidence).

in the eraly church there was much dicussion between Paul, Peter and James the brother of Jesus about the inclusion of the Gentiles into the faith. If you need the quotes I will supply them later. It was decided that Peter and James would preach to the "Jewish CHristians" while the Genitles would be preached to by Paul.

As i said in the early 2-3rd century the gnostic and marcian heresays stated that Yahweh and The father were seperate entities. THe orthodox church claimed they were the same, since Jesus was a Jew as well as many similiarities to the Jewish religion i.e. the rich man being told in order to get to heaven he had to obey the 10 commandmentsand give up his wealth, or the way Jesus followed the passover traditions. THere are quite a few instances in the 4 gospels that state or give massive circumstancial evidence that The Father and Yahweh are the same God.

It came to point that the Marcian Herasay when they created their Bible, that they edited out all Jewish References to validate their points.

But over all the main reason they are considered the same God besides many other readings in the Gospels is the Orthodox (Catholic) church won and the Gnostics and Marcians died

Well im sure Jesus being God might of had something to do with Him believing that He was the only God, and I would think the reason people jumped at the idea of Jesus being God in the first place was when he kept fulfilling all the prophecies about Him in the Old Testiment over and over and over, I mean if you read some of the gospels, the writers often times put in little things in there to justify that Jesus was God because He was fulfilling everything that was predicted, mostly through direct quoting of the Old testiment and pointing out how it was fitting exactly with what Christ was doing.

I am inclined to agree with your assessment. The Old Laws never applied to anyone BUT Israel... and Jesus said he had not come to change them... thus, Israel would still (theoretically) be needing to fulfill the old law (as much as was ever possible... many argue that it was NEVER possible to truly fulfill the old laws... and that they were never intended to be actually fulfilled)... but the 'Christian' would not be required to fulfill the entirety of Levitical law (unless he or she might also be of Israel).

My heretical side tells me that there are too many differences between the alleged god of the new testament, and that of the old, to believe that they COULD be the same actual entity. Indeed, if they ARE the same entity, then one testament seems to be doing a great disservice to the other... although it would be a matter of interpretation as to which is making a liar of which.

I guess, THAT decision would have to come down to which of the two versions of 'god' you accept.
*Nod*

Certainly seems to make sense. The other thing to bear in mind is, of course, whether the New Testament provides a "version of God" at all if we choose to distinguish it from the Old. All we see of God in gospels is what Jesus says about him, and what he says seems to be very cryptic in nature if you try to look at it completely independently of OT Context (a pretty difficult thing to accomplish in this day and age, unfortunately).
While I'm here... I'm not sure that it is totally correct to say that "Jesus denied the crowd the chance to stone the woman". What he did was draw something in the sand (I'm inclined to believe this is supposed to be a reference to Jesus sketching out the sins of the stone-throwers), and actually saying 'okay - if you haven't sinned, yourself... go for it'.

(My thought that he sketched their sins in the sand, is because he appears to be calling their bluff slightly... so - he's saying 'throw if you are without sin'... but he's showing that he KNOWS that none are without sin... and he has the evidence).
Well, not totally correct in the sense that he didn't actually reach out and say "Don't even think about it". But defining impossible criteria as the means by which something can be done amounts to the same thing, really. Smooth logic, yes, but also denial of action according to scriptural integrity.

While it would be a reasonable conjecture that Jesus wrote sins in sand, I do wonder though as to the repercussions of that supposition. Did Jesus the Man know of their misdeeds? I reckon he just sketched out one specific sin they'd be committing - bearing false witness - in the intention of bringing to light the injustice of having one man decide the woman's fate based on unsound hearings.

If you need the quotes I will supply them later.
I'm looking forward to them. ^^

I am confused by what you mean i am very sorry, can you clarify your question more so i can try and discuss this more wiht you? I mean do you want to know the history of why people assume Yahweh and the father are the same or a justification that they are different?

The idea presented in the OP doesn't rest on it being a different God so much as said God giving different rules. The question is not exactly whether the Old Testament and New Testament Gods are the same, it's more whether a Christian has to follow Old Testament rules.

Addressing the topic: while the OP quotes a passage saying that Jesus was not invalidating the old laws, I was under the impression that there are also passages directly removing the old laws. I'd have to see the context of both to judge which impression is correct.

The analysis is a little off. Jesus came to fulfill the law. The law requires death for sin. Jesus came to die in place of sinners. This is why Jesus stopped the people from stoning the aforementioned adulteress even though they were allowed to. He took her sins upon himself and was later killed. From God's point of view, this is the same as sacrificing a lamb to remove an offense.

Read the rest of Matthew 5 and you see according to the law, you cannot commit murder. Jesus said if you get angry at someone, you have already committed murder in your heart, essentially saying you're not allowed to get angry. According to the law, you cannot commit adultery. Jesus said that you cannot even look at a woman to lust after her. Jewish values told you to love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but Jesus said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. The New Testament law is, in fact, higher than the Old Testament law but not contradictory to it. And, of course, it is impossible for anyone to fulfill the law except for Jesus himself.

The analysis is a little off. Jesus came to fulfill the law. The law requires death for sin. Jesus came to die in place of sinners. This is why Jesus stopped the people from stoning the aforementioned adulteress even though they were allowed to. He took her sins upon himself and was later killed. From God's point of view, this is the same as sacrificing a lamb to remove an offense.

Read the rest of Matthew 5 and you see according to the law, you cannot commit murder. Jesus said if you get angry at someone, you have already committed murder in your heart, essentially saying you're not allowed to get angry. According to the law, you cannot commit adultery. Jesus said that you cannot even look at a woman to lust after her. Jewish values told you to love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but Jesus said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. The New Testament law is, in fact, higher than the Old Testament law but not contradictory to it. And, of course, it is impossible for anyone to fulfill the law except for Jesus himself.

Most of your law examples work that way, but how does hating your enemies not contradict with loving your enemies? Is loving just hating them more?

Well im sure Jesus being God might of had something to do with Him believing that He was the only God, and I would think the reason people jumped at the idea of Jesus being God in the first place was when he kept fulfilling all the prophecies about Him in the Old Testiment over and over and over, I mean if you read some of the gospels, the writers often times put in little things in there to justify that Jesus was God because He was fulfilling everything that was predicted, mostly through direct quoting of the Old testiment and pointing out how it was fitting exactly with what Christ was doing.
Oh, I had a look at this idea in another thread.

Fulfilment of prophecy is not in itself verification that the OT-God is responsible. A pretty good example of a counter to this is the notion of the God of Inspiration; the idea that while the God that the Old Testament aspires to does exist, it is nothing like biblical statements make it out to be and the one we attribute all of these things to is just the result of a little decorative interpretation. Other ways of countering the idea of necessity of divine guidance could be flexibility of interpretation, intentional change in action, hindsight skew of predictions or, at a stretch, a multitude of higher-plane entities where the thing responsible for the prophecy was a different being to that which actually implemented it.

With regards to that last one, for instance, you could tell me that I will do something next week. Having said that, I would now go and do it. Does that mean that you were responsible for me going and doing it? I wouldn't say so. Unless, of course, it was illegal and I wanted to skip out on the repercussions of your prophecy. <_<

Anyway, the interesting thing about the prophecies is how they seem to point towards a political liberation of Israel, then are finally implemented by someone who seems to have something completely different on his agenda. It's almost as if whatever higher power Jesus represents is taking Jewish ideas and trying to make them rethink them. In fact, it's not as if that; it's exactly that. What is the notion of God becoming incarnate in Man, succumbing to death and yet remaining in life if not a complete shakeup of the idea of the traditional external monotheism?

The analysis is a little off. Jesus came to fulfill the law. The law requires death for sin. Jesus came to die in place of sinners.

Rather depends on what 'fulfilling' the law actually means...

The idea presented in the OP doesn't rest on it being a different God so much as said God giving different rules. The question is not exactly whether the Old Testament and New Testament Gods are the same, it's more whether a Christian has to follow Old Testament rules.

Addressing the topic: while the OP quotes a passage saying that Jesus was not invalidating the old laws, I was under the impression that there are also passages directly removing the old laws. I'd have to see the context of both to judge which impression is correct.
It's a little of both, in fact, though one leads on from the other.

You'll note I quoted that passage to explain what I thought it meant - that the laws for the people of Israel are unchanged by Jesus's presence. I then suggested that the complete opposite was true for those who weren't in that group; you don't need to hold to those laws specifically because of what's going to happen next ( -- suspensey diminished 7th organ chord here --).

But, if the two have the same source, how can the truth in one be completely rejected in the other? Is God really saying "Okay, you guys do this thing, you guys do exactly what they don't do"?

My suspicion is that the power that Jesus represents is giving advice to the people of Judaism in the guise of what they already believe during this sermon, but is at its heart something rather different, as the following events seem to demonstrate.

The analysis is a little off. Jesus came to fulfill the law. The law requires death for sin. Jesus came to die in place of sinners. This is why Jesus stopped the people from stoning the aforementioned adulteress even though they were allowed to. He took her sins upon himself and was later killed. From God's point of view, this is the same as sacrificing a lamb to remove an offense.

Read the rest of Matthew 5 and you see according to the law, you cannot commit murder. Jesus said if you get angry at someone, you have already committed murder in your heart, essentially saying you're not allowed to get angry. According to the law, you cannot commit adultery. Jesus said that you cannot even look at a woman to lust after her. Jewish values told you to love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but Jesus said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. The New Testament law is, in fact, higher than the Old Testament law but not contradictory to it. And, of course, it is impossible for anyone to fulfill the law except for Jesus himself.
Izzactly. People don't need to fulfil the law; they have another mechanism with which to get around the sin issue that Jesus provides later on in the books. Which is precisely why the statement in Matt 5 is so out of place if taken as direct appeal to Christianity, and also why the whole sentiment is out of place if we assume Jesus himself to stand to the version of God as described in the Old Testament.

In fact, the attitude taken by Jesus towards the Law is possibly the most compelling evidence ever that he and it are of two different origins. In Jesus, the Law is not something that is upheld but something that is overcome. To say that God put the laws in place so that he could defeat them himself is somewhat ludicrous, if you don't mind me saying so.

It's a little of both, in fact, though one leads on from the other.

You'll note I quoted that passage to explain what I thought it meant - that the laws for the people of Israel are unchanged by Jesus's presence. I then suggested that the complete opposite was true for those who weren't in that group; you don't need to hold to those laws specifically because of what's going to happen next ( -- suspensey diminished 7th organ chord here --).

But, if the two have the same source, how can the truth in one be completely rejected in the other? Is God really saying "Okay, you guys do this thing, you guys do exactly what they don't do"?

My suspicion is that the power that Jesus represents is giving advice to the people of Judaism in the guise of what they already believe during this sermon, but is at its heart something rather different, as the following events seem to demonstrate.

I'm just curious as to whether the passages that say that he did change the old laws can't be reinterpreted in similar ways. The reason to interpret the passage you listed as just for the jews is because otherwise it would contradict with other passages, but couldn't similar interpretations be found in the other passages to make them follow this as opposed to the other way around? Or are the other passages more obvious in their negation of old law?

Most of your law examples work that way, but how does hating your enemies not contradict with loving your enemies? Is loving just hating them more?

Matthew 5:43 says, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'" Note that I said it was a Jewish value but did not say it was a law.

Rather depends on what 'fulfilling' the law actually means...

The first thing I thought when I read it, fulfilling the law means fulfilling the requirement of the law. Is there something else it could mean?

I'm just curious as to whether the passages that say that he did change the old laws can't be reinterpreted in similar ways. The reason to interpret the passage you listed as just for the jews is because otherwise it would contradict with other passages, but couldn't similar interpretations be found in the other passages to make them follow this as opposed to the other way around? Or are the other passages more obvious in their negation of old law?
I'm sure other interpretations could be found, though I reckon for instance that Deuteronomy 19: 21 ("Eye for eye, etc.") is pretty clearly compromised by Matthew 5: 40 (both are about legal recompense, but where one suggests a "no mercy" approach, the other suggests a "sure, let me help you with that" way of doing things). And I'm sure there are more, clear ones like that scattered about the place.

The analysis is a little off. Jesus came to fulfill the law. The law requires death for sin. Jesus came to die in place of sinners. This is why Jesus stopped the people from stoning the aforementioned adulteress even though they were allowed to. He took her sins upon himself and was later killed. From God's point of view, this is the same as sacrificing a lamb to remove an offense.

Read the rest of Matthew 5 and you see according to the law, you cannot commit murder. Jesus said if you get angry at someone, you have already committed murder in your heart, essentially saying you're not allowed to get angry. According to the law, you cannot commit adultery. Jesus said that you cannot even look at a woman to lust after her. Jewish values told you to love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but Jesus said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. The New Testament law is, in fact, higher than the Old Testament law but not contradictory to it. And, of course, it is impossible for anyone to fulfill the law except for Jesus himself.
AMEN!
One GOD, One Faith, One baptism

Here's my proposition; one that seems to be backed up by the NIV study bible I have sitting nearby. We take this in context and say that this sermon was aimed specifically at the people of Israel within the understanding of their existing belief structure, encouraging them to stick to the divine instruction they claim to have received and to live in the spirit of the law of their people, which their spiritual leaders had so far failed to do.

So, to the point. If Jesus gave this sermon as something to be listened to by the Jewish people, but not to be taken as factual information to everyone else, just who exactly did Jesus believe God was? How can this double meaning apply if Jesus believes the God of Israel is the One True God?

Or, to ask the more direct question, why do people seem to think that the God figure depicted in the Old Testament must be that which Jesus knew and loved? Sure, Jesus knows a lot about the old Laws, was raised in a Jewish family and focuses on the temples a lot, but someone who knows the Gospels, comes from a Christian background and discusses matters of spirituality with Christians is not necessarily a Christian him or herself, right?

What I always hear is the meaning of a christain is to be christ-like but human nature we are not able to be christ like..... they also say that god the holy spirit and the son (jesus) are all Part of one god. I don't buy that personally. In genesus 1 (I don't remember the exact number of the line but it goes: LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE IN OUR LIKENESS AND OUR... ECT

:headbang: christianity is too illogically unsound for me. the supposid scripture makes sense but is in coherant. The bible is rediculous. the Bible has also been recreated several times. Did you notice that king James verson of the bible is different from the normal bible. Some places says that it originally talked about the God and the Goddess and more women were in the bible and reincarnation was in there too. but the main ideals of religin have changed because of the people who where in power.:sniper:

Also look at the people who are supposed to be in power in the BIBLE. The jews are not christian today. They follow the ways of quebola which most christains consider witch craft related. Learn about the Jewish religion and it is quite clear that there is not a single god. they beleive that the gods came from the same source so in a way there can be a logic to there being one god but there is not one being controling us. There is not one thing that can control what and what every1 and everything is. The christians themselves can refurre to a single entity.... 'God' 'The lord' 'Jesus Christ' 'the holy spirit' and there are things in life that the Bible does not even touch. That's at least my view on the subject is.(sorry if it's arranged poorly)

How are we to know Jesus said that? How are we to know he did that? Why put stock in writings with no name.

Oh, I had a look at this idea in another thread.

Fulfilment of prophecy is not in itself verification that the OT-God is responsible. A pretty good example of a counter to this is the notion of the God of Inspiration; the idea that while the God that the Old Testament aspires to does exist, it is nothing like biblical statements make it out to be and the one we attribute all of these things to is just the result of a little decorative interpretation. Other ways of countering the idea of necessity of divine guidance could be flexibility of interpretation, intentional change in action, hindsight skew of predictions or, at a stretch, a multitude of higher-plane entities where the thing responsible for the prophecy was a different being to that which actually implemented it.

With regards to that last one, for instance, you could tell me that I will do something next week. Having said that, I would now go and do it. Does that mean that you were responsible for me going and doing it? I wouldn't say so. Unless, of course, it was illegal and I wanted to skip out on the repercussions of your prophecy. <_<

Anyway, the interesting thing about the prophecies is how they seem to point towards a political liberation of Israel, then are finally implemented by someone who seems to have something completely different on his agenda. It's almost as if whatever higher power Jesus represents is taking Jewish ideas and trying to make them rethink them. In fact, it's not as if that; it's exactly that. What is the notion of God becoming incarnate in Man, succumbing to death and yet remaining in life if not a complete shakeup of the idea of the traditional external monotheism?

All I know is that I look at the Bible literally, so I don't take creative interpreations which seem "Necessary" to many people so that the Bible seems more "reasonable" and then bend them again when prophecy doesn't fit :/. Besides, the Bible didn't prophecy Jesus coming in just 1 or 2 verses, it was pretty complex. Using your example about me telling you you'll do something, what if I told you you'd do that same thing only after tying your shoelaces 3 times, eating a grilled cheese sandwich, logging onto nationstates and finding a "All U.N. members become Christians" amendment up for vote, and all the while discovering that you've recieved a free copy of Photoshop in the mail? If I made things that specific and varied, im sure we'd both agree it would be insanity for that to all happen that way just by your trying to go and fulfull it there are more variables than just simply "you go do this", some of the stuff is independent of your capability to directly affect. But the Bible doesn't just mention a savior coming once or twice in the old testiment as a passing reference in a general sense, it is repeated in various, specific ways all through it, and furthermore, like I said, the New Testiment often cites those verses as it goes along to show people how everything fits. These prophecies wern't always just just "Jesus goes here and does this and that", there was some stuff that clearly takes more effort than just going out and doing something at any time, and Jesus fulfilled those things anyway.

How are we to know Jesus said that? How are we to know he did that? Why put stock in writings with no name.
How do you know that Jesus said anything there is not proof that the bible in it's enirity is real. the things it talks about may have taken place but look at Greek and Roman mythology.... many of their stories were basied on some fact too

All I know is that I look at the Bible literally, so I don't take creative interpreations which seem "Necessary" to many people so that the Bible seems more "reasonable" and then bend them again when prophecy doesn't fit :/. Besides, the Bible didn't prophecy Jesus coming in just 1 or 2 verses, it was pretty complex. Using your example about me telling you you'll do something, what if I told you you'd do that same thing only after tying your shoelaces 3 times, eating a grilled cheese sandwich, logging onto nationstates and finding a "All U.N. members become Christians" amendment up for vote, and all the while discovering that you've recieved a free copy of Photoshop in the mail? If I made things that specific and varied, im sure we'd both agree it would be insanity for that to all happen that way just by your trying to go and fulfull it there are more variables than just simply "you go do this", some of the stuff is independent of your capability to directly affect. But the Bible doesn't just mention a savior coming once or twice in the old testiment as a passing reference in a general sense, it is repeated in various, specific ways all through it, and furthermore, like I said, the New Testiment often cites those verses as it goes along to show people how everything fits. These prophecies wern't always just just "Jesus goes here and does this and that", there was some stuff that clearly takes more effort than just going out and doing something at any time, and Jesus fulfilled those things anyway.
But, like I said, it isn't required that the being responsible for the prophecies is the one who sets about fulfilling them (which was the point of the example). If I thought there to be a purpose in fulfilling your predictions and had the power to do so, I could do so, even in a way that perhaps you might not have expected.

Similarly, if the God of Jesus is not the one of the OT, but is still the real benevolent force in the world, then fulfilling a bunch of prophecies would be easy.

The question to be asked is "If God isn't the one in the Old Testament, why bother fulfilling the prophecies?". Well, the way I see it, this would be a clear message to the Israelites that somewhere along the line, they've got God wrong somehow. Fulfilling all of their prophecies about their liberator and then putting on a public display of killing him in front of them? If that's not enough to make them reconsider the nature of their faith, I don't know what is.

There just isn't enough of a suggestion in the gospels that Jesus's God is that of Israel. Paul certainly seemed to think so, but is the testimony of one human second-hand witness that never met the guy really enough to really base a whole theology off?

The first thing I thought when I read it, fulfilling the law means fulfilling the requirement of the law. Is there something else it could mean?

Could it not just mean: bringing an end to it? Being the finish of it?

Levitical laws had no 'fulfillment'.... they were largely either rules for living (non-conditional), rules for 'cleansing oneself' (ritually) or orders or prohibitions.

You cannot 'fulfill' "Thou Shalt Not Murder".... except by removing the concept of 'murder', or by bringing an end to the law.

All I know is that I look at the Bible literally, so I don't take creative interpreations which seem "Necessary" to many people so that the Bible seems more "reasonable" and then bend them again when prophecy doesn't fit :/. Besides, the Bible didn't prophecy Jesus coming in just 1 or 2 verses, it was pretty complex. Using your example about me telling you you'll do something, what if I told you you'd do that same thing only after tying your shoelaces 3 times, eating a grilled cheese sandwich, logging onto nationstates and finding a "All U.N. members become Christians" amendment up for vote, and all the while discovering that you've recieved a free copy of Photoshop in the mail? If I made things that specific and varied, im sure we'd both agree it would be insanity for that to all happen that way just by your trying to go and fulfull it there are more variables than just simply "you go do this", some of the stuff is independent of your capability to directly affect. But the Bible doesn't just mention a savior coming once or twice in the old testiment as a passing reference in a general sense, it is repeated in various, specific ways all through it, and furthermore, like I said, the New Testiment often cites those verses as it goes along to show people how everything fits. These prophecies wern't always just just "Jesus goes here and does this and that", there was some stuff that clearly takes more effort than just going out and doing something at any time, and Jesus fulfilled those things anyway.

The counter argument is that: the old testament says nothing about Jesus. There are many verses that should maybe be interpreted as being about Israel, that are, instead, read as being about Jesus.

According to Judaism, there are very few requirements for 'Messiah'... and Jesus doesn't even fulfill those... like the need for messiah to be a direct descendent (along patrilineal lines) from David, or the fact that 'messiah' will be just 'a man'.

So - what you have, is the same kind of 'fudging' that has been used to make the Revelation story (set in the future), seem to be about the fall of 'satan' (set in the past).

Could it not just mean: bringing an end to it? Being the finish of it?

Levitical laws had no 'fulfillment'.... they were largely either rules for living (non-conditional), rules for 'cleansing oneself' (ritually) or orders or prohibitions.

You cannot 'fulfill' "Thou Shalt Not Murder".... except by removing the concept of 'murder', or by bringing an end to the law.

Mmm...doesn't make sense. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. That suggests that fulfilling the law is not the same as ending the law.

To fulfill the law is to fulfill the requirement of the law. In the case so "Thou shalt not murder" the requirement is that you don't murder or you get punished if you do. Thus, you can fulfill this law by not murdering or by receiving the punishment for committing murder.

Mmm...doesn't make sense. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. That suggests that fulfilling the law is not the same as ending the law.

To fulfill the law is to fulfill the requirement of the law. In the case so "Thou shalt not murder" the requirement is that you don't murder or you get punished if you do. Thus, you can fulfill this law by not murdering or by receiving the punishment for committing murder.

By that logic, Jesus could only fulfill laws about what might be eaten.... by not eating forbidden things...

Also, of course, abolition might not be the same as ending... abolition IMPLIES 'doing away with'... ending might just mean 'finishing'... not necessarily being 'rid off'.

If he abolished the laws, they would no longer exist.

If he ended the laws, they would remain, but no longer apply...