The Bible doesn't talk about God

[Nungali]

Your answers do not relate to the points bought up that refute your earlier answers .

 

Eg, earlier you claimed a wrong translation , when it is pointed out you now, again ,  switch to something else.

 

Its sorta like you are trying to 'move the goalposts' .

[Nungali]

18 minutes ago, TheCLounge said:

If this is referring to me I made it clear that it's in the book of John. And it is also addressed throughout the OT. Are you reading my replies ?

 

Yep, they are inconsistent and seem unfocused .

[TheCLounge]

Then you aren't reading properly. I'll make it clear for you in this reply.

 

The name I AM is affirmed in both the OT and NT.

 

Jesus affirms that it's his name in the book of John. The Pharisees knew he was referring to God and him saying that name made him claim to be equal to him.

 

As for God and Lord, those are not names..but titles. His name is I AM. God and lord are titles given to him. He told Moses that his ancestors called him Elohim but he didn't reveal to them his true name yet. Read the story of Jacob wrestling God. My first response was to the person who said "God had many names". He has many titles, but only one name..I AM. Read Exodus dude. The roman church replaced his name with "The Lord" throughout the rest of the Bible. When it's YAH. 

 

As for the spiritual meanings of the Tanakh. I never once claimed that the events never happened and that wars weren't real. I said that the stories were to bring a spiritual meaning and understanding to oneself. The OT is about knowing yourself, the NT is about understanding what the scriptures in the OT were written for.

 

The trinity is symbolic for the human body. Father mind, Son heart, Holy Spirit Life force

 

And lastly my experiences are based upon studies and real world interactions.

 

Anything other than that are just me and you going back and forth on what we've learned over the years..and they'll be no end to that.

 

God is spirit and truth...I AM is spirit and truth. If you want the various ways to know Gods nature then simply read the scriptures. Other than that, we'll disagree.

 

 

[Gunther]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

My guess is that you are referring to Jesus’s words in John 8. If so, you will find the same Greek words used in the following chapter of John 9.

 

“The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.”
‭‭John‬ ‭9:8-9

 

The Greek words are not the one for God. The translation of “I am”  is that Jesus is talking about himself as the person being identified. Now if we look at your actual quote in context...

 

”Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”
‭‭John‬ ‭8:53-58‬ ‭KJV

 

You can see in context Jesus’s statement is in response to being questioned about how it was possible that Abraham could have rejoiced about Jesus coming (to see my day) and being glad. Jesus is saying that he is “beyond time” and also sort of proclaiming that his realization is higher than Abraham, and hence higher than the father of Jews (and the Jeswish tradition). That is why they go on to want to stone Jesus in the next verse.

Yes, same difference. I AM means what? You say "beyond time", eternal life, and that's correct. All he is saying is that he is enlightened, has entered the kingdom of God. And he is not the only one who got himself killed for saying that

[TheCLounge]

22 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Yes, same difference. I AM means what? You say "beyond time", eternal life, and that's correct. All he is saying is that he is enlightened, has entered the kingdom of God. And he is not the only one who got himself killed for saying that

 

I believe a lot of people have a hard time understanding the simplicity of "I AM" so they try to make it more than what it is..

 

The name simply refers to self-realization 

 

 

[Gunther]

14 minutes ago, TheCLounge said:

 

I believe a lot of people have a hard time understanding the simplicity of "I AM" so they try to make it more than what it is..

 

The name simply refers to self-realization 

 

 

Like all scriptures it all depends on the level of understanding/spiritual development. So for most the Bible speaks of a personal creator god. For others it is mystical, occult even. And so it must be because the spiritual path is individual and everybody has to find his natural and effortless approach to the absolute. Maybe some rely on blind faith or need to torture themselves(and others😀) so be it for the time being.

If you reached the essence there are no differences. Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam,Schamanism, whatever, whatever, it's all the same. Man's eternal quest

Edited November 19, 2017 by Gunther

[TheCLounge]

4 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Like all scriptures it all depends on the level of understanding/spiritual development. So for most the Bible speaks of a personal creator god. For others it is mystical, occult even. And so it must be because the spiritual path is individual and everybody has to find his natural and effortless approach to the absolute. Maybe some rely on blind faith or need to torture themselves(and others😀) so be it for the time being.

If you reached the essence there are no differences. Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam,Schamanism, whatever, whatever, it's all the same. Man's eternal quest

I agree 100 percent

[dawei]

With all the talk of what Jesus meant by 'I AM'... Has anyone thought through how to differentiate Jesus vs Yahweh vs The Father ?  

[doc benway]

51 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Like all scriptures it all depends on the level of understanding/spiritual development. So for most the Bible speaks of a personal creator god. For others it is mystical, occult even. And so it must be because the spiritual path is individual and everybody has to find his natural and effortless approach to the absolute. Maybe some rely on blind faith or need to torture themselves(and others😀) so be it for the time being.

If you reached the essence there are no differences. Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam,Schamanism, whatever, whatever, it's all the same. Man's eternal quest

 

Well said, the degree to which a person can see the truth in varied religions is a good measure of the degree to which they comprehend the essence rather than simply the window dressing.

[Cheshire Cat]

10 hours ago, Nungali said:

(...)

Jewish traditions do not understand Jewish words ?  ...    What ?

 

 

 

(...)

 

Do you know that when the name YHWH was pronounced for the first time, the Jewish language did not even exist?

 

Do you know that -according to theology - the word ELOHIM is used in the bible for:

1- the pagan idols;

2- the eternal God;

3- for the judges, only when in the psalms, it's written that the Elohim die;

4- other Gods;

 

And the meaning it's arbitrarily chosen by the current theological interpreters.

[Mudfoot]

9 hours ago, dawei said:

Has anyone thought through how to differentiate Jesus vs Yahweh vs The Father ?  

The ortodox church have written extensively about this. The catholic church came to a different conclusion. 

They argued a bit..... 

[Jeff]

13 hours ago, Gunther said:

Yes, same difference. I AM means what? You say "beyond time", eternal life, and that's correct. All he is saying is that he is enlightened, has entered the kingdom of God. And he is not the only one who got himself killed for saying that

 

Maybe there is no difference. Guess it depends on your definition of I Am. My point is simply that what Moses describes is not the same as what Jesus describes. Jesus brings new wine that does not fit in that old wine skin.

[allinone]

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

Maybe there is no difference. Guess it depends on your definition of I Am. My point is simply that what Moses describes is not the same as what Jesus describes. Jesus brings new wine that does not fit in that old wine skin.

 

what about those who can channel Jesus and tell what Jesus thinks about it.

also other sources like

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/read-urantia-book-online

---

...an excerpt from that book

 

Spoiler

 

1. Deity Concepts Among the Semites

^{96:1.1(1052.4)} The early Semites regarded everything as being indwelt by a spirit. There were spirits of the animal and vegetable worlds; annual spirits, the lord of progeny; spirits of fire, water, and air; a veritable pantheon of spirits to be feared and worshiped. And the teaching of Melchizedek regarding a Universal Creator never fully destroyed the belief in these subordinate spirits or nature gods.

^{96:1.2(1052.5)} The progress of the Hebrews from polytheism through henotheism to monotheism was not an unbroken and continuous conceptual development. They experienced many retrogressions in the evolution of their Deity concepts, while during any one epoch there existed varying ideas of God among different groups of Semite believers. From time to time numerous terms were applied to their concepts of God, and in order to prevent confusion these various Deity titles will be defined as they pertain to the evolution of Jewish theology:

^{96:1.3(1053.1)} 1. Yahweh was the god of the southern Palestinian tribes, who associated this concept of deity with Mount Horeb, the Sinai volcano. Yahweh was merely one of the hundreds and thousands of nature gods which held the attention and claimed the worship of the Semitic tribes and peoples.

^{96:1.4(1053.2)} 2. El Elyon. For centuries after Melchizedek’s sojourn at Salem his doctrine of Deity persisted in various versions but was generally connoted by the term El Elyon, the Most High God of heaven. Many Semites, including the immediate descendants of Abraham, at various times worshiped both Yahweh and El Elyon.

^{96:1.5(1053.3)} 3. El Shaddai. It is difficult to explain what El Shaddai stood for. This idea of God was a composite derived from the teachings of Amenemope’s Book of Wisdom modified by Ikhnaton’s doctrine of Aton and further influenced by Melchizedek’s teachings embodied in the concept of El Elyon. But as the concept of El Shaddai permeated the Hebrew mind, it became thoroughly colored with the Yahweh beliefs of the desert.

^{96:1.6(1053.4)} One of the dominant ideas of the religion of this era was the Egyptian concept of divine Providence, the teaching that material prosperity was a reward for serving El Shaddai.

^{96:1.7(1053.5)} 4. El. Amid all this confusion of terminology and haziness of concept, many devout believers sincerely endeavored to worship all of these evolving ideas of divinity, and there grew up the practice of referring to this composite Deity as El. And this term included still other of the Bedouin nature gods.

^{96:1.8(1053.6)} 5. Elohim. In Kish and Ur there long persisted Sumerian-Chaldean groups who taught a three-in-one God concept founded on the traditions of the days of Adam and Melchizedek. This doctrine was carried to Egypt, where this Trinity was worshiped under the name of Elohim, or in the singular as Eloah. The philosophic circles of Egypt and later Alexandrian teachers of Hebraic extraction taught this unity of pluralistic Gods, and many of Moses’ advisers at the time of the exodus believed in this Trinity. But the concept of the trinitarian Elohim never became a real part of Hebrew theology until after they had come under the political influence of the Babylonians.

^{96:1.9(1053.7)} 6. Sundry names. The Semites disliked to speak the name of their Deity, and they therefore resorted to numerous appellations from time to time, such as: The Spirit of God, The Lord, The Angel of the Lord, The Almighty, The Holy One, The Most High, Adonai, The Ancient of Days, The Lord God of Israel, The Creator of Heaven and Earth, Kyrios, Jah, The Lord of Hosts, and The Father in Heaven.

^{96:1.10(1053.8)}Jehovah is a term which in recent times has been employed to designate the completed concept of Yahweh which finally evolved in the long Hebrew experience. But the name Jehovah did not come into use until fifteen hundred years after the times of Jesus.

^{96:1.11(1054.1)} Up to about 2000 B.C., Mount Sinai was intermittently active as a volcano, occasional eruptions occurring as late as the time of the sojourn of the Israelites in this region. The fire and smoke, together with the thunderous detonations associated with the eruptions of this volcanic mountain, all impressed and awed the Bedouins of the surrounding regions and caused them greatly to fear Yahweh. This spirit of Mount Horeb later became the god of the Hebrew Semites, and they eventually believed him to be supreme over all other gods.

 

^{96:1.12(1054.2)} The Canaanites had long revered Yahweh, and although many of the Kenites believed more or less in El Elyon, the supergod of the Salem religion, a majority of the Canaanites held loosely to the worship of the old tribal deities. They were hardly willing to abandon their national deities in favor of an international, not to say an interplanetary, God. They were not universal-deity minded, and therefore these tribes continued to worship their tribal deities, including Yahweh and the silver and golden calves which symbolized the Bedouin herders’ concept of the spirit of the Sinai volcano.

^{96:1.13(1054.3)} The Syrians, while worshiping their gods, also believed in Yahweh of the Hebrews, for their prophets said to the Syrian king: “Their gods are gods of the hills; therefore they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them on the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they.”

^{96:1.14(1054.4)} As man advances in culture, the lesser gods are subordinated to a supreme deity; the great Jove persists only as an exclamation. The monotheists keep their subordinate gods as spirits, demons, fates, Nereids, fairies, brownies, dwarfs, banshees, and the evil eye. The Hebrews passed through henotheism and long believed in the existence of gods other than Yahweh, but they increasingly held that these foreign deities were subordinate to Yahweh. They conceded the actuality of Chemosh, god of the Amorites, but maintained that he was subordinate to Yahweh.

^{96:1.15(1054.5)} The idea of Yahweh has undergone the most extensive development of all the mortal theories of God. Its progressive evolution can only be compared with the metamorphosis of the Buddha concept in Asia, which in the end led to the concept of the Universal Absolute even as the Yahweh concept finally led to the idea of the Universal Father. But as a matter of historic fact, it should be understood that, while the Jews thus changed their views of Deity from the tribal god of Mount Horeb to the loving and merciful Creator Father of later times, they did not change his name; they continued all the way along to call this evolving concept of Deity, Yahweh.

 

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-96-yahweh-god-hebrews

 

 

Edited November 19, 2017 by allinone

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, allinone said:

 

what about those who can channel Jesus and tell what Jesus thinks about it.

also other sources like

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/read-urantia-book-online

---

...an excerpt from that book

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

1. Deity Concepts Among the Semites

^{96:1.1(1052.4)} The early Semites regarded everything as being indwelt by a spirit. There were spirits of the animal and vegetable worlds; annual spirits, the lord of progeny; spirits of fire, water, and air; a veritable pantheon of spirits to be feared and worshiped. And the teaching of Melchizedek regarding a Universal Creator never fully destroyed the belief in these subordinate spirits or nature gods.

^{96:1.2(1052.5)} The progress of the Hebrews from polytheism through henotheism to monotheism was not an unbroken and continuous conceptual development. They experienced many retrogressions in the evolution of their Deity concepts, while during any one epoch there existed varying ideas of God among different groups of Semite believers. From time to time numerous terms were applied to their concepts of God, and in order to prevent confusion these various Deity titles will be defined as they pertain to the evolution of Jewish theology:

^{96:1.3(1053.1)} 1. Yahweh was the god of the southern Palestinian tribes, who associated this concept of deity with Mount Horeb, the Sinai volcano. Yahweh was merely one of the hundreds and thousands of nature gods which held the attention and claimed the worship of the Semitic tribes and peoples.

^{96:1.4(1053.2)} 2. El Elyon. For centuries after Melchizedek’s sojourn at Salem his doctrine of Deity persisted in various versions but was generally connoted by the term El Elyon, the Most High God of heaven. Many Semites, including the immediate descendants of Abraham, at various times worshiped both Yahweh and El Elyon.

^{96:1.5(1053.3)} 3. El Shaddai. It is difficult to explain what El Shaddai stood for. This idea of God was a composite derived from the teachings of Amenemope’s Book of Wisdom modified by Ikhnaton’s doctrine of Aton and further influenced by Melchizedek’s teachings embodied in the concept of El Elyon. But as the concept of El Shaddai permeated the Hebrew mind, it became thoroughly colored with the Yahweh beliefs of the desert.

^{96:1.6(1053.4)} One of the dominant ideas of the religion of this era was the Egyptian concept of divine Providence, the teaching that material prosperity was a reward for serving El Shaddai.

^{96:1.7(1053.5)} 4. El. Amid all this confusion of terminology and haziness of concept, many devout believers sincerely endeavored to worship all of these evolving ideas of divinity, and there grew up the practice of referring to this composite Deity as El. And this term included still other of the Bedouin nature gods.

^{96:1.8(1053.6)} 5. Elohim. In Kish and Ur there long persisted Sumerian-Chaldean groups who taught a three-in-one God concept founded on the traditions of the days of Adam and Melchizedek. This doctrine was carried to Egypt, where this Trinity was worshiped under the name of Elohim, or in the singular as Eloah. The philosophic circles of Egypt and later Alexandrian teachers of Hebraic extraction taught this unity of pluralistic Gods, and many of Moses’ advisers at the time of the exodus believed in this Trinity. But the concept of the trinitarian Elohim never became a real part of Hebrew theology until after they had come under the political influence of the Babylonians.

^{96:1.9(1053.7)} 6. Sundry names. The Semites disliked to speak the name of their Deity, and they therefore resorted to numerous appellations from time to time, such as: The Spirit of God, The Lord, The Angel of the Lord, The Almighty, The Holy One, The Most High, Adonai, The Ancient of Days, The Lord God of Israel, The Creator of Heaven and Earth, Kyrios, Jah, The Lord of Hosts, and The Father in Heaven.

^{96:1.10(1053.8)}Jehovah is a term which in recent times has been employed to designate the completed concept of Yahweh which finally evolved in the long Hebrew experience. But the name Jehovah did not come into use until fifteen hundred years after the times of Jesus.

^{96:1.11(1054.1)} Up to about 2000 B.C., Mount Sinai was intermittently active as a volcano, occasional eruptions occurring as late as the time of the sojourn of the Israelites in this region. The fire and smoke, together with the thunderous detonations associated with the eruptions of this volcanic mountain, all impressed and awed the Bedouins of the surrounding regions and caused them greatly to fear Yahweh. This spirit of Mount Horeb later became the god of the Hebrew Semites, and they eventually believed him to be supreme over all other gods.

 

^{96:1.12(1054.2)} The Canaanites had long revered Yahweh, and although many of the Kenites believed more or less in El Elyon, the supergod of the Salem religion, a majority of the Canaanites held loosely to the worship of the old tribal deities. They were hardly willing to abandon their national deities in favor of an international, not to say an interplanetary, God. They were not universal-deity minded, and therefore these tribes continued to worship their tribal deities, including Yahweh and the silver and golden calves which symbolized the Bedouin herders’ concept of the spirit of the Sinai volcano.

^{96:1.13(1054.3)} The Syrians, while worshiping their gods, also believed in Yahweh of the Hebrews, for their prophets said to the Syrian king: “Their gods are gods of the hills; therefore they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them on the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they.”

^{96:1.14(1054.4)} As man advances in culture, the lesser gods are subordinated to a supreme deity; the great Jove persists only as an exclamation. The monotheists keep their subordinate gods as spirits, demons, fates, Nereids, fairies, brownies, dwarfs, banshees, and the evil eye. The Hebrews passed through henotheism and long believed in the existence of gods other than Yahweh, but they increasingly held that these foreign deities were subordinate to Yahweh. They conceded the actuality of Chemosh, god of the Amorites, but maintained that he was subordinate to Yahweh.

^{96:1.15(1054.5)} The idea of Yahweh has undergone the most extensive development of all the mortal theories of God. Its progressive evolution can only be compared with the metamorphosis of the Buddha concept in Asia, which in the end led to the concept of the Universal Absolute even as the Yahweh concept finally led to the idea of the Universal Father. But as a matter of historic fact, it should be understood that, while the Jews thus changed their views of Deity from the tribal god of Mount Horeb to the loving and merciful Creator Father of later times, they did not change his name; they continued all the way along to call this evolving concept of Deity, Yahweh.

 

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-96-yahweh-god-hebrews

 

 

 

What about them? Also, how does something like “Deity Concepts Among the Semites” from your book link relate to my post/comment?

[allinone]

6 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

What about them? Also, how does something like “Deity Concepts Among the Semites” from your book link relate to my post/comment?

 

Are you familiar with that book?

[Jeff]

21 minutes ago, allinone said:

 

Are you familiar with that book?

 

Sorry, no.  

[Nungali]

15 hours ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

Do you know that when the name YHWH was pronounced for the first time, the Jewish language did not even exist?

 

Do you know that -according to theology - the word ELOHIM is used in the bible for:

1- the pagan idols;

2- the eternal God;

3- for the judges, only when in the psalms, it's written that the Elohim die;

4- other Gods;

 

And the meaning it's arbitrarily chosen by the current theological interpreters.

 

My point that scholars of Hebrew  understand their own language better than people that try to turn it to mean other things.

 

And my other point is the loose transition from 'Bible'  to Hebrew Scripture some are making . But some have not been able to comprehend that ...

 

I mean ... interpret  the bible  as personal advice / handbook  ..... or a manual to Kundalini practice , or proof of aliens and UFOs -   or  whatever ....

 

Does not mean it isn't 'talking about God' though .  And it doesn't mean your particular  ';twist'     'is it' . 

 

Edited November 19, 2017 by Nungali

[aden]

On 11/18/2017 at 6:06 PM, TheCLounge said:

Then you aren't reading properly. I'll make it clear for you in this reply.

 

The name I AM is affirmed in both the OT and NT.

 

Jesus affirms that it's his name in the book of John. The Pharisees knew he was referring to God and him saying that name made him claim to be equal to him.

 

As for God and Lord, those are not names..but titles. His name is I AM. God and lord are titles given to him. He told Moses that his ancestors called him Elohim but he didn't reveal to them his true name yet. Read the story of Jacob wrestling God. My first response was to the person who said "God had many names". He has many titles, but only one name..I AM. Read Exodus dude. The roman church replaced his name with "The Lord" throughout the rest of the Bible. When it's YAH. 

 

As for the spiritual meanings of the Tanakh. I never once claimed that the events never happened and that wars weren't real. I said that the stories were to bring a spiritual meaning and understanding to oneself. The OT is about knowing yourself, the NT is about understanding what the scriptures in the OT were written for.

 

The trinity is symbolic for the human body. Father mind, Son heart, Holy Spirit Life force

 

And lastly my experiences are based upon studies and real world interactions.

 

Anything other than that are just me and you going back and forth on what we've learned over the years..and they'll be no end to that.

 

God is spirit and truth...I AM is spirit and truth. If you want the various ways to know Gods nature then simply read the scriptures. Other than that, we'll disagree.

 

 

 

This is actually a very interesting interpretation, especially considering how lots of forms of Christian denominations/interpretations today (as well as historical ones) directly urge the followers to "suppress the self" or "sacrifice thyself" for the sake of the Lord/Father. Or something in the lines of that.

 

Lots of them use the reasoning of "not sacrificing/suppressing the self" = selfishness, corruption, disobedience, disorder, disrespect towards authority, etc.

 

Ironically at the same time, however, some preachers I came across used to teach that Jesus/God was in everybody. 

 

What it seems to me is that most Christianity followers throughout history have been having a hard time viewing ourselves as something more than simple flesh & blood that craves nothing but carnal pleasures - without "God". In short, they have never felt secure without establishing the belief of a form of "external" confirmation. If anybody tried to relate God to our own very being or "self", he/she was regarded as selfish, egotistical, new-age cultish fanatic. (In fact, lots of Christian followers in Korea regard Daoism as an egotistical, cultish philosophy that leads away from God.).

 

But I like to think that God is both in us and out of us at the same time, in both everything and ourselves.

Edited November 20, 2017 by aden

[Cheshire Cat]

8 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

My point that scholars of Hebrew  understand their own language better than people that try to turn it to mean other things.

 

We cannot determine "who" can translate those words. 

Why bother translating them at all?

 

Try to read the passages in which Moses asked God to show him his "Glory" ... and every time you see "Glory".... just read KAVOD. 

 

KAVOD is one of the uncertain terms and it is translated as Glory.

Do not ask yourself what it means, but understand what a KAVOD can actually do from the context.

 

This may be of help http://kavodcustom.com/

Edited November 20, 2017 by Cheshire Cat

[TheCLounge]

4 hours ago, aden said:

 

 

Ironically at the same time, however, some preachers I came across used to teach that Jesus/God was in everybody. 

 

But I like to think that God is both in us and out of us at the same time, in both everything and ourselves.

 

Book Of Thomas reminds me of what you just said.

 

Next time someone asks you about Jesus just say "I'm Jesus...and You're Jesus too..." 

[Apech]

On 11/19/2017 at 1:46 PM, Jeff said:

 

Maybe there is no difference. Guess it depends on your definition of I Am. My point is simply that what Moses describes is not the same as what Jesus describes. Jesus brings new wine that does not fit in that old wine skin.

 

I'm new to this thread and haven't read all of it ... so ...

 

Didn't Jesus say something along the lines that he had come to fulfil the law and not destroy it?

[Jeff]

5 hours ago, Apech said:

 

I'm new to this thread and haven't read all of it ... so ...

 

Didn't Jesus say something along the lines that he had come to fulfil the law and not destroy it?

 

Yes, he said...

 

“Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:14-18‬ ‭KJV‬‬
 

But, as we see below in John (and many other places), that the “fulfillment” is a new and higher realization. Law (or rules) from Moses which is surpassed by the “grace and truth” from Jesus...

 

“John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:15-18‬ ‭KJV‬‬