> > "Fulfill" has a pretty strong connotation of "end", at least to me. Maybe the original Greek has some nuance the translators missed?
>
> I read Nyperold's response to this, but I can't help thinking it might not be a bad translation at all. Look at Romans 10:4 "Christ is the end of the law... ."

Better translated as "the goal at which the Law aims". You've heard of "means and ends", I assume. If Paul meant "end" as if the Law has been destroyed, he then conflicts with the statement Jesus made that He didn't come to do that, in which case, who's word are you going to take? a man's, or God in the flesh? However, I figure it's just another faulty translation(referring to this instance; to say that the KJV is faulty is like saying that white eggs have shells; it's true, but ot's also true of brown eggs, etc.), and faulty in this case only because it's possible that it might convey the meaning of "doing away with".

> > BTW, *nothing* in the Law says anything about the soul or the afterlife (correct me if I'm wrong). The written Law's punishments are temporal; that's why the Hebrews had no concept of an afterlife beyond a hazy idea of Sheol, with some exceptions in visions from the prophets;
>
> Well, it does mention them. See Dt. 6:5 and Dt. 10:12. But really, the law is law. One can't commit crimes against or consciously do much of anything with souls except *be,* so there's no imperative for the law to mention it a bunch of times.
>
> > To argue otherwise and say that the mercy was just mercy with no eternal significance is to have a capricious, inscrutable, and ultimately unjust God. "Oh, I feel like forgiving Cain, but all other murderers get zapped. David's after my own heart; he still gets saved, but someone else with the same crime? Hell-fodder." More like the Greeks' Zeus than the lawful, just God the Jews loved and worshiped, than any God I would care to worship. (That's less of an arrogant, self-serving statement than it sounds; it has to do with how I define God.
>
> This reminds me of a section from _The Best Things In Life_ where the character is asked, "If there were two Gods, one perfect in power but imperfect in goodness and the other perfect in goodness but imperfet in power, which would you choose to serve?"
>
> I think the whole debate about whether God exists is too ironic. No quantity or quality of discussion or logical arguments makes any impact on the Truth of the matter. And the same goes for any sentence including "I believe God is/isn't/does/doesn't ..."--God Will Be What He Will Be, and our belief in his nature affects only ourselves.
>
> > > > I believe God is a rational God and that he loves us enough to make his Word comprehensible to us to the extent necessary for us to live godly lives, and so I refused to give up trying to reconcile "turn the other cheek" with "eye for an eye".
>
> Mercy and Justice, in their proper balance, is a big topic.
>
> gab"butting in as usual"by

Eh, that's all right. If we wanted this to be a private discussion, we'd get in a private room.

Nyperold