Do you agree that christians should keep the 10 Commandments? (2)

[IreneAdler]

um, ok. I don't think I agree, but that's interesting.

 

[Lysimachus]

um, ok. I don't think I agree, but that's interesting.

Who you referring to? lol

 

[IreneAdler]

you.

 

[from scratch]

Very , very interesting indeed.

 

[from scratch]

We are commanded to love one another but we don't obey this law perfectly, does this mean that we are free from Jesus commandment to love? Jesus told the women who committed adultery that he didn't condemn her and then He said go and sin no more. He did not say you are free to commit adultery, He said i forgive you, go and sin no more

Isn't it interesting that Jesus didn't say keep the commandments here?

 

[from scratch]

Maybe we are not bound to the law for salvation, but what about Holiness? Is Holiness required by God and are the 10 Cs acts of Holiness?

Then is my unchristian neighbor holy?

 

[from scratch]

Holiness comes also from the Spirit of God and not the written law.

And it is the only kind of holiness that counts.

 

[Elder 111]

Well I have to say this is not true. For we are to love and love does not do these acts. Love looks for the best for others. As said before look at the fruits of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit. Look at what love is. Scripture shows us. I do not have an online bible to quote and paste from or I would.

What is interesting is, that the commandments says the same thing. If we follow the 10 commandments what is the difference? Note that is not for salvation but glorifying and doing God will.

 

[from scratch]

The Pharisees were trying to find fault with Christ's disciples for picking some corn on the Sabbath as they were passing through a field. Christ was trying to help them see their legalistic, staunch, rigid exactions which made the Sabbath burdensome. Jesus was talking to the Pharisees, but He answered them by saying the "Sabbath was made for man". In other words, Christ's point is...the Sabbath was not meant to be a burden. It was meant to be a blessing for man. It was meant to give relief to man. It was meant to be a delight.

To assume that because Jesus was speaking to Pharisees that He must have meant that "man" meant only the Jews or the Pharisees is, with all due respect, a ludicrous stretching of the obvious meaning of the text, and simply does not harmonize with Isaiah 56.

Who was the sabbath given to? Please show one single Scripture showing that it was given to the Gentiles. Just one, pretty please. In Exodus it is clear that only the COI were being spoken to. Moses reaffirms this fact in Deut 5. Ps 147:19-20 says that He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
20He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.

Now who is it that the sabbath was given to?

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

13Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
14Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
15Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

If the sabbath is given to the whole world, how could it be a sign of anything? Everybody is doing it. Who does verse 16 say shall keep the sabbath and why?

I wish to know why it is said that God has changed His mind in MK 2:27. Doesn't the For I the Lord change not apply here? Why not?

Genesis 2 tells us that it was the Seventh-Day that was "sanctified".

What was sanctified? I read the 7th day. What do you read? Did this day repeat itself? Rhetorical question to which the answer is no. Did God return to work the next day? NO! Is there a repeating 7th day there? NO! What does the word shabat mean? It is the same word used in Hosea 2:11 which is more correctly translated as cease (KJV), terminate (Tanach, Stone ed) and end (Tanak - NJPS). Do the Jews know their own native language? For Gen 2:3 it is translated as abstained (Tanach, Stone ed.) Notice also there is a different discussion about the seventh day in Genesis, it doesn't have an end but surely there was an 8th day and more. And the 7 day week cycle is always argued.

Exodus 20 tells us that it was this "Seventh-Day" that was called "The Sabbath".

Not quite so fast there. Isn't that a little loose with the words of Ex 20:11 - For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Where does it even say the sabbath is the 7th day, let alone the 7th day of the week? God called a day the sabbath and gave a reason for doing so. There is absolutely no indication the sabbath day is the same one God rested on, is there? Be honest.

Are you suggesting that the day was sanctified, but it was not the Sabbath until 2000 years later?

I don't play left field very well.

Once again, with all due respect, this is ridiculous. If the Seventh-Day was sanctified, but not the Sabbath, then how what set it apart? A sanctified day went on for 2000 years without being named?

Correct. One should note as stated in MK 2:27 the sabbath was made not created. Those are two distinctly different words in Greek and English. The context of the verse is totally being ignored for the sake of deception and promation of a desired prejudiced out come. An idea has been established and then seeks validation. MK 2:27 doesn't fit the bill. Sorry.

Brother, you need to go back to your mother's womb and start all over again. Your mind no longer appreciates simple theology.

Insults really prove one is correct, don't they?

And this is your opinion. But I disagree. Besides, most of these so called "knowledgeable" people cannot understand, comprehend, or appreciate the simple truths of the gospel. This is why Jesus chose humble fishermen over the learned elders of Israel. I suppose Jesus did this so he can "fool unknowledgeable people"?

One has that right in this country. I agree. And who was Paul? And Who chose him?

When you quote Mark 2:27 to the simple, humble-minded person, the Spirit of God is able to talk to them and tell them "this text is telling me that the Sabbath is still important, and God expects me to enter into His rest on His day and keep it Holy".

I hear that I don't serve the sabbath. Want to discuss that?

But the learned elders will not grasp this spiritual richness. They will instead analyze the wording, phraseology, and syntax, so strenuously and extensively that they are no longer able to digest or appreciate the simple truths of the gospel.

Whoah! I did not catch that. But if you are asking for his credentials, this only lessons your credibility, for this tells me that had you been living in the days of the Apostles, you would have asked them for their credentials

Trust me, had I quoted any Adventist Ph.D. scholars, you would have still found something wrong. .

Didn't I cite Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi of the SDA church and professor at Andrews. Are his credentials questioned by the SDA church?

If you think one has to have a Ph.D. or any degree whatsoever in order to be credible, or to take their arguments seriously, then you have a lot to learn.

Pehaps I should have simply asked who he is first. After you replied then I should have asked for credentials which don't necessarily mean academeic credentials. Now I still want to know why I should consider him worthy of note and respect outside of your church.

I have no reason to distrust the studious works of humble laymen. All one has to do is look in their concordances when an article addresses a Hebrew or Greek word and see if what they are saying lines up. Once again, Pickle's arguments stand on their own two feet, and you are focusing on the person rather than what is written.

Ah but you don't trust me. Why is this? I wager it is because I don't share your opinion.

If Bob Pickle has said anything worthy of note, you'd have quoted him to me. I'm not the slightest bit interest in debating his material. My interest hasn't been piqued yet.

Had I decided to quote his arguments without ever sourcing the man, what would you have done with the argument? That's what I'm looking forward to seeing.

Depends on what you might have said and how you might have said it.

 

[from scratch]

What is interesting is, that the commandments says the same thing. If we follow the 10 commandments what is the difference? Note that is not for salvation but glorifying and doing God will.

If you're saying there is no difference, what ever are ya yaking about? Why didn't you title the thread the law hangs on two commandments or something similar. Nope the 10 Cs, specifically the sabbath is the issue.

 

[Elder 111]

The problem with love is that it is tiring. Because if you aren't loving you're taking the easy way out to get what you want. I wonder how one can cause them self to think so that they would be more disposed to follow in steps of love other than lust and sin

How can you keep the ten commandments without love? Perfectly that not legalistically.

 

[Elder 111]

I guess this confuses me a little. For we do not love with our love by with the love of God that has been shed abroad in our hearts. Those who are born again Do have Gods love in their heart. So to me love is not tiring.

All who are born again and have the Holy Spirit indwelling, will not violate the 10 commandments, if not they will not show forth the fruit of the Spirit. True or false?

 

[11822]

Then is my unchristian neighbor holy?

You answered my question with a question.

 

[Elder 111]

From Scratch
how can Mark 2:27 not mean every one all mankind? Please, Why would Jesus say man if He meant the Jews?
This is getting very serious. How we handle God's word is important, it may well determined our salvation and certainly that of others.
Jesus said that some of us who are called by His name He will state that He never knew us.
We can not deny the obvious to maintain a point. We can not deny the truth, it is our guide to salvation. The Jews did that we can not now do that.

 

[Elder 111]

I beleive scripture tells us the law was abolished. I may be wrong like I said I do not have an online scripture .

Don't believe, make sure. Our salvation depends on it.

 

[tall73]

From Scratch
how can Mark 2:27 not mean every one all mankind? Please, Why would Jesus say man if He meant the Jews?
This is getting very serious. How we handle God's word is important, it may well determined our salvation and certainly that of others.
Jesus said that some of us who are called by His name He will state that He never knew us.
We can not deny the obvious to maintain a point. We can not deny the truth, it is our guide to salvation. The Jews did that we can not now do that.

I think this is an important text, whichever side of the argument you come down on. I am still looking at this and other passages myself.

But the discussion starts with a question of what is LAWFUL.


Mar 2:24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?"
Mar 2:25 And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him:
Mar 2:26 how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?"


Jesus references a portion of the OT Scriptures to show what David did--eating something that was lawful only for the priests to eat, and giving it to others. So He discusses with them in the context of the OT system of sacrifice, etc. citing another case of a central figure doing something that was unlawful.

Discussion of the law is the context of the verse.

And the man comment is in connection with Jesus saying the Son of MAN (same word) is Lord of the Sabbath.

Mar 2:27 And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Mar 2:28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath."

Jesus' juxtaposition of man and Son of Man certainly seems intentional here.

So several questions come up. How did Jesus usually use the phrase Son of Man?

Does it mainly have reference to Jesus' connection to humanity, or to a more messianic view such as the one like a son of man in Daniel 7's judgment scene?

What is the point Jesus is trying to make with the story of David?

Is Jesus agreeing this was unlawful, or was He saying it was lawful, yet allowed?


I don't yet know all the answers to these questions. But I would say this is one of the stronger texts for the pro-sabbatarian argument.

 

[tall73]

I don't have an online bible app that I can quote the scripture.. Sorry. I wish I did

Anyone with internet access can go to BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. for instance and access several online versions. It would appear you have such access or you would not be posting here.

Or you can download E-sword, a desktop program.
e-Sword - the Sword of the LORD with an electronic edge

 

[Elder 111]

Ephesians 2:15
having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,

Please! The 10 commandments are not the same as " law of commandments of contained in ordinances".
This hurt badly. Murder and stealing and adultery, lies and serving God as the one true as the 10 commandments require is enmity?
Take time to pray and study God word before coming to a conclusion.
If there is a removal of the 10 commandments, which the bible do not support, it is not stated in this text.

 

[Elder 111]

Well if you walk in the Spirit you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh

In other words you will keep the commandments. That is the point we keep missing.

 

[Elder 111]

Aren't they named in Gal 5:19-21 - Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Nothing to do with the 10 commandments here I suppose?
You can really look at this passage and still preach the God abolished the 10?
When was adultery not in the 10? or Murder?