Do you agree that christians should keep the 10 Commandments? (4)

[Studious One]

Matthew 23:23.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

If people only picking up what suits them, they leave a big hole in their comprehension of the Scripture.

I agree. There is a big hole in your comprehension of Scripturre.

Matthew 23:23 was not written to the Gentiles. Read it carefully and prayerfully. It was written to Scribes and Pharisees... Jewish religious leaders who were required to tithe according to the Mosaic Law.

 

[Studious One]

It has everything to do with the topic of this thread. You say that all we are supposed to recognize is Acts 15:29, "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."
Just trying to see how much you adhere to this passage. Considering you have so much contempt toward God's commands, you would be hard pressed to be obedient to those in Acts 15:29. Isn't Acts 15 a form of law as well?

If you eat "Easter Eggs", you are eating meat sacrficed to idols. If you enjoy that Easter Ham - you are feasting on the boar that killed Tammuz.

If you eat pork, you are eating what God said is an abomination.
Pork was commonly used as the animal of choice in idol worship (Deut.12:31,"Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.") , not only that it is no different than eating a rat, dog, cat, horse. Most people find that eating a rat, dog, cat or horse abominable and quite detesable.
Heck, if you are free to eat whatever you like, as long as you give thanks for it - have a feast on the day you die, save your family a buck and they can just eat you. After all, all things are clean now that you are free from the law - right?

Please don't come to me with Acts 10:11-16. The interpretation is given in Acts 10:28, "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." God wasn't showing Peter that he could eat anything that he wanted or that any beast was fit for food. He was revealing that God was extending salvation to the gentile.

If you eat meat that still has blood in it (Leviticus 19:26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.) - WOW! Would you look at that! The LAW is in Acts 15!
Pause for a second to take that in. SELAH

By the way. You are dancing around question 4.

I don't eat easter eggs, nor dye them. I do not eat easter ham. I do not eat it Sam I am.

Far be it from me to use the passage in Acts 10 to justify eating pork... I have a different passage to use...

1 Timothy 4:1-4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Now, according to Paul's epistle to Timothy, those who command people to abstain from meats are speaking lies in hypocrisy... having their conscience seared. Paul clearly states that every creature (not some creatures) of God is good and nothing to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving. Whatever meat is laid before me on my table is not to be refused according to the Word of God. So you can cease and desist with your condemning spirit toward me.

I don't eat meat with blood in it. We cook our meat thoroughly. The forbidding of meats with blood was for health reasons.

 

[Studious One]

Question:

Can it be said that one who dwells upon fornication is not truly abstaining from it?

Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

 

[MamaZ]

How do you obey Jesus commands? Love God and neighbor?

 

[MamaZ]

Righteousness does not come from the law. Righteousness comes from Christ and walking in faith.

 

[sheina]

Righteousness does not come from the law. Righteousness comes from Christ and walking in faith.

The law cannot save/justify, sanctify/perfect or make one righteous. All the law can do is condemn and put that person under its curse (Galatians 3:10-12)

 

[Deut 5:29]

The law cannot save/justify, sanctify/perfect or make one righteous. All the law can do is condemn and put that person under its curse (Galatians 3:10-12)

Not so.
The law shows us the right way to go, the right way to love, keeps us out of the ditch and spares us and everyone around us a lot of pain.
God's law is the foundation of righteousness and godly living.

 

[11822]

Question:

Can it be said that one who dwells upon fornication is not truly abstaining from it?

Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

If the answer is yes then it would also mean he who dwells on love or faith is not loving or living in faith. Paul dwelt on fornication when teaching holiness and he was abstaining from it because its just as much Gods will as loving thy neighbor or having faith in the Lord. You want to remove fornication from the debate because your theology is in conflict with it and it proves the law exists but your misguided theology says it doesn't.

 

[from scratch]

The nope in your reply is wrong. It seems to suggest my statement is wrong with a nifty little catch phrase you use. What i said is correct.

Nope again. I'm not a law keeper. And incidence isn't obedience ever. You keep insisting it is though.

 

[from scratch]

I don't think thats clear at all. But even if the man was mocking Jesus, was Jesus mocking the man when Jesus said "if thou will enter life obey the commandments"?

No Jesus wasn't mocking the young man. Jesus was giving the answer he demanded and didn't like. Jesus clearly revealed the young man wasn't a doer of the law.

 

[11822]

Nope again. I'm not a law keeper. And incidence isn't obedience ever. You keep insisting it is though.

And your argument remains illogical.

 

[11822]

No Jesus wasn't mocking the young man. Jesus was giving the answer he demanded and didn't like. Jesus clearly revealed the young man wasn't a doer of the law.

You didn't like the answer Jesus gave either. He said obey the commandments. And Its obvious that Paul teaches us to keep those same commandments throughout the NT. Your denial is remarkably incessant and your theology seems contentious, argumentative and illogical.

 

[from scratch]

It calls for speculation and is argumentative. Why do we judge the rich man when we're just like him? Im sure we all own things that could feed the poor. Who hasn't thought obedience to the law makes us righteous at one point in our life before we grew up? It was once speculated that the man was going to hell but thats not clear either.


Was Jesus mocking the man when he told him to obey the commandments? Why does Paul reiterate the commandments in Romans chapter 13 and why do the apostles teach them throughout the NT?

Well it sure ain't cause we're being told to not do those things. I don't see a command. Those things are naturally taked care of by loving. You're desperate to prove that we are obligated to the law and resote to saying that incidence is obedience.

 

[from scratch]

And your argument remains illogical.

Nope it is just that I don't agree with you. And so you continue to insult me. I don't submit to intimidation or manipulation. Your approach will never work on me. And it isn't me that is embarassing.

 

[11822]

well it sure ain cause we're being told to not do those things. I don't see a command. Those things are naturally taked care of by loving. You're desperate to prove that we are obligated to the law and resote to saying that incidence is obedience.

Thats not true. Paul repeatedly teaches these things throughout the NT and strongly urges us multiple times to comply. We can't teach part of the Gospel and not the whole doctrine.

 

[from scratch]

You didn't like the answer Jesus gave either. He said obey the commandments. And Its obvious that Paul teaches us to keep those same commandments throughout the NT. Your denial is remarkably incessant and your theology seems contentious, argumentative and illogical.

Do you know anything besides ad hominem? It is getting pretty stale.

 

[11822]

Nope it is just that I don't agree with you. And so you continue to insult me. I don't submit to intimidation or manipulation. Your approach will never work on me. And it isn't me that is embarassing.

Im not insulting you. But i know what being labeled and insulted feels like.

 

[from scratch]

Thats not true. Paul repeatedly teaches these things throughout the NT and strongly urges us multiple times to comply. We can't teach part of the Gospel and not the whole doctrine.

There is only one place that I know Paul teach the law and it isn't to Christians, it is to children Eph 6. Every where else Paul uses the law as a launching pad for his teaching. Paul uses the familiar to teach from. This is far different than teaching required observance.

Listen you can agravate me all you wish. I won't cave in. Salvation and maintainece of it is by faith alone - Gal 3:1-3.

 

[sheina]

Not so.
The law shows us the right way to go, the right way to love, keeps us out of the ditch and spares us and everyone around us a lot of pain.
God's law is the foundation of righteousness and godly living.

What the Old Testament Law Cannot Do:

It cannot justify (Acts 13:38-39; Galatians 2:16).
It cannot redeem (Romans 3:24-31; Galatians 3:13-14).
It cannot give an inheritance (Romans 4:13-14).
It cannot control sin in man (Romans 7:7-23; 8:2).
It cannot free from sin and death (Romans 8:2).
It cannot free a sinner from condemnation (Romans 8:1-4).
It cannot bring righteousness (Romans 8:4).
It cannot impart the Holy Spirit (Galatians 3:2).
It cannot free from the curse (Galatians 3:10,14).
It cannot impart grace (Galatians 5:4).
It cannot enable a man to obey (Hebrews 7:18).
It cannot make perfect (Hebrews 7:19).

As the above Scripture states, the law is unable to do more than it is able to do.

The purpose of the law is to reveal sin and lead men to Christ. (Romans 3:19-20; 7:12-13; 1Timothy 1:9-10; Galatians 3:24-25).

What are the requirements of the Old Testament Law? Galatians 3:10 speaks of a two-fold requirement:

Continual obedience and obedience in all things. (Deuteronomy 11:22; 27:26; James 2:10)

This is why no man can have righteousness through the law; as sinners we cannot fulfill its high demands.

 

[11822]

There is only one place that I know Paul teach the law and it isn't to Christians, it is to children Eph 6. Every where else Paul uses the law as a launching pad for his teaching. Paul uses the familiar to teach from. This is far different than teaching required observance.

Listen you can agravate me all you wish. I won't cave in. Salvation and maintainece of it is by faith alone - Gal 3:1-3.

Ok then.