Who did Moses chat with?

[JohnRabbit]

why r u answering for Yo?

i was just throwing in my two cents.

 

[Frogster]

i was just throwing in my two cents.

you can say that again.

besides, You, Yo, You, yo, john, Yo..whomever..never answer the simple riddle.

Since Adam's sin was in the world beofre the law came, how can it be Mosaic?

And why does this doomsday verse, ALSO, say there was a time of no Mosaic law, in a one size fits all doctrine destruction?

2 in 1....he also said...there was no law.....


5:13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Question:So what does one have to do to be ready for Jesus' return?

If you're saved - IOW possess salvation and have eternal life, aren't you ready for Jesus' return?

answer:


Matthew 24:42(NKJV)
42Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. (see aslo matt 25:13)


Mark 13:33(NKJV)
33Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is. (mark's version says to pray also, lk 21:36)

paul even preached what Jesus commanded, (see acts 20:31, 1cor 16:13, and 1thess 5:6).

paul also says:

1 Thessalonians 5:20-21(NKJV)
20Do not despise prophecies. (i'm not saying that you do)
21Test all things; hold fast what is good.

now on the command to watch, it would help one to know what to look for, and the only way to know that is to know prophecy.

on the command to "pray", ...i hope you've got that one figured out!

but, for one who preaches keeping the commandments of Jesus, you're not setting a good example here!

He commanded us to watch, but you say:

"So how is that, especially since I don't follow prophecy? I sure won't lead one to deception about their salvation. I have enough sense to stay away from the fad religious stuff. I don't need something (i'm guessing this "something" is prophecy based on what you're saying) new and exciting in my life every day."

but i think that Jesus already has a response to that kind of attitude:

Revelation 3:3(NKJV)
3... Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you. (yeah, i know. it would have to be in revelation!)

 

[JohnRabbit]

you can say that again.

besides, You, Yo, You, yo, john, Yo..whomever..never answer the simple riddle.

Since Adam's sin was in the world beofre the law came, how can it be Mosaic?

And why does this doomsday verse, ALSO, say there was a time of no Mosaic law, in a one size fits all doctrine destruction?

2 in 1....he also said...there was no law.....


5:13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

ok, now stay with me.

if there's no law, then there is no sin (rom 4:15b)!

Get it?

now, and here's the tricky part, if there's sin in the world then there has to be law per rom 4:15b!

"sin is not imputed when there's no law" is just a straight up fact that's consistent with rom 4:15b!

 

[YosemiteSam]

i was just throwing in my two cents.

What up John

 

[YosemiteSam]

for some reason, frogster, thinks that you and i are one and the same!

go figure.

you know?, kind of how he reads the scriptures.

I know thats right!!! LOL

 

[YosemiteSam]

ok, now stay with me.

if there's no law, then there is no sin (rom 4:15b)!

Get it?

now, and here's the tricky part, if there's sin in the world then there has to be law per rom 4:15b!

"sin is not imputed when there's no law" is just a straight up fact that's consistent with rom 4:15b!

why put that there? He always leaves that part out...then again?

 

[Frogster]

answer:


Matthew 24:42(NKJV)
42Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. (see aslo matt 25:13)


Mark 13:33(NKJV)
33Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is. (mark's version says to pray also, lk 21:36)

paul even preached what Jesus commanded, (see acts 20:31, 1cor 16:13, and 1thess 5:6).

paul also says:

1 Thessalonians 5:20-21(NKJV)
20Do not despise prophecies. (i'm not saying that you do)
21Test all things; hold fast what is good.

now on the command to watch, it would help one to know what to look for, and the only way to know that is to know prophecy.

on the command to "pray", ...i hope you've got that one figured out!

but, for one who preaches keeping the commandments of Jesus, you're not setting a good example here!

He commanded us to watch, but you say:

"So how is that, especially since I don't follow prophecy? I sure won't lead one to deception about their salvation. I have enough sense to stay away from the fad religious stuff. I don't need something (i'm guessing this "something" is prophecy based on what you're saying) new and exciting in my life every day."

but i think that Jesus already has a response to that kind of attitude:

Revelation 3:3(NKJV)
3... Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you. (yeah, i know. it would have to be in revelation!)

sorry..Yo, but this is just....

 

[Frogster]

ok, now stay with me.

if there's no law, then there is no sin (rom 4:15b)!

Get it?

now, and here's the tricky part, if there's sin in the world then there has to be law per rom 4:15b!

"sin is not imputed when there's no law" is just a straight up fact that's consistent with rom 4:15b!

excuse me....But how does this answer the 2 part question?

How could Adams sin be off Mosaic law, if it was BEFORE THE LAW WAS GIVEN?

Aaaaaaand, it says there was no law, why?

Your 4;15 post proves nothing, that just was to show that the law was ended, once the promise came CONTEXTUALLY, CHRONOLOGICALLY..... Study 4, you will hopefully see what I mean.

Adam had a transgression, but prove it was Mosaic, when all the text indicates it was not.

 

[Frogster]

why put that there? He always leaves that part out...then again?

How could it be Mosaic, when it says his sin was in the world, BEFORE the LAW was GIVEN?

John, a transgression of a rule by Adam, does not have to be a Mosaic transgression!

 

[YosemiteSam]

Frogster and Scratch....WE GET IT!

We get the fact that you do not think the Sabbath was enforced from the beginning...Gen 2.1-3
We get the fact that you do not think there was no law at the time of Adam...or that Adam just had one law as you have said...
We get the fact that you do not think that Cain didn't violate any law when he killed his brother simply because you say there was no law..
We get the fact that you do not think that Abraham "kept My Commandments, My Statutes, and My Charge...Gen 26:5
We get the fact that you think God flooded the world because of Adam's one sin...which by the way directly contradicts Duet 24.16 "...each shall be put to death for their own sin"
We get the fact that you don't believe that Jacob ran from adultery so that he not sin against God....Gen 39.7-12
We get the fact that you don't understand that "sin is the transgression of God's law" 1 Jn 3.4
We get the fact that you don't believe that the world was flooded because of excessive sin...Gen 6.13 2 Pet 3.5
We get the fact that you do not believe that divorce was forbidden from the beginning..it is adultery...might go read Duet on that..But Jesus said so...Matt 19.8-9
We get that you dismiss Rom 4.15 while reading Rom 5.13 and visa versa...

My fingers hurt now or should I continue...These things you have dismissed time and time again...You continually go back to one verse and think it proves the biblical point of view...when only it proves your own point of view

 

[from scratch]

Frogster and Scratch....WE GET IT!

We get the fact that you do not think the Sabbath was enforced from the beginning...Gen 2.1-3

Your proof that it was is...

We get the fact that you do not think there was no law at the time of Adam...or that Adam just had one law as you have said...

We've said no such thing concerning Adam. Adam however didn't have what is called the law since it was added 430 years after Abraham. To say otherwise is to wilfully deny the Scripture.

We get the fact that you do not think that Cain didn't violate any law when he killed his brother simply because you say there was no law..

Can you show any law as being in force at the time of Cain's transgression? Why does it say the law was added? Wasn't it because of transgression?

We get the fact that you do not think that Abraham "kept My Commandments, My Statutes, and My Charge...Gen 26:5

I've yet to read an explanation of how Abraham obeyed something that didn't exist as in the law which came after him.

We get the fact that you think God flooded the world because of Adam's one sin...which by the way directly contradicts Duet 24.16 "...each shall be put to death for their own sin"

Now who among men hasn't sinned except Jesus? The challenge still remains open after a year. Why is it that you can't name one guiltless person?

We get the fact that you don't believe that Jacob ran from adultery so that he not sin against God....Gen 39.7-12

We've never denied such. Jacob isn't mentioned in your Scripture citation. It was Joseph. And doesn't the covenant with Noah cover sexual sin?

We get the fact that you don't understand that "sin is the transgression of God's law" 1 Jn 3.4

We understand that sin is also a violation of God's law as I Jn 3:4 states. We also understand that lack of faith is also sin. We understand that sin was before the law - Rom 5:13 and Gal 3:17, 19. I'm so very sorry that these are insurmountable and insuperable Scriptures for you. You have my sympaties.

We get the fact that you don't believe that the world was flooded because of excessive sin...Gen 6.13 2 Pet 3.5

We so believe and according to Scripture supporting this fact.

We get the fact that you do not believe that divorce was forbidden from the beginning..it is adultery...might go read Duet on that..But Jesus said so...Matt 19.8-9

That has nothing to do with such being included in the law.

We get that you dismiss Rom 4.15 while reading Rom 5.13 and visa versa...

We understand that there was no punishment for this sin without the law which is what Paul is getting at in 4:15. This doesn't conflict with 5:13 as much as you'd love to show Paul is an idiot and false teacher.

My fingers hurt now or should I continue...These things you have dismissed time and time again...You continually go back to one verse and think it proves the biblical point of view...when only it proves your own point of view

We've not dismissed a single one of your points ever. I do my best to address everything in your posts and have been admired for and told about my meticulous attention to detail. That doesn't mean I don't miss somethings. I really don't think that can be said for your side of the fence. Especially in this thread concerning John 15:10. Care to address this in a detailed manner?

 

[Frogster]

Frogster and Scratch....WE GET IT!

We get the fact that you do not think the Sabbath was enforced from the beginning...Gen 2.1-3
We get the fact that you do not think there was no law at the time of Adam...or that Adam just had one law as you have said...
We get the fact that you do not think that Cain didn't violate any law when he killed his brother simply because you say there was no law..
We get the fact that you do not think that Abraham "kept My Commandments, My Statutes, and My Charge...Gen 26:5
We get the fact that you think God flooded the world because of Adam's one sin...which by the way directly contradicts Duet 24.16 "...each shall be put to death for their own sin"
We get the fact that you don't believe that Jacob ran from adultery so that he not sin against God....Gen 39.7-12
We get the fact that you don't understand that "sin is the transgression of God's law" 1 Jn 3.4
We get the fact that you don't believe that the world was flooded because of excessive sin...Gen 6.13 2 Pet 3.5
We get the fact that you do not believe that divorce was forbidden from the beginning..it is adultery...might go read Duet on that..But Jesus said so...Matt 19.8-9
We get that you dismiss Rom 4.15 while reading Rom 5.13 and visa versa...

My fingers hurt now or should I continue...These things you have dismissed time and time again...You continually go back to one verse and think it proves the biblical point of view...when only it proves your own point of view

wow..oh my, gee....

ok, but when u have a minute, could u just tell me how the sin of adam, was mosaic, even though it says his sin was pre mosaic law?, u know, the law that came 430 after Abe.


And can you tell me if u think that transgression, that word, has to mean a mosaic transgression?

 

[from scratch]

Well I guess that Moses did talk to God the Father and not Jesus. So far all I've seen is circumstancial evidence with a theory. This would mean that the 10 Cs were given and written directly with the finger of God the Father and not Jesus.

It seems to me that the COI saw a cloud and not God. It seems that an angel did some of the things mentioned.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Your proof that it was is...We've said no such thing concerning Adam. Adam however didn't have what is called the law since it was added 430 years after Abraham. To say otherwise is to wilfully deny the Scripture.Can you show any law as being in force at the time of Cain's transgression? Why does it say the law was added? Wasn't it because of transgression?I've yet to read an explanation of how Abraham obeyed something that didn't exist as in the law which came after him. Now who among men hasn't sinned except Jesus? The challenge still remains open after a year. Why is it that you can't name one guiltless person?We've never denied such. Jacob isn't mentioned in your Scripture citation. It was Joseph. And doesn't the covenant with Noah cover sexual sin? We understand that sin is also a violation of God's law as I Jn 3:4 states. We also understand that lack of faith is also sin. We understand that sin was before the law - Rom 5:13 and Gal 3:17, 19. I'm so very sorry that these are insurmountable and insuperable Scriptures for you. You have my sympaties.We so believe and according to Scripture supporting this fact.That has nothing to do with such being included in the law.We understand that there was no punishment for this sin without the law which is what Paul is getting at in 4:15. This doesn't conflict with 5:13 as much as you'd love to show Paul is an idiot and false teacher.We've not dismissed a single one of your points ever. I do my best to address everything in your posts and have been admired for and told about my meticulous attention to detail. That doesn't mean I don't miss somethings. I really don't think that can be said for your side of the fence. Especially in this thread concerning John 15:10. Care to address this in a detailed manner?

Wow, now anyone who reads the two will get it too....thanks

 

[from scratch]

Wow, now anyone who reads the two will get it too....thanks

Iguess that means there will be no detailed discussion from you about John 15:10.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Yeppers that was an interesting post. Since they saw God why did Moses later ask to see God? Yes I realized that God said no one can see His face and live. So what was Moses asking? He saw God and yet when he asked to see God, he was denied.

This makes me wonder what they actually saw when the Scripture says they saw God. Yes I relaize that it says they saw God's feet. And the feet aren't discribed. The rock is though.

Here is the meaning of the word chazah that is used -
1) to see, perceive, look, behold, prophesy, provide
a) (Qal)
1) to see, behold
2) to see as a seer in the ecstatic state
3) to see, perceive
a) with the intelligence
b) to see (by experience)
c) to provide


I fully understand that it can be said to literally see. But what about the second word in the first definition? It is again mentioned in the third meaning to see, perceive. We commonly say we see when we understand someting. None of the items in definition 3 can be said to be physical.

This is why I personally don't think they actually saw a physical manifestion of God's feet.

Another word translate see/saw is eidō which means to see with the eye. Why wasn't this word used if the actually saw God?

again with the parse!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

again with the parse!

Whadaya have against parsing?

 

[JohnRabbit]

Whadaya have against parsing?

i know! what's wrong with me?

 

[YosemiteSam]

again with the parse!

Good point john rabbit will. Check into