What have you understood about the charcater of The Ten Commandments??

[Elder 111]

I'm sorry but you cannot leave out a law that calls into question your idealogy. Jesus himself said that he does his Father's will.... NOT his own too. In other words the NT is full of Jesus obeying the Father, but we still have one verse where he obeys the Father's Laws and we are supposed to obey Jesus' Laws, it would be very easy just say obey the Fathers Laws instead of differentiating the two sets of Laws. You seek to play this game of seperating the trinity into Jesus only when it suits you and they putting it back together when it suits you instead of properly looking at scripture in context and trying to actually see which part(s) of the trinity is acting.
As far as the sons commandments replacing the Fathers, this is where the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant.
As far as Jesus sinning you are playing another Game. I never said he could sin and be righteous, I said Jesus WAS righteous BEFORE the Law therefore the Law therefore he had no need of keeping it to be righteous. One could look past your desire to say that sin ONLY exists defined by the 10 commandments which is false. The Bible (as you see it) has the Sabbath created at one time and unless you have a different idea about God, Jesus existed PRIOR to creation and he was the creator of the universe therefore the Sabbath had NOTHING to do with him sinning or not (or any of any commandments) for he was sinless prior to such things.
If one looks back to this time (before creation) the commandments have NOTHING to do with Jesus righteousness, which means in him they are superfluous to us. Jesus kept the commandments not to be righteous but for the sake of doing away with the Old Covenant that required keeping of them. He fulfilled ANY obligation of the Law for those who choose to believe in him because as creator of the Law who existed prior to it inception he was not obligated to it. The Law is for those who practice lawlessness and Jesus was never did such things. To say Jesus needed the Law is to equate he had a sin nature like us.... which is absolute nonsense.

There is still no response to the question of the principles of the ten commandmentsa being for now or not. The Ten commandments are far more than the Sabbath. Do we still have to observe the first commandment in principle or not?

 

[Elder 111]

as a by-product-but we were never meant to break them in any case

Then I can agree.

 

[Elder 111]

We (gentiles) cannot break laws we are not obligated to keep by covenant. Gentiles can never break the Sabbath command unless we obligate ourself to it by partaking of the covenant it is attached to.

The Sabbath is the only Commandment you know?

 

[Elder 111]

Can we get to the point of the tread and voting as we preceive/accept .

 

[Sophrosyne]

There is still no response to the question of the principles of the ten commandmentsa being for now or not. The Ten commandments are far more than the Sabbath. Do we still have to observe the first commandment in principle or not?

Don't play this game on me, just because we do things that are equivalent to some of the 10 commandments doesn't mean we are indeed and in principal keeping them. It is when you are in a foreign country and based upon the laws of the country you came from at a 4 way stop you gave right of way. If you were in a country like England it may be Left of Way but in other countries they may have right of way also. Are you keeping their laws intentionally or the laws of your own country. In principle you are keeping the laws of your own country and it just happens their laws are the same.
Does this mean you are now a citizen of that foreign country because you incidentally kept one of its laws properly and now are obligated to keep all of them properly when you are back home in your own country? NO.
The Sabbath command is a foreign command to Christians and not of their country but of Israel.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Can we get to the point of the tread and voting as we preceive/accept .

I doubt it.... the point of the thread is biased to begin with and the poll is crafted such that any results from it is skewed to a preconceived notion. I rarely participate in public polls myself as they tend to be mainly voted in by only the few hard core fanatics that in essence make them meaningless as regards to a valid cross section of the community.

 

[from scratch]

The Sabbath is the only Commandment you know?

As soon as some one says they keep the Ten Commandments or even the commandments of God you're going to work it to the Sabbath. So why can't we cut to the chase?

 

[from scratch]

Can we get to the point of the tread and voting as we preceive/accept .

No because of the creator of the poll and the expressed agenda of the same shown over a period of time.

 

[Sophrosyne]

As soon as some one says they keep the Ten Commandments or even the commandments of God you're going to work it to the Sabbath. So why can't we cut to the chase?

That's right.... give them 9/10 of the commandments they won't stop there and some even will try to add on food laws to boot.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I just voted for every option. Why? Because the wording was so ambiguous that every single one could be true in some way.

 

[Neogaia777]

"Perfect" Love automatically keeps the ten commandments by it's very nature, so...

 

[from scratch]

Notice the context, who are the "workers of iniquity", and are they the same as the "my people" of God?

Tell us how you arrive they're the same people as found in v 3. Don't forget Rom 3:10, 12 and 11:32.

Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.

What is the context, of the "workers of iniquity"?

[[To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

It is those who say "No, God." when God asks them to obey.

PS 53

 

[fhansen]

you were meant to break em, the law was added to INCREASE the sin rom 5:20...

rom 7:13, sin became utterly sinful by law, rom 3:20, the knowledge of sin comes by law...

that is the point, it came to show man his flesh...and it did, now bye bye strict prison pedagogue of Gal 3:25....you did your job Mr prison, you aroused sin Rom 7:5, bye bye now Mr law..... Take errr easy bro....

The Law was added to increase sin so we'd learn what Adam didn't yet know-that apart from God we can do nothing; with God all things are possible, including simply being who He created us to be.

 

[from scratch]

I just voted for every option. Why? Because the wording was so ambiguous that every single one could be true in some way.

good man! Well done!!

 

[from scratch]

The Law was added to increase sin so we'd learn what Adam didn't yet know-that apart from God we can do nothing; with God all things are possible, including simply being who He created us to be.

The Bible clearly says it is impossible to obey the law.

 

[fhansen]

We (gentiles) cannot break laws we are not obligated to keep by covenant. Gentiles can never break the Sabbath command unless we obligate ourself to it by partaking of the covenant it is attached to.

Of course we can; God wrote His laws-the "natural law"-on mans heart from the beginning:

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) Rom 2:14-15

And as Augustine put it:
"God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts."

 

[fhansen]

The Bible clearly says it is impossible to obey the law.

The bible clearly says that sin is lawlessness and no sinners enter heaven. Why would God give man laws he couldn't possibly obey, blame man for not obeying them anyway, then decide to just go ahead and save some without regard to and in spite of all that? To be righteous/holy/just is to simply be who God created us to be.

The bible clearly says its impossible to obey the law-apart from God. That's the basics of the New Covenant. Forgiveness opens the door back to communion with Him, which begins with faith as the first response to grace. God truly becomes the God of man again. From there God can begin to do a work in us, placing His laws on our hearts and writing them in our minds.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Of course we can; God wrote His laws-the "natural law"-on mans heart from the beginning:

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) Rom 2:14-15

And as Augustine put it:
"God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts."

This actually goes against your argument here. When someone is talking about Christians both Jews (lawkeeping still) and Gentiles and relating to one group keeping the Law and the other not and both considered righteous then you have this formula:
Jews..........saved + law = righteous
Gentiles.....saved + nothing = righteous
we can see by logic that the law is NOTHING to righteousness when someone can be considered such without. Pauls arguments are for the Jew here who is still struggling hanging on to the Law to accept Gentiles who do not bother with it.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

.

 

[fhansen]

This actually goes against your argument here. When someone is talking about Christians both Jews (lawkeeping still) and Gentiles and relating to one group keeping the Law and the other not and both considered righteous then you have this formula:
Jews..........saved + law = righteous
Gentiles.....saved + nothing = righteous
we can see by logic that the law is NOTHING to righteousness when someone can be considered such without. Pauls arguments are for the Jew here who is still struggling hanging on to the Law to accept Gentiles who do not bother with it.

Paul just means that the law is righteous, holy, and good-spiritual-as he tells us in rom 7. We're not saved by conscious observance of the law but we'll be judged by it nonetheless. The law tells us what righteousness is; it just can't effect it.