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

[Elder 111]

Maybe you should have read the citation before you posted a reply. For it says "Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free"."
It has everything with who the Law applies to within the limited jurisdiction specified in the Law itself - which you have shown no acceptance of. You merely contradict what Jesus taught Peter, and to us via Matthew's account.

Excuse me! They were talking about taxes. Is that the same as the Ten Commandments?

To repeat what I wrote before: The Jews were accounted as the children of Israel prior to God's adoption of His elect; it is only in God's redemption that they are accounted as the children of the Living God.

BTW, Paul teaches the same thing Jesus did in Galatians 4:1-7. The whole Gospel can be summed up in a few verses from this epistle.

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Why does the verbal tense show the Law's tenure in the past by stating Jesus' purpose as "to redeem those who were under the law"?

Continue to the very end of this same chapter. It concludes that those retained by the Law have no claim to eternal life: "the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman".

Redeem persons from under/condemnation of the law not remove the law!
Again you have fashioned the word to suit your position rather than to let it speak. You also do this by leaving out pertinent portions or ignoring them as I have stated before.
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
This verse in the same passage shows that Paul was showing a difference in character not the removal of the law. Those that are led by the Spirit will not be condemned by the law but those that are led by the flesh. So that the point is that those who continue to break the law are those who will not have eternal life.
The comparison is make between Ismael and Issac. One in adultery/ sin/breaking the law and the other under God's Spirit and in His law/honor of marriage.

 

[from scratch]

Excuse me! They were talking about taxes. Is that the same as the Ten Commandments?



Redeem persons from under/condemnation of the law not remove the law!
Again you have fashioned the word to suit your position rather than to let it speak. You also do this by leaving out pertinent portions or ignoring them as I have stated before.
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
This verse in the same passage shows that Paul was showing a difference in character not the removal of the law. Those that are led by the Spirit will not be condemned by the law but those that are led by the flesh. So that the point is that those who continue to break the law are those who will not have eternal life.
The comparison is make between Ismael and Issac. One in adultery/ sin/breaking the law and the other under God's Spirit and in His law/honor of marriage.

Why does Paul tell us to throw out the law?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Why does Paul tell us to throw out the law?

Saint James did also.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[VictorC]

Excuse me! They were talking about taxes. Is that the same as the Ten Commandments?

Absolutely!
The Ten Commandments -the covenant from Mount Sinai identified as the bondwoman in Galatians 4:24- had a limited jurisdiction, just as the taxes Jesus used as His example for Peter's sake. All laws share the same nature, in having some entity creating that law who is sovereign to it, and a population that is subject to the law's jurisdiction. The Ten Commandments is no different, being dictated to God's vassal Israel when He delivered them from Egyptian bondage. It was never given to anyone else, including the children of the Creator Who shares His sovereignty with His own children.

Redeem persons from under/condemnation of the law not remove the law!

That isn't what the text says, is it?
Paul alternates in his epistles between the Law being taken away from the recipients, and the recipients being taken away from the Law. In Galatians (Romans 7:6 as well) he illustrates the loss of the Law's jurisdiction over God's redeemed by the latter example. In 2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 8-10 (if you adopt a Pauline authorship for Hebrews) he argues with the former example. The result is the same: the Law lost its jurisdiction over God's redeemed.

What did you think redemption is? It is a purchase of some given property that belonged to someone -or something- else. Galatians 3:23 and Romans 7:6 both show that the Law kept the recipients, and did not have the mistaken reversed relationship of people keeping the Law as you often resort to. Jesus purchased us from the Law that retained the recipients in the past tense, using His Blood as the medium of exchange as propitiation that satisfied the demands of the Law.

If you're going to argue legal matters, it would behoove you to learn basic legal concepts. Jurisdiction is a topic you're woefully ignorant of, and it pertains to any legal discourse.

Again you have fashioned the word to suit your position rather than to let it speak.

You were just caught fabricating nonsense in an effort to reject what Scripture actually says.

You also do this by leaving out pertinent portions or ignoring them as I have stated before.
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

The context works against you, not surprising since you have displayed an affinity for sound-bites that fit your preconceived opinion without regard for the narrative. Those born of the flesh are the naturally accounted children of Israel, and not God's adopted children via the Spirit we received according to Galatians 4:6. You can't reconcile your opinion with Galatians 4 showing us that those retained by the Ten Commandments are denied eternal life, and you can't reconcile your opinion with John 1:12-13 that was quoted for you in my post.

You would rather be accounted as a child after the flesh, even though you were born a Gentile in Barbados and denied the very relationship you wish you had - a relationship that denies you God's adoption as His own son.

This verse in the same passage shows that Paul was showing a difference in character not the removal of the law. Those that are led by the Spirit will not be condemned by the law but those that are led by the flesh. So that the point is that those who continue to break the law are those who will not have eternal life.
The comparison is make between Ismael and Issac. One in adultery/ sin/breaking the law and the other under God's Spirit and in His law/honor of marriage.

I didn't read past your quaint fabrication of 'difference in character'. It is sheer nonsense that is unsupported by the text, another fabrication that is according to your own accusation: you "fashioned the word to suit your position rather than to let it speak".

And you didn't answer my question regarding the inspired Word using the past-tense verb showing the Law retention of the recipients in Galatians 4:5.
And you won't.
You've a history of rejecting the Law, rejecting Christ's redemption, accusing others of dismissing the sabbath you weren't even given in the first place, showing utter disdain for God's "My rest", and you can't even recognize the Gospel when it is dropped into your lap. Your posts contain all the trappings of a cult foreign to Christianity.

At least you abandoned your prior argument after seeing it was unBiblical. Perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Elder 111]

Continuing to look at the poll questions.
Moses wrote the Ten Commandments.
This should not have received a vote, it is a misconception at best and lie in any case.
Ex. 24: 12 And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
Why are we doing such things to God's word and then call ourselves His children? Moses did not write the Ten Commandments. God did, not once but twice. After Moses broke then God did not even let him rewrite them, God did it Himself again. That shows that it was so important to God that only He was allowed to write it.
Exactly what God did not want we still do, that is, to say that Moses was responsible for it.

 

[VictorC]

Continuing to look at the poll questions.
Moses wrote the Ten Commandments.
This should not have received a vote, it is a misconception at best and lie in any case.
Ex. 24: 12 And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
Why are we doing such things to God's word and then call ourselves His children? Moses did not write the Ten Commandments. God did, not once but twice. After Moses broke then God did not even let him rewrite them, God did it Himself again. That shows that it was so important to God that only He was allowed to write it.
Exactly what God did not want we still do, that is, to say that Moses was responsible for it.

God handed Moses the tablets of stone with the Words of the covenant engraved on them. Few are going to dispute that.

Exodus 34
1 And the Lord said to Moses, “Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.
...
27 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” 28 So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Where much dispute is going to come is when you make a claim that Moses took those tablets of stone with the Words of the covenant to the Gentiles at Barbados.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Christ Jesus wrote them.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[VictorC]

Christ Jesus wrote them.

The pre-incarnate Christ Jesus wrote the covenant from Mount Sinai - I agree with you. This Divine Authorship of the covenant gives Him the sole right as its Creator to take it away in the fulness of time, as Hebrews 10:9 describes when it tells us "He takes away the first that He may establish the second".

 

[Rev Randy]

Continuing to look at the poll questions.
Moses wrote the Ten Commandments.
This should not have received a vote, it is a misconception at best and lie in any case.
Ex. 24: 12 And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
Why are we doing such things to God's word and then call ourselves His children? Moses did not write the Ten Commandments. God did, not once but twice. After Moses broke then God did not even let him rewrite them, God did it Himself again. That shows that it was so important to God that only He was allowed to write it.
Exactly what God did not want we still do, that is, to say that Moses was responsible for it.

There is a difference between author and wrote. On Stone God. On parchment? I can't say with any certainty that Moses never wrote than down. Someone did or we would have no written evidence that they exist.
So perhaps "lie" is a bit too strong.

 

[Elder 111]

There is a difference between author and wrote. On Stone God. On parchment? I can't say with any certainty that Moses never wrote than down. Someone did or we would have no written evidence that they exist.
So perhaps "lie" is a bit too strong.

Obviously I am dealing with the origin. For many would have written it afterwards. Maybe, before Moses and as you hinted: maybe Moses never wrote it at all but a scribe did.
The point is it originated with God.

 

[Rev Randy]

Obviously I am dealing with the origin. For many would have written it afterwards. Maybe, before Moses and as you hinted: maybe Moses never wrote it at all but a scribe did.
The point is it originated with God.

I do understand your point. i was just thinking we toss that word "lie" about too freely. (Note I said we)

 

[Elder 111]

Another aspect of the poll.
The Ten Commandments belong to Moses.
Why this? Many people keep saying Moses' law. It had nothing to do with Moses except God placed it in his hands.
The Ten commandments are God's holy law.

 

[Elder 111]

I do understand your point. i was just thinking we toss that word "lie" about too freely. (Note I said we)

OK. But if something is not true, it is ....
It might not be purposely done but it still would be.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Another aspect of the poll.
The Ten Commandments belong to Moses.
Why this? Many people keep saying Moses' law. It had nothing to do with Moses except God placed it in his hands.
The Ten commandments are God's holy law.

The Bible says he was the leader of the people given the Law and essentially leaders are the first one responsible to God thus it is the Mosaic covenant. God made a covenant with Moses AND the people there. He gave Moses AND the people the Law at Sinai. When God GIVES you something is it not YOURS or are you saying he really didn't GIVE the Law to those people at all?

The logic makes sense in a way. The 10 commandments belong to Moses AND Israel. It did NOT belong to the surrounding civilizations NOR anyone not of Israel at that time.

 

[from scratch]

Another aspect of the poll.
The Ten Commandments belong to Moses.
Why this? Many people keep saying Moses' law. It had nothing to do with Moses except God placed it in his hands.
The Ten commandments are God's holy law.

The law of Moses is one of the ways the New Testament refers to the Ten Commandments.

 

[from scratch]

I do understand your point. i was just thinking we toss that word "lie" about too freely. (Note I said we)

So what should we use: misrepresent or bear false witness? Don't they both mean lie?

 

[Rev Randy]

So what should we use: misrepresent or bear false witness? Don't they both mean lie?

No friend, when something is a lie it is a lie. My point is we need to be sure of the context of a statement before we call it a lie. Usually a simple, 'What do you mean" will avoid a lot of false accusations.

 

[Rev Randy]

The law of Moses is one of the ways the New Testament refers to the Ten Commandments.

Sometimes the obvious is overlooked.

 

[from scratch]

No friend, when something is a lie it is a lie. My point is we need to be sure of the context of a statement before we call it a lie. Usually a simple, 'What do you mean" will avoid a lot of false accusations.

 

[Elder 111]

The Bible says he was the leader of the people given the Law and essentially leaders are the first one responsible to God thus it is the Mosaic covenant. God made a covenant with Moses AND the people there. He gave Moses AND the people the Law at Sinai. When God GIVES you something is it not YOURS or are you saying he really didn't GIVE the Law to those people at all?

The logic makes sense in a way. The 10 commandments belong to Moses AND Israel. It did NOT belong to the surrounding civilizations NOR anyone not of Israel at that time.

• Origin. Moses did not create this law. Moses did not ask for these tenants. They belong to God, they were given by Him. He required them of His people.
• So it was OK with God for the surrounding people to steal kill and worship idols? I wonder why He got rid of them.