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

[Elder 111]

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

Not Ten Commandments. The first 5 books.

 

[from scratch]

Not Ten Commandments. The first 5 books.

If it weren't for the first 5 books of the Bible you would have no record of the Ten Commandments which are called the law and the covenant in the Bible.

 

[from scratch]

• 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.

The total picture is there if you care to read the Bible.

 

[VictorC]

• 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.

He required them of the children of Israel, but never conveyed the old covenant Law to the Gentiles, nor to His own adopted children. This is what you're attempting to conceal in your blanket term "His people", that expresses a rejection of Christians as God's people via His election.

• So it was OK with God for the surrounding people to steal kill and worship idols? I wonder why He got rid of them.

I wonder why you question God's Word and reach for the same argument Paul tells us those using are worthy of condemnation in Romans 3:8.

 

[Elder 111]

If it weren't for the first 5 books of the Bible you would have no record of the Ten Commandments which are called the law and the covenant in the Bible.

But there is a lot of difference in making this statement and the previous one.

 

[pshun2404]

Christ did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it...

Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets...the covenant of the law (the contractual agreement between God and His people) has been fulfilled.

Imagine for a moment, if after years and years of struggling to fulfill the terms of your mortgage contract, you finally fulfill your commitment, the terms have been met and the price is fully paid...why would any continue to struggle to continue to try and make the payments and be bound any longer by the terms of the agreement? Such is is with the New Creation in Christ...the law and the prophets have been fulfilled. It is finished!

He fulfilled the terms and specifics of covenant (contractual agreement with all its responsibilities and requirements) of the law and the prophets and we who are born from above are IN HIM...therefore, in Him we have a fulfilled obligation and we are no longer "legally" (as in the Law) bound by the terms of this contract. We have been set free from the responsibilities it imposes.

In His love

Paul

 

[Elder 111]

He required them of the children of Israel, but never conveyed the old covenant Law to the Gentiles, nor to His own adopted children. This is what you're attempting to conceal in your blanket term "His people", that expresses a rejection of Christians as God's people via His election.

I wonder why you question God's Word and reach for the same argument Paul tells us those using are worthy of condemnation in Romans 3:8.

Next verse. 9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
What is sin? 1 John 3
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.It is clear that both the Jews that had the law and the Gentles that had not the law are in the same boat. Same condemnation.
So is it really that the law did not apply to no one but the Jews?

 

[VictorC]

Next verse. 9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
What is sin? 1 John 3
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.It is clear that both the Jews that had the law and the Gentles that had not the law are in the same boat. Same condemnation.

Notice that you correctly show that sin is present in both those who had the Law and those who didn't...

So is it really that the law did not apply to no one but the Jews?

...and then question the limited jurisdiction of the Law you just admitted it has!
This plus your limited definition of sin doesn't distinguish between sin and transgression, and can't explain how sin existed prior to the covenant Law mediated through Moses. Hint: sin's origin is via a transgression that isn't even found in the covenant from Mount Sinai.

But anyway, your posts reveal that your whole mindset is dependent on questioning God's Word - "did God really say...?" Yes, He did.

 

[from scratch]

But there is a lot of difference in making this statement and the previous one.

Not really as Moses clearly says the Ten Commandments are the covenant also called the law.

 

[Sophrosyne]

• 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.

If someone is given something and they "keep" it... is it not theirs now?

 

[pshun2404]

Next verse. 9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
What is sin? 1 John 3
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.It is clear that both the Jews that had the law and the Gentles that had not the law are in the same boat. Same condemnation.
So is it really that the law did not apply to no one but the Jews?

Not quite Elder...Paul also teaches that where there is no law there is no sin...sin requires knowing it is wrong and doing it anyway or knowing what is the right thing to do and not doing it...so also when gentiles who do not have the law, do what the law commands they are a law unto themselves...

Now that is not to say Gentiles were/are not under sin for there were already certain laws (like not following the line of reasoning or knowledge that leads one to be a god unto themselves like in Genesis 3:5,or deciding what is good or evil in their own eyes like in Genesis 6...or not murdering...or thinking works should earn God's favor, etc.)

We must always look at what the whole council of God says on a matter...that is why I said "not quite" because you are somewhat correct, and yet somewhat incomplete in your assessment (IMO of course which is also based on the word)

In His love

Paul

 

[VictorC]

Not quite Elder...Paul also teaches that where there is no law there is no sin

Just to correct a simple oversight:

Romans 4
14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.

Paul differentiates between sin and transgressions, and maybe you jumped ahead and were thinking of Romans 5:13 where it says "For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law".

 

[from scratch]

Just to correct a simple oversight:

Romans 4
14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.

Paul differentiates between sin and transgressions, and maybe you jumped ahead and were thinking of Romans 5:13 where it says "For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law".

Pretty much takes care of the often abused 1 John 3:4b.

 

[Elder 111]

Notice that you correctly show that sin is present in both those who had the Law and those who didn't...



...and then question the limited jurisdiction of the Law you just admitted it has!
This plus your limited definition of sin doesn't distinguish between sin and transgression, and can't explain how sin existed prior to the covenant Law mediated through Moses. Hint: sin's origin is via a transgression that isn't even found in the covenant from Mount Sinai.

But anyway, your posts reveal that your whole mindset is dependent on questioning God's Word - "did God really say...?" Yes, He did.

So Sin should not be defined as it is in 1 John 3: 4? If that is your position?

 

[VictorC]

So Sin should not be defined as it is in 1 John 3: 4? If that is your position?

Is that your sole comment? This seems to confirm your 'position' as arguing not only against Scripture, but against yourself as well.

 

[Elder 111]

Is that your sole comment? This seems to confirm your 'position' as arguing not only against Scripture, but against yourself as well.

Why should I ignore a plain statement of the bible?
Sin is breaking the law. There is therefore no sin before Sinai that is not also the breaking of the law.
First. Eating of the tree. Adam and Eve placed themselves/serpent above God. Idol worship. God said one thing they listened to someone other than God. He was not first/only God. There is no sin that is not a violation of the Ten Commandments.

 

[VictorC]

Why should I ignore a plain statement of the bible?
Sin is breaking the law. There is therefore no sin before Sinai that is not also the breaking of the law.
First. Eating of the tree. Adam and Eve placed themselves/serpent above God. Idol worship. God said one thing they listened to someone other than God. He was not first/only God.

Well, you successfully determined the origin of sin in mankind, via a transgression of a commandment found in Genesis 2:16-17.
Now, go find that commandment in the covenant from Mount Sinai. It isn't there. And I'm sure you've already seen my post to another member quoting Romans 5:13 showing that sin existed before the Law did. What you have done is select a sound-bite from John, and John himself added to his definition of sin when he wrote "All unrighteousness is sin" in v5:17 in the very same epistle. Sin transgresses the Law, but we know the limited tenure of the Law that was added for transgressions 430 years after the promise to Abraham we're dependent on for our salvation.

There is no sin that is not a violation of the Ten Commandments.

You contradicted yourself when you observed that Gentiles are guilty of sin concurrent with your admission that they didn't have the Ten Commandments. From the above, your conclusion is totally fallacious. You're ignoring lots of plain statements from the Bible.

 

[Elder 111]

Well, you successfully determined the origin of sin in mankind, via a transgression of a commandment found in Genesis 2:16-17.
Now, go find that commandment in the covenant from Mount Sinai. It isn't there. And I'm sure you've already seen my post to another member quoting Romans 5:13 showing that sin existed before the Law did. What you have done is select a sound-bite from John, and John himself added to his definition of sin when he wrote "All unrighteousness is sin" in v5:17 in the very same epistle. Sin transgresses the Law, but we know the limited tenure of the Law that was added for transgressions 430 years after the promise to Abraham we're dependent on for our salvation.



You contradicted yourself when you observed that Gentiles are guilty of sin concurrent with your admission that they didn't have the Ten Commandments. From the above, your conclusion is totally fallacious. You're ignoring lots of plain statements from the Bible.

I am sticking with the 47.83% in responding to the following poll question.
The principles of the Ten Commandments is what Jesus meant will not change. Mat 5:17-19.
Jesus clearly stated nothing shall change in connection with the Ten Commandments.
Sorry, I going with Jesus.

 

[VictorC]

I am sticking with the 47.83% in responding to the following poll question.
The principles of the Ten Commandments is what Jesus meant will not change. Mat 5:17-19.
Jesus clearly stated nothing shall change in connection with the Ten Commandments.
Sorry, I going with Jesus.

I remember my initial observation that you reduced the Holiness of the Law with a carnal list of 'principles'. If that's your method of "going with Jesus", I think you're setting yourself up for a lonely journey to nowhere nice. Jesus didn't give you permission to change the old covenant, nor replace it after He took it away.

You had admitted that sin exists without the Law, and this latest reply of yours doesn't acknowledge this at all. In fact, it has nothing to do with my post.

 

[from scratch]

Why should I ignore a plain statement of the bible?
Sin is breaking the law. There is therefore no sin before Sinai that is not also the breaking of the law.
First. Eating of the tree. Adam and Eve placed themselves/serpent above God. Idol worship. God said one thing they listened to someone other than God. He was not first/only God. There is no sin that is not a violation of the Ten Commandments.

No transgressing the law is breaking the law. Sin was before the law so It couldn't be breaking the law.