Things to consider about the Ten Commandments

[Elder 111]

What a confusing poll, but then I guess anything to draw attention to this nonsense that Gentiles need the 10 commandments or they are doomed to the Lake of Fire bit. I answered that it was Israel's property. I contend that Jesus completed any obligation anyone ever had towards the Old Covenant on the cross and that Gentiles were never obligated to the Law to begin with which means both Jew and Gentile in Christ need not worry about the Law ever again. The Law condemns and the Bible says there is no condemnation in Christ so to posit the Law's validity upon Christians is to make Jesus a Liar in it all.

Did Jesus die to remove the law or to remove sins?

 

[Elder 111]

John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
Jesus and the Father are one. Do they have difference commandments?

 

[LarryP2]

Did Jesus die to remove the law or to remove sins?

Your question is misleading and dishonest. He fulfilled the goal of the law (which incidentally never applied to Gentiles to begin with) and to provide Salvation and victory over death via his death and resurrection for all nations.

Once the law was fulfilled, it was as useless as a spent booster rocket, since the law's limited purpose was to predict and announce HIM.

-The Law was the Old Covenant.

- He IS the New Covenant

The two covenants have NOTHING in common and are in direct, irredeemable conflict with each other. I do not agree that Christ was Michael the Archangel or a pitiful created being like Adventists do. So his purpose was much more shocking, all-encompassing, earth-shattering and fulfilling than the extremely limited function that Adventists teach (He came merely to demonstrate perfect Sabbath Keeping, according to Ellen White). None of the Apostles spent 5 seconds thinking about the law after they broke bread with Christ the night of the Resurrection, other than to suddenly understand how drastically it had been fulfilled and replaced. It was an "Aha!" moment for them, especially after they watched him deliberately violate the Sabbath. Nobody doubted that the Law was dead and gone and utterly absurd by comparison. All of the sacrifices and ceremonies and Sabbaths were fulfilled by the Resurrected being who was standing right in front of them. The Law was dead and gone the minute he told the crippled guy to "pick up your bed and walk." They just did not realize it at the time.

Christianity has a Resurrection-centered view of the Bible. Everything revolves around the Resurrection. Similarly, Adventists have a Sabbath-centered view of the Bible, everything revolves around the Sabbath. Adventists fixate on the original Creation, and they strongly-resist celebrating and focusing on the Resurrection and believe it is a Satanic rite of Devil worship!!!. Christianity focuses on the New Creation (the Resurrection). Adventists focus on the Old Testament Law, or at least the parts of it that tickle their fancy and believe Salvation is achieved by Perfect Sabbath Keeping and the Law was perfectly written on a slab of stone.. Christianity focuses on the New Testament/Law of the Resurrection and believe Salvation was achieved by Christ's perfect sacrifice and that his law can be perfectly written on our hearts via the Holy Spirit.

Moral Laws are outlined in the New Testament (almost all of the Ten Commandments, more or less rewritten) for the purpose of one function: "Have you received Grace?" If you have, these are some of the manifestations of it. And many of those were drastically surpassed by the extraordinary courageous martyrdom for the faith that came later and the overwhelming support of the poor that was a mainstay of the early church.

Moral Laws outlined in the Mosaic Law have one purpose: "Are you a member of the Children of Israel and are you demonstrating it by keeping the entire Law, all 613 Commandments?"

Any explanation outside of what I just wrote either drastically degrades the Resurrection and/or drastically increases the Law's importance. You must pick and choose. If you try to keep the Old Testament Law, you are announcing that Christ never came. That is a stubborn theme that is emphasized time and time again in the Bible and First and Second century Christianity.

John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
Jesus and the Father are one. Do they have difference commandments?

Yes, as a matter of fact they DO! You have FINALLY understood one single verse! He TOLD us in explicit detail what his Commandments were. He left no doubt! And yes they are indeed drastically different than the Commandments in the Old Covenant.

I never thought I would see the day!

WOW!!! I am truly shocked and amazed!!

 

[Elder 111]

Something to consider.
Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Is this the law that is abolished? You see how stupid it is to say that the law is abolished or that it is not for Christians who suppose to have the Holy Spirit!
Again what does fulfill mean? If the fulfill that Jesus did meant that it was taken away why are we still taking away that which is no more?
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Looks like fulfill the law by the Spirit has something to do with righteousness.
Grace not only frees us from the condemnation of the law, but it enables us to keep the law in the way that we are called to do.

 

[Elder 111]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

Did Jesus die to remove the law or to remove sins?
​

Your question is misleading and dishonest. He fulfilled the goal of the law (which incidentally never applied to Gentiles to begin with) and to provide Salvation and victory over death via his death and resurrection for all nations.

Once the law was fulfilled, it was as useless as a spent booster rocket, since the law's limited purpose was to predict and announce HIM.

-

The question is not misleading, it gets to the heart of the matter. A fact that you would like to ignore.
If salvation was a matter of removing the ten commandments then there was no need for the death of Jesus. Remove the law and there will no sin. Remove the speed limit and the would be no speeder to be ticketed!
Fulfill in you context means remove do away with. Is that a fact?
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. So Jesus meant, I have not come to destroy the law but to remove/get rid of it. Makes sense to you?:o
Please!

 

[Frogster]

Something to consider.
Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Is this the law that is abolished? You see how stupid it is to say that the law is abolished or that it is not for Christians who suppose to have the Holy Spirit!
Again what does fulfill mean? If the fulfill that Jesus did meant that it was taken away why are we still taking away that which is no more?
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Looks like fulfill the law by the Spirit has something to do with righteousness.
Grace not only frees us from the condemnation of the law, but it enables us to keep the law in the way that we are called to do.

Is it law righteousness fulfilled in us, or Christ's righteouenss fulfilled in us?


Abe was justified pre law. It was by faith, read rom 4.

 

[Frogster]

Something to consider.
Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Is this the law that is abolished? You see how stupid it is to say that the law is abolished or that it is not for Christians who suppose to have the Holy Spirit!
Again what does fulfill mean? If the fulfill that Jesus did meant that it was taken away why are we still taking away that which is no more?
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Looks like fulfill the law by the Spirit has something to do with righteousness.
Grace not only frees us from the condemnation of the law, but it enables us to keep the law in the way that we are called to do.

The "grace to keep the law" thing, puts law as the goal, it is a mixture, not good. Law fusion is not good.



11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

 

[VictorC]

Show where I said unconverted pagans kept the Sabbath?

That's been the tenor of most of your posts.
In contrast, when inquiry is made about when or where God's adopted children were ever asked to observe the Sabbath, you haven't produced anything viable.

 

[VictorC]

Question. one day your parents instructs you to cross the road only when to have made sure the road is clear by looking in both direction first. Another day they tell you run across the raod when crossing and not walk. Would you believe that because they did not repeat the previous instructions that you were not obligated to do them? Or that it would be safe not to?

Answer: your parents never instructed you to cross the road in the first place.
The same is true regarding the shadows of the old covenant never conveyed to the Gentile nations, Barbados or elsewhere.

 

[from scratch]

Did Jesus die to remove the law or to remove sins?

Yes apparently both.

 

[VictorC]

John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
Jesus and the Father are one. Do they have difference commandments?

The point becomes moot when the casual observer notes that you don't keep either set of commandments.

 

[from scratch]

John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
Jesus and the Father are one. Do they have difference commandments?

Don't you believe in the trinity? Can you please explain how My commandments are the same thing as My Father's commandments. "My" and "My Father" aren't the same entity. Yes They're both God. Who does Jesus pray to? Who spoke saying this is My Son?

 

[LarryP2]

That's been the tenor of most of your posts.
In contrast, when inquiry is made about when or where God's adopted children were ever asked to observe the Sabbath, you haven't produced anything viable.

He prefers to disbelieve that full conversion to Judaism is required before any of the 613 Old Testament Commandments apply. And he delicately averts his gaze from the fact that the 613 are unitary: if one applies they ALL apply. I will repost the following, which I have posted three times previously in this one thread, and which Elder refuses to acknowledge, he well-knowing the full horrific implications:

"G-d gave the Jewish people 613 mitzvot (commandments). All 613 of those mitzvot are equally sacred, equally binding and equally the word of G-d. All of these mitzvot are treated as equally important, because human beings, with our limited understanding of the universe, have no way of knowing which mitzvot are more important in the eyes of the Creator. Pirkei Avot, a book of the Mishnah, teaches "Be as meticulous in performing a 'minor' mitzvah as you are with a 'major' one, because you don't know what kind of reward you'll get for various mitzvot." It also says, "Run after the most 'minor' mitzvah as you would after the most 'important' and flee from transgression, because doing one mitzvah draws you into doing another, and doing one transgression draws you into doing another, and because the reward for a mitzvah is a mitzvah and the punishment for a transgression is a transgression." In other words, every mitzvah is important, because even the most seemingly trivial mitzvot draw you into a pattern of leading your life in accordance with the Creator's wishes, rather than in accordance with your own."

"What about the so-called "Ten Commandments," the words recorded in Exodus 20, the words that the Creator Himself wrote on the two stone tablets that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai (Ex. 31:18), which Moses smashed upon seeing the idolatry of the golden calf (Ex. 32:19)? In the Torah, these words are never referred to as the Ten Commandments. In the Torah, they are called Aseret ha-D'varim (Ex. 34:28, Deut. 4:13 and Deut. 10:4). In rabbinical texts, they are referred to as Aseret ha-Dibrot. The words d'varim and dibrot come from the Hebrew root Dalet-Beit-Reish, meaning word, speak or thing; thus, the phrase is accurately translated as the Ten Sayings, the Ten Statements, the Ten Declarations, the Ten Words or even the Ten Things, but not as the Ten Commandments, which would be Aseret ha-Mitzvot."
.......
"But there is an additional aspect of this controversy that is of concern from a Jewish perspective. In Talmudic times, the rabbis consciously made a decision to exclude daily recitation of the Aseret ha-Dibrot from the liturgy because excessive emphasis on these statements might lead people to mistakenly believe that these were the only mitzvot or the most important mitzvot, and neglect the full 613 (Talmud Berakhot 12a). By posting these words prominently and referring to them as "The Ten Commandments," (as if there weren't any others, which is what many people think) schools and public buildings may be teaching a message that Judaism specifically and consciously rejected."
Judaism 101: Aseret ha-Dibrot: The "Ten Commandments"

 

[from scratch]

Something to consider.
Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Is this the law that is abolished? You see how stupid it is to say that the law is abolished or that it is not for Christians who suppose to have the Holy Spirit!
Again what does fulfill mean? If the fulfill that Jesus did meant that it was taken away why are we still taking away that which is no more?
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Looks like fulfill the law by the Spirit has something to do with righteousness.
Grace not only frees us from the condemnation of the law, but it enables us to keep the law in the way that we are called to do.

What is it about verse 7 you don't understand? You demand the flesh observe the law while the Bible says it was never subject to the law.

 

[VictorC]

Did Jesus die to remove the law or to remove sins?

Reconcile your feigned notion of eradicating sin (which would be a certain death sentence no one would survive; 'salvation' becomes a myth) with God's promise conveyed to His redeemed purchased possession: “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

That's right - your notion can't be reconciled with Scripture.

However, the fantasy you post here reveals the heinous nature of the Adventist religion.

In the last generation God gives the final demonstration that men can keep the law of God and that they can live without sinning. God leaves nothing undone to make the demonstration complete. The only limitation He puts on Satan is that he may not kill the saints of God. He may tempt them, he may harass and threaten them; and he does his best. But he fails. He cannot make them sin. They stand the test, and God puts His seal on them. Through the last generation of saints God stands fully vindicated.

The Gospel reveals how God saves sinners: This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners... (1 Timothy 1:15).
In contrast, the SDA church stands opposed to the Gospel of God's redemption and claims their mission is to vindicate the old covenant from Mount Sinai, the very covenant we are instructed to cast off.

Let all be careful not to make an outcry against the only people who are fulfilling the description given of the remnant people, who keep the commandments of God and have faith in Jesus.... God has a distinct people, a church on earth, second to none, but superior to all in their facilities to teach the truth, to vindicate the law of God.... My brother, if you are teaching that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is Babylon, you are wrong.

Brethren, make no mistake: the Seventh-day Adventist "church" produces confused people who don't know the basics of the Biblical Gospel of peace with God.

 

[from scratch]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

Did Jesus die to remove the law or to remove sins?
​

The question is not misleading, it gets to the heart of the matter. A fact that you would like to ignore.
If salvation was a matter of removing the ten commandments then there was no need for the death of Jesus. Remove the law and there will no sin. Remove the speed limit and the would be no speeder to be ticketed!
Fulfill in you context means remove do away with. Is that a fact?
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. So Jesus meant, I have not come to destroy the law but to remove/get rid of it. Makes sense to you?:o
Please!

How so?

13 For until [or before] the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: Rom 5

The 2 above verses show one of the purposes of the law.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Gal 3

The above verse says the law was added because of sin.

The law didn't create sin.

 

[VictorC]

Fulfill in you context means remove do away with. Is that a fact?
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. So Jesus meant, I have not come to destroy the law but to remove/get rid of it. Makes sense to you?:o
Please!

It's a fact. Maybe you aren't aware of the meaning of the Greek pleroo rendered as 'fulfill' in Matthew 5:17, which conveys a meaning of completion, consummation, and finishing.

Jesus fulfilled the Law in His expiatory propitiation as the sole Lamb without spot or blemish. News flash: those qualifications don't include you.

 

[VictorC]

Grace not only frees us from the condemnation of the law, but it enables us to keep the law in the way that we are called to do.

Reconcile this myth with Paul's conclusion regarding the Law's recipients (which doesn't include you): "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all."
Yup, that's right...
...Elder111 contradicts the Word of God once again.

Paul's advice regarding those pushing the old covenant on God's redeemed possession is consistent with his own testimony concerning Who his righteousness is dependent upon in Philippians 3.

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. For me to write the same things to you is not tedious, but for you it is safe.
2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation! 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, 4 though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.​

 

[Sophrosyne]

Did Jesus die to remove the law or to remove sins?

The Law wasn't removed, but fulfilled making the demands of the Law upon those obligated to it satisfied in him. Christians by default have no need of the Law to define sin and righteousness the New Testament lays out the foundation of righteousness for all time.

The trick here is you claiming in many ways the Law was "removed", "destroyed", "cancelled", etc... words meaning it is no longer valid. The truth is the validity of the Law lies upon its jurisdiction and ones standing in Christ.

1) Jew - Not Saved - Under the Law
2) Gentile - Not Saved - Not under the Law
3) Gentile or Jew - Saved - Not under the Law
4) Gentile convert to Judaism - Not saved - Under the Law

So we see those in Christ are not under the Law by default here. The problem I see is those who claim to be in Christ putting themselves back under the Law now find themselves in conflict with Christ. They reject what he accomplished (at least partially) on the cross. Their standard of righteousness doesn't lie in what he did or who he is but their ability to perform the Law itself. Their salvation hinges on keeping the Law and not upon belief in the cross and what Jesus obtained for them.
Trying to mix two standards of righteousness can be dangerous because one standard is perfection without sin the other has sin in it. You end up in the end with sin that follows you till judgment upon which you find yourself wanting to be sinless and cast out of Heaven where sin is not allowed.

 

[Sophrosyne]

John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
Jesus and the Father are one. Do they have difference commandments?

The way you are equating this is non trinitarian here and has the Father talking/relating to himself or Jesus talking/relating to himself. Either they are two separate persons of God and that means two separate sets of "commandments" or they are the same person of God and the same set of commandments. In other words your rendering of this makes God look either mentally ill or foolish.