Things to consider about the Ten Commandments

[Sophrosyne]

They panic without their "Ten Commandments Security blanket." They even accuse Christians of murder if they dare accept what Paul clearly says about the obsolescence of the Mosaic Law. Yet the Old Testament murder prohibition is vastly inferior to the New Testament regime:

Matthew 5:21, Matthew 15:19, Matthew 19:19, Matthew 22:7, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 13:9, 1 Timothy 1:9, James 2:11, Revelation 21:8

You would almost think 9 prohibitions against murder would be enough! But no, unless its in the Ten Commandments, it doesn't count.

No... nothing counts to them we can show them the higher standards of 9 of the commandments and they instead want to ignore them and tell you to keep the non existent Sabbath one.

 

[from scratch]

The commandments were before the law. The Levitical laws were added because of transgressions. You dont seem to have a problem with the 10C's, you just have a problem with the 4th one you have the issue with, which I can understand because you use to be an SDA and they literally idolize that day and tie it to Salvation.

The only radically different system in the NT vs the OT is the animal sacrifices are now abolished in replace of Jesus blood.

What commandments were before the law? The Ten Commandments are the law.

 

[from scratch]

I'm just pointing out that the New Testament says to honor your parents. Whether you have a beef with it or not is a different matter.

Beef? He doesn't have or do meat. Hey that was a great commercial sometime back.

 

[from scratch]

Sadly, many on here say its the Noahide commands we are to follow and the 10C's dont apply to Christians.

Sadly some love death rather than life.

 

[from scratch]

Sadly, many on here who want the Ten Commandments to apply to Christians wish to completely disregard the other mandatory 603 Commandments of the Mosaic covenant. And it is really sad that all of the Apostles thought the 613 commandments were an indivisible unit of law, yet many people wish to disregard that understanding and disregard the severe penalties that were enforced on Gentiles who tried to keep the Mosaic Law, especially the Sabbath. And sadly, Sabbatarians continue to viciously and dishonestly smear Christians who reject the entire Old Testament Law by accusing them of lusting after murder, adultery, theft and lying when they know good and well those things were prohibited by the Noahide Commandments several hundred years before Sinai.

Sadly, many others on here either cannot read, or refuse to read - even when they are carefully spelled out for them in explicit detail -

Ephesians 6:2:"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right."

Colossians 3:20: "Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord."

1 Peter 1:1: "As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance"

Matthew 15:4: "For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,"

Which all explicitly reaffirm the commandment to Honor your parents, without binding Christians to all 613 of the Old Testament Commandments. Which sadly, is totally consistent with Paul's repeated forthright refusal to bind Gentile Christians to the Mosaic Law, and the Council of Jerusalem's decision found in Acts 15.

Sadly, the Salvation by Sabbath Keeping contingent truly does not accept that the New Testament has its own criteria that is radically different than the Mosaic legal system that was abandoned at the Cross. And sadly, the emphasis in imposing the Ten Commandments on Christians is based on the recognition that Christians were never commanded to keep the Sabbath in the New Testament. Sadly, the Sabbath Keeping contingent won't admit their real desire to yoke Christians with Sabbath Keeping is actually their real motive for their fixation on the Ten Commandments.

 

[from scratch]

And sadly, given that all 9 remaining Commandments are mentioned together as a group in three different places in the New Testament, it indicates that both Jesus and Paul were sending a strong message that Christians were not commanded to keep the Sabbath. Sadly, many legalists wish to disregard the clear intention expressed in those three places that obviously Sabbath Keeping is incompatible with Grace, since it was after all, given to the Children of Israel to distinguish them from all other Natoins.



Yes sadly, Sabbath Keepers refuse to acknowledge Paul's clear understanding that the 613 were a unitary system that cannot be divided and that Paul would have never described the Decalogue or "the Law" as the "Ten Commandments." Sadly, that assertion has been posted in this section four times in the last 24 hours, and no Sabbath Keeper has yet addressed or disputed that as Paul's understanding of the indivisible Law.

They steadfastly refuse Jesus invitation in Mat 11:28-30. So they not only throw out the words of Paul but also Jesus which they claim to follow. Uncle!!!

 

[LarryP2]

They steadfastly refuse Jesus invitation in Mat 11:28-30. So they not only throw out the words of Paul but also Jesus which they claim to follow. Uncle!!!

And they throw out the words of Judaism as well! Somehow I have a notion that if one really wants to understand the Old Testament Law, one should not dis the Hebes.

 

[from scratch]

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.

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.

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.

 

[orangeness365]

Sadly, many on here who want the Ten Commandments to apply to Christians wish to completely disregard the other mandatory 603 Commandments of the Mosaic covenant. And it is really sad that all of the Apostles thought the 613 commandments were an indivisible unit of law, yet many people wish to disregard that understanding and disregard the severe penalties that were enforced on Gentiles who tried to keep the Mosaic Law, especially the Sabbath. And sadly, Sabbatarians continue to viciously and dishonestly smear Christians who reject the entire Old Testament Law by accusing them of lusting after murder, adultery, theft and lying when they know good and well those things were prohibited by the Noahide Commandments several hundred years before Sinai.

Sadly, many others on here either cannot read, or refuse to read - even when they are carefully spelled out for them in explicit detail -

Ephesians 6:2:"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right."

Colossians 3:20: "Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord."

1 Peter 1:1: "As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance"

Matthew 15:4: "For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,"

Which all explicitly reaffirm the commandment to Honor your parents, without binding Christians to all 613 of the Old Testament Commandments. Which sadly, is totally consistent with Paul's repeated forthright refusal to bind Gentile Christians to the Mosaic Law, and the Council of Jerusalem's decision found in Acts 15.

Sadly, the Salvation by Sabbath Keeping contingent truly does not accept that the New Testament has its own criteria that is radically different than the Mosaic legal system that was abandoned at the Cross. And sadly, the emphasis in imposing the Ten Commandments on Christians is based on the recognition that Christians were never commanded to keep the Sabbath in the New Testament. Sadly, the Sabbath Keeping contingent won't admit their real desire to yoke Christians with Sabbath Keeping is actually their real motive for their fixation on the Ten Commandments.

Why can't you disregard the laws of the Old Testament and only follow the laws of the New Testament? The New Testament contains at least 8 of the 10 commandments, but not the other 603 from the Old Testament. There are a lot of laws in the New Testament, but the punishments for not following through with them, if there are any, are only for God to decide, not for people.

 

[Elder 111]

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.

What does fulfill mean. You would not address that!
The same text explains it. It is the indwelling of Christ that enables us to keep the Ten commandments which is righteousness. Is it not Christ that gives us the power not to steal or lie, the power to overcome temptation?
Rom 7:
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

 

[Elder 111]

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.

Your understanding is flawed. Because one keeps the ten commandments it is works? That makes sense to you? Because you don't steal it is works? because you don't covet/lust or commit adultery it is works?

 

[Elder 111]

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.

So because a man lied God said do not lie. Because someone committed adultery God came after the fact and said do not commit adultery. So it was a sin before God said do not, but the offenders did not know. Is that what you are saying? they were guilty of something they were completely ignorant of.

 

[Elder 111]

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.

I and My father are one.

 

[Elder 111]

And it was the Book of the Law read every seven years as a witness against Israel. It was the Book of the Law the king had to copy for himself. It was the Book of the Law we read the Ten Commandments from. The tablets of stone with the covenant were placed inside the ark of the covenant, and you would have to dispense with the Mercy Seat to get to it. Hello? Anyone home?

Show the text where is says that the other laws were in the Ark and not the ten Commandments only. I await with eager expectation!

 

[Elder 111]

I'm just pointing out that the New Testament says to honor your parents. Whether you have a beef with it or not is a different matter.

I just wanted you to see that if something is not repeated, it does not mean that it should be ignored.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I and My father are one.

So you agree your theology butchers the trinity logically eh?

 

[VictorC]

Show the text where is says that the other laws were in the Ark and not the ten Commandments only. I await with eager expectation!

Of course we already know Solomon testified there was nothing in the ark of the Covenant except the covenant from Mount Sinai:

1 Kings 8
9 Nothing was in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.
...
21 And there I have made a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord which He made with our fathers, when He brought them out of the land of Egypt.”​

Now it's your job to show us your lineage to this select group that obviously doesn't include the Gentiles at Barbados (and elsewhere).
And...
...Of course we know this is a deflection from what I pointed out in my post: it was the Book of the Law the children of Israel were responsible to comply with, and it is the Book of the Law that contains the public record of the Ten Commandments. And, God's redemption covers the entire covenant of which the tablets of stone were only a part of.

Galatians 3
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.​

And...
...Of course you selected one comment in my post, and replied with a deflection that doesn't acknowledge anything I posted at all. I'm curious why you ended up dismissing the Ten Commandments and can't recognize what it is.

 

[LarryP2]

Why can't you disregard the laws of the Old Testament and only follow the laws of the New Testament? The New Testament contains at least 8 of the 10 commandments, but not the other 603 from the Old Testament. There are a lot of laws in the New Testament, but the punishments for not following through with them, if there are any, are only for God to decide, not for people.

My position is that what you are recommending is MANDATORY for Christians, given the explicit instructions of Paul and the clear-cut statements of First and Second Century Christian martyrs, all of whom are scorchingly scathing of Christians attempting to keep the Mosaic Laws. It was repeatedly denounced as the Judaizing heresy. So I agree totally with what you are saying, and I imagine that VictorC, "from scratch," Cribstyle and Sosyphrone do too, although it would be best for them to explain their own views. St. Paul just could not have made himself any clearer that the Ten Commandments and all of the rest of the Mosaic Law were "nailed to the cross." And both Jesus and Paul were well aware that the Sabbath was explicitly a distinguishing mark that kept the Children of Israel separate and distinct from the surrounding nations, just like circumcision. How could it separate the Children of Israel from other nations if it had been given to all mankind?

It explains why both Jesus and Paul painstakingly set out so many Christian moral codes in so many places: Why would they have done that if the Mosaic Law was to continue? If they thought the Ten Commandments were to continue to be binding, why would they redundantly repeat 9 of the 10 and so pointedly leave out the Sabbath? Obviously they knew with the end of the Mosaic Law, Christians would be in some sort of moral vacuum, so they rushed in to fill that void. Again, why would they do that if the Mosaic Law was to be a continuing source of moral instruction for Christians?

Hard-core Sabbatarians just completely ignore the pointed and comprehensive moral instruction in the New Testament in their transparent and dishonest effort to save the Sabbath from the ash heap of history. They also ignore the 7 Noahide Commandments that pre-dated the Mosaic Covenant by hundreds of years, that have quite a vast collection of interpretive case law that vastly exceeds the scope of the Mosaic Law outlined in the first five Old Testament books. And the Noahide more than adequately cover any possible issue that the Mosaic Law did, in terms of moral law and instruction. Sabbatarians pointedly ignore the Noahide Commandments since plainly the Sabbath was NEVER given to Gentiles, who were required to convert to Judaism before Sabbath Keeping was possible. And there was no reason whatsoever for any Gentile to do such a crazy thing, since under clear-cut rulings of the Sanhedrin, a Gentile in compliance with the Noahide commandments is treated legally just like a Jew! There is no history in the Bible, or anywhere else I can find, of Gentiles keeping the Sabbath. Sabbatarians makes much of the New Testament's rendition of Paul evangelizing Gentiles and Jews on the Sabbath. A little history will clear up exactly what the Gentiles were doing at the Temple on the Sabbath:


"The Court of the Gentiles in Herod's Temple The entire Temple compound was considered holy, but it became increasingly more holy as one entered farther in, from east to west. King Herod had enclosed the outer court with colonnades and it was referred to as the Court of the Gentiles because the "gentiles" (non-Jews) were permitted to enter the Temple area. They could walk within in it but they were forbidden to go any further than the outer court. They were excluded from entering into any of the inner courts, and warning signs in Greek and Latin were placed that gave warning that the penalty for such trespass was death. The Romans permitted the Jewish authorities to carry out the death penalty for this offence, even if the offender were a Roman citizen. It was for this alleged crime that Paul was attacked and nearly beaten to death by an angry crowd during his last visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21:27-32).
http://www.bible-history.com/jewishtemple/JEWISH_TEMPLEThe_Court_of_the_Gentiles.htm

Needless to say, "keeping the Sabbath" in the second Temple era required that one go well past the Court of the Gentiles to participate in Temple ceremonies. What happened to Paul was instructive:

Acts 21:15-35
New International Version (NIV)
Paul’s Arrival at Jerusalem

"17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them."

Sabbatarians completely and dishonestly overlook the explicit instructions given to the Gentiles which radically contradicted Jewish customs. Nothing in that passage supports the notion that Gentiles were ever commanded to keep the Sabbath.

However, there IS a strong history of both the Roman and Greek pagans that occupied Judea for various periods of time, who were revolted and disgusted by the Sabbath, thinking it was pointless, lazy, a waste of time, and silly. Both Greece and Rome had won major battles against the Jews when they attacked them on the Sabbath, and the Jews refused to fight.
http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/5565/features/warfare-on-shabbat-the-legacy-of-the-maccabees/
http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/12311/fighting-wars-on-shabbat
http://books.google.com/books?id=tV...e&q=Greeks attack Jews on the Sabbath&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=v7...e&q=Greeks attack Jews on the Sabbath&f=false

Greeks and Romans thoughts such behavior was incomprehensibly stupid. Had Christianity EVER required Pagan converts to keep the Sabbath, Christianity would have quickly died in its birth. No Greek or Roman Christian convert would have willingly subjected themselves to what they viewed as a demonstrably stupid and suicidal practice. And they clearly recognized that it was a practice that was a sign of the Jews, and nobody else.

 

[VictorC]

What does fulfill mean. You would not address that!

But of course I did, and you don't have an excuse to feign ignorance any longer.

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.

The Greek rendered 'fulfill' in Matthew 5:17 indicates God's intent to complete every jot and tittle of the Law, without anything failing fulfillment. His propitiation has justified us and reconciled us to God in the perfect tense.
It is obvious the Gospel isn't compatible with the Adventist mutation by your next comment:

The same text explains it. It is the indwelling of Christ that enables us to keep the Ten commandments which is righteousness.

This is a total fable, and the Scripture you posted with this claim doesn't remotely support it. You've proven over and over that you don't keep the Ten Commandments, which is consistent with God's conclusion that its recipients were disobedient as a condition to extend His mercy to all. Don't mention that the recipients didn't keep the covenant, but rather the covenant kept them until the time appointed by God (Romans 7:6, Galatians 3:23 - 4:5). Also, this same inspired author showed us that his righteousness isn't from the Law (Philippians 3:9), and your modification of one epistle obviously departs from the author's direct testimony in another epistle.

We won't bother to mention that you don't seem to know what the Ten Commandments was, nor how it was never conveyed to the Gentiles in the first place. There isn't anything Biblical about your belief system that ignores God's redemption from the covenant from Mount Sinai.

 

[VictorC]

So you agree your theology butchers the trinity logically eh?

I think you had him when he rendered God "mentally ill or foolish".