Things to consider about the Ten Commandments

[Elder 111]

The bondwoman covenant from Mount Sinai. (Galatians 4:21-31)

According to verses 1-9 The Ten commandments are not what keep us in bondage but the violation of them. Going back into our old life. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: Bondage of the world not God Holy law.

The commandments of God. (1 John 3:23)

That was also said in Lev, 19: 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord. The Ten commandments still existed then, so why would it negate the ten commandments now?

Sin's entrance into the world via a transgression that isn't even included in the Mosaic covenant. (Genesis 2:17, Romans 5:12-14)

What was the violation? Disobedience of God. So when we fail to keep God's commands as stated in His Ten commandments what is that?

God's "My law" that isn't according to the covenant from Mount Sinai. (Hebrews 8:7-9)

For finding fault with them, That is what I see. He writes it on our hearts. I did not miss that. maybe others saw it too.

God's redemption from the Law (Ten Commandments) that held the recipients in the past tense until the time appointed by God. (Romans 7:6-7, Galatians 4:4-5)

Deliverance in the sense that there is no law not to commit adultery or deliverance from the tendency to commit adultery? I john 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

The exclusion of the Gentile nations, alienated apart from God until the end of the Law's tenure. (Ephesians 2:11-18)

How were the Gentles excluded and there

Gentles that were in "roots" of Jesus? Ruth, Rahab.
God's acceptance of the Gentile believers without regard for the Law. (Acts 15:5-11)

So not to eat blood and to abstain from idols are not of the law? Sounds like part of the Health law and of the Ten Commandments to me! Acts 15:19-21. Never said a thing about not keeping the Sabbath either although they knew meetings were kept every Sabbath.

The Christian's entrance into God's rest that the Sabbath didn't provide. (Hebrews 4:1-11)

So what is the seven day? 4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. Ex. 20:or in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Anyone can honestly deny that the Seventh day is not the same as the Sabbath? God said it, I believe it and that settles it for me.

And so forth...

I missed those because there are misunderstandings and misinterpretations of God word. Mistakes, misapplications dismissals of the truth. So it was easy to miss them.

 

[LarryP2]

According to verses 1-9 The Ten commandments are not what keep us in bondage but the violation of them.

You are not under the illusion that anybody here really believes in your faked concern for the Ten Commandments, do you? After your co-religionist "Dunbar" has been caught lying about being a Seventh Day Baptist for a solid week?

 

[mercy1061]

Does the Biblical description "the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones" have any meaning to you?

It is a ministry of death to those who dishonor torah.

First of all, you once again reversed the relationship of what kept whom until the time appointed by God.
Second of all, those retained by the bondwoman covenant from Mount Sinai have absolutely no claim to eternal life with the Heir: Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.”

So you agree that the bondservant had to be cast out in order, that Isaac and Ishmael would not become co-heirs? Did you forget, the bondservant agreed to bear a son for Abraham, so that Ishmael would become the firstborn? Pharisee Shaul calls himself a bondservant of Christ, it is the son of the bondservant that is truly the firstborn of Abraham. Yet does not the law also say, "Thou shall not steal"? In kindegarden, I learned how to share.

This is utter fallacy. Don't the Words "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers" have any meaning to you?
Doesn't anything God said convey the slightest meaning to you?

The covenant is made with the same people; Israel and Judah.

God didn't shuffle the broken covenant from Mount Sinai to another location, as the inspired author of Hebrews 8:13 takes note of: "In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

If the first agreement is obsolete or expired, it would be expedient to renew the covenant with the same people. Israel split into two nations; Israel and Judah; a new constitution had to be ratified. Every sovreign nation has a constitution that it should abide.

Why is it that members of the SDA church show over and over that they don't know what the commandments of God are, which excludes the Ten Commandments covenant from Mount Sinai?
By this we know the SDA church is not God's church.

The sabbath commandment is one of the ten commandments; if you break one commandment you break them all.

 

[from scratch]

The cat on my shoulder carries a conversation better than him-of-whom-we-shall-not-speak.

QFT!!

 

[VictorC]

I missed those because there are misunderstandings and misinterpretations of God word. Mistakes, misapplications dismissals of the truth. So it was easy to miss them.

These are your closing remarks, free from any editorial revision.

Yes, you missed every aspect of the Gospel that had citations showing you where to find them. You spent your entire post making mistakes and misinterpretations in an effort to dismiss the truth of God's Word. And, all of these variances you inserted have been addressed before, so there isn't any need to refute material that has already been soundly refuted without having a defense made by you.

At least you admit your practice.

The most glaring variance you made with Scripture was when you contradicted yourself in a manner that was too obvious to miss. And you didn't address your mistake, so it bears repeating...

Do you promise to listen and accept God's word as the truth?

That is what I always try to do by the grace of God.

Good. Fix your previous mistake.

First of all, you once again reversed the relationship of what kept whom until the time appointed by God.
Second of all, those retained by the bondwoman covenant from Mount Sinai have absolutely no claim to eternal life with the Heir: Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” (Galatians 4:30)

God did not ordain the bondwoman, that was man's doings: Sarah and Abraham. The ten Commandments on the other hand is directly from God.

See your own contradiction: your claim that God didn't ordain the Ten Commandments, concurrent with a claim that He did. The bondwoman was defined as the covenant from Mount Sinai in v.24, which is the Ten Commandments. Those retained by it have no claim to eternal life, as they are outside God's redemption.

 

[VictorC]

It is a ministry of death to those who dishonor torah.

See God's disposition of the recipients of the covenant from Mount Sinai: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all." (Romans 11:32) There aren't any exceptions to God's conclusion on which He makes His extension of mercy available.

So you agree that the bondservant had to be cast out in order, that Isaac and Ishmael would not become co-heirs? Did you forget, the bondservant agreed to bear a son for Abraham, so that Ishmael would become the firstborn? Pharisee Shaul calls himself a bondservant of Christ, it is the son of the bondservant that is truly the firstborn of Abraham. Yet does not the law also say, "Thou shall not steal"? In kindegarden, I learned how to share.

There is no 'bondservant' described in the Galatians 4:21-31. That's your insertion, and bears no relevance to the 'bondwoman' used symbolically to represent the covenant from Mount Sinai.

The covenant is made with the same people; Israel and Judah.

If you mean the new covenant, this is true. For the Gentiles, it wasn't a 'new' covenant that rendered the first covenant obsolete, for the new covenant based on God's election is the only covenant extended to the Gentiles.

If the first agreement is obsolete or expired, it would be expedient to renew the covenant with the same people. Israel split into two nations; Israel and Judah; a new constitution had to be ratified. Every sovreign nation has a constitution that it should abide.

There is no "if" presented in Hebrews 8:13. It was a fait accompli when the author penned this verse. That's the consistent message of the epistle to the Hebrews:

• The first covenant demanded change (Hebrews 7:12)
• It was annulled (v.7:18)
• It was charged with a fault that called for a new covenant (v.8:7)
• It was rendered obsolete and ready to vanish away (v.8:13)
• Jesus redeemed our transgressions under the first covenant and is now the Mediator of the new covenant (v.9:15)
• He took the first covenant away by His own Hand, in order to establish that new covenant (v.10:9)

The sabbath commandment is one of the ten commandments; if you break one commandment you break them all.

And the Ten Commandments was the proper name Moses affixed to the covenant from Mount Sinai. I don't think you made a point here...

 

[mercy1061]

The cat on my shoulder carries a conversation better than him-of-whom-we-shall-not-speak.

Be careful that you don't stumble or lose your balance; your cat's fate become like the "curious cat" who climbed up the chimney, refused to carefully humble himself.

Romans 11
11 “In that case, I say, isn’t it that they have stumbled with the result that they have permanently fallen away?” Heaven forbid! Quite the contrary, it is by means of their stumbling that the deliverance has come to the Gentiles, in order to provoke them to jealousy


Proverbs 11

A false balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight.

 

[VictorC]

Be careful that you don't stumble or lose your balance; your cat's fate become like the "curious cat" who climbed up the chimney, refused to carefully humble himself.

Romans 11
11 “In that case, I say, isn’t it that they have stumbled with the result that they have permanently fallen away?” Heaven forbid! Quite the contrary, it is by means of their stumbling that the deliverance has come to the Gentiles, in order to provoke them to jealousy


Proverbs 11

A false balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight.

So if your deflection is meant to condemn the false weights and measures employed by the fractional reserve banking system initiated by the Federal Reserve (which isn't federal and has no reserves), by all means go ahead and join me in an effort to elect Ron Paul.
Ooops, too late for that now...
But beyond this, your comments can only be construed as a personal attack that bear no relevance to the conversation. My cat holds a conversation better than some of the members of the forum, and I don't see a valid challenge to that point.

 

[mercy1061]

See God's disposition of the recipients of the covenant from Mount Sinai: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all." (Romans 11:32) There aren't any exceptions to God's conclusion on which He makes His extension of mercy available.

Romans 11 is about G-d's promise to save Israel; Israel was given the 10 commandments;


26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

There is no 'bondservant' described in the Galatians 4:21-31. That's your insertion, and bears no relevance to the 'bondwoman' used symbolically to represent the covenant from Mount Sinai.

The bondservant wrote the letter about the bondwoman;

Romans 1:1
Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God

If you mean the new covenant, this is true. For the Gentiles, it wasn't a 'new' covenant that rendered the first covenant obsolete, for the new covenant based on God's election is the only covenant extended to the Gentiles.

In an election process, the common people are allowed to vote; G-d's election is for Israel (Rom 11:7)

There is no "if" presented in Hebrews 8:13. It was a fait accompli when the author penned this verse. That's the consistent message of the epistle to the Hebrews:

• The first covenant demanded change (Hebrews 7:12)
• It was annulled (v.7:18)
• It was charged with a fault that called for a new covenant (v.8:7)
• It was rendered obsolete and ready to vanish away (v.8:13)
• Jesus redeemed our transgressions under the first covenant and is now the Mediator of the new covenant (v.9:15)
• He took the first covenant away by His own Hand, in order to establish that new covenant (v.10:9)

And the Ten Commandments was the proper name Moses affixed to the covenant from Mount Sinai. I don't think you made a point here...

You are refering to legal terms; and you do not understand them. If a covenant or contract is broken, a new contract may be written to re-establish the terms of the old contract. Neither contract(s) were made with you; yet you claim that the benefits of the contract has been extended to you. The only way to benefit from a contract is to obey the terms of the contract. The wages of sin is death; but the gift of G-d through Yeshua (who kept the torah perfectly) is eternal life.

 

[mercy1061]

So if your deflection is meant to condemn the false weights and measures employed by the fractional reserve banking system initiated by the Federal Reserve (which isn't federal and has no reserves), by all means go ahead and join me in an effort to elect Ron Paul.
Ooops, too late for that now...
But beyond this, your comments can only be construed as a personal attack that bear no relevance to the conversation. My cat holds a conversation better than some of the members of the forum, and I don't see a valid challenge to that point.

I am concerned about the cat on your shoulders, should you stumble, what shall become of your cat exalted on your shoulders? Do you ever stumble, or lose your balance? Does you cat speak english in your ear? Does your cat have an interpreter, to explain it's thoughts to you in a way you can understand?

 

[LarryP2]

You are refering to legal terms; and you do not understand them. If a covenant or contract is broken, a new contract may be written to re-establish the terms of the old contract.

Just because a covenant or a contract has been broken does NOT mean that a new contract must be written. A broken contract is ordinarily taken into court to be enforced judicially. YOU do not understand legal terms!

Neither contract(s) were made with you; yet you claim that the benefits of the contract has been extended to you. The only way to benefit from a contract is to obey the terms of the contract.

Millions and millions of people who are not party to a contract have benefits of those contracts extended to them everyday. You are clearly unfamiliar with contract law.

That's the problem with legalists and Sabbatarians: They know next to nothing about Law.

 

[VictorC]

Romans 11 is about G-d's promise to save Israel; Israel was given the 10 commandments;


26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

And v.32 shows the method God employed to save Israel. This in no way defends your previous point.

The bondservant wrote the letter about the bondwoman;

Romans 1:1
Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God

And this in no way defends your effort to retain the bondwoman covenant from Mount Sinai, which doesn't confer any promise of eternal life to those retained by it.

In an election process, the common people are allowed to vote; G-d's election is for Israel (Rom 11:7)

God's election is unilateral. You don't get to vote. The Gentiles are differentiated from the recipients of the covenant from Mount Sinai: "they" and "them" distinguish recipients of the covenant from Mount Sinai from the addressee of the author's comments:

28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.​

There isn't any exception from the "all" that includes Gentiles and children of Israel alike.

You are refering to legal terms; and you do not understand them. If a covenant or contract is broken, a new contract may be written to re-establish the terms of the old contract. Neither contract(s) were made with you; yet you claim that the benefits of the contract has been extended to you. The only way to benefit from a contract is to obey the terms of the contract. The wages of sin is death; but the gift of G-d through Yeshua (who kept the torah perfectly) is eternal life.

Allow me to point out that you didn't address anything I posted, and it is clear you're making up stuff to draw attention away from the epistle to the Hebrews.

 

[VictorC]

I am concerned about the cat on your shoulders, should you stumble, what shall become of your cat exalted on your shoulders? Do you ever stumble, or lose your balance? Does you cat speak english in your ear? Does your cat have an interpreter, to explain it's thoughts to you in a way you can understand?

You don't care about unjust weights and measures, do you?
In fact, you aren't cognizant of the Scriptures you abused.

 

[LarryP2]

You don't care about unjust weights and measures, do you?
In fact, you aren't cognizant of the Scriptures you abused.

Romans 11 is about G-d's promise to save Israel; Israel was given the 10 commandments;

Just in case anyone wants to know, the whole idea of the "Ten Commandments" is likely a straight up translation error. Nor can those precepts be honestly taken out of context of the larger body of law they are in:

"But 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"

 

[VictorC]

Just in case anyone wants to know, the whole idea of the "Ten Commandments" is likely a straight up translation error. Nor can those precepts be honestly taken out of context of the larger body of law they are in:

The covenant can be construed as 'Ten Commandments', 'Ten Words', 'Ten Sayings', and so forth. However, it is the proper name Moses employed according to Deuteronomy 4:13, and I don't see any advantage to be had in questioning how it is translated for us, as long as it is still seen for what it is: the covenant from Mount Sinai.

"But 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"

 

[LarryP2]

The covenant can be construed as 'Ten Commandments', 'Ten Words', 'Ten Sayings', and so forth. However, it is the proper name Moses employed according to Deuteronomy 4:13, and I don't see any advantage to be had in questioning how it is translated for us, as long as it is still seen for what it is: the covenant from Mount Sinai.

It is clear from the authority I posted that Deuteronomy 4:13 is mistranslated if it says "Ten Commandments." The reason I posted what I did is that legalists are fond of making illegitimate appeals to authority that have no basis. They throw around their pseudo-Jewish terms like they know something, when it is obvious they don't. The Old Testament is clear: There are 613 Commandments, all of which are equal and form a unitary body of law. The "Ten Commandments" are not due any more reverence or importance than the other 603. I wrote in response to pseudo-Jewish junk thought like the following:

It is a ministry of death to those who dishonor torah.

And the writer of that statement has dishonored the Torah by taking parts of it out of context that was never permissible, and pretending to be an authority on it when they clearly are not. By pretending to be knowledgeable about the Torah when you clearly are not, you have desecrated and defiled it. Seventh Day Adventism went through a similar debacle in 1888, where they discussed Righteousness by Faith. Apparently there were teams of opposing views that argued out what they imagined the Old Testament Law to be, when in reality, they knew nothing about Law or theology.

If the first agreement is obsolete or expired, it would be expedient to renew the covenant with the same people. Israel split into two nations; Israel and Judah; a new constitution had to be ratified. Every sovreign nation has a constitution that it should abide.

This is puerile discussion of "law" that the average college freshman could easily surpass. None of your statements are true in all cases, and some of them are so vague and general they are virtually unenforceable. They are the clear statements of a legal layperson that has no business holding forth on the Law. Clearly, you know nothing about Law.

The sabbath commandment is one of the ten commandments; if you break one commandment you break them all.

The Sabbath is one of 613 and if you break any of them you have broken them all. You also break the Sabbath by claiming that it is permissible to remove it from the context of the other 613 Commandments. The Ten Commandments cannot be extracted from the other 613. Under the unified legal system of the 613, eating a ham sandwich violates the Sabbath and so does wearing clothes made out of linen and wool. Secondly, you do not keep the Sabbath and you have no knowledge on how to keep it, notwithstanding your pseudo-Jewish terminology. I am sure you THINK that you are keeping the Sabbath, but you are not.

You can no more take the "Ten Commandments" out of the "Law" than you can take the Bill of Rights out of our Constitution and transfer them to Iran or North Korea and expect them to work or to be relevant. Nor can the Ten Commandments be wildly extracted from their proper role within the larger body of law and handed over to Gentiles and expect that is doing God's will. Yet these pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-legal con artists believe they can. They know nothing about Law, even less about the covenants and even less than that about the New Testament.

 

[Elder 111]

You are not under the illusion that anybody here really believes in your faked concern for the Ten Commandments, do you? After your co-religionist "Dunbar" has been caught lying about being a Seventh Day Baptist for a solid week?

What is this co-religionist thing? That all you have to say?

 

[Elder 111]

These are your closing remarks, free from any editorial revision.

Yes, you missed every aspect of the Gospel that had citations showing you where to find them. You spent your entire post making mistakes and misinterpretations in an effort to dismiss the truth of God's Word. And, all of these variances you inserted have been addressed before, so there isn't any need to refute material that has already been soundly refuted without having a defense made by you.

At least you admit your practice.

The most glaring variance you made with Scripture was when you contradicted yourself in a manner that was too obvious to miss. And you didn't address your mistake, so it bears repeating...

Good. Fix your previous mistake.

See your own contradiction: your claim that God didn't ordain the Ten Commandments, concurrent with a claim that He did. The bondwoman was defined as the covenant from Mount Sinai in v.24, which is the Ten Commandments. Those retained by it have no claim to eternal life, as they are outside God's redemption.

I did you just missed it that's all.

 

[VictorC]

I did you just missed it that's all.

One more time, with feeling
The most glaring variance you made with Scripture was when you contradicted yourself in a manner that was too obvious to miss. And you didn't address your mistake, so it bears repeating...

Do you promise to listen and accept God's word as the truth?

That is what I always try to do by the grace of God.

Good. Fix your previous mistake.

First of all, you once again reversed the relationship of what kept whom until the time appointed by God.
Second of all, those retained by the bondwoman covenant from Mount Sinai have absolutely no claim to eternal life with the Heir: Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” (Galatians 4:30)

God did not ordain the bondwoman, that was man's doings: Sarah and Abraham. The ten Commandments on the other hand is directly from God.

See your own contradiction: your claim that God didn't ordain the Ten Commandments, concurrent with a claim that He did. The bondwoman was defined as the covenant from Mount Sinai in v.24, which is the Ten Commandments. Those retained by it have no claim to eternal life, as they are outside God's redemption.

 

[mercy1061]

Just because a covenant or a contract has been broken does NOT mean that a new contract must be written. A broken contract is ordinarily taken into court to be enforced judicially. YOU do not understand legal terms!

I never said a new contract MUST be written; the ungodly take their matters to a human court. A gracious creditor MAY revise the repayment options to benefit the debtor. You ever heard of a grace period?

Millions and millions of people who are not party to a contract have benefits of those contracts extended to them everyday. You are clearly unfamiliar with contract law.

That's the problem with legalists and Sabbatarians: They know next to nothing about Law.

They do not benefit from the contract directly, they are normally subcontracted, or receive payment for labor from the party or parties specified in the contract. You want me to believe that you honor 613 laws when you argue with me about keeping just 10? I never excluded any of them, I just began our discussion with a small number, most torah scholars should be able to count to 10 using both hands.