An attempt to eliminate God.

[Elder 111]

Continuation of post #280.
Consider :

1. God throne did not exist from Mount Sinai.
2. The pattern shown Moses could not exist only then for it was of heaven which ever existed.
3. The ark of the testimony therefore was not an invention at mount Sinai but for as long as God' throne existed and will be as long as God's throne stands
4. No wonder that Isaiah could say.
   22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.
   23And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.

I believe God throne will exist forever, what about you? And with the law of God.

 

[Steeno7]

Continuation of post #280.
Consider :

1. God throne did not exist from Mount Sinai.
2. The pattern shown Moses could not exist only then for it was of heaven which ever existed.
3. The ark of the testimony therefore was not an invention at mount Sinai but for as long as God' throne existed and will be as long as God's throne stands
4. No wonder that Isaiah could say.
   22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.
   23And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.

I believe God throne will exist forever, what about you? And with the law of God.

The Key to the Christian Life is found at Mount Calvary not Mount Sinai.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Thanks for writing your opinion.

I honestly don't find it convincing evidence that the commandments are separated from the law. The law is what provided for the use of the tabernacle. God placed the words on the tablets and they were handled by the Israelites according to Israelite law.

The tabernacle allowed priests to approach the presence of God. However Christ said that He is now the only way and that our bodies are now the temples.

Revelation shows the presence of lightning and voices, but never said that the ten commandments were separated from the law within the old covenant. That's why it's called the ark of the covenant. It was the central item of that particular covenant. It is not central in the new covenant. Neither is Matthew saying "ten commandments" but "law" and "prophets"

 

[CryOfALion]

At this instance, I am not trying to pick sides.

But, when I had the same conflicts as this thread I always seem to come to the same question:

What separates a believer and doer in Christ from someone who is a good person, knows of Christ and values life if we don't have to obey any of the commandments God put before us - whether seemingly directed toward gentile or Hebrew? I always think of the demons - Legion especially - that knew Christ better than the disciples, but yet were demons. What is the distinction between those of us that claim to love God and do not do His commandments, and secularists who know of God and Christ (or, even fallen angels: after all, I am inclined to believe they love the Father, just not His creation i.e. us")?

It can't be belief alone, because Christ said, "even the demons believe, and tremble." There has to be something else that distinguishes the believer.

 

[listed]

John 4 says that salvation is FROM the Jews, not that it is FOR the Jews or TO the Jews. It's true, since our Savior is of the Tribe of Judah. Besides, how many time do we see "first the Jews, then the gentiles"? There is a clear contrast.

Romans 9 reiterates Gods favor on Israel and reiterates Christ's origin. Read the previous verse, though... Paul wishes he could be cut off from Christ for the sake of the Israelites, whom he calls his kinsmen according to the flesh ( not the Spirit).

The things clear in your mind aren't so in that of others. That doesn't mean I don't seek the truth. I know you think that of me. I could make the same observation in my eyes regarding legalists. That doesn't further anything. The shadow of things to come "clearly" reflects the Law being a tutor to lead us to God as shown in Galatians 3.

I await your post about the ten.

Jesus Himself said fulfill, and rejected abolish, so I do the same. I hold that fulfilled means different than removed, and have tried to explain that. If I try to fulfill myself requirements already fulfilled for me by Christ, I am basically saying Christ came for no reason.
Regardless, how do you hold that this issue of fulfillment and "not passing away" applies to the ten commandments and not the Mosaic Law?
The context of Matthew 5 is both the Mosaic Law and the teachings of the Prophets. However you have said there is no requirement to keep all of those to the letter. How do you reconcile that?

Pretty simple. EGW supersedes the Scripture. While the Pope does not get the same privileges as her. interesting I must say.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

I agree. We have instructions from Christ to obey. No doubt about it. It is not the existence of instruction, but which instruction it is, that is being debated. There is enough Scripture to show me that all days can now be equal and that no man should be judged based on sabbaths to convince me that it cannot be the entirety of a set of rules which includes the mandatory sabbath that Scripture says is now a matter of liberty: in other words, we are free from it!

 

[listed]

Like I said to you and many others here on this forum. If you love God His commandments won't be a burden whether we keep them perfectly or not. One day we will but until then seek to be like Christ. Jesus teaches us to obey His Father. Take from that what you want. Deny, accuse me of sin but know this, everyone will give an account to God for what they did with what God gave them.

Must be why Jesus said keep My commandments and not keep My Father's commandments.

 

[Steeno7]

At this instance, I am not trying to pick sides.

But, when I had the same conflicts as this thread I always seem to come to the same question:

What separates a believer and doer in Christ from someone who is a good person, knows of Christ and values life if we don't have to obey any of the commandments God put before us - whether seemingly directed toward gentile or Hebrew? I always think of the demons - Legion especially - that knew Christ better than the disciples, but yet were demons. What is the distinction between those of us that claim to love God and do not do His commandments, and secularists who know of God and Christ (or, even fallen angels: after all, I am inclined to believe they love the Father, just not His creation i.e. us")?

It can't be belief alone, because Christ said, "even the demons believe, and tremble." There has to be something else that distinguishes the believer.

What distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever is the indwelling presence of the Spirit of Christ. It is Christ in us who is our hope of glory.

 

[listed]

I'm curious:

How does anyone know for sure they are Hellenistic/gentile, or actual Hebrews?

There was plenty of "sexy time" going on between Hebrews and gentiles - one reason God was perturbed with His people.

Are you really trying to turn the whole world into Jews or instilling fear to buy fire insurance? Maybe both?

 

[CryOfALion]

What distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever is the indwelling presence of the Spirit of Christ. It is Christ in us who is our hope of glory.

But, how is that apparent if we don't do anything that says we are any different from non-believers who happen to exhibit similar qualities - peace, love, honor, long suffering, even faith in certain things?

I know plenty of non-believers who, in front of Christ, would trump many believers in patience, love, patience and righteous judgment.

To me, just believing is not distinguishing enough to say one is of Christ.

 

[CryOfALion]

Are you really trying to turn the whole world into Jews or instilling fear to buy fire insurance? Maybe both?

?

No. I asked/said exactly what I meant to say.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

No, Christ did say we have to obey Him. That is, I think, what Cry is pointing to. However, whether obeying Him means the commandments given to Moses as part of the old covenant or not... that's what we're talking about.

 

[CryOfALion]

No, Christ did say we have to obey Him. That is, I think, what Cry is pointing to. However, whether obeying Him means the commandments given to Moses as part of the old covenant or not... that's what we're talking about.

This is exactly what I am getting at.

As I said, I am really asking constructively, and not trying to start anything.

 

[CryOfALion]

1) I think the thread had exchanged enough to realize that some of us think following God's law is necessary as a part of faith and showing love (and not to gain salvation). I am more or less beyond that.

I really - perhaps to accent the above point - want to know how people 2) know for sure they aren't Hebrews, and 3) why one thinks only Hebrews are responsible for following the law, and 4) why believers hoping to gain the same "prize," who aren't Hebrew are excluded from 3) when the Hebrews have to follow the law (again, not for gaining salvation, but for general obedience.)

 

[Steeno7]

But, how is that apparent if we don't do anything that says we are any different from non-believers who happen to exhibit similar qualities - peace, love, honor, long suffering, even faith in certain things?

I know plenty of non-believers who, in front of Christ, would trump many believers in patience, love, patience and righteous judgment.

To me, just believing is not distinguishing enough to say one is of Christ.

"Just" believing is distinguishing enough for God. Thank God it's His job to weed out the tares from the wheat.

 

[CryOfALion]

In a way, it would be more sensible and justifiable if Hebrews only had to follow the law in order to gain salvation. But I am seriously confused as to why a Hebrew would have to 1) follow the law and 2) have faith in Christ, when Christians who aren't Hebrews allegedly do not have to follow the Law at all, and both get the same reward with the commonality of faith in Christ.

 

[CryOfALion]

"Just" believing is distinguishing enough for God. Thank God it's His job to weed out the tares from the wheat.

But Christ made it a point of instruction to the disciples that "Just Believing" is not enough, because even demons "just believe."

 

[Steeno7]

1) I think the thread had exchanged enough to realize that some of us think following God's law is necessary as a part of faith and showing love (and not to gain salvation). I am more or less beyond that.

I really - perhaps to accent the above point - want to know how people 2) know for sure they aren't Hebrews, and 3) why one thinks only Hebrews are responsible for following the law, and 4) why believers hoping to gain the same "prize," who aren't Hebrew are excluded from 3) when the Hebrews have to follow the law (again, not for gaining salvation, but for general obedience.)

If we are going to determine who is a stand up Christian and who isn't, including ourselves, based on behavior, then who among us will be left standing when we are done?

 

[listed]

No, Christ did say we have to obey Him. That is, I think, what Cry is pointing to. However, whether obeying Him means the commandments given to Moses as part of the old covenant or not... that's what we're talking about.

No. His theology is Jesus issued the 10 Cs against the Scripture. Proof that is not true starts in Exodus and continues through out the NT. His theology does not include the Trinity in any positive light. He believes Jesus is also God the Father. For support he uses verses like My Father and I are one; if you have seen Me you have seen the Father. His church does have a Trinitarian type statement. It fools only those who do not understand English as to its actual content. His church is notably Arian in belief. This is why you never see them come forth with John 15:10 preferring 14:15. It is fun to watch them explain 15:10 because of their theology. No matter what they say about it they have a problem.

 

[listed]

This is exactly what I am getting at.

As I said, I am really asking constructively, and not trying to start anything.

Yes and your version includes obligation to the law which Jesus did not bring or teach according to the Gospel of John.