THE SABBATH TRUTH!

[LoveGodsWord]

In post# 399 LGW wrote; (Note: I used the bold and blue on the part that, in fact, LGW did write that it is the ten commandments that is written in our hearts. In his last post he denied writing exactly what he now denies.) LGW' post #399

Let's clarify a few things so there is no confusion here Bob as you seem to be only part quoting me here in what I have been sharing with you. In post 499 linked (not 399) I wrote this (below) in relation to 2 CORINTHIANS 3:3..

...........

2 CORINTHIANS 3:3 "[3], For as much as you are manifestly declared to be the letter of Christ ministered by us, WRITTEN NOT WITH INK, BUT WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE LIVING GOD; NOT IN TABLES OF STONE, BUT IN FLESHY TABLES OF THE HEART.

Note: in [v3] that Paul is stating that the Corinthians here are letters of Christ ministered by Paul and his companions “written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone (reference to the 10 commandments) but IN the fleshly tables of the HEART! Pauls reference here is to Gods new covenant promise of JEREMIAH 31:31-34 repeated by Paul in HEBREWS 8:10-12 [10], FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT that i will make with the house of israel after those days, said the lord; I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MIND, AND WRITE THEM IN THEIR HEARTS: and I will be to them a god, and they shall be to me a people."

...........

Please pay attention to the whole quote and the sections in red (my emphasis). This was in reference to 2 CORINTHIANS 3:3 and the TABLES OF STONE written in the scripture in v3. Do you know what that tables of stones are Bob? That is in context that to 2 CORINTHIANS 3:3 that the TABLES OF STONE are in reference to the 10 commandments. The rest of this section of my post went on to clarify what I said by saying from the same section you conveniently left out...

............

"So the context here is the ministration (Paul and his companions being the ministers) of the new covenant Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ of which the Corinthians are examples who have been given a new heart to love God and walk in his commandments which is the new covenant promise of JEREMIAH 31:31-34 repeated by Paul in HEBREWS 8:10-12 and HEBREWS 10:15-17."

............

Kind of not saying what you are trying to say now is it Bob?

LGW's post #505

Your referencing...

LoveGodsWord wrote: Well that one baffles me to as I have said no such thing to you. I said God gives us a new heart to love and it is love that establsihes God's law by faith and quoted *MATTHEW 22:36-40; HEBREWS 8:10-12; ROMANS 13:8-10; ROMANS 3:31; ROMANS 8:4 as scripture evidence that is in fulfillment of God's new covenant promise from JEREMIAH 31:31-34 and HEBREWS 8:10-12.

The above quote is in perfect harmony with the rest of the context you left out above trying to claim things I am not saying. Your problem here is that your trying to separate love from law. This is not biblical as God's love is expressed through obedience and harmony to God's law. Love to God and man is what motovates us to keep God's commandments. No one loves God by breaking God's law. You try and swing the argument around to try and say that we believe God writes his law on our heart divorced from love. No one is saying that to you Bob or believes that we keep Gods law without love. This is simply your strawman and that is what I was referring to when I wrote the above. So why try and pretend I am saying things I am not? Perhaps you have had a misunderstanding in relation to the above. That is ok. I hope this better clarifies what I was sharing with you and there is no more misunderstandings.

Bob wrote: LGW truncated what I wrote to this: (note: he purposely omitted the facts I presented

Hmm what??? sorry Bob I have not purposely done anything. What is your problem here? Sorry Bob I am not following what your saying here so not able to respond. Did you wish to clarify yourself and explain yourself a little better? I am happy to respond. I just do not know what your referring to as you have not really been able to address much if anything in any of my posts and scriptures shared with you.

If that is not the poorest way of debating an issue I would like to know one worse. How can anyone give any credence to what LGW writes?

He uses words like "nonsense", "not really" and pats himself for his "superior" posts by writing "Sorry Bob, it seems Gods Words disagrees with you." All this to make the opponent's statements seem trivial or worthless.

All I can say is that I have taken an honest approach by using scripture, in context, to prove what I have gleaned is the real truth. The Plan of Salvation is simple and we are following the Truth if we believe in the One God sent to earth and taught us to love one another as He loves us. I do not see in His Plan of Salvation anything that would indicate that Christians are under any law to keep the rituals given only to the now defunct nation of Israel. Furthermore, I believe the tree Christians are grafted into is Jesus not a nation that broke God's covenant in every way possible and is no longer.

Actually no Bob, if I state I disagree with you on scripture interpretation or subject matter, by prayer and God's Grace and guidence, I will go through your claims of interpretation of the scriptures section by section and scripture by scripture to show why it is that I disagree with you by adding the context back you leave out as proof of interpretation and also provide other scripture evidence supportive to subject matter. This is only done as a help to the conversation and nothing more dear friend. As posted earlier no one is "UNDER THE LAW" according to ROMANS 3:19 unless they stand before God guilty of breaking God's law (sin). No one is saved by the law. We are saved by God's grace through faith and not of ourselves it is a gift of God *EPHESIANS 2:8-9. The purpose of God's law is to give us the knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil, sin and righteousness *ROMANS 3:20; ROMANS 7:7; 1 JOHN 3:4 and to lead us to Christ that we might be forgiven through faith *GALATIANS 3:22-25 and free to walk in God's Spirit to love *GALATIANS 5:16.

Hope this helps Bob.

 

[Bob S]

Let's clarify a few things so there is no confusion here Bob as you seem to be only part quoting me here in what I have been sharing with you. In post 499 linked (not 399) I wrote this (below) in relation to 2 CORINTHIANS 3:3..

Thanks for clearing up my post number error.

Tell me you do not refer to "my laws as" being the ten commandments. No LGW, I do not buy your excuse. You clearly meant that the ten are what is written in the heart. I caught you and you cannot wiggle your way out.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Thanks for clearing up my post number error.
Tell me you do not refer to "my laws as" being the ten commandments.

Well your welcome Bob. You will need to be specific Bob. What scripture reference are you referring to in regards to "My Laws"? It is the scripture contexts that determine application to specific laws from God.

No LGW, I do not buy your excuse. You clearly meant that the ten are what is written in the heart. I caught you and you cannot wiggle your way out.

Bob, I have not made any excuses for anything as I have never needed to here. I have only shown that your earlier claims and accusations were not true and quoted word for word what was said to help clear up any misunderstanding you may have had and provided clarity as to what was being shared with you.

Now it is me that knows what I believe not you. You trying to tell me what I believe when I have stated to you clearly what I believe and shown to you word for word what I said to you then you claiming I said something different after you were corrected is not being honest in my view Bob. Anyhow you are free to believe as you wish. I have posted word for word showing your misunderstanding and provided corrections for you in post # 508 above linked as proof.

So Bob, it does not really concern me what you believe or do not believe, as the evidence is there for all to see and it does not agree with you. You are free to believe as you wish though. I would have thought an apology on your behalf may have been a good idea from accusing me of things I have not said but I will leave it between you and God and only hope the best for you.

 

[Bob S]

Well LGW, if you are a true SDA I know what you believe. I also know what you wrote. I know you have never corrected the other SDA poster for saying it is the ten commandments that is written on the heart, but you tell me I am not telling the truth (lying) when I presented and posted the hard evidence of what you wrote.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Well LGW, if you are a true SDA I know what you believe. I also know what you wrote. I know you have never corrected the other SDA poster for saying it is the ten commandments that is written on the heart, but you tell me I am not telling the truth (lying) when I presented and posted the hard evidence of what you wrote.

I think that is where you may have made a mistake Bob. Perhaps you do not really know what SDA's believe as what you posted was not what I said or believe as shown in post # 508 above linked already. I do not know what others have said or believe as I do not follow everyone elses posts. I have never accused you of lying dear friend as I do not know your heart. Lying is saying something with intention to decieve when you know what you say is not truthful. This is not the same as someone being mistaken. I believe you may have had a misunderstanding of what I have written and this was the reason I posted the linked post in post # 508 above to show you what I actually said and how it is differernt to what you were saying I said.

Hope this helps.

 

[HARK!]

Well LGW, if you are a true SDA I know what you believe. I also know what you wrote. I know you have never corrected the other SDA poster for saying it is the ten commandments that is written on the heart, but you tell me I am not telling the truth (lying) when I presented and posted the hard evidence of what you wrote.

I'm not a SDA; but if the Decalogue is not to be written on our hearts; what is?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I'm not a SDA; but if the Decalogue is not to be written on our hearts; what is?

Love. But love and obedience to God's law cannot be separated as love is expressed through obedience to God's law and fulfills it (two great commandments *MATTHEW 22:36-40; ROMANS 13:8-10; JAMES 2:10-11; HEBREWS 8:10-12 from JEREMIAH 31:31-34). Obedience to God's law come by faith that works by love and love is the fulfilling of God's Word in those who believe and walk in his Spirit *ROMANS 13:8-10; ROMANS 8:4 which is God's work *PHILIPPIANS 2:13 in those who believe and follow Gods Word.

 

[HARK!]

Love. But love and obedience to God's law cannot be separated as love is expressed through obedience to God's law and fulfills it (two great commandments *MATTHEW 22:36-40; ROMANS 13:8-10; JAMES 2:10-11; HEBREWS 8:10-12 from JEREMIAH 31:31-34)

...but the Decalogue is YHWH's law. I've come in on the middle of a conversation; so I'm trying to understand the argument. As I understand it; it is not your argument. Is the argument that the law is limited to the Decalogue?

I view the Decalogue a summary of the law.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

...but the Decalogue is YHWH's law. I've come in on the middle of a conversation; so I'm trying to understand the argument. As I understand it; it is not your argument. Is the argument that the law is limited to the Decalogue?

I view the Decalogue a summary of the law.

It is summed up in love *MATTHEW 22:36-40; ROMANS 13:8-10; JAMES 2:8-12. Love is not separate from obedience to God's law it is expressed through Gods' law. Law without love is the rightouessness of the scribes and Pharisees that JESUS wants us to exceed *MATTHEW 5:20. Obedience to God's law comes from the inside out and is changed by love which is the only way God's law is expressed in those who believe Gods' Word.

 

[Cshuffle777]

Funny, I wasn't aware that all Seventh-day Adventists believed exactly the same thing, anyway. Aren't there any nuances among adherents' views at all? It seems to me that to claim to know what a person believes if they are a Seventh-day Adventist (besides seeming just a tad arrogant) is the textbook, classic case of Genetic Fallacy. I know for a fact that they don't all view things like the infallibility of Scripture (a loaded term, to be sure), the authority or purpose of the writings of Ellen G. White, the health message, to name a few, in the same light. I think people today generally have the impression that around the mid 20th century they were like production line robots, but having read so much of their current literature produced at that time, I would have to disagree. There were plenty of key people who did not agree upon a great many things. The human nature of Christ instantly comes to mind, as well as what really happened in 1888. Then, of course, there's always the big one: The Sanctuary in Heaven, for which I hold a resolute affirmation, having been taught it properly from the Bible alone.

Frankly, I agree with many atheists on the point that the mere existence of so much contention and plurality within Christianity is an utter disgrace and while I wouldn't use it as an excuse for unbelief, it is ironic that on a forum website so plainly named, the amount of striving for the argumentative victory that goes on here is completely foreign to the Spirit of Christ. (And I just love a good run-on sentence.) (Oh, and starting sentences with conjunctions--hyphens are cool, too.)

It's not uncommon for people to disagree upon the meaning of a book, but the Bible is the Book. It is the nature of the Book that causes disagreement on important points. It cuts to the heart, and people naturally resist that kind of thing. It thus divides. Division and unity will co-exist until all things are made right by Christ in Person. Just remember His feet never touch the ground when He returns the 2nd time.

I read an article the other day that claimed that Mrs. White quoted from 2 parts of the Bible far more than any others: Isaiah 58 and John 17, neither of which have anything to do with debate or disunity. One seems to be about Christian service and the other about devotion to God and His children. At least, on the surface. I can see the sense in appealing to another human being to obey God if they feel that person is endangering themselves by resisting, in theory. But the never-ending airing of differences seems bound to arouse hostility and totally inconsistent with Christ and His method.

I was an Adventist for nearly 50 years. 10% of my income still goes straight to the local conference. It feels strange to say that I was because I still believe the same things I did when I called myself one, which I stopped doing because I got tired of trying to find a church that didn't have a mess of in-fighting and politicking going on. I know that's not an acceptable excuse for forsaking the assembling of believers together, but I was always keen to get involved, and I found that the more you get involved in the church mission work the more of the ugly stuff you see. Again, I realize these things must be, even according to Scripture. To be honest, I've suffered from severe depression and anxiety since I was about 7-years-old. Most of it is genetic, I suspect, since my mother and her father both died nervous wrecks, bless their hearts. This seems to cause a rollercoaster ride of emotions for me when I try to participate. I've been in and out of the church most of my life.

I might as well say at least something on-topic while I'm at it. I've been watching the Sabbath Debate between Doug Batchelor (Amazing Facts) and Steve Gregg (The Narrow Path) a lot lately, and I find it fascinating. I love writing (especially with the help of the free Grammarly tool) and I've been meaning to start a detailed analysis of the presentation. Pastor Doug barely regards the debate format at all. He seems to offer a few sparse rebuttals to Mr. Gregg's points but, by-and-large, he adopts a "the best defense is a good (but calm) offense" policy throughout. Mr. Gregg is clearly out of his element in the huge turnout of the faithful (Adventists) and the polished production environment of Amazing Facts, and he makes it clear by exhibiting a very nervous and guarded demeanor. Doug (I've met him) is cool as a cucumber from start to finish and treats the whole thing as one more mission opportunity, which is no shock or surprise. Steve's points are many but very weak, poor fella. He spends 5 of his first 20-minute opening remark segment trying to convince everyone that he's a better Hebrew scholar than the many who've translated the Old Testament to English. It's embarrassing. Without realizing it, by challenging the rendering of the Hebrew "לְעֹלָ֑ם" (lə·‘ō·lām) as "forever" in Exodus 31:17, he is refuting his own (non)position on the doctrine of hell elsewhere in his Theology. This is bound to happen when a student of the Bible over-emphasizes original tongues, as Gregg often does in his teaching. In the end it just comes off as yet another "Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man" (Ecclesiastes 12:13) vs. "We will not have this man to reign over us" (Luke 19:14).

The relevancy and perpetuity of the Sabbath is a slam dunk, Folks. I challenge anyone who doesn't think so to read carefully J.N. Andrews's very short work called "The Sabbatic Institution, and the Two Laws" which can be quite comfortably (light and dark themes and adjustable font size available) read here:

The Sabbatic Institution, and the Two Laws

You may come away believing no differently, but you will have been served proper notice. Then we can move on to the popular practice of loving one another as Christ loved us, whatever that means. When I see someone heading toward a physical disaster they cannot see, the definition of "love" must suddenly emphasize sounding an alarm to me. And never does the potential victim claim being judged unjustly. This was generally the case with Christ in spiritual matters, unless He was dealing with hardened hearts. Disagree with me, sure. But don't believe for a second that being at variance with you suggests that I mean you any harm.

 

[Bob S]

Funny, I wasn't aware that all Seventh-day Adventists believed exactly the same thing, anyway. Aren't there any nuances among adherents' views at all? It seems to me that to claim to know what a person believes if they are a Seventh-day Adventist (besides seeming just a tad arrogant) is the textbook, classic case of Genetic Fallacy. I know for a fact that they don't all view things like the infallibility of Scripture (a loaded term, to be sure), the authority or purpose of the writings of Ellen G. White, the health message, to name a few, in the same light.

Welcome to the forum Cshuffle, You are absolutely correct, since you were a SDA for fifty years, you know that not all SDAs think alike and since I was SDA for forty years I do also. We can lead a horse to water, but we cannot make it drink. The water in the case of the SDA church is the twenty eight fundamental beliefs of that system. I maintain that if one joins a group that has specific beliefs in order to remain faithful to the group one must be faithful to those beliefs. When I was baptized I agreed to uphold the, at that time, twenty seven specific fundamental beliefs. There was no other choice. I couldn't opt out of some I was not really sure were Biblical. As I aged and my understanding grew I became aware of certain things that didn't quite seem like everyone was upholding that rigid set of beliefs. Actually, after a number of years I started to see some large crack in the foundation of the church. Some of them I recognized on my own others were pointed out by my peers. To make a long story short I could say without any doubt that I could no longer support all of those twenty seven beliefs. Rather than play games and hide that fact and try to blend in, like so many do, I opted out. So, I refute your opening statement rejecting the fact that I do not know what the beliefs are of one that is a TRUE SDA. If one veers from the twenty fundamental beliefs of the SDA church they are not TRUE to the standards of the church. They are not true SDAs.

I maintain that if the church would clean house of the membership that no longer held to all the twenty eight doctrinal beliefs that the membership would dwindle to less that half the size it boasts of being. Less than thirty percent of the membership return a faithful tithe. That fact was revealed in the Review years ago. How many are faithful in following the dictates of the SDA more than a prophet?

I think people today generally have the impression that around the mid 20th century they were like production line robots, but having read so much of their current literature produced at that time, I would have to disagree. There were plenty of key people who did not agree upon a great many things. The human nature of Christ instantly comes to mind, as well as what really happened in 1888. Then, of course, there's always the big one: The Sanctuary in Heaven, for which I hold a resolute affirmation, having been taught it properly from the Bible alone.

I was never full convinced of the Sanctuary doctrine because it is such a complex way of proving something happening way off in 1844. Now I believe it was a brainstorm to try to cover up one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the Christians adhering to a falsehood perpetuated by William Miller. It is no wonder that thinking people would not agree and veer away from Adventism. Just think, Jesus has been in a room for one hundred and seventy some years going over the records He had a faithful recording angel place there to prove to all the universe that He was/is just. It only took six days to create man and all that is in the World. Now, He is still in the room sorting and you hold a resolute affirmation of the doctrine?

Any thinking person would wonder why the prophet was not aware of salvation by faith as presented in 1888. All those years of her angel or her whatever never educated her on how Abraham was saved? All those years of teaching that if one does not keep the Sabbath they would be lost? OY! brother.

Frankly, I agree with many atheists on the point that the mere existence of so much contention and plurality within Christianity is an utter disgrace and while I wouldn't use it as an excuse for unbelief, it is ironic that on a forum website so plainly named, the amount of striving for the argumentative victory that goes on here is completely foreign to the Spirit of Christ. (And I just love a good run-on sentence.) (Oh, and starting sentences with conjunctions--hyphens are cool, too.)

And I find it ironic that you, in the paragraph below, point out how you are watching the same thing you are pointing out is foreign to the Spirit of Christ. It appears you are cheering on old Doug and are indicating his superior debating ability. I guess that only proves another point. Some things shouldn't seem so funny especially when you portray yourself in your post as being somewhat above reproach.

It's not uncommon for people to disagree upon the meaning of a book, but the Bible is the Book. It is the nature of the Book that causes disagreement on important points. It cuts to the heart, and people naturally resist that kind of thing. It thus divides.

Much of the division is caused by someone with special skills instilling in others self made beliefs. Men like Thomas and Alexander Campbell who convinced people that musical instruments used in the church service is a sinful act. Pentecostals who do not allow women to have short hair and many other beliefs most other Christians would call trivial.

Division and unity will co-exist until all things are made right by Christ in Person. Just remember His feet never touch the ground when He returns the 2nd time.

Yes, at that time we will meet Him in the air. What a glorious reunion that will be. All our differences will be met with a ya or a nay and we will be united for eternity. Some might be a bit embarrassed with the nays, but none will lord the ayes over another.

I read an article the other day that claimed that Mrs. White quoted from 2 parts of the Bible far more than any others: Isaiah 58 and John 17, neither of which have anything to do with debate or disunity. One seems to be about Christian service and the other about devotion to God and His children. At least, on the surface. I can see the sense in appealing to another human being to obey God if they feel that person is endangering themselves by resisting, in theory. But the never-ending airing of differences seems bound to arouse hostility and totally inconsistent with Christ and His method.

I question anything Mrs White wrote because I have read so much of what she wrote has not stood the test of time and the fact that she spoke out of both sides of her mouth. I am not just blabbering friend, I can produce the fruit.

I was an Adventist for nearly 50 years. 10% of my income still goes straight to the local conference.

Oh yes, Ellen did threaten the flock that if they didn't return a faithful tithe they would loose their eternal reward. That is one of the added things some churches teach that are not Biblical. Christian tithing is one of the fundamental beliefs that I know is a false Biblical teaching. If the church has a belief that a person must give ten percent and not tie it to scripture then I would have no qualm, but they all tell us that it is a scriptural requirement and I defy one to prove such a belief.

It feels strange to say that I was because I still believe the same things I did when I called myself one, which I stopped doing because I got tired of trying to find a church that didn't have a mess of in-fighting and politicking going on. I know that's not an acceptable excuse for forsaking the assembling of believers together, but I was always keen to get involved, and I found that the more you get involved in the church mission work the more of the ugly stuff you see. Again, I realize these things must be, even according to Scripture. To be honest, I've suffered from severe depression and anxiety since I was about 7-years-old. Most of it is genetic, I suspect, since my mother and her father both died nervous wrecks, bless their hearts. This seems to cause a rollercoaster ride of emotions for me when I try to participate. I've been in and out of the church most of my life.

I am very sorry for your condition. I know it can be very debilitating. (thank the Lord for spell check) I wish there were a man made solution, I pray you are trusting in the Great Healer and your days on this Earth will be pleasant.

I might as well say at least something on-topic while I'm at it. I've been watching the Sabbath Debate between Doug Batchelor (Amazing Facts) and Steve Gregg (The Narrow Path) a lot lately, and I find it fascinating. I love writing (especially with the help of the free Grammarly tool) and I've been meaning to start a detailed analysis of the presentation. Pastor Doug barely regards the debate format at all. He seems to offer a few sparse rebuttals to Mr. Gregg's points but, by-and-large, he adopts a "the best defense is a good (but calm) offense" policy throughout. Mr. Gregg is clearly out of his element in the huge turnout of the faithful (Adventists) and the polished production environment of Amazing Facts, and he makes it clear by exhibiting a very nervous and guarded demeanor. Doug (I've met him) is cool as a cucumber from start to finish and treats the whole thing as one more mission opportunity, which is no shock or surprise. Steve's points are many but very weak, poor fella. He spends 5 of his first 20-minute opening remark segment trying to convince everyone that he's a better Hebrew scholar than the many who've translated the Old Testament to English. It's embarrassing. Without realizing it, by challenging the rendering of the Hebrew "לְעֹלָ֑ם" (lə·‘ō·lām) as "forever" in Exodus 31:17, he is refuting his own (non)position on the doctrine of hell elsewhere in his Theology. This is bound to happen when a student of the Bible over-emphasizes original tongues, as Gregg often does in his teaching. In the end it just comes off as yet another "Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man" (Ecclesiastes 12:13) vs. "We will not have this man to reign over us" (Luke 19:14).

The Seventh-day Adventism - Walter Martin vs William Johnsson debate didn't turn out so great for the SDAs. You can see it on Youtube.

The relevancy and perpetuity of the Sabbath is a slam dunk, Folks. I challenge anyone who doesn't think so to read carefully J.N. Andrews's very short work called "The Sabbatic Institution, and the Two Laws" which can be quite comfortably (light and dark themes and adjustable font size available) read here:

The Sabbatic Institution, and the Two Laws

J.N. Andrews was, as far as we know, a true believer of Mrs White. He was programmed in the doctrines. He would not have written anything that would be detrimental. He could only present his side of the controversy.

You may come away believing no differently, but you will have been served proper notice.

Proper notice of what? What he believes is truth is only notice from him.

Then we can move on to the popular practice of loving one another as Christ loved us, whatever that means.

You have been a SDA Christian for fifty years and do not know what Jesus said it means??

When I see someone heading toward a physical disaster they cannot see, the definition of "love" must suddenly emphasize sounding an alarm to me.

I really do not understand, I hope you really do.

And never does the potential victim claim being judged unjustly. This was generally the case with Christ in spiritual matters, unless He was dealing with hardened hearts. Disagree with me, sure. But don't believe for a second that being at variance with you suggests that I mean you any harm.

Ditto, my friend in Jesus Christ.

 

[Cshuffle777]

Regarding "love," by the way, I'm pretty sure the word has been so abused over nearly the entire last century that it's really hard to discuss on equal terms. "Respect" has received largely the same treatment, IMHO. Unless I've completely lost my mind, respect was an entirely different animal when I was a child than it is today.

 

[Bob S]

Regarding "love," by the way, I'm pretty sure the word has been so abused over nearly the entire last century that it's really hard to discuss on equal terms. "Respect" has received largely the same treatment, IMHO. Unless I've completely lost my mind, respect was an entirely different animal when I was a child than it is today.

Jesus' love to us is so great that He laid down His life for me. What greater love than to do this for the great sinner that I have been and still am. I am not worthy of this act, but I graciously accept His loving sacrifice. Love is the great theme of the Holy Writ. Jesus asks us to believe and love. We know we are of the truth if we believe and love. 1jn 3:19-24 Love is manifested in respect as you pointed out, but it is much more than that. It is what we do for the least of those.

 

[Cshuffle777]

Welcome to the forum Cshuffle

Ditto, my friend in Jesus Christ.

Thanks for the warm welcome, Friend in (I won't take the Lord's name in vain).

 

[Bob S]

Thanks for the warm welcome, Friend in (I won't take the Lord's name in vain).

Is that an indication that I did?

 

[Cshuffle777]

I view the Decalogue a summary of the law.

And I think your view would be right as rain. With the key word of your statement being "a." It's quite simple, I think. I think it kind of flows in order: The 2 great commandments (which are very alike, according to Matthew 22:39); the ten commandments; the scriptures. Don't you think so?

 

[HARK!]

And I think your view would be right as rain. With the key word of your statement being "a." It's quite simple, I think. I think it kind of flows in order: The 2 great commandments (which are very alike, according to Matthew 22:39); the ten commandments; the scriptures. Don't you think so?

The greatest commandment covers them all. If you love YHWH; you'll keep his commandments; so it is written.

The two great commandments are a summary of the Decalogue. The greatest commandment covers the first part of the Decalogue; and the second greatest commandment covers the second part of the Decalogue.

The Decalogue is a summary of the 613. The 613 are a summary of what should be written on our hearts.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

And I think your view would be right as rain. With the key word of your statement being "a." It's quite simple, I think. I think it kind of flows in order: The 2 great commandments (which are very alike, according to Matthew 22:39); the ten commandments; the scriptures. Don't you think so?

Welcome to the Sabbath and law forum Cshuffle777. Thanks for sharing your view.

God bless.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The greatest commandment covers them all. If you love YHWH; you'll keep his commandments; so it is written.

The two great commandments are a summary of the Decalogue. The greatest commandment covers the first part of the Decalogue; and the second greatest commandment covers the second part of the Decalogue.

The Decalogue is a summary of the 613. The 613 are a summary of what should be written on our hearts.

Yep funny how some people try to teach love is separate from God's law when it is expressed through it according to the scriptures as shown in MATTHEW 22:36-40; ROMANS 13:8-10; JAMES 2:8-12. Actually in MATTHEW 22:36-40, Jesus is actually quoting old testament scripture in DEUTERONOMY 6:5 and LEVITCUS 19:18 with the same question being asked in MATTHEW 22:36-40 being asked in MATTHEW 19:16-23. This is why JESUS says "ON THESE TWO GREAT COMMANDMENTS of love to God and love to man HANG ALL THE LAW and the prophets v40.

God bless

 

[HARK!]

Yep funny how some people try to teach love is separate from God's law when it is expressed through it according to the scriptures as shown in MATTHEW 22:36-40; ROMANS 13:8-10; JAMES 2:8-12. Actually in MATTHEW 22:36-40, Jesus is actually quoting old testament scripture in DEUTERONOMY 6:5 and LEVITCUS 19:18 with the same question being asked in MATTHEW 22:36-40 being asked in MATTHEW 19:16-23. This is why JESUS says "ON THESE TWO GREAT COMMANDMENTS of love to God and love to man HANG ALL THE LAW and the prophets v40.

God bless

Here is what YHWH has to say about it:

From Decalogue
(CLV) Ex 20:6
yet showing benignity to thousands, to those loving Me and observing My instructions.

Here is what his son says:

(CLV) Jn 14:15
If you should be loving Me, you will be keeping My precepts.

Here is what his son's student says:

(CLV) 1Jn 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we may be keeping His precepts. And His precepts are not heavy,