Did all the laws end at the cross- Part 2

[Leaf473]

Is it important to believe and obey this law to the letter? Is this a law that did not end at the cross?

Numbers 18:21
“I give to the Levites all the tithes in Israel as their inheritance in return for the work they do while serving at the tent of meeting.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Can you obey Gods Word before you know what Gods' Word says and choose to believe Gods Word? - Nope, because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God *Romans 10:17. So the Word (letter) comes first then faith in the truth of Gods' Word comes after. Perhaps you can tell me what it is you do not understand or better yet what do you think my posts are saying so I can understand how you interpret what I have written to you? I think that might be helpful.

Your response here...

I asked about "in order for the spirit to work". But you responded with "Can you obey Gods Word".

Did I really say that or did I ask you a question that you did not answer by asking you "Can you obey Gods Word before you know what God's Word says and choose to believe Gods Word?" Then go on to answer the question for you by saying "Nope, because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God *Romans 10:17. So the Word (letter) comes first then faith in the letter of Gods' Word comes after." How does this not answer your question?

I think what your posts are saying is that it is important to believe and obey God's word. And I agree with that.

Partly, the majority of my posts to you are saying that the letter of Gods' Word comes before faith and faith in God's Word lead's us to the Spirit of Gods Word *John 6:63; John 17:17.

So getting into details about believing and obeying God's word: You had asserted that"...Gods' Spirit works through the letters as we believe them *John 6:63." In order for the Spirit to work through the letters, is it enough to believe the letters in God's word, or do we need to obey certain laws first?

Faith in the letter of Gods' Word leads us to the Spirit of God's Word *John 6:63. They are all connected and not separate from each other. Each one leads to the other. Are you following me now?

Take Care.

 

[expos4ever]

Where does it say in scripture say that God’s law or the commandments don’t include God’s Ten Commandments written by God’s own finger?

Readers familiar with proper debate techniques will understand what is happening here.

Here is the history:

First, You asserted the Spirit helped us keep the 10 commandments:

Walking in the Spirit (the newness of the Spirit from Romans 7:6) is not hostile to God and keeps the law of God.

Next, I challenged you to defend this assertion of yours:

Where does scripture anywhere state that the Spirit helps up keep 10 commandments.

Finally, you give us this:

Where does it say in scripture say that God’s law or the commandments don’t include God’s Ten Commandments written by God’s own finger?

You are (1) not following through on your obligation to defend your claim; and (2) you make this even worse, but trying to make it my obligation to "prove a negative" - this is a well know illicit move.

Imagine this exchange:

SabbathBlessings: There is a duck in my backyard.

expos4ever: Provide evidence.

SabbathBlessings: You need to provide evidence that there is not a duck in my backyard.

See the problem? Objective reader will see the problem.

I will deal with the rest of your post in a moment.

 

[expos4ever]

It doesn’t, but God established My (God) commandments right in the Ten- Exodus 20:6 which is repeated throughout the scripture verbatim John 14:15, 1 John 5:3 and many others scriptures.

How can you not know that "repeating the content of a law verbatim" is not, on its own, evidence indicating that the particular law is still in effect.

This is punishingly obvious: I can say this: "The Law 'thou shalt not steal' embodies wisdom".

I have quoted the law "verbatim". But, obviously, this does not necessarily mean the law is still in effect! After all, if the Holy Spirit has superceded this law, we do not need it any more even though it may well embody wisdom.

Everyone with an open mind will know this, so I think it only hurts you to use such transparently false reasoning.

You also keep repeating another obviously flawed argument when you cite texts like John 14:15, 1 John 5:3. Again, any reader who is not asleep at the wheel will know that neither of texts refer explicitly to the 10 commandments. Since there are indeed commandments from God other than the 10 commandments (Jesus commandment to spread the gospel for example), it is up to you to make an actual case that these 2 texts are referring to the 10.

You are essentially begging the question - assuming the very thing you need to prove.

Again, readers will know this, so I do not see how this does anything but hurt your position.

 

[expos4ever]

I believe your best to stop micro-quoting my posts out of their context while simply repeating yourself while ignoring the rest of the posts shared with you that already addresses what your saying with scripture context your disregarding. If you disagree with my posts please address them. You haven't

You have been caught in error and are trying to dance away.

Again, you, yes you posted this:

One on your claims in regards to God's 10 commandments not being referred to in Romans 3:20; and Romans 7:7

Again, I never denied that that the 10 were being referred to in either 3:20 or 7:7; quite the contrary, I have repeatedly affirmed that 7:7 refers to the 10!

You complain about "micro-quoting". Well, explain this to me: how could the rest of your post conceivably change the demonstrable fact that you made a manifestly false statement at the outset where you clearly assert that I have claimed that the 10 are not referred to in these verses?

I have, of course, never claimed any such thing. Again, readers who are following along carefully - and there are some - will know that I never made such a claim.

 

[guevaraj]

Okay... Do you travel to Jerusalem to celebrate the festival of shelters as Jesus did? Do you believe that is a law that didn't end at the cross? Exodus 34: Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel. For I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither shall any man desire your land when you go up to appear before the Lord, your God, three times in the year.

Brother, happy Sabbath! I don't see the need to travel to Jerusalem. Jesus before the incarnation is no longer in the earthly temple copy in Jerusalem to "appear before" Him until Jesus returns.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God’s messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn’t let me. And now, look, your house is abandoned. And you will never see me again until you say, ‘Blessings on the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’” (Luke 13:34-35 NLT)​

Jesus is in the heavenly temple now to "appear before" Him and the earthly temple "is abandoned" until He returns. Now the faithful are spread throughout the world, no longer Jerusalem being the center of their life in the earthly temple, hence the need to correct now the human tradition of the Sabbath, which was not necessary while the temple in Jerusalem was the center of life, with animal sacrifices before Jesus.

“You must celebrate the Festival of Harvest with the first crop of the wheat harvest, and celebrate the Festival of the Final Harvest at the end of the harvest season. Three times each year every man in Israel must appear before the Sovereign, the LORD, the God of Israel. I will drive out the other nations ahead of you and expand your territory, so no one will covet and conquer your land while you appear before the LORD your God three times each year. (Exodus 34:22-24 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You have been caught in error and are trying to dance away. Again, I never denied that that the 10 were being referred to in either 3:20 or 7:7; quite the contrary, I have repeatedly affirmed that 7:7 refers to the 10!

Well aren't you the funny one, and no dear friend I am not dancing, I am as peace in Gods Word. What error was I caught in? You were the one trying to claim earlier and argue that Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 is not saying that God's 10 commandments give us a knowledge of what sin is when broken were you not and making posts to try and argue there scriptures were talking about something else? I do not think you have thought these arguments through very well. For example, just the fact that according to the scriptures the purpose of Gods' 10 commandments in the new covenant gives us a knowledge of what sin is when broken means that they have not been abolished.

You complain about "micro-quoting". Well, explain this to me: how could the rest of your post conceivably change the demonstrable fact that you made a manifestly false statement at the outset where you clearly assert that I have claimed that the 10 are not referred to in these verses?

Because your taking parts of my posts out of context to the rest of the posts and scriptures that you are micro-quoting while ignoring the context to the rest of the post and the scriptures that support it just like you do with the scriptures as shown in my posts to you. Context matters and your disregarding it.

I have, of course, never claimed any such thing. Again, readers who are following along carefully - and there are some - will know that I never made such a claim.

Your claim is that God's 10 commandments are abolished and this is what most of my posts to you are showing is not true according to the scriptures. Again let the reader decide. I hope only the best for you.

Take Care.

 

[expos4ever]

God wrote His law in our hearts and minds

Please address the following. If you post material that does not squarely and directly address the content of what I am saying below, even if that material is "correct" (and it may well be), I will remind you of your obligation to not evade the content of my argument.

How is it not obvious that to interpret the metaphor of the "law written on the heart" the way you are doing in this thread completely eviscerates the metaphor of any power - saying that we simply "internalize" the words of an otherwise written code is but a trivial change of form. This does great violence to a rich metaphor which, as you say, points to an instinctive knowing.

I wonder who else holds this view that the "law written on the heart" is really about an instinctive knowing?

Answer: no less than the apostle Paul:

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them

 

[expos4ever]

You were the one trying to claim earlier and argue that Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 is not saying that God's 10 commandments give us a knowledge of what sin is when broken

Obvious bait and switch! Again, readers will see this, if they have even one eye open.

Your initial claim was this (I added bold):

One on your claims in regards to God's 10 commandments not being referred to in Romans 3:20; and Romans 7:7

This is false, and I suggest you know this - I never claimed that the 10 were not referred in these texts.

Now you are trying to evade by trying to dupe readers into thinking that this is the claim I am objecting to:

You were the one trying to claim earlier and argue that Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 is not saying that God's 10 commandments give us a knowledge of what sin is when broken

This is an entirely different claim!

 

[expos4ever]

Because your talking parts of my posts out of context to the rest of the posts and scriptures that you are micro-quoting while ignoring the context to the rest of the post and the scriptures that support it just like you do with the scriptures. Context matters and your disregarding it.

More evasion. Again, how does the context of your post justify your demonstrably misrepresenting me when you claimed that I have said that the 10 were not referred to in Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

More evasion. Again, how does the context of your post justify your demonstrably misrepresenting me when you claimed that I have said that the 10 were not referred to in Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7?

Actually no I see your post here is only more evasion on your side I am still waiting for you to address my posts and the scripture contexts that disagree with your teachings of lawlessness (without law) that your unwilling to discuss with me.

 

[Leaf473]

Your response here...

Did I really say that or did I ask you a question that you did not answer by asking you "Can you obey Gods Word before you know what God's Word says and choose to believe Gods Word?" Then go on to answer the question for you by saying "Nope, because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God *Romans 10:17. So the Word (letter) comes first then faith in the letter of Gods' Word comes after." How does this not answer your question?

Partly, the majority of my posts to you are saying that the letter of Gods' Word comes before faith and faith in God's Word lead's us to the Spirit of Gods Word *John 6:63; John 17:17.

Faith in the letter of Gods' Word leads us to the Spirit of God's Word *John 6:63. They are all connected and not separate from each other. Each one leads to the other. Are you following me now?

Take Care.

Yes, you really said that.

You did ask a question. However that was in response to my asking a question.

You went on to answer your question, but not my question imo.

It doesn't answer my question, it answers a different question.

I agree that the work of the spirit and obeying God's word are connected. But which comes first, in your view?

I think I am following your posts. However, I don't think they are closely related to what I was asking.

May the Lord bless you and give you peace.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Obvious bait and switch! Again, readers will see this, if they have even one eye open.

Your initial claim was this (I added bold):


This is false, and I suggest you know this - I never claimed that the 10 were not referred in these texts.

Now you are trying to evade by trying to dupe readers into thinking that this is the claim I am objecting to:


This is an entirely different claim!

You are free to believe as you wish as that is between you and God. I prefer the scriptures that disagree with you that have only been sent in love and as a help to you that show why your teachings of lawlessness (without law) is not biblical while only hoping the best for you.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Yes, you really said that.

You did ask a question. However that was in response to my asking a question.

You went on to answer your question, but not my question imo.

It doesn't answer my question, it answers a different question.

I agree that the work of the spirit and obeying God's word are connected. But which comes first, in your view?

I think I am following your posts. However, I don't think they are closely related to what I was asking.

May the Lord bless you and give you peace.

Well I disagree. It relates to your earlier posts because your trying to make the argument about the letter. It not about the letter it is about faith in the letter that leads to the Spirit that we are to walk in *Galatians 5:16 that God writes his laws of love in our heart so that we do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh and enter into Gods new covenant promise to love and love obeys Gods' law from the heart (see 1 John 5:2-4; Romans 13:8-10).

Hope this helps

 

[Leaf473]

Readers familiar with proper debate techniques will understand what is happening here.

Here is the history:

First, You asserted the Spirit helped us keep the 10 commandments:



Next, I challenged you to defend this assertion of yours:



Finally, you give us this:



You are (1) not following through on your obligation to defend your claim; and (2) you make this even worse, but trying to make it my obligation to "prove a negative" - this is a well know illicit move.

Imagine this exchange:

SabbathBlessings: There is a duck in my backyard.

expos4ever: Provide evidence.

SabbathBlessings: You need to provide evidence that there is not a duck in my backyard.

See the problem? Objective reader will see the problem.

I will deal with the rest of your post in a moment.

Yep, making an assertion and then requiring the other person to prove the negative. A common issue in discussions.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Obvious bait and switch! Again, readers will see this, if they have even one eye open.

Your initial claim was this (I added bold):


This is false, and I suggest you know this - I never claimed that the 10 were not referred in these texts.

Now you are trying to evade by trying to dupe readers into thinking that this is the claim I am objecting to:


This is an entirely different claim!

Repetition see post 407 linked. Its really dancing around the rest of the post you did not address which is discussing and showing the scriptures, why Gods' law is not abolished like you were trying to claim which is why your micro-quoting again.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Yep, making an assertion and then requiring the other person to prove the negative. A common issue in discussions.

So is avoiding scripture and not answering questions and asking questions and pretending questions have not been answered when they have

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Who else here is having a problem with their tassels?

“You are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel” (Numbers 15:38).


My garden is so small and yet I can't plant more than one kind of seed. Bummer.

“Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material” (Leviticus 19:19; also found in Deuteronomy 22:11).

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Please address the following. If you post material that does not squarely and directly address the content of what I am saying below, even if that material is "correct" (and it may well be), I will remind you of your obligation to not evade the content of my argument.

How is it not obvious that to interpret the metaphor of the "law written on the heart" the way you are doing in this thread completely eviscerates the metaphor of any power - saying that we simply "internalize" the words of an otherwise written code is but a trivial change of form. This does great violence to a rich metaphor which, as you say, points to an instinctive knowing.

I wonder who else holds this view that the "law written on the heart" is really about an instinctive knowing?

Answer: no less than the apostle Paul:

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them

What do you think Hebrews 8:10-12 is a metaphor over? What do you think the new covenant is? BTW context shows that Romans 2:14 is an example about the law written on the heart. Context in Romans 2:11-13 is saying [11] For there is no respect of persons with God. [12], For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; [13], For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. So Romans 2:14 does not delete the context already provided you have left out in Romans 2:11-13

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Who else here is having a problem with their tassels?

“You are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel” (Numbers 15:38).


My garden is so small and yet I can't plant more than one kind of seed. Bummer.

“Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material” (Leviticus 19:19; also found in Deuteronomy 22:11).

Probably to those who do not obey God's Word.