Love codified in the Ten Commandments

[Bro.T]

Let take a look at those who choose to be with the lord and obey him. Let’s go into Isaiah 56: 1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

 

[Hentenza]

Let take a look

How preachy.

at those who choose to be with the lord and obey him. Let’s go into Isaiah 56: 1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

You do understand that this verse is directed at the Jewish people, right? You do understand that removing historical and cultural context causes error, right?

Once again, can you post a post resurrection verse that requires the Christian to keep the 4th commandment or a verse that shows that the sabbath was kept before Moses?

 

[DamianWarS]

Man was made in God's image and likeness of love. When man choose to listen to another instead of being faithful to God, that likeness or image changed and sin separated man from God.

Although the Ten Commandments were not yet written, their moral principles were already recognized in the lives of people who lived before Moses. The following examples from Genesis show that the same moral standards applied:

Commandment	Pre-Sinai Example
No other gods	Jacob’s household had to put away strange gods (Genesis 35:2–4).
No idols	Rachel stole her father’s household idols (Genesis 31:19).
Don’t take God’s name in vain	Men began to call upon the name of the LORD (Genesis 4:26).
Keep the Sabbath	God blessed and sanctified the seventh day (Genesis 2:3 Exo 20:11).
Honor your father and mother	Ham dishonored Noah and was cursed (Genesis 9:22–25).
Don’t kill	Cain murdered Abel and was punished (Genesis 4:8–12).
Don’t commit adultery	Joseph refused Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39:9).
Don’t steal	Theft condemned in Jacob’s dealings with Laban (Genesis 31:37–39).
Don’t bear false witness	Jacob deceived Isaac (Genesis 27:12).
Don’t covet	Eve coveted the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6).

Morality ≠ Mosaic Law
Genesis indeed shows moral failures and moral obligations, but that does not demonstrate that the Decalogue was already in force. Before Sinai, there is no covenant equivalent to the Sinai covenant, and Scripture explicitly treats the Law as something that came later (Gal 3:17; Deut 5:2–3).

Deut5:2–3 — “The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. NOT with our fathers…” This verse alone contradicts the premise.

The patriarchs clearly had moral awareness, but moral awareness is universal and predates the written Law (Rom 2:14–15).H aving morality does not prove they had the Ten Commandments.

1. “No other gods – Jacob’s household put away strange gods” (Gen 35:2–4)

This reflects patriarchal household loyalty, not adherence to the First Commandment.
There were no Israelites yet, no covenant, and no command from Yahweh forbidding other gods to the nations.

2. “No idols – Rachel stole idols” (Gen 31:19)

The text does not condemn Rachel for idolatry but for stealing. Laban is not chastised for having idols.
This is not evidence of the Second Commandment; it’s evidence of theft and deception.

3. “Don’t take God’s name in vain – men called on the name of the Lord” (Gen 4:26)

This actually proves the opposite.
Calling on God’s name is positive worship, not a prohibition of blasphemy.
This is not connected to the Third Commandment.

4. “Keep the Sabbath – God blessed the seventh day” (Gen 2:3)

Nothing in Genesis 2 commands humans to keep the Sabbath. There is no Sabbath command until Exodus 16, and no covenantal Sabbath until Exodus 20 and 31.
Even the SDA Bible Commentary acknowledges this.

5. “Honor father and mother – Ham dishonored Noah” (Gen 9:22–25)

The text speaks of shame and family disrespect, not a codified law.
This is not framed as a breach of a divine commandment given by God.

6. “Don’t kill – Cain murdered Abel” (Gen 4:8–12)

Murder being wrong is universal natural law.
You don’t need the Sixth Commandment for murder to be wrong—every ancient culture condemned it.

7. “Don’t commit adultery – Joseph refused Potiphar’s wife” (Gen 39:9)

Joseph speaks of this as a sin against God, but that does not prove the existence of the Decalogue. Sexual ethics existed in the ancient Near East far outside Israel.

8. “Don’t steal – Jacob & Laban” (Gen 31:37–39)

Again, theft is universally wrong.
There is no indication of a divine law code governing their behavior.

9. “Don’t bear false witness – Jacob deceived Isaac” (Gen 27:12)

Jacob wasn’t in a courtroom, which is what the Ninth Commandment actually refers to (beating false witness). This passage proves deception is wrong, not that the commandment existed.

10. “Don’t covet – Eve coveted the fruit” (Gen 3:6)

Coveting existed before the Law, but again, this shows moral failure, not Mosaic legislation.

If the Ten Commandments existed from creation: Why does God say the Sinai covenant was not made with the patriarchs (Deut 5:3)? Why does Nehemiah say God made known the Sabbath only at Sinai (Neh 9:13–14)? Why is Israel the only nation judged by Sabbath violation, while Gentiles never are? Why is Sabbath called a sign between God and Israel (Ex 31:13–17), not between God and all humanity? If the commandments were universal from Eden, these distinctions make no sense.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Morality ≠ Mosaic Law
Genesis indeed shows moral failures and moral obligations, but that does not demonstrate that the Decalogue was already in force. Before Sinai, there is no covenant equivalent to the Sinai covenant, and Scripture explicitly treats the Law as something that came later (Gal 3:17; Deut 5:2–3).

Deut5:2–3 — “The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. NOT with our fathers…” This verse alone contradicts the premise.

The patriarchs clearly had moral awareness, but moral awareness is universal and predates the written Law (Rom 2:14–15).H aving morality does not prove they had the Ten Commandments.

1. “No other gods – Jacob’s household put away strange gods” (Gen 35:2–4)

This reflects patriarchal household loyalty, not adherence to the First Commandment.
There were no Israelites yet, no covenant, and no command from Yahweh forbidding other gods to the nations.

2. “No idols – Rachel stole idols” (Gen 31:19)

The text does not condemn Rachel for idolatry but for stealing. Laban is not chastised for having idols.
This is not evidence of the Second Commandment; it’s evidence of theft and deception.

3. “Don’t take God’s name in vain – men called on the name of the Lord” (Gen 4:26)

This actually proves the opposite.
Calling on God’s name is positive worship, not a prohibition of blasphemy.
This is not connected to the Third Commandment.

4. “Keep the Sabbath – God blessed the seventh day” (Gen 2:3)

Nothing in Genesis 2 commands humans to keep the Sabbath. There is no Sabbath command until Exodus 16, and no covenantal Sabbath until Exodus 20 and 31.
Even the SDA Bible Commentary acknowledges this.

5. “Honor father and mother – Ham dishonored Noah” (Gen 9:22–25)

The text speaks of shame and family disrespect, not a codified law.
This is not framed as a breach of a divine commandment given by God.

6. “Don’t kill – Cain murdered Abel” (Gen 4:8–12)

Murder being wrong is universal natural law.
You don’t need the Sixth Commandment for murder to be wrong—every ancient culture condemned it.

7. “Don’t commit adultery – Joseph refused Potiphar’s wife” (Gen 39:9)

Joseph speaks of this as a sin against God, but that does not prove the existence of the Decalogue. Sexual ethics existed in the ancient Near East far outside Israel.

8. “Don’t steal – Jacob & Laban” (Gen 31:37–39)

Again, theft is universally wrong.
There is no indication of a divine law code governing their behavior.

9. “Don’t bear false witness – Jacob deceived Isaac” (Gen 27:12)

Jacob wasn’t in a courtroom, which is what the Ninth Commandment actually refers to (beating false witness). This passage proves deception is wrong, not that the commandment existed.

10. “Don’t covet – Eve coveted the fruit” (Gen 3:6)

Coveting existed before the Law, but again, this shows moral failure, not Mosaic legislation.

If the Ten Commandments existed from creation: Why does God say the Sinai covenant was not made with the patriarchs (Deut 5:3)? Why does Nehemiah say God made known the Sabbath only at Sinai (Neh 9:13–14)? Why is Israel the only nation judged by Sabbath violation, while Gentiles never are? Why is Sabbath called a sign between God and Israel (Ex 31:13–17), not between God and all humanity? If the commandments were universal from Eden, these distinctions make no sense.

A covenant is an agreement. God's owns His commandments Exo20:6 Deut4:13 Exo31:18, they belong to Him not to Moses, not to Paul, but God, it contains His seal Exo20:11 not mans God made different agreements which doesn't take away from the Law God defined as His. You also added the word "only" in Neh9:13-14 when God's Word did not.

 

[DamianWarS]

We see these same principles in the New Testament because all of Scripture hangs on these two principles- love to God and love to man. Love is not a feeling as most teach, its an act of obedience to God, putting aside man-made wants and needs to be replaced by putting God first and His moral principles applied to our lives and loving our neighbor.

1	You shall have no other gods before Me (Exodus 20:3)	Matthew 4:10; Luke 4:8	Jesus affirmed exclusive worship: 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.'
2	You shall not make for yourself a graven image (Exodus 20:4–6)	Acts 17:29; Romans 1:22–23; 1 John 5:21	The apostles warn against idolatry and image worship.
3	You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain (Exodus 20:7)	Matthew 6:9; James 5:12	God’s name is to be treated with reverence; empty oaths condemned.
4	Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy (Exodus 20:8–11)	Luke 4:16; Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:27–28; Hebrews 4:4,9–10	Jesus’ custom was Sabbath worship (Luke 4:16). He declared Himself Lord of the Sabbath, teaching it was made for humanity’s blessing. "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest [Greek: sabbatismos Sabbath keeping] for the people of God."
5	Honor your father and your mother (Exodus 20:12)	Matthew 15:4; Ephesians 6:1–2; Colossians 3:20	Jesus and Paul reaffirm this command as foundational for family and society.
6	You shall not kill (Exodus 20:13)	Matthew 5:21–22; Romans 13:9; 1 John 3:15	Jesus deepened the meaning—anger and hatred violate this law inwardly.
7	You shall not commit adultery (Exodus 20:14)	Matthew 5:27–28; Romans 13:9; Hebrews 13:4	Jesus equated lust with adultery of the heart.
8	You shall not steal (Exodus 20:15)	Matthew 19:18; Romans 13:9; Ephesians 4:28	Believers must labor honestly and give to those in need.
9	You shall not bear false witness (Exodus 20:16)	Matthew 19:18; Ephesians 4:25; Colossians 3:9	Truthfulness is central to Christian character.
10	You shall not covet (Exodus 20:17)	Luke 12:15; Romans 7:7; Ephesians 5:3	Coveting is equated with idolatry and condemned as sin.

The NT repeating moral principles isn’t the same thing as reinstating the Mosaic Law. Murder, adultery, idolatry, etc. were wrong long before Sinai, so of course the NT condemns them—but that doesn’t mean Christians are under the Ten Commandments.

The NT is clear:
“You are not under the Law.” (Rom 6:14)
“We died to the Law.” (Rom 7:4–6)
“The Law on stone tablets is fading.” (2 Cor 3:7–11)
“Don’t let anyone judge you over Sabbaths.” (Col 2:16–17)

The only command that doesn’t get reaffirmed in the NT as a moral expectation is the Sabbath—which is exactly the one SDA theology requires. Jesus indeed follows Sabbath requirement (but breaks free from it to do good [Mat 12:12]) he was also under obligation of the law being born into it, just as he was required to get circumcised.

The NT ethic is the law of Christ, not the Sinai covenant. Overlap ≠ obligation which is the fundamental assumption and mistake of the OP

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The NT repeating moral principles isn’t the same thing as reinstating the Mosaic Law. Murder, adultery, idolatry, etc. were wrong long before Sinai, so of course the NT condemns them—but that doesn’t mean Christians are under the Ten Commandments.

The NT is clear:
“You are not under the Law.” (Rom 6:14)
“We died to the Law.” (Rom 7:4–6)
“The Law on stone tablets is fading.” (2 Cor 3:7–11)
“Don’t let anyone judge you over Sabbaths.” (Col 2:16–17)

The only command that doesn’t get reaffirmed in the NT as a moral expectation is the Sabbath—which is exactly the one SDA theology requires. Jesus indeed follows Sabbath requirement (but breaks free from it to do good [Mat 12:12]) he was also under obligation of the law being born into it, just as he was required to get circumcised.

The NT ethic is the law of Christ, not the Sinai covenant. Overlap ≠ obligation which is the fundamental assumption and mistake of the OP

Jesus never "broke free" from the Sabbath to do good, again adding to God's word- doing good was never breaking the Sabbath commandment- which Jesus always kept Luke4:16 John15:10 and we are to follow in His example 1John2:6 1Peter 2:21-22 not following the traditions and words of man over the commandments of God.Mark7:7-13 Mat15:3-14

 

[DamianWarS]

A covenant is an agreement. God's owns His commandments Exo20:6 Deut4:13 Exo31:18, they belong to Him not to Moses, not to Paul, but God, it contains His seal Exo20:11 not mans God made different agreements which doesn't take away from the Law God defined as His. You also added the word "only" in Neh9:13-14 when God's Word did not.

You’re mixing two different things:

1. the origin of the law and
2. the covenant in which that law functions.

Yes, the commandments ultimately come from God. No one disputes that. But Scripture is explicit that the Ten Commandments function as the terms of the Sinai covenant, not a timeless universal covenant:

“The LORD made a covenant with us at Horeb, NOT with our fathers.” —Deut 5:2–3

The tablets are called “the tablets of the covenant.” —Deut 9:9

And that covenant is now obsolete under Christ (Heb 8:13; 2 Cor 3:7–11).

Saying the law “belongs to God” doesn’t mean the Sinai covenant continues. circumsion laws, sacrificial laws, and purity laws “belong to God” too—but we don’t treat them as binding today

The real issue isn’t ownership; it’s covenantal administration. God gave the Ten Commandments as part of a specific agreement with Israel at a specific time, and the NT repeatedly says that covenant has ended and been replaced.

So yes, the law is God’s—but the covenant that made the Ten Commandments binding on Israel is not the covenant Christians live under. that doesn't mean we don't have overlaping values, and a careful study of the overlapping values could reveal something closer to a universal list, but the mere fact we have some things in common doesn't mean we are under the same requirement. you already accept this with so much of the law, it's just extending this to the whole law (including the 10)

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You’re mixing two different things:

1. the origin of the law and
2. the covenant in which that law functions.

Yes, the commandments ultimately come from God. No one disputes that. But Scripture is explicit that the Ten Commandments function as the terms of the Sinai covenant, not a timeless universal covenant:

“The LORD made a covenant with us at Horeb, NOT with our fathers.” —Deut 5:2–3

The tablets are called “the tablets of the covenant.” —Deut 9:9

And that covenant is now obsolete under Christ (Heb 8:13; 2 Cor 3:7–11).

Saying the law “belongs to God” doesn’t mean the Sinai covenant continues. circumsion laws, sacrificial laws, and purity laws “belong to God” too—but we don’t treat them as binding today

The real issue isn’t ownership; it’s covenantal administration. God gave the Ten Commandments as part of a specific agreement with Israel at a specific time, and the NT repeatedly says that covenant has ended and been replaced.

So yes, the law is God’s—but the covenant that made the Ten Commandments binding on Israel is not the covenant Christians live under. that doesn't mean we don't have overlaping values, and a careful study of the overlapping values could reveal something closer to a universal list, but the mere fact we have some things in common doesn't mean we are under the same requirement. you already accept this with so much of the law, it's just extending this to the whole law (including the 10)

Again the agreement is not the Law of God. For example- if I own a software program and I make a covenant or agreement with you, the terms of the agreement might be a little different than the agreement/covenant I make with someone else. Its the same software and I still own it. God's Laws is God's He owns it, He wrote it Exo31:18 , He spoke it Exo20:1, its His works Exo32:16 not Moses, it contains His seal Exo20:11, He claimed them as "His" Deut4:13 Exo20:6 they do not belong to Moses, or Paul or anyone but to God.


The Law of God is not tied to Sinai as we see clearly with the Sabbath starting at Creation before Sinai, before Jew, before Moses, according to God Exo20:11. A covenant is an agreement, not the Ten Commandments. God made many agreements, and when it comes to the Law of God, only He can define which He did both written and spoken by God. Exo31:18

Yes.. He made the old covenant or agreement obsolete, but not changing the words of the agreement or covenant, the location of where He placed them changed, the Ten Commandments Exo34:28 they went from tablets of stone (only the Ten Commandments Deut4:13) to tablets of the heart 2Cor3:3 Heb8:10 God always keeping His promises. The Law was never the issue Psa19:7 Rom7:12 the issue is the heart of man going after idols Eze20:16 in many forms like when we place our words above God's is another example, instead of staying faithful to God and allowing Him to be God to define things, which He does, sadly man just doesn't like it. Sin is still in the NC 1John3:4 James2:11 and we do not determine what is right or wrong, God's does Psa119:172 Isa56:1-2 and His is everlasting Psa119:142

 

[bbbbbbb]

A covenant is an agreement. God's owns His commandments Exo20:6 Deut4:13 Exo31:18, they belong to Him not to Moses, not to Paul, but God, it contains His seal Exo20:11 not mans God made different agreements which doesn't take away from the Law God defined as His. You also added the word "only" in Neh9:13-14 when God's Word did not.

A covenant is, indeed, an agreement. Israel agreed (covenanted) to obey all of God's commandments, not just ten of them. Christians are under agreement to a new covenant instituted by Jesus Christ on Calvary, and have no obligation to obey all of God's commandments in the old covenant, nor could they if they even wanted to. There is no temple in Jerusalem for anyone, including Jews, to obey all of God's commandments regarding sacrifices.

 

[DamianWarS]

Jesus never "broke free" from the Sabbath to do good, again adding to God's word- doing good was never breaking the Sabbath commandment- which Jesus always kept Luke4:16 John15:10 and we are to follow in His example 1John2:6 1Peter 2:21-22 not following the traditions and words of man over the commandments of God.Mark7:7-13 Mat15:3-14

your confusing my meaning interpreting "break free" with "break"

Jesus didn’t “break” the Sabbath, but He did redefine its boundaries, which is exactly the issue in passages like Matthew 12. When He says: “It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matt 12:12)

He isn’t quoting Moses or any degree/commandment of God. He is asserting His own authority to declare what is and is not lawful by critically approach the law. It's no mistake the same chapter includes: “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” (Matt 12:8). Matthew intentional put these together so that we can draw a connection to Christ's authority over the sabbath.

If you’re the Lord of something, you’re not merely keeping it as written—you’re the One who can interpret it, reshape it, or end it.

Yes, Jesus kept the Sabbath (Luke 4:16), but that’s because He was born under the Law (Gal 4:4). His Sabbath-keeping is part of His faithfulness as an Israelite, not a template that Christians must remain under the Sinai covenant. And the NT is clear that Sabbath isn’t binding on believers: Col 2:16–17 — don’t let anyone judge you over Sabbaths, Rom 14:5 — some regard a day, some don’t, Gal 4:10–11 — Paul rebukes returning to required “days”.

Appealing to Jesus’ example doesn’t bring Christians back under the old covenant (or under the 10) Following Him means living under the law of Christ, not the covenant He fulfilled (Heb 8:13; 2 Cor 3:6–11). we Infact inherit the fulfilled covenant through him. Matthew 12:12 doesn’t preserve Sabbath law obligation, it shows Jesus exercising divine authority over it, his resolve was clearly a nouvelle idea when he spoke it. it doesn't matter how you brand it, Christ had authority to present it this way, it's his Sabbath and it points to him, he uses that moment to highlight its core values.

 

[DamianWarS]

Again the agreement is not the Law of God. For example- if I own a software program and I make a covenant or agreement with you, the terms of the agreement might be a little different than the agreement/covenant I make with someone else. Its the same software and I still own it. God's Laws is God's He owns it, He wrote it Exo31:18 , He spoke it Exo20:1, its His works Exo32:16 not Moses, it contains His seal Exo20:11, He claimed them as "His" Deut4:13 Exo20:6 they do not belong to Moses, or Paul or anyone but to God.


The Law of God is not tied to Sinai as we see clearly with the Sabbath starting at Creation before Sinai, before Jew, before Moses, according to God Exo20:11. A covenant is an agreement, not the Ten Commandments. God made many agreements, and when it comes to the Law of God, only He can define which He did both written and spoken by God. Exo31:18

Yes.. He made the old covenant or agreement obsolete, but not changing the words of the agreement or covenant, the Ten Commandments Exo34:28 they went from tablets of stone (only the Ten Commandments Deut4:14) to tablets of the heart 2Cor3:3 Heb8:10 God always keeping His promises. The Law was never the issue Psa19:7 Rom12:7 the issue is the heart of man going after idols Eze20:16 in many forms like when we place our words above God's is another example, instead of staying faithful to God and allowing Him to be God to define things, which He does, sadly man just doesn't like it.

You’re mixing two categories:

1. God as the source of all moral truth
vs.
2. the Ten Commandments as the covenant document of Sinai.

Yes, the 10C “belong to God.” That doesn’t make them timeless or universal. The Bible explicitly ties them to Sinai: Deut 4:13 — “His covenant…the Ten Commandments.” Exod 34:28 — “the words of the covenant: the Ten Commandments.” Deut 5:2–3 — God did not make this covenant with the patriarchs.
If the 10C were already binding since creation, Deut 5:3 makes no sense.

The “Sabbath at creation” claim also doesn’t work—Genesis contains no command for humans to keep it, and Neh 9:13–14 says God “made known” the Sabbath at Sinai.
And the NT is clear that the covenant written on stone tablets (the 10C) is:
a “ministry of death,” “fading away,” and replaced by the new covenant (2 Cor 3; Heb 8).

So yes, God authored the commandments—but authorship ≠ covenantal permanence.
The issue isn’t who wrote them; it’s which covenant Christians are under.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You’re mixing two categories:

1. God as the source of all moral truth
vs.
2. the Ten Commandments as the covenant document of Sinai.

Yes, the 10C “belong to God.” That doesn’t make them timeless or universal. The Bible explicitly ties them to Sinai: Deut 4:13 — “His covenant…the Ten Commandments.” Exod 34:28 — “the words of the covenant: the Ten Commandments.” Deut 5:2–3 — God did not make this covenant with the patriarchs.
If the 10C were already binding since creation, Deut 5:3 makes no sense.

The “Sabbath at creation” claim also doesn’t work—Genesis contains no command for humans to keep it, and Neh 9:13–14 says God “made known” the Sabbath at Sinai.
And the NT is clear that the covenant written on stone tablets (the 10C) is:
a “ministry of death,” “fading away,” and replaced by the new covenant (2 Cor 3; Heb 8).

So yes, God authored the commandments—but authorship ≠ covenantal permanence.
The issue isn’t who wrote them; it’s which covenant Christians are under.

You are micro-quoting the Scriptures and reading what you want into them. Yes, the New Covenant is God's Laws now written in the heart Heb8:10 2Cor3:3. Who defines God's Laws, God or us? I am going with God.


Why its still a sin to break His laws 1John3:4 from the "He who said" which is God, breaking one we break them all and become a transgressor of the law (sinners) James2:11 where if we continue practicing there remains no more sacrifice for sins Heb10:26-30 unless we turn from (forsake Pro28:13) our old ways and turn to Christ abiding in Him, keeping His commandments through love and faith. John15:10 the same ones Jesus kept 1John2:6 Luke4:16

The issue is who wrote them because man wants to replace God's commandments with their own man-made commandments and traditions, exactly what Jesus warned us about Mat15:3-14 Mark 7:7-13 Trying to redefine one of them sadly puts us in the place of God because there is no one above Him or His written and spoken Testimony Exp31:18 that He said he would not alter. Psa89:34 Deut4:13

This is really the heart of the issue, man thinks they know better than He and tries to edit the words of God He said He would not Psa89:34 Mat5:18-30 Ecc3:14 the commandment He warned us people would do Dan7:25 which is why we see it being attacked from so many different angles. Because without the blessings of God Isa59:2 and sanctification of God Eze20:12 both tied to the Sabbath thus saith the Lord, we really are nothing Isa66:17, we need God for everything Eze20:20

I think we have discussed this to death and I am going to move on, and agree to disagree all will get sorted out in God's time.

 

[DamianWarS]

You are micro-quoting the Scriptures and reading what you want into them. Yes, the New Covenant is God's Laws now written in the heart Heb8:10 2Cor3:3. Who defines God's Laws, God or us? I am going with God.


Why its still a sin to break His laws 1John3:4 from the "He who said" which is God, breaking one we break them all and become a transgressor of the law (sinners) James2:11 where there is no more sacrifice Heb10:26-30 unless we turn from our old ways and turn to Christ.

The issue is who wrote them because man wants to replaced God's commandments with their own man-made commandments and traditions, exactly what Jesus warned us about Mat15:3-14 Mark 7:7-13 Trying to redefine one of them sadly puts us in the place of God because there is no one above Him or His written and spoken Testimony, This is really the heart of the issue, man thinks they know better than He and tried to edit the words of God He said He would not Psa89:34 Mat5:18-30 Ecc3:14

I think we have discussed this to death and I am going to move on, and agree to disagree all will get sorted out in God's time.

You’re assuming “God’s laws written on the heart” = the Ten Commandments unchanged, but that’s not what Hebrews or Paul say. Hebrews 8 never lists the 10, never mentions the Sabbath, and never says the Sinai covenant is transferred intact—it says the covenant is replaced, not recopied (Heb 8:13).

The “law written on the heart” is the new-covenant law of Christ, not the tablets of stone. Paul explicitly distinguishes them: The law written on stone = “ministry of death… fading away” (2 Cor 3:7–11). The law written on hearts = the new covenant of the Spirit (2 Cor 3:3,6).

Those are not the same thing. 1 John 3:4 and James 2 don’t say the Mosaic law remains binding—they simply say sin is lawlessness, not “sin = breaking the 10” If that were the case, then all Mosaic commands would still apply (circumcision, sacrifices, festivals), which even you don’t practice.

Jesus’ warning in Matthew 15/Mark 7 is about adding human traditions, not about interpreting covenant transitions that the NT itself teaches. Paul, Hebrews, and Jesus all affirm that covenants change—what doesn’t change is God’s faithfulness, not the covenant terms (Heb 7:12; Heb 8:6; 2 Cor 3; Gal 3:24–25).

We’re not “editing God’s words”—we’re simply letting the NT interpret the OC in the way the apostles actually present it. I’m fine to leave it here too, but just wanted to clarify that disagreeing with your interpretation isn’t the same as redefining God’s law.