Do you agree that christians should keep the 10 Commandments? (3)

11822 · May 24, 2011

Hentenza said:
Again, there is nothing in Romans 14 to suggest that Paul was talking about idol foods. None. This is a different matter apart from what Paul taught in Romans 14.

BTW- Even in 1 Cor. 10:23 Paul teaches that all things are lawful to him but not all things are profitable. This, again, reinforces Paul teaching that all foods are clean but that some are not profitable. For instance, eating hamburgers is fine but not exactly good for you. lol

No i don't think Paul is talking about Health concerns when eating Hamburgers. He was talking about conscience. Our and others conscience. And He was talking about provoking the lords anger.

Co 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
1Co 10:22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

1Co 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, [U]and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, the fulness thereof:

11822 · May 24, 2011

And Paul teaches Gentiles to abstain from eating meats offered to idols in Acts

Ac 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Ac 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well

Hentenza · May 24, 2011

11822 said:
No i don't think Paul is talking about Health concerns when eating Hamburgers. He was talking about conscience. Our and others conscience. And He was talking about provoking the lords anger.

Co 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
1Co 10:22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

1Co 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

Paul says plainly that ALL things (in the context of food) are lawful for him but that not all things are profitable. I agree with you regarding conscience but again that is an individual decision not a prescribed decision.

25(AO)Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake; 26(AP)FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.
27If (AQ)one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, (AR)eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake.

Paul only exhorts you not to eat it IF you are told that is has been offered to idols.

28But (AS)if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake;

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Paul's teaching in Romans 14.

11822 · May 24, 2011

Hentenza said:
Anyway, this has nothing to do with Paul's teaching in Romans 14.

No it doesn't have anything to do with Romans 14 except for the conscience part maybe. However when paul threw out circumcision for the Gentiles he still taught them to abstain from fornication and eating meats sacrificed to idols. Its a fact.

Elder 111 · May 24, 2011

Originally Posted by from scratch

What is meant by establish the law?

This is what it means according to the scholars.
1) to cause or make to stand, to place, put, set
a) to bid to stand by, [set up]
1) in the presence of others, in the midst, before judges, before members of the Sanhedrin;
2) to place
b) to make firm, fix establish
1) to cause a person or a thing to keep his or its place
2) to stand, be kept intact (of family, a kingdom), to escape in safety
3) to establish a thing, cause it to stand
a) to uphold or sustain the authority or force of anything
c) to set or place in a balance
1) to weigh: money to one (because in very early times before the introduction of coinage, the metals used to be weighed)
2) to stand
a) to stand by or near
1) to stop, stand still, to stand immovable, stand firm
a) of the foundation of a building
b) to stand
1) continue safe and sound, stand unharmed, to stand ready or prepared
2) to be of a steadfast mind
3) of quality, one who does not hesitate, does not waiver.
Now tell that Paul denounce the law. We will need to completely remove this text from the bible.

Originally Posted by from scratch

Does it mean an obligation to the law?

It mean embracing the law. It means it is a part of or christian existence.
Originally Posted by from scratch

How?

By the indwelling Holy Spirit doing the things of the law. Not of works but of obedience.

from scratch said:
V 30 just said those without circumcision are justified. Uncircumcision implies outside the law. What law? Not the 10C's. This something that you and others have refuse to investigate carefully. The 10C's and circumcision did not come together, in one package. You are the first to tell me that it came 430 years after Abraham(after circumcision). Indeed I will contend that the 10C's were always there, just never written until Sinai. Either way they were never in the same package.

Originally Posted by from scratch
What is meant by abolish? Does it mean annihiliation? Does anybody here say that?

If not removed then it still stands and must hold it rightful place. You are will you observe and do observe the majority of them anyway. Just do not want to go all the way. But is that not what God requires?

Deut 5:29 · May 24, 2011

from scratch said:
There is a lot of difference in submitting to God and following a covenat or part of a covenant that has no jurisdiction - per Jeremiah's words and Jesus testimony. And least you think that I'mnot stating the verses to back me up cause they have no validity here the references are onece more - Jer 31:31-34, Mat 26:28, Mk 14, 24 and LK 22:20.

You reference verses that say just the opposite of what you say and then you expect people to take you seriously.

from scratch · May 24, 2011

Elder 111 said:
Originally Posted by from scratch

What is meant by establish the law?

This is what it means according to the scholars.
1) to cause or make to stand, to place, put, set
a) to bid to stand by, [set up]
1) in the presence of others, in the midst, before judges, before members of the Sanhedrin;
2) to place
b) to make firm, fix establish
1) to cause a person or a thing to keep his or its place
2) to stand, be kept intact (of family, a kingdom), to escape in safety
3) to establish a thing, cause it to stand
a) to uphold or sustain the authority or force of anything
c) to set or place in a balance
1) to weigh: money to one (because in very early times before the introduction of coinage, the metals used to be weighed)
2) to stand
a) to stand by or near
1) to stop, stand still, to stand immovable, stand firm
a) of the foundation of a building
b) to stand
1) continue safe and sound, stand unharmed, to stand ready or prepared
2) to be of a steadfast mind
3) of quality, one who does not hesitate, does not waiver.

Now tell that Paul denounce the law. We will need to completely remove this text from the bible.

This posts is messed up. Wish you would learn how to use the quote features. The definition is mine.

The definition is fine but I can't connect the statement to it in any way.I don't get what you mean Paul denounce the law. I never said Paul denounces the law, ever. Paul certianly acknowledges the law whithout any doubt. This is a far cry from teaching obligation to the law.

Originally Posted by from scratch

Does it mean an obligation to the law?

It mean embracing the law. It means it is a part of or christian existence.

The above 2 sentences don't belong to me either.

I didn't find anything close to even implying embracing in the definition. The verse doesn't mean obligation to the law. If it did, I ask for what? Paul made the point that only the doers of the law are justified. In v 23 no one qualifies. Now I think that Paul means acknowledgement of the law. Considering the total of Paul's writings it doesn't fit that here he intends obligation to to the law. So yes I see how one comes to your understanding if it is divorced fom the total context of Paul. Why would Paul say one can't be justified by the law and turn right around and say we're obligated to the law? Is it something socialiable? It isn't to establish righteousness because of his statement in v 20-22. In v 23 he states all sinned - IOW no one can keep the law. In 2:13 Paul says doers of the law are justified. Who qualifies as a doer of the law? The only one I know of is Jesus (God). Jesus even made this point with the rich young man in Mat 19.

Originally Posted by from scratch

How?

By the indwelling Holy Spirit doing the things of the law. Not of works but of obedience.

The above 2 sentences are not mine.

I can find no Scripture that states or implies that the Holy Spirit helps one observe or become a doer of the law. If you know of one I'd love to see it. I don't think this idea comes from the Bible. I need some puddin because the proof is in the eatin of the puddin.

from scratch said:
from scratch said:

V 30 just said those without circumcision are justified. Uncircumcision implies outside the law.

Click to expand...

What law? Not the 10C's. This something that you and others have refuse to investigate carefully. The 10C's and circumcision did not come together, in one package. You are the first to tell me that it came 430 years after Abraham(after circumcision). Indeed I will contend that the 10C's were always there, just never written until Sinai. Either way they were never in the same package.

Only the v 30 quote is mine. the quote after - the law. belongs to Elder 111.

The law is a single undivisible unit shown by both Paul and James as I have previously shown and cited Scriptural support. So circumcision comes with the 10 Cs and the rest of the law you deem as belonging to Moses and not God or part of the covenant. I have very carefully investigated the matter of circumcision and the law. Circumcision is as much a part of the package as the sabbath. Yes in understand your unprovable point of the 10 Cs always being there. I have discussed this as well in the forum more than once. It simply proves that you haven't read the Bible and every thing you say comes from church instruction without examiniation.

Originally Posted by from scratch

What is meant by abolish? Does it mean annihiliation? Does anybody here say that?

If not removed then it still stands and must hold it rightful place. You are will you observe and do observe the majority of them anyway. Just do not want to go all the way. But is that not what God requires?

Only the first 3 questions belong to me.

Please carefully examine Jer 31:31-34 and consider Jesus' very own words found in 3 Gospels stating - Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. If Jesus isn't talking about the same new covenant as Jeremiah I need iidentified to me in the worst way. Please identify both new covenants.

from scratch · May 24, 2011

Deut 5:29 said:
You reference verses that say just the opposite of what you say and then you expect people to take you seriously.

Please explain. Oh I guess I need these -

cause I truely don't understand what you mean as I don't recall you ever giving an explanation about any of these verses that say other wise.

So make yourself look smart and wise and explain them.

Elder 111 · May 24, 2011

From Scratch
You are ridiculous. Why I say that? You have made the point that the law came 430 years after Abraham and that Abe did not have the 10C's. Circumcision was given to Abraham 430 year earlier. Please explain now how you claim the ten commandments and circumcision as one law?

Arthur57 · May 24, 2011

from scratch said:
Me thinketh - no knoweth that confusion reigns.

Confusion and disbelief found it remedy in the Scripture.

Arthur57 · May 24, 2011

Arthur57 said:
UNDERSTANDING THE LAW.

The same author Paul wrote:

Ephesians 2:15 - Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,

Romans 3:31 - Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

There is a law abolished, which contained in ordinances, and there is a law established, means exalted, up hold and glorified, means the author admit the authority and jurisdiction of the law remains for him, despite his new faith in Christ as a Jew.

Romans 2:13 - For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

Romans 3:20 - Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Galatians 2:16 - knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Which one is true?

Romans 10:5- For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.
Galatians 3:12 - Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.

2 Cor. 3:6,7 - who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones…………

How could a law that kills, the ministry of death engraved on stone tablets may justify the law doers to live?

How could you comprehend this seemingly contradiction by the same author about the law? Since it is written there by the Spirit, all what we must do is accept both as it is, because it is the truth.

But Christians of this days prefer to use what suit them and discard what is against their believe. This is not the right way to study the Scripture; we must study to come to a complete understanding of the Scripture till there is no more seemingly contradiction.

To be continued.

No comment from the anti law people??

How could they, for they pick what suit them and discard what against them.

Arthur57 · May 24, 2011

Arthur57 said:
Romans 3:20 - Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Galatians 2:16 - knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

But here is the great promise for the law doers:

Revelation 22:12-14. And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

How could it be connected to come to the truth of the Gospel of Christ?

To be continued.

No comment from the anti law people??

How could they, for they pick what suit them and discard what against them.

11822 · May 24, 2011

I cannot believe people want to throw out the basic commandments and even the entire bible. I mean people are actually teaching we can have God without His written word. Am i wrong to be disturbed by this?

sheina · May 24, 2011

You enjoy talking to yourself, Arthur? The reason why nobody is commenting is because we simply like to see you talk on and on about how self-righteous you are by "keeping the law".

Or could it be that we are all tired of the incessant diatribe of how we are all hell-bound because we fail to follow your interpretation of Scripture concerning the OT law?

freeChris44 · May 24, 2011

You can only keep the 10 commandments by the power of His Holy Spirit.

Arthur57 · May 24, 2011

from scratch said:
And what is a doer? If one can be a doer do they need a redeemer? No! The problem is of course as the Bible points out that infact there are no doers - Ps 14:3, 53:3, Isa 64:6, Rom 3:23. unquote.

Infact there was a doer of the law that could keep the 613 laws of the Torah perfect and blameless, his name is Saul the Pharisee. But as according to Ps 14:3, 53:3, Isa 64:6, Rom 3:23 you cited, his righteousness is self righteousness which could not be justified before God, for it lacked in faith in Christ.
Renewed in the Spirit of Christ why should he nullify the law that once his legalistic obedience was blameless only lacking of faith in Christ? Now, he need to keep only the Ten Cs (no longer 613 commands) with the faith of Christ, his righteousness no longer legalistic for it is no longer based on self but on faith, and thus fulfill the demands of the law.

What is written in Romans 2:13 and Rev 22:6 about the law doers, are those who believe they are under the jurisdiction of the law and must walk within the law with faith in Christ, the love of God would be shed to their hearts and enabling them to keep the law with love, fulfills it righteous demands. That why: Shall we made void the law because of faith? God forbid! We established the law.

And establishing the law is establishing its jurisdiction and authority over men, whom are all subject to the law of God, Jews, gentiles, Christians.

You keep contradicting the Scripture with what you believe.

Studious One · May 24, 2011

freeChris44 said:
You can only keep the 10 commandments by the power of His Holy Spirit.

Really? So why couldn't Paul keep them? Even after his Damascus Road experience, he still admitted that he did evil at times even though he did not want to.

We are have the Holy Spirit... from the moment we believe on Christ we are sealed with the Holy Spirit. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit... His dwelling place.

Yet not one of us has the ability to keep the commandments because of the weakness of the flesh.

Arthur57 · May 24, 2011

sheina said:
You enjoy talking to yourself, Arthur? The reason why nobody is commenting is because we simply like to see you talk on and on about how self-righteous you are by "keeping the law".

Or could it be that we are all tired of the incessant diatribe of how we are all hell-bound because we fail to follow your interpretation of Scripture concerning the OT law?

No, because the truth I believe you cannot connect those verses, as you pick what suits you and discard what is against you.

All what they can do is presenting their view, but once I refute with the Scripture, they can not defend their view. That's what happen! How can they defend their view if their view contradict the Scripture.

If you don't, then tell me the connection, for there is a connection and relation which make them come in harmony. Anyway, it is only a seemingly contradiction, if one understood the true Gospel of Christ.

Arthur57 · May 24, 2011

freeChris44 said:
You can only keep the 10 commandments by the power of His Holy Spirit.

That is right! Unfortunately your view is against many here who didn't believe it.

sheina · May 24, 2011

freeChris44 said:
You can only keep the 10 commandments by the power of His Holy Spirit.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Do you agree that christians should keep the 10 Commandments? (3)

Newbie

Newbie

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Newbie

Member

Well-Known Member

from scratch

Guest

from scratch

Guest

Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Born Crucified

Newbie

Newbie

Studious One

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Born Crucified

Similar threads