The Gospel in Hebrews

LoveGodsWord · Jul 5, 2021

Fervent said:
So what you're saying is you don't have a verse to point me to?

No not at all dear friend.

I am saying you do not have any scripture that says Gods' law is not separate from the Mosiac book of the law while the scriptures already shared with you in post # 55 linked, show God separated the 10 commandments from the Mosiac book of the laws. Then you were asked questions to further demonstrate this that I am still waiting a response....

Did God separate His law written on stone from the Mosaic book of the law?

Why did God write the and speak the 10 commandments not not just let Moses write and speak them in the book of the law?

Where does the scriptures say that Gods' 10 commandments written and spoken by God alone and separated under Gods command in the Ark of the covenant as already shown through the scriptures in post # 55 linked, say that Gods' 10 commandments and the book of the law are not separate?

Hope this is helpful.

Fervent · Jul 5, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
No not at all dear friend.

I am saying you do not have any scripture that says Gods' law is not separate from the Mosiac book of the law while the scriptures already shared with you in post # 55 linked, show God separated the 10 commandments from the Mosiac book of the laws. Then you were asked questions to further demonstrate this that I am still waiting a response....

Did God separate His law written on stone from the Mosaic book of the law?

Why did God write the and speak the 10 commandments not not just let Moses write and speak them in the book of the law?

Where does the scriptures say that Gods' 10 commandments written and spoken by God alone and separated under Gods command in the Ark of the covenant as already shown through the scriptures in post # 55 linked, say that Gods' 10 commandments and the book of the law are not separate?

Hope this is helpful.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. I asked for an explicit teaching, you claimed the verses supplied such yet here you are trying to defend reading an implication into a set of actions. That implication does not fit with the pattern the law is based on(the suzerain-vassal treaty), which explains every detail given as a unified whole. Now, if it is intended to be something different than what the historical pattern implies such a thing would require an explicit statement, so where is this explicit statement given making what you take the implication and explanation to be superior to the one that fits the historic pattern(and would likely have been the understanding of those to whom the covenant was given)?

LoveGodsWord · Jul 5, 2021

Fervent said:
The burden of proof is on the claimant. I asked for an explicit teaching, you claimed the verses supplied such yet here you are trying to defend reading an implication into a set of actions. That implication does not fit with the pattern the law is based on(the suzerain-vassal treaty), which explains every detail given as a unified whole. Now, if it is intended to be something different than what the historical pattern implies such a thing would require an explicit statement, so where is this explicit statement given making what you take the implication and explanation to be superior to the one that fits the historic pattern(and would likely have been the understanding of those to whom the covenant was given)?

Proof is provided through the scriptures already on separation of the laws (10 commandments and the Mosiac book of the old covenant - see post # 55 linked). Your unwillingness to answer the questions asked of you is telling. No one has ever said or argued that all law is not from God so your making arguments no one is making here. It is the purpose of these laws that is being discussed Gods 10 commandments are the knowledge of good (moral right doing) and evil (moral wrong doing); sin (moral wrong doing) and righteousness (moral right doing) *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; Psalms 119;172. While much of the Mosaic book of the law for remission of sins were "shadows law" pointing to the body of Christ *Colossians 2:17.

Fervent · Jul 5, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
Proof is provided through the scriptures already (see post # 55 linked). Your unwillingness to answer the questions asked of you is telling. No one has ever said or argued that all law is not from God so your making arguments no one is making here.

No, "proof" was not provided. Otherwise your explanation of what those Scriptures are supposedly saying would be unnecessary. No where is your teaching explicitly stated, which is what I have been asking you to provide. Your last sentence is a non-sequitor because it is not a question of origin in any way, but what you are reading into the text. Given the treaty that the entire thing is patterned on the most likely inference between the tablets and the book of the law is that one was an original, ceremonial copy of the treaty(the tablets) kept in an ornate vessel(the ark) and the other(the book of the law) is the full contract intended for periodic reading. The historical pattern does not imply that they have different contents, but that they serve different purposes.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 5, 2021

Fervent said:
No, "proof" was not provided. Otherwise your explanation of what those Scriptures are supposedly saying would be unnecessary. No where is your teaching explicitly stated, which is what I have been asking you to provide. Your last sentence is a non-sequitor because it is not a question of origin in any way, but what you are reading into the text. Given the treaty that the entire thing is patterned on the most likely inference between the tablets and the book of the law is that one was an original, ceremonial copy of the treaty(the tablets) kept in an ornate vessel(the ark) and the other(the book of the law) is the full contract intended for periodic reading. The historical pattern does not imply that they have different contents, but that they serve different purposes.

I respectfully disagree as do the scriptures provided in post # 55 linked. It seems you do not believe them though. If you make claims here that I am reading into the scriptures in order not to address the scriptures and the questions asked of you then you need to prove your claims. All I am hearing here in your posts is your words arguing with God's Word. Prove your claims. Ignoring Gods' Word does not make it disappear.

Fervent · Jul 5, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
I respectfully disagree as do the scriptures provided in post # 55 linked. It seems you do not believe them though.

Right, which is why you tried to turn it around on me instead of producing a Scripture that explicitly states what you attempt to imply in that post. Why must you rely on supposed implication and editorializing and object to being asked for an explicit statement?

LoveGodsWord · Jul 5, 2021

Fervent said:
No, "proof" was not provided. Otherwise your explanation of what those Scriptures are supposedly saying would be unnecessary. No where is your teaching explicitly stated, which is what I have been asking you to provide. Your last sentence is a non-sequitor because it is not a question of origin in any way, but what you are reading into the text. Given the treaty that the entire thing is patterned on the most likely inference between the tablets and the book of the law is that one was an original, ceremonial copy of the treaty(the tablets) kept in an ornate vessel(the ark) and the other(the book of the law) is the full contract intended for periodic reading. The historical pattern does not imply that they have different contents, but that they serve different purposes.

As posted earlier, proof of separation was absolutely provided as shown in the scriptures in post # 55 linked. They are Gods' Word not my words that disagree with your words that are not Gods Word. This is something your reading into the scriptures that the scriptures do not say or teach anywhere. No where in scripture does it specifically state that Gods' laws are not separate, but the scriptures in post # 55 linked prove that God separated His law from the Mosaic book of the covenant by making the 10 commandments alone and separating them in the Ark of the covenant and commanded that nothing should be added to them. These of course are Gods' Word not my words you are arguing with so your argument here is with God not me so we will have to agree to disagree.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 5, 2021

Fervent said:
Right, which is why you tried to turn it around on me instead of producing a Scripture that explicitly states what you attempt to imply in that post. Why must you rely on supposed implication and editorializing and object to being asked for an explicit statement?

No. I only used your same argument of silence to prove a point but it seems you missed it or perhaps you got the point and it is why you will not respond to the questions that I was asking you. I am not sure.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 5, 2021

Fervent said:
Especially since the event described in Hebrews 9:18-20 that identifies what is meant by "the first"(as contrasted with "the new") which is being replaced is explicitly Exodus 20-34 where Moses read the commandments of the law(including the 10 commandments) and then inaugurated the covenant with a sacrifice. So where does the text make the separation you are attempting to make?

Let's talk covenants. Perhaps this will help the conversation. What made up the old covenant and how is it different from the new covenant? What is the new covenant? (scripture please)

Fervent · Jul 5, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
As posted earlier, proof of separation was absolutely provided as shown in post # 55 linked. They are Gods' Word not my words that disagree with your words that are not Gods Word. No where in scripture does it specifically state that Gods' laws are not separate, but the scriptures in post # 55 linked prove that God separated His law from the Mosaic book of the covenant by making the 10 commandments alone and separating them in the Ark of the covenant and commanded that nothing should be added to them. These of course are Gods' Word not my words you are arguing with so your argument here is with God not me so we will have to agree to disagree.

And as I have repeated, that "proof" only stands if your explanation is included and accepted. There is also the question of what the intended meaning in context is and whether it fits with your use. For example, Deuteronomy 4 is Moses instructing the Israelites to keep the whole law without exception through which he highlights the Israelites hearing God speak the "10 words" for themselves. Now, your usage implies that the purpose of this Scripture is to present a division between the 10 commandments and the rest of the law Moses gave. Yet contextually, that purpose makes no sense because such a separation would give cause to selectively obey the lesser law not encourage obedience to all. In fact, the purpose appears to be the exact opposite as given in 4:14 where the commandments and rules are said to be how the Israelites may do what they heard God command them.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 5, 2021

Fervent said:
And as I have repeated, that "proof" only stands if your explanation is included and accepted. There is also the question of what the intended meaning in context is and whether it fits with your use. For example, Deuteronomy 4 is Moses instructing the Israelites to keep the whole law without exception through which he highlights the Israelites hearing God speak the "10 words" for themselves. Now, your usage implies that the purpose of this Scripture is to present a division between the 10 commandments and the rest of the law Moses gave. Yet contextually, that purpose makes no sense because such a separation would give cause to selectively obey the lesser law not encourage obedience to all. In fact, the purpose appears to be the exact opposite as given in 4:14 where the commandments and rules are said to be how the Israelites may do what they heard God command them.

I am sorry dear friend but I respectfully disagree and have shown why from the scriptures already. As posted earlier you are free to believe as you wish as that is between you and God. For me it is very clear the scriptures provided in post # 55 linked show that God separated the 10 commandments from the Mosaic book of the law and stated nothing was to be added to His law. No where in scripture does it specifically state that Gods' laws are not separate, but the scriptures in post # 55 linked prove that God separated His law from the Mosaic book of the covenant by making the 10 commandments alone and separating them in the Ark of the covenant and commanded that nothing should be added to them. These of course are Gods' Word not my words you are arguing with so your argument here is with God not me so we will have to agree to disagree. Let's talk covenants now, as I think this will help the discussion. What made up the old covenant and how is it different from the new covenant? What is the new covenant? (scripture please)

Fervent · Jul 5, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
I am sorry dear friend but I respectfully disagree and have shown why from the scriptures already. As posted earlier you are free to believe as you wish as that is between you and God. For me it is very clear the scriptures provided in post # 55 linked show that God separated the 10 commandments from the Mosaic book of the law and stated nothing was to be added to His law. No where in scripture does it specifically state that Gods' laws are not separate, but the scriptures in post # 55 linked prove that God separated His law from the Mosaic book of the covenant by making the 10 commandments alone and separating them in the Ark of the covenant and commanded that nothing should be added to them. These of course are Gods' Word not my words you are arguing with so your argument here is with God not me so we will have to agree to disagree. Let's talk covenants now, as I think this will help the discussion. What made up the old covenant and how is it different from the new covenant? What is the new covenant? (scripture please)

Again, you are inserting implications to God's actions which are far better explained through appeal to the historic precedence upon which they are built. It is pure eisegesis.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 5, 2021

Fervent said:
There is also the question of what the intended meaning in context is and whether it fits with your use. For example, Deuteronomy 4 is Moses instructing the Israelites to keep the whole law without exception through which he highlights the Israelites hearing God speak the "10 words" for themselves. Now, your usage implies that the purpose of this Scripture is to present a division between the 10 commandments and the rest of the law Moses gave. Yet contextually, that purpose makes no sense because such a separation would give cause to selectively obey the lesser law not encourage obedience to all. In fact, the purpose appears to be the exact opposite as given in 4:14 where the commandments and rules are said to be how the Israelites may do what they heard God command them.

It makes perfect sense if you understand the scriptures. This is also why I would like the discuss the covenants as collectively the Mosaic book of the law and God's 10 commandments made up Gods' covenant to Israel not just the 10 commandments.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 5, 2021

Fervent said:
Again, you are inserting implications to God's actions which are far better explained through appeal to the historic precedence upon which they are built. It is pure eisegesis.

I have inserted nothing but only provided the scriptures that show that God separated His law from the Mosaic book of the covenant by making the 10 commandments alone and separating them in the Ark of the covenant and commanded that nothing should be added to them. It is you who are inserting implication by making arguments from silence which can be turned around and used also against your claims here. I am not sure why you cannot see this as this was the point of using your own argument of silence against you. I was hoping you would see this. Yet the once again the scriptures have been provided proving separation of Gods' 10 commandments from the Mosaic book of the old covenant in post # 55 linked

Fervent · Jul 5, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
I have inserted nothing. This is what you are doing by making arguments from silence. Again scriptures proving separation of Gods' 10 commandments from the Mosaic book of the old covenant in post # 55 linked

You have created a purpose that doesn't match the context, creating a teaching that is not supported by the Biblical usage.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 5, 2021

Fervent said:
You have created a purpose that doesn't match the context, creating a teaching that is not supported by the Biblical usage.

You would need to prove your assertion. So far all you have done is make an argument of silence that can be turned around and used against you. While the scriptures already provided in post # 55 linked disagree with you. Your welcome to prove your claims by addressing the linked post above. If you cannot all you have are your words trying to argue against Gods' Word.

Fervent · Jul 5, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
It makes perfect sense if you understand the scriptures. This is also why I would like the discuss the covenants as collectively the Mosaic book of the law and God's 10 commandments made up Gods' covenant to Israel not just the 10 commandments.

Your usage of Deuteronomy 4:12-13 would require the opposite, since your argument is that the isolation of the 10 commandments is to separate it from the law of Moses but the text says that the 10 commandments was God's declaration of his covenant not simply a part of his covenant.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 5, 2021

Fervent said:
Your usage of Deuteronomy 4:12-13 would require the opposite, since your argument is that the isolation of the 10 commandments is to separate it from the law of Moses but the text says that the 10 commandments was God's declaration of his covenant not simply a part of his covenant.

That is not my argument at all. It is the purpose of the laws I am arguing and the scriptures that show separation between what was spoken and written by God alone and what was spoken and written by Moses alone and their purpose within the old covenant. Do you know the difference? You might also want to consider your understanding of what made up the old covenant. What do you think Exodus 24:7 is saying. What made up the old covenant in your view and how does it differ from the new covenant?

Fervent · Jul 5, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
You would need to prove your assertion. So far all you have done is make an argument of silence that can be turned around and used against you. While the scriptures already provided in post # 55 linked disagree with you. Your welcome to prove your claims by addressing the linked post above. If you cannot all you have are your words trying to argue against Gods' Word.

No, I have forwarded an alternate interpretation of the Scripture you linked in post 55 that is fit with the historic precedence, the contextual readings, and the thrust of the Bible in that the 10 commandments are being used representationally of the whole. You claimed those Scripture were explicit in their teaching, yet now you are attempting to malign my repeated requirement as if it is improper since your supplementary interpretation of those verses which is required for understanding them as you are is rejected.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 5, 2021

Fervent said:
No, I have forwarded an alternate interpretation of the Scripture you linked in post 55 that is fit with the historic precedence, the contextual readings, and the thrust of the Bible in that the 10 commandments are being used representationally of the whole. You claimed those Scripture were explicit in their teaching, yet now you are attempting to malign my repeated requirement as if it is improper since your supplementary interpretation of those verses which is required for understanding them as you are is rejected.

Actually no you didn't but we will agree to disagree here. Let's talk covenants as I think that this will help the conversation and make things much clearer. See post above yours.

The Gospel in Hebrews

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads