Amos 3:7, the New Testament & the Commandments

[listed]

Very true. The Covenant has the same LAW of God - as known to Jeremiah - but under the NEW Covenant it is written on the heart and mind.

Which means it is "STILL wrong to take God's name in vain" EVEN under the New Covenant.

As we all know... and indeed very obvious.

impossible

 

[listed]

It looks like you are only looking at the one verse, verse 32and taking it completely out of context. He said it is different because He takes His Law and places it on our minds and hearts. Y'all do this with fullfilled in Matthew 5 you stop at fullfill and fill in the blanks with some bizarre doctrine that is not even within the context of the passage. Why do you do this? The context explains what the meaning of the passage.

You asked for the verse. My consideration is based on the full sentence found in 3 verses.

 

[listed]

Both Covenants are for Israel

True but the second covenant called the new covenant is open to the whole world without subscribing to Judaism.

 

[listed]

This thread is about the decalogue being done away with. As in made irrelevant, isnt it?

Original post....


Jesus lived a perfect life adhering to the Law and died for our sins. That sounds fulfilling.

John 14:15
Romans 6:1
Matthew 5:17-20
Matthew 5-7

These verses tell me that the decalogue isnt irrelevent. Thats what im saying.

You dont like that?

Yes it is. Trouble starts here when lots of Bible is either deleted, words defined to explain away the truth or disbelieved. Not a single one of your verses indicate continuance of the covenant given to Israel in the desert.

 

[listed]

They will not believe it.

bugkiller

They can't show any verse restoring the sabbath.

 

[SAAN]

You've been told and refuse to listen or believe.

Nope, you have yet to show any proof in context.

 

[SAAN]

This thread is about the decalogue being done away with. As in made irrelevant, isnt it?

Original post....


Jesus lived a perfect life adhering to the Law and died for our sins. That sounds fulfilling.

John 14:15
Romans 6:1
Matthew 5:17-20
Matthew 5-7

These verses tell me that the decalogue isnt irrelevent. Thats what im saying.

You dont like that?

God does nothing that he doesnt reveal to his prophets first, so where did the Prophets speak of one coming to abolish the laws of God. Fulfill can also mean to come and show how it was to be lived.

Jesus cant say in 1 verse that im not here to abolish the commandments of God and in the very next sentence, the complete opposite, he wasnt bipolar.

If I said im not here to abolish the traffic laws but to fulfill them, would that mean im here to show you how to obey them or say you can now run stop signs, red lights, and go 40mph over the limit. Its very clear what the context of fulfill Jesus was trying to use.

 

[1John2:4]

I give you the verse from the Old Testament that tells us God would do away with Torah and you come up with this lame excuse. Oy! I have already posted 2Cor 3: 7-11 as proof that the 10 commandments were temporary. I am coming to believe that no matter if Jesus himself came and gave you the real Word straight from His mouth you would not accept it.

I am starting to think you just plunk things out of the Bible without reading the context.
Please read the context and you will understand the meaning.
“Therefore I will return and take away
My grain in its time
And My new wine in its season,
And will take back My wool and My linen,
Given to cover her nakedness.
10 Now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers,
And no one shall deliver her from My hand.
11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease,
Her feast days,
Her New Moons,
Her Sabbaths—
All her appointed feasts.

12 “And I will destroy her vines and her fig trees,
Of which she has said,
‘These are my wages that my lovers have given me.’
So I will make them a forest,
And the beasts of the field shall eat them.
13 I will punish her
For the days of the Baals to which she burned incense.
She decked herself with her earrings and jewelry,
And went after her lovers;
But Me she forgot,” says the Lord

 

[SAAN]

I am starting to think you just plunk things out of the Bible without reading the context.
Please read the context and you will understand the meaning.
“Therefore I will return and take away
My grain in its time
And My new wine in its season,
And will take back My wool and My linen,
Given to cover her nakedness.
10 Now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers,
And no one shall deliver her from My hand.
11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease,
Her feast days,
Her New Moons,
Her Sabbaths—
All her appointed feasts.

12 “And I will destroy her vines and her fig trees,
Of which she has said,
‘These are my wages that my lovers have given me.’
So I will make them a forest,
And the beasts of the field shall eat them.
13 I will punish her
For the days of the Baals to which she burned incense.
She decked herself with her earrings and jewelry,
And went after her lovers;
But Me she forgot,” says the Lord

I could only imagine what would have happened to Paul if he was going around teaching the 10C's were only temporary, im sure that would have went really well back then lol . They wanted to kill him for teaching the commandments, so one could only image him saying dont worry about them now and how they would have reacted.

 

[1John2:4]

Absolutely. Your idea is gentiles are excluded at least unless they submit to the previous covenant. Acts shows this is not true. Chapter 15 is all the proof necessary. You still might say no. Then I ask which, if any gentile was required to keep the law for salvation? Please quote the appropriate passage.

bugkiller

Feel like we are going in a full circle now. Gentiles are grafted into Israel.

 

[Yanni depp]

If I said im not here to abolish the traffic laws but to fulfill them, would that mean im here to show you how to obey them or say you can now run stop signs, red lights, and go 40mph over the limit. Its very clear what the context of fulfill Jesus was trying to use.

Thank you. Thats exactly what i mean with the scripture that i was referencing that we werent supposed to do that, thats all. thanks SAAN. Hope you other guys have fun debating, peace

 

[1John2:4]

You think of the word "new" as repeat. Simply not what it says. It says "not according to.." It does not say move the covenant. The "my law in v 33 can not be the same law covenant issued at Sinai. The NT is proof of this.

bugkiller

Chadasha (Hebrew) - renew or make right repair
Khawdata (Aramaic) renew make right repair

 

[1John2:4]

I have no idea why you think v 32 is being taken out of context. I also have no idea why you think the word "fulfilled" is being abused. Fulfill is defined as -

to meet the requirements of: to bring to an end

bugkiller

You come to that conclusion even with these context clues(bold are the context clues)? Fullfilled means to do the things written of Him in the law and prophets. I think He is pretty convincing that the way you understand it is the way He did NOT want us to understand it.

17 “Do not THINK that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[1John2:4]

Then you have no argument to support the Sabbath or the law for that matter.

bugkiller

Isaiah 56

 

[1John2:4]

So how can you miss it? "Not according to..." deals with contents and not place.

bugkiller

Already covered this

 

[1John2:4]

Hey buggy would you do a key word study on the entire passage?

Nvmd

 

[1John2:4]

You asked for the verse. My consideration is based on the full sentence found in 3 verses.

Someone can't just take a sentence out of the Bible and make it say what they want it to say to fit their thology. They have to use the context, time, place, who it is written to and about. Please read the book of Jerimiah and you will see more clearly or better yet get a chronological Bible and read it all. Just a suggestion, it helped me to better understand prophecy.

 

[1John2:4]

They can't show any verse restoring the sabbath.

Where did it go?

 

[Bob S]

I am starting to think you just plunk things out of the Bible without reading the context.

When the electric company sends a notice of shut off would you fluff it off as something out of context?
Then I gave you 2Cor3:7-11 and you still refuse to comment on what it is telling us. Why are you refusing to comment on a passage of the Holy Writ that tells us the 10 commandments were temporary?

 

[1John2:4]

When the electric company sends a notice of shut off would you fluff it off as something out of context?
Then I gave you 2Cor3:7-11 and you still refuse to comment on what it is telling us. Why are you refusing to comment on a passage of the Holy Writ that tells us the 10 commandments were temporary?

Ok I have a sec.
Do you disagree that context is important when understanding a passage?

2nd Corrinthians is in the NT not the Tenakh. The OP is about the Prophets and I thought that was what we were discussing but I will answer your question.

I believe, it's again the location. The law is written externally in the old Covenant but the law is written internally in the new Covenant. The contents did not change just the location. We just have a spirit to desire the things of God.