Been told

[JohnRabbit]

You Guys,

Scratch Is Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



CHOP, CHOP, CHOP!!!!!!!!!

 

[from scratch]

You Guys,

Scratch Is Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



CHOP, CHOP, CHOP!!!!!!!!!

Yeah don't you wish you could dull my hatchet. It is mechanized and auto sharpened BTW. So when are you going to explain what I don't understand. I gave you my obstacles. Can't you negotiate the course? Or are you going to just complain. My guess is that is easier than providing answers. You sure do a lot of it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by JohnRabbit You Guys,

Scratch Is Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CHOP, CHOP, CHOP!!!!!!!!!

Yeah don't you wish you could dull my hatchet. It is mechanized and auto sharpened BTW.

Hebrew 4:12 For living the Word of the God, and in-working/energhV <1756> and keener/sharper/tomwteroV <5114> over every blade/knife two-mouthed,
and penetrating to parting of soul and of spirit, joints besides and marrows, and judge of feelings and of in-minds/thoughts of heart

5114. tomoteros tom-o'-ter-os comparative of a derivative of the primary temno (to cut; more comprehensive or decisive than 2875, as if by a single stroke; whereas that implies repeated blows, like hacking); more keen:--sharper.

 

[from scratch]

Hebrew 4:12 For living the Word of the God, and in-working/energhV <1756> and keener/sharper/tomwteroV <5114> over every blade/knife two-mouthed,
and penetrating to parting of soul and of spirit, joints besides and marrows, and judge of feelings and of in-minds/thoughts of heart

5114. tomoteros tom-o'-ter-os comparative of a derivative of the primary temno (to cut; more comprehensive or decisive than 2875, as if by a single stroke; whereas that implies repeated blows, like hacking); more keen:--sharper.

I forgot my hatchet also has a boomarang feature. Just keeps coming back with the same undealt with stuff. Poor ole JohnRabbit was complaining bout me not answering his questions. Which one of mine is he answering to help me understand the first covenant? Really he is playing the part of the snotty intelligentsia. They are in their own little world too. One can't have any questions about what is said. Unfortunately we don't need a grade to get a diploma that says we have somebody elses opinion to back us up. Yeah me and the school teacher crowd don't get along very well. Give them a pencil and you have to show them how to sharpen it before one can write with it. Then you must take them by the hand and do the writing for them.

This post is general conversation. Thanks for reading and posting LLOJ. Great Scripture BTW.

 

[Frogster]

Yeah don't you wish you could dull my hatchet. It is mechanized and auto sharpened BTW. So when are you going to explain what I don't understand. I gave you my obstacles. Can't you negotiate the course? Or are you going to just complain. My guess is that is easier than providing answers. You sure do a lot of it.

 

[YosemiteSam]

wow..i answerd your endless 5;18 question..

now, all i was doing, is asking how you feel each day,when you do or do not, keep all the laws?

I thought we would have an interesting chat, as buddies.

How do I feel? Wretched man that I am! Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with the flesh I serve the law of sin

 

[YosemiteSam]

I would appreaciate it very much if you would stop using SDA manipulative tactics on me. I grew up with manipulation and recognized it on the horizion most of the time. I'm extremely resistant and riled by the tactic. One of the things you are communitcating to me is that I didn't say what you want me to say and didn't like my answer. You and JohnRabbit do what you accuse me of all the time. You surely are the pot calling the kettle black. Yes if I take myself out of it, what should I replace me with - Ellen Garmon White? Surely you're thinly vailed. You argue for me very well and there is no need of me explaining the verse. You just showed that you understand it perfectly. I can read. Consider these two versions of the verse:
version 1 - "But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law."


version 2 - "But if you are led by the spirit, you are under the law."

I think you read the second version. A common problem. And you need it to read that way to support you idea that Christians are obligated to the law. If it read that way I would not be asking about the word under which JohnRabbit said has other meanings and refuses to to provide them and examples so I can see what he means. He is acting more like his shoe size than his poted age.



If you don't agree please let me know and why?

Now, please address, What law is the person, who is not led by the spirit, under?

[/quote]


You got version 2 wrong! But the fact remains that the law exist! Paul even served the law of God. Now how is it that mainstream believers believe that the law (all law) was nailed to the cross and is not to be followed anymore? Obviously Paul was doing the opposite of mainstream believers of today. Something wrong with this picture?

You did not answer my question as "what was the law"? I think this thread proves beyond any doubt as to what it is. So don't try to argue that it is not the 10 commandments as that is futile. If you do not think it is the 10 commandments then you would be against what all theologians and commentaries have written past and present.

 

[from scratch]

The quotes below are from YosemiteSam post 507 - quote function messed up

You got version 2 wrong! But the fact remains that the law exist! Paul even served the law of God. Now how is it that mainstream believers believe that the law (all law) was nailed to the cross and is not to be followed anymore? Obviously Paul was doing the opposite of mainstream believers of today. Something wrong with this picture?

Nope! What are you even suggesting? that Paul is a false prophet?

You did not answer my question as "what was the law"? I think this thread proves beyond any doubt as to what it is. So don't try to argue that it is not the 10 commandments as that is futile. If you do not think it is the 10 commandments then you would be against what all theologians and commentaries have written past and present.

You must be confused. First of all I gave version 2 to make a point of what is going on in this thread. You demanded an explaination. So I gave yet another and you don'tlike it either. Figures.

I'm sorry I didn't see that question. Where is it. And while we're at it why don't you answer my question or make counters to my statements? Who started this thread anyway? What is it about? I thought it was about what I don't understand about the first covenant. So why don't you explain it to me. You have been around this forum for more than a few days. You know what is going down. Well maybe not. I understand the contents of the law without a problem. So it must be another issue like application.

I never ever said anywhere on any forum that the 10 commandments weren't the law or the first (old) covenant.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Hebrew 4:12 For living the Word of the God, and in-working/energhV <1756> and keener/sharper/tomwteroV <5114> over every blade/knife two-mouthed,
and penetrating to parting of soul and of spirit, joints besides and marrows, and judge of feelings and of in-minds/thoughts of heart

5114. tomoteros tom-o'-ter-os comparative of a derivative of the primary temno (to cut; more comprehensive or decisive than 2875, as if by a single stroke; whereas that implies repeated blows, like hacking); more keen:--sharper.

that's a good one!

 

[JohnRabbit]

You got version 2 wrong! But the fact remains that the law exist! Paul even served the law of God. Now how is it that mainstream believers believe that the law (all law) was nailed to the cross and is not to be followed anymore? Obviously Paul was doing the opposite of mainstream believers of today. Something wrong with this picture?

You did not answer my question as "what was the law"? I think this thread proves beyond any doubt as to what it is. So don't try to argue that it is not the 10 commandments as that is futile. If you do not think it is the 10 commandments then you would be against what all theologians and commentaries have written past and present.[/QUOTE]

i guess that is the crux of it all, what was nailed to the cross.

here's how i've come to understand it.

God made a covenant with the nation israel and promised to be their God and promised them material blessings. all they had to do was obey him and He set forth His laws for them to abide by.

the laws were 613 commandments in all:

ten were written by God Himself and defined sin , and teaches one to love God and to love neighbor, the Royal Law even (jam 2:8)

and the statutes and judgments that expounded the principles of the ten commandments in everyday practical living in their society.

and because they were a nation they were given the minstration of death (ex. 21:12).

and then the sacrificial and ritual laws were given (works of law [the "ergon nomos"] in gal 3, the schoolmaster, required physical labor to accomplish, to serve a temporary purpose of things to come).

what was nailed to the cross was the sacrifical and ritual laws and the ministration of death.

the ten commandments are still here to define sin, those precepts are forever:


Psalms 119:152 ( KJV ) 152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.



Psalms 111:7-8 ( KJV ) 7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.

8 They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

and we know what was temporary.

 

[Frogster]

You got version 2 wrong! But the fact remains that the law exist! Paul even served the law of God. Now how is it that mainstream believers believe that the law (all law) was nailed to the cross and is not to be followed anymore? Obviously Paul was doing the opposite of mainstream believers of today. Something wrong with this picture?

IT IS FOR UNBELIEVERS. CHRIST IS THE END..END..END..OF THE LAW, FOR THEM THAT BELIEV..BELIEVE..DANG!

You did not answer my question as "what was the law"? I think this thread proves beyond any doubt as to what it is. So don't try to argue that it is not the 10 commandments as that is futile.

LOL!..READ 2 COR 3, THAT WHICH ON STONE, IS SET ASIDE, ABOLISHED, SET ASIDE...

If you do not think it is the 10 commandments then you would be against what all theologians and commentaries have written past and present.

i guess that is the crux of it all, what was nailed to the cross.[/QUOTE]You are wrong, the law was one. James 2:10, Gal 5:3, Gal 3:10. If it was just ceremonial, why would those keep us from being reconciled to God?

15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.


Where Paul says we were dead in trespasses, that was ceremonial?
,
Where he says in 2 cor 5:19, not counting mens trespasses against the, that was ceremonial?

here's how i've come to understand it.

God made a covenant with the nation israel and promised to be their God and promised them material blessings. all they had to do was obey him and He set forth His laws for them to abide by.

the laws were 613 commandments in all:

ten were written by God Himself and defined sin , and teaches one to love God and to love neighbor, the Royal Law even (jam 2:8)

Why does it say the law works wrath, in rom 4:15?

and the statutes and judgments that expounded the principles of the ten commandments in everyday practical living in their society.

and because they were a nation they were given the minstration of death (ex. 21:12).

and then the sacrificial and ritual laws were given (works of law [the "ergon nomos"] in gal 3, the schoolmaster, required physical labor to accomplish, to serve a temporary purpose of things to come).

what was nailed to the cross was the sacrifical and ritual laws and the ministration of death.

No, it was the whole law. SHOW ME where it says sacrificial only, besides, they were fo0r sin anywhoooo

the ten commandments are still here to define sin, those precepts are forever:

then we die to law...then we have Christ!

Psalms 119:152 ( KJV ) 152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.



Psalms 111:7-8 ( KJV ) 7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.

8 They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

and we know what was temporary.

 

[Frogster]

How do I feel? Wretched man that I am! Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with the flesh I serve the law of sin

then u prove you are still living under law, and have not moved to romans 8.

8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

 

[Frogster]

SINCE RABBIT KEPT ASKING SCRATCH ABOUT 5:18. I HAVE ASKED RABBIT THIS, BUT NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. TIME FOR HIM , TO TREAT ME, AS HE WOULD LIKE TO ASK OTHERS TO DO.

WHAT WAS WRITTEN ON STONE, THAT WAS SET ASIDE, AND NOT PERMANENT?


7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,


11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

 

[from scratch]

You got version 2 wrong! But the fact remains that the law exist! Paul even served the law of God. Now how is it that mainstream believers believe that the law (all law) was nailed to the cross and is not to be followed anymore? Obviously Paul was doing the opposite of mainstream believers of today. Something wrong with this picture?

You did not answer my question as "what was the law"? I think this thread proves beyond any doubt as to what it is. So don't try to argue that it is not the 10 commandments as that is futile. If you do not think it is the 10 commandments then you would be against what all theologians and commentaries have written past and present.

i guess that is the crux of it all, what was nailed to the cross.

Obviously you think I have no clue. So would you please expalin how sacrifices and ceremony are against us. Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

As far as version 2 goes, how did I get it wrong? Isn't this what you promote. My version 2 was given to show how you read version 1. Version 2 supports your idea that the Spirit leads us to the law. Version 1 dosen't!!

here's how i've come to understand it.


God made a covenant with the nation israel and promised to be their God and promised them material blessings. all they had to do was obey him and He set forth His laws for them to abide by.

Who is them? How do you apply them to Christians? Christians aren't Israel in any way. Gal 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

the laws were 613 commandments in all:

ten were written by God Himself and defined sin , and teaches one to love God and to love neighbor, the Royal Law even (jam 2:8)

I fully agree that the law defined sin for Israel only. I gave you Gen 9:3 where God is telling Noah to sin by your rules. This I can't accept. God tells no one to sin. You also fail to acknowledge the purpose of the law as stated in Romans 11:30-32.

and the statutes and judgments that expounded the principles of the ten commandments in everyday practical living in their society.

I agree and we aren't living in their society. The Sabbath only applies to Israelites and those within their gates. Within their gates is a temporary protocol (a required curtesy). I'm not within their gates on the Sabbath at my house or any place of business. I have delivered to their business which closes at noon on Friday for the day of preperation prior to the Sabbath. A very interesting event. Therefore because I'm not an Israelite nor within their gates the 4th doesn't apply to me in any way. Just another proof that the 10 commandments weren't given to the world.

and because they were a nation they were given the minstration of death (ex. 21:12).

and then the sacrificial and ritual laws were given (works of law [the "ergon nomos"] in gal 3, the schoolmaster, required physical labor to accomplish, to serve a temporary purpose of things to come).

So how are these works of the law a curse? Surely worshipping God is not a curse. Exact same phrase and words ergon nomos are used in verse 10. Paul also says circumcision is a work of the law in chapter 5. 3:10 states that if you do any of the works of the law you are obligated to all the law. Observing the Sabbath is a work of the law.

what was nailed to the cross was the sacrifical and ritual laws and the ministration of death.

the ten commandments are still here to define sin, those precepts are forever:

Based on what? How then does God say the Sabbath will cease in Hosea 2:11? God gave Israel the Sabbath and thus it is hers. If you can show some other Sabbath that Israel observed I will change my stance. This doesn't mean you can show they served other gods on the Sabbath that God gave her. It must be something besides the 7th day Sabbath. That is going to be very difficult for you to do if not impossible. The list in Hosea includes all the festival and new moon Sabbaths as well. So you will have to show that they weren't the same ones God gave Israel. A new moon usually only occurs once a month in the Georgian calendar and always started the Jewish month. The 7th day Sabbath was based on this and not the Gregorian calendar. This is why Passover isn't always on the same day every year.

Psalms 119:152 ( KJV ) 152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

Psalms 111:7-8 ( KJV ) 7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.

8 They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

and we know what was temporary.

And that is exactly what Jeremiah had in mind and not a new covenant that Jesus testified was current in 3 Gospels. And Paul doesn't have a clue because he said he was made a minister of the new covenant by God in II Cor 3:6, 7. At the most you can say Paul was lying, in which case he is not inspired as he claims in II Tim 3:16. Peter says Paul's writings are Scripture in II Pet 3:15, 16. Then you must identify for us what new covenant Jesus was talking about. I'm very interested.

 

[JohnRabbit]

SINCE RABBIT KEPT ASKING SCRATCH ABOUT 5:18. I HAVE ASKED RABBIT THIS, BUT NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. TIME FOR HIM , TO TREAT ME, AS HE WOULD LIKE TO ASK OTHERS TO DO.

WHAT WAS WRITTEN ON STONE, THAT WAS SET ASIDE, AND NOT PERMANENT?


7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,


11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

Deuteronomy 27:1-4, 8 ( NKJV ) 1Now Moses, with the elders of Israel, commanded the people, saying: &#8220;Keep all the commandments which I command you today. 2And it shall be, on the day when you cross over the Jordan to the land which the Lord your God is giving you, that you shall set up for yourselves large stones, and whitewash them with lime. 3You shall write on them all the words of this law, when you have crossed over, that you may enter the land which the Lord your God is giving you, &#8216;a land flowing with milk and honey,&#8217; just as the Lord God of your fathers promised you. 4Therefore it shall be, when you have crossed over the Jordan, that on Mount Ebal you shall set up these stones, which I command you today, and you shall whitewash them with lime. ....8And you shall write very plainly on the stones all the words of this law.&#8221;

Moses wrote the law on stone.

now, you tell me what Moses wrote and what God wrote.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Obviously you think I have no clue. So would you please expalin how sacrifices and ceremony are against us. Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

As far as version 2 goes, how did I get it wrong? Isn't this what you promote. My version 2 was given to show how you read version 1. Version 2 supports your idea that the Spirit leads us to the law. Version 1 dosen't!!
Who is them? How do you apply them to Christians? Christians aren't Israel in any way. Gal 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.I fully agree that the law defined sin for Israel only. I gave you Gen 9:3 where God is telling Noah to sin by your rules. This I can't accept. God tells no one to sin. You also fail to acknowledge the purpose of the law as stated in Romans 11:30-32. I agree and we aren't living in their society. The Sabbath only applies to Israelites and those within their gates. Within their gates is a temporary protocol (a required curtesy). I'm not within their gates on the Sabbath at my house or any place of business. I have delivered to their business which closes at noon on Friday for the day of preperation prior to the Sabbath. A very interesting event. Therefore because I'm not an Israelite nor within their gates the 4th doesn't apply to me in any way. Just another proof that the 10 commandments weren't given to the world. So how are these works of the law a curse? Surely worshipping God is not a curse. Exact same phrase and words ergon nomos are used in verse 10. Paul also says circumcision is a work of the law in chapter 5. 3:10 states that if you do any of the works of the law you are obligated to all the law. Observing the Sabbath is a work of the law.Based on what? How then does God say the Sabbath will cease in Hosea 2:11? God gave Israel the Sabbath and thus it is hers. If you can show some other Sabbath that Israel observed I will change my stance. This doesn't mean you can show they served other gods on the Sabbath that God gave her. It must be something besides the 7th day Sabbath. That is going to be very difficult for you to do if not impossible. The list in Hosea includes all the festival and new moon Sabbaths as well. So you will have to show that they weren't the same ones God gave Israel. A new moon usually only occurs once a month in the Georgian calendar and always started the Jewish month. The 7th day Sabbath was based on this and not the Gregorian calendar. This is why Passover isn't always on the same day every year.And that is exactly what Jeremiah had in mind and not a new covenant that Jesus testified was current in 3 Gospels. And Paul doesn't have a clue because he said he was made a minister of the new covenant by God in II Cor 3:6, 7. At the most you can say Paul was lying, in which case he is not inspired as he claims in II Tim 3:16. Peter says Paul's writings are Scripture in II Pet 3:15, 16. Then you must identify for us what new covenant Jesus was talking about. I'm very interested.

you have commented and answered for me.

you're a stand up guy.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Originally Posted by JohnRabbit

You got version 2 wrong! But the fact remains that the law exist! Paul even served the law of God. Now how is it that mainstream believers believe that the law (all law) was nailed to the cross and is not to be followed anymore? Obviously Paul was doing the opposite of mainstream believers of today. Something wrong with this picture?
​

IT IS FOR UNBELIEVERS. CHRIST IS THE END..END..END..OF THE LAW, FOR THEM THAT BELIEV..BELIEVE..DANG!
LOL!..READ 2 COR 3, THAT WHICH ON STONE, IS SET ASIDE, ABOLISHED, SET ASIDE...

So what are you saying Froggy? Paul wasn't serving a law?

 

[YosemiteSam]

Deuteronomy 27:1-4, 8 ( NKJV ) 1Now Moses, with the elders of Israel, commanded the people, saying: “Keep all the commandments which I command you today. 2And it shall be, on the day when you cross over the Jordan to the land which the Lord your God is giving you, that you shall set up for yourselves large stones, and whitewash them with lime. 3You shall write on them all the words of this law, when you have crossed over, that you may enter the land which the Lord your God is giving you, ‘a land flowing with milk and honey,’ just as the Lord God of your fathers promised you. 4Therefore it shall be, when you have crossed over the Jordan, that on Mount Ebal you shall set up these stones, which I command you today, and you shall whitewash them with lime. ....8And you shall write very plainly on the stones all the words of this law.”

Moses wrote the law on stone.

now, you tell me what Moses wrote and what God wrote.

There it is Frog / Scratch...They both wrote on stone. Would either of you please tell us who wrote what?

 

[from scratch]

Deuteronomy 27:1-4, 8 ( NKJV ) 1Now Moses, with the elders of Israel, commanded the people, saying: “Keep all the commandments which I command you today. 2And it shall be, on the day when you cross over the Jordan to the land which the Lord your God is giving you, that you shall set up for yourselves large stones, and whitewash them with lime. 3You shall write on them all the words of this law, when you have crossed over, that you may enter the land which the Lord your God is giving you, ‘a land flowing with milk and honey,’ just as the Lord God of your fathers promised you. 4Therefore it shall be, when you have crossed over the Jordan, that on Mount Ebal you shall set up these stones, which I command you today, and you shall whitewash them with lime. ....8And you shall write very plainly on the stones all the words of this law.”

Moses wrote the law on stone.

Not according to your verse citations. Moses didn't cross the Jordan.

now, you tell me what Moses wrote and what God wrote.

What difference does it make if God is the source of both? It sure seems to me that you're implying that Moses is the source for everything outside the 10 commandments. So Whos is the soruce? If it is God as I contend why does the laws outside of the 10 commandments not bear the same weight or validity?

 

[from scratch]

you have commented and answered for me.

you're a stand up guy.

So then I take it that you agree with my stance. Or is it there is no defense for what you say I don't understand because I do in fact understand?

If you agree to what I said or part of what I said would you identify with a comment on each point, please? Thanks.