Been told

[Frogster]

I'm really interested in what or how you twisted something in the post. JohnRabbit or Yedida please kindly tell me/us. Is it statements like this that make you think we/I don't understand the first covenant? JohnRabbit what is your explaination of those Scriptures cited above? Just saying that Frogster twisted something with no explaination goes nowhere except to fustration.

you're right! it is just like bad politics. I keep it scriptural, offering expository, and all i get is tht kind of thing. You know, it is also like politics i that, when a politician is down in the polls..they go personal and negative.

 

[Frogster]

What value is this post? I guess that you got some blessings added to you meter. All I see is that you're empty and have no defense except to attack your opponent. In politics this is called mud slinging or dirty politics. Here it is against the rules and is called belittling and goading. In legal terms it is called slander and punishable by law. In terms of the law it is called false witness which violates the 10 commandments you wish to defend. You do want us to take you seriously, don't you? You make respect very difficult and your decorum is despicable as a debator and especially as a Christian.

could it be some don't know what aroused means?

They deny passions, were aroused by the law.

 

[from scratch]

could it be some don't know what aroused means?

They deny passions, were aroused by the law.

No I think it is the way they refuse to face the music. Oh yeah they don't dance. Wanna bet? They're just jerked around like those puppets on strings. That is involuntary dancing , but dancing NTL.

 

[Frogster]

No I think it is the way the refuse to face the music. Oh yeah they don't dance. Wanna bet? They're just jerked around like those puppets on strings. That is involuntary dancing , but dancing NTL.

maybe we can ask some, to go verse by vserse, instead of writing long books, that are filled with diversions, and subterfuge. Check my spelling on that...

 

[YosemiteSam]

And of course, this thread has been diverted by frogster and scratch, with much to do about nothing. this thread was to discuss and to try and outline the mosaic covenant, which Johnrabbit did an excellent job, to most who actually read it. I for one did.

I see they (frogster and scratch) claim not being answered in the thread 10 commandments are meant to be broken but in truth that is a lie! They were in fact answered and the viewers can go read the thread for themselves. No! Johnrabbit was never cornered, neither was I. They tend to have a problem with comprehension of english. Hmmm, maybe they speak swahili? They tend to call those who believe that the ten commandments are in force today "law pushers" and yet they cannot answer the most fundamental questions about the law. One gets "croaked up" and the other gets his "feathers ruffled" because we call them "law haters"! They say they cannot be because they "claim" they have it in the correct context. It is what it is folks!

They say, the law was not around when Cain sinned, which defies biblical teaching and authority! They say the law was not until Moses, which again defies the Word of God. They cite, Rom 5:13 as the basis of the whole argument. "For until the law sin was in the world.." This we (those who understand) know to be correct! But they, out of ignorance do not know how sin was in the world? They will not answer that question simply because they do not know.

Johnrabbit has yet to get to what "was added because of transgressions"...I suppose here soon that he will get to it....but to those who wish to read and study on there own...In Exodus, you will find that the first 18 chapters deal with the Exodus per se...chapters 19 - 40 deal with the Israelites acceptance of the Covenant and all that it entails. Commandments, statutes and judgements. Statutes and judgments are areas of applications of the Commandments to specific time and circumstances...these are dealt with in chapters 21, 22, and 23.. It was right at a year from the exodus that the tabernacle was finalized...Ex 35-40 The tabernacle had great symbolic importance and certain laws were added. Moses went up a second time for 40 days...Ex 34.28 God gave him laws concerning the tabernacle...washings, changing of linen, sacrifices, etc...This was the schoolmaster, this was temporary until the times of restoration Heb 9.1-5 it was symbolic Heb 9.9-10 it was temporary. Read it for yourselves! The shedding of blood (bulls and goats) was not able to take away sin! Heb 9.22 They pointed to the sacrifice of Christ. The covenant in Exodus 19 mentions nothing about sacrifice...It was just about obedience Jer 7.22-24 and Gal 3:19...It was after such Ex 12-40 a year time period that sacrifices and cleansing were instituted.

I would suggest to anyone go back and read carefully Johnrabbits post!

May you understand!

 

[Frogster]

And of course, this thread has been diverted by frogster and scratch, with much to do about nothing. this thread was to discuss and to try and outline the mosaic covenant, which Johnrabbit did an excellent job, to most who actually read it. I for one did.

I see they (frogster and scratch) claim not being answered in the thread 10 commandments are meant to be broken but in truth that is a lie! They were in fact answered and the viewers can go read the thread for themselves. No! Johnrabbit was never cornered, neither was I. They tend to have a problem with comprehension of english. Hmmm, maybe they speak swahili? They tend to call those who believe that the ten commandments are in force today "law pushers" and yet they cannot answer the most fundamental questions about the law. One gets "croaked up" and the other gets his "feathers ruffled" because we call them "law haters"! They say they cannot be because they "claim" they have it in the correct context. It is what it is folks!

They say, the law was not around when Cain sinned, which defies biblical teaching and authority! They say the law was not until Moses, which again defies the Word of God. They cite, Rom 5:13 as the basis of the whole argument. "For until the law sin was in the world.." This we (those who understand) know to be correct! But they, out of ignorance do not know how sin was in the world? They will not answer that question simply because they do not know.

Johnrabbit has yet to get to what "was added because of transgressions"...I suppose here soon that he will get to it....but to those who wish to read and study on there own...In Exodus, you will find that the first 18 chapters deal with the Exodus per se...chapters 19 - 40 deal with the Israelites acceptance of the Covenant and all that it entails. Commandments, statutes and judgements. Statutes and judgments are areas of applications of the Commandments to specific time and circumstances...these are dealt with in chapters 21, 22, and 23.. It was right at a year from the exodus that the tabernacle was finalized...Ex 35-40 The tabernacle had great symbolic importance and certain laws were added. Moses went up a second time for 40 days...Ex 34.28 God gave him laws concerning the tabernacle...washings, changing of linen, sacrifices, etc...This was the schoolmaster, this was temporary until the times of restoration Heb 9.1-5 it was symbolic Heb 9.9-10 it was temporary. Read it for yourselves! The shedding of blood (bulls and goats) was not able to take away sin! Heb 9.22 They pointed to the sacrifice of Christ. The covenant in Exodus 19 mentions nothing about sacrifice...It was just about obedience Jer 7.22-24 and Gal 3:19...It was after such Ex 12-40 a year time period that sacrifices and cleansing were instituted.

I would suggest to anyone go back and read carefully Johnrabbits post!

May you understand!

everyone knows sin was in the world before the law, but it was the one sin of adam that did it, it was not the mosaic law, that was the point.

The ONE transgression...the one man...one is the theme ..one...


it even says sin spread to all, who did not do the ONE sin adam did, and 5:13 was to show, that they were dead in sin, even before the age of imputation, and transgression.

May you understand! He is teaching about headship.

 

[Frogster]

And of course, this thread has been diverted by frogster and scratch, with much to do about nothing. this thread was to discuss and to try and outline the mosaic covenant, which Johnrabbit did an excellent job, to most who actually read it. I for one did.

I see they (frogster and scratch) claim not being answered in the thread 10 commandments are meant to be broken but in truth that is a lie!

Not a lie, the intent, it was added to increase the trespass, that was the purpose.

20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

Then we read where saved paul, showed how the law roused sin, in 7, it did what it was supposed to do, that is pure, and clear scriptural intent. Dang!

They were in fact answered and the viewers can go read the thread for themselves. No! Johnrabbit was never cornered, neither was I

. They tend to have a problem with comprehension of english. Hmmm, maybe they speak swahili? They tend to call those who believe that the ten commandments are in force today "law pushers" and yet they cannot answer the most fundamental questions about the law. One gets "croaked up" and the other gets his "feathers ruffled" because we call them "law haters"! They say they cannot be because they "claim" they have it in the correct context. It is what it is folks!

They say, the law was not around when Cain sinned, which defies biblical teaching and authority! They say the law was not until Moses, which again defies the Word of God. They cite, Rom 5:13 as the basis of the whole argument. "For until the law sin was in the world.." This we (those who understand) know to be correct! But they, out of ignorance do not know how sin was in the world? They will not answer that question simply because they do not know.

Johnrabbit has yet to get to what "was added because of transgressions"...I suppose here soon that he will get to it....but to those who wish to read and study on there own...In Exodus, you will find that the first 18 chapters deal with the Exodus per se...chapters 19 - 40 deal with the Israelites acceptance of the Covenant and all that it entails. Commandments, statutes and judgements. Statutes and judgments are areas of applications of the Commandments to specific time and circumstances...these are dealt with in chapters 21, 22, and 23.. It was right at a year from the exodus that the tabernacle was finalized...Ex 35-40 The tabernacle had great symbolic importance and certain laws were added. Moses went up a second time for 40 days...Ex 34.28 God gave him laws concerning the tabernacle...washings, changing of linen, sacrifices, etc...This was the schoolmaster, this was temporary until the times of restoration Heb 9.1-5 it was symbolic Heb 9.9-10 it was temporary. Read it for yourselves! The shedding of blood (bulls and goats) was not able to take away sin! Heb 9.22 They pointed to the sacrifice of Christ. The covenant in Exodus 19 mentions nothing about sacrifice...It was just about obedience Jer 7.22-24 and Gal 3:19...It was after such Ex 12-40 a year time period that sacrifices and cleansing were instituted.

They received the law from the priesthood, no seperating.

11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?

I would suggest to anyone go back and read carefully Johnrabbits post!

May you understand!

 

[from scratch]

Before answering or engaging anything said in your post YosemiteSam let me say it is very interesting.

And of course, this thread has been diverted by frogster and scratch, with much to do about nothing. this thread was to discuss and to try and outline the mosaic covenant, which Johnrabbit did an excellent job, to most who actually read it. I for one did.

I'm very sorry that you think we have derailed or rabbit trailed anything in the thread. I think in my case that I have responded to what has been said by all participants of the thread. And yes there have been some diversions. Please note that I have even said geting back to the subject matter at hand one way or another more than once. I do find it tough to present anything just as JohnRabbit has discussed a rabbit tral. I think one we're both trying hard to be polite. An emotional subject like this doesn't make it easy. So roll with it a little bit. So far JohnRabbit has said nothing I don't understand or disagree with. I do think JohnRabbit has left out some very important details. The discussion about them is coming. Just hang on a bit.

I see they (frogster and scratch) claim not being answered in the thread 10 commandments are meant to be broken but in truth that is a lie! They were in fact answered and the viewers can go read the thread for themselves. No! Johnrabbit was never cornered, neither was I. They tend to have a problem with comprehension of english. Hmmm, maybe they speak swahili? They tend to call those who believe that the ten commandments are in force today "law pushers" and yet they cannot answer the most fundamental questions about the law. One gets "croaked up" and the other gets his "feathers ruffled" because we call them "law haters"! They say they cannot be because they "claim" they have it in the correct context. It is what it is folks!

So give some details as to what you're talking about. Just making claims with no details doesn't help anybody. What about the people who read this thread and don't know about the other thread(s)? What are those fundamental questions? I thought that is the purpose of this thread. You have the floor - prove we hate the law. Really I think you're saying we hate righteousness and love lawlessness. Simply ain't true. I think there is alot of difference in law pusher, grace pusher and law hater. We grace pushers are not without a law. The terms are diferent as Jeremiah states and Jesus testifies. And whose feathers are ruffled? You seem to be sling plenty mud and offering nothing of substance. I know it isn't fair to point this out. I really am trying very hard to be nice.For those who don't know where to find the 10 commandments are meant to be broken thread, you can find it here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7525386/#post56480855

They say, the law was not around when Cain sinned, which defies biblical teaching and authority! They say the law was not until Moses, which again defies the Word of God. They cite, Rom 5:13 as the basis of the whole argument. "For until the law sin was in the world.." This we (those who understand) know to be correct! But they, out of ignorance do not know how sin was in the world? They will not answer that question simply because they do not know.

We never said there wasn't some kind of law when Cain sinned. We have always said that it wasn't what is referred to as the law - Mosaic covenant. Any time the Mosaic covenant is referred to it is usually called the law as in Romans 7 and Paul quotes one of the 10 commandments - thou shalt not covet. James also does same. You on the other hand seem to confuse the term law in its usages as you discuss the subject of the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant and contents were not available in Cains day proved clearly by the Scripture itself. I'm trying very hard to not get in JohnRabbits way of explaining what I don't understandd about the Mosaic covenant. Be more patient with the discussion, please.

Johnrabbit has yet to get to what "was added because of transgressions"...I suppose here soon that he will get to it....but to those who wish to read and study on there own...In Exodus, you will find that the first 18 chapters deal with the Exodus per se...chapters 19 - 40 deal with the Israelites acceptance of the Covenant and all that it entails. Commandments, statutes and judgements. Statutes and judgments are areas of applications of the Commandments to specific time and circumstances...these are dealt with in chapters 21, 22, and 23.. It was right at a year from the exodus that the tabernacle was finalized...Ex 35-40 The tabernacle had great symbolic importance and certain laws were added. Moses went up a second time for 40 days...Ex 34.28 God gave him laws concerning the tabernacle...washings, changing of linen, sacrifices, etc...This was the schoolmaster, this was temporary until the times of restoration Heb 9.1-5 it was symbolic Heb 9.9-10 it was temporary. Read it for yourselves! The shedding of blood (bulls and goats) was not able to take away sin! Heb 9.22 They pointed to the sacrifice of Christ. The covenant in Exodus 19 mentions nothing about sacrifice...It was just about obedience Jer 7.22-24 and Gal 3:19...It was after such Ex 12-40 a year time period that sacrifices and cleansing were instituted.

All I'm going to say for the moment is that the law couldn't change the heart and grace does. Yeah I know that you have an issue with that. It is OK for now. I hope that you will let JohnRabbit complete his mission.

I would suggest to anyone go back and read carefully Johnrabbits post!

May you understand!

I take it that you really mean agree with you and take up your position. Convince me and with Scripture! You can't do that without posting it BTW. I want to see exactly what you're talking about. No more of this go fish for your understanding. If you won't do it I assume reasonably you can't do it. Dad said put up or shut up! Mom said the proof is in the eatting of the pudding. I want some pudding to eat.

 

[YosemiteSam]

everyone knows sin was in the world before the law, but it was the one sin of adam that did it, it was not the mosaic law, that was the point.

The ONE transgression...the one man...one is the theme ..one...


it even says sin spread to all, who did not do the ONE sin adam did, and 5:13 was to show, that they were dead in sin, even before the age of imputation, and transgression.

May you understand! He is teaching about headship.

Wrong again Frogster! You still haven't answered the question. Sin was in the world before the law? How? Come on open your eyes! Do I have to answer this easy question for you!

 

[YosemiteSam]

Before answering or engaging anything said in your post YosemiteSam let me say it is very interesting.
I'm very sorry that you think we have derailed or rabbit trailed anything in the thread. I think in my case that I have responded to what has been said by all participants of the thread. And yes there have been some diversions. Please note that I have even said geting back to the subject matter at hand one way or another more than once. I do find it tough to present anything just as JohnRabbit has discussed a rabbit tral. I think one we're both trying hard to be polite. An emotional subject like this doesn't make it easy. So roll with it a little bit. So far JohnRabbit has said nothing I don't understand or disagree with. I do think JohnRabbit has left out some very important details. The discussion about them is coming. Just hang on a bit.So give some details as to what you're talking about. Just making claims with no details doesn't help anybody. What about the people who read this thread and don't know about the other thread(s)? What are those fundamental questions? I thought that is the purpose of this thread. You have the floor - prove we hate the law. Really I think you're saying we hate righteousness and love lawlessness. Simply ain't true. I think there is alot of difference in law pusher, grace pusher and law hater. We grace pushers are not without a law. The terms are diferent as Jeremiah states and Jesus testifies. And whose feathers are ruffled? You seem to be sling plenty mud and offering nothing of substance. I know it isn't fair to point this out. I really am trying very hard to be nice.We never said there wasn't some kind of law when Cain sinned. We have always said that it wasn't what is referred to as the law - Mosaic covenant. Any time the Mosaic covenant is referred to it is usually called the law as in Romans 7 and Paul quotes one of the 10 commandments - thou shalt not covet. James also does same. You on the other hand seem to confuse the term law in its usages as you discuss the subject of the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant and contents were not available in Cains day proved clearly by the Scripture itself. I'm trying very hard to not get in JohnRabbits way of explaining what I don't understandd about the Mosaic covenant. Be more patient with the discussion, please. All I'm going to say for the moment is that the law couldn't change the heart and grace does. Yeah I know that you have an issue with that. It is OK for now. I hope that you will let JohnRabbit complete his mission.I take it that you really mean agree with you and take up your position. Convince me and with Scripture! You can't do that without posting it BTW. I want to see exactly what you're talking about. No more of this go fish for your understanding. If you won't do it I assume reasonably you can't do it. Dad said put up or shut up! Mom said the proof is in the eatting of the pudding. I want some pudding to eat.

You have gotten to fat on pudding, so I won't serve it to you...Open your mind and read...We have given you scripture upon scripture and you have given nothing but rhetoric.

 

[Frogster]

Wrong again Frogster! You still haven't answered the question. Sin was in the world before the law? How? Come on open your eyes! Do I have to answer this easy question for you!

oh my! i know! it was because adam broke one rule, but it was not the mosaic law, that was added 430 later, romans 5 says it entered...entered..lol! It was the one..one..then the law entered, to make more....But it was not moses in the garden.

Now....I notice you reply only when you want, you never finished our chat. Paul wrote 7, as a Chrisitan, in which the law roused sin. Yes?

Your acting like you got me trapped or something.

 

[Frogster]

Wrong again Frogster! You still haven't answered the question. Sin was in the world before the law? How? Come on open your eyes! Do I have to answer this easy question for you!

now, try to understand, what happened way back when.

It is history 101.

Adam broke one rule, sin and death entered.

Then Moses came, and the sin increased, as that was the point of the law, to arouse sin, as per 7:8 and 7;13, to make sin be utterly sinful, then we die to law, and are no longer under the strict pedagogue.

Listen!

There ya go, frogster taughtcha a little something.

But it was not Moses...

Moses = 613

Adam = 1.

 

[from scratch]

could it be some don't know what aroused means?

They deny passions, were aroused by the law.

So what does aroused mean? Got at least a definition?

 

[from scratch]

You have gotten to fat on pudding, so I won't serve it to you...Open your mind and read...We have given you scripture upon scripture and you have given nothing but rhetoric.

So you don't have a defense for what you call the truth do you? That leaves me to think you're only two possible points are to argue for argument's sake and to maked converts to the law forsaking Jesus' work on the cross and thus salvation. No one can be saved by obeying the law. Gal 5:4 says you can't have both. YOu can have salvation/grace or the law. To require observing the Sabbath for salvation or to prove you love God (same thing) is to serve the law and not Jesus (God). The idea that we should serve the law because Jesus did is rediculous because Jesus was under/obligated to the law as a Jew before the redemption that He made on the cross. Acts shows a very different era from the law. The law and the prophets were until John - LK 16:16 - The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Notice I didn't use Paul. Oh yeah this is nothing but rhetoric.

Now where is your Scripture in this thread? You're trying to prove that we are obligated to the law with what mere opinion. BTW how many of those 613 laws the JohnRabbit cited do you observe? James 2:10 says if you violate one of them you violate all the law. Notice I didn't use Paul, but he also agrees by statements in Gal 3:10 and 5:4. Nothing but rhetoric again.

So regarding your statement as quoted above: Have you no respect for the 10 commandments you demand we adhere to and claim that you do? The ends doesn't justify the means. Do I need to do a study on the per cent of scripture you uses compared to that of Frogster or myself.

 

[JohnRabbit]

I'm really interested in what or how you twisted something in the post. JohnRabbit or Yedida please kindly tell me/us. Is it statements like this that make you think we/I don't understand the first covenant? JohnRabbit what is your explaination of those Scriptures cited above? Just saying that Frogster twisted something with no explaination goes nowhere except to fustration.

i've already answered this in the thread "the ten commandments were meant to be broken".

thank you!

 

[JohnRabbit]

now, try to understand, what happened way back when.

It is history 101.

Adam broke one rule, sin and death entered.

Then Moses came, and the sin increased, as that was the point of the law, to arouse sin, as per 7:8 and 7;13, to make sin be utterly sinful, then we die to law, and are no longer under the strict pedagogue.

Listen!

There ya go, frogster taughtcha a little something.

But it was not Moses...

Moses = 613

Adam = 1.

i notice that you are careful in your speech.

what "rule" did adam break and where did this rule come from, got scripture on this?

 

[Frogster]

i notice that you are careful in your speech.

what "rule" did adam break and where did this rule come from, got scripture on this?

ok, after all your avoidance and spin, i will teach you, by example how to give a direct answer, I will play along..

The rule was don't eat.

 

[Frogster]

:

i notice that you are careful in your speech.

what "rule" did adam break and where did this rule come from, got scripture on this?

ok, as u can see, i answered you, no be polite, and answer me.

Why does it say sinful passions, lust, covet, etc, were aroused by law? 7:8, your least favorite verse in the bible.
And paaaaleeease just give a clear answer, without a long diverting endless circular post. Thanks.

 

[Frogster]

So what does aroused mean? Got at least a definition?

It revived sinful passions, that were not there, or at least sleeping, until the command came. it is that old debate, was it totally destroyed 6:6, or "rendered in active". From God's view yes, dead, but in time a nd space, no, cause if the law pushes us into it, back to the adamic creation, it sure can revive.

 

[from scratch]

It revived sinful passions, that were not there, or at least sleeping, until the command came. it is that old debate, was it totally destroyed 6:6, or "rendered in active". From God's view yes, dead, but in time a nd space, no, cause if the law pushes us into it, back to the adamic creation, it sure can revive.

Thanks. I fully undweatood but was asking for the benefit of our readers. And trying to take out claimed ambiguity claims from our friends.