Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Jimmy the 'no bishops, no king' persecutor of doubtful personal habits. Figures.Yeah theres probably no evidence left of that sort in the bible version you read. I did find this in Jimmys version.
26Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse--
27The blessing if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you this day; 28And the curse if you will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you this day to go after other gods, which you have not known.
the other gods part omitted seems rather important
And like most of the OT after Moses, all of that is directed at the OC Hebrew Israelites
Luke 5 comes to mind with thatjust expanding on the above verses... felt like they needed more.
however, what about this I just found:
13When God speaks of a new [covenant or agreement], He makes the first one obsolete (out of use).
quote
Yeah theres probably no evidence left of that sort in the bible version you read. I did find this in Jimmys version.
Deut. 11:26-28
Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; [27] A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day:
Again , you deliberately lie about the context of the Scriptures . *I* am not "ye" . *I* was not at Sinai the day that was "this" day or any other day . *I* did not see the tablets . *I* am not an Israelite .
Let's look at more of that passage :
26 See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse- 27 the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today; 28 the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known. 29 When the LORD your God has brought you into the land you are entering to possess, you are to proclaim on Mount Gerizim the blessings, and on Mount Ebal the curses. 30 As you know, these mountains are across the Jordan, west of the road, [c] toward the setting sun, near the great trees of Moreh, in the territory of those Canaanites living in the Arabah in the vicinity of Gilgal. 31 You are about to cross the Jordan to enter and take possession of the land the LORD your God is giving you. When you have taken it over and are living there, 32 be sure that you obey all the decrees and laws I am setting before you today.
Did *you* go to Mount Gerizim after *you* recieved the commands ? Did *you* correctly proclaim the blessings ? Did *you* then go to Mount Ebal ? Did *you* correctly proclaim the curses ? Did *you* do *all* of the commands in that section - the section that *you* say is for *me* ? No ? That , by definition , makes you a liar and a hypocrite .
But , you can continue to damn me for not obeying the same commands that you refuse to obey .
Harmonization of the Hebrew and Greek is what is so challengingI think the major disconnect is that "scripture" is not universal in it's content (because it is translated)... what one book says does not mean that is what is there.
I can see that maybe this was specifically directed to the Jews as I don't feel any compulsion to march into the land across the Jordan and take posession of that either (so why would this one section apply and not the other?)
There's also that darn translation thing I mentioned above... though I'd venture to say the OT is far more reliable in translation than the NT.
Exactly, and the knowledge of good and evil does just that. The law is the knowledge of good and evil.What made the tree wrong to eat. The command by God or God himself? If God himself then if he did not warn them not to eat of that tree then they would have to pay the price of something that they were not warned about. What is the difference between the 10 commandments and anything else you know is wrong. The devil will tempt you based on what you know is wrong. You only yield to temptation when you take your eyes of Jesus.
It's the same age-old principle: the more forbidden it is, the more tempting it becomes...Paul never said he started thinking about things to covet but he did know coveting through the law.
In practice, it does. Nobody were ever justified under the law.Knowledge of sin by the law does not mean you must sin.
The law demanded justice, and if justice was to be served, the woman would have to be punished. But Jesus was more gracious than fair.The law was not seen as a whole by Jesus though. He clearly despised eye for an eye law and stone a woman in adultery law. But he kept the Sabbath and preached thou shall not kill and murder. Jesus started to highlight the results of love. If the Law can in no wise be separated and Jesus condemned the stoning a woman caught in adultery law would he not be condemning thou shall not commit adultery as well.
But how are we subject to any of the law?My point is that there is a separation. When people in the 1500s saw water they see a whole. Now a chemist in our day would wee water as hydrogen and oxygen. The nation of Israel saw it as a whole because they were subject to all for specific reasons. We are not subject to all for specific reasons. And to know those reasons we must realize that the laws are seperated.
What do you mean by "moral law"? Common conscience/morality that we seem to be born with?Is the Moral Law the Mosaic Law?
I'm a gentile compared to Israelites. But I'm in the new covenant, so that doesn't matter. In Christ there is neither jew nor greek.If you are Abraham's seed are you a gentile?
Yes, they thought having the knowledge of good and evil was a good thing to have.Did Adam and Eve or Moses ask for the law.
The law is good, and it looks just as tempting as the forbidden fruit. Who doesn't want knowledge of good and evil? Just take a look at the forums here and see how many "is this sin" and "is this OK" threads there are. Israel was no different. They even said "everything the Lord has said, we will do" when they heard the commandments. Even Christians today are asking for the law, not realizing while it looks so tempting, it only ends up being an instrument of death.Did Moses say to God, "Come down on the mount of Sinai and give me the 10 commandments" That is a typo right?
But the whole idea of "breaking the law" is completely meaningless to the believer, because the believer is DEAD. If Adam screwed it for us by eating the forbidden fruit, HOW MUCH MORE shall not Jesus rectify us! It doesn't make any sense to ask a dead man not to break the law. He can't break it any more than he can keep it.You are correct in that last part. When we see the law and realize how much we are sinners it shows us our need for God. Remember Holo that is is God who placed that tree in the garden and gave the command to not eat of the tree. He did those things so that we would not be Robots so that we would serve him by choice and not by lack of knowledge. When we choose him he wants us to choose him because we love him amidst the pleasures of sin. No one can keep the law perfectly that is why God is not saving us by lawkeeping by by gracegiving. So because we are saved by gracegiving should we break the law and sin? God forbid.
I don't think that perspective is correct - Adam and Eve didn't become naked when they ate the fruit. They were already naked. Their nudity wasn't an issue whatsoever, until they learned about right and wrong. And the law is basically just the offspring of that forbidden fruit, and it will do the same to whoever keeps eating of it.The law by itself does not reveal your nakedness. It is sin which comes when you take your eyes of God and break the law that shows your nakedness.
But you can't really say that, because a man living by the Spirit is dead and not under the law at all, anyway.A man living by the spirit would not break the law.
But the law is the instrument by which the devil can even tempt us in the first place. Without the commandment, sin is DEAD. Without the law, satan is disarmed.Whose fault is that. 2 people are to blame. The sinner and the devil. The law did not tempt us to sin but it was the devil that did it. We gave in to the devil instead of keeping our eyes on Jesus. We keep talking about the law resulting in sin but that is an indirect cause. The direct causes are free will and the devil.
Well, David wasn't exactly sinfree, was he?Keeping the law is supposed to be automatic. Love is what supposed to make it automatic. Looking to God is supposed to also make it automatic. I don't agree with the idea that trying to love according to the law makes us sin more because David said that in God's Law does he meditate day and night.
The only way a carnal man could hope to please God would be by keeping the law. But we are called to NOT be like this world; they have to do their best to keep the law, we simply abide in Christ (and He in us). In other words, the law has nothing to do with our life anymore. Christ IS our life.Thats the same thing. Not sure how you derived that last sentence but the man living in the flesh cannot please God because he is not subject to the law of God. That is what the text says.
No, they were given to Israel only, and not "as a blessing" but to make sin exceedingly sinful, to kill us all. Furthermore, the law and prophets had their time up until John. And the new covenant has nothing at all to do with the law, and everything to do with the blood of ChristAll 10 the commandments were meant to be kept as a blessing to mankind.
however, what about this I just found:
13When God speaks of a new [covenant or agreement], He makes the first one obsolete (out of use). And what is obsolete (out of use and annulled because of age) is ripe for disappearance and to be dispensed with altogether.
quote
All 10 the commandments were meant to be kept as a blessing to mankind.
You have no evidence for that . I was not mentioned in the giving of the Law .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?