Do you agree that christians should keep the 10 Commandments? (4)

[Stryder06]

I don't think you understood me at all.

I'm trying. That's why I'm still in here.

I suggest that at least some things that are wrong, evil, sin aren't learned from the law that they're such. Granted the law leads us to Christ by showing what righteousness is. When that is accomplished the tutor (the law) has completed its task for the Christian. For those who reject Christ the law is still enforce and will testify againist them at the White Throne Jedgment. Christians won't attend that judgment because they have already passed from death (judgment) to life - Jn 5:24.

I totally agree that those who accept Christ move from death to life. The second death holds no power over them. This isn't to say though that the law no longer exists. This just means that the righteous are now in harmony with the law. The ten commandments, when we are in harmony with them, are a blessing, not a curse.

There are some very wonderful things about this type of communication. If I'm having trouble understanding a post of an ongoing conversation I back track to see if I can decide what is being said. I think it would be a good idea in this one. I have and you should. I even open a second window and go back and forth several times. This is getting to bemore of a habit for more and more posts with my name on them.

If I've misspoken of you then I apologize. However your stance is that the law has been abolished. This thread is about the ten commandments so if you believe they have not been abolished then I do apologize for misrepresenting your beliefs.

 

[from scratch]

Doesn't it? If the law, for instance, as given by God, made it a sin to pick up your bed, and walk, during the sabbath day, Jesus would have been clearly in the wrong for telling the man to do so. If healing the sick on the sabbath would have been against the law, as given by God, again, Christ would have been in violation of it.

God gave the law one way, man turned it into something else. This is why Jesus was able to ask them "Which one of you convicts Me of sin".

The written scripture is not what you're reading. You're reading your modern understanding tainted by tradition, into the scripture. No where does scripture say the ten commandments have been abolished. If this was so, then John would not have seen the original copy in heaven during his vision.

I have no problem with the legalities of saying streach forth you hand to doing surgery. They simply aren't in the same class. speech isn't work unless one has some kind of impediment. But then I still don't think that would be called work. Now what is pick upi your bed and walk except telling him to go home - assuming he had one. He at least had family. Remember Jesus said the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. Also consider that what Jesus told the man to do wasn't for personal profit as in income.

No where does it say or imply that a Christian is obligated to the law as in OC law which includes the 10 Cs. This isn't permission nor teaching sin. God said there would be something NEW not moved. God also said it would not be like what He has already done. This is very evident in Hebrews 8. The law and the prophets were until John - LK 16:16. Jesus clearly bypasses the law in John 8:1-11. Jesus clearly shows that keeping the law is impossible in Mat 19. That lines up with OT Scripture.

The written scripture is not what you're reading. You're reading your modern understanding tainted by tradition, into the scripture. No where does scripture say the ten commandments have been abolished. If this was so, then John would not have seen the original copy in heaven during his vision

Is this not what you're doing concerning the 4th commandment? Using modern conviences to avoid the legal wordage of the 10 Cs. Paul addresses this issue in Romans 2.

What is the verse tha specifically says John saw the the stone tablets in heaven, much less the original copy?

 

[from scratch]

Many will say "Jesus" and many will hear "I never knew thee".

Quite true.

I can't help that you think the day of preparation is somehow a sign that you're serving the sabbath. And I don't know why you think you can't pursue a livelihood is you keep the sabbath. I'm not doing half bad if I do say so myself, and neither are many of my friends, all who honor the Lord's Day. Jesus did indeed say sabbath was made for man. That is what He said. What I didn't hear him say was "Sabbath was made for Israel" or "Sabbath was made for the Jews". Same thing is said in Isa 56 verse 2: Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

Oh pleeeese where did I say one can't find a job that doesn'trequire on to work on the sabbath? This is misconstruing what I have said. If I participate in the day of preperation it would require me to be absent from gainful employment on Friday afternoon. I'm single and would have to do everything myself. There is an accountant close to me that obviously is a legalist SDA closing his business on Friday afternoon for his employees and self. What does this do for me. Not only would I have to take Friday afternoon off to prepare for the sabbath but I also would have to miss profitable employment on some other day of the week to access his services. How much time should I take off work? This same fellow is requiring other to work during the same period of time he is getting his hair cut and doing other business. This is grossly unfair and unjust. He should let his employees off of work to do their business during the week as he requires of me to do business with him. Prepareing for the sabbath is personal stuff that one does such as chores at home.[/quote]

Back in Isa 56:8 God speaks of bringing strangers into the fold. That's pretty similar to what the Lord said in John 10:16. [/quote] Please examine the passage very carefully. It isn't the fold of Israel. The terms are different.

Isa 56:6-7: Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

The stranger that joins himself to the Lord and thus the covenant does so by circumcision and is no longer a stranger - Ex 12:48. Thus the law doesn't apply to the stranger in any permenant fashion as is tried to prove from Ex 20:8-11.

There's really no two ways around this. Before Christ people were joined to the Lord and the sign was circumcision. After Christ gentiles were still joined to the Lord, but the sign was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The sabbath is special to the Lord, and by it He distinguishes His people.

And after the cross they aren't also joined to Isreal or any of the covenants made with Isreal at Mt Sinai. We see that Gentiles are now part of the people of God without observing any of the law pertaining to Israel issued at Mt Sinai per the historical account provided in Acts. In fact it is said by the Apostles those requiring such were destroying souls.

 

[Frogster]

Do you really believe we are just a bunch of ignorant heathens? Walking in the Spirit is what we are supposed to be doing in order to be "conformed into the image of Christ" (Romans 8:29)

thank you! That is what I keep trying to tell him.

 

[Frogster]

Brother the condescending nature of your fellowship is unnecessary. Surely i am not the foolish Galatian you take me for. Is it foolish to obey the will of God? You are just confused.

My little bro, please try to understand what oyhers are trying to say.

It is as though you think we are saying to go run wild in the streets, getting drunk, and stealing cars is fun.

No my little bro, we don't want to do that, it is just that you are not understanding the spiritual ramifications of the law, while u seem to be frozen in a one dimensional view of the topic at hand.


Is the law spiritual, and what does it do in a human being.

14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

 

[from scratch]

I'm trying. That's why I'm still in here.


I totally agree that those who accept Christ move from death to life. The second death holds no power over them. This isn't to say though that the law no longer exists. This just means that the righteous are now in harmony with the law. The ten commandments, when we are in harmony with them, are a blessing, not a curse.

Please I don't hold to annihilation of any thing. I don't deny that the law exists. I do deny its jusrisdiction for the Christian as the NT teaches and Jeremiah said God promised. Jesus said that the NC is now in force. This means the old has no say or power specifically over the Christian. I have shown that the law indeed is in force to and over the unbeliever by I Tim 1:9-10. We (well some) as Christian are led by the Holy Spirit and not the law -Gal 5:18. Paul approaches sin as works of the flesh in Gal 5:19-21. And that is what they are. I didn't say they weren't also sin. The focus isn't the law or the violation of the law in Galatians 5.

If I've misspoken of you then I apologize. However your stance is that the law has been abolished. This thread is about the ten commandments so if you believe they have not been abolished then I do apologize for misrepresenting your beliefs.

Yes that is my position that the law is abolished for the Christian. It isn't abolished for the unregenerate according to I Tim 1:9-10. This isn't partial abolishment. I have used the word abolish in the sense of no effect on the Christian because the Holy Spirit won't lead on to sin. The law doesn't prevent even the believer from sinning according to I Jn 1:9-2:1. Then we get into the issue of what sins. I take Paul's personal testimony of Rom 7:24-25 as my own as well as his.

 

[Frogster]

You do realize, don't you, that every time you point the condemning finger of fornication and adultery that you have three of your own fingers pointing back at you?

By what measure you judge others, you yourself are judged.

lol! Perfect reply! I thought that too. In fact, often those who accuse, have issues they project on others, using the law as their hideout. to toss stones out of.

 

[from scratch]

Reading isn't the issue. Comprehension is.

I certianly agree. Doesn't that make one wonder what the truth is, since we're on opposite sides of the fence? You know I certianly don't use Rev 22:14 to prove my right to the tree of life. Or Rev 14:12 to prove anything. I won't offer my obedience to the law as a reason to God that I'm worthy. This is bragging and Eph 2:8-9 says one can't have salvation that way. Jesus said I'm the door and you will come through Me or ya ain't a gettin in hear! So brag all you want. You already have your reward. Commandment keeping won't admit one also per Jesus - Mat 5:20.

 

[Frogster]

I'm trying. That's why I'm still in here.


I totally agree that those who accept Christ move from death to life. The second death holds no power over them. This isn't to say though that the law no longer exists. This just means that the righteous are now in harmony with the law. The ten commandments, when we are in harmony with them, are a blessing, not a curse.



If I've misspoken of you then I apologize. However your stance is that the law has been abolished. This thread is about the ten commandments so if you believe they have not been abolished then I do apologize for misrepresenting your beliefs.

My dear stryder, try to hear what scratch is sayin...

Sure, the law will always stand for the unsaved, hence, the usage in Romans for 3 chapters, and 1 tim 1. But for whom was it, and where was it abolished? Lets not insult the Spirit, and tell him we don't need him, we will do it now.

Please give a brief expository of abolished here.


14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 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,

 

[Frogster]

That idea is wrong. How is the command "Thou shalt have no other god's before me" fulfilled at the cross?

Those laws weren't there to be fulfilled. The laws regarding the typical sacrifices were fulfilled.

then why does it say the record that was against us, as we were dead in trespasses, and forgiven, if it was just sacrificial in col 2;14? Besides your disection of the law is biblically unsound anyway, sorta lilke paste-n-cut.

trespasses means a written or known violation. Law...nailed, abolished, ended, temporary, until, you have been shown over and over again...

 

[Frogster]

Oral Traditions were not written down until later... so calling it TAlmud in scripture didn't happen.

My dearest sister, perhaps you could tell your little brother frog, where in Pauline theology, the guy who wrote under inspiration, where it was that the talmud is being referenced. Thanks.

Is the power of sin, the talmud?

"yea, I would not have known sin, unless the talmud said, thou shall not covet"?

No my sister, we were not dead in talmud.

 

[visionary]

My dearest sister, perhaps you could tell your little brother frog, where in Pauline theology, the guy who wrote under inspiration, where it was that the talmud is being referenced. Thanks.

Is the power of sin, the talmud?

"yea, I would not have known sin, unless the talmud said, thou shall not covet"?

No my sister, we were not dead in talmud.

Never made the connection of talmud and ten commandments... but the "laws" of circumcision that you use when talking about the Judiazers..

 

[Frogster]

Never made the connection of talmud and ten commandments... but the "laws" of circumcision that you use when talking about the Judiazers..

cutting clealry meant conversion, and Mosaic law complience.

2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

 

[Stryder06]

Oh pleeeese where did I say one can't find a job that doesn'trequire on to work on the sabbath? This is misconstruing what I have said. If I participate in the day of preperation it would require me to be absent from gainful employment on Friday afternoon. I'm single and would have to do everything myself. There is an accountant close to me that obviously is a legalist SDA closing his business on Friday afternoon for his employees and self. What does this do for me. Not only would I have to take Friday afternoon off to prepare for the sabbath but I also would have to miss profitable employment on some other day of the week to access his services. How much time should I take off work? This same fellow is requiring other to work during the same period of time he is getting his hair cut and doing other business. This is grossly unfair and unjust. He should let his employees off of work to do their business during the week as he requires of me to do business with him. Prepareing for the sabbath is personal stuff that one does such as chores at home.

I'm not misconstruing anything. You said that you'd have trouble with pursuing a livelihood. That's what you said. I said that that isn't true. Everything you said above is simply you not wanting to be inconvenienced. And how can you say what is and isn't fair in regards to what that man does with his company?

Please examine the passage very carefully. It isn't the fold of Israel. The terms are different.The stranger that joins himself to the Lord and thus the covenant does so by circumcision and is no longer a stranger - Ex 12:48. Thus the law doesn't apply to the stranger in any permenant fashion as is tried to prove from Ex 20:8-11.And after the cross they aren't also joined to Isreal or any of the covenants made with Isreal at Mt Sinai. We see that Gentiles are now part of the people of God without observing any of the law pertaining to Israel issued at Mt Sinai per the historical account provided in Acts. In fact it is said by the Apostles those requiring such were destroying souls.

Please explain. In Isa 56, the gentile who was joined to the Lord wasn't joined to Israel? So if they weren't joined to Israel, who were they joined to?

 

[visionary]

cutting clealry meant conversion, and Mosaic law complience.

2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

Now we are talking about the marriage covenant of Israel with God... and back to the meaning behind the circumcision just like a wedding ring.. committment

 

[Stryder06]

I have no problem with the legalities of saying streach forth you hand to doing surgery. They simply aren't in the same class. speech isn't work unless one has some kind of impediment. But then I still don't think that would be called work. Now what is pick upi your bed and walk except telling him to go home - assuming he had one. He at least had family. Remember Jesus said the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. Also consider that what Jesus told the man to do wasn't for personal profit as in income.

Forgive me but I'm not following what you're saying, at all. It was jewish, if I'm not mistaken, law that you were not allowed to carry a load a particular distance on the sabbath. Jesus, telling the man to carry His bed, was what the problem was with that situation.

No where does it say or imply that a Christian is obligated to the law as in OC law which includes the 10 Cs. This isn't permission nor teaching sin. God said there would be something NEW not moved. God also said it would not be like what He has already done. This is very evident in Hebrews 8. The law and the prophets were until John - LK 16:16. Jesus clearly bypasses the law in John 8:1-11. Jesus clearly shows that keeping the law is impossible in Mat 19. That lines up with OT Scripture.

You really need to give it a rest with the "something new" thing. It's already been shown that the law to love God and your neighbor was old covenant. To abstain from blood, as the apostle James said the gentiles ought to do, that was OC too. So obviously OC rules still applied under the NC. Secondly, a new covenant is sealed by blood. Anything added to it would have had to have been done so before the death of Christ. With the shedding of His blood He made the NC unalterable. And Jesus never by-passed the law. He is merciful. Always has been always will be. He showed mercy to that woman, just as He showed mercy to the pharisees.

Is this not what you're doing concerning the 4th commandment? Using modern conviences to avoid the legal wordage of the 10 Cs. Paul addresses this issue in Romans 2.

I'm not avoiding anything. I just understand the commandment as God gave it whereas you are trying to turn it in to something burdensome, even though you yourself don't keep it. That I find to be highly ironic.

What is the verse that specifically says John saw the the stone tablets in heaven, much less the original copy?

Scratch, if the scriptures said that John read the ten commandments while sitting in Jesus' lap you'd still say it didn't mean anything. The original ark of the covenant was the bases of the earthly one. It was called the ark of the covenant because it contained the covenant (ten commandments). So if the ark on earth was based off of the original, then that means that the original has what inside of it?

 

[Stryder06]

Please I don't hold to annihilation of any thing. I don't deny that the law exists. I do deny its jusrisdiction for the Christian as the NT teaches and Jeremiah said God promised. Jesus said that the NC is now in force. This means the old has no say or power specifically over the Christian. I have shown that the law indeed is in force to and over the unbeliever by I Tim 1:9-10. We (well some) as Christian are led by the Holy Spirit and not the law -Gal 5:18. Paul approaches sin as works of the flesh in Gal 5:19-21. And that is what they are. I didn't say they weren't also sin. The focus isn't the law or the violation of the law in Galatians 5.Yes that is my position that the law is abolished for the Christian. It isn't abolished for the unregenerate according to I Tim 1:9-10. This isn't partial abolishment. I have used the word abolish in the sense of no effect on the Christian because the Holy Spirit won't lead on to sin. The law doesn't prevent even the believer from sinning according to I Jn 1:9-2:1. Then we get into the issue of what sins. I take Paul's personal testimony of Rom 7:24-25 as my own as well as his.

Okay, so answer me this.

If I, as a Christian, slip into a spell of adultery and start to cheat on my wife, does the 7th commandment apply to me?

 

[Stryder06]

I certianly agree. Doesn't that make one wonder what the truth is, since we're on opposite sides of the fence? You know I certianly don't use Rev 22:14 to prove my right to the tree of life. Or Rev 14:12 to prove anything. I won't offer my obedience to the law as a reason to God that I'm worthy. This is bragging and Eph 2:8-9 says one can't have salvation that way. Jesus said I'm the door and you will come through Me or ya ain't a gettin in hear! So brag all you want. You already have your reward. Commandment keeping won't admit one also per Jesus - Mat 5:20.

Who's bragging? John said that, not me. I'm not bragging on anything. And you're right, I do have my reward because it's been promised to me: Eternal life. You can call it bragging if you want to but that won't change what scripture says. What you're saying here is like saying you're bragging if you say you have the assurance of salvation/ Please

 

[Stryder06]

My dear stryder, try to hear what scratch is sayin...

Sure, the law will always stand for the unsaved, hence, the usage in Romans for 3 chapters, and 1 tim 1. But for whom was it, and where was it abolished? Lets not insult the Spirit, and tell him we don't need him, we will do it now.

Please give a brief expository of abolished here.


14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 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,

Commandments expressed in ordinances. I don't see any ordinances in 1-10. Sorry. You keep highlighting the portions of scripture that only suit your doctrine.

And you shouldn't insult the Spirit by trying to pit Him against Christ, and them against the Father, as if each One has His own set of rules that clashes with the other.

then why does it say the record that was against us, as we were dead in trespasses, and forgiven, if it was just sacrificial in col 2;14? Besides your disection of the law is biblically unsound anyway, sorta lilke paste-n-cut.

trespasses means a written or known violation. Law...nailed, abolished, ended, temporary, until, you have been shown over and over again...

Col 2:14 says the record of ordinances. Again, you're only using what you want.

 

[Frogster]

Now we are talking about the marriage covenant of Israel with God... and back to the meaning behind the circumcision just like a wedding ring.. committment

did circumcision mean conversion, and full mosaic complience?



2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.