F
from scratch
Guest
Who does this exclude? Who observes the 4th as written or is it an amended version which isn't found in Scripture?
Upvote
0
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.
Who does this exclude? Who observes the 4th as written or is it an amended version which isn't found in Scripture?And all who break God's 10 commandments will suffer death. The second and eternal death. You have a problem that, take it up with God.
The law is a single undivisible unit as shown by James 2:10, 11. Note I didn't use Paul to make the point. Frogster didn't say anything about circumcision being part of the sabbath. He referred to the whole law concept stated in James where Paul uses circumcision in the same manner.Where is circumcision in the ten Commandments? But of course you don't separate the laws. So that Paul does not support circumcision means he can go to church on Sabbaths but mean that circumcision is part of the Sabbath that he kept but we should not. It maybe a little side stepping but you can make it.
from scratch said:So what about Jer 31:31-34, Hosea 2:11? Oh maybe you might be referring to Mat 5:17, 18. Then what about this one: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me. LK 24:44. I haven't even got to Jesus' testimony that a different covenant is in force, yet. Neither have I touched Paul's writings either.
MamaZ said:Gods word will never pass away but it is all in context. We have the OT and we have the NT. We the NT being refrenced in the OT and the OT referenced in the NT..
One should notice that there is a difference in what v 31, 32 and 33 say. Doesn't 31 say a new covenant? Doesn't 32 clearly identify what it won't be like? Isn't the covenant the 10 Cs? I think Deut 4:13 does an excelent job in identifying that covenant as written in stone. Is there another ocvenant made with Israel? I don't know of one. So I need some kind of proof such as a verse or 2. I just don'tunderstand how law in verse 33 is the same law as the OC or 10 Cs because of the previous 2 verses.What about it?
Jeremiah 31:33 I will put my law within them(the house of Israel and the house of Judah vs.31)...
Simply amazing! In being accused of violating the law murder, adultery, stealing, etc are mentioned to infer the 10 Cs and the sabbath isn't a reference to them. Incredible, I say simply incredible! I thought it was the 4th commandment of the 10 Cs.Pretty cool.
Hosea does mention the law but not in your reference.
Hosea 4:6
6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge,
I reject you from being a priest to me.
And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.
God's law is pretty important. Don't forget it.
Matthew 5:17
Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Matthew 5:18
18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
...and that is what I am saying.
Luke 24:44
44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. " Well I notice that a version is quoted that doesen't include the words concerning Me. Veryway to deny the truth and make it fit a desired doctrine. Leaveing out those words renders the verse as nothing more than useless words for filler. Besides Jesus covers end time events in Mat 24. This still doesn't refute Romans 10:4 or Hebrews 7:12. Hebrews 7:12 very clearly states a change of the law. Romans 10:4 clearly states the law is a has been. And Paul clearly says to throw it out. Paul in no way promotes sin see the following chapter - 5. So what does one do with Luke 16:16 and Gal 3:19?These verses are so in agreement with what I have been writing, I had to reread your post.
Anyway, I enjoyed the review.
God bless...
Psalms 119:160
160 The sum of your word is truth,
and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
Context is very important. It gives the full meaning to what is being said. Same as reading any letter. If you only read one verse of a letter then you do not get the full meaning of what has been written. Are you saying that you can just pick a verse out of context and use it at your will?Are you saying that context alters meaning? I believe that a verse means what it always meant. Do you disagree?
Frogster said:Is this his word, written after Christ took sin and law to the cross?
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,
One of the interesting things is that Paul always went to the synagogue first and it is a well known fact that gentiles also attended the synagogue. So the statement really points to the fact that the Jews weren't particulare interested in what Paul had to say. Infact they even tried to kill him on more than one occassion.Interesting, but you have him asking that money be put aside on the first day of the week once and run with it as the day of worship he supported.
He met with the gentles by themselves on Sabbath too. Acts 16
12And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.
13And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
Acts 13,15 and 16 are repleted with Sabbath meetings by Paul and you are willing to deny that he kept the Sabbath, but one Sunday, not stating that it was in church but asking that money be put aside, does it for you. Amazing, absolutely amazing.
...and what ordnance is he talking about? Look you can't stop at a buzz word there is a whole phrase there "the law of commandments expressed in ordinances" The context is circumcision of the flesh. That is what Paul is writing of here.
If Paul meant way you suggest why would he later invoke the Law of God in 6:2?
Keep it coming. Iron sharpens iron.
Yes but this was in the synagogue or afterwards in what we'd call an after glow probably held at the same facility. We do note that Paul moved from the syanagogue to a house in one instance after being pushed out of the synagogue.The passages from Acts 13 and 15 that I previously quote mentioned that Paul met with the gentles on the Sabbath. So Why meet with them on Sabbath if, as you contend, Paul did not want them to keep the Sabbath?
Tally-ho!One of the interesting things is that Paul always went to the synagogue first and it is a well known fact that gentiles also attended the synagogue. So the statement really points to the fact that the Jews weren't particulare interested in what Paul had to say. Infact they even tried to kill him on more than one occassion.
Touching on the I Cor 16 issue - does it make sense to come to church to place an offering in the church treasury when one was there the day before? I think that is completely un reasonable. They don't do something that silly at any church I ever went to. My SDA neighbor doesn't do it either. The verse doesn't imply at home. If that is what Paul meant why didn't he say to do it at home. Further evidence is the phrase "that there be no clooection when I come." It can't be that Pauls is stating take up a collection so there won't be one. If it is at there house when Paul comes there must be a collection take up which Paul wants to avoid. Treasury is a commercial opposed to a domestic word.
Then explain Luke 24:44 which limits the meaning of Mat 5:17-18.Now why add to the bible? How does this metaphorical thing mentioned in the Bible? every attempt is made to explain away that which is plainly spoken rather than accept what God has said. Very sad.
You have made it clear that earth will remain. Then will also the ten commandments with the Sabbath. Will that kill you? Will the truth kill you if you accept it? Why work so hard to deny it?
MamaZ said:Context is very important. It gives the full meaning to what is being said. Same as reading any letter. If you only read one verse of a letter then you do not get the full meaning of what has been written. Are you saying that you can just pick a verse out of context and use it at your will?
That is absolutely ridiculous, it is in context and I did not present the verse by itself as you do yours.
To do otherwise would not suit you anyway, even if God is glorified.
Reminds me of Jews with Jesus. John 18: 13And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. 14Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
It was more important to reject and kill Jesus than to accept the truth. Wise men came from the East and knew that Jesus was born but God own people did not notice. Why we as God's people allow satan to blind us so? There will be a point we will reach, Just like the Jews, that if Jesus stands in front of us and speak His word we will reject them. Some of us have gotten there already. The truth as plain as it can be will never be accepted.
Paul 's commission was to the gentle. Is that not so? By the way You have any of those sermons of Paul's on tape. I only have the bible and it don't tell me so.
We've been asking for that for the longest time. Only conclusion I can come to is that it simply doesn't exist.I have yet for anyone to show me where Paul or Peter or any writings of the scripture in the NT preach to keep the sabbath.
Hmmm! I thought Moses was nailed to the cross. Talking about the law of Moses that is.That should tell you something. I think most will miss it.
Where is circumcision in the ten Commandments? But of course you don't separate the laws. So that Paul does not support circumcision means he can go to church on Sabbaths but mean that circumcision is part of the Sabbath that he kept but we should not. It maybe a little side stepping but you can make it.
For all who break God's commandments and teach men so will die the second dead.
Paul would certainly not say opposite to what Jesus said.
How was that which is Holy, Just, Good and spiritual abolished? Explain.
how can we who are to live by the Spirit not have that which is spiritual, namely the law? Explain.
It seems to me that you think Frogster is confessing that the law isn't good and holy. I would very much say that isn't his position at all. Neither is it my position.
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?