GOD'S WORD vs TRADITIONS OF MEN; Sabbath vs Sunday

[1stcenturylady]

Hello 1stcenturylady friend from the other side of the world ,

That is not true. NO you have not answered the scriptures provided to you in the posts that have been sent to you, or have you answered the questions in the posts, that have been sent to you.

Your response is not to answer a post and ignore the scriptures and questions that are addresseed to you or to change the topic. That is ignoring the posts with the scriptures and questions that disagree with you. Your response has usually been to ignore the post, change the topic or you have to leave.

I am happy to provide the links to our conversation if you like?

Actually, I only answered the texts where your interpretation of the text is in error. So as far as sin, those texts I agree with. Here is what I said in answer to James 2. I will look for more and post separately.

What you don't understand about the verses in James is he is saying to paraphrase, if you broke one of the Ten Commandments you would be judged harshly; how much more so if you break the law of liberty.

The Ministry of Death and the Law of Sin and Death are the same. They are the Ten Commandments. Romans 8:2 says, now the law of the Spirit of life in Christ has FREED me from the law of sin and death. The law of the Spirit is the Law of Liberty.

Here is another

Don't you know if you are going to quote the apostle John, you will have to know what John says are the commandments to follow.

And you are wrong about equating the Ten Commandments with the Spirit. The Ten Commandments are the Law of sin and death, the ministry of death. That is why the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. The Spirit of life in Christ is the law of liberty. It is also called GRACE.

You asked why it is called the ministry of death. I answered:

You can't just believe in Jesus and still sin. The wages of sin is still death. So do you sin?

here is another:

I love my SDA brothers and sisters in the Lord, even if you do judge Sunday church goes as breakers of the law. Even if you are not following the New Covenant Law of the Spirit and Liberty, as least you believe in obedience. There are some denominations that are dead in sin and in liberal heresies.

There is no command to go to church on Sunday or Saturday in the New Covenant. That again would be a work and regimen that would be going from one law to another, and misses the point of the Law of Liberty. (Don't be confused and think they mean liberty to sin. God forbid! It is liberty FROM sin. With no desire to sin we ESTABLISH THE LAW. In the Spirit we are not under the law, but under the leading of the Spirit through our conscience/heart where the moral laws are written. Loving your neighbor covers old laws 6-10, but goes far beyond the old from outward sin (murder), to inward iniquity (hate). And, of course, 1-4 about God are encompassed in believing in His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus is the promised one/Seed based on the covenant with Abraham. We were under the Ten Commandments UNTIL Christ. Period. They were the commands engraved on stone, which the New Testament says are passing away as they were the ministry of death, not liberty in the Spirit. And the sign of the covenant that is passing away was the Sabbath. The Cup of the New Covenant is based on the blood of Jesus and is the sign of the New Covenant, and supersedes the old sign, the Sabbath.

7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

Can you SEE it. It couldn't be written plainer. The Ten Commandments of thou shalt NOT, have been replaced by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, wherein we are free from sin that the LAW stirred up in us, and replaced it with the power of God and belief in the Savior.

Our new commandments are not burdensome. There are but two, but they encompass the ten.

1. Believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ - old 1-4 (Jesus is our rest)
2. Love your neighbor - old 5-10

Therefore if you keep these two, you cannot break the 10 and sin.

here is another:

Brother, I used to believe just as you do now - for years! But then I learned about God's grace. Then I learned about the full gospel. Then I learned that grace is not unmerited favor, but the power of God. It keeps building and building. The Holy Spirit super-sensitizes my conscience and I don't do anything that is a sin. And my conscience is clear every day. My heart is in love with God. My heart does not condemn me, and all my prayers are answered, just as the Word says. That is the proof. So are your prayers answered. Can you hear His voice? Do you have any of the gifts of the Spirit? Or do you believe your own works will save you, and none of your prayers are answered. You may be following the wrong set of "commandments."

21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

here is another (to ECR)

Hi again. No I didn't miss that part. LOL Yes Jesus fulfilled the blood sacrifice. What you don't realize is that just as the Sabbath was in the middle of the Old Covenant, believing in Jesus as our rest is the center of the New Covenant. He is Lord of the Sabbath. "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

Jesus had a strong relationship with the Father. That is why He never sinned. He also learned obedience through the things in which He suffered. I can relate to that. Through suffering at the hand of my husband, my relationship with Jesus grew stronger which resulted in strict obedience. Therefore, it is both the baptism of the Holy Spirit and suffering which causes our free will to be strong in righteousness.

and another:

Belief in Jesus is only part of what is necessary in being saved. The Holy Spirit supplies the strength needed to not sin. Without the baptism of the Holy Spirit we are not Christians. The demons believe and know about Jesus, yet they don't do anything but sin.

Here is one I missed of yours.

Romans 3:19-23 [19], Now we know that what things soever the law said, it said to them who are UNDER THE LAW: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. [20], Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. [21], But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; [22], Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and on all them that believe: for there is no difference: [23], For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

God's LAW (10 Commandments) is to give us a KNOWLEDGE of what SIN is and lead us to JESUS (Gal 3:24-25) that we might be justified by FAITH. Not being "UNDER THE LAW" means your no longer under the CONDEMNATION of the LAW because you have been FORGIVEN for your SINS.

IF you are still CONTINUING in KNOWN UNREPENTANT SIN (breaking God's LAW) you do not KNOW GOD because you have rejected his GIFT of SALVATION through his Son and you are still in your SINS.

You and @BobRyan say that we are no longer under the condemnation of the law, that we are forgiven for our sins if we have accepted Christ by faith. But if we sin we are condemned. Don't you see what a contradictory statement that is? You seem to have missed the part I highlighed in blue. It is because you read it out of context of the whole. Even so, it is not as bad as the Reformationists who not only believe we are not under the law and the condemnation of the law, but that it covers past, present and future sins we unwillingly or willingly commit. I respect your view over them any day of the week. Theirs is a dangerous doctrine and is the church of Sardis, the dead church.

John 15:10
10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

Now, just as fervently as Christ kept His Father's commandments, we are to fervently keep the commandments of Jesus.

The Commandments are holy. The problem was the Sin in us. (Romans 7:8) And because of the sin in us, we needed the commandments to show us our sin as sin. Right? That was the Old covenant.

The New Covenant is Jesus making His own DEAD to Sin (Romans 6:2). So where there is no sin, there isn't a need for commandments, because it was our sin that made them necessary.

How Jesus accomplished this was by giving us His own Spirit to indwell us. (Romans 8:2) The Old Covenant didn't have the Holy Spirit inside the Jews, only the prophets and kings. The Holy Spirit takes us out of the flesh, and into the Spirit. (Romans 8:9) This gift of the Holy Spirit is God's grace - His power in us to be righteous in our new nature. The Holy Spirit in us is WHY we are not under the law anymore, but under grace - the indwelling power of God.

These are the commandments of the New Covenant, the commandments of Jesus (John 15:10):

1. Believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ
2. Love your neighbor.

1 John 3:23

This is the gospel. These two commandments were the focus of Jesus' sermons. Believe on Me! Love, love, love! Do unto others as you would have them do unto you! Love your enemies., etc.

 

[Cribstyl]

hint: the "old covenant" was given in fact to Adam as "Obey and Live"
Paul says the "Gospel was preached to THEM (Israel at Sinai) - just as it was to US also " Heb 4:1

You know better than that Bob Ryan. You'd have to malign too many scriptures to keep that questionable teaching alive.

(Jeremiah 31:32-) When God first Identifies the New Covenant, He said it would not be anything like the Old Covenant: “not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt,"

Hebrew 8 tells us; The simply fact that God announced the New Covenant, He made the first obsolete(old)
Heb 8:13 - In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrew 9:1 Identifies the first as having blood sacrifices and ceromonies for sin.
[URL='https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/heb/9/1/s_1142001']Heb 9:1 - Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary.[/URL]

God also said this covenant was not made with the fathers before Moses.
Deu 5:2 - “The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
Deu 5:3 - “The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive.

ARE YOU GIVING US BIBLICAL TRUTH?

1.Post the text of God saying OBEY AND LIVE"
2. Heb 4:2 is a reference to the Gospel of Jesus Christ that was rejected by the Jews and "US" reference the Gentiles (and all believers) who can enter into His rest.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said:

Hello 1stcenturylady friend from the other side of the world

,

That is not true. NO you have not answered the scriptures provided to you in the posts that have been sent to you, or have you answered the questions in the posts, that have been sent to you.

Your response is not to answer a post and ignore the scriptures and questions that are addressed to you or to change the topic being discussed.

I am happy to provide the links to our conversation if you like?

Actually, I only answered the texts where your interpretation of the text is in error. So as far as sin, those texts I agree with. Here is what I said in answer to James 2. I will look for more and post separately.

My few recent posts to you were all general comments in relation to all of our conversations that you have NOT answered the posts and the scriptures in them or have you answered the questions in the posts that disagree with you.

A few examples can be found when discussing the meaning of COL 2 and the OLD COVENANT SHADOWS and how they relate to the NEW COVENANT.

For example, you were provided with scripture showing what the OLD COVENANT is and how you mix up the SHADOW laws of the MOSAIC BOOK OF THE COVENANT with the ETERNAL laws of God’s 10 Commandments that are the standard of the OLD and NEW COVENANT and the Judgement to come that give us a KNOWLEDGE of SIN and RIGHTEOUSNESS.

DETAILED SCRIPTURE WAS PROVIDED HERE; CLICK ME

Your response was to ignore this post and all the scriptures in the post showing what the SHADOW LAWS are from the OLD COVNENANT WRITTEN in the BOOK OF THE COVENANT in ORDINACES that were SHADOW laws pointing to Jesus. You then posted something unrelated to the post above….

HERE; CLICK ME

This post was then responded to highlighting the mistakes you were making with more scriptures from both the OLD and NEW TESTAMEN in your understanding of what the OLD COVENANT SHADOWS were by showing more scripture in what made up the OLD Covenant and how the OLD COVENANT relates to the NEW and its fulfillment in Christ and what is ETERNAL.

WHAT MAKES UP THE OLD COVENANT; HERE CLICK ME

Your response was to brush all these scriptures aside and ignoring the post provided to help you

HERE: CLICK ME

I then clarified with you, so you did not have any misunderstanding with my posts what is was that I believed you did not understand from the scripture in relation to the OLD and NEW COVENANT yet you ignored all the earlier posts sent to you and did not respond to them

HERE; CLICK ME

Now after you ignored all the scripture posted to you as a help to your understanding of the OLD COVENANT and the SHADOW laws of COL 2 to help the conversation as you had ignored all the scriptures provided, I posted up some more questions for you to consider asking to show scripture in relation to our discussion

HERE; CLICK ME

………………..

CONCLUSION: You have not responded to the posts with the scriptures in them or the questions in these posts. You have simply ignored them because they disagree with your understanding of God’s WORD and seek to change the subject or topic of conversation.

………………...

Now in this post you are wanting to talk about the discussion we were having on…

WHAT IS GOD’S DEFINITION OF SIN.

If you would like to discuss this I am happy to do so. Your claim is that the Scriptures I have provided were in error and do not mean that sin is breaking God’s 10 Commandment correct?

So, what your saying is that SIN is NOT breaking God’s 10 Commandments.

Yet all the scriptures that were provided in CONTEXT are referring to God’s 10 Commandments. You ignore the scriptures sent you in this post below.

HERE: CLICK ME

Your response was to ignore these scripture to try and say that they do not say SIN is breaking God’s commandments yet they mention God’s Commandments by name in the CONTEXT of the scriptures. It seems indeed God’s WORD disagrees with you and you.

…………………

CONCLUSION: You have ignored the posts and the scriptures and the questions in them that disagree with you and have not answered them but claim you have. You did provide an answer but the answer you provided in relation to God’s definition of what sin is disagrees with the scriptures you are responding to.

…………………

LoveGodsWord said: Romans 3:19-23 [19], Now we know that what things soever the law said, it said to them who are UNDER THE LAW: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. [20], Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. [21], But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; [22], Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and on all them that believe: for there is no difference: [23], For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

God's LAW (10 Commandments) is to give us a KNOWLEDGE of what SIN is and lead us to JESUS (Gal 3:24-25) that we might be justified by FAITH. Not being "UNDER THE LAW" means your no longer under the CONDEMNATION of the LAW because you have been FORGIVEN for your SINS.

IF you are still CONTINUING in KNOWN UNREPENTANT SIN (breaking God's LAW) you do not KNOW GOD because you have rejected his GIFT of SALVATION through his Son and you are still in your SINS.

You seem to have missed the part I highlighed in blue. It is because you read it out of context of the whole.

Why would you think I have missed the section in the post you highlight in blue that I posted? After all I was the one providing the scriptures above showing that to be “UNDER THE LAW” means to be guilty of breaking the law and to show that all of sinned and fall short of the Glory of God (v19-21). What the scripture is saying is that we all have sinned and have NO RIGHTEOUSNESS. Our only RIGHTEOUSNESS is in Christ (the WORD) to those who BELIEVE.

You and @BobRyan say that we are no longer under the condemnation of the law, that we are forgiven for our sins if we have accepted Christ by faith. But if we sin we are condemned. Don't you see what a contradictory statement that is?

Not at all. God’s WORD teaches us that if we sin then we are no longer under GRACE but UNDER THE LAW because we have sinned by breaking it. We are only UNDER GRACE when we REPENT of our sins and seek God’s forgiveness by FAITH. Those who CONTINUE in KNOWN UNREPENTANT SIN will NOT enter into the KINGDOM of HEAVEN (Heb 10:26:27)

These are the commandments of the New Covenant, the commandments of Jesus (John 15:10):

1. Believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ
2. Love your neighbor.

1 John 3:23

This is the gospel. These two commandments were the focus of Jesus' sermons. Believe on Me! Love, love, love! Do unto others as you would have them do unto you! Love your enemies., etc.

Most of the rest of your post has already been addressed with scripture that disagrees with you. If you would like to discuss something in particular I have left out of this post them let me know.

Once again you are ignoring the scriptures and the questions in the posts sent to you and ignoring CONTEXT of the scripture you quote in 1 JOHN 3:23. The CONTEXT is 1 JOHN 3:3-15 that show that SIN which is breaking God’s Commandments is the difference between God’s people who keep them and the children of the devil who brake them. The posts and scriptures you have ignored are here….

SIN IS BREAKING GOD’S COMMANDMENTS; CLICK ME
CONTEXT IGNORED FOR 1 JOHN 3:23 IS 1 JOHN 3:3-15; CLICK ME.

CONCLUSION: As I posted earlier, your ignoring the posts and the scriptures in them and the questions asked of you that disagree with your understanding of the scriptures.

Hope this helps clarify any misunderstandings. Only God's WORD is true and we should BELIEVE and FOLLOW it over the teachings and traditions of men that have led many to break the commandments of God.

.

 

[1stcenturylady]

My few recent posts to you were all general comments in relation to all of our conversations that you have NOT answered the posts and the scriptures in them or have you answered the questions in the posts that disagree with you.

A few examples can be found when discussing the meaning of COL 2 and the OLD COVENANT SHADOWS and how they relate to the NEW COVENANT.

For example, you were provided with scripture showing what the OLD COVENANT is and how you mix up the SHADOW laws of the MOSAIC BOOK OF THE COVENANT with the ETERNAL laws of God’s 10 Commandments that are the standard of the OLD and NEW COVENANT and the Judgement to come that give us a KNOWLEDGE of SIN and RIGHTEOUSNESS.

DETAILED SCRIPTURE WAS PROVIDED HERE; CLICK ME

Your response was to ignore this post and all the scriptures in the post showing what the SHADOW LAWS are from the OLD COVNENANT WRITTEN in the BOOK OF THE COVENANT in ORDINACES that were SHADOW laws pointing to Jesus. You then posted something unrelated to the post above….

HERE; CLICK ME

This post was then responded to highlighting the mistakes you were making with more scriptures from both the OLD and NEW TESTAMEN in your understanding of what the OLD COVENANT SHADOWS were by showing more scripture in what made up the OLD Covenant and how the OLD COVENANT relates to the NEW and its fulfillment in Christ and what is ETERNAL.

WHAT MAKES UP THE OLD COVENANT; HERE CLICK ME

Your response was to brush all these scriptures aside and ignoring the post provided to help you

HERE: CLICK ME

I then clarified with you, so you did not have any misunderstanding with my posts what is was that I believed you did not understand from the scripture in relation to the OLD and NEW COVENANT yet you ignored all the earlier posts sent to you and did not respond to them

HERE; CLICK ME

Now after you ignored all the scripture posted to you as a help to your understanding of the OLD COVENANT and the SHADOW laws of COL 2 to help the conversation as you had ignored all the scriptures provided, I posted up some more questions for you to consider asking to show scripture in relation to our discussion

HERE; CLICK ME

………………..

CONCLUSION: You have not responded to the posts with the scriptures in them or the questions in these posts. You have simply ignored them because they disagree with your understanding of God’s WORD and seek to change the subject or topic of conversation.

………………...

Now in this post you are wanting to talk about the discussion we were having on…

WHAT IS GOD’S DEFINITION OF SIN.

If you would like to discuss this I am happy to do so. Your claim is that the Scriptures I have provided were in error and do not mean that sin is breaking God’s 10 Commandment correct?

So, what your saying is that SIN is NOT breaking God’s 10 Commandments.

Yet all the scriptures that were provided in CONTEXT are referring to God’s 10 Commandments. You ignore the scriptures sent you in this post below.

HERE: CLICK ME

Your response was to ignore these scripture to try and say that they do not say SIN is breaking God’s commandments yet they mention God’s Commandments by name in the CONTEXT of the scriptures. It seems indeed God’s WORD disagrees with you and you.

…………………

CONCLUSION: You have ignored the posts and the scriptures and the questions in them that disagree with you and have not answered them but claim you have. You did provide an answer but the answer you provided in relation to God’s definition of what sin is disagrees with the scriptures you are responding to.

…………………



Why would you think I have missed the section in the post you highlight in blue that I posted? After all I was the one providing the scriptures above showing that to be “UNDER THE LAW” means to be guilty of breaking the law and to show that all of sinned and fall short of the Glory of God (v19-21). What the scripture is saying is that we all have sinned and have NO RIGHTEOUSNESS. Our only RIGHTEOUSNESS is in Christ (the WORD) to those who BELIEVE.



Not at all. God’s WORD teaches us that if we sin then we are no longer under GRACE but UNDER THE LAW because we have sinned by breaking it. We are only UNDER GRACE when we REPENT of our sins and seek God’s forgiveness by FAITH. Those who CONTINUE in KNOWN UNREPENTANT SIN will NOT enter into the KINGDOM of HEAVEN (Heb 10:26:27)



Most of the rest of your post has already been addressed with scripture that disagrees with you. If you would like to discuss something in particular I have left out of this post them let me know.

Once again you are ignoring the scriptures and the questions in the posts sent to you and ignoring CONTEXT of the scripture you quote in 1 JOHN 3:23. The CONTEXT is 1 JOHN 3:3-15 that show that SIN which is breaking God’s Commandments is the difference between God’s people who keep them and the children of the devil who brake them. The posts and scriptures you have ignored are here….

SIN IS BREAKING GOD’S COMMANDMENTS; CLICK ME
CONTEXT IGNORED FOR 1 JOHN 3:23 IS 1 JOHN 3:3-15; CLICK ME.

CONCLUSION: As I posted earlier, our ignoring the posts and the scriptures in them and the questions asked of you that disagree with your understanding of the scriptures.

Hope this helps clarify any misunderstandings. Only God's WORD is true and we should BELIEVE and FOLLOW it over the teachings and traditions of men that have led many to break the commandments of God.

.

I do ignore the scripture we agree on. But on your super long posts I answer the first ones.

Your second "click me" here is what I believe. As far as Colossians 2, I believe all of Leviticus 23 is fulfilled in Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

Question to @BobRyan. What covenant was given by God on Mt. Sinai? Whatever it was represented Ishmael and was to be "cast out"

hint: the "old covenant" was given in fact to Adam as "Obey and Live"
Paul says the "Gospel was preached to THEM (Israel at Sinai) - just as it was to US also " Heb 4:1

Yet Sinai was not an "individual" covenant (and the New Covenant is) . In other words it is not as though there were 2 million sinless "individuals" at Sinai -- until they started worshiping the golden calf.

Thus it is the NEW Covenant according to Paul - the Gospel that was being given all along - but at Sinai it was given with visual aids and illustrations.

The national-covenant at Sinai is used as a "symbol" of the Old Covenant made with Adam "obey and live" because at the level of 'a nation' that is how it was framed. Only national apostasy / rebellion -- would break it. An individual who coveted on that day or any other -- would not break that covenant.

The SAME moral Law is in both the Old and and NEW Covenant as the Bible shows and as even
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson -- freely demonstrate that they too can see this glaringly obvious Bible detail.

Question for 1stcenturylady - what part of this did you not know "really"?? I don't think that this particular post is "news" to very many people -- not even
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith

And I think you have seen something from me like it from me before.

You know better than that Bob Ryan. You'd have to malign too many scriptures

On the contrary - I prefer the scriptures -- instead of man made traditions.

(Jeremiah 31:32-) When God first Identifies the New Covenant, He said it would not be anything like the Old Covenant: “not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt,"

had you actually read the post you claimed to have been responding to - you would have seen that point already dealt with.

God also said this covenant was not made with the fathers before Moses.
Deu 5:2 - “The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
Deu 5:3 - “The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive.

Which makes my point - the Gospel was from Adam to this very day. The "national covenant" was at Sinai and could not have been made before that - since they were not a nation before that.

The point remains.

2. Heb 4:2 is a reference to the Gospel of Jesus Christ that was rejected by the Jews and "US" reference the Gentiles (and all believers) who can enter into His rest.

Paul always includes himself in "US" and does not argue that he rejected the gospel Hebrews 3 and 4 is not about "all have rejected the Gospel -- even US.. the Apostles" and we all know it.

 

[BobRyan]

A proper response to this would only draw a report about attacking the poster.

Then even the Moderators would know it was "not a proper response" as you seem to have just admitted.

It is great when everyone is on the same page in that regard.

 

[BobRyan]

Question to @BobRyan. What covenant was given by God on Mt. Sinai? Whatever it was represented Ishmael and was to be "cast out"

hint: the "old covenant" was given in fact to Adam as "Obey and Live"
Paul says the "Gospel was preached to THEM (Israel at Sinai) - just as it was to US also " Heb 4:1

Yet Sinai was not an "individual" covenant (and the New Covenant is) . In other words it is not as though there were 2 million sinless "individuals" at Sinai -- until they started worshiping the golden calf.

Thus it is the NEW Covenant according to Paul - the Gospel that was being given all along - but at Sinai it was given with visual aids and illustrations.

The national-covenant at Sinai is used as a "symbol" of the Old Covenant made with Adam "obey and live" because at the level of 'a nation' that is how it was framed. Only national apostasy / rebellion -- would break it. An individual who coveted on that day or any other -- would not break that covenant.

The SAME moral Law is in both the Old and and NEW Covenant as the Bible shows and as even
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson -- freely demonstrate that they too can see this glaringly obvious Bible detail.

Question for 1stcenturylady - what part of this did you not know "really"?? I don't think that this particular post is "news" to very many people -- not even
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith

And I think you have seen something from me like it from me before.

(hint) Deuteronomy 5:3.

hint: I have read it.

Cute tactic .

Thanks ... you are too kind

 

[1stcenturylady]

hint: the "old covenant" was given in fact to Adam as "Obey and Live"
Paul says the "Gospel was preached to THEM (Israel at Sinai) - just as it was to US also " Heb 4:1

Yet Sinai was not an "individual" covenant (and the New Covenant is) . In other words it is not as though there were 2 million sinless "individuals" at Sinai -- until they started worshiping the golden calf.

Thus it is the NEW Covenant according to Paul - the Gospel that was being given all along - but at Sinai it was given with visual aids and illustrations.

The national-covenant at Sinai is used as a "symbol" of the Old Covenant made with Adam "obey and live" because at the level of 'a nation' that is how it was framed. Only national apostasy / rebellion -- would break it. An individual who coveted on that day or any other -- would not break that covenant.

The SAME moral Law is in both the Old and and NEW Covenant as the Bible shows and as even
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson -- freely demonstrate that they too can see this glaringly obvious Bible detail.

Question for 1stcenturylady - what part of this did you not know "really"?? I don't think that this particular post is "news" to very many people -- not even
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith

And I think you have seen something from me like it from me before.



On the contrary - I prefer the scriptures -- instead of man made traditions.



had you actually read the post you claimed to have been responding to - you would have seen that point already dealt with.



Which makes my point - the Gospel was from Adam to this very day. The "national covenant" was at Sinai and could not have been made before that - since they were not a nation before that.

The point remains.




Paul always includes himself in "US" and does not argue that he rejected the gospel Hebrews 3 and 4 is not about "all have rejected the Gospel -- even US.. the Apostles" and we all know it.

Exodus 34:1 and 28
And the Lord said to Moses, “Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke. 2 So be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning to Mount Sinai, and present yourself to Me there on the top of the mountain.
28 So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Galatians 4
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

How true, how true

Just as the Judaizers of the flesh tried to convince the Galatians who started out in the law of liberty in the Spirit, you would like to put us all back in bondage to dead works of keeping days already fulfilled in Christ, the substance of the true Sabbath REST.

 

[BobRyan]

Question to @BobRyan. What covenant was given by God on Mt. Sinai? Whatever it was represented Ishmael and was to be "cast out"

hint: the "old covenant" was given in fact to Adam as "Obey and Live"
Paul says the "Gospel was preached to THEM (Israel at Sinai) - just as it was to US also " Heb 4:1

Yet Sinai was not an "individual" covenant (and the New Covenant is) . In other words it is not as though there were 2 million sinless "individuals" at Sinai -- until they started worshiping the golden calf.

Thus it is the NEW Covenant according to Paul - the Gospel that was being given all along - but at Sinai it was given with visual aids and illustrations.

The national-covenant at Sinai is used as a "symbol" of the Old Covenant made with Adam "obey and live" because at the level of 'a nation' that is how it was framed. Only national apostasy / rebellion -- would break it. An individual who coveted on that day or any other -- would not break that covenant.

The SAME moral Law is in both the Old and and NEW Covenant as the Bible shows and as even
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson -- freely demonstrate that they too can see this glaringly obvious Bible detail.

Question for 1stcenturylady - what part of this did you not know "really"?? I don't think that this particular post is "news" to very many people -- not even
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith

And I think you have seen something from me like it from me before.

You know better than that Bob Ryan. You'd have to malign too many scriptures

On the contrary - I prefer the scriptures -- instead of man made traditions.

(Jeremiah 31:32-) When God first Identifies the New Covenant, He said it would not be anything like the Old Covenant: “not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt,"

had you actually read the post you claimed to have been responding to - you would have seen that point already dealt with.

God also said this covenant was not made with the fathers before Moses.
Deu 5:2 - “The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
Deu 5:3 - “The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive.

Which makes my point - the Gospel was from Adam to this very day. The "national covenant" was at Sinai and could not have been made before that - since they were not a nation before that.

The point remains.

2. Heb 4:2 is a reference to the Gospel of Jesus Christ that was rejected by the Jews and "US" reference the Gentiles (and all believers) who can enter into His rest.

Paul always includes himself in "US" and does not argue that he rejected the gospel Hebrews 3 and 4 is not about "all have rejected the Gospel -- even US.. the Apostles" and we all know it.

Exodus 34:1 and 28
And the Lord said to Moses, “Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.

As already pointed out. God's Commandments - indeed God's Ten Commandments are in both covenants. Thus it is "still a sin" even for Christians - to take God's name in vain.

As we all know.

Just as the Judaizers of the flesh tried to convince the Galatians who started out in the law of liberty in the Spirit, you would like to put us all back in bondage to dead works

Less creative writing and false accusation--- more fact please.

 

[BNR32FAN]

“Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. For instance, one person believes it’s all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don’t. And those who don’t eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. Who are you to condemn someone else’s servants? Their own master will judge whether they stand or fall. And with the Lord’s help, they will stand and receive his approval. In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable. Those who worship the Lord on a special day do it to honor him. Those who eat any kind of food do so to honor the Lord, since they give thanks to God before eating. And those who refuse to eat certain foods also want to please the Lord and give thanks to God.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭14:1-6‬

 

[1stcenturylady]

hint: the "old covenant" was given in fact to Adam as "Obey and Live"
Paul says the "Gospel was preached to THEM (Israel at Sinai) - just as it was to US also " Heb 4:1

Yet Sinai was not an "individual" covenant (and the New Covenant is) . In other words it is not as though there were 2 million sinless "individuals" at Sinai -- until they started worshiping the golden calf.

Thus it is the NEW Covenant according to Paul - the Gospel that was being given all along - but at Sinai it was given with visual aids and illustrations.

The national-covenant at Sinai is used as a "symbol" of the Old Covenant made with Adam "obey and live" because at the level of 'a nation' that is how it was framed. Only national apostasy / rebellion -- would break it. An individual who coveted on that day or any other -- would not break that covenant.

The SAME moral Law is in both the Old and and NEW Covenant as the Bible shows and as even
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson -- freely demonstrate that they too can see this glaringly obvious Bible detail.

Question for 1stcenturylady - what part of this did you not know "really"?? I don't think that this particular post is "news" to very many people -- not even
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith

And I think you have seen something from me like it from me before.



On the contrary - I prefer the scriptures -- instead of man made traditions.



had you actually read the post you claimed to have been responding to - you would have seen that point already dealt with.



Which makes my point - the Gospel was from Adam to this very day. The "national covenant" was at Sinai and could not have been made before that - since they were not a nation before that.

The point remains.




Paul always includes himself in "US" and does not argue that he rejected the gospel Hebrews 3 and 4 is not about "all have rejected the Gospel -- even US.. the Apostles" and we all know it.



As already pointed out. God's Commandments - indeed God's Ten Commandments are in both covenants. Thus it is "still a sin" even for Christians - to take God's name in vain.

As we all know.






2 So be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning to Mount Sinai, and present yourself to Me there on the top of the mountain.
28 So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Galatians 4
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

How true, how true

Just as the Judaizers of the flesh tried to convince the Galatians who started out in the law of liberty in the Spirit, you would like to put us all back in bondage to dead works of keeping days already fulfilled in Christ, the substance of the true Sabbath REST.

[/QUOTE]

We are not under the Ten Commandments because we are under the law of the Spirit of life in Christ and are free from the law of sin and death (the TenC) Romans 8:2

 

[BobRyan]

I am pleased to report that 1stcenturylady apparently does not actually read the responses given to her question to me.

How "instructive"

=============================================

How do you translate these verses. And only this passage.

1. I am not a Bible translator.
2. I don't believe in "eisegesis" - so the idea of "deleting context" and "deleting the exegetical setting" for a given text - is not something I am used to doing.

And now we begin -

Read Galatians 4:
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?

In Romans 3:19-21 Paul already defined his use of the phrase "Under the Law"
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Paul makes the case that the Law is still binding
And it defines what sin is.
And it condemns all mankind - showing that all need salvation... need the Gospel for "All have sinned" Rom 3:23

The church in Galatia is a gentile church - not a Jewish one.
And why is Paul accusing a gentile church of this?
Why does Paul think the gentiles of Galatia want to be "under the Law"?

Here Paul is expanding on what He thinks of certain Gentiles in Galatia

Gal 5
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Back to Romans 3
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Why does Paul think the gentiles in Galatia are guilty of this?

ANSWER:
Gal 5
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

Ah-hah -- is that the great sin of the gentiles in Galatia??

Nope. Paul requires that Timothy be circumcised

Acts 16
a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.


Gal 5 - whether you are circumcised or not - does not matter.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping of the commandments of God.

Repeatedly Paul teaches that while it is true that it does not matter if one is circumcised or not - yet when the gentiles in Galatia do it -- they are "fallen from grace" and "severed from Christ". Gal 5:4

Why?

Because they are doing it as a "sign" that they wish to be "justified by law" Gal 5:4

Where did the GENTILES in Galatia get that idea if not from Paul?

Answer: a certain small contingent of Christian Jews from Judea

Acts 15:1
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”​

They simply made that idea up -- no OT or NT scripture required it. The Christian gentiles in Galatia were giving in to Jewish practice of "making stuff up" and setting their own tradition = the Bible.

Gal 4
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic.

• Paul now tells the reader he is switching over from real-life-literal to "symbolic".
• In real life it is the children of Isaac son of Sarah that gather at Sinai - not the children Ishmael son of Hagar.

So this is not Paul claiming that Moses and Elijah who stand "with Christ" in Matthew 17 - in glory-- are standing in opposition to Christ, opposition to Grace, opposition to the Gospel.

Gal 4
For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—

Paul argues that in rejecting the Messiah -- The non-Christian Jews (as well as Christian Jews that choose to "make stuff up" place tradition above the Bible) -- and by symbol - Jerusalem as their capital - stand in opposition to the Gospel - as a counterfeit to it - just as Hagar and Ishmael represented a counterfeit to the promise - that was to come through Sarah's son Isaac.


Gal 4
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Jerusalem above "is mother of us all" - of both Christian gentiles and Christian Jews. Our "heritage" our "national and family identity" is united in the "Jerusalem above" which was in heaven at the time of Sinai and still is to this very day.

Paul is taking away the "heritage problem" that he brings up in Gal 4

8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.

That was the gentile pagan "heritage" and that is apparently what the Christian Jews promoting circumcision of gentiles were selling them - a "deal" for getting rid of their pagan heritage by identifying with literal Jews or by engaging in other forms of syncretism

9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.


Gal 4
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now

Indeed - Christians were being persecuted by non-Christian Jews from Judea

 

[BNR32FAN]

““Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?” Jesus replied, “‘You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22:36-40‬

 

[1stcenturylady]

I am pleased to report that 1stcenturylady apparently does not actually read the responses given to her question to me.

How "instructive"

=============================================


1. I am not a Bible translator.
2. I don't believe in "eisegesis" - so the idea of "deleting context" and "deleting the exegetical setting" for a given text - is not something I am used to doing.

And now we begin -

Read Galatians 4:
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?

In Romans 3:19-21 Paul already defined his use of the phrase "Under the Law"
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Paul makes the case that the Law is still binding
And it defines what sin is.
And it condemns all mankind - showing that all need salvation... need the Gospel for "All have sinned" Rom 3:23

The church in Galatia is a gentile church - not a Jewish one.
And why is Paul accusing a gentile church of this?
Why does Paul think the gentiles of Galatia want to be "under the Law"?

Here Paul is expanding on what He thinks of certain Gentiles in Galatia

Gal 5
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Back to Romans 3
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Why does Paul think the gentiles in Galatia are guilty of this?

ANSWER:
Gal 5
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

Ah-hah -- is that the great sin of the gentiles in Galatia??

Nope. Paul requires that Timothy be circumcised

Acts 16
a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.


Gal 5 - whether you are circumcised or not - does not matter.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping of the commandments of God.

Repeatedly Paul teaches that while it is true that it does not matter if one is circumcised or not - yet when the gentiles in Galatia do it -- they are "fallen from grace" and "severed from Christ". Gal 5:4

Why?

Because they are doing it as a "sign" that they wish to be "justified by law" Gal 5:4

Where did the GENTILES in Galatia get that idea if not from Paul?

Answer: a certain small contingent of Christian Jews from Judea

Acts 15:1
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”​

They simply made that idea up -- no OT or NT scripture required it. The Christian gentiles in Galatia were giving in to Jewish practice of "making stuff up" and setting their own tradition = the Bible.

Gal 4
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic.

• Paul now tells the reader he is switching over from real-life-literal to "symbolic".
• In real life it is the children of Isaac son of Sarah that gather at Sinai - not the children Ishmael son of Hagar.

So this is not Paul claiming that Moses and Elijah who stand "with Christ" in Matthew 17 - in glory-- are standing in opposition to Christ, opposition to Grace, opposition to the Gospel.

Gal 4
For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—

Paul argues that in rejecting the Messiah -- The non-Christian Jews (as well as Christian Jews that choose to "make stuff up" place tradition above the Bible) -- and by symbol - Jerusalem as their capital - stand in opposition to the Gospel - as a counterfeit to it - just as Hagar and Ishmael represented a counterfeit to the promise - that was to come through Sarah's son Isaac.


Gal 4
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Jerusalem above "is mother of us all" - of both Christian gentiles and Christian Jews. Our "heritage" our "national and family identity" is united in the "Jerusalem above" which was in heaven at the time of Sinai and still is to this very day.

Paul is taking away the "heritage problem" that he brings up in Gal 4

8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.

That was the gentile pagan "heritage" and that is apparently what the Christian Jews promoting circumcision of gentiles were selling them - a "deal" for getting rid of their pagan heritage by identifying with literal Jews or by engaging in other forms of syncretism

9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.


Gal 4
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now

Indeed - Christians were being persecuted by non-Christian Jews from Judea

<Did "somebody" watch a debate between Steve Gregg and Doug Batchelor? - is that what this is about?>

I could if you didn't fill it with old posts I have to scan through to see if there is a point.

 

[BobRyan]

Question to @BobRyan. What covenant was given by God on Mt. Sinai? Whatever it was represented Ishmael and was to be "cast out"

hint: the "old covenant" was given in fact to Adam as "Obey and Live"
Paul says the "Gospel was preached to THEM (Israel at Sinai) - just as it was to US also " Heb 4:1

Yet Sinai was not an "individual" covenant (and the New Covenant is) . In other words it is not as though there were 2 million sinless "individuals" at Sinai -- until they started worshiping the golden calf.

Thus it is the NEW Covenant according to Paul - the Gospel that was being given all along - but at Sinai it was given with visual aids and illustrations.

The national-covenant at Sinai is used as a "symbol" of the Old Covenant made with Adam "obey and live" because at the level of 'a nation' that is how it was framed. Only national apostasy / rebellion -- would break it. An individual who coveted on that day or any other -- would not break that covenant.

The SAME moral Law is in both the Old and and NEW Covenant as the Bible shows and as even
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson -- freely demonstrate that they too can see this glaringly obvious Bible detail.

Question for 1stcenturylady - what part of this did you not know "really"?? I don't think that this particular post is "news" to very many people -- not even
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith

And I think you have seen something from me like it from me before.
=====================================

Exodus 34:1 and 28
And the Lord said to Moses, “Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.

[/quote]

As already pointed out. God's Commandments - indeed God's Ten Commandments are in both covenants. Thus it is "still a sin" even for Christians - to take God's name in vain.

As we all know.

Just as the Judaizers of the flesh tried to convince the Galatians who started out in the law of liberty in the Spirit, you would like to put us all back in bondage to dead works

Less creative writing and false accusation--- more fact please.

We are not under the Ten Commandments because we are under the law of the Spirit of life in Christ and are free from the law of sin and death (the TenC) Romans 8:2

Eph 6:2 "Honor your father and mother for this is the FIRST COMMANDMENT with a promise" --

FIRST commandment in the TEN Commandments "with a promise" - which Paul held as still binding on Christians. Thus it is "still a sin" even for Christians - to "take God's name in vain".

The point remains.

 

[BobRyan]

I could if you didn't fill it with old posts I have to scan through to see if there is a point.

You already admitted that that particular post was new to you... still... you did not read it.

BTW - i think you just admitted "again" that you are not actually reading the posts.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I already admitted that that particular post was new to you... still... you did not read it.

It wasn't new to me. I just don't happen to agree with your synopsis of Galatians 4. You can't admit that the Ten Commandments are not the covenant of promise.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I do ignore the scripture we agree on. But on your super long posts I answer the first ones.

Your second "click me" here is what I believe. As far as Colossians 2, I believe all of Leviticus 23 is fulfilled in Christ.

No you don't as already proven in post #83 ABOVE; CLICK ME.

You have NOT answered any of the posts and the scripture or questions in those posts that disagree with you. You choose to ignore them or change the topic of discussion.

 

[1stcenturylady]

No you don't as already proven in post #83 ABOVE.

Ask me a short question - not a whole page of them - and I'll answer you.

And @BobRyan

 

[BobRyan]

It wasn't new to me. I just don't happen to agree with your synopsis of Galatians 4. .

That's fine -- but when you post and ask questions that basically ask that the post be "given again" for the detail you are discussing - it shows that it did not help that you did not read the post to start with.

BTW you already admitted it was a new post to you

I appreciate that you did not cut and paste this from some post I've already seen. Thank you. "

and you already admitted you did not actually read it.