If you Love Me - KEEP My Commandments

Sophrosyne said:

While you are at it ask them to show why they think the Sabbath Day commandment is "moral law" when logically speaking I cannot fathom why it wouldn't be considered ceremonial instead.

Click to expand...

All of God's laws are inherently moral laws.

BABerean2 said:

If they are all given to us, then we will need to restart animal sacrifices in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, even though the ultimate sacrifice of God's Son has already been made and the veil in the temple has been torn.
.

Click to expand...

The bible prophecies a third temple for just such a purpose. Paul continued to do sacrifices in Acts and there will also be sacrifices during the Millennium.

BABerean2 said:

How can you take a passage and make it mean the exact opposite of what is plainly written in the text?

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,
“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will effect a new covenant
With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;

9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
(Not like the Sinai covenant.)

On the day when I took them by the hand
To lead them out of the land of Egypt;

For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
(They broke the Sinai covenant.)

10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.


Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
(You left out this verse which says the Sinai covenant has become obsolete.)

Bob Ryan said...
"Exegesis demands that the moral law of God written on the mind and heart in Jer 31:31-33 is the one that Jeremiah and his readers knew"

A complete exegesis requires that we not leave out the verses that disprove our doctrine.

.

Click to expand...

The reason the law is weak is not because what it instructs is no holy, righteous, and good, but because it could not perfect us by causing us to keep it. Our sin nature's mastery over us got in its way (Romans 8:2). God did not stop wanting His people to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct between covenants, but rather the way that the New Covenant is not like the Old is that it has a superior mediator and is based on superior promises. God made a New Covenant so that we would be obedient to His law, not so that we could disregard obedience to Him. If the New Covenant will not fix the problem of not perfecting our obedience, then it has the same problem as the Old, and we'll need another one.

Sophrosyne said:

While you are at it ask them to show why they think the Sabbath Day commandment is "moral law" when logically speaking I cannot fathom why it wouldn't be considered ceremonial instead.

Click to expand...

They fail to acknowledge that circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant and we are now to be circumcised in the heart in the New Covenant.

The Sinai Sabbath was the sign of the Sinai covenant, written on the tablets of stone.

Those in-Christ have the Lord of the Sabbath inside of us on every day of the week. He is our Sabbath rest.

They have to apply the Sinai covenant to the New Blood Covenant of Christ, because they cannot let go of the Sabbath.
.

Soyeong said:

The bible prophecies a third temple for just such a purpose.

Click to expand...

This idea stands in direct conflict with the following scripture from the New Testament.


Heb_9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

The New Testament temple is Christ and those who are in Him.

The Apostle Paul did not offer a blood sacrifice on the altar of the temple, since it could only be offered by the temple priests.
.

BABerean2 said:

This idea stands in direct conflict with the following scripture from the New Testament.


Heb_9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

The New Testament temple is Christ and those who are in Him.

The Apostle Paul did not offer a blood sacrifice on the altar of the temple, since it could only be offered by the temple priests.
.

Click to expand...

I did not say that the offerings were done for our redemption, nevertheless, the Bible talks about offerings being done during the Millennium (such as Ezekiel 44-46), which include sin offerings. Paul took a Nazarite vow in Acts 18 and paid for the expenses of others who also took that vow in Acts 21, which also involved sin offerings (Numbers 6).

Leviticus 4:1-7 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If anyone sins unintentionally[a] in any of the Lord's commandments about things not to be done, and does any one of them, 3 if it is the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people, then he shall offer for the sin that he has committed a bull from the herd without blemish to the Lord for a sin offering. 4 He shall bring the bull to the entrance of the tent of meeting before the Lord and lay his hand on the head of the bull and kill the bull before the Lord. 5 And the anointed priest shall take some of the blood of the bull and bring it into the tent of meeting, 6 and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle part of the blood seven times before the Lord in front of the veil of the sanctuary. 7 And the priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense before the Lord that is in the tent of meeting, and all the rest of the blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting.

The person bringing the offering was the one who laid their hands on its head and killed it. They had to kill an unblemished animal in their place and deliver the punishment that they deserved for their sins. I think there is something about the seriousness of sin that is learned that way that is not learned otherwise.

Soyeong said:

I did not say that the offerings were done for our redemption, nevertheless, the Bible talks about offeringss being done during the Millennium, which include sin offerings. Paul took a Nazarite vow in Acts 18 and paid for the expenses of others who also took that vow in Acts 21, which also involved sin offerings (Numbers 6).

Click to expand...

The veil in the temple was torn on the day of the day the Messiah was crucified.

My wife and I make offerings on a regular basis financially to help in various missionary efforts.

The passages that some think describe sacrifices during a Millennium are not clear passages of scripture, from which we can draw doctrine. A Millennium period where sin and death remain after the Second Coming of Christ produces tremendous conflict in scripture.

..................................................


Millennial Choice…


All of us have to make the choice of making some unit of time not "literal".

We have "hour" and "all" in John chapter 5, where Jesus seems to indicate a simultaneous resurrection of both the Godly and the ungodly.

We have the same simultaneous resurrection from Job 14:12, Daniel 12:1-3, Paul in Acts 24:15, and John in Rev. 11:18.

We have Jesus discussing the resurrection at the "last day" in John chapter 6.


Martha confirmed this understanding after the death of her brother Lazarus.


How many days come after the last day?

We can redefine all of these, from several different witnesses, and get a 1,000 year reign of Christ after His Second Coming, where sin and death continue, by making some assumptions


or we can understand that John saw the "souls" of those who died in-Christ living and reigning with Christ in heaven for a very long (1,000) time before the return of Christ. This is a reference to the length of time that the souls reign, but it does not discuss how long Christ reigns. His reign is given as forever in Rev. chapter 11.
The 1,000 year reign of Christ is an assumption, not found in the text.


If I married the Queen of England in the future, at some point in time the historians might write about how long I reigned with her.


However, that would not be the length of her reign, which would be much longer.

I have always been bothered by the idea of mortals living to a very old age, but still dying after the return of Christ.
Would Christ perform their funeral service?
Where would their souls go, since Christ is here?
If the Christians are ruling over these mortals during the 1,000 years we must do a terrible job if they rebel against Christ.
Does Christ just let Satan out of the pit and allow him to foment a rebellion, all while Christ is in control of the planet?

These questions have caused me to reject the premill position.

I also do not see things getting better, so therefore I have also discarded the postmill view.

Amill means, No Millennium, which is an unfortunate term.

In my humble opinion the 1,000 years is a symbol that represents the whole "Church Age".

I know a lot of good people who hold the classic premill position.
Some of them are nonDispensational Baptists, like Pastor Sam Adams from Florida.


This is an issue we should never divide over, since either choice we make, could be the one that is not correct.

.

BABerean2 said:

They fail to acknowledge that circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant and we are now to be circumcised in the heart in the New Covenant.

The Sinai Sabbath was the sign of the Sinai covenant, written on the tablets of stone.

Those in-Christ have the Lord of the Sabbath inside of us on every day of the week. He is our Sabbath rest.

They have to apply the Sinai covenant to the New Blood Covenant of Christ, because they cannot let go of the Sabbath.
.

Click to expand...

I agree but that doesn't address their illogical assumptions that the Sabbath is a MORAL law when in fact one has to observe is ceremonially at a particular time of the week while the other "moral" commandments are to required by the Law to be observed ALL THE TIME.

BABerean2 said:

The veil in the temple was torn on the day of the day the Messiah was crucified.

My wife and I make offerings on a regular basis financially to help in various missionary efforts.

The passages that some think describe sacrifices during a Millennium are not clear passages of scripture, from which we can draw doctrine. A Millennium period where sin and death remain after the Second Coming of Christ produces tremendous conflict in scripture.

..................................................


Millennial Choice…


All of us have to make the choice of making some unit of time not "literal".

We have "hour" and "all" in John chapter 5, where Jesus seems to indicate a simultaneous resurrection of both the Godly and the ungodly.

We have the same simultaneous resurrection from Job 14:12, Daniel 12:1-3, Paul in Acts 24:15, and John in Rev. 11:18.

We have Jesus discussing the resurrection at the "last day" in John chapter 6.


Martha confirmed this understanding after the death of her brother Lazarus.


How many days come after the last day?

We can redefine all of these, from several different witnesses, and get a 1,000 year reign of Christ after His Second Coming, where sin and death continue, by making some assumptions


or we can understand that John saw the "souls" of those who died in-Christ living and reigning with Christ in heaven for a very long (1,000) time before the return of Christ. This is a reference to the length of time that the souls reign, but it does not discuss how long Christ reigns. His reign is given as forever in Rev. chapter 11.
The 1,000 year reign of Christ is an assumption, not found in the text.


If I married the Queen of England in the future, at some point in time the historians might write about how long I reigned with her.


However, that would not be the length of her reign, which would be much longer.

I have always been bothered by the idea of mortals living to a very old age, but still dying after the return of Christ.
Would Christ perform their funeral service?
Where would their souls go, since Christ is here?
If the Christians are ruling over these mortals during the 1,000 years we must do a terrible job if they rebel against Christ.
Does Christ just let Satan out of the pit and allow him to foment a rebellion, all while Christ is in control of the planet?

These questions have caused me to reject the premill position.

I also do not see things getting better, so therefore I have also discarded the postmill view.

Amill means, No Millennium, which is an unfortunate term.

In my humble opinion the 1,000 years is a symbol that represents the whole "Church Age".

I know a lot of good people who hold the classic premill position.
Some of them are nonDispensational Baptists, like Pastor Sam Adams from Florida.


This is an issue we should never divide over, since either choice we make, could be the one that is not correct.

.

Click to expand...

We don't have to get into a discussion about the Millennium, the example of offerings for the Nazarite is sufficient to show that Jesus' death and resurrection didn't do away with them. Because the blood of goats and bulls never took away sin in the first place (Hebrews 10:4) an offering that does take away sin doesn't make them obsolete. All of the offerings are shadows that teach of the Messiah, so he fulfilled the law by bringing light to them in order to make them complete, not obsolete. Imagine the joy of someone bringing a sin sacrifice or Passover lamb to the temple lamb and being told the true meaning and how zealous they would become for the law because of it (Acts 21:20).

BABerean2 said:

If they are all given to us, then we will need to restart animal sacrifices in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, even though the ultimate sacrifice of God's Son has already been made and the veil in the temple has been torn.

Click to expand...

Your misunderstanding of the scriptures, therefore ye do err. We of course still give sacrifices, but spiritual [see 1 Corinthians 15:44-46], notice:

As it is written:

Sophrosyne said:

I agree but that doesn't address their illogical assumptions that the Sabbath is a MORAL law when in fact one has to observe is ceremonially at a particular time of the week while the other "moral" commandments are to required by the Law to be observed ALL THE TIME.

Click to expand...

Morality is in regard to what we ought to do, not necessarily in regard to what we ought to do all the time. We always ought to obey God, so all of God's commands are inherently moral commands, but that doesn't mean that God's commands can't be based on circumstances. For instance, there are circumstances where killing is morally wrong and when it is morally justified. So when circumstances are that it is the 7th day, it is always morally wrong for God's people to disobey His command to keep the Sabbath regardless of human opinion.

BABerean2 said:

Heb 7:12 says there was a change in the law because of a better mediator.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Click to expand...

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, even quoting out of context:

The Ten Commandments were spoken and written by God, before there was ever an "Levitical Priesthood". The Ten Commandments have nothing to do with calling, ordering, or making priests. The Ten Commandments are eternal. The Ten Commandments were not given "under" the Levitical Priesthood on earth, but given from Heaven, above all this earth.

It is written:


Nowhere, will anyone find that the Ten Commandments were given "under" the Levitical Priesthood. The Ten Commandments were known and given before the Levitical Priesthood was ever called into existence by God [just read the chronological order of the OT texts in Exodus, etc], for transgression of that very Holy Law. Notice that these texts deal with "the commandment" [singular], in its "weakness" and "unprofitableness", which can in no way describe God's "perfect", "Holy", "just" and "good" Ten Commandments, which are even "for ever and ever"" [Psalms 111:7-8; Psalms 119:44].


In further consideration, there would not have been any need for such a priesthood of type without the transgression of the Ten Commandments in the first place [for sin is sill the transgression of the Law, 1 John 3:4].

The Levitical Priesthood was called into existence as a type/shadow to point to that/Him [Jesus] which was needed for transgression of the "holy, just and good" Law [Ten Commandments].

Christ Jesus says, that not even "one jot or tittle" [smallest portions, letter] shall "pass from the Law" "till heaven and earth pass" and "till all be fulfilled". Well that obviously has not happened yet [no matter what anyone declares], just see Peter's words, or John's, or Jesus' etc. [Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; 2 Peter 3:10]

Paul says by inspiration [Holy Spirit], that "...priesthood..." is "changed" [from Levitical, to Melchizedek] and "the law" [laws of shadows and types given "under" the Levitical Priesthood, not the Ten Commandments which existed before it] also needed a "change", and he further speaks about a "change" on a particular typicalogical/shadowy law, when he says a "...disannulling of the commandment" [singular, "εντολης G1785 N-GSF"] "going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." [Hebrews 7:18].

For the laws of shadows and types are left written as they have been, not to be taken out of the scriptures, because they still serve several functions, a few of which are listed here.

[1] For any which seek to save themselves by any law [ceremonial/typological or other; it is an utter impossibility, it remains for them, that they might remain under the curse, until they by God's grace repent, and give up on such a futile attempt and come to Christ Jesus and salvation by grace through faith [For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Galatians 3:10]

[2] For other aspects and examples were written for our admonition, learning, instruction in righteouness, correction, doctrine, reproof, etc, which are still needed by the whole world, especially the Christian, as they were given for a lesson book in picture [Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 1 Corinthians 10:11 and All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16]

[3] For examples of what Jesus Christ Himself would do, in fulfillment of prophecy and typology, etc, in His perfect ministry and life, here on earth and in His ascension into the Heavenly, and in the earth made new to come, and into eternity future [texts which teach this, all could not possibly be listed here: And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27

[4] For to shew that we still need those things, not in type/shadow, but in the reality Christ Jesus, which is the reality/substance [Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. Colossians 2:17 and Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Hebrews 9:9; [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation. Hebrews 9:10; But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Hebrews 9:11]

So the "change" was already foretold in prophecy and in type and remains there, it is not "passed away". We still need these things, not in shadow, but in the reality, as was already told from before. The type/shadow was never a permanent institution, but a temporary picturebook of the True, that the plan of salvation might be understood in the reality Christ Jesus.

We still need the blood of the sacrifice and the sacrifice, even the Lamb, etc, but not in animals, but in the True Lamb of God,etc - Jesus Christ. We still need a Highpriest ministering, but not of the house of Levi, but of the true, after the order of Melchizedek. We still need the Sanctuary/Temple, not of the earthly built by mens hands, but of the Heavenly Temple of which God Himself built. We still need the Day of Atonement service, not in the shadow of literal animals and once at the end of every year, but in the true Day of Atonement [even as there was the True Passover, the True unleavened, the True Firstfruits, the True Pentecost, etc..] by the Great Highpriest Jesus Christ in the Heavenly Most Holy.

So the law of needing a Great High Priest, etc is not passed away, but merely changed [as was foretold] from shadow to reality. Therefore the "commandment" [singular] was "disannulled", to take of the Levites a Highpriest, for they were merely instituted as a temporary shadow/type, and so we still need of a Highpriest, but after the order of Melchizedek, which existed before the Levitical one.

The sacrifice of animals had "weakness" and "unprofitableness", in that it could not actually "take away sins" [Hebrews 10:4], not that we could not still learn from the type in how Christ Jesus would be our sacrifice, and not that we do not still need the true sacrifice [of course we need Him!], etc.

Therefore, we may conclude that the law of sacrifice and priesthood did not "pass away", but was "change[d]" from shadow to reality as was necessary and as foretold and the Ten Commandments begin given above it all, from Heaven, by the direct voice of God Himself, and from His own fiery finger, is eternal.

BABerean2 said:

They fail to acknowledge that circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant and we are now to be circumcised in the heart in the New Covenant.

Click to expand...

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, it was always to be circumcision of the heart, and of faith:


Even as Abraham's heart circumcision, being of faith:

Acts24Fourteen said:

Your misunderstanding of the scriptures, therefore ye do err. We of course still give sacrifices, but spiritual [see 1 Corinthians 15:44-46], notice:

1 Samuel 15:22 KJV - And Samuel said, Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey [is] better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams.

Romans 12:1 KJV - I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service.

Psalm 4:5 KJV - Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the LORD.

Psalm 27:6 KJV - And now shall mine head be lifted up above mine enemies round about me: therefore will I offer in his tabernacle sacrifices of joy; I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto the LORD.

Psalm 50:5 KJV - Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.

Psalm 51:17 KJV - The sacrifices of God [are] a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Psalm 54:6 KJV - I will freely sacrifice unto thee: I will praise thy name, O LORD; for [it is] good.

Psalm 107:22 KJV - And let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and declare his works with rejoicing.

Psalm 116:17 KJV - I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the LORD.

Psalm 141:2 KJV - Let my prayer be set forth before thee [as] incense; [and] the lifting up of my hands [as] the evening sacrifice.

Proverbs 21:3 KJV - To do justice and judgment [is] more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

Ecclesiastes 5:1 KJV - Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil.

Jonah 2:9 KJV - But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay [that] that I have vowed. Salvation [is] of the LORD.

Malachi 3:3 KJV - And he shall sit [as] a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

Romans 15:16 KJV - That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Hebrews 13:16 KJV - But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

Matthew 9:13 KJV - But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Matthew 12:7 KJV - But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Mark 9:49 KJV - For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

Philippians 2:17 KJV - Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.

Philippians 4:18 KJV - But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things [which were sent] from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.

Hebrews 13:15 KJV - By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks to his name.

1 Peter 2:5 KJV - Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Revelation 8:3 KJV - And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer [it] with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
​

As it is written:

Psalm 40:6 KJV - Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.​

Hebrews 10:6 KJV - In burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Psalm 51:16 KJV - For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give [it]: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

Proverbs 15:8 KJV - The sacrifice of the wicked [is] an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright [is] his delight.

Hosea 6:6 KJV - For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.​

Click to expand...

The law is spiritual, but having a higher spiritual understanding of it always also includes following what is written. For instance, if someone is keeping the spiritual command not to think lustfully about a woman, then that also includes keeping the written law against adultery. Moses couldn't have used your reasoning to excuse his disobedience to God and neither can we. A korban is an offering through which a person seeks to draw near to God. God would not have commanded Moses to do sacrifices if He had not desired them at all, but the goal in commanding them was for His people to draw near, not to slaughter animals. The slaughtering of animals was only the means by which they were to by faith draw near.

Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

Again, Jesus did not say that they should have just focused on the spiritual principles of the law, but that they ought to have done that without neglecting the others.

Soyeong said:

Morality is in regard to what we ought to do, not necessarily in regard to what we ought to do all the time. We always ought to obey God, so all of God's commands are inherently moral commands, but that doesn't mean that God's commands can't be based on circumstances. For instance, there are circumstances where killing is morally wrong and when it is morally justified. So when circumstances are that it is the 7th day, it is always morally wrong for God's people to disobey His command to keep the Sabbath regardless of human opinion.

Click to expand...

So in other words according to you morality requires you to first be one of your idea of "God's people" and those who aren't one of "God's people" aren't immoral for not keeping the Sabbath.... correct? BTW what is the use of breaking down commandments into moral vs ceremonial if not doing ceremonial commandments is ALSO disobeying his commandments, and thus according to you.... not MORAL? I see no reason to separate them according to you ALL commandments are moral so calling any one of them ceremonial is nonsensical.

Sophrosyne said:

So in other words according to you morality requires you to first be one of your idea of "God's people" and those who aren't one of "God's people" aren't immoral for not keeping the Sabbath.... correct? BTW what is the use of breaking down commandments into moral vs ceremonial if not doing ceremonial commandments is ALSO disobeying his commandments, and thus according to you.... not MORAL? I see no reason to separate them according to you ALL commandments are moral so calling any one of them ceremonial is nonsensical.

Click to expand...

Ex-Gentiles are now included as part of God's chosen people by faith (1 Peter 2:9-10). There are instances, such as with the flood, that people who are not God's people were held accountable for violating God's laws, but I'm not sure that laws specifically in regard to holiness are counted among them. God called His people to be set apart and to live at a higher standard of conduct.

The Bible makes no distinctions between moral, civil, and ceremonial laws, but rather it considers breaking any of them to be a sin (1 John 3:4). It can be useful to us to create categories to group laws into, but that particular set of categories is really a misnomer because it wrongly implies that civil and ceremonial laws aren't also moral laws.

BobRyan said:

lift up the Son of Man,

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Actually, there is no "moral law" defined in the Bible. If I am mistaken, please provide chapter(s) and verse(s) which clearly state which commandments consitute the "moral law" and which constitute the "immoral law."

Click to expand...

i AM NOT YELLING HERE JUST MAKING SEPARATION FROM PREVIOUS WORDS. JOHN 3:36 WHERE BELIEVE IS DEFINED TO SET THE STANDARD FOR SALVATION. IF SALVATION IS THE PURPOSE OF THE "WORD".SALVATION IS THE BLESSING OF OUR CROSS AND MORALITY IS FOUNDED ON FREE WILL TO OBEY BY USE OF DISOBEY, DYING TO SELF AS OUR ACTION OF OBEDIENCE. I SUGGEST THE STANDARD OF OBEDIENCE FOR SALVATION SETS A STANDARD FOR MORALITY AND CONSEQUENCES OF IMMORAL CONDUCT BY SIMPLE DISOBEDIENCE. WE MUST BE LISTENING TO HEAR AND FIND OBEDIENCE FROM OUR "PURE CONSCIENCE" FOUND IN ABIDING IN OUR FIRST LOVE OF LORD SPIRIT POURE INTO OUR HEARTS(ROM 5:5)

BABerean2 said:

They fail to acknowledge that circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant and we are now to be circumcised in the heart in the New Covenant.

The Sinai Sabbath was the sign of the Sinai covenant, written on the tablets of stone.

Those in-Christ have the Lord of the Sabbath inside of us on every day of the week. He is our Sabbath rest.

They have to apply the Sinai covenant to the New Blood Covenant of Christ, because they cannot let go of the Sabbath.
.

Click to expand...

I've never heard it called the, "Sinai Sabbath" before, that's not a name from scripture. God calls it, "His Sabbath." The Sabbath is from creation, it's a commemoration of that creation it was a gift to man. God indicated it's the creation Sabbath when He said,


Now that you brought it up, why do you suppose God wrote the commandments on tablets of stone?