IS IT SIN TO BREAK THE 10 COMMANDMENTS? (Yep!)

HTacianas said:

Yes, we do. And we keep it in the prescribed manner. Google "res judicata".

Click to expand...

But you keep it on Sunday.

Dan the deacon said:

But you keep it on Sunday.

Click to expand...

You didn't google "res judicata". It's a legal term used to describe a matter that has already been adjudicated by a competent court and cannot be re-litigated.

If you are insisting that the Church gathering to worship on Sunday rather than Saturday is somehow in error, the matter has already been decided by the Church and only the Church has the authority to decide otherwise. Not any layman, not any "denomination", not anyone else.

HTacianas said:

You didn't google "res judicata". It's a legal term used to describe a matter that has already been adjudicated by a competent court and cannot be re-litigated.

If you are insisting that the Church gathering to worship on Sunday rather than Saturday is somehow in error, the matter has already been decided by the Church and only the Church has the authority to decide otherwise. Not any layman, not any "denomination", not anyone else.

Click to expand...

Actually I knew the meaning and being Orthodox I understand the why of that question posed to you. Christ Himself broke the Saturday Sabbath. But with Him being God He was able to.

The whole thread an SDA advert for their ideas of Saturday being special.

Tutorman said:

The whole thread an SDA advert for their ideas of Saturday being special.

Click to expand...

It took you 8 pages to figure that out? I knew that by the first post.

Dan the deacon said:

It took you 8 pages to figure that out? I knew that by the first post.

Click to expand...

No, I read the first post just now. I have not clicked on the thread before

Calvin_1985 said:

Its very simple to understand. There is one specefic verse that I will post because I dont feel like posting a ton of passages that each of you can look and study for yourselves.

Romans 3:31
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

We arent under the Law in the flesh, but we establish Gods Law beginning with the 10 commandments in Spirit and in Truth.

Click to expand...

Romans 3:31 is indeed a challenge to those of us who maintain that Paul believes the formal written code of the Law of Moses has been retired. And we have a lot of evidence in our corner:

1. Romans 7 declares we no longer serve the letter of the law and have been otherwise "released" from the Law.
2. Galatians compares the Law to a tutor who we no longer need.
3. Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians 2) directly declares the abolition of the Law of Moses, which only makes sense given Paul's otherwise pervasive arguments that the Jew-Gentile distinction - which is obviously marked out by the Law of Mose - has been dissolved.

So how to work Romans 3:31 into that picture? Not sure. But, OTOH, those who think the Law remains in force face, what seems to me anyway, to be a much more daunting exegetical task.

Dan the deacon said:

Sorry but God established the ten. He also fulfilled them through Christ. What we establish are the commands of Christ. To love God above all and to love others as we love our self.

Click to expand...

I think you and I agree about the status of the Law of Moses. However, I don't think this argument works - Paul has been clearly talking about the Law of Moses in the preceding verses. So I have to think that when he refers to "Law" in verse 31, he is still focused on the Law of Moses. I think, though, it is not entirely entirely clear what it means to "establish" the Law of Moses in this setting.

IMO, ...

The law of circumcision is a good and holy law. Besides being a symbol of the Abrahamic Covenant, I think it helps by desensitizing the penis, resulting in less lusty men = less sex-addicts. Hence, uncircumcised China and India have a huge over-population problem. According to the Law, Jews are circumcised as babies.

At ACTS.15:24-29, God exempted Gentile Christians from any of His laws or Moses Law that was a burden, especially circumcision. Why is circumcision a burden.? = See GENESIS.34:25. A Gentile Christian man who get circumcised will be physically incapacitated for about a month. Who will support and nurse him.? If during that 1 month, he somehow gets sexually stimulated/aroused, he will be in a hell-of-a-lot-of-pain.
....... So, Gentile Christian men do not need to be circumcised. OTOH, if they are married, their male Christian babies should be circumcised, similar to male Jewish babies.

Should Christians tithe 10% or less than 10%.? Should the Church demand a tithe of 10%.?

discipler7 said:

Should Christians tithe 10% or less than 10%.? Should the Church demand a tithe of 10%.?

Click to expand...

As the tithe was not a part of the Law I'm not sure what it has to do with this thread.

Dan the deacon said:

Sorry but God established the ten. He also fulfilled them through Christ. What we establish are the commands of Christ. To love God above all and to love others as we love our self.

Click to expand...

I think I misunderstood you earlier - in fact, that is highly likely. I assume that your basic argument is that, yes, the 10 commandments were indeed "established", but now, in the evolving story, they were fulfilled (in the "come to an end" sense of fulfilled, as in when I arrive in Paris by plane, my trip is both "fulfilled" and I also stop traveling).

I agree with this basic picture but I am still not sure it is a satisfactory explanation of what Paul means by "establishing" the Law.

discipler7 said:

IMO, ...

The law of circumcision is a good and holy law. Besides being a symbol of the Abrahamic Covenant, I think it helps by desensitizing the penis, resulting in less lusty men = less sex-addicts. Hence, uncircumcised China and India have a huge over-population problem

Click to expand...

Wow, that is a real stretch - I suspect that the real reasons for over-population have nothing to do with circumcision and everything to do with tradition and economics.

In any event, I think it misses the point to talk about the arguable practical merits of circumcision - I think that it is clear from Scripture that the role of circumcision was to mark the Jew out as distinctive, not put a damper on his lustful ruminations.

expos4ever said:

I think I misunderstood you earlier - in fact, that is highly likely. I assume that your basic argument is that, yes, the 10 commandments were indeed "established", but now, in the evolving story, they were fulfilled (in the "come to an end" sense of fulfilled, as in when I arrive in Paris by plane, my trip is both "fulfilled" and I also stop traveling).

I agree with this basic picture but I am still not sure it is a satisfactory explanation of what Paul means by "establishing" the Law.

Click to expand...

I'd say"finished it's purpose"would better describe the state of the OT law.
Established has a different meaning. It means built or began or created completely.
Hope that helps.

expos4ever said:

Romans 3:31 is indeed a challenge to those of us who maintain that Paul believes the formal written code of the Law of Moses has been retired. And we have a lot of evidence in our corner:

1. Romans 7 declares we no longer serve the letter of the law and have been otherwise "released" from the Law.
2. Galatians compares the Law to a tutor who we no longer need.
3. Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians 2) directly declares the abolition of the Law of Moses, which only makes sense given Paul's otherwise pervasive arguments that the Jew-Gentile distinction - which is obviously marked out by the Law of Mose - has been dissolved.

So how to work Romans 3:31 into that picture? Not sure. But, OTOH, those who think the Law remains in force face, what seems to me anyway, to be a much more daunting exegetical task.

Click to expand...

Its worked in by way of looking at the Foretelling of Salvation/Kingdom of God/Heaven/Christ in Jeremiah, Isaiah, and other Prophetic books as well as Hebrews that references it.
Here is one specific quote out of Jeremiah which is mirrored in multiple other passages;The Epistle of Hebrews being the telling of Jesus Christ bringing that through His Sacrifcice for Salvation of His people:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.


34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

As we can read, Jehovah takes His laws and engraves them upon the heart of those that have come to Christ Jesus and believed that Jesus is the way to God and remission and forgiveness of sin and rebellion.

As far as Romans 7, we do not serve the Law of God in sinful flesh anymore because of Jesus Christ, but serve the Law of God from the tables of the new Heart God has placed in those that are his.Romans 7 is targeting Paul's experience as a Pharasaical Jew that followed fully the ordinances of The Law, but the inward man was still bound to the sinful nature causing a battle within himself. condemning him and keeping him chained to a burdensome law that the unsaved person cannot perform from a place of truth of Spirit. He had not yet been freed by the Blood of Jesus Christ.The writing style he is using is a Historical shift in his writing to convey to the audience he is primarily speaking to going back to chapter 2. Now I know you will likely disagree with what I have just said about Romans 7 because most modern Evangelical Christians do as they are convinced that Paul is talking about His current experience as a Christian, but with that interpretation, it causes great contradiction with Chapter 6 and Chapter 8.

Yes Galatians talks of the being a tudor(or schoolmaster) but that doesnt mean that it became obsolete. The law is the shadow and a shadow is always present with the Light.

If Paul declared the abolition of Moses Law in Ephesians 2(i assume you are speaking about verses 8 and 9) then Paul is a false Prophet and contradicted not only himself but Jesus Christ and the entire OT. Thing is, He didnt do any of that. Stopping at verse 9 and not continuing is why people are led to believe the Law is done away with.
Jesus clearly stated that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. That is an entirely bigger conversation and I am going to leave it at this for now. It has to all be approached and viewed through Jesus Christ Sermon on the mount where he properly interprets the Law of God and the substance that had been perverted by Apostate Israel.

expos4ever said:

…
I agree with this basic picture but I am still not sure it is a satisfactory explanation of what Paul means by "establishing" the Law.

Click to expand...

I think the definition of "establish" is in the comparison with "make void". (KJV)
They are treated as opposites in the verse. The NIV uses "nullify" and "uphold". (see below) Therefore, "make void" and "nullify" are opposite of "establish" and "uphold".
Another way to say it would be to fill rather than to empty.

So, I see the law as being established in the same way we create a monument to the memory of something. Rather than to completely disregard it. To establish the memory rather than let it be forgotten. (thus leaving a void) A monument is a call to reflection, not a call to action. In a sense the law is a historic milestone marker on the road of grace.

Romans 3:31 KJV
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Romans 3:31 NIV
Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.