Is the fourth commandment a moral issue?

[ricker]

Not.
I'll take that as an admission thenthat God's covenant with Noah was not based on food.
ricker, ask you pastor that question. Was God's covenant with Noah based on food? Note the look on his face before he answers you.

You know RND, I never to my knowledge said the covenant was "based" on food. Gods permission to eat anything that moves on the earth was in this covenant, however.

No, they only ate clean. Show me where Noah sacrificed an unclean animals ricker

.
Show me where Noah only ate sacrificed animals.

Right, which were giant bar-b-ques ricker. They ate the meat, they didn't waste it.

I bet they didn't!

In context they could eat that which they brought ricker. Again, if they ate one of the pigs for food then then would have only been one pig left. Rabbits, same thing. Snakes, same thing.

Not for long! Animals procreate, you know.

Keep in mind they were on the boat for almost a year.

What they did or didn't eat on the boat or soon thereafter doesn't make a lick of difference as far as Gods permission to eat any animals that He gave after the flood.

It takes longer than 1 1/2 months to grow full sized plants and full sized rabbits.

Sounds like you don't know the fact that back then before sin had been in the world so long, animals and plants grew at a much faster rate than they do now.

Why would they eat rabbits when then were sacrificing cows? Steak versus rabbit? Is there even a question?

Believe me, when you have ate beef for a year strait or whatever you say, a little rabbit stew would taste mighty fine!

Well, that was fairly well thought out for a man than didn't want to be so presumptuous towards God. Very good.

My only question is this. If they took the clean animals for sacrifice, and as a result ate the sacrifice, why the need to eat unclean animals ricker?

Because they could. What are peoples reasons now? People seem to find some of it tasty. Do you really think they only ate when they made a sacrifice? "unclean" was a word with a ceremonial connotation, not a literal one. I'm not personally a big pork or ham eater, but some sausage or a little bacon taste just fine every once in a while for a change.




Let my try to get my mind around your way of thinking.
Noah was told to bring more ceremonially clean animals on the ark than unclean. Noah sacrificed some clean animals after the flood. Therefore when God said "

2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

He was obviously talking about only the clean animals that moved on the earth.
Does that cover it, or am I way off base?
God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

You know RND, I never to my knowledge said the covenant was "based" on food. Gods permission to eat anything that moves on the earth was in this covenant, however.

See your post #111

Do you follow this?


God's Covenant With Noah

1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Show me where Noah only ate sacrificed animals.

Um, isn't obvious? Did Noah eat non-sacrificed animals ricker? If they were non-sacrificed wouldn't they still be alive?

Not for long! Animals procreate, you know.

Sure but they have different rates of gestation. Pigs for example have a gestation rate of 4 months. Snakes are anywhere from 4 to 6 mos.

What they did or didn't eat on the boat or soon thereafter doesn't make a lick of difference as far as Gods permission to eat any animals that He gave after the flood.

Then why the commandment to bring in 7 pair of clean and 1 pair of unclean?

Sounds like you don't know the fact that back then before sin had been in the world so long, animals and plants grew at a much faster rate than they do now.

Can you support that statement with scripture?

Believe me, when you have ate beef for a year strait or whatever you say, a little rabbit stew would taste mighty fine!

I wouldn't know, never had rabbit. Betcha Noah never did either.

Because they could. What are peoples reasons now? People seem to find some of it tasty. Do you really think they only ate when they made a sacrifice? "unclean" was a word with a ceremonial connotation, not a literal one. I'm not personally a big pork or ham eater, but some sausage or a little bacon taste just fine every once in a while for a change.

So, just because you can do something makes it ok?

Let my try to get my mind around your way of thinking.
Noah was told to bring more ceremonially clean animals on the ark than unclean. Noah sacrificed some clean animals after the flood. Therefore when God said "

He was obviously talking about only the clean animals that moved on the earth.
Does that cover it, or am I way off base?

Yes, that's very good ricker. We can infer what God meant by this from His first commandments regarding how many and what kind of animals to bring on the Ark.

One thing I always think about is how much fish did Noah eat? I hope Noah was a better fisherman than I am!

 

[ricker]

Ricker said: Show me where Noah only ate sacrificed animals.

Um, isn't obvious? Did Noah eat non-sacrificed animals ricker? If they were non-sacrificed wouldn't they still be alive?

OK smartie pants. Was the hamburger I ate last week sacrificed? Could you not see I meant ceremonially sacrificed?

Sure but they have different rates of gestation. Pigs for example have a gestation rate of 4 months. Snakes are anywhere from 4 to 6 mos.

And a rabbit is 33 days. This proves without a doubt
that Noahs family could have been eating "unclean " animals by the time God gave them permission!

Then why the commandment to bring in 7 pair of clean and 1 pair of unclean?

Because of God's ceremonial sacrifice rules.

Can you support that statement with scripture?

Didn't sister White say that?

I wouldn't know, never had rabbit. Betcha Noah never did either.

You would lose that bet.

So, just because you can do something makes it ok?

Just because God plainly said it is OK.

Yes, that's very good ricker. We can infer what God meant by this from His first commandments regarding how many and what kind of animals to bring on the Ark.

No need to infer anything. Check out this passage from the Holy Bible!

2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

One thing I always think about is how much fish did Noah eat? I hope Noah was a better fisherman than I am!

Good point! I never thought about fish. The Bible doesn't say they all perished. (fish is my favorite "meat"!).
Ricker

 

[freeindeed2]

Good point! I never thought about fish. The Bible doesn't say they all perished. (fish is my favorite "meat"!).
Ricker

Good fish 'melts' in your mouth. Mmmmm, mmmmm.

In Christ alone...

 

[RND]

OK smartie pants. Was the hamburger I ate last week sacrificed? Could you not see I meant ceremonially sacrificed?

Haven't you heard ricker? There is no more sacrifice for sin, the last sacrifice has been offered, made and accepted.

And a rabbit is 33 days. This proves without a doubt
that Noahs family could have been eating "unclean " animals by the time God gave them permission!

The operative word is could. Just as easily they could have avoided eating unclean animals.

Because of God's ceremonial sacrifice rules.

So, you agree that these animals were for sacrifcing and ceremony. Hence they would have been eaten.

Didn't sister White say that?

I have no idea.

You would lose that bet.

You seem so sure. Do you have anything other than speculation that Noah ate unclean animals.

Just because God plainly said it is OK.

ricker, God didn't say it in the context you think.

No need to infer anything. Check out this passage from the Holy Bible!

2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Again ricker I'll ask, humans moved and lived. Reading this passage then we can certainly infer that God was giving His permission to eat humans then. Whatever God may have said before can now be justified as being approved by God by this passage.

Good point! I never thought about fish. The Bible doesn't say they all perished. (fish is my favorite "meat"!).

How would you drowned a fish?

 

[ricker]

[

quote=RND;43476359]Haven't you heard ricker? There is no more sacrifice for sin, the last sacrifice has been offered, made and accepted.

You missed my point that an animal doesn't have to be ceremonially sacrificed to be eaten.

The operative word is could. Just as easily they could have avoided eating unclean animals.

You are of course right. This is why I don't like to go into speculation to try to invalidate clear scripture as you do. They could have lived for years off of mastodon jerky they stored up from before the flood.

So, you agree that these animals were for sacrifcing and ceremony. Hence they would have been eaten.

As I've said before, I'm sure they ate the ceremonially clean, sacrificed animals. Does this somehow preclude them eating other animals too?

You seem so sure. Do you have anything other than speculation that Noah ate unclean animals.

I have a pretty sure idea, since God gave him all animals on earth to choose from, why wouldn't he?

ricker, God didn't say it in the context you think.

Much as you would like it to, there is no context that invalidates the very clear, unambiguoius, directive from God.

Again ricker I'll ask, humans moved and lived. Reading this passage then we can certainly infer that God was giving His permission to eat humans then. Whatever God may have said before can now be justified as being approved by God by this passage.

Your memory either short or selective. Remember what God says as He continues in the passage?

2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. 6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

Only the willfully blind would see that God excluded men.

Trying to use the fact that God had more ceremonially animals than unclean put into the ark before the flood to try to invalidate the clear content of the covenant given later is grasping at straws.

I really don't know how God could have stated that Noah and his family were allowed to eat any animal on earth they chose more plainly. This is as clear cut as it gets.
God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

You missed my point that an animal doesn't have to be ceremonially sacrificed to be eaten.

Think of the "ceremonial sacrifice" as saying grace before the bar-b-que begins. Rarely, if ever, can you find examples in the Bible where animals weren't sacrificed as part of a ceremony.

You are of course right. This is why I don't like to go into speculation to try to invalidate clear scripture as you do.

I'm not trying to invalidate scripture. I'm merely asking questions and coming to different conclusion than you are. The "invalidation" is in you mind only.

Tell me ricker, have you ever eaten monkey brains? Bull testicles or eyeballs? If not, because you haven't done these things, are you violating God's commandment to Noah?

They could have lived for years off of mastodon jerky they stored up from before the flood.

Mastadon's were unclean animals weren't they? Doubt they would have sacrificed an unclean animal to the Lord. See you comment below.

As I've said before, I'm sure they ate the ceremonially clean, sacrificed animals. Does this somehow preclude them eating other animals too?

They never killed something to eat something unless there was a sacrifice ricker.

I have a pretty sure idea, since God gave him all animals on earth to choose from, why wouldn't he?

So by asking your question you have nothing but speculation to rely on. You're guessing ricker.

Much as you would like it to, there is no context that invalidates the very clear, unambiguoius, directive from God.

So there is nothing that we can infer from 7 pair of clean animals and 1 pair of unclean?

Your memory either short or selective. Remember what God says as He continues in the passage?

But that just tells me whoever sheds blood will have their blood shed. That verse doesn' say I can't eat other humans.

Only the willfully blind would see that God excluded men.

Well, ricker, it's kinda the same thing with the whole animal thing.

You already recgonized that only clean animals were sacrificed, so it only stands to reason that only clean animals were eaten.

Only the wilfully blind would say that God said Eat clean animals," "nope, I changed my mind," "Everybody but the Israelites can eat everything."

As I said before, your argument makes God out to be arbitrary and capricious.

Trying to use the fact that God had more ceremonially animals than unclean put into the ark before the flood to try to invalidate the clear content of the covenant given later is grasping at straws.

Actually, I would think it's kinda looking at the whole picture and not just latching on to one verse and saying, "it say so....right here."

If we take everything together as a whole (gen. 8 and 9) and put our thinking caps on we can kinda begin to see a clearer meaning and picture of what God was showing Noah.

I really don't know how God could have stated that Noah and his family were allowed to eat any animal on earth they chose more plainly. This is as clear cut as it gets.

Only if you ignore the entirety of the story of Noah and the rest of the Bible.

ricker, let's assume for just a second you are correct. Why would God make two different sets of rules for the Israelites and everyone else, even though all have they same physical make-up? Why would God make one set of rules for Noah and his family only to change His mind regarding what the Children of Israel could eat?

Care to speculate? Care to try and think like God?

 

[ricker]

Tell me ricker, have you ever eaten monkey brains? Bull testicles or eyeballs? If not, because you haven't done these things, are you violating God's commandment to Noah?

God obvously didn't say Noah had to eat anything, just that he could. Using your illistration, did Noah eat cow hoofs?

Mastadon's were unclean animals weren't they? Doubt they would have sacrificed an unclean animal to the Lord. See you comment below.

I honestly don't know if the were clean or not. The pictures I have seen look sorta like they might have been clean.

They never killed something to eat something unless there was a sacrifice ricker.

Do you have any support for this statement. This would make a difference to me if you could back it up!

So by asking your question you have nothing but speculation to rely on. You're guessing ricker.

Speculation is the basis for most your assertions on this matter. You don't know what Noah ate. you are even guessing when you say he ate the sacrificed animals.

So there is nothing that we can infer from 7 pair of clean animals and 1 pair of unclean?

God wanted only certain animals to be used to represent Christs future sacrifice for sin.

But that just tells me whoever sheds blood will have their blood shed. That verse doesn' say I can't eat other humans.

It also says man is made in God's image. You sound really desperate.

You already recgonized that only clean animals were sacrificed, so it only stands to reason that only clean animals were eaten.

Peove to me that only the animals sacrificed on an alter to God were eaten and I will bow to you once again and admit you are right.

Only the wilfully blind would say that God said Eat clean animals," "nope, I changed my mind," "Everybody but the Israelites can eat everything."

As I said before, your argument makes God out to be arbitrary and capricious.

God gave the law at Siani to set the Israelites apart from other nations.

26 You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

God added new rules in the covenant at Siani.

2The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come

Actually, I would think it's kinda looking at the whole picture and not just latching on to one verse and saying, "it say so....right here."

How many times have I heard Adventists say "look, the Bible says the sabbath was made for man". The word "man" can have multiple meanings, the context refutes the meaning "mankind", and of course it is the only verse saying anything like this. These verses in Genesis are not ambiguous in any way. The new testament has many verses that clearly say we are not judged on what we eat. (I suppose you would argue , but it is true.).
Show me proof from the Bible that the only animals eaten by old testament patriarchs were ones ceremonially sacrificed to God and I will bow down to your superior Biblical knowledge once again.

ricker, let's assume for just a second you are correct. Why would God make two different sets of rules for the Israelites and everyone else, even though all have they same physical make-up? Why would God make one set of rules for Noah and his family only to change His mind regarding what the Children of Israel could eat?

Care to speculate? Care to try and think like God?[/

Theology by speculation. I love it.
You presume that the laws given to the Isrelites are health laws. They are ceremonial laws. If you start with a faulty assumtion, you will naturally get a faulty outcome.
Of course as I have pointed out many times, the law at Siani was added to increase sin, till Jesus came.
God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

God obvously didn't say Noah had to eat anything, just that he could. Using your illistration, did Noah eat cow hoofs?

So if you are willing to aply that logic to yourself, why don't you apply that same logic to Noah?

I think it was highly unlikely Noah ate cow's feet.

I honestly don't know if the were clean or not. The pictures I have seen look sorta like they might have been clean.

How can you intelligently argue a point if you don't know an animal is clean or not? A mastadon would have been an early ancestor of the elephant. Elephant's aren't clean animals. They don't chew the cud and they don't have cloven feet.

Do you have any support for this statement. This would make a difference to me if you could back it up!

Common sense dictates in an age when refrigeration was not possible meats that were killed were either eaten right away or smoked and preserved for future use.

Speculation is the basis for most your assertions on this matter. You don't know what Noah ate. you are even guessing when you say he ate the sacrificed animals.

ricker, Noah didn't just sacrifice animals and let the carcass go to waste just so he could make rabbit stew instead.

God wanted only certain animals to be used to represent Christs future sacrifice for sin.

So then from your statement here can we at least agree that only clean animals were sacrificed?

It also says man is made in God's image. You sound really desperate.

I'm just trying to make a point that I can make the Bible say anything I want it to say based on how I want to interpret it. But, if I want to accept everything in context then I have to put aside what I think it says and base my opinion on the whole.

Peove to me that only the animals sacrificed on an alter to God were eaten and I will bow to you once again and admit you are right.

Lev 6:26
The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.

Lev 6:30
And no sin offering, whereof [any] of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile [withal] in the holy [place], shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.

1 Sa 2:13
And the priests' custom with the people [was, that], when any man offered sacrifice, the priest's servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with a fleshhook of three teeth in his hand;

1 Sa 2:14
And he struck [it] into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the fleshhook brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither.

Lev 7:15 And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning.

Lev 7:16 But if the sacrifice of his offering [be] a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten:

God gave the law at Siani to set the Israelites apart from other nations.

Which law?

God added new rules in the covenant at Siani.

But the covenant didn't center around the book of the law but the Ten Commandments.

Exd 34:28
And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Deu 4:13
And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Right?

How many times have I heard Adventists say "look, the Bible says the sabbath was made for man". The word "man" can have multiple meanings, the context refutes the meaning "mankind", and of course it is the only verse saying anything like this. These verses in Genesis are not ambiguous in any way. The new testament has many verses that clearly say we are not judged on what we eat. (I suppose you would argue , but it is true.).

There's God changing His mind again eh, ricker? Noah could eat unclean, the COI couldn't but you can unclean too? But thanks for admitting at least that the sabbath was made for man and not just the Jew.

Show me proof from the Bible that the only animals eaten by old testament patriarchs were ones ceremonially sacrificed to God and I will bow down to your superior Biblical knowledge once again.

I don't know that I can show you a specific verse that says that as much as I would have to ask you to use common sense by the hundreds of verses that infer this simple fact.

Theology by speculation. I love it.
You presume that the laws given to the Isrelites are health laws.

What would be the reason for the prohibition against eating certain animals, birds and seafood then ricker?

They are ceremonial laws.

Leviticus 11 describes in detail what foods can and cannot be eaten. They have nothing to do with the various and different ceremonies that the COI were to perform.

If you start with a faulty assumtion, you will naturally get a faulty outcome.

Or if you speak about things you have no knowledge of but try to pass it off like you do you'd look kinda silly.

Of course as I have pointed out many times, the law at Siani was added to increase sin, till Jesus came.

So ricker, God wrote a law so that there would be more sin, not less? That seems counter productive considering He constantly stressed to the people He wanted them not to sin.

Exd 20:20
And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

This verse comes on the heels of the Ten Commandments given at Sinai and seems completely contrary to your statement above.

 

[Dania]

i think the 10 commandments are the rules of christ. if there is no law can there be sin????
so if we obey the commandments for the love of Jesus why would we erase his sabbath? i love the sabbath as a matter of fact. very calming to me.. peaceful

 

[ricker]

[

quote=RND;43488759]So if you are willing to aply that logic to yourself, why don't you apply that same logic to Noah?
I think it was highly unlikely Noah ate cow's feet.

It was you who asked if I ate monkey brains because it was permitted. I just pointed out the absurdity of your comparison.

How can you intelligently argue a point if you don't know an animal is clean or not? A mastadon would have been an early ancestor of the elephant. Elephant's aren't clean animals. They don't chew the cud and they don't have cloven feet.

I just made a point that we aren't told what they ate.

Common sense dictates in an age when refrigeration was not possible meats that were killed were either eaten right away or smoked and preserved for future use.

Granted.

ricker, Noah didn't just sacrifice animals and let the carcass go to waste just so he could make rabbit stew instead.

I imagine he didn't, but like I said, it's technically all speculation.

So then from your statement here can we at least agree that only clean animals were sacrificed?

Yes, I believe that. As a sacrifice to God.

I'm just trying to make a point that I can make the Bible say anything I want it to say based on how I want to interpret it. But, if I want to accept everything in context then I have to put aside what I think it says and base my opinion on the whole.

Yes, context can help explain what ambiguous statements may mean. The context of animals included for sacrifices in the ark in no way invalidates clear directives included in the covenant after.

Lev 6:26
The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.

Lev 6:30
And no sin offering, whereof [any] of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile [withal] in the holy [place], shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.

1 Sa 2:13
And the priests' custom with the people [was, that], when any man offered sacrifice, the priest's servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with a fleshhook of three teeth in his hand;

1 Sa 2:14
And he struck [it] into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the fleshhook brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither.

Lev 7:15 And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning.

Lev 7:16 But if the sacrifice of his offering [be] a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten:

Very good. You have proven ceremonially sacrificed animals could be and were eaten. My question was if if you could find where the Bible says only ceremonially sacrificed animals couls be eaten.
Esau was a hunter, Nimrod was a hunter. The animals they killed were not done so on an alter to the Lord.

But the covenant didn't center around the book of the law but the Ten Commandments.
Exd 34:28
And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Deu 4:13
And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
Right?

The ten commandments were perhaps the central component of the covenant, but it included all law given at Sinai. Deut. 7:

11 Therefore, take care to follow the commands, decrees and laws I give you today. 12 If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the LORD your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers

There's God changing His mind again eh, ricker? Noah could eat unclean, the COI couldn't but you can unclean too?

Your getting it now! This is what the Bible plainly says!

I don't know that I can show you a specific verse that says that as much as I would have to ask you to use common sense by the hundreds of verses that infer this simple fact.

OK, quote me one verse that infers no meat could be eaten that wasn't ceremonially sacrificed to God.

What would be the reason for the prohibition against eating certain animals, birds and seafood then ricker?

Leviticus 11 describes in detail what foods can and cannot be eaten. They have nothing to do with the various and different ceremonies that the COI were to perform.

Why would God say:

2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.

or

'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

I don't question the reason God does anything. Some things were undoubtably set them apart from other nations. As said before, the law was added to increase transgressions.



</SPAN>

Or if you speak about things you have no knowledge of but try to pass it off like you do you'd look kinda silly.

I quote the clear teaching of the Bible and you try to marginalize it.

So ricker, God wrote a law so that there would be more sin, not less? That seems counter productive considering He constantly stressed to the people He wanted them not to sin.

20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,

Exd 20:20
And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

This verse comes on the heels of the Ten Commandments given at Sinai and seems completely contrary to your statement above.

Do you deny what God said through Paul in Romans like you do with what God said in His covenant with Noah? God never makes people sin. He added the law I think to show our utter need of Christ. Whatever reason He did, He did, and I am not going to second guess God.
God bless! Ricker

 

[ricker]

i think the 10 commandments are the rules of christ. if there is no law can there be sin????
so if we obey the commandments for the love of Jesus why would we erase his sabbath? i love the sabbath as a matter of fact. very calming to me.. peaceful

Enjoy your Sabbath rest with our Saviour!
God bless! Ricker

 

[djconklin]

i think the 10 commandments are the rules of christ. if there is no law can there be sin????

Good question; unfortunately, you will find it ignored.

so if we obey the commandments for the love of Jesus why would we erase his sabbath? i love the sabbath as a matter of fact. very calming to me.. peaceful

As it should be. It points to our rest in Christ. If you aren't keeping the Sabbath holy you aren't resting in Christ.

 

[Sophia7]

if there is no law can there be sin????

Good question; unfortunately, you will find it ignored.

RO 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

RO 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

RO 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

RO 5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

RO 6:1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

​

 

[djconklin]

13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

Then why did God tell Cain that "sin lieth at the door"? Was Can not quilty of murdering his own brother? What about those who were condemned to death in the Flood and destroyed in Sodom and Gomorrah?

They sinned and they were held accountable.

Anyone can, and many do, quote texts--the question is what does it mean?

 

[sentipente]

All of this confusion continues because both sides continue to hold to false ideas about the Sabbath. After all these years.

 

[Dania]

RO 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

RO 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

RO 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

RO 5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

RO 6:1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

​

these scriptures arent parallel with my statements at all..

there must be law. u ppl must be very lawless individuals to fight the law of love!!!! mercy on you !!

anyway the whole reason why sin entered the world is because a LAW was broken.. Do not eat the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden.. and eve couldnt resist.. they broke the law.. they sinned!! HA ...

so if there is NO LAW TO KEEP.. the simplest law of all the law of love.. not sacrificial and other jewish laws and stuff but the law of love or the law of God (since God indeed i LOVE ) why would Jesus say if u love me KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS.... dont speak of the who which He mentions for he already stated that these are but summaries of the of the ten commandments. LOVE GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART: HOW DO WE SHOW OUR LOVE FOR GOD? SEE THE FIRST 4 COMMANDMENT

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF: HOW DO WE DO THIS .. SEE 5 - 10!

u ppl are ridiculous to use pauls scriptures to defend your lawlessness.. even Jesus said that he dint come here to cancel the LAW but to COMPLETE it. Jesus even made it harder for u ppl when he said that its not on the the action that counts but the thought!!! so paul could never have been saying that our lives are to be lawless

2 PETER 3:15 - 16
"BEAR IN MIND THAT OUR LORD'S PATIENCE MEANS SALVATION, JUST AS OUR DEAR BROTHER pAUL ALSO WROTE YOU WITH THE WISDOM THAT GOD GAVE HIM. HE WRITES THE SAME IN ALL HIS LETTERS, SPEAKING IN THEM OF THESE MANNER. HIS LETTERS CONTAIN SOME THINGS THAT ARE HARD TO UNDERSTAND, WHICH IGNORANT AND UNSTABLE PEOPLE DISTORT, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, TO THEIR OWN DISTRUCTION."

if u wanna disobey the 10 commandment and say they is nothing wrong. so be it. continue killing lying stealing worshiping idols dishonoring your parents forgetting the sabbath calling God's name in vain coveting each other doing the sexually immoral and so on.. and say that paul say u arent under any law. for if u show DISREGARD FOR THE TEN COMMANDMENTS U NEITHER LOVE GOD OR LOVE OTHER hence u dont even LOVE YOURSELf.. lol u ppl are funny

 

[djconklin]

All of this confusion continues because both sides continue to hold to false ideas about the Sabbath. After all these years.

I can't speak for the other side, but I'm not confused.

 

[Cribstyl]

[/color]

Then why did God tell Cain that "sin lieth at the door"? Was Can not quilty of murdering his own brother? What about those who were condemned to death in the Flood and destroyed in Sodom and Gomorrah?

They sinned and they were held accountable.

Anyone can, and many do, quote texts--the question is what does it mean?

These questions are raise to contradict what Paul is teaching us. It's taken from Moses account from Adam to Moses. Sophia posted the texts we need to apply to understanding.

Paul said there was no law......Death reigned for sin.

CRIB

 

[djconklin]

se questions are raise [sic] to contradict what Paul is teaching us.

Since I do not believe that any of Scripture contradicts any other part and since you are not skilled at mind reading you shouldn't have made such a claim.

Paul said there was no law......Death reigned for sin.

The Bible says that the wages of sin was death; therefore before there was sin there was no death.