Is the fourth commandment a moral issue?

[elijahorao]

Ok, Elijahorao.
You take the apocalyptic prophesies in Isaiah and try to put them with a prophetic passage in Malachi to try to prove there is a "spiritual Israel", which is rebutted by the whole of other scripture.

Hebrews 4:4 says

The preceding verse says:

This is saying that God's works were finished on the seventh day and He rested. It does not say anything about a recurring rest. (as the seventh day rest commanded of Israel).

I'm not sure why we are talking about the Sabbath, I wanted to put to rest the "spiritual Israel" thing.

Isaiah 58 is certainly addressed to the nation of Israel under the old covenant.

I will leave you with a bit of perspective on who here is willing to accept the truth.


Honestly, think about this passage! We know what the old covenant with Moses consisted of. Who has a veil here?
God bless! Ricker

Isaiah 58 clearly prophesies Jesus' conduct when He walked as a man. Only the willfully blind cannot see this. It is obvious.
If you acknowledge the Malachi passage as prophetic, what more proof do you need.
The difference arises because you are debating for debating's sake rather than seeking truth. You acknowledge the scripture in Malachi is prophetic, thus future, therefore relevent now also. Having revealed that you recognise this, the only reason you can be raising objections is for objection's sake. You have already determined in your mind that you will not be turned around on this matter regardless of what scriptures are presented.
If I were to ask you to quote Revelation 22:14 your inclination would be to make sure you do not use a king james. why? Because the scripture accurately translated here does not say what you want it to say.
You say the scripture after creation does not talk about a recurring rest. Do you think that God only made the seventh day holy for the end of creation week? Come of the grass! Why did He say/write "REMEMBER" so many years later? Surely no one can see a rational stand on your presenting that as an argument. It is an insult to anyone's intelligence to suggest the sabbath was only made holy for one rest at the end of creation week.
So you talk about the new covenant where the 'law' is written in our hearts. What law? Eh? Certainly not the law of animal sacrifices because that 'law' certainly was nailed to the cross. Perhaps the 'law' written in our hearts has such commands as "You shall not murder"
Does that ring a bell? You aren't suggesting that under the new covenant murder is now permitted are you?
Of course not.
So, what 'law' is written in our hearts, and where/how are the boundaries set? Is it ok to steal sometimes? Is adultery ok now if you claim the blood of Jesus over it? Perhaps while you are claiming His name over it you would like to mix in a few curses so that the name is taken in vain? This would be a novel way of demonstrating grace wouldn't it? Is Grace given to us for salvation, or is it a gift that gives us a license to sin?
In that day many shall say to Him Lord Lord and He will say to them "Depart from Me you workers of iniquity/lawlessness, I never knew you."
I mean, how can you be guilty of lawlessness when there is no law?

 

[RND]

Can you illustrate the morality of the Sabbath?

Yes! It relates to honouring God Our Heavenly Parent just as the fifth commandment relates to honouring earthly parents

Excellent answer and post! Well said.

 

[RND]

Isaiah 58 clearly prophesies Jesus' conduct when He walked as a man. Only the willfully blind cannot see this. It is obvious.
If you acknowledge the Malachi passage as prophetic, what more proof do you need.
The difference arises because you are debating for debating's sake rather than seeking truth. You acknowledge the scripture in Malachi is prophetic, thus future, therefore relevent now also. Having revealed that you recognise this, the only reason you can be raising objections is for objection's sake. You have already determined in your mind that you will not be turned around on this matter regardless of what scriptures are presented.
If I were to ask you to quote Revelation 22:14 your inclination would be to make sure you do not use a king james. why? Because the scripture accurately translated here does not say what you want it to say.
You say the scripture after creation does not talk about a recurring rest. Do you think that God only made the seventh day holy for the end of creation week? Come of the grass! Why did He say/write "REMEMBER" so many years later? Surely no one can see a rational stand on your presenting that as an argument. It is an insult to anyone's intelligence to suggest the sabbath was only made holy for one rest at the end of creation week.
So you talk about the new covenant where the 'law' is written in our hearts. What law? Eh? Certainly not the law of animal sacrifices because that 'law' certainly was nailed to the cross. Perhaps the 'law' written in our hearts has such commands as "You shall not murder"
Does that ring a bell? You aren't suggesting that under the new covenant murder is now permitted are you?
Of course not.
So, what 'law' is written in our hearts, and where/how are the boundaries set? Is it ok to steal sometimes? Is adultery ok now if you claim the blood of Jesus over it? Perhaps while you are claiming His name over it you would like to mix in a few curses so that the name is taken in vain? This would be a novel way of demonstrating grace wouldn't it? Is Grace given to us for salvation, or is it a gift that gives us a license to sin?
In that day many shall say to Him Lord Lord and He will say to them "Depart from Me you workers of iniquity/lawlessness, I never knew you."
I mean, how can you be guilty of lawlessness when there is no law?

I like this Brother!

Alot!

Outstanding and rational retort if I do say so myself. Undoubtedly filled with so many questions that cannot be answered without coming to a revelation of the truth.

Oustanding! Praise the Lord!

 

[ricker]

Interesting you should post this on your debate section on the Sabbath in defiance of your own board rules.

[

quote=elijahorao;43255861]Isaiah 58 clearly prophesies Jesus' conduct when He walked as a man. Only the willfully blind cannot see this.

It is obvious this is written for those under the laws at the time.
.

If you acknowledge the Malachi passage as prophetic, what more proof do you need

.

It doesn't say the Sabbath is in effect in the future, does it? What exactly on it's own do you think it says that would prove a point for yourself?

The difference arises because you are debating for debating's sake rather than seeking truth. You acknowledge the scripture in Malachi is prophetic, thus future, therefore relevent now also. Having revealed that you recognise this, the only reason you can be raising objections is for objection's sake. You have already determined in your mind that you will not be turned around on this matter regardless of what scriptures are presented.

Say what you will about me. You are the one who has preconcieved notions of what any given Bible passage means. This comes from your "spirit of prophecy". You start with her beliefs and try to mold the Bible to achieve the desired results. If you are so open minded about things the Bible teaches, can you name me one instance of theology where you disagree with Ellen?

If I were to ask you to quote Revelation 22:14 your inclination would be to make sure you do not use a king james. why? Because the scripture accurately translated here does not say what you want it to say.

You sure make a lot of unchristian accusations and assumptions about me. I have absolutely no problems with the KJV.

14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Does this say the law given to the Israelites? No, commands.

Lets compare it with what John wrote elsewhere.

21Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. 23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

You say the scripture after creation does not talk about a recurring rest. Do you think that God only made the seventh day holy for the end of creation week? Come of the grass! Why did He say/write "REMEMBER" so many years later?

Ah, the remember thing, because it was first given in Exodus 16, maybe?
God blessed the seventh day of creation. The Sabbath command was given to the Israelites as a sign to them both looking back to this rest at creation and their deliverance from Egypt, and looking forward to the rest from our works stated in Hebrews 4.

Surely no one can see a rational stand on your presenting that as an argument. It is an insult to anyone's intelligence to suggest the sabbath was only made holy for one rest at the end of creation week.

"14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
I believe what the Bible says, not Ellen White.
Read what the Bible says and believe.

So you talk about the new covenant where the 'law' is written in our hearts. What law? Eh? Certainly not the law of animal sacrifices because that 'law' certainly was nailed to the cross. Perhaps the 'law' written in our hearts has such commands as "You shall not murder"
Does that ring a bell? You aren't suggesting that under the new covenant murder is now permitted are you?
Of course not.
So, what 'law' is written in our hearts, and where/how are the boundaries set? Is it ok to steal sometimes? Is adultery ok now if you claim the blood of Jesus over it? Perhaps while you are claiming His name over it you would like to mix in a few curses so that the name is taken in vain? This would be a novel way of demonstrating grace wouldn't it? Is Grace given to us for salvation, or is it a gift that gives us a license to sin?
In that day many shall say to Him Lord Lord and He will say to them "Depart from Me you workers of iniquity/lawlessness, I never knew you."
I mean, how can you be guilty of lawlessness when there is no law?

Spoken as one who has never been born again and recieved the Holy Spirit. Do you honestly think the Holy Spirit would lead us to do those things you have mentioned? Do you not think these would be addressed by the commands to the Christian church to love God and our neighbor?
There are many words written to the church admonishing us as what is permissible and profitable for the Christian and what is to be avioded.

BTW where have I said there is no law?

 

[RND]

It is obvious this is written for those under the laws at the time.

Ever break one of the ten commandments ricker? If you have (which I'm guessing you have) what does that mean? That you were "under the law" perhaps?

Ricker, do they give traffic citations out to people that are obeying the law? Do they charge people with crimes like stealing if they don't have evidence of a crime?

Rom 13:3
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Rom 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Funny, but it appears that even in Paul's day that only the "lawbreakers" had something to worry about.

 

[ricker]

Ever break one of the ten commandments ricker? If you have (which I'm guessing you have) what does that mean? That you were "under the law" perhaps?

Ricker, do they give traffic citations out to people that are obeying the law? Do they charge people with crimes like stealing if they don't have evidence of a crime?

Rom 13:3
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Rom 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Funny, but it appears that even in Paul's day that only the "lawbreakers" had something to worry about.

Maybe you have me confused with someone else?
I pray every morning that God will help keep me from sinning and show good works through me.

Neither of these quotes of yours say anything about keeping the law given to Israel at Siani.
I will leave you with a very plain quote from the Bible:

17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.

God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

Maybe you have me confused with someone else?
I pray every morning that God will help keep me from sinning and show good works through me.

Neither of these quotes of yours say anything about keeping the law given to Israel at Siani.

Unless of course you were a gentile or sojourner and one compelled and much desireous of joining up as a child of Israel. There were actual rules spelled out for non-Israelites when the wanted to join with the Children of Israel.

Are you a gentile ricker that wishes to join with Israel, which as a type is embodied in Jesus Christ?

Isa 56:6 ¶
Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

Isa 56:7
Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices [shall be] accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Ricker, I know we've been over the whole "my covenant" thing. But honestly, what was God's covenant with the Children of Israel based on? What was contained in the Ark?

The Ten Commandments perhaps?

I will leave you with a very plain quote from the Bible:


God bless! Ricker

Thanks for that ricker!

Did you miss the significance of this: "....does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise."

So what's the inheritance based on ricker?

Joining with Jesus Christ, the true vine, the true son of Israel. When we join with Jesus we become "adopted" sons and daughters. The "adopted" don't bring in the rules they want to bring in, they abide by the rules of the family they have been adopted by.

 

[ricker]

quote=RND;43336474]Unless of course you were a gentile or sojourner and one compelled and much desireous of joining up as a child of Israel. There were actual rules spelled out for non-Israelites when the wanted to join with the Children of Israel.

Are you a gentile ricker that wishes to join with Israel, which as a type is embodied in Jesus Christ?

Isa 56:6 ¶
Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

Isa 56:7
Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices [shall be] accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Ricker, I know we've been over the whole "my covenant" thing. But honestly, what was God's covenant with the Children of Israel based on? What was contained in the Ark?
The Ten Commandments perhaps?

Yes the ten, along with a couple other things, were in the Ark of the Covenant. Yes, Gentiles could join the Jewish faith and be bound by the old covenant by becoming prosylites. They were never called Jews or Israelites.

Thanks for that ricker!

Did you miss the significance of this: "....does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise."

So what's the inheritance based on ricker?

I am glad you brought this up. This says the law does not set aside God's covenant He made with Abraham and it's promises. This shows the law "introduced" 430 years later, was not a part of this covenant. This also says the law was only until Jesus.

Joining with Jesus Christ, the true vine, the true son of Israel. When we join with Jesus we become "adopted" sons and daughters. The "adopted" don't bring in the rules they want to bring in, they abide by the rules of the family they have been adopted by.

Apparently you are speaking of "spiritual Israel". This is always brought up as a arguement of last resort when SDA's are confronted with the fact that there are laws given to Israel that are not commanded of Christians. On the contrary we are told we are not under them. The verse quoted plainly says we inherit the promise, not the law introduced at Siani.
Jesus is not Israel. Let's see what Jim has to offer on the subject, shall we?
God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

Yes the ten, along with a couple other things, were in the Ark of the Covenant.

Which was God's covenant.

Exd 19:5
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine:

Deu 31:16
And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go [to be] among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.

Yes, Gentiles could join the Jewish faith and be bound by the old covenant by becoming prosylites. They were never called Jews or Israelites.

But they had the Ten Commandments right? In other words, a stranger that joined themselves to Israel was bound to observe the Ten Commandments and if the sinned against the Ten Commandments there were required to sacrifice a goat, or bull, or lamb etc. for atonement. They were bound by the Mosaic law to keep the Ten Commandments.

I am glad you brought this up. This says the law does not set aside God's covenant He made with Abraham and it's promises.

Right, so the law must be part of the covenant if it doesn't set the covenant apart.

This shows the law "introduced" 430 years later, was not a part of this covenant. This also says the law was only until Jesus.

What you are saying here is that the Bible is in full contradiction of itself. The Law, i.e. Ten Commandments was placed in the Ark and the people swore (made a covenant with God) to do all that was in the law that God had made.

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.

See Deuteronomy Chapters 6 & 7.

Apparently you are speaking of "spiritual Israel".

Is there any other kind?

This is always brought up as a arguement of last resort when SDA's are confronted with the fact that there are laws given to Israel that are not commanded of Christians.

So Israelites can't murder but Christians can ricker? If Christians cannot murder ricker, which law is it that they are observing? The fact of the matter is ricker that the covenant with Israel is something we join into when we accept Jesus Christ.

It's called the 'New' Covenant. That covenant rights 'laws' and 'stautes' in the heart, not one stone.

On the contrary we are told we are not under them.

So ricker, does that mean you are free to commit as much adultery as you want with you neighbors wife as long as you accept Jesus?

That sounds like "cheap grace."

The verse quoted plainly says we inherit the promise, not the law introduced at Siani.

So as long as we accept the promise we have no rules to follow ricker?

Jesus is not Israel.

Jesus most certainly is a 'type' of Israel.

Let's see what Jim has to offer on the subject, shall we?
God bless! Ricker

I can tell you right now you won't like it.

 

[ricker]

Which was God's covenant.

Exd 19:5
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine:

Deu 31:16
And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go [to be] among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.



But they had the Ten Commandments right? In other words, a stranger that joined themselves to Israel was bound to observe the Ten Commandments and if the sinned against the Ten Commandments there were required to sacrifice a goat, or bull, or lamb etc. for atonement. They were bound by the Mosaic law to keep the Ten Commandments.



Right, so the law must be part of the covenant if it doesn't set the covenant apart.



What you are saying here is that the Bible is in full contradiction of itself. The Law, i.e. Ten Commandments was placed in the Ark and the people swore (made a covenant with God) to do all that was in the law that God had made.

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.

See Deuteronomy Chapters 6 & 7.

Is there any other kind?

So Israelites can't murder but Christians can ricker? If Christians cannot murder ricker, which law is it that they are observing? The fact of the matter is ricker that the covenant with Israel is something we join into when we accept Jesus Christ.

It's called the 'New' Covenant. That covenant rights 'laws' and 'stautes' in the heart, not one stone.


So ricker, does that mean you are free to commit as much adultery as you want with you neighbors wife as long as you accept Jesus?

That sounds like "cheap grace."

So as long as we accept the promise we have no rules to follow ricker?

Jesus most certainly is a 'type' of Israel.

I can tell you right now you won't like it.

Your song and dance is getting old. Where have I said we have no rules? I have continually said the exact opposite.

Do you really think that the Holy Spirit would lead us to be evil? What does loving God and others with your whole heart mean to you? Have you never read the new testament instructions to Christians?

The theologian who first coined the term "cheap grace", was a Lutheran (Bonhoffer).

There were distinct covenants God gave at distinct times to people or peoples. This is undisputable. Apparently you think all aspects of all these covenants apply to all believers at all times.

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.

Do you follow this?

37 The LORD said to Moses, 38 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. 39 You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the LORD, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by going after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes.

When Paul said:

20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

, do you think he was speaking of making blood sacrifices? The only Jewish law I can think of that the Bible speaks of him doing is going to the synagog on Sabbaths sometimes.
I will catch up with Jim's Post's later.
God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

Excellent study ricker......

"Spiritual Israel"

 

[RND]

Your song and dance is getting old.

A song and dance generally means avoidance of a topic. Ricker ole boy, how has this post avoided anything, especially in light of all the scriptural references?

Where have I said we have no rules? I have continually said the exact opposite.

Your stance, as I take it, is that Israel had the rules and no one else did.

It is obvious this is written for those under the laws at the time.

You seem to be contending that the Ten Commandments were only to be obeyed by the Israelites.

Do you really think that the Holy Spirit would lead us to be evil?

Of course not. Have I made that point ricker?

What does loving God and others with your whole heart mean to you?

Se 1 Corinthians 13.

Have you never read the new testament instructions to Christians?

Yes. Same instructions given in the Old Testament.

The theologian who first coined the term "cheap grace", was a Lutheran (Bonhoffer).

So? Are you saying Lutherans can't ever be right?

There were distinct covenants God gave at distinct times to people or peoples. This is undisputable. Apparently you think all aspects of all these covenants apply to all believers at all times.

Nope, that just something you are inferring and taking an extreme to an illogical conclusion.

Do you follow this?

Noah was instructed to gather only clean meats in sevens and unclean meats in two's. From this I can gather God wanted Hoah to eat only clean meats.

And yes ricker, I do not unclean animals of any kind.

Do you follow this?

No ricker. God's law is in my heart. I don't need tassles on my garments to remind me.

When Paul said:, do you think he was speaking of making blood sacrifices?

No, not necessarily. I believe he was referring to the totality of the Mosaic law.

The only Jewish law I can think of that the Bible speaks of him doing is going to the synagog on Sabbaths sometimes.

You mean you don't infer from scripture that Paul was a murderer or covetous?

I will catch up with Jim's Post's later.

Please do.

 

[ricker]

Noah was instructed to gather only clean meats in sevens and unclean meats in two's. From this I can gather God wanted Hoah to eat only clean meats.

And yes ricker, I do not unclean animals of any kind.

Then you are not following God's covenant with Noah. God told him to eat anything on earth that moves. Did you not read this in my quoted Scripture, or did you just ignore it? The fact God told Noah to bring more of some animals than others does not negate the clear command given to him later in God's covenant with him (and therefore with us, according to you).

No ricker. God's law is in my heart. I don't need tassles on my garments to remind me.

Then you are not following God's covenant with Israel. How dare you presume you don't need this reminder when God says you do! (Since you are spiritual Israel). Do you find anywhere in the Bible that specifically abrogates this commandment?
God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

Then you are not following God's covenant with Noah.

That's right I'm not. Noah was not an Israelite. I'm a "spiritual Israelite."

God told him to eat anything on earth that moves.

Really? Then was God telling Noah it was ok to eat other people? Did Noah violate this covenant with God by not eating other people ricker?

Did you not read this in my quoted Scripture, or did you just ignore it?

I ignored it for lack of proper context. For one, God's covenant with Noah did not revolve around meat, but the promise as to what God would do with his seed.

The fact God told Noah to bring more of some animals than others does not negate the clear command given to him later in God's covenant with him (and therefore with us, according to you).

All that explains then ricker is that we have one very confused God. Why would he tell Noah to gather clean and unclean and sacrifice only the clean, then tell Noah to eat everything, only to then later tell the Israelites to not eat unclean. Or perhaps you failed to take into account the meaning of this verse:

Gen 9:4
But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Then you are not following God's covenant with Israel.

ricker, are you capable of understanding that the area where this 'rule' was kept, the Mosaic law, was nailed to the cross? Are you capable of understanding that God has chosen (not you or me) to write His laws on the heart by accepting Christ Jesus?

How dare you presume you don't need this reminder when God says you do! (Since you are spiritual Israel).

The only presumption here ricker if your phoney and false condemnation of me through your "How dare you...." rant. The fact that tassles on clothes doesn't remind people of God's love more than having His love written in the heart.

Do you find anywhere in the Bible that specifically abrogates this commandment?

Yes, many places. Colossians 2 is one. Hebrews 9 is another.

Hbr 9:11 ¶
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;

 

[ricker]

[

quote=RND;43347925]That's right I'm not. Noah was not an Israelite. I'm a "spiritual Israelite."

I thought you believed God's covenant was God's covenant and whom it was with was irrelevant.

Really? Then was God telling Noah it was ok to eat other people? Did Noah violate this covenant with God by not eating other people ricker?

Trying to invalidate God's plain commands by twisted logic.

I

ignored it for lack of proper context. For one, God's covenant with Noah did not revolve around meat, but the promise as to what God would do with his seed.

It sure spoke of meat and what we can eat.

All that explains then ricker is that we have one very confused God. Why would he tell Noah to gather clean and unclean and sacrifice only the clean, then tell Noah to eat everything, only to then later tell the Israelites to not eat unclean. Or perhaps you failed to take into account the meaning of this verse:

Gen 9:4
But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

I guess I don't eat meat with the "life blood" still in it.

as far as the confusing God, you don't believe the Bible when it says "

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

" so I suppose things do get a little confusing

ricker, are you capable of understanding that the area where this 'rule' was kept, the Mosaic law, was nailed to the cross? Are you capable of understanding that God has chosen (not you or me) to write His laws on the heart by accepting Christ Jesus?

I thought it was only the laws pertaining to sacrifices, or those fulfilled by Jesus, that were nailed to the cross.
I thought the laws were the same, only written on our hearts now.

The only presumption here ricker if your phoney and false condemnation of me through your "How dare you...." rant. The fact that tassles on clothes doesn't remind people of God's love more than having His love written in the heart.

Again, how was this law fulfilled and can I just disregard any law because it is "written on my heart".

Yes, many places. Colossians 2 is one. Hebrews 9 is another.

Hbr 9:11 ¶
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;[/

What does this have to do with tassels to remind us of God's commandments? Isn't this command written on your heart just like the Sabbath command?

 

[RND]

I thought you believed God's covenant was God's covenant and whom it was with was irrelevant.

I guess that's what you get for thinkin' ricker ole chap!

All kidding aside ricker, do you understand the concept that some covenants were made with individuals as opposed to whole nations?

Trying to invalidate God's plain commands by twisted logic.

I'll take that as a no.

It sure spoke of meat and what we can eat.

No, it spoke to Noah and what he could eat. People weren't part of the equation.

I guess I don't eat meat with the "life blood" still in it.

as far as the confusing God, you don't believe the Bible when it says "" so I suppose things do get a little confusing

They do indeed. But Noah was unlikely to be given permission to eat anything, in that the earth was likely very unproductive from an argricultural standpoint after the flood. Hence, Noah was told not to eat the life blood of any animals, the same type of restriction he placed on the Israelites later.

But we can infer (at least some of us can ricker) that if Noah was given permission to eat animals, it was only the clean ones. You see ricker, if Noah had eaten the unclean animals, the one's that came two by two, it would have been impossible for the unclean animals to regenerate.

I thought it was only the laws pertaining to sacrifices, or those fulfilled by Jesus, that were nailed to the cross.

ricker, the discussion began to center around clean and unclean animals. Clean and unclean animals did not point the way to Christ in that unclean animals were never sacrificed and thus has no ceremonial value. Thus the eating of clean/unclean stands because it is not part of the ceremonial law.

I thought the laws were the same, only written on our hearts now.

No ricker, not ALL laws. Just God's moral law.

Again, how was this law fulfilled and can I just disregard any law because it is "written on my heart".

ricker, the covenant or commandment with Noah hasn't really changed, as you might think it has. God still does not want His people eating just anything.

What does this have to do with tassels to remind us of God's commandments? Isn't this command written on your heart just like the Sabbath command?

Our garments have to do with righteousness ricker. Clothing always represents righteousness.

Isa 64:6
But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Now ricker, think of the parable where Jesus tells of the wedding ceremony (Matthew 22:1-14). Remember? What happened to the guy that didn't have a wedding garment? He was cast out. This is symbolic of our needing to put on Christ's righteouness, the garment He gives us.

Therefore the following is symbolic of our needing to put on Christ's righteousness, which includes keeping and obeying the Ten Commandments. Make sense?

Num 15:38
Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:

Num 15:39
And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring:

Num 15:40
That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.

We don't need to wear garments that remind us of anything. We have God's law written in our hearts and thoughts that remember that don't break God's law. On top of that, in order to remember even more, then don themselves in Christ's righteousness, not their own.

 

[ricker]

I guess that's what you get for thinkin' ricker ole chap!

All kidding aside ricker, do you understand the concept that some covenants were made with individuals as opposed to whole nations?
No, it spoke to Noah and what he could eat. People weren't part of the equation.



They do indeed. But Noah was unlikely to be given permission to eat anything, in that the earth was likely very unproductive from an argricultural standpoint after the flood. Hence, Noah was told not to eat the life blood of any animals, the same type of restriction he placed on the Israelites later.

But we can infer (at least some of us can ricker) that if Noah was given permission to eat animals, it was only the clean ones. You see ricker, if Noah had eaten the unclean animals, the one's that came two by two, it would have been impossible for the unclean animals to regenerate.



ricker, the discussion began to center around clean and unclean animals. Clean and unclean animals did not point the way to Christ in that unclean animals were never sacrificed and thus has no ceremonial value. Thus the eating of clean/unclean stands because it is not part of the ceremonial law.
No ricker, not ALL laws. Just God's moral law.
ricker, the covenant or commandment with Noah hasn't really changed, as you might think it has. God still does not want His people eating just anything.
Our garments have to do with righteousness ricker. Clothing always represents righteousness.

Isa 64:6
But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Now ricker, think of the parable where Jesus tells of the wedding ceremony (Matthew 22:1-14). Remember? What happened to the guy that didn't have a wedding garment? He was cast out. This is symbolic of our needing to put on Christ's righteouness, the garment He gives us.

Therefore the following is symbolic of our needing to put on Christ's righteousness, which includes keeping and obeying the Ten Commandments. Make sense?

Num 15:38
Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:

Num 15:39
And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring:

Num 15:40
That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.

I know Adventists sometimes like to dismiss clear Scripture, but it always amazes me.

This is not hard to understand.

Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Read it in context, read it in origional hebrew, whatever, you can't get around what it says.
The eating laws were given later with the law to the Israelites until the Seed.

We don't need to wear garments that remind us of anything. We have God's law written in our hearts and thoughts that remember that don't break God's law. On top of that, in order to remember even more, then don themselves in Christ's righteousness, not their own.

What would you say if I said I don't need the Sabbath to remind me God is my creator? I don't see how some laws given to Israel are apparently written on your heart and others aren't. Who gets to decide? Laws that remind us, or say remember aren't valid anymore?

 

[RND]

I know Adventists sometimes like to dismiss clear Scripture, but it always amazes me.

This is not hard to understand.

Read it in context, read it in origional hebrew, whatever, you can't get around what it says.

Let's think about this for a second ricker. On the ark, Noah had a male and a female pig. If, after the flood, Noah was to decide he wanted bacon and eggs, he would have had to kill one of the pigs and eat it.

So one pig would have been left without a mate and it would have been impossible for them to reproduce after their own kind.

So did God really tell Noah to eat everything?

The eating laws were given later with the law to the Israelites until the Seed.

I don't think the health laws were nailed to the cross.

What would you say if I said I don't need the Sabbath to remind me God is my creator?

I would say you were being presumptuous and that you were basing your decision on want you wanted and not what God wants.

In other words, you have an "I" problem.

I don't see how some laws given to Israel are apparently written on your heart and others aren't. Who gets to decide?

It'll come to you one day ricker. The laws that our written on the heart ricker are God's moral code, the Ten Commandments. Everyone knows, whether they be an Israelite or not that murder and stealing are wrong. It's now part of our 'nature.'

But, what isn't a part of our 'nature' is to say, do ceremonial things such as slicing a little lambs neck after praying over it for the remission of sin. These things are not part of our 'nature' and things that we don't do.

Laws that remind us, or say remember aren't valid anymore?

Again, it comes down to understanding that there are two sets of law and not one. This is the area that many Christians fail to realize when reading Paul in the New Testament. They think Paul is referring to the entire law when in fact he is clearly discussing two distinct and separate laws.

God's moral code, the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law are separate laws and understanding that these laws are separate is the most important key in understand the law.

 

[RND]

I know Adventists sometimes like to dismiss clear Scripture, but it always amazes me.

This is not hard to understand.

Read it in context, read it in origional hebrew, whatever, you can't get around what it says.

Let's think about this for a second ricker. On the ark, Noah had a male and a female pig. If, after the flood, Noah was to decide he wanted bacon and eggs, he would have had to kill one of the pigs and eat it.

So one pig would have been left without a mate and it would have been impossible for them to reproduce after their own kind.

So did God really tell Noah to eat everything?

The eating laws were given later with the law to the Israelites until the Seed.

I don't think the health laws were nailed to the cross.

What would you say if I said I don't need the Sabbath to remind me God is my creator?

I would say you were being presumptuous and that you were basing your decision on want you wanted and not what God wants.

In other words, you have an "I" problem.

Look at your question again ricker.

What would you say if I said I don't need the Sabbath to remind me God is my creator?

Sometimes it's not about us or I or what we want but rather it is about God and what He wants.

I don't see how some laws given to Israel are apparently written on your heart and others aren't. Who gets to decide?

It'll come to you one day ricker. The laws that our written on the heart ricker are God's moral code, the Ten Commandments. Everyone knows, whether they be an Israelite or not that murder and stealing are wrong. It's now part of our 'nature.'

But, what isn't a part of our 'nature' is to say, do ceremonial things such as slicing a little lambs neck after praying over it for the remission of sin. These things are not part of our 'nature' and things that we don't do.

Laws that remind us, or say remember aren't valid anymore?

Again, it comes down to understanding that there are two sets of law and not one. This is the area that many Christians fail to realize when reading Paul in the New Testament. They think Paul is referring to the entire law when in fact he is clearly discussing two distinct and separate laws.

God's moral code, the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law are separate laws and understanding that these laws are separate is the most important key in understand the law.

 

[ricker]

[

quote=RND;43367715]Let's think about this for a second ricker. On the ark, Noah had a male and a female pig. If, after the flood, Noah was to decide he wanted bacon and eggs, he would have had to kill one of the pigs and eat it.

So one pig would have been left without a mate and it would have been impossible for them to reproduce after their own kind.

So did God really tell Noah to eat everything?

You can read. This covenant was for longer than the time it takes for animals to reproduce.

I don't think the health laws were nailed to the cross.

I don't think they were health laws. There are only about 5 places in the new testament saying it's OK to eat any meat, but that is off the subject at hand.

I would say you were being presumptuous and that you were basing your decision on want you wanted and not what God wants.

In other words, you have an "I" problem.

Look at your question again ricker.

What would you say if I said I don't need the Sabbath to remind me God is my creator?

Sometimes it's not about us or I or what we want but rather it is about God and what He wants.



It'll come to you one day ricker. The laws that our written on the heart ricker are God's moral code, the Ten Commandments. Everyone knows, whether they be an Israelite or not that murder and stealing are wrong. It's now part of our 'nature.'

But, what isn't a part of our 'nature' is to say, do ceremonial things such as slicing a little lambs neck after praying over it for the remission of sin. These things are not part of our 'nature' and things that we don't do.



Again, it comes down to understanding that there are two sets of law and not one. This is the area that many Christians fail to realize when reading Paul in the New Testament. They think Paul is referring to the entire law when in fact he is clearly discussing two distinct and separate laws.

God's moral code, the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law are separate laws and understanding that these laws are separate is the most important key in understand the law.

[/quote]
I think I get it. We can look at the term "law" or "commandment" and decide whether it is speaking of moral commands or not.

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

Is moral law.

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

Is ceremonial law.

18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law;

Is moral law.
[

6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Is the ceremonial law.

12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

Is the moral law.

4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Is the ceremonial law.

20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

Is the ceremonial law.

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

Is the ceremonial law.

5to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

Is the moral law.

18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

is the ceremonial law.

2Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

Is the moral law.

8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.

Is the moral law.

Is this what you mean? Thanks! Ricker