Just a quick question for law proponents.

[Lysimachus]

The 10 Cs are written codified law which are also called ordinances.

You wish to delete the 10 Cs from the picute and yet speak of the sabbath. Please read Acts 15. Consider the whole chapter.

You could argue and say that even the laws of love to God and your neighbor were "codified". In fact, every single law was codified, even the laws of Jesus were codified by the Apostles on paper. So why not blot out ALL of what Jesus said? because the apostles codified it. I hope you are getting my point.

The Ten Commandments, however, although were codified, were only copied down. But you can burn up the paper, and the Ten Commandments still stand. Yes, they were handwritten in the sense that they had to be copied down. Had Moses not written the Ten Commandments on paper, we'd never know what the Ten Commandments said. We would have to find the actual tables, and everyone would have to run to the museum to read the tables for themselves, and then of course they'd need a translator.

The point is, the "expression", "written code", "handwriting of ordinances", etc., was the term employed regarding the Mosaic Laws that were given exclusively to Moses and then for Moses to pass the word along. Among this written code were specifically the "ordinances" that pertained to the sanctuary services.

May we never forget, the Sanctuary on earth is a pattern or shadow of the one in heaven.

Thus we cannot rightly say that the Law in Heaven has been abolished. Only that which is contained in ordinances.

In fact, I think you will be hard-pressed to find anywhere in scriptures where the Sabbath is an ordinance. I have not found the evidence so far.

I did find this however:

"Behold, I build an house to the name of the LORD my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual showbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the LORD our God. This is an ordinance for ever to Israel." (2 Chron. 2:4)​

The text seems to suggest that it is the giving of sweet incense and burnt offerings that are ordinances held on these solemn days. Sacrifices were also called ordinances in other places.

Now there are exceptions to the rule where the term "ordinance" can be used to represent God's entire law, but in a general sense, the term "ordinance/s" is referring to the sacred festivals, offerings, and sacrifices.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

But we are not talking about the written code--the handwriting of ordinances.

The issue of contention is primarily over God's Moral Law in heaven, the Ten Commandments. The striving and contentions that Paul in Titus is talking about is referring to the ceremonial ordinances, such as circumcision, feast keeping, etc.

Everyone already knew the Ten Commandments were basic. That was not even an issue of contention or striving---.

Which leads me to ask, what does the author of Hebrews mean by the "tables of the covenant"?
Is that the 10 commandments?

Young) Hebrews 9:4 having a golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid all round about with gold, in which [is] the golden pot having the manna, and the rod of Aaron that budded, and the tables of the covenant,

Reve 11:19 And was opened the Sanctuary of the God the in the heaven and was seen the Ark of the Covenant of Him in the Sanctuary of Him and became lightnings and voices/sounds and thunders and quaking and great hail.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Here is the Greek for the word ordinances - dogma and means -
2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment. Please don't miss it.

Here is the definition of ordinance from an English dictionary -
1
a: an authoritative decree or direction

Here is a discussion on ordinance from West's Encyclopedia of American Law


A law, statute, or regulation enacted by a municipal corporation.
An ordinance is a law passed by a municipal government. A municipality, such as a city, town, village, or borough, is a political subdivision of a state within which a municipal corporation has been established to provide local government to a population in a defined area.
Ordinances constitute the subject matter of municipal law. The power of municipal governments to enact ordinances is derived from the state constitution or statutes or through the legislative grant of a municipal charter. The charter in large part dictates how much power elected officials have to regulate actions within the municipality. Municipalities that have been granted "home rule" charters by the legislature have the most authority to act. If, however, a municipality enacts an ordinance that exceeds its charter or is in conflict with state or federal law, the ordinance can be challenged in court and ruled void.
Many ordinances deal with maintaining public safety, health, morals, and general welfare. For example, a municipality may enact housing ordinances that set minimum standards of habitability. Other ordinances deal with fire and safety regulations that residential, commercial, and industrial property owners must follow. Many municipalities have enacted noise ordinances, which prohibit prescribed levels of noise after certain hours of the evening.
Ordinances may also deal with public streets and sidewalks. They typically include regulations regarding parking, snow removal, and littering. Restrictions on pets, including "pooper scooper" and leash laws, are also governed by municipal ordinances.
One of the most significant areas of municipal law is zoning. Zoning ordinances constitute a master plan for land use within the municipality. A municipality is typically divided into residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts. Zoning attempts to conserve the value of property and to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout a particular locality.
In the past, many U.S. municipalities enacted a variety of ordinances regulating public morals and behavior. Many, such as ordinances that prohibited spitting on a public sidewalk, have been repealed or are rarely enforced.


Read more: ordinance: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

Any ordinance that is written is codified law. This would also include the 10 Cs engraven on stone. Engraven is written in this case.

Now what is against us? Is it ceremony? How? Please explain how any ceremony can be said to be against anyone or thing. I really need to hear this real bad.

I really don't know or know if I believe you will just drop your biased interpretation and rush to cement your English word claim for one second and understand that NEVER in ALL OF SCRIPTURE does the word dogma or any of it’s forms used in reference to the Holy Commandments, Laws, Ordinances, Statutes, Judgments, Instructions or Testimonies of G-d. You might not care about that, but I do, because like I’ve told you a vagillion times before, if it doesn’t agree with all of Scripture then it’s false and not the truth. If this alone isn’t enough to convince you, then a step back into the culture should—when you see that EVERY single OFFENDER (what you and I are) has a list of all his offenses, a Certificate of Debt, that is handwritten by the “officiant or ruler” –that list contains all of the offenses and sins committed. This is nailed to the cross along with the offender. When Yeshua was crucified, He took with Him all of our offenses, our certificate of debt and nailed it to the cross!
If that’s not clear enough for you…I’ll go one step further.

What you’re saying is that the 10 commandments—G-d’s ten words were nailed to the cross by G-d’s Son. Think about what you’re saying…His 10 Words were nailed to the cross, rendering the 10 commandments useless. So when Paul said “HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise),” in Ephesians 6:2, he was quoting from a useless, nailed to the cross stone tablet…telling the believers in Ephesians that even though the 10 commandments were nailed to the cross you are still to keep the 5th commandment.
What in the world? I don&#8217;t even know how you can believe that His Holy commandments were against us, let alone needed to be nailed on the cross by His own son. <shakes head> May G-d bless you.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

ooopsie...the posts were so long I goofed quoting them ehehe

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Would any of you 3 like to respond to my posts now?

 

[Lysimachus]

I'm tired LittleLambOfJesus. Need a rest.

Must get some work done, or I will go broke lol.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'm tired LittleLambOfJesus. Need a rest.

Must get some work done, or I will go broke lol.

Apologetics can wear one out

 

[Nanopants]

Still waiting for your Scriptural rebuttal to this

Well, I'll take a shot at least at point two.

2. The Law of G-d, is/was ABSOLUTELY NOT a heavy burden that neither James (and the disciples) and their fathers could bear.

"Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?&#8221; &#8211;Acts 15:10
I don&#8217;t know how in depth I need to go to show this, but I would think G-d&#8217;s own spoken words should suffice.
If James was truly saying that the heavy burden and yoke that no one could bear was the Holy Law and Instructions of G-d, Peter would be calling G-d (and ironically himself) a liar.
Deuteronomy 30:11-14 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, `Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, `Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.&#8221;

My Bible, which derives from the Masoretic text, reads a little differently:

For this commandment which I command thee this day, it [is] not hidden from thee, neither [is] it far off.

If it weren't too difficult, then why would God have made provision for failure through sacrifice? He planned for their failure, therefore God must have meant that the command was not hidden, meaning that they had no excuses.

Either G-d was lying when He said the above, or James is lying when He said, &#8220;the Law of G-d is a yoke and heavy burden that no one could bear&#8221;, or you are misinterpreting the words spoken by Peter. I&#8217;m gonna go ahead and go with the latter. Not just because I said so, but Scriptures say so. Think about this for a second: G-d gives Israel His Laws and Instructions, and attaches blessings for keeping them and curses for disobedience. What kind of G-d would He be if He gave the Torah, knowing it was unbearable and the people would be unable to keep them. What kind of G-d would set His people up for failure?

The difference in translation accounts for the lying bit. As far as God setting up the Jews for failure, I understand where you're coming from. However, God showed mercy, and He sent them prophets, but they killed the prophets. Imagine what would have happened if the Church had killed Paul or Peter. Would God have spared them? Considering that Herod in Acts 12 is an example of what God does to those who kill His saints, I doubt it.

 

[from scratch]

Not sure what this has to do with the topic of this thread.....but....I am sure Staff would be glad to investigate

Doesn't it look interesting to you?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Doesnt it look interesting to you?

Yep....I just don't want to get reported for being off topic

 

[from scratch]

Yep....I just don't want to get reported for being off topic

Has nothing to do with the process.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Has nothing to do with the process.

Have you ever been on Staff? I have

 

[from scratch]

You could argue and say that even the laws of love to God and your neighbor were "codified". In fact, every single law was codified, even the laws of Jesus were codified by the Apostles on paper. So why not blot out ALL of what Jesus said? because the apostles codified it. I hope you are getting my point.

Houston we have a problem. Yes I get your dirft. And I'm glad I have my hip waders and tin foil hat on. You know exactly what is being tlaked about both in ths Scriptures and by me and other here. So I find you are doing nothing more than being argumentive for the purpose of arguing above.

The Ten Commandments, however, although were codified, were only copied down. But you can burn up the paper, and the Ten Commandments still stand. Yes, they were handwritten in the sense that they had to be copied down. Had Moses not written the Ten Commandments on paper, we'd never know what the Ten Commandments said. We would have to find the actual tables, and everyone would have to run to the museum to read the tables for themselves, and then of course they'd need a translator.

Have you ever used or heard this used before - 18And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God? I wager you have. Why do you want to argure over stone or paper. Writting on stone was common in that day. So you can burn paper and you can also break stone, even diamonds. Now what? I agree that we only know of them because Moses recorded them in the law. They're simply not the work of Moses and neither are the laws of Moses. Read it for yourself that God said.... This stuff didn't come from Moses, it came directly from God The Father to Moses. Yes sand if you want to argue that point back it up with Scripture. The sad news is you can't. Scripture is in my favor. And I can and will whip it on you in a heart beat.

The point is, the "expression", "written code", "handwriting of ordinances", etc., was the term employed regarding the Mosaic Laws that were given exclusively to Moses and then for Moses to pass the word along. Among this written code were specifically the "ordinances" that pertained to the sanctuary services.

These words we're given exclusively to Moses. They were given to Israel through Moses as they requested. Read the Book.

May we never forget, the Sanctuary on earth is a pattern or shadow of the one in heaven.

So what?

Thus we cannot rightly say that the Law in Heaven has been abolished. Only that which is contained in ordinances.

What does the Scripture say? They certianly don't agree with your statement in the least. You have to add to the Scripture to say such nonsense. The Bible isn't a pick and choose deal.

In fact, I think you will be hard-pressed to find anywhere in scriptures where the Sabbath is an ordinance.

I have not found the evidence so far. The sabbath is a ceremony commemoration. You have insisted that ceremonies have been nailed to the cross and are done away with. I didn't make that statement ever.

I did find this however:

"Behold, I build an house to the name of the LORD my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual showbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the LORD our God. This is an ordinance for ever to Israel." (2 Chron. 2:4)
​

The text seems to suggest that it is the giving of sweet incense and burnt offerings that are ordinances held on these solemn days. Sacrifices were also called ordinances in other places.

Now there are exceptions to the rule where the term "ordinance" can be used to represent God's entire law, but in a general sense, the term "ordinance/s" is referring to the sacred festivals, offerings, and sacrifices.

Look even if it is as you claim Col 2 uses eat or not eating in the same verse that includes the sabbath. The statement is not how one eats but whether one eats and the same principle carries with the sabbath and festivals. It isn't how but whether. The sabbath is included with all the festivals in Lev 23. It is called a holy convocation (assembly) required of the Israelite and no one else besides those under the influence of and in the presence of Israelites. Read the law even the stone tablets state this.

 

[Frogster]

Sure be most happy to consider Ezekiel 36:26-27 - 26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Not one single place does it mention the law as being placed in our hearts. The red highlight only refers to righteousness thus the refraining from sin. This in no way refers specifically and exclusively to the law (Torah).

scratch, when you're hot, you're hot!

sizzzzzzlinnn

 

[Frogster]

Never did I ever say that the new covenant did not start yet and that it did not include Gentile believers.
The New covenant is a process that has already started. It will not be complete until G-d is finished re-gathering His people, and He comes and reigns as King of His Kingdom.
What I did do was ask you to show me a reference where the New Covenant is made outside the context of Israel, or with anybody specifically --that replaces His New Covenant with Israel. You've yet to show me verses...

lol..you r saying 2 things here..this line proves it, in red...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

scratch, when you're hot, you're hot!

sizzzzzzlinnn

You are both hot in my book

Who Posted? - Christian Forums

Frogster 208
from scratch 199
LittleLambofJesus 187

 

[Frogster]

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

.

 

[Frogster]

Oh brother. Look up the Greek of Col 2:14.
Nothing to do with G-d's Holy Law.
Everything to do with the certification of debt against us.
If you were to study a bit about the culture, you’d know that every offender who was crucified, would have a list of all his offenses nailed on the cross with Him. (In Yeshua’s case He was nailed mainly for “pretending to be the King of the Jews”) So you see it was our list of offenses or the certificate of our debt that He nailed to the cross. He was bruised for our transgressions and our sins. It’s common sense once you understand the context, original content and culture—instead of blindly believing your English translation.

sorry..but pay attention to the WITH...

if go with you to the store, that meas we wnet to the same destination.


and yes, they were HOSTILE..TO US..


King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;



English Standard Version (©2001)
by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

 

[Frogster]

Not sure what you’re trying argue with this passage but I hope it isn’t to “try to prove” that Peter was now eating unclean foods? <smile> Cuz if it is, then I’ll have to show you a couple of things about this passage.
Is your point here to prove that Peter as a Jewish believer no longer kept the kosher (food) Instructions, and could eat whatever he pleased (better yet COMMANDED by G-D to eat unclean food)?

just read gal 2, peter was eating with gentiles, and LIVING as a gentile, read 2;12-14.

all the jewish christians were down yonder antioch..they were not living as those in the present day, mj doctrine, that is a fact.