You select only the words that seem to support you idea. They are out of context and out of line with Jn 3, 5 and 10.
bugkiller
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You select only the words that seem to support you idea. They are out of context and out of line with Jn 3, 5 and 10.I looked up the two verses you quoted and found the did not support your opinion. Quoting verses usually assumes they can stand alone out of the context in which they are given.
It is my opinion that almost every word spoken by Jesus to the Jews was to correct them regarding the old covenant; the rich young man for example:
Matthew 19:17-18 (NKJV)
17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
18 He said to Him, "Which ones?" Jesus said, "'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,'
First Jesus tells him to keep all the commandments, none excluded; later Jesus mentions six; you assume six are required for Christians to keep; I assume the six are where the rich young man was failing, and that he had the first four right.
None of the law is binding on the Christian. That is the only reason I did not thump DA on his statement. No one can be in compliance with Jn 13:34 and out of compliance with those last 5 commandments. No where in the NT do we find any requirement to keep the 4th which would be included with the last 6. The issue being presented by such an argument is about conduct.I do not know why you are getting upset. I am having a conversation; I read your post and disagreed with it. Maybe you didn't read my response.
DA said:
Nine of the 10 commandments are quoted in the NT as binding on Christians. The only one omitted is #4 which was given exclusively to the children of Israel as a perpetual/everlasting covenant. Exodus 31:16 and Leviticus 24:8
The point I meant to make is that it was always intended that the Law (interchangeable with Covenant) would go to the Gentiles and this is mentioned twice in the old testament. The fourth commandment is not separateable from the covenant. Jesus has said the Law may not be changed; omitting the fourth commandment or abrogating the Law is to change the Law. You must know there are Baptists who keep the Sabbath. The covenants are made with Israel, Gentiles are folded in.
Then is it you want others to agree with you? The problem I see is people want to both change word meanings and applications to promote wrong concepts. Your above comment does not address anything in my post.Paul addresses both the Jew and the Gentile in Romans and Galatians. The people Paul addresses both claim to be Christians. Paul is really addressing Christians. The word Paul uses in Rom 7:6 us "we." If Gentiles did not have the law as indicated in chapter 2 they can not be delivered from it. Paul speaking as a Christian and Jew says both Christians and Jews are delivered from the law some here seek to subject gentiles under. Therefore neither the Jewish nor gentile Christian is subject to the law. In this aspect Paul's letter applies to all thus universal. Both Romans and Galatians argue against the Christian being required to keep the law. This in no way contradicts anything found in the Gospels.This argument is flawed. Romans in general are gentiles as you represent. You do not represent Romans as Jews as you argued above to get compliance with your idea.
Can you please quote Paul as speaking as a devil? I need to see what you are talking about by saying such.
Paul is clearly speaking of the law and specifically the 10 Cs by referencing the 10th commandment about coveting in 7:7.
If I post what you are trying to get at without mentioning it, I would only get into trouble. Essentially my position is clearly supported by Jer 31; LK 16, 20, 24; Jn 1, 3, 5, 10, 14, 15; Rom 7-12; Gal 3-5.Do you have some scriptural support for this?
bugkiller
Then why are you posting in the Christians only section? Even the OT promises abrogation of the law.I do not use Paul's epistles except to reference quotes people like yourself direct me to; I have read Romans along time ago; I do recall reading or hearing that Paul speaks to people as if he were one of them, regardless of who they may be.
I don't know what you are trying to get at with out saying it; I do believe what most Christians call the New Covenant is fiction, mainly because their covenant depends on the abrogation of the Law or the disregarding of elements of it.
None of the law is binding on the Christian. That is the only reason I did not thump DA on his statement. No one can be in compliance with Jn 13:34 and out of compliance with those last 5 commandments. No where in the NT do we find any requirement to keep the 4th which would be included with the last 6. The issue being presented by such an argument is about conduct.
bugkiller
Then why are you posting in the Christians only section? Even the OT promises abrogation of the law.
bugkiller
The verse is a comparative sentence of opposing commandments. The opposing commandments are "My commandments" and "My Father's commandments." Which commandments did Jesus confess He kept? Did Jesus say to keep the same commandments He kept? Both old and new testaments state clearly no one keeps the commandments. This is one of the reasons we need the Redeemer, Jesus. Rom 11:32 gives a very good reason for the law. The law was not given to be obeyed, it was given so God could show mercy. Forgiveness voids the law. When I say that I mean the enforcement of the law making it worthless. The righteousness of the law will not secure eternal life (salvation).
bugkiller
The Christian is not subject to the law given to Israel.<<I'm not upset. I said 9 commandments you asked me if I thought we only had to obey six, indicating you did not read my post.>>
Seriously what version of English do you speak?
<<Where is it mentioned?>>
Micah 4:2 (NKJV)
2 Many nations shall come and say, "Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, And we shall walk in His paths." For out of Zion the law shall go forth, And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Psalm 110:1-2 (ASV)
1 Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
2 Jehovah will send forth the rod of thy strength out of Zion: Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Isaiah 42:1-4 (ASV)
1 Behold, my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.
2 He will not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor cause it to be heard in the street.
3 A bruised reed will he not break, and a dimly burning wick will he not quench: he will bring forth justice in truth.
4 He will not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set justice in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law.
Isaiah 51:4-5 (ASV)
4 Attend unto me, O my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall go forth from me, and I will establish my justice for a light of the peoples.
5 My righteousness is near, my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the peoples; the isles shall wait for me, and on mine arm shall they trust.
John 6:45 (ASV)
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.
Matthew 28:19-20 (ASV)
19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.
Mark 16:15-16 (ASV)
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.
Luke 24:47 (ASV)
47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
It seems to that Acts is the origin of ecumenism
Your argument is the 4th is a given even though not mentioned as a requirement. So I must ask why the others are not a given and need to be referred to.You seem to be pushing a negative hypothesis; if God had said the fourth is still required, would that work? Do we really need to be told? Jesus has said the Law may not be changed.
Regarding Jn 13:34,
John 13:34-35 (ASV)
34 A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Do you really think this commandment disavows everything preceding it, or could this commandment
complement every word of God
The NT, OT division is man made; God didn't do it.
I need to ask do you believe Jer 31:31-33. If you do or not I need you to explain v 32 in detail.You seem to be pushing a negative hypothesis; if God had said the fourth is still required, would that work? Do we really need to be told? Jesus has said the Law may not be changed.
Regarding Jn 13:34,
John 13:34-35 (ASV)
34 A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Do you really think this commandment disavows everything preceding it, or could this commandment
complement every word of God
The NT, OT division is man made; God didn't do it.
No assumption on my part. I showed why. Now please prove me wrong.That their commandments are different is an assumption you make; the assumption I take is that the Father and Son are the two witnesses and both testify the same commandments; paraphrasing aside.
This has nothing to do with my query. BTW the New Covenant is sealed with the blood of Jesus. The covenant made with Israel at Sinai is not sealed with the blood of God (Jesus) like the NC.This is how a blood covenant works: there are a set of conditions and if one breaks them his blood is shed; God modified His blood covenant to allow on the condition of repentance a substitute blood to be used. Repentance and substitute blood are as much a part of the Law as are the things we are told not to do; having first sinned repentance fulfils the Law perfectly; but as Paul said somewhere, each time we sin we re-crucify Christ, so Paul would not agree with you that forgiveness voids the Law; forgiveness would satisfy the Law on each occasion.
No assumption on my part. I showed why. Now please prove me wrong.This has nothing to do with my query. BTW the New Covenant is sealed with the blood of Jesus. The covenant made with Israel at Sinai is not sealed with the blood of God (Jesus) like the NC.
bugkiller
Jesus did not confirm the OT.The shedding of Jesus' blood was old covenant prophesy fulfilled and the old covenant confirmed; Jesus was the lamb since the foundation which means that the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant is not what you think.
So far you support nothing you post. Neither do you address my Scripture references or quotes. I know why.The shedding of Jesus' blood was old covenant prophesy fulfilled and the old covenant confirmed; Jesus was the lamb since the foundation which means that the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant is not what you think.
So far you support nothing you post. Neither do you address my Scripture references or quotes. I know why.
bugkiller
You are free to use your private definitions if you want. To effectively communicate I must use those universally established as authoritative. So if you chose to do differently you change the meaning and do not communicate. All cults do exactly that. I make no accusation against you or others. You can take that as fact or my personal opinion as you like.I see two major differences between us. I see the scriptures as the bread of life and by consuming them one grows into harvestable fruit. Where as you seem to think the scriptures are a legal document; legal as men call legal; a panel of judges determine the meaning of the words regardless of what the author meant when using the words.
We interpret every scripture differently and any debate using scripture as proof would not take us any where. We might look at why this is so and it boils down to different paradigms, different big picture or different world view. So I ask myself does my world view determine how I interpret Scripture or does my interpretations determine my world view; I believe both work together as a single unit, like the chicken and the egg.
During the reformation the Catholics were defensive, the Protestants were accusing the RCC of being the beast. Using two Jesuit Priests the RCC produced Preterism and Futurism, each placing the Antichrist outside the time frame of the RCC. I don't know what effect these theorises had on the council of Trent but what won the day for the RCC was anti-Semitism; the RCC told the Protestants if they go by the Bible an the Bible alone they would have to keep the Sabbath because there is no other authority for changing the day or abrogating the Sabbath except the Papacy, and the Protestants folded.
My position is called historicism and I believe yours is futurism. And the critical point or verge point is the seventieth week which history gives to Christ and futurism gives to Satan, after throwing the seventieth week down to the end of time. It is true that the Jesuit Ribera did get some of his stuff from earlier writings but these he reworked.
As a fly on the wall, not taking sides, what would it see; on one hand it would see Christ during the first half of the seventieth week fulfilling Prophesy:
Luke 24:44 (NKJV)
44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."
Christ's presence and doing what He did partly confirmed (transformed promise to reality, transformed contract to work done) the covenant; without which neither the covenant nor Christ has any credentials or legitimacy; the new covenant is the fruition and fulfilment of the old covenant, not independent from the old covenant..
Then the fly notices that the seventieth week, the coming of the Messiah is singular, not plural; it, the fly notices that the messiah is cut off and an interval (of 2300 years which will be shortened) begins. When the interval ends Christ continues on confirming the covenant as though the interval never happened, even though most of the Day of the Lord has passed during the interval, He continues with the people who were alive before alive again and the eighth beast who coincides with this last three and a half years, may have been alive before also.
The fly concludes Christ confirms THE covenant. Now the other view; can Satan confirm any covenant; is there an established covenant that Satan could possibly confirm? Yes, that covenant where Christ and the power thereof is denied by diminishing HIS seventieth week, and where the Law is abrogated; and the eighth beast will endeavour to confirm that covenant while the two witnesses lay dead in the street.
But the fly is in trouble because there are those who don't want the truth to get out.
You are free to use your private definitions if you want. To effectively communicate I must use those universally established as authoritative. So if you chose to do differently you change the meaning and do not communicate. All cults do exactly that. I make no accusation against you or others. You can take that as fact or my personal opinion as you like.
bugkiller
Where is this found - the Law may not be changed?You seem to be pushing a negative hypothesis; if God had said the fourth is still required, would that work? Do we really need to be told? Jesus has said the Law may not be changed.
No, neither does Jesus. I think you have misused the word disavow. However I do think Jesus disavowed the 10 Cs with Jn 15:10.Regarding Jn 13:34,
John 13:34-35 (ASV)
34 A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Do you really think this commandment disavows everything preceding it, or could this commandment
complement every word of God
I think you are really talking about covenants and not divisions of Scripture. As such Jeremiah said God would do exactly that.The NT, OT division is man made; God didn't do it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?