Respectfully for the Doc

[Idol Breaker]

Doc,

We also need to understand what was meant when Jesus tells us that we are to "Love God with all our hearts and all our minds" that this is the first commandment and that the second is "Love your neighbor as yourself." What many don't understand is that the Moral Law TEACHES us how this is to be done. With out the Ten commandments we have no guidelines or set pattern on how we are to relate to God or to our fellow man. So when we get people telling us that the Commandments have been replaced by these to "New" commandments, which aren't actually new because we can also find these give to Moses as well, we must realize that they do not totally understand the implications of what they are saying and that is we should obey something that has no basis of understanding unless the Ten Commandments are referred to. I hope that's not too confusing.

 

[ricker]

You are all to be complimented for giving the OP by Ricker as well as "Should Christians Kerep the Sabbath" in the main forum some serious thought. I must say however that I feel as though I'm playing tennis with a 20 year old when I look at all the additional points that have been brought up. Please understand that every single point, if covered in depth, in a scholarly study, could easly fill a book.

For the moment I'll confine my comments to Ricker's OP and a couple of additional points that have been brought up.

Ricker's OP Then we have post #'s 12 by Woobadooba and post #13 by Ricker: In addition there is one question that has been raised that will need some clarification and that is, how do we differrntiate between the Ten Comandments and what is called the Law of Moses? I will attempt to retrieve something I prepared quite sometime ago that I believe may shed some additional light on this question. For that I'll come back later.

For the moment let's take a look at Matt. 5:19-20.You will notice that I have underlined and bracketed some of the above text. It is my belief that with an understanding of these portions it should become clear which Law Christ was reffering to.

I am going to go ahead and post the above and then add the explinations for these words and phrases. Be back later.

Your brother in Christ,
Doc

Looking forward to your response. Again I am not interested in an all out debate on the law. I just simply questioned when you used the passage to say basically the jots and tittles were the ten commandments and couldn't be changed, when the passage also speaks of ceremonial laws in the same context without any apparent literary separation . If I remember correctly you welcomed debate on aspects of your treatise, as long as you were completed and the debate was brought here. I believe you have an answer and am looking forward to hear it at your convenience. I don't plan to debate any of your other conclusions.
God bless! Ricker

 

[Mudburn]

Thank you for you well thought out response.
I guess we are back to a "conversation" I had with RND a while back, where it was postulated we need to take context into consideration everytime the word "law" is used, to determine if it is the moral or ceremonial law being referred to. Do you agree with this?

The term "law" as it is used in our English translations of the scriptures is quite often misleading because of how we define it. For us a law is a specific legal code. However, in scriptural usage, the word translated "law" means more than that. Specifically, in the OT the Hebrew word commonly translated "law" is "torah." The primary meaning of "torah" is teaching, not law.

Studying the context to determine if "moral" or "ceremonial" law is being referred to is not a focus of my study. I don't really adhere to such a distinction (there is no clear scriptural delineation of such). There is much more to torah than law. I want to learn from God's teachings.

Mudburn

 

[woobadooba]

Studying the context to determine if "moral" or "ceremonial" law is being referred to is not a focus of my study. I don't really adhere to such a distinction (there is no clear scriptural delineation of such). There is much more to torah than law. I want to learn from God's teachings.

Mudburn

There is a very clear distinction:

Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. (Romans 4:15 KJV)

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4 KJV)

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (Galatians 3:19 KJV)

These verses make it very clear that as a result of one law being transgressed another law went into effect. Thus one law is moral and the other is sacrificial/ceremonial

 

[Idol Breaker]

God himself makes a distinction Leviticus 26:3 "If ye walk in my statutes and keep my commandments and do them;" Unless God is being redundant, which I don't believe he is, then these are two seperate things.

 

[ricker]

The term "law" as it is used in our English translations of the scriptures is quite often misleading because of how we define it. For us a law is a specific legal code. However, in scriptural usage, the word translated "law" means more than that. Specifically, in the OT the Hebrew word commonly translated "law" is "torah." The primary meaning of "torah" is teaching, not law.

Studying the context to determine if "moral" or "ceremonial" law is being referred to is not a focus of my study. I don't really adhere to such a distinction (there is no clear scriptural delineation of such). There is much more to torah than law. I want to learn from God's teachings.

Mudburn

Thank you. I have an honest question. I will quote the verses first.


1 Corinthians 9:20,21 (New American Standard Bible)

20To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

Is there a difference between the law of God and the law of Christ? Why does Paul say he is not under the Law, but later say he is not without law, because he is under the law of Christ? Thanks in advance for your ideas.

 

[Idol Breaker]

Is there a difference between the law of God and the law of Christ? Why does Paul say he is not under the Law, but later say he is not without law, because he is under the law of Christ? Thanks in advance for your ideas

John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was anything made that was not made."

John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld mis glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

As is recognized by these verses we see that God and Christ are the same, Immanuel means "God with us", Christ was "Immanuel", meaning he was God with us. If this is the case than there is no difference between the two therefore, the Law of God is also the Law of Christ. It does not
change and it is everlasting.

The Law was given to the Jews. It was for the Jews to diseminate (sic) the knowledge of the one true God to the rest of the world, taking the Gentile into their fold, so to speak, through circumcision. The gentiles of the Old Testament were unknowledgable of the Law of the one true God and therefore were not under the Law, however, the Jews who had the Law were under its ramifications. Now when Paul speaks he is speak concerning a new knowledge of the Law, that Law being subject to the Grace afford to the believer through the sacrificial blood of Christ. But it is not the Law the he tells us that were are released from but rather the comdemnation of the Law, the punishment that comes from breaking the Law. Yet, he further tells us that we cannot willfully ignore the Law and continue in our sins just so that Grace can be a more perfect blessing. This cannot be, for if it were true than that would mean that God has changed his attitude concerning sin and as such he would then turn his face from it, ignore our sins altogether and the end result would be that it would be allowed in heaven, which we learn from the other scriptures God can not and will not abide.

In Christ

 

[ricker]

John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was anything made that was not made."

John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld mis glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

As is recognized by these verses we see that God and Christ are the same, Immanuel means "God with us", Christ was "Immanuel", meaning he was God with us. If this is the case than there is no difference between the two therefore, the Law of God is also the Law of Christ. It does not
change and it is everlasting.

The Law was given to the Jews. It was for the Jews to diseminate (sic) the knowledge of the one true God to the rest of the world, taking the Gentile into their fold, so to speak, through circumcision. The gentiles of the Old Testament were unknowledgable of the Law of the one true God and therefore were not under the Law, however, the Jews who had the Law were under its ramifications. Now when Paul speaks he is speak concerning a new knowledge of the Law, that Law being subject to the Grace afford to the believer through the sacrificial blood of Christ. But it is not the Law the he tells us that were are released from but rather the comdemnation of the Law, the punishment that comes from breaking the Law. Yet, he further tells us that we cannot willfully ignore the Law and continue in our sins just so that Grace can be a more perfect blessing. This cannot be, for if it were true than that would mean that God has changed his attitude concerning sin and as such he would then turn his face from it, ignore our sins altogether and the end result would be that it would be allowed in heaven, which we learn from the other scriptures God can not and will not abide.

In Christ

Thanks, IB. Some of this makes sense to me, and some I question, but I won't belabor points I've already discussed with others. May God bless both of us with the gift of discernment. Ricker

 

[ricker]

The Law was given to the Jews. It was for the Jews to diseminate (sic) the knowledge of the one true God to the rest of the world, taking the Gentile into their fold, so to speak, through circumcision.

I have heard this a few times from various people. I'm sorry but I have to take issue with your statement.

The law was given to the Israelites, who God chose as His special people.

Deut. 7

6"For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

I see absolutely no indication from the Bible that the COI were to actively evangelize the world.

This is God's word to Israel earlier in Deut. 7:

1"When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you,

2and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. 3"Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.

I can find many places in the OT where God tells Israel to have nothing to do with other nations, even that they were to kill them man, women and child. Where do you get the idea that Israel was to actively disseminate knowledge of God, including circumcision and the law? I believe the great commission given in Matthew was a new idea. It may have been possible for an individual gentile to be circumcised and enter into Israel's covenant, but I don't see any indication Israel was to evangelize the world.
Thanks for your ideas, Ricker