Are you not trying to support the original claim disputed in this thread that "the first" is divided into moral and ceremonial to explain away what is written in Hebrews through dividing the law?That is not my argument at all. It is the purpose of the laws I am arguing and the scriptures that show separation between what was spoken and written by God alone and what was spoken and written by Moses alone and their purpose within the old covenant. Do you know the difference? You might also want to consider your understanding of what made up the old covenant. What do you think Exodus 24:7 is saying. What made up the old covenant in your view and how does it differ from the new covenant?
No need, Hebrews supports what is being shared with you already from the scriptures. I have provides the scriptures to support my claims and everything that has been shared with you here but you do not believe them. No need to go around in circles here when there is disagreement. I believe the scriptures speak for themselves. So we will agree to disagree if you do not believe them as I do not believe you have posted anything from the scriptures that supports your position. This is why I thought it might be a good idea to talk about the covenants which will lead us into the book of Hebrews and help the conversation. If you do not want to continue the discussion just say so. I am sure we both have better things to do with our time. I believe the scriptures show everything in regards to ceremonial and moral laws by discussing the scriptures in regards to the covenants. Do you want to continue? You do not have to if you do not want to just say so.Are you not trying to support the original claim disputed in this thread that "the first" is divided into moral and ceremonial to explain away what is written in Hebrews through dividing the law?
"no need" does not answer my question, are you or are you not trying to support the original claim that the law is divided into moral and ceremonial laws, which is what I have been asking for Scriptures teaching(none of which what has been supplied offers, instead giving nothing but your own teaching and providing excuses and attempts to paint the request as illegitimate).No need, Hebrews supports what is being shared with you already from the scriptures. I have provides the scriptures to support my claims and everything that has been shared with you here but you do not believe them. No need to go around in circles here when there is disagreement. I believe the scriptures speak for themselves. So we will agree to disagree if you do not believe them as I do not believe you have posted anything from the scriptures that supports your position. This is why I thought it might be a good idea to talk about the covenants which will lead us into the book of Hebrews and help the conversation. If you do not want to continue the discussion just say so. I am sure we both have better things to do with our time. I believe the scriptures show everything in regards to ceremonial and moral laws also by discussing the scriptures in regards to the covenants. Do you want to continue? You do not have to if you do not want to just say so.
Sure it answers your question if you read it with the rest of the post that outlines the reason for the "no need". Let's talk scripture. Do you want to discuss the covenants in detail by looking at the scriptures? Which ever direction we move in moral and ceremonial laws can be shown in the scriptures. Yes we can show the same thing by looking at the covenants in detail. Do you want to continue the discussion?"no need" does not answer my question, are you or are you not trying to support the original claim that the law is divided into moral and ceremonial laws, which is what I have been asking for Scriptures teaching(none of which what has been supplied offers, instead giving nothing but your own teaching and providing excuses and attempts to paint the request as illegitimate).
Not until you've provided the one thing I have been asking for from the jump.Sure it answers your question if you read it with the rest of the post that outlines the reason for the no need. Let's talk scripture. Do you want to discuss the covenants in detail?
You have been provided scripture already but you did not believe them in post # 55 linked so of course we will agree to disagree. I asked you if you wanted to discuss the covenants and Hebrews as I believe I can show the same things in regards to Gods' 10 commandments and the Mosiac ceremonial laws for remission of sins there also. It's ok I did not think you would engage and discuss the scriptures with me. Thanks for the discussion though. Take care.Not until you've provided the one thing I have been asking for from the jump.
Why would I engage when you have done everything but provide the one thing I have been asking for from the beginning. Where is it taught in Scripture? To spell this out for you what I am asking for is a Scripture where:It's ok I did not think you would engage. Thanks for the discussion though. Take care.
Why would I engage when you have done everything but provide the one thing I have been asking for from the beginning. Where is it taught in Scripture? To spell this out for you what I am asking for is a Scripture where:
1)the idea that part of the law is ceremonial and another part is moral is clearly and unequivocally stated
2)the intent of the statement when read in context is for the audience to treat the law as separate units
If you can provide a place where Scripture clearly and unequivocally teaches it in its own words within the context of a specific passage, why not simply post the Scripture instead of offering to try a round-about fashion through discussion?I am happy to do this by discussing the covenants do you want to continue?
The verses provided in post 55 neither clearly describe a division of moral/ceremonial within the law, nor is the intent of any when taken within their context for the audience to treat the law as divided in any way.The scriptures provided in post # 55 linked show that there is a separation between Gods' 10 commandments and the Mosaic book of the law. I am happy to provide scripture proving ceremonial laws for remission of sins from the Mosaic book of the law have a different purpose to Gods' law (10 commandments) that are the standard of sin and righteousness and our duty of love to God and man under the old and new the covenants do you want to continue?
See post # 55 linked. As posted earlier your trying to make arguments in silence that can also be used against you. There is no single scripture that says Gods' laws are separate just the same as there is no single scripture that says Gods laws are not separate. So your argument here is a moot point of silence. There is however as shown in the linked post scriptures showing God separating the 10 commandments that were spoken and written directly by God and was the work of God alone where God commanded that the Mosiac book of the law was to be separate from the His written law on tables of stone and placed in the ark of the covenant and nothing was to be added to it (separation). It is the covenants that show this further which is why I was asking you questions in relation to the old and new covenants. One last time did you wish to continue the discussion (yes or no)?If you can provide a place where Scripture clearly and unequivocally teaches it in its own words within the context of a specific passage, why not simply post the Scripture instead of offering to try a round-about fashion through discussion?
Post #55 is very detailed but you refuse to read it. The laws are taught throughout the entire bible, so what you are asking cannot be summed up in a single scripture.If you can provide a place where Scripture clearly and unequivocally teaches it in its own words within the context of a specific passage, why not simply post the Scripture instead of offering to try a round-about fashion through discussion?
Sure they do. I agree that you do not believe them though. That is why I suggested that we should agree to disagree and discuss the covenants. Tell me, in your view are the laws for remission of sin the same as the laws that define what sin is when broken according to the scriptures?The verses provided in post 55 neither clearly describe a division of moral/ceremonial within the law, nor is the intent of any when taken within their context for the audience to treat the law as divided in any way.
I read it, it doesn't provide what I am asking for. None of the Scripture meet either of the two criteria given, at least not without a great deal of imposition on the text.Post #55 is very detailed but you refuse to read it. The laws are taught throughout the entire bible, so what you are asking cannot be summed up in a single scripture.
So you are saying the intent of Deuteronomy 4 is for the Israelites to treat what is written in the book of the law differently from the 10 commandments?Sure they do. I agree that you do not believe them though. That is why I suggested that we should agree to disagree and discuss the covenants. Tell me, in your view are the laws for remission of sin the same as the laws that define what sin is when broken according to the scriptures?
Well that is not true. but as posted some time back it is hard to see things if one does not want to. Lets agree to disagree. If you want to discuss the covenants in detail through the scriptures let me know. Thanks for the discussion. -Take care.I read it, it doesn't provide what I am asking for. None of the Scripture meet either of the two criteria given, at least not without a great deal of imposition on the text.
No. As posted earlier the old covenant included both God's 10 commandments as the standard of good and evil and the Mosiac supplementary laws and laws for remission of sins written in the Mosiac book of the covenant *Exodus 24:7. Together they made up the old covenant to Israel in the flesh born of the seed of Abraham. The question asked you was in your view are the laws for remission of sin from the Mosaic book of the old covenant *Exodus 24:7 the same as the laws that define what sin is (God's 10 commandments - Exodus 20:1-17) when broken according to the scriptures?So you are saying the intent of Deuteronomy 4 is for the Israelites to treat what is written in the book of the law differently from the 10 commandments?
I am not sure where you are pulling this question from, nor do I see its relevance to the question of whether Scripture you provided meets the two criteria I listed. From the beginning I have asked where does Scripture teach that there is a division of ceremonial and moral within the law, which requires both the expression of the idea(this part of the law is moral, this part ceremonial) as well as the intent(the purpose of the verse is for teaching the idea). What you have provided does neither.No. The question asked you was in your view are the laws for remission of sin the same as the laws that define what sin is when broken according to the scriptures?
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?