The Law

[Fit4Christ]

If you are not willing to own the sin and own up to it you have not repented.

So is that a "yes" to my questions?

 

[Tawhano]

Doc T said:
Because I had assumed that you had read section 42 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Try verses 12-14

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 42:12 - 14)
12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.
13 And they shall observe the covenants and church articles to do them, and these shall be their teachings, as they shall be directed by the Spirit.
14 And the Spirit shall be given unto you by the prayer of faith; and if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach.

You lost me. Where does it say the Ten Commandments isn’t part of the law?

Doc T said:
I'm sorry, but I don't see where I quoted you. I did use the phrase "the 10 commandments are not part of the Law of Moses", but that was not a quotation of you, but my understanding of what you were stating.

I see, you didn’t quote me you just stated what you thought I said. Care to explain that….never mind.

Doc T said:
Is not the Law of Moses the "old covenant"?

Okay, now you’re messing with my head. First you are arguing that the Law and the covenant are not part of each other and now you are saying it is?

John 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?

The Sabbath Law was in the Ten Commandments. Jesus establishes here that the Ten Commandments are also known as the Law of Moses.

Doc T said:
I would simply interprete this verse using the term covenant as refering to the everlasting covenant (the gospel) and not to the Law of Moses.

Exodus 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.

You are messing with my head.

It clearly says the Ten Commandments is the covenant. Here is another verse that says the same thing:

Deuteronomy 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.

Law of Moses, Ten Commandments, Old Covenant; they’re all the same thing.

Doc T said:
My appologies if what I am saying is not clear to you, as we obviously have differing understandings of what happened around the time of Moses.

It’s probably because we have different scriptures and different definitions for common biblical words. Although I believe the BoM says the same thing as I believe in this matter.

 

[gort]

daneel:

We could probably start another thread regarding these things, but for now, where do you get this info? The bible does'nt say that Terah tried to sacrifice Abram.

Fatboys?

Nevermind Fatboys, I found the reference at a lds site.

The book of Abraham.




<><

 

[Zippythepinhead]

Why didn’t fatboys say that? It’s funny but every post I ever participated in about this subject I never once read anyone stating that was your church’s belief. How many of the others would agree with that statement I wonder? Somehow Doc T, I don’t think you are being straight with me on this.

At any rate, the Bible is clear that the Ten Commandments was in fact the covenant that God made with Israel. The Bible is also clear that the old covenant was replaced by the new covenant.

Exodus 34:29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.

Why would the everlasting covenant be done away with?

The Ten Commandments were originally part of the higher law given to Moses. Due to Israel's wickedness the higher law was taken, but the Ten Commandments remained to govern basic society both religiously and temporally. In fact the Ten Commandments are the foundation of most Judeochristian ethics and laws.

 

[Zippythepinhead]

The Ten Commandments were originally part of the higher law given to Moses. Due to Israel's wickedness the higher law was taken, but the Ten Commandments remained to govern basic society both religiously and temporally. In fact the Ten Commandments are the foundation of most Judeochristian ethics and laws.

Sorry. Second part. The Covenant is not done away, but fulfilled in Christ.

 

[Tawhano]

Zippythepinhead said:
The Ten Commandments were originally part of the higher law given to Moses. Due to Israel's wickedness the higher law was taken, but the Ten Commandments remained to govern basic society both religiously and temporally. In fact the Ten Commandments are the foundation of most Judeochristian ethics and laws.

Which flies in the face of God’s Word; the Ten Commandments was God’s covenant with Israel.

Exodus 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.

Nothing was ever taken away, Israel simply didn’t learn the lesson the laws were put in place to teach them. Why do you bother to quote the scriptures I post if you are simply going to ignore them? You have yet to address one single verse that I posted.

Zippythepinhead said:
Sorry. Second part. The Covenant is not done away, but fulfilled in Christ.

I bet you have no idea what ‘fulfilled’ means do you? If I enter into a contract (covenant) to repay a debt and I fulfill this contract do I keep on paying?

 

[Zippythepinhead]

Which flies in the face of God’s Word; the Ten Commandments was God’s covenant with Israel.

Exodus 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.

Nothing was ever taken away, Israel simply didn’t learn the lesson the laws were put in place to teach them. Why do you bother to quote the scriptures I post if you are simply going to ignore them? You have yet to address one single verse that I posted.



I bet you have no idea what ‘fulfilled’ means do you? If I enter into a contract (covenant) to repay a debt and I fulfill this contract do I keep on paying?

My question to you is the covenant with Israel ever been broken?

Secondly, Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets. As long as we do what Christ asks us to do he will keep his covenants with his people. If we go against Christ's commandments, then it is we who break the covenant. Not God.

 

[Tawhano]

Zippythepinhead said:
My question to you is the covenant with Israel ever been broken?

What does that have to do with anything I said? I’ll tell you what, when you are able to answer my questions I will answer your diversional questions.

 

[Zippythepinhead]

What does that have to do with anything I said? I’ll tell you what, when you are able to answer my questions I will answer your diversional questions.

Okay, Let's start over. Break it down point by point. One reason I have a problem with long posts is there is often too much information to digest in one sitting. Thus the name pinhead. Simple and bit by bit.

 

[Tawhano]

Okay, Let's start over. Break it down point by point. One reason I have a problem with long posts is there is often too much information to digest in one sitting. Thus the name pinhead. Simple and bit by bit.

No thanks, I’ve played this game with you before. If you honestly were interested in answering me you would read my post over to see what you missed. There is nothing ‘long’ about any of my post to you. You explained about your condition before and accordingly I try and keep them short for you.

 

[fatboys]

No thanks, I’ve played this game with you before. If you honestly were interested in answering me you would read my post over to see what you missed. There is nothing ‘long’ about any of my post to you. You explained about your condition before and accordingly I try and keep them short for you.

FB: Tawhano, you have done this before. You need to take one point bit by bit. Many times when you say you have asked a question, I honestly ask myself what was the question. Simplify the question because to me your questions make little sense. This is not a slam directed towards you. But a suggestion if you want us little people to answer your questions. And then many times I answer your question to the best of my ability, and then you say I did not answer it. Now perhaps it was not the answer you were looking for, but many times your questions are answered from the perception we understand your question. When we don't answer it way you want, you make statements that we are avoiding your question, or not able to answer it. Again we have to understand what we are to answer. Many times I have been in your situation and have had to restate the question. We are not stupid, but coming from a different view.

 

[Zippythepinhead]

No thanks, I’ve played this game with you before. If you honestly were interested in answering me you would read my post over to see what you missed. There is nothing ‘long’ about any of my post to you. You explained about your condition before and accordingly I try and keep them short for you.

Oh well maybe another time then. There was no intent to aviod topics on my part or addressing your points. I can only apologize and move on from here.

 

[Tawhano]

Tawhano, you have done this before. You need to take one point bit by bit. Many times when you say you have asked a question, I honestly ask myself what was the question. Simplify the question because to me your questions make little sense. This is not a slam directed towards you. But a suggestion if you want us little people to answer your questions. And then many times I answer your question to the best of my ability, and then you say I did not answer it. Now perhaps it was not the answer you were looking for, but many times your questions are answered from the perception we understand your question. When we don't answer it way you want, you make statements that we are avoiding your question, or not able to answer it. Again we have to understand what we are to answer. Many times I have been in your situation and have had to restate the question. We are not stupid, but coming from a different view.

While it is true that I sometimes become impatient with others and may miss the fact that they are answering my questions to the best of their abilities I don’t believe this is the case here. Doc T made the statement that your church believed that the Ten Commandments was never part of Moses Law. I asked if this was true and those who responded seemed to indicate it was. Funny thing is that you said previously “if one was to commit adultery, they would be stoned. This is according to the old law” indicating to me that you believed the Ten Commandments was part of the Moses Law.

I then asked how is it that if the laws were the same but had different punishments does that make them different laws. It was that question I kept asking and didn’t see you trying to answer. The replies you gave went along the lines of “The old law taught that if we steal we were to be put to death. The new law says that if we steal then we must repent.” Can you not see that this is not an answer but confirmation that you believe the laws are the same but the punishment has changed? It doesn't explain anything it just affirms it.

Another thing, read the first several responses you gave me at the start of this thread. How do you believe you were answering my questions with questions?

Take Zippthepinhead for example, he mentioned some time back on another thread he had a condition that hampered him in responding so I now attempt to converse with him with as few words as possible. I purposely single out any questions I would like him to answer in as simple a matter as I can. For example I placed this question by itself:

“I bet you have no idea what ‘fulfilled’ means do you? If I enter into a contract (covenant) to repay a debt and I fulfill this contract do I keep on paying?”

His reply was something about breaking the covenants. How is that answering my question? Yes, you are correct when you say that it wasn’t the answer I was expecting because I was expecting an answer to my question. See why I get so frustrated?

Many times when you say you have asked a question, I honestly ask myself what was the question.

Then the correct answer would have been “I don’t know what the question was, would you clarify the question?” I understand that we are speaking two different languages and although we may be using the same words they are totally different concepts so I would not be offended if someone asks for clarification.