Things to consider about the Ten Commandments

[VictorC]

Do you know what "righteous judgments" mean? The other nations already had the law; they knew it was sinful to murder or steal, but did they judge the jews righteously when they dwelt in Egypt? Your theories lack much practice; you must read the scriptures while shining the light of torah.

Not only can you not answer Moses, but you're reduced to speculation that is clearly contrary to Scripture.

 

[VictorC]

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see the word covenant ANYWHERE in the verse you quote at the end there. Definitely not in the Greek.

You will find in in chapter 8 where the term is introduced.

 

[mercy1061]

Not only can you not answer Moses, but you're reduced to speculation that is clearly contrary to Scripture.

RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENTS are contrary to scripture? Now I know, you want to be right, you seek to establish your own righteousness that can not be clearly explained; you do not have a "willingness to be wrong" so that you may repent.

 

[tzadik]

Not only can you not answer Moses, but you're reduced to speculation that is clearly contrary to Scripture.

Where there Gentiles, foreigners and strangers present when God spoke on Mt. Sinai?

Did Gentiles, foreigners, strangers and Egyptians also enter into covenant with the God of Israel at Sinai?

 

[VictorC]

You dont understand the simple truth, that the commandments given at Mt Sinai were not the FIRST covenant, there were covenants before Mt Sinai; like the sign of circumcision given to Abraham REPEATED within the laws Moses gave to Israel; the holy commandments given at Mt Sinai were a CONTINUATION of the covenant given to Israel's grandfather Abraham. You do not know what was taken away, then you want me to answer you, who took it away? A thief that steals, WHAT was stolen determines whether that man is indeed a theif. If what the theif took already belonged to him, then that man is innocent; he is not a theif! "Thou shall not steal"....

The simple truth is that you don't accept Scripture, and have to blather on about nonsense to justify your rejection of Holy Writ. Who took away the covenant from Mount Sinai?

 

[VictorC]

Where there Gentiles, foreigners and strangers present when God spoke on Mt. Sinai?

Did Gentiles, foreigners, strangers and Egyptians also enter into covenant with the God of Israel at Sinai?

Each of your statements ends with a question mark. Can you answer Moses' question?

 

[mercy1061]

The simple truth is that you don't accept Scripture, and have to blather on about nonsense to justify your rejection of Holy Writ. Who took away the covenant from Mount Sinai?

Where is it written that he took away the covenant at Mt. Sinai?

 

[VictorC]

RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENTS are contrary to scripture? Now I know, you want to be right, you seek to establish your own righteousness that can not be clearly explained; you do not have a "willingness to be wrong" so that you may repent.

Repent of what? Acknowledging God's righteous judgment, that you can't seem to reconcile your posts with?

 

[VictorC]

Where is it written that he took away the covenant at Mt. Sinai?

Please answer the question.

 

[mercy1061]

Repent of what? Acknowledging God's righteous judgment, that you can't seem to reconcile your posts with?

Where is it EXPLICITLY written that he took away the covanant at Mt. Sinai? What I mean by explicit, where it is EXACTLY written that he took away the covenant at Mt. Sinai?

 

[from scratch]

John 1:17 DOES NOT say that of Jesus. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. How does that say that Jesus did not teach the law? How does that compare with the fact that Jesus said He did not come to change the law?
How does Jesus teach His own commandments? Is His commandments different from that of His Father's? You would hold that view after Jesus Himself said that He and His Father are one? After Jesus said that if you see Him you see the Father? The point is that the Holy Spirit, the son and the Father work under the same principles so how can Jesus now have different rules than that of the father? Even Paul confirms the oneness of operation.
Cor. 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

John 1:17 is a statement of contrast and not a statement of equals.

Where does Jesus teach the law especially as a requirement for salvation? Quote it with full context in the light of the complete Bible.

God the Father and God the Son aren't the same as you intend. Yes I just admitted they're both God. I also mean they're both the same God. The FoB statement in your churches declaration isn't a Trinity statement which you deny anyway with your the Father and Jesus are one statement.

Jesus didn't say when you lock eyes on Me you're actually locking eyes on God the Father.

That's right Jesus didn't come to change the law. Jesus came to fulfill the law and did. That effectively makes the law covenant (a contract) completed and not only for the archives. The evidence is found in the New Testament. The easiest verse to show the law is either changed of done away with is Heb 7:12 IMHO. There are 4 choices the verse presents -

• the law is no longer valid
• the priesthood isn't part of the law
• Jesus is a sinner
• the verse is an outright lie

Take your pick. It can be multiple choice.

Paul isn't stating God the Father is in Jesus Christ. The Greek word is also translated by. And In this case that is exactly what God the was doing through Jesus, God the Son just as He (God the Father) promised in the beginning (Gen 3:15).

I quote v 20 for proof -

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

To further back up my statement I quote v 18 thru 20 to show what Paul is saying -

18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Paul definitely doesn't say within Jesus implying that God the Father is inside of Jesus being one in that sense.

Did the Father contradict His own Commandments as Jesus did all that He did in His father will? John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Its not a matter of contradiction but one of replacement as God promised through His prophets. But you don't believe that either.

The law says that we should have no other God! Are you saying that according to Paul we are deliver from that law? Did not Paul say Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Romans 3:31. How can Paul mean that there is no law for us and yet say that we establish the law? Would it not make sense to understand Paul as meaning that we are not under the condemnation of the law because we have Christ our salvation?

So you make Paul a contradictory fool. What's new? You must prove Paul is a total jerk to promote your doctrine. So far its very unsuccessful except in your own mind. No one like to be wrong or admit such.

Is it matter of choosing law over grace? Or having grace to Worship God alone? Grace to love your neighbour as yourself.

Matter of fact it is -

5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. This have nothing to do with the Ten commandments. Heb. 8: Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
Paul makes it clear that he was talking about the priesthood. That Christ was not a Levi.

13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

And its clear that Paul said Jesus is a priest. Who's your priest? If its not Jesus, you're not a Christian. This indeed changes the jots and tittles of the law. Therefore the law is fulfilled as LK 24:44 states and shows the full meaning of Mat 5:17-18.

 

[tzadik]

The simple truth is that you don't accept Scripture, and have to blather on about nonsense to justify your rejection of Holy Writ. Who took away the covenant from Mount Sinai?

Hebrews 10:9 does not say that anyone took away any covenant....

It is assumed into the verse...

 

[mercy1061]

Please answer the question.

I can not answer your question, because your question assumes a falsehood as truth. Where it is EXACTLY written that he took away the covenant at Mt. Sinai?

 

[tzadik]

Please answer the question.

It's like me asking you "how do pigs fly?"
ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I must first prove to you that pigs fly.

Hebrews 10:9 says NOTHING about getting rid of a covenant.

 

[VictorC]

I can not answer your question, because your answer assumes a falsehood as truth. Where it is EXACTLY written that he took away the covenant at Mt. Sinai?

It's like me asking you "how do pigs fly?"
ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I must first prove to you that pigs fly.

Hebrews 10:9 says NOTHING about getting rid of a covenant.

Both of you have a problem on your hands. Neither of you can respond to the obvious reference of 'He' Who took away the first covenant, which is the one declared at Mount Sinai. Why is this?

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has had a clean up and will have more of a clean up in all likelyhood.

Flaming the other member is not necessary. Keep your post about the content and topic and NOT the other member.

 

[tzadik]

Both of you have a problem on your hands. Neither of you can respond to the obvious reference of 'He' Who took away the first covenant, which is the one declared at Mount Sinai. Why is this?

See what you're doing there Victor...

The verse says "he took away the first to establish the second"....

You make two assumptions.
1. assume that the word covenant should be placed after the word first.
2. assume that the already assumed word covenant, is the covenant made at Mt. Sinai.

You are asking a question based on an assumption that is built upon another assumption, and expecting me to answer your 2x assumptive question.

 

[from scratch]

Gen 2: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Grace prevented Adam and Eve from dying that day. Eternal death was theirs from that moment.
Grace prevented David's death at the time of His actions.
The bible said Noah found Grace. Genesis 6:8 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
You want to try again or reject God word?

Very Now show where that provision is in the law by the law. BTW the law didn't exist in Noah's day according to the same Book of the Law.

 

[VictorC]

See what you're doing there Victor...

The verse says "he took away the first to establish the second"....

You make two assumptions.
1. assume that the word covenant should be placed after the word first.
2. assume that the already assumed word covenant, is the covenant made at Mt. Sinai.

You are asking a question based on an assumption that is built upon another assumption, and expecting me to answer your 2x assumptive question.

No, it doesn't say that - and I pointed out the translators recognition of capitalizing the pronoun 'He' for good reason. Use another translation if necessary to see this.

 

[from scratch]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

Dis you not read what Paul said in that respect? " law was ordained to life" Not me Paul, bible!
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
You make it sound like it is our own words it is not! God said it and I believe God!
​

Wait a minute!!! I quoted exactly what Paul said and I am perverting Paul's words?
There is perversion but look for the source again, because it is not originating with the word of God that I quoted!

Oh my. I'd get reported for posting the truth here. Therefore I shall restrain and refrain.