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.
Not Ten Commandments. The first 5 books.The law of Moses is one of the ways the New Testament refers to the Ten Commandments.
If it weren't for the first 5 books of the Bible you would have no record of the Ten Commandments which are called the law and the covenant in the Bible.Not Ten Commandments. The first 5 books.
The total picture is there if you care to read the Bible.
- Origin. Moses did not create this law. Moses did not ask for these tenants. They belong to God, they were given by Him. He required them of His people.
- So it was OK with God for the surrounding people to steal kill and worship idols? I wonder why He got rid of them.
He required them of the children of Israel, but never conveyed the old covenant Law to the Gentiles, nor to His own adopted children. This is what you're attempting to conceal in your blanket term "His people", that expresses a rejection of Christians as God's people via His election.
- Origin. Moses did not create this law. Moses did not ask for these tenants. They belong to God, they were given by Him. He required them of His people.
I wonder why you question God's Word and reach for the same argument Paul tells us those using are worthy of condemnation in Romans 3:8.
- So it was OK with God for the surrounding people to steal kill and worship idols? I wonder why He got rid of them.
But there is a lot of difference in making this statement and the previous one.If it weren't for the first 5 books of the Bible you would have no record of the Ten Commandments which are called the law and the covenant in the Bible.
Next verse. 9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;He required them of the children of Israel, but never conveyed the old covenant Law to the Gentiles, nor to His own adopted children. This is what you're attempting to conceal in your blanket term "His people", that expresses a rejection of Christians as God's people via His election.
I wonder why you question God's Word and reach for the same argument Paul tells us those using are worthy of condemnation in Romans 3:8.
Next verse. 9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
What is sin? 1 John 3
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.It is clear that both the Jews that had the law and the Gentles that had not the law are in the same boat. Same condemnation.
So is it really that the law did not apply to no one but the Jews?
Not really as Moses clearly says the Ten Commandments are the covenant also called the law.But there is a lot of difference in making this statement and the previous one.
If someone is given something and they "keep" it... is it not theirs now?
- Origin. Moses did not create this law. Moses did not ask for these tenants. They belong to God, they were given by Him. He required them of His people.
- So it was OK with God for the surrounding people to steal kill and worship idols? I wonder why He got rid of them.
Next verse. 9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
What is sin? 1 John 3
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.It is clear that both the Jews that had the law and the Gentles that had not the law are in the same boat. Same condemnation.
So is it really that the law did not apply to no one but the Jews?
Not quite Elder...Paul also teaches that where there is no law there is no sin
Pretty much takes care of the often abused 1 John 3:4b.Just to correct a simple oversight:
Romans 4
14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
Paul differentiates between sin and transgressions, and maybe you jumped ahead and were thinking of Romans 5:13 where it says "For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law".
So Sin should not be defined as it is in 1 John 3: 4? If that is your position?Notice that you correctly show that sin is present in both those who had the Law and those who didn't...
...and then question the limited jurisdiction of the Law you just admitted it has!
This plus your limited definition of sin doesn't distinguish between sin and transgression, and can't explain how sin existed prior to the covenant Law mediated through Moses. Hint: sin's origin is via a transgression that isn't even found in the covenant from Mount Sinai.
But anyway, your posts reveal that your whole mindset is dependent on questioning God's Word - "did God really say...?" Yes, He did.
So Sin should not be defined as it is in 1 John 3: 4? If that is your position?
Why should I ignore a plain statement of the bible?Is that your sole comment? This seems to confirm your 'position' as arguing not only against Scripture, but against yourself as well.
Why should I ignore a plain statement of the bible?
Sin is breaking the law. There is therefore no sin before Sinai that is not also the breaking of the law.
First. Eating of the tree. Adam and Eve placed themselves/serpent above God. Idol worship. God said one thing they listened to someone other than God. He was not first/only God.
There is no sin that is not a violation of the Ten Commandments.
I am sticking with the 47.83% in responding to the following poll question.Well, you successfully determined the origin of sin in mankind, via a transgression of a commandment found in Genesis 2:16-17.
Now, go find that commandment in the covenant from Mount Sinai. It isn't there. And I'm sure you've already seen my post to another member quoting Romans 5:13 showing that sin existed before the Law did. What you have done is select a sound-bite from John, and John himself added to his definition of sin when he wrote "All unrighteousness is sin" in v5:17 in the very same epistle. Sin transgresses the Law, but we know the limited tenure of the Law that was added for transgressions 430 years after the promise to Abraham we're dependent on for our salvation.
You contradicted yourself when you observed that Gentiles are guilty of sin concurrent with your admission that they didn't have the Ten Commandments. From the above, your conclusion is totally fallacious. You're ignoring lots of plain statements from the Bible.
I am sticking with the 47.83% in responding to the following poll question.
The principles of the Ten Commandments is what Jesus meant will not change. Mat 5:17-19.
Jesus clearly stated nothing shall change in connection with the Ten Commandments.
Sorry, I going with Jesus.
No transgressing the law is breaking the law. Sin was before the law so It couldn't be breaking the law.Why should I ignore a plain statement of the bible?
Sin is breaking the law. There is therefore no sin before Sinai that is not also the breaking of the law.
First. Eating of the tree. Adam and Eve placed themselves/serpent above God. Idol worship. God said one thing they listened to someone other than God. He was not first/only God. There is no sin that is not a violation of the Ten Commandments.
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?