Which Laws, if any, does a RM member follow?

Eccl12and13

Regular Member
Jul 23, 2007
236
4
✟15,514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I was told by a RM member that the Laws of the OT does not apply to Christians today.

So let me ask this question....Do you believe none of the Laws of the OT are meant for Chrisians today, or do some still apply? And if some are still to be kept, how do you make the determination which to keep and which to reject?


For instance, when Jesus was asked how to get eternal life, His reply was, ".......but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." 19 Matt 17.


And when asked which ones, He said, ".........Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
[19] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." 19 Matt; 18-19.


Now all of these were originally given by God in the OT. Are only these (6) OT laws to be kept, or are these laws not meant for christians today? And what of the other (4) that were not mentioned? Does the fact that Jesus did not mention them mean they are no longer valid?

Just trying to get a guage on the RM forum.

Thanks.
 

freespiritchurch

Visiting after long absence
Supporter
Jun 22, 2005
1,217
168
51
Ypsilanti
✟49,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
This is a problematic issue, and not only for RM members. The answer given in the early days of the RM is that some of the OT laws (including the laws quoted in Matthew 19) are part of the eternally valid natural law. "Do not kill" and "do not commit adultery" apply everywhere, all the time. On the other hand, the ceremonial laws regarding sacrifices and festivals were given to the Israelites in particular, to be used for their worship, not for everyone. The gist is that there are many OT laws that are valid, but they aren't valid only because they are recorded in the OT--they're confirmed through natural law, or by the words of the New Testament. The main problem with this today is that we know so much more about the variety of social systems and the forces that mold them that "natural law" is much harder to pin down.

The original idea of the Restoration Movement was that we could restore the early church by doing exactly what the New Testament said. I personally believe that the New Testament doesn't provide enough information about the early church's order and worship to recreate a complete system--and that this is a sign that God did not intend us to use the New Testament for that purpose. So I believe that God has given us a great deal of freedom in the design of our worship and church order. Many others here will disagree with me, so I don't want to claim to speak for all (or even most) of the people in RM churches or on this list.

Alan
 
Upvote 0

Loveaboveall

Senior Member
Mar 14, 2007
678
10
✟8,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have been in a "Church of Christ" where only New Testament bibles were supplied and there was never any talk of the OT because "it is no longer valid". But, there are other churches who speak much about the OT and the many truths that can be learned from studying it.

Mr. Constance, I agree that a better line of thinking when using the term "Restoration" would be.... Not trying to copy cat the New Testament church in everything they did, especially when using historical books to fill in the gaps, but rather to restore the true worship of God as He has commanded us to worship Him. At the core of this would be worshipping from the heart rather then focusing on the outward expression which many times can go to far when trying to mimic the early church.
 
Upvote 0

Eccl12and13

Regular Member
Jul 23, 2007
236
4
✟15,514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Eccl12and13,

There's a thread regarding Hebrews that might give you some insight into various views on the subject. (A word of warning: It's long....)

http://foru.ms/t5594692-the-book-of-hebrews.html

Hope that helps.


Thanks for the reply. But just to let you know, I'm not asking for myself. I'm well aware of the Laws I'm to keep and follow. I was asking to see where RM members stand as far as keeping or rejecting the Laws of God.
For that I'm still waiting an answer.


Reading the book of Hebrews is a good start, but did not Jesus say, "....Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matt 4:4

Now at the time Jesus spoke those words the only words God had spoken were contained in the OT.

And as far as doctrine, should not all follow these sayings, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" II Tim 3:16.

Once again the writter is telling everyone that EVERYTHING that is said by God is to be used for doctrine and correction.

With that being said, once again, my question is, how do you determine what is kept and what is rejected?

Just trying to understand how other doctrines are developed!
 
Upvote 0

DerSchweik

Spend time in His Word - every day
Aug 31, 2007
70,184
161,375
Right of center
✟1,879,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Personally, and speaking generally only, I treat the OT law as applicable today, superseded or amended only by the NT.

Obviously, much of the Levitical laws no longer apply - sacrificial and ceremonial laws, etc., but the greater moral laws definitely do. Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it, and in fact gave stronger, stricter application to some of the OT teachings.

Any congregation that no longer teaches or even recognizes the OT is, in my mind, very deluded in their way of thinking about the OT and its relevancy to us today. Moreover, just because one congregation acts weird in their interpretations, does not mean that that weirdness applies to all churches of Christ. We have our kooks like any other non-denominational (or denominational, for that matter) group.

We should be careful and judge righteously before ascribing the practices of one particular group to all who go by a similar name.

In Him,
 
Upvote 0
W

wmssid

Guest
1) You cannot comprehend Ecclesiastes 12 & 13, because the Jews have messed the translation up competely. This iis also true of the rest of the OT.

a) The name is backwards. But it is forewards 28 times in the NT; but corrupted anyway.

"EKKLESIASTES" should read "TES EKKLESIA" (1 Cor 16.1); and corrupted from "EK KLESIA"; meaning 2 words, "from called-out." ["Church" is 1 word, and is not in the Bible.

b) The Hebrew word is TLHQ = "assembly."

c) the plural "Gods" (MYHLA) was translated by the Jews singular "God"" (LA). Jesus translated plural "Gods" (MYHLA) to read plural "Gods" (Theoi). See: Ps 84.6 and Jn 10.34.

Who knows better than Jesus?

d) "The Abel" (BLH), translated, "mourning" 68 times, was corrupted to read, "vanity."

NOTE: In Hebrew often prefixes, such as "H" (the) in this case, suppress (unwritten) the first letter of words. Likewise, suffixes suppress (unwritten) the last letter of a word. So then, "LBH" = "LBA H" = the Abel; or, the mourning.

KJV even wrote, "the man has no preeminence over the beast."

This was followed by, "the spirit of man goes upward to heaven, the spirit of beast goes downward to earth."
You would expect that would have warned them of their error.

CONCERNING THE LAW.

I have shocking news!

In 1992 the Living God taught us (by a public debate) that "God can count to three!"

I am a Bible commentary historian, and no writer since the apostles has believed that "God is allowed to cout to three."

"You, personally, do not beleive that, God is able to count to three"; or, you would not be defending the "abolished law" (Heb 8.13); and literally at least 100 more verses about the "dead law." "Assembly" (Ecclesiastes" to the Jews) is about the death of Israel and the law. See: 3.2; 12.7 = AD 77.]

Listen to Peter: Pre-flood, 2492 BC; 2Pet 3.6; Old Heavens consumed, AD 77; verses 7-10; New Heavens, AD 77 - End of Time; vs 3.13.

3 Kings of Israel: Saul 40 years, Ishbosheth, 2 years, David, 33 years.

The churches have always taught, Saul, David, and Solomon were all 40 years, and David was #2. "3 = 2." This is Mark of Beast.

Jesus 3 days and 3 nights in tomb. Most churches teach "3 = 1.5" confirming "Good Friday."

Life is continually better after you learn to count to three; and the Law is dead!

By the way, in my youth, none of the Protestant churches in my home town believed in the law today. This is a "Johnny-come-lately" heresy.

wmssid
 
Upvote 0

- DRA -

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2004
3,560
96
Texas
✟4,218.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
3 Kings of Israel: Saul 40 years, Ishbosheth, 2 years, David, 33 years.

The churches have always taught, Saul, David, and Solomon were all 40 years, and David was #2. "3 = 2." This is Mark of Beast.

Sorry folks, I'm not deliberately trying to derail the thread, but there's an issue here that needs to be addressed. I'll return to discuss the threat shortly, Lord willing.

---------------------------------

The Mark of the Beast? For acknowledging God's choice for king? Consider ...

Saul was rejected as king by God, and Samuel, under the direct guidance of the Lord, anointed David as the next king:

1 Samuel 16 ...
1 Now the Lord said to Samuel, "How long will you mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go; I am sending you to Jesse the Bethlehemite. For I have provided Myself a king among his sons." 2 And Samuel said, "How can I go? If Saul hears it, he will kill me." And the Lord said, "Take a heifer with you, and say, 'I have come to sacrifice to the Lord.' 3 Then invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; you shall anoint for Me the one I name to you." 4 So Samuel did what the Lord said, and went to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town trembled at his coming, and said, "Do you come peaceably?" 5 And he said, "Peaceably; I have come to sacrifice to the Lord. Sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice." Then he consecrated Jesse and his sons, and invited them to the sacrifice.

6 So it was, when they came, that he looked at Eliab and said, "Surely the Lord's anointed is before Him." 7 But the Lord said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have refused him. For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." 8 So Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, "Neither has the Lord chosen this one." 9 Then Jesse made Shammah pass by. And he said, "Neither has the Lord chosen this one." 10 Thus Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel. And Samuel said to Jesse, "The Lord has not chosen these." 11 And Samuel said to Jesse, "Are all the young men here?" Then he said, "There remains yet the youngest, and there he is, keeping the sheep." And Samuel said to Jesse, "Send and bring him. For we will not sit down till he comes here." 12 So he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, with bright eyes, and good-looking. And the Lord said, "Arise, anoint him; for this is the one!" 13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel arose and went to Ramah.

Granted, Ishbosheth was king for 2 years ... however, let's note how he became king:

2 Samuel 2 ...
8 But Abner the son of Ner, commander of Saul's army, took Ishbosheth the son of Saul and brought him over to Mahanaim; 9 and he made him king over Gilead, over the Ashurites, over Jezreel, over Ephraim, over Benjamin, and over all Israel. 10 Ishbosheth, Saul's son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years. Only the house of Judah followed David.

Therefore, we ask, was Ishbosheth king by God's choice, or simply placed there by men? God's choice for the next king was David. Therefore, he is regarded as the next king.

Also, there's Acts 13 ...
20 After that He [God] gave them judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. 21 And afterward they asked for a king; so God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. 22 And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, 'I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.'

So, do you see Ishbosheth listed there between Saul and David? Did you consider this text before accusing folks of having the "Mark of the Beast?"
 
Upvote 0

- DRA -

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2004
3,560
96
Texas
✟4,218.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I was told by a RM member that the Laws of the OT does not apply to Christians today.

So let me ask this question....Do you believe none of the Laws of the OT are meant for Chrisians today, or do some still apply? And if some are still to be kept, how do you make the determination which to keep and which to reject?


For instance, when Jesus was asked how to get eternal life, His reply was, ".......but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." 19 Matt 17.


And when asked which ones, He said, ".........Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
[19] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." 19 Matt; 18-19.


Now all of these were originally given by God in the OT. Are only these (6) OT laws to be kept, or are these laws not meant for christians today? And what of the other (4) that were not mentioned? Does the fact that Jesus did not mention them mean they are no longer valid?

Just trying to get a guage on the RM forum.

Thanks.

The Law of Moses was given exclusively to the Israelites (see Exodus 19:1-4 as the audience is described for the giving of the old law, as well as Romans 2:14 - the Gentiles were not under the law the Jews were). That law was nailed to the cross by the Lord per Colossians 2:14. After Jesus' death, His testament (or will) went into effect per Hebrews 9:16-17. Borrowing from that imagery, we can think of the sermon in Acts 2 as the reading of Jesus' will, with His authority being declared (see Matthew 28:18 and Acts 2:36).

While it is true that Christians are not under the law of Moses today, it does not mean we have no use for the law. In fact, Romans 15:4 declares we should learn from the former writings, as does 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 and Hebrews 3:7 - 4:11.

As for which O.T. laws are binding for Christians, I suggest giving some thought to Acts 15, and the conclusion drawn by the council in Jerusalem. Other than the things mentioned here, the only laws from the O.T. that are binding to the Christian today are those that were incorporated into the law of Christ - which included nine of the Ten Commandments, with the exception of the fourth. Does this make sense? It isn't by a pick-and-choose methodology, but simply the ones the Lord and/or the apostles taught were applicable under the gospel of Christ. Using Matthew 19 as an example, note verse 7. Jesus' point is that Moses' provision for divorce would no longer be applicable under the gospel. Rather, there would only be one reason for divorce and remarriage the Lord would accept under His law - for adultery (verse 9). Therefore, Moses' law concerning divorce isn't applicable today under the gospel. Make sense?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
W

wmssid

Guest
Sorry folks, I'm not deliberately trying to derail the thread, but there's an issue here that needs to be addressed. I'll return to discuss the threat shortly, Lord willing.

---------------------------------

The Mark of the Beast? For acknowledging God's choice for king? Consider ...

Saul was rejected as king by God, and Samuel, under the direct guidance of the Lord, anointed David as the next king:

1 Samuel 16 ...
1 Now the Lord said to Samuel, "How long will you mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go; I am sending you to Jesse the Bethlehemite. For I have provided Myself a king among his sons." 2 And Samuel said, "How can I go? If Saul hears it, he will kill me." And the Lord said, "Take a heifer with you, and say, 'I have come to sacrifice to the Lord.' 3 Then invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; you shall anoint for Me the one I name to you." 4 So Samuel did what the Lord said, and went to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town trembled at his coming, and said, "Do you come peaceably?" 5 And he said, "Peaceably; I have come to sacrifice to the Lord. Sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice." Then he consecrated Jesse and his sons, and invited them to the sacrifice.

6 So it was, when they came, that he looked at Eliab and said, "Surely the Lord's anointed is before Him." 7 But the Lord said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have refused him. For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." 8 So Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, "Neither has the Lord chosen this one." 9 Then Jesse made Shammah pass by. And he said, "Neither has the Lord chosen this one." 10 Thus Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel. And Samuel said to Jesse, "The Lord has not chosen these." 11 And Samuel said to Jesse, "Are all the young men here?" Then he said, "There remains yet the youngest, and there he is, keeping the sheep." And Samuel said to Jesse, "Send and bring him. For we will not sit down till he comes here." 12 So he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, with bright eyes, and good-looking. And the Lord said, "Arise, anoint him; for this is the one!" 13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel arose and went to Ramah.

Granted, Ishbosheth was king for 2 years ... however, let's note how he became king:

2 Samuel 2 ...
8 But Abner the son of Ner, commander of Saul's army, took Ishbosheth the son of Saul and brought him over to Mahanaim; 9 and he made him king over Gilead, over the Ashurites, over Jezreel, over Ephraim, over Benjamin, and over all Israel. 10 Ishbosheth, Saul's son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years. Only the house of Judah followed David.

Therefore, we ask, was Ishbosheth king by God's choice, or simply placed there by men? God's choice for the next king was David. Therefore, he is regarded as the next king.

Also, there's Acts 13 ...
20 After that He [God] gave them judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. 21 And afterward they asked for a king; so God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. 22 And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, 'I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.'

So, do you see Ishbosheth listed there between Saul and David? Did you consider this text before accusing folks of having the "Mark of the Beast?"

You have conveniently left out muich of the story.
Why is David said to have ruled "33 years", and again, "40 years and 6 months."

THIS IS ONE OF GOD'S "SEEMINGLY" contradicitions.

Where, and beginnning when, did David rule 33 Years?

Where, and beginning when, did David rule 40 years and 6 months?

The Book of Samuel has the answers to both questions.

What is 40 years and 6 months MINUS 33 years?

Is not the answer 7 years and 6 months?

"In Hebron he reigned over Judah 7 years and 6 months, and in Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah" - 2Sam 5.5.

I learned these facts at the age of 16 years, when I first read the entire Bible in one year.

So then, Ishbosheth was the king of Israel.

David was the king of Judah.

The house of Saul (Ishbosheth) and the house of David had war for 7 years.

But Ishbosheth died after only a 2 year reign.

So then, Israel was without a king for 5 years and 6 months.

I am on this forum looking for intelligent men to discuss the kingdom of God, New Jerusalem.

But you have wounded me deeply with your chidish reply.

10 minutes preparation before your reply would have avoided this false charge against me.

wmssid
 
Upvote 0

- DRA -

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2004
3,560
96
Texas
✟4,218.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally Posted by - DRA -

The Mark of the Beast? For acknowledging God's choice for king? Consider ...

Saul was rejected as king by God, and Samuel, under the direct guidance of the Lord, anointed David as the next king:

1 Samuel 16 ...
1 Now the Lord said to Samuel, "How long will you mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go; I am sending you to Jesse the Bethlehemite. For I have provided Myself a king among his sons." 2 And Samuel said, "How can I go? If Saul hears it, he will kill me." And the Lord said, "Take a heifer with you, and say, 'I have come to sacrifice to the Lord.' 3 Then invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; you shall anoint for Me the one I name to you." 4 So Samuel did what the Lord said, and went to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town trembled at his coming, and said, "Do you come peaceably?" 5 And he said, "Peaceably; I have come to sacrifice to the Lord. Sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice." Then he consecrated Jesse and his sons, and invited them to the sacrifice.

6 So it was, when they came, that he looked at Eliab and said, "Surely the Lord's anointed is before Him." 7 But the Lord said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have refused him. For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." 8 So Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, "Neither has the Lord chosen this one." 9 Then Jesse made Shammah pass by. And he said, "Neither has the Lord chosen this one." 10 Thus Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel. And Samuel said to Jesse, "The Lord has not chosen these." 11 And Samuel said to Jesse, "Are all the young men here?" Then he said, "There remains yet the youngest, and there he is, keeping the sheep." And Samuel said to Jesse, "Send and bring him. For we will not sit down till he comes here." 12 So he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, with bright eyes, and good-looking. And the Lord said, "Arise, anoint him; for this is the one!" 13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel arose and went to Ramah.

Granted, Ishbosheth was king for 2 years ... however, let's note how he became king:

2 Samuel 2 ...
8 But Abner the son of Ner, commander of Saul's army, took Ishbosheth the son of Saul and brought him over to Mahanaim; 9 and he made him king over Gilead, over the Ashurites, over Jezreel, over Ephraim, over Benjamin, and over all Israel. 10 Ishbosheth, Saul's son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years. Only the house of Judah followed David.

Therefore, we ask, was Ishbosheth king by God's choice, or simply placed there by men? God's choice for the next king was David. Therefore, he is regarded as the next king.

Also, there's Acts 13 ...
20 After that He [God] gave them judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. 21 And afterward they asked for a king; so God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. 22 And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, 'I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.'

So, do you see Ishbosheth listed there between Saul and David? Did you consider this text before accusing folks of having the "Mark of the Beast?"

You have conveniently left out muich of the story.
Why is David said to have ruled "33 years", and again, "40 years and 6 months."

THIS IS ONE OF GOD'S "SEEMINGLY" contradicitions.

Where, and beginnning when, did David rule 33 Years?

Where, and beginning when, did David rule 40 years and 6 months?

The Book of Samuel has the answers to both questions.

What is 40 years and 6 months MINUS 33 years?

Is not the answer 7 years and 6 months?

"In Hebron he reigned over Judah 7 years and 6 months, and in Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah" - 2Sam 5.5.

I learned these facts at the age of 16 years, when I first read the entire Bible in one year.

So then, Ishbosheth was the king of Israel.

David was the king of Judah.

The house of Saul (Ishbosheth) and the house of David had war for 7 years.

But Ishbosheth died after only a 2 year reign.

So then, Israel was without a king for 5 years and 6 months.

I am on this forum looking for intelligent men to discuss the kingdom of God, New Jerusalem.

But you have wounded me deeply with your chidish reply.

10 minutes preparation before your reply would have avoided this false charge against me.

wmssid

Sorry my childish reply was so far beneath your wisdom and insight into God's word. However, the fact remains that I was addressing your chiding of listing Israel's kings over the united kingdom as Saul, David, and Solomon, instead of Saul, Ishbosheth, and David as you suggested. I can't help but note you didn't address the issue at hand, but shifted the topic to the 40 yrs, which is a generalization for the time each king reigned. That leaves me equally impressed with your reply. It makes me really look forward to the other open discussions in which we are engaged.

Now, before moving on, would you like to comment on why your conclusion didn't agree with texts I provided? Or is this red herring your final answer?
 
Upvote 0
W

wmssid

Guest
Originally Posted by - DRA -

The Mark of the Beast? For acknowledging God's choice for king? Consider ...

Saul was rejected as king by God, and Samuel, under the direct guidance of the Lord, anointed David as the next king:

1 Samuel 16 ...
1 Now the Lord said to Samuel, "How long will you mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go; I am sending you to Jesse the Bethlehemite. For I have provided Myself a king among his sons." 2 And Samuel said, "How can I go? If Saul hears it, he will kill me." And the Lord said, "Take a heifer with you, and say, 'I have come to sacrifice to the Lord.' 3 Then invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; you shall anoint for Me the one I name to you." 4 So Samuel did what the Lord said, and went to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town trembled at his coming, and said, "Do you come peaceably?" 5 And he said, "Peaceably; I have come to sacrifice to the Lord. Sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice." Then he consecrated Jesse and his sons, and invited them to the sacrifice.

6 So it was, when they came, that he looked at Eliab and said, "Surely the Lord's anointed is before Him." 7 But the Lord said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have refused him. For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." 8 So Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, "Neither has the Lord chosen this one." 9 Then Jesse made Shammah pass by. And he said, "Neither has the Lord chosen this one." 10 Thus Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel. And Samuel said to Jesse, "The Lord has not chosen these." 11 And Samuel said to Jesse, "Are all the young men here?" Then he said, "There remains yet the youngest, and there he is, keeping the sheep." And Samuel said to Jesse, "Send and bring him. For we will not sit down till he comes here." 12 So he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, with bright eyes, and good-looking. And the Lord said, "Arise, anoint him; for this is the one!" 13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel arose and went to Ramah.

Granted, Ishbosheth was king for 2 years ... however, let's note how he became king:

2 Samuel 2 ...
8 But Abner the son of Ner, commander of Saul's army, took Ishbosheth the son of Saul and brought him over to Mahanaim; 9 and he made him king over Gilead, over the Ashurites, over Jezreel, over Ephraim, over Benjamin, and over all Israel. 10 Ishbosheth, Saul's son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years. Only the house of Judah followed David.

Therefore, we ask, was Ishbosheth king by God's choice, or simply placed there by men? God's choice for the next king was David. Therefore, he is regarded as the next king.

Also, there's Acts 13 ...
20 After that He [God] gave them judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. 21 And afterward they asked for a king; so God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. 22 And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, 'I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.'

So, do you see Ishbosheth listed there between Saul and David? Did you consider this text before accusing folks of having the "Mark of the Beast?"



Sorry my childish reply was so far beneath your wisdom and insight into God's word. However, the fact remains that I was addressing your chiding of listing Israel's kings over the united kingdom as Saul, David, and Solomon, instead of Saul, Ishbosheth, and David as you suggested. I can't help but note you didn't address the issue at hand, but shifted the topic to the 40 yrs, which is a generalization for the time each king reigned. That leaves me equally impressed with your reply. It makes me really look forward to the other open discussions in which we are engaged.

Now, before moving on, would you like to comment on why your conclusion didn't agree with texts I provided? Or is this red herring your final answer?

My answer perfectly agrees with all of your quotes.

In the Bible we have "partial lists" and "complete lists" regularly.

The weak in faith are led to stumble over the "partial lists."

The more mature accept the "complete lists" as the final reference.

A) Saul - 1 Samuel.
B) Ishbosheth - 2 Samuel 2.8 through 4.12.
C) David - 2 Samuel 5.1-5.

This is the exact chronoogical order of the first 3 kings of Israel.

NOTE: Israel (Ishbosheth) was at war with Judah (David). David was not only, not a king of Israel, but he was not even a citizen of Israel; for he was at war with Israel.

wmssid
 
Upvote 0

- DRA -

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2004
3,560
96
Texas
✟4,218.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My answer perfectly agrees with all of your quotes.

In the Bible we have "partial lists" and "complete lists" regularly.

The weak in faith are led to stumble over the "partial lists."

The more mature accept the "complete lists" as the final reference.

A) Saul - 1 Samuel.
B) Ishbosheth - 2 Samuel 2.8 through 4.12.
C) David - 2 Samuel 5.1-5.

This is the exact chronoogical order of the first 3 kings of Israel.

NOTE: Israel (Ishbosheth) was at war with Judah (David). David was not only, not a king of Israel, but he was not even a citizen of Israel; for he was at war with Israel.

wmssid

Acts 13:21-22 (NKJV) says, "And afterward they asked for a king; so God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, 'I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.' "

Do you see Ishbosheth listed between Saul and David? Are you more "mature" than Luke, who wrote this book? More specifically, are you more "mature" that God, who inspired all Scripture per 2 Timothy 3:16a?
 
Upvote 0
W

wmssid

Guest
Reply to DRA;

I have read all yur quotes about Saul and David (in which you were careful to not mention God's record of Ishbosheth) -- I have read them carefully.

And not a one of them reads that David would be "the next king" as you are cotending.

Who chose Ishbosheth, God or man?

"And He has on the robe and on the thigh of Him a name having been written, 'King of kings and Lord of lords" - Rev 19.16.

The pagan Nebuchanezzar was, "the servant of Me," and the pagan kings od Assyria were "the rod of Me" and the pagan Cyrus the Persian was "the anointed of Me" and "the sheperd of Me."

AL KINGS WERE APPOINTED BY GOD!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

thelovershate

Newbie
Feb 18, 2009
4
0
✟15,114.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
i believe that the OT should not be ignored. The reason why we are christians now is because of salvation. If there were'nt laws, there wont be sin, there wont be punishment and there wont be salvation. The OT tells us the change in history, before and after Jesus died for us. It is still valid. In the sense that at least we know what the situation was like, even if the present is different from the past.
 
Upvote 0

pegg

Newbie
Feb 16, 2007
2
0
✟15,112.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I was told by a RM member that the Laws of the OT does not apply to Christians today.

So let me ask this question....Do you believe none of the Laws of the OT are meant for Chrisians today, or do some still apply? And if some are still to be kept, how do you make the determination which to keep and which to reject?


For instance, when Jesus was asked how to get eternal life, His reply was, ".......but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." 19 Matt 17.


And when asked which ones, He said, ".........Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
[19] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." 19 Matt; 18-19.


Now all of these were originally given by God in the OT. Are only these (6) OT laws to be kept, or are these laws not meant for christians today? And what of the other (4) that were not mentioned? Does the fact that Jesus did not mention them mean they are no longer valid?

Just trying to get a guage on the RM forum.

Thanks.
"On August 30, 1816, at the Redstone Association meeting, when a speaker unexpectedly canceled because of illness, Alexander [Campbell] was reluctantly invited to preach. He delivered perhaps his most famous and influential sermon, entitled "Sermon on the Law," based on Romans 8:3.

God, he said, was a covenant maker. God dealt with humankind: through a succession of covenants. The Ole Testament and the New Testament not, claimed Campbell, a single covenant; and the New Testament was not an extension of the Old. The coming of Christ introduced a whole new covenant. The Old Testament tells of a covenant of law with Hebrew and Jewish institutions, including a specific nation. The New Testament tells of a new covenant in Christ with terms for the whole human race. The Old Testament was a covenant under law; the New, a covenant under grace; the Old, the law of Moses; the New, faith in Christ. He reminded his listeners that Jesus said, "Teach disciples all I have commanded," not what Moses commanded. He asked his listeners if they were disciples of Moses or disciples of Christ." - D. Duane Cumminis, The Disciples, A Struggle For Reformation, pg. 56-57
 
Upvote 0

ec4v12

Don't give up the sheep!
Mar 3, 2011
8
0
Here
Visit site
✟7,618.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Interesting someone would mention Acts 15. The directive of the council made it very clear that they assumed the believers would hear Moses taught in the synagogues on the Shabbat. Mmmmmmmmmm? Why would they assume that if the "law" had no value? Just askin'
 
Upvote 0

Adrian Z

Spiritually Caressed.
May 24, 2011
20
0
✟7,632.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Matthew 5

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.


Romans 13

8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums