Who did Moses chat with?

[from scratch]

well, here's the record!!!

Matthew 5:17-19(NKJV)
17“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18For 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.
19Whoever 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.

Which commandments are Jesus referring to at this point in the Sermon on the Mount? I didn't see anything quoted from the law at this point. Which commandments is He referring after the this statement? Jesus says very clearly you have heard it said by them of old time and quotes commandments then says But I say unto you... Now I ask what is Jesus teaching? The law and commandments? Hardly! Also consider this once more as if you ever have - The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Does that cut Jesus out?

see, you don't take time out to see what He said.

He came to fulfill. fulfill what? remember what He said to john the baptist?

Yes Jesus did. Now what does fulfill mean? And didn't Jesus do it as testified in Lk 24:44? - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me.

Matthew 3:15(NKJV)
15But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him.

here again, Jesus is talking about fulfilling. and in the instance with john the baptist, He was fulfilling this verse:

Deuteronomy 18:15(NKJV)
15“The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear,

He not only set the example for the christian, He also fulfilled the prophesy of moses, by rising out of the water!

now, in matthew 5, Jesus is fufilling isaiah 42! He's expanding on the spiritual implications of the law, magnifying like most versions put it.

All things considered I think this speaks of Paul. First John the Baptist left no written testiomony about anything as Moses did. John the Baptist led no one out of bondage, but the Apostle Paul surely does if one will only listen. Jesus wasn't quite like His brethern in that Jesus was also God and had no earthly father.

Isaiah 42:21(NKJV)
21 The Lord is well pleased for His righteousness’ sake; He will exalt the law and make it honorable.

Isaiah 42:21(KJV)
21The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

Isaiah 42:21(ESV)
21 The Lord was pleased, for his righteousness’ sake, to magnify his law and make it glorious.

And the glory of Jesus out shines Moses and the law. II Cor 3.

here's the word for exalt/magnify from strong's:

H1431

גָּדַל

gâdal

gaw-dal'

A primitive root; properly to twist (compare H1434), that is, to be (causatively make) large (in various senses, as in body, mind, estate or honor, also in pride):—advance, boast, bring up, exceed, excellent, be (-come, do, give, make, wax), great (-er, come to . . estate, + things), grow (up), increase, lift up, magnify (-ifical), be much set by, nourish (up), pass, promote, proudly [spoken], tower.

the bible is clear that Jesus did not come to do away with the law of God, rather, it shows that He had things to do concerning the law that He had to fulfill, not just living by the law, but adding to the teaching of the law.

Please explain Romans 10:4.

so, for you to say that Jesus did not teach commandments, you could be no more wrong than you are with your reasoning.

I refer you back to LK 16:16 quoted above.

bottom line is you can't answer this question:

how can Jesus speak of teaching commandments (mat 5:19) and not teach them Himself? (again, defies logic!)

Bottom line is I demonstrated from Scripture that Jesus did no such thing as you prepose.

 

[Lion King]

did you post this which I already replied to in post 159? - From Scratch, what you fail to realize is that God and Jesus Christ are one....God's Laws are also Jesus Christ's Laws, there is absolutely no difference between them. The Scriptures speak for themselves.

That doesn't sound like saying anything about laws to me.

I was speaking about there being no difference between God's Laws and Jesus Christ's Laws.

 

[from scratch]

I was speaking about there being no difference between God's Laws and Jesus Christ's Laws.

OK now I see what I read over without seeing. Thanks for helping me out there.

Now I'll go back and look at your post again. ITMT I'll say that John 15:10 shows a difference.

 

[Norah63]

Oops! sorry I jumped in on an ongoing deal.

 

[from scratch]

Lion KIng

I posted this to Stryder

How can My commandments be the same as My Father's commandments?

The complete post can be located by clicking on the little blue square with the arrow in it above the quote.

You replied

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brothers, like to you, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." Deuteronomy 18:18-19

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatever I speak therefore, even as the Father said to me, so I speak." John 12:49-50


From Scratch, what you fail to realize is that God and Jesus Christ are one....God's Laws are also Jesus Christ's Laws, there is absolutely no difference between them. The Scriptures speak for themselves.

Nice Scripture. I very much appreaciate it. I have responded to the Deuteronomy quote with saying that I think it refers to Paul and why. I also said this more recently to John Rabbit in response to Mat 3:15 and Deut 18:5 which would also apply to your quote above from Deut 18:18-19 -

All things considered I think this speaks of Paul. First John the Baptist left no written testiomony about anything as Moses did. John the Baptist led no one out of bondage, but the Apostle Paul surely does if one will only listen. Jesus wasn't quite like His brethern in that Jesus was also God and had no earthly father.

I do think that your statements here reflect a denial of the trinity - http://www.christianforums.com/t7595576-17/#post58718511 . So in following your comments it appears that you are making 2 issues - one about the trinity and the other about the law. It seems to me that you also make the point of loving and hating God with your verses of 14:10 and 24. You missed v 15 some how. I think this is very much off topic.

I don't recall much responding to the John quote. In light of what I think you said your verse literally means that Jesus is a puppet. The law no where claims to be or give/provide life everlasting. So even if these words are merely quotes from God the Father they are different than from the law. John 15:10 shows a difference in and of commandments. Jesus didn't say keep My Father's commandments. Isn't that what you're trying to say?

In my response to John Rabbit here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7595576-19/#post58727721 I showed/proved that Jesus didn't teach the law or the commandments.

The subject of the thread is Who Spoke to Moses. So how does your post show this?

So why did I over look your point about God's laws and Jesus' laws being the same? First it isn't emphasized in your post as a point. It is rather hidden in the mix. Secondly it isn't the topic of the thread. Thirdly the comment is sandwiched between 2 phrases dealing directly with the thread.

NTL your point is appropriate to the thread because of John 15:10.

My desire is that I've been complete enought to address your points.

 

[Stryder06]

... He says very clearly you have heard it said.... but I say. This indicated a difference from what was said - namely the law which includes the 10 Cs.

What Jesus was doing was establishing what was suppose to be versus what was. The leaders twisted the law to suit their desires. Christ was having none of that.

 

[Stryder06]

I offered you the opportunity to explain John 15:10 and you didn't take it.

How can My commandments be the same as My Father's commandments?

Jesus didn't ask us to follow His Father's commandents. Jesus ask us to follow His commandments, twice infact. And in the same way that Jesus followed His Father's commandments. There is that little word as in 15:10. Jesus didn't claim the Father's commandments were His. Jesus clearly takes possession of the commandments He issued.

What commandments did Jesus keep? I assume that we can safely say Jesus kept all the commandments which include the 10 Cs. Now the question is did He keep some other commandments by His Father? I see no Scripture to back that idea up. So please provide it or admit that you're making an assumption based on nothing more than a desire to prove a point. That is no proof.

We know from Scripture Ps 14:3 and 53:3 that no one has kept the law. I can also provide quotes from Paul such as Rom 3:10, 12.

We've been down this road already. God said that David kept His law. He also said that Abraham kept His law. Your understanding of what it means to keep the law is what's in error. That said, you see no scripture to back up anything that you don't want to see. Again, if Jesus has His own laws, and the Father has His own laws, who is suppose to follow what? If you think the Disicples were given new laws, state them. Show them. I don't need to "explain" John 15:10 to you. It speaks for itself.

This whole thread is unnecessary. Didn't Jesus say "Before Abraham was I AM"? Oh, but wait, there's an explanation for that right? Jesus wasn't really saying that He was the I Am of the Old Testament right? The people were just about to stone Him for saying that because claiming to be "I Am" was against the law right? Please. You're so desperate to justify not keeping the law of God that you'll twist the very words of God to suit your own understanding.

Again, God the Father doesn't have His own set of laws which are contrary to some set of laws that Jesus has. Take note that John says "...and the ark of his (God) covenant was seen". So yeah, your problems just keep mounting up since you think the law of God was done away with, because that verse right there says otherwise, without any if, and's, or buts to it.

 

[Lion King]

Lion KIng

I posted this to Stryder
The complete post can be located by clicking on the little blue square with the arrow in it above the quote.

You replied
Nice Scripture. I very much appreaciate it. I have responded to the Deuteronomy quote with saying that I think it refers to Paul and why. I also said this more recently to John Rabbit in response to Mat 3:15 and Deut 18:5 which would also apply to your quote above from Deut 18:18-19 - I do think that your statements here reflect a denial of the trinity - http://www.christianforums.com/t7595576-17/#post58718511 . So in following your comments it appears that you are making 2 issues - one about the trinity and the other about the law. It seems to me that you also make the point of loving and hating God with your verses of 14:10 and 24. You missed v 15 some how. I think this is very much off topic.

I don't recall much responding to the John quote. In light of what I think you said your verse literally means that Jesus is a puppet. The law no where claims to be or give/provide life everlasting. So even if these words are merely quotes from God the Father they are different than from the law. John 15:10 shows a difference in and of commandments. Jesus didn't say keep My Father's commandments. Isn't that what you're trying to say?

In my response to John Rabbit here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7595576-19/#post58727721 I showed/proved that Jesus didn't teach the law or the commandments.

The subject of the thread is Who Spoke to Moses. So how does your post show this?

So why did I over look your point about God's laws and Jesus' laws being the same? First it isn't emphasized in your post as a point. It is rather hidden in the mix. Secondly it isn't the topic of the thread. Thirdly the comment is sandwiched between 2 phrases dealing directly with the thread.

NTL your point is appropriate to the thread because of John 15:10.

My desire is that I've been complete enought to address your points.

A man only sees what he wants to see....

 

[from scratch]

Oops! sorry I jumped in on an ongoing deal.

No problem. This isn't a private conversation. You're comments are invited.

 

[from scratch]

What Jesus was doing was establishing what was suppose to be versus what was. The leaders twisted the law to suit their desires. Christ was having none of that.

I see. IOW God didn't know what He was doing and had to fix it. OK My God is wqay better than that. He makes no mistakes.

 

[from scratch]

We've been down this road already. God said that David kept His law. He also said that Abraham kept His law. Your understanding of what it means to keep the law is what's in error. That said, you see no scripture to back up anything that you don't want to see. Again, if Jesus has His own laws, and the Father has His own laws, who is suppose to follow what? If you think the Disicples were given new laws, state them. Show them. I don't need to "explain" John 15:10 to you. It speaks for itself.

OK so where does it say that David kept God's law or the 10 Cs? You provide no biblical support.

You have no Scripture that say Abraham kept the sabbath, any of the 10 Cs or any of the laws of Moses which came 430 years after him. As a matter of fact Abraham got blessed for lying. Why doesn't the law work that way for me?

So what does keep the law mean? Does keeping the law mean you only have to repent for a violation of the law. Please explain how that is keeping the law? Is observing the sabbath Friday dusk to Saturday dusk observing the sabbath as stated in the law? Please explain because the biblical sabbath is based on the new moon calendar and not the Gregorian calendar. This would mean that the sabbath usually doesn't fall on our Friday/Saturday calendar. Now you know that I've just started.

Lets take the 4th of the 10 as foun d in Ex 20. Do you ride your beast to church or do you walk? Do you require others to work on the sabbath? Do you accept the delivery of goods on the sabbath? All those things are srtictly forbidden in Exodus 20:8-11. I'm sorry but I just can't fathom you denying any of the above.

The pro grace camp is said to have cheap grace. So do you have worthless law that you simply can violate at will and just say I'm sorry God?

Please explain the difference. It really looks like to me and others it is a pick and choose law. I'm sorry but I don't read the law that way.

This whole thread is unnecessary. Didn't Jesus say "Before Abraham was I AM"? Oh, but wait, there's an explanation for that right? Jesus wasn't really saying that He was the I Am of the Old Testament right? The people were just about to stone Him for saying that because claiming to be "I Am" was against the law right? Please. You're so desperate to justify not keeping the law of God that you'll twist the very words of God to suit your own understanding.

I'm sorry that you don't like the thread.

I guess it makes a difference which version of the Scripture you wish to use for your defense on the I AM issue. I just counted 15 versions that say I am in 8:58 including the destesable NIV. I counted 4 that use upper case and one of them is mixed. I wonder why this is. All 19 versions use upper case for Ex 3:14. I could probably easily find some more. I have some hard copies that weren't in the first link I could find. I didn't consult any commentaries for my statement. I just don't see the need, at least not yet. I think that you should examine the sentence structure in Jn 8:58 very closely. This isn't a statement saying that I AM THAT I AM. It is a statement merely testifying to existing prior to Abraham. This part the Jews got right. It is definately a statement Jesus is using to say that He is God. This isn't a statment claiming to be God the Father. You need that to support your doctrine of Jesus issuing the 10 Cs. I wager any English teacher would agree with my understanding based on sentence structure.

Again, God the Father doesn't have His own set of laws which are contrary to some set of laws that Jesus has. Take note that John says "...and the ark of his (God) covenant was seen". So yeah, your problems just keep mounting up since you think the law of God was done away with, because that verse right there says otherwise, without any if, and's, or buts to it.

What do the Scriptures say Stryder? You're right you don't need to explain John 15:10 to me. You really need to do it for yourself. It is the way you avoid facing the full truth for yourself. The real fact is you can't without get into trouble by denying your churches FBs.

Now if I didn't love you I simply wouldn't respond at all. I have no intention of putting you down or coming against you. For me it is a matter of the truth which you can't refute. I've been here over a whole year already and you still haven't been able to do it. And neither has anybody else including an SDA professor from Andrews or at least an official who travels for your organization and writes books. It took me a month to even get him to admit he was SDA.

Jesus took possession/ownership of His commandments in John 15:10. Jesus didn't take ownership of His Father's commandments.

Hey you can't beat Frogster's Abe defense either. I think its a brilliant defense of the truth.

Tell you what I'll do just for you. I'll give you 500,000,000 blessings for a successful refutation. I possess more than 10 times that amount. So I can and will deliver. You?

 

[from scratch]

A man only sees what he wants to see....

Ain't that the truth. BTW preaching that to your self wouldn't hurt none. Especially since there is no refutation. Prolly cause you don't have one.

I do love your dance though. Kinda cute.

 

[Stryder06]

OK so where does it say that David kept God's law or the 10 Cs? You provide no biblical support.

1 Kings 3:14

You have no Scripture that say Abraham kept the sabbath, any of the 10 Cs or any of the laws of Moses which came 430 years after him. As a matter of fact Abraham got blessed for lying. Why doesn't the law work that way for me?

I'm tired of the "Abraham kept the law of God but we don't what law that was, but we do know it wasn't the 10 commandments" school of thought.

So what does keep the law mean? Does keeping the law mean you only have to repent for a violation of the law. Please explain how that is keeping the law? Is observing the sabbath Friday dusk to Saturday dusk observing the sabbath as stated in the law? Please explain because the biblical sabbath is based on the new moon calendar and not the Gregorian calendar. This would mean that the sabbath usually doesn't fall on our Friday/Saturday calendar. Now you know that I've just started.

You do realize the new moon isn't every 7 days right? The 4th commandment blows that line of logic, which is rather poor, right out the window.

Lets take the 4th of the 10 as foun d in Ex 20. Do you ride your beast to church or do you walk? Do you require others to work on the sabbath? Do you accept the delivery of goods on the sabbath? All those things are srtictly forbidden in Exodus 20:8-11. I'm sorry but I just can't fathom you denying any of the above.

I don't have a beast. I don't have goods delivered to me.

The pro grace camp is said to have cheap grace. So do you have worthless law that you simply can violate at will and just say I'm sorry God?

I'm pro grace and pro law. Sorry that I can't answer that for you.

I guess it makes a difference which version of the Scripture you wish to use for your defense on the I AM issue. I just counted 15 versions that say I am in 8:58 including the destesable NIV. I counted 4 that use upper case and one of them is mixed. I wonder why this is. All 19 versions use upper case for Ex 3:14. I could probably easily find some more. I have some hard copies that weren't in the first link I could find. I didn't consult any commentaries for my statement. I just don't see the need, at least not yet. I think that you should examine the sentence structure in Jn 8:58 very closely. This isn't a statement saying that I AM THAT I AM. It is a statement merely testifying to existing prior to Abraham. This part the Jews got right. It is definately a statement Jesus is using to say that He is God. This isn't a statment claiming to be God the Father. You need that to support your doctrine of Jesus issuing the 10 Cs. I wager any English teacher would agree with my understanding based on sentence structure. What do the Scriptures say Stryder? You're right you don't need to explain John 15:10 to me. You really need to do it for yourself. It is the way you avoid facing the full truth for yourself. The real fact is you can't without get into trouble by denying your churches FBs.

I don't need Jesus to be the Father for anything to work for me. Jesus isn't the Father and the Father isn't Jesus. You're "He was just saying that He existed before Abraham" is denying the obvious implication of the phrase, and trying to base your arguement on the fact that the word isn't capitalized in every version is again, foolish. Jesus was direct in that statement and the Jews knew exactly what He was saying, which is why they were going to stone Him. Jesus wasn't saying "I'm the Father". Jesus was saying "I AM".

Now if I didn't love you I simply wouldn't respond at all. I have no intention of putting you down or coming against you. For me it is a matter of the truth which you can't refute. I've been here over a whole year already and you still haven't been able to do it. And neither has anybody else including an SDA professor from Andrews or at least an official who travels for your organization and writes books. It took me a month to even get him to admit he was SDA.

I can't convince you of anything because I don't have that power. You're bias against SDA so from jump, anything we say, you think is wrong, thus you're not even remotely willing to investigate to see if what we're saying is right. I've suggested that you take a walk through the sanctuary and have you done that yet? No. Everything I believe is centered on that. Why? Because "Thy way O Lord, is in the sanctuary..."

Jesus took possession/ownership of His commandments in John 15:10. Jesus didn't take ownership of His Father's commandments.

You're the one who thinks that Jesus has seperate commandments from His Father. His commandments and the Father's commandments are one in the same. Why haven't you responded to my question about the ark of the covenant which was in Heaven?

 

[Stryder06]

I see. IOW God didn't know what He was doing and had to fix it. OK My God is wqay better than that. He makes no mistakes.

Don't "IOW" my response. I didn't say God didn't know what He was doing. I said that Jesus was fixing what the people broke. I mean, why would you even say that? If you wanted to go there I could flip that on you and ask you if God didn't know what He was doing when He established the first covenant? Why the need for a new one? Why not just make one that was perfect for all times? Or how about the fall of man? Why allow for such a thing? Why not set up Adam and Eve so they wouldn't be in a position to fall? Don't pull that stuff on me ok. Those are the kind of statements that irritate me because it shows that you aren't even trying to hear what I'm saying.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Jesus took possession/ownership of His commandments in John 15:10. Jesus didn't take ownership of His Father's commandments.

so what is paul saying here?

1 Corinthians 7:19(NKJV)
19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

it seems that paul disagrees with what you're saying!

and, isn't circumcision part of the law, to which, you keep referring?

so, which is it from scratch? do we listen to you, or do we listen to paul?

 

[Stryder06]

so what is paul saying here?

1 Corinthians 7:19(NKJV)
19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

it seems that paul disagrees with what you're saying!

and, isn't circumcision part of the law, to which, you keep referring?

so, which is it from scratch? do we listen to you, or do we listen to paul?

Great question! I'd like to add to that. Paul says keeping the commandments of God is what matters, so is he talking about the Father's laws or Jesus' laws. This verse seems to be based off of what Solomon said in Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Great question! I'd like to add to that. Paul says keeping the commandments of God is what matters, so is he talking about the Father's laws or Jesus' laws. This verse seems to be based off of what Solomon said in Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

my point, exactly!

 

[from scratch]

1 Kings 3:14

So what does keeping the law entail for you? By the verse you refernenced above I take that sinning is keeping the law. Did David violate the law? Is that keeping the law? Is what I'm getting at wrong? Do I practice sinning by following the leading of the Spirit? Since I've devoted so much of my life to the things of God, why hasn't God given me a desire to follow the law? Are you saying I'm deceived? Doesn't God love me? I've prophesied even concerning religious activity and had those thing come to pass exactly as I had said and to the letter. God has used me with a gift of knowledge about some one I've had no personal interaction with.

My personal testimony is that the Holy Spirit told me the covenant with the COI isn't my covenant. Therefore I'm not obligated to such.

I'm tired of the "Abraham kept the law of God but we don't what law that was, but we do know it wasn't the 10 commandments" school of thought.

Then why is Abraham such a part of establishing obligation to the law for the Christian? You know very well what is intended when Gen 26:5 is quoted in support of the sabbath and for obligation to the law by the Christian. Same goes for John 14:15 and the ignoring of 15:10.

What I read in your statement is that the Abraham argument for the law isn't valid, to which I agree.

You do realize the new moon isn't every 7 days right? The 4th commandment blows that line of logic, which is rather poor, right out the window.

Yes I fully understand that. NTL this is the way God set it up. The first day of the month is always the new moon sabbath with the weekly sabbath on the 7th day there after. Sorry that doesn't coinside with your understanding and practice. Convience is a marvelous thing and very desirable.

I don't have a beast. I don't have goods delivered to me.

Really now. Isn't that being a bit dishonest? How do you get your groceries home? I wager that you always put them on (or in) your beast (vehicle the modern day beast of burden), then mount it and direct it home. Isn't what you said a way to circumvent the law? I think so. Its called legalism. What would you be doing if you didn't have these modern day contraptions? Do yo walk to church?

You don't have goods delivered to you? How laughable. Haven't you heard of the 9th commandment yet? Do you have a refrigerator? How about hot water. And speaking of water? So lets cut off your electirc, gas and water every sabbath. When that meter turns you're accepting goods on account which is doing business and causing more than one person to work for you which is a servant on the sabbath. This is strictly forbidden by the 10 Cs themselves. You again wilfully and knowingly sin every sabbath. What does the Bible say about such? I read there is no more sacrifice for sin. What do you read? Isn't that applied to those who are told about the sabbath and don't then observe it? Bites doesn't it?

I'm pro grace and pro law. Sorry that I can't answer that for you.

So how does that hold up considering Gal 5:4? For your convience - 4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

I would provide commentary here but would only be reported by some one. You know by reading the forum and conversations past exactly what I think this means. What does fallen from grace mean to you?

I don't need Jesus to be the Father for anything to work for me. Jesus isn't the Father and the Father isn't Jesus. You're "He was just saying that He existed before Abraham" is denying the obvious implication of the phrase, and trying to base your arguement on the fact that the word isn't capitalized in every version is again, foolish. Jesus was direct in that statement and the Jews knew exactly what He was saying, which is why they were going to stone Him. Jesus wasn't saying "I'm the Father". Jesus was saying "I AM".

No I follow the rules of English. The capitalization in the sentence give it a different meaning by the rules of English. That meaning is unsupportable by the sentence. Absolutely Jesus was saying that He is God. He however isn't making a claim to be the IAM THAT I AM in Ex 3:14. I'm not denying anything. I said that the Jews got that part right. Jesus is claiming to be God. They didn't get it that Jesus wasn't claiming to be the Father.Deut 6:4 is a major road block for them on this issue even though Gen 1:26 uses us and our even in Hebrew.

I can't convince you of anything because I don't have that power. You're bias against SDA so from jump, anything we say, you think is wrong, thus you're not even remotely willing to investigate to see if what we're saying is right. I've suggested that you take a walk through the sanctuary and have you done that yet? No. Everything I believe is centered on that. Why? Because "Thy way O Lord, is in the sanctuary..."

Is it that I'm biases against the SDA more than you're biased against the NC? I've been invesitgating and talking about SDA doctrine for 11 or more years now. I run into things like the SDA saying verbs are nouns. I most frequently have the problem with unsupportable statements on investigation. I'm frequen told I don't understand a word and can't obviously use a dictionary. I'm told I don't understand word usage. Manipulation is often tried. Many who are SDA refuse to identify themselves as such on this forum. Personally I take that as a form of lying for the explicit purpose of deception. This practice is common and taught in your church denomination. It has even been discussed and admitted to in the SDA section of the forum. Don't the SDA take the 9th seriously?

You're the one who thinks that Jesus has seperate commandments from His Father. His commandments and the Father's commandments are one in the same. Why haven't you responded to my question about the ark of the covenant which was in Heaven?

Please explain John 15:10. You can start with sentence structure. You can even give a direct word for word translation if you want.

 

[from scratch]

so what is paul saying here?

I take this as not addressing John 15:10 and going on to something else.

1 Corinthians 7:19(NKJV)
19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

it seems that paul disagrees with what you're saying!

and, isn't circumcision part of the law, to which, you keep referring?

so, which is it from scratch? do we listen to you, or do we listen to paul?

I think that is only because of your definition and use of the word commandments. You tend to think of it as only applying to the law.

I've been know to ask and make statements about I John 3:23 which usually get by passed. Would you care to discuss that verse?

 

[from scratch]

Don't "IOW" my response. I didn't say God didn't know what He was doing. I said that Jesus was fixing what the people broke. I mean, why would you even say that? If you wanted to go there I could flip that on you and ask you if God didn't know what He was doing when He established the first covenant? Why the need for a new one? Why not just make one that was perfect for all times? Or how about the fall of man? Why allow for such a thing? Why not set up Adam and Eve so they wouldn't be in a position to fall? Don't pull that stuff on me ok. Those are the kind of statements that irritate me because it shows that you aren't even trying to hear what I'm saying.

OK Then tell me the meaning of the fixing the law that had a problem. One only fixes thing that are borken or has flaws. People today are still the same problem. God meant for the law and specifically the 10 Cs to be broken. Just read Romans 11:32. No law - no violation - no charges - no punishment. Sin was before the law per Romans 5:13 and Gal 3:19. No way around this. Was Jesus punished for sin or merely the breaking of the law?

Obiously you don't understand the purpose of the creation of man. That is another topic. We're getting a little to side tracted here already. It really shows the importance of how one thing affects another.

No I'm listening to you very closely. And I'm not trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

I do think that understanding and applying Isa 28:10 is very important.

I think that Hebrews 8 is important too.