Who did Moses chat with?

[from scratch]

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.

I'll point you in ths same direction to I John 3:23.

 

[Stryder06]

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?

That's not my problem to answer. It's yours. You asked for a verse that said that David kept God's law and I gave you one.

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.

Isa 8:20

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.

I think it's hillarious how you start talking about the law, but than go straight to the sabbath commandment as if it's the only one that's part of the law.

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

There you go again saying something that I didn't say and than running with it. How do you plan on having a constructive conversation when all you do is this?

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.

For someone that doesn't keep the sabbath, I think it's amazing you can tell me how it was set up. 1st, the moon was even created until the 4th day. The 4th commandment points us back to creation and God says that He rested the 7th day. That would be the 7th day of creation, not the 7th day after the creation of the moon.

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?

Trying to compare a non-living piece of machine to an animal is laughable. Secondly, thinking that it's a sin to use electricity, again, laughable. These arguements make the sabbath a burden. We live in a different society. My church is not within walking distance. It'd be more work to walk to church, not to mention more dangerous, than to drive. Using this line of thought is foolish. Totally. Sorry, nothing "bites" here except for your attempts to prove that I don't really "keep" the sabbath.

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'm not justififed by the works of the law, so I'm cool. Again, don't get mad because you can't figure out a way to trap me. Keeping the law has nothing to do with justification. So again, I'm pro law and grace. You just don't understand a thing about the law (10c's) which would be remedied if you'd study the sanctuary.

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.

First, scripture wasn't written according to the rules of English. Second Jesus says "I Am". You say "He wasn't saying "I Am" like that. Sorry bud but I've got to side with Christ.

Is it that I'm biases against the SDA more than you're biased against the NC?

Further proof that you don't listen to anything that I say. When have I ever said I'm bias against the NC. Get it straight, I'm bias against your understanding of 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?

What does this have to do with anything. You said "Convince me..." I said "I can't" Why the rant on what you "think" is going on in my denomination, instead of focusing on the most important part of my entire reponse which was "Thy way O Lord, is in the sanctuary..." Let's talk about that hmmm? What way of the Lord is in the sanctuary?

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

John 15:10 is exactly what it is. Jesus had commandment from His Father. I'm amazed at how you can tell other people not to assume that everytime the word "commandment" is used that it applies to the 10 commandments, but you turn around and do the EXACT same thing when it's convenient for you. I'm also amazed at how you completely, ignored my question about the ark of the covenant, which John saw in heaven. Why? Why? Why? You do realize we can squash all of this if you'd just answer that question?

 

[Stryder06]

I'll point you in ths same direction to I John 3:23.

Love one another? Hmmm, for some strange odd reason I think about the OC commandment to love one another. Hmm, go figure.

 

[from scratch]

That's not my problem to answer. It's yours. You asked for a verse that said that David kept God's law and I gave you one.

Yes I see a lovely proof text. So where is the discussion on how David die this? I see evidence that David loved God and mostly kept the law. I consider more than one single verse. So since David sinned on many occasions and repented means he kept the law. If a general direction is keeping the law then most people do, even the non religious. So how does that reflect a relationship with God? Incidence isn't obedience, ever. Some here say I follow the law just because I don't murder, lie, steal or commit adultery. I don't think so. I guess that is why some are deceived. Only outside appearances count. The flesh isn't redeemed. The soul can be though.

Isa 8:20

Great verse! Now who is they in your verse? It isn't them that have familar spirits in the preceding verse either. It is those that say go to use those that do. Have I don't this? Where. Yes I understand that you're saying there is no light in me. And so it is nothing more than another verse used out of context for me.

Your verse doesn't answer the question IMO. So will you enlighten me with what the verse means or what you're trying to say with it?

I think it's hillarious how you start talking about the law, but than go straight to the sabbath commandment as if it's the only one that's part of the law.

Please tell me what the major issue is here on the forum and why the very first thing an SDA approaches a non SDA Christian with is the sabbath? The sabbath is the issue with using Gen 26:5 and John 14:15. John 14:15 is to prove that a Christian hates God because they don't observe the sabbath. If you love Me keep My commandments really is said to be If you love Me keep the sabbath. What is the first thing that someone is asked after leaving or not attending the SDA church? What happened to some dear friends here who were involved up to their ears upon leaving the SDA church? Yeah it sounds like I'm condeming, doesn't it? I'm just trying to make a point about what really does happen and what the truth is.

There you go again saying something that I didn't say and than running with it. How do you plan on having a constructive conversation when all you do is this?

OK redeem yourself and tell me what you mean by "Abraham kept the law of God but we don't what law that was, but we do know it wasn't the 10 commandments." Are you saying that others outside the SDA church are saying this? If so please show what law and commandments Abraham obeyed. It will be a very tall order to prove that Abraham kept something that didn't happen to exist until 430 years later. But I'm interested to see a rebuttal - no a refutation.

For someone that doesn't keep the sabbath, I think it's amazing you can tell me how it was set up. 1st, the moon was even created until the 4th day. The 4th commandment points us back to creation and God says that He rested the 7th day. That would be the 7th day of creation, not the 7th day after the creation of the moon.

And the sabbath wasn't even apart of the creation process. Ah yes and God didn't return to creating did He? What does the word shabath mean? A Jewish version of the Scripture says abstained in Gen 2 and in Hosea 2 it is translated as cease - a defining word of the hebrew shabath.

Trying to compare a non-living piece of machine to an animal is laughable. Secondly, thinking that it's a sin to use electricity, again, laughable. These arguements make the sabbath a burden. We live in a different society. My church is not within walking distance. It'd be more work to walk to church, not to mention more dangerous, than to drive. Using this line of thought is foolish. Totally. Sorry, nothing "bites" here except for your attempts to prove that I don't really "keep" the sabbath.

What ever happened to the spirit of the law? Gets thrown out for the love of convience, huh? What is it that animals did? Aren machines wonderful? We only have to feed them when they work. We don't even need to put them in the stable (read garage, barn, shed, carport, etc.). Wonder what would happen if we were to take away those machines from society? I read beast of burden (cattle in Exodus and Deuteronomy it is ox, ass or any cattle). What do you read?

Now who said using electricity was a sin? Not me. If you get your electricity from a passive solar pannel, I will take my statement back. I wager that you get your electricity from the power company. Some one attends those machines on the sabbath for you. They deliver it through a passive means and don't knock on your door. Ah modern conviences are wonderful. Still doesn't change the fact that you require someone to work for you on the sabbath. Still doesn't change the fact that you're legally doing business on the sabbath. I read that you man and maid servants are to rest on the sabbath. What do you read?

I guess I'd have to say that even the 10 Cs don't apply in our day by your understanding. Yet there is a big fuss about keeping them. Isn't that strange to you? It sure is me. This is exactly what the scribes and Pharisees did. It is called legalism and blasphemes God's name.

I'm not justififed by the works of the law, so I'm cool. Again, don't get mad because you can't figure out a way to trap me. Keeping the law has nothing to do with justification. So again, I'm pro law and grace. You just don't understand a thing about the law (10c's) which would be remedied if you'd study the sanctuary.

If one isn't justified by the law why keep it? If one can't be condemed by the law wherein is its value? So if one violates the law is there a penalty? IOW one is just by the keeping of the law - no? If not then how is one justified or why can anyone be seperated form God by not keeping the law?

First, scripture wasn't written according to the rules of English. Second Jesus says "I Am". You say "He wasn't saying "I Am" like that. Sorry bud but I've got to side with Christ.

Stryder the original language doesn't support you position either. I provided you opportunity to prove you point form the Greek and you didn't. Why? Your statement is avoidance and denial. I also side with Jesus Christ.

Further proof that you don't listen to anything that I say. When have I ever said I'm bias against the NC. Get it straight, I'm bias against your understanding of the NC.

To that I have no problem. I also have no bias against the OC. I do have it in proper persepctive though. The OC and no part of it has sway over the NC. We have a NEW ciovenant and not a REnewed covenant. The old one didn't become new by moving from stone tablets to soft tablets of our heart. Movement changes nothing.

What does this have to do with anything. You said "Convince me..." I said "I can't" Why the rant on what you "think" is going on in my denomination, instead of focusing on the most important part of my entire reponse which was "Thy way O Lord, is in the sanctuary..." Let's talk about that hmmm? What way of the Lord is in the sanctuary?

I would love to make stronger statements, however the rules, administration and many of the participants here won't allow it. So sorry, but that is life. You seem to insist that one can't know anything except by being a part of it. Sorry to inform you that isn't the case. I agree that you can't refute the truth.

OK what version did you get this quote from - Thy way O Lord, is in the sanctuary...?

John 15:10 is exactly what it is. Jesus had commandment from His Father. I'm amazed at how you can tell other people not to assume that everytime the word "commandment" is used that it applies to the 10 commandments, but you turn around and do the EXACT same thing when it's convenient for you. I'm also amazed at how you completely, ignored my question about the ark of the covenant, which John saw in heaven. Why? Why? Why? You do realize we can squash all of this if you'd just answer that question?

Tell you what when you explain John 15:10 I'll take a look at and deal with your ark of the covenant in heaven. The only thing I see is that John saw the ark of his testament. I don't see the ark of the covenant - meaning the Ark containing stone tablets and Aarons rod.

 

[from scratch]

Love one another? Hmmm, for some strange odd reason I think about the OC commandment to love one another. Hmm, go figure.

OK so where is it? And while you're at it what about the rest of the verse?

 

[Stryder06]

Yes I see a lovely proof text. So where is the discussion on how David die this? I see evidence that David loved God and mostly kept the law. I consider more than one single verse. So since David sinned on many occasions and repented means he kept the law. If a general direction is keeping the law then most people do, even the non religious. So how does that reflect a relationship with God? Incidence isn't obedience, ever. Some here say I follow the law just because I don't murder, lie, steal or commit adultery. I don't think so. I guess that is why some are deceived. Only outside appearances count. The flesh isn't redeemed. The soul can be though.

I think it's funny that everything I present is a "proof-text". Whatever

Great verse! Now who is they in your verse? It isn't them that have familar spirits in the preceding verse either. It is those that say go to use those that do. Have I don't this? Where. Yes I understand that you're saying there is no light in me. And so it is nothing more than another verse used out of context for me.

Take it how you want to buddy.

Please tell me what the major issue is here on the forum and why the very first thing an SDA approaches a non SDA Christian with is the sabbath? The sabbath is the issue with using Gen 26:5 and John 14:15. John 14:15 is to prove that a Christian hates God because they don't observe the sabbath.

You're confused.

If you love Me keep My commandments really is said to be If you love Me keep the sabbath.

Incorrect. It's exactly what it is. If you love Me, keep my commandments. The problem is that too many people aren't keeping the sabbath, so instead of just doing what they're asked to do, they say "We just don't have to keep it"

What is the first thing that someone is asked after leaving or not attending the SDA church? What happened to some dear friends here who were involved up to their ears upon leaving the SDA church? Yeah it sounds like I'm condeming, doesn't it? I'm just trying to make a point about what really does happen and what the truth is.

You have no clue what you're talking about outside of this little bubble you live in, in regards to your experience. I'm not going to argue this with you because again, it'd be fruitless.

OK redeem yourself and tell me what you mean by "Abraham kept the law of God but we don't what law that was, but we do know it wasn't the 10 commandments." Are you saying that others outside the SDA church are saying this? If so please show what law and commandments Abraham obeyed. It will be a very tall order to prove that Abraham kept something that didn't happen to exist until 430 years later. But I'm interested to see a rebuttal - no a refutation.

First, I don't need to "redeem" myself of anything. You've already proven my point. Scripture shows God saying that Abraham kept His law. You however say it can't be the ten commandments, but simultaneously you don't know what law it was that he kept. The eternal nature of the law of God is seen in the sanctuary. Which is why I keep telling you to look it up. You, of course, keep ignoring it though. I don't think you actually want to look it up.

What ever happened to the spirit of the law? Gets thrown out for the love of convience, huh? What is it that animals did? Aren machines wonderful? We only have to feed them when they work. We don't even need to put them in the stable (read garage, barn, shed, carport, etc.). Wonder what would happen if we were to take away those machines from society? I read beast of burden (cattle in Exodus and Deuteronomy it is ox, ass or any cattle). What do you read?

Now who said using electricity was a sin? Not me. If you get your electricity from a passive solar pannel, I will take my statement back. I wager that you get your electricity from the power company. Some one attends those machines on the sabbath for you. They deliver it through a passive means and don't knock on your door. Ah modern conviences are wonderful. Still doesn't change the fact that you require someone to work for you on the sabbath. Still doesn't change the fact that you're legally doing business on the sabbath. I read that you man and maid servants are to rest on the sabbath. What do you read?

I read that it is not wrong to do good on the sabbath. Our society runs in a much different fashion than it did during those days. You ask about the spirit of the law than completely disregard it with the remainder of your statement. You don't understand the sabbath, nor do you wish to, which is why you keep going back to these stale arguements.

I guess I'd have to say that even the 10 Cs don't apply in our day by your understanding. Yet there is a big fuss about keeping them. Isn't that strange to you? It sure is me. This is exactly what the scribes and Pharisees did. It is called legalism and blasphemes God's name.

You are hillarious. You're the one saying I'm not keeping the sabbath because I use a car and electricity on the sabbath. You're right, that idea that you're trying to push on me is legalism. And that is what the Pharisees were doing. Telling people they could only walk so far, or not carry a "load". Jesus walked all over the place, and commanded the man He healed to pick up His bed. I guess you think Jesus wasn't keeping the sabbath either.

If one isn't justified by the law why keep it? If one can't be condemed by the law wherein is its value? So if one violates the law is there a penalty? IOW one is just by the keeping of the law - no? If not then how is one justified or why can anyone be seperated form God by not keeping the law?

Your understanding of Justification is off. You're justified when you come to Christ. But you can't live in disobedience. Your logic here if faulty because you think you have to keep the law of the new covenant. If what you're saying here is true than it's just as applicable to the new covenant law.

Stryder the original language doesn't support you position either. I provided you opportunity to prove you point form the Greek and you didn't. Why? Your statement is avoidance and denial. I also side with Jesus Christ. To that I have no problem. I also have no bias against the OC. I do have it in proper persepctive though. The OC and no part of it has sway over the NC. We have a NEW ciovenant and not a REnewed covenant. The old one didn't become new by moving from stone tablets to soft tablets of our heart. Movement changes nothing.

Again, your understanding of the OC is off. God didn't say He'd give us a new law. He said He'd put His law in the hearts of His people. Interestingly enough, God said the new covenant was for the house of Israel and Judah. You like to ignore that though. You also ignore that John saw the ark of the covenant in the heavenly sanctuary. What was that all about?

OK what version did you get this quote from - Thy way O Lord, is in the sanctuary...?

Have you never read that verse? Why does it matter what version it's from? I can tell you that's not the NIV version. Psalms 77:13

Tell you what when you explain John 15:10 I'll take a look at and deal with your ark of the covenant in heaven. The only thing I see is that John saw the ark of his testament. I don't see the ark of the covenant - meaning the Ark containing stone tablets and Aarons rod.

I already told you that there's nothing to explain from John 15:10. I'm not even sure what you're looking for. What I did say was that it's funny how you say that commandment doesn't always refer to the ten commandments. As such, why is it that you think Jesus is talking about the ten here. Jesus gave the disciples plenty of commandments. The long and short of it, is that Jesus was saying, Obey Me. It's that simple. And the Ark of the Testament is the ark of the covenant. The Lord told Moses to put the "Testament" into the ark. I get the feeling that you won't look into this though.

 

[Stryder06]

OK so where is it? And while you're at it what about the rest of the verse?

You'd be better served looking that up yourself. You talk about how the new covenant isn't a "renewed" covenant, but if you ask me, alot of the rules there are from the OC, which would make it a renewed one. There's no getting around that.

Law to love God and your neighbor is first established in the OC

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You'd be better served looking that up yourself. You talk about how the new covenant isn't a "renewed" covenant, but if you ask me, alot of the rules there are from the OC, which would make it a renewed one. There's no getting around that.

Law to love God and your neighbor is first established in the OC

I suppose one can look at it like that...tho I myself do not

http://www.christianforums.com/t7525782/
Did Christ come to establish a New or Renewed Covenant with Israel?

Luke 5:37 "And no one is casting young wine into OLD vessels, if yet no surely shall be ruined the wine, the young of the vessels and it shall be being poured out and its vessels shall be perishing .
38 but young wine into NEW/kainouV <2537> vessels is to be cast and both are preserved together.
39 and no one drinking old immediately is willing young, for he is saying, 'for the the OLD kind/mellow/crhstoteroV <5543> is'".
[Matt 9:17/Mark 2:22/Hebrews 8:13]

 

[JohnRabbit]

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

going on to something else? do you not remember what you said?

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

i'm not going on to something else, i'm addressing what you said! i wanted you to explain what you said, (the part i have bolded), against what paul said in 1cor 7! (but of course, you didn't, you just deflect, as usual)

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

how say you? the verse (1cor 7:19) itself is talking about the law, and the whole chapter is talking about adultery specifically.

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?

unlike you, i won't skirt the question. here's another instance where the author is talking about God's laws. he gives the definition of sin in verse 4, which is transgression of the law, (but you don't want to talk about that verse).

in verse 10 john says:

Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

this goes to psalms 119:172. he talks about one of the commandments in verse 12

in verse 22, he's talking about pleasing God by keeping His Commandments (see matt 19:17-19).

and then when you get to verse 23, you want to hinge the christian faith on the one verse? you need to get real. you see?

it doesn't make sense to be preaching keeping God's commandments and then kick them to the curb, just to make a point for from scratch.

john says what he did in verse 23, because before that time we didn't have a Son we could "hang our hat" on. so, it is only appropriate that he stated such.

but not as, "this is it", and forget the "ten".

now, if you could answer my question to you as to 1Cor 7:19! (this is about the eighth thread i've asked you to explain this verse and you have not to this day!)

i've answered you, how about you answer me.

 

[JohnRabbit]

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?

"it was said of old", well, Who do you think said it (ex 20, deut 5)? and Jesus is not teaching commandments?

Matthew 5:27-28(NKJV)
27“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ (ex 20:14, deut 5:18)
28But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

no longer was physically committing the act was the requirement, but He adds that, if one thinks of the act, one has committed the offense! no one knew anything about that until the Christ laid it down. now, if that's not teaching, i don't know what is.

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.

i thought i gave you scripture to show what i was talking about, in the term fulfill, i guess you missed it, (go back and reread).

all things concerning Him is not fulfilled! if you read a little further you will get more meaning on the verse, not proof texting like you did.

Luke 24:46-48(NKJV)
46Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
47and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48And you are witnesses of these things.

Jesus clarifies what He's talking about. all the things that was written about Him, verses 46 and 47, was fulfilled, and He noted that the disciples were witnesses to those events. but, what about the scripture that was written about Him that has not been fulfilled?

example:
in luke 4:17-21, Jesus talks about fulfilling the prophecy of isaiah 61. but notice:

Isaiah 61:1-2(NKJV)
1 “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the Lord has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn,

He didn't read the part i have bolded because the time for the fulfillment of that part of the verse is yet future (lk 21:22). notice it! Jesus stopped in mid sentence of verse two!

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.

again, it doesn't matter what you think (2pet 1:20). what matters is what the bible says!
moses wrote deut 18:15 and Jesus said that moses wrote of Him, (Jn 1:45, 5:46), not paul. so, maybe you need to back up and rethink that paul stuff.

and again, who do we believe? you or Jesus?

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

ditto! can't argue against that!

Please explain Romans 10:4.I refer you back to LK 16:16 quoted above
.

romans 10:4 is one of those verses that can support your position or mine. so, i thought it was agreed on this forum not to use it for that reason. and as far as lk 16:16 is concerned, if you're using this verse to say that the law is done away, then, we have to admit that we're back to law by verse 18!

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

you may think you did, but you didn't!

 

[Stryder06]

I suppose one can look at it like that...tho I myself do not

Unfortunately, how one decides to look at it is not nearly as imporatant as how it's suppose to be looked at.

The covenant was changed because the people screwed up, as Hebrews tells us. Thus it went from the people putting the law into their hearts, to God doing it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Unfortunately, how one decides to look at it is not nearly as imporatant as how it's suppose to be looked at.

The covenant was changed because the people screwed up, as Hebrews tells us. Thus it went from the people putting the law into their hearts, to God doing it.

How do the Jews look at it?
Oh I forgot, they are still waiting on their own Messiah to bring the NC to them...silly me

 

[Frogster]

How do the Jews look at it?
Oh I forgot, they are still waiting on their own Messiah

 

[Frogster]

You'd be better served looking that up yourself. You talk about how the new covenant isn't a "renewed" covenant, but if you ask me, alot of the rules there are from the OC, which would make it a renewed one. There's no getting around that.

Law to love God and your neighbor is first established in the OC

If it was renewed, that how come James said no Moses for the church in Acts 15? Would not what is written on the heart internally, have to also be acted out externally?

 

[from scratch]

I think it's funny that everything I present is a "proof-text". Whatever

So I ask you to explain your verse and show what it means. What I see is a text that proves David did something. So I also asked you to explain what it means to keep the law. There is none that did according to Psalms and my buddy Paul. So what exactly does it mean to keep the law?

Take it how you want to buddy.

Be nice Stryder. I asked you who the they are in the verse. Can you identify them? Or will you state the purpose of your use? I get this response only from the SDA folks. It seems to be one of the hallmarks. It usually is used to condemn one to hell.

You're confused.

Really now. I'd love you to show me the case where either of those verses are used in some other way. It is 100% my experience.And I've chatted with SDA folks from the time I was 19. That's about 41 years.

Incorrect. It's exactly what it is. If you love Me, keep my commandments. The problem is that too many people aren't keeping the sabbath, so instead of just doing what they're asked to do, they say "We just don't have to keep it"

Why or how is someone obligated to a law that doesn't apply to them? We aren't under the jurisdiction of the OC or the 10 Cs, not that there is a difference. We have the NC which doesn't include the 7th day sabbath or the other Jewish required holy days.

John 14:15 and John 15:10 clearly says Jesus' commandments and not the commandments of the OT/OC.

You have no clue what you're talking about outside of this little bubble you live in, in regards to your experience. I'm not going to argue this with you because again, it'd be fruitless.

So explain it to me. Saying I have no clue helps no one and isn't discussion. This type of argument just side steps anything fruitful. It give the idea that you have no ability to defend what your saying. If you think that making a statement means that one accepts without question, please remember you're not speaking to the chior here at CF. Fortunately CF isn't your church.

First, I don't need to "redeem" myself of anything. You've already proven my point. Scripture shows God saying that Abraham kept His law. You however say it can't be the ten commandments, but simultaneously you don't know what law it was that he kept. The eternal nature of the law of God is seen in the sanctuary. Which is why I keep telling you to look it up. You, of course, keep ignoring it though. I don't think you actually want to look it up.

I can accept that Scripture shows and proves that Abraham kept God's law. This however isn't proof that Abraham kept the 10 Cs (specifically the sabbath) as is commonly argued by you folks. Even Doc Sam B agrees (well now agreed since he passed away last year) with my point. I do notice that you didn't include commandments in your statement. Why?

I read that it is not wrong to do good on the sabbath. Our society runs in a much different fashion than it did during those days. You ask about the spirit of the law than completely disregard it with the remainder of your statement. You don't understand the sabbath, nor do you wish to, which is why you keep going back to these stale arguements.

I see says the blind man. A changing society changes the law. What does my buddy Paul say? Gal 4:21Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? It isn't very fair to show that Jesus changed the law and then say keep it. I refer you to LK 16:16 where it shows that Jesus or any one else in the NC didn't promote the law as an obligation. Do I need to quote it agian?

Now Stryder you know I don't accept the unbiblical idea of the spirit of the law. This idea comes strictly from your church. So I disregard nothing in my statement on that. Those arguments are stale only because you refuse to meet them head on with a biblically based argument/apology statement.

You are hillarious. You're the one saying I'm not keeping the sabbath because I use a car and electricity on the sabbath. You're right, that idea that you're trying to push on me is legalism. And that is what the Pharisees were doing. Telling people they could only walk so far, or not carry a "load". Jesus walked all over the place, and commanded the man He healed to pick up His bed. I guess you think Jesus wasn't keeping the sabbath either.

So tell me Stryder what is the real difference in saddling and mounting your ass and ride it to church than doing the same with a vehicle? I find none except a legal argument that the Scripture doesn' say vehicle.

What is the real difference in accepting the delivery of goods on the sabbath in them being delivered in person or mechanically? Someone is still producing that electricity, pumping and treating that water.

Your understanding of Justification is off. You're justified when you come to Christ. But you can't live in disobedience. Your logic here if faulty because you think you have to keep the law of the new covenant. If what you're saying here is true than it's just as applicable to the new covenant law.

How can one be disobedient to something that does apply or have jurisdiction? I Tim 1:8-10 - 8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

To apply this Scripture wouldn't that be saying that the Christian is wicked? If so then there is no such thing as salvation. I think that by saying the law applies to the Christian one is saying that a Christian isn't righteous. This means that they can't see (have fellowship with) God, thus no salvation. This isn't a full argument for my point here which I can provide.

Again, your understanding of the OC is off. God didn't say He'd give us a new law. He said He'd put His law in the hearts of His people. Interestingly enough, God said the new covenant was for the house of Israel and Judah. You like to ignore that though. You also ignore that John saw the ark of the covenant in the heavenly sanctuary. What was that all about?

No, no Jeremiah says cut a new stone with the word make. Hes says new as in chadash (khä·däsh' ), not renewed (khä·dash' ). This is evidenced better with the greek quote found in Hebrews 8. The word uses is kainos (new) and not neos (renew). Much harder to make a mistake about what is being said.

Have you never read that verse? Why does it matter what version it's from? I can tell you that's not the NIV version. Psalms 77:13

Yes it makes a difference when I check out what you're saying. My King James uses the word God and not Lord. Yes it does make a difference it chatting with you. And yes I have read it several times. I just didn't remember to make the substitution of words.

I already told you that there's nothing to explain from John 15:10. I'm not even sure what you're looking for. What I did say was that it's funny how you say that commandment doesn't always refer to the ten commandments. As such, why is it that you think Jesus is talking about the ten here. Jesus gave the disciples plenty of commandments. The long and short of it, is that Jesus was saying, Obey Me. It's that simple. And the Ark of the Testament is the ark of the covenant. The Lord told Moses to put the "Testament" into the ark. I get the feeling that you won't look into this though.

OK so you won't explain it. No problem.

I see nothing funny about addressing what the word and use of commandment is or implies. You need it to only mean one thing to support your argument. I don't feel this is a correct understanding of the verse. That is speciffically why I asked Who did Moses speak with. You say Jesus without support and I say God the Father with support from Scripture. You're asking me to believe something based on I said so. Well I think it is based on something you really don't wish to deal with. So no deal.

 

[Frogster]

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.

No way Abraham had a law, that came 430 years later Gal 3:17, and Paul could not use Abe, to ward off the law people, if Abe had Moses,. that would be sillllly! The cov would implode, it would cancel itself out.


.Rom 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

 

[Frogster]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

H1431

&#1490;&#1464;&#1468;&#1491;&#1463;&#1500;

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.

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

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!)

in post 178 you said to lion, "quit wasting your time!", yet you still argued after that post, please explain the logic, I am confused now?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If it was renewed, that how come James said no Moses for the church in Acts 15? Would not what is written on the heart internally, have to also be acted out externally?

Old habits are sometimes hard to get rid of

2 Corin 3:14 But was calloused the minds of them.
For until the today, the same covering upon the reading of the Old Covenant/Testament is remaining, no being up-covered.
That In Christ it is being-taken-away

Revelation 1:1 An uncovering/apo-kaluyiV <602> of Jesus Christ which gives to him, the God, to show to the bond-servants of Him which-things is binding to be becoming in swiftness
and He signifies it, commissioning thru the Messenger of Him, to the bondservants of Him, John.

 

[Frogster]

Old habits are sometimes hard to get rid of

2 Corin 3:14 But was calloused the minds of them.
For until the today, the same covering upon the reading of the Old Covenant/Testament is remaining, no being up-covered.
That In Christ it is being-taken-away

Revelation 1:1 An uncovering/apo-kaluyiV <602> of Jesus Christ which gives to him, the God, to show to the bond-servants of Him which-things is binding to be becoming in swiftness
and He signifies it, commissioning thru the Messenger of Him, to the bondservants of Him, John.

I hear ya bubba..

kjv



2 cor 3;13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

 

[from scratch]

You'd be better served looking that up yourself. You talk about how the new covenant isn't a "renewed" covenant, but if you ask me, alot of the rules there are from the OC, which would make it a renewed one. There's no getting around that.

Law to love God and your neighbor is first established in the OC

So you wish to deny Scripture. OK. Just don't expect me to do the same.

Now where is it that those rules are recommanded in the NC/NT? What does LK 16:16 say? And that isn't Paul BTW.

Is Jesus lying or is He mis quoted? We have Jesus saying a new (kainos) commandment.