951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


  

The second part of the Bible is commonly known as the New Testament.  This is a phrase that means the same thing as “New Covenant” in reference to the New Covenant that Jesus introduced and ratified with his blood.  His disciples, who were Jewish, were surprised and awed at the idea that Gentiles would be able to partake of God’s promises to Abraham.  But there were some Jewish Christians who insisted that Gentiles needed to keep the Law of Moses to be saved.  Paul expounded in great detail about this in his epistles, declaring that the New Covenant which Jesus made has superseded the Old Covenant of the Mosaic Law which had been only a temporary measure.

Nevertheless there are still some Christians who believe that the Law of Moses should be adhered to.  Even more consider the Ten Commandments to be universally binding.  The purpose of this article is to show that the Bible teaches otherwise.  In this vehicle I can only scratch the surface.  For an in-depth study of the subject, I highly recommend Anthony Buzzard’s book, The Law, The Sabbath, and New Covenant Christianity, which can be purchased or read online at his web site.

Abrahamic Promises vs. Mosaic Law

To examine this issue, we need to go back to our roots.  The promises God made to Abraham were the foundation of the nation of Israel, and are the root of Christian faith as well.  God called Abraham out of the land of his birth, and he believed and obeyed.  He believed and it was counted to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3).  For this reason he is called the father of them that believe (Rom. 4:11).

He was called and given promises before the Law was given through Moses.  He then received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11).  The promises to him and his descendants were through faith, not through the Law.  Until the Law, there was still sin in the world, but it was not imputed because there was no law (Rom. 5:13).  But when the Law came along 430 years later, it did not invalidate the promises to Abraham which were based on faith and not law (Gal. 3:17).

When Moses had led the children of Israel through the wilderness to Mt. Sinai, God appeared to them atop the mountain, with thunder and lightning, a thick cloud of smoke, and the sound of a trumpet.  He spoke the Ten Commandments to them and they were afraid, and told Moses they could listen to him but couldn’t stand the voice of God.  So they stood at a distance as Moses approached God and got further oral commandments from God (Cp. Exod. 20 and Deut. 5).  Deut. 5:22 in the Jewish Publication Society’s translation says that God spoke “with a great voice, and it went on no more.”  The voice went on no more; it doesn’t say that God added no more words to His laws.  The subsequent chapters of Exodus show that He did in fact add more words to His Law.

Moses then wrote down all of the words God spoke to him, and afterward read them to the people in chapter 24.  He sprinkled the book with blood to ratify the covenant with the people.  All of this happened before God called Moses up the mountain again to give him the stone tablets, which He called, “the stone tablets with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction” (Exod. 24:12).

The Ten Commandments are not a separate law from the Torah that Moses wrote, as some have implied.  Jesus quotes from laws both in and out of the Ten Commandments in Matt. 19:18-19 and Mark 10:19, without giving any distinction.   And he credited Moses with the command to honor father and mother in Mark 7:10.  While there was certainly special significance to the tablets that God Himself had written on, there is nothing to indicate that it was a separate law, especially since a transcript of the Ten Commandments is included twice in the books that Moses wrote.  The Ten Commandments are the outline, or summary, of the Torah, which Moses received from God and delivered to Israel.

The Ten Commandments were never intended to be a standard law for all mankind.  The Sabbath is called a “perpetual covenant” and a “sign forever” according to Exod. 31:16-17.  But both words, ‘forever,’ and ‘perpetual,’ are the same Hebrew word, olam. This word does not hold the same meaning of “without end” as ‘forever’ does in English.  It refers to the duration of a period of time, but not necessarily for all time without end.  Gen. 17:13 calls physical circumcision an “everlasting covenant” but New Testament Christians did not insist upon it.  We shall see that the Law was a temporary measure until Christ.

The Sabbath is thought by some to have been instituted by God at creation, thus preceding the Mosaic Law and therefore to be observed by all mankind.  However, while we are told that God rested on the seventh day after creating everything, there is no record of Him commanding all men to observe the Sabbath.  When He introduced the Sabbath to the children of Israel in the wilderness, it is compared with God’s resting on the seventh day, but there is no record of anyone having been told to observe it until it was given to the children of Israel.

In Exodus 16, the Sabbath is introduced – “Tomorrow is a holy Sabbath to the Lord.”  Moses didn’t say “the” holy Sabbath or in any way imply that it was something that had been known before.  In fact he says, “The Lord has given you the Sabbath.”  Nehemiah 9:13-14 and 10:29-33 also indicate that the Sabbath was given to the people at Sinai, and not to the whole world at creation.

The whole reason for the Sabbath is given in Deut. 5:15.  “You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.”  The purpose of the Sabbath was to set aside Israel as God’s unique and chosen nation, separate from the rest of the world.  It was not a commandment for the whole world.

If the Ten Commandments, and thus the Sabbath, were not given to anyone but Israel at Mt. Sinai, what commandments did Abraham obey?  We read in Gen. 26:4 that “Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”  But this was many years before Moses delivered the Law to Israel.  Yet some Sabbath-keepers cite this verse as proof that there was Law even before Sinai.  However, the Bible does not teach that.  Moses specifically says in Deut. 5:2-3, “The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.  The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today.”

We read that Abraham was blessed because he believed God, not because he obeyed laws.  So what “charge, commandments, statutes and laws” are referred to in Gen. 26:4?  Abraham obeyed God’s command to leave his homeland (Gen. 12:1, 4), to change his name (Gen. 17:5), to accept circumcision (Gen. 17:10, 23-24), to change his wife’s name (Gen. 17:15), to offer up his son as a sacrifice to God (Genesis 22:1-2, 10), and so on.  He obeyed God’s commands because he believed God, and those actions were indications of that faith and of his relationship with God.  The Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, had the same function for the nation of Israel.

The New Covenant

As Christians, we are likewise expected to obey the Commandments of our Lord, not in order to be saved, but as demonstration that we are saved.  We are saved by faith, not by works, but we are created in Christ unto works, which God ordained that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:8-10).  But does that mean we are still expected to keep the Law?  Are the Ten Commandments still in effect for Christians?

Just as there were commandments given to Abraham long before Moses, so there are other sets of commandments in the Bible besides the Law given at Sinai.  Jesus said to keep “my commandments” and there are a number of references in the New Testament to the commandments that he gave.  In addition there are New Testament references to “commandments of God.”  Does that phrase automatically mean The Ten Commandments, or the Law of Moses?  The commandments given to Abraham, and the commandments of Jesus are as much commandments of God as the Law of Moses, since all originate from God ultimately.  But context must determine to whom the commandments in question were made, and who is expected to obey them.

It’s easy to see why some Christians believe that we are expected to keep the Law.  Jesus said in Matthew 5:

17  “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

18  “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

19  “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20  “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the Law?  Jesus said that the two greatest commandments are to love God and love your neighbor, and on these hang all the law (Matt. 22:40).  Paul and James both tell us that love fulfills the Law (Rom. 13:8,10; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8).  Jesus says in this same passage that “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”  How would one’s righteousness surpass the scribes and Pharisees?  By being genuine and not hypocritical, being motivated by love rather than legalism.  He goes on to define just what he meant in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.

His repeated formula is, “You have heard it said… but I say to you…”  Some have suggested that the only thing he was changing was the misunderstanding and misuse of the Law, not the Law itself.  But he includes the very words of the Law in most of his quotations: “You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery,” etc.  He raises the standard, teaching the true heart behind the Law.  He also changes a few specifics, such as only allowing divorce in the case of adultery (while the Law allowed it for other things), and challenging dietary laws (Mark 7:14-23).

If you genuinely love God, you will not have false gods or graven images, nor will you do anything else that displeases Him.  If you genuinely love your neighbor, you will not kill, steal, commit adultery, etc.  Love fulfills the Law, and sets you free from its bondage.  James calls it the Law of Liberty and the Royal Law (James 1:25; 2:8).  Under the Law it was possible to do all the right outward actions and still not have a heart of faith and love.  But God is more interested in us having the right heart, which produces the right actions as fruit.

The “higher standards” Jesus taught were not for us to learn how to be better people.  Nobody could live up to those standards.  He said to think evil of a neighbor is as bad a sin as murder.  Most of us haven’t murdered anyone, but who can say they have never thought evil?  He said to look on a woman with lust is as bad a sin as committing adultery.  Most of us have not committed adultery, but who can say they have never looked on another with lust?  (More on this from my website, here.)  The Law cannot change the heart of a person; it only points out their sin.  That is why it was only a temporary measure.

Romans 3 speaks of how under the Law every mouth is stopped and all the world is accountable to God, because all have sinned.  But God’s solution is the New Covenant.  (More on this from my website, here.)  “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction” (Rom. 3:21-22).

Much is written in the New Testament, especially Hebrews, Galatians, and Colossians, about how Christ is the end of the Law, the Law is bondage, and love fulfills the Law.  When the Galatians started getting back into the Law, Paul reproved them.  “This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?  Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:2-3). He reminds them of how Abraham received the promises because of his faith, and if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise.

“Why the Law then?” Paul asks.  His answer: “It was added because of transgressions…until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.”  If there could have been a law which could impart life, righteousness would have been based on law.  But since everyone sins, that wasn’t possible.  The Law served to identify sin, showing everyone that they cannot be righteous by their works.  This is why Paul calls the Law a tutor to lead us to Christ. (Gal. 3:24).  Once we have Christ, why would we put ourselves under the tutor again?  Paul says it only leads to bondage.

Christ is the “end” of the Law, according to Rom. 10:4.  The word for “end” refers to the ultimate goal, the end which something is moving toward.  I Tim. 1:5 says that “the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.”  Many who insist on keeping the Law frequently claim that we say the Law is done away with.  To such a claim, Paul responded, “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law” (Rom. 3:31).

New Commandments

The Law of Moses, then, was part of a temporary Covenant made specifically with Israel.  It contained elements that pointed to what was to come.  “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).  The New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant, but both are under the overall covenant of promises to Abraham.  So when we speak of obeying God’s commandments, which ones are we talking about?

Obeying the commandments of Jesus does not mean obeying the Law of Moses.  The first commandment Jesus gave in his preaching was to repent and believe the Gospel.  He also said he gave us a new commandment, to love one another (John 13:34; 15:12).  These and other commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ are what we as Christians are expected to follow.

The few New Testament verses that refer to obeying “the law of God” are not speaking of the Law of God as delivered through Moses. The law of Christ, delivered by the ultimate Prophet which Moses foretold (Deut. 18:15-19), is also called the Law of God.  God’s commandments delivered by Moses were addressed to Israel.  His commandments to the world at large are found in the words of Jesus Christ.  Some of what he said during his earthly ministry was addressed to people who were still under the Law, before he completed his sacrificial work.  But he made quite a few significant changes even during that time.  In addition, his commandments also include what he gave us by revelation through the writings of the Apostles.  Paul referred to his writings as “commandments of the Lord” in I Cor. 14:37.

When Paul said in Rom. 7:25, “So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin,” he wasn’t saying that he kept the Law of Moses.  The context of chapter 7 speaks of the problem with the Law because of our sin nature.  And he goes on in chapter 8 to describe how walking by the spirit is the solution.

When he wrote in I Cor. 7:19 that “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God,” he couldn’t be referring to the Ten Commandments or the Law of Moses.  Circumcision is certainly not “nothing” in the Law of Moses.

Hebrews 10 refers to the sacrifices of the law as a shadow of better things to come. Christ is the substance of which they were a shadow.  Now that the reality has come, there is no more need for the shadow.  We now offer “spiritual sacrifices” in place of the old animal sacrifices (Hebrews 13:15; I Peter 2:5).

Similarly, Colossians 2:16-17 calls the whole Sabbath system (including festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths) a shadow of things to come, concerning which we are not to be judged.  We saw that the Sabbath was uniquely given to Israel.  Now that Christ has come we have no need for observance of special days, as Paul refers to in Romans 14:5 (“One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.”)

Hebrews 4 tells us that “there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.  For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.”  The Israelites did not enter into God’s rest in the wilderness due to their unbelief.  Our ultimate rest will be when Christ returns, but in the meantime we are exhorted to “be diligent to enter that rest.”  The point is to cease from our own works and rest in what God has done, just as the Mosaic Sabbath was for the purpose of remembering what God had done for them.

Sabbath keepers have made many attempts to explain away the words of Colossians 2:16-17, but to no avail. The Law with its Sabbath system is a shadow of Christ and the rest we have in him (Matt.11:28-29).  We have no need of holy days and Sabbaths, which were for Israel to remember how God had led them out of Egypt.  We now strive to enter into his rest every day.

The “things to come” can’t be referring exclusively to what is yet future, because the whole context of chapter 2 is talking about what we have now – we are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands; we were buried with him in baptism and are now raised up and made alive through faith; He “canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us.”  This has to do with the Law, by which we are condemned as sinners.  He nailed it to his cross and triumphed over all rulers and powers.  Therefore no one is to judge us in regard to food or drink or in respect of the Sabbath system.  Notice it says no one is to judge us according to the Law, because Jesus paid our debt in full.  That rules out the suggestion that verse 17 is saying “…but the Body of Christ,” meaning “let no one judge you but the Body of Christ, i.e., the Church.”

We have been given commandments by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, including what he spoke by way of the Apostles.  Let us rise up to his commandments, one of which is, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Gal. 5:1).

362 Responses to “New Covenant Commandments”

  1. on 29 May 2009 at 4:40 pmrobert

    “but the keeping of the commandments of God,” he couldn’t be referring to the Ten Commandments or the Law of Moses.”

    it has everything to do With all 10 Commandments but not Mosaic law.
    The Commandments from God were spoke By God to all people who left Egypt with the children of Israel.
    Mosaic Law was Spoke to Moses and was to be given to only Israel or anyone who wanted to join Israel for the use as governmental laws which at the time of Christ were not truly in effect because the law was what the romans said or allowed.
    the 10 commandments was put in the Ark of the Covenant of Abraham along with everything else that was everlasting, the mosaic law was put in a side pocket outside the Ark. God wrote the !0 Commandments in Stone with His OWN FINGURES, Moses had mosaic law written by his scribe.
    Mosaic law should of ending Centuries before Jesus and the Priesthood when Jesus came.
    while mosaic law makes reference to all 10 Commandments, it was to just define how ISRAEL was to Honor them. these new definitions were no longer need when Israel was removed as a nation and Judea was not a nation because they were occupied and will not be needed till the one who right it is to recreate the nation of Israel.

    ————————————————————

    “Sabbath keepers have made many attempts to explain away the words of Colossians 2:16-17, but to no avail.”

    this needs no explaining ,it is clear as a bell and you cant hear it ringing.

    this just means let No MAN judge you on how you rest in the Sabbath and has nothing to do with what days. there were many days in the traditions of the jews and that is what that means.

  2. on 29 May 2009 at 5:28 pmMark C.

    Once again, you make sweeping assertions without backing it up with Scripture. I demonstrated why the Ten Commandments are not a separate law from the Law of Moses. I also demonstrated why the phrase “commandments of God” does not always mean the Ten Commandments in the New Testament.

    Please note, I am not calling you a liar, but I am again saying that simply contradicting and making assertions without evidence does not make a sound argument. However, you are free to believe whatever you want to.

  3. on 29 May 2009 at 5:39 pmrobert

    i present as much evidence as you did.you proved nothing

  4. on 30 May 2009 at 8:49 amKarl

    How do you make a quote here? It’s something with a backslash.

  5. on 30 May 2009 at 11:37 amMark C.

    Karl,

    To do a quote, type:

    text

  6. on 30 May 2009 at 11:41 amMark C.

    I was afraid of that. Instead of displaying what to type, it turned it into a quote.

    Type the word “blockquote” between the angle brackets before what you’re quoting, and backslash + blockquote: /blockquote between the angle brackets after the quote.

  7. on 30 May 2009 at 11:44 amSean

    Karl,

    most standard html is usable in comments….here are some examples

    click here

  8. on 30 May 2009 at 11:47 amMark C.

    Just curious, Sean, how did you get the code with the angle brackets to show up in that post you linked to, rather than turning it into an indented quote?

  9. on 30 May 2009 at 12:57 pmrobert

    “Nevertheless there are still some Christians who believe that the Law of Moses should be adhered to. Even more consider the Ten Commandments to be universally binding.”

    Yes there are some who follow the Mosaic Law that they can but they do it out of Love For God which is the Greatest Commandment Confirmed By Jesus But the ones that Follow the !0 are truly Following the Greatest and The 2 Commandments that Jesus spoke of By Doing the first 4 of the 10 which is the first of the 2 that Jesus spoke of which is loving God and the second which is to love GOD’S most loved creation. Did God really need Jesus to break them down into all 10 when the 10 was so well known. well no
    Jesus took away the grievous admendments that was attached to some of the 10 that God gave to Israel as a nation which were needed while Israel was a nation and other admendments that man added on his own which God strongly hated.
    Jesus didnt Get rid of the Priesthood ,He just replaced it with himself which was what it was intended to become when it was created.

    Abraham believed God so Fully he recieved the Holy Spirit which being God’s spirit had full knowlege of All GOD’s charges, GOD’s commandments, GOD’s statutes and GOD’s laws. Abraham was shown by God things through the Holy Spirit which included seeing Jesus’s Day and all of the promises God Made to Him.

  10. on 30 May 2009 at 1:30 pmKarl

    text

  11. on 30 May 2009 at 1:32 pmSean

    I used the html code for the ASCII #

    http://www.ascii.cl/htmlcodes.htm

  12. on 30 May 2009 at 1:35 pmrobert

    Sean
    did you get email i sent you

    my email address starts with rkl1963

  13. on 30 May 2009 at 8:10 pmRay

    I haven’t read anything here but your article Mark. Thank you for it.
    It’s been helpful to me. In it you mention many things that have been stumbling blocks to many, and may I say, “God bless those who work to remove those things, in Jesus’ name.”?

    When reading it it came to my attention that many who rested in
    the law and belived they were in compliance to it, were the ones
    who at times were annuling God’s commandments by their actions
    and doctrines. I suppose in a sense they were teaching men to
    do the same and became the least in the kingdom, if in fact they
    were in the kingdom at all.

    I also wonder about the apostle Paul himself, if he was in the kingdom prior to his visitation by Christ, for he calls all the things of
    his past, something of no value to him in one of his writings that I
    am aware of.

    Sometimes men missed the whole thing it seems even though all
    the law of God was there to teach them the things of God, and so
    for that reason and many more I suppose, Christ came.

    Here’s something that I would like to share about Abraham as we
    think about what commands or things of God he kept. It’s something that has been dear to my heart.

    Genesis 18:19
    For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord,
    to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham
    that which he hath spoken of him.

    Q. Was that what drew God to Abraham? Was that what God saw
    in him that he should so connect with him?
    Q. And who is the way of the Lord, if not Jesus?
    Q. And what is this way if not love?
    Q. And don’t we need those who will plead the cause of those who
    are oppressed, those who are willing to go with a brother if he
    has a matter that’s been unresolved, after first going to him?
    And don’t we hope the plea they will make, after first acertaining
    all the facts, making sure they are not judging by what they first
    hear by the ear, and making sure that a wrong really was done
    and that the wrong really was wrong, and after all that and
    more, (by prayer and the scipture) don’t we hope the plea they
    make to the oppressor (whoever that may be at the time of the
    PRESENT distress), is “Please have mercy.”?

  14. on 30 May 2009 at 8:17 pmRay

    Robert, I am convinced that I am fair if I advise you to read what
    Mark has been writing, for I see that you still have some unclear
    matters about the keeping of the Sabbath. Please give him your
    ear on that matter.

  15. on 30 May 2009 at 8:28 pmrobert

    Ray
    I have read everything he has wrote and it doesnt match what God has revealed to me.there are many more beside me that know the truth of this matter. No one is here to judge you on this matter but to let you know the truth so you can decide.
    God is the truth, Man is a liar.
    while i am not educated as mark claims he is, God reveals to all, it is just some choose not to believe God because it would change their secure life and they would have to forsake their god(their ego)

  16. on 30 May 2009 at 9:22 pmJoseph

    Good article Mark but you seem to be missing the point of God’s law.

    Let’s say I’m new to the faith and have been studying the NT, how do I know that incest and bestiality are wrongful acts?

    No one is saying that the law only can give us salvation, obviously God will have the final say. But it is obvious that without the law we are blind to the ways of God. You admit that the law brings us to righteousness, but then what? We stop following the law? Didn’t Christ say that to love him we should keep his commandments, in which he reiterated in a law that he did not abolish?

  17. on 30 May 2009 at 9:25 pmJoseph

    Both/And my brother, just as Christ had taught us. Don’t let the letters of Paul to a certain people and time let you from enjoying the fruits of keeping the commandments of God and Christ. We must grow in God’s ways now that we are not little babies to the faith and partake in the good meat of the good Book.

  18. on 30 May 2009 at 9:31 pmrobert

    Ray
    I want you to understand that being popular doesnt mean you have the truth and you might not know you are fighting Gods word.

    The Preacher As A False Prophet

    By the Rev. James Stalker, D.D.

    To: The Rev. Alexander Whyte, D.D.

    UPON anyone who is studying the physiognomy of the age of the prophets there is one disagreeable feature which obtrudes itself so constantly that even in the briefest sketch it is impossible to pass it by. This is the activity of the false prophets (1). It culminated in the lifetime of Jeremiah, whose whole career might almost be described as a conflict with them. Again and again he and they came to open war; and on at least one occasion the whole body combined to take away his life. Ezekiel was scarcely less afflicted by them. They were perhaps not so prominent an element in the life of Isaiah, but he also refers to them frequently; and, indeed, their sinister figures haunt the pages of all the prophets.

    It is a kind of humiliation to speak of them at all, and I would gladly pass them by; but the figure of the true prophet will rise before our eyes more clearly by the contrast of the false: and it is perhaps a duty to look also at the degradations to which our office is liable. The higher the honour attaching to the ministerial profession, when it is worthily filled, the deeper is the abuse of which it is capable in comparison with other callings; and its functions are so sacred that the man who discharges them must either be a man of God or a hypocrite. Yet there are plenty of motives of an inferior kind which may take the place of right ministerial aims. Though it is painful to speak of such things, yet here again the method which we have adopted in these lectures, of following the guidance of Scripture, may be leading us better than we could have chosen ourselves; and it may be wholesome to have to look at an aspect of our subject which of our own accord we would avoid.

    There are two things in Scripture which I have never been able to think of without strong movements of fear and self-distrust.

    One of them is that, when the Son of God came to this earth, He was persecuted and slain by the religious classes. His deadly opponents were the Scribes and Pharisees. But who were the Scribes and Pharisees? The Scribes occupied almost exactly the position in the community which is held among us by the literary, the scholastic and the clerical classes; and the Pharisees were simply what we should now call the leading religious laymen. Had they been adherents of a false religion, there would have been nothing surprising in their resistance to the final revelation of the true God. But the religion which they professed was the true religion; the Scribes were the expounders of the Word of God, and the Pharisees occupied the foremost places in the house of God.

    Yet, when the Son of Jehovah, whose name they were called by, appeared amongst them, they rejected Him and took away His life. Many a time, as I have followed Jesus step by step through His lifelong conflict with their ill will and contradiction, the question has pressed itself painfully upon my mind: If He were to come to the earth now and intervene in our affairs, how would the religious classes receive Him? and on which side would I be myself? If to any this question may seem fantastic, let them change it into this other, which cannot appear idle, though it means exactly the same thing: What is the attitude of the religious classes to the manifestations of the spirit of Jesus in the life of to-day? do they welcome them and back them up? or have the new ideas and movements in which Christ is marching onward to the conquest of the world to reckon on opposition, even from those who call themselves most loudly by His name?

    The other circumstance which has often affected my mind in the same way is that which comes before us to-day – that the true prophets of the Old Testament had to face the opposition, not of heathens, and not of the openly irreligious among their own countrymen only, but of those who had the name of God in their mouths and were publicly recognized as His oracles. To us these are now false prophets, because time has found them out and the Word of God has branded them with the title they deserve; but in their own day they were regarded as true prophets; and doubtless many of them never dreamed that they were not entitled to the name.

    They must have been a numerous and powerful body. Jeremiah mentions them again and again along with the king, the princes and the priests, as if they formed a fourth estate in the realm; and Zephaniah mentions them in the same way along with the princes, the judges, and the priests. They evidently formed a separate and conspicuous class in the community. They cannot have been equally bad in every generation; and there may have been many degrees of deviation among them from the character of the true prophet; but as a body they were false, and the true servants of God had to reckon them among the anti-religious forces which they had to overcome.

    This is an appalling fact – that the public representatives of religion should ever have been the worst enemies of religion; but it cannot be denied that even in Christendom, and that not once or twice, the same condition of things has existed.

    At the same time these men did not suppose that this was the position they held; but history has judged them. It is not easy for a man to admit the thought into his own mind that in him his office is being dishonored and its aim frustrated; and it is far more difficult to do so if he has the support of the prevailing sentiment and is going forward triumphantly as a member of the majority. But there is enough in the history of our order to warn us to watch over ourselves with a jealous mind, lest we too, while clad in the garb of a sacred profession and in the authority of an ecclesiastical position, should be found fighting against God. It will not do to think that, merely because we sit in Moses’ seat and have the Word of God in our mouths, therefore we must be right. Nor must we be too confident because we are in the majority. If we have faith in our views, it is quite right, indeed, that we should try to make them prevail; and there is a legitimate joy in seeing a good cause carrying with it the sympathies and suffrages of men. But we are all too easily persuaded that our cause is good simply because it can win votes. In ecclesiastical affairs there is often as feverish a counting of heads as in party politics. The majority have the same confidence that the case is finally decided in their favour; and there is the same exaltation over the defeated party, as if their being in the minority were a clear proof that they were also in the wrong. But this is no criterion, and time may sternly reverse the victory of the moment. Even in the Church the side of the false prophets may be the growing and the winning side, while Jeremiah is left in a minority of one.

    The false prophets were strong, not only in their own numbers, but in their popularity with the people. This told heavily against the true prophets; for the people could not believe that the one man, who was standing alone, was right, and that his opponents, who were many, were wrong. The seats and the trappings of office always affect the multitude, who are slow to come to the conclusion that the teachers under whom they find themselves in providence can be misleading them. This is, to a certain extent, an honourable sentiment; but it throws upon public teachers a weighty responsibility. If they are going wrong, they will generally get the majority of the people to follow them. So completely may this be the case, that by degrees the popular taste is vitiated and will not endure any other teaching than that to which it has been accustomed, though it be false. There is no sadder verse in all prophecy than the complaint of Jeremiah, “The prophets prophesy falsely, and My people love to have it so.” Like prophet, like people; the public mind may be so habituated to what is false, and satisfied with it, that it has no taste or even tolerance for the true (2). Jeremiah could not gain a hearing for his stern and weighty message from ears accustomed to the light and frivolous views of the false prophets; and to Baruch, his young coadjutor and amanuensis, who was starting on the prophetic career with the high hopes of youth, he had to deliver the chilling message, “Seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not.” The path to popularity and eminence was not open to anyone who did not speak according to the prevailing fashion.

    The false prophets won and kept their popularity by pandering to the opinions and prejudices of the people. The times of Jeremiah were big with coming calamities, and he had to predict that these calamities were sure to come; for there were no signs of deep or genuine repentance, and, indeed, the time for repentance was past. The self-flattering, ease-loving people hated to hear these disagreeable facts. Their frivolous minds were engrossed with the gossip and excitement of the passing day, and it was too great an exertion to give their attention to the majestic views of the Divine justice and the far-reaching sweep of the Divine providence to which Jeremiah tried to direct their attention. They wished to enjoy the present and to believe that all would come right somehow. The false prophets flattered these wishes.

    They said that the calamities which Jeremiah was foretelling would not come to pass, or that at least they would be much less formidable than he represented. They were, as Jeremiah says, like an unconscientious physician, who is afraid to probe the wound to the bottom, though the life of the patient depends on it. Ezekiel accuses them of making nightcaps to draw over the eyes and ears of their countrymen, lest they should see and hear the truth, and of muffling with a glove the naked hand of God with which the sins of the people should have been smitten. The constant refrain of their prophecies was, “Peace, peace,” though the storm-clouds of retribution were ready to burst. The people said to them, “Prophesy to us smooth things;” and the false prophets provided the supply according to the demand.

    We cannot flatter ourselves that this is a danger which belongs entirely to the past. There will always be a demand for smooth things, and an appropriate reward for him who is willing to supply them in the name of God. Popularity is a thing which will always be coveted; and under certain conditions it is a thing to be thankful for. If it means that the truth is prevailing and that men are yielding their minds to its sway, it is a precious gift of heaven. It is a good thing to see many coming out to hear the Word of God, and to both preacher and hearers there is a great deal of exhilaration and inspiration in a full church. But popularity may be purchased at too dear a rate. It may be bought by the suppression of the truth and the letting down of the demands for a religion which does not agitate the mind too much or interfere with the pursuits of a worldly life.

    I have seen a very trenchant article from an American pen on the power of the moneyed members of a church to dictate the tone of the pulpit; and it is a common accusation against ministers, that they flatter the prevailing classes in their congregations. If their congregations are wealthy, they are afraid, it is said, to speak up for the poor, even when justice is calling out on their side; and, if their congregations are poor, they take the side of the working-man, right or wrong. I should question whether temptations so gross as these are much felt. Far more dangerous are the subtler temptations – to truckle to the spirit of the age, to keep at all hazards on the side of the cultivated and clever, and to shun those truths the utterance of which might expose the teacher to the charge of being antiquated and bigoted. Let a preacher dwell always on the sunny side of the truth and conceal the shadows, let him enlarge continually on what is simple and human in Christianity and pass lightly over what is mysterious and Divine: let him, for example, dwell on the human side of Christ but say nothing of His atonement, let him extol the better elements of human nature but say nothing of its depravity, let him preach frequently on the glories of the next world but never mention its terrors: and very probably he may be popular and see his church crowded; but he will be a false prophet (3).

    Who were these false prophets, and how did there come to be such numbers of them? These are questions which an attentive reader of the Bible cannot help asking; but it is not by any means easy to answer them.

    The prophets whose names have come down to us are not by any means numerous; but, besides them, there must have been many other true prophets. There were times when the spirit of religion was breathing through the community, and then men were not wanting who felt called to be its organs. The spirit of inspiration might fall on any one at any time; no prescribed training was necessary to make a man a prophet. It might come, as it did to Amos, on the husbandman in his fields or the shepherd among his flock. It might alight on the young noble amidst the opening pleasures of life, as it did on Isaiah and Zephaniah; or it might come, as it did on Jeremiah and Ezekiel, on the young priest preparing for his sacred functions.

    But some of the more noted prophets endeavoured in a more systematic way to diffuse the spirit which rested upon themselves, and thus to multiply the number of the prophets. They founded schools in which promising young men were gathered and plied with the means of education available in that age, cultivating music, reading the writings of the older prophets, and coming under the influence of the holy man who was at their head. These were the Schools of the Prophets, and their students were the Sons of the Prophets. Samuel seems to have been the first founder of these schools. They were flourishing in the times of Elijah and Elisha, and they probably continued to exist with varying fortunes in subsequent centuries. Perhaps all who went through these schools claimed, or could claim, the prophetic name. Those who took up the profession wore the hairy mantle and leathern girdle made familiar to us by the figure of John the Baptist; and they probably subsisted on the gifts of those who benefited from their oracles. Their numbers may have been very large; we hear of hundreds of prophets even during an idolatrous reign, when they were exposed to persecution.

    In times when the spirit of inspiration was abroad or when the schools enjoyed the presence of a master spirit, it is easy to understand how valuable such institutions may have been, and how they may have been centres from which religious light and warmth were diffused through the whole country. But they were liable to deterioration. If the general tone of religion in the country declined, they partook in the general decay; an inspiring leader might be taken away and no like-minded successor arise to fill his place; or men who had received no real call beforehand might join the school and pass through the curriculum without receiving it. Only they had learned the trick of speech and got by rote the language of religion. They had no personal knowledge of God or message obtained directly from him; but it was not difficult to put on the prophet’s mantle and talk in the traditional prophetic tones. The fundamental charge against the false prophets is always this: “I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran; I have not spoken unto them, yet they prophesy.”

    If I am right in tracing the origin of false prophecy to the schools of the prophets, this gives a suggestive hint as to the point at which the same danger may beset ourselves. It is obviously the duty of the authorities of the Church to make provision for the training of those who are to be the future ministers of the Gospel; and it is natural for those who have the honour of the Church at heart to covet for her service the talents of the gifted. Parents, too, will often be found cherishing an intense desire that the choicest of their sons should become ministers. These wishes of superiors have a legitimate influence in determining the choice of our life-work. The wishes and prayers of pious parents are especially entitled to have very great weight. Yet there is a danger of an outward influence of this kind being substituted for genuine personal experience and an inward call. When, a generation ago, in the rural parts of England, the church in many a parish was looked upon as “a living,” to be allocated to a junior member of the family, who was educated for the position as a matter of course, the custom, whatever happy results it might produce in exceptional cases, was not fitted to fill the pulpits of the land with men of prophetic character. The pious wishes of parents, however beautiful they may be, require to be made absolutely conditional on a vocation of a higher kind; otherwise we get a manufactured ministry, without a message, in place of men in whom the spirit of inspiration is stirring and who speak because they believe.

    Having no message of their own, what were the false prophets to do? The best they could do was to repeat and imitate what had been said by their predecessors. It is with this Jeremiah reproaches them when he says, “Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal My words everyone from his neighbour.” The older prophets used to begin their utterances with the phrase, “the burden of the Lord;” and Jeremiah complains that this had become an odious cant term in the mouths of his contemporaries; and in the same way Zechariah complains that in his day the great word “comfort,” which from the lips of Isaiah had descended like dew from heaven on the parched hearts of the people of God, had become a dry and hackneyed phrase in the mouths of false prophets. How dangerous this habit of stealing the words of others might become, when practical issues were involved, may be illustrated by a striking example. The inviolability of Jerusalem had been a principle of the older prophets, which was quite true for their times; and Isaiah had made use of it for rousing his fellow-citizens from despair, when the army of Sennacherib stood before the gates. But in Jeremiah’s time the change of circumstances had made it to be no longer true; and yet the false prophets kept on repeating it; and no doubt they seemed both to themselves and others to be occupying a strong position when, in opposing him, they could allege that they were standing on the same ground as Isaiah. All the time, however, they were betraying those who listened to them.

    There is a sense in which the truth of God is unchangeable; it is like Himself – the same yesterday and to-day and forever. But there is another sense in which it is continually changing. Like the manna, it descends fresh every morning, and, if it is kept till to-morrow, it breeds loathsome worms. Isaiah describes the true prophet as one who has the tongue of the learner – not of the learned, as the Authorised Version gives it – and whose ear is opened every morning to hear the message of the new day. What was truth for yesterday may be falsehood for to-day; and only he is a trustworthy interpreter of God who is sensitive to the indications of present providence.

    It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that the only form which false prophecy can take is a dried-up orthodoxy, mumbling over the shibboleths of yesterday. If he who stands forward as a speaker for God is out of touch with God and has really no Divine message, he may make good the lack of a true Divine word in many ways. The easiest way is, no doubt, to fall back on some accepted word of yesterday; but he may also strike out on the path of originality, announcing a gospel for to-morrow, constructed by his own fancy, which has no Divine sanction. Neither orthodoxy nor heterodoxy is a guarantee: the only guarantee is a humble mind living in the secret of the Lord.

    I have mentioned that the prophets subsisted on the contributions of those to whom their oracles were supposed to be valuable. There is, indeed, very little information on this head; but they are accused of prophesying for bread, and avarice and a greedy appetite for the good things of this life are reproaches frequently cast at them. It is not likely that prophecy can ever have been a paying profession, but it would appear to have been at least a means of livelihood; and there are indications that those who enjoyed an exceptional popularity may have occupied a high social standing. Ezekiel, whose characterizations of the false prophets are remarkably striking, uses about them a significant figure of speech. He says that, while a true prophet was like a wall of fire to his country, standing in the breach when danger threatened and defending it with his life, the false prophets were like foxes that burrow among the ruins of fallen cities. What mattered it to them that their country was degraded, if only they had found comfortable places for themselves?

    This also is a painful side of the subject. It is inevitable that the ministry should become a means of livelihood, and yet it is fatal to pursue it with this in view. It is the least lucrative of the professions, and yet, in the pressure of modern life, it may tempt men to join it merely as a profession. Even if it has been entered upon from higher motives, the attrition of domestic necessities may dry up the nobler motives and convert the minister into a hireling who thinks chiefly of his wages (4). The commercial spirit is omnipotent in our day; and men who can buy everything for money think that ministers are procurable in the same way. Thus they tempt men away with bribes of money from work to which God has called them. I am far from questioning the importance of the mission of the pulpit to the wealthier classes; and we must have men of culture to preach to the cultivated. I would no more think of setting up the poor against the rich, as the exclusive objects of the Church’s attention, than the rich against the poor. But perhaps the most essential work of the Church at the present time is to win and to hold the working classes. I should like to see ministers coveting work among them; and let him who has learned to wield such an audience, where he can speak with the freedom and force of nature, beware of being bribed away to a position where he will be tamed and domesticated, and have his teeth drawn and his claws cut.

    So monotonous is the evil side of the false prophets that one longs for a gleam of something good in them. Can they not at least be pitied? May they not have been weak men, who were elevated to a position which proved too much for them? The times were full of change and difficulty, and it required a clear eye to see the indications of Providence. It is not every one who has the genius of an Isaiah or the magnificent moral courage of a Jeremiah. Was it not possible to take a milder view of the world than Jeremiah did, and yet be a true man? May they not at least have been mistaken, when they ventured to emit prophecies which history falsified?

    Such sentiments easily arise in us; but they are driven back by what we read of the personal character of these men. “Both prophet and priest,” says Jeremiah, “are profane; yea, in My house have I found their wickedness, saith the Lord.” “I have seen,” he says in God’s name, “in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery and walk in lies.” Jeremiah’s view of them might be thought to be coloured by his own melancholy temperament; but Isaiah’s is not less severe: “The priest and the prophet,” he says, “have erred through wine, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink.” And he gives this terrible picture of them: “His watchmen are blind, they are ignorant; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand; they all look to their own way, every one to his gain from his quarter. Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to-morrow shall be as this day and still more abundant.” The representation in the other prophets are to the same effect. Zephaniah passes on the whole class the sweeping judgment, that they are light and treacherous persons. But the lowest deep is reached in Zechariah, who forsees a time, close at hand, when the very name of prophet will be a byword, and the father and mother of anyone who pretends to prophesy, will thrust him through, to deliver themselves from the reproach of having any connection with him (5).

    The influence of such a travesty of the sacred office as these passages describe must have been deplorable; and without doubt it was one of the principal causes of the overthrow of the Jewish State. Jeremiah says expressly, that from the prophets profaneness had gone out over the whole land. They who, from their position and profession, ought to have been an example to their fellow-countrymen were the very reverse. They were the companions of the profane and licentious in their revels, and they joined with scorners in scoffing at those who led a strict and holy life. So God charges them by the lips of Ezekiel: “Ye have made the hearts of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad, and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way.”

    This is a terrible picture. Yet there have been epochs in the history of the Christian, and even of the Protestant Church, when its features have been reproduced with too faithful literality. Let us be thankful that we live in a happier time; but lets us also remember the maxim, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” If a Church lose the Spirit of God, there is no depth of corruption to which it may not rapidly descend; and a degraded Church is the most potent factor of national decay.

    Allow me to say, in closing, that I believe the question, what is to be the type and the tone of the ministry in any generation, is decided in the theological seminaries. What the students are there, the ministers of the country will be by-and-by. And, while the discipline of the authorities and the exhortations and examples of professors may do something, the tone of the college is determined by the students themselves. The state of feeling in a theological seminary ought to be such, that any man living a life inconsistent with his future profession should feel thoroughly uncomfortable, and have the conviction driven in upon his conscience every day, that the ministry is no place for him.

    EXCERPTED FROM: THE PREACHER AND HIS MODELS
    THE YALE LECTURES ON PREACHING, 1891

  19. on 30 May 2009 at 11:53 pmMark C.

    Good article Mark but you seem to be missing the point of God’s law.

    Let’s say I’m new to the faith and have been studying the NT, how do I know that incest and bestiality are wrongful acts?

    As I (and JohnE) pointed out in the other thread, many people who don’t have the Law of Moses can figure out that those are wrongful acts. If they can’t, they still have the writing of the Old Testament for our learning, to let us know it. I showed that “the point of God’s law” was to identify sin. But if we avoided incest and bestiality but still didn’t keep all the other details of the Law like keeping the Sabbath and the dietary laws, we’d be just as guilty as those who committed bestiality and incest.

    No one is saying that the law only can give us salvation, obviously God will have the final say. But it is obvious that without the law we are blind to the ways of God. You admit that the law brings us to righteousness

    That’s not what I said, nor is it what Paul said. The Law brings us to Christ, not to righteousness. By the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. The Law stops the mouths of all mankind by showing that everybody sins and they cannot be righteous by their own works. Now righteousness without the Law is made manifest, by faith in Christ.

    …but then what?
    We stop following the law? Didn’t Christ say that to love him we should keep his commandments, in which he reiterated in a law that he did not abolish?

    Yes. Keep HIS commandments. That was the whole point of the article. “HIS commandments” does not mean the commandments of the Law of Moses. His commandments have some points in common with the Mosaic Law, but others that are different, especially in light of his commandments that he gave us by way of Paul.

    Both/And my brother, just as Christ had taught us. Don’t let the letters of Paul to a certain people and time let you from enjoying the fruits of keeping the commandments of God and Christ. We must grow in God’s ways now that we are not little babies to the faith and partake in the good meat of the good Book.

    The letters of Paul are addressed to the saints of God. Paul clearly shows that the “fruit” of trying to keep the Law of Moses is bondage, while the fruit of the law of Christ is grace and freedom. I agree that since we are not babies we are to grow in God’s ways and partake in the meat of the Word. But as I said, the more mature ways of God involve grace and love by which we can rise above the letter of the Law. That’s why Paul said the Law was our pedagogue to bring us to Christ.

  20. on 31 May 2009 at 9:39 amrobert

    Colossians 2: 13-23 is an interesting section of the Bible that has been used to teach that the Biblical Law has been canceled.

    Popular Christian doctrine teaches that Biblical Law has been done away with and that once you say that little prayer accepting “Jesus” into your heart you will just become a good person knowing all the right things to do through faith and love; therefore, “Jesus” brought the law to an end, and we just don’t need it anymore.

    Actually, the Scriptures say nothing about a little prayer accepting “Jesus” into your heart; and his name was not “Jesus.” People who do this do not automatically have the “law in their heart,” and do not automatically know the right things to do; this has been observed over and over. One cannot trust the accuracy of Christian doctrines simply because they have been believed for years.

    I have stated the above, because when the translators had these erroneous doctrines in mind, and many of them did, the choices from the possible words for the translation became slanted to support personal beliefs. A truly objective mind is a rare thing; one must place his own beliefs on the table with all the other possibilities and then begin the search for truth.

    So holding to the Christian doctrine that the Biblical Law has been canceled, the translators selected words that made Colossians 2 appear to support this idea. Colossians 2 cannot be easily understood today by just reading the Bible, because there were many things that the writer was assuming the reader already knew. And indeed, at the time it was written the reader did have a background of common knowledge that brought a clarity of understanding not experienced by today’s average Bible reader. For example, verses 20 and 21 are taught in Christian doctrines to be referring to Torah, Biblical Law.

    Colo 2:20 (KJS) Wherefore if ye be dead with [Messiah] from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
    21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
    Why would Paul be telling the gentiles (vs 1:27 identifies his audience), who had never kept Torah, not to act as though they were living in the world (vs 2:20) keeping Torah? It does not make sense, does it? The believer from Colosse in that day knew that Paul was referring to their previous worldly belief in Gnosticism. A belief which taught that spirit was good and matter or the physical was completely evil; and that man should not enjoy touching, tasting, or handling things (vs 2:21). Verse 2:22 describes their previous religious decrees (see the Greek) or ordinances as “doctrines of men.” Scripture would never refer to Torah, Yahweh’s Laws, as “doctrines of men.”
    Going back now to verse 2:14, we see the word “ordinances” in the KJV, ASV and Young’s Literal; and “regulations” in the NIV. The Greek word is “dogma” which can mean “rules” or the application of a rule, as in a “decree.” Verse 11-13 tells us that by putting off sin, because we believe in the Messiah, and being immersed, he has given us life by forgiving our transgressions. And he has done this (verse 14) by blotting out the “decree” written against each of us (the death sentence for our sinning) nailing it with himself to the stake.

    If you carefully check the word order and phrasing in King James verses 15, 16, and 17 you will see this:
    And He has overcome the world (verse 15). Therefore, (verse 16) let no man, except those in the body of the Messiah (verse 17), judge how you eat or drink (dietary laws), or your honoring of the holydays, new moon days, or Sabbaths; which are a shadow of things to come.

    Colo 2:15 (KJS) [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
    16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:
    17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of {Messiah}.
    NOTE: These brackets [ ] are around the word “is,” because it does not appear in the underlying Greek manuscript. Let no man judge you except those in the body of the Messiah.

  21. on 31 May 2009 at 10:25 amrobert

    The 10 commandments were not spoken as laws, if they were they would have the punishment for each and every one of them written with them on the Tablets. they are the Morals that God wants his children to keep and instead of punishment their is a reward for following them.
    Now in Mosaic law there is punishment for not following them or not following the ways set forth for them but it was given to just Israel not other nations.
    i am not held by Mosaic law because at this present time I am not living under the laws of Israel because there is no Israel at present but being a decendent of Joseph i look forward to living under the laws of Israel and Honoring My King Jesus and serving My God who My King serves

  22. on 31 May 2009 at 12:02 pmrobert

    for those who dont know where Colosse was located.
    http://holylandphotos.org/browse.asp?s=1,3,7,23,62

    the religion in Colosse was not judism it was a pagan religion that worshiped false gods with some traditions being closely the same as some of judism.
    when you understand they were not being held by the Word of God which before Jesus they probably never heard. they were held by the doctrines of men within their own religion and this is what was needed to overcome there to bring the Word of God and the testamony of Jesus. but most scholars know this but refuse to teach it because it would remove their authority over the capitive which hold them as gods. they need these type of things to hold you in the kingdom of satan, they can hold you captive with just one, so letting you overcome one but not all serves their master as Jesus spoke against all through out his testamony when he spoke of the highest in the priesthood as the synagogue of satan

  23. on 31 May 2009 at 1:45 pmMark C.

    Colossians 2: 13-23 is an interesting section of the Bible that has been used to teach that the Biblical Law has been canceled.

    Popular Christian doctrine teaches that Biblical Law has been done away with and that once you say that little prayer accepting “Jesus” into your heart you will just become a good person knowing all the right things to do through faith and love; therefore, “Jesus” brought the law to an end, and we just don’t need it anymore.

    This is not what I’ve been saying. The Law is not “canceled” it’s fulfilled when we live in the spirit, and that’s more than “saying a little prayer accepting Jesus into your heart.”

    The Epistle to the Colossians is addressed to “the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae” (1:2). They may have been mostly Gentiles, but there’s no indication that they were ONLY Gentiles. The reference to “decrees, such as, ‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch'” in 2:20 is referring to commandments of men, as you say. But in verses 16 and 17 it refers to dietary and Sabbath laws, and in verse 11 it says they were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands. These are definitely references to elements of the Mosaic Law.

    Why would Paul be telling them not to act like they were keeping the Torah if they had not been keeping it? Because there were some who were insisting that they needed to keep the Law once they were saved. This is why he tells them that the certificate of debt has been canceled, and therefore not to let ANY ONE judge them about keeping the Law.

    We dealt before with why your translation of vs. 16-17 doesn’t fit in light of Greek or in agreement with other writings of Paul (I also mentioned it in the article). You declared that you disagreed with me so let’s leave it at that.

  24. on 31 May 2009 at 2:02 pmRay

    Robert, I’ve never heard the gospel preached as you present it in
    post # 20. I’ve been to a few churches and listened to a few radio
    messages, but not all there is of course.

    I remember how Paul was falsely accused of saying that we should
    continue in sin that grace may abound. (do evil that good may come) His answer concerning those was quite short. “Whose damnation is just.”

    I wonder where such accusations came from that so often came against the apostle who was sent unto the gentiles. Was it from
    the gentiles or the circumcision? Who do you suppose? Were they
    jealous of the apostle, I wonder…Jesus was killed for envy.

    Hebrews 10:28,29
    He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three
    witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he
    be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God,
    and hath counted the blood of the new covenant, wherewith he
    was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

    That’s a warning for those who have received the blood of
    Christ. I suppose for those who have not received, they are not yet
    under such a covering and admonition, be it stern or mild, yet they
    too are without a covering for sin.

  25. on 31 May 2009 at 2:13 pmRay

    Robert, I believe you would do well to listen to what Mark has
    been saying. If you can see what he has been saying you would
    do well to agree with what you can see, then feel free to discuss
    anything that you disagree with or do not yet see. I believe that
    would be wise.

    I believe Mark has been patient, though his patience be ever so tried.

  26. on 31 May 2009 at 2:18 pmRay

    A man who tries to cut down a tree that isn’t might swing his axe
    wildly through the air, and may even be found to have cut off his own
    foot. If that should happen, won’t he be seen coming for a country
    mile, for in walking he should bounce, having one leg longer than
    the other, not being equal.

  27. on 31 May 2009 at 2:18 pmrobert

    Ray
    it is because i didnt come to preach doctrine, i came with what doctrine should be based on.
    THE TRUTH.

    Colossians 2: 13-23 has nothing to do with judism which had also became a doctrine of man, it was about a different doctrine of man, so was alot of Pauls teaching but not all. religions have existed long before judism, hebrewism,or that of the nation of Israel or that of Abraham but they were not the the one and only God that i worship, they were false gods.
    to understand Paul you must understand who he is actually addressing

  28. on 31 May 2009 at 2:29 pmRay

    Let’s hope some injuries are not so serious.

    Hebrews 12:13
    And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but rather let it be healed.

  29. on 31 May 2009 at 2:39 pmrobert

    is it me that doesnt want to do everything possible to please God, the is not one grievous thing in His spoken commandments and never was.
    i dont need them to believe, i need them to return the love of Jesus and the love of God. what do you do to do this. how could anyone find loving God was grievous or was Ungodly

  30. on 31 May 2009 at 2:53 pmRay

    Colossians 2:14-17 is speaking not of man’s writings or ordinances,
    but of the ones which came of God.

    You come to me with your doctrine, but I come to you with the truth, Robert.

    Am I to be ever so thankful to God that he delivered me out from
    under the doctrines of men which were against me and contrary to
    my nature? I suppose I should be thankful that he does deliver me
    from their lies and hypocrisy, their deceit and devious ways, and indeed I am thankful to God for so doing, yet I need not be held
    under their ways which are contrary to God. There is a higher writing that did testify and still will testify when testimony is needed that will convict me of my sins by the holy spirit which God
    has commited to the keeping of the things of the kingdom by Christ
    Jesus through the new and better way of which I am a part of as
    his blood has been applied to my heart and has left it’s stain upon it.

  31. on 31 May 2009 at 3:23 pmKarl

    Hi Mark,

    I had some questions and comments about some of the things you wrote, and I would interested to hear your answers.

    But if we avoided incest and bestiality but still didn’t keep all the other details of the Law like keeping the Sabbath and the dietary laws, we’d be just as guilty as those who committed bestiality and incest.

    This is not accurate. The punishment for all offenses is not the same according to the law. Bestiality receives the death penalty, breaking food laws does not. Stealing (except kidnapping) never requires death penalty.

    The Law stops the mouths of all mankind by showing that everybody sins and they cannot be righteous by their own works.

    The law was given to and for Israel. How then can it be used to shut the mouths of Gentiles?

    The letters of Paul are addressed to the saints of God.

    The letters of Paul are addressed to the saints of God IN GALATIA, or EPHESUS, or CORINTH, etc… His letters are written for a specific audience in the 1st century and address specific issues relevant to that audience. They were not general epistles addressing every Christian community or even a large group of communities. James and 1 John were general epistles on the other hand.

    The Sabbath is called a “perpetual covenant” and a “sign forever” according to Exod. 31:16-17. But both words, ‘forever,’ and ‘perpetual,’ are the same Hebrew word, olam. This word does not hold the same meaning of “without end” as ‘forever’ does in English. It refers to the duration of a period of time, but not necessarily for all time without end.

    What do say about this verse?: “Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments;”

    The time from Moses to Jesus was not even 100 generations.

    Paul clearly shows that the “fruit” of trying to keep the Law of Moses is bondage,

    This is something that I have struggled with greatly in Paul’s writings. I have studied Judaism and the Law a lot in the past 5 or more years of my life. Paul’s claim that the Law of Moses is bondage (in the negative sense) is the not the understanding that the Jews have of the Law. It is not even the understanding of the writers of the Old Testament. (see Psalm 119) So either Paul has a different view than the OT writers or we are misunderstanding him. I opt for the second option, especially when we realize that Paul was addressing specific problems in specific places in the 1st century.

  32. on 01 Jun 2009 at 12:20 amMark C.

    This is not accurate. The punishment for all offenses is not the same according to the law. Bestiality receives the death penalty, breaking food laws does not. Stealing (except kidnapping) never requires death penalty.

    The punishment varied according to the offense, but in terms of indebtedness to God, the Law was a unit.

    Gal. 5:
    1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
    2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
    3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
    4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
    5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.
    6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

    James 2:
    8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well.
    9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
    10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.
    11 For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
    12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.

    The law was given to and for Israel. How then can it be used to shut the mouths of Gentiles?

    Because it identifies what sin is.
    Rom. 3:
    9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
    10 as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
    11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
    12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”
    13 “THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,” “THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”;
    14 “WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”;
    15 “THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
    16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
    17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.”
    18 “THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.”
    19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
    20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
    21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,

    The letters of Paul are addressed to the saints of God IN GALATIA, or EPHESUS, or CORINTH, etc… His letters are written for a specific audience in the 1st century and address specific issues relevant to that audience. They were not general epistles addressing every Christian community or even a large group of communities. James and 1 John were general epistles on the other hand.

    The point was that his epistles were addressed to “saints” or “faithful in Christ” – that is, they were members of “the Church” rather than Jews or Gentiles. I Corinthians even includes the phrase, “with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.” And Ephesians adds “and to the faithful in Christ Jesus” in some versions, while others word it as “saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus.”

    In any case, I don’t think it’s accurate to limit the message of these epistles to just the specific cities in the address. If the issues dealt with were not applicable elsewhere, why would the epistles have been circulated and preserved in the New Testament? It’s a case of “if the shoe fits, wear it.” Galatia was not the only place where Christians were getting back into the bondage of the Law, so what’s in that epistle can be applied to any Christian in that situation. It is no more limited to the specific localities than the messages of the epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon are limited to those individuals.

    What do say about this verse?: “Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments;”

    The time from Moses to Jesus was not even 100 generations.

    This is from Deut. 7:9. Notice the verses before it.
    7 “The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples,
    8 but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

    God keeps His covenants (although Israel repeatedly broke theirs). He made the one with Israel because of the oath he swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In the verses that follow, God says:
    11 “Therefore, you shall keep the commandment and the statutes and the judgments which I am commanding you today, to do them.”

    Because of the oath to the Fathers, He made a covenant with Israel, and gave them commandments. Since Israel did not keep their covenant, God promised a new one, which has been extended to the whole world rather than just Israel. But both the Old Covenant ratified by Moses and the New Covenant ratified by Jesus are within the overall covenant that God made with Abraham, which He continues to uphold.

    This is something that I have struggled with greatly in Paul’s writings. I have studied Judaism and the Law a lot in the past 5 or more years of my life. Paul’s claim that the Law of Moses is bondage (in the negative sense) is the not the understanding that the Jews have of the Law. It is not even the understanding of the writers of the Old Testament. (see Psalm 119) So either Paul has a different view than the OT writers or we are misunderstanding him. I opt for the second option, especially when we realize that Paul was addressing specific problems in specific places in the 1st century.

    There is no question that this was a different view than the Jews had. That is why he was so controversial. But many Jews in the first century did understand and believe him. As I said, the issues Paul dealt were not limited to the one location he addressed in the opening of the epistle.

    Besides, I don’t know how you could understand Galatians or Hebrews (whether it was written by Paul or not) in any other way than what it says in plain English.

  33. on 01 Jun 2009 at 5:38 amRay

    It is important to understand that the writers of the Old Testament
    would most certainly have a different view concerning the keeping
    of the commandments God had given, if they would have lived in
    another time, under the new covenant, just as much as Paul would
    not have received his own writings if he were a Jew born under the law under the Old Covenant prior to Jesus coming in the flesh
    to deliver us from death and all the writings that were against us
    because of our sins.

    Paul was indeed a changed man after meeting the Lord Jesus and
    when we meet him we too shall be changed. Our “understanding”
    of today will then be nothing, because we were only seeing darkly.

  34. on 01 Jun 2009 at 11:05 amKarl

    Hi Mark,

    The punishment varied according to the offense, but in terms of indebtedness to God, the Law was a unit.

    So are you saying someone who eats pork is as guilty as a murderer or an adulterer in God’s eyes?

    19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;

    Whatever the law says it says to those under law. How then does the whole world (i.e. gentlies) become accountable to God if the law only speaks to those under law (i.e. israelites)?

    The point was that his epistles were addressed to “saints” or “faithful in Christ” – that is, they were members of “the Church” rather than Jews or Gentiles. I Corinthians even includes the phrase, “with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.” And Ephesians adds “and to the faithful in Christ Jesus” in some versions, while others word it as “saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus.”

    In any case, I don’t think it’s accurate to limit the message of these epistles to just the specific cities in the address. If the issues dealt with were not applicable elsewhere, why would the epistles have been circulated and preserved in the New Testament? It’s a case of “if the shoe fits, wear it.” Galatia was not the only place where Christians were getting back into the bondage of the Law, so what’s in that epistle can be applied to any Christian in that situation. It is no more limited to the specific localities than the messages of the epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon are limited to those individuals.

    They were letters written for specific purposes to specific groups in the 1st century. And I agree that we can learn from them what Paul and other Christians believed in the 1st century. But they need to be understood in their context. This is hard sometimes, because we don’t always know what issues Paul is addressing, but it would have been evident to the original readers. And sometimes Paul’s letters are only one half of a larger dialogue, of which we are missing the other half. They were not systematic theological treatises meant to expound the christian faith. And yes I agree that they can be applied to other situations and times. But we don’t have anyone saying that we need to be circumcised and participate in a temple sacrificial cult to be saved today. (at least that I know of)

    Besides, I don’t know how you could understand Galatians or Hebrews (whether it was written by Paul or not) in any other way than what it says in plain English.

    Because to understand all of these statements in plain english doesn’t make sense, even with Paul’s own actions. Paul had Timothy circumcised, so did Timothy have to keep the whole law?

    Because of the oath to the Fathers, He made a covenant with Israel, and gave them commandments. Since Israel did not keep their covenant, God promised a new one, which has been extended to the whole world rather than just Israel. But both the Old Covenant ratified by Moses and the New Covenant ratified by Jesus are within the overall covenant that God made with Abraham, which He continues to uphold.

    Jer. 31:33 But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel… I will put my laws within them, and on their heart I will write it…”

    The New Covenant is made with Israel as well, and it consists of writing God’s laws on hearts, not on stones. Gentiles are only made a part of this covenant by being grafted in.

  35. on 01 Jun 2009 at 5:05 pmrobert

    actually Sean it went in this subject
    ———————————————————

    It wasnt because they werent following the Sabbath, IT IS BECAUSE THEY WERE FOLLOWING JUST AS THEY WERE TAUGHT TOO.

    http://www.eliyah.com/col2.htm

  36. on 01 Jun 2009 at 7:59 pmMark C.

    So are you saying someone who eats pork is as guilty as a murderer or an adulterer in God’s eyes?

    I’m not saying it, God is, by way of Paul and James, as quoted. In God’s eyes, sin is sin. That’s why we needed a savior.

    Whatever the law says it says to those under law. How then does the whole world (i.e. gentlies) become accountable to God if the law only speaks to those under law (i.e. israelites)?

    As I said (several times now) it’s because the Law identifies what sin is. Read the passage from Romans again. “We have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE … Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.”

    They were letters written for specific purposes to specific groups in the 1st century. And I agree that we can learn from them what Paul and other Christians believed in the 1st century. But they need to be understood in their context. This is hard sometimes, because we don’t always know what issues Paul is addressing, but it would have been evident to the original readers. And sometimes Paul’s letters are only one half of a larger dialogue, of which we are missing the other half.

    If this were true then God would have done a terrible job at communicating His will. There were things Jesus could not teach his disciples while he was on earth, and Paul says he wrote by revelation from Jesus. The epistles were distributed and preserved for a reason.

    As for not knowing what issues Paul is addressing, it seems pretty clear to me. He provides the other side of the debate when he asks rhetorical questions like, “Do we then nullify the Law through faith?” or by referring to things he is accused of saying. And of course when he specifically mentions circumcision and Sabbaths, and contrasts the Law with grace and faith, I don’t think there’s much question about what he’s talking about.

    They were not systematic theological treatises meant to expound the christian faith.

    Many, if not most, theologians would disagree.

    And yes I agree that they can be applied to other situations and times.

    Not to other situations… to the same situations. They are not addressing obscure phenomena.

    But we don’t have anyone saying that we need to be circumcised and participate in a temple sacrificial cult to be saved today. (at least that I know of)

    But we do have people saying we need to keep the Sabbath and dietary laws, and other things. Which is illogical, BTW. If circumcision is not required, how can anyone say the other things are? Circumcision was called an “everlasting covenant” (Gen. 17:13) just like the rest of the Law. And the claim that Jesus did away with the ceremonial law but not the moral law doesn’t work here either. Circumcision even goes back to Abraham. And both it and the dietary laws are in the writings of Moses and not the Ten Commandments. How can anyone say that one is now unnecessary but the other is?

    Because to understand all of these statements in plain english doesn’t make sense, even with Paul’s own actions. Paul had Timothy circumcised, so did Timothy have to keep the whole law?

    It only doesn’t make sense when we try to apply it the same way one would apply laws. It’s grace – it’s above the law. We are told that Paul circumcised Timothy “because of the Jews who were in those parts” (Acts 16:3). He didn’t do it because he believed circumcision was required. He allowed it in this case, in order not to be a stumbling block to the Jews, like he talks about in Rom. 14. This also fits with him saying “To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews” in I Cor. 9:20. This is the beauty of grace – it takes into account each individual situation and the potential benefits of an action, rather than having a hard, inflexible law.

    Jer. 31:33 But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel… I will put my laws within them, and on their heart I will write it…”

    The New Covenant is made with Israel as well, and it consists of writing God’s laws on hearts, not on stones. Gentiles are only made a part of this covenant by being grafted in.

    But both are included. I don’t understand your point here. (Did you happen to read the article on my website on the New Covenant which I linked to?)

  37. on 01 Jun 2009 at 10:15 pmRay

    When I think of an “Everlasting Covenant”, I think of the durability
    of boxing gloves. A good pair may seem to never wear out. And yet,
    God may take whatever he has given and put them away for whatever reason. Those things may be up on a shelf somewhere
    where we are not to use them except for the right time and purposes, otherwise they have no real use for us. And yet, how
    often we find the need to use them to find our faults, though they
    can only be corrected by the blood of Jesus.

    Now the law is not a pair of boxing gloves, yet it has been around
    for a very long time and has not lost it’s power to convict of sin, though it never had the power to make us right before God. There is a time to use the law to show a brother his fault, yet how often
    does it happen that we use the law for the wrong reasons and in
    the wrong manner!

    Everything is good under heaven that God has made, and to everything a purpose.

    I do like to read of the law in the Old Testament. I’m glad God left it
    in our Bibles for us to read, even though we all have used it in the
    wrong manner at times. I would not become whole if I were to stay
    completely away from it, it seems, because so often I have not been led by the Lord Jesus by the spirit of grace, and have not been as a son of God. At times I’ve been as a child of the devil.

    If I haven’t received the conviction of the holy spirit, I have the need
    to go to the law,( only to have found that out later), because I
    was in so great a darkness. It was the holy spirit that led me to
    the law of God that I might learn of my nature and the condition of
    sin and be humbled thereby.

  38. on 02 Jun 2009 at 5:42 amMatthew Janzen

    Hello Everyone,

    I just wanted to post a link to a book that supports obedience to the law of Moses for the New Covenant believer. I’ve read Anthony Buzzard’s book and I’ve also read a book by author Todd Bennett titled, “The Law and Grace,” found at http://www.shemayisrael.net.

  39. on 02 Jun 2009 at 7:24 amrobert

    I believe Mosaic laws in some ways are a good reference but the punishment for not following them doesnt exist because the is no government to enforce them . but doing what ones that you can will be rewarded in the Kingdom Of God.
    the ones that have to do with atoning for sins now are within Jesus and can not be done other than through Jesus.
    the ones that are signs between man and God will give you a closer relationship to God if thats what you want

    As far as the 10 Commandment they carry the reward of entering into the Kingdom Of God.

    what are laws without punishment which Jesus removed from us, so now death doesnt come from not doing them, but life the reward for doing them.

  40. on 02 Jun 2009 at 8:01 amMark C.

    As far as the 10 Commandment they carry the reward of entering into the Kingdom Of God.

    what are laws without punishment which Jesus removed from us, so now death doesnt come from not doing them, but life the reward for doing them.

    Romans 4:
    13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
    14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified;
    15 for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.
    16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

  41. on 02 Jun 2009 at 8:04 amrobert

    exactly what i just said.
    thank you for backing up what i said

  42. on 02 Jun 2009 at 8:17 amMark C.

    Robert,

    You said life was a reward for doing works (i.e. the Ten Commandments).

    Paul says life is a gift by faith and not by works. How is that the same?

  43. on 02 Jun 2009 at 8:25 amrobert

    Then i wil have to thank Paul for Backing what i said. thank you for the correction.

  44. on 02 Jun 2009 at 8:52 amMark C.

    Seriously… what are you talking about?

    Paul contrasts works with grace. Eternal life is a gift by grace through faith and not by works (Eph. 2:8-9). You’re saying eternal life is a reward for works. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE.

  45. on 02 Jun 2009 at 9:50 amKarl

    Hi Mark

    Many, if not most, theologians would disagree.

    Really? Every modern scholar that I have read agrees with me on this point.

    “Paul is a pastor-theologian. He spoke to concrete situations in local congregations…there is a temptation to draw his thoughts together into a system, and in effect turn him into a systematic theologian of the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas or Karl Barth. The systematic approach to Paul doesnt’ work… His understanding of life and reality in Christ was likely much bigger than the sources we have. He mentions other letters that we do not have available to us… Paul cannot be put into a “systematic” straightjacket due to the pastoral nature of his writings. In most of his letters readers are let in on an ongoing converstation between Paul and his original readers…”

    charles cousar, introduction to the New Testament pg. 7

    “Pauls’ letter are not theological treatises nor formal literary productions, but “unliterary,” living, personal correspondence… it is obviously true that Paul has not left the church a systematic theology, and he cannot be called a systematic theologian in the sense that he deliberately tried to work out a consistent, balanced, coherent system like a modern theologian, it is equally true that Paul was a theologian from Jewish origins, and clearly tries to think through the implications of God’s redemptive work in Christ so fas as the needs of his churches demanded it…The fact that Paul’s letters are ad hoc correspondence, usually called forth by specific situations in the Pauline churches, places certain limitations upon our study of his thought…”

    George Eldon Ladd, Donald A. Hagner, A Theology of the New Testament pg. 415

    “…they (i.e. Paul’s letters) are ad hoc documents (they were occasioned by some specific circumstance, either from the author’s or recipient’s side). It is their ad hoc, occasional nature that creates some or our dificulties in understanding because the author often assumes so much between himself and his readers. The more he assumes, the more difficult it is for us to be certain as to the specific historical situation.”

    Gordon D. Fee, Elmer Dyck, The Act of Bible Reading, pg. 16

  46. on 02 Jun 2009 at 10:09 amRay

    When there is law there are violations. The ‘officers of the law’
    zealously tried to ‘ticket’ Jesus but to no avail. I suppose to them
    he first appeared to be some kind of drifter, but he never lost control of his vehicle. I suppose he appeard to be driving sideways
    at times, but he never ended up in the ditch. They tried to catch him
    but he was always way ahead. He wasn’t a lawbreaker. He knew
    the rules better than they did. Jesus got further down the road of
    life than they did, much further, though it was shortened by them.

    He never tried to escape what the law said about him, though he
    always escaped them. It wasn’t until there was a roadblock up ahead that was placed there by the law that he had to stop his preaching, teaching and healing. He didn’t try to circumvent it, nor
    break through it. He gave himself up as a criminal though he wasn’t
    guilty. They took him to prison and took away his judgment. His voice wasn’t heard. He didn’t even ask for mercy, for mercy wasn’t
    due. He didn’t ask them to go easy on him and they didn’t. He had
    no priors. He had no one to bail him out but God, who kept him there and saw him through the trial, verdict, and punishment for
    the sins of those who put him there.

    He did for us what the law could not do.

    There were a few who had been under the law, that began to see
    ahead of it, to a new time. They began to see some things, some
    shadows that gave indication of new light ahead. They seemed to
    be so few. So few seemed to come to receive some things that could be known to them by God, by the light of God that was in the
    world. So very few.

  47. on 02 Jun 2009 at 10:17 amKarl

    As I said (several times now) it’s because the Law identifies what sin is. Read the passage from Romans again.

    Yes, but it was only meant for Israel, or to those under law. The gentile world is not under law, so how can the law make them accountable to God?

    “Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;”

    Paul starts with the idea that the law speaks to those under law. OK makes sense so far. Then he says “SO THAT the world may become accountable to to God.” How does he conclude that the world becomes accountable to God because he just said that the law only speaks to those under law? I’m trying to get you think about and/or explain Paul’s train of thought here.

    This would make sense to me (and I’m not saying that I am the standard of truth or any such thing…): Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that Israel may become accountable to God;

    or

    Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to entire world, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;

    Do you see my point here?

    But both are included. I don’t understand your point here. (Did you happen to read the article on my website on the New Covenant which I linked to?)

    I’m sorry I didn’t get a chance to yet. I have two points here. The new covenant is not made with any Gentile. They gentiles must be grafted into Israel through Christ, and are now a part of Israel. The second, when Jeremiah mentions laws written on the heart, what laws was he referring to?

  48. on 02 Jun 2009 at 11:02 amMark C.

    You say it would make sense to say, “Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that Israel may become accountable to God.” But that’s not what he says. The context of Paul’s writing in Romans explains the difference between the Jews and the Gentiles as far as their relationship with the Law. I recommend reading it from the beginning.

  49. on 02 Jun 2009 at 11:53 amKarl

    Hi Mark

    You say it would make sense to say, “Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that Israel may become accountable to God.” But that’s not what he says.

    No kidding. I know what he says. I’m trying to get you to interact with me and the passage. If you are not interested in doing that, that’s fine. If you are, what is Paul’s basis for concluding what he does in verse 19? Is there an OT or logical precedent for his conclusion?

    The context of Paul’s writing in Romans explains the difference between the Jews and the Gentiles as far as their relationship with the Law. I recommend reading it from the beginning.

    I’ve read the passage many times in english and greek. The problem is not my reading the passage, but understanding Paul’s basis for some of his arguments.

    Let me draw an analogy. If someone presents an argument like this: A=B and B=C, therefore A=D, don’t you think it is proper to question why someone would draw such a conclusion or ask for an explanation?

  50. on 02 Jun 2009 at 12:04 pmKarl

    Hi Mark

    And the claim that Jesus did away with the ceremonial law but not the moral law doesn’t work here either. Circumcision even goes back to Abraham. And both it and the dietary laws are in the writings of Moses and not the Ten Commandments. How can anyone say that one is now unnecessary but the other is?

    By the way I just want to say that you made a good point here. I just want to be clear that I don’t believe in any sort of dichotomy between the 10 commandments and the Law of Moses. The ten commandments is a summary or possibly the basis of the Law of Moses. Any sort of teaching which says that the 10 commandments is the moral law and the Law of Moses is the ceremonial law can NOT be supported from the scriptures.

  51. on 02 Jun 2009 at 12:31 pmMark C.

    Karl,

    I’m sorry, I’m not sure what kind of “interacting” you want to do. I don’t see where you get “A=B and B=C, therefore A=D” from. Paul’s writing is pretty straightforward to me.

    The previous chapter (Rom. 2) talked about the Jews’ tendency to think they had a special advantage with God because of their heritage. Paul refuted that thinking saying that if Gentiles did by nature what’s written in the Law, they are a law to themselves. So the Jews shouldn’t think they’re superior in that respect.

    But starting with 3:5, we see that everybody sins, so we’re all in the same boat (there is no one that is righteous). The NLT words it like this: “Obviously, the law applies to those to whom it was given, for its purpose is to keep people from having excuses, and to show that the entire world is guilty before God. For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are.”

    As I said, the Law identifies what is sin. It does it in such a way as to show that no one – Jew or Gentile – is without sin, and therefore the only way anyone can be righteous is by grace through faith in Jesus and not by the Law.

  52. on 02 Jun 2009 at 12:33 pmMark C.

    I just want to be clear that I don’t believe in any sort of dichotomy between the 10 commandments and the Law of Moses. The ten commandments is a summary or possibly the basis of the Law of Moses. Any sort of teaching which says that the 10 commandments is the moral law and the Law of Moses is the ceremonial law can NOT be supported from the scriptures.

    I agree! 🙂

  53. on 02 Jun 2009 at 6:17 pmrobert

    “Seriously… what are you talking about?”

    Mark for there to be a law there has to be a punishment. Can a man put your soul to death, well no
    can a man put flesh to death, again no because it is dead.
    Can a man reward you with life if you follow the law,Well no
    Can God Reward you for Following the law, well yea
    Will God reward you for not Following the law, well no.
    your arguement make no sense when you understand no one has ever recieved salvation from any law so why would Jesus remove us from laws that can not harm your soul. this is like the laws were false gods

    Now Following Gods Morals will give you the reward of life, but not following them wont be a death sentence because you are already dead .

    why did Paul choose The Sabbath to teach the Word of God? was it because the gentiles wanted him to? or was it what Jesus taught him.
    So if they were following the Sabbath in Colossians 2:16-17 who else would be judging them but the people within the community they lived it not the jews who would of been very unlikely there.

    BTW
    everytime you quote the Bible excepted were it is not properly translated backs everything i believe

    And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath

    And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

    And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither

    And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

    And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks

  54. on 02 Jun 2009 at 6:42 pmrobert

    For centuries, people have tried to find ways of convincing themselves and others that Christians are not required to observe the Sabbath and holy days. One of their favorite scriptural targets in this quest is Colossians 2:16-17. Some teach that a heretical group of Judaizers in the Colossian church was trying to enforce obedience to Jewish practices such as the laws of clean and unclean meats and of observing the holy days. Under such a scenario, they say, Paul is telling the Colossians that they did not have to do these things, and further, they did not need to be concerned about what others were judging and saying about them.

    The distortion of this portion of Scripture stems in part from a misunderstanding of Colossians 2:14, from which many deduce that the law was done away and nailed to the cross. They reason that Paul is saying in verse 16, “Therefore [since the law is done away] don’t let anyone condemn you for eating unclean meats or not observing the Sabbath or holy days.” Consequently, they interpret verse 17 to mean that Paul lightly dismisses the Sabbath and holy days as unimportant symbols of future events, while emphasizing that the only truly substantive Christian need is belief in Christ. From this, they conclude that we should not concern ourselves about these days because, since Christ died, their observance is not required.

    The Setting of Colossians

    What is Paul actually saying in these often misunderstood verses? To understand these scriptures clearly, we must first consider the cultural and historical background of the people to whom Paul was writing. The Colossians had been significantly influenced by pagan philosophies that taught that perfection could be achieved through self-denial and abstinence from pleasure. As a result, Colossae tended to be an ascetic community which adhered to a religion of severity, and its citizens thought anyone who was religious should behave as they did.

    Many of the people who had come into the church had brought their pagan philosophies with them, and they soon began to have an adverse influence on the entire congregation at Colossae. Paul corrects the people in the church who were doing this in Colossians 2:20-23:

    Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—”Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

    Apparently, some of the people had begun thinking that this self-imposed asceticism could somehow contribute to their salvation and had begun turning away from trusting in Christ. They had more faith in their unchristian works. Paul warned them about this in Colossians 2:8: “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”

    God had called the people in the church at Colossae out of their pagan, ascetic way of life, and they had begun to learn how to enjoy life in a balanced manner as God intended. This included eating meat, drinking wine and enjoying food and fellowship when observing God’s Sabbath and festivals. Apparently, the people enjoyed getting together and fellowshipping so much that some even observed the new moons, festivals which God does not command to be observed but had become a tradition under the Old Covenant.

    Because the converted Colossians were learning how to enjoy life as God intended, the people in the community began to look down on them and condemn them. In addressing these problems, Paul reminds the Colossians that they are complete in Jesus Christ; they have no need for the pagan philosophies of this world. “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:9-10).

    In verses 11 through 14, Paul shows how Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins and now our past sins, brought about by conforming to the ways, practices and philosophies of this world, are completely blotted out and nailed to His cross. He reminds them that Christ has completely conquered all of the evil spirits who continue to rule this present, evil world and who inspire the pagan philosophies that had so influenced the Colossian society: “Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it” (verse 15).

    With these powerful words of encouragement as a background, Paul explains in verse 16 why they need not be bothered by the attitude of the Colossian society toward their practices and way of life in the church:

    Therefore [since Jesus Christ is your Lord and Master and has conquered and has control over all of the evil powers in this world], let no one judge you [call you into question or condemn you] in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths.

    In other words, do not worry about what the people in the community think about your enjoyment of eating good food, drinking wine and joyously celebrating the Sabbath and the festivals. Christ has conquered the world and all of its rulers, so we do not need to be concerned about what the world thinks about us.

    In verse 17, Paul mentions that the Sabbath and holy days are “shadows,” symbols or types, of future events in the plan of God. The Sabbath is a type of the Millennium when Jesus Christ and the saints will rule the world for a thousand years. The holy days symbolize various steps in the plan of God and remind us annually of God’s great purpose in creating mankind.

    “The Substance Is of Christ”

    The last few words in verse 17—”but the substance is of Christ”—is a mistranslation brought about by failure to understand the true meaning of what Paul was saying. It is a classic example of how translators sometimes interpret the Bible when they translate the original Greek into English.

    A literal translation of the last few words of Colossians 2:17 reads, “but the body of Christ.” What is the body of Christ? I Corinthians 12:27 supplies the answer: “Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.” The body of Christ is the church! The exact same Greek expression that is translated “body of Christ” in I Corinthians 12:27 (soma Christou) is used in Colossians 2:17.

    Now the full meaning of what Paul is saying becomes clear. He tells the Colossians that they should not let any man judge them or call them into question about these things but rather let the church make those judgments. He is pointing the members to the example of the spiritual leaders of the church who set the tone and pattern of worship on the Sabbath and holy days, exhorting them not to worry about what anyone in the community thinks about them.

    A similar exhortation is given in verses 18 and 19:

    Let no one defraud you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase which is from God.

    In these verses, Paul again warns the Colossians that they should not allow the pressures of the society in which they lived have any influence on their beliefs or practices and repeats his exhortation for them to look to the church alone for their spiritual nourishment and growth.

    So we see that, far from doing away with the observance of the Sabbath and holy days, Colossians 2:16-17 is one of the strongest proofs that the early church kept these days and that Paul taught the Gentiles to keep them!

  55. on 02 Jun 2009 at 6:51 pmJoseph

    Mark C,

    I asked you how you know that incest and bestiality are wrong and you say that we to refer to the OT (Torah). So what is the major difference between me and you in regards to our beliefs? Doesn’t the fact that Paul’s letters not pointing out the context in how we observe all of the law throw up a red flag in how one should interpret the overall context of Paul’s letters regarding law? In other words, Paul touches mostly on the subject of how we are subjected to the law in light of salvation, not exactly what we observe regarding the law, because even you have to refer to the Torah to know whether you can commit an act of incest or bestiality. With that said…

    I understand the law does not offer us salvation as the judgment of sin is death, I agree, but that doesn’t mean that we throw the law away. GOD will judge us on our works but we are saved by faith…

    James 2:26
    [26] for as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also the faith apart from the works is dead.

    Is this passage from James judging those, in light of what Paul said, who do not observe the law? Of course not! He is speaking the reality of Faith and Law as they go hand in hand, just as I believe. Which is why Paul himself chose to keep the Torah and vow so. You cannot separate God’s law from our Faith.

    The will of GOD is that which will happen in the future when His kingdom comes. We are citizens of the kingdom and therefore should live as the Kingdom says to. And Torah is what the Kingdom commands (Isa. 2:1-5, Eze. 47:21-23; Zech. 8:23; Luk. 22:15-16; Matt. 28:19-20). So to keep Torah is simply the standard of the kingdom to come and specifically that which Yeshua (Jesus) expounded upon being certain misunderstood parts of the Torah and the oral laws of the day in Matt. 5.

    So Mark, if by only reading Paul’s letters one cannot gain that bestiality and incest are wrong as you admit, then why should one accept Paul’s letters to define what laws that one should obey? It’s not about judging, that is God’s position, it is about obedience to God’s commandments.

  56. on 02 Jun 2009 at 8:51 pmMark C.

    Can God Reward you for Following the law, well yea. He can – He can do anything He wants. But He says in His word that He doesn’t.

    Will God reward you for not Following the law, well no. Obviously. He doesn’t “reward” us either way – He saves us by grace – completely undeserved – by faith, just as He blessed Abraham because of his faith. It has nothing to do with the Law.

    your arguement make no sense when you understand no one has ever recieved salvation from any law so why would Jesus remove us from laws that can not harm your soul. this is like the laws were false gods. No one has ever received salvation from any law, but the Law identified sin, and thus pointed out that we are all guilty. The Law doesn’t “harm our soul,” but sin does.

    Now Following Gods Morals will give you the reward of life, but not following them wont be a death sentence because you are already dead. But I say again, this is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Paul said. We cannot attain life by following any rules, laws, or moral codes. It is righteousness without the Law, by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. Not of works lest any man should boast.

    And BTW, just because Paul taught people on the Sabbath doesn’t mean he was observing the Sabbath according to Law (or morals). The people were gathered on the Sabbath so it was the logical time and place for him to teach.

  57. on 02 Jun 2009 at 9:28 pmrobert

    “We cannot attain life by following any rules, laws, or moral codes.”

    again nobody said we could.

    GODS MORALS GODS MORALS GODS MORALS ARE NOT RULES, LAWS OR CODES THEY ARE GODS MORALS.
    QUIT REFERING TO THEM AS LAWS, THEY ARE SIGNS OF LOVE FOR GOD AND MAN.
    DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A SIGN IS???????

    “And BTW, just because Paul taught people on the Sabbath doesn’t mean he was observing the Sabbath according to Law (or morals). The people were gathered on the Sabbath so it was the logical time and place for him to teach. ”

    you do as you like ,but for Gods sake dont teach it

    Paul taught on the Sabbath because Jesus Taught him too. Paul observed and Loved the Sabbath.
    there is nowhere thats says he didnt or is there a single verse that says it was done away with the laws of Israel or the Cerimonial laws.

    So Paul was less than honest to the Gentiles He preached to by saying The Sabbath was not important but Making sure he observed it.
    GOD FORBID

    you cant understand the difference between Laws, Rules, Codes and ( commandments and doctrines of men) which man can judge you in and Gods Morals For His people That he will reward you for .
    you think it is the life of this world when it is the life of not of this world. you are dead in this world but can live in the not of this world.

  58. on 02 Jun 2009 at 10:22 pmrobert

    they gathered to hear him preach, did the gentiles have a habit of gathering by the thousands on the Sabbath for no particular reason. well no

    He always preached to the gentiles on the Sabbath as he did in Colossians which is why they were judged by the people for worshiping on a different day than the pagans did.
    so with no avail you have no leg to stand on or no rock to preach from

    And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath

    And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

    And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither

    And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

    And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks

  59. on 02 Jun 2009 at 10:25 pmrobert

    correction from above

    He always preached to the gentiles on the Sabbath as
    he(they who he taught)
    did in Colossians which is why they were judged by the people for worshiping on a different day than the pagans did.

  60. on 02 Jun 2009 at 11:13 pmrobert

    there is only one Holy Commandment and that is the Sabbath.KEEP IT HOLY or recieve your reward

    2 Peter 2
    But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; [1] by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

    3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

    7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

    10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. [2] Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. 11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them [3] before the Lord. 12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14 Having eyes full of adultery, [4] and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: 15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet. 17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. 18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean [5] escaped from them who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

  61. on 03 Jun 2009 at 1:22 amMark C.

    “We cannot attain life by following any rules, laws, or moral codes.”

    again nobody said we could.

    Actually you did. Your exact words were:
    As far as the 10 Commandment they carry the reward of entering into the Kingdom Of God.

    what are laws without punishment which Jesus removed from us, so now death doesnt come from not doing them, but life the reward for doing them.

    GODS MORALS GODS MORALS GODS MORALS ARE NOT RULES, LAWS OR CODES THEY ARE GODS MORALS.
    QUIT REFERING TO THEM AS LAWS, THEY ARE SIGNS OF LOVE FOR GOD AND MAN.
    DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A SIGN IS???????

    First of all, calm down. (You do realize that all caps in a discussion forum is the equivalent of shouting?)

    Secondly, the Bible calls them laws, not just me. There is nowhere that calls them “morals” and especially nothing in the Bible that makes a distinction between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Law of Moses, as I demonstrated in the article.

    there is only one Holy Commandment and that is the Sabbath. KEEP IT HOLY or recieve your reward

    There are certain things in the Ten Commandments that other cultures besides Israel consider moral standards, such as murder, stealing, lying, and so forth. But there is nothing inherently “moral” about setting aside one day a week for God. I do indeed understand what a sign is. The Sabbath was one of the signs of Israel’s unique relationship with God. As I demonstrated in the article, it was given to Israel and no one else. They were expected to observe it specifically because God told them to, not because it is an inherently moral thing to do.

    That’s why it is not binding to us as Christians. We are called to do other things as signs of our unique relationship with Christ and God. These include loving one another and the “spiritual sacrifices” as mentioned in the article, and two specific ritual observations: baptism and communion. We are under a new covenant that replaced the old one. What is difficult about this?

  62. on 03 Jun 2009 at 6:54 amrobert

    Mark
    I have raised 3 of my own and 2 other children.
    The most important thing i taught them was Morals to live by.I did have rules but rules were for the government within my family while Morals was something they could live by after they were beyond my govern and was to establish there own government(their own family).
    while most all things are based on Morals ,morals are not laws,rules,codes , they are the love of all things.
    It is not because of the law that i dont murder, it is because i have morals. it is not because of the law that i dont cheat on my wife, it is because i have morals.
    so you see that when you call morals the law it really bothers me .
    I could shout God’s Morals from every rooftop the rest of my life, so yes i knew i was shouting

  63. on 03 Jun 2009 at 7:12 amJoseph

    Please don’t tell me my post was deleted!!!????? Very frustrating indeed. I just finished replying to this thread and was told once again that my post needed approval before posting. Just checked this morning to see if it is still here and now I can’t see it at all. I hope it is not deleted. I’ve been on this blog for about 2 years now, don’t understand why my posts still need moderating? Anyway, just very frustrated because it was a great post and don’t know if I have the steam to type it out again.

  64. on 03 Jun 2009 at 7:21 amJoseph

    You guys are doing a great job, just seems that technically I’m always having issues posting. Maybe it’s because I use firefox for a browser?

    Oh well, perhaps it is a sign that I need no more to express my point.

  65. on 03 Jun 2009 at 9:44 amMark C.

    Robert,

    I am not calling morals the Law. I am calling the Ten Commandments the Law, which is what the Bible does as well. As I said, there are some points in the Ten that represent basic morality and are common to other cultures as well. And if morals are ingrained in you, you need no law. As you say, it is because of morals not law that you refrain from murder or adultery. And that is what God wants – for us to follow morals and not law. So I think we agree on this point.

    Where we disagree is whether the Ten Commandments are law or morals. The Bible uses the words “laws,” “commandments,” and “statutes” interchangeably to refer to that which Moses delivered to the children of Israel. For example, in Exod. 24:12, God said to Moses, “I will give you the stone tablets with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction.” And in Deut. 30:10, they are charged to “keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law.” Both the book that Moses wrote and the stone tablets that God Himself wrote are part of the Law of Moses.

    As I said in the article, and in my previous post, there are things in the Ten Commandments that are morals which no civilized person would dispute, such as lying, adultery, and murder. But the Sabbath was given to Israel as their unique sign, because God told them to do it, and not because there is anything inherently moral about setting aside one day a week. In that case it’s not about being moral so much as simply obeying God.

    As Christians we are given a new standard and new commandments. It includes many of the same moral standards that were also in the Ten commandments, but takes them to a new level. And we are charged with keeping every day holy, not just the Sabbath; and with entering into His rest by ceasing from our works (of righteousness).

    Also, remember what Deut. 5:15 says was the whole reason for the Sabbath – Israel was to specifically remember that they had been delivered from captivity in Egypt. Today we are commanded to remember what Jesus did for us. Part of that remembrance is the rites of baptism and communion, as I mentioned.

    The first century Christians were taught this New Covenant and they realized that there was no requirement to keep the Sabbath as the Old Covenant had commanded, any more that there was a requirement to be circumcised – which was also a sign of their unique relationship with God. The change from Old Covenant to New was not limited to the sacrifices – it changed their very way of life. That’s one reason why they began meeting on the first day of the week instead of the Sabbath after a while, although it was out of tradition then, and not a new law.

    And as I pointed out also, while we may not murder or commit adultery, who has never even had an evil thought? The Ten Commandments are just the beginning. The Law identifies what sin is and demonstrates that we are all unrighteous. But it also pointed to the ultimate sacrifice of Christ which is God’s solution to us being unrighteous. That’s why the works of the Law can’t justify anybody, no matter how moral they may try to be. But we, like Abraham, are justified by faith.

    I hope this helps to clear up where I’m coming from.

  66. on 03 Jun 2009 at 4:36 pmrobert

    you still dont understand,you used this verse that should provide understanding.only one of the 10 is not something you shall not do and this is the one that shows the love of God towards us and allows us to show love toward God.
    while you think the spoken commandments were called laws they were never but was used as basis for laws to Israel. the 10 was given and spoken to all people Gentiles and Israelites. the laws which defined the punishments was only given to Israel.
    There is No mention on the Tablets of the 10 commandments of any punishment which to be a law you must have. the gentiles that God spoke to were not held by the laws of Israel.
    you still have to reach way beyond reality to say the Sabbath has been done away with ,even futher than any trinitarian has to do to prove their misbelief

    Exod. 24:12, God said to Moses, “I will give you the stone tablets with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction.”

  67. on 03 Jun 2009 at 5:44 pmrobert

    “But we, like Abraham, are justified by faith.”

    you love this 5 letter word (faith) but just what does it mean.
    Does it only mean that Jesus came in the Flesh
    Does it only mean Jesus was the Son of God
    Does it only mean Jesus died for our sins
    No to all 3 above
    Does it only mean that GOD IS JUST AND TRUE.
    while all 3 above fall into the 4th they are only a part of Faith which is completely covered in the 4Th.

    So If God spoke or gave something to Man that is still Just then it is also still the Truth.
    Jesus backs this and never spoke against it.

    For Jesus to remove something it would be not needed or grievous, but God never gave anything like that Man did.

    you also try to use circumcision to justify but it was a sign to all of Abrahams seed and the Gentiles were not Abrahams Seed but only the grafted in . so this doesnt make a single point within this or any discussion about Morals that were giving as a sign to all the world and then giving as basis for laws to Israel
    the Spoken Commandments were giving as a part of the same blessing in which Jesus came to fullfill.

  68. on 03 Jun 2009 at 10:05 pmrobert

    Mark
    If i could prove beyond the shadow of of doubt using the bible you read from or any translation that the Sabbath was for all the people of the earth, would you then quit preaching it was done away with

  69. on 04 Jun 2009 at 12:14 amKarl

    Hi Mark,

    The punishment varied according to the offense, but in terms of indebtedness to God, the Law was a unit.

    The murder or adulterer was indebted to forfeit his life. The thief was only indebted to make restitution for his theft.

    I’m sorry, I’m not sure what kind of “interacting” you want to do. I don’t see where you get “A=B and B=C, therefore A=D” from

    19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;

    There is a little greek word in this verse (ινα) that is translated “so that.” This indicates that the idea in the second clause follows as a result from the idea of the first clause. (That’s why I set up my “If, therefore” analogy, ινα is the therefore so to speak) The first clause says that the law speaks to those under the law. Paul then states that two things follow from that idea: 1) every mouth will be closed, 2) all the world may become accountable to God. Paul indicates this with his use of “ινα” (so that).

    So the question I’m trying to figure out is: How does the Law speaking to those under the law (A) result in the world becoming accountable to God? (D)

    The A and D are roughly what my analogy was getting at. But if my analogy with A, B and C doesn’t make sense to you, please disregard it.

    Paul’s writing is pretty straightforward to me.

    I find Paul’s writings very difficult to understand. I’m in good company too: “Think of our Lord’s patience as facilitating salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him.He speaks about this subject in all his letters. Some things in them are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, leading to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.” 2 Peter 3:15-16

    A literal translation of the last few words of Colossians 2:17 reads, “but the body of Christ.”

    Robert makes a good point here. Colossians 2:17 literally reads “and the body of Christ.” (could be “but” or “and”) Colossians as a whole is a difficult book to understand. B

    As I said in the article, and in my previous post, there are things in the Ten Commandments that are morals which no civilized person would dispute, such as lying, adultery, and murder. But the Sabbath was given to Israel as their unique sign, because God told them to do it, and not because there is anything inherently moral about setting aside one day a week. In that case it’s not about being moral so much as simply obeying God.

    I basically agree with you here about Sabbath and morality. I would add that praying, worshiping and believing in God does not make on a moral person either.

    But I would say something further about the Sabbath, though the Sabbath may not be moral, it is natural. I mean natural in the sense that it expresses and fulfills something inherent in the nature of Man and of creation. Well, I believe it does at least…

  70. on 04 Jun 2009 at 12:22 amJoseph

    Robert,

    you love this 5 letter word (faith) but just what does it mean.

    James put it very plainly…

    James 2:26
    [26] for as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also the faith apart from the works is dead.

    Also, my last post was not erased! Whew! Looks as though there are some issues whenever I try and post anything of length. It was in rebuttal to Mark and it is post #55 if anyone is curious to go back and read where it got lost in the mix. Basically that is my last post as the circles are beginning to turn on this one.

  71. on 04 Jun 2009 at 12:40 amMark C.

    There is No mention on the Tablets of the 10 commandments of any punishment which to be a law you must have. the gentiles that God spoke to were not held by the laws of Israel.
    you still have to reach way beyond reality to say the Sabbath has been done away with ,even futher than any trinitarian has to do to prove their misbelief

    Exod. 24:12, God said to Moses, “I will give you the stone tablets with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction.”

    The verse you quote (which I also quoted) proves what I was saying. The stone tablet is said to have “the law AND the commandment.” They are interchangeable.

    ______

    Faith, in its most basic form, means to believe what someone told you. Abraham had faith in what God told him and it was counted for righteousness. In a more specific form, the NT uses the term “THE faith” to refer to the whole message of Messiah coming to establish his kingdom, and the sacrifice which he did for us to have entrance into that kingdom based on grace. Paul frequently contrasts faith with works.

    ______

    For Jesus to remove something it would be not needed or grievous…

    That’s correct. The Law was a temporary measure and no longer needed (not that it was grievous).

    you also try to use circumcision to justify but it was a sign to all of Abrahams seed and the Gentiles were not Abrahams Seed but only the grafted in .

    The Sabbath was given to the children of Israel for a specific purpose. That’s why I compared it with circumcision. Paul tells us that both are unnecessary under the New Covenant.

    If i could prove beyond the shadow of of doubt using the bible you read from or any translation that the Sabbath was for all the people of the earth, would you then quit preaching it was done away with

    If you could do this I might be persuaded, but in order for you to do so you would have to do two things:
    1. Use arguments that have not been used before, because all of the ones that have been used have been disproved, between my article and Anthony’s book (as well as many others’ writings). Or at least present a convincing rebuttal to the explanations we have given.
    2. Deal with the proofs that I have presented that prove from the Bible that the Sabbath was given to Israel only, and for a specific purpose.

    But if you want to try, I’ll consider what you say.

  72. on 04 Jun 2009 at 5:04 amMark C.

    I asked you how you know that incest and bestiality are wrong and you say that we to refer to the OT (Torah). So what is the major difference between me and you in regards to our beliefs?

    It would seem to be that I believe the OT Law was a temporary measure for Israel at that time, that it served to identify what is sin, and that it is no longer necessary now that Christ has come. By contrast you seem to believe that the Law is still necessary, although I’m not sure why, other than holding to the verses that refer to “God’s law” and “God’s commandments” which are not referring to the Mosaic Law.

    Doesn’t the fact that Paul’s letters not pointing out the context in how we observe all of the law throw up a red flag in how one should interpret the overall context of Paul’s letters regarding law?
    In other words, Paul touches mostly on the subject of how we are subjected to the law in light of salvation, not exactly what we observe regarding the law, because even you have to refer to the Torah to know whether you can commit an act of incest or bestiality.

    Paul touches on more than subjection to the Law in light of salvation. He also talks about how it couldn’t change a person’s heart the way the spirit can. Refraining from murder, adultery, incest, etc. is a bare minimum. Most people probably keep that but even if they were blameless in those areas, they are still guilty of other, perhaps less obvious, sins. And as I have said, who has never had an evil thought?

    With that said…

    I understand the law does not offer us salvation as the judgment of sin is death, I agree, but that doesn’t mean that we throw the law away. GOD will judge us on our works but we are saved by faith…

    And once again I have to repeat – I am not saying we throw the Law away. “Do we nullify the law? No, we establish the law.” But nobody can establish the law by keeping the letter of it because nobody can keep the letter of it.

    James 2:26
    [26] for as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also the faith apart from the works is dead.

    Is this passage from James judging those, in light of what Paul said, who do not observe the law? Of course not! He is speaking the reality of Faith and Law as they go hand in hand, just as I believe. Which is why Paul himself chose to keep the Torah and vow so. You cannot separate God’s law from our Faith.

    Close. He is speaking the reality of faith and works, not faith and law. The difference is the reason and motivation for the works. Works done in order to keep the law will fail no matter how close to perfect they may seem. But works done because of faith are only required to demonstrate that faith, not keep the letter of the law.

    You can’t separate God’s Word from our faith, but you can separate the Old Covenant Law from it, and Paul does, at length.

    The will of GOD is that which will happen in the future when His kingdom comes. We are citizens of the kingdom and therefore should live as the Kingdom says to. And Torah is what the Kingdom commands (Isa. 2:1-5, Eze. 47:21-23; Zech. 8:23; Luk. 22:15-16; Matt. 28:19-20).
    So to keep Torah is simply the standard of the kingdom to come and specifically that which Yeshua (Jesus) expounded upon being certain misunderstood parts of the Torah and the oral laws of the day in Matt. 5.

    True, we should live as the Kingdom says to. But that means obeying the King, not obeying the Torah. None of the verses you refer to says that Torah is what the Kingdom commands. You are basing your interpretation on the assumption that whenever the “Law of God” is mentioned, it means the Old Covenant Law as given by Moses. I demonstrated in the article that this is not the case.

    So Mark, if by only reading Paul’s letters one cannot gain that bestiality and incest are wrong as you admit, then why should one accept Paul’s letters to define what laws that one should obey? It’s not about judging, that is God’s position, it is about obedience to God’s commandments.

    First of all, I didn’t say that “by only reading Paul’s letters one cannot gain that bestiality and incest are wrong.” What I said was that most people instinctively know it’s wrong, and if for some reason they didn’t know that, they could read about it in the Law. Besides, I daresay that it would be covered by the lists of people that will not inherit the Kingdom in I Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:21; and Eph. 5:5. Anyone that would read those lists and not figure out that obvious perversion like bestiality is included does not have the right heart in the first place. But it’s still a bare minimum.

    Secondly, to say that if Paul’s letters don’t cover every single sin then they are insufficient to define what laws one should obey is missing the point. Paul doesn’t say we should obey some laws and not others. Paul says our righteousness is of God, and not based on any law. It’s based on obedience to the Lord Jesus and his words. And he commands us to walk by the spirit rather than by law, and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

  73. on 04 Jun 2009 at 5:28 amMark C.

    The murder or adulterer was indebted to forfeit his life. The thief
    was only indebted to make restitution for his theft.

    Like I said, the punishment varied according to the offense, but in terms of indebtedness to God, the Law was a unit. In terms of being “righteous before God” sin is sin. But fortunately the sacrifice of Christ covers everything.

    The first clause says that the law speaks to those under the law. Paul then states that two things follow from that idea: 1) every mouth will be closed, 2) all the world may become accountable to God. Paul indicates this with his use of “ινα” (so that).

    So the question I’m trying to figure out is: How does the Law speaking to those under the law (A) result in the world becoming accountable to God? (D)

    The A and D are roughly what my analogy was getting at. But if my analogy with A, B and C doesn’t make sense to you, please disregard it.

    I think the difficulty may be in the fact that we hadn’t said much about the context of the first two chapters. But I did refer in post 51 to Paul’s discussion of the Jews and the Gentiles and how they each related to the Law. Then he says in chapter 3 that BOTH are under sin. Whether by the written law that the Jews had, or the “natural” or “heart” law that some Gentiles had (which would be confirmed by the written law), the Law identifies what is sin.

    That would be how all the world is guilty before God, whether it be because of the written law that the Jews had, or the tendency of the Gentiles to do from the heart what was written in the Law. So (D) didn’t follow just from the one statement (A) but from the whole context preceding it. The overall point he was building up to was that nobody can live up to God’s standard of righteousness, so we needed to have righteousness without the Law.

    But I would say something further about the Sabbath, though the Sabbath may not be moral, it is natural. I mean natural in the sense that it expresses and fulfills something inherent in the nature of Man and of creation. Well, I believe it does at least…

    What is natural about it? Until it was given to Israel, nobody had ever “naturally” come up with the idea of setting aside one day to devote to God. And they were told that it was given to them as a unique sign of their relationship with God, with the result that it set them apart from the rest of the world. If it was “natural” for mankind in general to observe a Sabbath, everybody would have been doing it, and then it wouldn’t have set Israel apart.

  74. on 04 Jun 2009 at 6:42 amrobert

    “The verse you quote (which I also quoted) proves what I was saying. The stone tablet is said to have “the law AND the commandment.” They are interchangeable. ”

    this verse states that there was the law and The Commandment. its not hard to figure which one wasnt a law.

    “If you could do this I might be persuaded, but in order for you to do so you would have to do two things:
    1. Use arguments that have not been used before, because all of the ones that have been used have been disproved, between my article and Anthony’s book (as well as many others’ writings). Or at least present a convincing rebuttal to the explanations we have given.
    2. Deal with the proofs that I have presented that prove from the Bible that the Sabbath was given to Israel only, and for a specific purpose.

    But if you want to try, I’ll consider what you say. ”

    that wasnt an answer Mark

    I will even let you be the Judge

    but first answer me one thing, was man created on the 6th day?

  75. on 04 Jun 2009 at 9:33 amMark C.

    this verse states that there was the law and The Commandment. its not hard to figure which one wasnt a law.

    The point is that the stone tablets are referred to as both, and the book Moses wrote is referred to as both, and many other verses demonstrate that the terms are interchangeable, as I pointed out in the article and my recent post, and which can be demonstrated by a simple concordance search.

    “If you could do this I might be persuaded…
    But if you want to try, I’ll consider what you say.”

    that wasnt an answer Mark

    I don’t know how much more of an answer I could give you, especially considering the hypothetical nature of the question. When I have been convinced from the Bible that something I formerly believed was wrong, I haven’t continued to teach error, if that’s what you mean. But I believe I have demonstrated that the Sabbath was given to Israel and not to mankind in general. If you think you can persuade me from the Bible, by all means feel free to try. But keep in mind that in order to convince me you will have to do both of the things I wrote in my last post.

    but first answer me one thing, was man created on the 6th day?

    Yes. Why?

  76. on 04 Jun 2009 at 11:23 amKarl

    Like I said, the punishment varied according to the offense, but in terms of indebtedness to God, the Law was a unit.

    You used the term “indebtedness.” A debt is something that must be paid. The debt or payment for different sins was different in the law.

    What is natural about it? Until it was given to Israel, nobody had ever “naturally” come up with the idea of setting aside one day to devote to God. And they were told that it was given to them as a unique sign of their relationship with God, with the result that it set them apart from the rest of the world. If it was “natural” for mankind in general to observe a Sabbath, everybody would have been doing it, and then it wouldn’t have set Israel apart.

    The modern world is an example of what I am saying. Virtually everyone rests from their work or jobs at least one day a week. Jews and Gentiles both need rest. I am NOT saying that the Sabbath commandment or the Law was given to the world. Rather, I am saying the Sabbath commandment expresses and fulfills the need for rest that all men have, not only Jews.

    Was the 6 day creation account written only for the Jews too? Does God’s creation of the world in 6 days effect how we as gentiles see the world?

  77. on 04 Jun 2009 at 12:44 pmMark C.

    You used the term “indebtedness.” A debt is something that must be paid. The debt or payment for different sins was different in the law.

    I don’t believe the penalties under the Law fully paid the debt owed. I believe it was for the purpose of pointing to the ultimate payment of debt that Jesus would accomplish. It was by grace that God ever accepted any debt according to the Law. In the bigger picture, we are all worthy of death – the wages of sin.

    The modern world is an example of what I am saying. Virtually everyone rests from their work or jobs at least one day a week. Jews and Gentiles both need rest. I am NOT saying that the Sabbath commandment or the Law was given to the world. Rather, I am saying the Sabbath commandment expresses and fulfills the need for rest that all men have, not only Jews.

    Virtually everyone in the world rests at least one day a week (except possibly in remote tribal cultures that never heard of it, I don’t know) but they don’t necessarily dedicate it to God. But we are told that the reason Israel was given the Sabbath was not just to take a day of rest. It was specifically to take that day to remember that God had brought them out of Egypt. Also, we have a spiritual rest in which we cease from our works, and we can enter into it every day.

    Was the 6 day creation account written only for the Jews too? Does God’s creation of the world in 6 days effect how we as gentiles see the world?

    The creation account may affect how we see the world, but that’s not the same as being required by law to observe the Sabbath. No one was commanded to observe it from the time of creation until it was given to Israel in the wilderness. And when it was given, it was compared to the creation account, but they were told that its purpose was more than just to remember God as creator. It was to remember His leading them out of Egypt.

  78. on 04 Jun 2009 at 2:57 pmrobert

    Mark
    What part of beyond the shadow of a doubt do you not understand considering i am letting you determine that.

    yes or no

    just answer the simple question.

  79. on 04 Jun 2009 at 5:31 pmrobert

    “The creation account may affect how we see the world, but that’s not the same as being required by law to observe the Sabbath.”

    there was no others laws giving to the gentiles when God with his own lips spoke to all the nations that was liberated by God from Egypt.

    the reason it was again spoken to Moses was just for Israel and you are right within your view of this .

    but Moses never spoke it or gave a law towards it to any of the gentile nations , God gave it to them to set the moral standard for being a child of God.
    there is not a law,rule or code giving to Israel that could provide salvation or take away salvation only repenting and offering a sacrafice for Breaking 1 of the 10. now you could recieve a death sentence for not following the laws of Israel but that death was only of the flesh not spirit.

    I am not saying there is laws requiring the observance of the Sabbath , I am saying there is Love requiring it.
    these 2 things should not ever be combined because one has a punishment and the other has a reward. if you walk with God you must do as he would or you might be left behind or lost.

  80. on 04 Jun 2009 at 7:37 pmMark C.

    What part of beyond the shadow of a doubt do you not understand considering i am letting you determine that.

    yes or no

    just answer the simple question.

    What part of my answer do you not understand?

  81. on 04 Jun 2009 at 7:47 pmrobert

    I understand you are avoiding it completely.

    Would you or wouldnt you which is a yes or a no.
    I expected straight not side stepping it.

    the rules favored you and i gave you a simple question to answer.

    what are you afraid of

  82. on 04 Jun 2009 at 8:19 pmMark C.

    ??????
    I answered you twice:

    If you could do this I might be persuaded, but in order for you to do so you would have to do two things….
    But if you want to try, I’ll consider what you say.

    You said that wasn’t an answer so I elaborated:

    I don’t know how much more of an answer I could give you, especially considering the hypothetical nature of the question. When I have been convinced from the Bible that something I formerly believed was wrong, I haven’t continued to teach error, if that’s what you mean. But I believe I have demonstrated that the Sabbath was given to Israel and not to mankind in general. If you think you can persuade me from the Bible, by all means feel free to try. But keep in mind that in order to convince me you will have to do both of the things I wrote in my last post.

    How in the world can you interpret this as avoiding and sidestepping? I’m not “afraid” of anything. As I said, if you think you can convince me then go ahead and try.

  83. on 04 Jun 2009 at 8:24 pmrobert

    show me where you answered yes to you would stop preaching or atleast show me where you answered no

    Its just a 3 letter word and only one of the two that can be an answer.

    yes or no?

  84. on 04 Jun 2009 at 8:35 pmMark C.

    there was no others laws giving to the gentiles when God with his own lips spoke to all the nations that was liberated by God from Egypt.

    “All” what nations? There was only one nation liberated by God from Egypt, that was Israel.

    the reason it was again spoken to Moses was just for Israel and you are right within your view of this .

    but Moses never spoke it or gave a law towards it to any of the gentile nations , God gave it to them to set the moral standard for being a child of God.

    No, God gave it to Israel to set them apart from the Gentile nations, as I showed in the article.

    I am not saying there is laws requiring the observance of the Sabbath , I am saying there is Love requiring it.

    But since the Sabbath was given specifically to Israel, love does not require US to keep it. Love requires us to obey the commands of Jesus Christ, which included entering into his rest and not being entangled with the yoke of bondage.

    these 2 things should not ever be combined because one has a punishment and the other has a reward. if you walk with God you must do as he would or you might be left behind or lost.

    But accepting a gift of grace is neither punishment nor reward. Rewards and punishments are both earned. But eternal life is a free gift we can’t earn with any works. Since we have received the gift, we of course should do what He commands us. But He didn’t command US to keep the Sabbath – only Israel.

  85. on 04 Jun 2009 at 8:39 pmMark C.

    show me where you answered yes to you would stop preaching

    I just showed you. One of the bolded sentences in my second answer. Here it is again:
    “When I have been convinced from the Bible that something I formerly believed was wrong, I haven’t continued to teach error, if that’s what you mean.”

  86. on 04 Jun 2009 at 8:43 pmrobert

    ““All” what nations? There was only one nation liberated by God from Egypt, that was Israel.”

    If i could show you there were other nations (besides Israel) liberated from Egypt by God using Moses

    would you quit preaching everything but God is One

  87. on 04 Jun 2009 at 8:45 pmrobert

    Are you afraid of giving me the answer Yes or No?

  88. on 04 Jun 2009 at 8:51 pmMark C.

    If i could show you there were other nations (besides Israel) liberated from Egypt by God using Moses

    would you quit preaching everything but God is One

    That is a ridiculously broad proposal. “Everything but God is One” includes many other subjects that we aren’t even discussing. If you have a point to make, make it. I don’t want to keep derailing this thread with arguments about whether I accepted your challenges or not. Stick to the issues. Where does it say that other nations besides Israel were liberated by God using Moses? And what proof “beyond a shadow of a doubt” can you offer that the Sabbath was for all the people of the earth and not just Israel?

  89. on 04 Jun 2009 at 8:58 pmrobert

    so the answer is No

    the reason for everything but God is One is because that is the only thing you have completely right.

  90. on 04 Jun 2009 at 9:04 pmMark C.

    so the answer is No

    the reason for everything but God is One is because that is the only thing you have completely right.

    I will not be drawn into your childish games which only derail the thread. I have answered you three times, in plain English. If you don’t understand or don’t like how I worded it I’m sorry.

    If you have anything constructive to add, please do. Otherwise this exchange is pointless.

  91. on 04 Jun 2009 at 9:07 pmrobert

    it would of only took 3 post if you would give straight answers.
    and dont belittle me by calling me childish.
    you not a very nice person

  92. on 04 Jun 2009 at 9:22 pmMark C.

    it would of only took 3 post if you would give straight answers.
    and dont belittle me by calling me childish.
    you not a very nice person

    I gave you straight answers.
    I didn’t call you childish, I said these games are childish.
    Whether I’m nice is not the issue. Let’s stick to the issues.
    What proof can you offer that:
    1. The Sabbath was given to the Sabbath was for all the people of the earth and not just Israel?
    2. Other nations besides Israel were liberated by God using Moses?

  93. on 04 Jun 2009 at 9:35 pmrobert

    who would know the truth more than Jesus other than God

    Mark 2
    27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

    God blessed the Sabbath at the end of the seventh day of creation. and created man on the sixth day, the same man the Sabbath was made for.
    Seth knew,Enoch knew,Noah knew and Abraham knew it was made for him too. how did we and where did we get the book of Genesis from.
    you think all those aboved didnt know the sabbath was blessed

    Exodus 20
    10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    He liberated all of the nations in bondage in Egypt and they followed him

    Exodus 12
    37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. 38 And a mixed [9] multitude went up also with them;

  94. on 05 Jun 2009 at 12:07 amKarl

    Virtually everyone in the world rests at least one day a week (except possibly in remote tribal cultures that never heard of it, I don’t know) but they don’t necessarily dedicate it to God. But we are told that the reason Israel was given the Sabbath was not just to take a day of rest. It was specifically to take that day to remember that God had brought them out of Egypt. Also, we have a spiritual rest in which we cease from our works, and we can enter into it every day.

    Both and… The Sabbath was given to give them rest from their labors, also to cause them to remember what God had done from them by bringing them out slavery in egypt, and to remember creation. So we see two things here. 1) The sabbath serves (or served, if you like..) a natural purpose in giving man rest from his labors, 2) the law serves a spiritual purpose in teaching the Jews to remember God’s creation and their redemption from Egypt.

    I don’t believe the penalties under the Law fully paid the debt owed.

    Could you prove this from the law? As far as the law is concerned, the debt is paid.

    I believe it was for the purpose of pointing to the ultimate payment of debt that Jesus would accomplish.

    I thought the law was given to show God’s people (Israel) how to live. It was not given to prove that they were utterly sinful so that they would need a savior. For if this were the case, there was need for the law. The ‘“natural” or “heart” law that some Gentiles had’ could do that.

  95. on 05 Jun 2009 at 12:17 amKarl

    Also, we have a spiritual rest in which we cease from our works, and we can enter into it every day.

    This, in itself, doesn’t prove anything regarding a literal observance of the Sabbath any more than a baptism in the holy Spirit disproves literal water immersion.

  96. on 05 Jun 2009 at 6:07 amMark C.

    Robert,

    When Jesus said, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath,” his point was not that it was given to all of mankind. He mentioned the instance in which David ate the consecrated bread, which was unlawful for anyone but the priests to eat. But although David technically broke the law, he was not condemned for it. Jesus was pointing out that human needs sometimes supersede legal requirements.

    He was saying that the Sabbath is made to serve people and not people to serve the Sabbath. The question was about how to observe the Sabbath, within the context of the Jews being the ones who are required to observe it. There was not a question about whom the Sabbath was for. The Jews recognized that the Law, including the Sabbath, was for Israel and not anyone else. Here is a good article (not by me) that covers this quite well:
    http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/mark227k.htm

    There are several other verses referring to the Law that use the phrase, “if a man observe them.” But they are talking about if a man, or person, within Israel observes them, as can be seen from their context. The verses are: Neh. 9:29; Ezek. 20:11,13,21. (The Sabbath is included in these contexts.)

    God blessed the Sabbath at the end of the seventh day of creation. and created man on the sixth day, the same man the Sabbath was made for.

    Gen. 2:
    1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
    2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
    3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

    Notice, it says that He rested, and sanctified the day. It doesn’t call it a Sabbath day, and there is no command for anyone else to observe it. After that there is no mention of the Sabbath again until God reveals it to the children of Israel in the wilderness in Exod. 16.

    Seth knew,Enoch knew,Noah knew and Abraham knew it was made for him too. how did we and where did we get the book of Genesis from.
    you think all those aboved didnt know the sabbath was blessed

    There is no record of Seth, Enoch, Noah, or Abraham keeping the Sabbath. As I said, there is no mention of the Sabbath between Gen. 2 and Exod. 16.

    We got the book of Genesis in writing when Moses wrote it. (Not sure what your point was about that.)

    Neh. 9:13-14 tells us that the Sabbath was revealed to Israel at Mt. Sinai. There is no proof that it was known or given to anyone else before Sinai.

    When God first revealed the Sabbath to them in the wilderness (Exod. 16), He only said to gather manna for six days but gather two days’ worth on the sixth day and don’t gather any on the seventh because it is the Lord’s Sabbath. No mention of reinstating something they had forgotten, and no mention of creation here.

    Then when God included the Sabbath as part of the Law on Mt. Sinai (Exod. 20), God said, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” Notice what the “therefore” is referring to. The fact that God had rested on the seventh day at creation is the reason the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. The reason God commanded Israel to observe it is given in Deut. 5:15 –
    “And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.

    In addition, Exod. 31:13-17 reiterates that the Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel.
    Exod. 31:
    13 “But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.
    14 ‘Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.
    15 ‘For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.
    16 ‘So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.’
    17 “It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”

    Notice v. 13 – “…that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.” Sanctify means to set apart. And notice the phrases in bold. It is a sign and a command to the sons of Israel, not to all mankind. If it was to all mankind, it would not set Israel apart.

    Yes, it refers to God resting on the seventh day of creation here, but it doesn’t say “therefore,” it says “for.” God made the seventh day the Sabbath because He had rested the seventh day at creation. But the context clearly emphasizes that He commanded Israel to observe it, and not anyone else.

    As for there being other nations among those that came out of Egypt, you are correct. I’ll concede that there were others that left Egypt with the Israelites. Deut. 29 refers to them as “strangers in your camp” and they are included along with the children of Israel in the covenant and oath that God made with them that day. That covenant was “in order that He may establish you today as His people and that He may be your God” (Deut. 29:13).

    So your original statement, “there was no others laws giving to the gentiles when God with his own lips spoke to all the nations that was liberated by God from Egypt” is correct. When God referred to “His People” it included the children of Israel, along with those other strangers among them who also entered the covenant with God. They were collectively God’s nation as distinct from Gentiles.

    Nevertheless, the Sabbath was part of the Old Covenant that God made specifically with His people to set them apart, and was not a general moral, covenant, or command for all nations.

  97. on 05 Jun 2009 at 6:34 amMark C.

    Karl,

    Both and… The Sabbath was given to give them rest from their labors, also to cause them to remember what God had done from them by bringing them out slavery in egypt, and to remember creation. So we see two things here. 1) The sabbath serves (or served, if you like..) a natural purpose in giving man rest from his labors, 2) the law serves a spiritual purpose in teaching the Jews to remember God’s creation and their redemption from Egypt.

    Yes the Sabbath was for remembering God, “both” as creator “and” as the deliverer out of Egypt. But only Israel has “both” of those things to remember, since mankind in general were not delivered out of Egypt. And as I have shown, the Sabbath was given as part of the covenant relationship with Israel.

    As for remembering God as creator, there are many ways to do that besides observing the Sabbath. But neither Gentiles nor Christians are commanded to observe the Sabbath. However, that doesn’t mean anyone can’t set aside at least one day a week to devote to God if they want to. Most Christians do so on Sunday, and there’s nothing wrong with that, since we are no longer under the Old Covenant that commands us to observe Saturday as the Sabbath.

    “I don’t believe the penalties under the Law fully paid the debt owed.”

    Could you prove this from the law? As far as the law is concerned, the debt is paid.

    No, not from the Law. The things in the Law were a shadow of what would be revealed. But it was revealed through Paul that the wages of sin is death and the gift of God is eternal life by Christ Jesus. By the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified, because by the Law is the knowledge of sin.

    “I believe it was for the purpose of pointing to the ultimate payment of debt that Jesus would accomplish.”

    I thought the law was given to show God’s people (Israel) how to live. It was not given to prove that they were utterly sinful so that they would need a savior. For if this were the case, there was need for the law. The ‘“natural” or “heart” law that some Gentiles had’ could do that.

    There would still have been a need for the Law, as a temporary measure for Israel, and as a written standard which establishes the “heart” law of the Gentiles. It was a standard set forth, which the Jews found out they couldn’t live up to. And without the written Law we wouldn’t know what those things were that the Gentiles did from the heart. Paul’s point of talking about the Jews’ written Law and the Gentiles’ ‘heart’ law was to show that neither one had an advantage, because we are all sinful and cannot be saved by works.

    “Also, we have a spiritual rest in which we cease from our works, and we can enter into it every day.”

    This, in itself, doesn’t prove anything regarding a literal observance of the Sabbath any more than a baptism in the holy Spirit disproves literal water immersion.

    I’m not saying it proves anything. I only mentioned it to point out that man’s need for rest is taken care of by our entering into God’s rest without the Sabbath. Just like we can have righteousness without the Law.

  98. on 05 Jun 2009 at 7:18 amrobert

    Mark
    Being Gods people is not about being commanded to follow his ways, it is doing his ways out of love.
    If God wanted perfect people he could of created us that way, but how would that glorify him. For us to choose to be perfect out of love is what the whole Word of God is all about.God never failed with His plan with Israel because without Everything in the OT we would not know God , so how could we love Him. The keeping of the Sabbath out of love has always been an identifying sign of Gods people before and after Jesus.
    those who love God will do His ways and this is true from beginning to end.

  99. on 05 Jun 2009 at 8:09 amMark C.

    Being Gods people is not about being commanded to follow his ways, it is doing his ways out of love.

    Being God’s people is about being the people that God calls His People, and who entered into a covenant relationship with Him.

    The keeping of the Sabbath out of love has always been an identifying sign of Gods people before and after Jesus.
    those who love God will do His ways and this is true from beginning to end.

    I demonstrated from the Scripture why this is not true. But if you choose to believe otherwise, it’s your choice.

  100. on 05 Jun 2009 at 12:36 pmrobert

    you havent demon strated anything but a bias opinion.
    God contradicts almost everything you teach.
    but if you choose to belive otherwise, that is your choice.
    Your opinion of yourself it higher than your opinion of the truth.

  101. on 05 Jun 2009 at 12:52 pmKarl

    But it was revealed through Paul that the wages of sin is death and the gift of God is eternal life by Christ Jesus

    How did Paul receive this revelation about the wages of sin is death? By direct revelation from God? Does Paul say this?

    According to the law, the wages of only some sins was death. This is similar to the way John speaks of sins unto death and sins not unto death.

    There would still have been a need for the Law, as a temporary measure for Israel, and as a written standard which establishes the “heart” law of the Gentiles. It was a standard set forth, which the Jews found out they couldn’t live up to.

    Why would it still be necessary as a temporary measure for Israel?

    Regarding the possibility of keeping it: “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you” Deut. 30:11

    What did Moses mean here?

    Paul’s point of talking about the Jews’ written Law and the Gentiles’ ‘heart’ law was to show that neither one had an advantage, because we are all sinful and cannot be saved by works.

    What you say about nobody being saved by works is true. But the law never intended to save anyone by works. The law is the way God’s redeemed (i.e. saved) people (Israel) are supposed to live. The law was not a method for obtaining redemption or salvation.

  102. on 05 Jun 2009 at 12:56 pmKarl

    I only mentioned it to point out that man’s need for rest is taken care of by our entering into God’s rest without the Sabbath.

    Entering into spiritual rest in Christ does not take care of man’s need for physical rest.

  103. on 05 Jun 2009 at 1:06 pmKarl

    But only Israel has “both” of those things to remember, since mankind in general were not delivered out of Egypt. And as I have shown, the Sabbath was given as part of the covenant relationship with Israel.

    True mankind was not delivered out of egypt. But there are two reasons why a christian has cause to remember the deliverance from egypt:

    1) Christians are grafted into the nation of Israel through Christ and are inwardly Jews, due to Christ indwelling the believer.

    2) Christians have been delivered out of slavery to sin and the kingdom of Satan, represented by Egypt.

  104. on 05 Jun 2009 at 1:52 pmMark C.

    How did Paul receive this revelation about the wages of sin is death? By direct revelation from God? Does Paul say this?

    Yes.

    Why would it still be necessary as a temporary measure for Israel?

    Already answered that.

    Regarding the possibility of keeping it: “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you” Deut. 30:11

    What did Moses mean here?

    Other versions have it as, “the commandment is not hidden from you, neither is it far off” (KJV) or, “the commandment is not too difficult for you to understand, and it is not beyond your reach” (NLT). Considering the verses following I would say this is the better translation.

    Entering into spiritual rest in Christ does not take care of man’s need for physical rest.

    Physical rest is not the main point of the Sabbath observance either.

    True mankind was not delivered out of egypt. But there are two reasons why a christian has cause to remember the deliverance from egypt:

    1) Christians are grafted into the nation of Israel through Christ and are inwardly Jews, due to Christ indwelling the believer.

    2) Christians have been delivered out of slavery to sin and the kingdom of Satan, represented by Egypt.

    Absolutely! And many of the things that were done under the Old Covenant are now “spiritualized” – thus the literal Sabbath day observance is no longer required. We can use any day or all days to remember what God did.

    It seems like we’re going in circles here. Especially about Paul. I think I’ve said before that if you question whether his epistles are God-breathed, then we have no common ground on which to base any discussion of this subject.

  105. on 05 Jun 2009 at 2:19 pmrobert

    ה וְעֹשֶׂה חֶסֶד, לַאֲלָפִים–לְאֹהֲבַי, וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְו‍ֹתָי. {}

    Exodus 20
    and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
    KJV
    And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

    when translated correctly why would God show mercy unto the thousandth generation if he knew he was going to cancel it long before that.
    Just how many generations have we had so far.
    a generation is 40 years
    we are at 150 generations now ,so this is far beyond that and will be past even the Kingdom of God. you could say it means forever

  106. on 05 Jun 2009 at 4:47 pmrobert

    ”We got the book of Genesis in writing when Moses wrote it. (Not sure what your point was about that.)”

    Did anyone know the content of it before Moses put it in writting?
    If they did would they be so compelled to hold the seventh day as a blessed day and do as God did in it?
    Would God feel loved by those who did and consider it as Walking with Him?
    If it was Moses who put in writing why would he say Abraham kept Gods commandments when Moses had full knowlege of what they were. it was because Abraham did keep them.
    why would Moses write it.

    “As for there being other nations among those that came out of Egypt, you are correct. I’ll concede that there were others that left Egypt with the Israelites. Deut. 29 refers to them as “strangers in your camp” and they are included along with the children of Israel in the covenant and oath that God made with them that day. That covenant was “in order that He may establish you today as His people and that He may be your God” (Deut. 29:13). ”

    God spoke to all of these nations and The 10 Commandment was for others besides Israel and Deuteronomy 5 was talking about the covenant made with Israel alone when the children of Israel heard it too.
    the 10 commandments was giving to Israelites and NonIsraelites but the covenant was made only with Israel and the NonIsraelites got the knowlege to know the One true God that delivered them also from Bondage but they were not held by Mosaic laws that came after unless they were to join themselfs to Israel to inherit the land promised to Israel through the promise made to Abraham.
    Mosaic laws was for the NATION of Israel not other Nations so it was never held by God over NonIsraelites which was what the traditions of the jews were doing at the time of Jesus to the poor gentiles within the land of Judea, this is part of the misunderstood things that Jesus and his diciples spoke of. what was given by God to a multitude of Nations including Israel is still binding to all the decendents of these Nations.

    .

  107. on 05 Jun 2009 at 5:17 pmJoseph

    I want to expand a bit on the Hebrew of Exodus 20 and why verse 6 is correctly understood to be speaking about generations and not just thousands of men. The JPS Bible has gotten this one right in translation and so do a few other translations.

    If one was just to read only verse 6 by itself they may render “thousands” as being toward number in people as the Hebrew word for thousands is “alephim” and there is no word generation in the Hebrew.

    But the context comes from verse 5 in which defines what the thousands are…

    Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

    and then we read in vs. 6…

    And shewing mercy unto thousands of them (generations) that love me, and keep my commandments.

    It is obvious the context of “them” is generations. I could see how one could read in the English and get confused because the English included the word “them” and one may read as if this word is referring to people. But in the Hebrew does not have the word “them”, which would be “הם” (hem), and the pronoun is inserted into the English based upon the plural of the “thousands.” Also, there is no pronoun-suffix in reference to the “thousands” that would clarify that the “thousands” was literally people and not “generations.”

    Furthermore, Rashi’s commentary agrees with the the “thousands” being “generations.”

    The Aramaic MSS includes the word “דרין” (“darin”, generations). Which is also similar to the Hebrew word for Generations which is “דור” (dor, generation).

    Also, context of the Hebrew numerology of vs. 5 also shows that vs. 6 is speaking about generations.

  108. on 05 Jun 2009 at 5:59 pmJoseph

    Mark C,

    It would seem to be that I believe the OT Law was a temporary measure for Israel at that time, that it served to identify what is sin, and that it is no longer necessary now that Christ has come. By contrast you seem to believe that the Law is still necessary, although I’m not sure why, other than holding to the verses that refer to “God’s law” and “God’s commandments” which are not referring to the Mosaic Law.

    Christ was referring to the Mosaic law…

    1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

    Pretty clear to me that Christ is not revoking the law of Moses but rather the “oral” tradition that was being mixed in with the law and the hypocrisy that was being performed by many of the religious leaders.

    Also, your own speech shows that you are a hypocrite. You say that the law is temporary for Israel at that time, yet you have to refer to it yourself in order to identify whether bestiality or incest are acts of sin. What makes the law temporary if you and everyone else must still refer to it for guidance?

    First of all, I didn’t say that “by only reading Paul’s letters one cannot gain that bestiality and incest are wrong.” What I said was that most people instinctively know it’s wrong, and if for some reason they didn’t know that, they could read about it in the Law. Besides, I daresay that it would be covered by the lists of people that will not inherit the Kingdom in I Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:21; and Eph. 5:5. Anyone that would read those lists and not figure out that obvious perversion like bestiality is included does not have the right heart in the first place. But it’s still a bare minimum.

    Well this is your opinion. What I know is that the Torah has been around for as long as we have had laws, and is our only absolute reference source to show us that bestiality and incest are wrong. If as a child you were taught that it is wrong is because someone who read the law, or learned from someone who understood the law, taught you the law. No way around this one.

    Secondly, to say that if Paul’s letters don’t cover every single sin then they are insufficient to define what laws one should obey is missing the point. Paul doesn’t say we should obey some laws and not others. Paul says our righteousness is of God, and not based on any law. It’s based on obedience to the Lord Jesus and his words. And he commands us to walk by the spirit rather than by law, and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

    Paul also never said to throw out the law as he pledge obedience himself. The context of righteousness and salvation in accordance to the law keeps flying right over your head. You almost got it. If we walk by the Spirit we will walk by the law, as James said…

    James 2:26
    [26] for as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also the faith apart from the works is dead.

  109. on 05 Jun 2009 at 9:19 pmJohnE

    A few points:

    1) The contention that “He liberated all of the nations in bondage in Egypt and they followed him” made on the basis of Exodus 12:38 is invalid. The text does not say that the mixed multitude that came with the sons of Israel was previously enslaved by the Egyptians, nor that it had been liberated.

    2) Is Exodus 20:6 brought in support of the claim that God still expects his people to be under the Mosaic Law, because only 150 have elapsed, and not thousands? I ask because that verse says no such thing. I see there’s constantly reading in the text, not out of it, when it comes this issues.

    The Mosaic Law is not even necessary for God to be showing lovingkindness to thousand generations, to those who love Him and keep His commandments. Abraham was not under the Law, and God will still show lovingkindness to thousand generations of Abrahamic descendants who love Him and keep His commandments.

    Another aspect of this, is that there’s no indication in the text that the number “thousands” is supposed to be some kind of threshold, one under which the Mosaic Law is required by God. Thousands is supposed to indicate a very big number, just like when it is said that for God, a thousand years is like a day. It’s not that for God, 1300 years are like 1.3 days. So the argument that there would have elapsed only 150 generations, doesn’t make any real sense.

    And since everybody is insisting here on the Sabbath (like we didn’t know already that the literal Sabbath is a shadow of better realities) and that the love of God requires being under the Mosaic Law, let us all remember that the Jewish pillars of the Christian community, together with all the elders, did not believe this. Otherwise they would have instructed the Gentiles to keep the Sabbath and offer sacrifices and what not. Did they not want the Gentiles to love God?

    And me (for example), not keeping the Sabbath, is it an indication that I do not love God? Because we know, those who do not love God and Christ will have no share in the kingdom. Those who do not love God cannot be considered righteous in His eyes. And so the inevitable conclusion: you don’t keep the Sabbath, you’re doomed. Kaput. Finished. Kiss your share in the kingdom goodbye. This is where we arrive.

    So it seems to me that all this talk about showing that you love God by keeping the whole Mosaic Law is just a covert device meant to impose the Law, again, as in Acts 15. Not good brothers 🙂 If you think your interpretation and opinion in this matter supersedes the will of God and the decision of the of 1st century Jewish apostles and elders, please explicitly say so, so that we can debate that issue as well.

  110. on 05 Jun 2009 at 9:42 pmrobert

    “So it seems to me that all this talk about showing that you love God by keeping the whole Mosaic Law is just a covert device meant to impose the Law”

    The fact you call the 10 commandments Mosaic law suggest you havent read exodus.
    God spoke the 10 commandments to the Israel and other nations and Moses used the !0 commandments within Mosaic law.

    1) The contention that “He liberated all of the nations in bondage in Egypt and they followed him” made on the basis of Exodus 12:38 is invalid. The text does not say that the mixed multitude that came with the sons of Israel was previously enslaved by the Egyptians, nor that it had been liberated.

    Maybe you need to read Genisis too
    If you werent an Egyptian in Egypt you were probably a slave or servant. there were many not of Jacob slaves when Joseph was sold into slavery .

    so you see it isnt me with the flawed

  111. on 05 Jun 2009 at 10:14 pmJohnE

    First, I call “Mosaic Law” the ensemble of laws God gave literal Israel through Moses.

    Second:

    If you werent an Egyptian in Egypt you were probably a slave or servant.

    Who told you that? And who told you that in that mix there were no Egyptians?

    Was there a time when Israel was in Egypt but not under slavery? (hence making it possible for non-egyptians not to be slaves in Egypt)?

    so you see it isnt me with the flawed

    I see exactly the opposite.

  112. on 05 Jun 2009 at 10:26 pmrobert

    “Was there a time when Israel was in Egypt but not under slavery? (hence making it possible for non-egyptians not to be slaves in Egypt)? ”

    Yes and it was because Joseph found favor but his favor faded.
    Who do you think the slave traders were buying to sell to the egyptians.
    there were probably many lower class egyptians that also folowed Moses out of Egypt when God Totally brought Egypt to Her knees and they recieved the 10 commandments too before Moses Recieved the Mosaic Law For Israel.
    while the 10 Commandment were for Israel too , they were giving to all.

  113. on 05 Jun 2009 at 10:38 pmJohnE

    Please answer the question. Who told you that “If you werent an Egyptian in Egypt you were probably a slave or servant”?

    Yes and it was because Joseph found favor but his favor faded.

    Exactly. So being non-Egyptian in Egypt does not mean being a slave. It’s simply common sense. Otherwise Jesus too was a slave in Egypt, along with Joseph and Mary.

    Who do you think the slave traders were buying to sell to the egyptians.

    I’m sorry, the question does not make sense. Who do I think the slave traders were buying to sell?

    there were probably many lower class egyptians that also folowed Moses

    Exactly.

  114. on 05 Jun 2009 at 10:47 pmrobert

    Please answer the question. Who told you that “If you werent an Egyptian in Egypt you were probably a slave or servant”?

    Plain Jane Common Sense, would you like to meet him too

    “I’m sorry, the question does not make sense. Who do I think the slave traders were buying to sell?”

    They bought men and women of many nations, A mixed multitude

    “Exactly. So being non-Egyptian in Egypt does not mean being a slave. It’s simply common sense. Otherwise Jesus too was a slave in Egypt, along with Joseph and Mary.”

    You do know the Joseph I was talking about was the human father of Jesus?

    “Exactly”

    so if you agree than why the discussion

  115. on 05 Jun 2009 at 10:49 pmrobert

    You do know the Joseph I was talking about was(wasnt) the human father of Jesus?

    correction is (wasnt)

  116. on 05 Jun 2009 at 11:01 pmJohnE

    Please answer the question. Who told you that “If you werent an Egyptian in Egypt you were probably a slave or servant”?

    Plain Jane Common Sense, would you like to meet him too

    In other words, your claim is unsubstantiated. Baseless. Glad that we cleared that out.

    “I’m sorry, the question does not make sense. Who do I think the slave traders were buying to sell?”

    They bought men and women of many nations, A mixed multitude

    That mixed multitude were men and women of many nations? Baseless again.

    You do know the Joseph I was talking about wasn’t the human father of Jesus?

    So? You do know that Joseph, the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Jesus, were in Egypt, right? According to you, they were slaves in Egypt – because they were not Egyptians, and all non-egyptians in Egypt are slaves. Ahem.

  117. on 05 Jun 2009 at 11:01 pmJoseph

    JohnE,

    2) Is Exodus 20:6 brought in support of the claim that God still expects his people to be under the Mosaic Law, because only 150 have elapsed, and not thousands? I ask because that verse says no such thing. I see there’s constantly reading in the text, not out of it, when it comes this issues.

    The Mosaic Law is not even necessary for God to be showing lovingkindness to thousand generations, to those who love Him and keep His commandments. Abraham was not under the Law, and God will still show lovingkindness to thousand generations of Abrahamic descendants who love Him and keep His commandments.

    Your right in that God does not need to enforce his law in order for us to be saved, but that is not the point. The point is the law is still there as our guiding stone, the reference that we base our works upon so that our faith is not dead. 🙂 See James 2:26…

    [26] for as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also the faith apart from the works is dead.

    Another aspect of this, is that there’s no indication in the text that the number “thousands” is supposed to be some kind of threshold, one under which the Mosaic Law is required by God. Thousands is supposed to indicate a very big number, just like when it is said that for God, a thousand years is like a day. It’s not that for God, 1300 years are like 1.3 days. So the argument that there would have elapsed only 150 generations, doesn’t make any real sense.

    We have to ask ourselves, why would the Hebrew say “thousands?” Why not “until the Messiah comes” or “Until I renew a Covenant with you.” There could have been many things said, but God clearly used a large number which obviously is used to amplify the time aspect of his Laws to “thousands of generations.” By that context, it is a stretch to assume that thousands means something other than a very long period of time.

    I’m looking at the context of what the generations are, based upon the prophetic scripture to the Kingdom law. Either which way one looks at the context of Generations, prophetic scripture supports a “eternal Torah” context. Otherwise the big question lingers, why would God say a thousand if he didn’t mean it? And if God does say a thousand, can it mean forever, or into the Kingdom? The will of GOD is that which will happen in the future when His kingdom comes. We are citizens of the kingdom and therefore should live as the Kingdom says to. And Torah is what the Kingdom commands (Isa. 2:1-5, Eze. 47:21-23; Zech. 8:23; Luk. 22:15-16; Matt. 28:19-20). So to keep Torah is simply the standard of the kingdom to come and specifically that which Yeshua (Jesus) expounded upon being certain misunderstood parts of the Torah and the oral laws of the day in Matt. 5 and Matt. 23.

  118. on 05 Jun 2009 at 11:02 pmJohnE

    correction: That mixed multitude were men and women BOUGHT of many nations? Baseless again.

  119. on 05 Jun 2009 at 11:11 pmrobert

    “So? You do know that Joseph, the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Jesus, were in Egypt, right? According to you, they were slaves in Egypt – because they were not Egyptians, and all non-egyptians in Egypt are slaves. Ahem. ”

    Was Jesus in Egypt before exodus as you are implying? NO
    Now who is baseless?

  120. on 05 Jun 2009 at 11:18 pmJohnE

    Joseph,

    Your right in that God does not need to enforce his law in order for us to be saved, but that is not the point. The point is the law is still there as our guiding stone, the reference that we base our works upon so that our faith is not dead. 🙂 See James 2:26…

    The law was the guide to Christ. If the law is still our guide, we didn’t find Christ yet.

    James 2:26 mentions nothing about the Mosaic Law.

    We have to ask ourselves, why would the Hebrew say “thousands?”

    We have to ask ourselves, why would the Hebrew say “thousand” years is like a day for God?

    it is a stretch to assume that thousands means something other than a very long period of time.

    And that was exactly my point. Thousands of generations simply means a very long period of time. We cannot count and say “only 120 generations have elapsed”, it makes no sense. And again, why are we discussing the thousand of generations here? Does God say “I will require for every nation the Law I gave to Israel through Moses, for thousands of generations”? That’s reading into the text. It simply does not exist.

    Either which way one looks at the context of Generations, prophetic scripture supports a “eternal Torah” context.

    Absolutely not 🙂

    Otherwise the big question lingers, why would God say a thousand if he didn’t mean it? And if God does say a thousand, can it mean forever, or into the Kingdom? The will of GOD is that which will happen in the future when His kingdom comes. We are citizens of the kingdom and therefore should live as the Kingdom says to. And Torah is what the Kingdom commands (Isa. 2:1-5, Eze. 47:21-23; Zech. 8:23; Luk. 22:15-16; Matt. 28:19-20).

    See above.

    So to keep Torah is simply the standard of the kingdom to come

    That covert device at work here again. If the Torah is the standard of the Kingdom, it is something God requires for salvation – only saved people get into the kingdom, and the ones that do not conform to the kingdom’s standard, cannot get into that kingdom. It also means the Christian Gentiles of the 1st century and after, are not getting in the kingdom. They did not conform to its standard. What an extreme conclusion, my God…

    misunderstood parts of the Torah and the oral laws of the day in Matt. 5 and Matt. 23.

    Once again, the divorce with the letter and the implicit permission of the law towards vows, is not, and never was oral. It’s all written.

  121. on 05 Jun 2009 at 11:21 pmRay

    Q. How do we show God that we love him?
    A. By keeping his commandments.

    That seems to look like a good answer, but let’s take a closer look.

    A man keeps God’s commandments if he loves him. His love for God
    is shown by obedience. Keeping God’s commandments is the result
    of his love for God. A man’s love for God comes after he has first received the love of God from God himself. He realized his love for him in many ways, but it seems to me that the most profound way
    we know the love of God is when we find ourselves in the wretched
    state that we truely are in when we have found ourselves to be in
    sin, and have found his forgiveness, his grace, his mercy, his care,
    his compassion, his kindness, his patience which he has had for us,
    his…fruit.

    The spirit of religion gives off a fuzzy glow. Within it is great evil.
    It’s full of carnality. It has every evil thing in it, pride, self-righteousness, etc. The list goes on.

    The message of the cross of Jesus gets us free from the spirit of
    religion. The principalities and powers of darkness held men under
    their evil powers that caused those who would be used by them to
    kill Jesus. We now have the power of God through what Jesus did
    by his giving up his life, through faith. The principalites and powers
    of evil came under the just judgment of God through the obedience
    of Christ, whereby we may become free from their captivity. It’s because of Jesus that we may find this liberty in order that we might serve God as Jesus will have us to do, living by the spirit of God in a new and better way than anything we have ever been able to do before. We may now through the power of the cross,
    worship God and fear him as he will be feared in godly fear which
    will make us wise unto salvation, helping us to liberate the captives who are still bound by Satan’s devices. We are in
    a battle between life and death, and darkness and light. Our power
    is in the blood of Jesus. It’s the blood of Christ that gives us the victory over Satan. He’s the enemy we must all overcome. As we overcome we gain authority to help others.

  122. on 05 Jun 2009 at 11:21 pmJohnE

    Was Jesus in Egypt before exodus as you are implying?

    It is you that says I imply that. I implied nothing of that sort.

    Now who is baseless?

    You are of course 🙂

  123. on 05 Jun 2009 at 11:26 pmrobert

    yes you implied Jesus into a exodus subject, it wasnt me that was BASELESS it was you.

  124. on 06 Jun 2009 at 10:16 amKarl

    How did Paul receive this revelation about the wages of sin is death? By direct revelation from God? Does Paul say this?

    Yes.

    Where does Paul say this?

    Other versions have it as, “the commandment is not hidden from you, neither is it far off” (KJV) or, “the commandment is not too difficult for you to understand, and it is not beyond your reach” (NLT). Considering the verses following I would say this is the better translation.

    Gesenius’ dictionary reads the the way the NASB does. But even if the verse reads your way, is it just for God to purposefully give people a list of commandments that they cannot keep, for the purpose of condemning them? Was the Law given as a way of life for God’s people Israel?

    Entering into spiritual rest in Christ does not take care of man’s need for physical rest.

    Physical rest is not the main point of the Sabbath observance either.

    I know, that is why I had a list of things the Sabbath commandment does. One of which happens to be to fulfill a basic need for rest that man has.

    Absolutely! And many of the things that were done under the Old Covenant are now “spiritualized” – thus the literal Sabbath day observance is no longer required.

    The first half of your sentence is good, but everything after the “thus” does not follow. A spiritual understanding of something does not, in itself, negate a literal understanding. Take baptism for example.

    It seems like we’re going in circles here. Especially about Paul. I think I’ve said before that if you question whether his epistles are God-breathed, then we have no common ground on which to base any discussion of this subject.

    The problem is not that whether I accept Paul’s letters as God-breathed. I do. The issue is I have is how we are to interpret them. Paul’s letters also have a very strong human element in them. Paul does not say: “Thus says the Lord….” Rather Paul is offering Pastoral guidance to local 1st century communities. He uses rhetoric, reason, interpretation of Old Testament passages and only rarely does he say “the Lord told me this…” Now the problem I have is when Paul’s writings are used to contradict or overturn the teachings of the Old Testament (which very frequently says “Thus says the Lord”).

  125. on 06 Jun 2009 at 12:03 pmMark C.

    Here’s a couple of interesting little tidbits of information. The phrase “mixed multitude” is only used a couple of times. In Num. 11:4 it is from a Hebrew word used only once that means “a promiscuous assemblage.” In Ex. 12:38 and Neh. 13:3 it is from another Hebrew word that simply means a mixed group of people. Nothing much else is said about them.

    HOWEVER, now comes the most interesting part. The word ger is translated ‘stranger’ many times throughout the OT, and it is this word that occurs in Exod. 20:10. When the Passover was first given to the children of Israel (Exod. 12) it was decreed that a stranger could not partake of the Passover unless they were circumcised first. If he did, then “…he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you.”

    The next reference to these strangers is in Exod. 20:10, which is the verse under consideration in this discussion. “But the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner [ger] who stays with you.”

    This is repeated in Exod. 23:12. “Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves.”

    A simple word search shows that all throughout the Torah the children of Israel are told that many of the laws they are given shall be observed by the strangers (or aliens, as the same Hebrew word is sometimes translated) among them, as well as the children of Israel. (“There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God” Lev. 24:22; Num. 15:15-16, 29.) It is always referring to strangers that are sojourning among the Israelites, not to all Gentile or heathen nations. These strangers or “resident aliens” had many of the same rights and requirements as the children of Israel, as long as they dwelt among them.

    When God spoke audibly to the children of Israel and gave them the Ten Commandments, He said that even the strangers who were sojourning among them were to observe the Sabbath. But what He did NOT do was to give it to the Gentiles, or anyone else but Israel (including the strangers among Israel).

    As has been pointed out, there was no distinction or difference between the Ten Commandments and the covenant or law of Moses. Deut. 5 plainly shows this.

    Deut. 5:
    1 Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully.
    2 “The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.
    3 “The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today.
    4 “The LORD spoke to you face to face at the mountain from the midst of the fire,
    5 while I was standing between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain. He said,
    6 ‘I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
    7 ‘You shall have no other gods before Me…
    […and He proceeds to list the Ten Commandments.]

    They are part of the Law, a summary of the Law, not a separate moral code. They are included in the “statutes and ordinances” that Moses spoke, and were part of the covenant which God made with Israel, and not with their fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). The strangers among them were to observe many aspects of the Law, but it was not given to the Gentiles, which means it was not given to mankind in general. As I have said a couple of times (and nobody has responded to it), since the Sabbath was meant to set Israel apart (as we read in Exod. 31), how would they be set apart if all of mankind had been commanded to keep the Sabbath?

  126. on 06 Jun 2009 at 12:17 pmMark C.

    Before somebody picks it apart, let me clarify. When I said, “there was no distinction or difference between the Ten Commandments and the covenant or law of Moses” I meant in the sense of them being a moral code separate from the rest of the Law, as has been asserted. I am of course aware of the special significance that was given to the tablets that were written by the finger of God, so in that sense there was a “distinction.” But Deut. 5 shows that the Ten Commandments were considered by Moses to be included in the “statutes and ordinances” which he spoke.

  127. on 06 Jun 2009 at 12:19 pmrobert

    Mosaic law was giving to Israel only, which included all that joined themselfs to Israel, But the 10 commandment were giving to many that did not Cross the Jordan into The land of the promise in which mosaic law was the ruling law. but mosaic law was not for rule of all that didnt become Israel, but they could still know the ONE TRUE GOD by following the 10 Commandments that were spoken to them also.
    No one was ever held by the 10 but had the opportunity to know God by following them.
    Mosaic law had a punishment for not following them attached to the 10 Commandment
    But when God spoke the 10 Commandments to all there was only a reward

  128. on 06 Jun 2009 at 12:20 pmJohnE

    Karl,

    How did Paul receive this revelation about the wages of sin is death? By direct revelation from God? Does Paul say this?

    Yes.

    Where does Paul say this?

    Karl, Paul (or I or Mark or anybody) does not need an additional revelation on this, the one in Genesis will perfectly do: ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’ God gave this simple command to Adam, and He reveals that the act of sinning will result in death (because sin is lawlessness). That’s why, regardless of how many sacrifices you bring under the law, you shall still die because of your sin – it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins, remember?

    A spiritual understanding of something does not, in itself, negate a literal understanding. Take baptism for example.

    In fact it actually does. The baptism itself is symbolic. The act in itself, has no effect on your relationship with God, except when administered by a Christian, with the right motivation, goal and understanding of the one being subjected to baptism. That being said, there are many kinds of baptism. Baptism with water is one. Baptism with Holy Spirit is another. The one with the water does not symbolize the one with Spirit. Therefore you cannot take the baptism as an example to support your view.

    Paul’s letters also have a very strong human element in them.

    As do any of the NT writings, inspired writings nevertheless.

    Paul does not say: “Thus says the Lord….”

    He simply doesn’t need to. In the case where he was offering his personal opinion, he was explicitly saying “*I* say, not the Lord”. Unless he says that, it’s from the Lord. Moreover, he tells the Galatians “you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself” (Galatians 4:14). Because he was his ambassador, he was relaying the Lord’s message. Thank God that when they received the word of God which they heard from Paul and other apostles, they accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God.

  129. on 06 Jun 2009 at 12:32 pmJohnE

    Mark,

    The strangers among them were to observe many aspects of the Law, but it was not given to the Gentiles, which means it was not given to mankind in general.

    Your discussion on this is sound. The psalmist makes it clear as well:

    Psalm 147:19-20 He declares His words to Jacob, His statutes and His ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any nation; And as for His ordinances, they have not known them. Praise the LORD!

  130. on 06 Jun 2009 at 12:40 pmRay

    Religious sins have often blinded mankind. Often the deceitful nature of man will convince him that he will show God how much
    he loves him by keeping his commandments, while God is willing to
    show man that keeping his commandments only comes as a result
    of loving him. We love him because of all he has done for us. The
    greatest witness of his love for us is his forgiveness. We experience his forgiveness after we have found the strength of our
    sins to be a burden more than we can bear, and we need release
    and relief from it’s power. We find such consolation at the cross.

  131. on 06 Jun 2009 at 12:41 pmMark C.

    Karl,

    Forgive me. When you asked whether Paul got what he said by direct revelation, it sounded like you questioned the God-breathed nature of his writings. He refers to his calling and authority, and the fact that he is sent by Jesus Christ in a number of places, as well as the fact that he got some things by revelation. He reveals things that were hidden before, which is why they could not be seen in the Old Testament. And they are revealed to him through the Lord Jesus.

    You ask some questions that sound as if you are unfamiliar with the points that Paul makes in his epistles, even though you have read them. You mentioned that you’d been studying the Law for five years. Perhaps that is what is making it difficult to see what Paul was talking about. You can’t see the complete gospel that Paul speaks of by reading the Old Testament, because it was hidden.

    Have you read any theological works that expound on Paul from the point of view of Christians not being under the law? I get the feeling that your understanding would be helped by more in depth studies than can be done on a forum such as this. And there are many theologians that can explain it much better than I can. Just a thought.

  132. on 06 Jun 2009 at 12:49 pmKarl

    He simply doesn’t need to. In the case where he was offering his personal opinion, he was explicitly saying “*I* say, not the Lord”. Unless he says that, it’s from the Lord.

    Unless he says “I don’t say, but the Lord,” he was not offering any direct revelation from God. Besides these statements, he was offering his pastoral guidance as an apostle to local 1st century communities.

    In fact it actually does. The baptism itself is symbolic. The act in itself, has no effect on your relationship with God, except when administered by a Christian, with the right motivation, goal and understanding of the one being subjected to baptism. That being said, there are many kinds of baptism. Baptism with water is one. Baptism with Holy Spirit is another. The one with the water does not symbolize the one with Spirit. Therefore you cannot take the baptism as an example to support your view.

    No, actually it doesn’t. But I can be more accurate though. Baptism in water symbolizes the washing away of sins. So if I understand the spiritual meaning to baptism, does that mean I don’t need to be immersed in water?

  133. on 06 Jun 2009 at 1:10 pmrobert

    Karl
    the way i understand you are not saying we are under the Law( Mosaic law) but have the law of love to Guide Us.
    so why do they keep implying you and me are saying we are under the mosaic law?
    Can the Government of Israel holds us accountable to it? Does God hold us accountable to Mosaic law?
    I am not held by any law , just Love.
    now if love could be called a law then the 10 commandments would be certainly be called that law

  134. on 06 Jun 2009 at 1:11 pmMark C.

    A spiritual understanding of something does not, in itself, negate a literal understanding. Take baptism for example.

    When I speak of “spiritualizing” the elements of the Old Covenant, I am not just referring to a spiritual understanding of it. I’m talking about there being, for example, a spiritual circumcision of the heart, in place of the literal circumcision. We are to offer “spiritual sacrifices” in place of the literal ones. We enter into God’s rest every day, not just once a week. We are “Jews inwardly” without a need for the physical ordinances.

    So if I understand the spiritual meaning to baptism, does that mean I don’t need to be immersed in water?

    No, because that is one of the things that we are commanded by Jesus to do. We are to obey his commands to us, not the commands to Israel.

  135. on 06 Jun 2009 at 1:13 pmKarl

    Hi Mark,

    Forgive me. When you asked whether Paul got what he said by direct revelation, it sounded like you questioned the God-breathed nature of his writings. He refers to his calling and authority, and the fact that he is sent by Jesus Christ in a number of places, as well as the fact that he got some things by revelation. He reveals things that were hidden before, which is why they could not be seen in the Old Testament. And they are revealed to him through the Lord Jesus.

    You ask some questions that sound as if you are unfamiliar with the points that Paul makes in his epistles, even though you have read them. You mentioned that you’d been studying the Law for five years. Perhaps that is what is making it difficult to see what Paul was talking about. You can’t see the complete gospel that Paul speaks of by reading the Old Testament, because it was hidden.

    Have you read any theological works that expound on Paul from the point of view of Christians not being under the law? I get the feeling that your understanding would be helped by more in depth studies than can be done on a forum such as this. And there are many theologians that can explain it much better than I can. Just a thought.

    Of course I forgive you. Thanks for being honest and humble in your dialogue with me. I also ask for your forgiveness if I have offended you with my argumentative attitude that I sometimes exhibit. I was raised in trinitarian church where Paul’s writings were taught and expounded more than the teachings of Christ and the Old Testament. That being said, where I am now, for someone to claim Paul said certain things about the Law is like saying Paul was a trinitarian. I actually see a connection between the 2 things. I don’t find it a coincidence that once Christianity separated from its Jewish roots (of which the Law is of primary importance) the church quickly fell into foolish speculations concerning the Godhead. It is also interesting to note that the only early unitarian Christian groups (i.e. ebionites and nazoreans) were also law keeping groups.

    But this still leaves me with how to interpret some of Paul’s statements concerning the law. I think there will always be some difficulty in interpreting Paul because of the pastoral nature of his writings. (Not to mention Peter’s warning concerning Paul’s writings) I have found that the New Perspective on Paul shows some promising avenues for how to understand some of his sayings but I need to research this more.

    With regards to the law giving me difficulty in understanding Paul, I don’t see how that could be. Paul himself says the OT (of which the Law is the foundation) is profitable for all doctrine and training in righteousness.

    I we agree to disagree about this that is fine, you have given me some things to consider.

    Karl

  136. on 06 Jun 2009 at 1:17 pmJohnE

    Robert,

    Mosaic law had a punishment for not following them attached to the 10 Commandment
    But when God spoke the 10 Commandments to all there was only a reward

    Paul thinks otherwise. The 10 commandments ultimately brought death. “the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones” – 2 Co 3:7. Indeed, not keeping the Sabbath was punished by death:

    Numbers 15:32-35 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.”

    Related to this, I see nobody wants to answer my question I posted earlier:

    And me (for example), not keeping the Sabbath, is it an indication that I do not love God? Because we know, those who do not love God and Christ will have no share in the kingdom. Those who do not love God cannot be considered righteous in His eyes. And so the inevitable conclusion: you don’t keep the Sabbath, you’re doomed. Kaput. Finished. Kiss your share in the kingdom goodbye. This is where we arrive.

    I should mention that I have no intention to get circumcised. And I might go today during the Sabbath and gather some wood. So for those of you who advocate the keeping of the Law, why don’t you really keep the Law and kill me? Who wants my address? What, you don’t want to keep the Mosaic Law? You don’t want to conform to the standard of the Kingdom?

    Here are other interesting situations involving the keeping of the Mosaic Law:

    a) Leviticus 24:11-16 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name and cursed. So they brought him to Moses. (Now his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.) 12 They put him in custody so that the command of the LORD might be made clear to them. 13 ¶ Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 14 “Bring the one who has cursed outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head; then let all the congregation stone him. 15 “You shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If anyone curses his God, then he will bear his sin. 16 ‘Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

    If God forbid, one of you has a child who blasphemed and cursed you know whom, why don’t you keep the law and stone him to death?

    b) God requested that all pagan nations should be destroyed or driven away from Palestine (Deut 7:16; Ex 23:31-33; Num 33:52; etc). But the Jews did not do so with the Jebusites (for example), and so they lived with them in Jerusalem (Jdg 1:21). So on you next visit to Jerusalem, why don’t you keep the Mosaic law and do away with the Palestinians living there?

    c) When God forbid, you suspect your wife of infidelity, why don’t you ask a priest of the Mosaic Law(!) to make her drink water with dust from the earth in it (Num 5)?

    Do you keep the Mosaic Law? If you don’t, why do you guys expect us to keep it?

  137. on 06 Jun 2009 at 1:22 pmKarl

    I’m talking about there being, for example, a spiritual circumcision of the heart, in place of the literal circumcision. We are to offer “spiritual sacrifices” in place of the literal ones. We enter into God’s rest every day, not just once a week. We are “Jews inwardly” without a need for the physical ordinances.

    But no where does it say, the spiritual rest in Christ has replaced the Sabbath. Being a Jew inwardly means that the inner state flows out into our outer actions.

    No, because that is one of the things that we are commanded by Jesus to do. We are to obey his commands to us, not the commands to Israel.

    Perhaps Jesus commands were only to show us what sin is under the New Covenant? Then, when we fail in keeping those commands we can come to Christ to forgive us of these sins. So the commands of Christ are meant to bring us to him for salvation and forgiveness. That’s it.

    And regarding Israel, if we are in Christ, we are part of Israel.

  138. on 06 Jun 2009 at 1:29 pmrobert

    Paul thinks otherwise. The 10 commandments ultimately brought death. “the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones” – 2 Co 3:7. Indeed, not keeping the Sabbath was punished by death:

    there was no punishment spoken by Gods own lips to all the people for not following the 10 commandments only when moses included them within Mosaic Law was there a punishment attached

    the tablets of Stone were for Israel this is why God spoke to all the people with His own lips

    Do you keep the Mosaic Law? If you don’t, why do you guys expect us to keep it?

    I have seen nobody here expect you to keep Mosaic Law, Dont even expect you to Keep the 10 Commandments. this is about you putting the 10 commandments under the Mosaic law.

  139. on 06 Jun 2009 at 1:32 pmJohnE

    Karl,

    Unless he says “I don’t say, but the Lord,” he was not offering any direct revelation from God. Besides these statements, he was offering his pastoral guidance as an apostle to local 1st century communities.

    Karl, unless you address my arguments I brought in support, discussion on this topic is not going to go anywhere.

    So if I understand the spiritual meaning to baptism, does that mean I don’t need to be immersed in water?

    Please see Mark’s response (134).

  140. on 06 Jun 2009 at 1:38 pmMark C.

    Karl,

    I wasn’t saying the Law itself is giving you difficulty. But if the majority of your focus is on the Old Testament you won’t see the truths that Paul expounds in his epistles. He tells us that himself. Much of what he preached was a mystery that had been hidden and was not revealed until Jesus gave Paul the revelation.

    “The New Perspective on Paul” does look promising. I’m looking forward to getting into that too.

  141. on 06 Jun 2009 at 1:53 pmMark C.

    Perhaps Jesus commands were only to show us what sin is under the New Covenant? Then, when we fail in keeping those commands we can come to Christ to forgive us of these sins. So the commands of Christ are meant to bring us to him for salvation and forgiveness. That’s it.

    Jesus doesn’t need to show us what sin is under the New Covenant. The Old Covenant did that. The New Covenant offers the solution to the sin problem, in terms of his ultimate sacrifice, the promise of the coming Kingdom, the grace whereby we enter the New Covenant, and the commands to love one another and to observe certain rites (such as baptism and communion) that demonstrate our relationship with him, just as circumcision and the Sabbath demonstrated Israel’s covenant relationship.

    “If we are in Christ, we are part of Israel.” But that is according to the promises to Abraham, not the keeping of the Law. That’s why it’s the “circumcision made without hands” (Col. 2:11).

  142. on 06 Jun 2009 at 2:16 pmKarl

    But that is according to the promises to Abraham, not the keeping of the Law.

    The keeping of the law never made anyone Israel. Israel was given the Law. They didn’t need to keep the law to become Israel. The law was given to show his people how to live.

  143. on 06 Jun 2009 at 2:26 pmKarl

    Karl, unless you address my arguments I brought in support, discussion on this topic is not going to go anywhere.

    I’ll try to be more direct

    He simply doesn’t need to. In the case where he was offering his personal opinion, he was explicitly saying “*I* say, not the Lord”. Unless he says that, it’s from the Lord.

    This is your opinion or interpretation. This nor at all evident from the text. My view is that unless he says “I don’t say, but the Lord,” he was not offering any direct revelation from God. My view fits better with the pastoral nature of Paul’s writings where he is offering guidance to local 1st century communities.

    Moreover, he tells the Galatians “you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself” (Galatians 4:14). Because he was his ambassador, he was relaying the Lord’s message. Thank God that when they received the word of God which they heard from Paul and other apostles, they accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God.

    This doesn’t prove that everything Paul said was a direct revelation from God. Any preacher who teaches the gospel is an ambassador of Christ and is teaching the word of God.

  144. on 06 Jun 2009 at 2:28 pmKarl

    I wrote:

    This nor at all evident from the text.

    this should say: “This is not at all evident from the text.”

  145. on 06 Jun 2009 at 5:54 pmRay

    Numbers 15:32-35, speaking of a man who gathered wood on the sabbath day who died without the camp, reminds me of the severity of sin. It can take away all our chances of ever entering into the promised land, were it not for the sacrifice of Christ.

    If I am moving in Christ, and I sin, I have to suffer outside the camp. I have to die to self. Everyone has the right to condemn what I have done in my sin.

    Hebrews speaks of this doesn’t it?

    Hebrews 13:13
    Let us go therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

  146. on 06 Jun 2009 at 7:33 pmRay

    Q. Does Deut. 28:15 include the 10 commandments, as also Deut
    11:28?

  147. on 06 Jun 2009 at 8:05 pmrobert

    Yes ray
    the 10 was included in with all the commandments in Mosaic law but in both verses they were conditions for Israel only.
    The mosaic laws which added punishments for not following the 10 commandments and several other laws and statutes was seperate because the 10 was spoken by God to others too so if other gentile nations wanted to know God it wasnt going to be up to Israel to tell them how. this is what Jesus speaks of a lot
    While Following the 10 commandments wont give you salvation on its own , it does let you have a relationship with God. It is easy to Believe when you know who it is you believe (be live) in

  148. on 06 Jun 2009 at 8:18 pmJohnE

    Karl,

    He simply doesn’t need to. In the case where he was offering his personal opinion, he was explicitly saying “*I* say, not the Lord”. Unless he says that, it’s from the Lord.

    This is your opinion or interpretation. This nor at all evident from the text.

    I did not say I speak for the Lord. Of course it’s my opinion and interpretation. One that happens to be (IMO again) in sync with objective reality. And of course, likewise, what you say is “your opinion or interpretation”, one that is not in sync with objective reality (IMO, again).

    My view is that unless he says “I don’t say, but the Lord,” he was not offering any direct revelation from God. My view fits better with the pastoral nature of Paul’s writings where he is offering guidance to local 1st century communities.

    First, why would the pastoral nature of his letters make his letters not a revelation from the Lord? The Lord does not pastor through his apostles? Who says pastoring excludes revelation – and we’re talking about the 1st century here.

    Second let me tell you why your view does not fit reality. If the only time he speaks what Jesus wants him to speak is when he starts with “I don’t say, but the Lord,”, then the Lord had really very little to say to any Christian community Paul wrote. In fact it turns out, Jesus doesn’t really use Paul as his apostle (“one that is sent”; sent to do what? give his personal opinion?), for the only time when he says “I don’t say, but the Lord” is when he writes “the wife should not leave her husband” (1 Corinthians 7:10). Is that it, according to you? It is indeed. Is that an extreme opinion? It is extremely extreme, if I may say so.

    Doesn’t Jesus say he’s sending Paul to the Gentiles “to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me” (Acts 26:18)? So what kind of an ambassador is he for Jesus? One that puts forward his own private opinions, and not what his Lord wants him to relay? Is he a fake, a phony, or a true ambassador of Christ? What ambassador would I be for Canada, if I wouldn’t promote the politics of my prime-minister, but those of myself? I would speak publicly to the government in whose country I would be, that look people this is how things are, bla bla bla. What would they think, since they haven’t heard me clarifying that this is only my personal opinion? That I’m giving my private opinions here, instead of my government’s position? Shame on an ambassador that would do that. If you think that what Paul says is not what the Lord would have him to say, then that is the conclusion we reach, this is where your view leads, that Paul is writing things that are at odds with what his Lord wills and thinks. So just to clarify, I’m asking you, is Paul writing the things the Lord wants him to, or not?

    A close examination of 1 Co 7 reveals more serious problems with your view. Not only does he make clear when exactly is he giving his own opinion, but in the last verse he says “But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.” Why the addition, “I think that I also have the Spirit of God”, what does it have to do with all of chapter 7? He is practically saying that even when he does give his personal opinion, this is influenced by the Spirit of God. His personal opinion is in sync with the Lord’s will.

    Moreover, he tells the Galatians “you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself” (Galatians 4:14). Because he was his ambassador, he was relaying the Lord’s message. Thank God that when they received the word of God which they heard from Paul and other apostles, they accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God.

    This doesn’t prove that everything Paul said was a direct revelation from God. Any preacher who teaches the gospel is an ambassador of Christ and is teaching the word of God.

    So does this gospel, the word of God, have a say on the Law? According to Galatians, it sure does. So if you think he was a preacher who teaches the gospel as an ambassador of Christ and is teaching the word of God, then his discussion of the law is the word of God as well. Not to mention, you said you accept Paul’s letters as God-breathed. There’s a contradiction then. You believe they’re God inspired, but at the same time they are not a revelation from God?

  149. on 06 Jun 2009 at 9:08 pmrobert

    i am not going to quote every verse but this is enough to prove that Jesus removed the Sabbath from being under the Mosaic law to make it the blessed day for man that it was from the beginning

    Matthew 12

    5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

    11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? 12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days

    For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

  150. on 06 Jun 2009 at 9:12 pmJohnE

    What part exactly of those 2 verses say that “Jesus removed the Sabbath from being under the Mosaic law”? I think you just see what you want see, Jesus does no such thing.

  151. on 06 Jun 2009 at 9:24 pmrobert

    It was mosaic laws attached to the sabbath that Jesus spoke against not the sabbath therefore removing the sabbath from the mosaic law.
    so even the jews then were not held by mosaic laws on how they observed the sabbath.

  152. on 06 Jun 2009 at 9:43 pmJohnE

    The Mosaic Law was not “attached” to the Sabbath. The Bible says no such thing. The literal sabbath commandment started with the mosaic law, and *it is* part of the mosaic law.

  153. on 06 Jun 2009 at 9:49 pmrobert

    you are wrong unless you think Moses is God.
    Exodus 20 was not spoken by Moses it was spoken BY GOD so it wasnt Mosaic law. But Moses wrote attachments to it after that for the To Be Nation of Israel which can be called Mosaic law.

  154. on 06 Jun 2009 at 10:06 pmJohnE

    you are wrong unless you think Moses is God.
    Exodus 20 was not spoken by Moses it was spoken BY GOD so it wasnt Mosaic law.

    I told you already (forgot?) that I call “Mosaic Law” the ensemble of laws God gave literal Israel through Moses. So yes, commandments spoken directly by God to Moses and literal Israel ARE Mosaic Law. The commandment of killing somebody for breaking the Sabbath did not come from Moses, but from God. That’s what the Bible says anyway.

  155. on 06 Jun 2009 at 10:17 pmrobert

    yes what was spoken to Moses only Is The Mosaic Law but what was spoken by GODS OWN LIPS TO ALL THE PEOPLE IS NOT MOSAIC LAW
    God spoke to all the people to keep people like you from claiming the 10 Commandment were Mosaic Law.
    The 10 Commandgments was the basis for Mosaic Law but not Mosaic Law

  156. on 06 Jun 2009 at 10:24 pmJohnE

    No, God did not speak to “all the people”, but only to the literal Israel and the foreigners that came out of Egypt and joined them. I quoted the psalmist above, and the Pentateuch states this all over the place. I think I’m going to believe them rather than you.

    As for the 10 commandments, they were part of the Mosaic Law. They are the Mosaic Law – and Marc already showed that. That this is not to your liking is a whole different matter, and it does not in fact matter.

  157. on 06 Jun 2009 at 10:29 pmrobert

    “No, God did not speak to “all the people”, but only to the literal Israel and the foreigners that came out of Egypt and joined them.”

    Every person that came out of Egypt with the children of israel to the mount was spoken to By God.which included people of othe nations not just Israel and Yes GOD SPOKE TO ALL OF THEM

    the Word of God Calls you a liar here

  158. on 06 Jun 2009 at 10:36 pmRay

    I’m confused. Are some saying that Moses made up some of what
    he thought apart from God and that became “Mosaic law”, and the
    apostle Paul also did the same kind of thing?

    I don’t think that fits with scripture.

    Though I for one, do not believe Moses is God, this is what the scripture says:

    II Peter 1:20,21
    Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
    For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy
    men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

    I’ve been reading a little bit about a character named Hopeful
    in The Pilgrim’s Progress, when he is giving his testimony to Christian, his companion while they are on their way to the heavenly city, telling of his conversion.

    Now this character Hopeful, to some may seem to not be a real person, yet to me he seems very real indeed, for he tells of how
    he fell under the power of conviction, at first not realizing that it
    was of God to be so shaken by the word, and also how he tried
    to shut his eyes because of the light.

    It was later that he realized that God began his work in that shaking and power of conviction, to wake him up to his sin. He
    told of how sin was still sweet to his sinful nature and he hated to leave it as well as his companions whose presence and actions were still desireable to him.

    By the grace of God he felt the convictions so troubling and heart-
    rending, even frightening and he couldn’t bear them. Though he got
    rid of his troubles, at times they came back into his mind again, for
    many reasons he gave Christian.

    As a man might incur a great debt from a store owner, he realized
    he had run up quite a way into God’s Book. Even though he began
    to mend his ways, should he never sin again, those debts were still in the books. He was not yet rid of the guilt, though he worked to mend his ways which seemed to work for awhile, till the whole
    thing crashed down on him.

    He then tells of how he met Faithful, and though his words at first
    sounded strange to him, he later became of his opinion, who told
    him of Jesus and how he must be justified by him, even trusting in
    him and his work on this earth, even in his suffering and death on
    the Tree.

    With tears in his eyes he cried to the Lord and the Lord told him
    some things. He said, “Christ came into the world to save sinners.”
    and “He is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness
    for everyone who believes.” ,………and I can not tell who all is doing this speaking or giving this testimony.

  159. on 06 Jun 2009 at 10:40 pmJohnE

    Every person that came out of Egypt with the children of israel to the mount was spoken to By God.which included people of othe nations not just Israel

    That’s exactly what I said. Next time I suggest you read more carefully.

    Now from here, from the fact that God spoke to the literal Israel and the foreigners that came out of Egypt and joined them, you forcibly draw the conclusion that he spoke to “all the people”, in other words, to every human being. Which is false. I suggest you read Exodus more carefully.

    the Word of God Calls you a liar here

    This would be funny if it wouldn’t be so sad. Don’t expect to be taken seriously with statements like this.

  160. on 06 Jun 2009 at 10:45 pmrobert

    No Ray
    Moses recieved the Mosaic laws From God, but the giving of the Spoken to all others there was not Mosaic Laws.
    No Paul is just very hard to understand if you think The 10 Commandments are Mosaic law, the 10 are mentioned in Mosaic law so a punishment could be added and other conditions for observing them For Israel Only.
    this is why Jesus taught the removal of the punishments and conditions of the 10 from mosaic law so it could be once again a sign that God Was Your God and you were Gods people.
    Now God will judge you in them only, not man

  161. on 06 Jun 2009 at 10:47 pmrobert

    “That’s exactly what I said. Next time I suggest you read more carefully”

    “No, God did not speak to “all the people”, ”

    maybe you need to read what you wrote

  162. on 06 Jun 2009 at 10:55 pmJohnE

    Maybe, but there’s no “maybe” when it comes to you. You definitely need to re-read that, as there’s no problem at all with the two statements. I would suggest next time you quote the whole phrase. Maybe you’ll understand it that way.

  163. on 06 Jun 2009 at 11:01 pmrobert

    “you forcibly draw the conclusion that he spoke to “all the people”, in other words, to every human being. Which is false. I suggest you read Exodus more carefully.”

    we were not on any other subject to who was there. i drew no conclusion or implied anything of the such.
    The spoken Commmandments were spoken to others other than just those that would become the nation of Israel where the mosaic laws were to be the national laws for the government

  164. on 06 Jun 2009 at 11:06 pmJohnE

    No, the Mosaic Laws were also applied to the foreigners who joined Israel in their religion. Mark has already posted many verses that say this. Only those present at the mountain received the law, including the 10 commandments, not the whole world.

    And we can go in circles like this for days. So unless you have something new to bring to the table, don;t expect any other responses other than pointers to previous posts.

  165. on 06 Jun 2009 at 11:15 pmrobert

    “No, the Mosaic Laws were also applied to the foreigners who joined Israel in their religion. Mark has already posted many verses that say this. Only those present at the mountain received the law, including the 10 commandments, not the whole world”

    this is true but also false because Mark has no basis that all the people that heard god speak crossed the Jordan.
    so this is not valid

    are you and mark saying all that heard did?

  166. on 06 Jun 2009 at 11:20 pmrobert

    Besides mark didnt even know there were others that sllowed Moses out of Egypt till i showed him.
    what an authority!!!!!

  167. on 06 Jun 2009 at 11:35 pmrobert

    Besides mark didnt even know there were others that followed Moses out of Egypt till i showed him.
    what an authority!!!!!

  168. on 07 Jun 2009 at 3:14 amMark C.

    yes what was spoken to Moses only Is The Mosaic Law but what was spoken by GODS OWN LIPS TO ALL THE PEOPLE IS NOT MOSAIC LAW
    God spoke to all the people to keep people like you from claiming the 10 Commandment were Mosaic Law.
    The 10 Commandgments was the basis for Mosaic Law but not Mosaic Law

    Moses recieved the Mosaic laws From God, but the giving of the Spoken to all others there was not Mosaic Laws.

    Mark 7:
    9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
    10 “For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’;

    BOTH are part of “the commandment of God,” and Jesus referred to them BOTH as being sayings of Moses. Moses spoke what God said to him, so it was as much God’s commandment as those that God spoke audibly and wrote on the tablets.

    Besides mark didnt even know there were others that followed Moses out of Egypt till i showed him.
    what an authority!!!!!

    I never claimed to be an authority. When you pointed it out I went to the Scriptures and studied it out. I would recommend you have the same humility and take note of the many Scriptures we have presented that prove that the Ten Commandments were part of the Law of Moses.

  169. on 07 Jun 2009 at 9:18 amJohnE

    “No, the Mosaic Laws were also applied to the foreigners who joined Israel in their religion. Mark has already posted many verses that say this. Only those present at the mountain received the law, including the 10 commandments, not the whole world”

    this is true but also false because Mark has no basis that all the people that heard god speak crossed the Jordan.

    That’s not true and false, it’s only true. The aspect that they crossed or not the Jordan is just a red herring, what does that have to do with anything? The Law does not start to be valid only after crossing the Jordan, it was already in place well before the crossing of the Jordan.

    so this is not valid

    It’s absolutely valid. The only reason you insist on this is because you want to make the 10 commandments separate from the law, so that you can claim the sabbath is required for the whole world. You are wrong. The Sabbath commandment started with the Law, part of the Law, and transgressing against this commandment resulted in the death punishment. God required his people to execute the transgressor. You cannot separate the two. So yes, God does not require anymore the keeping of the sabbath. He canceled out the decrees against us, the ministry of death in letters engraved on stones has faded away, Christ did that for us.

    Besides mark didnt even know there were others that followed Moses out of Egypt till i showed him.
    what an authority!!!!!

    Mark’s “authority” is your invention. I referred to the scriptural verses he presented, THOSE are the authority.

  170. on 07 Jun 2009 at 9:28 amrobert

    For the last time
    The 10 commandments were included into Mosaic law but only to provide a basis for creating laws from them.

    10 “For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’;

    this is talking about one of the 10 but it is in mosaic laws because there is a punishment.
    the spoken by Gods own lips 10 Commandments to all of the people had no punishments for not following them but had a reward for following them and predate mosaic laws

  171. on 07 Jun 2009 at 9:36 amrobert

    “The Sabbath commandment started with the Law, part of the Law, and transgressing against this commandment resulted in the death punishment”

    show me the death punishment within the God Spoken with his own lips to all the people 10 Commandments.
    you cant
    but you can go to Mosaic law and find punishment

    AExodus 20
    and God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [1] 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. 13 Thou shalt not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Thou shalt not steal. 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

    Not there
    Sorry the Word Of God is Calling you a liar again

  172. on 07 Jun 2009 at 10:05 amJohnE

    For the last time
    The 10 commandments were included into Mosaic law but only to provide a basis for creating laws from them.

    No matter how many times you repeat this, it is your invention. Baseless.

    10 “For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’;

    this is talking about one of the 10 but it is in mosaic laws because there is a punishment.
    the spoken by Gods own lips 10 Commandments to all of the people had no punishments for not following them but had a reward for following them and predate mosaic laws

    That’s false again. Read the words that immediately follow the 10 commandments (ch. 21), the death penalty for transgressing some of them is there (for example “Exodus 21:17 He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death”). There’s no division between the 10 commandments and their punishment, they’re all spoken by God, to the same people. Any division that you may see is solely your invention.

    show me the death punishment within the God Spoken with his own lips to all the people 10 Commandments. you cant

    Oh yes I can:

    Numbers 15:35-36 Then THE LORD SAID to Moses, “The man shall surely be put to death; ALL THE CONGREGATION shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” So ALL THE CONGREGATION brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.

    Now if you’d say that the foreigners present when the 10 commandments were given, were not present here and so did not receive the command to stone, is something you invent, again; your claims are baseless again.

    Anyway, the people who got the 10 commandments also got the command to punish by death transgression – just read ch. 21. There’s no escape I’m afraid. I can see through your tactics clearly.

  173. on 07 Jun 2009 at 10:08 amrobert

    “There’s no division between the 10 commandments and their punishment, they’re all spoken by God, to the same people.”

    again the Word of God Calls this A lie

  174. on 07 Jun 2009 at 10:12 amJohnE

    “There’s no division between the 10 commandments and their punishment, they’re all spoken by God, to the same people.”

    again the Word of God Calls this A lie

    Ok, so this shows you have no scriptural arguments whatsoever. Glad we cleared that out again. Let me know when you have anything to say that makes sense and is supported by Scripture. Until then, I will simply ignore you.

  175. on 07 Jun 2009 at 10:33 amrobert

    “Until then, I will simply ignore you.”

    thats what most people do when they come across someone with the truth.

    the sad thing is there are the ones that will love what you teach.

    Jeremiah 5
    31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

  176. on 07 Jun 2009 at 10:44 amMark C.

    For the last time
    The 10 commandments were included into Mosaic law but only to provide a basis for creating laws from them.

    10 “For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’;

    this is talking about one of the 10 but it is in mosaic laws because there is a punishment.
    the spoken by Gods own lips 10 Commandments to all of the people had no punishments for not following them but had a reward for following them and predate mosaic laws

    I noticed you only quoted v.10, leaving out v.9 in which Jesus refers to BOTH the quotes in v.10 as “the Commandment of God.”
    There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that the written Law of Moses was any less the Commandment of God than the Ten Commandments.

    And may I remind you that the only difference between what God spoke audibly to the people at first and what He gave Moses to write down was that the people couldn’t bear to hear the voice of God.

    Exod. 20:
    18 All the people perceived the thunder and the lightning flashes and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood at a distance.
    19 Then they said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, or we will die.”
    20 Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid; for God has come in order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may remain with you, so that you may not sin.”
    21 So the people stood at a distance, while Moses approached the thick cloud where God was.
    22 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘You yourselves have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven.
    23 ‘You shall not make other gods besides Me; gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves.

    The written Law of Moses was as much the Word and Commandment of God as the Ten Commandments. You cannot produce a single Scripture that says otherwise. The special treatment they gave the stone tablets in no way shows that the laws God dictated to Moses were any less God’s Command.

    And may I also remind you that the only mention of other people besides the children of Israel at the initial giving of the Ten Commandments was in Exod. 20:10, when God said the Sabbath should also be observed by “the strangers that dwell among you.” There is absolutely NO Scriptural proof that the Ten Commandments were given to all of man while the rest of the Law was only to Israel.

    I think we’ve both pretty much presented our positions here, and I doubt you’re going to change your mind. So unless you have something new to offer, I don’t see much point in us continuing to repeat ourselves.

  177. on 07 Jun 2009 at 10:54 amRay

    In The Pilgrim’s Progress, as they were going on their way to the
    heavenly city, they came to another path that merged. There was
    a character there who wore a white robe that covered his dark flesh, who said he knew the way and that he also was going to the city as they were. But the way they took slowly turned and
    as they kept going, it took them far off the path to the heavenly city.

    Their feet became so entangled because they were led right into a
    net.

    Didn’t I see a picture of the man somewhere in the book?
    His hood was open in the front, but was so long it covered his face.
    Inside the hood it was so dark that none of the features could be
    seen. He didn’t show his face, not from the forehead to the bottom
    of the chin, not so much as from ear to ear.

    His face wasn’t open and bright, not like the shining ones.

    II Cor 3:17
    Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

  178. on 07 Jun 2009 at 10:59 amrobert

    “And may I remind you that the only difference between what God spoke audibly to the people at first and what He gave Moses to write down was that the people couldn’t bear to hear the voice of God.”

    People Dont dictate what God Does, He was finished with what He spoke to all the people. If he had chose or intended more He would of done so.

    God doesnt change anything he has set out to do, he gave Israel Mosaic law so they would Fail and Moses, David and many more Knew this. the whole world got to know God by their failure and what a blessing that is.

  179. on 07 Jun 2009 at 11:06 amMark C.

    Again, you present no Scripture to prove your assertions, and ignore the Scriptures presented to you. I’m done.

  180. on 07 Jun 2009 at 11:12 amrobert

    the fact i hold God as the Allmighty and you hold him as being dictated by man sets us apart.
    you are no concern to me, just the sheep that follow you blindly

  181. on 07 Jun 2009 at 1:21 pmRay

    Shall the sheep that see follow him who has little concern for his
    brother?

  182. on 07 Jun 2009 at 10:10 pmrobert

    we have many brothers, but all are not of the same father.

  183. on 08 Jun 2009 at 4:37 amJoseph

    John E,

    James 2:26 mentions nothing about the Mosaic Law.

    Given that the context is that the Jewish James is a follower of the Torah, what do you suppose that “works” implies? (Mowing the lawn for grandma sue?) 🙂

    We have to ask ourselves, why would the Hebrew say “thousand” years is like a day for God?

    You are comparing apples to oranges. In Exodus it is speaking about a number of generations as in a great number or symbolizing forever. This is not the same as “LIKE” a thousand years, which is more of a generalization. But I do like the approach.

    And that was exactly my point. Thousands of generations simply means a very long period of time. We cannot count and say “only 120 generations have elapsed”, it makes no sense. And again, why are we discussing the thousand of generations here? Does God say “I will require for every nation the Law I gave to Israel through Moses, for thousands of generations”? That’s reading into the text. It simply does not exist.

    Well I just gave you the context, you must have missed it. Given the prophetic text which tells us that Torah will be in Kingdom rule and given that a thousand generations hasn’t passed yet…:) There is no way around this one. As I said, why didn’t God simply say a “hundred generations” or “until a newer covenant?” Why “thousands?” You can’t tell me that the context of thousands of generations means less than one thousand. You can try and spiritualize away the Hebrew, but I’m reading it loud and clear.

    That covert device at work here again. If the Torah is the standard of the Kingdom, it is something God requires for salvation – only saved people get into the kingdom, and the ones that do not conform to the kingdom’s standard, cannot get into that kingdom. It also means the Christian Gentiles of the 1st century and after, are not getting in the kingdom. They did not conform to its standard. What an extreme conclusion, my God…

    Well, let’s see… John E ?, or Messiah? By your response you are taking me out of context and must have not read my prior posts. To love Torah is to love GOD’s instruction. I understand the law does not offer us salvation as the judgment of all sin is death, I agree, but that doesn’t mean that we throw the law away. GOD will judge us on our works but we are saved by faith.

    Here is an interesting question… will everyone who has had faith in God have the same status in the Kingdom? If not, why?

  184. on 08 Jun 2009 at 9:17 amrobert

    “Again, you present no Scripture to prove your assertions, and ignore the Scriptures presented to you. I’m done.”

    should i have to present Scripture to someone who claims to know them all.
    but i have shown this to be not so, so forgive me for not providing them for you

    Deuteronomy 31
    16 And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep [1] with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them. 17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall [2] them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us? 18 And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods.

    Romans 11
    9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

  185. on 08 Jun 2009 at 10:58 amrobert

    “It also means the Christian Gentiles of the 1st century and after, are not getting in the kingdom. They did not conform to its standard. What an extreme conclusion, my God…”

    Quite the contrary
    ALL that Loved God and has walked in HIS ways from 40 centuries BC to 1 century AD to present have recieved salvation and their key to the Kingdom but none that hates His ways or dont hold to the things that please God which are the things He blessed because He loved them because these things are which the name of God is written on the forehead.
    Some people think they can find God when he was never lost, it is us that is lost among the thousands of thousands who need something to identify us by so God can find us.
    if God sent someone to find us what would he tell them to look for. he gave us signs to set us apart so we could be found.

  186. on 08 Jun 2009 at 9:58 pmJohnE

    James 2:26 mentions nothing about the Mosaic Law.

    Given that the context is that the Jewish James is a follower of the Torah, what do you suppose that “works” implies? (Mowing the lawn for grandma sue?)

    Joseph, when you delve into discussions like these ones, I would suggest you to get your facts straight first. Your “context” is in fact no context. You simply subscribe to a traditional view that this is THE James, the one referred to by Paul and Acts. That is not a fact but an assumption, one that is baseless by the way. The writer of this letter simply identifies himself as “James”, just as the writer of the Revelation simply identifies himself as “John”. Is he the apostle John? Is “James” the brother of Jesus? Fact is, we don’t know. That is a fact. Your “context”, is not.

    As to your question “what do you suppose that ‘works’ implies?”, I don’t have to suppose anything, he mentions them. Have you read the epistle? If you would have, you would have seen these works: bridling of the tongue, care for orphans and widows in their affliction, keep oneself unstained by the world, make no distinctions among yourselves, do not become judges with evil motives, love your neighbor, etc.

    Now you’re going to tell me that these works are the works of the Law, therefore James is advocating here the keeping of the Law. Nevermind that James addresses his epistle to Jews (and not to Gentiles, towards whom you rhetoric is mainly aimed), let me just say that these are the works of the faith, not of the Mosaic Law, as he indicates in chapter 2 (starting with the very first verse) – just as Abraham’s work he refers to, was not a Mosaic Law work.

    And yes, he refers to the Mosaic Law – in a way that is not too favorable to your interpretation I’m afraid:

    James 2:8-12 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.

    If your guide is the Mosaic Law (because from here this part of the discussion started), you are going to be judged by this law. And if you are going to be judged by this law, you deserve death, because you are a transgressor of the law – nobody can keep the law. Christians instead, including James, will not be judged by this law, but by the law of liberty, the law of love toward God and your neighbor (and don’t tell me that the Mosaic Law IS the law of liberty, because it is not; Jesus told those under the law that they will be set free, and Paul called the law one of slavery).

    And I would note that you conveniently choose not the address in fact my entire argument regarding James 2:26. I said “The law was the guide to Christ. If the law is still our guide, we didn’t find Christ yet”. How about that?

    We have to ask ourselves, why would the Hebrew say “thousand” years is like a day for God?

    You are comparing apples to oranges. In Exodus it is speaking about a number of generations as in a great number or symbolizing forever. This is not the same as “LIKE” a thousand years, which is more of a generalization. But I do like the approach.

    No, you’d just like them to be apples and oranges, because otherwise your point doesn’t stand. In both instances reference to “thousand(s)” is made. Why? Because it takes an extremely amount of time for it to pass (thousands of generations, thousand of years). Now when you say “or symbolizing forever”, you are stretching it. It means no such thing. There’s a simple expression for that, called “forever”. “Thousands” does not convey the idea of perpetuality.

    And that was exactly my point. Thousands of generations simply means a very long period of time. We cannot count and say “only 120 generations have elapsed”, it makes no sense. And again, why are we discussing the thousand of generations here? Does God say “I will require for every nation the Law I gave to Israel through Moses, for thousands of generations”? That’s reading into the text. It simply does not exist.

    Well I just gave you the context, you must have missed it. Given the prophetic text which tells us that Torah will be in Kingdom rule and given that a thousand generations hasn’t passed yet…:) There is no way around this one. As I said, why didn’t God simply say a “hundred generations” or “until a newer covenant?” Why “thousands?” You can’t tell me that the context of thousands of generations means less than one thousand. You can try and spiritualize away the Hebrew, but I’m reading it loud and clear.

    Joseph, you cannot give me the context, I confess, I already have it, in chapter 20 of Exodus. And there’s no such thing there as “Torah will be in Kingdom rule” and “thousand generations have to pass under the Torah”. These are simply read into Exodus 20 by you Joseph. What’s almost disturbing is that you add “I’m reading it loud and clear”. It seems not 🙂 I deal almost on regular basis with arguments like this, coming from Trinitarians. They have the same propensity of seeing all over the place in the text of the Scripture proofs of their doctrine, when it’s all in their head. I would suggest you stick closely to what the text actually says, rather than projecting your own ideas into it.

    That covert device at work here again. If the Torah is the standard of the Kingdom, it is something God requires for salvation – only saved people get into the kingdom, and the ones that do not conform to the kingdom’s standard, cannot get into that kingdom. It also means the Christian Gentiles of the 1st century and after, are not getting in the kingdom. They did not conform to its standard. What an extreme conclusion, my God…

    Well, let’s see… John E ?, or Messiah? By your response you are taking me out of context and must have not read my prior posts. To love Torah is to love GOD’s instruction. I understand the law does not offer us salvation as the judgment of all sin is death, I agree, but that doesn’t mean that we throw the law away. GOD will judge us on our works but we are saved by faith.

    I have no idea what you mean by “let’s see… John E ?, or Messiah?”. Regardless, you did not address my argument, only tried to dance around it 🙂 Where exactly is the logic and the conclusion of that passage faulty? You cannot eat the cake and still have it on your plate. Isn’t a standard a standard for the sake of conforming to that standard? If a club has a standard, you don’t have to conform to it? Why is it a standard then? Is it optional maybe?

    I know very well that you do not explicitly say the law offers us salvation. You just say it with other words. You imply it. You just said above that we are judged on the basis of our works – whether or not they conform to the works the Mosaic Law prescribes – BUT that we are saved by faith. So to you, what exactly is the purpose of this judgement? Just a boring formality, without any real consequence? I already asked you but it seems you don’t want to address this question:

    And me (for example), not keeping the Sabbath, is it an indication that I do not love God? Because we know, those who do not love God and Christ will have no share in the kingdom. Those who do not love God cannot be considered righteous in His eyes. And so the inevitable conclusion: you don’t keep the Sabbath, you’re doomed. Kaput. Finished. Kiss your share in the kingdom goodbye. This is where we arrive.

    And these, please address these as well:

    I should mention that I have no intention to get circumcised. And I might go today during the Sabbath and gather some wood. So for those of you who advocate the keeping of the Law, why don’t you really keep the Law and kill me? Who wants my address? What, you don’t want to keep the Mosaic Law? You don’t want to conform to the standard of the Kingdom?

    Here are other interesting situations involving the keeping of the Mosaic Law:

    a) Leviticus 24:11-16 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name and cursed. So they brought him to Moses. (Now his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.) 12 They put him in custody so that the command of the LORD might be made clear to them. 13 ¶ Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 14 “Bring the one who has cursed outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head; then let all the congregation stone him. 15 “You shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If anyone curses his God, then he will bear his sin. 16 ‘Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

    If God forbid, one of you has a child who blasphemed and cursed you know whom, why don’t you keep the law and stone him to death?

    b) God requested that all pagan nations should be destroyed or driven away from Palestine (Deut 7:16; Ex 23:31-33; Num 33:52; etc). But the Jews did not do so with the Jebusites (for example), and so they lived with them in Jerusalem (Jdg 1:21). So on you next visit to Jerusalem, why don’t you keep the Mosaic law and do away with the Palestinians living there?

    c) When God forbid, you suspect your wife of infidelity, why don’t you ask a priest of the Mosaic Law(!) to make her drink water with dust from the earth in it (Num 5)?

    Do you keep the Mosaic Law? If you don’t, why do you guys expect us to keep it?

    Yeah, tell me where I stand in God’s eyes given the fact that I don’t want to get literally circumcised and to keep the literal sabbath. Despite (or because) these two aspects, does he (still?) consider me righteous, or unrighteous?

    Here is an interesting question… will everyone who has had faith in God have the same status in the Kingdom?

    Let me guess 🙂 Those who kept the Mosaic Law will have a status above those who didn’t right? Those who didn’t keep it will be second-class citizens in the kingdom, that’s right. Well, we all knew that already. That’s self-understood, right?

  187. on 08 Jun 2009 at 11:12 pmrobert

    I should mention that I have no intention to get circumcised. And I might go today during the Sabbath and gather some wood. So for those of you who advocate the keeping of the Law, why don’t you really keep the Law and kill me? Who wants my address? What, you don’t want to keep the Mosaic Law? You don’t want to conform to the standard of the Kingdom?

    being judgement Is Gods you might allready have suffered death.
    there is no death punishment dealt by man for not following mosaic law anymore , that government has passed away but as for the second death which many that walk on this earth now have recieved that bear the mark of a liar and murderer of souls
    God has your address so be careful what you offer.
    choose your mark John.

    Matthew 19
    Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

    you can still enter into live i hope

    here are some works for you to
    do on the sabbath too

    Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. 30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

  188. on 09 Jun 2009 at 7:47 amrobert

    “Here is an interesting question… will everyone who has had faith in God have the same status in the Kingdom? If not, why? ”

    Joseph

    No
    right here shows that there will be atleast a scale of 1-100.
    0 being those who dont enter the kingdom.
    How much higher scale could this be for doing the things God Blessed.
    those that do these things must have a very high belief in God

    Matthew 19
    Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. 30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

  189. on 09 Jun 2009 at 8:49 amRay

    In the regeneration there will be lots of people in the 12 thrones, thousands and thousands like the sand of the sea.

    I heard a man tell of a vison he had when he was moving in the
    spirit, being taken up from the earth. (This was in the spirit. The
    man was still here upon earth.) He saw a great throne in heaven
    which was made up of many thrones. On just part of the great throne, there were rows and rows of thrones. Some of the people
    he recognized. They were people he knew sitting on some of the
    thrones and there was a throne for him too. He began to understand that he really was seated with Christ in the heavenlies.

  190. on 09 Jun 2009 at 8:56 amRay

    So is there status in the kingdom? I’ve heard that the greatest
    rank is humility.

  191. on 09 Jun 2009 at 9:05 amrobert

    Does Jesus say there are more thrones or was he lying, what will they be judging, your level of grace. all that enter the kingdom will of enter through grace so all thats left for them to judge you by is works. but you are right you are saved by grace, but you will be judged by works because without grace there will be no judgement.
    God will judge the ones that wasnt saved by grace at the end of Jesus’s reign.

  192. on 09 Jun 2009 at 9:10 amRay

    About Matthew 19:29, I have to wonder, Are we giving up friends,
    and family, or houses for the Lord’s name’s sake, or are we trying
    to win friends, brothers, sisters, or keep or buy houses for our name’s sake?

    In the man’s vision, each of the smaller thrones which were a part
    of the one great golden throne in heaven, were made up of rows
    and rows of thrones.

    God has a place reserved in heaven for each one of his. Christ will
    put each man in his place. Every place is a place of honor. While in
    these thrones we must honor each one as each one has been placed there by the Lord. Each one has been given a seat where they are to do justice and judgement, delivering what needs to be
    delivered.

    Are we not seated in the heavenlies right now, and isn’t every word we say important as we are in those thrones?

    In the vision, there were some people that were not seated in the
    thrones, but were visiting and such. There was a time when they
    were told to take their seats.

  193. on 09 Jun 2009 at 9:10 amMark C.

    I wouldn’t call it “status” in the sense of one person is better than another. The parable of the nobleman in Luke 19 describes the servants being given varying degrees of responsibility in the Kingdom. It will be on earth, not in heaven; the ones who were most faithful were given authority over more cities. Their faithfulness was determined by what they did with what they’d been given.

  194. on 09 Jun 2009 at 9:24 amrobert

    call it what you like but in Matthew 19 says you could recieve a hundred times more than those that dont do these things. the more you do for God no matter how grievous you think it is , the more God will give you in the kingdom.
    your stuck on what it takes to get there but are foresaking the things that Glorify God

  195. on 09 Jun 2009 at 11:28 amRay

    I have a question about those who lived on this earth before Christ came in the flesh, those of Israel who lived under the law.

    My question is this:

    Were there some who entered into the new covenant by faith?

    I myself am inclined to say NO, because the new covenant was
    not revealed yet, and the time was not yet, for Christ had not yet
    died in the flesh for our sins to make the way open to us, yet I understand that there was a rest for God’s people to enter into by
    faith.

    I believe this rest to be Christ.

    I want to share some verses with the word “enter” in them.

    Hebrews 3:11
    So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest)

    Hebrews 3:18,19
    And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
    So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

    Hebrews 4:1
    Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

    Hebrews 4:3
    For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although
    the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
    (the previous vese speaks of the gospel)

    Hebrews 4:5
    And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
    (the previous vese mentions the seventh day, a ‘type’, ‘shadow’ of
    Christ, or of the rest that is in Christ?)

    Hebrews 4:6
    Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

    Hebrews 4:10
    For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. (this again showing us the pattern
    of things from the beginning, ‘type’ or ‘shadow’ concerning Christ and his work.)

    Hebrews 4:11
    Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

    Hebrews 6:19,20
    Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;
    Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high
    priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

    Hebrews 9:12
    Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (the holy place…the rest?, also the place of our
    eternal redemption, the place where Jesus ministers for us as the
    high priest of God forever? Isn’t it so?)

    Hebrews 9:24-26
    For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear un the presence of God for us: (that we might find the rest and enter in?)
    Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others;
    For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared (came in the flesh) to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

    Well there’s more about his word “entered”. So often in Hebrews
    it’s connected with “rest”.

    The things in the parentheses are mine.

    So the question remains, Did some of the Old Testament believers
    enter into the rest, and is this rest the gospel, the things of the new covenant?

    If so, it seems to me, how very few! Justification by faith was always possible even before the law, or to those who knew no law
    of Moses. I believe the book of Job shows this. In all their religious
    discussion there is not one mention of Moses, nor the written law.
    Elihu came with a message to justify, and mentioned not only how
    God is favorable unto the repentant man, see 33:26-30, but also
    about faith. (trust, see Job 35:14)

    Did the Old Testament believers enter into justification unto life
    by faith? If so, it seems how very few!

    Was the new covenant hidden in the old? Certainly some things concerning it.

    How can I answer this question? Did some of the Old Testament
    believers enter into the new covenant by faith? Abraham entered into righteousness with God by faith.

    It’s an interesting question isn’t it?

  196. on 09 Jun 2009 at 11:57 amRay

    In what the Old Testament believers went through, I’m amazed.
    Their faith was really something, along with the things they endured, and some how our faith is so much connected. They saw
    some things in types and shadows, some things I begin to see also by looking at the things they looked at, yet all of this depended on Christ who was the promise yet to come.

    Until he came there were some things they did not enter into, for he was not yet revealed to them, having not yet appeared unto them. Yet a few of them, like Abraham saw his day.

    So what about these believers was not yet made perfect? Was it
    their understanding of these things about Christ, their faith, the
    faith that is in Christ?

    If their understanding was not yet made perfect, nor their faith because of things yet to be revealed, I can understand why the
    scripture says “they without us should not be made perfect.” –
    Hebrews 11:40.

    Does that seem about right?

  197. on 09 Jun 2009 at 12:21 pmMark C.

    Ray,

    These are deep issues that a short answer in a forum would not do justice to. Have you listened to Dustin’s lecture on Romans From a New Perspective? That may be a good place to start.

    You are right that the New Covenant was not available until Jesus initiated it, and ratified it with his blood. Before that, the Old Covenant was meant to be a temporary measure that pointed to what Jesus would accomplish. They entered into it by faith, which they demonstrated by obeying the specific commands given to them. We now have a New Covenant which we enter into by faith, which we demonstrate by obeying the specific commands given to us. That was the whole point of the article that started this thread. The commandments we’ve been given are not all the same as those of the Old Covenant.

  198. on 09 Jun 2009 at 4:59 pmrobert

    the only difference between what is called the old and that of the new covenants is the punishment is the second death not the first death and it is not mans judgement, it doesnt mean we shouldnt follow the law, it just means punishment will be dealt out by God. if any law is just than it should be followed.
    the sacrafice for sins is now through a perfect Lamb which is Jesus and there is only one head of the body of christ which is Jesus or high priest.
    there is no commandments that have done away with the law just a commandment that man is no longer the judge and executioner. so dont fear man because life is dictated by God only.
    the laws for the government of Israel and Judea perished but laws to live by which are just will always be, just as most of our laws in this country are just.
    the signs for Gods people spoke of in the old and new will never change.
    Faith is believing everything God ever Spoke or had someone speak for him.
    whats pleased God in the beginning still pleases him Now, and what God has hated will always be hated and no man can change that.

    the old and the new covenant is only a part of the true covenant God made with Abraham and it still has more to come

  199. on 09 Jun 2009 at 6:32 pmRay

    Well said Mark. I haven’t yet listened to Dustin’s lecture as my dial-up is slow. Maybe I can get it.

    There’s a lot I think about on this subject. There’s lots to learn from
    the old testament.

    I think about the prophet Isaiah when I read from chapter 53, and
    wonder what he knew. He prophesied a lot about Jesus, though the time had not yet come.

    Sometimes I wonder about how much a man can receive by faith,
    yet we know some things are not available at certain times. Can
    a man go into the future by faith?

    Still we have to remain in the time where God has placed us.

    The old testament believers opened up a trail of faith through their
    lives and their dealings by God through them, making some things
    that we can see in the new testament somewhat clearer.

    I am a part of the new and not the old, though some of the old seems to have a part in me as that too has much about faith.

  200. on 09 Jun 2009 at 7:31 pmRay

    I know of two sacrifices which were of faith that are mentioned in Hebrews, Abel’s and that of Abraham’s Isaac.

    I say this because I felt a dealing of God about this. And where do I put justification by faith but in the new covenant? Yet it was also
    available though hidden, even before the commandments were given to Moses. *

    So was justification by faith a part of the old covenant? I suppose it was a matter of faith by those under the old covenant that the blood of animals could never take away sin, though it was commanded by God to offer those things. No doubt it was done out
    of obligation to obey and a willingness. Yet, did they know, or think
    of it as a pattern of something in the heavenly realm?

    There’s a lot to consider on this subject.

    * What a crushing men had to go through sometimes to arrive at this! Sometimes our faith will certainly be put to the test.

  201. on 09 Jun 2009 at 7:40 pmrobert

    About Matthew 19:29, I have to wonder, Are we giving up friends,
    and family, or houses for the Lord’s name’s sake, or are we trying
    to win friends, brothers, sisters, or keep or buy houses for our name’s sake?

    Ray there is no reason for it to mean anything different than what it says. this is what the diciples did, what Abraham Did, what the prophets did, and without a doubt what Jesus did.
    things like these is what separates the least from the greatest along with doing the things God is well pleased in like the Sabbath, and not doing the things he hates.

    the greatest worship that a person can get is when their child imitates them.
    for this God was very pleased with his son.

    can God be held by a law, then when God Blessed the Sabbath it was because he was pleased by it not to make it a law, then so should we be pleased in it because a law is not something to be pleased in.
    so what was pleasing to Jesus should be pleasing to his brothers(us).

  202. on 09 Jun 2009 at 7:40 pmRay

    I know of two sacrifices which were of faith that are mentioned in Hebrews, Abel’s and that of Abraham’s Isaac.

    I say this because I felt a dealing of God about this. And where do I put justification by faith but in the new covenant? Yet it was also
    available though hidden, even before the commandments were given to Moses. *

    So was justification by faith a part of the old covenant? I suppose it was a matter of faith by those under the old covenant that the blood of animals could never take away sin, though it was commanded by God to offer those things. No doubt it was done out
    of obligation to obey and a willingness. Yet, did they know, or think
    of it as a pattern of something in the heavenly realm?

    There’s a lot to consider on this subject.

    * What a crushing men had to go through sometimes to arrive at this! Sometimes our faith will certainly be put to the test.

    I suppose I should mention that God prevented Abraham from killing Isaac with the knife.

  203. on 09 Jun 2009 at 10:02 pmRay

    Hebrews 11: 28
    Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

    This is what God has been dealing with me about, the sacrifices or
    offerings that were by faith in this 11th chapter of Hebrews.

    Now Moses kept the passover and the other sacrifices under the law, for godly fear which moves a man into taking action by faith.

    Under the law there was so much death as a result of sin, and so
    we can understand why the fear of God in keeping those things.

    It’s not quite like that for us in the new covenant, though as we see sin abound in this world all the more, we ought to expect to see more consequences for sin and the judgments of God in order
    that this world and it’s nations not perish. Therefore I do believe
    God is restoring us to godly fear.

    I confess that the reasons I have repented of sins is that I do fear
    being held by them and therefore the possibility of being taken far
    away from the things of God, and I have feared that my soul might
    perish.

    I didn’t so much as think about quick and sudden death for disobedience as was so often the case under the old covenant.

    Things have been different. The two covenants are not the same,
    yet the restoration of godly fear should be of importance to us because of the days we live in, even though it is important to all
    days of living. It’s important through all of history. We do need it,
    and to live in it, as well as by faith.

    I wanted to understand how people under the old understood the
    sacrifices, and God led me to Hebrews 11:28.

  204. on 10 Jun 2009 at 6:58 amrobert

    the same way we should understand them with Jesus, that through the blood of the sacrafice our sins are no longer remembered.
    they had to have faith that God was just and true and believed in what God told them to do.
    Same system just a more perfect lamb.

  205. on 10 Jun 2009 at 7:24 amrobert

    Ray
    you have a hard time with how people of old recieve salvation through Jesus when he was still yet to come. well salvation is when Jesus raises us from the dead. so in both old and new ,salvation is still yet to come. God offered salvation to all the love Him, Jesus will deliver it when he returns.

    the reason the sacraficial system had to be replaced by Jesus was because for the whole earth to be blessed there had to be a way for atonement without the temple. this was why Jesus was sent before to do and teach it

  206. on 10 Jun 2009 at 8:31 amMark C.

    Robert,

    You are right about the sacrifices, but that’s only part of the difference. The OT prophecies speak of the New Covenant as one in which God puts His Word in people’s hearts and pours out His spirit upon them so that they walk in His ways. The complete fulfillment of that is yet future, but we are told that the holy spirit which we have now is a token or foretaste of that which is to come. The entire Mosaic Law is considered as a whole system, and called the Old Covenant which has been made obsolete with the coming of the New Covenant, according to Hebrews, and other NT passages. It’s a whole new system, not just the same system with a better sacrifice.

  207. on 10 Jun 2009 at 9:13 amRay

    I see another difference in the two covenants by Hebrews 11:28.

    Moses had to make these sacrifices lest God would touch them,
    the same God who smote the firstborn as they left Egypt, which
    I had seen the other day.

    But also, Moses as the leader of God’s people had to make sure
    the priests did the sprinking of blood to cover all the people.

    Today in the new coveanant, we do not go to one man to do this
    for us. We go to God individually for our sins. If there is any man we
    go to, we go to Jesus who ministers for us in the holiest.

    By faith Moses kept the passover lest all the people of Israel get
    touched for putting God aside.

    I can’t think of anything we as people in the new covenant have to
    have leadership, be it Pastor, Priest, Reverend, Elder, or whatever to do something to cover all of us, unless there’s some specific sin
    that has taken us and no one saw it or did anything about it, or if
    it’s an evil spirit that needs to be exposed and bound, or renounced, or rebuked for the evil work that was affecting the group.

    In the old there was so much the priests had to do, and no doubt
    we can learn from some of those things about all kinds of virtures,
    but it’s mostly to me a reminder of Christ.

  208. on 10 Jun 2009 at 10:02 amMark C.

    Ray,

    You’re right, Jesus is our ultimate high priest. If we sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous One (I John 2:1).

    Also, Jesus replaced Moses as the giver of law. Moses was the Law Giver of the Old Covenant, but prophesied that a Prophet like him would arise who would speak all of God’s Word. Jesus is that ultimate prophet and delivered the words of the New Covenant in his teachings, which the world is expected to heed.

  209. on 10 Jun 2009 at 10:30 amSean

    along those lines, isn’t it interesting that Matthew’s Gospel divides Jesus’ discourses into five segments, like a new Torah?

  210. on 10 Jun 2009 at 11:15 amrobert

    Mark
    we have always been in agreement over this, where we differ is your definition of what is Mosaic law and what is the standards that God spoke. mosaic was based on these standards but did not create them. God gave these standards to people who was never held by mosaic law. while circumcision was in mosaic law it was not mosaic law and for those that wish to use it as a sign between them in God it is still ok. i was circumcised as a baby but for health reasons so it never could be a sign between me and God. you can not make a sign into a law for all people ,just a requirement of being a part of something like the nation of Israel. while the requirement of mosaic law is no longer those who choose to do them as signs of what Gods people should do is their choice and will not effect grace but they should not require others to do them because that is believing in man not God which is a fall from grace. while requireing others is wrong it is not near as bad as making people believe it is wrong to do the things God has always been pleased in. the person who teaches this will not enter the kingdom because their faith is not in the things that God has said that pleases Him.
    man can not dictate to God what God is pleased in and by doing that claims equality of man with God

  211. on 10 Jun 2009 at 4:09 pmRay

    Sean,
    I’m interested in the dividing of Matthew’s gospel that you mention.
    How does that go?

  212. on 10 Jun 2009 at 8:45 pmrobert

    as we all agree mosaic law has passed away.
    so what law could this mean, Gods Moral Standards aka the 10 Commandments aka His Commandments aka Commandments of God aka The Commandments????

    Matthew 7
    21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    23 Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers! (Y) ‘ [i] (Z)

    23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

    23″And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; (U)DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

    23And then I will say to them openly (publicly), I never knew you; depart from Me, you who act wickedly [disregarding My commands].(

    23(AH) And then will I declare to them, ‘I(AI) never knew you;(AJ) depart from me,(AK) you workers of lawlessness.

    23 And then will I profess to them, I never knew you, depart from me ye that work iniquity.

  213. on 10 Jun 2009 at 9:23 pmRay

    And wasn’t it those who were so zealous for God’s laws that killed him who came to deliver them?

  214. on 10 Jun 2009 at 9:36 pmrobert

    Ok Ray show me any of Gods laws that Jesus broke.
    HE BROKE NONE OF GODS LAWS ,HE BROKE MANS LAWS.
    There is no law in Gods laws that prohibited Healing on the Sabbath, Feeding the Hungry,Casting out demons, or saying you were the son of God.
    DO NOT EVER SAY THAT IS WHAT HE DIED FOR BECAUSE HE WAS PERFECT IN GODS LAWS

  215. on 10 Jun 2009 at 10:42 pmrobert

    Nope He didnt break any of these, and even if Jesus or any of us were to, by what right would they have to kill us. there was no punishment by mans hands within Gods Laws just a reward to a thousand generations for following them.
    now if you put this in mosaic law then you must also include the attachments to observing the Sabbath and then you will be claiming that Jesus was not perfect in Gods Laws and therefore removing him as our sin sacrafice

    Exodus 20
    The Ten Commandments
    1 And God spoke all these words:
    2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

    3 “You shall have no other gods before [a] me.

    4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

    7 “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

    8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

    12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

    13 “You shall not murder.

    14 “You shall not commit adultery.

    15 “You shall not steal.

    16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

    17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

  216. on 10 Jun 2009 at 11:02 pmRay

    Though he is perfect and as he walked on this earth he never sinned against God, yet those who were so zealous for the things of God were the ones who killed him.

    They did assume that some of the things of man that they held to,
    had spiritual authority over such a one born of Israel.

    They tried to cause him to stumble, as they tried to turn the wrath
    of man’s government against him, for they hated him who did no wrong.

    You are correct in this Robert, that our righteousness must exceed
    that of the Pharisees before we can enter the kingdom. For until
    we come to the place where we say of ourselves, “O Wretched Man
    That I Am!” , we see neither where we have walked, nor how we
    have been.

    Jesus came to save sinners, not to condemn. It’s the despising of
    Christ that condemns, not Christ who condemns.

    Well did Isaiah prophecy of the Pharisees, said Jesus in Matthew
    15:7.

  217. on 11 Jun 2009 at 12:30 amRay

    Jesus never commanded his disciples or anyone else to keep the Sabbath. We can find Jesus teaching all the other 10 except for that one. Maybe it’s because he is the Sabbath Day.

    Some might say “Well, Jesus said “Keep the commandments.” , so
    he said it, but that’s not what I’m talking about. All the other ten commandments he spoke directly about.

    Can anyone show me a verse from the gospels where Jesus commanded people to keep the Sabbath day?

    He taught specifically against adultry, stealing, lying, and such, but
    nothing about how men need to repent about not keeping the Sabbath.

    Now we can find how on a Sabbath day, he reproved them for their
    hypocrisy about how they judged people for ‘not keeping’ it. It was their hypocrisy that he was against,
    not that THOSE who judged such a thing were in violation of honoring it, and needed to keep it as it was written.

    Jesus never put any man “in his place” as it is said, for the man’s failure to keep the Sabbath, as if he needed to return to the command of God concerning it.

    I trust that some will see this and that some may not.

  218. on 11 Jun 2009 at 1:05 amMark C.

    Ray,

    Not only did Jesus not command anyone to keep the Sabbath, but he never commanded anyone not to make graven images. The word “idol” isn’t in Exod. 20:4 in the Hebrew or in many other English translations. It said don’t make “any graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” In Moses’ time any image was likely to be used as an idol, so all graven images were forbidden. But there is no such commandment in the New Testament. We are not to worship idols of course, but there’s no law against making images, and we should be thankful for that, or there would be no art except from pagans.

  219. on 11 Jun 2009 at 7:14 amrobert

    Mark is right Jesus never commanded and this lie would fly if you think Jesus was God.
    What represented other gods in the past are still idols.
    Jesus never commanded you to break the sabbath or worship graven images either.

    Revelation 9:20

    And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

    Galatians 5

    19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

  220. on 11 Jun 2009 at 7:42 amrobert

    correction for above.lie was bad choice of words

    Mark is right Jesus never commanded and this lie(misunderstanding) would fly if you think Jesus was God.
    What represented other gods in the past are still idols.
    Jesus never commanded you to break the sabbath or worship graven images either

  221. on 11 Jun 2009 at 9:30 amMark C.

    Jesus never commanded you to break the sabbath or worship graven images either.

    Like I said, we are not to worship idols but there’s no command in the NT against just making images, as there was in the Old Covenant/Ten Commandments. And while Jesus never commanded anyone to break the Sabbath, neither did he command anyone to keep it. New commandments for a New Covenant.

  222. on 11 Jun 2009 at 9:33 amRay

    No doubt much of the art that we see today does not seem
    to glorify God, nor bring us closer to him, yet we do have this liberty
    that was not seen under the old covenant. Yet no doubt the greatest examples of fine art would be the work of the things of the temple and such that was done for the glory of God under his
    direction.

    The Pharisees would have done much better to listen to Jesus and
    trust in him than to rely on whatever perspective they had on keeping Sabbath days and other things.

    About graven images: Some people seem to think that all forms of
    graven art are hated by God, including religious ones, even crosses
    and such.

    I was in a place once in the mountains. There was a large cabin there were our group stayed the night. Not far from the cabin there was a rocky hill and a wooden post which had what was some kind of retangular box on it. In the morning I had walked up
    the rocky slope to see what it was. It was a box alright and it had
    a door. I opened it up and inside there was a graven image of Jesus on the cross, with such detail that convicted the heart of sin.

    Afterward I sat down on a bench at the cabin. I noticed some of the others going up the rocky hill to see what this thing was. They
    seemed to go one at a time. I remember one of them dropping to
    his knees, and I know why. I also was humbled when I saw what
    it was.

    The influence of art can be powerful, and I believe God wants us to
    have such liberty and to walk in it wisely for his glory and purposes
    in Christ Jesus.

  223. on 11 Jun 2009 at 10:51 amrobert

    we can thank God that Jesus mentioned murder or mark would feel that was ok too
    If you believe God than you would know there was no need for Jesus to command something that God already had commanded.
    a thousand generations to man is forever, just like someone saying they would love a person for a thousand years which is to mean forever.
    the cross has nothing to do with the death of Jesus and even if it did it would be a sin to put the name of something godly on it.

    when they made the golden calf they didnt put the name of baal on it they put the name of God,His actual name. they were not worshiping another god they thought they could use a graven image for GOD.

    The Menorah was not to be used that way either and it symbolized the light which is the salvation.

    Exodus 32
    4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the Lord.

    Mark
    prove that anything you claim is acceptable to God.
    and dont try to say nothing is unclean of itself because the golden calf was just gold and had the name of God applied to it.
    you say God is one but teach that Jesus was God

    Ephesians 5
    10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

  224. on 11 Jun 2009 at 12:12 pmMark C.

    we can thank God that Jesus mentioned murder or mark would feel that was ok too

    I wouldn’t, but some might. So indeed we can thank God for the commands His Son has given us.

    If you believe God than you would know there was no need for Jesus to command something that God already had commanded.

    Then why did he mention murder? 🙂

    More importantly, why did he speak of obeying his commands, and that his words are the spirit and life? He is the ultimate Prophet, not Moses.

    Mark
    prove that anything you claim is acceptable to God.

    I’ve already done so at length, as has Sean in his recent article. But you disagree; so be it.

    and dont try to say nothing is unclean of itself because the golden calf was just gold and had the name of God applied to it.

    We’ve been through this before also. God (through Paul) is the one that said there is nothing unclean of itself. There is nothing intrinsically evil about gold itself, obviously. It is the fact that they applied the name of God to it, and worshiped it as God, that made it an idol. People can make anything an idol, even things that were originally of a godly design (such as the brass serpent that Moses made). Many people worship God’s creation, does that make it evil? It is the worshiping of it as God that makes something an idol, not the inherent nature of the thing they idolize.

    you say God is one but teach that Jesus was God

    I never said any such thing. (Unless you’re speaking of the few verses that call Jesus “God” in a representational sense.)

  225. on 11 Jun 2009 at 12:43 pmrobert

    We’ve been through this before also. God (through Paul) is the one that said there is nothing unclean of itself. There is nothing intrinsically evil about gold itself, obviously. It is the fact that they applied the name of God to it, and worshiped it as God, that made it an idol.

    as usual you sidestep the point, it was not the gold which what Paul wrote applied to , it was the unclean image or earthly image used for God.
    God literally killed people for creating an image of him or something Godly. as far as things God Commanded to be made that represented something spiritual, they are just that, a command and our acceptable to God. but things like a cross which was worshiped as a god by many Pagan religions before christ they will always be unclean and be an idol of a false god. the cross was the favorite idol of the pagans of Jesus’s day untill it was adpoted by the church and definitions of greek words were created to back this lie. the only word that was used that they could not falsify the definition of was the one that translates to tree because it was to common of a word to create a false definition for.
    there is no reason to classify most of art as idols but there is some that is not acceptable to God.

    So bear your yoke so when Jesus beared it for you it is none effect, i will bear Jesus’s yoke because it is easy
    you do understand the yoke of our sins is what he carried to the tree.
    the same yoke that they put on all criminals when they transported them to secure them. a beam of wood across their shoulders that their wrist were bound to

  226. on 11 Jun 2009 at 1:36 pmRay

    Why would a man take the words of his brother and beat him up with them, as if his brother wasn’t hearing the things he was speaking of, while he was speaking to one who was not hearing them?

    I see Mr. X, beating up Mr. Y with Mr.Y’s own words, as if Mr. Y did
    not hear his own words that he was speaking to Mr. X.

    Mr. Y was
    speaking to Mr. X, (as Mr. Y knew full well the meaning of Mr. Y’s own words), yet Mr. X either was not hearing them , or at least acting as if he was not hearing them.

    Why?

    What spirit or spirits are behind all that? The real answer to this
    mystery is in the message of the cross.

    Please have mercy.

  227. on 11 Jun 2009 at 1:43 pmrobert

    What spirit or spirits are behind all that? The real answer to this
    mystery is in the message of the cross.

    Please have mercy.

    Could very well be Ray
    what is message of the cross and who is the real author.
    SATAN

  228. on 11 Jun 2009 at 2:10 pmrobert

    if we today are who he is speaking too also ,than how can it be that we fufil the law when it was Jesus that fulfil it and removed it.
    I spent 46 years of my life being lied too, not anymore

    Romans 13
    7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

  229. on 11 Jun 2009 at 2:36 pmMark C.

    as usual you sidestep the point, it was not the gold which what Paul wrote applied to , it was the unclean image or earthly image used for God.

    You missed my point and thus concluded that I sidestepped the point. It was neither the gold nor the image, as there is nothing intrinsically “unclean” about a calf. As you say, it was the fact that the image was used for God that made it an idol.

    God literally killed people for creating an image of him or something Godly. as far as things God Commanded to be made that represented something spiritual, they are just that, a command and our acceptable to God.

    And yet something that God commanded to be made, namely the brass serpent, was later turned into an idol.

    Anyway, the point was that one of the Ten Commandments said not to make any image, but there is no such commandment in the New Covenant, even though we are still not to commit idolatry.

    For the benefit of those who didn’t see or don’t remember the discussion about the cross, let me briefly reiterate. Symbols, like words, have different meanings to different people. Just as words take on new meanings over time, symbols can take on different meanings over time as well, depending on how they are viewed and how they are used. While the symbol we call a cross had various meanings in pre-Christian times, there is disagreement among scholars as to whether Christians simply adopted a pagan symbol with its pagan meaning, or began using a symbol which acquired a new meaning.

    But even if there were solid evidence that the cross as used by Christians retained its pagan meaning in the first or second century, that has little bearing on its use today. There may very well be people today who view it as a pagan symbol or use it as an idol. But there are also many good Christians who view it as a symbol of their faith, of Christ and his sacrifice, and of all that his sacrifice imparted. There is also a growing number of people who wear crosses for neither pagan nor Christian reasons, but as a relatively meaningless piece of jewelry.

    Would it be fair of God to judge a person for using a symbol, based on the meaning that it held hundreds of years ago? God looks at the heart of the individual. What may be idolatrous or sinful for one person may not be for another. That is the whole message of Romans 14. There is simply no basis for the statement that the cross “will always be unclean and be an idol of a false god.”

  230. on 11 Jun 2009 at 2:40 pmMark C.

    if we today are who he is speaking too also ,than how can it be that we fufil the law when it was Jesus that fulfil it and removed it.

    If you have to ask that after all of the Scriptures that have been presented, I don’t know what else to tell you. The Scripture you yourself quoted gives the answer: “…if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

  231. on 11 Jun 2009 at 3:21 pmrobert

    i am going to call you texas 2 step for now on.

    still doesnt explain your position on the law as most of what your teaching is that everything was fulfil and then replaced with new laws. that makes God look stupid.

    this shows that fulfil doesnt mean abolished.

    besides that there was a greater commandment that included loving god . this tell us the last 6 was love thy nieghbor, and by basis the first 4 as love God.

    the whole message of romans 14 has nothing to do with this as i told you several months ago. it deals with foods and other thing sacraficed to idols. if paul didnt clear that up we would of had nothing to eat or people would of starved themelves trying to be a good christian.it was refering to natural things used in idol worship, not the manmade images and symbols used to worship other gods.
    but it keeps you from having to change

    this deals with it

    Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

    For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God;

  232. on 11 Jun 2009 at 3:31 pmRay

    There’s lots of good sense and instruction in the 229 post and it flows quite smoothly. Don’t you agree, Robert?

  233. on 11 Jun 2009 at 3:44 pmRay

    Robert, in your 227 post you seem to be saying that Satan is the message of the cross and the real author. Am I hearing you right?
    I think I am.

    Yes it was Satan that killed Jesus by working through men. There
    were many spirits of darkness that worked through them that brought them to such ends as to have him arrested, unjustly tried,
    falsely accused, irrationaly condemned, ridiculed and mocked, beaten with many stripes, bruised for our iniquities, and killed.

    Those devils used their hands, their feet, their mouths and such for
    the purposes of darkness . They used the men who would be willing to be used for such purposes because of the weakness of
    the flesh.

    Do we ever find any of that working through us? And if so, what is
    the answer for the salvation of our souls?

  234. on 11 Jun 2009 at 4:12 pmrobert

    There’s lots of good sense and instruction in the 229 post and it flows quite smoothly. Don’t you agree, Robert?

    if i was blind

  235. on 11 Jun 2009 at 4:18 pmrobert

    Robert, in your 227 post you seem to be saying that Satan is the message of the cross and the real author. Am I hearing you right?
    I think I am.

    Jesus Died by the purpose of God, Not satan.
    the lie of the cross came from satan, Jesus died upon an almond tree not a cross, and he carried only a yoke of bondage to that tree, not a cross.
    i have posted where this is in the bible and the proof that the cross was a lie.

  236. on 11 Jun 2009 at 4:22 pmMark C.

    this shows that fulfil doesnt mean abolished.

    BINGO!

    That’s what I’ve been saying all along, but those who want to hold to the law kept saying, “so you want to abolish the law” and I kept saying, as Paul said, “NO, we don’t abolish the law we establish it.”

    * * *

    Romans 14 specifically mentions food and observing days. But both are in the overall context of not judging your brother on such matters. This point is reiterated several times throughout the chapter, and it is clear from the context that Paul’s main message is, don’t judge your brother in things like this – it is up to each individual’s conscience to determine what they should do. That, combined with the obvious fact that ANYTHING could be made into an idol, should make it more than obvious that there cannot be a hard and fast law that says X is “always unclean, and always an idol.”

    Quoting “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” doesn’t prove anything except that God wants us to avoid idols, which we agree on. That verse doesn’t define what an idol is. And as I said, anything could be an idol if it comes before God in one’s heart.

    But as I said, all of this is beside the point that I made, speaking of sidestepping. The point I made, once again, is that one of the Ten Commandments says not to make ANY images of ANY KIND, whether idol or otherwise. We are free from that restriction, because while we still avoid idolatry, we have the freedom to express our love for God through artistic images, for there is no commandment in the NT that forbids it. That makes two of the Ten Commandments that are not reiterated in the commandments of Jesus.

  237. on 11 Jun 2009 at 4:40 pmrobert

    “The point I made, once again, is that one of the Ten Commandments says not to make ANY images of ANY KIND, whether idol or otherwise”

    a horseshoe is a great example, one it has purpose other it is an idol of luck.

    No mark it says not to make any images of any kind to bow down to or worship. it is one commandment not two

    its the bowing down and worshiping that makes an idol which is what EVERY CHRISTIAN DOES WITH THE CROSS. as i said even if he died on a cross it still would be idolatry because nothing earthly can represent something Godly.

    4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,

  238. on 11 Jun 2009 at 4:49 pmRay

    Robert, Jesus died on a cross and it was for Satan’s purposes
    that men put him there. It also was by God’s design for our salvation. It’s message is of God and his redeeming power which is
    unto all generations by Jesus Christ.

    Robert, why are you always so disagreeable? Who causes you to
    disagree?

  239. on 11 Jun 2009 at 5:01 pmrobert

    Robert, why are you always so disagreeable? Who causes you to
    disagree?

    GOD ray GOD OF ABRAHAM

    who causes you to be blind RAY?

  240. on 11 Jun 2009 at 5:13 pmrobert

    No Ray
    God purposed the whole thing , satan couldnt change a single thing God set out to do.
    God purposed the time of death, the method, the tree he was hung on,and the time of when he rose.
    Dont give Satan Authority over God

  241. on 11 Jun 2009 at 5:28 pmMark C.

    No mark it says not to make any images of any kind to bow down to or worship. it is one commandment not two

    I didn’t say it was two commandments. I said that the command was not to make any image, which is what it says. The word for “idol” is not in the Hebrew of verse 4. The next verse elaborates on it by saying not to bow down to them, but verse 4 says not to make ANY images, and that is how they understood it and obeyed it.

    its the bowing down and worshiping that makes an idol…

    That is exactly what I’ve been saying.

    …which is what EVERY CHRISTIAN DOES WITH THE CROSS.

    Every Christian does not bow down and worship the cross. Most use it as a symbol for what God purposed in the sacrificial work of Jesus.

    Romans 14:
    4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

    10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
    11 For it is written, “AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.”
    12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
    13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way.

  242. on 11 Jun 2009 at 5:39 pmrobert

    Satan also wishes for every knee to bow to him.

    “Every Christian does not bow down and worship the cross. Most use it as a symbol for what God purposed in the sacrificial work of Jesus.”

    Ok every christian doesnt, just the decieved ones.

    it is not of symbol of anything of Jesus but it is purposed By God to test his people to see what they learned. As a whole there is no difference between people of old and of the new. this is why the gate is so narrow and many will be told that Jesus never knew them

  243. on 11 Jun 2009 at 6:12 pmRay

    Robert,

    Men put Jesus on the cross because they were being led to do so
    by Satan. They did that in many ways. Some of them lied about him.
    Some of them judged him wrongly. Some of them hated him. Some
    of them were just following men, which also is under some direction
    of an evil spirit.

    That’s what I mean by saying that it was done for Satan’s purposes, even as it was done by God’s divine plan for our salvation. Even though Jesus was perfect, going through the suffering and death of the cross, perfected him. He’s perfect, beyond perfection. He did things in perfection and even went further for our salvation.

    Maybe it’s because you tend to read one line of type and forget
    all the rest of the lines, that men so often find you to be disagreeable.

    What kind of a man does it take to take something out of context
    then get up on some kind of unholy mountain and try to make a
    great sermon? Is he just doing it for attention? Does he have to
    be on top of everything? Does he have to be on top of all the rest
    of the people? Does he have to get ahead of all the others and
    run past all the armor? Must he be the first on the battle line?

  244. on 11 Jun 2009 at 6:34 pmrobert

    Sorry Ray
    you are way of base about God and Me.
    My methods are a little unorthodox but what i bring is the truth. I am just learning what the revelations i recieved from God Mean.
    I have just been proving them to myself also, but i have one advantage that i have the truth, but still have to prove them.I have only been studying the bible for 5 months now to prove the Word of God i recieved. i have other revelations from God but they are not Scriptual and Sean knows one of them.
    I choose to not use them for my gain, but for Gods purposes only. Now if i knew what exactly was that pupose it would help, but all this here is about that purpose i do know.

  245. on 11 Jun 2009 at 8:34 pmRay

    When we look at ourselves instead of God,
    We have no light. Where can it be found?
    God gave us his word to give us light.
    Can’t succeed by our power or might.
    A remnant remains that hasn’t been lost.
    God knows their numbers and paid the cost.
    Through the fall of some, others have gained.
    Moved by God to be grafted in again.
    That’s his plan and so it remains.

    Out of Zion shall come the deliverer.

  246. on 11 Jun 2009 at 8:50 pmJoseph

    Let me guess 🙂 Those who kept the Mosaic Law will have a status above those who didn’t right? Those who didn’t keep it will be second-class citizens in the kingdom, that’s right. Well, we all knew that already. That’s self-understood, right?

    You said it, not me. 🙂 I honestly don’t know, but I do know what the prophetic texts say in reference to Torah in Kingdom law. So what I gather is not from the words of John E. or any man for that matter, but from revelation from the Messiah and the Prophets that our Messiah was so confident in. 🙂

  247. on 11 Jun 2009 at 8:52 pmJoseph

    John E.,

    Let me guess 🙂 Those who kept the Mosaic Law will have a status above those who didn’t right? Those who didn’t keep it will be second-class citizens in the kingdom, that’s right. Well, we all knew that already. That’s self-understood, right?

    You said it, not me. 🙂 I honestly don’t know, but I do know what the prophetic texts say in reference to Torah in Kingdom law. So what I gather is not from the words of John E. or any man for that matter, but from revelation from the Messiah and the Prophets that our Messiah was so confident in. 🙂

  248. on 11 Jun 2009 at 11:16 pmrobert

    when God spoke the 10 commandments to the people what was their perception of it , was it mosaic law to them and what did they think about mercy to 1000 generations for keeping the commandments????
    the truth is right here

  249. on 12 Jun 2009 at 4:51 amMark C.

    when God spoke the 10 commandments to the people what was their perception of it, was it mosaic law to them…

    Yes. Many times throughout the OT it refers to the Law which Moses gave them as being the Word of the Lord. Here’s one:
    Exod. 24:3 – “And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.”

    …and what did they think about mercy to 1000 generations for keeping the commandments

    It’s already been demonstrated that it meant an unspecified, long time. Deut. 7:9 says, “Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.”

    Notice, it is GOD who keeps covenant to a thousand generations. This certainly does not prove that the Old Covenant Law is to last for a thousand generations, either figuratively or literally, since the Israelites did not keep the covenant, which was why God promised a New Covenant through the Prophets.

  250. on 12 Jun 2009 at 7:40 amrobert

    “This certainly does not prove that the Old Covenant Law is to last for a thousand generations, either figuratively or literally, since the Israelites did not keep the covenant, which was why God promised a New Covenant through the Prophets. ”

    who said anything of old covenant law
    The 10 are separate as they were giving and written.

    now the old covenant has used them as the basis for mosaic law which moses wrote for Israel but God wrote the 10 and had them put in the ark of the covenant of Abraham which Both old and new Covenant is Just a part of.

    why was 10 spoken to the people and why was the tablets which God wrote himself put INSIDE THE ARK. it was to keep people like you from saying Gods Moral standards were the law of Moses which wasnt put inside the Ark. So dont you dare tell me they are the same when God shows Just how different they are and how important one was over the other.

    If you cant believe God than yes we will go in circles.
    Sorry, the joke was in poor taste, you are right. i will address you by your name

  251. on 12 Jun 2009 at 9:52 amrobert

    Quote from Mark

    “There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that the written Law of Moses was any less the Commandment of God than the Ten Commandments.

    And may I remind you that the only difference between what God spoke audibly to the people at first and what He gave Moses to write down was that the people couldn’t bear to hear the voice of God.”

    So i may clarify what you are saying, it is your understanding that the people not being able to bear the voice of God is the reason God Stopped talking to the people and if they could of beared more than other things spoken to Moses would of been also written in stone. was the reason what was spoken to Moses not put on the stone tablets because the people couldnt bear any more words written with Gods own Finger. If the laws of Moses were just as important as the 10 Commandments they would of been also written in stone all 603 along with the punishment for not obeying the 10 commandments.
    i ask you once to show me the punishment within the 10 commandments and you quoted the law of Moses, So now let me clarify my request, Show me the punishment written in Stone and show me where the law of Moses is important enough to be put inside the Ark as was the 10 Commandments

  252. on 12 Jun 2009 at 11:24 amrobert

    Lets look at a few things used to justify a few positions that Paul is refering to jews, Mosaic law and Holy days of the seed of Jacob.
    1.when the law is mentioned is it just mosaic being refered too or was their other nations that had laws based on traditions.
    2. was circumcision something exclusive to the seed of Jacob or was there other nations with that tradition too.
    3. was Holy days that only of the seed of Jacob or was there other nations that observed Holy days.

  253. on 12 Jun 2009 at 12:10 pmRay

    I wonder how people who talk about the commandments of God which were given through the law, which are a part of the law,
    and included in the law, are kept by them.

    What does such a person today do with Leviticus 19:23 for example?

    Leviticus 19:23
    And when ye shall come into the land, and have planted every tree
    for meat, ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten.

    Does that mean anything to anyone today, and if so, how so?

    Does it mean to one that if he buys some new property and had planted some apple trees, and they bear fruit, that he counts the
    first three years of the fruit as unclean and therefore he does not
    eat it?

    Does anyone do that? If a man did, he has the right to do so, for
    his property is his and the trees thereof. Therefore, also the fruit.

    No one dare tell him he can not count his certain fruit as unclean
    for himself to eat, can they?

    Or do you who have such confidence in the law simply say that this
    was for Israel alone for such a time as they entered into the Promised Land, and only for that time?

    I’m curious about how you who preach the law and commandments
    and contend for those things practice such things.

    How much of the laws and commandments of God apply today to you who contend so for the law?

    I would like to hear from you.

    And then there’s some about the hair and the beard and such. What about those things?

    You who seem to know it all and want to teach it all, please tell us
    about all these things. I’m sure I will have so many more questions
    about the law for those who are so adamant about it.

    Ezekiel 3:9
    As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead: fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house.

    Now to have a forehead harder than a flint is a good thing if the thing be in the Lord, but what if someone’s forehead is as an adamant that is not of the Lord? What then? I wonder if it would
    be in their right hand also and if so what then?

    Yet, God gave us Christ to redeem us by his blood, a cleansing power that is greater than our sins, if so be that we truly do receive him as both Lord and Saviour.

    Sometimes I wonder if people simply grew up in an electronic age
    of playing Asteroids, and other video games and so when the computer age came in, they saw that as some kind of game to play also. But we are interacting for the salvation of souls, for the kingdom of God and his righteousness.

  254. on 12 Jun 2009 at 12:16 pmMark C.

    So i may clarify what you are saying, it is your understanding that the people not being able to bear the voice of God is the reason God Stopped talking to the people…

    That’s correct. We are told this not only in Exodus 20, but also Deut. 4 and 5, and other places as well.

    Deut. 4:
    11 And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness.
    12 And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.
    13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone..

    Please note that the Ten Commandments that are written on the tablets are referred to as “His Covenant.”

    …and if they could of beared more than other things spoken to Moses would of been also written in stone.

    I don’t know that and neither do you. It’s merely speculation.

    was the reason what was spoken to Moses not put on the stone tablets because the people couldnt bear any more words written with Gods own Finger.

    No. You’re confusing what God spoke audibly and what He wrote with His finger. I pointed out in the article that after He spoke audibly and the people said they couldn’t bear it, that Moses got other laws and statutes from God, wrote them down, presented them to the people, and sprinkled the book with blood to enter the covenant, ALL BEFORE GOD GAVE HIM THE STONE TABLETS. All of what God gave to the people is called the Law, the Covenant, the words of the Lord, statutes of God, and other phrases that are all used interchangeably. The Ten Commandments are the summary of the Old Covenant Law.

    If the laws of Moses were just as important as the 10 Commandments they would of been also written in stone all 603 along with the punishment for not obeying the 10 commandments.

    That’s merely speculation. The Bible doesn’t say this.

    i ask you once to show me the punishment within the 10 commandments and you quoted the law of Moses, So now let me clarify my request, Show me the punishment written in Stone and show me where the law of Moses is important enough to be put inside the Ark as was the 10 Commandments

    I never claimed the punishment needed to be written in stone. It is all part of God’s Covenant with Israel. As for the stone tablets being in the Ark, see my remarks about it in the original article and in posts #65, 71, 75, 126, 168, and 176.

    Lets look at a few things used to justify a few positions that Paul is refering to jews, Mosaic law and Holy days of the seed of Jacob.
    1.when the law is mentioned is it just mosaic being refered too or was their other nations that had laws based on traditions.
    2. was circumcision something exclusive to the seed of Jacob or was there other nations with that tradition too.
    3. was Holy days that only of the seed of Jacob or was there other nations that observed Holy days.

    Paul (and the writer of Hebrews if it wasn’t Paul) specifically contrasts the Old Covenant Law of Moses with the New Covenant ratified by Jesus. Before Moses the children of Abraham were circumcised. But after Moses delivered the Law, the only others besides the literal descendants of Israel who were required by law to be circumcised and observe the holy days were the “strangers” that dwelt among them, as we have discussed before.

    Since you don’t believe anything I say, here’s another article by someone else, which explains why the Sabbath is not a moral law separate from the Law of Moses:
    http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/moral.htm

  255. on 12 Jun 2009 at 12:43 pmrobert

    “I wonder how people who talk about the commandments of God which were given through the law, which are a part of the law,
    and included in the law, are kept by them.”

    good question
    as for me i believe the commandments of God that was included in the law is no longer intact because the laws included with them was meant for the nation of Israel only, and there is no nation of Israel at this present time and wont be till Jesus comes.
    I dont hold myself to these laws or hold anyone to them but do hold myself to the 10 commandments as thet were spoken to the people and as they were wrote by God but only out of love for God and man because its is very pleasing to God for me to do this.
    as a sinner i look to God for mercy and know that Jesus was appointed to do just that for the people of God

  256. on 12 Jun 2009 at 1:50 pmRay

    Robert,
    This your most recent post seems to me to put you very close to most of the people on this blog, causing me to wonder if we are all
    sailing together now.

    Though all the ten commandments seem to be so basic to all of life,
    I for one am not in the habbit of keeping the Sabbath day by any
    formal action on my part, as pertaining to any one day of each week. Yet, shouldn’t we let that be according to every man’s pleasure?

  257. on 12 Jun 2009 at 2:16 pmrobert

    Robert,
    This your most recent post seems to me to put you very close to most of the people on this blog, causing me to wonder if we are all
    sailing together now.

    Ray it is the same thing i have been saying , its just you now seeing it.
    some people just like to twist it around.
    which is what you see me disagreeing with.
    some say the 10 commandments are the same as mosaic law

  258. on 12 Jun 2009 at 2:34 pmrobert

    Ray
    Go to first comment in this subject and you will see that its the same as the comment your are referencing

  259. on 12 Jun 2009 at 2:38 pmMark C.

    Ray it is the same thing i have been saying , its just you now seeing it.
    some people just like to twist it around.
    which is what you see me disagreeing with.

    This is puzzling, as one of the first posts in which you mentioned the Law referred to the necessity of following the letter of the Law.

    “Hearing the Text of the Bible” thread, post #16:

    Anyone who doesnt follow the letter of the law must not of recieved salvation yet or their ticket to the Kingdom Of God

    If the only thing we disagree on is whether the Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law, why have you been so adamant, not to mention implying that those who disagree are blind and/or preaching lies?

  260. on 12 Jun 2009 at 3:04 pmRay

    Robert,

    Have you been saying that the 10 commandments are God’s laws,
    and the rest of the writing of the first 5 books of the Bible are the
    Mosaic law, or something to that effect?

  261. on 12 Jun 2009 at 3:32 pmrobert

    yes
    they were separatly giving and stored

  262. on 12 Jun 2009 at 3:41 pmrobert

    You know something Mark, i am learning as i go and the post you are refering to was cleared up later in that subject as you know it was but that was not what you wanted to show.
    But i do feel that if you have been saved you will want to do everything that has ever pleased God , punishment has never pleased God, but was none the less necessary. He would rather reward you for doing things within your own freewill.He could of took away freewill and he would of been done with Adam, but as a robot

  263. on 12 Jun 2009 at 4:00 pmRay

    I will try to understand you Robert if and when I can but don’t expect me to speak your language.

    I find it interesting that you seem to put yourself only under the 10
    commandments and find it encouraging. There are some who try
    to keep themselves under so many things of the old covenant, even expecting others to do the same.

    Please be as patient as you can with me and the rest of those on
    this blog. They have much to offer any man who is on the way to
    eternal glory.

  264. on 12 Jun 2009 at 4:15 pmMark C.

    I agree that God desires us to do what pleases Him by our free will. But when you begin to understand the superiority of everything Jesus did over what was in the Old Covenant, you realize that we have a “better rest” just as we have “better sacrifices,” “better priesthood,” “better temple,” etc.

    God refers to the children of Israel not entering into His rest because of their unbelief, in a number of places throughout the OT. Yet when Joshua finally led the next generation into the Promised Land, there was still a future rest referred to. The passage in Hebrews 3-4 is primarily talking about that rest, but it uses the word Sabbath figuratively to show that God’s ultimate rest is what the Sabbath had really pictured. Jesus spoke of entering his rest, and we are not limited to one day for that. If we love God we can enter into His rest every day.

    The point of the Sabbath for the children of Israel was to set them apart from the rest of the world, but that separation has been removed now. I know you believe that the 10 Commandments are a moral law separate from the Old Covenant, but the only proof you have presented is the fact that the tablets were given special treatment. Of course the tablets that God Himself wrote on are going to be special, but simple word studies on the words ‘covenant,’ ‘law,’ ‘statute,’ and ‘ordinance’ will show you that they are interchangeable when referring to what God gave the children of Israel. Though God blessed the seventh day, there was no reference to, or mention of, the Sabbath observance prior to Moses. And I quoted Deut. 4:13 above, where the 10 Commandments on the tablets are called “His Covenant.”

    But if that’s truly the only thing we disagree on, then I’d say it’s not worth going on and on about.

  265. on 12 Jun 2009 at 4:18 pmrobert

    Ray
    the one thing i dont have is a golden tongue, i understand that i am hard to understand. Very similar to Paul in this aspect but havent all the answers to prove the truths i was revealed but i am working on that.

    I dont expect you to keep the sabbath, i just wish you would. Faith is dead without works and works is dead without faith. neither can give you salvation alone.
    but i am sure you have works without the sabbath

  266. on 12 Jun 2009 at 4:36 pmrobert

    “Jesus spoke of entering his rest, and we are not limited to one day for that. If we love God we can enter into His rest every day.”

    You think its all about mans rest, that was just the way to show that we was honoring it. It is about the day that God finds special and Resting to show that it is special to you isnt grievous.
    God will rest again during the during the thousand year sabbath. He has been very busy the last 6 thousand years since he rested.
    this is about showing God you love him and thanking him for loving us

  267. on 12 Jun 2009 at 5:14 pmrobert

    You do understand that entering Gods rest is talking about the Kingdom Of God in which Jesus will be in charge while God rest on his Sabbath. satan will be locked up till God has rested, then God will judge all and reestablish heaven on earth again.

  268. on 12 Jun 2009 at 5:40 pmRay

    No doubt all the works of man without holiness are dead. Is that what you meant about “works without the sabbath”, Robert?

    Can a man’s works on the other six days be counted for righteousness if they are mixed with faith?

    Yet why should a man depend on works to save him? Though we
    are saved by faith without works, there are times when we must
    mix work with faith to do righteousness.

    When it comes to works let’s remember that “having done” will
    never do. Only by doing will we ever get the works done that God
    will have us to do.

    And what about when we have fallen short, having found ourselves
    to have not done what we were to have been doing? What then?

    I remember the time God told them to go into the land, but they did not. So God told them he would not lead them in at that time,
    yet they tried to go anyway. (Numbers 14:40)

    What then?

  269. on 12 Jun 2009 at 5:47 pmrobert

    “Though we
    are saved by faith without works, there are times when we must
    mix work with faith to do righteousness.”

    Ray
    you should read James 2 :14-26

  270. on 12 Jun 2009 at 6:36 pmMark C.

    You do understand that entering Gods rest is talking about the Kingdom Of God in which Jesus will be in charge while God rest on his Sabbath. satan will be locked up till God has rested, then God will judge all and reestablish heaven on earth again.

    That will be the ultimate fulfillment of it, but Jesus exhorts us to come to him and he will give us rest. Also, Hebrews says that “we who have believed enter that rest,” and “…the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest.”

  271. on 12 Jun 2009 at 8:01 pmRay

    James 2:21-24
    Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
    Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
    And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God,
    and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called
    the friend of God.
    Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith
    only.

    Though we are saved by faith without works, there are times when
    we must mix works with our faith to do righteousness.

    Romans 3:11-28
    There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after
    God.
    They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
    Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
    Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
    Their feet are swift to shed blood:
    Destruction and misery are in their ways:
    And the way of peace have they not known:
    There is no fear of God before their eyes.
    Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped,
    and all the world may become guilty before God.
    Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified
    in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
    But now the righteousness of God without law is manifested, being
    witnessed by the law and the prophets;
    Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto
    all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
    For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
    Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in
    Christ Jesus:
    Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
    To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
    Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
    Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

    Is that what you are talking about, Robert?

  272. on 13 Jun 2009 at 8:20 amrobert

    sorry about delay, we had a storm come thru that had 12 confirmed tornadoes. no electricity till this morning.
    Ray
    whats in James does not conflict this, there is so much in the NT that is addressing different people that they have to put thing into ways that they will understand. while it is all inspired by God you have to become these people to understand what is being said or you can just use what is clear in the NT and OT as a basis for what being said. if it contradicts something that is clear than you havent become these people yet.

  273. on 13 Jun 2009 at 9:41 amrobert

    No. You’re confusing what God spoke audibly and what He wrote with His finger. I pointed out in the article that after He spoke audibly and the people said they couldn’t bear it, that Moses got other laws and statutes from God, wrote them down, presented them to the people, and sprinkled the book with blood to enter the covenant, ALL BEFORE GOD GAVE HIM THE STONE TABLETS.

    The Second set Mark
    why would God give Moses a second set to be put inside the Ark when they were written already by Moses within Mosaic law.
    If there was more it would of been written in stone or there would been added in stone the whole Mosaic law.
    why would God take such an effort to make sure that Mosaic and Gods laws were separate. there was need for second set if what you are saying is true.If what you were saying was true than between each Commandment the punishment would of been added in stone. the Commandment included in mosaic had punishments with them because Israel had judges who need to know the punishment. Gods laws needed no such thing because God is the only Judge of them.
    The 10 commandment were giving separate because God knew there would come a time when the whole world which was not ruled by Israel would need them to live by and there was others it was spoken to by God who were not going to enter into the promise land to be under the judges.

    What was spoken by God to the people and then written TWICE with Gods own finger is THE NEW COVENANT with the promise of mercy to a thousand generations that Honor it.
    it never included the mosaic that was for the promise of the land for the seed of Jacob but Mosaic included the other Covenant by which mercy(salvation) is offered to all that take hold of it as a covenant(promise). this is why Jesus taught this Covenant over the Covenant of Israel. He followed it completely but didnt follow Israels(mosaic law) completely as he shows by breaking some of Mosaic that didnt correspond with Gods Commandments to the people. this is why it was put in the Ark and written in stone to be kept forever

  274. on 13 Jun 2009 at 10:03 amrobert

    there was(wasnt) need for second set if what you are saying is true

  275. on 13 Jun 2009 at 10:33 amrobert

    Isaiah speaks of Gods Covenant with the Promise of Salvation not possession of land
    there were 2 promises made ,the 10 commandments with the promise of salvation and the promise of possession of land which was never offered to a thousand generations.
    The children of israel recieved salvation by only one of the promises made. the promise of land never provided salvation only the land which they broke as a whole but the promise of salvation was for the individual which can only be broke by you

    Isaiah 56
    Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, [1] and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

    3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

  276. on 13 Jun 2009 at 11:41 amRay

    The 10 commandments written on stone were not the new covenant.

    The new covenant is the new testament in the blood of Jesus.

  277. on 13 Jun 2009 at 11:43 amrobert

    Jesus fufilled it

  278. on 13 Jun 2009 at 11:47 amRay

    To understand the writings of the scripture, we must become as the people who wrote them. The only way is through repentance,
    a gift of God, in the heart of them who’s souls have had the blood
    of Christ applied.

  279. on 13 Jun 2009 at 11:58 amrobert

    “To understand the writings of the scripture, we must become as the people who wrote them.”

    how can that be when they had to become the people that they spoke to so to get the message across.
    you have to become the people who they were speaking to so you can understand. they had to put it so they could relate to it which is what a good preacher does.

    Jesus fulfilled the promise of salvation offered in the 10 Commandments with His blood and gave us a better sin sacrafice if we failed them. all 10 are written in the minds and hearts giving by the Holy Spirit

  280. on 13 Jun 2009 at 12:26 pmRay

    Robert,
    You’re searching for knowledge in the wrong place. What you seek
    won’t be found in the word of God, for it must be found in the heart, and if it’s not there, it won’t be found anywhere else.

  281. on 13 Jun 2009 at 12:29 pmrobert

    Ray
    My heart is where it comes from, i just use the Word of God to prove and reprove it.

    but thank you for caring, but i already knew that

  282. on 13 Jun 2009 at 3:57 pmrobert

    we always look at the fact that Jesus was innocent of the charges brought against him and was executed by. but we never look at all the Prophets that died or suffered prosecution and punishment for speaking the word God commanded of them.
    why would they do this, there must of been a better promise made other than the posession of land for them to risk their life for.
    there was a better promise made by God which they did know about and also Jesus knew and came to Fulfill. this was the promise made by God in The 10 Commandments of mercy that by which salvation is giving. they had faith in this promise and in the One True God that made that Promise

  283. on 13 Jun 2009 at 7:35 pmRay

    May the Church always remember God’s prophets who were slandered, misjudged, ridiculed, mocked, stoned, and killed. They
    suffered for the deliverance of those who hated them. They looked
    into the future by faith, considering a time of greater promise and
    grace. Such promises came from them through their faith by the
    holy spirit of God, not by the ten commandments. For which of the
    ten commandments spoke of such mercy and the things that they
    did prophecy of?

    Those prophets were also known by their fruits, even their words
    of truth.

  284. on 13 Jun 2009 at 7:38 pmRay

    Jude 1:1-25 is a good scripture reading for today.

  285. on 13 Jun 2009 at 8:01 pmRay

    Some of the weaponry of the enemy will be exposed, jamed and
    destroyed. The spirit of religion has no power over the armory
    of God.

  286. on 13 Jun 2009 at 8:40 pmrobert

    Ray
    Nobody is saying it was by the 10, i am saying the promise of the New Covenant is the reward mentioned in the 10. the new Covenant existed at the time God promised Abraham the Blessing of the whole world. Jesus was the force that pushed that blessing to the 4 corners of the earth.
    the old also was promised to Abraham which he will recieve in the Kingdom for everlasting posession.

    “Some of the weaponry of the enemy will be exposed, jamed and
    destroyed. The spirit of religion has no power over the armory
    of God.”

    ?????????????????????????????????

  287. on 13 Jun 2009 at 8:49 pmrobert

    Jude 1:1-25 is a good scripture reading for today
    Its good reading for everyday,and a few others that warn you of wolfs in sheep clothing because there are many that will decieve you just for their own glory.

  288. on 13 Jun 2009 at 9:39 pmRay

    Robert,
    A man presumes too much when he expects the children of God to
    be following to the tune of a variegated piper. – Matthew 9:16.
    Some have seen that when a man honors the Word in one breath
    and then dishonors the word in the next, the problem lies in the heart, as the lips give service to be seen of men. The application of
    the blood of Jesus against the sin, through repentance, introduces
    the necessary grace to remove the effects of the fault wherein a
    man was taken.

  289. on 13 Jun 2009 at 9:41 pmrobert

    And you are addressing me with this for what reason

  290. on 13 Jun 2009 at 10:15 pmrobert

    “A man presumes too much when he expects the children of God to
    be following to the tune of a variegated piper. – Matthew 9:16.”
    ?????????????????????????

    14 Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not? 15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast. 16 No man putteth a piece of new [1] cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. 17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: [2] else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

  291. on 13 Jun 2009 at 11:46 pmRay

    Robert,
    The children of God understand.

  292. on 13 Jun 2009 at 11:51 pmRay

    The children of God understand the mysteries of the kingdom.
    It’s those who don’t depart from evil that don’t get it.

  293. on 14 Jun 2009 at 9:22 amrobert

    1.when the law is mentioned is it just mosaic being refered too or was their other nations that had laws based on traditions.
    2. was circumcision something exclusive to the seed of Jacob or was there other nations with that tradition too.
    3. was Holy days that only of the seed of Jacob or was there other nations that observed Holy days

    Mark wrote

    “Paul (and the writer of Hebrews if it wasn’t Paul) specifically contrasts the Old Covenant Law of Moses with the New Covenant ratified by Jesus. Before Moses the children of Abraham were circumcised. But after Moses delivered the Law, the only others besides the literal descendants of Israel who were required by law to be circumcised and observe the holy days were the “strangers” that dwelt among them, as we have discussed before.”

    Are you sure Mark

    Abraham had eight sons which only one is the father of Jacob, Isaac also had two sons.
    they all were taught to circumcise and to pass it on to all their seed.
    How many of those who Paul preached to was of these sons, they came from somewhere.

    Pagans had many holy days by which the names of the days came from, the observed months by which the names came from, the observed times by which the seasons came from, they observed years that didnt match what Paul taught.

    we also know that there was many civilized nations within the Roman occupation that had Laws , most Based on their Pagan Beliefs plus the Roman laws

  294. on 14 Jun 2009 at 10:34 amRay

    Robert,

    The ten commandments are not the new covenant. The ten commandments are not the new and better way than the old covenant was.

    Some people want to preach the ten commandments and other
    things out of the Bible, but until they come to repentance and
    finding the work of grace in their heart to abhor their sins and the
    deceitfulness of the desires that are in the heart of man, which causes them to leave the things of the flesh, they are not under
    the power of the new covenant, that it they are not yet covered
    by the redeeming power of the new testament in the blood of Jesus.

    Do you understand what I’m talking about?

    When the apostle Paul taught about sabbaths and holy days and the keeping of them, what Paul taught by the holy spirit of God that
    we read in his letters which are in the Bible, they apply to any so called ‘holy’ day by pagans, and also the days which are kept by the Jews who either are or were under the old testament law.

    There are times when he talked specificaly in reference to the days
    which Jews kept under the old testament law.

  295. on 14 Jun 2009 at 10:51 amRay

    Robert,
    It seems to me that the context in which Mark was writing about who the “strangers” were, was in answer to what
    someone was projecting about ”all nations of the earth”, as
    if all nations of the earth had people who came out of Egypt
    with Israel.

    Robert, do you believe Egypt was the only inhabited area of the
    earth at the time of the exodus, or that just prior to the exodus,
    all the other inhabitants of the earth came to Egypt like the Jews
    did on the day of Pentecost, and they each had people from their
    language and tribe, at least one, that went out with Israel?

  296. on 14 Jun 2009 at 11:04 amRay

    Some people it seems think they know Abraham and all of his sons.
    Maybe they could even name them by all of their names, but one thing they don’t seem to have is the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus at work in the heart to cleanse them of the deceitful things
    of the flesh.

    Deceiving spirits have no power over the truth of God.

    Genesis 18:19
    For I know him that he will command his sons and his household
    after him, that they keep the way of the Lord to do Righteousness,
    and Judgment,…..

    Emphasis by capitalization is mine.

  297. on 14 Jun 2009 at 11:06 amrobert

    “The ten commandments are not the new covenant.”

    Ray
    again i am not saying they were, i am saying there is only one salvation and it was spoke of to Abraham, to the people who heard God at the Mount and was preached in the testamony of Jesus.
    you think salvation came with the new covenant. Salvation has always been offered to all that walk with God and Jesus Never spoke of any thing other than that way. while in the old days the had the promise of salvation just as we do now. Salvation will be when we enter the Kingdom.

    ‘Do you understand what I’m talking about?”

    Do you understand what your talking about??

    Paul was not just refering to jews and jews ways .
    you have no idea who he was talking to or about till you research who these people were and what they already believed.
    as i pointed out the Word of God says circumcision was to be taught to all of Abrahams seed so now you need to do research to determine not go on a presumption. there were many laws so do research dont presume, there were many holy days so do research dont presume. we are to prove and reprove not presume.
    You think Paul was speaking to Us when he wasnt but if we understand who he was speaking to then we can use it for our understanding too.

    do not judge me because i dont presume and because i prove and reprove.this is how the blindness is removed, the heart is opened to recieve, the ears hear things by

  298. on 14 Jun 2009 at 11:26 amrobert

    Ray
    Egypt had many different people from many of nations that were slaves, they also probably had some that were not slaves. there were many nations other than Egypt when Joseph was sold into slavery and when the Egypt was brought to their knees by God. Many of people followed Moses out of Egypt to the Mount and Some were just Free to leave to Go back to their Nation. After the Commandments were Spoken there is nothing saying that these people joined themselfs to Israel and while the Children of Israel was being punished there was many that probably(you do understand probably) went back to their people. this is something we actually dont know but to presume that all joined themselfs to Israel is unfounded.

    the Prophets had only one promise of Salvation and knew of it by the Promise of it in the 10 Commandments just as other people who did not join themselfs to Israel, but did join themselfs to GOD.

  299. on 14 Jun 2009 at 11:27 amRay

    Robert,
    You were saying the ten commandments were the new covenant.

    I understand something of what you now say about salvation being
    offered to people of all times from Abraham onward. Even before
    Abraham the good news of salvation was offered. News of God’s
    healing and mercy was offered to Job by Elihu. It’ been around since creation and has been found in part by wise men around the
    world, to those such as fear the Lord and depart from evil, for the
    fear of the Lord is wisdom, and with wisdom comes deliverance from sin and it’s corruption when men will walk in it.

    Do you understand what I am saying?

    You say that I don’t know who Paul was talking about, and this I think in reference to when Paul was talking about the keeping of
    holy days, or days that were accounted as “holy” by even pagans.

    I don’t have to know who these people were. I don’t need to know
    where they came from, or if they were decendants of Abraham or
    not. Nobody needs to know in order to know that Paul told us that
    no holy days of any kind must be observed by anyone’s religion, whether it be of man, or by a Jew who is zealous for the keeping of
    the old testament laws, by those who are in the new covenant.

    Do you understand what I am talking about?

    As far as circumcision is concerned, Robert, none of us need to know about what sons or whover these people were to know that
    in the new covenant, neither circumcison or uncircumcision is anything, but what counts is a new creation within in us by the work of Christ.

    Do you understand what I am saying, Robert. Sooner or later we
    are going to come to some kind of understanding, or somebody’s
    sins are going to be laid out like an open sacrifice.

    I remember how brave was brave Talkative in The Pilgrim’s Progress, but it became to much for him to walk with Faithful and
    Christian.

  300. on 14 Jun 2009 at 12:04 pmrobert

    Robert,
    You were saying the ten commandments were the new covenant.

    No Ray
    What i was trying to say but must of not been clear was the PROMISE OF SALVATION in the 10 is the same PROMISE of the New Covenant. the New Covenant had many changes that was nessessary to The Blessing being pushed to the 4 corners of the earth. God wants the Whole earth to worship HIM and Israel was just the Beginning So God changed the old to included the whole earth.
    both Old or New Covenant are only the Covenant made by God with Abraham.

    “Nobody needs to know in order to know that Paul told us that
    no holy days of any kind must be observed by anyone’s religion, whether it be of man, or by a Jew who is zealous for the keeping of
    the old testament laws, by those who are in the new covenant”

    this is still yours and many others misunderstanding.he says nothing of that sort, he said let no man judge you by them which the sabbath keepers which Paul and all the others Taught to be, were being Judged by those of their own kind who had other days they worshipped their gods on.
    Paul held the Sabbath, taught on the Sabbath, And never instructed any who he taught to do any different, if he did he would of had them come back the next day, the day after that instead of having them comeback to be preached to on sabbath after sabbath. the Sabbath isnt just an holy day it is the Holy Day of God

  301. on 14 Jun 2009 at 2:36 pmRay

    I don’t believe the promise of salvation is the same in the ten commandments as it is in the new covenant.

    I believe the promise of salvation is much greater in the new testament which is in the blood of Jesus.

    The ten commandments in the law told a man what was expected of him under the law, in part. There was much more. Though the ten commandments were foundational, the first two concerning walking in love toward God out of a pure heart and of of walking with the same toward his neighbor, they were not telling of a promise
    of God that we see Jesus tell of which was in himself. We do not see the ten commandments tell of the promises the prophets revealed in part through their prophecies of old, nor do we see the
    same kind of promise revealed in the ten commandments as we do
    see revealed in Paul’s epistles to the Church.

    Where in the ten commandments Robert, do we see the
    giving of the holy spirit promised, the convicting of sin by the holy
    spirit, the comforting of the holy spirit, the directing of the holy spirit, the disclosing of secrets by the holy spirit, the sending us in
    God’s power unto the destination of God by the holy spirit, and the determination to send the things of Jesus to us by the holy spirit, and the permission to enter the kingdom of God itself by
    the leading of the holy spirit?

    Also, where in the ten commandments is the blood of Jesus revealed to us and the cleasing power thereof which is unto salvation revealed?

  302. on 14 Jun 2009 at 2:41 pmRay

    A man isn’t led into the doctrines you hold Robert, simply by himself and his Bible in, say, just 6 months or so.

    Have you had any formal religious instruction?

  303. on 14 Jun 2009 at 2:49 pmrobert

    Just the Holy Spirit Ray
    the same Holy Spirit that taught all that Walked with God

  304. on 14 Jun 2009 at 3:23 pmRay

    I take that to mean Robert that you have not been through any religious schooling, nor have any such certificates.

    No doubt that men who walked in love toward God and man received things of God, as they walked in the fear of the Lord, which was of the same God who gave the comforter to us who are
    in the new covenant.

    The fear of the Lord is the same wisdom we today should walk in
    as men of old. Christ is made that unto us who have received him.

    I for one do not see the promises that were given by God, revealed
    in the ten commandments. If they were there, they were hidden in
    a mystery which can not be searched out but by the spirit of God
    which he has given us.

    A natural man without the spirit of God may do his best to walk under the direction of God given by the ten commandments to do
    them. By doing his best, if he will not compromise the least bit, will
    find his utter depravity and weakness. Falling into despair, he will
    also see by other scriptures the judgment of God that awaits those
    who sin, and will be constrained by the grace of God to come to the
    cross of Jesus.

    Those men of old who found their condition to be as what it is for
    all humanity, suffered as we do for the sake of righteousness, who
    have indeed heard the message of Christ, his kingdom, and have
    believed.

    But to say that the promise of salvation in the ten commandments
    is the same promise of the new covenant, is a doctrine I do not necessarily agree with. I believe it may be something very misleading, unless a man makes a very good and very clear case of
    it, that leads one into the mysteries of Christ and the receiving of the holy spirit he came to give us and indeed did send.

    Unless a man can make a very clear expository of such a doctrine when asked to do so, or whenever he meets anyone who might stumble at it, he ought not to expect people to receive it, it seems to me. And I do think that I have the holy spirit also. (bearing witness)

  305. on 14 Jun 2009 at 7:07 pmrobert

    Ray
    I never asked for this, i was just pulled out of the field and didnt understand it myself for a long time till i opened the bible to find everything i was revealed there.I grew up in a Trinitarian church and never even understood what they were preaching. i left that church a few months after being baptised.and for 30 years i lived on my belief that there was one God and just believing in Jesus was enough untill about 5 months ago. before that i had revelations of technology that was way beyond my knowlege starting a year ago but with the revelation it wasnt to be for my gain. i am looking for Gods people and have been instructed how to identify them. so far i have found none with this identity but have found some close and all of the truth but not by one person but by many different people.
    while you feel that this is to reflect on you and others , You have nothing to do with my purpose here. you want the truth you need to find it yourself not be taught it, i am looking for someone who knows it already

  306. on 14 Jun 2009 at 7:30 pmRay

    Thank you Robert for sharing with us some of your testimony. I pray that you will become connected with people who will be able to make use of whatever revelations you receive that are of God
    that they be put to use for his purposes in Christ Jesus.

    I’ve heard testimony of men who have received such things from God and have made millions of dollars by it and also have been a great blessing to some companies, saving them many millions more
    in research, and so advancing the safety of millions of people who
    are in benefit of their inventions that were given to them by God.

    I suggest to you that you might want to get in contact with the
    Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship Of America.

    Search them out on the web and see if you can make it to some of
    their meetings and maybe get connected with one of their chapters. Their organization is really not an organization as much
    as it is a Fellowship. There’s a lot of worship and fellowship at their
    meetings. There should be many good connections that will happen
    as a result of business men getting together in the things of God,
    and I hope a lot of financial blessings also that will be used to further the gospel and help the poor.

    In every church meeting I have been at, though I could not receive
    all that was said, there was always something of God there for me,
    but I never felt that sitting in a church pew week after week to hear the same man was for me, though I might put up with it if
    the worship was good and the sermons were short. If they were
    long maybe I would stay if I knew it was under the anointing of God
    and that it was bringing me into the kingdom where his presence
    is.

    Please don’t expect others to see everything as you do. We ought
    to confront things that are stumblingblocks to others and see if we
    can get them cleared up for others to walk and not be hindered, as
    there certainly is a time to contend for the faith.

    May I never try to impose anything of mine on others. But if a thing
    is of God and is something they need, to stand against the wiles of
    the devil, or need to overcome, then I think it’s good to speak up and do our best that others may be their best for God.

  307. on 14 Jun 2009 at 7:46 pmrobert

    Thank you Ray for atleast trying to understand, these technolgies will replace the need for fossil fuel completely but thats still not what its all about , but full knowlege of what its for i havent recieved but know its for Gods people. time is very short but thats all i know. i am not looking for followers , i am looking for help but by only the people with that identity. May God help us if i dont find them

  308. on 14 Jun 2009 at 8:06 pmRay

    Robert,
    Anyone may have something very necessary in the body of Christ.
    So often it comes from God to the ones most rejected and misunderstood. Sometimes these people are in great distress
    being oppressed by all kinds of things spiritually.
    We all need each other. Let’s all remember to pray for one another.
    May God take all of us whosoever who are willing to be cut, shaped, ground, sanded, and polished for his work. May God perfect all of us by Jesus Christ.

  309. on 14 Jun 2009 at 10:09 pmRay

    There was a man named ByEnds who came from the town of Fairspeech. (The Pilgrim’s Progress) Now it was by the name of
    ByEnds that I seemed to come to understand that there was something of lesser value that was sought for by those who were
    on another course at times and this man ByEnds seemed to be of
    such character. Nearly all in his town were relatives of his. There was the honorable Mr. Turnabout, the honorable Mr. Timeserver,
    Mr. Facing Bothways, Mr. Anything, and the pastor Mr. Two Tongues, who was the mother’s own brother on her father’s side
    of Mr. ByEnds, who claimed to have become a gentleman of fine quality even though his great grandfather was only a boat oarsman, who made his living rowing one way and looking another,
    the same occupation through which Mr. ByEnds gained most of his
    estate.

    Mr. ByEnds fell back a bit on the way that Christian took, and fell into the company of three others on the same path, and they were
    Mr. Holdtheworld, Mr. Moneylove, and Mr. Saveall. These were men
    Mr. ByEnds had known before.

    There is no doubt so much reason to watch out as we set out,
    for we know not what will comeabout.

  310. on 15 Jun 2009 at 3:15 pmrobert

    this shows the 10 commandments seperate from the commandments ,and the statutes, and the judgments of Israel and proves that God said all he was going to say in his 10 commandments. the 10 was for the children of God , the rest for the children of Israel . they could be both or just children of God. so unless God is dead this is still for the children of God, and as for us being held by the commandments ,and the statutes, and the judgments of Israel to be called Gods people , it is totally false. there is no Israel for this to appy to at this time, but there are things within it that are just loving God but it your choice to do them as is doing the 10 Commandments but God giving you mercy is his choice if you dont take the conditional promise of mercy in the 10 commandments. remember that promise is set in stone

    Deuteronomy 5

    22 These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice:

    (and he added no more).

    And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

    23 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders; 24 And ye said, Behold, the Lord our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. 25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear [3] the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die. 26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? 27 Go thou near, and hear all that the Lord our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it. 28 And the Lord heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the Lord said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken. 29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and

    (keep all my commandments always),

    that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! 30 Go say to them, Get you into your tents again.

    (31 But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them,)

    that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.

  311. on 15 Jun 2009 at 5:15 pmrobert

    as you can see by reading there was 2 covenants made.
    one to be children of God, the other to be children of the nation of Israel.so said they could be both or just one.
    so this makes both pro and con on being held by mosaic law wrong because the con doesnt understand that is was mosaic that was replaced and the pro doesnt understand that in the NT its the 10 commandments alone that are Gods Commandments that would should do, Not those for Just Israel

    Deuteronomy 29
    These are the words of the covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.

  312. on 16 Jun 2009 at 4:18 amMark C.

    Let me get this straight. Are you saying that Deut. 29:1, when speaking of the covenant God told Moses to make in Moab is the “second” covenant, the “first” one being the one made in Horeb? And furthermore, are you saying that the “first” covenant in Horeb was “to be children of God” and the other was to be “children of the nation of Israel”? Are you therefore suggesting that the Ten Commandments were the “first” covenant at Horeb and the Mosaic Law was the “second” covenant at Moab?

  313. on 16 Jun 2009 at 7:00 amrobert

    Moses didnt give the commandments ,and the statutes, and the judgments of Israel at Horeb, the covenant at Horeb was to accept what God spoke which was the 10 commandments and they did which is the covenant at Horeb . because they took hold of Gods words Moses recieved the Laws with the commandments ,and the statutes, and the judgments for Israel for the covenant at Moab.

    “Are you therefore suggesting that the Ten Commandments were the “first” covenant at Horeb and the Mosaic Law was the “second” covenant at Moab?”

    are you asking if i believe the Word of God? then yes

  314. on 16 Jun 2009 at 7:06 amrobert

    And the First covenant is what Jesus came to established with the whole world and to ratify with his blood

  315. on 16 Jun 2009 at 8:21 amMark C.

    Moses didnt give the commandments ,and the statutes, and the judgments of Israel at Horeb, the covenant at Horeb was to accept what God spoke which was the 10 commandments and they did which is the covenant at Horeb .

    In the first place, that’s not what the Bible says. The words commandments, statutes, and ordinances are used interchangeably, and at various places refer to the Ten Commandments AND the Mosaic Law.

    In the second place, that’s beside the point of what I was asking. I was trying to make sure I understood you right, since you quoted Deut. 29:1. I wanted to clarify whether you were implying that the two covenants referred to in that verse (the covenant at Horeb and the covenant at Moab) were the “first” and “second” covenants you had referred to in your previous post.

    because they took hold of Gods words Moses recieved the Laws with the commandments ,and the statutes, and the judgments for Israel for the covenant at Moab.

    This again implies that you consider the covenant at Moab to be a second covenant. Is that correct?

    “Are you therefore suggesting that the Ten Commandments were the “first” covenant at Horeb and the Mosaic Law was the “second” covenant at Moab?”

    are you asking if i believe the Word of God? then yes

    No, I’m asking what I said I was asking.
    You also didn’t answer the second part:
    And furthermore, are you saying that the “first” covenant in Horeb was “to be children of God” and the other was to be “children of the nation of Israel”?

    And the First covenant is what Jesus came to established with the whole world and to ratify with his blood

    Then why is it called the “Old Covenant” which is “obsolete” and “ready to vanish away”?

  316. on 16 Jun 2009 at 8:30 amrobert

    It is because you dont know the difference between the 2 covenants. one was for individual and other for a nation.

    And yes i answered and the answer was yes to both.

    “In the first place, that’s not what the Bible says. The words commandments, statutes, and ordinances are used interchangeably, and at various places refer to the Ten Commandments AND the Mosaic Law.”

    there is nothing anywhere in the bible or any history that backs this.

    the second can refer to the 10 commandment because they were included in the condition of possessing the land, but the 10 can not be just mosaic because it is a separate covenant.
    so you are denying there was 2 covenants is what you are saying

  317. on 16 Jun 2009 at 8:38 amrobert

    Then why is it called the “Old Covenant” which is “obsolete” and “ready to vanish away”?

    that was the second which was made with just Israel, the new includes Israel and the whole world which is the same as the first. it was for everyone as it says in
    Isaiah 56
    Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, [1] and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

    3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

  318. on 16 Jun 2009 at 9:35 amMark C.

    It is because you dont know the difference between the 2 covenants. one was for individual and other for a nation.

    I understand the concept, but there is nothing in the Bible that says so.

    “In the first place, that’s not what the Bible says. The words commandments, statutes, and ordinances are used interchangeably, and at various places refer to the Ten Commandments AND the Mosaic Law.”

    there is nothing anywhere in the bible or any history that backs this.

    Any concordance will show otherwise.

    the second can refer to the 10 commandment because they were included in the condition of possessing the land, but the 10 can not be just mosaic because it is a separate covenant.

    Again, I understand the concept, but there is nothing in the Bible that says so.

    so you are denying there was 2 covenants is what you are saying

    No, I am denying your definition of “two covenants.”

    Then why is it called the “Old Covenant” which is “obsolete” and “ready to vanish away”?

    that was the second which was made with just Israel, the new includes Israel and the whole world which is the same as the first.

    The second covenant is the Old Covenant, and the first is the New?
    So the New Covenant is older than the Old Covenant?
    If the New Covenant were simply a re-establishment of the Old Covenant, Jesus would not have needed to shed his blood to ratify it. The New Covenant is a completely new one, made with better promises, better sacrifice, and a better, everlasting hope.

  319. on 16 Jun 2009 at 9:46 amMark C.

    I’m not sure why I’m going through all this again, but hopefully it will be the last time. I’ve made many of these same points before, but you tend to either ignore them or just contradict them with no proof. If you actually want to prove your position you will need to deal with ALL of these points. (Not because I am worth anything, but because they are points from the Scriptures.)

    1. Exodus 19 clearly identifies to whom the Ten Commandments were addressed.

    1 In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai.
    2 For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mount.
    3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
    4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself.
    5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
    6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

    Moses then called the elders together, and told them this promise, and they said “All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.” So God had Moses gather all the people together to hear the words of the covenant.

    2. Beginning in chapter 20, God spoke the words of the Ten Commandments to Israel. There is NOTHING that says anything about it being addressed to all nations, to the “children of God,” or to anyone but Israel. The only mention of any people that weren’t Israelites is the strangers or foreigners that lived among them, who were to observe the Sabbath ALONG WITH Israel, just as the strangers among them were to obeserve many other aspects of the Mosaic Law (see posts #96, 125, 176, 254). And no covenant was offered to the Gentiles (see post #129, which quotes Psalm 147:19-20).

    3. Exodus 20:11 says that God blessed the Sabbath day because he had rested the seventh day at creation. But there is NO MENTION of anyone being told to keep or observe the Sabbath before it was revealed to the children of Israel in the wilderness (see original article, and post #96).

    4. The people were afraid because of the thunder and lightning and smoke, and they told Moses that they couldn’t bear it, since no one could see God and live (Exod. 20:18ff). God said they were right in saying this (Deut. 5:28) so He proceded to give further words to Moses.

    5. Starting with Exodus 20:22, God gives further ordinances to Moses, telling him to set them before the people. There is NO INDICATION that it is a different covenant or a separate set of laws from the Ten Commandments (see point 15, below).

    6. In Exodus 24, Moses recounted to the people “all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances.” He then “wrote down all the words of the LORD,” and made sacrifices, sprinkling the blood on the book and on the people. This was the ratifying of the Covenant God made with Israel. ONLY AFTER THIS did God give Moses the stone tablets. And the tablets were called “…the stone tablets with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction.” The terms law and commandment are interchangeable and BOTH used to describe the stone tablets. There is no distinction between the two.

    7. Exodus 31 reiterates that the Sabbath is specifically a sign between God and the sons of Israel. (See post #96).

    8. God wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone, not because they were a separate covenant from the rest of the Mosaic Law, but as a “testimony,” according to Exod. 31:18. “And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.” There was no need for all of the Mosaic Law to be written on stone, which would have been unwieldy. But the Ten Commandments, as a summary of the Law, were written by God in stone, as a testimony that it was from God. As such a testimony, the tablets were given special treatment, being written by the finger of God. But all throughout the Bible, the Mosaic Law is never considered any less God’s Word than the Ten Commandments, nor are the Ten Commandments ever presented as a separate covenant from the Mosaic Law. (As for the stone tablets being in the Ark, see my remarks about it in the original article and in posts #65, 71, 75, 126, 168, and 176.)

    9. Exod 33:13 says, “Consider too, that this nation is Your people” showing there is no distinction between the nation and God’s People.

    10. The Ten Commandments were called the words of the covenant. Exodus 34:28 – “And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.”

    11. After Moses broke the stone tablets (when he came down the mountain and found the Israelites worshiping the golden calf), God rewrote the Ten Commandments on another set of stone tablets (Exod. 34); the same Ten He had written on the first set. Although He says “Behold, I am going to make a covenant” at this point, it is not a “new” covenant, but a re-establishing of the one He had made with them before, since they had already broken it with the golden calf. Exod. 34:32 – “And afterward all the sons of Israel came near, and he commanded them to do everything that the LORD had spoken to him on Mount Sinai.” There is no indication here, either, that the Ten Commandments were addressed to anyone but Israel (and the strangers that lived among them). See original article and posts #125, 176, etc.

    12. Deuteronomy 4 clearly demonstrates that the Ten Commandments were part of the covenant God made with Israel.
    5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.

    7 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

    The argument has been made that this is referring to the Mosaic Law which was the covenant made only with Israel, as opposed to the Ten Commandments which were for man in general. The following verses in the chapter say otherwise:

    10 Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.
    11 And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness.
    12 And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.
    13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
    14 And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.

    13. Searching out how the words covenant, commandment, statutes, and judgments are used clearly demonstrates that they are used interchangeably when referring to what was given to Israel on Mt. Sinai. There is no distinction anywhere between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Law.

    14. Deuteronomy 5 takes place 40 years later, and records Moses reiterating the Law to the younger generation of Israelites after wandering in the wilderness. He recounts the original giving of the Ten Commandments.

    1 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
    2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
    3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
    4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,
    5 (I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to shew you the word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;) saying,
    6 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
    7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
    8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
    9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
    10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
    11 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

    As in Exodus, there is no indication that the Ten Commandments were a different covenant or set of laws or commandments from the rest of the Mosaic Law.

    15. Deut. 5:12-15 clearly gives the whole purpose God had for Israel keeping the Sabbath.

    12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.
    13 Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:
    14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
    15 And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.

    The purpose was for them to remember God delivering them out of Egypt, which is what gave Israel its identity, throughout the Old Testament. That’s why it was specifically a sign of their unique covenant relationship with God, and not just a remembrance of God as the Creator. And again, the only mention of non-Israelites is the strangers among them that were to observe the Sabbath.

    16. Another “proof” offered that the Ten Commandments are a separate law or covenant from the Mosaic Law has been Deut. 5:22. “These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.” This is the KJV. Here are a few other versions:

    BBE – These words the Lord said to all of you together on the mountain, out of the heart of the fire, out of the cloud and the dark, with a great voice: and he said no more; he put them in writing on the two stones of the law and gave them to me.

    DOUAY – These words the Lord spoke to all the multitude of you in the mountain, out of the midst of the fire and the cloud, and the darkness, with a loud voice, adding nothing more: and he wrote them in two tables of stone, which he delivered unto me.

    GWV – These are the commandments the LORD spoke to your whole assembly on the mountain. He spoke in a loud voice from the fire, the cloud, and the gloomy darkness. Then he stopped speaking. He wrote the commandments on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

    JPS – These words the LORD spoke unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice, and it went on no more. And He wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them unto me.

    NLT – “The LORD spoke these words to all of you assembled there at the foot of the mountain. He spoke with a loud voice from the heart of the fire, surrounded by clouds and deep darkness. This was all he said at that time, and he wrote his words on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

    These are all legitimate variations which show, at the very least, that this verse cannot be used to prove that the Ten Commandments are a separate covenant, especially if it contradicts all the other evidence presented.

    17. Jesus quotes from laws both in and out of the Ten Commandments without giving any distinction.
    Matt. 19:
    16 And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?”
    17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
    18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;
    19 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”

    Mark 10:
    17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
    18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
    19 “You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’”

    Mark 7:
    9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
    10 “For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’;

    Moses is here credited with one of the Ten Commandments as well as the punishment for disobeying it, and there is NO DISTINCTION MADE. Both are called “the commandment of God” in verse 9.

    18. If you don’t believe me, here’s the link I provided before, to someone else who holds the same view:
    http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/moral.htm

    I wanted to put all these things together in one post so we don’t keep going around in circles. You can choose to ignore or contradict these points, but unless you handle each of them, you won’t be proving anything. And if your response is limited to assertions or contradictions with no proof, or focusing on one or two while ignoring the rest, you again won’t be proving anything. If nothing else, it has been beneficial to me to review the Scriptures and put these things together.

  320. on 16 Jun 2009 at 9:51 amrobert

    “No, I am denying your definition of “two covenants.” ”

    Deny all you want to, but its in black and white.

    Israel broke the second, but many recieved salvation by the first.
    Salvation Is Salvation and what greater salvation than is there than this.

    5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

    this isnt achieved by all of the things in the second, it is only by the first covenant which Israel and others made with God, the second covenant was just for possession of the land which they broke which included a more scrict version of the 10 but they entered into the second knowing that is was nessessary for them to stay a nation.
    your arguement supports the pro mosaic more than it does your view as pointed out by many. but they are wrong too

  321. on 16 Jun 2009 at 10:06 amrobert

    “Any concordance will show otherwise.”

    any concordances can show whatever view its want to support as most do. you know this.
    there is nothing devine or God inspired about mans opinion.

  322. on 16 Jun 2009 at 10:35 amMark C.

    Deny all you want to, but its in black and white.

    In the Old Testament, yes; spoken to those under the Law. But the news of the New Covenant is in black and white in the New Testament.

    Israel broke the second, but many recieved salvation by the first.

    Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

    any concordances can show whatever view its want to support as most do. you know this.
    there is nothing devine or God inspired about mans opinion.

    There’s no opinions involved when you use a concordance to look up where a word is used, and read it in its context. Have you done this with the words I referred to?

  323. on 16 Jun 2009 at 11:02 amMark C.

    Another example of getting confused by multiple arguments…

    You said, “so you are denying there was 2 covenants is what you are saying,” and I replied, “No, I am denying your definition of “two covenants.”

    You said, “Deny all you want to, but its in black and white,” to which I replied, “In the Old Testament, yes; spoken to those under the Law. But the news of the New Covenant is in black and white in the New Testament.”

    However that whole exchange missed the point of what I was saying. I was referring to the verse you quoted (from the Old Testament) but my main point should have been that neither that verse nor any other explicitly states that there were two covenants made at Sinai, “one for individuals and the other for a nation.”

    Post #319 is currently awaiting moderation (apparently because it has a link in it). When it clears, it will hopefully be my final installment of this endless argument.

  324. on 16 Jun 2009 at 2:23 pmrobert

    point 1
    we already established there was others
    so point is baseless

    point 2
    as you state there was others besides the people of Israel and you have no proof in this point they were to obey mosaic law. the people of Israel can be address without others. so point is baseless

    point 3

    God included His Sabbath in the promise of the10
    so again baseless

    point 4
    22 These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me
    and down thru 31 verse prove you wrong

    point 5
    all of the 10 commandments were spoken and not a single mosaic law had been given. verse 31 alone proves you wrong

    6
    12 And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them

    this say nothing of what you say, just that he had also written a law and other commandments besides the 10 that was written in stone. this we do see in verses prior.

    7
    it was a sign between God and Israel also

    8
    “But the Ten Commandments, as a summary of the Law, were written by God in stone, as a testimony that it was from God”
    Yes they were a summary for the Laws of Moses as it was shown they were included in mosaic law but For Israel only.
    For Israel only. the promise of mercy (you do understand mercy) for thousand generation was not just for Israel or nor could it be

    9.
    Isaiah 56 proves you wrong alone

    10
    “And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.”
    wow your right the 10 was the first covenant and they became Gods people. each and every one of them that took the promise, but not as a whole nation.

    11
    the promise of salvation by God was never broken because it wasn’t made to a whole nation it was made to an individual which they could only break themself. you don’t understand the promise of mercy was an covenant within itself to all that chose the conditions.

    12.
    they were held under both so yes as i have stated they were a part of the mosaic covenant.

    13
    as i said definitions are subject to who ever wrote them beliefs as are your opinions

    14
    40 years later than what ??????
    they were there why recount, there fathers died during the 40 years and wasn’t at the mount to hear God

    15 .
    there was a great reason for keeping it for Israel, they were held by it thru 2 covenants.

    16 baseless wasn’t a hard translation but there are some that change things for their own purpose.

    17 . well yes they both existed and since Jesus was a Israelite he knew both. but here you just shoot your mouth in the foot

    18 . wow someone else with your view, there are many with that view but that don’t prove nothing more than they have an opinion too, there are many who dispute your view but don’t have a true view either.
    there are very few with my view i will admitted but was it not prophesied that way

  325. on 16 Jun 2009 at 3:20 pmrobert

    sa far as you having faith in a concordance explain how the Cross of christ was a definition for the greek word stauros before Jesus was executed in Matt 10:38.And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me

    If Jesus spoke about a cross here the disciples would of thought he was crazy but they never question this as they did other things. this has nothing to do with what he died on it means walking stick, staff, rod or wood.
    this was done to back a tradition not the truth because Stauros means a wood beam which Jesus was bound to during transport by the Guards, Not a cross as your concordance states.
    they wanted to sell books and going against tradition wouldnt sell them. a lot of the deceptions are based on lies of the translator which in 4th century would of costed you your life to go against tradition and did many

  326. on 16 Jun 2009 at 4:36 pmrobert

    4. The people were afraid because of the thunder and lightning and smoke, and they told Moses that they couldn’t bear it, since no one could see God and live (Exod. 20:18ff). God said they were right in saying this (Deut. 5:28) so He proceded to give further words to Moses.

    god said they spoke well when they said and we will hear it, and do it..

    27 Go thou near, and hear all that the Lord our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it. 28 And the Lord heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the Lord said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.

    not about no one could (see) ( did you mean hear?) God and live , they no longer feared that because they didnt die

    24 And ye said, Behold, the Lord our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. 25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear [3] the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die. 26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?

    this i left too unclear. what was the point of making this point? should of been all i put
    14
    40 years later than what ??????
    they were there why recount, there fathers died during the 40 years and wasn’t at the mount to hear God(????????????????)

  327. on 16 Jun 2009 at 5:27 pmMark C.

    Amazing! You completely missed the point of nearly everything I said. You even missed the point of things I have explained more than once. And what you didn’t miss you once again flatly contradicted with no basis. You didn’t even grasp the simple sentence about concordances and how to use them (see post #322). I should have known I’d be wasting my time. Bye.

  328. on 16 Jun 2009 at 5:45 pmrobert

    i would of caught a point if they existed, cant miss something that never existed in reality.

    You didn’t even grasp the simple sentence about concordances and how to use them (see post #322). I should have known I’d be wasting my time. Bye.

    your not qualified to teach me or anyone else anything.might be good for a campfire story.

  329. on 16 Jun 2009 at 6:02 pmrobert

    as i said before we are oil and water, we will never see eye to eye.
    i know the truth, dont need you to try to explain it or deny it.
    while i have learn alot thru our discussions , none of what i have learn came from you, it came from me searching deeper.
    I thank you for this

  330. on 17 Jun 2009 at 7:13 amrobert

    this is the covenant Israel Broke
    and as you see it was a curse of the law
    made 40 years later then the 10
    was establishing a people (Nation)unto(under) Himself(God)
    the one a Horeb was to establish people not a nation and can never been broken by a whole only by an individual. as long as at least one person keeps it , it will remain forever.
    the first one is what the new covenant is built on, the second was replaced or abolished.
    the great covenant (10 commandments) is an open covenant to all for forever( thousand generations) or which ever come first

    Deuteronomy 29
    29These are the words of the covenant,
    which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab,

    beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.

    2 And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; 3 The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: 4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. 5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. 6 Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the Lord your God. 7 And when ye came unto this place, Sihon the king of Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, came out against us unto battle, and we smote them: 8 And we took their land, and gave it for an inheritance unto the Reubenites, and to the Gadites, and to the half tribe of Manasseh.

    9 Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do.

    10 Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, 11 Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water:
    12 That thou shouldest enter [1] into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day:
    13 That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

    14 Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath;

    15 But with him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day:
    16 (For ye know how we have dwelt in the land of Egypt; and how we came through the nations which ye passed by; 17 And ye have seen their abominations, and their idols, [2] wood and stone, silver and gold, which were among them:) 18 Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the Lord our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall [3] and wormwood; 19 And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination [4] of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst: 20 The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven. 21 And the Lord shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the
    curses
    of the covenant
    that are written in this
    book of the law

  331. on 17 Jun 2009 at 5:30 pmrobert

    seems Daniel thinks Jesus is to confirm the covenant

    Daniel 9
    27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

    Lets see what covenant that would be

    4 And I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

    just 23 verses up in same chapter

    well their is no doubt it wasnt the mosaic, cause that Jesus did remove, abolished and replaced by removing the curse of the law,by being a perfectly spotless lamb, and becoming the head (the one and only High priest)of the body of Christ(which should be us)

    the Promise (Covenant) of Mercy is what Jesus came To Confirm and did for all that have faith that he did

  332. on 17 Jun 2009 at 6:14 pmrobert

    If you think that i am going to believe that to recieve salvation in the old testament you had to do all the laws of moses you would be totally wrong.
    Salvation was never offer to a multitude it was offered to a person. a nation was promised to a multitude which Israel Broke that promise

    Psalm 89:34
    My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
    Psalm 105:8
    He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
    Psalm 106:45
    And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies
    Nehemiah 1:5
    And said, I beseech thee, O Lord God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:
    1 Chronicles 16:15
    Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;

  333. on 17 Jun 2009 at 9:57 pmRay

    It seems to me that God gave the ten commandments to the nation of Israel, and that they all applied to individuals also.

    It seems to me that an individual who lived at the time of Moses
    and who was of Israel and walked with Israel, being under the ten commandments could have been a ‘child of God’ if he were to fully
    walk in all the ten commandments.

    It seems to me that such a one could be a ‘child of God’ by walking
    in the first one, since he who dwells in love dwells in God, and God
    in him, but for an Israelite under Moses this meant he would have
    to fullfull the whole law of Moses not just the ten commandments,
    for if he were to violate any of the many commandments which were not one of the ten, he would have been in violation of the first one.

    To break one commandment is to be in violation of the whole thing.
    Under the old covenant they didn’t have the freedom to choose to
    do the ten but not the others. If they were to simply try to be a
    ‘child of God’ by doing the ten and not the others, and ‘trust’ in the
    mercy of God, they would have died in the wilderness, as a sinner,
    a ‘child of the devil’.

    The man who was stoned for gathering sticks on the sabbath
    still testifies today that God put a great difference between people
    under the law and people today.

    Do we have the same judgment of God waiting for us if we gather
    sticks on the same day of the week? Has God set to his seal and
    determined to send the same judgment to us for gathering sticks
    on that same day of the week?

    Clealy the answer is NO, and anyone teaching that anyone today
    who wants to be a ‘child of God’ must keep all the ten commandments as those who were under them at the time of Moses is teaching wrong and needs to repent.

    If anyone is teaching that men could keep just the ten and not the
    rest of the commandments while they were under Moses, that is wrong teaching.

    To violate any one of any of the commandments under the law was
    to violate the first and greatest commandment and the punishment
    could be death depending on the violation.

    There were not some commandments to be ‘children of God’ and
    some to be ‘children of Israel’. It doesn’t work that way. God isn’t
    a murderer who kills his own for being children of his does he? He
    may at times see that one of his is killed for his sin and disobedience. The scriptures teach that he that sinneth is of the devil.

    All this confussion comes about by men making up their own doctrines. It causes divison. It’s not of God.

    Why do men do that? Maybe their great grandfather was a boat oarsman and so today they earn their gain by the same kind of
    craft. (looking in one direction while rowing in another) Maybe it’s
    a generational sin that can only be cleansed by repentance and the application of God’s grace that comes with it, in the blood of
    Jesus, through faith in the new covenant.

  334. on 17 Jun 2009 at 10:41 pmrobert

    “but for an Israelite under Moses this meant he would have
    to fullfull the whole law of Moses not just the ten commandments,”

    yes Ray but only to be a citizen of the nation of Israel, Moses gave no commandments that provided for salvation, God gave them from his own lips to the people. an Israelite could break the laws of Moses as long as they kept the laws of God for just salvation, but lost their right to be a child of Israel.

    If you followed the standards of the 10 commandments not the standards of mosaic law(the curse) then God would Give mercy(salvation) and to every man,women and child not matter if you were white,black,brown,yellow,red or of any race combined. there is neither greek or jew to God. and he promised this for a thousand generations(forever) with Jesus sitting in the mercy seat when we enter the kingdom of God, when this promise was made Jesus was the future of the mercy as long as he came sometime before the Kingdom which he has done once and will again. Jesus is how all people who walk with God recieve that mercy. what a perfect plan

  335. on 17 Jun 2009 at 11:01 pmrobert

    the lesson for Israel was to look for the things from above more than the things of the earth.they chose the earthly and forsaked the things from above.
    this is why they became not his people and Jesus came to redeem all Israel and gather others unto God

  336. on 18 Jun 2009 at 12:03 amRay

    I can’t imagine an Israelite under Moses saying, “I can break the laws of Moses as long as I keep the laws of God for just salvation.
    I’ll just loose my right to be a child of Israel.”

    …unless the ground underneath him gave way and swallowed him
    up, or unless stones started raining down on him, or unless he found a sudden incurable disease or something.

    But Robert, I’ll play your silly game. I can pretend I’m a citizen of the town of Fairspeech.

    “Hello dear friend. Are you on your way to the eternal city of glory?
    That’s where I’m headed. Did you know that you don’t have to keep the ten commandments to be a child of God? That’s right.
    Most people are deceived, but with the knowledge I have they can
    have liberty. But first they have to throw off their own preconceived
    ideas and superstitions. You see, all they really have to do is just
    one thing, just one commandment and they will be saved. They can
    forget all the rest, for they were meant for some other group of people, all of which may fellowship together with God, but one need not be of their company to be saved. All they have to do is
    this one commandment which I will show them. You see all that is
    really necessary for salvation is a shovel. That’s all a person needs to be saved.

    A shovel you ask? Why you may borrow one if you can’t afford to buy one for yourself, but a shovel indeed is all that’s necessary to
    become a child of God, and you can forget all the rest, you can be
    on your own, or find all those who agree with you once you learn the secret to salvation by a shovel.

    Here’s how it goes, and I’m sure you can check with scripture for
    yourself to prove that it’s so.

    First you dig a hole in the ground. Then you cover it with some plywood, but make sure it’s very sound so that no one falls in.
    That way, you keep that command that you can find in the scripture
    and also therefore be found to be loving God. You also will have
    been found to be loving your neighbor and thus be fulfilling all of the law and prophets.

    Do that and you will find out that to love God and your neighbor is
    all you need for salvation, and remember all you needed was a shovel and that one command which you can find in the scriptures.

    And if you get thrown out of church for teaching men this and not being satisfied if they do not agree with your new theology, then
    you just don’t need to be of them. They probably have some sort
    of religious spirit anyway, being self-righteous as they are. And we
    all know that no one can please God that way.

    And so if you will excuse me, I must join my friends from Fairspeech
    such as Mr. Talk Anything, Mr. My Own Way, and the others of that
    good town.

  337. on 18 Jun 2009 at 12:27 amRay

    ..And then you have to trust God to provide the plywood, so that’s
    the faith part. So there, and if anyone doesn’t agree with me on this, well, they’re just not getting into the stadium.

  338. on 18 Jun 2009 at 7:09 amrobert

    Well Ray you missed your calling, if you make a CD or ever go on stage let me know.

    they recieved the 10 commandments which had the Holy Covenant for the blessing promised to Abraham. the blessing was Salvation to all that believe and have faith that they would recieve the promise of Salvation if they loved God and followed the Commandments.
    this had nothing to do with recieving the land, this is the promise of the Kingdom Of God

    while they were in the wilderness they only had the(first covenant) promise of being led to the land. they havent recieved the laws but had recieved some regulations and God tested them individually for 40 years. the second covenant was made for the promise of the land to Abraham.

    your right an Israelite would be loyal to his country and God. but the loyality was only nessesary to God for the Promise of Salvation that is in the 10 commandments.

    so Ray if you think this a game, play on

  339. on 18 Jun 2009 at 10:30 amRay

    Robert,
    Keeping the ten commandments had everything to do with them
    entering the land. They were not allowed to enter because they
    violated some of the ten commandments, and in fact their actions
    by doing so was contrary to them all.

    You say, ….”they received the ten commandments which had the
    Holy Covenant for the blessing promised to Abraham. The blessing
    was Salvation…………..this had nothing to do with the land,…”

    Yet the promises given to Abraham included the land on this earth,
    the very land God showed him and that he walked through, the
    very same land that they were not allowed to enter because of their violaton to some of the ten commandments, if not all.

    Explain yourself Robert.

  340. on 18 Jun 2009 at 11:07 amRay

    Robert,

    What about people who say, the ten commandments did not contain the promise of eternal life, (salvation) without the sacrifice
    (Jesus) which was contained in a shadow of the other parts of the
    law given to Moses?

    Are they right or wrong in that?

  341. on 18 Jun 2009 at 4:10 pmrobert

    Ray
    the people of Israel had to obey the 10 commandments way beyond what God had Commanded because the mosaic law was based on all 10 plus some things that didnt have to do with the 10. this was only for the promise of land, God also Gave Abraham a promise of a blessing which was the 10 which when Jesus came would be Fulfilled, Jesus Didnt Fulfil the Mosaic by which if you broke you could be put to death, Jesus fulfilled the one(10 commandments) that if you kept you could recieve life from.

  342. on 18 Jun 2009 at 4:32 pmrobert

    Lets say i was creating my own country,I would need laws so if i wanted to base the laws of my new country on the 10 .
    I would have punishments for breaking each one with some maybe carrying a death sentence.
    this would not make my laws the 10 commandments just because i used everyone of them in my laws.
    The 10 Spoken to the people Commandments Did not have a punishment for not doing them, they had a reward, a promise of mercy, a promise of salvation for loving God and Obeying His 10 Commandments.

    “What about people who say, the ten commandments did not contain the promise of eternal life, (salvation) without the sacrifice
    (Jesus) which was contained in a shadow of the other parts of the
    law given to Moses”

    From the time of Adam God had set forth a plan, it would cover 6 thousand years to the rule of Jesus. as shown in Isaiah 56 we see that the promise of Salvation is offered by God. Salvation is when Jesus who God sat in the mercy seat to resurect us from our death. so you see it doesnt matter when the promise was offered it matters that Jesus Fulfilled his right to be the greatest in the kingdom. God can make a promise whenever he wants too and doesnt require you agreeing on it before .

    salvation is not staying a nation, its being not held by death

  343. on 18 Jun 2009 at 5:16 pmRay

    Rolbert,
    I can understand that if you were creating for yourself a country
    that you could make laws and base them on your own ten commandments, and determine that your ten commandments are not your laws. That I can understand.

    I just don’t believe God did it that way.

    I think you are creating your own country for yourself.

    I believe the ten commandments were a part of God’s law.

    You seem to be saying that there was no punishments for breaking
    any of the ten commandments. Were there any consequences that
    might cause stoning and death by breaking any of them, such as
    being caught in adultry?

  344. on 18 Jun 2009 at 5:20 pmRay

    Robert,
    Please forgive me for the typo in your name which you see in my
    previous post. I clicked before I caught the error.

  345. on 18 Jun 2009 at 5:30 pmRay

    John 8:4,5
    They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
    Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned:
    but what sayest thou?

    Was the reson that Jesus did not stone her, that she only broke one of the ten commandments and therefore there was no punishment, and were the elders convicted of sin in their hearts
    knowing that they had brought to Jesus one who had only violated
    one of the ten Commandments, and not one of the laws, and therfore they had sinned in bringing her to Jesus for such punishment, is that it?

  346. on 18 Jun 2009 at 5:42 pmRay

    The woman in question in John 8:4,5 did not violate the law that
    said one who commited adultery should be put to death (such as
    in Leviticus 20:10) for she simply violated one of the ten commandments that said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” for which you say there was no punishment, Robert.

  347. on 18 Jun 2009 at 6:05 pmrobert

    Ray show where she violated the 10 commandments, as i said there is no punishment within the 10 commandments. you are confused with mosaic law which USED the 10 commandments as a basis for the law and added punishments.

    Exodus 20
    And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [1] 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. 13 Thou shalt not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Thou shalt not steal. 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

    Deuteronomy 5
    6 I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. [2] 7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me. 8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: 9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, 10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. 11 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. 13 Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: 14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. 15 And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. 16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. 17 Thou shalt not kill. 18 Neither shalt thou commit adultery. 19 Neither shalt thou steal. 20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. 21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s. 22 These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

    Now stop right here, a recount of the Holy covenant. do you see any punishment and do you see where he added no more words to it.
    Deuteronomy 5
    23 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders; 24 And ye said, Behold, the Lord our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. 25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear [3] the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die. 26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? 27 Go thou near, and hear all that the Lord our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it. 28 And the Lord heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the Lord said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken. 29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever.

    Now this shows you that God Did stop right there with the Holy covenant
    Deuteronomy 5
    30 Go say to them, Get you into your tents again. 31 But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.

    No Here Comes the start of mosaic laws, but the rest would not come for another 40 years when they make what is called the old covenant at Moab
    Deuteronomy 29
    29These are the words of the covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. 2 And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; 3 The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: 4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. 5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. 6 Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the Lord your God. 7 And when ye came unto this place, Sihon the king of Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, came out against us unto battle, and we smote them: 8 And we took their land, and gave it for an inheritance unto the Reubenites, and to the Gadites, and to the half tribe of Manasseh. 9 Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do.

    10 Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, 11 Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: 12 That thou shouldest enter [1] into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day: 13 That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. 14 Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath; 15 But with him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day:

  348. on 18 Jun 2009 at 6:33 pmrobert

    Ray
    Do you believe Daniel was a prophet of God.
    here he is speaking of Jesus Confrming the Covenant and 23 verse before defines that Covenant

    Daniel 9
    27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

    Lets see what covenant that would be

    4 And I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

    just 23 verses up in same chapter

    the second is the proper translation in exodus 20
    and below is where is shows it was a covenant by itself.
    a promise of salvation forever which will come by Jesus

    6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments

    6but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

    the Promise (Covenant) of Mercy is what Jesus came To Confirm and did for all that have faith that he did

    Salvation was never offer to a multitude it was offered to a person. a nation was promised to a multitude which Israel Broke that promise

    Psalm 89:34
    My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
    Psalm 105:8
    He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
    Psalm 106:45
    And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies
    Nehemiah 1:5
    And said, I beseech thee, O Lord God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:
    1 Chronicles 16:15
    Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;

  349. on 18 Jun 2009 at 6:48 pmRay

    Robert,
    Do you really believe I need to show you where the woman caught
    in adultery violated the ten commandments?

    Why do you ask me to show you?

    She violated one of the ten commandments and was worthy of death because of that, yet Jesus saved her as he was becoming
    the sacrifice for her sins, and not her sins alone, but also that of
    the whole world.

    I don’t understand when you say there was no punishments for
    violating the ten commandments. You say there was only blessing
    for keeping them, but that’s neither what I see in the scriptures
    now what I have seen in life.

    There is always punishment for breaking the ten commandments
    when they are in effect by God over one isn’t there? Doesn’t every
    act of sin that is against what God has commanded receive a punishment unless there is an atonement? And even though there
    is an atonement there still may be serious consequences. Isn’t that
    so?

  350. on 18 Jun 2009 at 6:56 pmrobert

    does the curse mentioned remind you of anything in the NT,
    keep in mind this covenant is made 40 years after the 10 commandments covenant

    Deuteronomy 29
    19 And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination [4] of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst: 20 The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven. 21 And the Lord shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law: 22 So that the generation to come of your children that shall rise up after you, and the stranger that shall come from a far land, shall say, when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses which the Lord hath laid upon it; 23 And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the Lord overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath: 24 Even all nations shall say, Wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this land? what meaneth the heat of this great anger? 25 Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the land of Egypt: 26 For they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given unto them: 27 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book: 28 And the Lord rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day. 29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

  351. on 18 Jun 2009 at 6:56 pmRay

    Salvation is a promise to everyone not just a person as you say
    Robert, and a nation was promised to Abraham and he was one man, though you say a nation was promised to a multitude.

    God’s promise of salvation is to everyone by faith in Jesus Christ,
    not just to one person as you say, Robert, and God’s promise of a
    nation was to Abraham and he is one man.

  352. on 18 Jun 2009 at 6:59 pmrobert

    Ray Stoning is not a punishment ever mention in the 10 Commandments.
    IT IS ONLY MENTIONED IN MOSAIC LAW.
    NOt recieving SALVATION would be the worst punishment a man could recieve and only God has that right

  353. on 18 Jun 2009 at 7:03 pmrobert

    Salvation is a promise to everyone not just a person as you say

    so your saying that if we all dont get salvation then nobody does.

    RAY a person means an individual, mosaic laws was for a whole nation to stay a whole nation. the laws that moses wrote punished a person for adultery by stoning. God punishes you by not granting you Salvation

  354. on 18 Jun 2009 at 7:11 pmrobert

    Ray what was the punishment for adultery according to Jesus

  355. on 18 Jun 2009 at 7:51 pmRay

    Robert,
    The punishment for adultery according to Jesus seemed to be
    death, from which Jesus delivered her, being made the sacrifice
    for her sins. This death may even be worse than being stoned to
    death, for it may be spiritual death, a far worse thing.

    Robert, when I say that salvation is a promise of God to everyone
    who believes in Jesus, I am not saying that if we don’t get salvation
    then nobody goes. I don’t know how you get that interpretation by
    what I have said.

    Is your hearing OK? Have you had it spiritually tested recently?

  356. on 18 Jun 2009 at 7:59 pmRay

    By mistake I left out one word from what you were suggesting I
    was saying, Robert.

    I wrote, “..if we don’t get salvation then nobody goes.” and I should have wrote, “..if we don’t all get salvation then nobody goes”

    I did not include the word “all” which I should have done.

    I do not believe anyone’s salvation depends on whether or not all
    will be saved. I don’t know how you or anyone could come up with
    such an idea. I certainly don’t believe that idea. It’s a crazy one for
    sure.

    How could you have misunderstood me in that? Please explain. It
    may be that I need to communicate more clearly and that you can
    show me how. Or, is it that you only like to try to trip people up,
    rather than help them get to the heavenly city of eternal glory, power, life and peace?

    Robert, is your interest in becoming a help to Christians or being
    a stumblingblock?

  357. on 18 Jun 2009 at 8:02 pmrobert

    “Salvation is a promise to everyone not just a person as you say”

    it was your words, salvation is an individual thing.

    “Is your hearing OK? Have you had it spiritually tested recently?”

    why should you make a comment like that, i havent seen that side of you that insults

  358. on 18 Jun 2009 at 8:11 pmrobert

    “The punishment for adultery according to Jesus seemed to be
    death”

    No ray its not entering the Kingdom of God.

    “Robert, is your interest in becoming a help to Christians or being
    a stumblingblock? ”

    if you think the truth is a stumbling block, then to you a stumbling block i will be.
    most christian need a ladder to overcome their stumbling block

  359. on 18 Jun 2009 at 11:57 pmRay

    Robert,
    Though the judgment of God for adultery may very well be that one
    may not enter the kingdom of God, it also may very well be spiritual
    death, a thing worse than physical death.

    Many people today and also during the time when the old covenant
    was in effect have not seen adverse judgment for sins such as adultery, but the severity of sin, if it is not cleansed through repentance and the work of grace by faith in the Lord Jesus and the new testament in his blood, most certainly will be that they will
    not enter the heavenly city which we read about at the end of the
    Book. It also may include a spiritual death in this life. It may also include a physical death in this world also.

    God is patient with us in forebearing our sins that we have done,
    but there does come a time when his judgment will be seen and
    the severity of it should cause us to be very very careful in our walk
    through this world. His judgment can be as severe as his wrath, and we can see his wrath by some things he has done in this world
    such as what happened to Sodem and Gomorrah.

    When I spoke of a stumbling block Robert, I wasn’t refering to the
    truth. You are not the truth. Jesus is.

    You say that death is not a judgment of God against adultery. It
    is not entering the kingdom of God. Can a man live forever without
    entering the kingdom of God, and if so, in what condition is he then
    in?

    Sometimes death is the judgment of God against adultery as we
    have seen by the scriptures that speak of what was to be done
    to those who violated one of the ten commandments against adultery.

    Robert, did you ever decide if violation of any of the ten commandments could mean death, or was it that there was no penalty for breaking those? Did you ever decide on that matter?
    Tell us what you decided.

    I believe the penalty was death at times for breaking the ten commandments, any of them. Sin always brings forth death in some form. Sometimes it was physical death.

  360. on 19 Jun 2009 at 7:29 amrobert

    Ray
    Not entering the Kingdom is death of your spirit before death of your flesh.Not recieving mercy is not entering the Kingdom. but as far as a punishment of the flesh the 10 commandments and the testamony of Jesus recieves the truth from his relationship with God just as we can also recieve the truth by forming a relationship with God thru Jesus and the morals of Jesus which was the 10 Commandments and by doing the things Jesus did that pleased God.
    as i said several times not recieving salvation is the worst punishment because it involves the death of spirit and the death of the flesh. while Mosaic could be credited for death of the flesh, God is the only one that could cause the death of the spirit. Jesus spent Most of his time preaching this, while it was a reward ,it is a punishment if you dont recieve it.

    Look to the things that have rewards of above, not the things of the earth because Satan rewards things of the earth and Jesus teaches us to give it all away

    Ray there have been many of cultures that executed people for breaking the 10 but Israel was the only nation that God allowed a punishment but that was only to be nation which even at Jesus’s time had already been abolished. Only some of the people of Israel existed in that area and the laws enforcement was that of the Romans , so that means they needed permission to even punish anyone for breaking they laws of moses

  361. on 19 Jun 2009 at 8:56 amRay

    Robert,
    I don’t understand what you’re saying about Israel was the only
    nation that God allowed a punishment but that was only to be a
    nation.

    I don’t seem to follow what you’re saying. Could you explain that?

  362. on 19 Jun 2009 at 6:37 pmrobert

    Ray
    I am not sure i am the right person to help you understand.
    what i am saying is there was many nation the adopted simular laws to mosaic laws. they would stone an adulterer.

    I am doing to try to not be so confusing and try to share what i am saying.

    God made covenants with Abraham, one a blessing and the other of possession of land. Circumcision was only a sign.
    God started the promise of the blessing when He spoke the 10 Commandments directly to the people. this blessing was for a future possession including the whole world which is the Kingdom of God in which His seed(Jesus) would rule it forever.
    This is a much greater possesion than that of just Israel.
    Now after God gave His 10 commandment to the people He then gave commandments,statutes, laws and ordinances for the possession of OT Israel by which they could be governed by much like our constitution here in the USA. these were very scrict laws that was to govern a very stiff neck people So if they really wanted to be a nation they would have to do the law which was also called the curse of the law. God knew they would fail and stated that a few times even before they entered Israel, But by Israel failing he could show them a better promise that was for a possesion of a much better land which is what is meant by Mercy for a thousand generations to all that love God and Do his Commandments. there were no other commandments at the time God spoke than the 10 commandments, mosaic laws had not been given to Moses yet. Jesus came to Confirm the 10 Commandments covenant and to abolish all laws that were based on them that allowed man to be Judge and executioner, to become the sacrafice and the High priest of the cerimonial system and that if a man walked with God he would be accounted for a for better life than that of the flesh by God raising Him from the dead so we can see that God can Do that for us too. I have never taken away from what Jesus did by his death for our forgiveness of sins , i just give credit were credit is due by believing that without God, Jesus would of stayed dead
    and would of just been a great teacher of a good way of life to live. Jesus became our King of the Kingdom by Doing everything God ( not man) ever commanded for a child of God to Do.

    If this doesnt explain it than you need to just research it with an open mind yourself

  

Leave a Reply