| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Jul 2015 : 00:32:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by lostandfound
quote:
Originally posted by Bondservant
Just a thought since usury came up... 'forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors' seems to tie in as well.
Summed up by the Christ as "turn the other Cheek" ?
I am a bit sensitive on this subject, for reasons that will become obvious as this discussion progresses.
For now it will suffice to say that the word "debt" and the concept of forgiveness of debt is an incredibly precise description of a particular commercial state and a potential remedy for that state.
This gets lost in the modern church who equate it with:
"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us", and
"Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us."
Even though Matthew uses "debts" and Luke uses "trespasses", every Christian you will ever discuss this with will tell you that these are merely synonyms for "Sins". Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, this flagrant lie, that ALL Christians believe with their whole heart, is probably the single greatest reason why none of them understand the New Covenant! They read a faithful translation of the exact words of Christ, and their mind immediately changes the plain meaning of the words into another meaning that Christ never intended.
So it is in light of this problem that I wish to object to the notion of equating these words with any other words from Scripture. It is similar to saying that we can remove the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" because it is already covered by the commandment, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife". While there is nothing inherently wrong with such a statement, it is obviously crucial that we understand the bottom line commandment and not only the issues surrounding it.
On a related note, have any of you read "The Kingdom of God is Within You" by Leo Tolstoy (of "War and Peace" fame)? It is an excellent and thought provoking book, and it can be downloaded for free as a pdf or a Kindle ebook.
In that book Tolstoy makes exactly this mistake. He discusses principles from the Sermon on the Mount as the highest teachings of Christ. He then comes to "Do not return evil for evil" (turn the other cheek) as the highest of these principles. He then discusses numerous corollary issues, including some related to money, and yet never once sees how "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" ties in with them all.
His book was revolutionary for its time. And yet it falls short of adequately explaining the New Covenant. I suspect that this is the main reason it was roundly dismissed by all of Christendom, who then fulfilled his prophetic words only a few years later by killing millions of their fellow Christians in World War I.
The time is short. We cannot afford to get this wrong again.
Honi soit qui mal y pense |
 |
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2015 : 15:10:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caleb
You are getting way ahead of us Bondservant.
It is very true that if everyone forgave all debts, as this seems to imply, that there would be no payment of Usury due either. In fact, without debt there can be no Usury, and so any rules governing Usury would be superfluous in a scenario where debt was impossible. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Honi soit qui mal y pense
And what you stated is exactly why I brought it up. But I agree... I leapt ahead of the current discussion and, perhaps, we should have an entirely separate thread on the forgiveness of debts. |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2015 : 15:42:08
|
Hi everyone,
If Jesus was in agreement with Abraham and Moses, therefore The Son of The Highest, then doesn't that tell you that Jesus was fulfilling that which was not being done? Like it is now all over this Earth, through force instead of faith, hope and charity, by the many worlds (world - also defined as systems and forms of government/s)?
Blessings,
Manny |
|
|
|
jsnyder3395
Regular Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2015 : 18:34:56
|
With regard to the previous post by Caleb et. al.
It is my view that Christianity is in the mess it is in because they have lost sight of the New Covenant of Blood of Jesus, and the power of the Spirit of God in dealing with sin.
"But can you give a clear way for determining what is Old Covenant and what is New Covenant, within the Old Testament? While your position is indeed becoming more clear, I do not think you have yet answered the two key questions:
1) If I open the Old Testament (Genesis to Malachi), how do I know if I am reading Old Covenant or New Covenant principles? Is Jeremiah entirely a New Covenant book, for example?"
Answer: In principle, the principles of the Ten Commandments (The principles of LOVE) written on the heart is the determining factor. Since The Word says clearly that we LOVE God when we keep his commandments, all scripture, words, thoughts and actions can be judged by the principles of Love. (1 John 5:3) Also, notice that the terms of the Old Covenant, while discussed and spoken of throughout the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, only those in agreement with the principles of the New Covenant (love) are binding. Jeremiah, as an example, is a book containing many things, history, prophecy, principles and a reiteration of the New Covenant. To answer the question, a portion of Jeremiah would need to be pointed out. Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it. (Jer 5:1 KJV) A statement of God: Old, New, Neither?
Example of New Covenant principle: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. (Deu 6:4-5 KJV)
Examples of Old Testament Principle: Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. 2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. Deuteronomy 21:12-14 12 Then you shall bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in your house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that you shall go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go whither she will; but you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not make merchandise of her, because you have humbled her.
One more to the point today, And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. 20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. (Lev 15:19-20 KJV)
All of scripture must be “rightly divided” between Old Covenant and New Covenant. Let me reiterate here.
The Old Covenant is The “Torah” or “Law” given by the hand of, mediated by, and spoken by and, through Moses at the command of God. Some principles are compatible with the New Covenant, and some are not. The Law was the “schoolmaster” to somewhat force submission as a nation and to keep them separate them from the other nations.
The New Covenant was given by God directly starting at creation, by Blood Covenant to Abraham, and written in stone at Sinai due to the constant violation of the people prior to and including the Israelites. (Gal 3) The following was stated by God before Moses Law. 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. (Exo 19:5-6 KJV) Being a nation of Priests was not fulfilled by the nation of Israel and is a New Covenant promise.
The Old Covenant is within the “Book of the Law” while the New Covenant after being spoken by God so all Israel could hear, with NO Mediator, was written separately alone and “he added no more”, in stone because they did not allow it to be written in the heart. Before Moses gave the law from Sinai, a covenant existed, and was offered to Israel. They said NO. Read it. And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die… (Exo 20:19 KJV) And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near (Exo 20:21 KJV) But they and our fathers dealt proudly, and hardened their necks, and hearkened not to thy commandments, 17 And refused to obey, (Neh 9:16-17 KJV)
While it is true that the New Covenant was confirmed and reiterated by voice, written in stone prepared by God, the tablets broken and written again in stone on tablets prepared by the hand of man, this Covenant was before the Law of Moses from Sinai. This Covenant did not originate at Sinai, but was offered to Israel at Sinai before the Law of Moses. Every one of the Ten Words when violated before the Law of Moses is called sin. There is record of every single commandment before the Law of Moses was given! This covenant was not instituted, or “cut” at Sinai. The blood of the Old Covenant was NOT sprinkled on the Tablets of Stone but on the book of the law and the people. The New Covenant Law, made unconditional with Abraham, is the Covenant that was “transgressed” that caused the “law of Moses” to be issued, according to Gal 3. The promise is the promise of the New Covenant. The inheritance (which must be looked at separately with relation to a will and estate law) is fulfillment of the gospel preached to Abraham, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the gentiles through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant. And if ye be Christ’s then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise (to Abraham).
He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
9 Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; 10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: (Psa 105:8-10 KJV)
This Ten Word Covenant is NOT part of the Old Covenant. The record of the Ten Words was recorded in the Book of the Law. The New Covenant was placed INSIDE the ark of the Covenant, under the mercy seat. The Scrolls (Book) of the Old Covenant was placed on the outside (side) of the ark and was not covered by the mercy seat.
And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark. (Deu 10:2 KJV)
Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. (Deu 31:26 KJV)
And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. { (Exo 34:28 KJV)
Plainly, the Ten Commandments are “the covenant.”
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. (Deu 4:13 KJV)
Again, the New Covenant is defined as the Ten Words.
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 (Deu 5:22 KJV) This was One of the Two Covenants.
This New Covenant Law is called the Law of Liberty, in fulfillment of the “Royal law, the “2nd,like unto the first of Loving God with all your heart, soul and strength. If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. (Jam 2:8-12 KJV)
Galatians 4, with regard to the Two Covenants, Covenant of Abraham, and the Covenant of Sinai, it is clear that Sinai engenders bondage while Abraham’s is liberty.
It is also instructive to notice, that inside the Ark of the Covenant was three things, manna, Aarons rod, and the Ten Commandments. Each symbolized important aspects of the Administration of God. But when the Ark came to the “Permanent” location of the Temple as opposed to the tent, There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. (1Ki 8:9 KJV) Note that the word says, When the Lord made a covenant, the Ten Command Covenant of Abraham was not “made” there, but was “cut with Abraham” 430 years earlier. It is true the Ten Commandments were not listed at the time of Abraham, however, none of the laws, commandments, and statutes were, yet … Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Gen 26:5 KJV)
An additional thought from the other post, Jay Scott, and this is a common thread in the thinking of most Christians that I have spoken with. .
"Another thought about what is the old Covenant, or the "letter of the law", is that maybe it's simply natural law, based on principles, and is there to guide and encourage one toward the "spirit of the law"".
In general principle I see no problem with the thought, but most are referring to “…not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (2Co 3:6 KJV) Yet, and a very important point with regard to this line of thinking is that this is NOT speaking of the Old Covenant.
The word of God is clear here again Who also hath made us able ministers of the NEW COVENANT; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life 7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? (2Co 3:6-8 KJV)
Here is a direct and undeniable link of the Ten Commandments and the New Covenant. The ADMINISTRATION of the New Covenant, written and engraved in stone, hidden behind Moses, was a ministration of death. The law was not written on the heart! The ministration of the Spirit, of the NEW COVENANT, shall be more glorious.
2) What has changed, in practical terms, now that the Ten Commandments are written on our hearts? Do we not still struggle to obey the Law
Of course we do. However, this will be discussed in the section below.
Jesus has set an impossibly high standard for a reason. He is trying to hit us between the eyes with this simple truth: It is IMPOSSIBLE to keep the Law!
Now you know and will freely admit that Jesus and Paul say elsewhere that it is impossible to keep the Law.
I am sorry for my ignorance, but I do not know where Jesus or Paul said that it is impossible to keep the law, please inform me. I know that no one but Jesus never sinned, but what about moving forward in our lives? Did not Jesus tell the woman caught in adultery, And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (Joh 8:11 KJV) Was he just kidding?
On the one hand, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, on the other hand, by the power of the Holy Spirit, God says that we can, in fact, be holy! But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy
(1Pe 1:15-16 KJV) But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life (Rom 6:22 KJV) My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: (1Jo 2:1 KJV)
Based on the “faithfulness of God” we can be delivered from sin. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.(1Co 10:13 KJV)
Paul is linking the Old Covenant to Mount Sinai, which is precisely where the Ten Commandments were given. (see above) I have never heard anyone give a practical means of separating the Ten Commandments out from the rest of the Mosaic Law. I do not believe it can be done. (see above)
James Snyder
|
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2015 : 06:06:41
|
James, I consider your answer to my second question to be an excellent summary of what life SHOULD be like for us under the New Covenant. John clearly was writing with the notion that it was possible to NO LONGER sin. Yet today all Christians I know work overtime to make excuses for why they remain weighed down by sin. A common line is, "Of course we know that it is impossible to be perfect in this life."
That statement directly contradicts John and Jesus, and points to death as the only solution to the problems of this world. Is it possible that, even though they say otherwise, these people are still trying to achieve sinless perfection through keeping the law?
To ask a related question using something I've already discussed, how come every "bible-believing" Christian doesn't read Matthew 5:20-47, and then throw their Bible straight into the trash? Jesus goes through commandments like adultery, basically makes every healthy, adult male an adulterer, and then has the gall to say at the end, "be ye perfect". And if that wasn't bad enough, he starts out by saying that out righteousness must exceed that of the most diligent keepers of the Law, the Scribes and Pharisees. This is fantasy land stuff.
But rather than wrestle with the passage in a quest for understanding, Christians just read right past it and tell themselves that Jesus knew it was impossible for us to be perfect, and so he couldn't really have meant what he said.
But if Jesus didn't really mean it, then did John repeat this same error with he said, "sin not"?
Of course I know all the standard lines about Christ's imputed righteousness and God's grace. But all that means is that Jesus and John were wasting their breathe. Why would they tell us to do something that they knew was impossible?
I will wait for some answers on this critical issue before going further. But I will answer one of your other questions, which was you did not know where Jesus and Paul said that it is impossible to keep the Law. Try these:
John 7:19
Romans 2:13
Romans 3:19-23
Galatians 3:10-11
Honi soit qui mal y pense |
|
|
|
jsnyder3395
Regular Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2015 : 12:24:53
|
Hello again!
I am thankful for the effort that is being expended here. I am truly seeking, as He provides, to grow and learn. I hope that argumentation is not the goal here, in my heart, but growth.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves…heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. (2Ti 3:1-5 KJV)
What if this scripture, “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” is speaking of the power of God to deliver us from sin? Not only the penalty of sin, but the power that sin has over us?
What if this scripture is true, and can be fulfilled by the GRACE of God and the Faith delivered to us by His Grace? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. (Rom 6:17-18 KJV)
Your Statement:
Jesus and Paul said that it is impossible to keep the Law. Try these:
(Your passage) Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? (Joh 7:19 KJV)
One of the keys of understanding the scriptures is asking a few simple questions with regard to the passages under consideration. The obvious:Who? What? When? Where? Why?
The difference between “Jewry” or the Jewish leadership, and the common folks was clear and delineated. Verse one, the “Jews” sought to kill him. The “Jews” sought him at the feast, verse 11. Note in verses 12 and 13 regarding the “people” (common folk), and the fact that no man (common folk, who were also Jews) spoke openly for fear of the “Jews.”
This Jewish leaders are the ones being addressed by Jesus, and he says to them, Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? 20 The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? (Joh 7:19-20 KJV) Thus Jesus shows that these a.) “blind leaders” or b.) those who believed, but were moved by self aggrandizement (John 8:20-41) and they too sought to kill Him.
1. This is not an address to the “little folk” but the hypocritical “Jews.”
2. This is addressing Moses law, not the New Covenant.
3. Jesus does not say it is impossible to keep the law (any law) but THAT YOU don’t, Why go ye about to kill me?
(Your passage) For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (Rom 2:13 KJV)
It is a common misunderstanding, and confusion that the life of obedience is confused with coming to Christ for forgiveness of sin and/or salvation, or justification. It would seem to me that this would argue against your position. The “doers shall be justified.” How can there be “doers” if there are no “doers?” Those who are doers are those who observe the commands of God. Those are justified before God, not just “saying that they believe.” Justification is the forgiveness of “the sins that are past.” You cannot pay for your past sins by being obedient now (be justified). Only the blood of Christ can pay for sin. Even today there are those who rely on the Law of Moses. I recently had a woman say to me, “I am not even sure why we need Jesus when we have the Torah, the Law of Moses.” NO law can justify. This does not give you license to break God’s commands. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (Rom 6:1)
Also, Romans 2 is addressed to specific people identified in chapter 1, and those addressed in 2:1, and identified also 20-24 where the “Jew” (see above) is contrasted with the Gentiles. Again, however, I do not find anything that says it is impossible to walk in righteousness.
(Your passage) 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. 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. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 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: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (Rom 3:19-23 KJV)
Here again, we must understand that there is NO question that “all have sinned!” Because “all have sinned” the question must be asked, must all continue to sin? Is it impossible to live righteously? We BECOME righteous by the blood of Jesus, apart from, or without the works of the law. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Rom 3:21)
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Here again, justification is at issue. If we sin, can we fix it by being good? No. If I commit murder, can I make it better by feeding the poor? NO! This does not address the issue of walking by the power of the spirit in righteousness after you have been justified.
(Your passage) For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is JUSTIFIED by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. (Gal 3:10-11 KJV)
Here again is the argument with regard to “justification” by the faith of Abraham, or by the works of the Mosaic law (book of the law). Since all have sinned, any who try to be justified by the works of the law are doomed to total and complete failure. The curse that the “wages of sin is death” does not go away if you start today and live in perfect and complete holy righteous sinless perfection for the rest of your life. You are still guilty before God. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 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; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Rom 3:24-26 KJV)
I must say again, I see no place where Paul or Jesus says that it is impossible to keep the New Covenant Law.
I do find the following.
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Exo 20:6 KJV)
Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Rom 2:26 KJV)
But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. (1Pe 1:15-16 KJV)
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (1Co 10:13 KJV)
But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; 18 To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them. (Psa 103:17-18 KJV)
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; (Dan 9:4 KJV)
If ye love me, keep my commandments. (Joh 14:15 KJV)
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. (Joh 15:10-12 KJV)
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Ecc 12:13 KJV)
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (1Jo 2:3-4 KJV)
The commandments are linked inextricably to the New Covenant. I will address the Covenant relationship in both the Old and New Covenants soon.
Suffice it to say for now that my view is that those who propagate the teaching that the Two Covenants are unilateral are in grave error. The Covenant of Noah was unilateral, the New and Old Covenants were (are) not. God’s promise of the Covenant of Noah is to all the earth, men, women, children, animals, etc. There are NO requirements for those beneficiaries; they simply inherit the benefits by being alive. This is a unilateral promise of the Covenant of Noah. The terms of the Two Covenants were dictated (literally), but assent, agreement and obedience were and are required to reap the benefits. (The power to do so lies in the Grace of God through faith and the power of the Spirit. Even our faith is a gift of God, which we can choose to allow to grow, or not.)
James Snyder
|
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2015 : 13:08:41
|
I am not going to argue Scripture with you James. Only the Holy Spirit can open your eyes. I have three questions:
1) In the following passage, are the "letters engraved on stones" the Ten Commandments, or the balance of the Mosaic Law, and if not the Ten Commandments, why not?
2 Corinthians 3:5 But our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a New Covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory.
2) Where does Jesus refer unambiguously and specifically to the Ten Commandments when he uses the phrase, "my commandments"?
3) On what basis do you equate the Ten Commandments with the "Love" that Jesus spoke of?
Honi soit qui mal y pense |
|
|
|
jsnyder3395
Regular Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2015 : 16:49:55
|
Caleb,
Thank you so much for the interchange. I do think your question of separating the Law of Moses from the Ten Commandments was adequately covered. I had hoped for a comment on that. Or perhaps a change of view :-)
Disputing and persuading the things concerning the Kingdom of God is noble as were those at Berea.
Just a note that may be of interest, with regard to the "stranger" and usury, and it only being in the scripture one time, baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is only in the scripture only one time. I do not think it could be rejected on that basis, do you? I am still interested in the scriptural basis for your conclusions on that one.
(Your Question 1) In the following passage, are the "letters engraved on stones" the Ten Commandments, or the balance of the Mosaic Law, and if not the Ten Commandments, why not?
Yes, it is the 10 Commandments. This question is formed in such a way that if I answer it directly is assumes that I say the Ten Commandments are part of the Law of Moses, which I do not. There are many scriptures that would indicate this is the case, including those in a previous post.
The letter of the New Covenant kills. This is illustrating the difference between the “ministration of the spirit” and the “ministration of the letter engraved in stone.” It is not the Law itself that is under consideration in this passage, but the way in which it is administered, i.e. ministration, administration, service.
2 Corinthians 3:5 But our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a New Covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory.
Remember that the wages of sin is death. If you attempt to be righteous through the works of the law, i.e. obedience to the law, any law, you have already failed. God's grace through Faith in the payment of the blood of Jesus is the only thing that can bring us into Covenant relationship with God. It is a blood Covenant initiated with Abraham, and completed (fulfilled) in Christ.
(Your Question 2) Where does Jesus refer unambiguously and specifically to the Ten Commandments when he uses the phrase, "my commandments"?
Answer combined with following answer.
(Your Question 3) On what basis do you equate the Ten Commandments with the "Love" that Jesus spoke of?
Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 JESUS said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Mat 22:36-40 KJV)
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 neighbor as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom 13:8-10 KJV) (Paul)
…but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? JESUS said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honor thy father and thy mother: and, (these listed of the Ten “hanging on”) Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Mat 19:17-19 KJV) (Jesus)
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: (1Jo 5:2-4 KJV) (John)
If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. (Jam 2:8-12 KJV) (James)
There is justification from sin from NO law. The function of New Covenant Law is to reveal God’s heart. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom 13:10 KJV)
Well, look at the law referenced in Romans 13. Love your neighbor as yourself, he that loves has fulfilled the Law. Which? Verse nine is clear, obedience to this law is the manifestation of love.
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 neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom 13:8-10 KJV)
In a more important sense, Jesus IS the Word of God. The Word of God is spirit and life, and all of the scripture is the Word of Christ. ...All scripture is given by inspiration of God, (2Ti 3:16 KJV). To attempt to isolate the Words recorded that came from the physical mouth of Jesus as different or more powerful than those of the written Word is something that I cannot do.
(P.S. Jesus never specifically says that Mary is His mother, still there is no question about that.)
The views expressed that the New Covenant is “No Covenant” is, in my view quite problematic. The idea that the Old and/or New Covenant are unilateral as is the Covenant of Noah is, again in my view, just dangerous. This relieves one of all obligation to be obedient, even out of love. If there is no Covenant, then there is no law. If there is no law, there can be no transgression of the law, there is no sin. Universalism has raised it head! This gives license to "continue in sin, that grace may abound" - God forbid!
Further exploration of these subjects will be of interest to me if so to others.
In Christ
James Snyder
|
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2015 : 00:12:04
|
James,
By now I believe you being deliberately obtuse.
Your answer to my first question does exactly what you have done with most of my other questions: muddy the waters. There is no clarity in your answers whatsoever. All you do is to explain away a passage that does not fit with your position.
With the other questions, you take several passages, and exactly reverse their meaning. Instead of Love replacing the Law, you have Love somehow confirming that we should try harder to obey the Law.
Of course that is right after the following meaningless statement:
"If you attempt to be righteous through the works of the law, i.e. obedience to the law, any law, you have already failed."
What does this mean? What is "Law?"
You have NOT separated the Mosaic Law from the Ten Commandments in any useful way.
You are engaged in the standard bait-and-switch Bible game, which is to brush over any inconvenient verse and claim that it is answered by some other verse, preferably by another author in another book.
I have a suggestion on how we can achieve better clarity than has been accomplished thus far:
Step 1: Put your Bible in a blender
Step 2: Press "Frappe"
Honi soit qui mal y pense |
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2015 : 00:59:47
|
Manuel,
You on to another key to this whole puzzle: the use of force.
There are only two reasons we do things:
1) Because we want to
2) Because we are forced to
One of the key components of Law is the use of force. Law is of limited use unless it contains "en-force-ment" provisions.
The whole point in writing a Law is to get people to do things that they would not normally do, or to stop them from doing things that they would normally do.
Where can I find these laws:
"Thou shalt eat"
"Thou shalt sleep"
Let's take a great example from Scripture: Was there a law in Eden?
The first "command" from God to man was, "Be fruitful, multiple, fill the earth, and subdue it."
Did God have to enforce this command? Did Adam and Eve have be persuaded to have sex?
COMMAND (from Webster's):
: to give (someone) an order : to tell (someone) to do something in a forceful and often official way
: to have authority and control over (a group of people, such as soldiers)
There was nothing forceful or controlling in these words of God, so they were not a command. They were more of a statement of purpose. Adam and Eve were going to fulfill that purpose whether God told them to or not. Fallen, sinful humanity is still busily fulfilling that purpose, even while in open rebellion against God's commandments.
In Eden, there was no use of force. Adam and Eve were commanded nothing that they didn't already want to do.
We have a word that describes the motivation of doing something simply because you want to: Love
We do things because we love to, or because we are forced to. Love is the opposite of force.
With this clarity on the actual words being used, we can now put James' contention about the Ten Commandments into proper perspective.
James is right that obedience to the Ten Commandments is consistent with loving your neighbor and loving God. But why are they "commandments". Why do we have to be told to obey them?
More importantly, would we obey them anyway?
Is "Thou shalt not steal" a statement of purpose?
Do people normally not steal?
Or is the commandment necessary because the reality is that people would normally steal, but they shouldn't?
I happen to live in a country that retains much of the lawlessness of its pre-Christian past. People here do not fear punishment for breaking the laws. Sure, they have police and laws against stealing, but the police do little to nothing. And so guess what? Theft is rampant. People steal at every turn.
No one tells them to steal. Certainly no one has commanded them to steal. They just do it because they want to, and they think they can get away with it. These are the type of people for whom the commandment, "Thou shalt not steal" was written.
And in absence of rigid enFORCEment, they just keep right on robbing each other blind. This commandment is ineffective without the use of force.
NOT stealing is a good thing. And yet people must be forced to behave this way. Why?
We know from our own upbringing in Christian homes in Christian countries, where there is effective law enforcement, that people STILL steal! Just not as much. But it is impossible to obtain perfect adherence to the Law, because the Law is the OPPOSITE of what people are normally inclined to do.
So, when Jesus is talking about Love, he is talking about doing right by your neighbor out of a motivation that naturally wants to do good to them. When motivated by Love, there is no need for the use of force or even the threat of force.
When Moses gave the Ten Commandments, he laid out what was the right thing to do towards your neighbor, but this was a Law that ran exactly contrary to what people were naturally inclined to do.
The confusion comes because the desired outcome is the same, or at least appears on the surface to be the same. We are still missing a piece of this puzzle, and that is the reason for the confusion.
It will suffice for now to say that a return to COMMANDments is NOT how we are going to achieve the New Covenant. Trying harder to obey the Ten Commandments is the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. This is the exact opposite of what ALL the New Testament writers teach us.
Honi soit qui mal y pense |
|
|
|
jsnyder3395
Regular Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2015 : 10:45:59
|
Caleb,
I am sorry for your response. “Deliberately obtuse” is a judgment of my heart. Shred the Bible is basically character assassination. Neither of which are appropriate in a discussion of the Word of God and especially so when Love of God is the subject.
Guidance of the Spirit of God is what I pray for each day. Perhaps I need more prayer.
You have ignored all of the scripture regarding the separation of the Ten Commandments from the Old Covenant. With a wipe of the hand it is all gone. No principles, no scripture, just a wipe of the hand by your philosophy. Well done.
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. (Gal 5:6 KJV)
Do we then make void the law THROUGH FAITH? God forbid: yea, WE ESTABLISH THE LAW.
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Rom 3:31- 4:5 KJV)
You teach and openly “make void the law through faith,” in your teaching; By a simple “wipe of the hand.”
You say the “New Covenant” is “no Covenant.” (12 July) But the Word of God says, Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first (covenant), that he may establish the second (covenant) (Heb 10:9 KJV) Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
You say that since you do not like the scripture about usury and the stranger, (Lev 23:19-20) well, you just take it out, ignore it, and justify it when you say, “Frankly, I believe the Jews added this at some point.” (11 July) If the scripture does not fit your belief system, throw it out or change it. Obviously you came to the conclusion without scripture, then use only the scripture that matches. It seems you have no problem doing this. This did not Jesus!
Finally I will address your discussion about Eden. You say “In Eden, there was no use of force. Adam and Eve were commanded nothing that they didn't already want to do.” You then reference sex. This is blatantly, and perhaps knowingly FALSE. You ignore the actual command in Eden.
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Gen 2:17 KJV) Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I COMMANDED thee that thou shouldest not eat? (Gen 3:11 KJV)
Eat, not eat, death, life: for by the law (commandment) is the knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:20 KJV) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. This seems pretty clear, and not at all obtuse, to me. (Rom 6:23-1 KJV)
You say, One of those roadblocks [to understanding the New Covenant] is the word "Love". ( 07 July)
You made strong statements about Matthew 5, that men desire women. But you also make the statement, “We have a word that describes the motivation of doing something simply because you want to: Love” So in your definition, if I want to have sex with one who is not my wife, then that is love. If I want to take that iPod, then that is love. If I want to real bad, (lust) then that must be greater love!
In direct opposition to your definition, the Bible says, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” (1Jo 5:3 KJV) As in Eden, so it is now.
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust”, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (Jam 1:14-15 KJV) Doing what you want to often gets you into sin!
Lust is simply a stong “want to”, neither good or evil. …For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit (lusts) against the flesh: (Gal 5:17 KJV)
I have noticed in your dialogue, your philosophy is the center. You admit that you came to your conclusion regarding usury on your own (right or wrong) then came to the Bible to find confirmation. You said, “I also had a very personal experience where I spent years (literally) contemplating the causes of major problems in our world, and had come to the conclusion that the single largest cause of the world's problems was the charging of interest on borrowed money. IT THEN occurred to me that God had outlawed Usury in the Old Testament, so why did we allow the practice in a "Christian" culture?” (07 July)
We hold two different views of scripture. My view is that scripture is the center and source. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. (Joh 6:63-64 KJV) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Col 2:8 KJV)
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the COMMANDMENTS is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. (Mar 12:29-31 KJV)
The first of all the COMMANDMENTS is, COMMANDED TO LOVE!
James Snyder
|
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2015 : 13:36:48
|
James,
You do not know my "teaching" or my view, because we haven't been able to get that far. It is actually crystal clear, as my reply to Manuel should have already demonstrated.
It is very telling that out of that entire post, you only looked for something to attack. What I wrote was very clear, but you said nothing about that. Rather, you found one point that was worded poorly, because it did not consider the later command that Adam and Eve were given.
I am a bit miffed to learn that you have joined our discussion for the sole purpose of promoting tired, worn-out, and utterly failed theology that has kept the Protestant churches from finding the truth for some 500 years now.
You purported to be interested in discussing the New Covenant. Instead, you have done nothing but drag us back into the Old Covenant, by pretending that this is what the New Covenant actually is.
You summarize at the end of your last post with a complete misrepresentation of my position. You seem intent on sowing confusion and strife, but in a nice, shiny religious guise.
Your final citation actually sums up the problem with your position perfectly. When asked what the greatest commandment (from the Law of Moses) was, Jesus cites
Love God, and
Love your neighbor
You, by contrast, take every mention of Love, including these, and point us back to the Ten Commandments.
Jesus pointed back to a command out of the Law of Moses, but NOT to the Ten Commandments. You have not followed his example!
Honi soit qui mal y pense |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2015 : 15:05:57
|
Greetings,
A good point in Languageland, is my understanding from whom I considered bright and gifted bringing forth some examples which I understood, for example: "Altars of sacrifice, Living Stones,"
Altars of sacrifice, from what I grasp is those of us, while striving, sacrificing ourselves without demanding anything in return. Meaning, we are the altars in flesh.
Living Stones, from what I grasp is those of us, while striving, being The Living Stones, gathering and building His Church within our flesh.
There are many examples in Languageland which confuse His meanings due to material observations and not In Flesh.
Coveting your neighbors goods, well, that is a plague which practically the whole world is doing. Even the "poor." For He is not a respecter of persons.
Blessings,
Manuel |
|
|
|
jsnyder3395
Regular Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2015 : 11:33:04
|
Caleb, et. al.
While I believe you are sincere, I believe the foundation you lay is faulty. When a premise is built upon a foundation that is wrong, the structure will be wrong.
My understanding is far from that of the Protestant churches.
In Eden, there was no use of force. Adam and Eve were commanded nothing that they didn't already want to do.
This is just not true. With that as a foundation, the building will be faulty.
The New Covenant is for redemption of humans owing the debt of death due to their sin. Sin, when boiled down is a violation of Loving God, or Loving fellow man. How do we know what Love is? Love is revealed by the Ten Commandments written on the heart of the believer.
You stated, James is right that obedience to the Ten Commandments is consistent with loving your neighbor and loving God. But why are they "commandments". Why do we have to be told to obey them? More importantly, would we obey them anyway?
The fact is that we would not naturally obey them anyway. Humans are naturally directed by their “carnal” fleshly mind. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in (guided by) the flesh cannot please God. (Rom 8:7-8 KJV) Having the Mind of Christ is man's only hope.
The question that must be asked is should humans be subject to the Law of God revealed in the Ten Commandments and written on the heart? If not, then what scripture reveals this?
Note that the Law of God is the standard.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. (Rom 8:9 KJV) Therefore we can please God, because we can be subject to the Law of God.
The principles by which understanding is derived from the scripture, by the Spirit, of God are critical.
Is it ok to determine which scriptures are supposed to be in the original text based on belief system? Don’t like that one, throw it out! "The sin nature is so predictable."
You stated, You have provided another helpful link between the Covenant with Abraham and the New Covenant. In both cases, one party is AWOL.
You say, The New Covenant is no Covenant.
The fact is that one party was not AWOL Both parties were required to agree and shed their blood, that is why it is called a blood Covenant. God’s blood in substitution until Christ’s blood, and Abraham (and his followers) blood shed via circumcision, also until Christ’s blood fulfilled the New Covenant.
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. (Gal 3:20 KJV) This is clear that a mediator is between two (or more) parties. Jesus is the mediator, God the Father is the Covenantor man is the Covenanter. Jesus cannot be mediator if one party is AWOL!
Abraham’s Covenant was not unilateral! The New Covenant is not unilateral!
The New Covenant is called a Covenant for a reason, because it is a Covenant. Regarding Abrahamic Covenant, God said And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. (Gen 17:14 KJV)
How can one break the covenant if they are not party to the covenant by being AWOL?
Both parties were required to agree and shed their blood. (God’s blood in substitutionary manner until Christ fulfilled the shedding of God’s blood on the cross.)
For there is one God, and one mediator BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, the man Christ Jesus; (1Ti 2:5 KJV) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new Covenant, (Heb 9:15 KJV)
The New Covenant is between God and mEn. Jesus is not the Covenantor, He is the mediator. The mediator between God and men.
You state, You, by contrast, take every mention of Love, including these, and point us back to the Ten Commandments.
Jesus pointed back to a command out of the Law of Moses, but NOT to the Ten Commandments. You have not followed his example!
Loving God and loving your neighbor is the essence of the LAW of the Ten Commandments. The first four give boundaries of loving God, and the last six deal with our neighbor. It is stated so several times in the “New Testament” books. The Bible plainly states this! Loving your neighbor is clarified in the Ten Commandments!
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. (Rom 13:8-9 KJV)
If this is not what the scripture is telling us, that these listed commandments (from the Ten) clarify how to love, please make in clear what these scriptures (and many others) are really saying.
What is wrong with the Ten Commandments? The Old Covenant administration of the Ten Commandments is where they were written on stone, not in the heart as it is in the administration of the New Covenant.
Does it matter what the Bible actually states? Doctrinal bias leads people to say things that are contrary to the direct Word of God.
Your insistence on teaching that the giving of the Ten Commandments as being by Moses is contrary to the Biblical record! You say When Moses gave the Ten Commandments, he laid out what was the right thing to do towards your neighbor, but this was a Law that ran exactly contrary to what people were naturally inclined to do.
Your conclusion about the natural inclination is correct; however MOSES DID NOT GIVE the Ten Commandments. You consistently ignore the scripture given and continue with your direction. Perhaps it is just the consistent past beliefs, or habit of saying that.
God spoke the Ten Commandments to the all the people directly! God made the tablets and wrote on them. Moses broke them and had to make another set, upon which God wrote them again. They did not come by Moses or through Moses. They were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, covered by the mercy seat, separate from the Old Covenant. It is clarified that when God gave the Ten Commandment Covenant that he “ADDED NO MORE.” The Old Covenant was not covered by the mercy seat and not placed inside the Ark of the Covenant. This is because the Ark of the Covenant was the Ark of the Ten Commandment Covenant, not the Old Covenant of Moses.
Can you admit that Moses did not give the Ten Commandments?
The New Covenant changes our inclination, because it is written on our heart. This is by the power of the Holy Spirit in following Jesus as a disciple. A disciple is one who is disciplined in a discipline, in this case the New Covenant.
I define the New Covenant relationship to God as Jesus paying for our sins in His Blood, our agreement to be obedient to Love revealed in the Ten Commandments, being baptized to seal the New Covenant and have the “circumcision of the heart” so we can be obedient by the power of the Holy Spirit and the grace that he has poured on us. The Christian then Lives out the rest of our life in obedience to God by His power and Love, until our death and resurrection, or until the return of the Savior when we will be changed in the twinkling of an eye.
Plainly tell us your definition of the New Covenant.
James Snyder
|
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2015 : 18:04:54
|
Interjecting here, but would it not be good to post the Red Letter Bible and easily read the doctrines which Jesus was teaching?
Is there wonder as to why Jesus, for example said, "take no oaths..."
Take no oaths to what/who/why? Was it intended for another world (system and form of government) which we are not to be like?
I think so. But thinking is not all without works, because the Kingdom (government) is at hand. Never went away, nor ended. Jesus clearly appointed the Kingdom to those who would renew it, after it once again, like now, went astray. Get it? Ever wonder why it is said that "your welfare will become a snare?" Is it because in a form of government which covets the neighbors goods by force and give to others, would make them weaker?
Heck... might as well have a knife to your throat, sitting in the tables of those whom devour, versus Faith, Hope and Charity - Without Force... you know, if you have an extra coat? Of course you should not share 100 bucks with a crack addict, that would further destroy; is that not what those other forms of governments(world/s) do?
"Come out of her my people and not be yoked?"
Can we discuss the red letter bible and see and hear what the Covenant is supposed to be?
I think it is very simple. So simple that the brainwash is so deep, that the strong delusions have taken over.
I remember reading about a guy which was interviewing one of the top hypnotists in the world, and the top hypnotist told him that "heck... the majority of people are already hypnotized."
Just sayin'
Blessings,
Manny |
|
|
|
jsnyder3395
Regular Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2015 : 18:38:17
|
Hello Manny,
I like your thought on the Kingdom. On the one hand it is yet future, on the other hand it is here. Is it any wonder the scripture asks the question, Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Luk 18:8 KJV) As I look at the recent supreme court ruling, I shudder!
The cry of the servant of the Lord, is basically, "give them their due." (Psa 69:) He also cried, "Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not..." If I am understanding you correctly, this world systems of Government, in my view especially the USA, has forsaken the "way of righteousness."
Out of whom should "my people" come?
I understand the idea that the words of Jesus recorded in the Word of God are special. Two thoughts on that. Who decided to make some red and some not? Second, If all scripture is inspired by God, i.e. God Breathed, then does some carry more authority than others?
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: (2Th 2:7 KJV) Examine carefully the definition of the Greek word translated iniquity. (anomia) This defines our courts very well, and many who say they are christian.
James Snyder
|
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2015 : 21:20:09
|
Hi all,
The doctrines which Jesus taught and still does, in print, speak plainly about government/s. The two masters? Your bringing up "anomia" is a good example regarding the message, like calling one "hoss" meaning a strong man (horse of a man).
Righteousness, I think, cannot be achieved through covetous means, by way of force, directly or indirectly. Many other worlds (systems and forms of governments) have been doing it that way. Less evident during its initial beginning, but gradually as the benefactors which exercise authority "get" more and more demands from those who elect them. Nothing new under the sun.
Repentance is all about that, old new again. Revive. Good news. No matter if one uses turquoise ink :) Stick to the message of the way, through free will offering. Loving ones neighbor. Making people stronger, not weaker. Jesus was rich, yet He made himself poor. Contrary to what all those other systems and forms of governments (worlds) do. Remember "ye are all kings" and queens, princesses etc.
Abraham is a good start. Who was he? Even, most religions true teachings are based on faith, hope and charity, without force. Not the religions of that other world. Example is Braham[sp?]
His Kingdom exists from generation to generation. It is within. It is like the prodigal son joining his earthly father again after almost getting eaten alive, and his father helping him back in and hopefully making him stronger again.
Blessings,
Manny |
Edited by - Manuel on 19 Jul 2015 21:28:43 |
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2015 : 05:59:09
|
James,
You are absolutely correct about the faulty foundation.
Yours is the foundation of the Pharisees. The thing they were most concerned about, above everything else, was Jesus' carelessness in keeping the Sabbath. The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments. Yes, they were sticklers about all of the Law of Moses, but the one thing that comes up more than everything else, is a specific one of the Ten Commandments. Who was right, Jesus or the Pharisees?
Now, if you want to introduce error, there is no better way than the path you have chosen. You take the Law, declare it not to be the Law, and then say that this is what is referred to every time the New Testament uses the word "commandment". This heresy of yours is in all the churches, and yet you claim it "is far from that of the Protestant churches." That is simply a lie. Every church teaches that we must obey the Ten Commandments, and pretty much stops there, as you have. You would have us remain under the Old Covenant.
What is the Old Covenant? I think you avoided that question, so let's clear that up first. Here it is:
Exodus 19
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.
7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him.
8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.
In this brief passage we have:
1) The terms of the covenant
2) It is specifically called a "covenant"
3) Both parties (God, the Elders of the people)
4) Moses as mediator
5) The speaking of the terms
6) The agreement with the terms
This passage IS the Old Covenant. All that is missing is the exact detail of the words that God told Moses to speak to the people. So, while the terms of the covenant are mentioned, they are not laid out fully.
The balance of chapter 19 is about the fact that only Moses was to go up the mountain to meet with God. And as soon as he comes back down at the end of the chapter, what is the first thing that Moses speaks to the people? The TEN COMMANDMENTS!
You can argue until you are blue in the face about these commandments coming directly from God rather than Moses. It does not matter. You have said that these same commandments were present in Eden, with Noah and with Abraham, and yet you cannot cite a single verse to support that contention. You blow a whole lot of smoke to make these commandments something super-special. So special in fact, that Jesus came and died just to tell us that we should have been obeying them all along. You make an absolute mockery of the New Testament.
So here is my challenge: Cite for me the passage of Scripture that succinctly lays out for us:
1) The terms of the New Covenant
2) That it is called a "covenant"
3) Identifies the parties (God and ???)
4) Jesus is the mediator
5) The speaking of the terms
6) The agreement with the terms
Going back to Eden, there was ONE command. Only one, not ten. There was no use of force, but the penalty for breaching the command was quite severe. We continue to feel its effects today. How can you simply say, "This is just not true. With that as a foundation, the building will be faulty"?
You are intentionally implying that I am way off the mark, when the truth is that my statement, though imprecise, was much closer to the truth than any notion that there were commands or laws in Eden. Where can you find a second command in Eden, much less Ten of them?
You simply go on and on seeking to drag us back under the yoke of bondage that is the Law. You make unqualified assertions, all about the Law, such as:
"The question that must be asked is should humans be subject to the Law of God revealed in the Ten Commandments and written on the heart? If not, then what scripture reveals this?"
How about telling us the scripture that calls the Ten Commandments, "the Law of God"?
How can the Ten Commandments be "written on the heart" when our natural inclination remains to disobey them?
That we are no longer subject to the Law is clear enough:
Hebrews 7
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Romans 7
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Here Paul specifically uses Adultery for his example of the Law that "now we are delivered from ..." Later in the same chapter he even mentions the "law of God" and distinguishes it from the Law that led him to sin:
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
You assert: "Note that the Law of God is the standard."
Yes, but you then go on to discuss the Ten Commandments as if they were the Law of God, when they demonstrably are not.
Paul also affirms in Romans 7:12 that "the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." So I am not speaking against the Ten Commandments any more than Paul is. But they must be placed in their proper perspective so that we can see how and when they still apply.
Speaking again of the Ten Commandments, you wrote:
"They were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, covered by the mercy seat, separate from the Old Covenant."
I find it astonishing that you could write this and not see the contradiction in your own words. The Ark of the COVENANT holds the words of the COVENANT! You then try to cover for this by making up a separate "Ten Commandments Covenant" that is found nowhere in Scripture. You are basically asserting that God gave Israel the Old Covenant and the New Covenant there at Mount Sinai at the same time. What sense would this make? You are tying yourself in knots!
How about this: Was it Sin if Israel broke the Law of Moses? Was it Sin if Israel broke the Ten Commandments? If "yes" to both, then what is the practical difference?
You repeat the notion that: "The New Covenant changes our inclination." THIS is what ALL churches teach to drag us back under bondage to the law. They say that Israel lacked grace or the Holy Spirit, but WE finally, at long last, can keep this Law which Israel never could.
So then Christians try to keep it, and fail, and come up with more excuses such as, "We know it is impossible to be perfect in this life", which directly contradicts the words of Jesus. They teach, in essence, that we shouldn't Sin, but we are GOING to because it is IMPOSSIBLE not to Sin. They say, "ALL have sinned", and then turn around and repeat the damnable heresy that we somehow magically receive a power not to sin. This is flagrant hypocrisy. It does not work in practice. They admit that it does not work. And yet they repeat it just as you have, as if it actually means something. This is a trap from which I have never seen any Christian escape.
A lot of words have gone back and forth, and we seem to be no closer to answering the original question of this thread. For we have been stuck squarely in the Old Covenant, and in dispute over whether or not that is the New Covenant in disguise. It be refreshing to receive direct answers to the challenges put to you in this post. The goal here should be clarity rather than further confusion.
Honi soit qui mal y pense |
|
|
|
jsnyder3395
Regular Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2015 : 12:37:34
|
Good morning Caleb,
You have ignored commenting on the scripture:
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law (Rom 3:31 KJV) which is echoed in the Old Testament by I am thy servant; give me understanding, that I may know thy testimonies. 126 It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law. 127 Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold. (Psa 119:125-127 KJV)
You indicate that I teach, “You take the Law, declare it not to be the Law,” please refer back to all our communication, and you will find this is untrue. What is true is that I distinguish between the Law of the Old Covenant and the Law of the New Covenant.
Your reference to Exodus 19 is telling. What you ignore in this passage is that this is not a rendition of the Covenant. The Covenant of Moses has not been given yet. There is a covenant in existence, however, the Covenant of Abraham. This passage of scripture is an invitation by The Lord for Israel to partake in the Covenant of Abraham. The results of agreement and entering into the Covenant of Abraham is, “:if you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then … you shall be a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” The passage is specific as to what Moses was Commanded to tell the elders, These are the words which thou shalt speak…and (Moses) laid before their faces ALL THESE words which the Lord Commanded him.
While it is true that the elders said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do,” they were the epitome of
“Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: (Isa 29:13 KJV) We know this certainly, because after God Himself spoke the terms of the Covenant to all Israel, there response was to tell Moses “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! (Deu 5:27-29 KJV)
This shows their heart was far from Him.
So the story flow in Exodus 19 is straight forward. God offers Israel the covenant upon which they will become a “kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” They respond sure! God then speaks directly to them the Terms of the Covenant upon which they each could approach God directly, which is what a priest does for himself and for others. At this point they say NO! They say “no” by saying they do not want to have God speak to them Deu 5:, Moses “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. (Deu 5:27 KJV) Moses you be the mediator. And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. (Exo 20:19 KJV)
Israel DID NOT become a kingdom of priests! This is a New Covenant Promise. Remember “…And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; (Exo 19:17 KJV) God responds to Israel’s rejection of God speaking with them by saying to Moses, “Go say to them, Get you into your tents again.” They did not continue with that relationship offered, so God responds, “ 31 But as for thee (Moses), stand thou here by me, and, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it. (Deu 5:30-31 KJV) So God speaks to Moses who relates to the people. He becomes the mediator of the Old Covenant, which is referred to here as, " I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them,” this is reference to the terms of the Old Covenant, given through Moses. Then God chose some out of Israel to be priests on their behalf since they did not become a kingdom of priests.
You indidate:
In this brief passage we have:
1) The terms of the covenant: There are no terms.
2) It is specifically called a "covenant": yes a covenant is mentioned.
3) Both parties (God, the Elders of the people): Yes
4) Moses as mediator: NO, Moses brought only the invitation for the people to have direct access to God, and become a kingdom of priests (who have access to God).
5) The speaking of the terms: NO, the ONLY speaking was the reiteration of the invitation “if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant,”
6) The agreement with the terms: The only agreement is that they said, “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” What had the Lord spoken? “Obey my voice and keep my covenant.” Yet God says of them, “O THAT THERE WERE SUCH AN HEART IN THEM, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments…”
God sends them to their tents and deals with Moses, who becomes mediator of the Old Covenant that comes through him. (This is tantamount to saying, “Go to your room.”) 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, (Old Covenant) that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it. (Deu 5:30-31 KJV)
So here we have the offer for the Israelites to obey via the reiteration of the Covenant of Abraham, offered after 400 years in bondage, the rejection of direct relationship with God, and the institution of the Law of Moses, the Old Covenant with Moses as mediator.
Your statement “Going back to Eden, there was ONE command. Only one, not ten. There was no use of force, but the penalty for breaching the command was quite severe. We continue to feel its effects today. How can you simply say, "This is just not true. With that as a foundation, the building will be faulty"?
Words out of context should be more carefully considered. My comment was with regard to your statement “Adam and Eve were commanded nothing that they didn't already want to do.” I stand by my statement that “This is just not true.” You are ascribing my comment to what you wrote later.
You stated, We have a word that describes the motivation of doing something simply because you want to: Love
While this can be true, this can also be false. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust (strong want to), and enticed (Jam 1:14 KJV) For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth. (Psa 10:3 KJV) Again the Bible clearly defines love,
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. (1Jo 5:3 KJV) Oh! Yes, the New Testaments uses the word commandments directly in relation to Love.
You also said, James is right that obedience to the Ten Commandments is consistent with loving your neighbor and loving God. But why are they "commandments". Why do we have to be told to obey them? This was previously answered, but it seems that now you are changing your story on the Ten Commandments being consistent with Loving God and your neighbor. Am I misreading something.?
I am leaving on a trip and will complete this in a second post.
James Snyder
|
|
|
|
jsnyder3395
Regular Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2015 : 17:42:49
|
On the paragraph starting with "Israel DID NOT become a kingdom of priests! " in the previous post, the full quote should be:
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. (Deu 5:31 KJV) This is instruction to Moses about speaking His Law, the Law of Moses. (see Josh 8:31, 1 Kings 2:3, Luke 2:22, 1 Cor 9:9, and many others)
James Snyder
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What is the New Covenant?
