Should Christians Keep the Ten Commandments Today???

[Rick W]

:yes @ francisdesales

A boy always did exactly as the father wished, picked up his toys, wiped his feet and generally behaved better than any other boy in the neighborhood to earn "rewards" from his Dad. But his heart was focused on himself. He never showed the father any affection, squirmed constantly when his Dad pick him up and put him in his lap trying to push him away.
His brother wasn't so behaved, the knees in his trousers were always blown out, tracked mud on the carpet and in general was always getting into trouble. But when his Dad would sit reading the paper he'd jump into his lap, the paper wrinkling noisily, hug him and tell him he loved him getting smudges on his Dad's cheek when the boy kissed him.

Which truly loved his father?

 

[Sparkey]

Rick,

I really love your post.

With respect,
~Sparrow

 

[Brother Lionel]

Brother Lionel,

Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but I was operating under the assumption that there is no one, anywhere, who hasn't broken the 10C and therefore is condemned by them. The First commandment is to have the only God as your only God. From this all other commandments flow. This the breaking of any other commandments of God also violates this one.

Correct, we have all violated God's ten commandments due to the fact that if you offend in one point, you are guilty of all (James 2:10). And Jesus has romoved the penalty of the law for some (delayed the penalty for others) by His sacrifice. But because He removed the penalty and replaced it with grace, but does this mean that we can freely disregard the law? I answer in the words of Paul - "God forbid"!! (Romans 6:15). When we accept the grace that has been provided to us by Christ, we enter into a covenant with Christ (the New Covenant) where He intercedes on our behalf as the Mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6, 9:15) and He gives us the power to live in obedience to the Law of God (Romans 8:7-9, 1 John 3:22-24). But to say that we can sin (disregarding or breaking God's Law) because of grace is not biblical - 1 Peter 4:18 "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner (one who lives contrary to the law and will of God) appear?"

 

[Ben Joiner]

Brother Lionel,
Great, I wasn't sure where you were going at first with the "ordinances that were against us" thing. But nevertheless, it cannot therefore be ruled out that the Sabbaths spoken of by God's apostolic prophet Paul in Col 2 are the everyday Sabbaths instead of special ones only. There may be some other reason, but that cannot be the reason. It would appear to me that this particular text isn't meant by Paul to lay down a particular doctrine but rather to remind his readers of one, making the text not so specific.

So for me this is where the issue stands
option 1: the OT laws that fail to be reaffirmed in the NT are no longer in "force"
option 2: the OT laws that fail to be denounced in the NT are still in "force"

It would seem obvious that God would make things clear. But you and I do apparently agree on this:

The OT law as a whole served a double purpose of providing moral truth as well as separating a nation off to fulfill the promise of Messiah. Once that Messiah came SOME of the laws ceased to be in force.

The question that arises is then, "Where do we draw the line?" Some draw it at the 10C because they are given as a special set in the OT. Some draw it inside the 10C. Some say that we obey God without obeying laws, which is ridiculous. Anything you do must have a description, which must be a law. We agree that the temple laws served only to make Israel a Nation and are no longer in force with the coming of God's sacrifice. We agree that the first commandment to "have no other Gods before me" is a moral law with eternal force. Even the little fellow in Rick W's story follows that law. A lot of people seem to be worried about you being Pharisaical Brother Lionel but I don't see that at all. BTW, Rick W, I wasn't suggesting that you meant that the boy wasn't obeying any laws.

This is a question of details. Important ones, but still details. The main principle is laid out and is: " some laws are no longer in force and some still are." You know, I get a lot of pastors preaching that we should follow the 10C and that means going to church on Sunday. It always seems ridiculous to me. The Jews didn't/don't do that. They stayed/stay home. Do you want the lights to be on at Church? Do you want the firefighters to come if you need them? Do you want to let the police take a day off?

So the question is (everyone) which laws go and which laws stay. And why! I'm interested to see what those who oppose the enforcement of the 10C say. What are their reasons?

 

[Brother Lionel]

LOL! So we are clear in that we love our neighbor by not killing them, lying to them, coveting their goods, commiting adultery, and disrespecting our parents; but when the question arises on how do you show your love for God, the answer is "I can't put it into words. I just do?" Rick, lets get real. Thats not an answer. You and I both know that the first four of the Ten Commandments deal with love for God, the last six deal with love for your neighbor. And for the record, Matthew 22:37-40 is not the first time these two great commandments were spoken. They were both OT Commandments first and Jesus just recited them.

I think Jesus is very clear on the distinction between simply "following the letter of the law" as the Pharisees did was not "enough" to be righteous in God's eyes. Jesus said unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and Scribes, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Now, since the Pharisees were quite strict in following the LEGAL aspects of the Law, how would WE become even MORE righteous? By following the Law of Love - which Jesus goes on to describe in Matthew 5-7...

Wrong. The Pharisees weren’t strict on following the legal aspects of the law; they were strict in following the aspects of THEIR LAW, meaning the Talmud. This is why Jesus said unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and Scribes, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. They were so strict in following their own traditions that they disregarded a lot of the Moral law which is also why Jesus addressed them in a more expounded sense. He had to expand the laws of murder, adultery, and dishonoring our parents because they had “a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe their own traditions†(Mark 7:9). We are righteous by 1.) accepting Jesus’ gift of sacrifice and 2.) living in obedience to His will which is His Law (Psalm 40:8). To imply that we become “more righteous†by disregarding Jesus’ divine principles goes against everything Jesus stood for and taught (Matthew 5:17-20, John 14:15, John 15:10). And its funny that you mention Matthew 5 because it is in this very chapter that Jesus refutes your perspective:

Matthew 5:17-20 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (their Talmudic tradition according to Matthew 15:2-9 and Mark 7:9), ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Its amazing how you guys twist and turn this decree to fit YOUR tradition...

Following the LEGAL definition of not committing adultery, in the Pharisee's eyes, was to not have sex with another woman not your wife. Thus, in the Pharisee's eyes, one could have fantasies of sexual relations with another woman. One could flirt, do everything EXCEPT the act of copulation. But yet, the Pharisee acting this way was NOT disobeying THEIR definition of the law. Jesus defined it MUCH MORE strictly - going BEYOND the letter of the Law. Thus, we obey Christ, not because of the Mosaic written Law, but because the Spirit has written a Law on our heart that exceeds what the legal Mosaic law required.

This is one of the most common excuses for not obeying the commandments of God, but in actuality, this “we now keep the Spirit of the law†view supports my position. This is because it is IMPOSSIBLE to obey the spirit of the law without obeying the letter. This excuse is like saying “I had intercourse with another woman other than my wife but I didn’t lust for her in my heartâ€Â. That’s sounds completely ridiculous! So by keeping the spirit of the law (lust in one’s heart), by default we keep the letter (the physical act of adultery). So if you obey Christ based on the spirit of the law, then you agree with me because you automatically keep the letter. This view never really made sense to me and I don’t know why people use it to support disobedience towards the commandments of God…

We abide in the Law of the Spirit - which fulfills more than the written letter. We don't obey the Ten Commandments because they are the Mosaic Law. We obey a higher law, the Law of Love. Jesus very well explained the difference, noting how the Pharisees were FAR from the Kingdom, despite following the legal letter of the Decalogue...

Ridiculous! I want you to look at what you just said…†We don't obey the Ten Commandmentsâ€Â. Now the book of 1 John 5:2, 3 says "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." So, based on what you said here, the bible declares that you don’t love God. And I know you do but do you see how foolish that sounds?? And you say that you obey a “higher law†but Solomon says that our entire duty in life is to be obedient to the will of God which is His Law:

Ecclesiastes 12:13 "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."

So this “higher law†that you speak of is not biblical. If anything, it is nothing but a different perspective and a different view on the Ten Commandments. But to say that you “don’t keep the ten commandments†sounds like a doctrine of devils (no offense). Jesus said Himself that He didn’t come to give us a “new†or “higher†law (Matthew 5:17), but to fulfill the law (the ceremonial law). And after this decree, He then proceeds to expand the other laws in their perception, not to abrogate or get rid of them.

Also, this “Law of Love†that you speak of is OT in origin. When Jesus gave these two commandments, many people assume that He was abrogating the Ten Commandments but nothing could be further from the truth because these two great principles were decreed in the Old Testament FIRST. And it says:

The First Commandment
Deuteronomy 6:5 - And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

The Second Commandment
Leviticus 19:18 ...thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

So, keeping the Law out of love was ALWAYS the motive that God wanted us to have. And when you say that “we now we keep the law of loveâ€Â, this actually supports the keeping of the Ten Commandments because the Ten Commandments ARE the laws of love. When we obey the first four, we show our love for God, and when we obey the last six, we show our love for our neighbor.

It is the inability of the SDA to note the distinction Jesus makes in the Gospels that lead them to preaching a false gospel about adhering to the Mosaic written letter, the age's neo-Judaizers. They do not understand that the Spirit puts aside the need to adhere to the written letter which considers everything but sex as following the commandment against adultery. The Spirit has freed us from such phony following of God's Law.

Regards

Again, you sound ridiculous because when I ask you if it is still a sin to bow down and worship other gods, you say “yesâ€Â. If I ask you if it is still a sin to physically murder a man and take his life, you say “yesâ€Â. If I ask you if it is still a sin to physically commit adultery, you say “yes‚¬Â. If I ask you if it is still a sin to disrespect my parents, you say “yesâ€Â. So, you say that “the Spirit puts aside†the commandments and allows us to disregard them but yet you say that when we commit acts against these principles that it is sin. Again, ridiculous!

 

[Brother Lionel]

:yes @ francisdesales

A boy always did exactly as the father wished, picked up his toys, wiped his feet and generally behaved better than any other boy in the neighborhood to earn "rewards" from his Dad. But his heart was focused on himself. He never showed the father any affection, squirmed constantly when his Dad pick him up and put him in his lap trying to push him away.
His brother wasn't so behaved, the knees in his trousers were always blown out, tracked mud on the carpet and in general was always getting into trouble. But when his Dad would sit reading the paper he'd jump into his lap, the paper wrinkling noisily, hug him and tell him he loved him getting smudges on his Dad's cheek when the boy kissed him.

Which truly loved his father?

Cute story, the second one.

But you mention a few things that jumped out at me. Words like "earn", "rewards", and a phrase like "never showed affection" are quite similar to the underlining assumption that you guys have about my view of the Law. And I'll kindly address this metaphorical anecdote in terms of such.

The first word used is "earn". In regards to the law, it was NEVER meant to be used as a standard to "earn" our way to salvation. The law was and is meant to show us our sin when we live contrary to the will of God. And when we see that sin, the need of God becomes apparent and we run to Him seeking salvation. Although God never implied such, the Jews adopted this erroneous idea that keeping the law brings salvation. In the process, they decided to come up with more laws in order to bring "more righteousness", thus bringing burdens which Jesus addressed during His ministry.

The second word used is "rewards". Despite the view of the majority of Christians, AFTER one receives the assurance of salvation and eternal life through the acceptance of grace, it is possible that he or she can lose their "reward" by living in lawlessness. This can be seen in Matthew 7:21-23:

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Lawlessness is, of course, means to live contrary to or without regard for the law. So, apparently, Jesus believes that keeping the law is important. He also wants us to show our love for Him by keeping His commandments:

Exodus 20:6
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Deuteronomy 7:9
Know therefore that the LORD thy God, He is God...which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations

John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

1 John 5:2, 3
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

The last is the phrase used in this short story was "never showed affection". Interestingly enough, God equates affection (or love) with obedience to His law. As one of the scriptures show above, Jesus implies that those who truly love Him will keep His commandments. 1 John even clearly defines Godly love as someone who lives in obedience to the commandments that God has established. God Himself takes even further and says that those who do not live according to His principles hate Him! Wow, God definately does not mince words or matters!!:

Exodus 20:5, 6
...I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity (great moral evil or sin) of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

But again, this was a cute story...

 

[Brother Lionel]

This is a question of details. Important ones, but still details. The main principle is laid out and is: " some laws are no longer in force and some still are." You know, I get a lot of pastors preaching that we should follow the 10C and that means going to church on Sunday. It always seems ridiculous to me. The Jews didn't/don't do that. They stayed/stay home. Do you want the lights to be on at Church? Do you want the firefighters to come if you need them? Do you want to let the police take a day off?

So the question is (everyone) which laws go and which laws stay. And why! I'm interested to see what those who oppose the enforcement of the 10C say. What are their reasons?

Great question Ben! And I'll be more than happy to provide my take on it and then listen to what everyone else has to say. I for one believe that most of what was wrong in the OT is still wrong today. For instance, I believe that the laws of sexual morality found in Leviticus 18 are still valid today. So when I hear that the Old Testament was "fulfilled" by the Law of Christ and we dont have to keep the "Mosaic Law", that seems like a vague, ambiguous statement to justify whatever tradition the bible never sanctioned because Jesus never spoke about humans refraining from mating with animals as spoken of in Leviticus 18:23. But yet when I ask someone if this is still a sin to commit, I get an astounding yes. But at the same time, I'm being told that we dont have to keep the OT laws. Another example can be found in Deuteronomy 18 where God tells the children of Israel that anyone who practices or associates with someone who practices divination, who is an observer of times (soothsayer or fortune-teller), or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits (demonic spirits), or a wizard, or a necromancer" is considered an abomination. And again, when I ask a spirit-filled Christian about this, they agree without a doubt that God still stands by this law and it is still a "no no" even though they say that we can disregard the Old Testament Law. Its very confusing...

But to answer your question, according to the bible, there were four sets of laws that were given to the Nation of Israel which are:

The Moral Law (Ten Commandments)
The Ceremonial Law (Ordinances, sacrificial system, and feast days)
The Civil Law (Tribal laws put in place to govern the people)
The Health Law (Laws regarding what and what not to eat)

Now, according to the bible (when looking at the bible in sound, scriptural context), the only set of laws that were completely abolished were the ceremonial laws. And there were two things that were nailed to the cross; the whole of the ceremonial law and the penalty of the law. Now that Jesus finished His earthly ministry, the penalty of the law has been removed for believers and delayed for non-believers. Everything else, according to the bible is still intact. Of course, some of the civil laws really dont apply to us today in our society such as the laws concerning bondservants found in Deuteronomy 15:12-18. But the law is the law nonetheless. Notice that this view is logical, practical, and not obscure like some of the explanations on why we dont keep the law. Its something that you can sink your teeth into as opposed to hearing this facade of an excuse on why we should live in disobedience to the law of God. Will we sin, yes but we have an Advocate. Does this law save us, no only Jesus and His precious blood saves us. Will we receive our condemnation if we willingly disregard these principles, Jesus' Word says yes.

 

[Croc7801]

I guess the subject title said it all. Its a simple question that I feel needs to be addressed within the Christian community. If you believe that we do, why? If you believe that we dont, why?

Christians can't keep the 10 commandments all of the time and the commandments are summed up in Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, strength and soul and love your neighbor as yourself. It is only by God's grace that we can achieve this for any length of time. It is not the perfection of ones life; it is the direction-sinning less and less as we become conformed to the image of Christ, never fully realizing it till we see Him and then we will be like Him.

:amen

 

[Brother Lionel]

I guess the subject title said it all. Its a simple question that I feel needs to be addressed within the Christian community. If you believe that we do, why? If you believe that we dont, why?

Christians can't keep the 10 commandments all of the time and the commandments are summed up in Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, strength and soul and love your neighbor as yourself. It is only by God's grace that we can achieve this for any length of time. It is not the perfection of ones life; it is the direction-sinning less and less as we become conformed to the image of Christ, never fully realizing it till we see Him and then we will be like Him.

:amen

I beg to differ my friend. Jesus said if we love Him, we should keep His commandments (John 14:15). Why would He say that if He knew we couldnt keep them??? Paul says I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me (Philippians 4:13). I would think that includes the Ten Commandments. John says in Revelation "blessed are they that do his commandments (Revelation 22:14). James feels the same way because he said "but whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed (James 1:25).

So Jesus told us to do it, Paul says we can do it, and Revelation says that we're blessed when we do it, why you saying Christians cant do it??

And you are correct. They are summed up in love. But the first four is comprised of love for God, and the last six, love for man. And its funny that you mentioned that if a Christian is on the right path, they will be sinning less and less. Its funny because the bible says that "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). So are those who are "sinning less and less as we become conformed to the image of Christ" obeying His laws??? If so, then that would mean that we can keep them although you said we cant...

Ben, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Do you see the facade??? This is ridiculous... Most Christians hide behind this excuse of "Spiritual Law" and "Law of Love" when God sanctioned no such thing... David's cry seems more and more apparent with each post:

Psa 119:126 - It is time for You to act, O LORD, For they have regarded Your law as void...

 

[Rick W]

But you mention a few things that jumped out at me. Words like "earn", "rewards"

Here again the focus is on a couple words rather than the message. I suppose no matter what the thought I tried to convey the words selected to convey that thought would have been used to detract from the analogy I was trying to make. Instead of commenting on the hearts of the two boys which was the point I attempted to make it was a couple of words that was chosen going into a lengthy discussion on those couple of words.

The message got lost through discussion of a couple of single words.
People do things for many self-serving reasons. Whether earn/reward or to simply get into the good graces of someone it's the motive, the desire of the heart that is in question. Maybe my choice of words is in error but again, the message was never commented upon except, "Cute story".

 

[Brother Lionel]

[quote="Brother Lionel":b4r1thkk]But you mention a few things that jumped out at me. Words like "earn", "rewards"

Here again the focus is on a couple words rather than the message. I suppose no matter what the thought I tried to convey the words selected to convey that thought would have been used to detract from the analogy I was trying to make. Instead of commenting on the hearts of the two boys which was the point I attempted to make it was a couple of words that was chosen going into a lengthy discussion on those couple of words.

The message got lost through discussion of a couple of single words.
People do things for many self-serving reasons. Whether earn/reward or to simply get into the good graces of someone it's the motive, the desire of the heart that is in question. Maybe my choice of words is in error but again, the message was never commented upon except, "Cute story".[/quote:b4r1thkk]


That's right my friend, words mean everything and your story was cute, but there was a underlining meaning to it was it not?? Was it not an allegory of people who try and "earn" salvation by merits and people who "messed up along the way but loves God deeply"?? Am I the bad guy for seeing straight through it?? But nonetheless, it was a cut story...

 

[Rick W]

So, keeping the Law out of love was ALWAYS the motive that God wanted us to have. And when you say that “we now we keep the law of loveâ€Â, this actually supports the keeping of the Ten Commandments because the Ten Commandments ARE the laws of love. When we obey the first four, we show our love for God, and when we obey the last six, we show our love for our neighbor.

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

The above are deeds, things done.


Below are the things of love, matters of the heart.

1 Corinthians 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
1 Corinthians 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
1 Corinthians 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
1 Corinthians 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.


These are not found in the Ten Commandments.

Love:

Doth not behave itself unseemly
Seeketh not her own
Is not easily provoked
Thinketh no evil
Rejoiceth not in iniquity
Rejoiceth in the truth
Beareth all things
Believeth all things
Hopeth all things
Endureth all things
Never faileth


Again, the deeds.

1 Corinthians 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.


Again, the heart.

1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

 

[Brother Lionel]

But yet the same author of 1 and 2 Corinthians said "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 13:9

comprehend
1. to understand the nature or meaning of; grasp with the mind; perceive:

Based on Paul's statement and common knowledge of the word "comprehend", it looks like the last six commandments are to be understood and comprehended as loving my neighbor which are "matters of the heart". What do you think???

 

[francisdesales]

Wrong. The Pharisees weren’t strict on following the legal aspects of the law; they were strict in following the aspects of THEIR LAW, meaning the Talmud.

Wrong. Where did Jesus accuse the Pharisees of breaking the codified Decalogue??? He called them hypocrites, but not because they killed, committed adultery, or worshipped idols... They were hypocrites because they followed ONLY the written code, not the intent of the code - which Jesus explains in Matthew 5-7.

This is why Jesus said unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and Scribes, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. They were so strict in following their own traditions that they disregarded a lot of the Moral law.

Like what? Where do we find the Pharisees breaking the actual letter of the Law??? You are confusing the Ten commandments with "Moral Law". Adherence to the written code does not require adherence to a "Moral Law". Think adultery. Am I breaking the written code if I have lust in my heart for someone else all the time??? Am I literally killing someone by calling them names and destroying their reputation?

which is also why Jesus addressed them in a more expounded sense. He had to expand the laws of murder, adultery, and dishonoring our parents because they had “a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe their own traditions†(Mark 7:9).

They set aside the INTENT of God's Laws by inventing their own traditions to circumvent what God desires men to do. But would a Jewish court condemn a Pharisee who practiced Korban for breaking the letter of the law to honor their parents??? How could the court decide that a person had the wrong intent in their hearts? Jesus was able to read the reasoning behind their intent and provided His corrective. But the literal law was not broken by Korban.

We are righteous by 1.) accepting Jesus’ gift of sacrifice and 2.) living in obedience to His will which is His Law (Psalm 40:8). To imply that we become “more righteous†by disregarding Jesus’ divine principles goes against everything Jesus stood for and taught (Matthew 5:17-20, John 14:15, John 15:10). And its funny that you mention Matthew 5 because it is in this very chapter that Jesus refutes your perspective:

You clearly have not figured out my perspective, since you presume that my point of view means that we are to disregard divine principles. We follow "thou shall not kill", but NOT because it is part of the Mosaic Law. We follow this Law because it is part of the Law of Love, which is MORE strict than the codified Mosaic Law. If you can't figure out from Matthew 5 that Jesus explains HIS rendition is more strict than the codified version, I don't know what to tell you...

Its amazing how you guys twist and turn this decree to fit YOUR tradition...

It's amazing how you have divided the Mosaic Law and follow parts of it while ignoring the rest... Either you follow the entire Mosaic Law or you break the Mosaic Law. If the reason why you "do not kill" is BECAUSE of the Mosaic Law, than you are a sinner for eating pork and refusing to stone blasphemers...

Paul makes it very clear that we "do not kill" BECAUSE of the Mosaic Law but BECAUSE of the Law of Grace, the Law of Love, of the Spirit. This LAW supercedes the Mosaic Law as a Law in force. SOME of the Law of Love, obviously, include dictates that the Mosaic Law points out. But we "do not kill" because they are part of the Mosaic Law.

This is one of the most common excuses for not obeying the commandments of God, but in actuality, this “we now keep the Spirit of the law†view supports my position. This is because it is IMPOSSIBLE to obey the spirit of the law without obeying the letter.

And thus, we don't become concerned with obeying the letter, since obeying in the spirit far excels obeying the letter. If I refuse to even look at a woman in lust, how can I break the LETTER of the Mosaic Law by having sex with anothe woman???

This excuse is like saying “I had intercourse with another woman other than my wife but I didn’t lust for her in my heartâ€Â. That’s sounds completely ridiculous!

The analogy fails because it is ridiculous. Who has sex with another woman without lusting for her? Is this some sort of science experiement you have devised in your laboratory??? I am talking about real life.

So by keeping the spirit of the law (lust in one’s heart), by default we keep the letter (the physical act of adultery). So if you obey Christ based on the spirit of the law, then you agree with me because you automatically keep the letter. This view never really made sense to me and I don’t know why people use it to support disobedience towards the commandments of God…

How am I disobeying God's Law by going beyond the written letter of the Decalogue???

I am not bound by the Mosaic Law. There is a higher Law in force. Some of those commands are included in the Decalogue. When I obey them, I am not obeying them because they are the Mosaic Law!!! This Law is not in force for me.

Furthermore, you have yet to prove that the Jewish Sabbath is an eternal moral law imposed on anyone other than Jews.

We abide in the Law of the Spirit - which fulfills more than the written letter. We don't obey the Ten Commandments because they are the Mosaic Law. We obey a higher law, the Law of Love. Jesus very well explained the difference, noting how the Pharisees were FAR from the Kingdom, despite following the legal letter of the Decalogue...

Ridiculous! I want you to look at what you just said…†We don't obey the Ten Commandmentsâ€Â.

Typical proof texter... Take what I say out of context. I said MORE than "we don't obey the ten commandments".

If I took on your style of argument, I would conclude that there is no God from the bible itself by cutting and pasting those very words out of the Psalms and not including the follow up verses.

Now the book of 1 John 5:2, 3 says "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

Not refering to the Mosaic Law, but the Law of Love. John, of all writers, would clearly point out the differences. He tells us about the Law of Love more often than any other writer. It is he who speaks of Jesus giving us ONE command (not ten).

So this “higher law†that you speak of is not biblical. If anything, it is nothing but a different perspective and a different view on the Ten Commandments.

You still don't get that there is a New Covenant in force, do you...

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Gal 2:21

Righteousness does not come by following the letter of the Mosaic Law. Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees HOW one could follow the legal Mosaic Law and STILL be dead to God's Love.

Also, this “Law of Love†that you speak of is OT in origin.

Wrong. The Law came before the writing of Scriptures. Try to keep this in mind. The Scriptures were not written to MAKE laws and commandments - they were already in place. Scriptures RELATE what the Church had already done or was already doing.

When Jesus gave these two commandments, many people assume that He was abrogating the Ten Commandments but nothing could be further from the truth because these two great principles were decreed in the Old Testament FIRST. And it says:

The First Commandment
Deuteronomy 6:5 - And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

The Second Commandment
Leviticus 19:18 ...thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Jesus refers to the Torah because the Pharisees accepted it as authoritative. NOT because IT was the "origin" of the Law. These laws were in place way before Moses' time. The bible makes it clear that men refused to obey this law of love written in their hearts.

So, keeping the Law out of love was ALWAYS the motive that God wanted us to have.

Correct. It doesn't depend upon the Decalogue. Thus, the ENTIRE Mosaic Law is not formulative for Christians. Those parts of the Mosaic Law that we HAPPEN to follow are dictates from God that came BEFORE the Mosaic Law and remain in force as the Law of Love.

And when you say that “we now we keep the law of loveâ€Â, this actually supports the keeping of the Ten Commandments because the Ten Commandments ARE the laws of love. When we obey the first four, we show our love for God, and when we obey the last six, we show our love for our neighbor.

The Ten Commandments are not the Law of Love, as Jesus points out to the Pharisees. Following the written dictates of the ten commandments does not make one righteous in God's eyes. Having lust in the heart while not copulating is not breaking the written letter. The Mosaic Law is upheld. But is God's Law of Love upheld??? Of course not.

Again, you sound ridiculous because when I ask you if it is still a sin to bow down and worship other gods, you say “yesâ€Â.

This should prove my point clearly!

Not because it is part of the Mosaic Law. Paul discusses this in Romans 1!!!! He speaks of PAGANS who SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. WHY should they have known? Because the Ten Commandments were passed out on tracts on the windshield of their chariots???

I am hoping this is beginning to sink in, but the Spirit of God has written His Law upon our hearts, and everyone should know not to kill, commit adultery, steal, or worship false gods. Their knowledge of this has NOTHING to do with the written code given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Those who follow this law are spiritually circumcised, as Paul says in Romans 2. In other words, the ten commandments can remain unknown and unheard of - but people can be spiritual Jews by following the Law imprinted upon them by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Apostles realized that we "do not kill" because of a higher law - and the old covenant is done with.

If it is still in force, than you must keep ALL of it. What is the point of keeping part of the Mosaic Law while willfully ignoring other parts of it???

 

[Brother Lionel]

Wrong. Where did Jesus accuse the Pharisees of breaking the codified Decalogue??? He called them hypocrites, but not because they killed, committed adultery, or worshipped idols... They were hypocrites because they followed ONLY the written code, not the intent of the code - which Jesus explains in Matthew 5-7.

Where?? Here…
Matthew 15:3 - He (Jesus) answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?â€Â

This is why Jesus said unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and Scribes, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. They were so strict in following their own traditions that they disregarded a lot of the Moral law.

Like what? Where do we find the Pharisees breaking the actual letter of the Law??? You are confusing the Ten commandments with "Moral Law". Adherence to the written code does not require adherence to a "Moral Law". Think adultery. Am I breaking the written code if I have lust in my heart for someone else all the time??? Am I literally killing someone by calling them names and destroying their reputation?

Just showed you… Would you like more??? And the moral law is the ten commandments.

And yes, you are committing the written code of adultery if you have lust in your heart. Jesus says "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.†- Matthew 5:27, 28

And yes, you can break the written code of murder with your mouth. Jesus again says "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." - Matthew 15:18, 19

which is also why Jesus addressed them in a more expounded sense. He had to expand the laws of murder, adultery, and dishonoring our parents because they had “a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe their own traditions†(Mark 7:9).

They set aside the INTENT of God's Laws by inventing their own traditions to circumvent what God desires men to do. But would a Jewish court condemn a Pharisee who practiced Korban for breaking the letter of the law to honor their parents??? How could the court decide that a person had the wrong intent in their hearts? Jesus was able to read the reasoning behind their intent and provided His corrective. But the literal law was not broken by Korban.

Hey, Jesus said they broke the commandment, not me… “He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?†Matthew 15:3

We are righteous by 1.) accepting Jesus’ gift of sacrifice and 2.) living in obedience to His will which is His Law (Psalm 40:8). To imply that we become “more righteous†by disregarding Jesus’ divine principles goes against everything Jesus stood for and taught (Matthew 5:17-20, John 14:15, John 15:10). And its funny that you mention Matthew 5 because it is in this very chapter that Jesus refutes your perspective:

You clearly have not figured out my perspective, since you presume that my point of view means that we are to disregard divine principles. We follow "thou shall not kill", but NOT because it is part of the Mosaic Law. We follow this Law because it is part of the Law of Love, which is MORE strict than the codified Mosaic Law. If you can't figure out from Matthew 5 that Jesus explains HIS rendition is more strict than the codified version, I don't know what to tell you...

Ok so based on what you just said, “We follow "thou shall not kill", but NOT because it is part of the Mosaic Law. We follow this Law because it is part of the Law of Love, which is MORE strict than the codified Mosaic Lawâ€Â, then are you saying that if we keep the “law of loveâ€Â, then by default we’re keeping the letter?? Because your whole argument is implying that we are not required to keep the letter of the commandmentss but yet you just said “We follow ‘thou shall not kill’â€Â. Now I know that you were referring to the spiritual aspect of this principle but my point is that if you follow the spiritual aspect of this principle, then you have no choice but to adhere to the physical aspect.

Its amazing how you guys twist and turn this decree to fit YOUR tradition...

It's amazing how you have divided the Mosaic Law and follow parts of it while ignoring the rest... Either you follow the entire Mosaic Law or you break the Mosaic Law. If the reason why you "do not kill" is BECAUSE of the Mosaic Law, than you are a sinner for eating pork and refusing to stone blasphemers...

Two things:

1. I don’t eat pork
2. The penalty of the law has been passed to Christ.

And I would like to correct you. I never said we keep the law because of the law of Moses. We keep the law BECAUSE we are saved by the grace given by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Paul makes it very clear that we "do not kill" BECAUSE of the Mosaic Law but BECAUSE of the Law of Grace, the Law of Love, of the Spirit. This LAW supercedes the Mosaic Law as a Law in force. SOME of the Law of Love, obviously, include dictates that the Mosaic Law points out. But we "do not kill" because they are part of the Mosaic Law.

Verses please so we can stick to the scriptures instead of your own interpretation…

This is one of the most common excuses for not obeying the commandments of God, but in actuality, this “we now keep the Spirit of the law†view supports my position. This is because it is IMPOSSIBLE to obey the spirit of the law without obeying the letter.

And thus, we don't become concerned with obeying the letter, since obeying in the spirit far excels obeying the letter. If I refuse to even look at a woman in lust, how can I break the LETTER of the Mosaic Law by having sex with another woman???

[quote="Brother Lionel":1tw5edbu]

This excuse is like saying “I had intercourse with another woman other than my wife but I didn’t lust for her in my heartâ€Â. That’s sounds completely ridiculous!

The analogy fails because it is ridiculous. Who has sex with another woman without lusting for her? Is this some sort of science experiment you have devised in your laboratory??? I am talking about real life. [/quote:1tw5edbu]

Exactly!!! You are proving my point friend!! If you refuse to look at a woman in lust, then you, by default, are keeping the letter because you are keeping the spirit of the law!! Keeping the spirit of the law by breaking the letter does, in fact, sound ridiculous, which is my whole point! “Its not real life†As you stated…

So by keeping the spirit of the law (lust in one’s heart), by default we keep the letter (the physical act of adultery). So if you obey Christ based on the spirit of the law, then you agree with me because you automatically keep the letter. This view never really made sense to me and I don’t know why people use it to support disobedience towards the commandments of God…

How am I disobeying God's Law by going beyond the written letter of the Decalogue???

I am not bound by the Mosaic Law. There is a higher Law in force. Some of those commands are included in the Decalogue. When I obey them, I am not obeying them because they are the Mosaic Law!!! This Law is not in force for me.

That’s the thing, if you obey the spiritual aspect of the law, you will obey God’s Law. But to willingly disregard the letter of the law is not what God had in mind. That was the premise of the example I used when I said physically committing adultery without breaking the spiritual aspect is impossible. That same principle should be applied to all ten of God’s commandments. Is it not??

Furthermore, you have yet to prove that the Jewish Sabbath is an eternal moral law imposed on anyone other than Jews.

It’s not “the Jewish Sabbathâ€Â. That’s like saying “the Jewish law of idol worship†or “the Jewish law of lyingâ€Â… The Sabbath was established before Judaism so why are you coining it a Jewish tradition. If that’s the case, marriage should be an exclusive Jewish tradition too right?? My point exactly…

But this shows us that it is eternal:

Exodus 31:16, 17 "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

This shows us that it wasn’t only for the Jews (that would make sense being that it was established before the Jewish nation existed):

Isaiah 56:2-6 "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. 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. 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." 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. 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"

When Jesus gave these two commandments, many people assume that He was abrogating the Ten Commandments but nothing could be further from the truth because these two great principles were decreed in the Old Testament FIRST. And it says:

The First Commandment
Deuteronomy 6:5 - And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

The Second Commandment
Leviticus 19:18 ...thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Jesus refers to the Torah because the Pharisees accepted it as authoritative. NOT because IT was the "origin" of te Law. These laws were in place way before Moses' time. The bible makes it clear that men refused to obey this law of love written in their hearts.

But the “law of love†that you keep referring to is OT also and not just a New Testament theology. Jesus refers to the law of because the law of Moses is still valid or else Jesus wouldn’t have even mentioned it.

 

[francisdesales]

Matthew 15:3 - He (Jesus) answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?â€Â

The Pharisees did not interpret the Law as Jesus did. They believed in following the written code to the "T", ignoring its Godly intent. There were several schools of thought in Judaism at the time on how to interpret the Laws of God. If you are familiar with the Talmund, you will understand the Jew's propensity for written codes and explanations of every given possible circumstance and whether it breaks the written code. This attitude breeds slavish adherence to the letter of the law without recognizing the intent behind the law and making common sense decisions that give the "judge" flexibility.

Thus, back to adultery, the Jew would define what EXACTLY was adultery. With whom and what circumstances. Even describing the mechanics that would be considered "crossing the line". It did not include wicked thoughts! Naturally, this is not the final intent of the Law of Love, a NEW LAW. Jesus says "YOU have heard it said...", refering to the Mosaic law and its interpretation. THEN, Jesus, the NEW Law giver, says "But I say...", emulating - nay - surpassing the role of Moses and those who followed him. Thus, the old obedience to the Mosaic Law, the "do just enough" attitude, was no longer good enough to be a faithful follower of God. Note, Jesus is giving a NEW interpretation of the Law, one where He completes the understanding of God's Law given in the Decalogue.

Just showed you… Would you like more??? And the moral law is the ten commandments.

Worshiping God on Saturday is not part of the moral law... The moral law is written on all men's hearts, for Paul says THEY SHOULD KNOW (pagans). Now, if SATURDAY worship was part of the moral law, then everyone would know that all men must worship God on SATURDAY. That is ridiculous, because every civilization did not even consider "Saturday" as the seventh day of the week - which, of course, is THE POINT of Saturday worship...

YOU have already admitted to Tina that men would not go to hell for worshiping on Sunday. Paul makes it clear that CERTAIN acts will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God. Murder, lying, stealing, dissenting, scandal, etc. Things that WE consider part of the Moral Law. However, Paul NEVER mentions Saturday Sabbath worship as part of the necessary acts that we are required to do to enter the Kingdom - OR non-Saturday worship that will keep us OUT of the Kingdom.

Read 1 Cor 6:9-10. Anything in there about Sunday worship (or Tuesday worship) that will keep us out of the Kingdom? Nope. Thus, you are confusing the ENTIRE Decalogue with the Moral Law...

Yes, there are many pieces of the Moral law found in the written Ten Commandments. However, yet again, the two are not the same thing... Other non-Jewish cultures were aware of the Moral Law (loving neighbor), such as the Hammurabi Code. But nothing about Saturday worship... That is because SATURDAY worship is a JEWISH law, applicable only to the Jews or followers of the Mosaic Code of Law...

We can worship on Tuesday, and quite frankly, would it matter? The point of giving worship is not because God needs it, but because WE need to worship God...

And yes, you are committing the written code of adultery if you have lust in your heart. Jesus says "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.†- Matthew 5:27, 28

Jesus was providing a NEW command, not re-iterating an old one.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Mat 5:27-28

And yes, you can break the written code of murder with your mouth. Jesus again says "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." - Matthew 15:18, 19

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Mat 5:21-22

Again, according to Jesus, the NEW Lawgiver, not the Pharisees... He was giving a NEW Law, a new interpretation, that went BEYOND what they ALREADY HAD!!! They HAD the Mosaic Law for over 1000 years!!! Thus, the Mosaic law was NOT ENOUGH...

Ok so based on what you just said, “We follow "thou shall not kill", but NOT because it is part of the Mosaic Law. We follow this Law because it is part of the Law of Love, which is MORE strict than the codified Mosaic Lawâ€Â, then are you saying that if we keep the “law of loveâ€Â, then by default we’re keeping the letter??

Yes. that is why Paul tells us the letter is inconsequential, because the Spirit moves us to EXCEED the letter of the law. I do not lie because of the Spirit, not because it is part of the Mosaic Law. But in either case, I am obeying - and going BEYOND - the written letter, as Jesus laid out in Matthew 5 above.

Because your whole argument is implying that we are not required to keep the letter of the commandmentss but yet you just said “We follow ‘thou shall not kill’â€Â. Now I know that you were referring to the spiritual aspect of this principle but my point is that if you follow the spiritual aspect of this principle, then you have no choice but to adhere to the physical aspect.

We are not required to keep the Law, WHICH INCLUDES ALL OF THE MOSAIC COMMANDS. You keep forgetting that. It has already been painfully laid out for you that the Jews did not separate the Decalogue obedience from the other dictates given to them by Moses. In other words, the Ten Commandments were LAW just as much as not eating pork or being circumcised... These commands were ALL from God. Thus, as long ago we have pointed out, the SDA incorrectly and quite randomly picks and chooses what everyone should obey - when ALL of the Mosaic LAW must be followed IF you follow the Ten Commandments because they are part of the Mosaic Law.

Two things:

1. I don’t eat pork
2. The penalty of the law has been passed to Christ.

That is another incorrect assumption, a common Protestant mistake, since then you are implying NO ONE WILL GO TO HELL, since Christ died for ALL men...

As for pork, that's too bad, it is delicious with BBQ sauce. Yummy.

And I would like to correct you. I never said we keep the law because of the law of Moses. We keep the law BECAUSE we are saved by the grace given by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

WHICH Law are we to keep, my friend? The Mosaic Law???? Paul says that law has been abrogated. Follow it if you like, but it will not justify you. James tells us we are justified by a different law.

The analogy fails because it is ridiculous. Who has sex with another woman without lusting for her? Is this some sort of science experiment you have devised in your laboratory??? I am talking about real life.

Exactly!!! You are proving my point friend!! If you refuse to look at a woman in lust, then you, by default, are keeping the letter because you are keeping the spirit of the law!!

Other way around... I keep the spirit of the Law of Love, which surpasses what the letter of the law STATES. It states - "thou shall not commit adultery". It doesn't say "thou shall not have lustful thoughts". That is not what the Commandment states. It was only Jesus who gave this NEW Law, (BUT I SAY...) which would be based upon how the Spirit would move within us. Obedience to the Spirit would supercede the necessity of worrying about the written code...

That’s the thing, if you obey the spiritual aspect of the law, you will obey God’s Law.

Yes... Thus, we are not concerned with the written Law FOR THE SAKE OF IT BEING THE MOSAIC LAW. That is why Paul could say "it is abrogated"... Why would Paul make such statements, or call it a shadow of the good thing to come???

But to willingly disregard the letter of the law is not what God had in mind.

WHICH law are you refering to? The Mosaic Law? Or the Law of Love? The former is done. The Law of Love supercedes the Mosaic Law's moral commands. Rather than "do not kill", it is "love your neighbor".

And of course, SATURDAY WORSHIP fits NOWHERE into this formula.

That was the premise of the example I used when I said physically committing adultery without breaking the spiritual aspect is impossible. That same principle should be applied to all ten of God’s commandments. Is it not??

Again, you are hung up on the "Ten Commandments". The Ten Commandments were given to the Jews. ALL of their dictates applies to the Jews. God has given Christians a different law, the Law of Love, which ENCOMPASSES and SURPASSES the Ten Commandments. Jesus said "BUT I SAY..." He compares the Mosaic Law with the Law according to Jesus and surpasses it.

"Thou shall not kill."

Insufficient in the New Law given by Christ...

Now, we cannot even call our brother names without breaking the NEW LAW.

And again, the Saturday Sabbath is not part of the NEW LAW. Paul told the Colossians that, just as the Apostles told the Jews that circumcision (ANOTHER part of the Law given to the Jews) was no longer a requirement.

Furthermore, you have yet to prove that the Jewish Sabbath is an eternal moral law imposed on anyone other than Jews.

It’s not “the Jewish Sabbathâ€Â. That’s like saying “the Jewish law of idol worship†or “the Jewish law of lyingâ€Â… The Sabbath was established before Judaism

Where? Which person before Moses worshipped God specifically on Saturday? Where do we find Abraham or Isaac worshipping on the "Sabbath"??? Any other civilization that held to Saturday worship? Could you cite some historical literature?

Saturday Sabbath was given by God to the Jews as PART of the Mosaic Law. It is not something that all men were aware of, such as "thou shall not murder".

But this shows us that it is eternal:

Exodus 31:16, 17 "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL...

It is for the Jews of Israel.

Isaiah 56:2-6 "Blessed is the man that doeth this, ...and taketh hold of my covenant"

Written by a Jew for Jews of the Old Covenant. Isaiah was not writing to Egyptians and Greeks and Mayans in the Americas. Thus, his audience, Jews, would understand that the blessings of the Sabbath were applicable to the Jews, since only the JEWS were given the command to honor God on Saturday. This was part of the OLD Covenant ("my covenant"). Jeremiah will speak of a NEW Covenant that will surpass the old. Thus, the Old "Testament" and the New "Testament".

Is there any historical evidence that God gave this commandment to any other people, written in their hearts, akin to what Paul states in Romans 1??? Why is it that God makes Himself known to pagans, allows them to know right from wrong and allowing his Spirit to write a law on their hearts - but does NOT make them aware of Saturday worship????

Because SATURDAY worship is a command given to JEWS. Not mankind.

When Jesus gave these two commandments, many people assume that He was abrogating the Ten Commandments but nothing could be further from the truth because these two great principles were decreed in the Old Testament FIRST.

I didn't say Jesus Himself abrogated the Ten Commandments, nor did I even say that Paul abrogated the Ten Commandments. Again, you have divided the Mosaic Law into two parts... The Decalogue and the 616 or more laws. In your mind, you have done away with the later and kept the former. However, Paul does not make that distinction. He says the ENTIRE Mosaic Law, the OLD Covenant, is finished, fulfilled, superceded by the New Covenant. New Laws are in place - part of which are re-interpretations of PART of the Decalogue.

But the “law of love†that you keep referring to is OT also and not just a New Testament theology. Jesus refers to the law of because the law of Moses is still valid or else Jesus wouldn’t have even mentioned it.

We love our neighbor, but not because it is the Mosaic Law. This does not mean we toss aside the moral commands found in the Ten Commandments. We do not kill for different reasons. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Brother Lionel]

We can go back and forth with this all day but lets agree to disagree in order to avoid "big brother" locking the thread down...

;) Thanks

 

[RND]

The "tradition" of the Pharisees was indeed a strict following of the Rabbinic Talmudism. The Talmud is the written compendium of the oral traditions, passed along now for at least 2 centuries before Jesus and are the "precepts of men," clearly condemned by Jesus in the Gospels [Mark 7:6-9 and Matthew 15:3-6].

The pervasive root, the theme that runs throughout the Talmud, then as it is now, and the main principle of the Talmud is that non-Jews are non-humans. Thess facts can be verified in the Soncino or Steinsaltz translations of the Talmud. There are MANY expurgated translations of the Talmud for Gentile consumption, sanitized of the horrifying Rabbinical doctrines that non-Jews are non-humans, "You are called men, but the Goyim [Gentiles] are not called men." -Kerituth 6b; "The progeny of the Goyim is like an animal." -Sanhedrin 74b Tosephoth; "All Gentile children are animals." -Yebamoth 98a

The fact is that Matthew 15 deals heavily with these "man made traditions" where Rabbi's washed tables, their hands and their clothes religiously because they believe they could catch gentile "cooties" in the market place. The wouldn't so much dare to eat until everything was ritually cleaned. The Talumud prescribed what could and couldn't be done - especially on the sabbath; this explains why men that followed the law and these man made rules to a "T" could insist on killing a man that provided a miracle by healing a man on the sabbath!

In Matthew 15: 2 we see, clearly, that when they asked Why do thy disciples transgress? They were not referring to the law of Moses, but the tradition of the elders, which had as much authority with the Pharisees as the written law. Maybe this is why francisdesales has such a problem because he is one that believes "tradition" holds just as much authority as the word of God.

The tradition of the elders. These precepts were never written in the Scriptures, nor can they be found anywhere! They were simply handed down from the times of Moses and the elders by oral means and when discussing the Babylonian Talmud a mere 200 years before Christ! These precepts were spoken of the law upon the lip, the Oral Traditions, and have been embodied in the Talmud and Rabbinicalism ever since! These were clearly additions to the written word. See Galatians 1:14.

For they wash not their hands. The ultra-orthodox Jews insisted on ritually washing the hands before eating after coming from the market again, not to remove the filth, but as a precaution that they might have touched something ceremonially unclean - like a gentile! Gentile "cooties!" This commandment was purely of a man-made oral tradition,and rigidly insisted upon the Jews. A heavy burden. In observing this tradition Rabbi Akiba,who was imprisoned by the Romans and with enough water to sustain his life, used all for his ceremonial rituals preferring to die of thirst instead.

This is the huge tragedy that can befall any of those who place "tradition" on an equal footing with the word of God.

 

[francisdesales]

We can go back and forth with this all day but lets agree to disagree in order to avoid "big brother" locking the thread down...

;) Thanks

Hey, as long as I am not being relegated to hell for worshiping on Sunday, we can agree to worship God on Saturday or Sunday...

This is not the essence of Christianity, so it's not worth getting heated under the collar over...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

In Matthew 15: 2 we see, clearly, that when they asked Why do thy disciples transgress? They were not referring to the law of Moses, but the tradition of the elders, which had as much authority with the Pharisees as the written law. Maybe this is why francisdesales has such a problem because he is one that believes "tradition" holds just as much authority as the word of God.

Ah, yes. It is interesting that you mention that, because I just gave a class last night to Christians who want to fully enter into the Church because they recognize the inadequacy of your point of view...

There are two types of Traditions that we recognize. The first are Apostolic or Sacred Traditions. They are the teachings that flow from the Apostles, the life of the Church passed down to us from the Ancient Church, what we call the "Great Tradition". Such things encompass ALL that the Apsotles gave us, both oral and written teachings. I think we agree that the Apostles initially taught Christians the Gospel oral form FIRST. There is no evidence that the letters LATER written are MEANT to be exhaustive of those teachings. It is evident that the letters were written to SPECIFIC communities to address SPECIFIC problems. Some items are just not addressed in the Bible very much, but we recognize that are PART of the life of the Church.

To begin with, the table of contents of the Bible...

These teachings are infallible, without error, as Paul would say in Galatians 1:8-9.

The other traditions that we recognize are called ecclesiastical traditions. They are rules, laws, teachings that the church, whether local or universal, has given for the sake of advancing the gospel. However, such disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions are not binding on all people in all places at all times. Perhaps some day, the Church will decide that the rosary should have 12 Hail Mary's per decade. Or maybe they will (already have) add another set of mysteries to contemplate while reciting the prayers... THESE traditions are changeable and are not "apostolic". However, as Catholics, we assent to believe and practice what the Church teaches as appropriate for the advancement of our spiritual lives. We are being fed, as Christ commanded, by the "head servants", while the master is away. We realize that praying 10 beads per decade is useful, knowing that in the future, the Church may see it fit to lengthen the period of contemplation by adding 2 more beads/decade. This is not part of the Faith Once Given, what we call, the Deposit of Faith.

Now, to compare the Pharisees to us, the "traditions" that you speak of would be analogous to our ecclesiastical traditions. When a priest wears green during oridinary time. Perhaps the Church may decide that blue is a better symbolic color for ordinary time. BUT - if this were to be decided in the future - rest assured that there would some tension with such changes in liturgical garb from some people who hold these traditions dearly. We can quite easily see this among "Traditional" Catholics who complain over the Latin Mass's exit from the ordinarily-heard language of worship. The same attitude can enter into particular people who focus on the specifics - "the priest MUST say the Mass in Latin". Such people become scandalized by such ecclesiastical changes. And thus, with the Pharisees, might say "why aren't you following the teachings of the church of the last 500 years", without realizing that the language of the Mass is an ecclesiastical tradition, not apostolic, and thus, subject to change.

yes, there are people, in all religions, I fear, that focus on the particulars and the externals. What to wear in church. How to act or how much money to put in the collection plate. Whether we can drink wine, or what the pastor should preach on... People get caught up in such matters - and frankly, it is why many seekers of God look to "non-denominational" organizations, thinking they will move beyond such dissent and scandals. This is not something "Roman Catholic" in particular, as much as you would like to make it. There are people who are indeed "Pharisaic" in all types of religious settings. Thus, it would serve you well to remember that, and the fact that "Tradition" has several meaning to us.

Jesus defines "tradition of men" as something that moves people AWAY from God, NOT something "added on to the Scriptures". Any sort of devotion that is "invented" by the Church is meant to MOVE people to God. It is the abuse of such things - like demanding that everyone do it or going through the motions without the internal motives in place - that's when it can become a problem - like obeying the call to go to the Sabbath and then having an attitude (as the Pharisees) that healing a wounded man was not appropriate in the house of God. Where is one's heart with such an attitude???

One final comment - did the first Christian communities differentiate between what Paul told them orally or what he told them in writing later??? WHETHER ORALLY OR WRITTEN, they were to obey what they were taught, in either medium. We are merely following our last command given by an Apostle.

The tradition of the elders. These precepts were never written in the Scriptures, nor can they be found anywhere!

Nor can sola scriptura, a tradition of the elders of the reformation...

Look to the beam in your own eye. I have, and will gladly again, destroy the notion that the Bible commands us to look to IT ALONE to find how we are to live our Christian life. NOWHERE does the Bible even suggest it.

Furthermore, Jesus Himself NEVER condemned the Pharisees for "adding things" to the Bible - but rather, because they CIRCUMVENTED the Law of God. There are numerous "traditions of the elders" that Jesus does NOT condemn, when practised to move the mind and spirit to God. Note WHY Jesus attacks such traditions..

Did the Lord ever attack the Pharisees for making "traditions not found in the bible" BECAUSE it was not in Scriptures or because it moved people away from God??? It is false logic to presume that all "traditions of the elders" are bad BECAUSE they are not found in the bible... They can become bad when they are abused - as any other gift that God has given us.