Should Christians Keep the Ten Commandments Today???

[RND]

No. We know that Abraham obeyed some commandments and laws from God.

Which laws did Abraham obey then?

But we also know that the Law of Moses was given 430 years later. Whether or not Abraham "understood" that we are not to kill, etc, is not the point.

If Abraham was a serial murderer then how could his Faith in God's commandments be considered righteousness?

He was simply long dead by the time the Law of Moses, including the 10 commandments was given. You simply assume that he had access to the 10 commandments hundreds of years before they were given.

You mean it isn't remotely possible that God spoke His Ten Commandments law to Abraham? I mean He did speak it first to the COI.

When I talk about "the Law" and make statements about it, I am very specifically referring to the Law of Moses. Perhaps I will ensure that I always use the phrase "Law of Moses" from now on.

Well, I always see that distinction as being very possitive myself considering the two are as different as night and day.

It is the Law of Moses, including the 10 commandments that were presented as a written code at Sinai, and it is the Law of Moses, including the 10 commandments, that were retired at the cross.

Then if the TC were retired at the cross why does Paul mention keeping them?

Rom 13:9 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.

Also, do you understand the symbolic significance of the stone tablets in the Ark of the Covenant covered with the mercy seat and the book of the law on the outside of the Ark that was a "witness against" the COI?

 

[Drew]

You have presented no evidence to suggest that Abraham had an advance copy of the 10 commandments.

You mean the word of God isn't enough?

Please tell the readers precisely where the scriptures state that Abraham got an advance copy of the Law of Moses. Yes, Abraham obeyed "laws", but you need to actually support your assertion that the "laws" he was obeying were the 10 commandments.

It appears that you are trying to make this (obviously incorrect) argument:

1. Abraham obeyed "laws";.

2. The 10 commandments are "laws";.

3. Therefore, Abraham obeyed the 10 commandments.

No. This logic is incorrect, and I suspect that you know that it is. Here is yet another illustration of your error in simply assuming that the laws that Abraham obeyed were the 10 commandments:

1. Fritz, a citizen of Germany obeyed the law today;
2. There is a law in East Rubber Boot Tennessee that says you must shave every day;
3. Therefore, Fritz must have shaved today.

You are simply assuming that all references to “law†denote the same set of laws. If you can make the case that the “law†that Abraham obeyed happened to be the 10 commandments, then by all means make your case.

 

[Brother Lionel]

The Genesis 26 text you refer to is not, repeat not, referring to the 10 Commandments - those where only given later (remember when Paul says "the law was given 430 years after Abraham). The fact that Abraham obeyed some commandments from God does not mean that this included the 10 commandments, or any other of the "rules" that make up the Law of Moses - the Torah.

It is extremely important to understand that "the Law" is a specific reference to the Torah - the Law of Moses. This includes the 10 commandments, but a lot of other stuff as well. However, it is a mistake to think that any and all commandments from God are part of the Law of Moses.

Ok, lets examine the scriptures. The term here in Genesis used to describe "commandment" is the Hebrew word "mitsvah", which means a commandment of God that is the code of wisdom. This same "mitsvah" is used in Exd 20:6 where God is speaking about the Ten Commandments. It reads as thus: "And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." So why did Moses use the same term which describes the commandments that Abraham kept if these commandments were not the divine principles of God?

And to your second statement, which laws are not part of the law of Moses?

 

[Drew]

It is critical to understand that you cannot simply assume that any and all references to "law" (or Torah) denote the same set of laws.

Why is this so hard to understand?

There is "law" specific to different jurisdictions. So when someone in Tennessee obeys "the law", they are not necessarily obeying the same laws than a person in Outer Mongolia who obeys "law".

When Abraham obeyed "commandments" from God, you cannot simply assume that these are the 10 commandments simply because the terms "law" and "commandments" are used in both contexts.

 

[RND]

You are mistaken.

Hardly.

Your argument lives and dies with the assertion that sin only exist in relation to "the Law". If that were indeed true, you would have a point.

Where there is no law there is no sin. Read your Bible for goodness sake.

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.

But here in Romans 5, Paul makes it clear that sin is present even before the giving of the Mosaic Law. Whatever sin is, it existed before the Law was given, that is in the period from Adam to Moses:

for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses,

Then I would say God owes those wiped out in the flood an apology because obviously there must have been a law to break if God decided to wipe them out!

The fact of the matter is that you have a gross misunderstanding of what Paul is stating in Romans 5:14.

Here's the KJV:

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude (the likeness or in the way of) of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him (Jesus Christ) that was to come.

God created man for His own glory. It was His purpose to re-populate heaven with the human race, if after test and trial they proved to be loyal to Him. Adam was to be tested, to see whether he would be obedient or disobedient. Had he stood the test, his thoughts would have been as the thoughts of God. His character would have been moulded after the similitude of the divine character. - The Signs of the Times , May 29, 1901

The position I am advancing is entirely coherent - the Law of Moses was given at Sinai, yet even before it was given, there was sin in the world.

The Mosaic law was given "because" of transgression (sin). It is very simple to understand.

 

[Drew]

Ok, lets examine the scriptures. The term here in Genesis used to describe "commandment" is the Hebrew word "mitsvah", which means a commandment of God that is the code of wisdom. This same "mitsvah" is used in Exd 20:6 where God is speaking about the Ten Commandments. It reads as thus: "And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." So why did Moses use the same term which describes the commandments that Abraham kept if these commandments were not the divine principles of God?

I have just addressed this in detail in a number of recent posts. You cannot simply assume that the term "law" or the term "commandment" always refer to the same set of "rules"

And to your second statement, which laws are not part of the law of Moses?

Here is one:

The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

This is a "law" or "commandment" right? It comes from God, right?" Is it part of the Law of Moses? No, it is not. You can go through the Law of Moses from now till the cows come home and I assure you that you will not find this law in the Law of Moses.

 

[Drew]

Where there is no law there is no sin. Read your Bible for goodness sake.

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.

It is not me who has trouble reading. It is not me who reads "transgression" and decides to replace the word "transgression with the word "sin".

That, my friend, is not "reading", it is editing.

Of course, what Paul is saying here is that law "draws a line in the sand" that reveals sin.

But, you are mistaken in reading Paul as suggesting that sin does not exist in the absence of law. He very clear states that it does in the Romans 5 text I have provided:

for until the Law sin was in the world...

 

[RND]

Please tell the readers precisely where the scriptures state that Abraham got an advance copy of the Law of Moses.

I said very clearly that I believe, just as God communicated with Adam, that God communicated with Abraham. In other words God "spoke" these to Abraham, just has He spoke them to the COI.

Yes, Abraham obeyed "laws", but you need to actually support your assertion that the "laws" he was obeying were the 10 commandments.

I did that as well. I gave you proof positive that in the Hebrew the Torah is synonymous with the Decalogue. You chose to ignore this obvious point.

No. This logic is incorrect, and I suspect that you know that it is.

Maybe you could offer some proof that the Torah isn't the Decalogue instead of just "insisting" I'm wrong and using mindless illustrations.

Here is yet another illustration of your error in simply assuming that the laws that Abraham obeyed were the 10 commandments:

1. Fritz, a citizen of Germany obeyed the law today;
2. There is a law in East Rubber Boot Tennessee that says you must shave every day;
3. Therefore, Fritz must have shaved today.

Your illustration makes no sense. It's nonsensical. Try using the Bible to make an illustration!

You are simply assuming that all references to “law†denote the same set of laws.

No assumption whatsoever. I gave clear evidence that the Torah means the Decalogue - this you choose to ignore.

If you can make the case that the “law†that Abraham obeyed happened to be the 10 commandments, then by all means make your case.

Done! You simply choose to ignore it Drew!

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Ok, lets examine the scriptures. The term here in Genesis used to describe "commandment" is the Hebrew word "mitsvah", which means a commandment of God that is the code of wisdom. This same "mitsvah" is used in Exd 20:6 where God is speaking about the Ten Commandments. It reads as thus: "And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." So why did Moses use the same term which describes the commandments that Abraham kept if these commandments were not the divine principles of God?

I have just addressed this in detail in a number of recent posts. You cannot simply assume that the term "law" or the term "commandment" always refer to the same set of "rules"

[quote="Brother Lionel":2ffguhe6]And to your second statement, which laws are not part of the law of Moses?

Here is one:

The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

This is a "law" or "commandment" right? It comes from God, right?" Is it part of the Law of Moses? No, it is not. You can go through the Law of Moses from now till the cows come home and I assure you that you will not find this law in the Law of Moses.[/quote:2ffguhe6]

interesting concept,,,so when Cain murdered Abel what did he do wrong?????

 

[Drew]

The fact of the matter is that you have a gross misunderstanding of what Paul is stating in Romans 5:14.

Here's the KJV:

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude (the likeness or in the way of) of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him (Jesus Christ) that was to come.

You are undermining your own position. Paul has just said this:

for until the Law sin was in the world...

This is a clear statement that before the Law of Moses came - we know that he is referring specifically to the Law of Moses since it is the Law of Moses that was not in force from Adam to Moses - there was sin in the world.

One cannot avoid the conclusion that sin existed in the world in advance of the time of the Law of Moses. And my point is further supported by the distinction that Paul draws between Adam, who broke a commandment to not eat from the tree, and those who lived between Adam and Moses, who suffered with the presence of sin, even though they had broken no such commandment.

 

[RND]

It is not me who has trouble reading. It is not me who reads "transgression" and decides to replace the word "transgression with the word "sin".

Are you serious Drew? Sin is the transgression of the law!

transgression = parabasis = from parabainw - parabaino 3845; violation:--breaking, transgression.

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

law = anomia = from anomoV - anomos 459; illegality, i.e. violation of law or (genitive case) wickedness:--iniquity, X transgress(-ion of) the law, unrighteousness.

That, my friend, is not "reading", it is editing.

And you my friend do neither!

Of course, what Paul is saying here is that law "draws a line in the sand" that reveals sin.

Right. The law reveals transgression. It's fairly straight forward and easy to understand.

But, you are mistaken in reading Paul as suggesting that sin does not exist in the absence of law. He very clear states that it does in the Romans 5 text I have provided:

Drew, try to pay attention. I have repeated suggested that sin (transgression) exist only because there is a law to violate.

for until the Law sin was in the world...

Mosaic law. In other words, sin is not "imputed", that is one is not held accountable, sin is not attributed or put on account. In other words once the Mosaic law was given man began to be held accountable for His sin. That is not to say that man was not given laws in which to obey. Clearly he was. "The wages of sin......"

 

[RND]

The fact of the matter is that you have a gross misunderstanding of what Paul is stating in Romans 5:14.

Here's the KJV:

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude (the likeness or in the way of) of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him (Jesus Christ) that was to come.

You are undermining your own position. Paul has just said this:

for until the Law sin was in the world...

This is a clear statement that before the Law of Moses came - we know that he is referring specifically to the Law of Moses since it is the Law of Moses that was not in force from Adam to Moses - there was sin in the world.

You still don't get it do your Drew? The Law of Moshe is not the same as the Ten Commandments.

Here's a test: How did Cain know killing his brother was sin? Lucky guess?

One cannot avoid the conclusion that sin existed in the world in advance of the time of the Law of Moses.

I haven't avoided that Drew, that's been the backbone of my position!

And my point is further supported by the distinction that Paul draws between Adam, who broke a commandment to not eat from the tree, and those who lived between Adam and Moses, who suffered with the presence of sin, even though they had broken no such commandment.

Well, let's see. Adam coveted that which he wasn't entitled (10th). He lied to God (9th). He dishonored His Father (5th). He took what wasn't his to take (8th). He listen to the snake so I guess we can consider that worshiping false gods and placing them above God (1st). So count at least five commandments that Adam broke by disobeying the word of God Drew. I'm sure if we took the time we could find more.

 

[RND]

This is a "law" or "commandment" right? It comes from God, right?" Is it part of the Law of Moses? No, it is not. You can go through the Law of Moses from now till the cows come home and I assure you that you will not find this law in the Law of Moses.

So you mean that when Adam disobeyed God that Adam didn't disobey his father, thus dishonoring Him? Didn't Adam take what wasn't his to take? Didn't Adam lie to God? Didn't Adam actually covet something that God told him to avoid?

You'll never get this Drew as long as you keep insisting that the "law of Moshe" is the Ten Commandments. They aren't. Two separate things altogether.

Tell me Drew how did Joseph know adultery with Potiphar's wife would be "sin?" Lucky guess?

 

[Drew]

No. We know that Abraham obeyed some commandments and laws from God.

Which laws did Abraham obey then?

I have not read the story lately, so I am not sure. But we know, not least from the commandment given to Adam about not eating the fruit, that not all commandments from God wound up in the Law of Moses. And you seem to be simply assuming that since Abraham obeyed "commandments", he must have had "an advance copy" of the Law of Moses. But the example of the commandment given to Adam proves that, before the Law of Moses was given, people obeyed commandments that turned out not to be part of the Law of Moses.

Where in the Law of Moses are we instructed to not eat from certain trees?

 

[Drew]

It is not me who has trouble reading. It is not me who reads "transgression" and decides to replace the word "transgression with the word "sin".

Are you serious Drew? Sin is the transgression of the law!

transgression = parabasis = from parabainw - parabaino 3845; violation:--breaking, transgression.

I am afraid that you are mistaken. Sin existed before the Law of Moses. Paul is quite clear about this. Let's say that I agree with you that sin only exists when some law is transgressed. The point, for this discussion anyway, is that you simply cannot assume that the law that is transgressed is the Law of Moses. And this appears to be your argument. But I do not agree with you about how sin can only exist in the presence of a law, notwithstanding the text you have provided and which I will get to later, hopefully.

Right. The law reveals transgression. It's fairly straight forward and easy to understand.

Its not that easy to understand since you seem to not understand it. The law does not reveal transgression, it reveals sin. The law functions to shine a light on sin, to expose it, if you will. But - and Paul is clear about this in Romans 5 - there was sin in the world even in the absence of any law. Transgression and sin are not the same concept. Transgression only occurs when sin is compared to a standard.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

No. We know that Abraham obeyed some commandments and laws from God.

Which laws did Abraham obey then?

I have not read the story lately, so I am not sure. But we know, not least from the commandment given to Adam about not eating the fruit, that not all commandments from God wound up in the Law of Moses. And you seem to be simply assuming that since Abraham obeyed "commandments", he must have had "an advance copy" of the Law of Moses. But the example of the commandment given to Adam proves that, before the Law of Moses was given, people obeyed commandments that turned out not to be part of the Law of Moses.

Where in the Law of Moses are we instructed to not eat from certain trees?

Thats not the question,,,,the question would be where in the law of Moses are we instructed not to mess with satan......Which would in term change your argument.....but continue....

 

[RND]

No. We know that Abraham obeyed some commandments and laws from God.

Which laws did Abraham obey then?

I have not read the story lately, so I am not sure. But we know, not least from the commandment given to Adam about not eating the fruit, that not all commandments from God wound up in the Law of Moses. And you seem to be simply assuming that since Abraham obeyed "commandments", he must have had "an advance copy" of the Law of Moses. But the example of the commandment given to Adam proves that, before the Law of Moses was given, people obeyed commandments that turned out not to be part of the Law of Moses.

Where in the Law of Moses are we instructed to not eat from certain trees?

If you have no idea what laws Abraham obeyed then how can you be so insistent he didn't obey the 10 Commandments?

Drew, try to get things straight and stop obfuscating. I do not view the 10 Commandments as being the Law of Moshe.

 

[RND]

I am afraid that you are mistaken. Sin existed before the Law of Moses.

Drew, I already made this abundantly clear in a previous post.

Paul is quite clear about this. Let's say that I agree with you that sin only exists when some law is transgressed. The point, for this discussion anyway, is that you simply cannot assume that the law that is transgressed is the Law of Moses. And this appears to be your argument. But I do not agree with you about how sin can only exist in the presence of a law, notwithstanding the text you have provided and which I will get to later, hopefully.

Drew, I stated clearly that transgression happened and that the law of Moshe was added because of that transgression. I think you are greatly confussed at this point.

Its not that easy to understand since you seem to not understand it. The law does not reveal transgression, it reveals sin.

Which is the same thing Drew! Same exact thing. Sin is the "transgression" (breaking) the law.

The law functions to shine a light on sin, to expose it, if you will.

Let's everyone know they are a transgressor.

But - and Paul is clear about this in Romans 5 - there was sin in the world even in the absence of any law.

Law od Moshe, not the Ten Commandments.

Transgression and sin are not the same concept. Transgression only occurs when sin is compared to a standard.

There have always been standards Drew. Just ask Adam, and Cain.

 

[RND]

You know Drew, you would do well to read all my posts and answers to you so you can stop beating the same point that I have never brought up.

Please note this. I my view the Ten Commandments are not the same thing as the law of Moshe. I have made this point abundantly clear to you in a number of my posts.

 

[Drew]

Drew, try to get things straight and stop obfuscating. I do not view the 10 Commandments as being the Law of Moshe.

I am not guilty of any obfuscation at all.

You are not thinking like Paul if you exclude the 10 commandments from what Paul calls "the Law". There is a lot of terminology flying around here but several things are abundantly clear:

1. Paul routinely uses the term "the Law" to denote some "rules" that were given to the nation of Israel, and only the nation of Israel;

2. "The Law", as Paul uses the term, includes the 10 commandments;

3. "The Law", as Paul uses the term, has been retired.

Now, does any reader challenge me on any of these assertions?