God's Ten Commandments? Still valid?

[BavarianWheels]

Yes, I will try to keep all my Saturdays (24 hours New York time)

Shame, shame, shame. You changed the sabbath to your own liking.

That's not acceptable.

...the pot calling the kettle black.

The Sunday keeper claims that Sunday is the worship day in honor of Christ's resurrection...which the 4th commandment mentions zero about and the scripture doesn't even call for a change.

Who's changed the Sabbath to their own liking?

Shame, shame, shame...
.
.

[RickD]

Yes, I will try to keep all my Saturdays (24 hours New York time)

Shame, shame, shame. You changed the sabbath to your own liking.

That's not acceptable.

...the pot calling the kettle black.

The Sunday keeper claims that Sunday is the worship day in honor of Christ's resurrection...which the 4th commandment mentions zero about and the scripture doesn't even call for a change.

Who's changed the Sabbath to their own liking?

Shame, shame, shame...
.
.

When are you going to stop misrepresenting me?

Ever? Seriously, can you please stop?

You have no idea if I'm a Sunday keeper.

[BavarianWheels]

Yes, I will try to keep all my Saturdays (24 hours New York time)

Shame, shame, shame. You changed the sabbath to your own liking.

That's not acceptable.

...the pot calling the kettle black.

The Sunday keeper claims that Sunday is the worship day in honor of Christ's resurrection...which the 4th commandment mentions zero about and the scripture doesn't even call for a change.

Who's changed the Sabbath to their own liking?

Shame, shame, shame...
.
.

When are you going to stop misrepresenting me?

Ever? Seriously, can you please stop?

You have no idea if I'm a Sunday keeper.

Your forum name is "RickD"....or is it "The Sunday Keeper"?

And are you not arguing that the Sabbath is no longer binding to boot?
.
.

[RickD]

Yes, I will try to keep all my Saturdays (24 hours New York time)

Shame, shame, shame. You changed the sabbath to your own liking.

That's not acceptable.

...the pot calling the kettle black.

The Sunday keeper claims that Sunday is the worship day in honor of Christ's resurrection...which the 4th commandment mentions zero about and the scripture doesn't even call for a change.

Who's changed the Sabbath to their own liking?

Shame, shame, shame...
.
.

When are you going to stop misrepresenting me?

Ever? Seriously, can you please stop?

You have no idea if I'm a Sunday keeper.

Your forum name is "RickD"....or is it "The Sunday Keeper"?

And are you not arguing that the Sabbath is no longer binding to boot?
.
.

All the discussions we've had about the sabbath, and you still don't understand my pov?

Please show me where I have ever said, implied, or argued that the sabbath is "no longer binding".

Just the very fact that you think I'm arguing that, shows me that you have no intention of having an honest conversation with me.

[Kurieuo]

Colossians 2:13-14
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

You missed the context which plays to my point. There exists no law for circumcision in the Decalogue. That exists in the written code. So while in one translation, it is the CHARGE, the BILL, the accusation, if you will, in this translation it is the written code where one can find circumcision...these are what is nailed to the cross.

Ephesians 2:14-15
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Again, you completely miss the context. See Ephesians 2:11 Who is this talking to? It's directed at Gentiles...the uncircumcised, separate from God. Why? Uncircumcised.

And now verse 14...two groups...circumcised and uncircumcised, breaking the barrier...circumcision, the dividing wall of hostility ( see the latter part of Ephesians 2:11 for the hostility )

And as for the Old Covenant/New Covenant theology:

Hebrews 7:11-12
11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.

You're not reading the context...AGAIN. There is no "Levitical priesthood" in the Decalogue. That priesthood existed for the purposes of the TEMPLE...it's laws and THESE are the laws that were a shadow of things to come. I can't believe you're completely missing the context(s).

Hebrews 7:18-22
18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
20And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.'” 22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

AGAIN...context. The law made nothing perfect. The Decalogue does NOT EXIST to make anything perfect, it exists to make us conscious of sin. The law that was to "make perfect" was the laws of animal sacrifice that shadowed things to come...the reality and BETTER COVENANT in Christ's blood...not of animals blood.

Hebrews 8:6-13
6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said: “The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. 10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
13By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

AGAIN...CONTEXT! There is no mediator of the Decalogue. The Decalogue exists to POINT TO SIN. Christ is the mediator of the covenant of REDEMPTION and as we know the Decalogue does not save. So Christ cannot be a mediator of something that doesn't save. It is HIS BLOOD that saves...

Galatians 2:19-21
"For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

This just further establishes that the Decalogue does not bring righteousness...but that we have died to the law...Christ's death serves as our death, He took on the curse.

The context here mentions, again, circumcision...Jewish customs. This is the law that is nailed to the cross.
.
.

I think you're missing the context. Nowhere does it say "Decalogue" Mr SDA.

But, truly, it's not a laughing matter. For, your committing the same error Paul spoke to the Galatians about. We're free in Christ, Christ bought it with His blood. And yet, it is theology likes your that places a yoke around our necks again. (Gal 5:1) It looks like Hamster was ensnared by it when he came to Christ, rather than standing up free in Christ.

Oh, but its circumcision he discusses in verses after this, right? So then, you'd argue that what..? We're to read that we're just free in Christ [from circumcision]? No. That's a bit silly. Now you'd be adding to the text.

Rather, Paul's making a broad statement, taking a broad truth that we've been freed from the yoke of the Law by Christ who broke it, and applying it to the specific case of the Galatians. It is you who must read, "but this doesn't exclude the decalogue" constantly back into verses where clearly the decalogue is included more generally as part of the Law.

[LittleHamster]

...... It looks like Hamster was ensnared by it when he came to Christ, rather than standing up free in Christ.

Ensnared ? It almost killed me !


Edit:

"The Sabbath was given to Israel, not the church. The Sabbath is still Saturday, not Sunday, and has never been changed. But the Sabbath is part of the Old Testament Law, and Christians are free from the bondage of the Law (Galatians 4:1-26; Romans 6:14). Sabbath keeping is not required of the Christian—be it Saturday or Sunday. The first day of the week, Sunday, the Lord's Day (Revelation 1:10) celebrates the New Creation, with Christ as our resurrected Head. We are not obligated to follow the Mosaic Sabbath—resting, but are now free to follow the risen Christ—serving. The Apostle Paul said that each individual Christian should decide whether to observe a Sabbath rest, “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5). We are to worship God every day, not just on Saturday or Sunday." - https://www.gotquestions.org/Saturday-Sunday.html

[RickD]

...... It looks like Hamster was ensnared by it when he came to Christ, rather than standing up free in Christ.

Ensnared ? It almost killed me !


Edit:

"The Sabbath was given to Israel, not the church. The Sabbath is still Saturday, not Sunday, and has never been changed. But the Sabbath is part of the Old Testament Law, and Christians are free from the bondage of the Law (Galatians 4:1-26; Romans 6:14). Sabbath keeping is not required of the Christian—be it Saturday or Sunday. The first day of the week, Sunday, the Lord's Day (Revelation 1:10) celebrates the New Creation, with Christ as our resurrected Head. We are not obligated to follow the Mosaic Sabbath—resting, but are now free to follow the risen Christ—serving. The Apostle Paul said that each individual Christian should decide whether to observe a Sabbath rest, “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5). We are to worship God every day, not just on Saturday or Sunday." - https://www.gotquestions.org/Saturday-Sunday.html

Cricetinae are wise creatures!

[Kurieuo]

Weren't you recently arguing that Jesus as God didn't break the Sabbath, but rather fulfilled the requirements of the Law?
Who was nailed to the cross? So too the requirements of the Law, met in Jesus, were also nailed.

1. Let's be logical. You can ask any lawyer about a person that is found "not guilty" of breaking the law. Ask that lawyer if the guilty verdict allows the person on trial to break that law again because he/she has been found "not guilty" at some point.

I answered that question in your thread. Nonetheless, I'll provide a new response.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

In Christ, it isn't just a not guilty verdict, but rather we pass from judgement and are declared righteous. The righteousness we receive via faith in Christ saves us from God's righteous judgement and wrath being poured out upon all who have done wrong and sinned against Him.

The wages of this sin we are told, is death. And indeed, we all see and experience death in our lives. Yet, the ultimate death, the second death, is being forever cut off from God who is the source of all life and goodness i.e., Hell.

If we were to do more of an apples to apples comparison, then when we place our faith in Christ, it seems according to your example we're aquitted of our wrongdoing up until the time we put our faith in Christ. BUT, if we break the law again (or certain laws perhaps), then we'll receive judgement and be condemned. This I strongly disagree with and am repulsed by, for it is by faith we aren't simply found "not guilty" BUT found to be righteous. We are righteous via faith in Christ. And this is better than any righteousness that we can attain via Law which to God is just like dirty mentrual rags.

Scripture is clear that when we put our faith in Christ, we pass from God's judgement according to the Law and will be/have even already been, declared righteous. We are still accountable to Christ for He is our Lord, our hope is in and through Him, we love Christ, trust in Him, Christ is our Lord and everything. It can only be so then that we'd want to please Christ. Yet, Christ is never disappointed by us, He knows us better than we do. Christ loves us regardless, like the prodigal son who returned to his father. Christ will never cast us out for failing. Nonetheless, we will still give an accounting to Christ, and God as such, but we will NOT be found guilty and condemned. We will NOT be found guilty for failing to keep the Law (or any particular law). That isn't how we are righteous, and we'll never by righteous by the Law (or any part of it). Rather, it is by faith righteousness is reckoned to us, Christ's righteousness. It was by faith righteousness was reckoned to Abraham and again by faith righteousness is reckoned to us.

Galatians 3:6-9
6just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
7Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justifyc the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Philippians 3:9
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith

Romans 3:21-22
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:

2. This is not the same point. You made a distinct claim and one that I'm hoping you can back up with scripture, not rationalizing through what you think it means to fulfill law.

Should I dismiss anything you say because you rationalise in the 10 commandments? Plenty of Scripture was provided, but communication is always going to involve reason. Don't be so ungracious to me and silly.

3. When one drives the speed limit, they are fulfilling the law. To then fulfill the law does not mean the person is free to speed the next day without fear of being pulled over. It's just not logical.

We can never fulfil the law. Your example thus immediately falls apart.

4. Jesus did fulfill the requirements of the Law...Jesus fulfills the requirements of the Law continually or else He would be a lawbreaker.

Agree, Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Law. He always will, because metaphysically the Law is an outworking of God's attributes, in particular His righteousness. So God is the epitome of the Law, merely only needs to be God in order to fulfill the Law. Jesus is God. Ergo, requirements will always be met.

But let's see what the verse about "nailing to the cross" actually says vs. what you have claimed it says; Colossians 2:13,14

And the other passages, which you've performed eisegesis upon with your "decalogue" rationalisation. Doctrine should never be had on one verse, and there is literally the whole New Testament (covenant) which supports me.

That said, I am glad you shine the light on Colossians, for I'm happy to delve into not mere english "translations" but the original language. I have to go but will respond more later.

[Kurieuo]

Just quick question Bav. Which is worse and why: to not keep the Sabbath or not believe Jesus is God?

[neo-x]

There you proved my point. The reason we don't need to follow the law is because we can simply love. But love is the fulfillment of law, obeying the law isn't love. For you can obey the law in fear of punishment without actually changing. But love goes beyond the law. And does what sadly law can never do. I don't murder, not because I need to follow the law but because being in Christ makes me a new person. That love is what makes law obsolete for as Paul himself argues that law is after all lawless people.

Commandments 1-4 = How to love God

Commandments 5-10 - How to love your neighbor.

You're completely wrong again.
.
.

Yeah, grace is a totally irrational thing. It never makes sense.

Fwiw, When I first joined this forum I held the identical position as yours. Not only on the law but also on understanding eternal life.

So you are saying that paul is wrong when he says the law is for lawless people?

I noticed you don't deal with what I write/say, but with what you think I wrote/said.

What does the law have to do with grace? The law doesn't afford grace. The law exists for one purpose and one only...to point to sin. Therefore if you do not act according to the law, then you're probably not living in the Spirit, but in the flesh.

The law is for ALL people, including Christ Himself in that the law had no curse to blame Him for. Therefore if the law has no claim on Christ, He is righteous. The law is holy, righteous and good!

I don't see how anyone acknowledging the NT could think the Law is bad if it's clear it is holy, it is righteous and it is good!
.
.

The law is not only bad because it is not perfect, it is now irrelevant. I don't need the law to know why something is bad. You must at least be able to see that, even if that is not what you believe? It should be obvious to you that people do not subscribe to the law and still figure out what is wrong. As I said before, the law is for lawless people. The old husband, the one who died.

You tell me when a husband died, and the woman remarried is she still bound as a wife to the former late husband? this is a biblical analogy, unlike your speeding ticket one.

[warren631]

neo said "The law (God's Ten Commandments) is not only bad because it is not perfect, it is now irrelevant". Maybe you are correct. Only God will judge you after you die. I do not pay much heed to the opinions and interpretations of apostle Paul or any other human. We know nothing. Only God's words matter to me. Who am I to say God's words are irrelevant.

neo also said "the law is for lawless people". We are all sinners (law breakers) except for......

[neo-x]

Warren, Those who are in Christ are already been judged and declared righteous. We are God's children. God's grace saves us exactly because we're not sinners any more even though we sin.

[RickD]

neo said "The law (God's Ten Commandments) is not only bad because it is not perfect, it is now irrelevant". Maybe you are correct. Only God will judge you after you die. I do not pay much heed to the opinions and interpretations of apostle Paul or any other human. We know nothing. Only God's words matter to me. Who am I to say God's words are irrelevant.

neo also said "the law is for lawless people". We are all sinners (law breakers) except for......

Apparently you make an exception for your own perfect, infallible, interpretation of God's words.

[warren631]

"we're not sinners any more even though we sin" - ??? Can I continue murdering then?

Rick, glad you finally noticed I am perfect and infallible. I'm intelligent too. That's why I don't need anyone to interpret God's words. God's commandments are plain enough for me. Also, I didn't change the Sabbath which is still on Saturday wherever in the world you live - ask you Jewish friends.

[RickD]

warren631 wrote:

Also, I didn't change the Sabbath which is still on Saturday wherever in the world you live - ask you Jewish friends.

Unless you observe the sabbath from sundown Friday, to sundown Saturday, Israel time, you've changed the sabbath to something it wasn't. And you are a hypocrite, if you chastise people who celebrate it on Sunday.