| Author | Message | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
I made an epiphanic discovery, brought on by contemplating two scriptures in the light of Jesus hanging on the cross: FIRST TEXT: Ephesians 2:14-16 NIV: For he himself is our peace, who has made the two [uncircumcised=Gentiles and circumcision=Jews] one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by ABOLISHING IN HIS FLESH THE LAW WITH ITS COMMANDMENTS AND REGULATIONS. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. SECOND TEXT: 2 Colossians 2:13-15 NIV: When 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, having 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. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. JUDEíS MANIFESTO: Letís not content ourselves only with an effective DEFENSE against the SDA attacks. These attacks are motivated by self-appointed ìpowers and authoritiesî who entice gullible Christians to follow asceticism -- such as: * Vegetarianism or at least kosher-ism (no clam chowder). * Dress codes (no slacks on women in church). * Jewelry-and-makeup regulations (no wedding rings). * Sabbath-day restrictions (no swimming before sundown). * Other abstinent measures (no praising God by dancing [Psalm 150:4] in church!). These are false teachings about Christ! Why permit them the power of attack and accusation? Why not attack THEIR false doctrines and accuse THEM of trying to dethrone Jesus Christ of his Godhood (I AM = YAWEH)? Iím serious. The key to this dispute is the nature of the eternal law of God. There are two sides: SDAs, who say Jesus Christ came to show people how to keep the Law of Moses better. FAFs, who say Jesus Christ came to fulfill the Law of Moses and then to REPLACE it with himself (words and deeds). I say that the two texts quoted above prove that Jesus Christ ABOLISHED and CANCELED the Law of Moses and NAILED it to the cross! And he REPLACED it with himself! What do YOU say? Soliciting your convictions, Jude | ||
| Ken Clark |
Hey Jude: The laws that were nailed to the cross were not the Ten Commandments, but the laws of ordinances. These were the ceremonial laws of types & shadows that pointed to the death of Jesus and had no further meaning beyond the cross. Thats why Paul said it was contrary to the Christian. The rent veil in the Temple at the death of Christ Matt. 27:51 indicated the end of the ordinances of animal sacrifices, & Eph. 2:15 says Jesus abolished...the law of commandments contained in ordinances. Paul wrote in Col. 2:16-17 that we are no longer judged by meat offerings, drink offerings, and sabbath days "which are a shadow of things to come." Note that these are yearly and not weekly Sabbath of the moral law. These shadowy sabbaths are described in Lev. 23:24-37. The mystery of Col 2:16 is completely cleared up. The law of the yearly sabbaths, with all its meat & drink offerings, was nailed to the cross, but the great Ten Commandment law with the weekly Sabbath was not affected by that blotting out of ordinances. Ken | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Hi, Ken, At first blush I thought your name was Clark Kent, and I don't think I'm quite ready to joust with Superman! Guess my dyslexia took over for just a moment. Glad to know you're just a normal human being. I'll take your points one at a time: "The laws that were nailed to the cross were not the Ten Commandments, but the laws of ordinances." Not quite. The word "ordance" means "law," and so your rendering would mean "laws of laws," which is a tautology and therefore meaningless. And in fact it's not what the text says. It says, "the written code, with its regulations," meaning a code or "bundle" of laws. The term 'written code' was "a business term, meaning a cirtificate of indebtedness in the debtor's handwriting. Paul uses it as a designation for the Mosaic law, with all its regulations, under which everyone is a debtor to God." NIV text note for Col. 2:14. The whole enchalada! Including "thou shalt not murder," "thou shalt not commit adultery," and "remember to keep the Sabbath day holy." The whole nine yards! And not just the Ten Commandments either, but all the little picky rules, such as "no pork" and "don't cut the hair at the sides of your head" and "don't wear flax mixed with wool clothing." Everything. And not only that, but the Bible doesn't -- and the Jews didn't and still don't today -- distinguish between "ceremonial laws of types & shadows" and the moral law! There is absolutly zero scriptural support for any such dichotomy! I notice that you didn't volunteer any, and if you can find some I'd love to see it brought here into this Discussion. More later, Jude | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Hi, Ken, again, "The ceremonial laws of types & shadows ... pointed to the death of Jesus and had no further meaning beyond the cross." Indeed so! But so did the moral aspects of the Law of Moses (Torah or first five books of the Bible). The New Testament makes this clear. Christ is superior to (the entirety of the Law of) Moses. Hebrews 3:1-4:13. Including the Fourth Commandment. Hebrews 4:1-13. And in fact, the very text which kicked off our little chat, Colossians 2:13-19, makes it embarrassingly clear that it is the Sabbath itself which, to quote your own post, is one of the "shadows that pointed to the death of Jesus and had no further meaning beyond the cross. That's why Paul said it was contrary to the Christian." For, "Do not let anyone judge yhou by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a [YEARLY] religious festival, a [MONTHLY] New Moon celebration or a [WEEKLY] Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." Colossians 2:16-17 NIV. Yes, indeed, That IS "why Paul said it [the Sabbath when viewed as a requirement] was contrary to the Christian." More later, Jude | ||
| Colleentinker |
Hi, Kentó Read through Galatians. Paul is clearly saying that we need to throw out the bondwomanóthe law. It was given 430 years after Abraham UNTIL the Seed would come. That clearly had a beginning and an end. You can't say it was just ceremonial laws because the cermonial laws were meaningless without the 10 Commandments. God gave the "whole enchilada", as Jude says, at the same time. The 10 were clearly given 430 years after Abraham. God has replaced the Old Covenant with his Spirit in our heartsóthe Living Law. That's 'way more precise and demanding! By the wayóthe temple veil ripping was not to say the sacrifices were no longer necessaryóthat was obvious if anyone was paying attention to who Jesus was. That curtain ripping exposed the Most Holy Placeóthe placeof God's presence and the presence of The Law. No mortal but the High Priest could look at the Most Holy and live. When Jesus died, the presence of God became accessible to every person aliveóand the Law, in the form of the Holy Spirit, soon indwelt the hearts of all believers. We no longer need a high priest. The Most Holy no longer has to be hidden. Jesus healed the rip in the universe that killed our spirits and separated us from God. That veil ripping meant that the Most Holy Place was no longer sacred. It was no longer the home of God or His Law. The new temple of God became the hearts of Christ-followers: the Church. The presence of God and The Law now reside in the hearts of men and women. | ||
| Steve Pitcher |
Hi Ken and Others, Just a couple of thoughts about the Law. I was taught the difference between the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Law by the SDA church. I accepted that. However, as I've read the NT I've noticed that those so called "Moral" laws seem to be mixed up with those so called "Ceremonial" laws, and vice versa. It appears that the Law, all of it, is what Paul talks about being "nailed to the cross." Also, when I began thinking about the Ceremonial law, some questions came to mind. First, What laws were the laws that dealt specifically with sin? They were the laws that we SDAs have called the "Ceremonial" laws. But they weren't just ceremonial, they dealt with sin and morality. Second, How about those "civil" laws that my son just learned about at a SDA school? As I thought about those, I realized that they were ALSO moral in nature. They have to do with ethically dealing with other human beings in society. There are "right" and "wrong" ways of dealing with others. These are moral issues. All of the Law, in it's truest form, is moral law. When we begin to categorize the law into things other than "Moral" we begin relegating some things into non-essentials, and others into essentials. Either all of the law was essential or none of the law was essential. SDAs make the mistake of saying that some of the law is still important for Christians and some of the law is not important for Christians. The SDA church is can't have it both ways. Either all of the Law was and still is necessary, or all of the Law was and no longer is necessary. Nowhere does it say that the "Ceremonial" law was nailed to the cross. I must take the Word at it's word. THE LAW was nailed to the cross. Or perhaps my favorite, "by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contined in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace" (Eph. 2:15). The Law was DESTROYED in the body of Jesus. Also, regarding the Law of Christ. There is a passage of Paul's, in 1 Cor. 9:21, where a distinction is made between the Law of God and the Law of Christ. I admit it's a difficult passage and don't know if I understand it all. But one thing is clear: There is a Law of Christ. And the old Law was destroyed in Jesus on the cross. Therefore, we are no longer under the "old" but the "new". I agree with Jude regarding the passage in Colossians. I also used to think it meant yearly sabbaths. But upon checking the usage in the OT, I found that the phrase "New Moons and Sabbaths" does in fact refer to the monthly cycles and the weekly Sabbaths. Don't know if any of this made sense. Just had to get some thoughts out. God Bless us everyone. Steve | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Hey Ken yet again, You wrote, ìThe rent veil in the Temple at the death of Christ Matt. 27:51 indicated the end of the ordinances of animal sacrifices.î But Matthew 27:50-51 NIV says, ìAnd when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.î Where does the Bible say that that tearing or rending ìindicated the end of the ordinances of animal sacrificesî? The animals were not brought through the curtain. The curtain wasn't there to keep animals out. They were not even permitted in the Holy Place, and since they would have had to go through the Holy Place to even reach the curtain, it becomes obvious that the curtain had nothing to do with the animals. If the curtain were there to keep the animals out of the Most Holy Place, then the tearing or rending would have indicated that God wanted the animals to enter into the Most Holy Place. So your reading or rendering of the text doesnít make sense. Hereís what makes sense: The curtian was there to keep out ordinary people -- not animals. Before Christ tore the curtain in two, ordinary people could not enter the Most Holy Place. The curtain kept them out. Only the high priest could enter. But when Christ tore the curtain in two from top to bottom, ordinary people could now go through into the Most Holy Place. And indeed ordinary people can now meet God face to face without any curtain or veil blocking the way. The curtain no longer keeps us out. Nor do we need to be represented by any priest other than Christ any longer. For we have been reconciled to God by the Priest-After-the-Order-of-Melchizedek who tore open the curtain and let me, for one,in, as well as you, Ken. And now, by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, we can all go through the tear in the curtain made by Jesus Christ our Saviour to meet God our Father! Praising Christ's powerful tearing action for that, Jude | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Hi Steve, Good points. I especially like your statement, "Nowhere does it say that the 'Ceremonial' law was nailed to the cross. I must take the Word at it's word." And you're absolutely right. Nowhere in the entire New Testament is there any support for saying that any ceremonial law was "nailed to the cross" or "abolished in his flesh" or "taken out of the way." That is a complete SDA fabrication from start to finish. It is only human beings, SDAs to be specific, who divide the Law of Moses up into three parts: (1) moral, (2) ceremonial, and (3) civil. Neither the Old nor the New Testament makes any such distinction or trichotomy! It's all a fiction! We can, from our 21st century, Western perception recognize different moral, ceremonial and civil ASPECTS of the Law of Moses: But that's OUR doing. The Bible simply doesn't do that. Good, prayerful thinking, Steve, Jude | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Keeping on with Ken, You wrote, ìEph. 2:15 says Jesus abolished...the law of commandments contained in ordinances.î Yes, but letís quote a bit more of the context. Ephesians 2:14-15 NIV: ìFor he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by ABOLISHING in his flesh THE LAW WITH ITS COMMANDMENTS AND REGULATIONS. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace.î One problem in Ephesus (on the west coast of what is now Turkey): There were Jewish Christians who kept the Sabbath and who were trying to force Gentile Christians to do the same. There were also Gentile Christians who didnít know what to do and were turning to Paul for help. He came through for both sides by telling them that ìthe law with its commandments and regulations,î including the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue containing the ìremember the Sabbath dayî provision, had been abolished in Christís flesh on the cross. Abolished! The whole Law of Moses, including all aspects, moral, civil and ceremonial. But you canít abolish something good ñ the Law ñ without putting something BETTER in its place. That better Law was Jesus Christ himself. How can anything be better than the Law of Moses? Letís take one provision, one example: ìThou shalt not murder.î Jesus said in Matthew 5:21-22 NIV: ìYou have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ëDo not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.í But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.î In other words, Jesus did the Sixth Commandment (Ex. 20:13) one better! He actually bettered the Commandment against murder by expanding and deepening it: This is how he ABOLISHED it ñ by expanding and deepening it to include anger. For nowhere does the Old Testament say that anger can be a sin. But Christ not only bettered the Law of Moses by expanding and deepening it. He also bettered it by re-seating or re-establishing it within himself, that is, by making it come out of his New Testament mouth rather than his Old Testament finger. Thus he demonstrated all over again that he was God ñ God of the Old Testament giving at Mount of Sinai and God of the New Testament giving on the Mount of Blessings. For Jesus as God had and retains the right to abolish the old inferior Law of Moses and to recreate it as the new superior Law of Jesus spoken with Godís own mouth on the Mount of Blessings. In one stroke, his action on the cross, he both abolished it and recreated it in a superior form. Thus, by explaining this spiritual reality to the Ephesians, Paul put an end to the hostility between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in Ephesus, "For through him [Christ] we both [Jews and Gentiles] have access to the Father by one Spirit." This is not only true, but it's beautuful as well. And he does the same for you and me, Ken. Thus out with the old and in with the new! Jude | ||
| Steve Pitcher |
WOW JUDE! Sometimes I have doubts about what I'm learning from Scripture. When I read your posts those doubts are blown out of the way and His Way is made much clearer. Thank you, Steve | ||
| Ken Clark |
OK so the New Testament proves that the 10 Commandments, from a Loving unchanging God have been done away with. Then the new law has replaced the old. Where in the New Testament does it say not to use the Lords name in vain? Ken | ||
| Plain Patti |
I am not sure where SDAs (an other law-oriented Christians) got the phrase "the law was done away with." The law did not always exist! It was not given until Exodus, and then, we are told in Romans, that it was added because of sin. So, naturally, if we have been freed from sin in Jesus Christ, the law has no power over us. Why do we not use the Lord's name in vain? Out of love and respect. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself." BTW, just wondering: where does it say in the Big Ten that we should not lie (It mentions bearing false witness against a person, but not lying in general.) ? Or condemn fornication? Or homosexuality? Or keep from beating our fellow man to a hair's breadth of his life? Or criticize, ridicule, torment someone else? Someone can live by the Bit Ten and be totally un-Christian toward their fellow man. It is much easier to keep the Big Ten than to live by the "simple" teachings of Christ... Think about it. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Hi, Ken, This one last post before I answer your question about not taking the Lord's name in vain. You wrote, ìPaul wrote in Col. 2:16-17 that we are no longer judged by meat offerings, drink offerings, and Sabbath days "which are a shadow of things to come." Note that these are yearly and not weekly Sabbath of the moral law. These shadowy Sabbaths are described in Lev. 23:24-37. The mystery of Col 2:16 is completely cleared up. The law of the yearly Sabbaths, with all its meat & drink offerings, was nailed to the cross, but the great Ten-Commandment law with the weekly Sabbath was not affected by that blotting out of ordinances." So Paulís not referring to the ìweekly Sabbath of the moral law,î huh? Did you know that the SDAís undisputed leading sabbatarian scholar ñ no less than Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi of Andrews University -- disagrees with you? Letís hear what he has to say about Colossians 2:16,17 NIV: ìTherefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day ñ things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.î Bible scholars are generally professors at seminaries and universities who have Ph.D. degrees in biblical studies, who know Greek and Hebrew and sometimes Aramaic and even Sanskrit, etc., and who are also generally learned in the history and often the archaeology of the ancient Near East. These people almost universally interpret the phrase ñ ì[1] a festival or [2] a new moon or [3] a Sabbath dayî ñ as [1] a Jewish annual Sabbath (such as the Day of Atonement for them or Christmas or Easter for us today), [2] a Jewish monthly religious celebration, and [3] the weekly Sabbath day. Such scholars go all the way back to luminaries such as Tertullian, Augustine, Luther and Calvin. And that interpretation has remained almost universally inviolate to this day. Rare exception: the consensus of SDA church scholars, as seen, for example, in the official SDA Bible Commentary. There it is interpreted as [1] a Jewish ANNUAL Sabbath (such as the Day of Atonement for them or Christmas or Easter for us today), [2] a Jewish MONTHLY religious celebration, and [3] a Jewish ANNUAL Sabbath (such as the Day of Atonement for them or Christmas or Easter for us today). Donít laugh. Itís true; you can check it out for yourself. But more recently some SDA scholars have broken with this ridiculously redundant interpretation. Among them is, yes, none other than Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi of Andrews University, renowned world lecturer and author of the book FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY: A HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RISE OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University Press: 1977). This book (which I will here abbreviate as FSS) is based on his Ph.D. dissertation at Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome where he graduated summa cum laude. In the ìAcknowledgmentsî of FSS he admits breaking lockstep with his church: Page 6: ìIn a few places my interpretation of certain Biblical texts (such as ... Colossians 2:14-17) ... differs somewhat from the traditional position of my Church.î Ahem! How? Here, in Bacchiocchi's own words: Page 358: ìThe Sabbath in Colossians 2:16. The sacred times prescribed by the false teachers [legalistic, 'Judiazing Christians' usually from Jerusalem] are referred to as ëa festival or a new moon or a Sabbath ñ heortas a neomania a sabbaton' (2:16). [I know enough Greek to tell you that is New Testament Greek for ìfestival or new moon or Sabbath.] The unanimous consensus of commentators is that these three words represent a logical and progressive sequence (annual, monthly and weekly) as well as an exhaustive enumeration of the sacred times.î Page 359: ìIt is therefore linguistically impossible to interpret the latter [ìsabbatonî] as a reference to the Day of Atonement or to any other ceremonial Sabbaths, since these are never designated simply as ësabbatataí [plural, or, in English, ëSabbathsí].î Will he get into trouble for thus breaking lockstep? Not likely, because he sufficiently misinterprets the earlier part of Colossians 2 that this small ìheresyî is overlooked by the SDA hierarchy who know that ìthe little peopleî -- thatís you and I, folks -- will never figure it out, will never find out anyway, for they donít read SDA scholarly publications. (Come on now, admit it: Have YOU read FSS?) And theyíll never find it in the denominational publications that they do read, such as ìthe good old Review.î What this all means to you and me is that even Bacchiocchi admits that Paul is referring to the weekly seventh-day Sabbath. He won't agree that the Sabbath is one of the many pointer-shadows that became unnecessary after the Christ, the sun of righteousness, arrived on planet earth as Jesus of Nazareth. Bacchiocchi has his ways around that conclusion, but they are so devious that I donít think itís worth my time and yours to debunk them here. Just be glad you now know the truth and that you can read it quite plainly in a good translation of the Bible if you are not disoriented by SDA fog. Thanks, Ken, for hanging in here with us, Jude | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Okay, Ken, To your question: "Where in the New Testament does it say not to use the Lords name in vain?" I really have to go further than you ask, since I asserted that the superior Law of Jesus superceded the inferior Law of Moses, didn't I? Well, not to worry. Here it is in Matthew 5:34-37 NIV. Jesus is speaking on the Mount of Blessings: "I tell you, Do not swear at all; either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool [note here that he doesn't say "the devil's footstool"]; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." Now wouldn't you agree that this commandment is far superior to the mere, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"? For this law, the Third Commandment, says nothing about taking your neighbor's name in vain. But if your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' No', as Jesus says, you will not only cover the Third Commandment of the old covenant, but you will go far beyond it in righteousness. And if you apply only the rules of the Ten Commandments to your life, you can, as Patti points out, "get away with" all sorts of perfidy. Make sense? Great conversing with you, Jude | ||
| Ken Clark |
Hi all: If you do away with the Law you have no Sin. If you have no sin you don't need Grace. If you don't need grace then what are the teachings of Jesus needed for? For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Rom. 6:14-15 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. James 2:10 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1John 2:3-4 Happy Sabbath Ken | ||
| Steve |
Hi Ken, I struggled with the teaching that if there is no Law, there is no sin; if there is no sin, there is no death; if there is no death, we are immortal; if we are immortal; we are Gods. However, a good reading of the New Testament never says that there is no Law. Even the Former Adventists that I've met do not say that there is no Law. For them, and for myself as a current (heretical) SDA, we must look at what Jesus did with the Law. That is explained in the Gospels and in the other writings of the NT. Paul's statement in I Corinthians 9:21 is very enlightening here. It says, "to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law." After a thorough reading of the NT it has become clear to me that the old law was absolutely done away with, nailed to the cross, abolished in the body of Jesus (Eph. 2). But that doesn't mean there is no law. As Paul clearly states here, there is the Law of Christ, that seems to be different from the Law that was given earlier. Jesus revealed a much higher law to us -- Himself. And He taught a Law that is vastly superior to the law we have all been familiar with. There are probably some who would become antinomian after their experience with legalistic religions. However, those who have stayed with Christ, (or come to Christ after that experience), don't say there is no law. You quote I John 2:3-4. That is absolutely true. If we do not keep the commandments, we are a liar and the truth is not in us. That is why I think these Formers have actually a higher view of the Law that we SDAs. Jesus expanded, completed, quoted, paraphrased, and even seems to have deleted some laws. Here are they that keep the commandments of God AND the faith of Jesus. To keep the faith of, and in, Jesus, we need a newer understanding of God's commandments. And a greater law is at work in all of us who are seeking. That is the law of Love. A new Christian who believes in Jesus, but does not know about the ten commandments, has already kept those commandments in the person of Jesus Christ. We have made the mistake of ADDING to their life in Christ. But if Christ was the complete revelation of God, what do we need to add??? We do a disservice to God and His people by adding to what Christ did. Hebrews 1:3a says, "And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, . . .". The OT law could never be a representation of God's nature. Only Christ could be that. When we claim that, which was done in a recent Adventist Review article, we replace Christ with the Law, rather than vice versa. Christ replaced the law with something infinitely superior, Himself. Keep questioning. EGW said, (I'm paraphrasing), that all doctrines should be studied from the light that streams from Calvary. The SDA church has done a miserable job at that. EGW herself wasn't necessarily clear on a number of things. But that statement is very true. We can't just come to the law. We must come to the Lawgiver. Let's go beyond the law. That reminds me of an old thought. When we drive down the highway and see a sign that says 43 miles to Los Angeles, what do we do? Do we stop, get out of our cars, and shimmy up the sign? Of course we don't. We continue driving the 43 miles to Los Angeles. The law was a sign pointing to Christ. We don't come to the law, we come to Christ. Let's stop climbing up signs, and start climbing up Jesus. After all, He did say He is the Way. God Bless, Steve | ||
| Bruce H |
Ken Clark ___If you do away with the Law you have no Sin.--- You stated if you do away with the Law you have no sin. Well what does the Bible say about this? Rom 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. So this statment is wrong according to the Bible you can have sin without the Law. ---If you have no sin you don't need Grace.---- True, and we would not need a savior either. ---If you don't need grace then what are the teachings of Jesus needed for? ---- I need Grace For I am a sinner of sinners therefore I need the teachings of Jesus. Believe me I do!!!!! ---For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law (AMEN !!!!!), but under grace (AMEN!!!!). What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Rom. 6:14-15 ---- Great Text, one of the good ones. ---For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. James 2:10------ I, WAS guilty of all. ---And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1John 2:3-4 ---- Ken, you left out what commandment John was talking about in his letter, so I will put it up for you. 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment. 1 John 3:23 Ken, do you believe that Jesus saved you or do you doubt? Ken, do you Love those who you teach the Law to. ---Happy Sabbath - Ken ---- Happy Sabbath REST. Bruce Scott Heinrich, Loma Linda Californi | ||
| Bruce H |
Steve Nail on the Head, on that last post. | ||
| Colleentinker |
Wow, Steve, excellent illustration! Ken, of course there was sin before the 10 were given. Sin is what drove Adam and Eve out of paradise. But because humanity inherited spiritual death from its first parents, sin seemed natural to them. They had no external standard to point out their errors. Sin is not a physical phenomenon, as many of us grew up thinking it was. Of course our bodies and genes deteriorated after millennia of sinning, but the sin we inherit from Adam and Eve is spiritual death. That's a dead spirit, not a physically dead body. Because humanity was spiritually dead, most people could not identify sin in their lives because their spirits were blunted to a perception of God. There were people all through the ages, though, who loved truth and looked for God. (Enoch, Abraham, Moses, etc.) God revealed himself to these people and used them to teach people about him. But without a written code, a person with a dead spirit and no inner drive for truth would not identify sin in his life. Romans tells us that God did not "impute" sin to them before the law. The 10 commandments came to bring some order into the chaos of paganism and anrachy. It was a beginningóan elementary step to bring awareness to spiritually dead people who had lost sight of right and wrong. It was the beginning of developing a group of people who would live with an awareness of God. But the 10 commandments did not restore spiritual life to the Israelites. They still had dead spirits. Now they had intellectual awareness of sin. In fact, the 10 commandments created a new tension in people because now they knew they were breaking a law, but because their spirits were dead and they were still disconnected from God, they could not keep that law. They were continually bringing sacrifices and paying fines, etc. God intended for this tension to develop. If Israel hadn't felt the impossible frustration of KNOWING they were guilty but being UNABLE to be good, they would not have begun understanding and longing for a Savior. In a sense, God called Israel to a (humanly) impossible task. He created a nation, gave them a law, and set in mmotion a plan to develop awareness of guilt and an awareness of sin without any way those people could actually keep the law. He set in motion a plan to create a longing for Messiah. Jesus restored the connection with God. He gives us a living spiritómade alive by the Holy Spirit when he indwells usóand reassures us that the condemnation of that Mosaic law is over. We no longer live by an external, impossible code of ethics and morality. We now live by a living God residing IN US. The 10 Commandments were a step in the entire salvation plan designed to wake people up to their abysmal depravation. They were never intended to make us holy or give us life. They were given to create in us an awarness of of our evilness. Jesus, the Living Law, mow makes it possible for us to know how he wants us to live from the inside out instead of from the outside in. We don't have to measure ourselves against a law anymore; we are brought up short by the Holy Spirit in us convicting us at every moment. And the Holy Spirit actually provides the motivation and the strength for us to live holy lives. It's not us anymore! By the way, taking the Lord's name in vain is 'way more than swearing! We take his name in vain when we claim to be Christians and proceed to misrepresent God and to live by selfish motives claiming to do things in the name of God. The New Testament is full of commands to honor God, flee from paganism, to live with integrity, to love our brothers, to live the perfect life of Christ. Only when we submit to the Holy Spirit and let him live Christ's life through us can we truly honor the Name of the Lord. We absolutely cannot do it just because we decide to! Only the Holy Spirit can honor God's name through us. | ||
| Ann L. |
Ken, "The mystery of Col 2:16 is completely cleared up. The law of the yearly sabbaths, with all its meat & drink offerings, was nailed to the cross, but the great Ten Commandment law with the weekly Sabbath was not affected by that blotting out of ordinances. " This is perhaps the biggest deception taught by the SDA church that enragens me! Now Ken, allow me to "clear up the mystery of Col 2:16" and when I'm done I'll ask you the same question I asked my husband the other day. As shown below, the word "sabbath" as used in Col 2:16, "sabbaton", can either mean the seventh day of the week, or a week, NEVER a yearly sabbath. And I quote from the Enhanced Strong's Lexicon: 4521 sabbaton { sabí-bat-on} of Hebrew origin 7676; TDNT - 7:1,989; n n AV - sabbath day 37, sabbath 22, week 9; 68 GK - 4879 { savbbaton } 1) the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on which the Israelites were required to abstain from all work 1a) the institution of the sabbath, the law for keeping holy every seventh day of the week 1b) a single sabbath, sabbath day 2) seven days, a week The word "ordinance" as in Col 2:14, "dogma" means, and I quote again: 1378 dogma { dogí-mah} from the base of 1380; TDNT - 2:230,178; n n AV - decree 3, ordinance 2; 5 GK - 1504 { dovgma } 1) doctrine, decree, ordinance 1a) of public decrees 1b) of the Roman Senate 1c) of rulers 2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment 3) of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living Were the ten commandments "rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment"? Of course they were! What was the "threatened judgement" of some one who broke the fourth commandment? Stoning. The other nine commandments as well had "threatened judgements." Ken, don't BELIEVE ME, don't BELIEVE ELLEN, don't BELIEVE YOUR CHURCH, check it out for yourself! ìIf Paul Godís messenger wrote, not out of his own will but through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the sabbath was a ìshadowî but the ìrealityî is Christ, then why don't you BELIEVE THE HOLY SPIRIT?!!î Praying that the Holy Spirit will "rip the veil" from over your eyes, Ann |
