Why jew got 613 commandments, but christian got 10 only?

[VW]

I find it odd that you would say this after I quoted James:

“If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. ” (James 2:8)

I agree that our ability to love is of a lesser quality than God's. I don't see how I said anything that implied the contrary.

Most definitely contrary, as the Law will not be fulfilled by the Spirit, of which love is the only part of the new commandment of Christ. According to John, the commandments of Christ are to believe in Jesus, and to love one another even as He has loved us. I am sorry, but there is no way that His love towards us can be compared to our love for ourselves. That is my whole point.

James was the most Mosaic of the apostles. But Paul withstood the apostles, saying that the Gentiles should not be subjected to the Law. And as we read John, we find two commandments of Jesus, in 3:23.

I get upset, for good reason, when someone tries to put the requirements of the Law upon any who follow Jesus, because the Law only brings death, but Jesus brings life eternal.

If we follow the Spirit, then there is no law, because we have the heart of God.

 

[VW]

Let me say that by the love of God by the Spirit, there will be no cause for the Law to condemn. But the Law is the least of the requirements which we live by.

Simply, if we believe that we must obey the Law, we have not found the truth that is in Christ. For the truth of Christ is a new life, one which is after our Father, a righteous life which is righteous by birth. That which is born of God is righteous. That which is not born of God is not righteous, and cannot be righteous. See, righteousness is not of the Law, has never been of the Law, but is of birth. As the scripture states, those who are lead by the Spirit of God are the children of God. If you are not His child, you are not saved. And you are not His child by the Law, but only by the Spirit.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Most definitely contrary, as the Law will not be fulfilled by the Spirit, of which love is the only part of the new commandment of Christ.

Where does the Bible say that "love is the only part of the new commandment"? This doesn't address anything that I said above about Jesus being the new example and the fact that the rest of the NT writers still appeal to "love your neighbor as yourself" as an authoritative and binding command. And I gave the argument that love is a summary of the law and as a summary it can't be used to dismiss that which it summarizes. What do you think?

According to John, the commandments of Christ are to believe in Jesus, and to love one another even as He has loved us.

I agree these are commandments. But the fact that these are commandments doesn't mean the command "do not steal" has been nullified (especially in light of Matthew 5:17-19, as I've mentioned several times now).

I am sorry, but there is no way that His love towards us can be compared to our love for ourselves. That is my whole point.

I stated in my last post that I agree with this.

James was the most Mosaic of the apostles. But Paul withstood the apostles, saying that the Gentiles should not be subjected to the Law. And as we read John, we find two commandments of Jesus, in 3:23.

This doesn't explain the verse in James. At best, it seems to be dismissing James. Do you think James is authoritative here or not?

 

[VW]

Okay, let me explain the Law. God looked upon the children of Israel, as they cried out in their bondage in Egypt, and raised up Moses to lead them out of their slavery. Now Moses was just like the rest of us, strong in himself, such that he rose up in his anger and killed an overseerer. But Moses saw God in the burning bush, and was changed at that time. God sent Moses back to Egypt to lead the children out of their bondage, and God worked the miracles to cause them to be released. After a time, the children of Israel came to the holy mountain, and God spoke to them, and made a covenant with them, the ten commandments. These commandments He spoke out loud, but the people did not want to hear Him, and they hardened their hearts, and told Moses that it was okay if Moses spoke to them, but that they did not want God to speak to them, or they would die. This is the factual and true story of how the 10 commandments came about.

Along comes Jesus. He tells the Jews that they search the scriptures because in them they think that they have eternal life. But what they are missing is that the scriptures testify of Him, of Jesus, and they are unwilling to come to Him that they might have life. In other words, He is saying that He is above the scripture, something greater and having life in Himself, just as the Father has life in Himself.

And so, the writer of Hebrews, under the insperation of the Holy Spirit writes:

For on the one hand, there is a setting aside of the former commandments, because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as it was not without an oath, (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath, through the One who said to Him,'
The Lord has sworn
And will not change His mind,
Thou art a priest forever.")
so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. And the former priest, on the one hand existed in greater numbers, because they were prevented by death from continuing, but He, on the other hand, because He abides forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Now the whole point of this passage, if we would hear, is the exchange of one covenant for another one, a better one. The Law is tied to the first covenant, as it was and remains the basis of the first covenant. The basis of the second covenant is the eternal life of Jesus, and His intercession for us. For the righteousness of God could not, will not be fulfilled by keeping the Law. The righteousness of God is fulfilled by faith, that is, by hearing His voice, and not hardening our hearts to His voice.

If you would know the purpose of the Law in our lives, it is to make sin exceedingly sinfull. No other purpose. If we would be righteous, it can and will be only by faith, and that by walking in the Spirit of the living God. Those who are lead by the Spirit of God are the children of God, not those who follow the Law.

 

[serpentslayer]

For the Christian, there are only two commandments, and they are basically both the same (Matt 22:37-40. For the sinner, all the Law applies! You see, we love God when we love our negihbors, because there is nothing we can give to God. Did not Jesus say that as you have done good to others it is like doing for Him?

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Okay, let me explain the Law. God looked upon the children of Israel, as they cried out in their bondage in Egypt, and raised up Moses to lead them out of their slavery. Now Moses was just like the rest of us, strong in himself, such that he rose up in his anger and killed an overseerer. But Moses saw God in the burning bush, and was changed at that time. God sent Moses back to Egypt to lead the children out of their bondage, and God worked the miracles to cause them to be released. After a time, the children of Israel came to the holy mountain, and God spoke to them, and made a covenant with them, the ten commandments. These commandments He spoke out loud, but the people did not want to hear Him, and they hardened their hearts, and told Moses that it was okay if Moses spoke to them, but that they did not want God to speak to them, or they would die. This is the factual and true story of how the 10 commandments came about.

Along comes Jesus. He tells the Jews that they search the scriptures because in them they think that they have eternal life. But what they are missing is that the scriptures testify of Him, of Jesus, and they are unwilling to come to Him that they might have life. In other words, He is saying that He is above the scripture, something greater and having life in Himself, just as the Father has life in Himself.

And so, the writer of Hebrews, under the insperation of the Holy Spirit writes:

For on the one hand, there is a setting aside of the former commandments, because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as it was not without an oath, (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath, through the One who said to Him,'
The Lord has sworn
And will not change His mind,
Thou art a priest forever.")
so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. And the former priest, on the one hand existed in greater numbers, because they were prevented by death from continuing, but He, on the other hand, because He abides forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Now the whole point of this passage, if we would hear, is the exchange of one covenant for another one, a better one. The Law is tied to the first covenant, as it was and remains the basis of the first covenant. The basis of the second covenant is the eternal life of Jesus, and His intercession for us. For the righteousness of God could not, will not be fulfilled by keeping the Law. The righteousness of God is fulfilled by faith, that is, by hearing His voice, and not hardening our hearts to His voice.

If you would know the purpose of the Law in our lives, it is to make sin exceedingly sinfull. No other purpose. If we would be righteous, it can and will be only by faith, and that by walking in the Spirit of the living God. Those who are lead by the Spirit of God are the children of God, not those who follow the Law.

You're no longer interacting with what I'm writing, so there isn't much point in me responding to this. But, nevertheless, the Hebrews passage you quote clearly has to do with the ceremonial law (cf. the context). I agree that the ceremonial law was simply a shadow of the reality found in Christ's work. As such, we no longer have anything to do with it. We have the reality, no sense looking to shadows.

But the moral dimensions of the law are what I have been saying are still applicable. Not necessarily in their cultural forms (that we should put fences around the the roofs of our houses), but in their principle: love. However, the fact is, many of the cultural forms of what love looks like will be the same for us. Love, in Israel during the time of Moses, looked like "Do not commit adultery" as well as "Put a fence around the roof of your house." Well in 21st century America love no longer looks like "Put a fence around the roof of your house" (unless you're throwing a lot of parties on the roof of your house) but it still looks like "Do not commit adultery"

 

[VW]

You're no longer interacting with what I'm writing, so there isn't much point in me responding to this. But, nevertheless, the Hebrews passage you quote clearly has to do with the ceremonial law (cf. the context). I agree that the ceremonial law was simply a shadow of the reality found in Christ's work. As such, we no longer have anything to do with it. We have the reality, no sense looking to shadows.

But the moral dimensions of the law are what I have been saying are still applicable. Not necessarily in their cultural forms (that we should put fences around the the roofs of our houses), but in their principle: love. However, the fact is, many of the cultural forms of what love looks like will be the same for us. Love, in Israel during the time of Moses, looked like "Do not commit adultery" as well as "Put a fence around the roof of your house." Well in 21st century America love no longer looks like "Put a fence around the roof of your house" (unless you're throwing a lot of parties on the roof of your house) but it still looks like "Do not commit adultery"

Oddly enough I feel the same way about how you are responding to what I write. There is no place in scripture that the 10 commandments are called the moral commandments. In context, by the scripture, the ten commandments are the basis of the covenant that God made with the children of Israel when He brought them out of slavery in Egypt. In the first paragraph of Exodus chapter 19, in fact for all of this chapter, we find God telling the people to prepare themselves for the consecrating of the covenant where they will become a possession of God.

So, again I say that there are no moral commandments, and scripture does not say this about the 10 commandments, or any of the other commandments. In fact, morality is a human concept, and is not an attribute of God. God is HOLY, which is a whole other thing than moral.

No as to the covenant being something other than the Law, for this is what was set aside in Christ, I find no basis for this either in scripture. I do not in any way see the context of the passage in Hebrews to mean ceremonial law, rather than the Law of the covenant.

Did you realize that the Law, the very same ten commandments that we are speaking of, were given 3 times? And did you know that Jesus gave His new commandment 3 times? And that the writer of Hebrews gave us charge to enter grace, (that is, come into God's presence,) 3 times? Now I am not into numbers, but this is significant. For love as Jesus commands is love from God, for the love wherewith He has loved us is God's love, for God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son. It is not our love, and so is and cannot be equated with love for our neighbor as ourself, because that is our love. And when the commandments, those ten we are discussing were given, (God actually spoke them out loud to the people, for them to hear and to know that He was the One speaking,) the people did not listen, they did not open their hearts to hear His voice, but told Moses to not let God speak to them, lest they die. And grace was denied them, because they had hardened their hearts. But we have grace through Jesus, in that we can approach the living God, enter His presence through Jesus, who if we are drawing near to God in Him always lives to make intercession for us.

But if you want to put God in the place of having morals, rather than being holy, that is up to you.

I am sorry if I seem to be dense in this, but I did not find these things in a corner, but in the light of God's revelation, the revelation of His holiness.

In His love,
vic

 

[VW]

I should add that this is the basis of the new covenant that we have in Jesus, that we can draw near to Him in faith through Him with a sincere heart and a clean conscience. Not on the basis of any Law, but on the basis of faith, and the blood of Jesus Christ. And the Spirit of adoption which He has given us calls us to enter His presence, to see Him in our hearts and to hear His voice, to be those who have become His children in truth.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Oddly enough I feel the same way about how you are responding to what I write.

Well rather than make empty charges at one another, let us see.

I asked: “Where does the Bible say that "love is the only part of the new commandment"?”

Did you address this?

I said: “the rest of the NT writers still appeal to "love your neighbor as yourself" as an authoritative and binding command.”

Did you address this?

I said: “ love is a summary of the law and as a summary it can't be used to dismiss that which it summarizes. What do you think?”

Did you address this?

On your statement to love one another as Christ loved us I said: “I agree these are commandments. But the fact that these are commandments doesn't mean the command "do not steal" has been nullified (especially in light of Matthew 5:17-19, as I've mentioned several times now).”

Did you address this?

I said: “This doesn't explain the verse in James. At best, it seems to be dismissing James. Do you think James is authoritative here or not?”

Did you address this? If so, where? Please provide a quote from one of your posts. Likewise for the rest.

Now you claim I’m not interacting with you posts. Please point out, as I have done, which questions of your that I have ignored. What arguments have you used that I have ignored? If I have already answered them I will point you to the quotes from my previous posts that I think address the issue and if I have not already answered it I will try to do so.

I don't have time for rhetorical games in which a person says "You're ignoring me" and the other person retorts "Oh yeah, well I'm rubber and your glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you."

If I make an assertion that you're ignoring me I'm willing to explain why I think that and provide what I think is evidence of the assertion. Please do the same so this doesn't turn into a mere game of rhetoric.

I don’t have time right now to address the rest of your post. But I will when I get back.

 

[VW]

Well rather than make empty charges at one another, let us see.

I asked: “Where does the Bible say that "love is the only part of the new commandment"?”

How about when He gave His new commandment, to love one another even as He has loved us?

Did you address this?

Yes, but you do not believe because it does not line up with your interpretation.

I said: “the rest of the NT writers still appeal to "love your neighbor as yourself" as an authoritative and binding command.”

Did you address this?

Is it really? I see that they used this as saying the Law is summed up in this command. Still not the same as the new commandment of our Lord.

I said: “ love is a summary of the law and as a summary it can't be used to dismiss that which it summarizes. What do you think?”

Did you address this?

Yes, I did. I agreed that this is the summary of the Law, but I said that we are not under the Law, which is plainly stated in scripture.

On your statement to love one another as Christ loved us I said: “I agree these are commandments. But the fact that these are commandments doesn't mean the command "do not steal" has been nullified (especially in light of Matthew 5:17-19, as I've mentioned several times now).”

Did you address this?

Nullify? Who said anything about nullifying anything? As a follower of Jesus, I do not nullify anything and rather prove that I walk in His life and light and love. His life, His light, His love. So you see the difference? If I am walking in the Law, that is, if I am bound to not steal or kill or any of the other things which are prohibited in the Law, then I am not in Christ, not in His life or light or love, because I am in the Law. "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written; 'Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them.' Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, 'The righteous man shall live by faith.' However, the Law is is not of faith; on the contrary, 'He who practices them shall live by them.' Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree'--in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the , so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

The Law is still active, and it still kills those who are in it, with eternal death, because the Law and the works of the Law are not of faith.

I said: “This doesn't explain the verse in James. At best, it seems to be dismissing James. Do you think James is authoritative here or not?”

Did you address this? If so, where? Please provide a quote from one of your posts. Likewise for the rest.

Now you claim I’m not interacting with you posts. Please point out, as I have done, which questions of your that I have ignored. What arguments have you used that I have ignored? If I have already answered them I will point you to the quotes from my previous posts that I think address the issue and if I have not already answered it I will try to do so.

I don't have time for rhetorical games in which a person says "You're ignoring me" and the other person retorts "Oh yeah, well I'm rubber and your glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you."

If I make an assertion that you're ignoring me I'm willing to explain why I think that and provide what I think is evidence of the assertion. Please do the same so this doesn't turn into a mere game of rhetoric.

I don’t have time right now to address the rest of your post. But I will when I get back.

I dont have time right now to address any more of this. Maybe later.

I will say that I hold no animosity for you, only for what you teach.

In His love,
vic

 

[charisenexcelcis]

If you will notice, the poster is always on line. I think what we have is a troll who is trying to tie us up with trivial questions. What he isn't counting on is that many of us will be praying for him.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

There is no place in scripture that the 10 commandments are called the moral commandments.

This seems irrelevant. The conceptual distinction between a moral law and a ceremonial law doesn’t need to be explicitly stated for it to be present.

There is no place in Scripture where the word “Trinity” is used and there is no place in Scripture where Christ is said to have a “hypostatic union”.

So what?

In context, by the scripture, the ten commandments are the basis of the covenant that God made with the children of Israel when He brought them out of slavery in Egypt. In the first paragraph of Exodus chapter 19, in fact for all of this chapter, we find God telling the people to prepare themselves for the consecrating of the covenant where they will become a possession of God.

“Basis of the covenant” is sort of a vague term. We could also see God’s redemptive act in the exodus as the basis of the covenant (or his earlier promises). But I think I can accept the idea that the Ten Commandments are the “basis of the covenant” for arguments sake.

So, again I say that there are no moral commandments, and scripture does not say this about the 10 commandments, or any of the other commandments. In fact, morality is a human concept, and is not an attribute of God. God is HOLY, which is a whole other thing than moral.

At this point, I think you’ve slipped off the deep end. There is so much confusion here that it would take me a long time to untangle it.

Whether or not the word “moral” is found in the Bible, the concept certainly is. For example, Job 11:5 says “Surely then you will lift up your face without blemish; you will be secure and will not fear” (Job 11:15). What sort of blemish do you think the speaker is referring to? Is this a physical blemish? No, clearly it pertains to an ethical blemish (a moral blemish). You could even call it a “spiritual” blemish if you want, the concept would be the same.

What about 2 Peter 1:5 - “Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge.” Do you think this is a mistranslation? If you say it should be translated “virtue” or “goodness” instead then you’re just playing word games. Virtue and goodness are moral concepts.

When you say morality is a human concept, does this mean it is not a valid concept?

When you say it does not apply to God, I have to point out that Abraham disagreed with you apparently:

“Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25).

And if you want to quibble about whether justice is a moral concept then I would have to say that you have no idea what you’re talking about when you start to talk about morality, and I would find that amazing since it’s a rather intuitive concept. Justice applies to God (don’t you agree?) and that’s a moral concept. Goodness applies to God and that’s a moral concept.

God is the one who sets the standard for righteousness and wickedness, thus “moral” is a God concept, not simply a human one. The fact that God is the standard of goodness does not mean that he is not himself good.

In fact, the concept of holiness has moral dimensions, as virtually any scholarly source on the Bible will tell you:

(1) New Bible Dictionary: “These [holiness] foci are expressed in a variety of ethical commands which apply in cultic, sexual and social relationships” (3rd ed. 478).

(2) Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary: “In the OT, holiness is a positive cultic or moral condition of God, people, things, places, and time… In the philosophical tradition oaths (Aristotle) and contracts (Plato, Lg. 729e) as well as the moral life (Lg. 904e) and fatherland (Cri. 51a) count as holy… [In the NT] holiness (hagiasmos) and peace are the presupposition and goal, respectively, of the moral life (12:14; cf. 1 Thess 5:23)… The holy life is, for Paul, one in conformity with established moral and ethical norms of the Hellenistic Jewish world” (237, 249, 252, 254).

(3) The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “Secondarily the holiness of God denotes His moral perfection, His absolute freedom from blemish of any kind (Ps. 89:35 [MT 36]). This aspect is strikingly set forth in the account of Isaiah’s call to the prophetic office, in that the reiterated angelic pronouncement of the divine holiness brought to him the overpowering awareness of his own sinfulness (Isa. 6:5)” (revised edition; 725).

(4) Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible: “In the OT, holiness as applied to God signifies his transcendence over the creation and the moral perfection of his character” (984).

(5) Eardmans Bible Dictionary: “The personal character of God’s holiness is seen in two aspects of holiness which the prophets greatly enriched: God’s moral perfection (Hab. 1:13), and holiness not simply as the nature of God’s being but as that being expressed through the will and action of God in judgment and redemption (e.g., Isaiah)… The continuity between the testaments, then, is great, but the New Testament transposes all of this into the context of the new people of God and new covenant, and in the process further develops the prophetic emphasis on spiritual and ethical holiness and its foundation in the person and character of God” (494).

Thus, your attempt to avoid the moral dimensions of the law by an (absolutely absurd) attack on the concept of morality simply won’t work.

No as to the covenant being something other than the Law, for this is what was set aside in Christ, I find no basis for this either in scripture. I do not in any way see the context of the passage in Hebrews to mean ceremonial law, rather than the Law of the covenant.

Since I’m on a role with these quotes, allow me to just quote Greg Bahnsen’s remarks here:

“The context makes it clear that this phrase does not have reference to a new moral code under the New Covenant. The preceding verses deal with the priesthoods of Melchizedek and Aaron (Christ being after the order of the former), and verse 13 explains this “change of law” (note the word “for&#8221 as referring to the fact that Christ, the great high priest, descended from Judah and not from Levi (the tribe specified in the Mosaic law as the priestly line). The phrase in verse 12 is a partitive genitive dealing with the ceremonial law: “a change in the law” occurred with respect to priestly qualification. Verse 18 indicates that it is only one commandment (singular) which has been set aside, and verse 16 teaches that this commandment was “a commandment with respect to flesh,” that is, concerning the external qualification of physical descent for priests (see the rendering in the RSV and NASV). This change in stipulation is a confirmation of the law as expressed in Psalm 110:1, 4; while human priests were to be from the tribe of Levi, the great priestly-Messiah was to be after the order of Melchizedek. As this was already specified in the Older Testament, and since it deals with the ceremonial law” (Theonomy in Christian Ethics 224).

Did you realize that the Law, the very same ten commandments that we are speaking of, were given 3 times? And did you know that Jesus gave His new commandment 3 times? And that the writer of Hebrews gave us charge to enter grace, (that is, come into God's presence,) 3 times? Now I am not into numbers, but this is significant.

No… it’s really not.

But if you want to put God in the place of having morals, rather than being holy, that is up to you.

As I’ve amply demonstrated, that’s a false dichotomy.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

How about when He gave His new commandment, to love one another even as He has loved us?

I already addressed that, so *yet again* you are not interacting with what I've said.

In post #63 I said: "Where does the Bible say that "love is the only part of the new commandment"? This doesn't address anything that I said above about Jesus being the new example and the fact that the rest of the NT writers still appeal to "love your neighbor as yourself" as an authoritative and binding command. And I gave the argument that love is a summary of the law and as a summary it can't be used to dismiss that which it summarizes. What do you think?"

The fact that Jesus gave a "new" commandment doesn't imply that all the old ones are void. For example, when Obama became the president, he enacted some new laws (I think?), does that mean all of our old laws were made void?

Your "response" also doesn't address what I have pointed out on *several* occasions that Paul and other NT writers repeat the "old" law (love your neighbor as yourself) that you seem to think was nullified.

Is it really? I see that they used this as saying the Law is summed up in this command. Still not the same as the new commandment of our Lord.

Why would they appeal to a command that had been *replaced* with a better command? Wouldn't the people Paul and the others were writing to have pointed out "Uh, Paul, in case you didn't get the memo, Jesus did away with that command. It's a whole new ball-game now, Paul."

Apparently the "new" command didn't have the significance you think it does.

Yes, I did. I agreed that this is the summary of the Law, but I said that we are not under the Law, which is plainly stated in scripture.

I just searched through all your posts and I don't see where you said this about it being a summary of the Law. Point out which post # it was, please.

But this "response" doesn't get you out of the problem. We are clearly commanded to *love* and love is a *summary* of the law. If we are not under the law, then we are not under a summary of the law either. The summary is not fundamentally different than the law itself (or the laws themselves). A summary just presents the substance of a thing in more condensed form (according to the dictionary).

As I explained with my policeman analogy: if I said to cops: "Stop speeders and catch theives. In summary, promote justice!" Who in their right mind would think that "Okay, so I don't have to stop speeders, I just have to promote justice"?

Nullify? Who said anything about nullifying anything? As a follower of Jesus, I do not nullify anything and rather prove that I walk in His life and light and love. His life, His light, His love. So you see the difference?

Actually this just looks like a rhetorical trick. If we no longer have to keep the law, then it has been nullified as such. It is no longer a law. Something cannot be called a law if it has no binding authority, by definition.

I could play the same rhetorical game with you: "Who said anything about law-keeping? As a follower of Jesus, I don't keep any laws, I just prove that I walk in his life and light and love. See the difference?"

if I am walking in the Law, that is, if I am bound to not steal or kill or any of the other things which are prohibited in the Law, then I am not in Christ, not in His life or light or love, because I am in the Law.

Where does Scripture say that if you do not steal that you are not in Christ? It seems to me that it indicates that if you have a habitual problem breaking the moral law (sexual immorality, idolatry, etc), thats when you should be worried about whether or not you're in Christ.

Earlier, post #24, you said "Yes, it is true that we should not murder." Thus, it looks to me like *you* are walking in the command "do not murder."

Of course, the term "walking in" is vague and could be twist it around to mean almost anything you wanted.

"For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written; 'Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them.' Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, 'The righteous man shall live by faith.' However, the Law is is not of faith; on the contrary, 'He who practices them shall live by them.' Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree'--in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the , so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

What is Paul talking about in that verse?? Justification. I agree, those who try to be justified by the law are under a curse. I never said we should be or could be justified by the law.

Now you said that you felt that I was not interacting with your posts. I asked you to show me where. You haven't done that. I hope you'll do so soon.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

If you will notice, the poster is always on line. I think what we have is a troll who is trying to tie us up with trivial questions. What he isn't counting on is that many of us will be praying for him.

I'm always online because I usually leave my browser open to whatever page I happen to be on. If I'm a troll I must say I'm pretty awesome by troll standards.

 

[mcubed]

Torah is the Hebrew word meaning teaching. It's root means to throw or shoot an arrow. YHVH uses this word Torah in scripture to signify His Teaching to His people. The Teaching which G-d gave Moses (Moshe) is called the Torah of Moses, but this does not mean that Moses authored it, only that he received it from G-d.
When Torah is mentioned it is most often associated with the Torah of Moses, meaning the Torah, or Teaching, which God gave to Israel in the wilderness. However, YHVH uses the word Torah to signify His instructions throughout the Hebrew scriptures, including the Prophets and the Psalms. Since all of His Word is His Teaching, all of it is His Torah.
Some believe, traditionally, that YHVH gave oral teaching to Moses, besides that which Moses wrote down. Many religious Jews believe these oral traditions to be the Word of Elohim also and as equally binding on them as the written Word of God, therefore they accept and observe the oral traditions as Torah commandments. This is a great error. The scripture says,

"Moses came and told the people all the words of YHVH and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, 'All the words that YHVH has spoken we will do.' And Moses wrote down all the words of YHVH," (Exodus 24:3, 4 emphasis mine).
​

Moses gave the people only the words that he wrote down, and that was all which YHVH had told him. Therefore, what is written in the first five books of the scriptures is the complete teaching that was given to Moses. Also, the covenant between G-d and His people is based exclusively on the written words of YHVH and nothing else.
Christians usually call the Torah "the Law," because most English translations of scripture translate Torah as Law. The reason this came about is because pre-Yeshua rabbis translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, called the Septuagint. The Septuagint translated Torah into the Greek word Nomia. Nomia was used in Greek culture to mean an unalterable law. Following this tradition, the Greek New Testament also used nomia to signify the Torah. The Torah is unalterable, and technically it is Law, since breaking it does have penal consequences. (Remember, this includes all that God gave to the Prophets.) However, the Torah is first of all the teaching of a protective parent, the Most High Father, Abba, who loves His children enough to preserve them in righteousness.

"For the commandment is a lamp and the Torah is light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life," (Proverbs 6:23).
"The Torah of YHVH is perfect, reviving the soul; the decrees of YHVH are sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of YHVH are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of YHVH is clear, enlightening the eyes; the fear of YHVH is pure, enduring forever; the ordinances of YHVH are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey, and drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward," (Psalm 19:7-11).
​

This is the way which the Most High wanted His people to view His instructions. To view Torah as arbitrary condemnatory legalese, used as tedious entrapment against mankind, is the gravest of lies and misconceptions. Many in Christianity have had this erroneous view of Torah, and thus, feel impelled to find any excuse to discount or destroy its value.
Another Greek word used in the New Testament is dogma. Sometimes this word is falsely translated as ordinances, but the proper translation is the authoritative opinions of men. This word is confused with nomia, and thus Torah, by many, yet they have nothing in common. It is dogma which Yeshua has overcome and put away, but He Himself said the Torah would never, in time, pass away, because the Torah is His Word.

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the Torah until everything is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven," (Matthew 5:18, 19).
​

Since the New Testament confirms that the Torah is holy, righteous and good (Romans 7:12), Torah cannot in any way be a thing to be disdained or disregarded by true Bible believers. Also, Bible believers should consider that the very concept of Torah must include ALL that God ever commanded to be written as His instruction. If you believe the New Testament was given by G-d, then that makes it a part of YHVH's Torah. Thus, to disdain Torah is to disdain the New Testament also. The Most High does not differentiate His Word, since He is always the same.

"All scripture is G-d breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to G-d may be proficient, equipped for every good work," (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).
​

So to sum up:

1. Torah is all the written Teaching of YHVH, from Genesis to Revelation, and that alone
2. Torah is not the oral traditions or commentaries of men, whether Jewish or Christian
3. Torah is holy, right and good; and useful for everyone who belongs to G-d

Therefore, be warned beloved, do not accept the traditions of elders or sages as Torah, neither toss away the written Torah as useless. For both these ways seem right to many, but neither of these paths are righteous and true remembrance before G-d.

"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the Torah and the Prophets. Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is strewn with obstacles that leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves," (Matthew 7:12-15).

I get confused at why Christians think G-d loves us way more than you that He would give us His beautiful Torah and not you if we are now one in Him????? It doesn't make since didn't Christians get 66 books also????
​

 

[livingbygrace]

Torah is the Hebrew word meaning teaching. It's root means to throw or shoot an arrow. YHVH uses this word Torah in scripture to signify His Teaching to His people. The Teaching which G-d gave Moses (Moshe) is called the Torah of Moses, but this does not mean that Moses authored it, only that he received it from G-d.
When Torah is mentioned it is most often associated with the Torah of Moses, meaning the Torah, or Teaching, which God gave to Israel in the wilderness. However, YHVH uses the word Torah to signify His instructions throughout the Hebrew scriptures, including the Prophets and the Psalms. Since all of His Word is His Teaching, all of it is His Torah.
Some believe, traditionally, that YHVH gave oral teaching to Moses, besides that which Moses wrote down. Many religious Jews believe these oral traditions to be the Word of Elohim also and as equally binding on them as the written Word of God, therefore they accept and observe the oral traditions as Torah commandments. This is a great error. The scripture says,

"Moses came and told the people all the words of YHVH and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, 'All the words that YHVH has spoken we will do.' And Moses wrote down all the words of YHVH," (Exodus 24:3, 4 emphasis mine).
​

Moses gave the people only the words that he wrote down, and that was all which YHVH had told him. Therefore, what is written in the first five books of the scriptures is the complete teaching that was given to Moses. Also, the covenant between G-d and His people is based exclusively on the written words of YHVH and nothing else.
Christians usually call the Torah "the Law," because most English translations of scripture translate Torah as Law. The reason this came about is because pre-Yeshua rabbis translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, called the Septuagint. The Septuagint translated Torah into the Greek word Nomia. Nomia was used in Greek culture to mean an unalterable law. Following this tradition, the Greek New Testament also used nomia to signify the Torah. The Torah is unalterable, and technically it is Law, since breaking it does have penal consequences. (Remember, this includes all that God gave to the Prophets.) However, the Torah is first of all the teaching of a protective parent, the Most High Father, Abba, who loves His children enough to preserve them in righteousness.

"For the commandment is a lamp and the Torah is light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life," (Proverbs 6:23).
"The Torah of YHVH is perfect, reviving the soul; the decrees of YHVH are sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of YHVH are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of YHVH is clear, enlightening the eyes; the fear of YHVH is pure, enduring forever; the ordinances of YHVH are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey, and drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward," (Psalm 19:7-11).
​

This is the way which the Most High wanted His people to view His instructions. To view Torah as arbitrary condemnatory legalese, used as tedious entrapment against mankind, is the gravest of lies and misconceptions. Many in Christianity have had this erroneous view of Torah, and thus, feel impelled to find any excuse to discount or destroy its value.
Another Greek word used in the New Testament is dogma. Sometimes this word is falsely translated as ordinances, but the proper translation is the authoritative opinions of men. This word is confused with nomia, and thus Torah, by many, yet they have nothing in common. It is dogma which Yeshua has overcome and put away, but He Himself said the Torah would never, in time, pass away, because the Torah is His Word.

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the Torah until everything is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven," (Matthew 5:18, 19).
​

Since the New Testament confirms that the Torah is holy, righteous and good (Romans 7:12), Torah cannot in any way be a thing to be disdained or disregarded by true Bible believers. Also, Bible believers should consider that the very concept of Torah must include ALL that God ever commanded to be written as His instruction. If you believe the New Testament was given by G-d, then that makes it a part of YHVH's Torah. Thus, to disdain Torah is to disdain the New Testament also. The Most High does not differentiate His Word, since He is always the same.

"All scripture is G-d breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to G-d may be proficient, equipped for every good work," (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).
​

So to sum up:

1. Torah is all the written Teaching of YHVH, from Genesis to Revelation, and that alone
2. Torah is not the oral traditions or commentaries of men, whether Jewish or Christian
3. Torah is holy, right and good; and useful for everyone who belongs to G-d

Therefore, be warned beloved, do not accept the traditions of elders or sages as Torah, neither toss away the written Torah as useless. For both these ways seem right to many, but neither of these paths are righteous and true remembrance before G-d.

"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the Torah and the Prophets. Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is strewn with obstacles that leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves," (Matthew 7:12-15).

I get confused at why Christians think G-d loves us way more than you that He would give us His beautiful Torah and not you if we are now one in Him????? It doesn't make since didn't Christians get 66 books also????
​

You quoted Romans7:12. Why not quote the preceding seven verses?

 

[VW]

I'm always online because I usually leave my browser open to whatever page I happen to be on. If I'm a troll I must say I'm pretty awesome by troll standards.

Well, I am through with you.

No more answers. But don't expect me to stand quietly by and let you make any assertions that you have come up with by your reasoning and intelligent deduction.

Justification, sure, but righteousness first.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Well, I am through with you.

No more answers. But don't expect me to stand quietly by and let you make any assertions that you have come up with by your reasoning and intelligent deduction.

Justification, sure, but righteousness first.

Well if you're still going to be responding to me then I wonder in what sense you are "through" with me. But so long as you respond to me I hope you don't mind if I give my own responses to your responses.

 

[VW]

Well if you're still going to be responding to me then I wonder in what sense you are "through" with me. But so long as you respond to me I hope you don't mind if I give my own responses to your responses.

I will no longer answer the way that you twist what I say into what is always said to show how trusting the Spirit is wrong, even a deception.

You have all the answers.

I will not respond to your arguments about what I have said. They can stand on their own.

I will answer any questions you might have.

I know that you believe what you say deeply. In a way, I admire that.

The best to you in His love,
vic

 

[serpentslayer]

In fact, those two commandments are just a summary of the law. Thus, Jesus goes on to say, "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:40). This means that the other commandments are applications built upon these "laws" of love.

And those two commands can be collapsed even further:

“For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” ” (Romans 13:9)

This squares with Jesus satement in light of the following: “Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love... If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.” (1 John 4:8,20)

So it seems to me that, technically speaking, to say "We haven't got ten" is a misapplication of Jesus' (and Paul's and John's) statement. The ten commandments (indeed, all the commandments) are simply examples of what love looks like. That's why "love" is the summary or foundation of the law. So it makes no sense, to me, to try and say that we can do away with the other commandments (without careful qualification).

If I were giving a speech to a group of cops and said something like "Okay, fellas, your duty is to stop speeders, catch thieves, break up disputes, and serve as witnesses when necessary in a court of law. Basically, promote justice."

Would any of those cops think "He said 'basically promote justice.' that must mean that I don't have to stop speeders..."

No. That would be absurd, right? The fact that I summarized those things with the term "justice" hardly excuses any of the cops from carrying out those particular instances of justice that I specified. So I don't see how the fact that Jesus' pointed to two commandments as laying the foundation for the others frees us from the others. Nor do I see Paul's summary of all the commandments into the heading "love" frees us from doing what the commandments specify as love.

Consider this: if you are only commanded to "love" you might wonder what love looks like. Homosexuals maintain that their relationships are loving. But that doesn't square with the biblical definition of love. A Muslim believes that their treatment of women is loving. But, for some Muslims, this doesn't square with what we consider loving. This is why a summary of the law cannot possibly be a replacement of the law. The Bible commands us to love and what is loving is defined in terms of the law.

You are right, and i did not mean to say that the Law does not apply, only that the spirit of the Law is simply to Love people: for in our daily lives, it is not the Law we consider, but our day to day relations with people.