The 10 Commandments are FOREVER

Oceanprayers said:

Something I note about your posts.

Condescension, arrogance, and impatience with those to whom you reply. Because they don't see things your way.

Have you ever taken a momEnt to consider you may be wrong?

Click to expand...

Dry humor.... mostly
It is "my way" that the sun is hot. How about your opinion?
LOL You know what is more irritating than someone that thinks they are right all the time? Someone that is right all the time.
People do not like smart people....LOL....It is like Biden said, "I am sick and tired of smart guys."

On the other hand, consider it a challenge. Prove me wrong. Knock me off my pedestal. You will find that I am of good humor if you prove me wrong. Ya know why....? It is just something that I learn....duly noted. Some get all offended when they are corrected. I know so much that I am expecting to be wrong somewhere. No offense.

So now that you know....call me on it. When you think I am being all condescending and arrogant ask me what I think is so funny about that? But you can't call me impatient....I am stellar at that! I am here right?

GEN2REV said:

Revelation 17:8 proves that all are NOT in the Book of Life.

Claiming that they are is a cop-out OSAS defenders just love. Shame it's so not true.

Click to expand...

In order to be subject to death one must have been a descendant of Adam. In order to qualify for Good News one must be incorporated in Christ.
Adam and Christ are representative heads of humanity according to Romans 5.

What Adam lost (life) Christ regained (life) for all humanity

To have a name blotted out of the book of Life follows that it must have been in there at one point.

Jesus won for us all what Adam forfeited. We now can make a similar choice to Adam, we can forfeit the life given us in Christ.

Backlit said:

Any law, of whatever nature, be it local government or national dictatorship, is a reflection of the character and nature of the lawgiver.
The Ten Commandments are no different. They are a reflection, a written expression of the love of God. That's eternal... In all directions.

Click to expand...

how would honouring your Mother and your Father apply to Adam?...particularly 'your mother'

The Law was laid down in its entirety. God knew there would be parents, and so that command was included.

No reason for a stealing or adultery command either, right?

.

GEN2REV said:

This take doesn't align with Revelation 3:5.

That verse shows that names can be blotted out from the Book of Life. That means that the 'saved', or whatever you'd like to refer to them as, can still sin ... and can lose their place in God's Kingdom.

If sin is still possible, the 10 Commandments are still valid. You can't have one without the other. They are inseparable.

Click to expand...

The basis for Salvation is not Law keeping....I think that is clear from scripture.
I nevertheless do not scrub the Law because of my inability to keep it perfectly....I do in fact uphold it by recognising my sin.....because it is the Law that says my behaviour is not up to scratch.

Ferris Bueller said:

How's everyone handling Covid?

Click to expand...

You don't "handle" COVID. You simply ignore it, as well as all the COVID nonsense. Have you noticed how the official narrative is falling apart, almost everyone is reversing their position, and the rats are abandoning the good ship COVID? Have you seen the T-shirt with Fauci's face above the title "MORON"? It is selling for $29.00.

Cassandra said:

The Law was laid down in its entirety. God knew their would be parents, and so that command was included.

I gotta get out of here. Some of these replies are just ludicrous.

Click to expand...

ludicrous or just questions which don't fit neatly into preconceptions? ....no need to run, just be courageous!

Grailhunter said:

Dry humor.... mostly
It is "my way" that the sun is hot. How about your opinion?
LOL You know what is more irritating than someone that thinks they are right all the time? Someone that is right all the time.
People do not like smart people....LOL....It is like Biden said, "I am sick and tired of smart men."

On the other hand, consider it a challenge. Prove me wrong. Knock me off my pedestal. You will find that I am of good humor if you prove me wrong. Ya know why....? It is just something that I learn....duly noted. Some get all offended when they are corrected. I know so much that I am expecting to be wrong somewhere. No offense.

So now that you know....call me on it. When you think I am being all condescending and arrogant ask me what I think is so funny about that? But you can't call me impatient....I am stellar at that! I am here right?

Click to expand...

You are here. As you said, on a pedestal.

quietthinker said:

how would honouring your Mother and your Father apply to Adam?...particularly 'your mother'

Click to expand...

When God is the Alpha and the Omega it isn't impossible for God to be the Father and Mother.
God created man in God's image and likeness. Male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Eve was made from Adam's rib. Adam's rib was created of and from God, as are all things.

Oceanprayers said:

When God is the Alpha and the Omega it isn't impossible for God to be the Father and Mother.
God created man in God's image and likeness. Male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Eve was made from Adam's rib. Adam's rib was created of and from God, as are all things.

Click to expand...

yeah, one can shoehorn the logic in an attempt to make it fit however I think its drawing a long bow. It leads itself more to eisegesis than to exegesis.

quietthinker said:

ludicrous or just questions which don't fit neatly into preconceptions? ....no need to run, just be courageous!

Click to expand...

God set those laws up for man.
As for running off, I don't mind honest questions or statements, but it is not a question that fits into a preconceived notion. It's goofy. How about stealing and adultery too? Who was eve or Adam supposed to commit adultery with? See, that's goofy! Man needs rules so he can do what is right. And God set them down for us.

As for courageous, I would not leave from fear. I am certainly not afraid of you. What bothers me is when things are being discussed, and someone starts making light of serious discussion. We are speaking about the Lord and making goofy statements bothers me. I think it is dishonoring to God.

quietthinker said:

how would honouring your Mother and your Father apply to Adam?...particularly 'your mother'

Click to expand...

As I said. The law is a reflection of the love of God. The command to honour is an expression of love toward parents. The Sabbath command is an expression of love toward all men, granting them rest from labour, and opportunity to commune with their Creator. It is the love that is eternal, not necessarily the law itself. The Ten Commandments are for man a written expression of God's caring and loving attitude toward men. Did the angels have a law to which they were obliged to obey? Yes, and ⅓ sinned against that law, rebelling against the government and the Lawmaker. That law was likely not enumerated for angels as it was for man, perhaps it was more in line with "love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and spirit, and you fellow angel as yourself".
As for Adam and the commandment to honour his mother, perhaps revelation comes to man according to his need. The love we need to recognize in God, and express ourselves in return, perhaps came as a convicting requisite to their children. Who knows? Interesting question. Even the written tablets were a revelation to Israel. They were laws dating back to their ancestors (as evidenced by Joseph's refusal to lie with Potiphar's wife, sinning against God, therefore revealing his knowledge of a law against adultery, and the revelation to Abimelech in his relationship with Sarah. There are other incidents in ancient history where individuals knew by revelation or inate knowledge their behaviour was offensive to God and man). Israel however, after 400 years in slavery, overpowered spiritually by paganism and idolatry, had lost sight of righteousness and needed to be reminded in a display of power and awesome display the importance of God's standard. Even back in chapter 16 of Exodus, 3 months before Sinai, Israel was asked in direct response to the reminder about the Sabbath, "how long are you going to refuse to keep My commandments and My laws"? Revelation and reminders. Even today, we need them. But are our ears open and our minds alert to God's promptings? "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy...". We try so hard to forget.

Cassandra said:

See, that's goofy! Man needs rules so he can do what is right. And God set them down for us.

Click to expand...

when Adam came from the creators hand God declared his creation very good, ie perfect. If man is perfect, all his thoughts, emotions inclinations are perfect. Why give rules to prohibit what never entered his mind?
Only after problems arise are rules formulated.....and yes you are right regarding stealing and adultery.....subsequently law was added because of transgression...for what purpose? to show how exceedingly sinful sin is.

Backlit said:

As I said. The law is a reflection of the love of God. The command to honour is an expression of love toward parents. The Sabbath command is an expression of love toward all men, granting them rest from labour, and opportunity to commune with their Creator. It is the love that is eternal, not necessarily the law itself. The Ten Commandments are for man a written expression of God's caring and loving attitude toward men. Did the angels have a law to which they were obliged to obey? Yes, and ⅓ sinned against that law, rebelling against the government and the Lawmaker. That law was likely not enumerated for angels as it was for man, perhaps it was more in line with "love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and spirit, and you fellow angel as yourself".
As for Adam and the commandment to honour his mother, perhaps revelation comes to man according to his need. The love we need to recognize in God, and express ourselves in return, perhaps came as a convicting requisite to their children. Who knows? Interesting question. Even the written tablets were a revelation to Israel. They were laws dating back to their ancestors (as evidenced by Joseph's refusal to lie with Potiphar's wife, sinning against God, therefore revealing his knowledge of a law against adultery, and the revelation to Abimelech in his relationship with Sarah. There are other incidents in ancient history where individuals knew by revelation or inate knowledge their behaviour was offensive to God and man). Israel however, after 400 years in slavery, overpowered spiritually by paganism and idolatry, had lost sight of righteousness and needed to be reminded in a display of power and awesome display the importance of God's standard. Even back in chapter 16 of Exodus, 3 months before Sinai, Israel was asked in direct response to the reminder about the Sabbath, "how long are you going to refuse to keep My commandments and My laws"? Revelation and reminders. Even today, we need them. But are our ears open and our minds alert to God's promptings? "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy...". We try so hard to forget.

Click to expand...

The question my posts address is 'is the law forever'. I'm not opposed to the law.....I think in our state of natural anarchy the law is a moderating factor.....I just do not think these will be necessary in a perfect eternity where sin will no longer raise its head.

I do not thinks sin will raise its head because there is a Law prohibiting it....it will not raise its head because our motivation will be far far far superior than prohibition.

I apply this same principle to Gods creation when it came off his hands.....God by his own declaration said all was very good.

Ernest T. Bass said:

Deuteronomy 5:2-3; Malachi 4:4; shows the law was only given to the Jews and no one else, again the Gentiles was excluded from the OT law Ephesians 2:12.

Click to expand...

This is a theological dumpster fire, considering (1) this argument is made from the rather ignorant and unbiblical view that all Israelites are Jews, (2) Deut. 4:5-8 shows God explicitly saying He wanted all nations to eventually keep these same laws, and (3) Paul clearly stated in Eph. 4:17 that ethnic Gentiles were no longer supposed to live lawless lives upon converting to Christianity.

It makes no theological sense whatsoever to even make an attempt at making half-baked arguments that God holds Israelites and Gentiles to 2 different standards of morality. What is sin for one group is sin for another group. The Bible shows God consistently stating throughout the Law that the Gentiles in Canaan were to be driven out of the land because they spent the past 400 years violating the very laws Israel were given to live by.

Hidden In Him said:

Ok. But now the Sabbath is referenced in both the 10 commandments and in Paul's discourse. It would seem he is including the Sabbaths in with the mosaic ceremonial law here, yes?

14 having wiped away the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us... 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths

Click to expand...

Verse 14 has nothing whatsoever to do with any Sabbath. Paul is talking about a person's sin record prior to conversion. Under no circumstance was Paul saying the Sabbath is contrary to somebody when Christ said it was for humanity's own good. That's the whole point behind the commandment forbidden labor being done on that day.

Verse 16 also does not show Paul lumping any of the Sabbaths in with any ceremony or ritual law. Paul was telling the Colossians that the Church is the only entity that can judge them about what they drink, what they eat, or how they observe the Sabbath. Paul's writings need to be read in context of him saying Christians are supposed to live by God's commandments(Rom. 3:31, 1 Cor. 7:19). Peter explicitly warned in his epistles that Paul's letters must be read carefully because of what they appear to say.

Eternally Grateful said:

I believe if we are honest with ourselves. And we asked him, we would know he would tell us there was Nothing we could do. Because that is what the Bible says. There is nothing we can do,

I understand why he told this pharisee this. Because he wanted the pharisee to think for himself. Sadly the pharisee did not get it. And sadly, I fear many people today do not get it.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is you who fails to understand, and you are definitely not being honest with yourself or anyone else:

“Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matt. 5:19-20

Jesus not only stated in no uncertain terms that there is something His followers are supposed to do beyond merely acknowledging His existence, He also explained where the religious leaders of His day fell short. The religious leaders acknowledged God's existence, but they wouldn't do what He said. The "Christians" who say all a person has to do is "accept Christ" to be saved are the same type of people. They acknowledge the fact that God exists, but they refuse to do what He says. The "Christians" are even worse than the Orthodox Jews because they make up religious-sounding excuses to justify their refusal to do what God says.

Ferris Bueller said:

As I contend, no law of God is broken by the appearing of Christ. Some are simply not needed anymore in regard to their literal keeping. For example, God looks at us in regard to the law of Passover and says, "I see no violation of law here." Even though we haven't lifted a finger to sacrifice a lamb in accordance with the literal law of Passover. Because Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been applied to our account through our faith. And so His sacrifice is the reason we don't have to keep the literal Mosaic Passover observance anymore. And so it is with the other outward ceremonial worship laws. Christ is the fulfilment of those laws, not the breaking of those laws, so that no debt of law remains regarding those, and so God sees no violation of those laws when he sees us.

Click to expand...

The last sentence personifies the absolute absurdity in this theology, particularly because Paul reminded the Corinthians to keep the Passover with the right attitude(1 Cor. 5:7-8, 11:23-31).

It's amazing how the NT clearly documents the fact the NT Church kept these festivals in Acts, Paul's letters, and Jude, and yet it hasn't stopped fake Christians and wannabe theologians from arguing that they were abolished. If they were truly abolished, then why is it that all of those books show a true apostle of God reminding the congregations to continue keeping them?

Christ4Me said:

Why didn't they say the Gentiles were to keep the sabbath then in verse 20? Is it because of how the Jews were doing it to be saved when they are saved?

Click to expand...

The issue that was addressed by the council was not whether or not the Gentiles were supposed to keep the Sabbath. The very first verse in Acts 15 shows there were Jews who were trying to force Gentiles to be circumcised to earn their salvation. That was the issue being addressed in the chapter, not whether not people should keep the Sabbath. Acts 15:21 clearly shows James stating that Moses' writings were read to the Gentiles in the synagogues on the Sabbath. Literally none of the apostles raised any questions about that being done.

Salvation was not widely offered under the Sinai Covenant, so it's a lie to say the Sabbath was how someone got saved. All of the promises God made to Israel were entirely physical in nature, as you can clearly see in Lev. 26 and Deut. 28. Paul taught in Heb. 8:6 that the New Covenant was established on better promises because eternal life was the promise being widely offered.

Hidden In Him said:

How would you have me say it? I'm referring to the sabbath they were being required to observe under Jewish law.

I suppose you wish to distinguish how it should be kept as opposed to how they did, but if you are predating it to argue that the true original sabbath was somehow corrupted, I think that would be a tough argument to make. Or is that not what you would be arguing for?

Click to expand...

It is not a tough argument to make. Within a few generations after Ezra and Nehemiah died, the Pharisees become the predominant religious figures among the Jews. These people knew that God sent the Jews into Babylonian captivity because of their consistent disregard for the Sabbath, so they created a bunch of rules that they believed would help the Jews avoid profaning it.

As a result, they managed to cloud the very purpose of why the Sabbath was given in the first place. This set the stage for the incidents where Jesus set out to prove to the religious leaders that they perverted Moses' writings by showing them how God always intended it to be kept.

BarnyFife said:

Because the Sabbath wasn't an issue at that time. It was understood that it was every bit a part of God's law as were the other nine commandments. The Jews (the first Christians) were very zealous for the Sabbath. If people were going around trying to bring it down, we'd have a full report of that in Scripture, believe you me.

Click to expand...

You can see in John's epistles, Romans, Peter's epistles, and Jude that there were people trying to diminish the authority of God's commandments even in the 1st century. The most direct reference to those individuals can be found in Jude's letter where he mentions people who managed to infiltrate the Church with the doctrine that God's grace replaced any obligation to keep His commandments.

quietthinker said:

The 7th day Sabbath was never ceremonial. There are other rest days (sabbaths) which are ceremonial.....these are not to be confused with the 7th day rest (which unfortunately they often are in an attempt to invalidate the fourth Commandment)

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "ceremonial Sabbath". The annual festivals are all statutes, or bylaws, of the 4th commandment. Their authority either stand together or fall together. If the annual festivals were abolished(and they weren't), that means the 4th commandment was also abolished. God grouped all of the commanded festivals together for a reason.

Desire Of All Nations said:

Verse 14 has nothing whatsoever to do with any Sabbath. Paul is talking about a person's sin record prior to conversion.

Click to expand...

Hello, DOAN.

When were our sin records handwritten into the law? To handwrite every man's sins, and all of them, into the Law would have made the Law the largest document known to man, or at the very least to the ancient world. They would have run out of parchment.

Desire Of All Nations said:

It is not a tough argument to make. Within a few generations after Ezra and Nehemiah died, the Pharisees become the predominant religious figures among the Jews. These people knew that God sent the Jews into Babylonian captivity because of their consistent disregard for the Sabbath, so they created a bunch of rules that they believed would help the Jews avoid profaning it.

As a result, they managed to cloud the very purpose of why the Sabbath was given in the first place. This set the stage for the incidents where Jesus set out to prove to the religious leaders that they perverted Moses' writings by showing them how God always intended it to be kept.

Click to expand...

Ok, this is an interesting theory, but in order to prove it you need to substantiate it with something. What is the source material upon which this supposition is being built? I'll check out what you provide tomorrow.

God bless,
- H

Desire Of All Nations said:

Actually, it is you who fails to understand, and you are definitely not being honest with yourself or anyone else:

“Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matt. 5:19-20

Jesus not only stated in no uncertain terms that there is something His followers are supposed to do beyond merely acknowledging His existence, He also explained where the religious leaders of His day fell short. The religious leaders acknowledged God's existence, but they wouldn't do what He said. The "Christians" who say all a person has to do is "accept Christ" to be saved are the same type of people. They acknowledge the fact that God exists, but they refuse to do what He says. The "Christians" are even worse than the Orthodox Jews because they make up religious-sounding excuses to justify their refusal to do what God says.
The last sentence personifies the absolute absurdity in this theology, particularly because Paul reminded the Corinthians to keep the Passover with the right attitude(1 Cor. 5:7-8, 11:23-31).

Click to expand...

Actually it is yu who misunderstood what I said. I never claimed one can only accept or believe. This is your interpretation of myself not mine.

You also proved what I said, by showing that no one kept the law. All have sinned. And that was the issue. They thought they kept the law and because of it they were saved. They refused to acknowledge they could not keep it and have failed. And are thus under the curse moses spoke of. Its why they rejected christ.

Let’s nt be like them thinking we are righteous and ok. Because we obey some commands. Gods standard is perfection. And none of us make it.

We have nothing to offer, we have all been given death sentences, Multiple death sentences. In my view to many to count

A man on death row for one crime has nothing to offer to pay his debt and get out. He must be redeemed or some new evidence must be given to show he was innocent, or he must have his sentence reduced.

We have possibly millions of death sentences against us. It is foolish and nothing but our pride to think we cna offer God something to help get us out of jail “hell”

GEN2REV said:

Well, it appears Paul agreed with me and he was a Jew among Jews before he became a Christian. Interesting that he, a converted Jew, understood the Commandments were not to be cast aside.
Acts 21:24

That's pretty weighty in favor of obeying the Commandments.

I pray that you, and all those who have been misled, will come around to Paul's way of thinking.

Click to expand...

I never said the commands were cast aside. Yet you seem to be insisting I think they are. What does this say about you?

You still can’t keep the ten commands. They are still ministers of death apart from Grace,

I pray you see them for what they are, and not be like paul was a s a jew and the jews were. And think they are what made them upright people. Because they were not given for that reason.

Its sad when people read “keep commands” they always fall back on ten commands engraved on stone. And fail to realize God has so many more commands. These are just the tip of the iceberg.

I once heard someone call the ten commands Gods commands for dummies. He basically said, here I will just give you these ten, and you can’t even keep them.

If that does not prove our sinfulness, nothing will.

GEN2REV said:

The parameters that you're claiming Jesus was restricted to are man-made parameters.

Jesus wasn't restricted to any "ministration of death."

He taught what He pleased and it pleased Him to live out the 10 Commandments for all to see.

On the contrary, God tells us in Deuteronomy that the 10 Commandments are the path to life when Moses declared to Israel that when you "do them, ... ye may live...".
Deuteronomy 4:1

Click to expand...

2 Corinthians 3:7 the glory fading from Moses' face depicted how the OT law was going to be "done away" and be "done away" in Christ (2 Corinthians 3:13-14 cf Ephesians 2:15) for Christ took it all out of the way when He died on the cross....the OT law was "abolished".

--------------------

The OT law could not justify the Jew like the NT law can justify both Jew and Gentile. Romans 8:3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh....". The OT law could not justify, it could not make people perfect before God for those animal sacrifices could not take away sin (Hebrews 10:4). The OT law required perfect flawless obedience to it to justify a person and the Jews could not keep it perfectly for they were "weak through the flesh". Therefore Jesus did not come to earth to extend the OT law perpetually which cannot justify, but instead abolished it and replaced it with His NT law that can and does justify.


------------------

Romans 3:1-2 the OT law, the "oracles of God" was committed to the Jew, no one else. Though it provided advantages to the Jew over the Gentile that OT law could NOT justify the Jew leaving the Jew a sinner as the Gentile (Romans 3:9).

Paul shows from Rom 1 the Gentile has sinned, Rom 2 the Jew has sinned, hence both are under sin. All those under sin are in need of justification and in the first part of Rom 3 Paul tells us what CANNOT justify (the OT law) and the last part of Rom 3 Paul tells us what DOES justify that being faith.

So why would one want to go back to the OT law when it CANNOT justify a person??? Paul condemned those Christians in Galatia for allowing false Judiazing teachers lead them away from the NT gospel that does justify back to the OT law that does not justify. Paul clearly tells those Galatians "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God..." Galatians 3:11 for again, to be justified by that OT law required one to keep ALL of it perfectly which they could not do. Just ONE sin would bring the curse of the law upon one..... "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (Galatians 3:10).

Nor could they pick out some things from the OT law they liked and keep just those things and ignore the rest, for again, the law requires one keep ALL THINGS perfectly to be justified by it. Paul said those Galatians, by going back to the OT law, indebted themselves to keeping the "whole law" (Galatians 5:3).

Furthermore, Paul condemned those Galatians in going back to the OT law for in doing so they left the NT gospel to follow a false gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). By leaving the NT and going back to the OT they had "fallen from grace" (Galatians 5:4)....they had left the NT that teaches a system of justification by grace and went back to the OT law that required perfect, flawless law keeping to be justified which Paul knew they could not keep it perfectly therefore it could not justify them. So again, why would one want to go back to the OT law when it CANNOT justify a person???

Lastly, Galatians 3:12 "And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them." When it came to justification by the OT law, FAITH DID NOT MATTER. What did matter was keeping all the law perfectly, doing the law is all that mattered. "The Law did not even require faith, as seen in the quotation Paul gave here from Leviticus 18:5, the meaning of which may be paraphrased, "No matter about faith; do the Law and live." This was the essence of Judaism." (Coffman Comm).
The OT law was not of faith, hence "faith only" could not justify under the OT law for justification under that law required DOING it, WORKING TO OBEY ALL OF IT. The NT requires a faithful obedience, not a perfect obedience but faithful obedience to be justified by it, not faith only.

" It (OT law) is not a system of faith, but proclaims life by doing the Law, rather than by faith. But since none can keep it perfectly, all are under the curse (Galatians 3:10)." (Johnson Notes).
The OT law could not give life for it required keeping ALL of it perfectly, hence it is a law of death whereas the NT gospel does give life....the NT gospel has freed us from the law of death (Romans 8:2), set us free from the curse of the law so why do people want to go back to a law of death and be under that curse (Galatians 3:10)?????

So again, why would one today want to go back and keep that OT law when;
1) it cannot justify them
2) they cannot keep the "whole law" perfectly
3) Paul said NO MAN is justified by the law in God's sight
4) why go back to the OT law and be entangled again with that 'yoke of bondage'?
5) they are not even attempting to keep all of it but instead are just cherry picking out parts of the OT law they like and avoiding the rest which those who actually lived under the OT could not do yet still be justified anyway.

quietthinker said:

Moses wrote many commandments but The Ten were written by Gods finger, not Moses.

Click to expand...

But God spoke them all at Mt. Sanai. That's what people aren't getting.