The 10 Commandments are FOREVER

[dad]

The epistles of John (including the first) are DEFINITELY NOT for unbelievers. That is so obvious that it should not even be debatable. "My little children" speaks about the children of God. Yet the hyper-grace crowd falsely claims that the first epistle was written to Gnostics and/or unbelievers, instead of against Gnostics.

That seemed obvious to me. However the poster apparently thought he knew otherwise.

 

[Oceanprayers]

They did write to us. In the passage you cited, 1 Jn 1 from verse 5 on, I already showed that it could not have been to unbelievers. Let's be honest.

You were wrong. The grammar used proves the perspective you're missing is that of a believer ministering to unbelievers.
The relational preemptive skepticism his listeners would have is part of the transference embodied in the later "we" language.

If your perspective were correct Jesus would affirm his holy spirit is able to indwell the actively sinning sinner.
In which case that person is not redeemed from anything. Nor could they be reborn in him when they're a living sinner dead in their sins and with the holy spirit indwelling .
That's not a temple of the most high. That's a grave.
That's your perspective in a nutshell. And that's why you're wrong.

 

[dad]

You were wrong. The grammar used proves the perspective you're missing is that of a believer ministering to unbelievers.
The relational preemptive skepticism his listeners would have is part of the transference embodied in the later "we" language.

If your perspective were correct Jesus would affirm his holy spirit is able to indwell the actively sinning sinner.
In which case that person is not redeemed from anything. Nor could they be reborn in him when they're a living sinner dead in their sins and with the holy spirit indwelling .
That's not a temple of the most high. That's a grave.
That's your perspective in a nutshell. And that's why you're wrong.

Here we go again.

Let's look at the text

You say after verse 5 is about and to unbelievers.
1 John 1:4
We write this to make our joy complete.
1 John 1:5
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

In verse 6 we see it is talking to people who say they have fellowship with God. That is not unbelievers!

1 John 1:6
If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.

Now for the verse for which you probably have went to mental gymnastics here to try to deny the obvious about who it is written to.

1 John 1:8
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Let's test this. Do you claim to be without sin? Yes or no?

Simple

 

[Oceanprayers]

The Sabbath is not "done way". It is now the Christian Sabbath -- the Lord's Day. Only unbelieving Jews observe the 7th day Sabbath. And some Sabbatarians who have been misled.

All you have to do to prove that is show where God, Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, changed the day.

Constantine changed the day of worship to Sunday. That's a matter of historic record.
Constantine, not God.

Constantine was emperor of Rome from 306-337A.D. He and the Council of Nicea changed Sabbath to Sunday .
The Papal Church made the day official in the Council of Laodicea A.D. 363-364.
As a point of note. Those who are adamantly opposed to the Papal church, i.e. the Roman's Catholic, while insisting Sunday is the day of Sabbath for Christians aren't following God's original decree. They're following the Roman's Papal church design.
Constantine was a sun worshiper before he was thought to have converted to the faith of the Christ.
Sunday=Sun-day.

Btw, the Sabbath relates to Jesus' crucifixion. For a reason.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

If your belief system makes you dead you're in the wrong faith.

Believing Christians are dead in Christ:

"3...don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" Romans 6:3
"5 If we have been united with him in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection." Romans 6:5​

I submit to you that if you are NOT dead you're in the wrong faith!

Book, chapter, verse? Where Jesus taught all that you attribute to him?

Here:

Matthew 5:17
17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. ​

This fulfillment that he came to do had to happen first before so much as a jot or tittle could 'disappear' from the law...

Matthew 5:18
18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.​

Well, we know that the 'everything is accomplished' has happened. How? By the simple fact that we all know and agree that animal sacrifice for sin has 'disappeared' from the law. It's simply not needed anymore. And so we don't have to literally keep those laws anymore. They have already been 'kept' for us one-time for all-time through the Ministry and Sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:9-18), so no further literal fulfillment is necessary (vs.18).

Anything that has already been accomplished for us through the Ministry and Sacrifice of Christ does not have to be done through a law that sought to do that same thing.

 

[Oceanprayers]

Here we go again.

Let's look at the text

You say after verse 5 is about and to unbelievers.
1 John 1:4
We write this to make our joy complete.
1 John 1:5
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

In verse 6 we see it is talking to people who say they have fellowship with God. That is not unbelievers!

1 John 1:6
If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.

Now for the verse for which you probably have went to mental gymnastics here to try to deny the obvious about who it is written to.

1 John 1:8
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Let's test this. Do you claim to be without sin? Yes or no?

Simple

I'm not going to belabor the point with someone who thinks the Holy Spirit indwells those who are dead in their sins.
That's who you are. As you insist repeatedly.
I believe you.

 

[dad]

I'm not going to belabor the point with someone who thinks the Holy Spirit indwells those who are dead in their sins.
That's who you are. As you insist repeatedly.
I believe you.

You made that up. You also slithered out of answering a simple question.

Do you claim to be without sin? Yes or no?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Merriam-Webster
Definition of abolish
transitive verb

: to end the observance or effect of (something, such as a law) :

to completely do away with (something) :

If the law is eternal and unchangeable on what basis was 'an eye for an eye' abolished?

 

[Oceanprayers]

Believing Christians are dead in Christ:

"3...don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" Romans 6:3
"5 If we have been united with him in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection." Romans 6:5​

I submit to you that if you are NOT dead you're in the wrong faith!


Here:

Matthew 5:17
17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. ​

This fulfillment that he came to do had to happen first before so much as a jot or tittle could 'disappear' from the law...

Matthew 5:18
18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.​

Well, we know that the 'everything is accomplished' has happened. How? By the simple fact that we all know and agree that animal sacrifice for sin has 'disappeared' from the law. It's simply not needed anymore. And so we don't have to literally keep those laws anymore. They have already been 'kept' for us one-time for all-time through the Ministry and Sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:9-18), so no further literal fulfillment is necessary (vs.18).

Anything that has already been accomplished for us through the Ministry and Sacrifice of Christ does not have to be done through a law that sought to do that same thing.

You're still under the water?

Because my Jesus conquered death and resurrected on the third day. Which is why it is emersion Baptism that brings the penetrant up and out of the grave,water, after burying their dead worldly self and sins. Rising reborn and renewed and no longer a sinner dead in their sins.

 

[Oceanprayers]

You made that up. You also slithered out of answering a simple question.

Do you claim to be without sin? Yes or no?

Aserpent reference as you attempt a personal insult.
You prove my point.
All that I observed relates to your argument that insists Christians are still sinners.
Which necessarily means we're dead in our sin, because the bible doesn't state we are alive in our sin, while also being indwelt by the holy spirit the moment we believed in Jesus who died to save us from our sin.

A doctrine straight out of Satan's mouth. And yet, you insist it's true in your own twisting words that seek to twist the scriptures.
The slither is yours.
Only, this daughter of Eve sees you.

When you say Christians are sinners, when we know what sin, sinner, sinning, is and means, you're false.
Dad? The father of lies.
Which is why you insist 1 John 1 agrees with you as you blaspheme an Apostle in an effort to twist his God given truth to meet your falsehood.

I won't be reading the satanic script further. It makes me sick it is as long lived here as it has been.

 

[GEN2REV]

They have already been 'kept' for us one-time for all-time through the Ministry and Sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:9-18), so no further literal fulfillment is necessary (vs.18).

If what you're claiming were true, they would be called The 9 Commandments and only 9 would be written in stone by the finger of God. God doesn't make mistakes and God doesn't change.

To be very realistic, Biblically speaking, if the 10 could possibly be eliminated, one at a time, based on importance to God, the 4th would likely be the very last one to go.

That is based on how much significance is wrapped up in that one Commandment, alone.

 

[Grailhunter]

I showed you it's not a contradiction. You're reading it wrong.

28So Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments." Exodus 34:27-28​

'The Lord' goes with 'He wrote', not 'Moses'. We know this from the simple fact that other scriptures say the Lord is the one who wrote on the tablets.

You're committing the two serious errors of false doctrines: 1) you're un-rightly dividing the scriptures, and 2) you're deciding that the parts that don't line up with your theology are false. I'll tell you right now, I stop listening as soon as somebody asserts a portion of scripture is in error. That's a major, major red flag. About as major as it gets.

You need to read the whole chapter. Verse 1 tells us the Lord is the one who wrote on the stone tablets:


"1Then the LORD said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the originals, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke." Exodus 34:1
So we know 'He wrote' in Exodus 34:28 is referring to 'the Lord' in verse 28, not 'Moses':
"27The LORD also said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”28So Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments." Exodus 34:27-28
So your theory that Moses just got it wrong in Deuteronomy is wrong.

The Laws in chapter 34 of exodus are the Ten Commandments
Exodus 34:11-28

Again that is what I told you that there is a contradiction. And you can deal with that as you wish….The Jews have been pondering it ever since. Around the early 1800’s Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (28 August 1749 – 22 March 1832) who was a German poet, playwright, novelist, scientist, statesman, theatre director and critic…..named – Man about town I guess….defined the two sets of laws Ethical Decalogue in chapter 20 and Ritual Decalogue chapter 34. Of course as I have told you all, beware of non-biblical word, terms, and phrases, because they are usually coined by men that want you to believe something that they believe and it is usually wrong. The Ten Commandments were named by God and already defined as Covenant Commandments.

What we have here is God calling the Ten Commandments in chapter 34 the Covenant Commandments and telling Moses to write them down on the tablets. Saying, write down these words, for in accordance with these words, I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. Of course Moses obeys and he writes them on the Tablets of the Testimony. And then God calls them the Ten Commandments. And if you check, they are actually part of the Mosaic Law. No such thing is said of the ten summary of Laws in chapter 20.

On the other hand the ten summaries of laws in chapter 20 are not called the Ten Commandment in chapter 20. Not by God, not by Moses. No scripture in Exodus specifically says they were written on the tablets or were Covenant Commandments. Any reference to them in Exodus cannot be by name. How could that have happened, they had no name. The first time the phrase "the Ten Commandments" appears in the Bible is in chapter 34. The ten summaries of laws in chapter 20 are not part of the Mosaic Law. Not that they are not significant or important, that is a whole different story. Instead of trying to make them something they are not, it would be smarter to try to figure out what they are, and what is their significance. And so far I have not seen anyone scratch the surface of the real topic.

 

[Grailhunter]

The sin of adultery hasn't changed, the world around the sin has changed into Sodom and Gomorrah

I never thought I would see the day that countries around the world would allow like sexes to marry

And I really never believed I would see practicing homosexuals behind pulpits proclaiming to be part of Gods Church on earth

Ya but none of this address the topic at hand. things change....if your wife cheats are you going to shoot her?

 

[dad]

All that I observed relates to your argument that insists Christians are still sinners.
Which necessarily means we're dead in our sin, because the bible doesn't state we are alive in our sin, while also being indwelt by the holy spirit the moment we believed in Jesus who died to save us from our sin.

I simply asked you if you claim to be without sin. Yes or no. Don't try to wiggle out of it (if you don't like the word slither)

A doctrine straight out of Satan's mouth. And yet, you insist it's true in your own twisting words that seek to twist the scriptures.
The slither is yours.
Only, this daughter of Eve sees you.

Perhaps you should not say I have a certain doctrine. I do realize we all need forgiveness and that means we sin basically. That doesn't mean live in sin or willingly sin or any such thing. Nor does it mean that it is a sin unto death etc.

When you say Christians are sinners, when we know what sin, sinner, sinning, is and means, you're false.
Dad? The father of lies.
Which is why you insist 1 John 1 agrees with you as you blaspheme an Apostle in an effort to twist his God given truth to meet your falsehood.

Despite your shrill accusations and claims and putting words in people's mouths, you tried to hammer the book of 1 Jn to fit your beliefs. You would need the part about 'if any say they did not sin they are a liar' to go away. To do that you needed to have half the chapter NOT apply to believers, so you say it was written to unbelievers. Correct? So just be honest and answer the simple honest question you were asked, yes or no? Do you claim to be without sin? Yes or no?

I won't be reading the satanic script further. It makes me sick it is as long lived here as it has been.

I understand you must flee from the light. However have the kahones to answer the question first so that all can see what you were really about.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Rising reborn and renewed and no longer a sinner dead in their sins.

No, not dead in sin, dead to sin.

The point being, Christ died the death required by the law. His coming fulfills that law, not breaks it. So, since it has been fulfilled already to God's complete and total satisfaction on our behalf we ourselves don't have to 'keep' the demands of the law to die for our sin. You don't have to keep a law that has already been fulfilled by Christ. It gets laid aside as obsolete and not needed. That's why I personally don't feel compelled to keep a literal sabbath. I'm already at rest to God's complete and total satisfaction through Christ, just as I've already died the death the law demands to God's complete and total satisfaction through Christ.

 

[Oceanprayers]

No, not dead in sin, dead to sin.

The point being, Christ died the death required by the law. His coming fulfills that law, not breaks it. So, since it has been fulfilled already to God's complete and total satisfaction on our behalf we ourselves don't have to 'keep' the demands of the law to die for our sin. You don't have to keep a law that has already been fulfilled by Christ. It gets laid aside as obsolete and not needed. That's why I personally don't feel compelled to keep a literal sabbath. I'm already at rest to God's complete and total satisfaction through Christ, just as I've already died the death the law demands to God's complete and total satisfaction through Christ.

I know the difference between dead in sin and dead to sin.
The only problem with your Sabbath analogy about the Sabbath is, people who walked with Jesus, the Apostles, kept the Sabbath after Christs ascension.
And Paul, well after Jesus departed, preached the Gospel and kept the Sabbath.
Hebrews 4

Acts 13:42-44
So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.

The Gentiles in Colossae kept the Sabbath.
Did Paul Encourage Even the Gentiles to Keep the Sabbath?

 

[Grailhunter]

I know the difference between dead in sin and dead to sin.
The only problem with your Sabbath analogy about the Sabbath is, people who walked with Jesus, the Apostles, kept the Sabbath after Christs ascension.
And Paul, well after Jesus departed, preached the Gospel and kept the Sabbath.
Hebrews 4

Acts 13:42-44
So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.

The Gentiles in Colossae kept the Sabbath.
Did Paul Encourage Even the Gentiles to Keep the Sabbath?

Old habits die hard and they were still attempting to convert the Jews.
The Apostles were Jewish-Christians and some did and some did not.
The Gentile-Christians were never required to observe the Sabbath.
Look at the resolution of the first Christian Council between Paul and James in Jerusalem,

 

[Oceanprayers]

Old habits die hard and they were still attempting to convert the Jews.

So the Gentiles mocked the Jews only tradition?
No.

The Apostles were Jewish-Christians and some did and some did not.
The Gentile-Christians were never required to observe the Sabbath.
Look at the resolution of the first Christian Council between Paul and James in Jerusalem,

We're not talking "required".
Jesus didn't keep the Sabbath as the Sadducees thought was proper. He was Lord of the Sabbath.

Early Christians, and Christians today, choose to keep the Sabbath for the love of God who made the Sabbath out of love for us.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

The only problem with your Sabbath analogy about the Sabbath is, people who walked with Jesus, the Apostles, kept the Sabbath after Christs ascension.

The point is they didn't have to keep the sabbath as a matter of binding law.

And Paul, well after Jesus departed, preached the Gospel and kept the Sabbath.
Hebrews 4

I wouldn't expect anything less.
The sabbath was the designated day that Jews congregated. Just because they didn't have to do that by law anymore doesn't mean they wouldn't do it at all. There was no competing alternate to meeting on the sabbath until the Catholics came along.

 

[Grailhunter]

So the Gentiles mocked the Jews only tradition?
No.


We're not talking "required".
Jesus didn't keep the Sabbath as the Sadducees thought was proper. He was Lord of the Sabbath.

Early Christians, and Christians today, choose to keep the Sabbath for the love of God who made the Sabbath out of love for us.

Christ's ministry was still in the Old Covenant....so it was correct for Him and the Apostles to keep the 613 Mosaic Laws. No surprise. Things changed after the crucifixion and resurrection.
Today there is no sin to observe the Jewish Sabbath. But you still have to choose what style of Sabbath.
The Exodus Sabbath
The first Temple Sabbath
Or the second Temple Sabbath
Or the modern Sabbath

For example, are you going to sacrifice animals and where are you going to sacrifice animals?
The Exodus Sabbath included prayers at meals but they did not travel and did not include a lot of worship.
Are you going to cook on the Sabbath?
Are you going to go to a synagogue on the Sabbath?
Since we are Christians and it is not required we can pretty much observe it like we want. The definition of work changed through the different periods. In Exodus they could put wood on fire. During Christ time they were not suppose to....how does that relate to adjusting the thermostat?