What is this thing called "sin"?

[Barrd]

Because poor Moses would have been whittling away for more than 40 days and nights.

Because the ark would have been way too heavy with all that stone in it.

Lol!

The 10 represent the covenant, not that it is a summary. Jesus gave us the sum of the Law in the Shemah and the golden rule.

So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments. - Exodus 34:28

Not to mention that there wouldn't have been much left of the mountain...

Seriously, I see a huge difference between what has come down to us as "The Ten Commandments" and the rest of the "Law of Moses.

Exo 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Deu 31:9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.

The Lord had spoken the Ten Commandments to the people before He wrote them in stone:

Deu 4:36 Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he shewed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire.
Deu 5:22 These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

If the Mosaic law was part of the Ten Commandments, there would be a contradiction here, because God did add more to this law! But there was no contradiction, because God considered the Ten Commandments to be a separate Law. The Ten Commandments were spoken by God Himself, directly to the people.

Moses understood the difference.

Deu 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
Deu 4:14 And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.

I don't see how it could get much clearer than that...

Nor did God's attitude change..

2Ki 21:8 Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them.

Really, must He yell it in your ear?

Dan 9:11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.

Daniel understood the difference.
You know, of course, that there are no curses in the Ten Commandments. The curses being spoken of are a part of the Law of Moses.

It was God Who commanded that His Law-The Ten Commandments-be placed in the Ark, while the rest should be set alongside of the Ark.

Exo 25:16 And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee.

Deu 31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
Deu 31:25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,
Deu 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

You may crack jokes about it, but the fact is that God separated His Law from the Law of Moses.
The lesson is clear,

 

[StanJ]

My perspective is precisely the same as theirs...it is your perspective in claiming the laws of God are no longer binding on Christians, that is at odds with Paul, Peter, and Luke. Oh, and Jesus too for that matter. And John, Matthew, and Mark. It seems I need to elucidate some Biblical realities to you Stan. If you disagree with anything following, by all means point it out, and I would be pleased to further discuss. But leave out the ad hominems, and the subtle and not so subtle digs inferring a lack of understanding, integrity, honesty, wisdom, poor judgement or all of the above. They may, as has been your custom in the past, to bolster your own self esteem in belittling others, but they do not assist in arriving at a knowledge of truth.

Not quite brakelite....their perspective was knowing when the OC laws no longer appied. You and Barrd apparently don't. It would be impossible for you to elucidate something that you don't understabd yiuself brakelite. Clarity requires understanding the issue. As I HAVE already supplied scripture that you have not dealt with nor addressed, I won't be falling for your attempt to deflect with others that are eisegeted. Facts and assessments are NOT ad hominems. Once you demonstrate a clear understanding of the NC, them maybe I will entertain your submissions, but as you have NOT, I won't. I agree, that your condescending responses do NOT help you to arrive at the truth. A fact you have more than amply confirmed by your responses.

 

[StanJ]

It would seem the basic issue recently, is the lack of SEEING / PERCEIVING the difference between the obsolete old covenant and what it was replaced with, viz-a-viz the NEW covenant. The Greek for new, connotes something never before seen or experienced. The following is submitted for that purpose;http://www.gotquestions.org/Mosaic-covenant.html

 

[Barrd]

Not quite brakelite....their perspective was knowing when the OC laws no longer appied. You and Barrd apparently don't. It would be impossible for you to elucidate something that you don't understabd yiuself brakelite. Clarity requires understanding the issue. As I HAVE already supplied scripture that you have not dealt with nor addressed, I won't be falling for your attempt to deflect with others that are eisegeted. Facts and assessments are NOT ad hominems. Once you demonstrate a clear understanding of the NC, them maybe I will entertain your submissions, but as you have NOT, I won't. I agree, that your condescending responses do NOT help you to arrive at the truth. A fact you have more than amply confirmed by your responses.

This is not the attitude of a spirit-filled child of God.

 

[tom55]

One recognizes a metaphor, Tom.
Unless you think that Jesus sliced bits of His actual flesh to feed the Apostles at the Last Supper, and gave them His actual blood to drink? I read it as bread and wine:

Mar 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Mar 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
Mar 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

I believe what Jesus said: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you AND he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me. AND Take, eat; this is my body." and he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, Jesus said it (the bread/wine) was His body, not a metaphor or symbol. The early Christians (within 150 years of His death) were accused of cannibalism so apparently the early Christians thought it was His body/blood also. The Apostolic Fathers also taught it was his flesh/blood.

So now I must choose to believe Jesus, the Apostolic Fathers and the early Christians OR TheBarrd. I think you know who I choose to believe.

 

[Barrd]

It would seem the basic issue recently, is the lack of SEEING / PERCEIVING the difference between the obsolete old covenant and what it was replaced with, viz-a-viz the NEW covenant. The Greek for new, connotes something never before seen or experienced. The following is submitted for that purpose;http://www.gotquestions.org/Mosaic-covenant.html

Nobody is saying that the Old Covenant has not been replaced by the New Covenant.

 

[Barrd]

I believe what Jesus said: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you AND he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me. AND Take, eat; this is my body." and he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, Jesus said it (the bread/wine) was His body, not a metaphor or symbol. The early Christians (within 150 years of His death) were accused of cannibalism so apparently the early Christians thought it was His body/blood also. The Apostolic Fathers also taught it was his flesh/blood.

So now I must choose to believe Jesus, the Apostolic Fathers and the early Christians OR TheBarrd. I think you know who I choose to believe.

Tom, I think you may have posted this in the wrong thread...

In any case, I am quite sure that Jesus was not slicing off bits of His flesh, nor did He open a vein and pour a cup of blood for them to drink. What they disciples ate the night Jesus was arrested was bread...unleavened bread...not flesh.
And what they drank was wine.
If you want to believe that it turns into the real deal as you eat/drink, you go right ahead.
If I believed that, it would make me throw up, every time.
And by now, I think I would have chucked up enough nasty to make two more people....

 

[StanJ]

This is not the attitude of a spirit-filled child of God.

LOL...it has already been established that YOU are the one against the Baptism/Infilling of the Holy Spirit Barrd, so how would you know the things of the Spirit, without the power and spirit that comes from that infilling?

 

[StanJ]

Nobody is saying that the Old Covenant has not been replaced by the New Covenant.

You and Brakelite are, or at least you are asserting that the basis of the OC is still the basis of the NC?

 

[tom55]

Tom, I think you may have posted this in the wrong thread...

In any case, I am quite sure that Jesus was not slicing off bits of His flesh, nor did He open a vein and pour a cup of blood for them to drink. What they disciples ate the night Jesus was arrested was bread...unleavened bread...not flesh.
And what they drank was wine.
If you want to believe that it turns into the real deal as you eat/drink, you go right ahead.
If I believed that, it would make me throw up, every time.
And by now, I think I would have chucked up enough nasty to make two more people....

I responded to your post #55 which is on this thread and if you read what I wrote I said, "I am not trying to get side tracked on the argument is communion a symbol or His real flesh and blood. I am just pointing out something He said that seems like a commandment to me, Tom55, and how do I fulfill that commandment. (The big 10 from Exodus are easy to figure out)."

YOU then got sidetracked by responding to my communion example. I then responded to what YOU said. In other words I basically said I didn't want to get sidetracked and then you sidetracked us...but I ain't mad at ya'

 

[StanJ]

I responded to your post #55 which is on this thread and if you read what I wrote I said, "I am not trying to get side tracked on the argument is communion a symbol or His real flesh and blood. I am just pointing out something He said that seems like a commandment to me, Tom55, and how do I fulfill that commandment. (The big 10 from Exodus are easy to figure out)."

YOU then got sidetracked by responding to my communion example. I then responded to what YOU said. In other words I basically said I didn't want to get sidetracked and then you sidetracked us...but I ain't mad at ya'

She likes to do tgat, even though she knows it has NOTHING to do with the ten commandments.

 

[FHII]

Stan,

It is not my style or content to use language that is in any way comparable with what you said in using the language of 'ignore me again as is your habit when PROPERLY instructed'. If I have said anything like that, would you please direct me (with a link) to where I stated it and I'll apologise profusely to that person? Until you show me exactly where I said it, I will not believe I said it. It is not my style of language.

However, are you admitting that you said this as a person who considers that he is 'PROPERLY instructing' the Baard on this forum?

Oz

This is why I've blocked Stan's posts from my account. He once told me I didn't have a good reputation on this board, which amuses me that he would say that.

Here's the problem: Stan has some good points and he has one here. The problem is he says such rediculous things that detract from the conversation (and then he gets upset when people don't stay on task!)

But again, I too am upset at folks who isolate one verse out an entire chapter or book in the bible to support they're view. Anyone who is mixing grace through faith with the law is doing that. They don't mix. Whats worse is that those who understand that are being chastized when these shadow-chasers claim Jesus, Paul, Peter and John preached faith plus works. They didn't! James did, but the shadow-chasers claim he didn't!

 

[Barrd]

LOL...it has already been established that YOU are the one against the Baptism/Infilling of the Holy Spirit Barrd, so how would you know the things of the Spirit, without the power and spirit that comes from that infilling?

No, Stan. I am not against the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Again, you have misunderstood me.

 

[Barrd]

You and Brakelite are, or at least you are asserting that the basis of the OC is still the basis of the NC?

No, we are not saying that.

 

[Barrd]

I responded to your post #55 which is on this thread and if you read what I wrote I said, "I am not trying to get side tracked on the argument is communion a symbol or His real flesh and blood. I am just pointing out something He said that seems like a commandment to me, Tom55, and how do I fulfill that commandment. (The big 10 from Exodus are easy to figure out)."

YOU then got sidetracked by responding to my communion example. I then responded to what YOU said. In other words I basically said I didn't want to get sidetracked and then you sidetracked us...but I ain't mad at ya'

I could have sworn we were discussing this in another thread....
Ahh, well...I stand corrected then.

So, if you want to believe you are eating actual flesh and blood....
I'm not going to argue with you.
I'm pretty sure it was a metaphor...

 

[Barrd]

This is why I've blocked Stan's posts from my account. He once told me I didn't have a good reputation on this board, which amuses me that he would say that.

Here's the problem: Stan has some good points and he has one here. The problem is he says such rediculous things that detract from the conversation (and then he gets upset when people don't stay on task!)

But again, I too am upset at folks who isolate one verse out an entire chapter or book in the bible to support they're view. Anyone who is mixing grace through faith with the law is doing that. They don't mix. Whats worse is that those who understand that are being chastized when these shadow-chasers claim Jesus, Paul, Peter and John preached faith plus works. They didn't! James did, but the shadow-chasers claim he didn't!

No one has ever said anything to me about you, FHII. But then Stan also told me that I don't have a good reputation here, so maybe I'm out of the loop.

 

[OzSpen]

LOL...it has already been established that YOU are the one against the Baptism/Infilling of the Holy Spirit Barrd, so how would you know the things of the Spirit, without the power and spirit that comes from that infilling?

LOL...it has already been established that YOU are the one against the Baptism/Infilling of the Holy Spirit Barrd, so how would you know the things of the Spirit, without the power and spirit that comes from that infilling?

Stan,

I think this is an unfair accusation. In my understanding, The Barrd does not accept your Pentecostal interpretation of the baptism of the Spirit with the physical evidence of speaking in tongues. There are millions of evangelical, non-Pentecostal believers around the world who do not accept that interpretation. Are you saying that they do not know the things and power of the Spirit? My understanding is that all Christian believers have the Holy Spirit living in them. That happens at conversion.

According to 1 Cor 3:16 (NLT), we have this teaching, 'Don't you realize that all of you together are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you?'

All believers have the Holy Spirit in them (as the people of God). The Barrd, in my understanding, is against your particular interpretation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

This is why I've blocked Stan's posts from my account. He once told me I didn't have a good reputation on this board, which amuses me that he would say that.

Here's the problem: Stan has some good points and he has one here. The problem is he says such rediculous things that detract from the conversation (and then he gets upset when people don't stay on task!)

But again, I too am upset at folks who isolate one verse out an entire chapter or book in the bible to support they're view. Anyone who is mixing grace through faith with the law is doing that. They don't mix. Whats worse is that those who understand that are being chastized when these shadow-chasers claim Jesus, Paul, Peter and John preached faith plus works. They didn't! James did, but the shadow-chasers claim he didn't!

FH,

I hope that you have told this to Stan yourself in a PM or online directly, before writing like this about him. It is our biblical responsibility to deal with the person who has sinned against us first, before going to others. See Matt 18:15-18 (NIV),

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

This is made more difficult on the Internet, but I still consider the principle is important that you begin your discussion of the faults/sins against you by discussing in a PM first.

I will not get into the issues of biblical interpretation you raised as that was not the topic I raised with Stan.

However, I'll speak for myself. I find it easy to get side-tracked with an issue in a forum post, an issue not directly relating to the primary thrust of the post. Could it be that there are others among us who also have the tendency to label others whom we consider not up to speed in some areas of hermeneutics?

Oz

 

[FHII]

No one has ever said anything to me about you, FHII. But then Stan also told me that I don't have a good reputation here, so maybe I'm out of the loop.

I read a post a post to yet another person he said that to.

 

[FHII]

"I hope that you have told this to Stan yourself in a PM or online directly, before writing like this about him. It is our biblical responsibility to deal with the person who has sinned against us first, before going to others. See Matt 18:15-18 (NIV), "


Yep.... told him three times to quit talking about me and talk about the topic at hand. Three times in a row he couldn't do it.