1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

How the Law Changed? Heb. 7:12

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Michaeneu, Jun 11, 2006.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 11
  1. Michaeneu

    Michaeneu Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    There has been controversy over the issue of how the law changed according to Hebrews 7:12. In this controversy a certain institutionalized faction suggests or interprets that the scriptures do not support any distinction in the Mosaic Law, that it was homogeneous and grace has abolished this aggregate system; this is antinomianism. Yet, there has always been a minority in Christendom that holds that this is not true and there has always been by nature a classification of the law that is upheld in scripture: moral, ceremonial, judicial or civil. The moral has always been perennial and unchanging, which cannot be stated concerning the other distinctions. Those in majority have had great success in appealing to prejudice by asserting the latter view as legalism or Pharisaical. This article suggests that this is mere emotionalism and, while legalism is a real pitfall, so is the obfuscation of the law, which is truly the new Pharisaicalism.

    (Of course this is not any intent to proselytize for any belief system but a hard assessment concerning the two views from the perspective of those accused of legalism—those who acknowledge the distinction between moral and ceremonial and that the latter has be abolished but the former has not.)

    Like any institution its associates are not all in lockstep and because of this the obfuscation is varied, nevertheless all schisms of this institutionalized belief system ultimately lead to antinomianism by the very obfuscation of the law. This is the case of Eric B and his belief system. The obfuscation of the law is apparent in Eric’s great difficulty in maintaining a dependable position on this issue of the classification of the law given at Sinai. In one instance he infers there is no classification of the law given at Sinai found in the scriptures.

    Yet, Eric’s belief system uses the same distinction of ceremonial and moral concerning the Mosaic covenant.

    Now either there is a classification or not and to confirm it in one hand and deny it in another is blatant obfuscation, and such is also the case of the Eric’s belief system on the negative and positive nature of the law in question. Eric states that there is no such nature supported in scripture and in the same sentence acknowledges the positive and negative nature of the forth commandment.


    I shall return to this issue of positive and negative nature later but let me continue to deal with the blatant obfuscation of the law in Eric’s belief system.

    There is not one scripture that Eric can hang this “relaxed letter” upon concerning how the law changed, for truly it is not even a criterion. A criterion is a rule by which a judgment or discernment is based, but all the law had letter and spirit: “…for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet… For we know that the law is spiritual…” Romans 7:7, 14. Consequently, since all 613 laws had both letter and spirit, letter and spirit cannot be a rule by which any judgment or discernment can be based concerning classification. Again, since all the law had both letter and spirit then this attribute cannot be a rule by which any classification of the law can be based. Yet Eric incorporates classification in his belief system by asserting that, and I quote: “the letter is relaxed in the case of the ceremonial law.” Eric’s belief system is confusion.

    Yet the book of Hebrews does give us an attribute, rule or criterion by which bases for classification of the law can be made as I related in a previous thread: the criterion is that certain laws given at Sinai were “weak, unprofitable and made nothing perfect” according to scripture.

    “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law…. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect…” Hebrews 7:12, 18-19

    Clearly, the criterion by which we judge how the law changed is revealed in the book of Hebrews and the change is also revealed as a cancellation of commandments that conform to this criterion. (The term “disannulling” in Hebrews 7:18 is from the Greek “athetesis” which means: cancellation or abolition.)
    • Clearly, the book of Hebrews deals precisely with HOW the law changed and there is not one mention of “the relaxation of the letter for the spirit” anyplace in the book. Hebrews clearly states that there is a cancellation not a relaxation of certain laws and the criterion is set forth that these certain laws are weak and unprofitable. In the succeeding chapter there is a greater clarification of these laws that are cancelled.
    “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.” Hebrews 10:1-2
    • Again, the criterion of how the law changed is clearly expounded upon in the book of Hebrews and the author adds that the criterion includes the requirement that this law is a shadow and that its sacrificial system was imperfect. This distinction is extremely significant because the author of Hebrews simultaneously reveals that, while there is a cancellation of certain laws determined by this criterion, nevertheless, there is a law from this same aggregate system that Yahweh intends to write upon the heart and put into our minds.
    “Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them…” Hebrews 10:15-16
    • The phrase MY LAWS clearly substantiates that there is a distinction made from the same aggregate system of laws from whence stemmed the laws that were shadows, weak and unprofitable. Clearly, at Sinai Yahweh codified some laws that were intended to be written in the heart and mind, while others were shadows, weak and unprofitable. Cleary the Ten Commandments, written by the finger of Yah, were those very laws to be written upon the heart and mind. It was the Ten Commandments that were perennial while the ceremonial laws and sacrificial system were ephemeral. The ceremonial law is revealed as the shadows that were weak and unprofitable. The Decalogue has always been and continues to be, not shadows, but profitable and vital in exposing sin. Moreover, the change in the law is clearly revealed as a cancellation of the shadows, while the Decalogue is still written in the heart and mind. There is not one scripture that supports the law changed by a “relaxation of the letter for the spirit” for the nature of the law is that it has both letter and for this reason “letter and spirit” cannot be a rule by which any classification of the law can be based.
     
    #1 Michaeneu, Jun 11, 2006
  2. Michaeneu

    Michaeneu Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eric’s position that the difference between CANCELLATION and RELAXATION is mere “semantics” only substantiates his belief system and obfuscation of the law. The difference between the terms “cancel” and “relax” are greater than mere semantics under any rules of language.

    Without a doubt Eric’s belief system leads to contradictions and consternation. We see this clearly below when on one hand he asserts that the precepts of not worshipping other gods, not making idols and not taking His name in vain were cancelable, specifically given to Israel and on the other hand asserts that these same precepts were perennial and universal.

    But what Eric failed to address was the origin issue of the standing of the law, which led to his response above. His original point was to challenge the standing of the forth commandment’s rank along side the other moral perennial precepts when he wrote:

    Eric requests evidence that he really doesn’t address but evades with contradictions. The point I made was that Yahshua certainly did support standing of the law; some commandments are greater than others. “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments…” Matthew 5:19. Plainly, Yahshua acknowledged rank or standing concerning the commandments. When the lawyer attempted to tempt Yahshua, again he acknowledged that the law had rank or standing: “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” Matthew 22:36.

    Yahshua proceeded to expound upon the greatest commandments and how the prophets and the law hung upon them. Consequently, Eric’s assertion that position in the law has no merit is in complete contradiction to the scriptures. Again, the four commandment stood side by side with the greatest moral precepts given by Yahweh and not one has been cancelled by the New Testament. Yahshua confirmed that the fourth was made for all men, generic.

    It seems that Eric makes up his own criterion on how the law changes and has tripped upon the law just as the Pharisee’s did; only his mistake is obfuscation instead of legalism.

    Ironically, Eric yet falls back upon legalism in his interpretation of the fourth commandment.

    This is certainly a poor showing on understanding on Sabbath reform that Yahshua came to reveal. It is lawful to testify upon the lawful observance of the Sabbath, as Yahshua did himself in the Gospels. I take Yahshua testimony and example—not Eric’s. The Decalogue’s foundation is negative: “thou shalt not…” Testifying upon the truth about the Sabbath on the Sabbath is in accord with Yahshua: it is lawful to do well and that is the positive aspect of the law. It is good to abstain from murder as it is good to abstain from work upon the Sabbath, but there is more to the lawfulness of both precepts. We are to love those that do us despite and it is lawful to testify upon the truth of the Sabbath upon the Sabbath—that is according to Yahshua testimony and example.

    Michael
     
    #2 Michaeneu, Jun 11, 2006
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Those who deny the UNIT of the TEN commandments and insist that there is only "The zillion commandments" in the OT - have not done a word search.
     
    #3 BobRyan, Jun 11, 2006
  4. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    non sequitur

    7: 12. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

    First, assumes facts not in evidence.

    Second, misleading use of "law." The covenants were cumulative, not replacements.
     
    #4 billwald, Jun 11, 2006
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Are you complaining about the text of Heb 7:12??
     
    #5 BobRyan, Jun 11, 2006
  6. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    You're playing games now, quote mining and taking things out of context, just like your comrade Bob is getting challenged for in several boards.
    What was my CONTEXT? I didn't say "there is no such classification"; what I said (and you can see above) was "No scripture ever says 'this is the Decalogue over here, and that is the ceremonial law over there'". They key words are "over here" and "over there", referring to your claim that one was abolished while the other was eternal. In other words; there IS such a classification, but this classification does not mean or enact what you say it does. Also, it is not drawn on quite the same lines you draw them on (the Decalogue, versus the sacrifices)
    The confusion lies with you, because you are bent on judging and accusing with the Law, which apparently you don;t understand. (1 Tim.1:7). It is not a hard concept to understand. You yourself alluded to it. The 613 had both letter and spirit. The letter of some of them instructed on the slaughtering of animals for a blood atonement. The spirit was that by faith atonement would be made, and it would be a one time sacrifice by the Son of God that wouls spiritually cover sin. Likewise, circumcision was to be done in the flesh, but in reality had a spiritual meaning, and this is what catrries on today. So in the New covenant, the letter is abolished, while the spiritual principle continues on.

    • And this is the whole crux of the matter. You show not one single scriptural proof that this "classification" is drawn alonmg the lines of "The Decalogue" versus "the rest" or "only the sacrifices were 'weak'". You just assert it as if your words were themselves scripture!
     
    #6 Eric B, Jun 11, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 11, 2006
  7. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    I used the word "relaxed" because your side (particularly Bob) kept saying "the magnification of the Law meant they become more binding, not relaxed" or something like that, so I used the term "relaxed" to mean that you do in fact have to do less now, even though the spiritual PRINCIPLE of the Law is maitained. Yet, Judge Mich gets hung up on words, yet again, like the rest of your side does, because that is an easy way to hurl more accusations. Once again, take things in context, or say nothing at all!
    And you yet again leave out my point on the universal law. Those three commandments were apart of the universal law, so they themselves were never "cancelled", but they were also included in the Law of Moses, and THIS was what was given to Israel and then, cancelled, not the universal laws themselves.
    Once again, selective quoting, out of context to make a judgment.
    You don't even know what you're talking about. It was the lawyer who spoke of "greatest". So Jesus then gives him not one of the Ten Commandments, but rather one of the universal TWO the Ten (and the rest) HANG ON. THEN, look what He says: "and the second is LIKE UNTO it. On these two HANG all the Law and the Prophets" (v.39) In other words, Jesus often plays the Jews at their language, but then shows them that it doesn't work that way. So you actually think that some are greater than others, but Jesus puts them all in the same standing under not the Ten, but the TWO. Yet, you are so quick to accuse of evasion and stuff like that (like you have me on trial or something) you don't even know what is in the very scriptures you quote.
    No, you're the one tripping, and making all of the same mistakes they did. It's all wrapped up in self-justification and judgment of others, anyway. You still provide no proof of a distinction between the Ten and the rest there. The other commandments hung on those two also. He said "ALL THE LAW and the prophets"! All of those commandments on how God was to be worshipped in the Temple fell under that first one. All the details on how to run the nation and live with one another fell under the second. But clearly. many of those details do not carry over today. The fact that they could ALL be summed up in the Two shows that your "aggregate units" are not as universal as you think they are.
    No, you are the one who has fallen into the legalism of the Pharisees. The only difference is that you take an opposite approach to the sabbath. They added rules, you have dropped all rules except for not working. Mere NOMINAL sabbathkeeping! (and nominal is another word for "antinomian"!) You like to throw back the charge of "legalism" when shown you;re not really keeping the Laws you push on everyone else, but you forget that the legalistic approach not only added rules to some commands, but then turned around and bent the rules of others. That's what made them so despicably ironically hypocritical! What you are doing with the Sabbath is basically the same "CORBAN" principle like they used for the fifth commandment: Giving lip service to the letter by trying to do some other good instead.

    It is one thing to be in a synagogue or Church in LIVE FELLOWSHIP with others and get into discussions on the Sabbath, or go outside and explain it to someone oin the street afterwards. That is NOT the same thing as spending all day on a computer debating, and with your accusatory, judgmental attitude, you cannot even honestly call it "doing good"! You're not "loving me" through these posts. You're just interrogating, twisting words, ignoring contexts, accusing and judging, and that is not love. You're not doing anything but puffing up your own self-righteousness. So you're using the day for YOUR OWN purpose (ISAIAH 59:13). As I said; I myself know how mentally tiring and stressful it can be sitting and making these posts, especially as heated as you have made this discussion. So it is NOT rest, and it could be done some other time. Argue that with God, not with me.

    Once again, You who try to teach the Law do not even know what you are teaching, and I'm fed up with your accuations and all your big words. You're the one obfuscating the sabbath. You have this nice little convenient system where you can say you keep the sabbath, and then come over here judging and accusing us, yet you can do just about anything you want on the day, except make a paycheck. Then you use your "positive/negative" concepot and dance all around the issue, but you're not even keeping neither the positive nor negative aspect of it.
    If Jesus' "sabbath reform" allows one to spend all day on the computer in religious recreation, then obviously, the letter of the command has changed, it has been "relaxed", or some aspects of it "cancelled"; and that is all I have been insisting.
     
    #7 Eric B, Jun 11, 2006
  8. genesis12

    genesis12 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    1
    Let me know who wins.
     
    #8 genesis12, Jun 11, 2006
  9. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    The New Legalism

    It is my opinion that those who would do away with the Sabbath or any part of the Law of God do not realize that they are actually behaving the same way as the Pharisees of old did. And that although they frequently accuse those who advocate keeping the Law as being "Legalists" and "Pharisees" that actually they are the ones who are in that camp.

    Jesus was always correcting the Church Leaders in His day for being outwardly righteous but being inwardly corrupt. He NEVER EVER told them not to keep the Law. He would say things like "You are outwardly righteous but inwardly full of dead men' bones... Whited walls".

    Mt:23:23: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

    Notice again that Jesus said they should of done both, keep the Law but also have love and mercy which has always been the very foundation of the Law.

    Jesus said Thou hast heard Thou shalt not kill, but I am telling you that you shouldnt even be angry with your brother... or you are breaking the Law...
    Mt:5:20: For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    Did you get that? Our righteousness must EXCEED Tthat of the Pharisees. Inother words, Jesus was always calling for TRUE GENUINE righteousness.

    The Pharisees claimed to keep the Law but never really kept it.

    Mt:23:3: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.


    And so today in modern times Christians claim to love God but they dont exhibit that love by keeping the commandments.

    Mt:15:8: This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

    Jn:14:15: If ye love me, keep my commandments.
    Jn:14:23: Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
     
    #9 Claudia_T, Jun 11, 2006
  10. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    Wow! the Pharisees frequently judged over the sabbath, but now this has been turned around so that those whom the sabbath advocates are judging are the real Pharisees!
    Look at the facts. They are the ones who were "outewardly" keeping the commandments, and trying to push them on everyone else. Yet they bent them on the side. This is not what we are doing here, but it is what your side does, in all the quote twisting, judging and accuasation that goes on in the process only to top it off by making up your own rules on how to keep the sabbath, thinking that simply scaling it down makes you so different from the Pharisees.
     
    #10 Eric B, Jun 11, 2006
  11. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    The New Legalism 2

    JUst to add to what I was saying in my last post. Either way... with the old legalism or the new... people are trying to hold onto God with one hand and hold onto "Self" with the other. It just doesnt work.
     
    #11 Claudia_T, Jun 11, 2006
  12. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    And that is true. So let's focus on God, and not judging (i.e how self is better than others).
     
    #12 Eric B, Jun 11, 2006
  13. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not Judging

    Eric

    It has nothing whatever to do with judging it has to do with reading your Bible and doing what it says. For heaven's sake, the Bible is so clear on this...


    1Jn:3:4: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

    Rom:6:2: God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

    Rom:6:15: What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

    Romans 8:
    1: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
    2: For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
    3: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
    4: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
    5: For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
    6: For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
    7: Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
    8: So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
    9: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
    10: And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
    11: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
    12: Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
    13: For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
     
    #13 Claudia_T, Jun 11, 2006
  14. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    I mean, how anyone can read just these 3 verses and come to the conclusion that it is now ok to break the Law or that God has done away with His Law... is beyond me..

    1Jn:3:4: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

    Rom:6:2: God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

    Rom:6:15: What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
     
    #14 Claudia_T, Jun 11, 2006
  15. Michaeneu

    Michaeneu Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, you didn’t address the evidence that the book of Hebrews clearly delineates the change in the law. The book deals precisely with HOW the law changed and there is not one mention of “the relaxation of the letter for the spirit” anyplace in the book. Hebrews clearly states that there is a cancellation not a relaxation of certain laws and the criterion is set forth that these certain laws are shadows, weak and unprofitable. The difference between the terms “cancel” and “relax” are greater than mere semantics under any rules of language. The law that was cancelled is revealed as the shadows that were weak and unprofitable. Shadows are revealed in the scripture as symbols of “things to come” that were nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14-17). The Decalogue had absolutely nothing to do with ritual performance or did they point forward to anything. The Decalogue has always been and continues to be, not shadows, but profitable and vital in exposing sin. Even the fourth did not point forward to anything; memorials point backwards. The criterion concerning the change in the law given in Hebrews clearly makes a distinction between the precepts written by the finger of Yah and those ordinances intended to point forward to Yahshua, the ceremonial law.

    The point I’m making is that your belief system is eisegetical not exegetical. The book of Hebrews clearly reveals how the law changed and it was in a cancellation not a relaxation of certain laws and the criterion is set forth that these certain laws were shadows, weak and unprofitable. The ten commandments do not fall under this criterion by every definition and exegetical expose’. As I stated, even the forth did not point forward to anything; it is a memorial that points back to creation. The Decalogue has always been and continues to be, not shadows, but profitable and vital in exposing sin.

    This is not a judgment upon individuals, but a judgment upon doctrine! I uphold the forth like I uphold that we should honor our parents.

    This is simply not true. I provided proper exegesis upon the criterion and the Decalogue does not meet that criterion, while the ceremonial laws do. Moreover, your response that there is a “relaxation of certain laws” is not proof of anything. The proof is in the book of Hebrews which you continually evade.

    You can’t avoid contradicting yourself in the same sentence because your doctrine is based upon eisegesis. Which is it, were the three precepts cancelled or not? One can’t tell by what you’ve written. This is double-speak.

    I glad to see you finally addressed the issue, but proper exegesis doesn’t agree with your assertions on the two greatest commandments. Yahshua certainly did support standing concerning the law; some commandments are greater than others.

    “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments…” Matthew 5:19.

    Plainly, Yahshua acknowledged rank or standing concerning the commandments. Again, this is substantiated by the very verses that are at issue in Hebrews. Clearly the author of Hebrews declared that there were certain laws that were shadows, weak and imperfect. But this can’t refer to the Decalogue at all because its precepts are still profitable for revealing sin and they are holy, just and good even according to Paul.

    “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet….Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Romans 7:7

    The OT testifies that there is some law of Yah that was perfect.

    “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.” Psalm 19:7

    Unless one is willing to contest the author of Hebrews that some PART of the law was imperfect, then we are left with standing in the law; some part was perfect while another was imperfect—some part is greater than another.

    I think you’re really quite humorous. It is lawful to testify upon the lawful observance of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, as Yahshua did himself in the Gospels. I take Yahshua testimony and example—not yours. This is not a judgment upon individuals, but a judgment upon doctrine! I uphold the forth like I uphold that we should honor our parents.
     
    #15 Michaeneu, Jun 11, 2006
  16. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    You all and your weird text characters that wipe out the rest of the post afterwards when I copy and paste them with the cellphone browser. Our punctuation looks like this: ' "
    I don't know where you're getting those other ones from.

    Anyway, for now, to answer Claudia, once again, no one is saying there is NO law today. The debate is to which laws are still in effect, and whether the Law of Christ we follow tooday is the same as the Law of Moses, or part of it.
    So just saying "just read the Bible and follow the commandments" just doesn't prove anything. You do not keep every command in the Bible, and you make up your own criteria as to which are still to be kept.

    It is getting very tiring for you all to be coonstantly repeating the same rhetoric over and over insinuating that we keep no laws at all.
     
    #16 Eric B, Jun 12, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 12, 2006
  17. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    You're still getting hung up on "relaxation" versus "cancellation". I explained where I got the term "relaxation" from (from YOUR side of the debate). Whether you call it "relaxation" or "cancellation" you stil have not shown which were cancelled or which were not.
    That says NOTHING about "the Decalogue". You can't just assert it does when it says no such thing.
    The problem is, you are overgeneralizing. The decalogue includes both universal moral laws (some of the same as the original seven), plus the sabbath. The sabbath was both a memorial of creation (this old creation which is passing away) and also DID in fact look forward to the spiritual rest we have in Jesus (Heb.4) plus the future kingdom. Why would we continue to keep a memorial to a fallen creation that is passing away? We look forward, not back. That is precisely why the sabbath is classified among the weak shadows. (And it says nothing about 'rituals') Your whole case rests on proving that is was not simply because it was in the Decalogue. Again, you make up your own criteria. Your argument basically goes the sabbath is universal because it is in the Decalogue, because all commands in the Decalogue are universal because the Decalogue is made up of universal commands. That is a circular argument. It just doesn't work. The passage in Hebrews says no such thing. The Decalogue contains some universal commands, and it also has one that clearly is not universal in its literal application.
    You have not provided any kind of exegesis. You just quote your proof-texts and pre-suppose your own inferences into them, as your side always does. That is the real eisogesis being done here.

    You're so busy trying to fabricate contradictions on my part, that you don't even read. I said that the commands were apart of the original universal laws, and were also then incorporated into the decalogue given to Israel. The Decalogue was cancelled, but the universal laws still exist apart from it. Why is that so hard to understand? There wouldn't be so much misunderstanding if you weren't so busy interrogating.
     
    #17 Eric B, Jun 12, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 12, 2006
  18. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    9,025
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Too lerned stuff for a weary man. Plain Scriptures would much better explain 'how the Law' was changed! And was it changed! It was nailed to cross, says Paul - the most learned man using the plainest of language and argument. And he makes no exceptions. Paul's 'law' is all Law of the dispensations of God. All God's Law was nailed to the cross.

    But I don't see Bibles nailed to the cross; nor two tables of stone, or chapters from Leviticus and Exodus. I see Jesus nailed to the cross - Truly, He was the Son of God, the Ruler Prince of Peace - the Law of God and of His Kingdom. Christ Anointed --- The Law DIED; the Law ROSE from the dead. Behold I-AM-WITH-YOU is the NAME of God's LAW.

    What a change!
     
    #18 Gerhard Ebersoehn, Jun 12, 2006
  19. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    Hold it! Are you now trying to say that the "greatest" commandments are referring to the Decalogue, and the "least" are the rest? If you are, you are digging yourself further into the hole than ever. This [sermon on the mount] is the same passage you all always use to refer to the Decalogue as being eternal, because it says "Not one jot nor tittle shall pass...so whoever shall break THE LEAST OF THESE...". Since "the least" are said to continue, your side has always been forced to say that ONLY the Decalogue was being discussed there. Now you're trying to say this part was referring to the ceremonial laws? And you accuse me of double speak? Make up your mind already!

    Jesus also said "whoever offends the least of these [children] who believes in me". Are some children 'greater' than others? It is a figure of speech. It was the Jews who thought some were "greater" than others, because that made it easer to focus on some and neglect others in their self-justification scheme. Just like someone might think "oh, this child is insignificant; I can get away with taking adavtage of him". It's sinful man who make up these imaginary "ranks", and Jesus rhetorically grants them the benefit of the doubt, and still shows that whatever they THINK is the least is still just as much supported by God as what they decide is the greatest. Therefore, in God's eyes, there really is no such rank. It's hyperbolic language; common in the Bible. You don't understand this stuff at all, do you?
    So while you try to PASTE together the "weak" of Hebrews with the "least" of Matt., (you can't always do that when you see words or concepts that LOOK the same. Again, you have to use CONTEXTS!) "least" has nothing to do with this (because even the least were said to continue with the rest) and there were some that were "weak", but the criteria is still not Decalogue versus all the rest, and you have come nowhere near showing such.
    Again, "the sabbath is universal because it is in the Decalogue, because all commands in the Decalogue are universal because the Decalogue is made up of universal commands". Circular argumention! It doesn't fly.

    And you're not humorous. You basically make up your own interpretation of Jesus' example and what is lawful, or constitutes "testifying". And then coma and try to judge me with it. You have no defense for it, and that's why you just reiterate the same statement I have already answered without even dealing with the answer I gave. "Testifying" or talking to someone about the sabbath briefly is not the same thing as typing on a computer the whole day. That is not restful. It is not a necessary 'work' like preaching or witnessing. It is pure recreation in this instance. It is not even fruitful. The day is for worship and rest, and doing GOOD; not for DEBATING about God all day. If you don't understand this much about the sabbath, the what are you doing here trying to preach it to us? Once again, read Isaiah 58! Once again, you 'keep' it just enough to judge, but it seems you can do anything on the day if you can somehow tie it to God or some 'good'. That is the same things as "corban". If you can do that, then I can go to work and provide for my family (as God has commanded) that day when required to, for that is "doing good". Of course, that would imply a spiritual meaning of the command that surpasses the letter, that states you shall REST (of the MIND as well as body).
    It IS a judgment on individuals! You have done nothing but accuse me of being an antinomian, a cavil, obfuscation, evasion, contradiction/double talk, and Phariseeism. You have continuously skirted right by the doctrine, (because you can't scripturally refute it), and instead have gone after my intentions more than anything else, (as if that by itself is what disproves the doctrine). That is judging, and that's what makes this discussion so aggrivating.

    And do you take care of your parents if they cannot take care of themselves? For that is what that command means.
     
    #19 Eric B, Jun 12, 2006
  20. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eric think about this




    Eric

    Think about this ok? The Bible says this:

    1Jn:3:4: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

    Rom:6:2: God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

    Rom:6:15: What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

    God tells us the Law is still in effect. We are to stop sinning. The law was not wiped out because of grace. Can you at least admit it says that?

    Then this whole thing you have going on about not knowing which law to keep is just silly. You know which Law!

    Matthew 19:
    16: And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
    17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
    18: He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
    19: Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    Isnt that plain enough Eric?

    Romans 13:
    8: Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
    9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
    10: Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
    11: And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
    12: The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.


    Its time to wake up, just like the passage says above, Eric. God doesnt trifle with us, seriously you need to stop saying like you dont know what law God is talking about because in the judgment you arent going to be able to plead that you didnt know.

    Come on, Eric, seriously!
     
    #20 Claudia_T, Jun 12, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 11
Loading...