10 BRIDEMAIDS

[ThyKingdomComeSoon]

Isn't it amazing how those who go on and on about no jot or tittle being removed from the law
almost always say that this aspect and/or that aspect are no longer in effect but the rest of it is? .

Ill give you an example, are the levitical laws pertaining to the temple service still in effect? Of course not! The core of the law is the 10 commandments, do you think, paul or the 12 were teaching the 613 laws to the gentiles? no way! the 10 commandments certainly.


blessings.

 

[Magenta]

Ill give you an example, are the levitical laws pertaining to the temple service still in effect? Of course not! The core of the law is the 10 commandments, do you think, paul or the 12 were teaching the 613 laws to the gentiles? no way! the 10 commandments certainly.

blessings.

Not ten. Nine only. Sabbath keeping is nowhere repeated as a command in the NT.

Sabbath rest was a foreshadowing of the rest we find in Christ. Blessings to you, also!

Jesus is my Sabbath rest.

 

[posthuman]

And what do you believe?

that The Law of the marriage covenant of Israel is one Law.
That it is not the covenant of the betrothed Bride, nor is it the law of the covenant of blood between Christ with His Bride.

righteousness is righteousness, but by The Law no one is made righteous, else there was no need for the Messiah to exist and to come and to make a new covenant.

 

[posthuman]

And what do you believe?

to me this is a tacit admission that yes, you believe all the jots and tittles of Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus to be selectively deleted except for the ones you prefer.

i understand your position - it is common in the post-modern American churches - but there is zero Biblical support for it. it is explicitly in contradiction with your proof texts.

 

[posthuman]

Ill give you an example, are the levitical laws pertaining to the temple service still in effect? Of course not! The core of the law is the 10 commandments, do you think, paul or the 12 were teaching the 613 laws to the gentiles? no way! the 10 commandments certainly.


blessings.

IOW selective deletion of jots and tittles.

please have another look at Galatians. if you are under the Law you are under all of it, including the..

curses.

 

[posthuman]

The core of the law is the 10 commandments

nope.
you are quite mistaken.

"the core of The Law" is an obscure little clause in Leviticus 19 & the second line of the Shemah.
on these two things -- what your doctrine would delete as "mere ignorable ordinances" -- hang THE WHOLE LAW, including the decalogue.

this is per Christ God Himself: the 10 commandments are absolutely not the basis of The Law. love for God and for your neighbor are. the decalogue is a derivative of them, not the other way around.

no, no - you are very much mistaken.

 

[posthuman]

Sabbath keeping is nowhere repeated as a command in the NT.

this is true.

and his next argument that he has been taught to parrot is that "the moral laws remain but the other jots and tittles are deleted"

so our next question is for him to explain how that ritual inactivity on the sabbath constitutes a moral injunctive rather than a ceremonial one.

 

[posthuman]

do you think, paul or the 12 were teaching the 613 laws to the gentiles? no way!

yeah no

they were teaching them the gospel of Jesus Christ

the decalogue is not the gospel.

 

[Cameron143]

this is true.

and his next argument that he has been taught to parrot is that "the moral laws remain but the other jots and tittles are deleted"

so our next question is for him to explain how that ritual inactivity on the sabbath constitutes a moral injunctive rather than a ceremonial one.

Can we ask him in English?

 

[ThyKingdomComeSoon]

Not ten. Nine only. Sabbath keeping is nowhere repeated as a command in the NT.

Sabbath rest was a foreshadowing of the rest we find in Christ. Blessings to you, also!

Jesus is my Sabbath rest.

Dear Magenta, I agree it is not repeated in the NT. However be logical, is is part of the commandments. It is the one thing the Jewish people did not forget and it needed not to be repeated, Why would it have been removed, the Jews know the commandments very well and followed them, maybe not in the proper way sometimes due to the corruption of the pharisees but they knew it perfectly well. Jesus was teaching the commandments in the synagogues he was magnifying the commandments this we know, why would he have omitted this one about the sabbath?
Also know that I always value your opinions and if I was wrong about something I would most certainly admit it I am far from perfect and always learning but know the Holy spirit guides me to the truth it is a gift I have and I would never insist on something if i was not certain. I am certain about the 10 commandments it is in scriptures and it is the truth.

I have derailed this thread long enough, we may continue if you wish on my next thread that is most important and pertinent in this end time period and I would like very much so to have your opinion on it, the thread's title will be: Who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven? I will post tonight it will be very simply a question.

Blessings.

 

[ThyKingdomComeSoon]

this is true.

and his next argument that he has been taught to parrot is that "the moral laws remain but the other jots and tittles are deleted"

so our next question is for him to explain how that ritual inactivity on the sabbath constitutes a moral injunctive rather than a ceremonial one.

you know if you mock me I will not reply right? I do not parrot what I heard from someone or some false preacher, I read and understand ( some part but not all ) scripture. If you wish to instruct me please do so but please remain respectful.

Peace

 

[Truthnightmare]

you know if you mock me I will not reply right? I do not parrot what I heard from someone or some false preacher, I read and understand ( some part but not all ) scripture. If you wish to instruct me please do so but please remain respectful.

Peace

Hey there… Jesus became our Sabbath.

 

[Magenta]

Dear Magenta, I agree it is not repeated in the NT. However be logical, is is part of the commandments. It is the one thing the Jewish people did not forget and it needed not to be repeated, Why would it have been removed, the Jews know the commandments very well and followed them, maybe not in the proper way sometimes due to the corruption of the pharisees but they knew it perfectly well. Jesus was teaching the commandments in the synagogues he was magnifying the commandments this we know, why would he have omitted this one about the sabbath?
Also know that I always value your opinions and if I was wrong about something I would most certainly admit it I am far from perfect and always learning but know the Holy spirit guides me to the truth it is a gift I have and I would never insist on something if i was not certain. I am certain about the 10 commandments it is in scriptures and it is the truth.

I have derailed this thread long enough, we may continue if you wish on my next thread that is most important and pertinent in this end time period and I would like very much so to have your opinion on it, the thread's title will be: Who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven? I will post tonight it will be very simply a question.

Blessings.

Believe it or not, I am being logical. The Sabbath was omitted because it pointed forward to the rest we find in Jesus. The Hebrew word means "to rest or stop or cease from work." For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. There remains, then, a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For whoever enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from His. Hebrews 4:3, 9-10

 

[Magenta]

Therefore let no one judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a feast, a New Moon, or a Sabbath.
These are a shadow of the things to come, but the body that casts it belongs to Christ. Colossians 2:16-17

 

[Magenta]

From Acts 15:20 plus 28

 

[posthuman]

I do not parrot what I heard from someone

i doubt that very much, sir: we all do.
none of these ideas we discuss originate with ourselves; if they do, they are not worth mentioning. whether we learn them from men or from spirits, we do not exist in isolation from ideas.

there are 2,000 years of history before us wherein all of these things have been previously worked through and over by people far wiser and worthier than ourselves. and the consensus on the point you and i have briefly touched on, is that Christians are not under The Covenant Law of the marriage contract of Israel, which is what Deuteronomy is. see Romans 7:1-6

And if you would say, Paul only means that ceremony and priesthood, then see what he gives as an example of what he means by "the Law" in verse 7: do not covet. so the very thing he says that as a Christian he is not under, he himself in the very same paragraph defines as including the 10 commandments.

it is not an argument you can or will win.
feel free to bow out with whatever face you feel necessary to save.

 

[Magenta]

Ephesians2-13-15

 

[posthuman]

However be logical, is is part of the commandments.

to be logical if believers were being placed under the Law in any part we would be placed under all of it, and nowhere would scripture say we are not under the Law.

per the Bible itself this is emphatically and clearly not the case.

so logically speaking the repetition of the precept that lying and idolatry are sinful is not to be taken as an implicit jurisdiction of selected jots and tittles of The Sinai Covenant Law over our lives: it is to be taken as an eternal principle of righteousness that can be equally derived from the new commandment "love one another as Christ has loved us"

In that He saith, ​

"a new," ​

He hath made the first old. ​

Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, ready to vanish away.​

(Hebrews 8:13)​

 

[Truthnightmare]

i doubt that very much, sir: we all do.
none of these ideas we discuss originate with ourselves; if they do, they are not worth mentioning. whether we learn them from men or from spirits, we do not exist in isolation from ideas.

there are 2,000 years of history before us wherein all of these things have been previously worked through and over by people far wiser and worthier than ourselves. and the consensus on the point you and i have briefly touched on, is that Christians are not under The Covenant Law of the marriage contract of Israel, which is what Deuteronomy is. see Romans 7:1-6

And if you would say, Paul only means that ceremony and priesthood, then see what he gives as an example of what he means by "the Law" in verse 7: do not covet. so the very thing he says that as a Christian he is not under, he himself in the very same paragraph defines as including the 10 commandments.

it is not an argument you can or will win.
feel free to bow out with whatever face you feel necessary to save.

Hello….. Basically I always saw it as A "Law" is something that God says that we are not to do; a "Statute" and an "Ordinance" is something that God says that we are to do. And a "Statute" is more grave than an "ordinance." Laws are committed, but Statutes and Ordinances are violated. You committed murder (by killing), but you violated the Passover (by not keeping it), etc. The exception to this (in wording only) would in the 4th and 5th Commandments (Keep the Sabbath Day holy & Honor mother and father), but this is in wording only; for, to dishonor mother and father is TO NOT honor them, and to NOT keep the Sabbath Day holy is to not do the commandment to keep it holy "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. ...thou shalt not do any work...." (Ex 20:8-10a). So that it could be taken as 'though shalt not dishonor mother and father'

 

[posthuman]

Hello….. Basically I always saw it as A "Law" is something that God says that we are not to do; a "Statute" and an "Ordinance" is something that God says that we are to do. And a "Statute" is more grave than an "ordinance." Laws are committed, but Statutes and Ordinances are violated. You committed murder (by killing), but you violated the Passover (by not keeping it), etc. The exception to this (in wording only) would in the 4th and 5th Commandments (Keep the Sabbath Day holy & Honor mother and father), but this is in wording only; for, to dishonor mother and father is TO NOT honor them, and to NOT keep the Sabbath Day holy is to not do the commandment to keep it holy "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. ...thou shalt not do any work...." (Ex 20:8-10a). So that it could be taken as 'though shalt not dishonor mother and father'

But the Law itself says, cursed is anyone who does not keep all the words of it ((Deuteronomy 27:26, Jeremiah 11:3, Galatians 3:10)) - and Christ says anyone setting aside and teaching others to set aside the least commandment is called least in the kingdom ((Matthew 5:18)). further, James says anyone guilty of any part of the Law is guilty of all of it ((James 2:10)).

so while there may be degrees of physical punishment for various infractions of the Law, any bit if it transgressed makes us lawbreakers worthy of all the curses in it. it cannot be broken into greater and lesser parts to be kept or deleted. breaking the 10 commandments makes you every bit as guilty of sin as failing to keep your neighbors animal if you find it loose or not wearing the tzitzit on the corners of your garment.

The 10 commandments are neither separate from the Law nor the basis of the Law. He didn't give Israel the Law in order from greatest to least, and He didn't give them the option of choosing which bits of it were important and which were not, and He didn't give it to us as believers in order to seek righteousness through keeping it nor to judge us by it - He gave it to us to know so that we could see Him in it, how it leads to and points to and speaks of Him, and He gave Himself to us and for us so we could be sanctified.

keeping the Law doesn't sanctify us; He sanctifies us. that is exactly what the sign to Israel which is the sabbath was purposed to teach them: that He is The One who sanctifies. therefore be still.

this really don't a tie back to the OP topic, because what is it the foolish ones did not have, and foolishly tried to borrow from. those who had, and went out looking to buy?

what in the world kind of currency were they thinking they could trade for divine oil?

looking at the parable, any chance in **** they were successful at getting oil for wages?

maybe that's not what you're trying to do - i hope not! - but that's the implications of the theology you've been putting in this thread. that the oil of the kingdom of heaven is procured, purchased and kept by keeping selected jots and tittles of the Law.