The Commandments of God (according to scripture)

[Soyeong]

NOBODY can follow the Mosaic law today, nor could they for the past two thousand years with no Temple.

The Israelites were given a number of laws while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years that had the condition "when you enter the land...", so there is nothing wrong with not following laws that don't have their conditions met, though we should nevertheless be faithful to obey the laws that we can obey.

You are a false teacher.

In Psalms 119:142, the Mosaic Law is truth and in John 14:6-7, Jesus embodied that truth, so my position upholds truth while your position is opposed to truth. It is absurd to think that I am a false teacher for teaching that we should obey what God has commanded in accordance with the example Christ set for us to follow.

 

[Magenta]

The Israelites were given a number of laws while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years that had the condition "when you enter the land...", so there is nothing wrong with not following laws that don't have their conditions met, though we should nevertheless be faithful to obey the laws that we can obey.


In Psalms 119:142, the Mosaic Law is truth and in John 14:6-7, Jesus embodied that truth, so my position upholds truth while your position is opposed to truth. It is absurd to think that I am a false teacher for teaching that we should obey what God has commanded in accordance with the example Christ set for us to follow.

According to people like you of Jesus' time, Jesus was a law breaker.

Jesus instituted a NEW covenant. Have you heard of it? .

For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed as well.

Who is your priest? Some dead guy?

 

[Soyeong]

you are arguing that evil is equivalent to goodness, so that there is from before all things a force of evil equivalent to God.

it's essentially gnosticism, an eternal battle between two equivalent gods.

i do not agree that you must have a negation of goodness in order for goodness to exist. if this were so then death must exist or else there is no life - but death will be destroyed, the last enemy.

so what you are suggesting is contrary to the worldview of scripture. you're saying that not only God has immortality, but also Satan - that Satan is 'like the Most High'

I did not argue that evil is equivalent to goodness or that there is from before all things a force of evil equivalent to God, so you're just randomly making things up at this point. Again, there is a difference between what something is and whether it is currently happening. Death remains what death is even when it is no longer happening. You can't quote me as saying that Satan has immortality or that he is like the Most High, for some reason you feel free to just make things up and try to insert them into my. mouth, so please try to address what I've actually said instead.

 

[Soyeong]

According to people like you of Jesus' time, Jesus was a law breaker.

Please don't make up things and try to insert them into my mouth, but address what I've said instead.

Jesus instituted a NEW covenant. Have you heard of it?

.

Indeed, Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and he did not establish the New Covenant in order to undermine anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but rather the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).

For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed as well.

Who is your priest? Some dead guy?

God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His righteousness are eternally valid (Psalms 119:160), and if those instructions were to ever change, then God's righteousness would not be eternal. So Hebrews 7:12 could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it becoming in accordance with God's righteousness to commit adultery or sinful to do charity, but rather in content it is speaking about a change of the priesthood, which would also require a change of the law in regard to its administration.

 

[Cameron143]

You're not bothering to distinguish between what something is and whether it is still happening. What faithlessness s remains the same even where there is no one who is faithless and the same goes with sin and death. The fact that God's nature is eternal means that the things that are in accordance with or contrary to His nature are eternal. For example, is it eternally true that charity is in accordance with God's nature and committing adultery is contrary to God nature, and if that were to ever change, then God's nature would not be eternal, and this is true regardless of whether or not it is still possible to do charity or commit adultery.

Faithfulness is an attribute of God. So unfaithfulness must be eternal according to your logic. Which is no logic at all.
What makes something eternal is not whether it is an attribute of God or not. What makes something eternal is that it never stops being. Sin will cease in heaven. Therefore, it is not eternal.

 

[Magenta]

Please don't make up things and try to insert them into my mouth, but address what I've said instead.

I did not insert anything into your mouth. If you are saying I did, you bear false witness, law breaker.

 

[Soyeong]

I did not insert anything into your mouth. If you are saying I did, you bear false witness, law breaker.

I have not said anything to suggest that Jesus was a law breaker or that people like me in his time he was a law breaker, so you're making that up.

 

[Magenta]

I have not said anything to suggest that Jesus was a law breaker or that people like me in his time he was a law breaker, so you're making that up.

I did not say you said Jesus was a law breaker. But you certainly are a law breaker.

Why tell others they must keep the law when you cannot keep it yourself?

 

[Magenta]

From Acts 15:20 plus 28

 

[Magenta]

there is nothing wrong with not following laws that don't have their conditions met,

Jesus met the conditions of the law. So you contradict yourself.

He met the conditions of the law so He could lay down His life for those who would by grace
through faith believe on His shed righteous blood as the propitiatory payment for their sin debt.

The law remains to condemn those not covered by grace. But that is not the 613.
You have put yourself back under the law like you have and you cannot keep them.

though we should nevertheless be faithful to obey the laws that we can obey.

The 613 cannot be obeyed without a temple and they were never given to gentiles in the first place.
They were given to Israel under an old covenant that is becoming obsolete and passing away.

 

[Soyeong]

I did not say you said Jesus was a law breaker.

You said:
"According to people like you of Jesus' time, Jesus was a law breaker."
Why did you say that and what were you implying about my position by saying that?

But you certainly are a law breaker.Why tell others they must keep the law when you cannot keep it yourself?

In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that God's law is not too difficult to keep and that obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! Moreover, Romans 10:5-8 references that passage as the word of faith that we proclaim. So do you believe or deny that God's law is not too difficult for us to keep? And according to these verses, do you think that we should choose life and a blessing or death and a curse? I try lead people to obey God's law because it is my hope that they will choose life and a blessing instead of death and a curse.

From Acts 15:20 plus 28

Ether Acts 15:19-21 is an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required of a mature Gentile believer or it is not, so it is contradictory for someone to treat it as being a non-exhaustive list by saying that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow like the greatest two commandments while also treating it as being an exhaustive list to try to limit which laws Gentiles should follow. Moreover, in Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus said that all of the other commandments hang on the greatest two, so if you think that Gentiles should obey the greatest two, then you should also think that Gentiles should obey all of the laws that hang on them. In Acts 15:19-21, it does not treat it as being an exhaustive list for mature Gentile believers, but rather it states that it is a list intended to avoid making things too difficult for new believers, which they excused by saying that they would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.

Jesus met the conditions of the law. So you contradict yourself.
He met the conditions of the law so He could lay down His life for those who would by grace through faith believe on His shed righteous blood as the propitiatory payment for their sin debt.

Not even Jesus obeyed the laws in regard to having a period or to giving birth because he did not meet the condition of being a woman, so again there is nothing wrong with not following laws that don't have their conditions met.

The law remains to condemn those not covered by grace. But that is not the 613.You have put yourself back under the law like you have and you cannot keep them.

On the contrary God's law remains to bless those who are under grace. In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this is what it means to be under grace, and this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in John 17:3, eternal life is knowing God and Jesus, which again is salvation by grace through faith. In Genesis 6:8-9, Noah found grace in the eyes of God, he was a righteous man, and he walked with God, so God was gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way in obedience to His law and he was righteous because he obeyed through faith. In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience of faith. In Titus 2:11-13, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so God graciously teaching us to obey His law is part of the content of His gift of salvation.

The 613 cannot be obeyed without a temple and they were never given to gentiles in the first place.They were given to Israel under an old covenant that is becoming obsolete and passing away.

We are not required to keep laws in regard to temple practice when the condition that there is a temple in which to practice them is not met, though we should nevertheless be faithful to obey the laws that have their conditions met.

While God's law was given only to Israel, it was given to equip Israel to be a light and a blessing to the nations by turning the nations from their wickedness and teaching them to obey it in accordance with the promise and with spreading the Gospel. In Jeremiah 31:33 and Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant still involves following the Torah, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, the Torah did not become obsolete along with it.

 

[Magenta]

You said:
"According to people like you of Jesus' time, Jesus was a law breaker."
Why did you say that and what were you implying about my position by saying that?

I know what I said. I am sorry you do not understand that the law enforcers of Jesus' day accused
Him of breaking the law. It was for that reason that they sought trick, trap, and kill Him. You
want us to believe the law is still in force for Christians when it is not. You are like a Pharisee.

We are not required to keep laws in regard to temple practice when the condition that there is a temple in which to
practice them is not met, though we should nevertheless be faithful to obey the laws that have their conditions met.

That is your opinion and is nowhere articulated in Scripture. Once again you violate your own standard.

What is articulated in Scripture is that we are not under the law, and those who put themselves under it are cursed.

 

[ThyKingdomComeSoon]

There is a difference between sin existing in the sense of it being a sin to commit adultery and not existing in the sense that no one is committing adultery it heaven. The fact that God's it means thcommandments are written on our hears means that sin exists in the sense that it is a sin to not follow them.

You're not bothering to distinguish between what something is and whether it is still happening. What faithlessness s remains the same even where there is no one who is faithless and the same goes with sin and death. The fact that God's nature is eternal means that the things that are in accordance with or contrary to His nature are eternal. For example, is it eternally true that charity is in accordance with God's nature and committing adultery is contrary to God nature, and if that were to ever change, then God's nature would not be eternal, and this is true regardless of whether or not it is still possible to do charity or commit adultery.

Totally flawed logic! Do you pretend to know GOD's will perfectly or know the future, the plans GOD has made for those who love and do his will? NO one except GOD knows, We had only glimpses of his plans for those who love him, some are written in revelations and told also by Christ, but only in a very limited way. it is arrogant for you to claim to know all, here is an example about the law of Moses in Exodus, the Laws concerning slaves. you say these laws are eternal therefore are you saying we could potentially have slaves or worse, be slaves in heaven?

Exo 21:1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
Exo 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
Exo 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
Exo 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
Exo 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
Exo 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
Exo 21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
Exo 21:9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished

etc....

What about the laws about the sacrifices, are you saying that if you sin you will have the priests sacrifice according to these laws? The burnt offering stands for Christ who offered Himself to do the Father’s will. Fire is the symbol of God’s Holiness that consumes the offering.

Lev 1:1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
Lev 1:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
Lev 1:3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
Lev 1:4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
Lev 1:5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Lev 1:6 And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.
Lev 1:7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:
Lev 1:8 And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which isupon the altar:
Lev 1:9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
Lev 1:10 And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.
Lev 1:11 And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.
Lev 1:12 And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:

etc.....

Now about the 600 plus laws you speak of, know that the 10 commandments were put IN the ARK of the covenant, the rest of the laws in the side of the ark;

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.
Deu 31:27 For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?
Deu 31:28 Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.
Deu 31:29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

most of these laws Moses gave them because the hardness of their hearts; see mat 19:8 cross ref's below;

Psa 95:8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
Psa 95:9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.
Psa 95:10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:

Peace

 

[Soyeong]

I know what I said. I am sorry you do not understand that the law enforcers of Jesus' day accused
Him of breaking the law. It was for that reason that they sought trick, trap, and kill Him. You
want us to believe the law is still in force for Christians when it is not. You are like a Pharisee.

It is not the case that everyone who thinks that followers of God should follow God's law is a Pharisee or thinks that Jesus broke the law, but rather there was a group of Pharisees who though that he broke it, and I think that those Pharisees were incorrect.

Jesus set a perfect example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he was much more zealous for obedience to it than the Pharisees were, and while he criticized them for not obeying it or for not obeying it correctly, he never criticized them for thinking that it should be obeyed. For example, in Mark 7:6-9, Jesus criticized them as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the law of justice, mercy, and faith, so he was not opposing their obedience to it, but rather he was calling them to have a higher level of obedience to it in a manner that is in accordance with its weightier matters.

Pharisees also criticized other Pharisees for their hypocrisy, so Pharisees were not a monolithic group and Jesus was not the only one to do that. In regard to the debate between the house of Hillel and the house of Shammai, Jesus was virtually in complete agreement with Hillel, so was by no means opposed to all Pharisees. Paul never stopped identifying as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), which means that most of the books of the NT were written by a Pharisee, and in 1 Corinthians 11:1, we are told to be imitators of Paul as he is an imitator of Christ, so we are instructed to be imitators of a Pharisee.

That is your opinion and is nowhere articulated in Scripture. Once again you violate your own standard.

For example, the Israelites were given many laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there was nothing wrong with not keeping those laws when their condition was not met. When the Israelites were exiled in Babylon, the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to God's law, which required them to have access to the temple that had just been destroyed, so God honored their obedience to what they could obey. Laws in regard to temple practice that weren't followed after the destruction of the 1st temple were once again followed after the construction of the 2nd temple. In 2 Chronicles 30:15-20, Hezekiah prayed for God to pardon everyone who sets his heart to seek God even though they were not acting according to the sanctuary's rules of cleanness and God heard his prayer and healed the people.

Some of God's laws were only given to the King, the High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, widows, those who have servants, those who have crops, those who have animals, those who have tzaraat, those who are living in the land, and those who are strangers along them, while others were given to everyone.

What is articulated in Scripture is that we are not under the law, and those who put themselves under it are cursed.

While I agree, Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of God, such as the law of sin and works of the law, so it is important to correctly identify which law we are not under. For example, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin and contrasted the Law of the Spirit with the law of sin and death. In Roman 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith and in Romans 3:31 and Galatians 3:10-12, he contrasted a law that our faith upholds with a law that is not of faith. Paul was a servant of God, so it should not make sense to you to interpret him as speaking against obeying God and saying that we will be cursed if we do, especially when all throughout the Bible, God repeatedly called for His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law and repeatedly promised blessing for choosing to obey or curses for choosing not to obey.

In Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which does not describe the Law of God, which is a law where holiness, righteousness, and goodness have dominion over us (Romans 7:12), but rather it is the law of sin where sin had dominion over us. In Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in 1 John 3:4, sin is the transgression of the Law of God, so we are still under it. Furthermore, everything else in Romans 6 speaks in favor of obedience to the Law of God and against sin.

 

[Magenta]

Blah blah blah so many useless words. We are not under the law and the 613 were NEVER meant for us.

You are long winded trying to justify your non-Biblical opinions.

 

[ThyKingdomComeSoon]

It is not the case that everyone who thinks that followers of God should follow God's law is a Pharisee or thinks that Jesus broke the law, but rather there was a group of Pharisees who though that he broke it, and I think that those Pharisees were incorrect.

Jesus set a perfect example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he was much more zealous for obedience to it than the Pharisees were, and while he criticized them for not obeying it or for not obeying it correctly, he never criticized them for thinking that it should be obeyed. For example, in Mark 7:6-9, Jesus criticized them as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the law of justice, mercy, and faith, so he was not opposing their obedience to it, but rather he was calling them to have a higher level of obedience to it in a manner that is in accordance with its weightier matters.

Pharisees also criticized other Pharisees for their hypocrisy, so Pharisees were not a monolithic group and Jesus was not the only one to do that. In regard to the debate between the house of Hillel and the house of Shammai, Jesus was virtually in complete agreement with Hillel, so was by no means opposed to all Pharisees. Paul never stopped identifying as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), which means that most of the books of the NT were written by a Pharisee, and in 1 Corinthians 11:1, we are told to be imitators of Paul as he is an imitator of Christ, so we are instructed to be imitators of a Pharisee.



For example, the Israelites were given many laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there was nothing wrong with not keeping those laws when their condition was not met. When the Israelites were exiled in Babylon, the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to God's law, which required them to have access to the temple that had just been destroyed, so God honored their obedience to what they could obey. Laws in regard to temple practice that weren't followed after the destruction of the 1st temple were once again followed after the construction of the 2nd temple. In 2 Chronicles 30:15-20, Hezekiah prayed for God to pardon everyone who sets his heart to seek God even though they were not acting according to the sanctuary's rules of cleanness and God heard his prayer and healed the people.

Some of God's laws were only given to the King, the High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, widows, those who have servants, those who have crops, those who have animals, those who have tzaraat, those who are living in the land, and those who are strangers along them, while others were given to everyone.


While I agree, Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of God, such as the law of sin and works of the law, so it is important to correctly identify which law we are not under. For example, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin and contrasted the Law of the Spirit with the law of sin and death. In Roman 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith and in Romans 3:31 and Galatians 3:10-12, he contrasted a law that our faith upholds with a law that is not of faith. Paul was a servant of God, so it should not make sense to you to interpret him as speaking against obeying God and saying that we will be cursed if we do, especially when all throughout the Bible, God repeatedly called for His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law and repeatedly promised blessing for choosing to obey or curses for choosing not to obey.

In Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which does not describe the Law of God, which is a law where holiness, righteousness, and goodness have dominion over us (Romans 7:12), but rather it is the law of sin where sin had dominion over us. In Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in 1 John 3:4, sin is the transgression of the Law of God, so we are still under it. Furthermore, everything else in Romans 6 speaks in favor of obedience to the Law of God and against sin.

Most of what you say is not based on scripture but are your own opinions on the matter. Do as I did, I rejected all I learned as a catholic and started again, my comprehension is far from perfect but certain things I know for certain, many of the laws have no application today and will have even less in the coming Kingdom of Heaven when GOD will dwell with us, My Faith in the lord is complete, what he wants for us is to be HOLY as HE is HOLY, Jesus summarized all of the laws in this;

Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Blessings.

 

[Soyeong]

Totally flawed logic! Do you pretend to know GOD's will perfectly or know the future, the plans GOD has made for those who love and do his will? NO one except GOD knows, We had only glimpses of his plans for those who love him, some are written in revelations and told also by Christ, but only in a very limited way. it is arrogant for you to claim to know all, here is an example about the law of Moses in Exodus, the Laws concerning slaves. you say these laws are eternal therefore are you saying we could potentially have slaves or worse, be slaves in heaven?

Exo 21:1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
Exo 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
Exo 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
Exo 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
Exo 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
Exo 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
Exo 21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
Exo 21:9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished

etc....

What about the laws about the sacrifices, are you saying that if you sin you will have the priests sacrifice according to these laws? The burnt offering stands for Christ who offered Himself to do the Father’s will. Fire is the symbol of God’s Holiness that consumes the offering.

Lev 1:1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
Lev 1:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
Lev 1:3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
Lev 1:4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
Lev 1:5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Lev 1:6 And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.
Lev 1:7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:
Lev 1:8 And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which isupon the altar:
Lev 1:9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
Lev 1:10 And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.
Lev 1:11 And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.
Lev 1:12 And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:

etc.....

Now about the 600 plus laws you speak of, know that the 10 commandments were put IN the ARK of the covenant, the rest of the laws in the side of the ark;

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.
Deu 31:27 For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?
Deu 31:28 Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.
Deu 31:29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

Where is the flaw in my logic? I haven't claimed anything like that I know God's will perfectly, but I understand what it means for God's nature to be eternal and for God to be the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Can you at least acknowledge there is a distinction between what something is and whether it is still happening? For example, we can understand what slavery is and how slaves ought to be treated even whether it is the case that there are no slaves. We can understand what sacrifices are and how they ought to be done even when it is the case that no one is offering them. We can understand what adultery is even when it is the case that no one is committing it. We can understand what Passover is and how it ought to be observed even when it is. not currently the correct time to observe it.

most of these laws Moses gave them because the hardness of their hearts; see mat 19:8 cross ref's below;

Psa 95:8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
Psa 95:9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.
Psa 95:10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:

Peace

It criticized them for saying that they have not known God's way and there are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being God's way, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, 1 Kings 2:1-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, Psalms 119:1-3, and many others.

 

[ThyKingdomComeSoon]

Where is the flaw in my logic? I haven't claimed anything like that I know God's will perfectly, but I understand what it means for God's nature to be eternal and for God to be the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Can you at least acknowledge there is a distinction between what something is and whether it is still happening? For example, we can understand what slavery is and how slaves ought to be treated even whether it is the case that there are no slaves. We can understand what sacrifices are and how they ought to be done even when it is the case that no one is offering them. We can understand what adultery is even when it is the case that no one is committing it. We can understand what Passover is and how it ought to be observed even when it is. not currently the correct time to observe it.


It criticized them for saying that they have not known God's way and there are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being God's way, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, 1 Kings 2:1-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, Psalms 119:1-3, and many others.

By saying what you say, you pretend to know what GOD thinks, none of us do, you use suppositions to make your point they are just that, suppositions from your own reasoning some of these laws cannot be used anymore. they were useful then with the exiled from Egypt but not today.

Peace

 

[NightTwister]

I am just saying you have to read more of what Jesus said, I know a lot of people who rely almost exclusively on Paul's words and forget about Christ, It us just what I am saying, you must read and see for yourself, If I wrote it here you would not understand. I prefer you search for yourself it is the best way to know.

Paul's words are Christ's words.

 

[Soyeong]

Blah blah blah so many useless words. We are not under the law and the 613 were NEVER meant for us.

You are long winded trying to justify your non-Biblical opinions

If I disagree with someone, then I try to make the strongest case that I can to explain why. You made assumptions about what it means to be like a Pharisee, so I explained why are incorrect. You accuse me of stating opinions that are not articulated in Scripture, so I repeatedly cited Scripture to support my position and gave many examples from Scripture of what I said, but you then accuse me of being long-winded. I agreed that we are not under the law, but then pointed out that Paul spoke about many different categories of law other than the Law of God and made the case for why you are unjustified in interpret the law that we are not under as referring to the Law of God. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so Gentile can look at what he taught and decide whether or not to follow him, but Gentiles can't follow him by refusing to follow what he taught.

In Acts 15:10-11, the yoke that no one could bear is not the Mosaic Law, but a means of salvation that is an alternative to salvation by grace, namely salvation by circumcision that was proposed in Acts 15:1. In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, it says that God's law is not too difficult to obey and in Romans 10:5-8, it references that passage as the word of faith that we proclaim, so to if Acts 15:10-11 had been referring to the Mosaic Law as being a burden that no one could bear, then they would have been in direct disagreement with God and they would have been denying the word of faith that we proclaim.