The Ten Commandments are the Covenant, did you know?

[TMS]

"Hear O Israel............." The Law came through Moses, grace and truth through Jesus. If you want to know what applies to non-Jews, read Acts 15. And Galatians. And Colossians. And 1 Timothy 1:7-11.

There is no difference between Jews and non Jews

We are all ONE,

One in Christ, through Christ.

1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Jews are not saved in a different way,
Different laws do not apply to Jews and non Jews. We are all one in Christ.

 

[Qt]

To swear falsely or take an oath by heaven would be to take the Lord's name in vain. (Matthew 5:33-37) In James 5:12, we see that James advises against swearing, which would be taking the Lord's name in vain. In 1 Timothy 6:1, for the name of God and His doctrine to be reviled, slandered, blasphemed would be to take the Lord's name in vain. Bestiality is covered under sexual immorality in the NT. (Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:13-18; 10:8)

I agree and have taught the same, but the commandment is not repeated and bestiality is not mentioned directly. This is the same standard argument that is used in regard to the Sabbath by a lot of people.
So your point is mute.



[QUOTE="mailmandan, post: 5654402, member: 193497] Show me where Christians are commanded to keep the sabbath day in the NT. Colossians 2:16-17 states otherwise.
[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. No offense but you are all over the place. Most of us are when we try to defend our stance Biblically, so I do not fault you. The issue with this is we are not finished with Romans 14:5. You posted it as proof text and were shown why it wasn't within the verses themselves and how Peter's vision in Acts 10 relates to Romans 14:14.

You have not answered the points shown you in relation to the text in Romans and Acts. Posting other scripture you think proves differently does not address the points.

We will address your misunderstanding of Colossians 2 after you address the points shared in in relation to Romans and Acts. Here is the post again.
Please address the points shared, thanks.

As a matter of fact Romans 14 is speaking of man's opinions and surmising's Not God's Word.

How do we know? Because the context is set in verses 1 and 2. The context of the passage is in regard to not disputing with those who are weak in the faith over opinions in respect to what we can or can not do. Not what has been established in the Word of God.
Verse one mentions not disputing over opinions, not what has been established by God in Scripture. In continuing this premise he mentions a debate in regard to some thinking we should only eat vegetables. There is no mandate from God that we should only eat vegies. It is a opinion or a surmising one gets from scripture not a mandate, a Law from God. So when we get to verses 5 and 6 we should know that the day is not the Sabbath because the context is over opinions not the Sabbath, God's Law.

One might say, well how do you explain verse 14 where Paul says, "there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean".

Quite simply, that is a bad translation. The word translated there unclean is koinos which means common or profane not unclean. They are not synonyms. Acts 10 show us this. There in relation to Peter's vision both common and unclean are mentioned in respect to what Peter saw when he seen all manner of four footed beasts, wild beasts and creeping things. He did not see any clean animals there though they were because he seen all manner of four footed beasts.

You see, they were no longer clean animals due to them touching the unclean ones.

Hence why Peter only seen common and unclean animals when he proclaimed he would not eat anything common OR unclean..

Take in consideration also, when God censures Peter He says, what God has cleansed call not common.

God never mentions the unclean.

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in his faith, receive ye,––not for disputing opinions:––
Rom 14:2 One, indeed, hath faith to eat all things, whereas, he that is weak, eateth herbs:
Rom 14:5 [For], one, indeed esteemeth one day beyond another, whereas, another, esteemeth every day:––let, each one, in his own mind be fully persuaded.
Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, unto the Lord, regardeth it,––and, he that eateth, unto the Lord, doth eat, for he giveth thanks unto God; and, he that eateth not, unto the Lord, doth not eat and give God thanks.

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Acts 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Thanks for the reply. We will post more in relation to the rest of your post as time permits.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Or that they feel it is disregarded and that they need to share that it still needs to be kept because it is a sin not to.

The sabbath is kept in Christ when we cease from works of the flesh and trust in faith that God is sanctifying us, which was the sole purpose for the 4th commandment. The sabbath symbology of trusting in God's work rather than our own work is obvious

Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Exodus 31:13​

 

[TMS]

We will address your misunderstanding of Colossians 2 after you address the points shared in in relation to Romans and Acts. Here is the post again.

This has been addressed many times in great detail but excuses are found.
I recently posted in 1117, and 1118 on Col 2.
You can go into more detail but people often don't have ears to hear.

 

[TMS]

The sabbath is kept in Christ when we cease from works of the flesh and trust in faith that God is sanctifying us, which was the sole purpose for the 4th commandment. The sabbath symbology of trusting in God's work rather than our own work is obvious

Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Exodus 31:13​

It's important to keep the sabbath spiritually, mentally and physically.

To be a witness to those around.
And not be hypocritical.

Like murder or adultery, we should physically and mentally practice these commandments. Not just think it and believe it but act it too.

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Exo 20:8-11
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

It's important to keep the sabbath spiritually, mentally and physically.

For you possibly, but for me it's kept spiritually and that day is no different than any other day. To each according to their faith, and in both cases it's done to the lord.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Romans 14:6​

 

[mailmandan]

I agree and have taught the same, but the commandment is not repeated, and bestiality is not mentioned directly. This is the same standard argument that is used in regard to the Sabbath by a lot of people. So, your point is mute.

So, bestiality needs to be mentioned directly in the NT in order for people to realize it's part of sexual immorality? Your point is mute. I'm still waiting for a verse in the NT that directly commands the Church, the body of Christ to keep the sabbath. If breaking the sabbath was punishable by death in the Old Testament (Exodus 31:14 & 35:2), why is it not condemned in the New Testament? Various passages in the New Testament list numerous types of sinners who will not inherit the kingdom of God (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, and Revelation 21:8 & 22:15), but none of those lists ever mention sabbath-breakers. Why is that?

No it doesn't. No offense but you are all over the place. Most of us are when we try to defend our stance Biblically, so I do not fault you. The issue with this is we are not finished with Romans 14:5. You posted it as proof text and were shown why it wasn't within the verses themselves and how Peter's vision in Acts 10 relates to Romans 14:14.

All over the place? Romans 14:5 - One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. This would include the sabbath day under the Mosaic covenant, like the dietary laws and the and the laws about sacrifices, which are not binding on new covenant believers. (Galatians 4:10; Colossians 2:16-17)

You have not answered the points shown you in relation to the text in Romans and Acts. Posting other scripture you think proves differently does not address the points.

As I already previously explained to you: Colossians 2:16-17 - calendar laws are "a shadow and the reality is Christ." Galatians 4:9-11 - returning to "days and months" as obligatory undermines grace. Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2 - the early church gathered on "the first day of the week," indicating freedom to worship beyond Saturday. Revelation 1:10 - John’s "Lord’s Day" reflects a resurrection-anchored rhythm, not a replacement legal code. Romans 14:5 balances Colossians 2 (warning against mandatory Sabbatarianism) and Hebrews 4:9 (affirming the ongoing principle of rest) by protecting individual conscience in non-essentials.

We will address your misunderstanding of Colossians 2 after you address the points shared in in relation to Romans and Acts. Here is the post again. Please address the points shared, thanks.

Misunderstanding? An unbiased reading of Colossians 2:16 will show that this is not only talking about "ceremonial sabbaths." If the plural "sabbaton" in Col 2:16 cannot refer to weekly Sabbath day, then why does plural "sabbaton" refer to the weekly Sabbath day in Matthew 28:1, Luke 4:16, Acts 16:13, Exodus 20:8 (in the Septuagint).

“Let no one judge you regarding a, festival – yearly sabbaths, a new moon – monthly sabbaths, or a Sabbath day – weekly Sabbath and he goes on to say Christ is the substance and these things were shadows.

As a matter of fact Romans 14 is speaking of man's opinions and surmising's Not God's Word.

You have your opinion.

How do we know? Because the context is set in verses 1 and 2. The context of the passage is in regard to not disputing with those who are weak in the faith over opinions in respect to what we can or can not do. Not what has been established in the Word of God. Verse one mentions not disputing over opinions, not what has been established by God in Scripture. In continuing this premise he mentions a debate in regard to some thinking we should only eat vegetables. There is no mandate from God that we should only eat vegies. It is a opinion or a surmising one gets from scripture not a mandate, a Law from God. So when we get to verses 5 and 6 we should know that the day is not the Sabbath because the context is over opinions not the Sabbath, God's Law.

The opinions here are in regard to religious ceremonies and rituals of their past. The call here is for unity as they work through disagreements over practices in regard to food and observance of certain days, which stem from their distinct backgrounds. Paul is urging those who are not weak in the faith to accept the weak (typically weak Jewish believers still struggling with observing the Mosaic Law) and warns against judging one another and emphasizing Christian liberty.

One might say, well how do you explain verse 14 where Paul says, "there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean". Quite simply, that is a bad translation. The word translated there unclean is koinos which means common or profane not unclean. They are not synonyms.

Numerous translations say unclean. Romans 14:14 - Bible Gateway

Lexical Summary
koinos: Common, unclean, profane
Original Word: κοινός
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: koinos
Pronunciation: koy-NOS
Phonetic Spelling: (koy-nos')
KJV: common, defiled, unclean, unholy
NASB: unclean, unholy, common, impure, common property
Word Origin: [probably from G4862 (σύν - along)]

Strong's Greek: 2839. κοινός (koinos) -- Common, unclean, profane

Acts 10 show us this. There in relation to Peter's vision both common and unclean are mentioned in respect to what Peter saw when he seen all manner of four footed beasts, wild beasts and creeping things. He did not see any clean animals there though they were because he seen all manner of four footed beasts.

You see, they were no longer clean animals due to them touching the unclean ones.

Hence why Peter only seen common and unclean animals when he proclaimed he would not eat anything common OR unclean..

Take in consideration also, when God censures Peter He says, what God has cleansed call not common.

God never mentions the unclean.

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in his faith, receive ye,––not for disputing opinions:––
Rom 14:2 One, indeed, hath faith to eat all things, whereas, he that is weak, eateth herbs:
Rom 14:5 [For], one, indeed esteemeth one day beyond another, whereas, another, esteemeth every day:––let, each one, in his own mind be fully persuaded.
Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, unto the Lord, regardeth it,––and, he that eateth, unto the Lord, doth eat, for he giveth thanks unto God; and, he that eateth not, unto the Lord, doth not eat and give God thanks.

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Acts 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Thanks for the reply. We will post more in relation to the rest of your post as time permits.

It sounds to me like you are on a wild goose chase in a desperate attempt to uphold your argument.

 

[pinebeach]

There is no Bible verse to say we should stop keeping the 10 commandments.

This is one of the silliest comments made about the 10 commandments for different reasons. I am not referring to what you personally say here TMS. Many people make that statement and every time it is made, by whomever, it is silly.

Without doubt the commandments are as valid now as they were before they were even handed down to the ISRAELITES. Also without doubt, they are as impossible to keep as they were when God revealed them. Since God did not give those stone tablets to Moses with a wink and say 'now go do your best' but rather revealed them to be part of a much larger institution, people really ought to stop and consider why that might be instead of mumbling something about keeping the commandments.

Moses was on the mountain top for 40 days and nights and the top of the mountain was under a cloud, making the exchange between God and Moses, invisible to the Israelites in the camp below.

You can read Exodus 25 - 27 all the complicated instructions that were to compliment these 10 commandments. Do people forget the copious sacrificial laws that were the safeguard for the impossible task of keeping those 10 commandments...or have they just not bothered to study the Old Testament? It's there for a reason people.

We learn in the New Testament, that Jesus is the replacement and final sacrifice before God in fullfillment of those commandments that cannot and never could be kept. So, why did Jesus, sent from Father God, die if we all still have to 'keep' the commandments?

Now if you see them as a moral guide as a Christian, that can work. BUT if you are thinking that the commandments are somehow a part of your salvation or an obligation that never was nullified by Jesus dying on your behalf, then you are practicing a religion not given by God. It is a manmade religion that combines works with salvation and that, is not compatible with God's revelation of salvation through His Son.

So, every time someone tries to pass off the OT commandments as part of our actual salvation through the blood of Christ, they are NOT referencing God's plan for salvation. They are talking about a manmade religion that results in a works based salvation which is what the Israelites practiced but only because God allowed it since Jesus was not yet come to earth.

The commandments are not a part of salvation and every time someone tries to re-institute them, they are rebelling against God who tells us that salvation is ONLY through faith in Christ.

So by all means understand the commandments as illustrative of Gods perfect moral character but stop saying they are to be observed when God Himself says otherwise. There is far more to insulting Gods character than just breaking 1 or 2 of the commandments (remember that scripture tells us that breaking even 1 or the least of the commandments, is equivocal to breaking ALL of them). The 10 commandments are OUTWARDLY observable, but how about your thoughts? How about the intents of your heart, the birthplace of all sin?

I absolutely have no hope whatsoever that certain people will turn away and resist these truths and encourage others to do the same. Nonetheless, there are the few who will reason before God and He will answer them according to His word, in which we find the truth.

 

[memberofthebride]

All lost unbelievers in the eyes of God are seen as "workers of iniquity" or those who "practice lawlessness" because their sins remain.



Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit clearly stated that we are saved by grace through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9) yet you seem to reject the words of the apostle Paul and instead teach, salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works, which is a "different" gospel. (Galatians 1:6-9)

[ How am I not following Jesus Christ? By rejecting the words of Paul you are rejecting Jesus Christ because the words of Paul are inspired and the gospel that Paul preached is not according to man, but came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12)

Oh I love Paul, but I understand Paul is talking to converted gentiles from a Jewish perspective, using Jewish talk, which is why most misunderstand Paul. Paul is following Jesus Christ, Paul is teaching the exact same WAY Christ lived and taught AND commanded His follower to live and do.

have you ever come across this saying of Christ?

Matthew 23
1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

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.

The Pharisees ruled by the Torah, Christ is telling HIS Disciples to obey the Torah and Paul agrees.
Please do not attempt to say the Jews must obey but not the gentiles --- that is confusion.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The Pharisees ruled by the Torah, Christ is telling HIS Disciples to obey the Torah and Paul agrees.
Please do not attempt to say the Jews must obey but not the gentiles --- that is confusion.

Christ said that to those who were still under the old covenant, so it was the right thing to do.

When pharisees told believing gentiles that they had to get circumcised and observe the law of Moses the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 ruled that they did not.

 

[TMS]

For you possibly, but for me it's kept spiritually and that day is no different than any other day. To each according to their faith, and in both cases it's done to the lord.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Romans 14:6​

The verse you are quoting Rom 14 is not about sure commandments and laws that are certain. It is about day and feasts that did not make any difference in regard to sin. To eat was not sin to not eat was not sin... to keep the day was not sin to not keep the day was not sin.. questionable traditions and customs that did not transgress the law.

Transgression of the law was SIN.

SIN is the transgression of the law.

This was a given fact that didn't need talking about.

The law of liberty has not changed.
Paul said they are holy just and good.
He said Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

James said to keep all the law.
Jas 2:10-12
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

God made the seventh day holy and NO Where does God ever take away the sanctified holiness that set it apart.

To think that every day is the same or the sabbath is no longer sanctified and set apart, is presumption. I would rather follow the sure word of God, the facts, and the sure word never states that the 7th day sabbath is no longer to be remembered and kept holy.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The verse you are quoting Rom 14 is not about sure commandments and laws that are certain. It is about day and feasts that did not make any difference in regard to sin. To eat was not sin to not eat was not sin... to keep the day was not sin to not keep the day was not sin.. questionable traditions and customs that did not transgress the law.

You're making an assumption that it's not pertaining to weekly sabbaths. Even if it was pertaining to feast days, which is untenable because gentiles to whom Paul was writing did not ever keep those, attending those feasts was the law and it was sin to not attend them.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I would rather follow the sure word of God, the facts, and the sure word never states that the 7th day sabbath is no longer to be remembered and kept holy.

That's the measure of your faith. My faith sees the sabbath in Christ

 

[TMS]

God stated it clearly at creation and clearly at Mount Sinai that we were to remember the sabbath, that it was made holy.

God would clearly state any changes.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

God stated it clearly at creation and clearly at Mount Sinai that we were to remember the sabbath, that it was made holy.

God would clearly state any changes.

He did. The whole law was changed.

 

[Inquisitor]

There is no difference between Jews and non Jews

We are all ONE,

One in Christ, through Christ.

1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Jews are not saved in a different way,
Different laws do not apply to Jews and non Jews. We are all one in Christ.

You made a profound mistake.

Different laws do not apply to Jews and non Jews

When the N.T letters were written in the first century.

There was an astronomical difference between a Jew and a Gentile.

The Jew was in covenant with God to obey the entire law and the prophets.

A Gentile did not know God and was not in a covenant to obey the law and the prophets.

To this very day a Gentile is not in a covenant to obey the law and the prophets!

In fact, because a Gentile in not in a covenant to obey the law. This means a Gentile is not
in a covenant to obey the two greatest commandments. Why is that you say?

Because the two greatest commandments were in the ceremonial law and the ceremonial
has been fulfilled. That is, according to the interpretation of the traditional church.

That interpretation of the scripture by the traditional church is the heart and soul of the SDA.

You do not read the ceremonial law and the ceremonial law is more than 99% of the law
and the prophets.

Gentiles cannot be circumcised, cannot celebrate Jewish holy days, are not under the law.

Gentiles are prohibited from touching any written law in the O.T.

 

[TMS]

You're making an assumption that it's not pertaining to weekly sabbaths. Even if it was pertaining to feast days, which is untenable because gentiles to whom Paul was writing did not ever keep those, attending those feasts was the law and it was sin to not attend them.

Same with the food...
It was the Jews pushing there ordinances on the Gentiles.
Jews pushing the 600 plus laws on them.

The 10 were clearly defined and Paul states that the 10 are Holy Just and Good.
Not question about these laws.

But the cerimonial ordinances were nailed to the cross Col 2. They were fulfilled in Christ. Offering lambs no longer mattered. But moral laws like murder and Adultery did matter.

Paul was dealing with the time of taking the gospel to the Gentiles and Jewish traditions and customs were very strong.

The sabbath was not a law of ordinance.
It was not fulfilled in Christ.. it was given before sin as a memorial to creation.

We are to remember creation and the creator no less today. It was made for man before sin, not as a means to deal with sin like blood offerings. But it does help with your sanctification and relationship with God..

 

[TMS]

He did. The whole law was changed.

Where did God clearly change the whole law?

 

[Inquisitor]

God stated it clearly at creation and clearly at Mount Sinai that we were to remember the sabbath, that it was made holy.

God would clearly state any changes.

There is no record of the ten commandments before Mt Sinai.

Therefore, there is no record of a commandment given to obey a sabbath commandment,
before the exodus from Egypt.

Your saying something that the Old Testament is silent about.

Why do you state something about which we have no evidence, no record in the scripture.

Why do you do this?

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Where did God clearly change the whole law?

The law was inacted upon Israel via the Levitical priesthood. When it changed, the law had to change as well

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