More sidetracking. You've provided all the proof I would need. All anyone has to do with look at your posts. So you can't offer any argument. That's fine.
Those who know me here, including you-- ( thanks for the frubals,btw)-- know I use the text to prove my points and very little or no personal opinion. Any one looking over the thread will plainly see that all you've offered are hasty generelizations sprinkled with personal conjecture doused with broad, vague explanations of the misinterpreted text.
Again, what curse of the law? There is none. Read the scripture Paul is referring to.
I did and you gave me frubals for making a "great point" about a law you now claim doesn't exist??
Actually, the whole law is accredited to Moses.
How can that be when the 10 commandments were in force way before Moses was born!
Just read Deuteronomy. Specifically chapter 31.
I did and it clearly explains how God separated the law of Moses from His law (the Law of God) Notice:
Deuteronomy 31:24-26, "And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, 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."
If Moses felt the civil-ceremonial laws and statutes were on equal footing with the 10 commandments, why wouldn't he put them
inside the ark with the 10 commandments? Instead, he placed them on the side of the ark.
Kings also talks about the Law of Moses (which has been determined to be the book of Deuteronomy) being found in the Temple during the reign of Josiah
As far as the law being distinct, this proves what exactly?
More so, the Laws are given to Moses at Sinai. It wasn't that God simply gave them the 10 commandments, and then decided to add more laws..
That is exactly what God did. As I mentioned, the 10 commandments were in effect long before Sinai. The Israelites were in Egyptian bondage for so long they had lost knowledge of God's law. At Sinai, God was merely reminding them of the laws which were already in force. This is why God specifically stated in the 4th commandment, "remember the Sabbath..." what was there to remember if that was the first time they'd heard of them, as you imply?
The old covenant given at Sinai consisted of the civil laws and did not establish the spiritual law (10 commandments) but merely reiterated them as part of the covenant. Hence the distinction. The sacrificial laws were added later because the spiritual law was transgressed therefore also separating them from the Law of God (10 commandments) and the civil laws given at Sinai.
Furthermore, the only
required sacrifice mentioned in Exodus is the Passover sacrifice. (Ex 23:18) which God calls "My sacrifice." This is confirmed by Jeremiah:"For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. (Jer 7:22). This was further evidence the sacrificial laws were added later (Lev 4:2) and were not originally part of the law Moses received at Sinai.
And different authors for the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses? They were given at the same time
Which was just refuted.
God was giving Moses the laws at that time.
The question is which law at what time? .
There was no different author. At least not according to the Bible. I'm guessing you haven't even read Exodus, because it's not supporting your case.
On contraire, Exodus as well as Deut refute your point:
Exodus 31:18, "And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God."
Deuteronomy 31:9, "And Moses wrote this law."
God Himself wrote the spiritual law. He spoke the civil and sacrficial laws to Moses not Israel which Moses later authored .
Because he wasn't a priest. There was no need for him to reflect on them. But the NT even gives us evidence that Jesus even participated in those laws, such as his participation in Passover (which included a sacrifice).
This bizarre reply confirms my point (thanks!). If Jesus was referring to the whole law, his failure to magnify the sacrificial law, as he did with the moral law. proves they were not included in his dissertation! Besides why would Jesus state not one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law to only expound on the 10 commandments?
If Jesus was talking about just the 10 Commandments, why didn't he state that?
He did..Read the rest of Mat 5.
why did he refer to the whole law, if he was just talking about the 10 commandments? Just that fact alone, that Jesus states the whole law, and not just the ten commandments, shows your point is not valid. And he gave the whole law to the people. That doesn't take away the fact that the Law included more than just the 10 Commandments.
That's quite the hasty generalization. Jesus doesn't specify which law in his introduction simply because he knew His audience would know once he got into the body of his message. He left no doubt which law he was referring to in the context of Mat 5 and you agreed!!!!!!
here...
As I've stated, I won't take that verse out of context. You have to read the entire discourse from Paul. Which in doing so, he rejects the law, as in, he states that followers of Jesus do not have to follow it. I've stated this over and over. There is no dancing.
I didn't think you would answer the question. It is evident you have no idea what Paul was attempting to convey. In essence you're saying, "I don't know what Paul is saying, but I know it's not what you think he's saying."
It is funny that you would mention dancing, because your dancing around the subject has resulted in a quite of few points being ignored; as in, you've ignored various points I've made by dancing around them.
It seems as though you are allowing your ego to interfere with better judgment just to
try and prove me wrong. You give me frubals for making a great point on a doctrine which you now vehemently claim doesn't exist. You also staunchly oppose the fact that Jesus was referring to only the 10 commandments when He mentioned the law in Mat 5, yet, in another post, you claimed Jesus' mention of only the 10 commandments made sense???
I'm not sure what to make of the confusion. Perhaps you are just exercising your debating skills; or you are at a crossroads with your convictions or maybe it's just the nature of a "good" agnostic. Whatever it is, I hope you work through it. I would like to commend your debating skills as well as your familiarity with the biblical text. Although I disagree with your interpretations, you are more familiar with the contents of the text than most Christians. We could sure use you on our side. Despite of what I said, you'd make a darn good CJ major. Truce?
