Does Paul demand obedience to the Commandments?

[james2ko]

It is a very common myth that there's a difference between the Law and the commandments. When Jesus mentions the "Commandments' to the Rich man he includes "Do not steal" (one of the 10) and "Do not defraud" (One of the "613") in the same sentence, indicitating that the 613 and the "10" are not in different categories. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for this distinction. Or to divide the Law into "Moral" and "Ceremonial". The commandments and the Law have no categorization.

The Ten are simply an abstract of the rest of the 603. For instance, defrauding or cheating would be categorized under the eighth commandment--(false witness). This does not diminish their importance but it does place them subservient to the ten in the sense that some of the 603 can and have been changed, altered, modified. Not the case for the 10. They are permanent and have never and will never change. This state of permanence is what distinguishes the ten from the others.

 

[Shermana]

Jesus said "You know the commandments" and included "Do not defraud". This would indicate that he was talking in terms the Rich Man would have already understood, not in any redefining of the terms. This would clearly indicate that the Rich Man's idea of the "Commandments" included more than just the 10, regardless of whether Jesus "changed" or "modified" them. Whether "Do not defraud" is a subcategory of the 8th commandment or not, the fact is that Jesus referred to it as a separate commandment from "do not steal". The Rich Man would have had no concept that Jesus was saying "You know the commandments and their subdivision", he would have only understood the concept that they are separate rulings.

 

[james2ko]

Jesus said "You know the commandments" and included "Do not defraud". This would indicate that he was talking in terms the Rich Man would have already understood, not in any redefining of the terms. This would clearly indicate that the Rich Man's idea of the "Commandments" included more than just the 10, regardless of whether Jesus "changed" or "modified" them. Whether "Do not defraud" is a subcategory of the 8th commandment or not, the fact is that Jesus referred to it as a separate commandment from "do not steal". he would have only understood the concept that they are separate rulings

I agree. "Do not defraud" is separate from the ten (Lev 19:13). This was made evident when Moses told the Levites to place the book of the "law" outside the ark (Deu 31:26) while the ten were "separated" from the book of the law by being placed inside ark. The contents in the book of the law were subject to change and or modification. The ten are not...

The Rich Man would have had no concept that Jesus was saying "You know the commandments and their subdivision", .

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Im sure the young man was smart enough to know "do not defraud" was not one of the ten which would indicate he was also smart enough to know it was merely an extension or clarification of the 8th commandment. [/FONT]

 

[Pegg]

Without any legally autonomous judges to bring anyone to, I can't perform that. Are you aware that King Saul was punished for making unauthorized sacrifices? They will commence when there is a legal Sanhedrin and priesthood, which is required. Otherwise, how were the Babylonian exiles supposed to obey them? Or the Assyrian exiles?

so you arnt performing and obeying all of the mosaic law then. If you are claiming that the only proper way to worship God is by using the mosaic law, then how can you claim that you are worshiping God by following the mosaic law?

When the exiles were in captivity, they still had the priests with them. Ezra reports those who returned to Jerusalem after the 70 year exile...his report included priests who had been serving Isreal while they were in captivity

Ezra 7:7 Consequently some of the sons of Israel and of the priests and the Levites and the singers and the gatekeepers and the Neth′i·nim went up to Jerusalem in the seventh year of Ar·ta·xerx′es the king

But the foretold destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE was the final curtain for Israel. The priesthood completely dissapeared after that destruction. The geneological records of the priests were destroyed and therefore no one today can legally prove themselves to be of the levitical priesthood....therefore no one can properly administer the mosaic law.

Ask youself why would God allow that to happen if he still wanted the jews or mankind to follow the mosaic law?

The Sacrifices will recommence in the end days, as is clearly defined in Zechariah 14. Even Gotquestions.org of all sites agrees. The Messianic Age will indeed involve sacrifices and obedience to the laws and some of the holidays, even for gentiles. If the Egyptians don't go up to obey Succoth, they will be struck with plague and drought.

according to the prophecies of Daniel and John, the end days began in 1914.... Daniel said that at that time 'true knowledge would become abundant' ... but nothing about the mosaic law being reinstated.

 

[Pegg]

Jesus said "You know the commandments" and included "Do not defraud". This would indicate that he was talking in terms the Rich Man would have already understood, not in any redefining of the terms. This would clearly indicate that the Rich Man's idea of the "Commandments" included more than just the 10, regardless of whether Jesus "changed" or "modified" them. Whether "Do not defraud" is a subcategory of the 8th commandment or not, the fact is that Jesus referred to it as a separate commandment from "do not steal". The Rich Man would have had no concept that Jesus was saying "You know the commandments and their subdivision", he would have only understood the concept that they are separate rulings.

the mosaic law clearly permits divorce

Jesus said that divorce is wrong and anyone who does so becomes an adulterer.

Obviously, Jesus had a different idea on the commandments and he wasnt always speaking in terms of mosaic laws.

 

[Shermana]

so you arnt performing and obeying all of the mosaic law then. If you are claiming that the only proper way to worship God is by using the mosaic law, then how can you claim that you are worshiping God by following the mosaic law?

Care to address what I said about Saul?

When the exiles were in captivity, they still had the priests with them. Ezra reports those who returned to Jerusalem after the 70 year exile...his report included priests who had been serving Isreal while they were in captivity

How did they perform those sacrifices?

Ezra 7:7 Consequently some of the sons of Israel and of the priests and the Levites and the singers and the gatekeepers and the Neth′i·nim went up to Jerusalem in the seventh year of Ar·ta·xerx′es the king

What does that have to do with it?

But the foretold destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE was the final curtain for Israel. The priesthood completely dissapeared after that destruction. The geneological records of the priests were destroyed and therefore no one today can legally prove themselves to be of the levitical priesthood....therefore no one can properly administer the mosaic law.

There may arise another prophet who can determine who is an isn't a true Levite. But I also believe Malchezdiek Priests (Nazarene Christians) may count.

Ask youself why would God allow that to happen if he still wanted the jews or mankind to follow the mosaic law?

Because he planned for it to happen again like in the days of the exiles perhaps? Kind of what Zechariah implies.

according to the prophecies of Daniel and John, the end days began in 1914.... Daniel said that at that time 'true knowledge would become abundant' ... but nothing about the mosaic law being reinstated.

[/quote]

I fail to see how that in any way addresses what I said or how 1914 was being indicated or about Zechariah 14. Also, I fail to see why it would have to mention about the law being reinstated if it doesn't say anything about it being abolished. I still have yet to get an answer about the "For all generations".

 

[Shermana]

the mosaic law clearly permits divorce

It does not clearly permit remarriage. In fact the OT refers to remarried women as "defiled". I do find it interesting that most Christian institutions clearly permit divorce and remarriage.

Jesus said that divorce is wrong and anyone who does so becomes an adulterer.

Anyone who remarries. You aren't an adulterer for simply divorcing. Although there are manuscript issues with this such as with Matthew 19:9b.

Obviously, Jesus had a different idea on the commandments and he wasnt always speaking in terms of mosaic laws.

Depends on your interpretation and understanding. Such as believing that merely divorcing is what makes you an adulterer.

 

[crazyrussian]

While I may argue about his theology regarding the importance of the Law and what "Grace" is, he does say this:



Now we know that "Sin" according to 1 John 3:4 is "transgression of the Law", as the definition of Sin probably didn't change between Paul's time and John's. Is Paul nonetheless exorting Christians to continue to refrain from "sin" (Lawlessness ,breaking the Law and the commandments)? DId he mean some other "Law"? What does he mean in Romans 2:13?


Is Paul simply misunderstood about the Law by most? Did he actually teach obedience to it regardless of what he said about its importance?

Paul was the Father of the christian world and the Father of Christian confusion. Paul teaches men to keep the Law after the same manner that the Priests were teaching Jews to keep the Law. The only difference is that Paul replaced the Sacrifice of the Lamb for Jesus.

Jesus taught that keeping the law was true repentance and that God himself could not forgive sin unless a man repent and amend his ways. Cease to do evil and your sins are forgiven you. Continue in sin and your sins will be retained to you.

Paul was met by Lucifier claiming to be Jesus on the road to damascus. The only chance for lucifer to plunge the World back into the darkness of human imagination was to begin a misinformation campain, which he did successfully though Paul and his Christians. It's for this reason the prophet Agabus, having the spirit of truth, prophesied a famine though out all the world upon meeting the Christians of Antioch.

It is said in the proverbs, "a true witness delivers souls, but a But a deceitful witness speaks lies."

It is also said, "A false witnesses who speaks lies, is one who sows discord among brethren."

There is a reason that Peter (a Man who walked with Jesus and received the spirit of God on pentacost) and Paul (A man who never knew Jesus) were in discord every time they met. One new the truth and one was living a lie.

Paul was deceived to find a more effective way to kill "The Way" that Jesus started and spin the world into darkness.


Paul while teaching men to keep the Law was also teaching men to break the law by doctrine and tradition (two things Jesus warned of). This is a common practice still held by tradition and doctrine in the Christian world today.


It's recorded in Revelation that Satan will deceive the whole world. Has the world yet recovered from that deception? You decide!

 

[Shermana]

That's how I see it, Tavarish. You're not so crazy.

 

[jtartar]

That's a nice discourse Jtartar, but it ultimately avoids what Paul says and the point of the OP, your interpretation basically involves ignoring what Paul says about obeying the Law and not sinning, perhaps you simply don't understand Paul as I implied is quite often the case? Would you like to try going over what Paul specifically says in the verses in the OP? The "Lawlessness" in 1 John is indisputably referring to going against the OT Commandments. When Paul says that you are to no longer sin, and if sin is Lawlessness, what does that tell you? What do you think Romans 2:13 means? He was clearly referring to the same Mosaic Law there that the Roman Jews were familiar with. Do you think the definition of sin changed by Paul's time?
There's no reason to believe that Paul is referring to the Law of Christ when he says "The Law", because he's talking to Jews who would not be familiar with it. That's why he specifically says "Law of Christ" to distinguish when he's referring to the Law of Christ. Romans 3:31 and 2:13 for example are clearly about the Mosaic Law.

Shermana,
I guess that you did not read what I said was written at Rom 3:27& 28. Here Paul is talking about what LAW. He then says, not the law of observing thr Law, meaning the Mosaic Law Covenant. Then he says in verse 28 to obey the law of FAITH. The scriptures tell us that you must obey the Law of Faith, the Mosaic Law Covenant went out with the death of Jesus, Col 2:13,14.
Paul says that if you are being led by spirit you are not under the Law, meaning the Law Covenant.
Consider also Rom 6:14,15, which says you are not under Law, meaning the Law Covenant. At 1Cor 9:20, Paul said that he was not under Law. If anyone would be under the Law Covenant it would be Paul, who was a Jew, Acts 22:1-3, Gal 1:13-18.
No Christian was ever under the Mosaic Law Covenant, it was just given to the Jews, Deut 5:1-3, Ps 147:19,20. At Rom 2:14, Paul says that the gentiles did not have the Law. Christianity started on Pentecost of 33CE, the day that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Apostles in Jerusalem, Acts 2:1-11.
The Bible tells us that the Mosaic Law Covenant became Obsolete after the New Covenant was instituted, that was on the night before Jesus' death, Luke 22:19,20, Heb 8:6-13.
Paul wrote that a person could live by the Law Covenant, but only if he obeyed it perfectly, Rom 2:13, Gal 3:10, 5:3,4. Peter said that the Jews could not obey the law Perfectly, Acts 15:7-10. James said that a person must obey the whole Law, James 2:10.
Under the Mosaic Law Covenant a person was under the law of Justification by Works, Under the Law of Faith a person is under the Law of Faith. The only way a person could be saved is by Faith in the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus, Gal 2:16.Also we are told that you could not be forgiven by the old Law Covenant, but only by Faith in Jesus, Acts 13:38,39.
Paul even rebuked the believers in Gal 4:8-11, because they had gone back to observing things of the Law. In Col 2:15,16, Paul said to let no man judge you in the observance of the festival or of a Sabbath. If they were under the Mosaic Law Covenant it was a death penalty NOT to observe a SABBATH, Ex 31:13-16.
It is difficult to explain these things, beause I do not know how much you knoow about the scriptures.

 

[Shermana]

The Bible tells us that the Mosaic Law Covenant became Obsolete after the New Covenant was instituted, that was on the night before Jesus' death, Luke 22:19,20, Heb 8:6-13.

Those verses don't indicate anything as such, I'd go over each of your misuse of verses one by one but that would take longer than I'd like. Perhaps you'd like to one on one on this?

It is difficult to explain these things, beause I do not know how much you knoow about the scriptures.

I know plenty. However I have a feeling your idea of "knoow about the scriptures" means "agree with your interpretation". I do have a similar problem however explaining people however that Jesus did in fact demand obedience to the Law and that Paul did in fact demand obedience to the commandments with people who think they know the scriptures but only know a few cherry selected verses out of context and can't be bothered to read the whole thing. So would you like to 1x1 on this so I can show you just how well I knoow them?

Way to totally ignore what Jesus himself says in Matthew 5:17-20 and Luke 16:17. Those verses don't matter of course. Or 7:22-23 "Doers of Lawlessness" = "Those who break Mosaic Law".

So where does the NT forbid a man from marrying his sister? Where does it forbid you from molesting an animal, and where does it say Christians are forbidden from stealing? Do you even believe Christians are forbidden from drinking blood and eating meat sacrificed to idols?

And why do the Female disciples still obey the Sabbath even after Jesus dies and ressurects? Did they not get the memo?

And did you even address what Paul meant by saying we uphold the Law and no longer sin? I think he was being quite literal in saying "Don't just break the commandments because you think you can".

 

[Avoice]

I agree. "Do not defraud" is separate from the ten (Lev 19:13). This was made evident when Moses told the Levites to place the book of the "law" outside the ark (Deu 31:26) while the ten were "separated" from the book of the law by being placed inside ark. The contents in the book of the law were subject to change and or modification. The ten are not...

To defraud is to lie by deed, is it not? The Prophets include a false measure in false witness.

(Deuteronomy 25:13-16) 13*“You must not come to have in your bag two sorts of weights, a great one and a small one. 14*You must not come to have in your house two sorts of e′phahs, a great one and a small one. 15*A weight accurate and just you should continue to have. An e′phah accurate and just you should continue to have, in order that your days may become long on the soil that Jehovah your God is giving you. 16*For everyone doing these things, every doer of injustice, is something detestable to Jehovah your God.

 

[Shermana]

To defraud is to lie by deed, is it not? The Prophets include a false measure in false witness.

No, there is indeed a separate commandment to not defraud, and Jesus is very careful to distinguish it from "Do not steal", so he was clearly referring to more than just the 10. Even if all the rest can be "summarized" by the 10, Jesus did in fact clearly distinguish "Defrauding" as a completely separate commandment.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

It is also said there are sins not in the law, and there were sins before the law. So when paul says things about sin, it's not solely a reference to not keeping the law.

While I may argue about his theology regarding the importance of the Law and what "Grace" is, he does say this:


Now we know that "Sin" according to 1 John 3:4 is "transgression of the Law", as the definition of Sin probably didn't change between Paul's time and John's. Is Paul nonetheless exorting Christians to continue to refrain from

Where there is no law there is no sin, but there were sins before the law. Romans 4 and 7 respectively.

You can have sin, when there is no law.

1 john 4:16-18 is the determinant not sin.

"sin" (Lawlessness ,breaking the Law and the commandments)? DId he mean some other "Law"? What does he mean in Romans 2:13?

Love God, Love neighbor.

Is Paul simply misunderstood about the Law by most? Did he actually teach obedience to it regardless of what he said about its importance?

Obedience to Christ/GOD is not the same as obedience to the law.

 

[tumbleweed41]

MOD POST

Thread closed for Staff review.
​

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***

This thread has been reopened after several posts were deleted from it. Please refrain from making personal comments about other members and keep all forum rules in mind while posting, particularly Rule 1 and Rule 3:

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling:
1)Posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users. This includes both verbal statements and images. Images that are likely to cause offense based on religious objections (e.g. depictions of Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) or the sensitive nature of what is depicted (e.g. graphic photos of violence) should be put in appropriately-labeled spoiler tags so that the viewer has freedom to view the image or not. Such images are still subject to normal forum rules and may be moderated depending on their contents.
2)Posts that target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)Posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, blatant misrepresentation or harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

 

[Avoice]

No, there is indeed a separate commandment to not defraud, and Jesus is very careful to distinguish it from "Do not steal", so he was clearly referring to more than just the 10. Even if all the rest can be "summarized" by the 10, Jesus did in fact clearly distinguish "Defrauding" as a completely separate commandment.

I think Jesus used defraud because fraud is both a lie and theft combined. Though in the detail of explanation of what it is to break commandments throughout Deuteronomy and Leviticus fraud is treated separately, the commandments do cover it with the two commandments. The explanations themselves and that of fraud speak of the human propensity to avoid loving others as we love ourselves.

 

[Desert Snake]

Christianity developed with the Council of Jerusalems decision, it changed the basic pre-requisites for being a Christian. A straight conversion to Judaism would never have allowed those few and basic rules for conversion, it was already a different religion for all intents and purposes before Saul--Pauls letters etc.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Reconcile these three statements by Paul.
"...Thejust shall live by faith." Rom. 1:17 KJV
"... the doers of the law shall be justified." Rom. 2:13 kjv
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Rom 3:28 KJV

 

[ChristineES]

While I may argue about his theology regarding the importance of the Law and what "Grace" is, he does say this:



Now we know that "Sin" according to 1 John 3:4 is "transgression of the Law", as the definition of Sin probably didn't change between Paul's time and John's. Is Paul nonetheless exorting Christians to continue to refrain from "sin" (Lawlessness ,breaking the Law and the commandments)? DId he mean some other "Law"? What does he mean in Romans 2:13?


Is Paul simply misunderstood about the Law by most? Did he actually teach obedience to it regardless of what he said about its importance?

Paul preached and made himself "The Apostles for the Gentiles" from what I can gather from reading his letters. I suppose Paul didn't believe that Gentiles shouldn't follow the Law. But Jesus said, at least to His apostles and disciples, that not one letter of the Law would be abolished. I thought Paul was a Jew, though,a Pharisee, as well as a Roman Citizen. The Pharisees required strict adherence to the Law- I believe.

Paul's letters rather leave me wondering- did he mean those things to all of us or to only those he was writing to (virtually every Christian I've questioned believe it was for all of us). I'd like to know what Bible scholars say about it.