God rewrote the 10 commandments as Ex. 34:1 clearly said, while Moses wrote the covenant agreement and its related laws of ceremonies and rites. Why else would he spend 40 days on the mount?

You guys are reading the bible robotically without putting thought into what you read. I suggest you also read the bible in different versions, rather than struggle with the KJV.

Exodus 34:27-28 NIV
²⁷Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." ²⁸Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

Exodus 34:27-28 Amplified Bible
²⁷And the Lord said to Moses, Write these words, for after the purpose and character of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. ²⁸Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he ate no bread and drank no water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Exodus 34:27-28 New Living Translation
²⁷And the LORD said to Moses, "Write down all these instructions, for they represent the terms of my covenant with you and with Israel." ²⁸Moses was up on the mountain with the LORD forty days and forty nights. In all that time he neither ate nor drank. At that time he wrote the terms of the covenant--the Ten Commandments--on the stone tablets.

Exodus 34:27-28 English Standard Version
²⁷And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." ²⁸So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Some may say that the LORD was the "he" in verse 28 who actually wrote down the Ten commandments a second time. While I respect whatever persuasions anyone may hold as to that, the Hebrew construct does not say so, and several modern translations have inserted "the Lord" there where it does not appear. At any rate, whatever Moses wrote down was God's Law - all came from the same God and none of it originated with Moses.

The Law was given to Israel and not to the Church. The covenant that God made with Israel does not apply to the NT Church. Christians are called to live by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the Law - because the Law was not predicated on faith. The two should not be confused. Whatever Moses wrote down was God's Law, and there's only one law and not two.

@syrup,

Don't bother yourself too much. His arguments are based on what he ferreted from a website or another.

Many do not understand the purpose of the laws of the old testament and until they do, they can not enjoy true liberty and power of the Spirit.

If I may ask, how come the children of Isreal continually broke the law?

Because, though the law was Spiritiual, they were carnal, dominated by their senses.

God in order to deal with this problem brought about the Spiriual man who's life is not subject to the law of commandments. God said, I[i] will write my law in their hearts,[/i]

Now, the new creation does not need to 'hear thou shall not steal', for he has a teacher living within him. His driven from within to do what is right and pleasing in the sight of God.

This was the difference bw Moses and the children of Isreal. While Moses had such an encounter with God on the mountain, listening to His words, to the point that he was literally transfigured, glowing with God's presence; all the children of Isreal knew was thou shall not,  They did not know the real glory.

That is why up till this day, as many as teach that the christian must live by the law will keep themselves and their hearers estranged from that presence and glory. That veil still remains, shielding them from the glory, it can only be removed when they come to surrender to Christ and recieve from Him that free gift of righteousness and the precious Holy spirit.

There is no room for boasting.

@ Syrup

Exodus 34:27-28 NIV
27Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

Exodus 34:27-28 Amplified Bible
27And the Lord said to Moses, Write these words, for after the purpose and character of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. 28Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he ate no bread and drank no water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Exodus 34:27-28 New Living Translation
27And the LORD said to Moses, "Write down all these instructions, for they represent the terms of my covenant with you and with Israel." 28Moses was up on the mountain with the LORD forty days and forty nights. In all that time he neither ate nor drank. At that time he wrote the terms of the covenant--the Ten Commandments--on the stone tablets.

Exodus 34:27-28 English Standard Version
27And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

All these versions seem to say the same thing I will agree. But what concerns me is that verse one of the same chapter says God rewrote the 10 commandments, and verse 28 makes it appear based on its construction, that it was Moses who wrote the 10.

I support the idea that this may have been one of those passages that had a difficult translation, like many others which have been. How do I conclude that? Its pretty simple. If majority of the verses say it was God who rewrote, and this single verse, although with questionable circumstances seem to be saying that it was Moses, then I'd rather go with the weight of evidence. let me give you a more definitive statement from Moses himself.

Deut. 5:22
22 These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

Now this is from Moses' own words my friend. I wonder if you see what I am saying? All I am saying is that you should never be too eager to take one verse and build something around it unless you can show other passages that back up that verse.

Some may say that the LORD was the "he" in verse 28 who actually wrote down the Ten commandments a second time. While I respect whatever persuasions anyone may hold as to that, the Hebrew construct does not say so,

[/quote]

If what you call a hebrew construct to mean a translation, then you run the risk of misunderstanding the whole thought. The safest thing to do is to go back to the original hebrew language and see exactly what was said. As I have alluded to before this may be similar to passages that had a poor translation. canot rule it out.

[quote]and several modern translations have inserted "the Lord" there where it does not appear. At any rate, whatever Moses wrote down was God's Law - all came from the same God and none of it originated with Moses.

I have no problem with you saying that everything came from God, but the point I have been trying to make from the very beginning is that there has to be a difference between laws that were meant to be eternal and laws that were meant to be temporary.

I am saying that the 10 commandments are eternal as a law by itself. The word of God says so. Let me quote:

Psalm 111:7-8
7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. 8 They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

Matthew 5:17-18
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Has heaven and earth disappeared as yet? Has everything been accomplished as yet? NOPE!

The Law was given to Israel and not to the Church.

Obviously you do not know what the word church really means. Taken from the greek word "ecclesia" it means the called-out ones. Israel was the church then. Today from Christ's day the church consisted of jews and gentiles. The term church cannot be confined to just the NT times and beyond, because salvation was never confined to just the NT believers. Listen to Paul as he talks about salvation and who it was intended for:

Titus 2:11
11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

The all men would begin from Adam down to the very last man to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

The covenant that God made with Israel does not apply to the NT Church.

Typical thoughtless response. The covenant didn't start with the Moses or the Israelites. It started with the first sinners as recorded in Genesis 3:15, where God promised that a saviour would come to redeem fallen man. This covenant has a basic agreement which is to obey and trust God and live not just in this life but to have eternal life through faith in the future death of God's Son.

This covenant took various shape and was repeated with God's righteous people in every dispensation, starting with Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and then Moses. This same covenant has been renewed since Moses and what we call the New Covenant. The only thing new about it this time round is that its built on better promises seeing it was ratified with Jesus' blood, and God Himself is making the promises instead of us.

Christians are called to live by faith

Hahahahaha, , you really believe that rubbish? Lets see what the bible has to say about that:

Hebrews 11:[/b]5 By [b]faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death

7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family

8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going

13 All these people(and not just those mentioned above) were still living by faith when they died.

6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

because the Law was not predicated on faith.

No one is discussing that including me. Thats already a given and is general knowledge. But listen to James who talks about impractical christians:

James 2:14-17
14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

In other words if you say you have faith in Christ and teach men to dishonour His law of 10 commandments, your faith is not valid. The faith that you possess is a gift from God, but God's grace doesn't afford you the right to become disobedient. It was never given to make you think you're free from obeying God. It was given to empower you to overcome sin. Thats why Paul says: "where sin abounds, grace did much more abound"

The two should not be confused.

I agree with you! One reveals sin while one is a gift.

@ Malik

@syrup,

Don't bother yourself too much. His arguments are based on what he ferreted from a website or another.

Which means that you have never used info from a site to support your views!

Bobbyaf:

Which means that you have never used info from a site to support your views!

When I use info from any site, I don't plagiarise blindly to the point of being strongly opinionated on misinformation. Second, I leave the link so others won't applaud me cheaply.

@ malik

When I use info from any site, I don't plagiarise blindly to the point of being strongly opinionated on misinformation. Second, I leave the link so others won't applaud me cheaply.

Its funny how you can judge another's motives so hastily and more effectively than you're able to prove all I have said so far as unbiblical.

Just bear in mind what Jesus said, "judge not lest you be judged" You're in no position to judge my motives/character, so please stick to the issue at hand. Thank you.

@Bobbyaf,

First of all, I observe that you hardly know your Bible and will pick on just about any verse to force a pretext.

Bobbyaf:

I support the idea that this may have been one of those passages that had a difficult translation, like many others which have been. How do I conclude that? Its pretty simple. If majority of the verses say it was God who rewrote, and this single verse, although with questionable circumstances seem to be saying that it was Moses, then I'd rather go with the weight of evidence.

I see, and since the one verse is with "questionable circumstances" and appears in God's word, you have the liberty to choose which to believe and which to "question". Thank you.

Bobbyaf:

Now this is from Moses' own words my friend. I wonder if you see what I am saying? All I am saying is that you should never be too eager to take one verse and build something around it unless you can show other passages that back up that verse.

Which is precisely what you have been doing again and again, not only here but in other threads.

Bobbyaf:

I am saying that the 10 commandments are eternal as a law by itself. The word of God says so. Let me quote:
Psalm 111:7-8
7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. 8 They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

See how you've treated a verse in isolation simply because it mentions "commandments". Did the Psalmist specifically say it was the "10 commandments"?

Bobbyaf:

Matthew 5:17-18
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

And what "Law" was He referring to? Have you considered what Christ Himself said in Luke 24:44? Here - "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

Bobbyaf:

Has heaven and earth disappeared as yet? Has everything been accomplished as yet? NOPE!

I can't laugh more at your carping.

Bobbyaf:

Obviously you do not know what the word church really means. Taken from the greek word "ecclesia" it means the called-out ones. Israel was the church then. Today from Christ's day the church consisted of jews and gentiles. The term church cannot be confined to just the NT times and beyond, because salvation was never confined to just the NT believers.

Oh now, I see how you interpret scripture - just by looking up any word in a concordance, you can't make a distinction between the one and the other. And FYI, I'm well familiar with Greek and Hebrew, so don't even start. The NT Church is not a continuum of the 'ecclesia' in the wilderness who were baptized unto Moses. Christ spoke of His Church as yet future in Matt. 16:18 when He said "I will build my church" (future tense, meaning that the Church was not in existence by then). The Church began when the Holy Spirit was poured out in Acts 2, and not before then.

Bobbyaf:

Listen to Paul as he talks about salvation and who it was intended for:
Titus 2:11
11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
The all men would begin from Adam down to the very last man to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

When you read a text, study its context. The grace of God that brings salvation was not in operation until Christ had accomplished His work on the Cross. "Has appeared" is an indicative tense showing that it was not revealed previously, and Peter makes clear that the OT prophets who prophesied of that grace knew it was not meant for them but for us, as it was not then in operation until after Christ accomplished His work -

I Pet. 1:10-12 >>  "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."

Bobbyaf:

Typical thoughtless response. The covenant didn't start with the Moses or the Israelites. It started with the first sinners as recorded in Genesis 3:15, where God promised that a saviour would come to redeem fallen man. This covenant has a basic agreement which is to obey and trust God and live not just in this life but to have eternal life through faith in the future death of God's Son.

In other words, your own version of "typical thoughtless response" is saying that the same covenant that God gave to Israel began not with Moses or the Israelites but with the first sinners - Adam and Eve? Okay, so God gave that covenant to Adam and Eve according to your thoughless response, and yet Moses in the Bible says: "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day" (Deut. 5:2-3).

Bobbyaf:

This covenant took various shape and was repeated with God's righteous people in every dispensation, starting with Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and then Moses.

I wait to see how you read this from Scripture, especially in light of Deut. 5:2-3. What "various shape" are you referring to?

Bobbyaf:

This same covenant has been renewed since Moses and what we call the New Covenant. The only thing new about it this time round is that its built on better promises seeing it was ratified with Jesus' blood, and God Himself is making the promises instead of us.

God did not renew the same covenant, please. He did not ratify the same covenant with the blood of His Son, but completely set it aside for another -

Heb 8:6-7 & 13 >> "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. . . In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

There's nowhere man ever made a promise to God as predicating a covenant; so that last line in yours that "God Himself is making the promises instead of us" is a mute one.

Bobbyaf:

Hahahahaha, , you really believe that rubbish?

Next time, look carefully before you leap. I was referring to God's word, which you now call rubbish. And here it is -

Gal 3:12 - "And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them."

That is what you call "rubbish", and yes, I really believe it, even if you don't. The full statement I made in context was - "Christians are called to live by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the Law - because the Law was not predicated on faith." Call it rubbish, but that's what the Word of God teaches.

Bobbyaf:

In other words if you say you have faith in Christ and teach men to dishonour His law of 10 commandments, your faith is not valid. The faith that you possess is a gift from God, but God's grace doesn't afford you the right to become disobedient. It was never given to make you think you're free from obeying God. It was given to empower you to overcome sin. Thats why Paul says: "where sin abounds, grace did much more abound"

Please, when you quote a text, don't read interpolations that are not there into the text - that is called eisegesis. The text you quoted in James 2:14-17 does not even make reference to the 10 commandments, so don't try to judge a Christian by that. By interpolating that idea into the quoted text, you're playing a surprising sleight of hand.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

@ malik
Its funny how you can judge another's motives so hastily and more effectively than you're able to prove all I have said so far as unbiblical.
Just bear in mind what Jesus said, "judge not lest you be judged" You're in no position to judge my motives/character, so please stick to the issue at hand. Thank you.

Did you not ferret your ideas from a website? So, what's the point of your whining? The websites you might have been getting your answers from are not reading the Scriptures well - and it has nothing to do with judging your character. Take your own advice.

@Bobbyaf,

First of all, I observe that you hardly know your Bible and will pick on just about any verse to force a pretext.

So far you've not been able to disprove my arguments as yet, not that you can, which disproves your conclusion. Thank God I am not a boaster!

I see, and since the one verse is with "questionable circumstances" and appears in God's word, you have the liberty to choose which to believe and which to "question". Thank you.

You have a lot to learn! The bible as we have it today has been compiled by men who were not perfect in their translational efforts. It becomes very important to confirm certain problematic texts as the one under question with the original language from which it was translated. There has never been anything novel about what I suggested, and in fact it doesn't take anything from the bible when I say. Its plain common sense.

Which is precisely what you have been doing again and again, not only here but in other threads.

Really! Go check the threads and see who has supplied more texts and references. As a matter of fact, the passages I have supplied are more in support of what I have put forth. So your keep your feisty comments to yourself. Don't allow self to take over now. Why take cheap shots now, when it seems your argument is going nowhere.

See how you've treated a verse in isolation simply because it mentions "commandments". Did the Psalmist specifically say it was the "10 commandments"?

Be my guest and say which other ones he could be talking about that would be seen as standing forever!

And what "Law" was He referring to? Have you considered what Christ Himself said in Luke 24:44? Here - "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

Of course the "all things" there wouldn't necessarily mean just what Jesus accomplished as some others on the board would have us believe. There are still more matters that were mentioned in the books of the prophets and the psalms that are not yet fulfilled. For example we still have the present heavens and earth to which Jesus mentioned in matthew 5.

The law mentioned in matthew 5 is a composite of the entire torah. Jesus knew that some aspects of the torah would have come to an end at His death, but He knew also that His moral law would be applicable as long as there is an earth and heaven in existence.

Oh now, I see how you interpret scripture - just by looking up any word in a concordance, you can't make a distinction between the one and the other.

I didn't need the concordance to define what the church means. I knew that some many years ago. The first called out ones were Adam and Eve and their line of righteous descendants.

And FYI, I'm well familiar with Greek and Hebrew, so don't even start. The NT Church is not a continuum of the 'ecclesia' in the wilderness who were baptized unto Moses.

Yet your little knowledge of hebrew cannot even help you to see and understand the scripture. Moses ddin't baptise anyone, but the expression means under Moses' leadership. Symbolically and spiritually they were baptised when they demonstrated faith in moving forward through the Red Sea. The same Christ who formed the NT church was the same God who led Moses and His people.

Christ spoke of His Church as yet future in Matt. 16:18 when He said "I will build my church" (future tense, meaning that the Church was not in existence by then). The Church began when the Holy Spirit was poured out in Acts 2, and not before then.

Yet Moses, Enoch, and Elijah are already in heaven even without a NT church! , Salvation is the common denominator for all dispensations. Its one grace, one God, and one salvation. Christ said that He will build His church for a reason other than the reason you have lamely put forward. The Jewish church had completely lost the main purpose for which Christ had called it, assuming you knew that it was Christ who called the Jewish church also. It was now time for Christ to make a fresh start that would include the gentiles, rather than leave indefinitely the divine oracles with them, the Jews.

When you read a text, study its context.

Take your own advice.

The grace of God that brings salvation was not in operation until Christ had accomplished His work on the Cross.

Rubbish! , I dare you to find one scripture that remotely repeats that utter nonsense. Paul said that Salvation has appeared to all men as I have rightly quoted.

Through your false understanding and teaching you yourself, although inadvertently bring disgrace upon God's grace. Your version of limited and cheap grace I can do without.

"Has appeared" is an indicative tense showing that it was not revealed previously, and Peter makes clear that the OT prophets who prophesied of that grace knew it was not meant for them but for us, as it was not then in operation until after Christ accomplished His work -

Your Greek parsing is worthless! Stop ferreting from the internet and books.

So when the bible said "where sin abounds grace did much more abound", what does that mean? It means as long as sin was around grace was around too, but in much greater measure. Hence Adam and Eve would have died instantaneously when they sinned if God's grace was not present. It meant that Noah didn't grace in the eyes of the Lord, unless of course the word grace as used in the OT carries a different and partialed meaning other than the NT.

In other words, your own version of "typical thoughtless response" is saying that the same covenant that God gave to Israel began not with Moses or the Israelites but with the first sinners - Adam and Eve? Okay, so God gave that covenant to Adam and Eve according to your thoughless response, and yet Moses in the Bible says: "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day" (Deut. 5:2-3).

Same covenant but only because the circumstances were different. Thats all! There is no need for God to change His plans of salvation. He is the same God yesterday, today and forever more.

God did not renew the same covenant, please. He did not ratify the same covenant with the blood of His Son, but completely set it aside for another -

Heb 8:6-7 & 13 >> "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. . . In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

The bible term new is what is confusing you, bu tin reality God's covenant cannot really change. Take a look at this passage:

Psalm 89:34
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

In oher words God renewed the covenant given to Moses only because our effort to keep the agreement failed. Paul in Hebrews explains that under better terms, being ratified by Christ blood, etc; this renewed covenant would be more successful. It would be based on Christ making the promises instead of us who are not able to do it by ourselves.

After leaving Egypt, the people hastily promised that they would obey all that God required, but failed as Moses went for the basis of the covenant being the law.

There is nothing new about God saving a people if that is what the covenant is all about. I cannot think of another covenant that wouldn't continue what God started.

Next time, look carefully before you leap. I was referring to God's word, which you now call rubbish. And here it is -

Gal 3:12 - "And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them."

I didn't think you'd stoop so low just to win a point! This is your original quote that didn't mention a scripture as such but your persoonal thought. Now you're pretending to be smart by lying about putting up a scriptural reference.

This was your original quote:

The Law was given to Israel and not to the Church. The covenant that God made with Israel does not apply to the NT Church. Christians are called to live by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the Law - because the Law was not predicated on faith. The two should not be confused. Whatever Moses wrote down was God's Law, and there's only one law and not two.

Do you see a Galations reference therein?

That is what you call "rubbish", and yes, I really believe it, even if you don't. The full statement I made in context was - "Christians are called to live by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the Law - because the Law was not predicated on faith." Call it rubbish, but that's what the Word of God teaches.

And I will continue to call any such statements of that nature rubbish, and especially in the light of it being without substance.

Its one thing to chat rubbish, its quite another thing to be dishonest about it.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

So far you've not been able to disprove my arguments as yet, not that you can, which disproves your conclusion. Thank God I am not a boaster!

Oh, now I see the Pharisaic spirit at work. _{Luke 18:11}

Bobbyaf:

You have a lot to learn! The bible as we have it today has been compiled by men who were not perfect in their translational efforts. It becomes very important to confirm certain problematic texts as the one under question with the original language from which it was translated. There has never been anything novel about what I suggested, and in fact it doesn't take anything from the bible when I say. Its plain common sense.

You haven't demonstrated that you know anything about the original language so far.

Bobbyaf:

Really! Go check the threads and see who has supplied more texts and references. As a matter of fact, the passages I have supplied are more in support of what I have put forth. So your keep your feisty comments to yourself. Don't allow self to take over now. Why take cheap shots now, when it seems your argument is going nowhere.

Filling pages with more texts and references says nothing if you can't interpret them correctly. I haven't been feisty until you decided you couldn't talk to people.

Bobbyaf:

Of course the "all things" there wouldn't necessarily mean just what Jesus accomplished as some others on the board would have us believe. There are still more matters that were mentioned in the books of the prophets and the psalms that are not yet fulfilled. For example we still have the present heavens and earth to which Jesus mentioned in matthew 5.

What Jesus said in Matthew 5, He explained in Luke 24.

Bobbyaf:

I didn't need the concordance to define what the church means. I knew that some many years ago. The first called out ones were Adam and Eve and their line of righteous descendants.

Interesting. Adam and Eve were called out from what? And to what "Church" did they belong?

Bobbyaf:

Yet your little knowledge of hebrew cannot even help you to see and understand the scripture. Moses ddin't baptise anyone, but the expression means under Moses' leadership. Symbolically and spiritually they were baptised when they demonstrated faith in moving forward through the Red Sea. The same Christ who formed the NT church was the same God who led Moses and His people.

My statement was worded in exactly as I found it in Scripture - "baptized unto Moses" and the full text is "And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (I Cor. 10:2 - and that was in Greek in the original, not 'hebrew' as you hinted). Nowhere did I state that "Moses baptized anyone" - so don't play cheap here by insinuating what I didn't. My point was simply that "The NT Church is not a continuum of the 'ecclesia' in the wilderness who were baptized unto Moses."

Bobbyaf:

Yet Moses, Enoch, and Elijah are already in heaven even without a NT church! Salvation is the common denominator for all dispensations. Its one grace, one God, and one salvation. Christ said that He will build His church for a reason other than the reason you have lamely put forward.

What "reason" did you read in the portion of my quote you cut out? You could argue the rest with Christ - for I only referenced what He said; and if that was 'lame', He knows just what to tell you on that Day.

Bobbyaf:

The Jewish church had completely lost the main purpose for which Christ had called it, assuming you knew that it was Christ who called the Jewish church also. It was now time for Christ to make a fresh start that would include the gentiles, rather than leave indefinitely the divine oracles with them, the Jews.

The Gentiles had always been in God's plan, so your point here is mute.

Bobbyaf:

Rubbish! I dare you to find one scripture that remotely repeats that utter nonsense. Paul said that Salvation has appeared to all men as I have rightly quoted.

Actually, if you had eyes to see, you'd have seen the quote I referenced earlier - I Pet. 1:10-12. If God's word is rubbish to you, I understand why you keep treating it the way you do.

Bobbyaf:

Through your false understanding and teaching you yourself, although inadvertently bring disgrace upon God's grace. Your version of limited and cheap grace I can do without. Your Greek parsing is worthless! Stop ferreting from the internet and books.

I've taken worse from guys not worth two dinars in the market - you're not a mite better if you can't do worse than them. It's laughable that you who plagiarised the web and recycled inconsistent material on Nairaland without giving due credit now turn round to accuse me. Guffaws.

Bobbyaf:

Same covenant but only because the circumstances were different. Thats all! There is no need for God to change His plans of salvation. He is the same God yesterday, today and forever more.
The bible term new is what is confusing you, bu tin reality God's covenant cannot really change.

I'm sorry to observe that God's inspired word said clearly what I quoted earlier, that the first covenant was found faulty and gave place to the second - Heb. 8:6-7 & 13, no confusing the one for the other. Second, Moses made clear that it was only to the Israelites that God made the covenant, and not with their fathers - Deut. 5:2-3. He made no such covenants with the patriarchs but only with the Israelites at that time at Horeb.

Bobbyaf:

Take a look at this passage
Psalm 89:34
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
In oher words God renewed the covenant given to Moses only because our effort to keep the agreement failed. Paul in Hebrews explains that under better terms, being ratified by Christ blood, etc; this renewed covenant would be more successful. It would be based on Christ making the promises instead of us who are not able to do it by ourselves.

Heb 8:7-9 >>  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord."

God's Word = NOT according to the covenant God made with their fathers. He did not renew the covenants given to Moses.

Bobbyaf:

There is nothing new about God saving a people if that is what the covenant is all about. I cannot think of another covenant that wouldn't continue what God started.

Hebrews 8 tells us the very opposite.

Bobbyaf:

I didn't think you'd stoop so low just to win a point! This is your original quote that didn't mention a scripture as such but your persoonal thought. Now you're pretending to be smart by lying about putting up a scriptural reference.

There's no lie but what you supposed there, for I only made reference to what the Bible said. If you called it "rubbish", I only pointed it yet again by including the reference in my second reply without changing anything in what I said earlier. If you'd asked me to reference it rather than be too quick to call it rubbish, you'd not have tongue-tied yourself at all.

Bobbyaf:

And I will continue to call any such statements of that nature rubbish, and especially in the light of it being without substance.

No bother - I'm not surprised that's how you treat the Bible.

Bobbyaf:

Its one thing to chat rubbish, its quite another thing to be dishonest about it.

In just the way you've demonstrated - lap up your snivel.

Hey you guys Bobbyaf and syrup, knock it off. I'm really ashamed of the quarrel you both are brewing up on just interpretations of "the Law" and trying to outdo each other on that.

The Spirit was given to us who believe on Christ to enjoy a liberty more glorious than is found in "the Law" God gave to Israel through Moses, regardless whatever a website says. To those who want to yoke themselves under the seventh-day sabbath and mix it in with grace, good luck to them. And to those who understand they're not the same, enjoy what God has given you in Christ and quit trying to convince a mindset that won't see it.

I don't know you friend but I'd appreciate if you mind your own business 4get_me You're no authority on morals. Keep your selfrighteousness to yourself thank you very much!

No offence meant just in case you think it.

I don't know you friend but I'd appreciate if you mind your own business 4get_me You're no authority on morals. Keep your selfrighteousness to yourself thank you very much!

No offence meant just in case you think it.

@ Syrup

If I were you I'd be more honest before trying to be religious. Insinuations and deception are just as abominable as lying lips. Remember the Lord knows everyman's heart, including mine, so be careful how you strive to win arguments at the risk of being dishonest.

Bobbyaf:

I don't know you friend but I'd appreciate if you mind your own business 4get_me You're no authority on morals. Keep your selfrighteousness to yourself thank you very much!

As you're an authority to your own morals and selfrighteousness and couldn't knock off the brewing quarrel, please yourself.

All touchy aren't we? Hahahahaha, don't take it personal. We all at times are guilty of being too passionate.

Anyway carry on!

come to think of it,

the title of the thread says the sabbath what day is it?

its a questions that needs a simple answer,

yet we know the sabbath is saturday and yet we still argue off topic

maybe the topic should have been "is it necessary to keep the saturday sabbath"

because there is a difference between observing the sabbath day and worshipping God,

we can worship God on any day we chose to, buts its necessary to observe and keep the sabbath at the same time,

going to church on sunday and saturday doesn't mean we observe the sabbath, one can go to church on any day and not observe the sabbath,

the sabbath is supposed to be a day of rest, a day when u just devote ur time and meditate on His word and put your thoughts towards God, on such day.

the sabbath is saturday so we keep it, then comes the argument that it was under the mosaic law, true, there is a new convenant, true also,

but does that mean that the second abolishes the first, that i cannot answer because i do not know, the arguments so far seen on this thread end up confusing me the more

4get me says something, its looks logical.and sound true, and then bobby comes with another, then, u guys use the same instrument to disprove each other, are u guys just merely catching fun or wat, ?

Hi lordimpaq,

How could I be catching fun at the expense of what God's Word says? We've discussed this issue before and when one reads the NT carefully it is hard to miss the point that the observance of days is simply a misunderstanding of the glory of the Gospel.

Gal 4:9-11
But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

@4getme

i hope u are not referring to me as backsliding, and desiring to go back into bondage,

i am definitely not paul's enemy because i believe wat he said,

you can see clearly he is referring to those who refuse to accept what he preached,

you are making me look like a gentile,

@lordimpaq,

No my dear brother, I'm not insinuating that you're a backslider - not at all, and I apologise if that's what you might've construed in my reply. In summary, I said that "the observance of days is simply a misunderstanding of the glory of the Gospel", and I quoted Gal. 4:9-11 to show that the observance of days among others highlights that misunderstanding.

I would not remotely refer to you as a Gentile, and hope that you can understand my point now.

@ lordimpaq

the arguments so far seen on this thread end up confusing me the more

I understand your position and would encourage you not to become confused about whether to honour the Lord's creation-based sabbath. There can be no confusion as to which sabbath you had in mind when the thread started. Where the problem lies is how people view the sabbath in general. They tend to group all laws under Moses, including the seventh-day sabbath, and since the bible says that the Mosaic laws were a shadow of things to come, you begin to see whty it becomes so natural a thinking.

My arguments up to now were designed to show that until one makes a distinction between God's eternal law of 10 commandments, and the temporary Mosaic laws, then the truth will be obscured.

What puzzles me though is the teaching that naturally follows, that if the original sabbath had been abolished by the disciples, or apostles later on, then how is it that something as important as that was not even mentioned by Christ to His disciples? When you look at the following texts below and the appropriate explanation, you will definitely see that the seventh-day sabbath was very much alive, and that all the first-day texts brought forward as proof to suggest a switch, have been mis-understood as such.

The two most imortant texts used by the supporters of Sunday gathering are as follows:

Acts 20:7-12

Before I begin let me lay down a principle about how the Jews and early jewish christians viewed the day in terms of when it started and finished. Its important for my explanation.

The bible teaches that each day begins at sundown . (Genesis 1:15, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31); Leviticus 23:32) The dark part of the day naturally began the day. The sabbath for them began Friday night sundown and would end on what we call Saturday night. In fact using their reckoning, our Saturday night would have really been their Sunday evening or the dark part of Sunday. The meeting recorded in ACts 20 was held on the dark part of Sunday, seeing that the dark part of a day begins the day, and what we call today Saturday night.

Proof of that lies in this version of the New English bible whose opening line says:

Acts 20:7-12 NEB
"On the Saturday night in our assembly , "

Every indication points to a late night meeting by Paul which lasted till 12 midnight. Paul was on a farewell tour and knew he would not see these peopel again before his death (see verse 25). No wonder he preached so long and normally no weekly service would have lasted so long in those days, anyway. Paul was ready to depart on the morrow.

So what about the breaking of bread you might ask. Was this any indication that that occassion was a special and normal customary gathering? Absolutely not, because the breaking of bread was never confined to a day for they broke bread every day (see Acts 2:6) With that being the case the breaking of bread has no "Lord's day" significance whatsoever. In fact there is no scriptural indication in this passage that the first day was the norm or customary gathering for early christians. Nor is there the remotest clue of a change from sabbath to the first day of the week.

1 Cor. 16:1,2
1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

I find it funny how people see what isn't there. Anyway there is no reference here about a customary gathering or church meeting. In fact the expression "lay by him in store" literally means form the Greek store at your house/home

In other words each christian was to save up something for the poor so that Paul woudn't waste time having to do all that when he passed through. They were written a letter from before telling them to store the stuff at home, and not at church as some would have us believe. These christiasn were sabbath keepers and that is why Paul suggested that they do some work on Sunday and make the necessary preparation. Its as simple as that. The raging famine that prevailed would no doubt have affected the poor brethren in Asia Minor. All bills and accounts were normally settled on a Sunday. Both the french and spanish bibles say the same thing about storing the stuff at home. In French it says:

" doit mettre de cote chez lui" which means "place by your side at home"

Thats the solid truth my friend. Sooner or later the inevitable will unfold. If you search the entire New Testament you will not find any suggestion of the early christians either keeping Sunday or instructing to do it. Its just not there, and since they can't find any, what they now attempt to do is to pool the creation seventh-day sabbath under the Mosaic law.

That is why I attempted to show a difference between God's etrnal law of 10 commandments that demands the seventh-day sabbath observance, and the temporary Mosaic laws and other types of ceremonial sabbaths.

I know at times that when one attempts to read Paul's writings about the law it can be a confusing matter. I went through all that. To overcome all that one has to read Paul's writings in their context.

I hope I was able to help on the matter.

Shalom.

God help me,

Just keep studying and praying ,

Gods’ ritual (not yours), the sabbath

When you read in the Torah, the Book of Genesis 2:2, it says:

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

However, what they don’t tell you in your translation is that the word rested is
[b]shabat [/b]which means desisted and that it was God’s (Eloheem, known as Gods) that kept the Sabbath. It was God’s ritual. In verse 3 it says (in part):

And God (Eloheem) blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it . . .

The word used in the Hebrew is qadash or kodesh meaning “holy.” It (Genesis 2:3) continues:

. . . because that in it he had rested (shabat) from all his work which God (Eloheem) created and made.

As you can see the Sabbath was not established for man as religion as you believe, but it was Gods’ (Eloheem) personal holiday. Man stole it to make it a part of his religion.

Source: http://factology.com/archive/20040821.htm

@ Horus

As you can see the Sabbath was not established for man as religion as you believe, but it was Gods’ (Eloheem) personal holiday. Man stole it to make it a part of his religion.

To the contrary. Jesus said that the sabbath was made for man (the generic term for mankind and womankind). The scriptures are very clear on that. Listen:

Gen. 2:2-3, And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

My question to you is this. Did God sanctify the day for Himself, or did He sanctify the day for mankind? Secondly, what does the word sanctify means in that context?

Now Jesus clarified the Genesis account by saying in Mark 2:27, 27 And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”

Because the Jewish leaders had a mis-understanding of the purpose of the sabbath oftentimes they would seek to make an issue of it as it related ot Christ. So even though it wan't Christ, but His disciples who plucked the hairs of the corn, they saught to blame Him. They made the keeping of the sabbath a burden to the people by their traditions which were many. To have rubbed the corn in hand would have been considered work under their rules. One couldn't even spittle on the sabbath lest it be seen as an act of performing agricultural work.

It is in this context that Jesus saught to provide meaning re the sabbath and its true purpose. He took them back to the very beginning when the sabbath was first made for mankind, including Adam and Eve. If Adam weren't apart of mankind then who was? He and Eve were the pro-genitors of mankind.

While the OT scriptures do not give a direct statement as to their keeping it, Mark 2:27 does. When one section of the bible is silent, other sections bring clarification.

In ma former sch, d school observes sabbath on saturday because dey're adventists, bt dey don,t disturb other christains 4rm other demonations 4rm leaving d sch and worshipping on sundays, wateva day ppl consider as sabbath, saturday,sunday, etc, I think d most important is worshipping God on any day u feel is sabbath nd observing sabbath rules.