Post Reply
Page 3 of 35  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 35 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Decalogue is part of the first (OLD) covenant - right?
6 years ago  ::  Oct 25, 2008 - 1:59PM #21
PassingTheTest
Posts: 1,144
Hi Sincerely,
[QUOTE=sincerly;848621]Bob, Apparently you did not notice another important thing concerning the "Old"/First covenant.
Notice: Heb.9:1, "Then verily the first [covenant] had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

True, those 9:2-15( and on-ward through 10:24 verses described) the place of Jesus Christ in the plan of Salvation. Sure the "New Covenant" was better than the "first". As indicated, " the blood of bulls and goats" could never take away one's sins. They were "shadows" of the "very IMAGE"---"THE BODY"---Christ on the Cross.(10:1 and Col.2:17) .

Notice also, those "Ordinances of divine service" (which regulated the sacrificial/ceremonial laws) (vs.9:9-10) was "a figure for the time then present" and "imposed on them until the time of Reformation". That was why the second was better than the first---Christ replaced those animal sacrifices and the Decalogue would be written in the hearts and minds of those who repented and submitted to God's Will in Obedience.
The writer of Hebrews used the same language to describe the "New covenant" (8:10, Jer.31:31) And the "Law" which is to be in the Believer's hearts and minds is that which was on those tablets.-----including the "Remember the Sabbath-----seventh day of the week".[/QUOTE]
I am not sure what you are trying to show us here...

I do see that the repetitive sacrifices where not good enough to cleanse sin until the ultimate sacrifice was made by Christ...

I also see that the repetitive rests were not good enough to give complete and total rest, until a better rest came in the form of Christ...

I still see a different covenant being written on the hearts of men, not a copy of the first being written...  Please see the following:

Jeremiah 31:31-33
31  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33  But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.


Also notice the careful wording of the Hebrews author stating that the decalogue was "tables of the COVENANT" not the law.  So we cannot state that God's law written on the hearts is the same as that written on the  "tables of the covenant", because we see a NEW covenant being made.

Also look closely at this writers's statement regarding which covenant is specifically written on the hearts:

Hebrews 10:16
16  This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;


Please look closely that the author labels the decalogue as "tables of the covenant", not "table of the law".  So the law written on the hearts is not the same as that written on the "tables of the covenant".

But back to the original question...

Why is the decalogue specifically listed as one of the items in the first (old) covenant?

Peace,
Bob

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 26, 2008 - 3:52PM #22
VG59
Posts: 3,368
Yes, Bob does have a patient tenacity.  I wished he could bottle it up and send me some.  :)
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 27, 2008 - 8:21AM #23
PassingTheTest
Posts: 1,144
Hi soR, VG

Thanks for the kind words.  Thread focus is a trait I picked up from discussing issues with JWs for the past 4-5 years, who are the kings and queens of diversion.  I try to maintain the following guide lines:

1) State the initial thread question around a specific passage with enough passage content that doesn't leave room for "out of context" type of discussions;
2) Inital responses usually point to different passages that support their beliefs- so address those concerns, but remember different passages do not nullify the inital passage, the interpretation must have a clear enough understanding to ensure all scripture fits tightly together.
3) Always finish a post with how you addressed the responder's concern, explain how it either pertains to the main topic or that it is something entirely unrelated;
4) If a second post follows up to the same unrelated subject, start another thread immediately and make sure you point the responder to that thread if they wish to continue discussing  the unrelated concern.
5) Sometimes it is good to have a summary post, every 20-30 posts, of what has been covered and how all the concerns have been dealt with.  This gives the readers a big picture of what has been covered and it prevents circling (going over the same concerns with different passages, repeating the same passages with different slants, ...) or it brings to light the weak arguments that have been presented as counter arguments.
6) Make sure all your statements are adaquately covered by scripture to prevent "that is your opinion" type of diversions.
7) Close all your posts with a question or statement that IS related to the main topic.

I am not always successful, but it has helped the threads stay on topic.  Most threads do not need to go beyond 75 posts.  If they do, it usually means you've been hijacked.  :)

But I must say, in this particular thread, there have not been any weak arguments so far, just word misunderstandings, or out of context scripture interpretations.  The responders on this board are very knowledgable and have shown me verses I never paid attention to before.  I commend the responders for their gentleness and eligance.  It has been a while since I've had to study passages this hard and pray for continued guidence and understanding.

Peace,
Bob
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 30, 2008 - 9:02AM #24
spudette
Posts: 959
Quote:
"We actually see that the whole contents of the "ark of the covenant" are part of the first covenant that is made old by the new covenant. We actually see the "tables of the covenant" listed specifically.

So how can SDAs teach that we still need to heed the decalogue, hence the sabbath when it is explicitly listed as part of the first covenant that was made old?

Peace,
Bob"

Rev 11:19
19 And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm.
NAS

Was a new ark of the covenant constructed for the new covenant? Wouldn't the Bible say so if it was? But the Bible doesn't say anything about a new ark, so what is the ark of the covenant that was shown to John in the temple of God in heaven? What do you suppose was in it? Need I remind you that John's vision occured a long time after Sinai? If everything about the "old covenant" became at some point no longer valid, why is there an ark of the covenant in the heavenly sanctuary? And, by the way, in the heavenly sanctuary, nothing ever changes, ever.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 30, 2008 - 1:37PM #25
clintedwards
Posts: 799
[QUOTE=spudette;860235]Quote:
"We actually see that the whole contents of the "ark of the covenant" are part of the first covenant that is made old by the new covenant. We actually see the "tables of the covenant" listed specifically.

So how can SDAs teach that we still need to heed the decalogue, hence the sabbath when it is explicitly listed as part of the first covenant that was made old?

Peace,
Bob"

Rev 11:19
19 And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm.
NAS

Was a new ark of the covenant constructed for the new covenant? Wouldn't the Bible say so if it was? But the Bible doesn't say anything about a new ark, so what is the ark of the covenant that was shown to John in the temple of God in heaven? What do you suppose was in it? Need I remind you that John's vision occured a long time after Sinai? If everything about the "old covenant" became at some point no longer valid, why is there an ark of the covenant in the heavenly sanctuary? And, by the way, in the heavenly sanctuary, nothing ever changes, ever.[/QUOTE]

Spuds -  What do you SUPPOSE was in the ark ?  Where was the ENTIRE law kept ?  Do you SUPPOSE that their are beings in heaven with eyes all around their head ?

What is literal, what is figurative, and who decides ?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 30, 2008 - 1:53PM #26
PassingTheTest
Posts: 1,144
Hi Spudette,
[QUOTE=spudette;860235]Rev 11:19
19 And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm.
NAS

Was a new ark of the covenant constructed for the new covenant? Wouldn't the Bible say so if it was? But the Bible doesn't say anything about a new ark, so what is the ark of the covenant that was shown to John in the temple of God in heaven? What do you suppose was in it? Need I remind you that John's vision occured a long time after Sinai? If everything about the "old covenant" became at some point no longer valid, why is there an ark of the covenant in the heavenly sanctuary? And, by the way, in the heavenly sanctuary, nothing ever changes, ever.[/QUOTE]
We actually discussed this before...  But here it is again:

Let's read this in full context... Remember this event takes place at the sound of the 7th trumpet, the final woe...

Revelation 11:18-19
Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.


You see the first law is being brought out for judgement of those that are trapped under the old law. Remember Paul's teaching to the Romans:

Romans 3:19-20
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


The law is used to judge those that have not been freed from the law through Christ. That is why it is being opened in heaven at the announcement: "and thy wrath has come, and the time of the dead, that THEY SHOULD BE JUDGED"!

Peace,
Bob

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 30, 2008 - 2:02PM #27
clintedwards
Posts: 799
[QUOTE=clintedwards;860943]Spuds -  What do you SUPPOSE was in the ark ?  Where was the ENTIRE law kept ?  Do you SUPPOSE that their are beings in heaven with eyes all around their head ?

What is literal, what is figurative, and who decides ?[/QUOTE]

Spuds -  When Ellen's spirit guide took her to  heaven, she saw the ten commandments, writ large, with the fourth commandment ringed by neon, or something, giving off a bright light.

I have often wondered why John was not allowed to see this.

If he had been, I am sure he would have written about it in Revelation.

If it was in the book of Revelation. Gods will on the sabbath would have been clearly understood, there never would have been the issue of sunday, and today, all Christian churches would be keeping it.

One can only wonder as to why God did not let John see the one thing in heaven that he could have written about, on such a critically important subject, that would have made Gods will so perfectly clear.

Christ made so many things as clear as a perfect diamond, but made the sabbath seem like a game of "where's Waldo"

Why ?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2008 - 7:35AM #28
Christ07
Posts: 4,891
[QUOTE=PassingTheTest;843638]Hi Christ07,

OK, Lets use common logic...
You are only taking about the shadows:
- Steal is the shadow of - give everything to the poor and follow him...
- Lie is the shadow of "We must not even do an "I swear" or make an oath, but just let your yes mean yesy and your no mean no"
- Kill is a shadow of - do not hate for you kill the one you hate in your heart...
- Adultery is a shadow of - do not even look lustfully at another, for you have commited adultery in your heart...

All the decalogue is a shadow...
Even love the Lord your God is a shadow of lving and worshipping in his very presence.

Now that we are done with common sense, can we get back to the actual verse that includes the decalogue in the "first (OLD) covenant"?

Peace,
Bob[/QUOTE]

Well, if they are only shadows, it still does not make actually killing okay. There is the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. If you call the letter of the law the shadow, then go ahead. But that doesn't disqualify anything I just said. All commandments are still in place. it is still wrong to murder. 

The decalogue was included in the Olf covenant. However, that wasn't the part that was done away with.  Jesus saisd if you lok after a woman to lust, it is adultery. But that doesn't make the actual act okay.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2008 - 11:36AM #29
PassingTheTest
Posts: 1,144
Hi Christ07,
[QUOTE=Christ07;876340]Well, if they are only shadows, it still does not make actually killing okay. There is the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. If you call the letter of the law the shadow, then go ahead. But that doesn't disqualify anything I just said. All commandments are still in place. it is still wrong to murder. 

The decalogue was included in the Olf covenant. However, that wasn't the part that was done away with.  Jesus saisd if you lok after a woman to lust, it is adultery. But that doesn't make the actual act okay.[/QUOTE]
You keep saying this but it directly contradicts the passages presented in this thread. We need you to give us an ethical interpretation of the following passages:

1 Kings 8:21
And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the covenant of the LORD, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.

Hebrews 8:7-9
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 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:
9 [COLOR="red"]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.

Hebrews 8:31-9:4
Heb 8:13 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.
Heb 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, [COLOR="red"]and the tables of the covenant;[/COLOR][/color]


When we get pass these passages then we can talk about the first covenant being a mere shadow of the second covenant...

Peace,
Bob

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2008 - 1:00AM #30
Christ07
Posts: 4,891
[QUOTE=PassingTheTest;876830]Hi Christ07,

You keep saying this but it directly contradicts the passages presented in this thread. We need you to give us an ethical interpretation of the following passages:

When we get pass these passages then we can talk about the first covenant being a mere shadow of the second covenant...

Peace,
Bob[/QUOTE]
eXCATLY. It is not faultless.(the OC) ( mainly the Mosaic laws.) yet, the ten commandmnets are faultless. the carnal laws, were against the people and faultless. The ten commandments deal with man and God relationship. Nowhere does it say the ten commandments are done away with. Jesus magnified, yet he said think not that I have come to do away with the law, or the prophets, but to fulfill. What does thatmean? What you are saying is that jesus said this: think not that I have come to destroy the law, but to destroy". :rolleyes:

The old covenant is done away with. But the ten commandments are  not the entire old covenant. period. What was a shadow of things to come was not theten commandments. jesus did magnify the law, and brought out the spiritual meaning to help men's hearts out, but that does not make killing a shadow, so that when God reveals you can kill your brother in your mind, it's okay to literally kill him, as long as you are happy with him, and loved him in your heart. That is basically the logic of what you speak opf concerning the thought that the ten commandments are a shadow and are done away with because the old covenant is done away with. If I say I do away with my OLD life, that only means I do away with the bad part, not the entire life, not the good. The ten commandments aregood, they areten promises. They are moal and ethical laws, they are promises of happiness, and terrible things we should not, and WILL not do, when in obedience to Jesus.

Again,the commandments which were bad were the handwriting of ordinances, which were carnal, and against the people, IOW, the Mosaic laws. That which was a shadow of things to come was an eye for an eye was the shadow of forgiveness. Give what you owe was a shadow of give your enemy your coat. Curse upon thine enemies was a shadow of turn the other cheek, and so on. The letter of the law, and the carnal las, were shadows of the true thoughts of the Father, who sent his son to unveil this darkened world to the true character of God.

The ten commandments are not the shadow. LOL. Nice try, though.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 35  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 35 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook