God's Ten Commandments? Still valid?

[BavarianWheels]

Jesus can break the law because he is its master. God is not bound by anything to do anything. I only wonder how could you even contemplate that if Jesus broke the sabbath then he is a sinner? That is a theological blunder. And the absurdity of the whole idea and how Big a straw man it was, and the fact that you so comfortably slid it in the discussion for me to defend, something I had not even claimed, made me resign.

It's interesting to me that no other person is concerned with the above.

Can God really break His own law without being guilty of what the law does according to Romans 3:20?

Does not this kind of claim actually need some sort of qualification or clarification if in fact it doesn't mean exactly what it reads?

...or does it mean exactly how it reads? God can break law because He is its master.
.
.

[Byblos]

Jesus can break the law because he is its master. God is not bound by anything to do anything. I only wonder how could you even contemplate that if Jesus broke the sabbath then he is a sinner? That is a theological blunder. And the absurdity of the whole idea and how Big a straw man it was, and the fact that you so comfortably slid it in the discussion for me to defend, something I had not even claimed, made me resign.

It's interesting to me that no other person is concerned with the above.

Can God really break His own law without being guilty of what the law does according to Romans 3:20?

Does not this kind of claim actually need some sort of qualification or clarification if in fact it doesn't mean exactly what it reads?

...or does it mean exactly how it reads? God can break law because He is its master.
.
.

Did God make a new covenant? If yes, with whom?

[BavarianWheels]

Jesus can break the law because he is its master. God is not bound by anything to do anything. I only wonder how could you even contemplate that if Jesus broke the sabbath then he is a sinner? That is a theological blunder. And the absurdity of the whole idea and how Big a straw man it was, and the fact that you so comfortably slid it in the discussion for me to defend, something I had not even claimed, made me resign.

It's interesting to me that no other person is concerned with the above.

Can God really break His own law without being guilty of what the law does according to Romans 3:20?

Does not this kind of claim actually need some sort of qualification or clarification if in fact it doesn't mean exactly what it reads?

...or does it mean exactly how it reads? God can break law because He is its master.
.
.

Did God make a new covenant? If yes, with whom?

I am willing to provide a reply...but I'd like some clarification on this new covenant. I have an idea of this new covenant, but I'm unsure if you're alluding to the same or something different to my mind.
.
.

[Byblos]

Jesus can break the law because he is its master. God is not bound by anything to do anything. I only wonder how could you even contemplate that if Jesus broke the sabbath then he is a sinner? That is a theological blunder. And the absurdity of the whole idea and how Big a straw man it was, and the fact that you so comfortably slid it in the discussion for me to defend, something I had not even claimed, made me resign.

It's interesting to me that no other person is concerned with the above.

Can God really break His own law without being guilty of what the law does according to Romans 3:20?

Does not this kind of claim actually need some sort of qualification or clarification if in fact it doesn't mean exactly what it reads?

...or does it mean exactly how it reads? God can break law because He is its master.
.
.

Did God make a new covenant? If yes, with whom?

I am willing to provide a reply...but I'd like some clarification on this new covenant. I have an idea of this new covenant, but I'm unsure if you're alluding to the same or something different to my mind.
.
.

Since it's a new covenant, it obviously had to come after an earlier covenant. I'll let you tell me which is the new one and which is the old one.

[BavarianWheels]

Jesus can break the law because he is its master. God is not bound by anything to do anything. I only wonder how could you even contemplate that if Jesus broke the sabbath then he is a sinner? That is a theological blunder. And the absurdity of the whole idea and how Big a straw man it was, and the fact that you so comfortably slid it in the discussion for me to defend, something I had not even claimed, made me resign.

It's interesting to me that no other person is concerned with the above.

Can God really break His own law without being guilty of what the law does according to Romans 3:20?

Does not this kind of claim actually need some sort of qualification or clarification if in fact it doesn't mean exactly what it reads?

...or does it mean exactly how it reads? God can break law because He is its master.
.
.

Did God make a new covenant? If yes, with whom?

I am willing to provide a reply...but I'd like some clarification on this new covenant. I have an idea of this new covenant, but I'm unsure if you're alluding to the same or something different to my mind.
.
.

Since it's a new covenant, it obviously had to come after an earlier covenant. I'll let you tell me which is the new one and which is the old one.

Sigh...ok. Would you say that Jeremiah 31:31 and onwards defines what the new covenant is/will be or do you have a better text to point me to?
.
.

[Byblos]

It's interesting to me that no other person is concerned with the above.

Can God really break His own law without being guilty of what the law does according to Romans 3:20?

Does not this kind of claim actually need some sort of qualification or clarification if in fact it doesn't mean exactly what it reads?

...or does it mean exactly how it reads? God can break law because He is its master.
.
.

Did God make a new covenant? If yes, with whom?

I am willing to provide a reply...but I'd like some clarification on this new covenant. I have an idea of this new covenant, but I'm unsure if you're alluding to the same or something different to my mind.
.
.

Since it's a new covenant, it obviously had to come after an earlier covenant. I'll let you tell me which is the new one and which is the old one.

Sigh...ok. Would you say that Jeremiah 31:31 and onwards defines what the new covenant is/will be or do you have a better text to point me to?
.
.

That's one example. So what happened to the old covenant(s) that preceded it?

[BavarianWheels]

Did God make a new covenant? If yes, with whom?

I am willing to provide a reply...but I'd like some clarification on this new covenant. I have an idea of this new covenant, but I'm unsure if you're alluding to the same or something different to my mind.
.
.

Since it's a new covenant, it obviously had to come after an earlier covenant. I'll let you tell me which is the new one and which is the old one.

Sigh...ok. Would you say that Jeremiah 31:31 and onwards defines what the new covenant is/will be or do you have a better text to point me to?
.
.

That's one example. So what happened to the old covenant(s) that preceded it?

Let's see what Luke 22:20 says is the new covenant according to Christ Himself...

In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.

See also 1 Corinthians 11:25

The old covenant was a covenant of blood of animals shed to signify the faith in the coming Messiah.

The new covenant, as Jesus plainly states, is the covenant of blood shed by the Messiah Himself.

So...what is the covenant that you're stating is the reason God can break His own law?
.
.

[Byblos]

Let's see what Luke 22:20 says is the new covenant according to Christ Himself...

In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.

See also 1 Corinthians 11:25

The old covenant was a covenant of blood of animals shed to signify the faith in the coming Messiah.

The new covenant, as Jesus plainly states, is the covenant of blood shed by the Messiah Himself.

So...what is the covenant that you're stating is the reason God can break His own law?
.
.

Good, so we've established that God certainly can and did supersede an earlier, older covenant with a new one. Who has the authority to abolish older covenants and make new ones? Why the covenant maker of course.

Now, what did Jesus say about the Sabbath (I'm speaking of Mark 2:27-28) and in what context did he say that?

[BavarianWheels]

Good, so we've established that God certainly can and did supersede an earlier, older covenant with a new one. Who has the authority to abolish older covenants and make new ones? Why the covenant maker of course.

The point being that the covenant is no different. It is still based on BLOOD SHED! The covenant is not, therefore broken if the initial covenant was meant to ALWAYS be a covenant of blood and in faith.

You have done nothing to show that God can break the law that is holy, righteous and good.

Now, what did Jesus say about the Sabbath (I'm speaking of Mark 2:27-28) and in what context did he say that?

The context is that the PHARISEES accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath. But within the Sabbath law ( the 4th commandment ) there is no mention of not being able to pick grain to eat. What law is it you think Jesus broke? Not only that, but Mark 3 makes it even more clear. The Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath law by healing.

Tell me, Byblos. Where is it said in God's law that one cannot eat or one cannot heal on the Sabbath?

The context is clear. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath and therefore knows exactly HOW the Sabbath is kept or not kept...and certainly, as evidenced, it is not by picking/eating grain or of healing those in need.

So we're back to the question of how any of this proves that God can break the law that points to sin...and not be under the curse of the law, a sinner?
.
.

[LittleHamster]

Fewwww!. That's a bit more encouraging. It's ok to worship all the time ! Besides, my Sin-count this month is through the roof. I didn't want to add to it anymore - lightning season is over but the ground is just itching to open up and swallow me

I'm not sure if you understand the gospel...but if you're counting sins, then you really don't know Christ has covered them all.

The question HERE is rather is, if you call yourself a Christian and therefore live according to the Spirit ( and isn't the Spirit Righteous? ) wouldn't you ENDEAVOR to follow what the Spirit does? Therefore if the Law is death to the sinner, the Law becomes life, or better, a proof of perfection, to the Spirit ( or any righteous being ). On one end, the Law is death and on the other, the Law has no claim AGAINST the Spirit.

God's Spirit cannot have any sin, correct? So how is it sin is known?

Again, this is not a claim that we must keep the Law perfectly for salvation. This claim is that if we claim to LIVE according to the Spirit, then we should rethink what we do that is against the Law, which makes sin known.

Of course we are covered ( and completely ) by Christ's blood...that doesn't give us license to act willfully against God's Law that actually points at sin.

I'm not sure how many ways I can explain it without being accused of being a legalist or not understanding the gospel.

It's a submittal to God, to God's Law. ( Romans 8:7,8 )
.
.

I think it's got something to do with *GRACE* and Acquiescing to God's Will Mr Bav !

Check out the thread here -> viewtopic.php?f=22&t=39629


Edit: BTW, I do often count sins ! Its sort of a self check, I'd rather assist the process and become a better person rather than stray and get my a*se kicked

[RickD]

I like the direction this is going regarding the new covenant. But I just want something cleared up for me before it gets too far. Byblos, you never actually said that Jesus broke the sabbath law, right?

[Byblos]

I like the direction this is going regarding the new covenant. But I just want something cleared up for me before it gets too far. Byblos, you never actually said that Jesus broke the sabbath law, right?

How could He? Not because if he did he would not be sinless, that's just silly on so many levels, the least of which is metaphysical. He could not break the Sabbath because he IS its Lord. That's like asking if the writer is under any obligation to not change certain story lines in a novel she is writing. It is simply not applicabale.

Post edit: I will reply to your last post tomorrow Bav.

[RickD]

I like the direction this is going regarding the new covenant. But I just want something cleared up for me before it gets too far. Byblos, you never actually said that Jesus broke the sabbath law, right?

How could He? Not because if he did he would not be sinless, that's just silly on so many levels, the least of which is metaphysical. He could not break the Sabbath because he IS its Lord. That's like asking if the writer is under any obligation to not change certain story lines in a novel she is writing. It is simply not applicabale.

And, is this where you're going with Christ having the authority to make a new covenant, and he also had the authority to make the old covenant obsolete?

[Byblos]

I like the direction this is going regarding the new covenant. But I just want something cleared up for me before it gets too far. Byblos, you never actually said that Jesus broke the sabbath law, right?

How could He? Not because if he did he would not be sinless, that's just silly on so many levels, the least of which is metaphysical. He could not break the Sabbath because he IS its Lord. That's like asking if the writer is under any obligation to not change certain story lines in a novel she is writing. It is simply not applicabale.

And, is this where you're going with Christ having the authority to make a new covenant, and he also had the authority to make the old covenant obsolete?

Of course. To claim that the covenant is the same is not supported by scripture. If it were the same covenant Jesus would have said so. Hey by the way, it's the same covenant but with this little unimportant change. No, he did not say that at all. He was adamant in proclaiming it a new and everlasting covenant. A covenant of blood, yes, but certainly not of the shedding of blood any more. The shedding of blood is done and over with. That covenant is dead and burried. The new one is based on Christ's once and for all sacrifice. Definitely not the same covenant.

Same with the Sabbath. If Jesus had meant to say he was keeping the Sabbath even when picking food or healing the sick, he would have said as much. Hey guys, I'm not breaking the Sabbath because ...

But he didn't do that, did He? No. As he usually does with the Saduccees, he doubles down on what he was telling them. In very clear terms he told them he was NOT breaking the Sabbath because HE IS the Sabbath. That's the gist of Mark's discourse.

[RickD]

I like the direction this is going regarding the new covenant. But I just want something cleared up for me before it gets too far. Byblos, you never actually said that Jesus broke the sabbath law, right?

How could He? Not because if he did he would not be sinless, that's just silly on so many levels, the least of which is metaphysical. He could not break the Sabbath because he IS its Lord. That's like asking if the writer is under any obligation to not change certain story lines in a novel she is writing. It is simply not applicabale.

And, is this where you're going with Christ having the authority to make a new covenant, and he also had the authority to make the old covenant obsolete?

Of course. To claim that the covenant is the same is not supported by scripture. If it were the same covenant Jesus would have said so. Hey by the way, it's the same covenant but with this little unimportant change. No, he did not say that at all. He was adamant in proclaiming it a new and everlasting covenant. A covenant of blood, yes, but certainly not of the shedding of blood any more. The shedding of blood is done and over with. That covenant is dead and burried. The new one is based on Christ's once and for all sacrifice. Definitely not the same covenant.

Same with the Sabbath. If Jesus had meant to say he was keeping the Sabbath even when picking food or healing the sick, he would have said as much. Hey guys, I'm not breaking the Sabbath because ...

But he didn't do that, did He? No. As he usually does with the Saduccees, he doubles down on what he was telling them. In very clear terms he told them he was NOT breaking the Sabbath because HE IS the Sabbath. That's the gist of Mark's discourse.

And my work is done here. Carry on.