1Sharon:


Lool.. im a girl, white wine pls

Sure...

...

Maximus69:
We are saying the same thing Sir!
The law says the rapist must marry the victim if she's not engaged to someone else, but in case she is, the rapist must be killed. PERIOD!

We are cool then, JW brother

Acehart:


Ten Commandments: It was for a people whose heart did not understand righteousness. It was a law concerning righteousness. Moses Law on the other hand, was ceremonial in nature and it was a law concerning wickedness and sin.

Though men lived the Ten Commandments before it was given, it had to be given to people bereft of righteousness and the knowledge of a righteous God.

Going by your explanation, now that we have an understanding of righteousness, do you still think that the 10 commandments would have the same effect as under the law?

Maximus69:


Rape case in Bible times wasn't taken as serious as most people are taking it today!

Because the rapist is viewed as a psychopath that needs help NOT punishment!

So in Bible times, the rapist is given the list of items to pay so he could have the woman as his own wife, then the tension leading him into such a barbaric act is solved. But if the woman refuses to marry him then he must pay whatever cost the one marrying the virgin place on him or he is forced to labour until he can pay off the debt.

But when talking about RAPE, most people are biased on the matter, their assumption is that males are always the perpetrators while females are the victims. Whereas the Bible made mention of females seducing males for s3x, a woman got so much annoyed that she had to lie against a young man who denied her of casual s3x. Genesis 39:7-20




Please what would have happened if she had the strength to overpower the young man!

You are right sir, we are too biased on it.

Elizersalifu:


Going by your explanation, now that we have an understanding of righteousness, do you still think that the 10 commandments would have the same effect as under the law?

Hi,

James still refers to the occupation of the believer in the Law of God in his letter, yet he was not under the old covenant (James 1:25).

P.S: Daniel 9:9-10 shows two laws existed under the Old Covenant - The Law of God and the Mosaic Law. When we look at Philemon 1:14: but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will, I would like to imagine Paul having God’s heart in that he didn’t want Onesimus to make a righteous act by compulsion; why? The next verse reveals that he had a long term vision of unity between Master and servant which will only ensue by the effect of free will. In Psalms 119, the psalmists speaks of how he delights to keep God’s Law with his heart (Psalm 119:10). This is in contrast to the murmuring we see by those who kept the Mosaic Law by compulsion (Malachi 3:13-15). The psalmist was under the Old covenant yet the Ten Commandments had effect on his heart by faith (Psalm 119:32-38) - it was a Law to be done liberally (Psalm 119:45).

In the new covenant, the Law of God is referred to as the Law of liberty. (James 1:25). Colossians 2 shows is that in new covenant, there is an annulment of the marriage between the two laws. The bond between them is broken by Christ’s atonement. While the law of Moses died with Christ (Col.2:14); the Law of God lives - not to be observed in rituals but in the heart. Therefore, it has the same effect as it did in the old covenant - it caused one to faint at his weakness and whole heartedly cry for salvation (Psa 119:5-6, 94) - this was disciple’s dilemma - "Then who can be saved?"

Romans 3:27 shows us that we are under a new law - The law of Faith - a pseudonym for the Law of God. So the purpose of the Ten Commandments is to create a sense of helplessness and arouse a cry for a helper; because no man can keep the Law of God without a Christ - This is the effect that existed from the time of yore till this present time.

I may not have presented my point succinctly, but you can fill in the blanks.

Acehart:
Why were the repeated in the Book of Acts? Don’t we see the encouragement to the Gentiles to observe the Sabbaths and Holy days, howbeit voluntarily (Romans 14:5-6, Colossians 2:16)? Does that increase the four Laws you highlighted in Acts to five? Did the council in Jerusalem issue requirements the Gentiles similar time all 10 commandments?

Re-read the verses.
Paul never encourages anyone to keep the sabbath. That would be in direct contradiction to what Jesus Himself taught His disciples about the Sabbath.

Acehart:
Acts 15:9, 19-20: and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

Abstaining from things contaminated with idols and from things strangled is similar to the first three commandments because of the nature of these abominations.

These are entirely separate laws on the book and exist alongside the 10 commandments. Let the truth speak for itself, will you?

Acehart:
Fornication was part of the rituals in these abominations and it also finds it prohibition in the last seven commandments.

No, it does not.

Acehart:
The Ten Commandment was made to all - Hebrew and Gentile who were present at Sinai. The Mosaic Law from its inception, was specifically for the Jew; and as you said, Ezra read the Mosaic Law to the Jews - remnant and exile, only.

Wrong! You are still attempting to separate the 10 commandments from the mosaic law but that cannot work because, as we already see, Moses' Book of Law comprised of all the Laws that were given to Moses, including the 10 commandments, which only happen to be the first set. That said, when it was read to the mixed multitude, it included the laws that God applied to foreigners. Fast forward to when Ezra read the same Laws to those in Jerusalem, there was obviously also a mixed multitude there to recieve the message.

Acehart:
Our grace is this: These ten laws are written in our hearts and we have the Holy Spirit to help us keep them.

I don't know what you mean by this. The Spirit of God does not help us keep the 10 commandments, not at all. Because this law is not the law that is written in all our hearts... well, not in mine.

Here's a close look at one of the four laws mentioned in the book of Acts 15

Acts 15 vs 19-20
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
20. but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

Concerning the eating of blood

Leviticus 17 vs 13-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. “I will turn against those who eat blood whether they are citizens of Israel or foreigners living among you, I will separate them from their people.
11. This is because the life of the body is in the blood. I have told you that you must pour the blood on the altar to purify yourselves. It is the blood that makes a person pure.
12. That is why I am telling you Israelites and the foreigners living among you that you must not eat blood.
13. “If any of you, whether Israelite or foreigner living among you, goes hunting and kills a wild animal or bird that you are allowed to eat, you must pour the blood of that animal on the ground and cover it with dirt.
14. This is because the life of every kind of animal is in its blood. So I give this command to the Israelites: Don’t eat meat that still has blood in it! Whoever eats blood must be separated from their people.

See how the issue of concerning the eating of blood is separate from the 10 commandments?

Acehart:
Thanks. I know you like your narratives to hover over the TKGE (as you like to call that tree) ...

"¹⁶And the LORD God commanded him,
“You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,
¹⁷but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;
for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”"
- Genesis 2:16-17

Acehart, to be frank and honest with you, every word that proceeds from God, in effect, is law essentially, lmao

The first law ever issued to man, as regards, acceptable conduct and right behaviour was the law in Genesis 2:16-17

Acehart:
... One day, I’ll speak about what I think about the tree and why Adam are it and why Satan wanted them to eat from it.

Have a good day

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
To the one who is victorious, I will grant the right to eat from the tree of life in the paradise of God."
- Revelation 2:7

Nous verrons, but except you are into Jewish Kabbalah, contrary to you thinking that the TKGE is Adam, it is not. Fyi, I have an interest however in the pituitary gland and pineal gland relationship with the connection with gigantism (i.e. Nephilim)

I am sure you know that by the time we have access back to Eden, the TKGE won't be there but we will have the Tree of life. The reason why the TKGE is be absent, is because it had served its purpose and so therefore has no further need, purpose or use for it to be present in the garden. The TKGE is conspicuously AWOL in Revelation 2:7 and Revelation 22:2.

It is true my perspective on narratives, somehow at times, delightfully cycles round and over the TKGE (i.e. yup, as I like to call that the Tree of knowledge of Good & Evil) maybe because I am aware that the TKGE is an enigma to many and one so understood without depth of knowledge.

Genesis chapter 3, and its associations with the TKGE, has its own fair share good interesting cases of elusive entendres, polysemous and deep recondite information.

Romans 7 vs 4-6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. In the same way, my brothers and sisters, your old selves died and you became free from the law through the body of Christ. Now you belong to someone else. You belong to the one who was raised from death. We belong to Christ so that we can be used in service to God.
5. In the past we were ruled by our sinful selves. The law made us want to do sinful things. And those sinful desires controlled our bodies, so that what we did only brought us spiritual death.
6. In the past the law held us as prisoners, but our old selves died, and we were made free from the law. So now we serve God in a new way, not in the old way, with the written rules. Now we serve God in the new way, with the Spirit.

I found the verse above and felt it would clear the confusion here. Paul, in verse 6, makes a general claim in regard to WRITTEN rules.

Porter with a Wineskin, by Niko Pirosmani (before 1919)

Luke 5 vs 33-39
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. They said to Jesus, “John’s followers often fast and pray, the same as the followers of the Pharisees. But your followers eat and drink all the time.”
34. Jesus said to them, “At a wedding you can’t ask the friends of the bridegroom to be sad and fast while he is still with them.
35. But the time will come when the groom will be taken away from them. Then his friends will fast.”
36. Jesus told them this story: “No one takes cloth off a new coat to cover a hole in an old coat. That would ruin the new coat, and the cloth from the new coat would not be the same as the old cloth.
37. Also, no one ever pours new wine into old wineskins. The new wine would break them. The wine would spill out, and the wineskins would be ruined.
38. You always put new wine into new wineskins.
39. No one who drinks old wine wants new wine. They say, ‘The old wine is just fine.’”

The parable above is what Jesus presented to the Pharisees when questioned on why His, Jesus', disciples did not obey the old covenant commandments in much the same way the disciples of John the Baptist did.