Who gave the Ten Commandments to Moses

Who gave the Ten Commandments to Moses

Created by Barnsweb on Aug 11, 2013

169 votes

Click on an option to vote

God

Angels

Peter

Paul

Adam

Abraham

John

Yeshua

Satan

other -

Anonymous Proxy

France

#304 Sep 1, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I know exactly what I am talking about. Follow the conversation and follow along in your Bible. If we do not know what has been done to our food before we eat it, if the Acts 15 council is in effect still, do we sin if we unintentionally eat food that has been offered to an idol?
According to Acts there are no exceptions given and no where does it say it is of no effect. Paul was not involved in this decision as far as we know in Acts. Does he have the authority to overrule it?
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>2. The Jerusalem council was at a specific time in a specific situation. Acts is also set in a transitional time in the history of the church. The divisions and issues between Jew and Gentile is gone. Idol's temples are for the most part in the dustbin of history, except in a few places. Since there is no longer any division between Jew and Gentile, not much issues with idols temples and meat markets, and no Judaizers from Jerusalem coming to teach the brethren they must obey the law of Moses and be circumcised to be saved, then the council's decision does not have nearly the effect on us as it did then.
Paul's teaching on the conscience and food in the meat market can still be effectively discussed and applied today.
Every decision in the bible was decided at a specific time and a specific situation. The decision of rescinding this prohibition of the Acts council according to the Catholics was at Florence. The bible gives no point and time for the doing away of this requirement.
Anonymous Proxy

France

#305 Sep 1, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
*Denying scripture and an apostle isn't blasphemy? Please explain how it isn't so.
If saying Paul is an apostle would be blasphemy then it seems the same would apply if you claimed Paul was an apostle and his writing were scripture but they were not.

If the ones determining the canon were right or wrong (whichever) by claiming books were scripture or were not, then by your definition of blasphemy Protestants have all committed this sin or on the flip side of the coin all Catholics have.
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
*Are you the poster formerly known as "nobody"?
No
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
*BW has become a reed shaken by the wind. Perhaps he can see where he took a left turn and come back to the Lord. Many of those Pharisees Jesus addressed did eventually believe.
You are talking in circles. Again, how can these Pharisees believe if they have committed blasphemy?


Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#306 Sep 1, 2013
Anonymous Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>The efficacy of ceremonial practicesand the gospel came at the council of Florence?
<quoted text>If we are to make the prohibitions of God dependent upon time and the attitudes of society I hope that is what God wants. God told us in old and new testament these things and never retracted them. You might argue the Catholic councils on par with the council at Jerusalem for these decisions which I am sure you do, but Protestants can hardly consider the Catholic church as an authority of any type considering their history of scandals. So the Catholic viewpoint is without any biblical basis is what you are telling me? Is that a fair summation?
<quoted text>As long as it is okay with human society I guess it is okay with God? It seems fornication is going the same way in the church and society as the rest of the prohibitions listed above. What council are we going to declare that at? God seems totally left out of this. Did these prohibitions come from God in the old testament? Did they come from the Holy Spirit in the new testament? But now everything is lawful? Seems fornication would be no different.
Who cares if you think the Church does not? has authority. It doesn't change that it does.

We are talking about food.

The Church can revisit it if you want to start fornicating with your food as part of worship

My guess it won't approve.
Anonymous Proxy

UK

#307 Sep 1, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>

We are talking about food.
The Church can revisit it if you want to start fornicating with your food as part of worship
My guess it won't approve.
I don't understand what you are saying. That they are talking of food when fornication is used in the verses? It wouldn't surprise me that's the Catholic interpretation but I never have heard that one before.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#308 Sep 1, 2013
Anonymous Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>I don't understand what you are saying. That they are talking of food when fornication is used in the verses? It wouldn't surprise me that's the Catholic interpretation but I never have heard that one before.
You were the one who combined the two. Went from food to that.

Thought you had come up with a new sola scriptura translation of the Bible.

Protestants are always doing that.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#309 Sep 1, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I know exactly what I am talking about. Follow the conversation and follow along in your Bible. If we do not know what has been done to our food before we eat it, if the Acts 15 council is in effect still, do we sin if we unintentionally eat food that has been offered to an idol?
2. The Jerusalem council was at a specific time in a specific situation. Acts is also set in a transitional time in the history of the church. The divisions and issues between Jew and Gentile is gone. Idol's temples are for the most part in the dustbin of history, except in a few places. Since there is no longer any division between Jew and Gentile, not much issues with idols temples and meat markets, and no Judaizers from Jerusalem coming to teach the brethren they must obey the law of Moses and be circumcised to be saved, then the council's decision does not have nearly the effect on us as it did then.
Paul's teaching on the conscience and food in the meat market can still be effectively discussed and applied today.
If God made the commandments and prohibitions and upheld them, they are still extant, as only Paul said not so. And although not as popular today, idol worship and idol sacrifice still exist in the world today. You've only shown the RCC doesn't keep the commandments of God as given by Moses, Jesus and Peter, and has chosen to follow Paul in his errors. At least that's what it tells me.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#310 Sep 1, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
*Denying scripture and an apostle isn't blasphemy? Please explain how it isn't so.
*BW has become a reed shaken by the wind. Perhaps he can see where he took a left turn and come back to the Lord. Many of those Pharisees Jesus addressed did eventually believe.
*Thanks for your concern about me. My mental state has always been healthy. I recently moved to a new town and took some time to be with the family. I have time to post more now, we have settled in nicely. No anxiety issues since January. Praise God!
*Are you the poster formerly known as "nobody"?
I'm certainly not denying Scriptures of God! What I'm saying is because someone foisted Paul's books into the same list as those who do belong doesn't equate to Gods' approval of adding a false apostle and liar into the mix of His Holy Set-Apart Scriptures.

You really need to read Duet. 4, 12, 13 and 18 as it relates to the topic. DID Paul meet all the conditions and pass all the tests? Jesus did. So as His appointed eyewitness testifiers wrote what He taught - that IS Scripture - each and every word of it that is His. Luke and Mark are not of the twelve, but Luke does seem to have proven himself to record things as best as he knew - especially noting the inconsistencies with what Paul testified to of himself and Peter and all the 'pillars' of the Church in Jerusalem.

If God is righteous to uphold His word higher than His name, the things He gave through Moses about how to know who speaks for Him that we need to hear are VITALLY important. I think it's safe to say we've all come from a background that presumed the matter was properly handled by God's directions long ago - but the fact is that it WASN'T!

So do we today, who have more information than they did, do we also shirk the duty to do as God told us to? Or do we face the facts as they have become known and deal with the truth BECAUSE we desire to do the will of God as commanded by the Father and the Son?

To judge me to blaspheme because I point out some 'father of the faith' failed to do what was required - maybe it was because they believed Paul, that the Law and commandments of God were nailed to the cross? I'd rather believe Jesus Christ on that matter, and He said that is not the case at all.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#311 Sep 1, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm certainly not denying Scriptures of God! What I'm saying is because someone foisted Paul's books into the same list as those who do belong doesn't equate to Gods' approval of adding a false apostle and liar into the mix of His Holy Set-Apart Scriptures.
You really need to read Duet. 4, 12, 13 and 18 as it relates to the topic. DID Paul meet all the conditions and pass all the tests? Jesus did. So as His appointed eyewitness testifiers wrote what He taught - that IS Scripture - each and every word of it that is His. Luke and Mark are not of the twelve, but Luke does seem to have proven himself to record things as best as he knew - especially noting the inconsistencies with what Paul testified to of himself and Peter and all the 'pillars' of the Church in Jerusalem.
If God is righteous to uphold His word higher than His name, the things He gave through Moses about how to know who speaks for Him that we need to hear are VITALLY important. I think it's safe to say we've all come from a background that presumed the matter was properly handled by God's directions long ago - but the fact is that it WASN'T!
So do we today, who have more information than they did, do we also shirk the duty to do as God told us to? Or do we face the facts as they have become known and deal with the truth BECAUSE we desire to do the will of God as commanded by the Father and the Son?
To judge me to blaspheme because I point out some 'father of the faith' failed to do what was required - maybe it was because they believed Paul, that the Law and commandments of God were nailed to the cross? I'd rather believe Jesus Christ on that matter, and He said that is not the case at all.
The passover was a temporary solution. Jesus Shed blood is the permanent solution. It is a brand new covenant not a renewed covenant.

To say that one does not realize the full meaning of all God has done UNLESS one observes the Torah, or that one is not pleasing to or loving God enough if one is not observing the Torah is to say that the shed Blood of Christ is really not enough. That is ground I would not care to tread upon. And make no mistake, that is where you are treading if you feel we all should be Torah observant.

Look at your own life, you fail in many areas to keep the torah. If still under it you need to resurrect the passover.
Anonymous Proxy

France

#312 Sep 1, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
You were the one who combined the two. Went from food to that.
Thought you had come up with a new sola scriptura translation of the Bible.
Protestants are always doing that.
I looked at both prohibitions because they are all listed together in the same verse. If we do away with one because of whatever reason, why can't we do away with the other? This area of scripture should be of concern to all new testament Christians but you rarely hear it mentioned.
Anonymous Proxy

France

#313 Sep 1, 2013
Dave P wrote:
He also states that the Trinitarian formula of baptism in Matthew 28 is an addition.
Our resident Catholics will not comment on this. If you want a real life definition of the word silent, ask them about it. And they wonder why I question their reliability when it comes to scriptural honesty.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#314 Sep 1, 2013
Anonymous Proxy wrote:
<quoted text> If saying Paul is an apostle would be blasphemy then it seems the same would apply if you claimed Paul was an apostle and his writing were scripture but they were not.
If the ones determining the canon were right or wrong (whichever) by claiming books were scripture or were not, then by your definition of blasphemy Protestants have all committed this sin or on the flip side of the coin all Catholics have.
<quoted text> No
<quoted text>You are talking in circles. Again, how can these Pharisees believe if they have committed blasphemy?
Here is where you are wrong on this AP. Merely claiming something is or is not scripture is not blasphemy. Stating that a person who Jesus declared to be a chosen vessel of His, who the Holy Spirit inspired to write, is a fraud and a liar and that his inspired writings are not scripture- how would that not fall into the blasphemy category, stating that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are in error?

Rejection or acceptance of the apocrypha does not fall into that idea, since no one is assassinating the character of those writers. If BW is wrong he has stated that an inspired apostle, chosen by God, was a liar and a phony and his works are of no value. If this isn't blasphemy, what do you call it?
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#316 Sep 1, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm certainly not denying Scriptures of God! What I'm saying is because someone foisted Paul's books into the same list as those who do belong doesn't equate to Gods' approval of adding a false apostle and liar into the mix of His Holy Set-Apart Scriptures.
You really need to read Duet. 4, 12, 13 and 18 as it relates to the topic. DID Paul meet all the conditions and pass all the tests? Jesus did. So as His appointed eyewitness testifiers wrote what He taught - that IS Scripture - each and every word of it that is His. Luke and Mark are not of the twelve, but Luke does seem to have proven himself to record things as best as he knew - especially noting the inconsistencies with what Paul testified to of himself and Peter and all the 'pillars' of the Church in Jerusalem.
The facts of the case first of all do not in any way condemn Paul as a false apostle or witness or any other thing. The testimony of Luke does not show any inconsistency with Paul. That is propaganda from the HRM and the Jesus only guy. Which, btw, do you agree with his views on the deity of Christ and the virgin birth?

Its no wonder you denied the 66 decorations on the lampstand as representing the books that God declared to be scriptures. Doesn't fit the theology. If you are incorrect about Paul you are certainly denying God's holy and set apart scriptures.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#317 Sep 1, 2013
BW- If God is righteous to uphold His word higher than His name, the things He gave through Moses about how to know who speaks for Him that we need to hear are VITALLY important. I think it's safe to say we've all come from a background that presumed the matter was properly handled by God's directions long ago - but the fact is that it WASN'T!

So do we today, who have more information than they did, do we also shirk the duty to do as God told us to? Or do we face the facts as they have become known and deal with the truth BECAUSE we desire to do the will of God as commanded by the Father and the Son?

Dave P- I 100% disagree with your notion God's word wasn't properly handled long ago. That means God, in His providence, allowed His sacred word to be butchered, and mislead countless souls. God did not put the decision of what was scripture and what wasn't into OUR hands. he decided that long ago.

Your second paragraph is 10,000% wrong. Continued revelation? New information? What happened to "God has in these last days spoken to us by His Son"? More revelation needed is it? Hogwash.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#318 Sep 1, 2013
To judge me to blaspheme because I point out some 'father of the faith' failed to do what was required - maybe it was because they believed Paul, that the Law and commandments of God were nailed to the cross? I'd rather believe Jesus Christ on that matter, and He said that is not the case at all.

And if you know my stand on that, you know I believe that is indeed not the case at all. Our debt of sin was nailed to the cross, and the ceremonial and sacrificial system was what was nailed to the cross instead. That's what Paul truly said, and you believed that once. You didn't believe in the evangelical version of Paul's teachings, and knew them to be false. Why do you now claim that the evangelical version is actually the true ideas?
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#319 Sep 2, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
The passover was a temporary solution. Jesus Shed blood is the permanent solution. It is a brand new covenant not a renewed covenant.
To say that one does not realize the full meaning of all God has done UNLESS one observes the Torah, or that one is not pleasing to or loving God enough if one is not observing the Torah is to say that the shed Blood of Christ is really not enough. That is ground I would not care to tread upon. And make no mistake, that is where you are treading if you feel we all should be Torah observant.
Look at your own life, you fail in many areas to keep the torah. If still under it you need to resurrect the passover.
The matter comes down to what God said on the topic. "Hear Him" comes to mind, as does, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Then instead of Yeshua saying " the father gave me a new set of commandments to replace the old ones, which once they are kept by me, they will be done away with on the cross (which is akin to what Paul taught)", what we find is explicitly to uphold that which God gave to Moses, and to find even a more righteous standard that is far above the Torah - and that He upholds both the lessor and the higher. Jesus kept the previous to show us the higher level that God desires we attain, but that we must keep the lower laws given to Moses and work to believe Him in action from our hearts. He realized some things are not able to be kept by everyone, but only those who are able to (such as Mt 19), but still upheld the Torah (instructions in righteousness) given through Moses, the Prophets and Psalms).

Take the pretended veil off that Paul has placed on your eyes.
God said the commandments He gave to Israel were not hard to understand or hard to do. God said for them to do what He said, because doing what He said would bring His blessings upon them -

Did Jesus say we are blessed to do the will of God? Did Jesus curse anyone because they loved God and wanted to do what He said from their heart?

Yet Paul was reaching into that territory to say those whose conscience was offended if they were to sit with one of Paul's converts who said it was lawful to do anything and that idols are nothing and it is just dandy to eat all the meat sacrificed to idols as you desire - it's just a matter of conscience - it is not sin.

No, it was Paul who greatly erred - not Jesus. Jesus never taught it merely matter of conscience to violate any word of God. Jesus upheld all the word of God as given to Israel, and on top of that, His quotes were from the Hebrew - not Greek translation.

Jesus said:'If ye love Me, keep My commandments', and He upheld what was given before in the 'OT'. He never tossed it out or nailed it to His cross. Paul said Jesus did? How is this different that saying Paul called Jesus a damned liar for not telling us? We're to believe Jesus had an after thought that had to be revealed by Paul instead of one of the twelve?

Some people will believe anything, so long as it's what they desire in their heart.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#320 Sep 2, 2013
Anonymous Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>Our resident Catholics will not comment on this. If you want a real life definition of the word silent, ask them about it. And they wonder why I question their reliability when it comes to scriptural honesty.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
Some reconstructions of the Hebrew Matthew text omit this verse, and it is odd that it wasn't found in quotes from first century Christians, but that doesn't prove it wasn't there. Having read about the theory that it was added, it seemed reasonable to consider that view, as witnessed by the accounts of baptisms in Acts don't seem to support it. Into what name is right?

So some omit the verses. The Greek Matthew has them included. I was surprised that the oldest Aramaic manuscript from 167 has this verse as the Greek translation does, as :'Father, Son and Holy Spirit (English names, not the Aramaic - my AENT is at the binder getting a hard cover binding).

But did Jesus say 'names' of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? or the 'name'- singular? The AENT has the 'name' to be baptized into as "Master YHWH Y'shua".

I find no fault with anyone doing as the great commission said. Does anyone?(F/S/HS)
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#321 Sep 2, 2013
The 'Master YHWH Y'shua' is found in Acts 2:38,39, as recorded by Luke and originally received in the Aramaic text.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#322 Sep 2, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
The facts of the case first of all do not in any way condemn Paul as a false apostle or witness or any other thing. The testimony of Luke does not show any inconsistency with Paul. That is propaganda from the HRM and the Jesus only guy. Which, btw, do you agree with his views on the deity of Christ and the virgin birth?
Its no wonder you denied the 66 decorations on the lampstand as representing the books that God declared to be scriptures. Doesn't fit the theology. If you are incorrect about Paul you are certainly denying God's holy and set apart scriptures.
Well, first off, I base my faith upon the word of God, rather than a similitude of decorations on a lampstand.

Luke certainly did testify of the inconsistency of Pauls' testimony about his conversion, and in fact records the matter with ample pointed detail to see it. One has to look at the explicit details of each account to see it though. First account has Jesus telling him nothing of any good towards him. Then it was Ananias telling the good word from Jesus to Him, then ending up that what Ananias told him that it was Jesus who told him this from the beginning and he was the one telling those where he went about it. Graph out each account by each point made, taking the first, then going to the last one. Go through the list carefully from first to last and tell me there is no inconsistency! There certainly are -

If you were on a jury at a murder trial and this was the testimony of the defendant as to his alibi, would you say he told the truth consistently? Or would you be asking questions because of the testimony provided and try to get to which account is true - if any of them?

God calls us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength - use a bit of that as you determine who to listen to that claimed to speak for God. God commands us to, which is why He loved us enough to give us some directions to sort difficult matters out.(Deu. 4, 12, 13, 18)
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#323 Sep 2, 2013
Dave P wrote:
BW- If God is righteous to uphold His word higher than His name, the things He gave through Moses about how to know who speaks for Him that we need to hear are VITALLY important. I think it's safe to say we've all come from a background that presumed the matter was properly handled by God's directions long ago - but the fact is that it WASN'T!
So do we today, who have more information than they did, do we also shirk the duty to do as God told us to? Or do we face the facts as they have become known and deal with the truth BECAUSE we desire to do the will of God as commanded by the Father and the Son?
Dave P- I 100% disagree with your notion God's word wasn't properly handled long ago. That means God, in His providence, allowed His sacred word to be butchered, and mislead countless souls. God did not put the decision of what was scripture and what wasn't into OUR hands. he decided that long ago.
Your second paragraph is 10,000% wrong. Continued revelation? New information? What happened to "God has in these last days spoken to us by His Son"? More revelation needed is it? Hogwash.
Dave, God gave us His word, but men have perverted some of it. If your stance is correct, that God by His providence, will not allow anyone to mistranslate it? or do otherwise any harm to it? Israel's experiences with false prophets shows an example for us to learn by, as do the teachings of Jesus on the topic. The true test is first to see if this person in question teaches to follow another God, is a liar, provides the works required by God, or teaches to not do what God said we are to do - that they lead us away from doing as God commanded. This is it in a nutshell, but do take the time to review what He and Jesus, as well as what Isaiah and John said. The final words likely come from John in his epistles. John was explicit, and calls someone a liar. What John said is true. Now consider in Paul fits squarely into the charge that John gave. Where did Paul prove he was not a liar by the standard John gave?
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#324 Sep 2, 2013
And how about this? Provide a list from the NT of who said Paul was an apostle? I'd like to see it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Martinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
dr.joel smithers (Sep '16) Sep 7 Lurliec 5
Jessica Griffith Star News Personality Arrested... (Jul '11) Jul '17 Jay Kendricks 9
Why They Left: Listening to Those Who Have Left... (May '12) Jul '17 Barmsweb 48
How many of the 10 commandments have you broken? (Feb '12) Jul '17 Barmsweb 151
Johnny Robertson, when were you baptized? (Apr '15) Jun '17 Sig Fife 20
Looking Jun '17 Captain Hotdog 1
i want to be Christian.can i ? (May '15) Jun '17 Captain Hotdog 10

Martinsville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Martinsville Mortgages