Who gave the Ten Commandments to Moses

Created by Barnsweb on Aug 11, 2013

142 votes

Click on an option to vote

God

Angels

Peter

Paul

Adam

Abraham

John

Yeshua

Satan

other -

Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#102 Aug 21, 2013
Dave P wrote:
Paul was convicted of being a false apostle and a liar in Revelation 2. James may well have been written to the Church as his guidelines for the very trial of Paul for heresy.
James was written before any of Paul's letters were written. Now you're making historical blunders and assumptions. Paul on trial before any of his letters were written? Come on sir, you're digging a deep hole.
And who gave you the dating for James? The matter can be seen throughout the history in Acts and related events in Pauls letters to others. Those in Asia absolutely rejected him - Ephisis was the capitol.

The historical errors were committed by Paul. As noted on the first post, who did Paul say the law was given to Moses by?

Don't start faulting my pointing out the lies of Paul unless you're willing to at least check the basics of Scripture before Paul. BTW, it also appears some of Paul's errors were compounded by the Greek translation of Hebrew texts, but even that doesn't explain it, as some Psalms quoted as proof texts for his 'new covenant' totally left out verses from the same Psalm that refuted what Paul was claiming.

Paul lied. Paul did not know Scripture. Paul committed blasphemy against God in saying the good God gave caused him to sin. Last I checked, there are milliions who know nothing of the ten commandments that break them all the time - knowing something is wrong doesn't make you do it - you do it of yourself - God tempts no man. James refuted the doctrine of Paul from start to finish and who else cares to investigate which told the truth? Warning though, the Septuagent is a bad translation and you'd do best to get a direct Hebrew to English translation.

You've been warned to believe God and not Paul. Your blood is not on me.
William

Montgomery, AL

#103 Aug 21, 2013
"Paul did not know Scripture."

You have crossed over into the Blithering Idiot Category now. The man, Saul, was The Pharisee's Pharisee and that could not have happened without strict upbringing in Mosaic Law from an early age.

"Paul committed blasphemy against God in saying the good God gave caused him to sin."

Paul notes (correctly) that sin started with the transgression of Adam and that physical death is the result of sin coming into the world. Everyone is born with a sin-nature and the proof of that is that everyone will physically die. When Paul sought to do good, evil was always present with him, because it is always present in our flesh. He correctly noted that this sin-nature cannot be changed, because the flesh is inherently sinful and is a stench in God's nostrils.

So far you've tossed out the 13 epistles of Paul, 2 Peter, and most of Acts that you don't agree with, which probably means Acts 1-8 is still approved. Luke's gospel is also suspect because "he was a friend of Paul's".

Your AENT boys have really done a number on you.
William

Montgomery, AL

#104 Aug 21, 2013
"Paul did not know Scripture."

Acts 9:1-2

1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

Philippians 3:4-6

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Saul was a REAL Jew, not a fake one.
William

Montgomery, AL

#105 Aug 21, 2013
"Paul did not know Scripture."

Your credibility as anything resembling a student of the word of God is lower than road-lizard crawling along on Georgia asphalt. You need to flush your head out completely and completely start over.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#106 Aug 21, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
<quoted text>
And who gave you the dating for James? The matter can be seen throughout the history in Acts and related events in Pauls letters to others. Those in Asia absolutely rejected him - Ephisis was the capitol.
The historical errors were committed by Paul. As noted on the first post, who did Paul say the law was given to Moses by?
Don't start faulting my pointing out the lies of Paul unless you're willing to at least check the basics of Scripture before Paul. BTW, it also appears some of Paul's errors were compounded by the Greek translation of Hebrew texts, but even that doesn't explain it, as some Psalms quoted as proof texts for his 'new covenant' totally left out verses from the same Psalm that refuted what Paul was claiming.
Paul lied. Paul did not know Scripture. Paul committed blasphemy against God in saying the good God gave caused him to sin. Last I checked, there are milliions who know nothing of the ten commandments that break them all the time - knowing something is wrong doesn't make you do it - you do it of yourself - God tempts no man. James refuted the doctrine of Paul from start to finish and who else cares to investigate which told the truth? Warning though, the Septuagent is a bad translation and you'd do best to get a direct Hebrew to English translation.
You've been warned to believe God and not Paul. Your blood is not on me.
Many people of knowledge believe James to be the earliest NT letter written, around 48 AD. As for Paul's lettrs, the Thessalonican letters were written first, probably 51 AD. 51 I believe was also the year Claudius had expelled Jews from Rome. Point- James' letter was written before Paul had ever written anything. Historical blunder on your part. James also did not rebuke Paul at the Jerusalem council either.

EVERYONE in Asia rejected Paul? Child please.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge STEPHEN, Deuteronomy and the Psalms all testify that angels were at Sinai? Go against your theology?

You appear to have no knowledge of what Paul actually said. I thought you were a better student than this. Your calls of "the sum of Thy word is truth" ring hollow when you discard 2/3 of the NT. If you are wrong about Paul you may indeed be in danger of blasphemy.

Do you deny that the law was sent to show us our shortcomings, to let us know we need a Savior?

And why would the covenant need "renewed" anyway? You're about one step away from saying Jesus wasn't the Christ and start looking for the Messiah to come the first time.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#107 Aug 22, 2013
Sorry, not so.

Paul rightly related that he was rejected by the Church in Asia - Ephasis. He had to leave because his lies were found out...he failed the tests of truth that God gave. To date James as early as some is not necessarily true, as reason and opinion vary. You take your viewpoint, I'll take mine, and it certainly fits that James was written as a prosecution outline for the trial of Paul that Jesus mentions in Revelation 2.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#108 Aug 22, 2013
James refutes every major false doctrine of Paul. My favorite is that no man is tempted by God, but by his own lusts a man is lead sin. Paul had taught that the Law caused sin because it said not to do something, so that's what he did. James affirms the law is good. Paul said the Law caused sin. Is that why God said He gave the Law? No. Why did God give the Law? It was Israel's part of the covenant to keep it - just as it is our part of the renewed covenant to keep the commmandments of Jesus Christ.(great commission and Acts 3:22,23)
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#109 Aug 22, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Many people of knowledge believe James to be the earliest NT letter written, around 48 AD. As for Paul's lettrs, the Thessalonican letters were written first, probably 51 AD. 51 I believe was also the year Claudius had expelled Jews from Rome. Point- James' letter was written before Paul had ever written anything. Historical blunder on your part. James also did not rebuke Paul at the Jerusalem council either.
EVERYONE in Asia rejected Paul? Child please.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge STEPHEN, Deuteronomy and the Psalms all testify that angels were at Sinai? Go against your theology?
You appear to have no knowledge of what Paul actually said. I thought you were a better student than this. Your calls of "the sum of Thy word is truth" ring hollow when you discard 2/3 of the NT. If you are wrong about Paul you may indeed be in danger of blasphemy.
Do you deny that the law was sent to show us our shortcomings, to let us know we need a Savior?
And why would the covenant need "renewed" anyway? You're about one step away from saying Jesus wasn't the Christ and start looking for the Messiah to come the first time.
Dave, it has taken you a long time, but now I think you can better see why barnsweb and I have been butting heads. He wants to pit Paul against Jesus forcing us to accept Jesus because his words are mote powerful than Paul. At first glance it sounds so very logical to do that if we hold the law in higher esteem than grace.

However it was Jesus calling to perfectly do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. The law was simply the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ on the basis of higher ground.

If the law is still in force then Jesus death was for nothing. Why would he need to die if the law was sufficient for taking away sin. The law itself condemns us because no man has ever kept it but Jesus. Was the law itself righteous and pure-of course it it was. It identified sin but provided no forgiveness for disobedience. In numerous places in the OT we are told that all have sinned-Paul repeated that. The death of Christ allows for more than forgiveness, it provides new kind of life where we can speak directly to God through our high Priest. Jesus is both our high priest and our brother. No relationship like that was possible in the OT.

Barnsweb himself is guilty of breaking the commandments and he knows it. We can now come near to God and not stand at a distance like the children of of Israel did when only Moses was allowed to go to the mountain to hear from God. Moses was a type of Christ.
William

Birmingham, AL

#110 Aug 22, 2013
"If the law is still in force then Jesus death was for nothing. Why would he need to die if the law was sufficient for taking away sin."

And there you have it.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#111 Aug 22, 2013
It's what Jesus taught. To believe Paul is to disbelieve God and Christ and Moses and all the twelve apostles.

Jesus clearly said not to think He came to set aside, destroy, or loosen the commandments of God - or any of the Torah or Prophets or Psalms - He had come to fulfill what they spoke of Him, and each and every thing He taught was from those Scriptures He came to fulfill. And fulfill in no way can mean to put it aside because He did it. No, Jesus clearly upheld the commandments of God in all His teachings and commandments to His apostles. He said to make disciples and teach them whatever commandments He had first given them. Nothing more. Nothing less. Just being careful to do what God told Him to tell us - He magnified Torah - not trashed it as evil as Paul did.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#112 Aug 22, 2013
Just remember, I warned you to believe Jesus and do what He said.(Acts 3:22,23)

And make no note that He also refuted each false doctrine of Paul in Revelation.

No wonder word isn't getting out too much about the DSS. Turns out there is records of Paul that show he was not Jewish, why he turned on the Jews for lost love sour grapes, and how he was noted to be nothing but a trouble making liar. And not a Jew ! And certainly not of the tribe of Benjamin!
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#113 Aug 22, 2013
Paul: Liar, liar, pants on fire. Nothing will be hidden that will not be made known. Better get your faith in line with Jesus and repent the Paul free grace without works crap.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#114 Aug 22, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
James refutes every major false doctrine of Paul. My favorite is that no man is tempted by God, but by his own lusts a man is lead sin. Paul had taught that the Law caused sin because it said not to do something, so that's what he did. James affirms the law is good. Paul said the Law caused sin. Is that why God said He gave the Law? No. Why did God give the Law? It was Israel's part of the covenant to keep it - just as it is our part of the renewed covenant to keep the commmandments of Jesus Christ.(great commission and Acts 3:22,23)
Absolute jibberish. "But SIN, produced in me all manner of evil desire." "SIN deceived me and killed me". "Therefore the LAW is holy, and just and good". "It is not I that do it, but sin that dwells in me". "Is the law sin? Certainly not!"

Paul also said he would not have KNOWN WHAT SIN WAS unless the law had told him. You misrepresent what the man said and taught. If you can't get that right, your charges against him bear no merit whatsoever. He never said the law caused sin.

You also apparently read Jesus' words just like you read Leviticus or Deuteronomy. You count how many commands Jesus gave, just like the 613 under the law of Moses. Will you not hear what James said?

"For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all."

You are guilty my friend. How do you view salvation-hoping the good works on one side of the scales outweight the failures on the other scale? That is truly works or effort salvation, and no man can achieve it.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#115 Aug 22, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave, it has taken you a long time, but now I think you can better see why barnsweb and I have been butting heads. He wants to pit Paul against Jesus forcing us to accept Jesus because his words are mote powerful than Paul. At first glance it sounds so very logical to do that if we hold the law in higher esteem than grace.
However it was Jesus calling to perfectly do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. The law was simply the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ on the basis of higher ground.
If the law is still in force then Jesus death was for nothing. Why would he need to die if the law was sufficient for taking away sin. The law itself condemns us because no man has ever kept it but Jesus. Was the law itself righteous and pure-of course it it was. It identified sin but provided no forgiveness for disobedience. In numerous places in the OT we are told that all have sinned-Paul repeated that. The death of Christ allows for more than forgiveness, it provides new kind of life where we can speak directly to God through our high Priest. Jesus is both our high priest and our brother. No relationship like that was possible in the OT.
Barnsweb himself is guilty of breaking the commandments and he knows it. We can now come near to God and not stand at a distance like the children of of Israel did when only Moses was allowed to go to the mountain to hear from God. Moses was a type of Christ.
It is precisely these attitudes about the law, the new covenant, etc. that have driven me away from the hardline positions many hold. I also believe many are in denial about our human condition. If salvation was a simple matter of obeying Jesus's commands, why is a new spirit or new heart necessary? Simple truth- because our hearts aren't right and without the Spirit we CANNOT do it.

Men-how easy is it to commit adultery in your hearts with another woman? Be honest. How easy is it to be guilty of murdering your brother in your heart? How often do we go the second mile, love our enemies and neighbors as ourselves, etc?

Trying to keep the law should convince us we can't do it. It should point us to a greater hope. But under a belief like BW's, the standard gets tougher and we still can't keep the commandments. That's hopeLESS.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#116 Aug 22, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
Just remember, I warned you to believe Jesus and do what He said.(Acts 3:22,23)
And make no note that He also refuted each false doctrine of Paul in Revelation.
No wonder word isn't getting out too much about the DSS. Turns out there is records of Paul that show he was not Jewish, why he turned on the Jews for lost love sour grapes, and how he was noted to be nothing but a trouble making liar. And not a Jew ! And certainly not of the tribe of Benjamin!
Proof of said slander?
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#117 Aug 23, 2013
"Dave:You are guilty my friend. How do you view salvation-hoping the good works on one side of the scales outweight the failures on the other scale? That is truly works or effort salvation, and no man can achieve it."

In the story about Judgment Day,(Matthew 25:31-46) where Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, the only questions that Jesus asks the multitude concern works:

1. Did you feed the hungry?
2. Did you clothe the naked?
3. Did you give a drink to the thirsty, etc.

If they answered “no” to these works in Matthew 25, then Jesus said that they were going to hell. Nowhere does Jesus ask, "Did you accept me as your personal Lord and Savior?" So, you can infer from all of this that just confessing with your lips that Jesus is your personal Lord and Savior is NOT ENOUGH (deathbed conversions are a different standard), although it is a goo start on your salvation journey.
William

Birmingham, AL

#118 Aug 23, 2013
"In the story about Judgment Day,(Matthew 25:31-46) where Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, the only questions that Jesus asks the multitude concern works:

1. Did you feed the hungry?
2. Did you clothe the naked?
3. Did you give a drink to the thirsty, etc.

If they answered “no” to these works in Matthew 25, then Jesus said that they were going to hell. Nowhere does Jesus ask, "Did you accept me as your personal Lord and Savior?" So, you can infer from all of this that just confessing with your lips that Jesus is your personal Lord and Savior is NOT ENOUGH (deathbed conversions are a different standard), although it is a good start on your salvation journey."

This is Roman Catholicism in a nutshell.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#119 Aug 23, 2013
When I first came to theses martinsville threads, Heath and Johnny's bunch were making statements just like Mike and Mark. They claimed to be the only true church and constantly talked about the necessity of works and obedience as the basis of their salvation.

With all of these guys, they never know for sure if they are saved, they hope so but have no real confidence because they know they always fall short.

There was no sin found in Jesus, it is on this basis that his sacrifice was accepted by God. That is why his blood is the basis for our salvation-we have no righteousness of our own. It's like the law, breaking one command makes us guilty of breaking all of them. Law keeping no matter what form it comes in will not save us.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#120 Aug 23, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
"Dave:You are guilty my friend. How do you view salvation-hoping the good works on one side of the scales outweight the failures on the other scale? That is truly works or effort salvation, and no man can achieve it."
In the story about Judgment Day,(Matthew 25:31-46) where Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, the only questions that Jesus asks the multitude concern works:
1. Did you feed the hungry?
2. Did you clothe the naked?
3. Did you give a drink to the thirsty, etc.
If they answered “no” to these works in Matthew 25, then Jesus said that they were going to hell. Nowhere does Jesus ask, "Did you accept me as your personal Lord and Savior?" So, you can infer from all of this that just confessing with your lips that Jesus is your personal Lord and Savior is NOT ENOUGH (deathbed conversions are a different standard), although it is a goo start on your salvation journey.
I agree. Mere "acceptance" of Jesus isn't enough. It is a good start, but not the end. But doing the works isn't a guarantee either. Just read Matthew 7. Jesus never denied their good works; He simply says I never knew you. The true "faith only position doesn't work, but neither does the obedience only path.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#121 Aug 23, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Mere "acceptance" of Jesus isn't enough. It is a good start, but not the end. But doing the works isn't a guarantee either. Just read Matthew 7. Jesus never denied their good works; He simply says I never knew you. The true "faith only position doesn't work, but neither does the obedience only path.
I once held this exact same position. I now see that there is a difference between mere acceptance and genuine faith. There are many people walking around who claim to be believers or born-again Christians, but they are only an imitation. They say that they are saved but they may not be genuine. There are those who say "I am saved because I have been baptized", but there is no life change.

Works don't save us but Paul says that we were born again to do good works. Having said that I try not to be a fruit inspector. I don't know everything going on is someones heart, so I can't be the judge. So if a person says he is saved I generally accept that unless he points to his good works and says "this is how I know I am saved". That red flag reveals he may be trusting in self rather than in Christ, thus making me skeptical. It is becoming clear to me that catholics trust in themselves, their priest and their pope more than in Christ. Being in the right church with the right name, etc. etc will not save anyone. Jesus saves! The church is made up of saved people who have no power to save. Jesus knows his own-he is the judge of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Are all church goers saved-no!

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
News Interfaith panel aims to unite, not divide 31 min William 65
water baptism debate 34 min William 203
How to be saved? 2 hr William 14
What Does Johnny Robertson Say (Sep '14) 2 hr anonymous 64
Have Johnny Robertson and his COC been defeated? (Jan '13) Wed Barnsweb 356
Does the Bible teach sola scriptura? Mar 20 Barnsweb 41
Frustrating: Adds, Popups, and more. Mar 16 Frank Smithmore 1
Martinsville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Martinsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]