10 Commandments Twice Removed - Amazon $0.01, what does it say in a nutshell? Options

[Pickle]

The preceding verse is not relevant to the question you posed. The bible states clearly he expounded unto them all of the things, beginning at Moses and all the prophets, the things concerning Himself. Anything else that may have been discussed is not noted in the biblical record and therefore is speculation on your part. We are discussing what the bible records regarding their conversation... and the bible notes only his expounding to them the things concerning Himself and His suffering, death, burial and resurrection.

Anything else you throw into the ring is nothing but a diversionary tactic.

In His service,
Mr. J

Jesus called those two men fools because they didn't believe all that the prophets had spoken. He didn't qualify His sentence, and there is no other passage that would contradict the conclusion that if we do not believe all that the prophets have spoken, He considers us to be fools.

[Clay]

Which point did you consider to be my opinion, an opinion you don't share?

Okay, I see you added a qualifier regarding the ark in heaven. Do you think that Ellen White took things too far when she claimed that she had seen a literal ark in heaven in vision, and when she claimed that the fact of that ark's existence is a landmark doctrine that cannot be removed:
She lists the ark as being a separate landmark from the temple in heaven.

Using the Bible alone, it would be hard to come up with the idea that there is no actual furniture in the heavenly temple, given what several passages say.

yes she took it too far... and the bible is using symbols to try to communicate a message to people who did not understand..... I don't agree with most of what you have posted....

[västergötland]

But then again, we have been warned that the last deception of Satan would be to make of none effect the Testimonies, and thus it should not shock us if toward the end of time some would endeavor to make of none effect the above counsel.

And the testimonies are, what exactly?

[västergötland]

What indication in the text do you see that Jesus intended His words to be limited to just prophecies about Himself?

What indication in the text do you see that Jesus intended His words to be inclusive of "word-inspiration" and "prophets are authorative on every subject imaginable under the sun"?

[västergötland]

But then again, power washers hadn't been invented yet in Paul's day.

Waterfalls were, and they would have the same effect on text in stone.

[Statrei]

What indication in the text do you see that Jesus intended His words to be limited to just prophecies about Himself?

Because it was not a prepared speech. It was a conversation. You guys need to stop misusing the Bible, even though you have the best of intentions. Calling my wife my queen is one thing. Insisting that they should grant her residence Buckinghham palace is something different altogether. When will we admit the Bible is just a historical record and no omniscient being who wanted to present a manifesto to the human race would produce a document like the Bible?

[västergötland]

"Jehovah engraved His Ten Commandments on tables of stone, that all the inhabitants of earth might understand His eternal, unchangeable character" (CT 248).

"Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, ... How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?" (2 Cor. 3:3, 7, 8).

Often the symbols carry multiple shades of meaning. Thus the writing by Christ of the 10 Commandments on stone not only would suggest the permanence of His law, but also how it is to last forever in our hearts.

The first set of tables on Sinai God made. The second set God told Moses to make, and he then had to bring them to God for God to write upon. I take that to symbolize that after the Old Covenant failed, because the people tried to obey in their own strength, that we all have to bring the tables of our heart to God for Him to write upon.

Now that concerns the two sets of tables on Mt. Sinai. Then there is the original set that was made before those two, the one in the ark in heaven. It too would at least represent the permanence of God's law, and it is referred to twice indirectly in the NT book of Revelation.

Is there a lesson for us in 2 Cor 3 where we read that the glorious writing in stone was nonthe less a ministration of death?

[västergötland]

Which point did you consider to be my opinion, an opinion you don't share?

Okay, I see you added a qualifier regarding the ark in heaven. Do you think that Ellen White took things too far when she claimed that she had seen a literal ark in heaven in vision, and when she claimed that the fact of that ark's existence is a landmark doctrine that cannot be removed:


She lists the ark as being a separate landmark from the temple in heaven.

Using the Bible alone, it would be hard to come up with the idea that there is no actual furniture in the heavenly temple, given what several passages say.

Then she goes on to write in the next sentence that paths where lighted up by the sabbath commandment. Surely you can see that this is figurative language.

[Clay]

Because it was not a prepared speech. It was a conversation. You guys need to stop misusing the Bible, even though you have the best of intentions. Calling my wife my queen is one thing. Insisting that they should grant her residence Buckinghham palace is something different altogether. When will we admit the Bible is just a historical record and no omniscient being who wanted to present a manifesto to the human race would produce a document like the Bible?

of course Darius there are too many who will staunchly defend the bible as the inerrant word of God.... no questioning allowed lest you wish to feel the fires of hell....

[watchbird]

of course Darius there are too many who will staunchly defend the bible as the inerrant word of God.... no questioning allowed lest you wish to feel the fires of hell....

Hasn't this wandered far enough from anything relating to 3abn for it to be split off and the bulk of it moved to the theology section?

[Statrei]

Hasn't this wandered far enough from anything relating to 3abn for it to be split off and the bulk of it moved to the theology section?

Truer words have never been spoken, if you know what I mean.

[awesumtenor]

Jesus called those two men fools because they didn't believe all that the prophets had spoken. He didn't qualify His sentence, and there is no other passage that would contradict the conclusion that if we do not believe all that the prophets have spoken, He considers us to be fools.

Context, Bob. Context. In context, what you are saying is, at best, wrong. Jesus' statements don't exist in a vacuum apart from the historical setting of the walk to Emmaus or apart from each other. Given that right after Jesus said what you note here, the bible says that he expounded unto them all the things said by those prophets about *himself*. In context he was not discussing their belief of the prophets in any wise save where they alluded to him.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Clay]

Hasn't this wandered far enough from anything relating to 3abn for it to be split off and the bulk of it moved to the theology section?

too much trouble.... how about we just close it.....if someone wishes to pursue this discussion, they can start a thread in the theology section and use the material here as a springboard....