In America, the phrase 'cut to the chase' means to get down to the meat of things, to the heart of the matter. But as for it being a 'dispute,' I remind you that you have set the tone here: "Challenging questions for a challenger of the faith," and "In Defense of the Faith." Having once issued this call to arms, it seems a bit tardy for you now to suggest something different. But personally, I will enjoy the change of pace.



You may be making some assumptions about me. But indeed, one should look for the 'real truth' of God's Word, and such truth should be eminently defensible.



And for you? I am reminded of one of Winston's card games. One of his friends challenged another crony, and the old boy's mansion was on the table. (Turned out he kept his mansion BTW) At any rate, stakes are high here. Let's go for it.



Let's see how it plays out. And now, for openers . . .

You seem, Monsieur, to place great emphasis upon the Ten Commandments, the tables of stone. I refer you, first of all, to Ex. 19:1 - 8, which records the making of the "Old Covenant." Tell me, what were the 'tables' of the Old Covenant? Are you familiar with the verse which identifies the tables of stone as the tables of the Covenant made at Mt. Sinai? Surely you are. Thus, the TERMS of the O.C. were set forth on the Tables of Stone. I assume you are familiar with the Hebrew word for 'covenant' as used in Exodus and elsewhere, that is of the nature of a 'treaty' made by a sovereign with a subject people?

At any rate, the Old Covenant was ABOLISHED! If the covenant was abolished, then obviously the TERMS of the covenant, which were indeed the covenant itself, were abolished as well. I refer you to 2 Cor. 3:7 -18. The 'old covenant' and the stone tables of the O.C., referred to in 2 Cor. 3, are descibed as 'fading away.' And, of course, in Heb. 7 - 9, the O.C. is described as obsolete, with the reality being found in the PERSON of Jesus Christ. The 'law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus' writes His new law, love for God and love for others, in our minds and hearts, replacing the Old Covenant tables of stone, which were only a 'schoolmaster' to bring people to Christ, thus fading away, once again, and replaced with the reality of Christ.

Let's start with that, and let's see your response FROM THE BIBLE. Not man's words, not some confessional statement, but Bible references, please. Incidentally, if you claim to have addressed this previously (although in reading this thread I did not find a thorough SCRIPTURAL exposition) then simply copy and paste your argument into your response here.

With kind regards, I remain

Yours Very Sincerely,

David Koot

Dave

Incidentally, it was quite late last night, and I posted in a hurry. I should point out another evident error in your treatment of 2 Cor. 3. You attempt to claim some identity or correlation between the tables of stone and the tables of the heart. You claim that 2 Cor. 3 teaches that the ten commandments contained in the tables of stone are transferred to the 'fleshy tables' of the heart, and that the use of the Greek word supports that.

However, you are misstating the Scripture. I have already pointed out that you did not provide a cite for your conjecture. Looking at the passage, I would say it is WORSE than conjecture. It appears to be openly misstating Scripture. HERE is the reference to tablets of stone/tablets of the heart--NOT in the passage at issue, but earlier in the chapter:

"Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." 1 Cor. 3:1 - 3

The CONTEXT is 'letters of recommendation,' NOT the TEN COMMANDMENTS!! The CONTRAST is between letters of recommendation written on 'tablets,' which was the custom in those days, written with 'ink,' and the living person--the living person being the recommendation of the apostle, written on "OUR HEARTS," rather than a letter of recommendation written on a (writing) tablet.

Thus, your idea is quite literally misstating Scripture, and that should be pointed out. And, indeed, you built quite an edifice of doctrine and reasoning upon that faulty foundation--so the whole building is a house of cards. You need to scrap that line of thinking and go back to the drawing board.

Hmmmmm, you might want to check the bore of your piece.

Cheers.

Come now, where is the response? Has Monsieur Brito quit the field of honor? I had wanted to see his response before posting my requests for admission.

Dave

now now, david...it is not concidered nice to gloat and chide....

Well, here is a thread which has been billed as presenting unanswerable challenges to challengers of the faith. I haven't even BEGUN to get into these issues here, but lo and behold . . . Silence! I cannot but be reminded of what Ahab said in response to the demand for surrender: "Let not the one who puts on his armor boast like the one who takes it off."

Oh, well, tomorrow's another day! (Apologies to Scarlett O'Hara)

Oh well, since we are not hearing from Monsieur Brito, would ANYONE like to respond?

Possibly silence means contempt

mel

NOt under the circumstances, given the content of the thread. Nor would Monsieur Brito resort to such tactics. He is too honorable for that.

Folks ... I have to warn you. No banter is allowed in this area of the forum. This is for "serious" discussions ONLY. Please be warned. We would not want to see the wrath of Stan.