OK so what about COLOSSIANS 2:16

[LifeHiscost]

The Righteous are judged by the works of Jesus.

I agree with you, Redwood. We have no righteousness of our own. It just happens to be that the righteousness that appears to be accomplished by the Christian is a righteousness accomplished through the enabling power of the Holy Spirit and is rightly defined as the righteousness of Jesus.

"[Not in your own strength] for it is God Who is all the while effectually at work in you [energizing and creating in you the power and desire], both to will and to work for His good pleasure and satisfaction and delight."

Philippians 2:13 AMP

"That no flesh should glory in his presence.

But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." 1 Cor 1:29-31 KJV

"For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. Romans 7:18 NASB

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

I was hoping someone would defend the weekly Sabbath

"Let us fear therefore, lest haply, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it.

For indeed we have had good tidings preached unto us, even as also they: but the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith with them that heard.

For we who have believed do enter into that rest; even as he hath said, As I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

For he hath said somewhere of the seventh day on this wise, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works;

and in this place again, They shall not enter into my rest.

Seeing therefore it remaineth that some should enter thereinto, and they to whom the good tidings were before preached failed to enter in because of disobedience,

he again defineth a certain day,

To-day, saying in David so long a time afterward (even as hath been said before), To-day if ye shall hear his voice, Harden not your hearts.

For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day.

There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God.

For he that is entered into his rest hath himself also rested from his works, as God did from his.

Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall after the same example of disobedience."

Heb 4:1-11 ASV underlined mine LHC

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

It is ...

Obvious.

Only to those expressly revealed the Truth as it is in Jesus, by the Holy Spirit. I was a sincere Christian for many years not even recognizing the distinction between keeping Sunday, the first day of the week, and rejoicing in the seventh day Sabbath. Truth is not recognized merely by the will of man, else Saul of Tarsus would not heve been persecuting the body of believers.

"And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." Acts 26:14 KJV

"Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34 KJV

Regards!

[John317]

...Note: the “commandments” and the “ordinances” were abolished. Abolished is abolished; and, Sabbath-keeping is a requirement of both the “commandments” and “ordinances”.

Jesus Himself categorically denied that His coming should be interpreted as meaning that the law had been abolished.

Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. Some would make Jesus say, "I did not come to abolish the law but to abolish it." Jesus' fulfilling the law did not have the effect of making it so we are free to disobey it with impunity.

Also, many other places in the New Testament show that Christians, including Paul, continued to keep the seventh-day Sabbath long after the death of Christ (Acts. 13: 42, 44). We also have the testimony of two 5th century church historians, Sozoman and Socrates, who wrote that Christians, except for those in Alexandria and Rome, were still keeping the Sabbath up to their day.

As for Col. 2: 16, it's necessary to take into account the whole of Col. 2: 8-23 in order to understand the context. When we do that, it becomes obvious that Paul is not encouraging his readers to consider the moral law in Ten Commandments, including the weekly Sabbath, as having been cancelled or blotted out so that Christians need no longer obey them.

Does Col. 2 mean that we are now free to disobey all of the Ten Commandments? That would contradict everything the Bible says (cf. Luke 23: 56; 1 Cor. 7: 17; Rev. 12: 17; 14: 12). Some, however, would like to persuade us that Colossians 2:16 means that the seventh-day Sabbath is not a part of the New Covenant. But is that what Paul is saying here?

No; instead, Paul is saying that Christ is everything-- He is, in fact, God (2: 9)-- and therefore He is all you need for salvation. You don't need to pay attention to rules and regulations that are supposed to save you. Your salvation is based on Christ and on your faith-based, personal relationship with Christ, in holding to the Head and in having died with Christ. (Read carefully vv. 9-13.)

Let's list those things that Paul says that the Colossian believers shouldn't pay attention to. This list gives us a good idea of the gnostic heresy in Colossia that Paul was combatting:

1) Hallow and deceptive philosophy (v. 8);

2) Human tradition (v. 8);

3) The basic principles-- the ABCs-- of this [sinful] world (vv 8, 20);

4) What you eat or drink (v. 16);

5) A religious festival (v. 16);

6) A New Moon celebration (v. 16);

7) sabbaths (v. 16) which were the shadows of things to come (v. 17);

8) False humility (v. 18);

9) The worship of angels (v. 18);

10) People who go into great detail about what they have seen and whose unspiritual minds puff them up with idle notions (v. 18);

11) People who have lost connection with the Head, Christ (v. 18);

12) Rules such as "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch," all of which are based on human commands and teachings (v. 22);

13) Regulations that have an appearance of wisdom (v. 23);

14) Regulations that lead to self-imposed worship (v. 23);

15) Regulations that lead to false-humility (v. 23); and

16) Regulations that lead to harsh treatment of the body but lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence (v. 23). (cf. Col. 3: 1-10)

It is plain that there's nothing in the Ten Commandments about drinking, eating, touching, tasting, false humility, worship of angels, etc. Of all the things mentioned in the list, only the Sabbath is part of God's moral law, but Jewish Christian gnosticism also required various "sabbaths." The Greek word is plural and therefore in this context reads, literally, "sabbaths." It doesn't say, "THE Sabbath," or even "a Sabbath," but rather "sabbaths." I believe the evidence is that these are the sabbaths that Paul has reference to, not the weekly Sabbath that God created before the Fall, the same Sabbath that Christ and the apostles kept, and the same Sabbath that we will keep on the new earth.

Young's Literal Translation:

"16Let no one, then, judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths..."

Darby:

"16Let none therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in matter of feast, or new moon, or sabbaths..."

NKJV:

"16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths..."

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[fccool]

Did Jesus fulfill all of the law?

[jasd]

>>I probably see "abolished' with the same understanding as yourself. Therefore being edified with an answer to what the default might be in order to save the man in the crosshairs of my rifle, would help me understand the person looking for solutions to problems that could be far easier solved by just laying down the rifle because they/I believe in "Thou shalt not murder".<<

I would like to state, firstly, that cause for murder may occasionally arise – even by Biblical prescription. That said,

I do not subscribe to ‘without the Covenanting Law of Israel’ there can be no moral guidance. Note: the similarity to the Ten Commandments that exists universally.

>>As to Ephesians 2:15 including the ten commandments written in stone by the finger of God, in the same light as statutes and ordinances, reveals no in depth logic.<<

I note: that much of what we ascribe to the Mosaic writings were actually a record of Gd-speak. One can hardly argue that the moving finger of Gd supercedes the voice of Gd (Ex 20:22 & elsewhere) which delineated statutes and ordinances.

>>"Beware that you do not forget the LORD your God by not keeping His commandments and His ordinances and His statutes which I am commanding you today Deut 8:11 NASB<<

I believe that the above references the Covenanting between Gd and the COI.

>>...where would free will for humans be"?<<

Are we certain that ”free will” is not an over-parsed concept? I mean, didn’t Gd threaten to kill Moses?

Ex 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.

“because of the circumcision.”

>>The ordinances and statutes were written on paper by Moses, to be affective until Jesus came to release man from them as there was no longer any need for something to point forward to a coming Savior.<<

Note my above: “...much of what we ascribe to the Mosaic writings were actually a record of Gd-speak.”

>>"....having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

" Colossians 2:14 NASB<<

“The Greek word for "handwriting" is cheirographon, used in common Greek for a document written in one's own hand as legal proof of indebtedness. Some modern translations call it a bond of indebtedness.”

Above is a sometimes understanding of the definition of the word “handwriting”: let me ask,

Have you ever written an acknowledgement or “bond of indebtedness” vis-avis Gd? I’ve never. I know of no one else who has.

Perhaps, it is, as others propose; that it is – in fact – that it was that which separated the Circumcised from the Uncircumcised, which was nailed to the cross: per Ephesians 2 (that "law of commandments [contained] in ordinances").

>>Tell me, which commandment would you consider a decree against us if freedom were allowed by men to keep them as God has instructed, and in what way would they be against us?<<

Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

(Note: in the above the bolded and underlined “we” were the Apostles and Elders of the Jerusalem Council)

2 Cor 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Would you say that the thing that "killeth" [you] is against you?

I think that which "killeth" is well-understood.

[jasd]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: jasd

...Note: the “commandments” and the “ordinances” were abolished. Abolished is abolished; and, Sabbath-keeping is a requirement of both the “commandments” and “ordinances”.

>>Jesus Himself categorically denied that His coming should be interpreted as meaning that the law had been abolished.<<

Umm, if you are relying upon

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

as foundation for the above statement: “categorically denied that His coming should be interpreted ... (etc)” – I agree, in part.

I qualify my agreement for the reason that I see the transitional coordinating conjunction ‘but’ – as functioning contrastively with the preceding “Think not that I am come to destroy...”; meaning; other suppositions aside, “I am come to fulfill...” --THAT was His mission statement.

I depend upon statements of "abolish", "obsolete", etc..., made by St Paul - as validating the contrastive intent of the coordinating conjunction.

>>Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it.<<

Rom 13:8 ...for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Fulfilling the law was the object of Matthew 5:17....

Would you agree that Jesus Christ loved another? Mais oui! but of course... ipso facto, He “fulfilled the law” – and thereby, transcended the law. We are no longer required to adhere to The Law per se, but to the spirit of it.

Note: that Jesus Christ made a contradistinction between “abolish” and “fulfill”. Indeed, it was not His purpose in coming – that He “abolish” the law but His coming was to fulfill the law – and that He did. In doing so, He transcended the law and – we also, through Him, transcend the law.

We become more than law.

The emphasis lies with ‘love and fulfillment’ – not with “abolish” – of itself.

>>Some would make Jesus say, "I did not come to abolish the law but to abolish it." Jesus' fulfilling the law did not have the effect of making it so we are free to disobey it with impunity.<<

Indeed, no. Wherein The Law did not directly proscribe lying – that ‘written upon your heart’ – does.