Are the Ten Commandments still the Standard for us today?

[Soyeong]

Exactly! All the other commandments are summarised in these two; the other commandments are examples of how to apply those two commandments.

What I meant was that what we must and must not do is no longer determined by the Ten Commandments, but by the Two Commandments. For example, if you steal something from someone and ask me why it is wrong to steal, I will not tell you, ‘Because, in the Ten Commandments, it is written, “You shall no steal”’, but rather, ‘Because Jesus said, “Love your neighbour”, and stealing is not an act of love.’ We are not forbidden from committing adultery because it is written in the Ten Commandments, but because it fails to demonstrate love for God and for your neighbour. The Ten Commandments are part of the Jewish Law, and the Jewish Law is no longer binding to Christians, and we are not supposed to follow it.

I'm not seeing a relevant distinction between saying that we aren't to break the Sabbath or steal because it violates God's instructions for how to love Him and others and saying that we aren't to break the Sabbath or steal because we are instructed to love God and others. If we're bound to love God and our neighbor, then we're bound to follow his instructions for how to do that, and if we love Jesus, then we will obey his commands. Those were the two greatest commands during the time Moses, so Moses could have given the same reason for why we aren't to break the Sabbath or steal.

This is what Paul defends, for example, in Romans 7:6, by saying, ‘But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.’ He repeats this idea in Galatians 3:23-25 and Ephesians 2:15. The Jewish Law is archived, no longer binding. Jesus came to fulfil the law (Matthew 5:17).

The law is God's instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (Romans 7:12), as as part of the New Covenant, we are instructed to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10, Ephesians 2:10). It doesn't make any sense to say that we are made new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works (Ephesians 2:10) and then say just a few verses later that Christ did away with his instructions for how to do good works (Ephesians 2:15). We must obey God rather than man, so we should be careful not misinterpret the Bible coming against man-made laws, such as mentioned in Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles, as coming against obeying God. The Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), so walking in the Spirit is not a way that is distinct from obeying the Father's commands, but rather it is a way of obeying the Father in a spiritual manner.

For instance, according to the letter of the 7th Commandment, a person can think lustful thoughts about someone's wife without violating it, but if we understand lusting after a married woman to be breaking the 10th Commandment by coveting your neighbor's wife in your heart, then we arrive at the spiritual understanding of adultery and fulfill the 7th Commandment. The law is spiritual (Romans 7:14), but note that the obeying the higher spiritual requirement of the 7th commandment inherently also involves meeting the lower requirement of letter of the 7th Commandment. We are moving on to a more advanced way of obeying God's commands, but we can't move on to algebra without continuing to follow what we learned about addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

That is not what I mean. We have to obey all the Nine Commandments — not because they are written in the Old Testament, but because they are repeated in the New Testament. You cannot evoke the Old Testament to justify your actions, because the law contained there is no longer to be followed.

Jesus said nothing along the lines that he thought he was editing the law down to just the important ones, but rather he said that not the least part of the law would disappear until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished (Matthew 5:17-19), both of which refer to end times. He obeyed the law and taught how to follow it by example and in the rest of Matthew 5. If we want to do what is holy, righteous, and good, then we should not refrain from following God's instructions for how to do that or from following Jesus' example of how to do that.

No, it would not, because all of what Jesus taught in Matthew 5 is also summarised in those Two Commandments. However, Jesus taught us that too in order to clarify how to abide by the Two Commandments. For example, if I tell you that adultery is wrong, I can point to Matthew 5:27-30 to show it, but not to Exodus 20:14.

God has revealed how to act in line with His character in His law, and what is written in Matthew 5:27-30 is written because of what is written in Exodus 20:14, which is written because of God's character, so if you want to say that adultery not in line with God's character, then you can point to either location.

Not any more. Paul explicitly said that we do not need to keep the Sabbath. In Colossians 2:16, he writes, ‘Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.’ In Romans 14:5, he repeats: ‘One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.’

As it stands, Colossians 2:16 can be interpreted either as saying not to let anyone judge you for doing those things or for not doing those things. To discern which one, we should look at the what the views of the people judging them were:

Colossian 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.

God's laws are not empty deceit, according to human tradition, and to say they weren't according to Christ would be pitting the Father against the Son. It goes into more details about what these elemental spirits are later in the chapter:

Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

So the people judging them were teaching human traditions, promoting self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and were not teaching the commands of God. This means that the Colossians were eating, drinking, and keeping God's appointed times in obedience to Him and Paul was encouraging the Colossians not to let anyone promoting man-made religion keep them from obeying God. Again, we must obey God rather than man and be careful not to misinterpret something against obey man as being against obeying God.

The context of Romans 14 is about how to settle disputable matter matters opinion (Romans 14:1), so they were arguing over how to correctly obey God, not whether to obey God. It had become a common practice to fast twice a week or to commemorate certain days (Luke 18:12), but whether to do so was largely a matter of human opinion. Whether man esteems one day over another is very different from whether God does. We are not to keep God's Sabbath because man esteemed it over other days, but because God did and blessed it and made it holy and commanded it to be kept. Again, we should be careful to obey God rather than man.

Galatians 4:8-11 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

Paul address these verses to those who formerly did not now God, so to former pagans. They were not formerly keeping God's commands, so they could not be turning back to them. Furthermore, Paul would never refer to God's holy, righteous, and good commands as elementary principles of the world, so whatever is being talked about in verse 10 is in the context of paganism, and again we need to be careful not to take something against obeying man as being against obeying God.

No, he did not. Jesus broke the Sabbath on a couple of occasions, and the Pharisees accused him because of that. Do you not remember?

It is central to Christian theology that Jesus never sinned, so that means, among other things, that he never broke the Sabbath. While Jesus certainly did break man-made laws for how to keep the Sabbath, he always kept the Sabbath in accordance with the way that God intended it to be kept. Again, we must obey God rather than man.

 

[Soyeong]

You're blurring OT with NT. We are not under 613 commandments any longer...only two. Having a woman have to marry her rapist isn't part of Christian law.

We're not under the law, so we're not under any of the laws, not even two of them. Having a woman marry her rapist isn't part of the OT law either.

Deuteronomy 22:25-28 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her. 28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

There are two different words that are both translated as "seizes". The first word in verse 25 involves taking hold of her with the use of force being implied and carries the death penalty, while the word used in verse 28 involves taking hold of her, but does not imply the use of force and does not carry the death penalty. Rather, having them become married was for her protection.

 

[98cwitr]

We are under the two Laws [of the Spirit]: Romans 8.

NIV uses the word "rape:"

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version (NIV)
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Seize even has a "forced" connotation. Where is there any show of willingness on the part of the female? Consensual sex in the Bible is outlined by "laying" or "lying" together...not simply the man seizing the woman.

Other contextual examples according to Strong's: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8610.htm

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

I'm not seeing a relevant distinction between saying that we aren't to break the Sabbath or steal because it violates God's instructions for how to love Him and others and saying that we aren't to break the Sabbath or steal because we are instructed to love God and others. If we're bound to love God and our neighbor, then we're bound to follow his instructions for how to do that, and if we love Jesus, then we will obey his commands. Those were the two greatest commands during the time Moses, so Moses could have given the same reason for why we aren't to break the Sabbath or steal.

You are missing the point. The point is that God does not tell us to keep the Sabbath any more! And it is not only the Sabbath: the same goes for sacrificing lambs as atonement for sin, cleaning people with skin diseases, not wearing two different kinds of clothing, eating the meat of only certain animals, celebrating all those Jewish festivals, applying capital punishment, and many other things. The New Testament is abundantly clear that we are not supposed to obey these Old Testament teachings any more. Paul is clear about this in, at least, three passages (emphasis is mine):

• Romans 7:6 — ‘But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.’
• Galatians 3:23-25 — ‘Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.’
• Ephesians 2:15 — ‘[…] by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. […]’

The law is God's instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (Romans 7:12), as as part of the New Covenant, we are instructed to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10, Ephesians 2:10). It doesn't make any sense to say that we are made new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works (Ephesians 2:10) and then say just a few verses later that Christ did away with his instructions for how to do good works (Ephesians 2:15). We must obey God rather than man, so we should be careful not misinterpret the Bible coming against man-made laws, such as mentioned in Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles, as coming against obeying God. The Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), so walking in the Spirit is not a way that is distinct from obeying the Father's commands, but rather it is a way of obeying the Father in a spiritual manner.

None of that says that we must still obey the Old Testament law.

For instance, according to the letter of the 7th Commandment, a person can think lustful thoughts about someone's wife without violating it, but if we understand lusting after a married woman to be breaking the 10th Commandment by coveting your neighbor's wife in your heart, then we arrive at the spiritual understanding of adultery and fulfill the 7th Commandment. The law is spiritual (Romans 7:14), but note that the obeying the higher spiritual requirement of the 7th commandment inherently also involves meeting the lower requirement of letter of the 7th Commandment. We are moving on to a more advanced way of obeying God's commands, but we can't move on to algebra without continuing to follow what we learned about addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

Agreed.

Jesus said nothing along the lines that he thought he was editing the law down to just the important ones, but rather he said that not the least part of the law would disappear until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished (Matthew 5:17-19), both of which refer to end times. He obeyed the law and taught how to follow it by example and in the rest of Matthew 5. If we want to do what is holy, righteous, and good, then we should not refrain from following God's instructions for how to do that or from following Jesus' example of how to do that.

Indeed. But he said that he had come to fulfil the law — whatever this means, Paul clarifies it in the above passages: ‘we have been released from the law’ and we must no longer ‘serve […] in the old way of the written code.’

God has revealed how to act in line with His character in His law, and what is written in Matthew 5:27-30 is written because of what is written in Exodus 20:14, which is written because of God's character, so if you want to say that adultery not in line with God's character, then you can point to either location.

No, you cannot point to either location, because, in Exodus, God does not say that adultery is not in line with his character; and neither does Matthew. However, since Matthew tells us to obey, we must; meanwhile, though, Exodus has been cancelled.

As it stands, Colossians 2:16 can be interpreted either as saying not to let anyone judge you for doing those things or for not doing those things. To discern which one, we should look at the what the views of the people judging them were:

Colossian 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.

God's laws are not empty deceit, according to human tradition, and to say they weren't according to Christ would be pitting the Father against the Son. It goes into more details about what these elemental spirits are later in the chapter:

Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

So the people judging them were teaching human traditions, promoting self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and were not teaching the commands of God. This means that the Colossians were eating, drinking, and keeping God's appointed times in obedience to Him and Paul was encouraging the Colossians not to let anyone promoting man-made religion keep them from obeying God. Again, we must obey God rather than man and be careful not to misinterpret something against obey man as being against obeying God.

Same thing: if you cannot judge me, it is because it is not wrong. If it were wrong for a Christian to fail to keep the Sabbath, Paul would not have said anything like, ‘Each [person] should be fully convinced in their own mind’, but something more like, ‘Rebuke anyone who fails to keep the Sabbath, because it is still obligatory for Christians to keep the Sabbath.’ None of that destroys my case.

The context of Romans 14 is about how to settle disputable matter matters opinion (Romans 14:1), so they were arguing over how to correctly obey God, not whether to obey God. It had become a common practice to fast twice a week or to commemorate certain days (Luke 18:12), but whether to do so was largely a matter of human opinion. Whether man esteems one day over another is very different from whether God does. We are not to keep God's Sabbath because man esteemed it over other days, but because God did and blessed it and made it holy and commanded it to be kept. Again, we should be careful to obey God rather than man.

Galatians 4:8-11 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

I will just take the first sentence of that paragraph to show you how you are wrong. You say, ‘The context of Romans 14 is about how to settle disputable matter matters opinion (Romans 14:1), so they were arguing over how to correctly obey God, not whether to obey God’ (emphasis is mine). Well, evidently, if we are talking about disputable matters, then it is nothing essential. Anything disputable is, by definition, irrelevant. Therefore, whether we obey the Jewish law or not is irrelevant, or disputable, and you cannot judge me for that, but rather ‘each [of us] should be fully convinced in [our] mind.’

Paul address these verses to those who formerly did not now God, so to former pagans. They were not formerly keeping God's commands, so they could not be turning back to them. Furthermore, Paul would never refer to God's holy, righteous, and good commands as elementary principles of the world, so whatever is being talked about in verse 10 is in the context of paganism, and again we need to be careful not to take something against obeying man as being against obeying God.

The passage never mentions paganism.

It is central to Christian theology that Jesus never sinned, so that means, among other things, that he never broke the Sabbath. While Jesus certainly did break man-made laws for how to keep the Sabbath, he always kept the Sabbath in accordance with the way that God intended it to be kept. Again, we must obey God rather than man.

OK, agreed. Granted! Jesus always kept the Sabbath as it should be kept. However, we still have Paul's clear affirmations that there is no need to keep it any more.

 

[Soyeong]

OK, agreed. Granted! Jesus always kept the Sabbath as it should be kept. However, we still have Paul's clear affirmations that there is no need to keep it any more.

We must obey God rather than men, so when God said to do something, if Paul said not to do that, then we should obey God rather than Paul, but it doesn't need to come to that because when we properly understand Paul, we see that he never tried to countermand God. The way that God instructed them to discern whether someone was a false teacher was whether they taught against obeying God's commands (Deuteronomy 13:4-6), so if Paul had tried to do that, then they would have rightly dismissed what he said. Paul had no authority to tell anyone not to obey God and could not add to or subtract from God's law (Deuteronomy 4:2).

I will just take the first sentence of that paragraph to show you how you are wrong. You say, ‘The context of Romans 14 is about how to settle disputable matter matters opinion (Romans 14:1), so they were arguing over how to correctly obey God, not whether to obey God’ (emphasis is mine). Well, evidently, if we are talking about disputable matters, then it is nothing essential. Anything disputable is, by definition, irrelevant. Therefore, whether we obey the Jewish law or not is irrelevant, or disputable, and you cannot judge me for that, but rather ‘each [of us] should be fully convinced in [our] mind.’

The Talmud contains many arguments about how to obey God's law, but does not contain a single argument against obeying God. For instance, there were all sorts opinions about what it means to not work on the Sabbath, but no one argued in favor of not keeping the Sabbath. Someone who is a follower of God by definition follows God, and Romans 14 is talking about followers of God, so they were not disputing whether to follow God, but about how God should be followed. For instance, they were all in agreement that we should not commit idolatry, but they weren't all in agreement about what counts as idolatry because God's word does not give an exhaustive list, so there are grey areas that are matter of opinion. For example, meat that had been sacrificed to idols was often later sold on the market, so if someone were at a community meal and didn't know where the meat had come from, they might be of the opinion that only vegetables should be eaten (Romans 14:2). They were judging people who ate everything at the meal and were in turn being resented (Romans 14:3). So it is these sort of opinions that they were disputing and what Paul was saying they should be convinced in their own minds about, not whether to follow God. You are free to dispute whether God should be followed, but not as a follower of God.

Same thing: if you cannot judge me, it is because it is not wrong. If it were wrong for a Christian to fail to keep the Sabbath, Paul would not have said anything like, ‘Each [person] should be fully convinced in their own mind’, but something more like, ‘Rebuke anyone who fails to keep the Sabbath, because it is still obligatory for Christians to keep the Sabbath.’ None of that destroys my case.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Don’t you know that unrighteous people will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t delude yourselves — people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols, who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in active or passive homosexuality, 10 who steal, who are greedy, who get drunk, who assail people with contemptuous language, who rob — none of them will share in the Kingdom of God.

Do you really suppose that Paul was saying the people who practice the things listed won't enter the Kingdom of God, that is unless they were fully convinced in their own mind that those things were ok? No, Paul never even referred to the Sabbath in Romans 14, but was talking about days that man esteemed, such as fasting twice a week (Romans 14:5-6). Verse 6 talks about special days where someone abstains from eating, so he was talking about fasting. You notably did not counter anything I said about Colossians 2, but tried to make a different argument by grabbing another verse out of context. Paul continued to live in observance of the law (Acts 21:24) and continued to keep the Sabbath all throughout Acts, and never said anything about it being ok to sin if you are convinced in your own mind.

You are missing the point. The point is that God does not tell us to keep the Sabbath any more! And it is not only the Sabbath: the same goes for sacrificing lambs as atonement for sin, cleaning people with skin diseases, not wearing two different kinds of clothing, eating the meat of only certain animals, celebrating all those Jewish festivals, applying capital punishment, and many other things. The New Testament is abundantly clear that we are not supposed to obey these Old Testament teachings any more. Paul is clear about this in, at least, three passages (emphasis is mine):

• Romans 7:6 — ‘But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.’
• Galatians 3:23-25 — ‘Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.’
• Ephesians 2:15 — ‘[…] by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. […]’

You seemed to have missed my response to those verses:

The law is God's instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (Romans 7:12), as as part of the New Covenant, we are instructed to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10,Ephesians 2:10). It doesn't make any sense to say that we are made new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works (Ephesians 2:10) and then say just a few verses later that Christ did away with his instructions for how to do good works (Ephesians 2:15). We must obey God rather than man, so we should be careful not misinterpret the Bible coming against man-made laws, such as mentioned in Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles, as coming against obeying God. The Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), so walking in the Spirit is not a way that is distinct from obeying the Father's commands, but rather it is a way of obeying the Father in a spiritual manner.

None of that says that we must still obey the Old Testament law.

God has holy, righteous, and good from the beginning, so He always has such a conduct, and the law is holy, righteous, and good (Roman 7:12) because it is a reflection of God's character and it is His instructions for how to have such a conduct. For example, 1 Peter 1:14-16 instructs us to have a holy conduct and then verse 16 quotes from Leviticus 19:2-3, where it talks about keeping God's Sabbaths, so I think it is pretty straightforward that keeping the Sabbath holy is part of what it means to have holy conduct.

No, you cannot point to either location, because, in Exodus, God does not say that adultery is not in line with his character; and neither does Matthew. However, since Matthew tells us to obey, we must; meanwhile, though, Exodus has been cancelled.

The way to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct has existed from the beginning, exists independently of any covenant, and did not change in between covenants, but rather the New Covenant involves God writing His law on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). So while the Old Covenant has become obsolete, God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness and the way to have such a conduct have not become obsolete.

Indeed. But he said that he had come to fulfil the law — whatever this means, Paul clarifies it in the above passages: ‘we have been released from the law’ and we must no longer ‘serve […] in the old way of the written code.’

To fulfill the law means to interpret it in a way that fills it up with meaning or to demonstrate a full understanding of it, which is what Jesus then proceeded to do six times. Other Jewish literature talks about people fulfilling the law in that sense, but not in the sense of doing away with it. According to Galatians 5:14, loving your neighbor is the fulfillment of the law, so it is something everyone since Moses who has loved their neighbor has done, not a unique event done by Jesus to do away with it. Jesus did not love God and our neighbors so that we don't have to, but so that we would have an example to follow.

In Romans 7:1, Paul said he was speaking to those who knew that law, so he was using an example from the law to show that the law is binding on a person as long as they live. We can't be represented by the wife because we are dying to the law and it is the husband that dies and we can't be represented by the husband because it is the wife who is free to get married to another, so Paul was not saying everything in his example represented something else. When the woman's husband died, she wasn't free from the law in the sense that she was free to murder, commit adultery, steal, break the Sabbath, etc., but rather she was only set free from what would condemn her to death if she lived with another man while her husband was still alive. In the same way, we have not be released from having to follow the law, we have only been released from what would condemn us for breaking it. That is the point that Paul is concluding from in Romans 8:1 when he said there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

The passage never mentions paganism.

Any religion that does not involve following God is pagan. In any case, they formerly did not know God, so whatever it is that they were turning back to does not involve following God's commands, which therefore is not the subject of verse 10.

 

[Soyeong]

We are under the two Laws [of the Spirit]: Romans 8.

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 are part of the law that we are not under if we are led by the Spirit.

NIV uses the word "rape:"

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version (NIV)
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Seize even has a "forced" connotation. Where is there any show of willingness on the part of the female? Consensual sex in the Bible is outlined by "laying" or "lying" together...not simply the man seizing the woman.

Other contextual examples according to Strong's: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8610.htm

Yes, other translations can do a better job of distinguishing the terms.

See: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=5197

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

We must obey God rather than men, so when God said to do something, if Paul said not to do that, then we should obey God rather than Paul,

That implies that Paul's writings were not inspired by God. If you believe in this, then you should abandon this discussion, because you are in the Baptist forum — and, according to CF guidelines, you are not allowed to teach anything contrary to a certain denomination's beliefs in that denomination's forum section. If you want to debate whether Paul's writing were inspired by God, do it in non-Protestant forums, or in the General Theology forum, or even via private messaging, but not in the Baptist forum.

but it doesn't need to come to that because when we properly understand Paul, we see that he never tried to countermand God. The way that God instructed them to discern whether someone was a false teacher was whether they taught against obeying God's commands (Deuteronomy 13:4-6), so if Paul had tried to do that, then they would have rightly dismissed what he said. Paul had no authority to tell anyone not to obey God and could not add to or subtract from God's law (Deuteronomy 4:2).

This is where your fallacy comes in: God told the Israelites to obey the Jewish Law — not us.

The Talmud contains many arguments about how to obey God's law, but does not contain a single argument against obeying God.

Do you see the Talmud as inspired by God? If so, again, you must abandon this discussion, because you are in the Baptist section.

For instance, there were all sorts opinions about what it means to not work on the Sabbath, but no one argued in favor of not keeping the Sabbath. Someone who is a follower of God by definition follows God, and Romans 14 is talking about followers of God, so they were not disputing whether to follow God, but about how God should be followed. For instance, they were all in agreement that we should not commit idolatry, but they weren't all in agreement about what counts as idolatry because God's word does not give an exhaustive list, so there are grey areas that are matter of opinion. For example, meat that had been sacrificed to idols was often later sold on the market, so if someone were at a community meal and didn't know where the meat had come from, they might be of the opinion that only vegetables should be eaten (Romans 14:2). They were judging people who ate everything at the meal and were in turn being resented (Romans 14:3). So it is these sort of opinions that they were disputing and what Paul was saying they should be convinced in their own minds about, not whether to follow God. You are free to dispute whether God should be followed, but not as a follower of God.

Clearly, according to Romans 14:5, the observance of the Sabbath is now another one of these grey areas, these disputable matters.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Don’t you know that unrighteous people will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t delude yourselves — people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols, who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in active or passive homosexuality, 10 who steal, who are greedy, who get drunk, who assail people with contemptuous language, who rob — none of them will share in the Kingdom of God.

Do you really suppose that Paul was saying the people who practice the things listed won't enter the Kingdom of God, that is unless they were fully convinced in their own mind that those things were ok?

No, because that is an entirely different context and teaching. In that passage you have cited, Paul clearly says that these things are wrong and unacceptable to God. But, in Romans 14, Paul clearly says that he is talking about disputable matters, over which there is not something right and something wrong, but either way is acceptable. You are comparing apples with oranges.

No, Paul never even referred to the Sabbath in Romans 14, but was talking about days that man esteemed, such as fasting twice a week (Romans 14:5-6). Verse 6 talks about special days where someone abstains from eating, so he was talking about fasting. You notably did not counter anything I said about Colossians 2, but tried to make a different argument by grabbing another verse out of context. Paul continued to live in observance of the law (Acts 21:24) and continued to keep the Sabbath all throughout Acts, and never said anything about it being ok to sin if you are convinced in your own mind.

Actually, he did refer to the Sabbath, though not explicitly. He says, ‘One person consider one day more sacred than the other […]’. This can be applied to any day — Sabbath or anything else. Furthermore, in Colossians 2:16, he explicitly mentions the Sabbath, so my case still stands.

You seemed to have missed my response to those verses:

The law is God's instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (Romans 7:12), as as part of the New Covenant, we are instructed to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10,Ephesians 2:10). It doesn't make any sense to say that we are made new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works (Ephesians 2:10) and then say just a few verses later that Christ did away with his instructions for how to do good works (Ephesians 2:15). We must obey God rather than man, so we should be careful not misinterpret the Bible coming against man-made laws, such as mentioned in Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles, as coming against obeying God. The Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), so walking in the Spirit is not a way that is distinct from obeying the Father's commands, but rather it is a way of obeying the Father in a spiritual manner.

I think I responded to that part too, but perhaps I should clarify. Keeping the Sabbath is not a good work; it is unnecessary. A ‘holy, righteous and good conduct’ does not require keeping the Sabbath any more. You cannot find a verse in the New Testament that says we must still keep the Sabbath. Keeping the Sabbath was part of the Jewish law, which is now no longer binding to Christians.

God has holy, righteous, and good from the beginning, so He always has such a conduct, and the law is holy, righteous, and good (Roman 7:12) because it is a reflection of God's character and it is His instructions for how to have such a conduct. For example, 1 Peter 1:14-16 instructs us to have a holy conduct and then verse 16 quotes from Leviticus 19:2-3, where it talks about keeping God's Sabbaths, so I think it is pretty straightforward that keeping the Sabbath holy is part of what it means to have holy conduct.

No. 1 Peter 1:16 quotes Leviticus 19:2, not Leviticus 19:3 (which is the verse that talks about the Sabbath). In the context of 1 Peter 1:16, keeping the Sabbath is never mentioned.

The way to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct has existed from the beginning, exists independently of any covenant, and did not change in between covenants, but rather the New Covenant involves God writing His law on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). So while the Old Covenant has become obsolete, God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness and the way to have such a conduct have not become obsolete.

The Jewish Law has become obsolete, as I have shown through a number of passages. We do not have the Jewish Law in our hearts (I do not know by heart all of those tiny commandments of Leviticus). The law in our hearts is given to us by our conscience, and it can be summarised in two commands: love God and love your neighbour.

To fulfill the law means to interpret it in a way that fills it up with meaning or to demonstrate a full understanding of it, which is what Jesus then proceeded to do six times. Other Jewish literature talks about people fulfilling the law in that sense, but not in the sense of doing away with it. According to Galatians 5:14, loving your neighbor is the fulfillment of the law, so it is something everyone since Moses who has loved their neighbor has done, not a unique event done by Jesus to do away with it. Jesus did not love God and our neighbors so that we don't have to, but so that we would have an example to follow.

To ‘fulfil’ the law is an unclear and ambiguous concept; you cannot claim to have the only possible interpretation for it. However, Scripture is interpreted with Scripture; if a passage is unclear, its meaning must be sought by other passages that speak more clearly. Paul clarifies Jesus' alleged fulfilment: we have been released from the law (Romans 7:6).

In Romans 7:1, Paul said he was speaking to those who knew that law, so he was using an example from the law to show that the law is binding on a person as long as they live. We can't be represented by the wife because we are dying to the law and it is the husband that dies and we can't be represented by the husband because it is the wife who is free to get married to another, so Paul was not saying everything in his example represented something else. When the woman's husband died, she wasn't free from the law in the sense that she was free to murder, commit adultery, steal, break the Sabbath, etc., but rather she was only set free from what would condemn her to death if she lived with another man while her husband was still alive. In the same way, we have not be released from having to follow the law, we have only been released from what would condemn us for breaking it. That is the point that Paul is concluding from in Romans 8:1 when he said there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

You did not address Romans 7:6, which is what I mentioned, and which clearly says we are free from the law.

Any religion that does not involve following God is pagan. In any case, they formerly did not know God, so whatever it is that they were turning back to does not involve following God's commands, which therefore is not the subject of verse 10.

OK, granted! But, nevertheless, you said that about Galatians 4:8-11, a passage which I did not evoke. Instead, I evoked Romans 7:6, Romans 14:5, Galatians 3:23-25, Ephesians 2:15 and Colossians 2:16 — and you have not addressed reasonably any of them. Instead, you keep saying that he is not talking about the Sabbath (although he clearly mentions it in Colossians 2:16) and that we must live a holy life (even though that has nothing to do with the Sabbath, and you have not yet proven that alleged link). You need to address all of these five passages and logically demonstrate that I am misinterpreting all five in order to prove me wrong.

 

[Soyeong]

That implies that Paul's writings were not inspired by God. If you believe in this, then you should abandon this discussion, because you are in the Baptist forum — and, according to CF guidelines, you are not allowed to teach anything contrary to a certain denomination's beliefs in that denomination's forum section. If you want to debate whether Paul's writing were inspired by God, do it in non-Protestant forums, or in the General Theology forum, or even via private messaging, but not in the Baptist forum.

Throughout the Bible God always wants His people to obey Him and never tells us not to obey Him, so IF Paul had taught against obeying any of God's commands, then it should be pretty straightforward that that would not be inspired by God, especially seeing how God specifically said not to follow anyone who teaches against obeying His commands. However, that is a pretty big "IF" because I believe that Paul's writings were inspired by God and I don't hold the position that he taught against obeying any God's commands.

This is where your fallacy comes in: God told the Israelites to obey the Jewish Law — not us.

Good news for you, the New Covenant was only made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31), but through faith in the Messiah we can be grafted into God's people, Israel. According to Ephesians 2:12, Gentiles were once separated from Messiah, alienated from Israel, strangers to the covenant, and without hope, but through faith in Messiah all of that is longer true. According to Ephesians 2:19, Gentiles are no longer stranger or aliens, but are now fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints. Israel is referred to as saints (Numbers 16:3, Deuteronomy 33:3) and the Church is referred to as saints (Ephesians 1:1, Romans 1:7). As elect (Deuteronomy 7:6-7, Deuteronomy 14:2) and as elect (Colossians 3:12, Titus 1:1). As beloved (Deuteronomy 7:7,Deuteronomy 4:37, and as beloved (Colossians 3:12, Thessalonians 1:4). As called (Isaiah 41:9, Isaiah 43:1) and as called (Romans 1:6-7, 1 Corinthians 1:2). As church (Numbers 16:3, Psalms 89:5, Micah 2:5, Acts 7:38, Hebrews 2:12) and as church (Ephesians 1:1, Acts 20:28). As flock (Ezekiel 34, Psalms 77:20) and as flock (Luke 12:32, 1 Peter 5:2). As a holy nation, kingdom of priests, and a peculiar treasure (Exodus 19:5-6) and as a holy nation, kingdom of priests, and a peculiar treasure (1 Peter 2:9). As God's people (Hosea 1:9-10) and as God's people (1 Peter 2:10). As people of inheritance (Deuteronomy 4:20) and as people of inheritance (Ephesians 1:18). As God's tabernacle (Leviticus 26:11) and as God's tabernacle (John 1:14). God walks among them (Leviticus 26:12) and God walks among them (2 Corinthians 6:16-18). Christ is married to them (Isaiah 54:5,Jeremiah 3:14, Jeremiah 6:2, Jeremiah 31:32, Hosea 2:19) and Christ is married to them (Ephesians 5:22-23, 2 Corinthians 11:2). So what are you seeing as the difference Israel and the Church?

Do you see the Talmud as inspired by God? If so, again, you must abandon this discussion, because you are in the Baptist section.

No, I never said it was inspired, I just was using it as an example of them debating how to obey God, not whether to obey God.

Clearly, according to Romans 14:5, the observance of the Sabbath is now another one of these grey areas, these disputable matters.

Whether man esteems one day over another is very different than whether God esteems one day over another. They were not to keep the Sabbath because they esteemed it over other days, but because God did and blessed it and made it holy and commanded them to keep it holy. As a disputable matter of opinion, they esteemed certain days of the week for fasting and for commemorating certain events and were judging others for not fasting (Luke 18:12). They even argued about which days of the week they should fast on:

Didache 8:1 Your fasts should not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays. You should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Again, I'm not saying that Didache is inspired, I'm just using it to illustrate what was happening. In Roman 14:6, it shows that the context of verse 5 is about fasting, and it was these sorts of disputes over opinion that Paul was seeking the quell, so he was not saying that you were free to disobey God's commands if you were convinced in your own mind that that was ok.

No, because that is an entirely different context and teaching. In that passage you have cited, Paul clearly says that these things are wrong and unacceptable to God. But, in Romans 14, Paul clearly says that he is talking about disputable matters, over which there is not something right and something wrong, but either way is acceptable. You are comparing apples with oranges.

Whether to follow God's commands is not a disputable issue among followers of God by definition, so the dispute was in regard to how to follow God, not whether to obey God. There was plenty of dispute over things like what it means to not work on the Sabbath, but there was no dispute over whether to obey the Sabbath. Sin is disobedience to God's law (1 John 3:4) and it is always wrong to sin.

Actually, he did refer to the Sabbath, though not explicitly. He says, ‘One person consider one day more sacred than the other […]’. This can be applied to any day — Sabbath or anything else. Furthermore, in Colossians 2:16, he explicitly mentions the Sabbath, so my case still stands.

You can't use Romans 14 to show that I am wrong about what I said about Colossians 2 and then turn around and use Colossians 2 to show that I am wrong about what I said about Romans 14 without being circular. Romans 14:1 is about disputable matters of human opinion and Colossians 2 is about man-made teachings, so both are talking against man's opinions, and neither are talking against obeying God's commands. We must obey God rather than man.

I think I responded to that part too, but perhaps I should clarify. Keeping the Sabbath is not a good work; it is unnecessary. A ‘holy, righteous and good conduct’ does not require keeping the Sabbath any more. You cannot find a verse in the New Testament that says we must still keep the Sabbath. Keeping the Sabbath was part of the Jewish law, which is now no longer binding to Christians.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

All OT Scripture, and in specific God's code of conduct in His law, is profitable for training in righteousness and equipping us to do every good work. In other words, God's law is His instructions for how to do good works and we are new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works (Ephesians 2:10). Unless you are suggesting that the command to keep the Sabbath is not part of Scripture and is not God-breathed, then it is a good work. You cannot find a verse in the NT that says that the Sabbath is no longer part of what it means to have a holy conduct. In Acts 15:21, it says that Gentiles were to learn about Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues, which implies that they were already keeping the Sabbath as God had commanded.

Jesus gave a perfect example of obedience to the Sabbath, and we are told by faith to uphold the law (Romans 3:31), to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), to walk as he walked (1 John 2:4-6), to walk in the Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-27), to be his disciple (Matthew 23:8), to imitate him (1 Corinthians 11:1), to be like him (Philippians 2:5), to bear much good fruit (John 15:8-10), to have a righteous conduct (1 John 3:10), to have a holy conduct (1 Peter 1:14-16), to do good works (Ephesians 2:10), and to avoid sin (Romans 6:15), all of which are in accordance with his obedience to the Sabbath.

No. 1 Peter 1:16 quotes Leviticus 19:2, not Leviticus 19:3 (which is the verse that talks about the Sabbath). In the context of 1 Peter 1:16, keeping the Sabbath is never mentioned.

They did not have verse and chapter numbers back then, but rather they lived in a high context society where most of them memorized Scriptures at a young age. For instance, as a disciple of Gamaliel, Paul would have been required to have memorized the entire Old Testament and most children had the books of Moses memorized by the age of 12. So someone could quote a line from a passage and that would bring to mind the whole passage, such as when Jesus on the cross quoted the first line from Psalms 22 in order to bring to mind the whole psalm, which spoke prophetically about was happening. This is why it is generally a good idea whenever something is quoted in the Bible to go back and read the whole passage that is being quoted from. In any case, if we want to find out how to have a holy conduct, then we need to read God's instructions in His law for how to have a holy conduct, with the whole of Leviticus 19 just being a good starting point. It shouldn't be hard to put having a holy conduct together with keeping the Sabbath holy, which is part of how Israel had a holy conduct.

The Jewish Law has become obsolete, as I have shown through a number of passages. We do not have the Jewish Law in our hearts (I do not know by heart all of those tiny commandments of Leviticus). The law in our hearts is given to us by our conscience, and it can be summarised in two commands: love God and love your neighbour.

Obedience to God's law is how the Jews identified with God, not the way to identify with Jews. I would agree with you that the Old Covenant has become obsolete, but God's law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), so to say that it has become obsolete is essentially to say that God's character, His holiness, righteousness, and goodness have become obsolete. God always acts according to His character and His law is His instructions for how to act according to His character. The first question after being told to love God and our neighbor should be how are we to love God and our neighbor? Thankfully God has given instructions in his law for how to do so and said that if we love him we will obey those instructions.

Other Jewish literature, which again is not inspired, gives us a very similar account:

"One of famous account in the Talmud (Shabbat 31a) tells about a gentile who wanted to convert to Judaism. This happened not infrequently, and this individual stated that he would accept Judaism only if a rabbi would teach him the entire Torah while he, the prospective convert, stood on one foot. First he went to Shammai, who, insulted by this ridiculous request, threw him out of the house. The man did not give up and went to Hillel. This gentle sage accepted the challenge, and said:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this--go and study it!""

The rest of the law explains how to obey the greatest two commands, so by summarizing the law, he was not saying that the other laws shouldn't be followed. For reference, Hillel was the father of Gamaliel, who was Paul's teacher (Acts 22:3) and Shammai taught that healing on the Sabbath was prohibited, so it is likely people from his school who were criticising Jesus for doing that.

You did not address Romans 7:6, which is what I mentioned, and which clearly says we are free from the law.

I said that we were released from the law, but in the same sense that the wife was released from the law. She wasn't set free to commit murder, steal, break the Sabbath, etc., but was only set free from the part of the law that would condemn her to death if she lived with another man while her husband was still alive. In the same way, we are set free from the condemnation of the law (Romans 8:1), but we are still not permitted to sin (Romans 6:15), which is breaking the law (1 John 3:4).

To ‘fulfil’ the law is an unclear and ambiguous concept; you cannot claim to have the only possible interpretation for it. However, Scripture is interpreted with Scripture; if a passage is unclear, its meaning must be sought by other passages that speak more clearly. Paul clarifies Jesus' alleged fulfilment: we have been released from the law (Romans 7:6).

We can look at how other Jewish literature uses the phrase, not because it is inspired, but because it makes it clear how people of the time understood the phrase. It was a rabbinic technical term and Jesus was a rabbi who was speaking about other rabbis and was using terms that they understood. But really, if everyone since Moses who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled the law, then it can't be a unique event that Jesus did. It makes far more sense for Jesus to say he came to fulfill the law and then proceed to go do that, especially when he was about to say things that would have looked like to them like he was abolishing the law. Jesus taught how to obey the law through his words and his actions, and Paul never said anything about being free from following his example, but just the opposite.

OK, granted! But, nevertheless, you said that about Galatians 4:8-11, a passage which I did not evoke. Instead, I evoked Romans 7:6, Romans 14:5, Galatians 3:23-25, Ephesians 2:15 and Colossians 2:16 — and you have not addressed reasonably any of them. Instead, you keep saying that he is not talking about the Sabbath (although he clearly mentions it in Colossians 2:16) and that we must live a holy life (even though that has nothing to do with the Sabbath, and you have not yet proven that alleged link). You need to address all of these five passages and logically demonstrate that I am misinterpreting all five in order to prove me wrong.

I have explained that Colossians 2:8 and Colossians 2:20-23 talk about what the people judging them were teaching, so they were being judged for not acting according to those teachings. So in other words, they were keeping the Sabbath as they had been taught in obedience to God and Paul was encouraging them keep strong and to not to let themselves be judged by those who were promoting human precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body.

I have explained Romans 14:5 and 7:6 earlier in this thread. It would not make sense to say in Ephesians 2:10 that we are made new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works and then say a few verses later in Ephesians 2:15 that Christ did away with his instructions for how to do good works. Rather, what was broken down was the man-made teachings, such as the ones mentioned in Acts 10:28 that prohibited Jews from associating or visiting with Gentiles. In Galatians 3:23-25, when you have a tutor and reach the point that you no longer need a tutor, it is because you have learned their lessons and taken them to heart so that you now live in accordance with them. Moving on to more advanced lessons does not involve disregarding what you learned previously.

 

[alexsonofmatthew]

The 10 commandments are binding. It's the moral law.

God bless

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Throughout the Bible God always wants His people to obey Him and never tells us not to obey Him, so IF Paul had taught against obeying any of God's commands, then it should be pretty straightforward that that would not be inspired by God, especially seeing how God specifically said not to follow anyone who teaches against obeying His commands. However, that is a pretty big "IF" because I believe that Paul's writings were inspired by God and I don't hold the position that he taught against obeying any God's commands.

Agreed!

Good news for you, the New Covenant was only made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31), but through faith in the Messiah we can be grafted into God's people, Israel. According to Ephesians 2:12, Gentiles were once separated from Messiah, alienated from Israel, strangers to the covenant, and without hope, but through faith in Messiah all of that is longer true. According to Ephesians 2:19, Gentiles are no longer stranger or aliens, but are now fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints. Israel is referred to as saints (Numbers 16:3, Deuteronomy 33:3) and the Church is referred to as saints (Ephesians 1:1, Romans 1:7). As elect (Deuteronomy 7:6-7, Deuteronomy 14:2) and as elect (Colossians 3:12, Titus 1:1). As beloved (Deuteronomy 7:7,Deuteronomy 4:37, and as beloved (Colossians 3:12, Thessalonians 1:4). As called (Isaiah 41:9, Isaiah 43:1) and as called (Romans 1:6-7, 1 Corinthians 1:2). As church (Numbers 16:3, Psalms 89:5, Micah 2:5, Acts 7:38, Hebrews 2:12) and as church (Ephesians 1:1, Acts 20:28). As flock (Ezekiel 34, Psalms 77:20) and as flock (Luke 12:32, 1 Peter 5:2). As a holy nation, kingdom of priests, and a peculiar treasure (Exodus 19:5-6) and as a holy nation, kingdom of priests, and a peculiar treasure (1 Peter 2:9). As God's people (Hosea 1:9-10) and as God's people (1 Peter 2:10). As people of inheritance (Deuteronomy 4:20) and as people of inheritance (Ephesians 1:18). As God's tabernacle (Leviticus 26:11) and as God's tabernacle (John 1:14). God walks among them (Leviticus 26:12) and God walks among them (2 Corinthians 6:16-18). Christ is married to them (Isaiah 54:5,Jeremiah 3:14, Jeremiah 6:2, Jeremiah 31:32, Hosea 2:19) and Christ is married to them (Ephesians 5:22-23, 2 Corinthians 11:2). So what are you seeing as the difference Israel and the Church?

Firstly, unlike what you have said, Ephesians 2:19 does not say we are fellow citizens of Israel; it says we are ‘fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God’ (ESV, emphasis is mine), not with Israel.

Secondly, none of those connexions proves that Israel and the Church are the same thing. They may be both part of God's people, but they are not the same thing. The New Testament never says that the Church is the same as Israel, nor that we are somehow going to replace Israel.

Thirdly, the Bible makes clear the distinction between Israel and the Church. In Romans 11:16-24, Paul distinguishes Israel from the Church, comparing Israel to natural branches of a vine and the Church to wild branches grafted in the same vine; the fact that they are both in the same vine does not make them the same thing. In Romans 11:28, Paul says that, as far as the Gospel is concerned, Israel are our enemies for our sake (how could this happen if they were the same thing?).

Fourthly, the New Testament describes the Church of Christ in a manner incompatible with Israel. For example: 1 Corinthians 12:13 says that the Church has been baptised with one Spirit, which is not the case with Israel; 1 Corinthians 12:27 describes the Church as the body of Christ, which is not the case with Israel; Ephesians 5:25-27 teaches that Christ gave his life for the Church, which cannot be found to be said of Israel.

No, I never said it was inspired, I just was using it as an example of them debating how to obey God, not whether to obey God.

OK.

Whether man esteems one day over another is very different than whether God esteems one day over another. They were not to keep the Sabbath because they esteemed it over other days, but because God did and blessed it and made it holy and commanded them to keep it holy. As a disputable matter of opinion, they esteemed certain days of the week for fasting and for commemorating certain events and were judging others for not fasting (Luke 18:12). They even argued about which days of the week they should fast on:

Didache 8:1 Your fasts should not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays. You should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Again, I'm not saying that Didache is inspired, I'm just using it to illustrate what was happening.

If you keep the Sabbath, you esteem it, you consider it more sacred than other days. You cannot deny that Paul addresses that in Romans 14:5. Surely, it can also be applied to all those special days you mentioned, but also to the Sabbath.

In Roman 14:6, it shows that the context of verse 5 is about fasting, and it was these sorts of disputes over opinion that Paul was seeking the quell, so he was not saying that you were free to disobey God's commands if you were convinced in your own mind that that was ok.

Actually, no. Romans 14:1-9 addresses two specific issues (neither of which is fasting), although its teaching can be applied to any ‘disputable matter’ (verse 1). In verses 2, 3 and 6, Paul specifically mentions the subject of whether eating meat was permissible or whether you should eat only vegetables — not fasting (although we can apply the same teaching to fasting).

Whether to follow God's commands is not a disputable issue among followers of God by definition, so the dispute was in regard to how to follow God, not whether to obey God. There was plenty of dispute over things like what it means to not work on the Sabbath, but there was no dispute over whether to obey the Sabbath. Sin is disobedience to God's law (1 John 3:4) and it is always wrong to sin.

(sigh) Let me see if I can make this clear for one last time: there is no command for us to keep the Sabbath! The Jewish Law no longer applies to us, as I have shown. So please stop insisting that Paul tells us to obey God; you are committing the straw-man fallacy, by misrepresenting my position. I am not saying that we should not obey God's commandments, but only that God does not command us to keep the Sabbath.

You can't use Romans 14 to show that I am wrong about what I said about Colossians 2 and then turn around and use Colossians 2 to show that I am wrong about what I said about Romans 14 without being circular. Romans 14:1 is about disputable matters of human opinion and Colossians 2 is about man-made teachings, so both are talking against man's opinions, and neither are talking against obeying God's commands. We must obey God rather than man.

I am not being circular. Either passage demonstrates that it is permissible to keep the Sabbath and that it is permissible to not keep the Sabbath. In Romans 14:5, Paul says that there is no problem in regarding any one day as more sacred than any other, and that whoever does it or not should be convinced that there is no problem, because there is no problem; if not keeping the Sabbath were breaking God's law, he would tell us to accuse of sinning all those who would do it. In Colossians 2:16 — same thing —, Paul tells us not to let anyone judge us for keeping or failing to keep the Sabbath, which implies that it is acceptable to fail to keep it; if failing to keep the Sabbath were a sin, Paul would tell all Christians to judge all those who would not keep it, in accordance with what Jesus taught in Matthew 18:15-17.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

All OT Scripture, and in specific God's code of conduct in His law, is profitable for training in righteousness and equipping us to do every good work. In other words, God's law is His instructions for how to do good works and we are new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works (Ephesians 2:10).

Agreed, so far.

Unless you are suggesting that the command to keep the Sabbath is not part of Scripture and is not God-breathed, then it is a good work.

You are confusing God's words with God's commands. That commandment is part of God-breathed Scripture, but it is only a valid command for pre-Christ Israelites. The command served its temporary purpose in the past, now being no longer valid, but it is still God's Word — but not God's Word for today. God can say things with only a temporary extent — but, after the temporary effect has passed, it is still God's Word, but just no longer valid. Orders can be temporary, even though their words remain for ever. A national law that has been abolished and is now archived is still part of that country's history, and it is still recorded as a law once proclaimed by the government — but it is no longer to be obeyed, because it has been revoked.

You cannot find a verse in the NT that says that the Sabbath is no longer part of what it means to have a holy conduct. In Acts 15:21, it says that Gentiles were to learn about Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues, which implies that they were already keeping the Sabbath as God had commanded.

Yes, I can; I have shown you five: three say that we have been released from the law, and two can be specifically applied to the Sabbath (one of which explicitly mentions the Sabbath, and the other of which talks about regarding days as sacred).

Jesus gave a perfect example of obedience to the Sabbath, and we are told by faith to uphold the law (Romans 3:31), to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), to walk as he walked (1 John 2:4-6), to walk in the Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-27), to be his disciple (Matthew 23:8), to imitate him (1 Corinthians 11:1), to be like him (Philippians 2:5), to bear much good fruit (John 15:8-10), to have a righteous conduct (1 John 3:10), to have a holy conduct (1 Peter 1:14-16), to do good works (Ephesians 2:10), and to avoid sin (Romans 6:15), all of which are in accordance with his obedience to the Sabbath.

When did Jesus give such an example of obedience to the Sabbath?

They did not have verse and chapter numbers back then, but rather they lived in a high context society where most of them memorized Scriptures at a young age. For instance, as a disciple of Gamaliel, Paul would have been required to have memorized the entire Old Testament and most children had the books of Moses memorized by the age of 12. So someone could quote a line from a passage and that would bring to mind the whole passage, such as when Jesus on the cross quoted the first line from Psalms 22 in order to bring to mind the whole psalm, which spoke prophetically about was happening. This is why it is generally a good idea whenever something is quoted in the Bible to go back and read the whole passage that is being quoted from. In any case, if we want to find out how to have a holy conduct, then we need to read God's instructions in His law for how to have a holy conduct, with the whole of Leviticus 19 just being a good starting point. It shouldn't be hard to put having a holy conduct together with keeping the Sabbath holy, which is part of how Israel had a holy conduct.

However, the fact that the command to keep the Sabbath is not repeated in the New Testament still brings down your case. We are still never told to keep the Sabbath.

Obedience to God's law is how the Jews identified with God, not the way to identify with Jews. I would agree with you that the Old Covenant has become obsolete, but God's law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), so to say that it has become obsolete is essentially to say that God's character, His holiness, righteousness, and goodness have become obsolete. God always acts according to His character and His law is His instructions for how to act according to His character. The first question after being told to love God and our neighbor should be how are we to love God and our neighbor? Thankfully God has given instructions in his law for how to do so and said that if we love him we will obey those instructions.

Other Jewish literature, which again is not inspired, gives us a very similar account:

"One of famous account in the Talmud (Shabbat 31a) tells about a gentile who wanted to convert to Judaism. This happened not infrequently, and this individual stated that he would accept Judaism only if a rabbi would teach him the entire Torah while he, the prospective convert, stood on one foot. First he went to Shammai, who, insulted by this ridiculous request, threw him out of the house. The man did not give up and went to Hillel. This gentle sage accepted the challenge, and said:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this--go and study it!""

The rest of the law explains how to obey the greatest two commands, so by summarizing the law, he was not saying that the other laws shouldn't be followed. For reference, Hillel was the father of Gamaliel, who was Paul's teacher (Acts 22:3) and Shammai taught that healing on the Sabbath was prohibited, so it is likely people from his school who were criticising Jesus for doing that.

Again, the Jewish Law was only temporary. Its revocation does not damage God's character: we now have a new law.

I said that we were released from the law, but in the same sense that the wife was released from the law. She wasn't set free to commit murder, steal, break the Sabbath, etc., but was only set free from the part of the law that would condemn her to death if she lived with another man while her husband was still alive. In the same way, we are set free from the condemnation of the law (Romans 8:1), but we are still not permitted to sin (Romans 6:15), which is breaking the law (1 John 3:4).

Your argument fails in that the text does not say that the wife is released from the law, but rather that ‘she is released from the law that binds her to him’ (Romans 7:2, emphasis is mine). Evidently, it is not the entire law, but only the clause of it that bound her to her husband. However, in verse 6, Paul does not make such a specification, saying instead that we have been released from the law in general, which implies all of it.

Furthermore, still in Romans 7:6, Paul says that we are not supposed to serve ‘in the old way of the written code’, but rather ‘in the new way of the Spirit’. In other words, we no longer have a written code, but the Spirit tells us what to do. The Spirit does not tell us to keep the Sabbath (only the written code does).

We can look at how other Jewish literature uses the phrase, not because it is inspired, but because it makes it clear how people of the time understood the phrase. It was a rabbinic technical term and Jesus was a rabbi who was speaking about other rabbis and was using terms that they understood. But really, if everyone since Moses who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled the law, then it can't be a unique event that Jesus did. It makes far more sense for Jesus to say he came to fulfill the law and then proceed to go do that, especially when he was about to say things that would have looked like to them like he was abolishing the law. Jesus taught how to obey the law through his words and his actions, and Paul never said anything about being free from following his example, but just the opposite.

Jesus never said we should keep the Sabbath. Regarding the term ‘to fulfil’, it is more reasonable to seek its meaning in the inspired Word of God, rather that in non-inspired Jewish literature.

I have explained that Colossians 2:8 and Colossians 2:20-23 talk about what the people judging them were teaching, so they were being judged for not acting according to those teachings. So in other words, they were keeping the Sabbath as they had been taught in obedience to God and Paul was encouraging them keep strong and to not to let themselves be judged by those who were promoting human precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body.

We are taught to judge sinners and confront them with their sin (Matthew 18:15-17). Therefore, if Paul tells us not to judge those who do not keep the Sabbath, it must be because it is not sinful.

I have explained Romans 14:5 and 7:6 earlier in this thread.

And I have explained how you are wrong about them. If that is all you have to say, then I rest my case.

It would not make sense to say in Ephesians 2:10 that we are made new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works and then say a few verses later in Ephesians 2:15 that Christ did away with his instructions for how to do good works. Rather, what was broken down was the man-made teachings, such as the ones mentioned in Acts 10:28 that prohibited Jews from associating or visiting with Gentiles. In Galatians 3:23-25, when you have a tutor and reach the point that you no longer need a tutor, it is because you have learned their lessons and taken them to heart so that you now live in accordance with them. Moving on to more advanced lessons does not involve disregarding what you learned previously.

As I have said before: keeping the Sabbath is not a good work!