Which Law are we not under?

[from scratch]

If you are basing your salvation on keeping laws then you are cursed it is that simple. If you tell me I am not saved or will lose salvation by not keeping the Sabbath then you are trying to curse me with the law because when I break the Sabbath I am doomed. The Law is an all or nothing it cannot be dissasembled to show righteousness at all either you perfectly keep every bit of it or you are cursed. The problem with promoting the Law is that those who do so aren't willing to stop at voluntarily keeping what parts you see fit and happy to admit people who don't keep the Law are NOT forfeiting salvation. The deceit here is... it's ok to keep the Law, and if it is ok to keep the Law then you should keep it, and if you should keep it then not keeping it is wrong, then if not keeping it is wrong then you are probably going to lose salvation for not keeping it..... I don't buy this sneak attack on Christians go peddle it elsewhere.

Well written.

 

[SAAN]

So how do you get that Jesus came to abolish (do away with) part of the law? I just don't read that in Mat 5.

Hebrews makes it clear that we dont need animal sacrifices anymore, so it is very clear that Jesus blood covers our sins now.

Hebrew 7 also say with the change of the priesthood comes the change of the law, and it shows what changed in the law.

 

[LarryP2]

Hebrews makes it clear that we dont need animal sacrifices anymore, so it is very clear that Jesus blood covers our sins now.

Hebrew 7 also say with the change of the priesthood comes the change of the law, and it shows what changed in the law.

You clearly do not understand the strange dilemma Adventism is in, after its own Sabbath Scholar Dr. Samuele Bacchiochi horrifically mangled Colossians 2:13-18. You see, in order to deceitfully preserve the Sabbath doctrine, Bacchiochi inadvertently made the case that ALL of the ceremonial and temple rites were still fully effective.

Either Colossians 2:13-18 means what its says, or ALL of the Ceremonial laws are still binding. Adventism's own top theology professor has proven this point. Honest Seventh Day Adventist Feast Keepers, in the aftermath of the Bacchiochi fiasco, indeed are reviving backyard-temple animal sacrifices, Mosaic dress and food laws and so on.

This is PRECISELY why Christianity early on abandoned the Sabbath and all other Mosaic law ceremonies immediately after the Resurrection, and branded Sabbath Keeping as a satanic and evil heresy. The Gospel plainly dismantled and instantly made obsolete the entire Mosaic Law Structure. If you do not see this, then you probably have not experienced the full effect of the Resurrection.

So take your pick: Either Colossians 2:13-18 means what is says and says what it means, and the Church Fathers correctly carried out the instructions of the Apostles. Or, Bacchiochi is right and you must now keep all of the Mosaic Law, including animal sacrifices and food and clothing laws.

 

[VictorC]

Hebrews makes it clear that we dont need animal sacrifices anymore, so it is very clear that Jesus blood covers our sins now.

Hebrew 7 also say with the change of the priesthood comes the change of the law, and it shows what changed in the law.

The Greek metathesis that is rendered as 'change' in Hebrews 7:12 shows a principle meaning of 'transferred from one location to another'. This same Greek term is used in Hebrews 12:27, where it "indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken".

The inspired author equated the first covenant with the Law, and the overall narrative addresses the 'change' consistently with the principle meaning of moving the Law's location, another way of indicating a change in jurisdiction:

• The first covenant demanded change (Hebrews 7:12)
• It was annulled (v.7:18)
• It was charged with a fault that called for a new covenant (v.8:7)
• It was rendered obsolete and ready to vanish away (v.8:13)
• Jesus redeemed our transgressions under the first covenant and is now the Mediator of the new covenant (v.9:15)
• He took the first covenant away by His own Hand, in order to establish that new covenant (v.10:9)

The animal sacrifices -burnt offerings + offerings for sin- are driven by the individual ordinances contained in the old covenant Law. The only way to end those sacrifices is to end the ordinances that drove them. That is the context surrounding the last bullet (v.10:9), and God's disposition was to end the entire first covenant those ordinances are found in.

 

[SAAN]

You clearly do not understand the strange dilemma Adventism is in, after its own Sabbath Scholar Dr. Samuele Bacchiochi horrifically mangled Colossians 2:13-18. You see, in order to deceitfully preserve the Sabbath doctrine, Bacchiochi inadvertently made the case that ALL of the ceremonial and temple rites were still fully effective.

Either Colossians 2:13-18 means what its says, or ALL of the Ceremonial laws are still binding. Adventism's own top theology professor has proven this point. Honest Seventh Day Adventist Feast Keepers, in the aftermath of the Bacchiochi fiasco, indeed are reviving backyard-temple animal sacrifices, Mosaic dress and food laws and so on.

This is PRECISELY why Christianity early on abandoned the Sabbath and all other Mosaic law ceremonies immediately after the Resurrection, and branded Sabbath Keeping as a satanic and evil heresy. The Gospel plainly dismantled and instantly made obsolete the entire Mosaic Law Structure. If you do not see this, then you probably have not experienced the full effect of the Resurrection.

So take your pick: Either Colossians 2:13-18 means what is says and says what it means, and the Church Fathers correctly carried out the instructions of the Apostles. Or, Bacchiochi is right and you must now keep all of the Mosaic Law, including animal sacrifices and food and clothing laws.

Colossians 2:4-18

New King James Version (NKJV)

4 Now this I say lest anyone should deceive you with persuasive words. 5 For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ.
6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, 7 rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it[a] with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
Not Legalism but Christ

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[b] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not[c] seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,


If we are to use this chapter, we are pretty much saying that in one stroke of the pen (v14), Paul had permission to cancel out each and everyone of Gods commands in that one verse, and God didnt give all power and authority to Paul to cancel out his commandments. It is clear that Paul is saying Christ took our place on the cross with his death. The penalty for sin was death and Christ canceled that out, so whoever believes on him has eternal life.

Verses 4 and 8 show the issue was the people in Colossians were trying to persuade them to go back to their old pagan ways and Paul told them in verse 16 to not let anyone judge them for keeping the commands of God ( Sabbath and feast Days) that are being referred to in this verse. They were in a pagan society, so it would make no sense for Paul to tell them about picking a day of worship when they worshiped other Gods back then.

 

[LarryP2]

If we are to use this chapter, we are pretty much saying that in one stroke of the pen (v14), Paul had permission to cancel out each and everyone of Gods commands in that one verse, and God didnt give all power and authority to Paul to cancel out his commandments.

Actually, God DID give him that power and he did it in MORE than "just one verse." Are you proposing that Paul should have gotten permission from a Rabbi before he wrote Christian doctrine? After all, Sabbath Keeping had already been abandoned by most Christians, and ALL Gentile Christians within the First year after the Resurrection. Acts 15 made it crystal clear that the Gentile Christians only had four rules to live by. The Sabbath was not one of those, nor were the 10 Commandments. Remember, the Seventh Day Adventist Church has NEVER addressed, acknowledged or refuted the adamant position of the 2,000 year old Eastern Orthodox Church, which despises and resents the air that the Catholic Church breathes, and which states that Sunday worship and Easter commemoration were universal from the First Year after the Resurrection.

It is clear that Paul is saying Christ took our place on the cross with his death. The penalty for sin was death and Christ canceled that out, so whoever believes on him has eternal life.

Actually that is NOT what was cancelled out. The whole Mosaic Law was. Only Ellen White and the Adventist Church teaches otherwise.

Verses 4 and 8 show the issue was the people in Colossians were trying to persuade them to go back to their old pagan ways and Paul told them in verse 16 to not let anyone judge them for keeping the commands of God ( Sabbath and feast Days) that are being referred to in this verse. They were in a pagan society, so it would make no sense for Paul to tell them about picking a day of worship when they worshiped other Gods back then.

That is untrue. The Colossians were being tempted by the Judaizing heresy, who were trying to get them to circumcise and keep the Sabbath. Reading through the Christian Fathers who wrote in the First and Second Centuries, it is clear that the biggest danger was from the Ebionite/Judaizing heresy. And the Ebionite Heresy is IDENTICAL to Seventh Day Adventism, including the insistence on keeping the Jewish Sabbath and vegetarianism.

It is shocking and disturbing that the Sabbath/Vegetarian hoax has any credibility, given the severity of the response of Early Christianity to that very heresy.

 

[from scratch]

Hebrews makes it clear that we dont need animal sacrifices anymore, so it is very clear that Jesus blood covers our sins now.

Hebrew 7 also say with the change of the priesthood comes the change of the law, and it shows what changed in the law.

That means jots and tittles of the law have indeed changed, invalidating your whole argument.