• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

10 commandments done away

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bon

Truth Seeker
Jul 26, 2004
1,644
88
✟24,759.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
I don't get it?

General christianity believes that the Ten Commandments of God have been nailed to the cross along with all the Old Testement Laws. Correct?

So, what I do not get is, what then is the christian's yard-stick for good christian living?

If you say the New covenant and Jesus etc. etc. then I have to reply that
one) Jesus kept the Laws of the OT and said that they were not abolished and
two) the new covenant (new Testement) is filled with OT references and characters who observed the Laws and confirmed that they are holy and good.

So does the now obsolete commandent:You shall not kill.....mean, now we can kill and it is not considered a sin?
You shall not commit adultery.....does it mean, now we can?
etc. etc. etc.

I would like bible texts as proof, not man-made rules and traditions please.

With thanks from Bon :confused:
 

Al Madeleon

Member
Aug 10, 2004
14
2
37
Vegas
✟22,644.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Far as I can tell --

Jesus, when asked the most important commandment, responded that it was to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. But he went beyond, which is important; He more than answered the question. He continued, saying that the second most important commandment was to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Thus, in keeping these two, you keep all of the Mosaic Ten. You couldn't violate one without faltering in your love of God or your love of others. Thusly, the Ten are kept, in a sense.

The story of the most important commandment, for reference, is in Mark 12:28.
 
Upvote 0

New_Wineskin

Contributor
Jun 26, 2004
11,145
652
Elizabethtown , PA , usa
✟13,854.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Bon said:
I don't get it?

General christianity believes that the Ten Commandments of God have been nailed to the cross along with all the Old Testement Laws. Correct?
I wouldn't say "nailed to the cross" but it is as good as anything .


So, what I do not get is, what then is the christian's yard-stick for good christian living?

If you say the New covenant and Jesus etc. etc. then I have to reply that
one) Jesus kept the Laws of the OT and said that they were not abolished and
two) the new covenant (new Testement) is filled with OT references and characters who observed the Laws and confirmed that they are holy and good.
The New Covenant and the newer writings ( called the "new testament" ) are two different animals . The New Covenant is not about writings on paper as being the yardstick but what He reveals and writes on our individual hearts is the yardstick . That is expressed in the letter called "Hebrews" .


So does the now obsolete commandent:You shall not kill.....mean, now we can kill and it is not considered a sin?
You shall not commit adultery.....does it mean, now we can?
etc. etc. etc.
Absolutely not . It means that if one needs to use the writings to obtain morality , what use was the cross and the ressurection ? Being a Gentile , the older writings were not written to me .
 
Upvote 0

muffler dragon

Ineffable
Apr 7, 2004
7,320
382
50
✟31,896.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
New_Wineskin said:
I wouldn't say "nailed to the cross" but it is as good as anything .



The New Covenant and the newer writings ( called the "new testament" ) are two different animals . The New Covenant is not about writings on paper as being the yardstick but what He reveals and writes on our individual hearts is the yardstick . That is expressed in the letter called "Hebrews" .



Absolutely not . It means that if one needs to use the writings to obtain morality , what use was the cross and the ressurection ? Being a Gentile , the older writings were not written to me .
Awwww, New Wineskin.

It's too bad that this is first thing that you and I disagree upon. But oh well. I figured it would happen sooner or later.

Just to let you know where I stand on Biblical interpretation and things of the sort:

I am of the mindset that there is nothing new in the Brit Chadasha (NT) that is not in the Tanakh (OT). Sha'ul's writings (and the other NT authors for that matter) are more like commentaries on the Tanakh. Therefore, you can find substance for a NT doctrine in the OT. As far as Y'shua, I believe according to John 1:1 that he is the Torah (Logos in Greek, Memra in Aramaic) in the flesh. I believe that he (as well as Sha'ul [Paul]) was a Torah-observant Jew. He remained a Jew as well.

That's just a little caption of thought to share with you. I'm sure you can read into my statements in this post as to why I disagree with you. If not, just ask me for clarification.

Shalom,

m.d.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al Madeleon
Upvote 0

DanielRB

Slave of Allah
Jul 16, 2004
1,958
137
New Mexico
✟26,622.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Bon said:
I don't get it?

General christianity believes that the Ten Commandments of God have been nailed to the cross along with all the Old Testement Laws. Correct?

So, what I do not get is, what then is the christian's yard-stick for good christian living?

If you say the New covenant and Jesus etc. etc. then I have to reply that
one) Jesus kept the Laws of the OT and said that they were not abolished and
two) the new covenant (new Testement) is filled with OT references and characters who observed the Laws and confirmed that they are holy and good.

So does the now obsolete commandent:You shall not kill.....mean, now we can kill and it is not considered a sin?
You shall not commit adultery.....does it mean, now we can?
etc. etc. etc.

I would like bible texts as proof, not man-made rules and traditions please.

With thanks from Bon :confused:
First, I would say that the Ten Commandments were an intregal part of the rest of Torah. Indeed, the Ten Commandments are refered to as "the Tablets of the Covenant" (Hebrews 9:4)--they were the Covenant of Moses.

Torah is instruction from God. Obviously, God has given humanity many instructions in the Bible. Some were obviously for a particular time and occasion and are not meant for us--for example, the instruction God gave Noah to build the ark (Gen 6:13ff). Furthermore, it's obvious that though Abraham was said to follow all of God's "charge, commandments [mitzvot], statutes and laws [torah]" (Gen 26:5), he did not follow the Mosaic torah, which was given some 400 years later. He even did things that were worthy of death under the Mosaic code, such as marry his half-sister (Gen 20:12). Thus, God's law is not synonomous with the torah of Moses.

Jesus came and gave us new torah--new instruction--from God. He contrasted His teaching not only with that of the phrarisees, but also with that of Moses (Matt 5:31-41). One might argue that He made the law of God more strict than Moses, rather than making it more liberal--but making it more strict was just as much as a change as making it more liberal (Deut 4:2, 12:32--we are not to "add to or subtract from" Mosaic law; contrast Jesus' mercy about turning the other cheek with Moses' command 'not to pity' in Deut 19:21). Interestingly enough, Jesus spoke about His changes from the Mosaic law immediately after He spoke of the Law's permanance (Matt 5:17-20). Clearly, He had in mind something other than Moses' law--unless He said "whoops, forget what I said about the law being permanent; I'm changing the laws concerning divorce, oaths and retaliation." ;)

Through our union to Christ, we are now reckoned as dead according to the law of Moses (Rom 7:4-6). Dead people are not under the law of Moses, just as Paul gave the illustration that marraige was just until death--and then one was free to remarry. Paul doesn't say "all the law, except the ten commandments" or "all the ceremonial law, but not the moral law"--the whole of the code of Moses. The New Covenant is in effect; and it is not found in "tablets of stone" (2 Cor 3:3), which is called "the ministry of death" (Heb 3:7). Yes, it was "nailed to the cross" (Col 2:14; see the verses that follow this--clearly Christ's death freed us from laws of kosher foods and Sabbath--and Sabbath is part of the ten commandments).

So, are we free from any kind of instruction from God? "Shall we sin, that grace may abound?" As Paul says, God forbid! (Rom 6:1ff). We are dead to the Mosaic code, but Christ has given us a new Torah, a Torah written on the heart and not on stone (Jer 31:31-34). This new Torah is given to us through God's Holy Spirit who dwells in our hearts. The Holy Spirit also inspired the apostles of the New Covenant to write about these principles. We can turn to the pages of the New Covenant and read how we are to live.

All of the principles of the Ten Commandments, except for Sabbath, are repeated in the New Covenant. God didn't say "Nine of the Ten Commandments are still in effect"; rather He gave us an entirely New Torah--based upon the eternal law of God that will not change (Matt 5:17ff). Since God's nature does not change, there should be no surprise that the New Torah of God is substaintially similar to the old Torah of God--though does differ in places.

So, in a rather long-winded way to respond to your question, no, we can't kill and commit adultery--that's sin. The Holy Spirit, speaking through His apostles (and to our own hearts, if we listen) makes it clear that those things--and a good many others--are against the Torah of God.

In Christ,

Daniel

EDIT: I forgot to add this link, which explains it better than I did: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/finaltorah.html . I highly recommend the entire site.
 
Upvote 0

daveleau

In all you do, do it for Christ and w/ Him in mind
Apr 12, 2004
8,984
703
50
Bossier City, LA (removed from his native South C
✟30,474.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, I think this is a common misconception taught from a dispensationalist point of view (which is only partly right, IMO). There are certain laws that were fulfilled by Christ, such as animal sacrifice and many others. Jesus came, not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and not one word will change until He had done so. When Jesus said, "It is finished", much of the Law went away. BUT, the moral side of the Law remains. The 10 Commandments apply to us every bit as much as they did to the Israelites. These are timeless. Every bit of the ceremonial part of the Law is gone, because that is no longer necessary because of Christ. Every bit of the cultural Law is gone, because most of it was culture-bound and not timeless. The moral Law still remains and the 10 Commandments are part of that.
 
Upvote 0
W

WashedClean

Guest
daveleau said:
No, I think this is a common misconception taught from a dispensationalist point of view (which is only partly right, IMO). There are certain laws that were fulfilled by Christ, such as animal sacrifice and many others. Jesus came, not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and not one word will change until He had done so. When Jesus said, "It is finished", much of the Law went away. BUT, the moral side of the Law remains. The 10 Commandments apply to us every bit as much as they did to the Israelites. These are timeless. Every bit of the ceremonial part of the Law is gone, because that is no longer necessary because of Christ. Every bit of the cultural Law is gone, because most of it was culture-bound and not timeless. The moral Law still remains and the 10 Commandments are part of that.
Amen! :clap:
Great Post Dave!!
 
Upvote 0

Father Rick

Peace be with you
Jun 23, 2004
8,997
806
Sitting at this computer
Visit site
✟29,431.00
Country
Thailand
Gender
Male
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Private
Bon said:
I don't get it?

General christianity believes that the Ten Commandments of God have been nailed to the cross along with all the Old Testement Laws. Correct?
NO!!! This is not the teaching of the bulk of Christianity, only a few extremists (primarily dispensationalists). Dispensationalist theology is rather new in Church history, originating in the past 150 years or so. It is NOT held by the bulk of the Church, nor is the teaching that the 10 Commandments are done away with.
So, what I do not get is, what then is the christian's yard-stick for good christian living?

If you say the New covenant and Jesus etc. etc. then I have to reply that
one) Jesus kept the Laws of the OT and said that they were not abolished and
two) the new covenant (new Testement) is filled with OT references and characters who observed the Laws and confirmed that they are holy and good.

So does the now obsolete commandent:You shall not kill.....mean, now we can kill and it is not considered a sin?
You shall not commit adultery.....does it mean, now we can?
etc. etc. etc.

I would like bible texts as proof, not man-made rules and traditions please.

With thanks from Bon :confused:
When the Scribes asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment, He answered "Love the Lord your God... and the second is like the first, Love you neighbor as yourself ON THIS HANG ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS" In essence, Jesus was saying that all the laws of the O.T. could be summed up into those 2 categories. If I love my neighbor, I won't lie to them, steal from them, etc. If I love God, I won't worship idols, etc. The contrast between the two is that in the O.T. the people had to have lengthy lists of rules to know what was pleasing to God and in the N.T. His Word is written in out hearts so that we have an intrinsic knowledge of what pleases Him.
 
Upvote 0

Harry the Heretic

guitly of zealotry
Jun 8, 2004
234
13
61
Harvard Il.
✟445.00
Faith
Christian
daveleau said:
No, I think this is a common misconception taught from a dispensationalist point of view (which is only partly right, IMO). There are certain laws that were fulfilled by Christ, such as animal sacrifice and many others. Jesus came, not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and not one word will change until He had done so. When Jesus said, "It is finished", much of the Law went away. BUT, the moral side of the Law remains. The 10 Commandments apply to us every bit as much as they did to the Israelites. These are timeless. Every bit of the ceremonial part of the Law is gone, because that is no longer necessary because of Christ. Every bit of the cultural Law is gone, because most of it was culture-bound and not timeless. The moral Law still remains and the 10 Commandments are part of that.
Romans 8:

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

(italics mine)
 
Upvote 0

BronxBriar

Existentialism is a Humanism
May 4, 2004
429
33
65
New York
✟763.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
daveleau said:
No, I think this is a common misconception taught from a dispensationalist point of view
The moral Law still remains and the 10 Commandments are part of that.
1) Just for the record, I am a dispensationalist and have never been taught that nor do I teach it.

2) Yes the moral law remains but it flows naturally from those who have Faith through Grace. We can't say, "I'll follow the Law and that will save me." We all know what saves don't we?
 
Upvote 0
May 11, 2004
4,273
123
Fortress Kedar
✟28,653.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The Ten Commandments are not for today, Jesus restated the principles (except for the Sabbath), and we need to follow what He said, but the actual law is not for us. Colossians 2:

13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16Therefore 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. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BronxBriar
Upvote 0

New_Wineskin

Contributor
Jun 26, 2004
11,145
652
Elizabethtown , PA , usa
✟13,854.00
Faith
Non-Denom
muffler dragon said:
Awwww, New Wineskin.

It's too bad that this is first thing that you and I disagree upon. But oh well. I figured it would happen sooner or later.
I have a feeling that we differ quite a bit on certain things while agreeing quite a bit on others . But , I am fine with disagreement as long as people don't place requirements on me that the Lord has not already placed . :)


Just to let you know where I stand on Biblical interpretation and things of the sort:

I am of the mindset that there is nothing new in the Brit Chadasha (NT) that is not in the Tanakh (OT). Sha'ul's writings (and the other NT authors for that matter) are more like commentaries on the Tanakh. Therefore, you can find substance for a NT doctrine in the OT. As far as Y'shua, I believe according to John 1:1 that he is the Torah (Logos in Greek, Memra in Aramaic) in the flesh. I believe that he (as well as Sha'ul [Paul]) was a Torah-observant Jew. He remained a Jew as well.
Ok . I am not sure that we connected correctly in my last post . I was attempting to seperate the new covenant from the writings called "the new testament" . I do this because the new covenant isn't based on writings as the Mosaic covenant . It is based more on the type of covenant that Abraham had which was not about writings but about walking with the Lord . If it was based on writings on paper and stone , what woud the difference be ? Paul even mentions that , if there were any set of laws that would succeed , the Law would be that set of laws . So , in several ways , we are on the same page .

I do not agree that Jesus is the Law became flesh or the Scriptures became flesh . I understand that many agree with that idea .

I do not seperate the Scriptures into two covenants since there were a few main ones and I don't see any of them having ended . I do agree that there was much commentary on the older writings in the newer ones . However , the newer writings also outline where a new thing has occured to bring people into a covenant more closely related to Abraham than to Moses .

I do agree that Paul was always a Jew as well as most of the original believers in Jesus being the Messiah . I have no problem with that . I also have no problem with Jesus always being a Jew . However , I am not a Jew as Abraham was not a Jew . Abraham got along fine with the Lord without the Torah ( of which the 10 commandments are a part ) . And , because of the rebirth and the influence of the Holy Spirit , so can I .

So , going back to the OP , I need not be concerned with the Law being nailed to the cross since I was not born under the Law nor have I allowed myself to come under the Law since then . Also , my rebirth was not a result of a promise to Moses or Paul but it was a result of promises made to Abraham who was before Paul's writings and the Torah . So , it doesn't matter if the Law was done away *for me* since I was not nor am I currently under the Law . And , it is written that , what the Law says , it says to those under the Law .

So , if you read that I didn't consider that the Law was to be thrown out by all people , that was miscommunication . I was attempting to stress that they are not a consideration for *me* in *my* being a Gentile .


That's just a little caption of thought to share with you. I'm sure you can read into my statements in this post as to why I disagree with you. If not, just ask me for clarification.

Shalom,

m.d.
Ok . While I think that I understood you in part , I wouldn't know any place specifically where I didn't understand you .
 
Upvote 0

daveleau

In all you do, do it for Christ and w/ Him in mind
Apr 12, 2004
8,984
703
50
Bossier City, LA (removed from his native South C
✟30,474.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
BronxBriar said:
1) Just for the record, I am a dispensationalist and have never been taught that nor do I teach it.

2) Yes the moral law remains but it flows naturally from those who have Faith through Grace. We can't say, "I'll follow the Law and that will save me." We all know what saves don't we?




There is grace in every dispensation but there is only one dispensation of grace.

This is not the belief of all dispensationalists, but it is how dispensationalism started and some do still believe this. I think many call it ultra-dispensationalism, but they both come from the same study source.

I also agree that the Law can not save us. We are to hold to the Law (moral aspects) because without the Law we would not know what sin was. Through the Law (and of course through the NT), we know what sin is and can steer clear of it. Only Faith and repentance saves.

Your sig has a great quote! That is so true and would heal most of the divisions between dispensationalists and covenantalists, if they all understood it.
 
Upvote 0

daveleau

In all you do, do it for Christ and w/ Him in mind
Apr 12, 2004
8,984
703
50
Bossier City, LA (removed from his native South C
✟30,474.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Harry the Heretic said:
Romans 8:

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

(italics mine)

Exactly, we are not saved by the Law, but the moral parts of the Law are there for us to live out. We are past that segment of God's revelation. The 10 Commandments are for us, though, although they do not save us. The one that is most often is the Sabbath, but Hebrews 4 tells us that we should keep it. The rest are obviously ours to keep: no murder, no lying, no adultery, no graven images, no using the name of the Lord in vain, etc.
 
Upvote 0

muffler dragon

Ineffable
Apr 7, 2004
7,320
382
50
✟31,896.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
New_Wineskin said:
I have a feeling that we differ quite a bit on certain things while agreeing quite a bit on others . But , I am fine with disagreement as long as people don't place requirements on me that the Lord has not already placed . :)



Ok . I am not sure that we connected correctly in my last post . I was attempting to seperate the new covenant from the writings called "the new testament" . I do this because the new covenant isn't based on writings as the Mosaic covenant . It is based more on the type of covenant that Abraham had which was not about writings but about walking with the Lord . If it was based on writings on paper and stone , what woud the difference be ? Paul even mentions that , if there were any set of laws that would succeed , the Law would be that set of laws . So , in several ways , we are on the same page .

I do not agree that Jesus is the Law became flesh or the Scriptures became flesh . I understand that many agree with that idea .

I do not seperate the Scriptures into two covenants since there were a few main ones and I don't see any of them having ended . I do agree that there was much commentary on the older writings in the newer ones . However , the newer writings also outline where a new thing has occured to bring people into a covenant more closely related to Abraham than to Moses .

I do agree that Paul was always a Jew as well as most of the original believers in Jesus being the Messiah . I have no problem with that . I also have no problem with Jesus always being a Jew . However , I am not a Jew as Abraham was not a Jew . Abraham got along fine with the Lord without the Torah ( of which the 10 commandments are a part ) . And , because of the rebirth and the influence of the Holy Spirit , so can I .

So , going back to the OP , I need not be concerned with the Law being nailed to the cross since I was not born under the Law nor have I allowed myself to come under the Law since then . Also , my rebirth was not a result of a promise to Moses or Paul but it was a result of promises made to Abraham who was before Paul's writings and the Torah . So , it doesn't matter if the Law was done away *for me* since I was not nor am I currently under the Law . And , it is written that , what the Law says , it says to those under the Law .

So , if you read that I didn't consider that the Law was to be thrown out by all people , that was miscommunication . I was attempting to stress that they are not a consideration for *me* in *my* being a Gentile .



Ok . While I think that I understood you in part , I wouldn't know any place specifically where I didn't understand you .
I, too, understand everything that you are saying.

m.d.
 
Upvote 0

muffler dragon

Ineffable
Apr 7, 2004
7,320
382
50
✟31,896.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
daveleau said:
Exactly, we are not saved by the Law, but the moral parts of the Law are there for us to live out. We are past that segment of God's revelation. The 10 Commandments are for us, though, although they do not save us. The one that is most often is the Sabbath, but Hebrews 4 tells us that we should keep it. The rest are obviously ours to keep: no murder, no lying, no adultery, no graven images, no using the name of the Lord in vain, etc.
Btw, Dave, I just wanted to mention to you that salvation never came to anyone through the Law; not even the Jew. There's really no reason to try to make this distinction.

Shalom,

m.d.
 
Upvote 0

DanielRB

Slave of Allah
Jul 16, 2004
1,958
137
New Mexico
✟26,622.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
daveleau said:
Exactly, we are not saved by the Law, but the moral parts of the Law are there for us to live out. We are past that segment of God's revelation. The 10 Commandments are for us, though, although they do not save us. The one that is most often is the Sabbath, but Hebrews 4 tells us that we should keep it. The rest are obviously ours to keep: no murder, no lying, no adultery, no graven images, no using the name of the Lord in vain, etc.
Hi Daveleau, thanks for your post. :wave:

I disagree with your understanding of Hebrews 4. First, let me quote it here:

" Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: “So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ” although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; and again in this place: “They shall not enter My rest.” Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day." (Hebrews 4:1-8, NKJV)
[1]
[1] The New King James Version. 1996, c1982. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Consider what the author of Hebrews wrote in v5 "they shall not enter My rest", a quote from Psalm 95:11. Turning back to Psalm 95, we read that God was speaking about those who wandered in the wilderness for forty years (Psalm 95:8-10). We know that those who wandered in the wilderness celebrated Sabbath (Ex 16:25ff). If they didn't obey the Sabbath, they were put to death (Numb 15:32ff). Therefore, it doesn't make sense for God to say "they shall not enter my rest", if by "my rest" God meant the Sabbath day, because they had entered it many times during that forty year wandering.

The writer of Hebrews then goes on to state that Joshua didn't give them the rest in Psalm 95:11, otherwise David wouldn't have talked about people still entering that rest (Psalm 95:7 & 8; see also Hebrews 3:16ff). The "rest" that remains for the people of God then neither refers to the Sabbath nor the entry into the land of Canaan. Christ alone brings that true Sabbath; He gives us true rest (Matt 11:29).

Paul made it clear that Sabbath (weekly observance), feast days (annual observance) and new moons (monthly observance) was just a shadow of better things to come--namely, Christ Himself (Col 2:13-17).

I think Colossians is very clear that we shouldn't judge one another on the matter of Sabbath (or feast days, or food or drink); if you want to do these things, fine--if they bring you closer to God, then praise Him! But I believe it is wrong to state that Christians--as a group--are required to observe Sabbath as part of our faithfulness to Christ. (I'm not suggesting that those who believe in Sabbath view it as a condition of salvation; but I don't think it's Scripturally even a condition of obedience, and more than not wearing clothing of mixed fabrics--Deut 22:11--is binding on the Christian.)

In Christ,

Daniel
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Bon said:
I don't get it?

General christianity believes that the Ten Commandments of God have been nailed to the cross along with all the Old Testement Laws. Correct?

So, what I do not get is, what then is the christian's yard-stick for good christian living?

If you say the New covenant and Jesus etc. etc. then I have to reply that
one) Jesus kept the Laws of the OT and said that they were not abolished and
two) the new covenant (new Testement) is filled with OT references and characters who observed the Laws and confirmed that they are holy and good.

So does the now obsolete commandent:You shall not kill.....mean, now we can kill and it is not considered a sin?
You shall not commit adultery.....does it mean, now we can?
etc. etc. etc.

I would like bible texts as proof, not man-made rules and traditions please.

With thanks from Bon :confused:
I typed out a long post but lost it here is a summary of my points:

Colossians 2
14
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Romans 10
4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

The Mosaic code has been done away with and we now live under the law of Christ however some elements of this new code will encorporate elements of the old however the old code as a code has been done away with.
 
Upvote 0

muffler dragon

Ineffable
Apr 7, 2004
7,320
382
50
✟31,896.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
AV1611 said:
I typed out a long post but lost it here is a summary of my points:

Colossians 2
14
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Romans 10
4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

The Mosaic code has been done away with and we now live under the law of Christ however some elements of this new code will encorporate elements of the old however the old code as a code has been done away with.
Dear AV:

Colossians is actually dealing with something besides the Torah, and regarding the Romans 10 statement: it is more a matter of Christ is the example of how to live the Torah lifestyle. In that matter, He is the end of it. The Torah is Perfect; Y'shua (Logos in Greek and Memra in Aramaic) is the Torah embodied.

Anyways... I say all that to say this: I disagree with your assertions above.

m.d.
 
Upvote 0

DanielRB

Slave of Allah
Jul 16, 2004
1,958
137
New Mexico
✟26,622.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
muffler dragon said:
Dear AV:

Colossians is actually dealing with something besides the Torah, and regarding the Romans 10 statement: it is more a matter of Christ is the example of how to live the Torah lifestyle. In that matter, He is the end of it. The Torah is Perfect; Y'shua (Logos in Greek and Memra in Aramaic) is the Torah embodied.

Anyways... I say all that to say this: I disagree with your assertions above.

m.d.
Hi Muffler, thanks for your post. :wave:

Why do you believe Colossians is dealing with something other than Torah?

In Christ,

Daniel
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.