Col 2:16 is about not judging others

[BobRyan]

Sounds pretty much like what happened to Jerusalem in 70ad

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-jerusalem-is-mystically-called-sodom-and-egypt.7570002/

Luke 21:23 "Woe to the ones in belly having and the ones suckling in those the Days!
For shall be great distress upon the Land and Wrath upon this people.

Revelation 18:
4 And I hear another voice out of the heaven saying "come forth! out of Her My people!......................
8 by this, in one day shall be arriving the blows of Her, death and sorrow and famine; and in fire She shall be being burned,
that strong Lord, the God, the one judging Her


.

Hint - Revelation 18 is written around 90 A.D.
and is about the future just before the Rev 19 second coming of Christ - and just before the Rev 20 1000 year millennium and the Rev 20 post-millennial lake of Fire and Great White Throne Judgment.

But -- if we ignore all of that. Well... then ... maybe

And you think both Matthew and Revelation refer to the same thing.

Well John writes at the end of the first century about a future event.

Luke writes about a future event in 70 A.D.

Two different things as it turns out.

 

[BobRyan]

In this following post it is pointed out that in Col 2 - we do not find Paul condemning the Bible, no condemnation of eating, no condemnation of drinking - and no condemnation of God's Sabbath as we find it in the Ten Commandments.

Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command.

But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.


Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)


In Mark 7:6-13 the Jews were simply "making stuff up" to get around one of the TEN Commandments - and of course Christ condemned them for that.

In Mark 2:19-22 they did it as well and Christ refuted their arguments.

Is it any wonder that in Col 2 the saints were contending with the same problem of man-made-doctrine and traditions -- "making stuff up"??

Not at all surprising.

 

[BABerean2]

Is it any wonder that in Col 2 the saints were contending with the same problem of man-made-doctrine and traditions -- "making stuff up"??

Not at all surprising.

Yes... making up stuff... like the Sabbath... right...



Saying Jesus is coming back on October 22, 1844, would be making stuff up...

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/shutdoor.html

.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes... making up stuff... like the Sabbath... right...

The idea that the Sabbath commandment is not in the Bible as one of the TEN Commandments - is a pretty hard story to sell.

Uphill all the way. And I think both you and I know that it is not just the Bible and not just pro-Bible-Sabbath groups that would admit to this - but it is also the majority of pro-Sunday scholars.

Now for those not inclined to ignore every detail in Colossians 2 - we have

In this following post it is pointed out that in Col 2 - we do not find Paul condemning the Bible, no condemnation of eating, no condemnation of drinking - and no condemnation of God's Sabbath as we find it in the Ten Commandments.

Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command.

But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.


Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)


In Mark 7:6-13 the Jews were simply "making stuff up" to get around one of the TEN Commandments - and of course Christ condemned them for that.

In Mark 2:19-22 they did it as well and Christ refuted their arguments.

Is it any wonder that in Col 2 the saints were contending with the same problem of man-made-doctrine and traditions -- "making stuff up"??

Not at all surprising.

 

[BobRyan]

Saying Jesus is coming back on October 22, 1844, would be making stuff up...
.

Off topic 'again'
And William Miller of course - was Baptist.

When flame posting you might want to be a bit more specific.

otherwise it looks like your are trying to off-topic flame-post baptists.

 

[BABerean2]

Is it any wonder that in Col 2 the saints were contending with the same problem of man-made-doctrine and traditions -- "making stuff up"??

Since the Sabbath is found in Colossians 2:16, it cannot fit into your "making stuff up" category...

.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes... making up stuff... like the Sabbath... right...

The idea that the Sabbath commandment is not in the Bible as one of the TEN Commandments - is a pretty hard story to sell.

Uphill all the way. And I think both you and I know that it is not just the Bible and not just pro-Bible-Sabbath groups that would admit to this - but it is also the majority of pro-Sunday scholars.

Now for those not inclined to ignore every detail in Colossians 2 - we have

In this following post it is pointed out that in Col 2 - we do not find Paul condemning the Bible, no condemnation of eating, no condemnation of drinking - and no condemnation of God's Sabbath as we find it in the Ten Commandments.

Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command.

But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.


Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)


In Mark 7:6-13 the Jews were simply "making stuff up" to get around one of the TEN Commandments - and of course Christ condemned them for that.

In Mark 2:19-22 they did it as well and Christ refuted their arguments.

Is it any wonder that in Col 2 the saints were contending with the same problem of man-made-doctrine and traditions -- "making stuff up"??

Not at all surprising.

Since the Sabbath is found in Colossians 2:16, it cannot fit into your "making stuff up" category...
.

That appears to be nonsensical given the post you are responding to --

Yes... making up stuff... like the Sabbath... right...

The idea that the Sabbath commandment is not in the Bible as one of the TEN Commandments - is a pretty hard story to sell.

Uphill all the way. And I think both you and I know that it is not just the Bible and not just pro-Bible-Sabbath groups that would admit to this - but it is also the majority of pro-Sunday scholars.

Since the Sabbath is found in Colossians 2:16, it cannot fit into your "making stuff up" category...
.

That previous quote was "you" coming up with the "Yes... making up stuff... like the Sabbath... right..." statement -- not me.

Did you simply "forget"??

I was not saying the Sabbath is made up - that was a quote of you!

Were we all just "not supposed to notice"???

 

[BABerean2]

The idea that the Sabbath commandment is not in the Bible as one of the TEN Commandments - is a pretty hard story to sell.

Uphill all the way. And I think both you and I know that it is not just the Bible and not just pro-Bible-Sabbath groups that would admit to this - but it is also the majority of pro-Sunday scholars.

Now for those not inclined to ignore every detail in Colossians 2 - we have

In this following post it is pointed out that in Col 2 - we do not find Paul condemning the Bible, no condemnation of eating, no condemnation of drinking - and no condemnation of God's Sabbath as we find it in the Ten Commandments.

Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command.

But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.


Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)


In Mark 7:6-13 the Jews were simply "making stuff up" to get around one of the TEN Commandments - and of course Christ condemned them for that.

In Mark 2:19-22 they did it as well and Christ refuted their arguments.

Is it any wonder that in Col 2 the saints were contending with the same problem of man-made-doctrine and traditions -- "making stuff up"??

Not at all surprising.



That appears to be nonsensical given the post you are responding to --



The idea that the Sabbath commandment is not in the Bible as one of the TEN Commandments - is a pretty hard story to sell.

Uphill all the way. And I think both you and I know that it is not just the Bible and not just pro-Bible-Sabbath groups that would admit to this - but it is also the majority of pro-Sunday scholars.



That previous quote was "you" coming up with the "Yes... making up stuff... like the Sabbath... right..." statement -- not me.

Did you simply "forget"??

I was not saying the Sabbath is made up - that was a quote of you!

Were we all just "not supposed to notice"???

It was my original understanding that you were claiming the things listed in Colossians 2:16 were doctrines that came from men. That was the reason for my response.

.

 

[BobRyan]

Also, define "New heaven and earth"

So then Revelation 21 comes to mind.

Shadow and reality. (col 2) What are they?

Colossians 2 to refers to annual holy days in Lev 23 - observed only in animal-sacrifice - pointing forward to Christ.

And it also speaks about "making stuff up" in form of "Commandments of men" and "self mad religion"

Now for those not inclined to ignore every detail in Colossians 2 - we have

In this following post it is pointed out that in Col 2 - we do not find Paul condemning the Bible, no condemnation of eating, no condemnation of drinking - and no condemnation of God's Sabbath as we find it in the Ten Commandments.

Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command.

But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.


Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)


In Mark 7:6-13 the Jews were simply "making stuff up" to get around one of the TEN Commandments - and of course Christ condemned them for that.

In Mark 2:19-22 they did it as well and Christ refuted their arguments.

Is it any wonder that in Col 2 the saints were contending with the same problem of man-made-doctrine and traditions -- "making stuff up"??

Not at all surprising.

 

[BABerean2]

we do not find Paul condemning the Bible, no condemnation of eating, no condemnation of drinking - and no condemnation of God's Sabbath as we find it in the Ten Commandments.

He does compare the Sinai covenant to bondage in Galatians chapter 4.

Gal 4:24　 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.　

Gal 4:25　 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Later Paul compels the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai covenant of "bondage".

Gal 4:30　 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.　

Gal 4:31　 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.　

The inheritance does not come through the Sinai covenant.


We are under a better covenant, with a better mediator, which has made the Old Covenant "obsolete".

Heb 7:12　 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.　

Heb 8:6　 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.　

Heb 8:13　 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


We can stay on Mount Sinai, which is the covenant of bondage in Galatians 4 and the ministry of death in 2 Corinthians 3.

Or we can go to Mount Zion which is the covenant of liberty, through the spirit that dwells inside of us.
　

2Co 3:6　 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.　

2Co 3:7　 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,　
2Co 3:8　 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?　

 

[BobRyan]

Colossians 2 refers to annual holy days in Lev 23 - observed only in animal-sacrifice - pointing forward to Christ.

And it also speaks about "making stuff up" in form of "Commandments of men" and "self mad religion"

Now for those not inclined to ignore every detail in Colossians 2 - we have

In this following post it is pointed out that in Col 2 - we do not find Paul condemning the Bible, no condemnation of eating, no condemnation of drinking - and no condemnation of God's Sabbath as we find it in the Ten Commandments.

Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command.

But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.


Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)


In Mark 7:6-13 the Jews were simply "making stuff up" to get around one of the TEN Commandments - and of course Christ condemned them for that.

In Mark 2:19-22 they did it as well and Christ refuted their arguments.

Is it any wonder that in Col 2 the saints were contending with the same problem of man-made-doctrine and traditions -- "making stuff up"??

Not at all surprising.

===================================

He does compare the Sinai covenant to bondage in Galatians chapter 4.

Gal 4:24　 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.　

Gal 4:25　 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Later Paul compels the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai covenant of "bondage".

Gal 4:30　 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.　

Gal 4:31　 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.　

The inheritance does not come through the Sinai covenant.


We are under a better covenant, with a better mediator, which has made the Old Covenant "obsolete".

Heb 7:12　 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.　

Heb 8:6　 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.　

Heb 8:13　 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


We can stay on Mount Sinai, which is the covenant of bondage in Galatians 4 and the ministry of death in 2 Corinthians 3.

Or we can go to Mount Zion which is the covenant of liberty, through the spirit that dwells inside of us.
　

2Co 3:6　 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.　

2Co 3:7　 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,　
2Co 3:8　 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?　

No wait! Did you just ignore every text in Colossian 2... for responding to the colossians 2 quotes I just gave???

Did you want to talk about Galatians instead?

 

[BABerean2]

No wait! Did you just ignore every text in Colossian 2... for responding to the colossians 2 quotes I just gave???

Did you want to talk about Galatians instead?

You may not be aware that the two passages are related.

Gal 4:24　 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—

Or do you want to ignore the fact that they are related?

.

.　

 

[BobRyan]

You may not be aware that the two passages are related.

Gal 4:24　 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—

Or do you want to ignore the fact that they are related?
　

Does not justify ignoring every text quoted from Col 2 in my response to your post.

The term "under the LAW" in Gal 4 -- in its most favorable light - means under the obligation of the ceremonial law apart from faith. But in general Paul uses the term with respect to condemnation under the moral of God without the Gospel benefit of salvation.

The end of Galatians 4 is not about condemning the Word of God in the OT - it is the use of an allegory to demonstrate that the LAW of God is not a second-gospel a competing-gospel and never was. Period.

Gal 4
21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?

<Paul is not saying "tell me you want want to affirm scripture - the Word of God -- how dare you not condemn scripture" > Rather Paul is addressing those who want to use the Law as a gospel.

Gal 4
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear;
Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor;
For more numerous are the children of the desolate
Than of the one who has a husband.”

NOTE: "Jerusalem above" was there in both OT and NT times. This is not a condemnation of the OT text of scripture. In fact it is in the OT that we find the NEW Covenant "I will write My LAWS on their heart and mind" Jer 31:31-33 - what is more "for it is written" is a reference to the still-authoritative OT text - as scripture.

Gal 4
28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the Scripture say?

“Cast out the bondwoman and her son,
For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.”

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

NOTE: "Him who is born of the Spirit" is the same pre-cross teaching we see from Christ in John 3 - speaking to Nicodemus. Far from being a condemnation of pre-cross teaching - it affirms it.


================================
Rom 9
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

1 John 3:4 - "SIN IS transgression of the LAW" both in OT and also by NT standards

So then in Rom 6 Paul speaks about the obligation not to SIN - even though not "under the law" -- not under the condemnation of the LAW.

 

[BABerean2]

Rather Paul is addressing those who want to use the Law as a gospel.

They would be known as Judaisers.

They are still with us today.

They put the emphasis on the Law, instead of Jesus Christ.

.

 

[BobRyan]

They would be known as Judaisers.

They would be - but all the Jewish Apostles and Bible writers would still be Messianic Jews that would not be known as "Judaisers".

Details 'matter'

The point remains.

 

[BABerean2]

The point remains.

Act 15:5　 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."　

.

 

[Bob S]

Act 15:5　 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."　

.

Seems like the same broken record today except the sects only prescribe parts of the Law of Moses. Does God offer dispensation to those who are not willing to participate in all of the now defunct covenant?

 

[disciple1]

In Rev 12 we see the work of the "Accuser of the brethren".

In Matt 7 (pre-cross -- and law in full effect) Christ condemns judging others.

In Col 2:16 we have this -

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


An example of NOT condemning eating OR drinking or remembering God's Ten-Commandment creation-Sabbath day to keep it holy. Rather Col 2 condemns the "commandments of men" - (as is so carefully avoided in the quotes we often see from Col 2)


Col 2 is 0pposed to making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command. - so it is opposed to 'making stuff up' - via "man-made tradition"

As is Christ against it --

GOD speaks for God and HE already spoke to this point of changing His Law via church tradition. As we see in Mark 7:6-13

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it is shown via "Sola Scriptura" testing that it is traditions and "doctrines of men" that are at odds with scripture



You can't be serious.

Perhaps a short "summary" to refresh short term memory.
=============================================
=============================================



Do you say that as the "Accuser of the brethren" in Rev 12 - or do you have some "other source"??









And then of course we have "you".





And we all would agree to this -- the rebellious child could easily say to his/her parents "first you must be perfect then you may tell me to Honor my Father and Mother as God instructed in the Bible" -- but of course -- that is "old news"

Like I said no one obeys the Sabbath.
1 John chapter 1 verse 8
If anyone claims to be without sin they deceive themselves and the truth is not in them.
James chapter 2 verse 10
If anyone keeps the whole law yet stumbles at just one point their guilty of breaking all of it.

Those two verses show everyone is guilty of breaking the Sabbath, even you.
And you've misused many verses in what you quoted.

 

[BobRyan]

Like I said no one obeys the Sabbath. .

In Romans 8 Paul does admit to a certain group of the lost who do not submit to the Law of God "neither indeed can they".

Rom 8
He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

[BobRyan]

They would be known as Judaisers.

They would be - but all the Jewish Apostles and Bible writers would still be Messianic Jews that would not be known as "Judaisers".

Details 'matter'

The point remains.

Act 15:5　 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."　
.

And of course - they - were not the Jewish Apostles.

The point remains.