Alex G wrote:Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a SABBATH DAY-THINGS WHICH ARE A MERE SHADOW OF WHAT IS TO COME; but the substance belongs to Christ."
Another interesting point that further substanciates mine is that you (generic "you" because many people throw this text out as "proof") conveniently use this verse to do away with the Sabbath of the 10...but conveniently continue to eat and drink of which the 10 makes no mention of. Also notice it is a sabbath and not The Sabbath which is spoken of here. So what is the writer speaking of here. Clearly it is the festival sabbaths and not THE Sabbath of which God "mistakenly" wrote on stone initially, then clarified that the Sabbath was made for man...and so not "Jewish".
Alex G wrote:Or an "undersight" by you? No one portion of Scripture includes ALL OTHERS simultaneously. This is why we study the whole counsel of God, all of Scripture. And when our Lord came he began to reveal the purpose of the law, he fulfilled it and became its satisfaction on our behalf.
He did reveal the purpose time and time again as the NT writers tell us. The law does nothing FOR sinners except point at sin. Of course He fulfilled it. It's His law. When someone fulfills the classes required to be a Dentist...does that make clear the way for everyone from that point on to not have to take Anatomy? No. Likewise, Christ fulfilled the law, yet the law still remains as a beacon unto sin just as Anatomy remains for others to learn from. If in fact the law points at sin, what then does that say about doing the opposite ANY of them in part or in whole willfully? It means you're sinning willfully and knowingly against God's will. It is not our law keeping that saves us, it is Christ's keeping which is perfect that by grace through faith we are counted as DEAD to the law but alive in the Spirit which loves and upholds the law. Read what Paul says when he asks about nullifying the law...
Alex G wrote:Your claim that it is not given to one group, however is a rather miscue here. The context of Leviticus and those ritual observances are specifically for the nation of Israel during the Theocracy of Israel.
Are you claiming you're not under a Theocracy? Do you call yourself a Christian? Who is your king then?
Alex G wrote:That is the exact reason we study the whole counsel of God and do not use the erroneous proof text method of theological development. We learn God's Word in its entirety and discover, for example, that the law, particularly the ritual law and those laws governing Sabbath practices were fulfilled in Christ and he has now become our Sabbath.
True again, Christ fulfilled the law, yet no where does He mention belief/faith in Him is a replacement to the Sabbath. While it is true we can rest in His promise, we are still sinners and cannot (or should not) willfully sin against Him. Christ had many opportunities to clearly state the old law (the 10) is done away with, but you know as well as I that instead He reaffirmed the law and infact clarified that it was not just the act of murder, but hate in the heart that murdered. It was not the act of adultery, but the mere thought which was sin. Similarly, Christ continually clarified what the Sabbath was about since He kept "breaking" it ACCORDING TO THE PHARISEES/SADDUCEES manner of keeping it. Christ said, "Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
Hebrews is quite clear that the law spoken of by Paul is the law of gifts and sacrifices (Hebrews 8:4) and that the shadow of things is the sanctuary itself (Hebrews 8:5) of which is a copy of what is in heaven. Further it also is clear on what the problem was with the first covenant...it's not the covenant, but the sin of humanity (Hebrews 8:8). God says that He took them by the hand,
but because they did not remain faithful to His covenant, He turned from them. (Hebrews 8:9). God says he will put His law on the minds and hearts of His people.
Next God calls the old covenant "new" (Jer. 31:31, Hebrews 8:8, 8:13) Why does call it new and the NIV put "new" in quotes? Then in Hebrews 9:1, we're told "the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary." You might say, AH-HA!...there it is...regulations for worship. However the 10 does not have any regulation(s) for a sanctuary so it is clear this law is the code and not God's Law of the 10. Further in Hebrews 9:4 we are told what is put INSIDE the ark of the covenant, the jar of manna (which fell daily, twice as much on Friday and none fell on the Sabbath), Aaron's staff, and the stone tablets of the covenant (the 10). Deuteronomy tells us where these laws and regulations were put and kept. The book is placed beside (outside) the ark. (Deut. 31:26) This book of the law contains sickness and disaster (Deut. 28:61) it contains curses (Deut. 29:21) it contains commands and decrees (Deut. 30:10) it contains plans on how to build the sanctuary (Joshua 8:31) it contains laws and decrees from Joshua (Joshua 24:26) it contains the how and why to put to death (2 Kings 14:6) it took about 6 hours to read the Book of the Law (Neh.8:1-3, 9:3) And then guess what? Paul mentions the Book of the Law...and it's curses...and states that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law of which it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." (Galations 3:10:14)
So then the question begs...where, in the 10 Commandments does it read about being cursed if on a tree? Where does it tell "us" how to build a sanctuary or list curses and sickness or disaster. Where is Joshua's decrees etched in the stone God wrote on with His own finger? Where does the 10 mention how and why to put to death?
Nowhere.
So then in doing as you, Alex G, promote in doing:
Alex G wrote:That is the exact reason we study the whole counsel of God and do not use the erroneous proof text method of theological development. We learn God's Word in its entirety and discover, for example..
What is the correct conclusion on exactly what was nailed to the cross? Which are those commands that Christ mentioned, "If you love me keep my commands."??
I think I've done exactly what you said SHOULD be done in study.
.
.