God's Ten Commandments? Still valid?

[RickD]

Rick: And, is this where you're going with Christ having the authority to make a new covenant, and he also had the authority to make the old covenant obsolete?

Ah, so much back and forth over whether there is a covenant that is permanent that the Lord gives that even He (supposedly) can no rescind. But as for the Sabbath - what about BEFORE that law was ever given - because, for a very long time, it didn't exist for man, and later, when Israel was born a nation, it did. And later, Christians were no longer under The Law.

Philip,

If the sabbath law was instituted at creation, wouldn't there be an unbroken succession of God's covenant people observing the sabbath before it was written as part of mosaic law? Like biblical proof that Adam, Noah, and Abraham, were observing the sabbath?

[Philip]

Rick: Philip,

If the sabbath law was instituted at creation, wouldn't there be an unbroken succession of God's covenant people observing the sabbath before it was written as part of mosaic law? Like biblical proof that Adam, Noah, and Abraham, were observing the sabbath?

I'll have to think on that one.

But people need to distinguish between laws given for a particular purpose and period of time, and in those that are absolutes for ALL time - like laws against murder, rape, etc. Of course, ALL of God's pronouncements emanate from His Holy character, but there are important nuances as to how those play out. A law that God's purpose for has been fulfilled, He sometimes removes. Others He has an eternal purpose for making. It's the failure to see the difference where this argument breaks down into camps of belief.

[LittleHamster]

Rick: Philip,

If the sabbath law was instituted at creation, wouldn't there be an unbroken succession of God's covenant people observing the sabbath before it was written as part of mosaic law? Like biblical proof that Adam, Noah, and Abraham, were observing the sabbath?

I'll have to think on that one.

But people need to distinguish between laws given for a particular purpose and period of time, and in those that are absolutes for ALL time - like laws against murder, rape, etc. Of course, ALL of God's pronouncements emanate from His Holy character, but there are important nuances as to how those play out. A law that God's purpose for has been fulfilled, He sometimes removes. Others He has an eternal purpose for making. It's the failure to see the difference where this argument breaks down into camps of belief.

What about when God flooded the place and killed everyone. That was kind of a hard-reset for humanity. Was God going against his own Holy character ? Arguing that's a form of 'tough love' is stretchin' it a bit. Even 'wrathful' is putting mildly.

BTW, that reminds me of a church slogan I once saw...."Noah was a brave man to get on a boat with 2 termites"

[BavarianWheels]

Rick: Philip,

If the sabbath law was instituted at creation, wouldn't there be an unbroken succession of God's covenant people observing the sabbath before it was written as part of mosaic law? Like biblical proof that Adam, Noah, and Abraham, were observing the sabbath?

I'll have to think on that one.

But people need to distinguish between laws given for a particular purpose and period of time, and in those that are absolutes for ALL time - like laws against murder, rape, etc. Of course, ALL of God's pronouncements emanate from His Holy character, but there are important nuances as to how those play out. A law that God's purpose for has been fulfilled, He sometimes removes. Others He has an eternal purpose for making. It's the failure to see the difference where this argument breaks down into camps of belief.

Laws are fulfilled DAILY by many people in society. I fulfill the STOP sign law daily and multiple times. That fulfillment doesn't absolve me from stopping at a STOP sign tomorrow. I'm sure you fulfill the law daily too. That doesn't mean that the law is done away with tomorrow.

The Sabbath law does serve a purpose and a period of time...it is every Sabbath and for the purpose of celebrating that God is Creator...that period of time never ends. God is and will always be Creator.

Christ fulfilling the law means He was not under the curse of the law, not that the law ended...as you even prove by repeating murder above...though He willfully BECAME a curse for us, not in that He sinned, but that He willfully took on the curse of the law.
.
.

[B. W.]

Christ fulfilling the law means He was not under the curse of the law, not that the law ended...as you even prove by repeating murder above...though He willfully BECAME a curse for us, not in that He sinned, but that He willfully took on the curse of the law.

So Jesus paid the price for breaking the sabbath law too and thus Col 2:16 is indeed true

Col 2:16, "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths..." NKJV

Amen!

Great point Bav!
-
-
-

[BavarianWheels]

Christ fulfilling the law means He was not under the curse of the law, not that the law ended...as you even prove by repeating murder above...though He willfully BECAME a curse for us, not in that He sinned, but that He willfully took on the curse of the law.

So Jesus paid the price for breaking the sabbath law too and thus Col 2:16 is indeed true

Col 2:16, "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths..." NKJV

Amen!

Great point Bav!

The context of Colossians 2:16 is not on the Sabbath of the 10, but of the sabbaths of new moons, festival sabbaths.
There is no law about food or drink in the Decalogue. So while it is correct that no one should judge anyone on food or drink or sabbaths, it is not speaking about the Sabbath made holy at creation.

Clearly the law Paul speaks about in Romans 3:20, is a specific Law which was specifically handed down from God to His people...and if we are Christians to be grafted into the Vine...that Vine being of Jewish/Hebrew decent, it is not a matter of something being handed to only Jews and not to Christians...

And again, payment for breaking of a law is not being absolved in continuing to keep the law. Just because I pay the penalty for speeding, does not absolve me from ever having to keep from speeding again!

.
.

[warren631]

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus reportedly said:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…"

Isn't that plain enough?

[Byblos]

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus reportedly said:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…"

Isn't that plain enough?

You highlighted and underlined the wrong sentence. Fixed that for ya.

[BavarianWheels]

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus reportedly said:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…"

Isn't that plain enough?

You highlighted and underlined the wrong sentence. Fixed that for ya.

So then now show where it is that those jots and strokes are plainly laid out in the same manner that God handed the jots and strokes at Sinai.

Hint: It doesn't exist.

One more hint: Did God use a pen and paper to hand off the Decalogue? Was it a scroll God handed Moses? A book?

So then AGAIN, the context is completely different to what you allege it to be. It's the CEREMONIAL laws that are changed/removed when everything is accomplished. Food, drinks, new moons, festivals, sabbaths...etc. These are laws of the ceremonial law, not the Decalogue. The ceremonial laws were the shadow of things to come...Christ's blood was shadowed by the blood of animals, the skins of animals that covered Adam and Eve were a shadow of Christ's blood that covers our sin...the food, the drink...these were all shadows of the Bread of Life, Christ's own body, of the Blood that Jesus said we must all drink...etc.

Everything in the Temple and everything that had to do with the Temple was a shadow of the reality in Christ...all accomplished THROUGH Jesus' redemptive work and NAILED to the cross.

So...do we then nullify God's Law? No...because that is a different law...IT points at sin, NOT Christ's redemptive work.
.
.

[Byblos]

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus reportedly said:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…"

Isn't that plain enough?

You highlighted and underlined the wrong sentence. Fixed that for ya.

So then now show where it is that those jots and strokes are plainly laid out in the same manner that God handed the jots and strokes at Sinai.

Hint: It doesn't exist.
.
.

To state that is to go beyond legalism and deny what Christ did indeed accomplish (and that's coming from a Catholic for goodness sake).

Of course, I'm not saying you're denying what Christ accomplished but, based on what you said, the same argument can be made for it.

[BavarianWheels]

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus reportedly said:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…"

Isn't that plain enough?

You highlighted and underlined the wrong sentence. Fixed that for ya.

So then now show where it is that those jots and strokes are plainly laid out in the same manner that God handed the jots and strokes at Sinai.

Hint: It doesn't exist.
.
.

To state that is to go beyond legalism and deny what Christ did indeed accomplish (and that's coming from a Catholic for goodness sake).

Of course, I'm not saying you're denying what Christ accomplished but, based on what you said, the same argument can be made for it.

See my edits to that post.

I don't deny that Christ accomplished something, I deny Christ accomplished abolishing His own law. I don't promote legalism any more than Christ promoted legalism to the woman caught in adultery in saying, "Go and sin no more" AFTER having told her He didn't accuse her either! ( See John 8:1-11 )

Don't you see the parallelism of Christ taking on the curse of the law and Paul saying the law points to sin and that we, if we live according to the Spirit should then do as the Spirit does. Does the Spirit sin? Then the Spirit acts according to God's law. "I don't condemn you, so go and sin no more." paraphrased.
.
.

[neo-x]

What the hell are you talking about bav? no one is encouraged to sin just because they are in Christ and under the law no more. You are spewing nonsense all over the place.

[BavarianWheels]

What the hell are you talking about bav? no one is encouraged to sin just because they are in Christ and under the law no more. You are spewing nonsense all over the place.

Exactly. No one is encouraged to sin...and so how do we know what sin is?

Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7

20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

7What then shall we say? Is the Law sin? By no means! Indeed, I would not have been mindful of sin if not for the Law. For I would not have been aware of coveting if the Law had not said, “Do not covet.”

Being in Christ does not therefore excuse blatant breaking of the Law, but assures the believer that EVEN THOUGH he/she IS a sinner, that the sinner is declared righteous ( the law's curse not found on us ) THROUGH Christ's righteousness!.
.
.

[B. W.]

Christ fulfilling the law means He was not under the curse of the law, not that the law ended...as you even prove by repeating murder above...though He willfully BECAME a curse for us, not in that He sinned, but that He willfully took on the curse of the law.

So Jesus paid the price for breaking the sabbath law too and thus Col 2:16 is indeed true

Col 2:16, "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths..." NKJV

Amen!

Great point Bav!

The context of Colossians 2:16 is not on the Sabbath of the 10, but of the sabbaths of new moons, festival sabbaths.
There is no law about food or drink in the Decalogue. So while it is correct that no one should judge anyone on food or drink or sabbaths, it is not speaking about the Sabbath made holy at creation.

Clearly the law Paul speaks about in Romans 3:20, is a specific Law which was specifically handed down from God to His people...and if we are Christians to be grafted into the Vine...that Vine being of Jewish/Hebrew decent, it is not a matter of something being handed to only Jews and not to Christians...

And again, payment for breaking of a law is not being absolved in continuing to keep the law. Just because I pay the penalty for speeding, does not absolve me from ever having to keep from speeding again!

So, what I am hearing you say is this, that Jesus atoned for all sins except breaking the Saturday sabbath?

Wouldn't that mean, then, that his sacrifice was not a sufficient sacrifice for all sins?
-
-
-

[neo-x]

What the hell are you talking about bav? no one is encouraged to sin just because they are in Christ and under the law no more. You are spewing nonsense all over the place.

Exactly. No one is encouraged to sin...and so how do we know what sin is?

Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7

20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

7What then shall we say? Is the Law sin? By no means! Indeed, I would not have been mindful of sin if not for the Law. For I would not have been aware of coveting if the Law had not said, “Do not covet.”

Being in Christ does not therefore excuse blatant breaking of the Law, but assures the believer that EVEN THOUGH he/she IS a sinner, that the sinner is declared righteous ( the law's curse not found on us ) THROUGH Christ's righteousness!.
.
.

Only a jew knows sin from the law. The Christian knows it from Christ's teachings which at times goes against what the ot claims. Plus most of the decalouge Is straight forward common sense. Don't lie don't steal, etc etc, these ideas exist outside of the law as well, and any functioning society would have them.