Colossians 2:14-16 - The Law That Was Against Us

[quietthinker]

hes already got you captive by the law, and through your disobedience, why would he care the trap was set and you are in it.,

Concluding that God is opposed to his own Law is where the trap is. It is this position that Lucifer attempts to ratchet people's understanding around to. He (Lucifer) invests God with his own attributes and attempts to palm them off as God's. It is you who are in the trap mjrhealth!

 

[Tong2020]

If the Commandments of God...ie the "Law", specifically the decalogue... Have been fine away with for those in Christ, why is it that the dragon, aka Satan, passes by all those who don't care about obedience to God's Commandments, and directs his warfare against those that do??
KJV Revelation 12:17
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Of course Satan war against his enemies. And his enemies are those who are in Christ, who knows the love of God, who keeps God’s commandments.

Now, it is not that scriptures said that a new covenant had replaced the old covenant and was done away with along with the old covenant laws, which includes the ten commandments, that it is alright for the new covenant people, the Christians, to not keep them. But indeed, the Christians are free in relation to the law, and are not under the law. This is what NT scriptures says concerning that.

Galatians 5:13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this:“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

It is helpful in understanding that if you consider this scriptures:

Romans 13:9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Tong
R1375

 

[Brakelite]

Concluding that God is opposed to his own Law is where the trap is. It is this position that Lucifer attempts to ratchet people's understanding around to. He (Lucifer) invests God with his own attributes and attempts to palm them off as God's. It is you who are in the trap mjrhealth!

Similar to the lie that the fault with the old covenant was with God. As if He had to renege on His promises because the laws were supposedly too difficult even impossible to obey. So the new covenant somehow is all about removing the law and the obligation to obey. It's all God's fault... Never ours. Then they weaken and humiliate God by claiming the flesh of man is so powerful that Divine power cannot overcome it. Again, God's fault. God is presented as desperately running around in circles trying to fix His own mistakes.

 

[BarneyFife]

Of course Satan war against his enemies. And his enemies are those who are in Christ, who knows the love of God, who keeps God’s commandments.

Now, it is not that scriptures said that a new covenant had replaced the old covenant and was done away with along with the old covenant laws, which includes the ten commandments, that it is alright for the new covenant people, the Christians, to not keep them. But indeed, the Christians are free in relation to the law, and are not under the law. This is what NT scriptures says concerning that.

Galatians 5:13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this:“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

It is helpful in understanding that if you consider this scriptures:

Romans 13:9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Tong
R1375

Kinda puts the notion of slavery to rest, eh?
Just a bunch of confusing doubletalk
Especially this bit:

Now, it is not that scriptures said that a new covenant had replaced the old covenant and was done away with along with the old covenant laws, which includes the ten commandments, that it is alright for the new covenant people, the Christians, to not keep them. But indeed, the Christians are free in relation to the law, and are not under the law. This is what NT scriptures says concerning that.

Keep the law, but free in relation to the law.
??? Flibbledee-flabbledee-doo

So, along with this bit:

Galatians 5:13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this:“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

It is helpful in understanding that if you consider this scriptures:

Romans 13:9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

A summation of the post would be:
"Keeping the commandments doesn't really mean keeping the commandments. 'Loving your neighbor' replaces all of that. That stuff that you learned in Sunday School 50 years ago: All lies."

 

[BarneyFife]

I changed my mind. We're gonna go.

The quoted passage does not teach that the ten commandments were given to Adam and Eve, more so given and binding before or after the fall of mankind.

No passage teaches specifically that the ten commandments were given to Adam and Eve. I've already admitted that. So what are you on about?

Such is amoral, is it not?

Besides, if one considers the commandment to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, such belief could not be implied nor inferred in it. However, what it implies is that they do not have such knowledge, and that if and when they eat of it, they would have such knowledge.

Lots of stuff can be implied or inferred. That's how language works. The possibilities are not limited to your imagination's capacity.

The passage you quoted does not support what you say the character of God is, that is, “selfless, other-centered love”.

The Son is not some “other” or different being.

The Son is the 2nd person of the Godhead and as such is distinct in some way, at least. If this were not so, He could not pray to His father. The seperate personalities of the trinity defer to one another throughout scripture. They are selfless and other-centered in their relation to one another. If you don't buy it, you don't buy it. You have the right to be wrong.

To me, love is a characteristic of God and so of the children of God. And so to me, regarding the child of God, loving God supremely and neighbor as himself, more than it may well be a code, is the manifestation of such character, the fruit of it, so to speak.

Thank you for your opinion, but the 2 great commandments do not originate with you, so I don't understand the "to me" remarks. And thank you for admitting that the two great commandments "may well be a code." I would remind you that upon those two, hangs all the Law and the Prophets and, most especially, as is obvious, the ten commandments..

I agree that laws were created by God. And that said, before any law was ever created, there was no law. So that, it could not be said that there was law before all creation. As such too then, God is correctly not bound by anything, much less some law He created. His cooperation with the laws He created is not that He is bounded by it or that He could be bound by it, but that such perceived cooperation is due to the character of God. Besides, whatever law that God created, is not for Him to be bounded by it, but were made for His purpose/s, to His glory.

God's law is a transcript of His character and thus exists in eternity. Your God is too small, to coin a phrase.

So you don’t know. That is basically because nowhere in scriptures can one read about that, even about the belief that the Edenic pair were given the ten commandments (be it before or after the fall). So that, nothing could be concluded on the matter of whether the ten commandments were given and binding to to mankind from the very start of the creation of mankind, more so, before the transgression of Adam.

Again, I've already admitted that there is no text which explicitly says that Adam and Eve were given the ten commandments, but I contend that there is plenty enough biblical evidence to conclude that they were.

Pardon me, but “It is impossible for sin to exist when there is no law” are your words, not God’s. And it is correct to ask you, not God, what you meant by that and why you say that, when you say you agree that Romans 4:15 does not mean to say that for sin to exist there must be a law given.

Given; existed. We've been all over this. There is a distinct difference between knowing a law and a law merely being in existence. I'm sorry you can't grasp that simple reality. "It is impossible for sin to exist where there is no law" means exactly the same thing expressed in Romans 4:15. Sorry you can't see that, as well.

According to you, the born again man are not slaves, but the scriptures says otherwise and speaks of them in such figure.

Romans 6:18 having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

Romans 6:22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God,......

So, how does that affect the “freedom of choice” of those figured to be slaves of sin and of those slaves of righteousness?

In the figure of being slaves, either of sin or of righteousness, such slave figure makes the “freedom of choice” of both somewhat curtailed, limited or restricted, is it not?

You debunked the theory you suggested here in your post #163 where you quote Galations 5:13. Don't blame me for that.

I am going to ignore whatever baseless things you say here. They are uncalled for in a christian forum. Such are but empty words, unprofitable, and worthless, if I may say so.

You, of course, may say so, but you do err in using the word "baseless," since I already explained that I've been down this long and winding road with you before, so I base my claims on documented prior experience with your behavior.

By the way, are you the authority who could judge and prevent me or anybody for that matter from participating in any forum here? If so, then I'll respect your judgment and resolve.

No, I am not the authority. That's why I made a request, instead of giving an order.

 

[Tong2020]

Keep the law, but free in relation to the law.
??? Flibbledee-flabbledee-doo

Too sad that you don’t get the point of what I posted.

The scriptures said of the Christian, that they are not under law. Do you know what that means? The scriptures also said of Christians, that they are called to liberty. Why to liberty? Liberty from what? Are they in bondage that they are called to liberty? If so, where are they in bondage?

Perhaps you ought to think about all that, what they mean.

Tong
R1377

 

[Tong2020]

A summation of the post would be:
"Keeping the commandments doesn't really mean keeping the commandments. 'Loving your neighbor' replaces all of that. That stuff that you learned in Sunday School 50 years ago: All lies."

That’s your summation, not mine.

And sorry, such summation is just way off.

Tong
R1378

 

[Tong2020]

Acquaintance with the concept of good and evil? Hmmm...

<<<eat;don’t eat>>>

Such is amoral, is it not?

Besides, if one considers the commandment to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, such belief could not be implied nor inferred in it. However, what it implies is that they do not have such knowledge, and that if and when they eat of it, they would have such knowledge.

Lots of stuff can be implied or inferred. That's how language works. The possibilities are not limited to your imagination's capacity.

Well, what I say is implied is not from imagination sir, but from scriptures. Consider the following passage and tell us what it tells you about Adam and Eve’s pre-fall state.

Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

And you’ll be kind enough, please explain what you meant by saying “I believe they had an acquaintance with the concept of good and evil (eat; don't eat)...” and show how is that with Adam and Eve that you believe that?

Tong
R1379

 

[Tong2020]

The passage you quoted does not support what you say the character of God is, that is, “selfless, other-centered love”.

The Son is not some “other” or different being.

The Son is the 2nd person of the Godhead and as such is distinct in some way, at least. If this were not so, He could not pray to His father. The seperate personalities of the trinity defer to one another throughout scripture. They are selfless and other-centered in their relation to one another. If you don't buy it, you don't buy it. You have the right to be wrong.

I never said anything about the matter of distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son. What I said is:

The Son is not some “other” or different being.

So, your argument there does not stand. Besides, God is one being, not more.

<<<You have the right to be wrong>>>

If you hold to that, then it is with you as well. As for me, I don’t believe that to be wrong is a right.

Tong
R1380

 

[BarneyFife]

And you’ll be kind enough, please explain what you meant by saying “I believe they had an acquaintance with the concept of good and evil (eat; don't eat)...” and show how is that with Adam and Eve that you believe that?

It's not rocket science. God said eat of these trees; don't eat of this tree.
These trees--good; This tree--evil.

Doubtless, you will restate your earlier objection that it was impossible to know good and evil before eating the fruit so-called. But, again, I would reply that there are varying degrees of awareness and the knowledge fruit was intimate awareness. While the command not to eat was merely acquaintance or limited awareness.

 

[BarneyFife]

I never said anything about the matter of distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son. What I said is:

The Son is not some “other” or different being.

Then what's the point in making this remark in response to the verse I quoted?
Are we having a language barrier problem here? How good is your English? Because my Tagalog is very rusty. I spent about 6 years on Guam 40 years ago.

 

[Tong2020]

To me, love is a characteristic of God and so of the children of God. And so to me, regarding the child of God, loving God supremely and neighbor as himself, more than it may well be a code, is the manifestation of such character, the fruit of it, so to speak.

Thank you for your opinion, but the 2 great commandments do not originate with you, so I don't understand the "to me" remarks. And thank you for admitting that the two great commandments "may well be a code." I would remind you that upon those two, hangs all the Law and the Prophets and, most especially, as is obvious, the ten commandments..

Yes, they may well be a code, to them who take them as a code. Me, I don’t take them as a code. As I was explaining there what they are to me, I take them as that which manifest a characteristic of the child of God, love being a characteristic of God. I believe that loving God and neighbor is natural in a child of God.

Tong
R1381

 

[justbyfaith]

There is a strange belief on the part of many that the great God-written law of the Ten Commandments was actually a part of the ceremonial law of Moses which contained scores of specific regulations. They do not see the decalogue as being distinct and totally unique because of its divine authorship. Neither do they see the clear limitation which the Bible sets for this moral code by calling it the TEN Commandments.

It seems quite obvious that one would effectively do away with the “Ten Commandments” by mingling them with ninety or a hundred others and calling them “ordinances” instead of commandments. Such a radical effort has been made to dilute the force of the only words of the Bible which God wrote with His own hand. Furthermore, the claim has been advanced that since the Ten Commandments were a part of the mosaic law of ordinances which ended at the cross, we are no more obligated to obey the decalogue than we are to offer lambs in sacrifice.

Is there proof positive in the Scriptures that there was no such blending of the ceremonial and moral law into one? Can it be shown that the Ten Commandments were of a permanent, perpetual nature while the ceremonial law of statutes and ordinances came to an end when Jesus died? Indeed there is abundance of evidence to answer these questions with a resounding yes!

God made known this distinction to His servant Moses, and Moses explained it to the people at Mt. Horeb. “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it” (Deuteronomy 4:13, 14).

Please notice how Moses clearly separated the Ten Commandments, which “he commanded you,” from the statutes which “he commanded me” to give the people. The big question now is whether those statutes and judgments, which Moses passed on to the people, were designated as a separate and distinct “law.”

God answers that important question in such a way that no doubt can remain. “Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them” (2 Kings 21:8). Here we are assured that the statutes which Moses gave the people were called a “law.” Any child can discern that two different laws are being described. God speaks of the law “I commanded” and also the “law ... Moses commanded.” Unless this truth is understood properly, limitless confusion will result.

Concerning the OP....I believe that Galatians 3:10, James 2:10, and Matthew 5:48 speak volumes...

 

[Tong2020]

It's not rocket science. God said eat of these trees; don't eat of this tree.
These trees--good; This tree--evil.

Doubtless, you will restate your earlier objection that it was impossible to know good and evil before eating the fruit so-called. But, again, I would reply that there are varying degrees of awareness and the knowledge fruit was intimate awareness. While the command not to eat was merely acquaintance or limited awareness.

<<<Doubtless, you will restate your earlier objection that it was impossible to know good and evil before eating the fruit so-called.>>>

Never said that it was impossible, but that, they have no knowledge of good and evil before they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They were innocent, so to speak.

<<<God said eat of these trees; don't eat of this tree.
These trees--good; This tree--evil.>>>

As I pointed out, the eating or not eating is an amoral thing. But I am not forcing that on you. I just pointed it out. If you believe otherwise, then so be it with you.

<<<While the command not to eat was merely acquaintance or limited awareness.>>>

And we obviously do not have the same view. In my view, I see the commandment to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as a simple and easy test for man, of his faithfulness and obedience to God who created them.

As a side note, having knowledge of good and evil, is not at all evil.

Tong
R1382

 

[Tong2020]

I agree that laws were created by God. And that said, before any law was ever created, there was no law. So that, it could not be said that there was law before all creation. As such too then, God is correctly not bound by anything, much less some law He created. His cooperation with the laws He created is not that He is bounded by it or that He could be bound by it, but that such perceived cooperation is due to the character of God. Besides, whatever law that God created, is not for Him to be bounded by it, but were made for His purpose/s, to His glory.

Tong
R1364

God's law is a transcript of His character and thus exists in eternity. Your God is too small, to coin a phrase.

While that could be said, it does not follow that the “transcript” exist in eternity as it does not take away the truth that laws are a creation by God. What exist in eternity is God and not law does not.

Tong
R1383

 

[Tong2020]

So you don’t know. That is basically because nowhere in scriptures can one read about that, even about the belief that the Edenic pair were given the ten commandments (be it before or after the fall). So that, nothing could be concluded on the matter of whether the ten commandments were given and binding to to mankind from the very start of the creation of mankind, more so, before the transgression of Adam.

Tong
R1365

Again, I've already admitted that there is no text which explicitly says that Adam and Eve were given the ten commandments, but I contend that there is plenty enough biblical evidence to conclude that they were.

Exactly. That is why I was asking of you to show here those evidence you say that I and the others could consider and see The truth or falsity of what you teach regarding the subject matter.

Tong
R1384

 

[Tong2020]

Pardon me, but “It is impossible for sin to exist when there is no law” are your words, not God’s. And it is correct to ask you, not God, what you meant by that and why you say that, when you say you agree that Romans 4:15 does not mean to say that for sin to exist there must be a law given.

Tong
R1366

Given; existed. We've been all over this. There is a distinct difference between knowing a law and a law merely being in existence. I'm sorry you can't grasp that simple reality. "It is impossible for sin to exist where there is no law" means exactly the same thing expressed in Romans 4:15. Sorry you can't see that, as well.

I will just then reiterate my disagreement that Romans 4:15 is effectively saying that it is impossible for sin to exist where there is no law.

Tong
R1385

 

[mjrhealth]

Concluding that God is opposed to his own Law is where the trap is. It is this position that Lucifer attempts to ratchet people's understanding around to. He (Lucifer) invests God with his own attributes and attempts to palm them off as God's. It is you who are in the trap mjrhealth!

Concluding that men can perfect them selevs in the law when they are already made perfect and righteous Christ,is a slap in His face.

Without faith you cannot please God
The Law is not of faith, it is your doing.
disobedient.

 

[Tong2020]

According to you, the born again man are not slaves, but the scriptures says otherwise and speaks of them in such figure.

Romans 6:18 having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

Romans 6:22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God,......

So, how does that affect the “freedom of choice” of those figured to be slaves of sin and of those slaves of righteousness?

In the figure of being slaves, either of sin or of righteousness, such slave figure makes the “freedom of choice” of both somewhat curtailed, limited or restricted, is it not?

Tong
R1367

You debunked the theory you suggested here in your post #163 where you quote Galations 5:13. Don't blame me for that.

I am sorry to disappoint you yet again. And I don’t blame you for anything sir. Galatians 5:13 does not debunked what I said in my post. That would be like saying that it debunks Romans 6:18, 22 where it says:

Romans 6:18 having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

Romans 6:22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God,......

Of course there is no contradiction between Gal.3:15 and Romans 6:18,22.

Tong
R1386

 

[quietthinker]

Too sad that you don’t get the point of what I posted.

The scriptures said of the Christian, that they are not under law. Do you know what that means? The scriptures also said of Christians, that they are called to liberty. Why to liberty? Liberty from what? Are they in bondage that they are called to liberty? If so, where are they in bondage?

Perhaps you ought to think about all that, what they mean.

Tong
R1377

bondage to sin Tong, bondage to sin!