I wasn't quoting scripture I was paraphrasing it to distinguish both potential renderings of the message. And God didn't place any punctuation in the original text. That was also added by modern translators.
I thought I said what I was trying to say...
That words were added to the text which changes Paul's message. This may be difficult to see when we already have an established doctrine in mind based on those words, but someone reading the unaltered passage for the first time would receive a completely different message than the one currently taught.
Here's the following command quoted without punctuation, verse separation, or added italicized words:
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of an holyday or of the new moon or of the sabbath which are a shadow of things to come but the body of Christ"
If Paul was standing in front of a new believer today and he said this after everything else in the chapter, would that person respond by saying, "yes, you're right, the substance of all of that IS Christ!" or would they say, "ok I understand, no one but the body of Christ is to judge me in those things. Not those outsiders"?
Paul isn't addressing the matter of judgment but is saying "don't let the Pharisees or other outsiders (like gnostic philosophizers) tempt you away from what we taught you; don't listen to them". MY point is that this passage - when read in context and without added words - thus can't be used to support the argument that the Sabbath day or any of the other commandments - as shadows of good things still to come - don't still need to be honored.
non sequitur / Ad hominem. How'd this group come into the conversation? We're speaking about alterations to scripture, which are not allowed. The Almighty never said His word wouldn't be altered, but specifically warned against it both in Deuteronomy and Revelation (which suggests its possibility and probability). It's what the entire conflict was about between Messiah and the Pharisees. They altered the word of God to fit their traditions.
If it happened before it can happen again (and has). First, it was the Pharisees, then it was the RCC.
When was it stated or suggested by me that someone who keeps the Sabbath has exclusive right to the proper understanding of scripture? But let's address Romans 14. The opening line of the chapter establishes the context of what Paul teaches in the chapter.
Romans 14:1 (partial)
Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.
And each time the word judgment is used in the chapter it's tied to the word contempt. He goes on to say not to cast stumbling blocks in front of others or treat someone who isn't following certain things with contempt because not everyone's faith is at the same level. This is perfectly harmonious with Messiah who says "judge righteously".
Stating that the commandments are still to be followed isn't treating someone with contempt. Recall the beginning of Galatians and how Paul rebuked Peter (a judgment on Peter, by the way) for no longer sitting with gentiles or eating with them once Jews visited, as Peter defaulted back to Pharisee traditions.
In Romans, Paul is once again contending with Pharaseic traditions and behaviors that easily creep into the faith. Ostracizing, alienating, or mistreating someone in the body for not eating or worshiping as they do - when they're coming from a pagan lifestyle into the faith - is casting a stumbling block in front of them.
Judgment isn't condemnation. This is a frequent failure in understanding the two concepts.
A few principles:
1) Scripture says there is no condemnation in Christ (Romans 8:1).
2) Scripture also says to reprove, rebuke and exhort one another (2 Timothy 4:2).
3) The Messiah never said not to judge, but to judge righteously (John 7:24).
4) The Holy Spirit was sent to reprove/judge (John 16:8), that's His job.
5) The Holy Spirit is in the believer (Galatians 3:2)...so then He does His job by (refer to point #2)
6) This process of correcting one's walk is sanctification, the next step after justification and the reason why the 5 ministries were given to the body; to mature the believer unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13)...not "sort of" like Christ but into His fullness.
7) Because we are to walk as He walked (1 John 2:6)
Righteous judgment isn't claiming whether one is in a "true" body of Christ or not, but correcting how a member of the body is meant to walk in this faith. If we're not correcting each other (i.e. reproving, rebuking, and exhorting) we're not growing, and sanctification is stalled.
I fear that many in the body are so estranged from the process of sanctification these days that ANY righteous judgment (read: "correction") feels like condemnation. It's more pleasing to the ears to spread a message of "no correction whatsoever for those in Christ".
So, what exactly are you saying?
That Christians ought to judge other Christians who are not obeying the sabbath how?
That they are wrong for not obeying the sabbath day law?
What might be the result if someone doesn't obey the sabbath day law after having been warned that they are wrong for not doing so?
if a Christian, as opposed to a seventh-day adventist, judges another Christian for not obeying the sabbath day law (since that Christian is more likely to be truly in the body of Christ than a seventh-day adventist who is part of what has been identified as a borderline pseudo-Christian cult), then that Christian is the only one who can rightly judge on the basis of whether or not that other person is obeying the sabbath?
But why would your normal, every day Christian, who believes what is traditionally believed about Colossians 2:16-17, judge another Christian on the basis of whether they are obeying the sabbath?
Is it not only those who are taught that the sabbath is important (such as your run-of-the-mill seventh-day adventist) who would judge another Christian on the basis of whether or not they obey the sabbath?
Those who are not taught that the sabbath is important would not be inclined to judge another believer on the basis of whether or not they obey the sabbath.
But it is really only these who have the right to judge another believer on that basis, according to what you are saying. Yet they would not be inclined to judge on that basis, unless they are taught as the seventh-day adventists are taught.
So, the seventh-day adventist who is born again (as I do not exclude them from being born again although they are a borderline pseudo-Christian cult) has the right to judge a believer on the basis of whether or not they obey the sabbath?
But if they are not born again (and thus not in the body of Christ) then they do not have the right to judge on this basis.
But if the majority of those who judge on this basis are members of a borderline pseudo-Christian cult, then their basis for judging on whether or nor one keeps the sabbath may indeed be based on the false teachings of a borderline pseud--Christian cult.
So, it is only a coincidence that the person who is judging on that basis is born again and therefore a member of the body of Christ; and the basis for their judgment would be founded in the fact that they have been deceived by the teachings of a borderline pseudo-Christian cult. They would be making those judgments, therefore, on the basis of a false teaching that is purported by that borderline pseudo-Christian cult; and therefore their judgment would not have its basis in the fact that they are a member of the body of Christ.
It would have its basis in the acceptance of a false teaching by someone who is truly born again.
So then, the cult would be taking authority to judge from the fact that not all of its members aren't born again; but because they have members who may indeed be born again, the cult can say that its judgment over whether or not someone is keeping the sabbath, is valid; because some members of the body of Christ have fallen for their teachings.
But that does not change the fact that their teachings on the sabbath are not correct according to the Bible.
Again, in Romans 14, a man can be a member of the body of Christ and also be correct in his doctrine, if he considers every day to be alike; and does not esteem one day (such as Saturday) above another.
