| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
30 Nov 2004 11:41:16 AM |
| Object: |
Re: "WHAT ABOUT COLOSSIANS 2:16?" |
On 30 Nov 2004 06:47:52 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, (Donna Kupp)
pontificated:
Whenever the question of the Sabbath is discussed, those
who do not keep it holy will inevitably appeal to Colossians
2:16 as their authority for disobeying the fourth
commandment of God.
What exactly did Paul mean when he wrote:
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or
in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the
Sabbath days:" (KJV)
Yes, when Paul said "Sabbaths" he meant the seventh day
Sabbath - but that does not mean that Paul was canceling
the requirement for obedience to a commandment of God.
What God has commanded only God can set aside. One
may search the New Testament for a thousand years and he
will not find a single verse that says God has abrogated one
"jot or tittle" of His fourth commandment.
Nobody said, "Paul canceled it". You are making up an
argument and then pretending the other person said it.
The Bible clearly says it was a shadow of what was to
come and what was to come, has come.
Now, using your logic, please show me where God did
away with any of the Jewish holy days. Why don't you
celebrate them all, as commanded by God? And don't try
to use the argument that they were for the Jewish
people, because the 10 Commandments were also given to
the Jewish people, so by that logic, none of it would
apply to us.
What then was Paul talking about when he said to let no
man judge you in respect of Sabbaths? When we look at
this verse in its context it soon becomes apparent that Paul
was warning about the "Colossian Heresy" which was
another gospel based on asceticism and the worship of
angels in order to gain assistance from cosmic powers. The
essence of this heresy was that Christ alone was not
sufficient to deliver us from our slavery to sin.
As you will see from the following verses, Paul was warning
against three things that were being added to the gospel.
1. Traditions of men.
2. The worship of angels.
3. Submitting to doctrines of men.
COL 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
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 the Sabbath days:
COL 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a
voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into
those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his
fleshly mind,
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, (Touch not; taste not; handle
not; Which all are to perish with the using;) AFTER THE
COMMANDMENTS AND DOCTRINES OF MEN?
KEEPING THE SABBATH DAY HOLY IS NOT A
DOCTRINE OF MEN!
You are missing the point entirely. You try to blend
all of the things Paul mentions into one doctrine. The
fact is, that he said, "doctrines", plural. He is
addressing more than one doctrine of men and one of the
"doctrines of men" that Paul was referring to, was the
Judaizers who came into the church, teaching that in
order to be saved, one must follow the Law as well as
Christ. I.e., faith + works save. He also addressed
other things, such as angel worship, etc., which the
Gentiles tried to bring into the church.
Paul was not doing away with God's commandment; he was
warning against the false teachers who were saying that if
believers did not eat and drink the right food and keep the
festivals, new moons and Sabbaths ACCORDING TO CERTAIN
HUMAN REGULATIONS they would lose their reward.
Sorry, but you forgot to quote v14, which shows that
Paul was speaking of the Old Covenant...
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was
against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out
of the way, nailing it to his cross;" - Colossians 2:14
Notice,"was against us". That's the Law he's speaking
about there, dear. You talk about context but don't
apply that same rule to yourself.
According to verse :23 below, they were teaching that
without these ascetic regulations one could not overcome
the flesh:
COL 2:23 These [DOCTRINES OF MEN] have indeed
an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion
and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of
no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh. (RSV)
One commentator summed up these verses by saying:
"We conclude then that in verse :16, the warning is not
against the Sabbath, festivals and dietary laws as such, but
rather against those who promote these practices as
indispensable aids to Christian perfection and as needed
protection from the 'elements [evil spiritual forces] of the
world' thus denying the all sufficiency of Christ."
(Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath To Sunday)
And that is exactly what you are doing. You are
claiming that without adhering to the Sabbath Law,
Christians are not following God. Therefore, you call
it an "indispensable aid to Christian perfection" and
shoot yourself in the foot. The man is actually
agreeing with what I said, not with what you said.
You also seem to like to dance around what the verse
you are attacking actually says...
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of
the sabbath days:" - Colossians 2:16
Fact: The sabbaths Paul spoke of are a Jewish thing.
Fact: The "meats" are a reference to the strict
dietary laws of the Jews, as even the person you quoted
above says.
Fact: Jews celebrate the New Moon holiday.
Note that the person you quoted above shows that v16
discusses Jewish things and the warning in the verse is
not saying that we should not follow them, but that
they should not be viewed as requirements, which is
what you do. Rather, the people are free to celebrate
them, or to not celebrate them and no one should judge
their fellow Christian regarding them. The fact is,
that vs 16-17 speak of Jewish holy days and dietary
laws and sabbaths.
Now really, doesn't that explanation make a lot more sense
than the notion that Christians are no longer required to
obey the fourth commandment? It is a true saying that:
"The commandment is not nullified by the condemnation of
its abuse.".
You are saying that one must follow it. Therefore, you
are saying that this "work" is necessary for salvation
and you are pitting Scripture against Scripture, since
the Bible says, "For by GRACE are ye saved THROUGH
FAITH. NOT of works, lest any man should boast".
The question we need to ask is this: "Was Paul condemning
the Sabbath day, or was he CONDEMNING THE
DOCTRINES OF MEN who added ritualistic and ascetic
restrictions to faith in Christ?"
No one said Paul is condemning the Sabbath. You make
up your own argument and then pretend that's what the
other person said. You also seem too afraid to respond
to me head on and start a new thread instead, without
saying so. At least you could quote and address my
post.
The fact is, that Paul said that folks can celebrate
it. But it is not to be done as a requirement. He
said that the sabbaths were a "shadow of that which was
to come" and which has already come. If the 7th day
Sabbath represents our rest in Christ and Christ has
come, died and risen and the Kingdom of God is within
us, then we have our rest in Christ and therefore, the
shadow is no longer needed, any more than the
sacrificing of lambs is needed, since the lambs were a
shadow of that which was to come and the real Lamb has
already arrived and been sacrificed. Do you also
advocate continuing ritual sacrifice? After all, both
that and the sabbaths are shadows of something greater,
which has already come.
"Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is
of Christ." - Colossians 2:17
Note: The sabbaths, dietary laws, holy days, etc., were
a shadow of what was to come, but the body is of
Christ, not the "ordinances which were against us",
which Christ,"nailed to His cross".
In order to answer that dispute, one must look
at the broad picture. There is not a single verse in the
New Testament which states that Paul taught a new doctrine
that canceled the Sabbath commandment; nor is there any
record of a controversy between the Jews and Gentile
Christians over Sabbath-keeping. If Paul had been teaching
that the Sabbath commandment had been repealed, it would
have split the church wide open and he would have had to
answer the objections continuously in his epistles.
Sorry, but there were Gentile churches that sprang up
and those people were not Jews, nor did they adopt the
Old Covenant Laws as a means of living a Christian
life. In fact, Paul warned against the Judaizers who
came into the churches, even into the churches which
had many Jews, who tried to put the people under the
bondage of the Law again, in addition to being saved by
grace through faith.
Galatians 3:1-13
1) O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye
should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus
Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among
you?
2) This only would I learn of you, Received ye the
Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of
faith?
3) Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are
ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4) Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be
yet in vain.
5) He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and
worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of
the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6) Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted
to him for righteousness.
7) Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the
same are the children of Abraham.
8) And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify
the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel
unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be
blessed.
9) So then they which be of faith are blessed with
faithful Abraham.
10) For as many as are of the works of the law are
under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one
that continueth not in all things which are written in
the book of the law to do them.
11) But that no man is justified by the law in the
sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live
by faith.
12) And the law is not of faith: but, The man that
doeth them shall live in them.
13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is
every one that hangeth on a tree:
Note that this was written to them, in response to what
they wrote to Paul, regarding the questions they had
after hearing this "doctrine of men" from the Judaizers
(who were Jews), who claimed that to be saved, one must
have faith, plus be circumcised and follow the Laws.
Think about it - if the Jewish believers made such a fuss
about circumcision being optional, imagine what they would
have said about the Sabbath day being revoked.
And yet, circumcision, which was the Jewish symbol that
one was part of God's family, was no longer needed.
Paul said that circumcision means nothing anymore and
here in Colossians, just like that, he says that the
sabbaths were a shadow of that which was to come and it
has come and it is for the same reason that
circumcision is no longer needed. That which was to
come had come and the need for physical circumcision
was no longer necessary. He also said that those who
got themselves circumcised in order to be part of God's
family, were now bound by the entire Law.
You see, you don't get to pick and choose. If you're
saying that the 7th day Sabbath is a requirement, then
you must also accept the whole Law and live by the
whole Law. Paul addressed this type of subject, when
he addressed the issue of circumcision...
Galatians 5:1-9
1) Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ
hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the
yoke of bondage.
2) Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be
circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3) For I testify again to every man that is
circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4) Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of
you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5) For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of
righteousness by faith.
6) For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth
any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh
by love.
7) Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should
not obey the truth?
8) This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
9) A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Read the above slowly and carefully and remember, "a
little leaven leaveneth the whole lump". Yet you would
have us entangled again in the yoke of bondage to the
Law (and the Law is exactly what Paul was addressing
there).
At some point we must use common sense and reason to
interpret what has been written. For example, does "Let no
man judge you in meat and drink..." mean that Christians
can be drunkards? Of course not, because you know that
God's word forbids drunkenness.
Yet no man should judge us because we drink. And btw,
the Bible does not forbid being drunk. It forbids
being a drunkard. There's a big difference.
Well, it also forbids Sabbath-breaking!
Nowhere in the NT is the Sabbath mentioned as a
requirement. By your logic, ritual sacrifice is also
required.
You can deny it all you want, but the fact is, if
keeping the Sabbath was so important, why didn't the
Apostles give even one instruction to any church to
keep it?
It is only logical to assume that if God was going to cancel
one of His commandments, he would make that fact very clear.
The Bible says that the ordinances which were against
us were blotted out. It's right there in the same
chapter you quoted from.
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was
against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out
of the way, nailing it to his cross;"- Colossians 2:14
Surely, if someone said to you: "Let no man judge you in
respect of murder or adultery" you would not assume that
God had changed His mind about those sins without solid
proof. Certainly, you would demand more evidence than
one lonely verse in the book of Colossians. Or would you?
So now, instead of believing the Bible, you question
whether or not Paul's statement is from God.
No one said anything about murder and to try to change
the wording of the passage, is dishonest on your part.
Paul gave a specific list there, to use as an example.
Nowhere did he say anything about murder and adultery
being okay. In fact, he taught against them in other
letters.
Donna Kupp
NOTE:
In addition to the Greek and Latin manuscripts of the New
Testament, there is a third text called the Peshitta. The
Peshitta is from ancient Eastern manuscripts written in
Aramaic, the natural language of Jesus. Hebrews 4:9 in the
Peshitta text reads:
"It is therefore the duty of the people of God to keep the
Sabbath."
Let's use your logic and see how you like it.
"Certainly, you would demand more evidence than one
lonely verse, in one lonely translation, wouldn't you?
Or would you?"
The fact is, there were two versions of the Peshitta.
An eastern and a western version. The literal
translation of the MT, would go as follows (which you
should have quoted in some context, which I have done
below)...
Hebrews 4:9-11
9) So, then, there remains a sabbath rest to the people
of God.
10) For he entering into His rest, he himself also
rested from his works, as God had rested from His own.
11) Therefore, let us exert ourselves to enter into
that rest, that not anyone fall in the same example of
disobedience.
So you see, it could not be saying what you quoted
above. In context, it speaks of a rest for the people
of God, not the 7th day Sabbath, as you are trying to
claim. Not one day in the week, but rather, entering
into the rest that we are given in Christ.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
| User: "Russell McDade donteventhinkaboutit@all" |
|
| Title: Re: "WHAT ABOUT COLOSSIANS 2:16?" |
01 Dec 2004 03:16:40 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:au7pq0pj4d1l86vs9oj4hgnvt80vt7g1uk@4ax.com...
<snip>
Nobody said, "Paul canceled it". You are making up an
argument and then pretending the other person said it.
The Bible clearly says it was a shadow of what was to
come and what was to come, has come.
Now, using your logic, please show me where God did
away with any of the Jewish holy days. Why don't you
celebrate them all, as commanded by God? And don't try
to use the argument that they were for the Jewish
people, because the 10 Commandments were also given to
the Jewish people, so by that logic, none of it would
apply to us.
The usual Sabbaterian argument for this point is; what was written
on paper perishes, what was written in stone remains. The top-ten
were placed inside the ark and the 'book of the Law' was placed
outside the ark.
Deu 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the
ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for
a witness against thee.
This is the argument that negates your previous point.
<snippy>
Paul was not doing away with God's commandment; he was
warning against the false teachers who were saying that if
believers did not eat and drink the right food and keep the
festivals, new moons and Sabbaths ACCORDING TO CERTAIN
HUMAN REGULATIONS they would lose their reward.
Sorry, but you forgot to quote v14, which shows that
Paul was speaking of the Old Covenant...
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was
against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out
of the way, nailing it to his cross;" - Colossians 2:14
Notice,"was against us". That's the Law he's speaking
about there, dear. You talk about context but don't
apply that same rule to yourself.
Dear Dave, how do you know that Paul is talking about the
Law in Col. 2:14?
If you are correct, it means that Jesus abolished the Law when
he died on the cross. Col. 2:14 could be referring to what was
written against us in the books in Rev. 20:12. I don't claim to
know the answer, I'm just enquiring.
[ snip Samuele Bacchiocchi's quote]
And that is exactly what you are doing. You are
claiming that without adhering to the Sabbath Law,
Christians are not following God. Therefore, you call
it an "indispensable aid to Christian perfection" and
shoot yourself in the foot. The man is actually
agreeing with what I said, not with what you said.
You have misquoted Donna Dave. It was Samuele Bacchiocchi's
who called it an; "indispensable aid to Christian perfection", not Donna.
I recommed you read his other book; The Sabbath under Crossfire".
He makes a good case for Christian Sabbath keeping.
You also seem to like to dance around what the verse
you are attacking actually says...
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of
the sabbath days:" - Colossians 2:16
Fact: The sabbaths Paul spoke of are a Jewish thing.
Fact: The "meats" are a reference to the strict
dietary laws of the Jews, as even the person you quoted
above says.
Fact: Jews celebrate the New Moon holiday.
Note that the person you quoted above shows that v16
discusses Jewish things and the warning in the verse is
not saying that we should not follow them, but that
they should not be viewed as requirements, which is
what you do. Rather, the people are free to celebrate
them, or to not celebrate them and no one should judge
their fellow Christian regarding them. The fact is,
that vs 16-17 speak of Jewish holy days and dietary
laws and sabbaths.
Consider the context:
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and
vain deceit, *after the tradition of men,* after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ.
<snip>
Note: The sabbaths, dietary laws, holy days, etc., were
a shadow of what was to come, but the body is of
Christ, not the "ordinances which were against us",
which Christ,"nailed to His cross".
How do you know?
<snip>
Sorry, but there were Gentile churches that sprang up
and those people were not Jews, nor did they adopt the
Old Covenant Laws as a means of living a Christian
life. In fact, Paul warned against the Judaizers who
came into the churches, even into the churches which
had many Jews, who tried to put the people under the
bondage of the Law again, in addition to being saved by
grace through faith.
I agree.
But it is most probable that these first Gentile churches met on
the Sabbath for worship.
<snip Galatians quote>
And yet, circumcision, which was the Jewish symbol that
one was part of God's family, was no longer needed.
Paul said that circumcision means nothing anymore and
here in Colossians, just like that, he says that the
sabbaths were a shadow of that which was to come and it
has come and it is for the same reason that
circumcision is no longer needed.
This is an interesting point.
Consider the trouble that Paul had when he said that circumcision
was not necessary, the Jews were very angry about that. Imagine the
controversy that would have erupted if Paul said that the Sabbath
no longer existed. But there is no such controversy in the New Testament.
That which was to
come had come and the need for physical circumcision
was no longer necessary. He also said that those who
got themselves circumcised in order to be part of God's
family, were now bound by the entire Law.
Not quite.
Paul had Timothy circumcised. We all know he didn't think
it was necessay for salvation, but not to offend the Jews.
You see, you don't get to pick and choose. If you're
saying that the 7th day Sabbath is a requirement, then
you must also accept the whole Law and live by the
whole Law. Paul addressed this type of subject, when
he addressed the issue of circumcision...
IMHO
Jesus directly addressed this point when dealing with the
Jews in Matt.12. No need to quote Paul on circumcision
when Jesus spoke directly about it.
Matt. 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
This simple verse means two things:
1) There is a Sabbath.
2) Jesus is Lord of it.
<snip Gal. 5>
Yet no man should judge us because we drink. And btw,
the Bible does not forbid being drunk. It forbids
being a drunkard. There's a big difference.
Cheers brother Dave!!!
I enjoy a drink...even on the Sabbath.
Nowhere in the NT is the Sabbath mentioned as a
requirement.
Agreed.
But Jesus does teach about correct Sabbath keeping in Matt. 12.
You can deny it all you want, but the fact is, if
keeping the Sabbath was so important, why didn't the
Apostles give even one instruction to any church to
keep it?
Excellent point.
I would assume that the churches established by the Apostles
would meet on the Sabbath, but they understood that they were
saved by grace. They also broke bread, performed baptism, etc etc.
But they were saved by grace.
<snip>
The Bible says that the ordinances which were against
us were blotted out. It's right there in the same
chapter you quoted from.
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was
against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out
of the way, nailing it to his cross;"- Colossians 2:14
I am still curious about this verse, I am not convinced that Paul
would say that Jesus' death abolished the Law. I am not fighting
with you about it, I just would like to know how you are sure
this is what Paul meant?
<snip>
So now, instead of believing the Bible, you question
whether or not Paul's statement is from God.
I believe the Bible. It's your interpretation of this particular
verse that I am curious about.
No one said anything about murder and to try to change
the wording of the passage, is dishonest on your part.
Paul gave a specific list there, to use as an example.
Nowhere did he say anything about murder and adultery
being okay. In fact, he taught against them in other
letters.
So how then could Paul say that Jesus' death abolished the Law?
You can't argue both sides of the point.
Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: "WHAT ABOUT COLOSSIANS 2:16?" |
02 Dec 2004 08:13:06 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:16:40 +1100, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Russell McDade"
<donteventhinkaboutit@all> pontificated:
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:au7pq0pj4d1l86vs9oj4hgnvt80vt7g1uk@4ax.com...
<snip>
Nobody said, "Paul canceled it". You are making up an
argument and then pretending the other person said it.
The Bible clearly says it was a shadow of what was to
come and what was to come, has come.
Now, using your logic, please show me where God did
away with any of the Jewish holy days. Why don't you
celebrate them all, as commanded by God? And don't try
to use the argument that they were for the Jewish
people, because the 10 Commandments were also given to
the Jewish people, so by that logic, none of it would
apply to us.
The usual Sabbaterian argument for this point is; what was written
on paper perishes, what was written in stone remains. The top-ten
were placed inside the ark and the 'book of the Law' was placed
outside the ark.
Deu 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the
ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for
a witness against thee.
This is the argument that negates your previous point.
It doesn't negate a thing.
Paul was not doing away with God's commandment; he was
warning against the false teachers who were saying that if
believers did not eat and drink the right food and keep the
festivals, new moons and Sabbaths ACCORDING TO CERTAIN
HUMAN REGULATIONS they would lose their reward.
Sorry, but you forgot to quote v14, which shows that
Paul was speaking of the Old Covenant...
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was
against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out
of the way, nailing it to his cross;" - Colossians 2:14
Notice,"was against us". That's the Law he's speaking
about there, dear. You talk about context but don't
apply that same rule to yourself.
Dear Dave, how do you know that Paul is talking about the
Law in Col. 2:14?
If you are correct, it means that Jesus abolished the Law when
he died on the cross. Col. 2:14 could be referring to what was
written against us in the books in Rev. 20:12. I don't claim to
know the answer, I'm just enquiring.
I know, because he makes reference to items within the
Law and the only thing that was "against us" was the
Law, which He says Jesus Christ nailed to His cross.
Did you think that Jesus came to nail the Roman law to
His cross? :)
And that is exactly what you are doing. You are
claiming that without adhering to the Sabbath Law,
Christians are not following God. Therefore, you call
it an "indispensable aid to Christian perfection" and
shoot yourself in the foot. The man is actually
agreeing with what I said, not with what you said.
You have misquoted Donna Dave. It was Samuele Bacchiocchi's
who called it an; "indispensable aid to Christian perfection", not Donna.
I recommed you read his other book; The Sabbath under Crossfire".
He makes a good case for Christian Sabbath keeping.
I haven't misquoted anyone. She gave no credit to
anyone else for the words she posted.
You also seem to like to dance around what the verse
you are attacking actually says...
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of
the sabbath days:" - Colossians 2:16
Fact: The sabbaths Paul spoke of are a Jewish thing.
Fact: The "meats" are a reference to the strict
dietary laws of the Jews, as even the person you quoted
above says.
Fact: Jews celebrate the New Moon holiday.
Note that the person you quoted above shows that v16
discusses Jewish things and the warning in the verse is
not saying that we should not follow them, but that
they should not be viewed as requirements, which is
what you do. Rather, the people are free to celebrate
them, or to not celebrate them and no one should judge
their fellow Christian regarding them. The fact is,
that vs 16-17 speak of Jewish holy days and dietary
laws and sabbaths.
Consider the context:
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and
vain deceit, *after the tradition of men,* after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ.
You are assuming that the Jews did not have any
"traditions of men". I suggest you read Matthew 15.
Matthew 15:1-3
1) Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were
of Jerusalem, saying,
2) Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the
elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat
bread.
3) But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also
transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Note that in v11, Paul discusses "the circumcision of
Christ". Circumcision is a word that the Jews would
have brought to the table, not the Gentiles, unless
Jews were trying to convince them that they needed to
be circumcised.
Note: The sabbaths, dietary laws, holy days, etc., were
a shadow of what was to come, but the body is of
Christ, not the "ordinances which were against us",
which Christ,"nailed to His cross".
How do you know?
Because that's what Paul said. Read vs 16-17.
Sorry, but there were Gentile churches that sprang up
and those people were not Jews, nor did they adopt the
Old Covenant Laws as a means of living a Christian
life. In fact, Paul warned against the Judaizers who
came into the churches, even into the churches which
had many Jews, who tried to put the people under the
bondage of the Law again, in addition to being saved by
grace through faith.
I agree.
But it is most probable that these first Gentile churches met on
the Sabbath for worship.
No, it isn't. Christians began meeting on the 1st day
of the week. This would hold true for later churches,
especially considering that some Jewish Christians
would have still attended temple on the sabbath.
And yet, circumcision, which was the Jewish symbol that
one was part of God's family, was no longer needed.
Paul said that circumcision means nothing anymore and
here in Colossians, just like that, he says that the
sabbaths were a shadow of that which was to come and it
has come and it is for the same reason that
circumcision is no longer needed.
This is an interesting point.
Consider the trouble that Paul had when he said that circumcision
was not necessary, the Jews were very angry about that. Imagine the
controversy that would have erupted if Paul said that the Sabbath
no longer existed. But there is no such controversy in the New Testament.
You are trying to make an argument from silence. The
Bible says anything with that type of argument. The
fact is however, that it is not silent about the
Sabbath. Colossians 2:16-17 deal with that specific
issue, as I pointed out.
That which was to
come had come and the need for physical circumcision
was no longer necessary. He also said that those who
got themselves circumcised in order to be part of God's
family, were now bound by the entire Law.
Not quite.
Paul had Timothy circumcised. We all know he didn't think
it was necessay for salvation, but not to offend the Jews.
You are trying to take one event, done for a specific
reason and turn it into a sermon that preaches that
circumcision must be necessary. That's where your
argument leads and you snipped my quote of Galatians,
which proves the opposite. In that instance, Acts
records something Paul did. It does not even say it
was the right thing to do.
You see, you don't get to pick and choose. If you're
saying that the 7th day Sabbath is a requirement, then
you must also accept the whole Law and live by the
whole Law. Paul addressed this type of subject, when
he addressed the issue of circumcision...
IMHO
Jesus directly addressed this point when dealing with the
Jews in Matt.12. No need to quote Paul on circumcision
when Jesus spoke directly about it.
Why should parts of the Bible be left out? And Jesus
only addressed it once, in relation to it being done on
the Sabbath and did not promote, nor condemn it.
Matt. 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
This simple verse means two things:
1) There is a Sabbath.
2) Jesus is Lord of it.
You are trying to equate God being Lord of the Sabbath
and Jesus saying this before His death and
resurrection, when all of the Law was still in place,
to the time after those events. That doesn't wash.
You also fail to note that the lesson Jesus gave here
was that the traditions of the Jews, which called for
strict observance to their rules and regulations,
actually went against what God would have them do.
Nowhere in the NT is the Sabbath mentioned as a
requirement.
Agreed.
Then you have no argument.
But Jesus does teach about correct Sabbath keeping in Matt. 12.
Jesus did not say, "You all must keep the Sabbath as
Christians". Jesus simply pointed out the hypocrisy of
the Jews in regard to the Sabbath.
You can deny it all you want, but the fact is, if
keeping the Sabbath was so important, why didn't the
Apostles give even one instruction to any church to
keep it?
Excellent point.
I would assume that the churches established by the Apostles
would meet on the Sabbath, but they understood that they were
saved by grace. They also broke bread, performed baptism, etc etc.
But they were saved by grace.
You would assume wrong, since the NT shows them meeting
on the first day of the week.
The Bible says that the ordinances which were against
us were blotted out. It's right there in the same
chapter you quoted from.
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was
against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out
of the way, nailing it to his cross;"- Colossians 2:14
I am still curious about this verse, I am not convinced that Paul
would say that Jesus' death abolished the Law. I am not fighting
with you about it, I just would like to know how you are sure
this is what Paul meant?
Did you think it was the Roman law? :)
You also failed to deal with the Scriptures that I
posted.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russell McDade donteventhinkaboutit@all" |
|
| Title: Re: "WHAT ABOUT COLOSSIANS 2:16?" |
02 Dec 2004 03:31:52 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0l7uq09ei51tc6pmb6jr2e9a193qtq2ahs@4ax.com...
<snip>
It doesn't negate a thing.
I cant help but wonder if you read the discussion.
<snip>
I know, because he makes reference to items within the
Law and the only thing that was "against us" was the
Law, which He says Jesus Christ nailed to His cross.
Did you think that Jesus came to nail the Roman law to
His cross? :)
I doubt that He nailed any Law to the cross.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets...
<snip>
I haven't misquoted anyone. She gave no credit to
anyone else for the words she posted.
<begin cut 'n paste>
One commentator summed up these verses by saying:
"We conclude then that in verse :16, the warning is not
against the Sabbath, festivals and dietary laws as such, but
rather against those who promote these practices as
indispensable aids to Christian perfection and as needed
protection from the 'elements [evil spiritual forces] of the
world' thus denying the all sufficiency of Christ."
(Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath To Sunday)
</end cut n paste>
<snip>
Consider the context:
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and
vain deceit, *after the tradition of men,* after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ.
You are assuming that the Jews did not have any
"traditions of men". I suggest you read Matthew 15.
No.
Paul is addressing a Gentile church that is dealing with things like
"philosophy and vain deceit". The "philosophy" thing has a very
non-Jewish ring to it, wouldn't you agree?
Note that in v11, Paul discusses "the circumcision of
Christ". Circumcision is a word that the Jews would
have brought to the table, not the Gentiles, unless
Jews were trying to convince them that they needed to
be circumcised.
Good point.
<snip>
No, it isn't. Christians began meeting on the 1st day
of the week. This would hold true for later churches,
especially considering that some Jewish Christians
would have still attended temple on the sabbath.
I personally believe that the church at Jerusalem kept the feasts
and the Sabbaths, and circumcision, etc etc.
It is clear from Pauls work that he began the church work on the
Sabbath [Acts 13:14, 13:42, 16:13, 17:2, 18:4].
You claim that these Gentile churches starting meeting on Sunday but the
book of Acts shows that they began on the Sabbath.
I am aware that there are some examples of the Apostles meeting
on Sunday, but it is not a convincing argument that the Sabbath is
no longer the Sabbath. ie God's appointed day of rest.
Not quite.
Paul had Timothy circumcised. We all know he didn't think
it was necessay for salvation, but not to offend the Jews.
You are trying to take one event, done for a specific
reason and turn it into a sermon that preaches that
circumcision must be necessary.
[head shaking slowing & eyes rolling]
[snip Dave's hallucination about circumcision]
IMHO
Jesus directly addressed this point when dealing with the
Jews in Matt.12. No need to quote Paul on circumcision
when Jesus spoke directly about it.
Why should parts of the Bible be left out?
I'm not trying to leave parts out of the Bible.
The topic is Sabbath keeping.
There is no need to quote Paul on circumcision
when addressing the Sabbath. I'm sure we agree on:
1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is
nothing, but the keeping of the *commandments* of God.
[emphasis added to annoy Dave]
And Jesus
only addressed it once, in relation to it being done on
the Sabbath and did not promote, nor condemn it.
But the lessson is correct Sabbath keeping as opposed to
incorrect Sabbath keeping. It is simple.
This simple verse means two things:
1) There is a Sabbath.
2) Jesus is Lord of it.
You are trying to equate God being Lord of the Sabbath
and Jesus saying this before His death and
resurrection, when all of the Law was still in place,
to the time after those events. That doesn't wash.
ok then.
So is Jesus Lord of the non-existent Sabbath?
Or Lord of the previous existent Sabbath?
Hardly a title fit for a king.
And definitely not a title for the King of Kings.
You also fail to note that the lesson Jesus gave here
was that the traditions of the Jews, which called for
strict observance to their rules and regulations,
actually went against what God would have them do.
Agreed.
Correct Sabbath keeping is the lesson, not evil Sabbath keeping.
<snip repeated arguments>
You also failed to deal with the Scriptures that I
posted.
I felt that you had some 'spin' on them.
Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: "WHAT ABOUT COLOSSIANS 2:16?" |
30 Jun 2005 05:48:56 PM |
|
|
"Russell McDade" <donteventhinkaboutit@all> wrote in message
news:41af888c$0$9477$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0l7uq09ei51tc6pmb6jr2e9a193qtq2ahs@4ax.com...
<snip>
It doesn't negate a thing.
I cant help but wonder if you read the discussion.
<snip>
I know, because he makes reference to items within the
Law and the only thing that was "against us" was the
Law, which He says Jesus Christ nailed to His cross.
Did you think that Jesus came to nail the Roman law to
His cross? :)
I doubt that He nailed any Law to the cross.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets...
He didn't, it is still perserved to read, just look in the Old Testament !
But He came to fulfill(complete) it, so either He fulfilled it, or He lied
on the cross when He said "It is FINISHED"
Note; Jesus didn't say "I came to fulfill these parts of the law, but not
those parts". But in His ministry He did keep some of the law, *He stated
them* as per-example to the rich man wanting to know what more to do for
eternal life, but yet never mentioned others, and corrected others, and
removed *openly* others, like the law to stone people who committed certian
sins, by saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" Jesus not
only fulfilled the Old Covenant, but He introduced the New Covenant ! The
law the New Testament refers to when stating that we are to "keep the law"
is found *in* the New Testament
<snip>
Note that in v11, Paul discusses "the circumcision of
Christ". Circumcision is a word that the Jews would
have brought to the table, not the Gentiles, unless
Jews were trying to convince them that they needed to
be circumcised.
Good point.
But if Jesus did not fulfill the law, are you circumcized ? Remember what
Jesus didn't say.
<snip>
You also failed to deal with the Scriptures that I
posted.
I felt that you had some 'spin' on them.
Russell
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: "WHAT ABOUT COLOSSIANS 2:16?" |
03 Dec 2004 01:44:57 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:31:52 +1100, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Russell McDade"
<donteventhinkaboutit@all> pontificated:
I know, because he makes reference to items within the
Law and the only thing that was "against us" was the
Law, which He says Jesus Christ nailed to His cross.
Did you think that Jesus came to nail the Roman law to
His cross? :)
I doubt that He nailed any Law to the cross.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets...
Once again, you are comparing that which was before His
death and resurrection, to that which was after and you
should have finished the sentence. He said He came to
fulfill the Law. I.e, to make replete, or satisfy.
His death on the cross was the payment for our sins.
Thus, He satisfied the requirements of the Law.
<snip>
I haven't misquoted anyone. She gave no credit to
anyone else for the words she posted.
<begin cut 'n paste>
One commentator summed up these verses by saying:
"We conclude then that in verse :16, the warning is not
against the Sabbath, festivals and dietary laws as such, but
rather against those who promote these practices as
indispensable aids to Christian perfection and as needed
protection from the 'elements [evil spiritual forces] of the
world' thus denying the all sufficiency of Christ."
(Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath To Sunday)
You just made my case for me. It is those who say that
following the Law is an "indispensable aid to Christian
perfection" that Paul was admonishing. I.e., it is not
necessary to keep the Law to have Christian perfection.
If that were the case, then all of the Law would be
necessary and you would still be sacrificing animals.
As I said, Jesus fulfilled the Law and that is why
sacrifices, for example, are no longer necessary.
If you want to keep the Sabbath, then hey, keep it.
But to claim it is a requirement for Christians, is not
correct thinking. That is exactly what Paul was
warning against, just as Samuele said (quoted above).
Romans 14:5-6
5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind.
6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the
Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he
doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord,
for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not to the
Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Consider the context:
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and
vain deceit, *after the tradition of men,* after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ.
You are assuming that the Jews did not have any
"traditions of men". I suggest you read Matthew 15.
No.
Paul is addressing a Gentile church that is dealing with things like
"philosophy and vain deceit". The "philosophy" thing has a very
non-Jewish ring to it, wouldn't you agree?
Paul is addressing a Gentile church that had Jews come
into it and try to convince them that they must also
keep the Law. The thought of these people was that God
gave the Covenants to the Jews and therefore, the
Jewish Law must be followed, as well as accepting
Christ by faith.
Note that in v11, Paul discusses "the circumcision of
Christ". Circumcision is a word that the Jews would
have brought to the table, not the Gentiles, unless
Jews were trying to convince them that they needed to
be circumcised.
Good point.
Thank you. Now relate it to my response immediately
above this paragraph.
No, it isn't. Christians began meeting on the 1st day
of the week. This would hold true for later churches,
especially considering that some Jewish Christians
would have still attended temple on the sabbath.
I personally believe that the church at Jerusalem kept the feasts
and the Sabbaths, and circumcision, etc etc.
I disagree. They were not all Jews. I would however
agree that the Jews in that church (which was most of
them) probably did keep the holy days. But not as a
matter of requirement. Don't you remember how Paul
blasted Peter for living as a Gentile (not that it was
wrong) and yet, being a hypocrite and acting as if he
was living as a Jew when some of those who came from
James came into town (Galatians 2:11-16 and pay special
attention to v16)? Paul didn't blast Peter for living
as a Gentile. He blasted him for his hypocrisy. And
don't you remember how Peter was shown that he could
now eat anything and not worry about the dietary laws
(Acts 10:9-16)?
It is clear from Pauls work that he began the church work on the
Sabbath [Acts 13:14, 13:42, 16:13, 17:2, 18:4].
You claim that these Gentile churches starting meeting on Sunday but the
book of Acts shows that they began on the Sabbath.
Let's take your first example (Acts 13:14). It does
not show Paul going to a Christian church. It shows
him going into the temple and trying to convert Jews to
faith in Christ. That is not the same thing as
Christians gathering to eat and worship, etc.. Paul
was not preaching to Christians, but to unconverted
Jews in the temple.
"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples
came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them,
ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech
until midnight." - Acts 20:7
"Upon the first day of the week let every one of you
lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that
there be no gatherings when I come."
- 1 Corinthians 16:2
The disciples started gathering on the first day of the
week. And you forget that uncircumcised Gentiles
(unconverted to Judaism) would never have been allowed
into the temple. So how is it that the Jewish and
Gentile churches were meeting in the temple, as you try
to imply with Acts 13:14?
Acts 13:42 also shows that the Gentiles were not in the
temple. They obviously knew, or heard what Paul
preached. However, they were not in the temple. They
would have been stoned had they tried to enter the
temple. Uncircumcised, unconverted Gentiles could not
enter in where Paul would have been. As I said, Paul
was not in the temple preaching to a Christian church.
He was trying to win over Jewish converts, as he had
not yet realized that his mission was to the Gentiles
and it was necessary that he first attempt to give the
word to the Jews.
Acts 18:4-6
4) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and
persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
5) And when Silas and Timothy were come from Macedonia,
Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the
Jews that Jesus was Christ.
6) And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he
shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be
upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will
go unto the Gentiles.
I am aware that there are some examples of the Apostles meeting
on Sunday, but it is not a convincing argument that the Sabbath is
no longer the Sabbath. ie God's appointed day of rest.
One may treat it as a day of rest, certainly. That is
different than saying that it is required for
Christians, or they risk damnation.
Romans 14:5-6
5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind.
6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the
Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he
doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord,
for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not to the
Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Read all of Romans 14. Paul talks about days of
worship and focuses on meats as an example. You'll
find that he calls those who think they must adhere to
certain laws as the ones that are weak in the faith (no
insult intended). He also say however, that we are not
point fingers and to let each man be persuaded in his
own mind and not to judge each other about what days we
celebrate and what we eat, because it isn't a matter of
salvation. The problem comes in, when people do judge
others and claim that someone is going to Hell, because
they don't celebrate a certain day, or eat a certain
way. That's not a Christian approach according to the
Bible. I am not telling you you cannot celebrate the
Sabbath. More power to ya. :) But don't tell me that
I must, or I'm damned.
Not quite.
Paul had Timothy circumcised. We all know he didn't think
it was necessay for salvation, but not to offend the Jews.
You are trying to take one event, done for a specific
reason and turn it into a sermon that preaches that
circumcision must be necessary.
[head shaking slowing & eyes rolling]
[snip Dave's hallucination about circumcision]
Is that your best response? That tells me you're
running out of gas.
IMHO
Jesus directly addressed this point when dealing with the
Jews in Matt.12. No need to quote Paul on circumcision
when Jesus spoke directly about it.
Why should parts of the Bible be left out?
I'm not trying to leave parts out of the Bible.
The topic is Sabbath keeping.
There is no need to quote Paul on circumcision
when addressing the Sabbath. I'm sure we agree on:
1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is
nothing, but the keeping of the *commandments* of God.
[emphasis added to annoy Dave]
And what are those commandments, under the New
Covenant? You seem to forget that. If you want to
apply it to the Sabbath, then you are now bound to call
up the whole Law and keep it all. As Paul said and as
James (who was the strictest regarding works) said...
"For I testify again to every man that is circumcised,
that he is a debtor to do the whole law."
- Galatians 5:3
James 2:8-12
8) If ye fulfill the royal law according to the
Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye
do well:
9) But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin,
and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11) For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said
also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet
if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the
law.
12) So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be
judged by the law of liberty.
Note that James says that if we transgress one law, we
transgress them all. So if you demand that the Sabbath
be kept and yet, eat the wrong meat, you are guilty of
violating the whole law, so you shoot yourself in the
foot with your own argument.
Note that James also says that we are under a "royal
law" and that it is the "law of liberty". And that it
is the "law of liberty" that we will be judged by.
And Jesus
only addressed it once, in relation to it being done on
the Sabbath and did not promote, nor condemn it.
But the lessson is correct Sabbath keeping as opposed to
incorrect Sabbath keeping. It is simple.
Jesus addressed the Jews, while the Old Covenant was
still in place and pointed out their hypocrisy. That
does not mean that it follows that Christians should
take that as a commandment for the churches to follow
the Sabbath. There's not even a remote link to that
claim.
Instead of addressing the Scriptures I quote, you tend
to snip them and then try to find Scriptures that you
think say the opposite. That means that you are
pitting Scripture against Scripture, to try to prove
your point. That isn't a proper, nor a Christian
approach (no offense intended to you personally, I am
only discussing your approach, not your heart). Try
dealing with the Scriptures I quoted first and then see
if the Scriptures you wish to quote make sense in light
of what I've posted and said about them.
This simple verse means two things:
1) There is a Sabbath.
2) Jesus is Lord of it.
You are trying to equate God being Lord of the Sabbath
and Jesus saying this before His death and
resurrection, when all of the Law was still in place,
to the time after those events. That doesn't wash.
ok then.
So is Jesus Lord of the non-existent Sabbath?
Or Lord of the previous existent Sabbath?
Hardly a title fit for a king.
And definitely not a title for the King of Kings.
Let me ask you a question... If Jesus said that He was
the Lord of the Jewish temple, would He be correct? Of
course He would. Is the temple there anymore? No, it
isn't. Does that mean that Jesus made a foolish
statement? No, it doesn't.
Jesus made a statement to hypocritical Jews, who tried
to add their own traditions to God's Law and tried to
convict Him of a violation of the Sabbath, when it was
really their worthless traditions that He violated.
This was done prior to His death and resurrection. You
are forgetting the time texts. After His death and
resurrection, is when Peter for example, learned that
he could eat anything. But did Jesus tell him to eat
unclean meats before Jesus dies and rose again? No, He
didn't, but by your logic, Peter would be wrong for
eating them after Jesus' death and resurrection,
because we have no text in which Jesus ate anything
unclean, nor do we have Jesus saying to Peter to eat
whatever He wants, before the death and resurrection of
Jesus. You see, your own logic traps you. :)
You also fail to note that the lesson Jesus gave here
was that the traditions of the Jews, which called for
strict observance to their rules and regulations,
actually went against what God would have them do.
Agreed.
Correct Sabbath keeping is the lesson, not evil Sabbath keeping.
Which has nothing to do with the Christian church. In
fact, show me one text in the New Testament, which
specifically calls for Gentiles to keep the Sabbath.
You really can't make an argument for the Jews either,
but the point is easier to make using the Gentiles.
The Jewish way of life is not what they adhered to and
many would not have known anything, or at least not
much about the Jewish way of life, but rather, only
their own pagan ways before conversion. Show me where
the Apostles called for their circumcision (and don't
use Timothy, he had a Jewish parent) and Sabbath
keeping, etc.. No, rather, Paul said, "Let each man be
fully convinced in his own mind". And Paul told those
in other churches to beware of those who would seek to
come in and add the Law to the grace which abounded
there and to beware of those who would come in try to
put them under the yoke of their laws.
You also failed to deal with the Scriptures that I
posted.
I felt that you had some 'spin' on them.
Then you should have dealt with that. It is not seen
as an honest approach, when you ignore them and snip
them and then post Scriptures that would seem to say
the opposite, don't you agree?
"We are to make Bible-obeying disciples of anybody that gets in our
way."
--Jay Grimstead, February 1987
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: "WHAT ABOUT COLOSSIANS 2:16?" |
03 Dec 2004 10:18:29 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:31:52 +1100, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Russell McDade"
<donteventhinkaboutit@all> pontificated:
I know, because he makes reference to items within the
Law and the only thing that was "against us" was the
Law, which He says Jesus Christ nailed to His cross.
Did you think that Jesus came to nail the Roman law to
His cross? :)
I doubt that He nailed any Law to the cross.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets...
Once again, you are comparing that which was before His
death and resurrection, to that which was after and you
should have finished the sentence. He said He came to
fulfill the Law. I.e, to make replete, or satisfy.
His death on the cross was the payment for our sins.
Thus, He satisfied the requirements of the Law.
<snip>
I haven't misquoted anyone. She gave no credit to
anyone else for the words she posted.
<begin cut 'n paste>
One commentator summed up these verses by saying:
"We conclude then that in verse :16, the warning is not
against the Sabbath, festivals and dietary laws as such, but
rather against those who promote these practices as
indispensable aids to Christian perfection and as needed
protection from the 'elements [evil spiritual forces] of the
world' thus denying the all sufficiency of Christ."
(Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath To Sunday)
You just made my case for me. It is those who say that
following the Law is an "indispensable aid to Christian
perfection" that Paul was admonishing. I.e., it is not
necessary to keep the Law to have Christian perfection.
If that were the case, then all of the Law would be
necessary and you would still be sacrificing animals.
As I said, Jesus fulfilled the Law and that is why
sacrifices, for example, are no longer necessary.
If you want to keep the Sabbath, then hey, keep it.
But to claim it is a requirement for Christians, is not
correct thinking. That is exactly what Paul was
warning against, just as Samuele said (quoted above).
Romans 14:5-6
5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind.
6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the
Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he
doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord,
for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not to the
Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Consider the context:
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and
vain deceit, *after the tradition of men,* after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ.
You are assuming that the Jews did not have any
"traditions of men". I suggest you read Matthew 15.
No.
Paul is addressing a Gentile church that is dealing with things like
"philosophy and vain deceit". The "philosophy" thing has a very
non-Jewish ring to it, wouldn't you agree?
Paul is addressing a Gentile church that had Jews come
into it and try to convince them that they must also
keep the Law. The thought of these people was that God
gave the Covenants to the Jews and therefore, the
Jewish Law must be followed, as well as accepting
Christ by faith.
Note that in v11, Paul discusses "the circumcision of
Christ". Circumcision is a word that the Jews would
have brought to the table, not the Gentiles, unless
Jews were trying to convince them that they needed to
be circumcised.
Good point.
Thank you. Now relate it to my response immediately
above this paragraph.
No, it isn't. Christians began meeting on the 1st day
of the week. This would hold true for later churches,
especially considering that some Jewish Christians
would have still attended temple on the sabbath.
I personally believe that the church at Jerusalem kept the feasts
and the Sabbaths, and circumcision, etc etc.
I disagree. They were not all Jews. I would however
agree that the Jews in that church (which was most of
them) probably did keep the holy days. But not as a
matter of requirement. Don't you remember how Paul
blasted Peter for living as a Gentile (not that it was
wrong) and yet, being a hypocrite and acting as if he
was living as a Jew when some of those who came from
James came into town (Galatians 2:11-16 and pay special
attention to v16)? Paul didn't blast Peter for living
as a Gentile. He blasted him for his hypocrisy. And
don't you remember how Peter was shown that he could
now eat anything and not worry about the dietary laws
(Acts 10:9-16)?
It is clear from Pauls work that he began the church work on the
Sabbath [Acts 13:14, 13:42, 16:13, 17:2, 18:4].
You claim that these Gentile churches starting meeting on Sunday but the
book of Acts shows that they began on the Sabbath.
Let's take your first example (Acts 13:14). It does
not show Paul going to a Christian church. It shows
him going into the temple and trying to convert Jews to
faith in Christ. That is not the same thing as
Christians gathering to eat and worship, etc.. Paul
was not preaching to Christians, but to unconverted
Jews in the temple.
"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples
came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them,
ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech
until midnight." - Acts 20:7
"Upon the first day of the week let every one of you
lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that
there be no gatherings when I come."
- 1 Corinthians 16:2
The disciples started gathering on the first day of the
week. And you forget that uncircumcised Gentiles
(unconverted to Judaism) would never have been allowed
into the temple. So how is it that the Jewish and
Gentile churches were meeting in the temple, as you try
to imply with Acts 13:14?
Acts 13:42 also shows that the Gentiles were not in the
temple. They obviously knew, or heard what Paul
preached. However, they were not in the temple. They
would have been stoned had they tried to enter the
temple. Uncircumcised, unconverted Gentiles could not
enter in where Paul would have been. As I said, Paul
was not in the temple preaching to a Christian church.
He was trying to win over Jewish converts, as he had
not yet realized that his mission was to the Gentiles
and it was necessary that he first attempt to give the
word to the Jews.
Acts 18:4-6
4) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and
persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
5) And when Silas and Timothy were come from Macedonia,
Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the
Jews that Jesus was Christ.
6) And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he
shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be
upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will
go unto the Gentiles.
I am aware that there are some examples of the Apostles meeting
on Sunday, but it is not a convincing argument that the Sabbath is
no longer the Sabbath. ie God's appointed day of rest.
One may treat it as a day of rest, certainly. That is
different than saying that it is required for
Christians, or they risk damnation.
Romans 14:5-6
5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind.
6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the
Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he
doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord,
for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not to the
Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Read all of Romans 14. Paul talks about days of
worship and focuses on meats as an example. You'll
find that he calls those who think they must adhere to
certain laws as the ones that are weak in the faith (no
insult intended). He also say however, that we are not
point fingers and to let each man be persuaded in his
own mind and not to judge each other about what days we
celebrate and what we eat, because it isn't a matter of
salvation. The problem comes in, when people do judge
others and claim that someone is going to Hell, because
they don't celebrate a certain day, or eat a certain
way. That's not a Christian approach according to the
Bible. I am not telling you you cannot celebrate the
Sabbath. More power to ya. :) But don't tell me that
I must, or I'm damned.
Not quite.
Paul had Timothy circumcised. We all know he didn't think
it was necessay for salvation, but not to offend the Jews.
You are trying to take one event, done for a specific
reason and turn it into a sermon that preaches that
circumcision must be necessary.
[head shaking slowing & eyes rolling]
[snip Dave's hallucination about circumcision]
Is that your best response? That tells me you're
running out of gas.
IMHO
Jesus directly addressed this point when dealing with the
Jews in Matt.12. No need to quote Paul on circumcision
when Jesus spoke directly about it.
Why should parts of the Bible be left out?
I'm not trying to leave parts out of the Bible.
The topic is Sabbath keeping.
There is no need to quote Paul on circumcision
when addressing the Sabbath. I'm sure we agree on:
1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is
nothing, but the keeping of the *commandments* of God.
[emphasis added to annoy Dave]
And what are those commandments, under the New
Covenant? You seem to forget that. If you want to
apply it to the Sabbath, then you are now bound to call
up the whole Law and keep it all. As Paul said and as
James (who was the strictest regarding works) said...
"For I testify again to every man that is circumcised,
that he is a debtor to do the whole law."
- Galatians 5:3
James 2:8-12
8) If ye fulfill the royal law according to the
Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye
do well:
9) But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin,
and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11) For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said
also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet
if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the
law.
12) So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be
judged by the law of liberty.
Note that James says that if we transgress one law, we
transgress them all. So if you demand that the Sabbath
be kept and yet, eat the wrong meat, you are guilty of
violating the whole law, so you shoot yourself in the
foot with your own argument.
Note that James also says that we are under a "royal
law" and that it is the "law of liberty". And that it
is the "law of liberty" that we will be judged by.
And Jesus
only addressed it once, in relation to it being done on
the Sabbath and did not promote, nor condemn it.
But the lessson is correct Sabbath keeping as opposed to
incorrect Sabbath keeping. It is simple.
Jesus addressed the Jews, while the Old Covenant was
still in place and pointed out their hypocrisy. That
does not mean that it follows that Christians should
take that as a commandment for the churches to follow
the Sabbath. There's not even a remote link to that
claim.
Instead of addressing the Scriptures I quote, you tend
to snip them and then try to find Scriptures that you
think say the opposite. That means that you are
pitting Scripture against Scripture, to try to prove
your point. That isn't a proper, nor a Christian
approach (no offense intended to you personally, I am
only discussing your approach, not your heart). Try
dealing with the Scriptures I quoted first and then see
if the Scriptures you wish to quote make sense in light
of what I've posted and said about them.
This simple verse means two things:
1) There is a Sabbath.
2) Jesus is Lord of it.
You are trying to equate God being Lord of the Sabbath
and Jesus saying this before His death and
resurrection, when all of the Law was still in place,
to the time after those events. That doesn't wash.
ok then.
So is Jesus Lord of the non-existent Sabbath?
Or Lord of the previous existent Sabbath?
Hardly a title fit for a king.
And definitely not a title for the King of Kings.
Let me ask you a question... If Jesus said that He was
the Lord of the Jewish temple, would He be correct? Of
course He would. Is the temple there anymore? No, it
isn't. Does that mean that Jesus made a foolish
statement? No, it doesn't.
Jesus made a statement to hypocritical Jews, who tried
to add their own traditions to God's Law and tried to
convict Him of a violation of the Sabbath, when it was
really their worthless traditions that He violated.
This was done prior to His death and resurrection. You
are forgetting the time texts. After His death and
resurrection, is when Peter for example, learned that
he could eat anything. But did Jesus tell him to eat
unclean meats before Jesus dies and rose again? No, He
didn't, but by your logic, Peter would be wrong for
eating them after Jesus' death and resurrection,
because we have no text in which Jesus ate anything
unclean, nor do we have Jesus saying to Peter to eat
whatever He wants, before the death and resurrection of
Jesus. You see, your own logic traps you. :)
You also fail to note that the lesson Jesus gave here
was that the traditions of the Jews, which called for
strict observance to their rules and regulations,
actually went against what God would have them do.
Agreed.
Correct Sabbath keeping is the lesson, not evil Sabbath keeping.
Which has nothing to do with the Christian church. In
fact, show me one text in the New Testament, which
specifically calls for Gentiles to keep the Sabbath.
You really can't make an argument for the Jews either,
but the point is easier to make using the Gentiles.
The Jewish way of life is not what they adhered to and
many would not have known anything, or at least not
much about the Jewish way of life, but rather, only
their own pagan ways before conversion. Show me where
the Apostles called for their circumcision (and don't
use Timothy, he had a Jewish parent) and Sabbath
keeping, etc.. No, rather, Paul said, "Let each man be
fully convinced in his own mind". And Paul told those
in other churches to beware of those who would seek to
come in and add the Law to the grace which abounded
there and to beware of those who would come in try to
put them under the yoke of their laws.
You also failed to deal with the Scriptures that I
posted.
I felt that you had some 'spin' on them.
Then you should have dealt with that. It is not seen
as an honest approach, when you ignore them and snip
them and then post Scriptures that would seem to say
the opposite, don't you agree?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russell McDade donteventhinkaboutit@all" |
|
| Title: Re: "WHAT ABOUT COLOSSIANS 2:16?" |
03 Dec 2004 05:37:48 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:or01r051e42dd2rf63lbaeotiob4sphtn7@4ax.com...
<I'm glad to see the cup-cake thing is gone>
Once again, you are comparing that which was before His
death and resurrection, to that which was after and you
should have finished the sentence. He said He came to
fulfill the Law. I.e, to make replete, or satisfy.
His death on the cross was the payment for our sins.
Thus, He satisfied the requirements of the Law.
Agreed.
I like your use of the word "replete", it is much better than abolish.
And I agree entirely that the death and resurection of Jesus Christ
satisfied all the requirements of the Law concerning salvation.
Perhaps I should make it clear from this point on that I see the
'Law' and the ten commandments as two seperate things. After
reading your response I see you treat them as one. I will take this
into account in my response.
<snip quote from Samuele Bacchiocchi>
You just made my case for me. It is those who say that
following the Law is an "indispensable aid to Christian
perfection" that Paul was admonishing. I.e., it is not
necessary to keep the Law to have Christian perfection.
If that were the case, then all of the Law would be
necessary and you would still be sacrificing animals.
As I said, Jesus fulfilled the Law and that is why
sacrifices, for example, are no longer necessary.
Agreed.
If you want to keep the Sabbath, then hey, keep it.
But to claim it is a requirement for Christians, is not
correct thinking. That is exactly what Paul was
warning against, just as Samuele said (quoted above).
Agreed again.
Romans 14:5-6
5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind.
6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the
Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he
doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord,
for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not to the
Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
<snip more agreement>
I personally believe that the church at Jerusalem kept the feasts
and the Sabbaths, and circumcision, etc etc.
I disagree. They were not all Jews. I would however
agree that the Jews in that church (which was most of
them) probably did keep the holy days.
We know they keep the feasts because Paul and others went to them.
Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said
unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are
which believe; and they are *all zealous of the law:*
Consider what the above verse says. Thousands of Jews that were "all
zealous of the law". This is the church at Jerusalem. I am convinced that
they kept the Sabbath, you may not be.
But not as a
matter of requirement. Don't you remember how Paul
blasted Peter for living as a Gentile (not that it was
wrong) and yet, being a hypocrite and acting as if he
was living as a Jew when some of those who came from
James came into town (Galatians 2:11-16 and pay special
attention to v16)? Paul didn't blast Peter for living
as a Gentile. He blasted him for his hypocrisy. And
don't you remember how Peter was shown that he could
now eat anything and not worry about the dietary laws
(Acts 10:9-16)?
Agreed.
And the requirements concerning dietary laws for Gentiles are
clearly shown in the book of Acts. ie; no blood. Acts 15:29
This raises an interesting point; The 'no blood' thing was based
on the belief that the life is in the blood, this existed before the
law was given, in a similar way that the Sabbath existed before
the law was given.
It is clear from Pauls work that he began the church work on the
Sabbath [Acts 13:14, 13:42, 16:13, 17:2, 18:4].
You claim that these Gentile churches starting meeting on Sunday but the
book of Acts shows that they began on the Sabbath.
Let's take your first example (Acts 13:14). It does
not show Paul going to a Christian church. It shows
him going into the temple and trying to convert Jews to
faith in Christ.
But consider what happened from that event:
Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue,
the Gentiles besought that these words might be
*preached to them the next sabbath.*
Here we see the beggining of the Gentile at Antioch started
on the Sabbath, and not just once because:
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole
city together to hear the word of God.
The Gentile church at Antioch began on the Sabbath. Acts 13
The Gentile church at Thyatira began on the Sabbath. Acts 16
The Gentile church at Thessalonica began on the Sabbath. Acts 17
Paul's work at Corinth began on the Sabbath. Acts 18
In 3/4 of the above examples it shows Gentiles gathering to hear
the gospel preached on the Sabbath and being converted by faith
in Christ. This is the beginning the Gentile church on the Sabbath.
<snip>
"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples
came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them,
ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech
until midnight." - Acts 20:7
This verse is almost certainly referring to a Saturday night meeting.
"Upon the first day of the week", most probably means; "when the
sun had set on the Sabbath" [my paraphrase]. That explains why
Paul preached until midnight. It also implies two other things:
1) " depart on the morrow" would mean their journey would begin
in the morning.
2) They were busy with church on the Sabbath, and the journey could
wait until the day after church. A "Sabbath's day journey" being less than
2 miles.
Some translations even say "On Saturday evening" GNB.
"Upon the first day of the week let every one of you
lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that
there be no gatherings when I come."
- 1 Corinthians 16:2
This verse implies that there is no meeting on the first day of the week.
It says; "Lay by *him* in store". If there was a gathering on the first day
of the week, why would anyone "lay by him". He could lay it with all
the rest.
The disciples started gathering on the first day of the
week. And you forget that uncircumcised Gentiles
(unconverted to Judaism) would never have been allowed
into the temple. So how is it that the Jewish and
Gentile churches were meeting in the temple, as you try
to imply with Acts 13:14?
Acts 13:42 also shows that the Gentiles were not in the
temple. They obviously knew, or heard what Paul
preached. However, they were not in the temple. They
would have been stoned had they tried to enter the
temple. Uncircumcised, unconverted Gentiles could not
enter in where Paul would have been. As I said, Paul
was not in the temple preaching to a Christian church.
He was trying to win over Jewish converts, as he had
not yet realized that his mission was to the Gentiles
and it was necessary that he first attempt to give the
word to the Jews.
So we agree that Acts chapter 13 shows that Gentiles gathered
and were converted to Christianity on the Sabbath. And on more
than one occasion [Sabbath].
Acts 18:4-6
4) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and
persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
5) And when Silas and Timothy were come from Macedonia,
Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the
Jews that Jesus was Christ.
6) And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he
shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be
upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will
go unto the Gentiles.
Amen.
And he did, and persisted with Sabbath keeping. As per his defence
when called to answer the charges made against him by the Jews, or
Paul was lying.
I am aware that there are some examples of the Apostles meeting
on Sunday, but it is not a convincing argument that the Sabbath is
no longer the Sabbath. ie God's appointed day of rest.
One may treat it as a day of rest, certainly. That is
different than saying that it is required for
Christians, or they risk damnation.
I have not said or implied that.
Romans 14:5-6
5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind.
6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the
Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he
doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord,
for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not to the
Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Read all of Romans 14. Paul talks about days of
worship and focuses on meats as an example. You'll
find that he calls those who think they must adhere to
certain laws as the ones that are weak in the faith (no
insult intended). He also say however, that we are not
point fingers and to let each man be persuaded in his
own mind and not to judge each other about what days we
celebrate and what we eat, because it isn't a matter of
salvation. The problem comes in, when people do judge
others and claim that someone is going to Hell, because
they don't celebrate a certain day, or eat a certain
way. That's not a Christian approach according to the
Bible. I am not telling you you cannot celebrate the
Sabbath. More power to ya. :) But don't tell me that
I must, or I'm damned.
I never said that.
Nor have I "pointed fingers". And I agree with the verses
you quoted.
And what are those commandments, under the New
Covenant? You seem to forget that. If you want to
apply it to the Sabbath, then you are now bound to call
up the whole Law and keep it all. As Paul said and as
James (who was the strictest regarding works) said...
This is where we have some confusion.
I see the ten commandments as something seperate from
the the book of the Law.
"For I testify again to every man that is circumcised,
that he is a debtor to do the whole law."
- Galatians 5:3
James 2:8-12
8) If ye fulfill the royal law according to the
Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye
do well:
9) But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin,
and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11) For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said
also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet
if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the
law.
12) So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be
judged by the law of liberty.
Note that James says that if we transgress one law, we
transgress them all. So if you demand that the Sabbath
be kept and yet, eat the wrong meat, you are guilty of
violating the whole law, so you shoot yourself in the
foot with your own argument.
2 points:
1) I have not "demanded" anything.
I am saying there is an excellent case for Sabbath keeping
in the context of the New Testament. as in Matt. chapter 12.
This argument can be supported by Paul's work as detailed in
the book of Acts.
I am *not* damning anyone in regard to the practice of their faith,
whether they agree with my views or not.
2) Cloudy use of the word "law"
I concede that there are many different uses in the New Testament
of the word 'law'. James refers to the 10 commandments when he says
'law'. My understanding is slightly different [I could be wrong].
I understand the book of the law and the 10 commandments as 2
different things.
Note that James also says that we are under a "royal
law" and that it is the "law of liberty". And that it
is the "law of liberty" that we will be judged by.
I would add that James was the Pastor of the church at Jerusalem.
The church that kept the feasts, circumcision, Sabbath etc etc.
And he is the advocate of the 'law of liberty'. Something that must never
be forgotten. Especially on usenet.
<snip>
Jesus addressed the Jews, while the Old Covenant was
still in place and pointed out their hypocrisy. That
does not mean that it follows that Christians should
take that as a commandment for the churches to follow
the Sabbath. There's not even a remote link to that
claim.
What is does show is that God intended Sabbath keeping to
be a delight and a joy. Not something to bash others over the
head with. I consider this a valid example for the New Testament
church, you may not.
I'm cool with that.
BTW. Dave, I know that your views are reformed, and yet you
persist with a very dispensationalist perspective when dealing with
this subject. Is it because the reformers believe that the Sabbath has
been changed to Sunday, [an indefensible position] or is it for another
reason?
Instead of addressing the Scriptures I quote, you tend
to snip them and then try to find Scriptures that you
think say the opposite. That means that you are
pitting Scripture against Scripture, to try to prove
your point. That isn't a proper, nor a Christian
approach (no offense intended to you personally, I am
only discussing your approach, not your heart). Try
dealing with the Scriptures I quoted first and then see
if the Scriptures you wish to quote make sense in light
of what I've posted and said about them.
Agreed, but I like to try to stick as close as possible to the
topic, many of these examples rely on dietary laws or circumcision,
this IMHO is a round-about method of dealing with the subject.
<snip>
Let me ask you a question... If Jesus said that He was
the Lord of the Jewish temple, would He be correct? Of
course He would. Is the temple there anymore? No, it
isn't. Does that mean that Jesus made a foolish
statement? No, it doesn't.
Agreed.
But Jesus didn't make such a statement, and I'm sure there
is a temple in heaven that looks a squillion times better that
anything on earth, and Jesus is Lord of it.
Jesus made a statement to hypocritical Jews, who tried
to add their own traditions to God's Law and tried to
convict Him of a violation of the Sabbath, when it was
really their worthless traditions that He violated.
Agreed.
Jesus demonstrated what Sabbath keeping is realy all about.
This was done prior to His death and resurrection. You
are forgetting the time texts. After His death and
resurrection, is when Peter for example, learned that
he could eat anything. But did Jesus tell him to eat
unclean meats before Jesus dies and rose again? No, He
didn't, but by your logic, Peter would be wrong for
eating them after Jesus' death and resurrection,
because we have no text in which Jesus ate anything
unclean, nor do we have Jesus saying to Peter to eat
whatever He wants, before the death and resurrection of
Jesus. You see, your own logic traps you. :)
I see it differently because you equate dietary laws and
the 10 commandments into one 'thing' called the law. Nor
do I see the timing of these events as important, because
the Sabbath existed before the law, and always will.
<snip>
Which has nothing to do with the Christian church. In
fact, show me one text in the New Testament, which
specifically calls for Gentiles to keep the Sabbath.
We both know such a verse doesn't exist. And salvation is
by faith not works. That doesn't mean that the Sabbath isn't
the Sabbath either. It is still the God given day of rest whether
any man believes or not.
You really can't make an argument for the Jews either,
but the point is easier to make using the Gentiles.
The Jewish way of life is not what they adhered to and
many would not have known anything, or at least not
much about the Jewish way of life, but rather, only
their own pagan ways before conversion. Show me where
the Apostles called for their circumcision (and don't
use Timothy, he had a Jewish parent) and Sabbath
keeping, etc.. No, rather, Paul said, "Let each man be
fully convinced in his own mind". And Paul told those
in other churches to beware of those who would seek to
come in and add the Law to the grace which abounded
there and to beware of those who would come in try to
put them under the yoke of their laws.
Agreed, however the council at Jerusalem did give a rudimentry
list of rules for the Gentiles to maintain. These rules [notice I'm not
using the word law] didn't include anything about Sabbath keeping
because *I* assume that these Gentile churches were already meeting
on the Sabbath for worship. I could be wrong, but I have not seen a
convincing argument otherwise.
<snip>
Then you should have dealt with that. It is not seen
as an honest approach, when you ignore them and snip
them and then post Scriptures that would seem to say
the opposite, don't you agree?
Agreed, but I like to try to stick as close as possible to the
topic, many of these examples rely on dietary laws or circumcision,
this IMHO is a round-about method of dealing with the subject.
Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: "WHAT ABOUT COLOSSIANS 2:16?" |
16 Jul 2005 08:24:42 AM |
|
|
Enjoyed this very long post, but only want to respond to one thing...
"Russell McDade" <donteventhinkaboutit@all> wrote in message
news:41b0ff0b$0$9421$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
<snip>
I personally believe that the church at Jerusalem kept the feasts
and the Sabbaths, and circumcision, etc etc.
I disagree. They were not all Jews. I would however
agree that the Jews in that church (which was most of
them) probably did keep the holy days.
We know they keep the feasts because Paul and others went to them.
Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said
unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are
which believe; and they are *all zealous of the law:*
Consider what the above verse says. Thousands of Jews that were "all
zealous of the law". This is the church at Jerusalem. I am convinced that
they kept the Sabbath, you may not be.
I am a member of a thought to be 'dead sect' which claims to have been
originally the church in Jerusalem, I am an Ebionite,
I was, not in relation with salvation, but in respect for Jewish tradition,
circumcised on my eighth day of life, we honor Jewish Holy days, we are
zealous of the law (the teachings of Jesus, not the fulfilled law{entire} of
the OT), we recognized the "commandments" which Jesus refered to
Matt.19:18-19, note there are only six...
BUT even though the sabbath is missing, we honor it, by doing nothing but
meditative things, as Jesus pointed out that the priests profaned the
sabbath (Matt.12:5) We hold Church services on SUNDAY (as our sect is
restricted to family members*, we home church, from house to house, when,
and where, we are near enough together)
*we are not inclusive, people do not have to be members of our church family
to be saved, and on their way to heaven, we also tend to join other churches
(as I, being a member of the United Methodist Church)
Just thought you might be interested.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: "WHAT ABOUT COLOSSIANS 2:16?" |
04 Dec 2004 03:40:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:37:48 +1100, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Russell McDade"
<donteventhinkaboutit@all> pontificated:
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:or01r051e42dd2rf63lbaeotiob4sphtn7@4ax.com...
<I'm glad to see the cup-cake thing is gone>
Once again, you are comparing that which was before His
death and resurrection, to that which was after and you
should have finished the sentence. He said He came to
fulfill the Law. I.e, to make replete, or satisfy.
His death on the cross was the payment for our sins.
Thus, He satisfied the requirements of the Law.
Agreed.
I like your use of the word "replete", it is much better than abolish.
And I agree entirely that the death and resurection of Jesus Christ
satisfied all the requirements of the Law concerning salvation.
Perhaps I should make it clear from this point on that I see the
'Law' and the ten commandments as two seperate things. After
reading your response I see you treat them as one. I will take this
into account in my response.
That is because the Bible does not separate them.
Where in the OT, for example, does Moses say, "Now you
can break any law you want, but make sure not to break
the Ten Commandments"?
Also, note in the quote I gave of James. He said that
we follow "the royal law". He gave an example of,
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself". That is not
one of the Ten Commandments. That is what Jesus said.
<snip quote from Samuele Bacchiocchi>
You just made my case for me. It is those who say that
following the Law is an "indispensable aid to Christian
perfection" that Paul was admonishing. I.e., it is not
necessary to keep the Law to have Christian perfection.
If that were the case, then all of the Law would be
necessary and you would still be sacrificing animals.
As I said, Jesus fulfilled the Law and that is why
sacrifices, for example, are no longer necessary.
Agreed.
If you want to keep the Sabbath, then hey, keep it.
But to claim it is a requirement for Christians, is not
correct thinking. That is exactly what Paul was
warning against, just as Samuele said (quoted above).
Agreed again.
Romans 14:5-6
5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind.
6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the
Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he
doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord,
for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not to the
Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
<snip more agreement>
I personally believe that the church at Jerusalem kept the feasts
and the Sabbaths, and circumcision, etc etc.
I disagree. They were not all Jews. I would however
agree that the Jews in that church (which was most of
them) probably did keep the holy days.
We know they keep the feasts because Paul and others went to them.
Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said
unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are
which believe; and they are *all zealous of the law:*
Consider what the above verse says. Thousands of Jews that were "all
zealous of the law". This is the church at Jerusalem. I am convinced
that they kept the Sabbath, you may not be.
I believe, as I said, that many of the believing Jews
followed the Law (but not as a matter of salvation). I
did not say otherwise. That does not translate to
saying that the whole Christian church, including
Gentiles, are bound under whatever Law of the Old
Covenant that a modern church tries to declare must be
adhered to.
But not as a
matter of requirement. Don't you remember how Paul
blasted Peter for living as a Gentile (not that it was
wrong) and yet, being a hypocrite and acting as if he
was living as a Jew wh | | | | | | |
