Colossians 2.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Studyman

Senior Member
Oct 11, 2017
3,570
516
113
#41
Paul doesn't write here "therefore let no one judge you with regard to circumcision of the flesh" -- though he certainly does say that for example in his letter to the Galatians. but it is God's own law that required physical circumcision -- Genesis 17:12, Exodus 12:48, Ezekiel 44:9 etc -- physical circumcision for Jews as a matter of course, and for any foreigner who wished to come near or to have part in Passover. the observant Jews did not just pull this out of thin air: they were applying the Law, as though it was still the covenant in effect.


he says let no one judge you with regard to:


  • food and drink -- which is part of the Law
  • feast days -- which is part of the Law
  • new moon -- which is part of the Law
  • sabbath -- which is part of the Law

and he calls these things shadows. food and drink regulations. feast days appointed in the Law. sabbath observance.

"
tradition of men" is singular in the text, not plural. what is "the tradition of men" that may draw us away from the faith in which we ought to be established?
Col. 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Rom. 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

We are still required to be circumcised, just like we are still required to offer sacrifices to the High Priest.

If you must make a case out of the singular tradition of men, I'll let Jesus expose what man's "Tradition" is.

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#42
Is this the norm here? Rather than address the post just slander the poster? Can you answer his post with a rebuttal? If not why say anything....
He is the one who did the slandering my friend. He never answered my post. And his post had NOTHING to do with what I said.


 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#43
Col. 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Rom. 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

We are still required to be circumcised, just like we are still required to offer sacrifices to the High Priest.

If you must make a case out of the singular tradition of men, I'll let Jesus expose what man's "Tradition" is.

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

as i said, certainly the scripture does make it clear that it is the circumcision of the heart, not the flesh, which has value. it is also clear in scripture that circumcision of the flesh is tantamount to placing yourself under the Law - every single part of it.

yes, he mentions circumcision in verse 11 -- making an hard distinction between the circumcision which has actual value, which is the one made without human hands, and the one that -- guess what -- is found in the Law. if he's trying to tell us that we need to physically keep Moses Law, why doesn't he encourage us to be physically circumcised? in Galatians he actually actively discourages doing so on this point!

i don't seem to be making myself clear to you: Paul in Colossians 2 warns against being led astray "
after the tradition of men"
John 3:19-20 doesn't mention the word "
tradition" at all, so i'm not sure what you mean for me to glean from that. that all human traditions are evil deeds?

in the context of keeping guard against "
the tradition" of men, Paul warns against submitting ourselves to laws that are only good for having an appearance of holiness, but which do not have any value with regard to stopping the indulgence of the flesh. in this same context he says don't let anyone judge you with regard to doing a bunch of things that the Law - the law God gave through Moses - specifically proscribe. if Paul was warning specifically against things which are not found in the Law, why are all the examples he gives here things that are actually part of the Law? the Law says do not touch, do not taste. why is he talking about feast days and sabbaths, if - as you say - he's not talking about feast days and sabbaths?


 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#44
One was nailed to the cross, "man's religious law", and the other Paul is instructing the Gentiles not to let men judge them in their "voluntary humility and worshipping of angels". The Mainstream preachers of Paul's time didn't know what they were talking about.
but what Paul says do not let people pass judgement over you about is specifically a list of things found in Moses Law.
he does not list human religious traditions that aren't found in Torah.
he lists things specifically found in Torah, things specifically required in Torah.

how do you keep skipping that fact?
did Paul not know what he was talking about?
did the Holy Spirit inspire the wrong list?

oops?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#45
I don't follow the man made teaching that the Mainstream preachers of Christ's time were trying to be justified by following God's instructions as Jesus did. They had created their own laws and their own religion. That is what was against Paul and the Gentiles. Not God's Commandments.
i'd like to know how to reconcile what you are saying here with this:

For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.

(Romans 10:2-5)

i don't see any indication that Paul is talking about extra-scriptural traditions or things contrary to the Law. it seems in fact very clear that he is talking about the Jews failing to achieve righteousness because they were trying to establish it for themselves by following -- specifically -- the Law given by God through Moses.

. . . which seems to be exactly what you're rejecting as 'mainstream teaching' though it appears to be exactly Paul's own teaching, which is, the teaching of the Holy Spirit.


i'd like to know how to reconcile what you say with this, also:

Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the Law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the Law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
(Romans 7:4-6)

do you think Paul is talking about human traditions here - traditions with no basis in God's covenant laws with Israel? is that "
the written code" ?
why does he make it so obvious that he's referring to the Law of Moses then?
and if it is the Law of Moses -- the Spirit specifically writes that we are released from it and that it held us captive.

but was it human traditions that held us captive, that sin seized the opportunity in? was it human religious traditions that we died to? that condemned all flesh? was it human religious traditions never given by God to anyone that taught Paul what '
covetousness' is, that he never would have known if it weren't for man-made unfruitful regulations?

did Christ really die to set us free from the lying pens of scribes? if it weren't for them pesky scribes... His blood wouldn't have to be shed?

read on in Romans 7, verse 7 -- "what shall we say then? is the Law sin?"
is that supposed to read, "
what shall we say then? are the extra-scriptural human religious traditions sin?"

"By no means!"



 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#46

yeah. there are a lot more sabbaths in the covenant Law than the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] day one.

the text doesn't actually say " . .
sabbaths other than the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] day one" either. it says "sabbaths" ((or 'a sabbath' in plural form of the word, clearly indicating any particular one of them))
which is a pretty inclusive use of language.

kind of hard to stay faithful to what's written and at the same time make that out to mean "
don't let anyone judge you with regard to other sabbaths, but not the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] day one, definitely let them judge you over that"
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#47

The 7th Day Sabbath is of the Decrees not the handwriting to the Decrees.

lemmee just respectfully direct you back to where i was pointing out to Jackson that the Bible calls the covenant Law "
the Law of Moses"

what i quoted was this:

For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned?
(1 Corinthians 9:9)

what Paul quoted is this:

You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.
(Deuteronomy 25:4)

notice that's written in Deuteronomy, not Exodus 20:1-17.

please also notice that the Holy Spirit - writing through Paul - calls this "
THE LAW"
not "
the handwriting to the decrees"

i believe you are trying to make a distinction that the Spirit does not make. i see no justifiable argument to separate The Law into portions; scripture talks about it as one Law, and people who want to put themselves under it - but not under all of it - make arguments for themselves to break it up into the parts they want to keep & judge others over, and parts they don't want to judge or be judged by. isn't it written somewhere, by someone, that if you allow yourselves to be circumcised, you are liable to the whole Law ?
 

beta

Senior Member
Aug 8, 2016
2,782
332
83
#48
well i was only explaining to Jackson that 'Law of Moses' is indeed a Biblical term.

but yes, in the record it is actually immediately after God speaks the decalogue that they ask that there be an intercessor. Hebrew writing isn't always chronological though, it may not mean that this is exactly the sequential order of events, but that it is listed in this sequence in order to convey a meaning.

All the people perceived the thunder and the lightning flashes and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood at a distance. Then they said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, or we will die.” Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid; for God has come in order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may remain with you, so that you may not sin.” So the people stood at a distance, while Moses approached the thick cloud where God was.
(Exodus 20:18-21)

vv. 1-17 are '
the ten commandments'
it's not actually clear whether the people heard and understood these commands, or if Moses relayed them. verse 18 says they perceived the thunder, lightning, the smoke, and the sound of the trumpet. it doesn't say they heard and understood the words.

whether they did or did not hear and understand these things directly by the voice of God, i don't think this is grounds to call the ten commandments a '
different law' that is separate from all the other things God told Moses to speak before them as a covenant. the Law is one law; it is a contract, a covenant. it is the terms of a marriage; the Father and the nation Israel. as James says, if you break one part of the Law, you have broken all of it -- James then does not seem to think of the Law as being separable: it is one covenant, all or nothing.
It is interesting how you quote the verse about the lightening and thunder the people heard and saw...
yet say nothing about Deut 5v22 quoted immediately after the 10 Commandments saying : 'These WORDS the Lord spoke unto all your assembly in the midst of the fire, the cloud and....and they HEARD His VOICE v 24...
Seems people would rather heed the physical display than pay attention to what was being said and carry this error through centuries and millenia down to this day in order to uphold their own understanding.
What you apparently are not seeing is the DIFFERENCE between the SACRED 10 Commandments given by GOD HIMself and the commandments contained in ordinances/works given through Moses Lev 10v10.
How do you know what James is ref to regarding law .... why would he not put difference between holy/spiritual and unholy/temporal ?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#49
It is interesting how you quote the verse about the lightening and thunder the people heard and saw...
yet say nothing about Deut 5v22 quoted immediately after the 10 Commandments saying : 'These WORDS the Lord spoke unto all your assembly in the midst of the fire, the cloud and....and they HEARD His VOICE v 24...
it is explained: i was reading Exodus, and Exodus is ambiguous on that point. thank you for pointing me to Deuteronomy :)
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#50
How do you know what James is ref to regarding law ....

James tells me.
:)

But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

(James 2:9-10)

the context:

My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?
(James 2:1-4)

where is it written in the Law not to show partiality to rich or poor? Leviticus 19:15. not in Exodus 20:1-17.
but James also teaches me:

If, however, you are fulfilling the law of our King according to the Scripture,
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.

(James 2:8)

to do what is required in the Law - in Leviticus 19:15, which is part of the Law of Moses - we would do, if we truly followed the law of our King, and loved one another as ourselves. Leviticus 19:15 is derived from "
love your neighbor as yourself"
hey
wait
where is that written?
in Exodus 20:1-17?
oh. no, it's not.
no, it's in Leviticus 19:18

so
the law of our King -- that's in Exodus 20:1-17 but it's not in Leviticus 19, because everything other than the decalogue is some kind of 'different law' ?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#51
One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him,
“What commandment is the foremost of all?”
Jesus answered,
The foremost is,
‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’
The second is this,
‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
There is no other commandment greater than these.
(Mark 12:28-31)

those two commandments are:
Deuteronomy 6:5
Leviticus 19:18

interesting that neither one is part of the 10 commandments. ;)
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#52
the DIFFERENCE between the SACRED 10 Commandments given by GOD HIMself and the commandments contained in ordinances/works given through Moses

love the LORD your God
and love your neighbor as yourself --

-- are those
sacred commands from God Himself or ordinances/works ?

-- are the
SACRED 10 Commandments greater than these 2?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#55
Seems people would rather heed the physical display than pay attention to what was being said and carry this error through centuries and millenia down to this day in order to uphold their own understanding.

kinda like this huh

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
“Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” ?


or maybe like judging / allowing yourself to be judged by the outward display of such things as dietary laws, keeping feast days or lunar festivals, or sabbath ordinances? maybe.

i agree, seems like people are carrying this error through for millennia:


These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

that phrase, "of no value against fleshly indulgence" - that's striking!
reminds me:

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh​

((praise God!!))

Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?

((who is like Him??))


 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#56
That may be so, but according to Christ, they sum up the Ten Commandments.
that's part of what's so interesting :)

all the Law hinges on them
 
Last edited:

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#57

The law was not nailed. THE CURSE of the law was nailed.

praise God!

in Him, i also was nailed to that cross, and in Him died - so the Law has no more power over me, and in Him i live, that He live in me!!

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us
(Galatians 3:13)​


DELIVERANCE
REDEMPTION
SALVATION

is His name!
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#58

The 7th Day Sabbath is of the Decrees not the handwriting to the Decrees.

if i roll with this, then putting it together with what Christ says, the greatest commandment and the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] greatest are both part of "the handwriting to the Decrees" -- which you say are nailed to the cross, so i'm not bound to them.

i.e. the implication is that i, being crucified with Him, am bound by Law to keep all the outward signs of 7[SUP]th[/SUP] day sabbath observance ((but not the other sabbaths)), but i don't have to love the Lord and i don't have to love my neighbor.



. . . that's another part of what's interesting about Christ quoting from Deuteronomy 6 & Leviticus 19 instead of Exodus 20. :rolleyes:
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#59

the singular tradition of men
in hope to make what i was trying to say more plain, because i was asking leading questions instead of just saying it, i'll just say that i propose this is the tradition of men:

For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.​

which actually jives with John 3:19 -- it is that men love darkness rather than light.

i would like to see a list of all the religious beliefs in the world, all the ways and beliefs that men follow in order to find themselves approved before God -- a list of all of those which are not an expression of establishing one's own righteousness according to the keeping of some kinds of laws and practices; i would like to see a list of all religions on earth that seek a righteousness which is by faith.

afaik it's a very short list, and Christianity is #1.

 

beta

Senior Member
Aug 8, 2016
2,782
332
83
#60

James tells me.
:)

But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

(James 2:9-10)

the context:

My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?
(James 2:1-4)

where is it written in the Law not to show partiality to rich or poor? Leviticus 19:15. not in Exodus 20:1-17.
but James also teaches me:

If, however, you are fulfilling the law of our King according to the Scripture,
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.

(James 2:8)

to do what is required in the Law - in Leviticus 19:15, which is part of the Law of Moses - we would do, if we truly followed the law of our King, and loved one another as ourselves. Leviticus 19:15 is derived from "
love your neighbor as yourself"
hey
wait
where is that written?
in Exodus 20:1-17?
oh. no, it's not.
no, it's in Leviticus 19:18

so
the law of our King -- that's in Exodus 20:1-17 but it's not in Leviticus 19, because everything other than the decalogue is some kind of 'different law' ?
We may not gain all knowledge from the OT but James is definitely referring to the 10 Commandments when he mentions one of them in 2v8, just prior to the 'whole law in v 10. We see that JESUS/Yashua had already dealt with the Ordinances Eph 2v15; Col 2v14; so these were no longer part of the 'whole law as you perceive. The 10 are the whole law now ! spiritual, eternal, holy, just and good...loving God and neighbour !