Colossians 2:16-17

[john832]

The not eating of pork was against the law...the law that was nailed to the cross. Shame you don't get that. You really come across as knowing the bible better. That is quite simple.

Care to show me where that is recorded?

 

[john832]

Just out of curiosity, where is the change to the first day of the week recorded in the N.T.? A change that major, abridging one of the Ten Commandments would certainly have been addressed. After all, the simple change of physical circumcision to that of the heart stirred such a row that there was a HQ conference and MUCH dissension over it. Imagine what a tumult changing the Sabbath to Sunday worship would have aroused.

Interestingly enough, Paul stated this...

Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

Now if Paul had taught that one did not have to keep the Sabbath, it would be in DIRECT violation to the Law referred to here. So what is it? Did Paul lie to Festus in front of the Jews here? If he did, why didn't the Jews call him on it?

Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Because he kept and taught the Sabbath.

 

[phil112]

Care to show me where that is recorded?

You have been shown time and again. You reject truth. Don't bother asking me for something that you are already aware of and intend to twist, contort, and pervert it to your own deceitful purposes.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Paul does not here say, "Do not keep the Holy Days or Sabbaths" though that is what many people read into the text.

Actually, what Paul is saying is what the plain reading of the Greek, and the best English translation say, that the Colossian believers were not to allow judgment of their Sunday worship practices and their refusal the Law to rule over them. This is made more plainly evident when seen in the context of v. 11, when he points out to them they are "circumcised in a circumcision without hands" -- unlike the bris ceremony on the eighth day of life which "set them apart" for God, they had bee set apart from Him through the death and resurrection of Christ.

It is also evident a couple verses later.

Colossians 2, NASB
13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.​

The "certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us" is the Law. It is this Christ has "taken out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." He has definitively removed us from the requirements of a Law that Peter said, in Acts 15:10, is "a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear". You and our OP would put that yoke back upon us. Like the believers at Colossae, we reject it.

It is disturbing to see such great lengths of hyperbole and confusing, inconsistent arguments used to mislead the believers on this board.

 

[Danel]

Just out of curiosity, where is the change to the first day of the week recorded in the N.T.? A change that major, abridging one of the Ten Commandments would certainly have been addressed. After all, the simple change of physical circumcision to that of the heart stirred such a row that there was a HQ conference and MUCH dissension over it. Imagine what a tumult changing the Sabbath to Sunday worship would have aroused.

It's recorded right here, John.

Revelation 12:9- And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Just out of curiosity, where is the change to the first day of the week recorded in the N.T.? A change that major, abridging one of the Ten Commandments would certainly have been addressed. After all, the simple change of physical circumcision to that of the heart stirred such a row that there was a HQ conference and MUCH dissension over it. Imagine what a tumult changing the Sabbath to Sunday worship would have aroused.

It's recorded right here, John.

Revelation 12:9- And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Uhh ... no, not even.

 

[Mac4Yuma]

Actually, what Paul is saying is what the plain reading of the Greek, and the best English translation say, that the Colossian believers were not to allow judgment of their Sunday worship practices and their refusal the Law to rule over them. This is made more plainly evident when seen in the context of v. 11, when he points out to them they are "circumcised in a circumcision without hands" -- unlike the bris ceremony on the eighth day of life which "set them apart" for God, they had bee set apart from Him through the death and resurrection of Christ.

It is also evident a couple verses later.

Colossians 2, NASB
13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.​

The "certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us" is the Law. It is this Christ has "taken out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." He has definitively removed us from the requirements of a Law that Peter said, in Acts 15:10, is "a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear". You and our OP would put that yoke back upon us. Like the believers at Colossae, we reject it.

It is disturbing to see such great lengths of hyperbole and confusing, inconsistent arguments used to mislead the believers on this board.
But in the middle of that week
he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt.
On the wing74 of abominations will come75 one who destroys,
until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.”
(CEV) For one week this foreigner will make a firm agreement with many people, and halfway through this week, he will end all sacrifices and offerings. Then the "Horrible Thing" that causes destruction will be put there. And it will stay there until the time God has decided to destroy this one who destroys.
(KJV) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
also:
2:11nASB In him you also were circumcised – not, however,21 with a circumcision performed by human hands, but by the removal22 of the fleshly body,23 that is,24 through the circumcision done by Christ.
2:13NASB And even though you were dead in your27 transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he nevertheless28 made you alive with him, having forgiven all your transgressions.
2:14NASB He has destroyed29 what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness30 expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross.
CEV
Col 2:11 Christ has also taken away your selfish desires, just as circumcision removes flesh from the body.
Col 2:12 And when you were baptized, it was the same as being buried with Christ. Then you were raised to life because you had faith in the power of God, who raised Christ from death.
Col 2:13 You were dead, because you were sinful and were not God's people. But God let Christ make you alive, when he forgave all our sins.
Col 2:14 God wiped out the charges that were against us for disobeying the Law of Moses. He took them away and nailed them to the cross.
And:
Act 15:10 Now why are you trying to make God angry by placing a heavy burden on these followers? This burden was too heavy for us or our ancestors.
Love to all is not a burden nor keeping Saturday nor not taking human life such is not a burden....
Mac.

The rest of the story:
9:27NASB He will confirm a covenant with many for one week.73
But in the middle of that week
he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt.
On the wing74 of abominations will come75 one who destroys,
until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.”
(CEV) For one week this foreigner will make a firm agreement with many people, and halfway through this week, he will end all sacrifices and offerings. Then the "Horrible Thing" that causes destruction will be put there. And it will stay there until the time God has decided to destroy this one who destroys.
(KJV) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
also:
2:11nASB In him you also were circumcised – not, however,21 with a circumcision performed by human hands, but by the removal22 of the fleshly body,23 that is,24 through the circumcision done by Christ.
2:13NASB And even though you were dead in your27 transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he nevertheless28 made you alive with him, having forgiven all your transgressions.
2:14NASB He has destroyed29 what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness30 expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross.
CEV
Col 2:11 Christ has also taken away your selfish desires, just as circumcision removes flesh from the body.
Col 2:12 And when you were baptized, it was the same as being buried with Christ. Then you were raised to life because you had faith in the power of God, who raised Christ from death.
Col 2:13 You were dead, because you were sinful and were not God's people. But God let Christ make you alive, when he forgave all our sins.
Col 2:14 God wiped out the charges that were against us for disobeying the Law of Moses. He took them away and nailed them to the cross.
And:
Act 15:10 Now why are you trying to make God angry by placing a heavy burden on these followers? This burden was too heavy for us or our ancestors.
Love to all is not a burden nor keeping Saturday nor not taking human life such is not a burden....
Mac.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Mac, you need to edit your post and get that junk you preach out from under my quote. I didn't say any of, and it is in fact, a duplication of everything you posted in response. So get on it. Thanks.

After you do that, I'll discuss where you have misapplied your supposed "rest of the story."

 

[prove-all]

derrrrrrrrrrrr.......Whatch yu talkin about Prove-all?

derrrrrrrrrrrr.......Whatch yu talkin about Prove-all?

Paul was clearly telling the colossians that God has abolished His sabbath command and feasts. That's why He said God's feasts forshadowed future events.......BECAUSE THEY"VE BEEN DONE AWAY WITH!

Isn't that a much more logical conclusion?

no it is not what the verse says, so if we listen to man and not the bible,
[things to come]is future tense and does not mean past .

if no one would have been holding the day of pentacost,
no one would have recieved the holy spirit on that day.

a Holy convocation observed, after Christ died for us.

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.
For even Christ our [passover] is sacrificed for us:


-then the night to be most remembered, first day of unleavened bread [feast],

Therefore let us (keep the feast), not with old leaven, neither with the leaven
of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

-leaving sin[egypt] and starting our walk with God, when the enemy chased them,
God said don't fear, watch what great things I will do for you.

-and another holy day after Christ was risen, a waveshelf offering pleasing to God.
then the next Holy convocation was pentacost, again this after Christ died for us.

the next holy convocation is Christs return [called feast of trumpets]



a memorial , if done away why is it recorded in the bible in n.t. observence.


Acts 12:3 (KJV)
And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also.
(Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

Acts 20:6 (KJV)
And we sailed away from Philippi after (the days of unleavened bread),
and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.

 

[prove-all]

It's recorded right here, John.

Revelation 12:9- And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

no it is recorded here i believe.

25And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High,

and think to change times and laws:

and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

​

 

[prove-all]

Just out of curiosity, where is the change to the first day of the week recorded in the N.T.? A change that major, abridging one of the Ten Commandments would certainly have been addressed. After all, the simple change of physical circumcision to that of the heart stirred such a row that there was a HQ conference and MUCH dissension over it. Imagine what a tumult changing the Sabbath to Sunday worship would have aroused.

Interestingly enough, Paul stated this...

Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

Now if Paul had taught that one did not have to keep the Sabbath, it would be in DIRECT violation to the Law referred to here. So what is it? Did Paul lie to Festus in front of the Jews here? If he did, why didn't the Jews call him on it?

Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Because he kept and taught the Sabbath.

after looking at the 8 verses in the n.t. with the first day of the week,

I could not find it there in those 8 verses.

mater of fact you can search from gen. to rev. and find not one verse

that does away with the promises given about this special day God santified.

now if you want verses that tells how, or why man changed it,

we could start in the bible book of Daniel

 

[KennethC]

Acts 20:7

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.

Right here you have the Apostle Paul preaching to the other disciples all day tell midnight, and when you do a history lesson about the original workings within the early church you will find the Apostles used Saturdays to bring in new converts and then used Sundays to worship on........Jesus and the book of Hebrews also shows the Sabbath is not observed the same as in the OT with the ordinances that no longer apply!!!

 

[prove-all]

Acts 20:7

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.

Right here you have the Apostle Paul preaching to the other disciples all day tell midnight, and when you do a history lesson about the original workings within the early church you will find the Apostles used Saturdays to bring in new converts and then used Sundays to worship on........Jesus and the book of Hebrews also shows the Sabbath is not observed the same as in the OT with the ordinances that no longer apply!!!

no this is incorect, sabbath ended at night fall, he preached last words to them,

knowing he was going to labor in the morning and walk all day,
on the first day of week, to meet companions.

so night fall to midnight is not that long, since time lost from upstairs also.


this is a work day,you do know that a day started at sunset right,

nothing in this verse changes the Holy sabbath to sunday

 

[posthuman]

how about letting Paul clarify Paul?

whatever you settle on after all the consternation with Colossians 2:16-17 needs to jive with Romans 14:5-6

One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord.
​

 

[posthuman]

yes, i know he's talking about foodstuffs just prior to that snippet.

The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not,
and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does,
for God has accepted them.

but he seems to me to treat observance of holy days in exactly the same way, and since he uses them as an example to make his point about food, i believe he considers the matter of ritual festivals and observances to be even more clear that the disputable nature of eating.

sorry if i'm not adding anything to the "argument over words," but i hope i at least add an encouragement to remain at peace with each other over this, since we all know that observance or non-observance of these things are not what merited the grace He showed to us.

 

[prove-all]

Rom 14. I guess I gotta post this again...

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

The first thing we see here is that this chapter is about relating to a weak brother.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
The subject here? Vegetarianism

Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
So, if you encounter one who is weak in the faith and believes he must eat vegetables only, don’t let this puff you up…

2Co 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

What is the gold standard here?

1Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Now to the meat and potatoes…
Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 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.

Why is eating and fasting (not eating) connected to days here? Let’s see…

Luk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Luk 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

From Bullingers Companion Bible…

Luke 18:12

twice in the week. The law prescribed only one in the year (Lev_16:29. Num_29:7). By the time of Zec_8:19 there were four yearly fasts. In our Lord's day they were bi-weekly (Monday and Thursday), between Passover and Pentecost; and between the Feast of Tabernacles and the Dedication.

Yes they fasted two days a week, Monday and Thursday, EVERY MONDAY and EVERY THURSDAY.
Rom 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
Rom 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Now Paul shifts his attention to meat offered to idols. At the time, meat and drink were offered to pagan idols. After it was offered it was sold in a meat market called the ‘Shambles’.
1Co 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

Shambles…

G3111
µa´?e????
makellon
Thayer Definition:
1) a place where meat and other articles of food are sold, meat market
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: of Latin origin [macellum]
Citing in TDNT: 4:370, 549

There were those who were weak in the faith (verse 1) who were offended by this. They somehow thought that eating that food was somehow connecting them with the idolatrous practices around them. This is why the following is written…
Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Meat here is…

G1035
ß???s??
bro¯sis
bro'-sis
From the base of G977; (abstractly) eating (literally or figuratively); by extension (concretely) food (literally or figuratively): - eating, food, meat.

Notice it is food, not clean or unclean flesh.

G4213
p?´s??
posis
pos'-is
From the alternate of G4095; a drinking (the act), that is, (concretely) a draught: - drink.

Drinking, can be alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages. Paul was dealing with ascetism and the belief that doing without was somehow a show of character. He dealt with this issue at Colossae also…

Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Col 2:23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

The word for meat here is broma, from Thayer’s…

G1033
ß???µa
bro¯ma
Thayer Definition:
1) that which is eaten, food
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from the base of G977
Citing in TDNT: 1:642, 111

Again, we are dealing with food.
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

So, it is not dealing with clean and unclean, but with flesh (meat) and wine (drink) that makes a weak brother stumble.
Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

There is no passage in Rom 14 that deals with the Sabbath or clean and unclean meats. The subjects are vegetarianism, fasting and food and drink offered to idols.



copied and reposted from a friend

 

[KennethC]

no this is incorect, sabbath ended at night fall, he preached last words to them,

knowing he was going to labor in the morning and walk all day,
on the first day of week, to meet companions.

so night fall to midnight is not that long, since time lost from upstairs also.


this is a work day,you do know that a day started at sunset right,

nothing in this verse changes the Holy sabbath to sunday

I post scripture and you say this is false, well then you have an issue with the bible then because the scripture from Acts 20:7 clearly shows that Paul preached to the disciples on the first day of the week. So they are holding a worship service on the first day of the week, and besides that the Sabbath is not a day of worship.

It is a day of rest, but still even with that Jesus showed the Sabbath is observed different under the new covenant, if not then the Pharisees where right that the Apostles should have been put to death for picking grain and eating it on the Sabbath.

Lord Jesus refuted that and said He requires mercy now and not sacrifice, meaning we do not have to sacrifice not doing things on a particular day because as long as we are doing what we do for God then we are following His command.

Working, healing, picking foods in the field, and even something as simple as gathering sticks for a fire was forbidden under the old covenant Mosaic written ordinance laws. Jesus changed that standard, and in Matthew 11:28-30 and Hebrews 4 says are Sabbath rest is in Him now !!!

 

[robinriley]

(Mac4Yuma)
..Here is the specific phrase:
..."But the body is of Christ" ... This should read as
..."But the body is Christ"

Here simply, is what Paul is saying in these two verses:
"Don't let any man judge you...but let the Body of Christ judge you."

(Robin)
Appreciate your input Mac, but you'll have to do better ... that is your above conclusion concerning
what the verse should say, isn't supported by the actual words.

Granted, it is a difficult verse ... and I do appreciate our English friend Vailant's input ... his directly addressing the very words of this verse. That is, he's most likely correct about the placement of the conjunction "de" ... I'll admit my error about this;
and he may, indeed, be correct about the ellipsis of the verb ..."[is]" ... My only problem with this, the adding of a verb, is that I'm always hesitant to add anything to the existing words of scripture, but even here, I have to admit, it is something that is occationally necessary.

(Mac4Yuma)
..Here is the specific phrase:
..."But the body [is] of Christ" ... This should read as
..."But the body [is] Christ"

(Robin)
Your mistake, Mac, is that the "christou" in ... "δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ" ... is, indeed, genitive (of Anointed/ of Christ; 5547 N-GSM),
so despit whatever doctrinal conclusion you are striving for, the verse does say ...OF ... Christ.
That is, going with Valiant's adjustment of where the conjuction "de" more properly belongs, and going with his suggested need for the verb ellipsis (omission on purpose) ... the verse still MUST be read with the genitive ... "of Christ" ...

..."But the body [is] of Christ" ...


Aside Note: And no, Valiant, I'm not making up my Greek words; that is the Greek word "alla" is read as the English "but,"
and thge Greek word "de" is read as the English word "de" ... and even if there is a "contrast" implied/ involved in the context,
this in no way means ... now way ... means that ..."yet" ... doesn't word; that is thae we have to read this as ..."but" ...

That is, you'd have to come up with a very well reasoned argument to explain why ..."yet" ... doesn't suit, convey the idea of a contrast; that is, if ..."yet" ... conveys this, then why stoop to using ..."but" ... when this word is already being used for "alla"

 

[robinriley]

Sorry about the spelling ... my "helpful" word program aint so helpful, and this forum site only allows just a few minutes to adjust things.

 

[robinriley]

Mac4Yuma)
..Here is the specific phrase:
..."But the body is of Christ" ... This should read as
..."But the body is Christ"

(Robin)
Ok ... I'm listening, so now explain yourself ... give us the facts about why you think the genitive "christou"
should not be read as ... "OF Christ" ... "Yet the body [is] of Christ" ...

And yes, I understand that you need to support your doctine, which equates Christ with body (body = Christ ... body IS Christ)
the grammar does not support this ..."christou" is genitive ... OF ... Christ
So then, give us your good logical reasons for ignoring this genitive factor .... other than, that this better "fits" some preconceived doctrine, that is?