Colossians 2:16-17

[sparkman]

Mac4Yuma is an Armstrongite by the way..his profile indicates it. I've also googled his info and seen where he's been tossed off other forums for preaching Armstrongism. He's a pastor of some church that teaches the same stuff.

(Mac4Yuma)
This is a Discussion Forum not a Theology forum nor even a Bible study Forum ...

(Robin)
You've stepped over the line, right off the get-go ...
You're just an individual, not a forum moderator, so ... YOU DONT REGULATE DISCUSSIONS HERE ... go get your own website!

(Mac4Yuma)
This is a Discussion Forum not a Theology forum nor even a Bible study Forum ...

(Robin)
Must have touch some favored doctrinal issue you were peddling; little touchy, there bud ... worried are you?

(Mac)
the Bible does say to reason together with others of like minds and I think I posted one way and you the other and that is fine ...

(Robin)
And yet you protest me simply asking you to explain why you cant except the linguistic FACTS of this verse ...
That is, if the linguistic FACTS are the issue, you would engage in a discussion, but Nooooo ... you attack!
This speaks for itself, you've exposed yourself ... and it aint pretty!

(Mac)
I have been on many forums and playing verse ball ...

(Robin)
You're playing to the crowd, aren't you, mac ... you think that they are all ignorant, dont you ...
Well, for the most part, they are not as stupid as you'd like them to be ... Fact of the matter, you are the foolish one.

(Mac)
I have been on many forums and playing verse ball has not anywhere even close to what God has said to do.

(Robin)
Ahhhh ... so now, mac, you are God's spokesman ... you, "The Great And Wonderous Oz" ...
You are going to determine what we can and cant openly discuss!

Bottom line, here, silly little man behind the curtain ...
all I sinply ask of you, was to look more carefully at the actual words that Paul, our apostle, actually said ...

It's obvious, that Paul is NOT your apostle,
so you really dont have any say in this at all, but if we were foolish enough to even give you some allowance to be speaking
... I certainly would not be that foolish ...
IF anyone, here, would grace you some allowance to at least be heard ...
... I certainly would not be that foolish ...

Ummm ... oh pish, you dont deserve even that ... go peddle your papers elsewhere.

 

[sparkman]

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...rongism-forum-seventh-day-sabbathkeeping.html

 

[prove-all]

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...rongism-forum-seventh-day-sabbathkeeping.html

this is why i get so mad at you, you label 7th day sabbath keepers colts time and again,

this title of thread proves it again you label them just for the sabbath

 

[sparkman]

this is why i get so mad at you, you label 7th day sabbath keepers colts time and again,

this title of thread proves it again you label them just for the sabbath

Armstrongism is a cult. Sabbathkeeping is not. Like I've said before, I have no issues with Sabbathkeepers who don't consider it to be a condition, requirement, or necessary fruit of salvation.

I have no problems identifying a group that considers themselves to be gods in embryonic form, to become part of the Godhead, as a cult.

 

[prove-all]

beware-armstrongism-forum-seventh-day-sabbath keeping.html

That's funny, because I know many Catholics who have came to faith.

How can you claim that they have no capacity to receive salvation? People have been saved out of every walk of life.

And talking disrespectfully and hatefully to a person doesn't increase their chances of you teaching anything to them in terms of salvation, no matter who they are.

God can save anyone. He knocked the apostle Paul off his donkey and blinded him to bring him to faith.

-mabe you should take your own advice.

 

[sparkman]

The difference is you are trying to teach others error. Paul dealt with Judaizers in a manner that reflected the fact that they were trying to teach others error.

-mabe you should take your own advice.

 

[prove-all]

Armstrongism is a cult. Sabbathkeeping is not. Like I've said before, I have no issues with Sabbathkeepers who don't consider it to be a condition, requirement, or necessary fruit of salvation.

I have no problems identifying a group that considers themselves to be gods in embryonic form, to become part of the Godhead, as a cult.

the title of the thread says seventh day sabbath keepers are Armstrongism, beware

 

[prove-all]

The difference is you are trying to teach others error. Paul dealt with Judaizers in a manner that reflected the fact that they were trying to teach others error.

Paul was talking to people in the town, who where trans planted there before hand,

these people where not the jews you think Paul called dogs

 

[prove-all]

Armstrongism is a cult.

that is one view

do you think holy roman empire a colt? or the cathlic church

you are not cathlic, but seem to stick up for them and there false doctrine

 

[sparkman]

The Roman Catholic Church is an apostate church. I do not stick up for their false doctrines. Show one post I made where I spoke up for their false doctrines. I spoke up against those who are treating them like dogs on one thread.

They are fellow image bearers of God and worthy of respect.

I also believe that individuals can be in severe doctrinal error and still be true believers. I was as an Armstrongite, and a Catholic is not in much worse position than an Armstrongite who claims that they are gods in embryonic form, that the Old Covenant still applies to Christians, and that they are the only ones that have a relationship with God.

that is one view

do you think holy roman empire a colt? or the cathlic church

you are not cathlic, but seem to stick up for them and there false doctrine

 

[sparkman]

the title of the thread says seventh day sabbath keepers are Armstrongism, beware

It does not say that. Armstrongites are Seventh Day Sabbatarians, but not all Seventh Day Sabbathkeepers are Armstrongites.

I am going to try to get that changed so it is clear that the thread is about Armstrongites not Seventh Day Sabbathkeepers.

 

[robinriley]

Mac4Yuma is an Armstrongite by the way..his profile indicates it. I've also googled his info and seen where he's been tossed off other forums for preaching Armstrongism. He's a pastor of some church that teaches the same stuff.

(Robin)
Couldn't find his profile, from what you said, thought it would be interesting ... I was going to tell him, that I realized I'd been a little too harsh, not necessarily wrong, but harsh, and then ask him again, but in a more kindly manner to just address the question, the question concering the words in that specific verse ... first we most accurately read the words, and then try to determine what is being said in the surrounding context ... and ONLY then, if it be most logical, bring in other verses to "prove" some doctrinal perception.

My experience is that whenever a verse if FIRST looked at through the colored lens of doctrine, one never gets the verse right, and most often, never even reads the individual words correctly!

 

[sparkman]

There's two other Armstrongites who contributed to this thread. I used to be an Armstrongite so I can readily identify the theology.

In this case, the guy references "Radio Church of God" in his profile. That is the parent organization of Worldwide Church of God. Both were formed by Herbert Armstrong.

Worldwide Church of God changed their bad doctrine, but there's about a dozen splinters from it that teach the same things.

By the way, in regards to the "shadow" language, I would compare Colossians 2:16-17 to Hebrews 10:1-2 to see comparable language. That has helped me a lot to solidify my understanding of Colossians 2 in relation to the Sabbath and festivals.

In addition, the focus of the chapter relates to how we are complete in Christ, and don't need anything else, including physical circumcision or elements of the Old Covenant such as the Sabbath. Apparently the Colossians were being influenced by either one or two groups who were teaching otherwise. If it was one group, it was likely a group of Essene Jews who were also Judaizers. If it was two groups, it was likely Gnostics and Judaizers.

(Robin)
Couldn't find his profile, from what you said, thought it would be interesting ... I was going to tell him, that I realized I'd been a little too harsh, not necessarily wrong, but harsh, and then ask him again, but in a more kindly manner to just address the question, the question concering the words in that specific verse ... first we most accurately read the words, and then try to determine what is being said in the surrounding context ... and ONLY then, if it be most logical, bring in other verses to "prove" some doctrinal perception.

My experience is that whenever a verse if FIRST looked at through the colored lens of doctrine, one never gets the verse right, and most often, never even reads the individual words correctly!

 

[prove-all]

Worldwide Church of God changed their bad doctrine, but there's about a dozen splinters from it that teach the same things.

.

no I think Armstrong died, and the wolves within devoured the church and changed everything

 

[sparkman]

no I think Armstrong died, and the wolves within devoured the church and changed everything

The Church acknowledged the truths of Scripture, and stopped judging other Christians as unsaved followers of counterfeit Christianity.

 

[robinriley]

By the way, in regards to the "shadow" language, I would compare Colossians 2:16-17 to Hebrews 10:1-2 to see comparable language. That has helped me a lot to solidify my understanding of Colossians 2 in relation to the Sabbath and festivals.

(Robin)
I'll get back to talking to "shadow," but I just wanted to say that I greatly appreciate the help given me in better reading this, especially verse 2:17, which has always been the problematic one ... the most helpful comments were from our English friend Valiant, even if he did eventually put me on ignore; thank you for your help.

About the "shadow" ... yes Hebrews chapter 10 is most helpful, but then that was never, for me, the problem with understanding these two verses. That is, I've always understood the typical relationship of the "shadow," it's where things, the words get twisted around in the next verse that has always bothered me. Most every time anyone attempts to discuss these two verses,
the conversation always seems to ... well, not become very helpful ... so, dear Sparkman let's again revisit the two verses, I'll give you my current reading, including, of course, that typical "shadow" but stick with me, and let's read this verse, just for what it actually says ... (thank you again, Mr Valiant) ... And then, you dear Sparkman, tell me wheather I've finally got it right, or if now ... where, exactly, I'm still missing the boat?

A) First the items about which the shadow are typical of ... However, I suspect that the real point of this verse is actually intended to be ... "dont allow anyone to be judging you" ...

"Therefore, any [one] to you, be him no[t] judging
in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of a festival or new-moon, or of sabbaths," (~Robin)
B) Next, the troublesome verse ... and let's break it out into two parts: first, the phrase that everyone seems to
be in agreement about, the typical "shadow" part ... the easy to understand part of this verse ...

"(which of the [things] intending, a shadow it be, ..." "...in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of a festival or new-moon, or of sabbaths, (whichof the [things] intending, a shadow it be, ..."C) Now then, that part of the verse where any conversations about it always "go south" ...
"...yet the body [it be] of [the] Anointed)" (Mac4Yuma)
This should read as ..."But the body is Christ"(Robin)No! That is most definitely NOT what it says!!
***verse2:16* Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει, ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων·
Therefore, any [one] to you, be him no[t] judging in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of a festival or new-moon, or of sabbaths,
no[t] {3361 PRT-N} therefore {3767 CONJ} any [one] {5100 X-NSM} to you {1473 P-2AP} be him judging {2919 V-PAM-3S} in {1722 PREP} unto a consuming {1035 N-DSF} or {2228 PRT} in {1722 PREP} unto a drinking {4213 N-DSF} or {2228 PRT} in {1722 PREP} unto a part {3313 N-DSN} of a festival {1859 N-GSF} or {2228 PRT} of a new-moon {3561 N-GSF} or {2228 PRT} of sabbaths/ of weeks {4521 N-GPN}


2:17* ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ.
(which of the [things] intending, a shadow it be, yet the body [it be] of [the] Anointed).
which [things] {3739 R-NPN} it be {1510 V-PAI-3S} a shadow {4639 N-NSF} of the [things] {3588 T-GPN} of intending {3195 V-PAP-GPN} the [thing] {3588 T-NSN} yet {1161 CONJ} a body {4983 N-NSN} of Anointed/ of Christ {5547 N-GSM}

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

 

[robinriley]

By the way, in regards to the "shadow" language, I would compare Colossians 2:16-17 to Hebrews 10:1-2 to see comparable language. That has helped me a lot to solidify my understanding of Colossians 2 in relation to the Sabbath and festivals.

(Robin)
I'll get back to talking to "shadow," but I just wanted to say that I greatly appreciate the help given me in better reading this, especially verse 2:17, which has always been the problematic one ... the most helpful comments were from our English friend Valiant, even if he did eventually put me on ignore; thank you for your help.

About the "shadow" ... Yes Hebrews chapter 10 is most helpful, but then for me that was never the problem. That is, I've always understood the typical relationship of the "shadow," but it's where the words get twisted around in the next verse, that has always bothered me.

Most every time anyone attempts to discuss these two verses, the conversation always seems to ... well, not become very helpful ... so, dear Sparkman let's again revisit the two verses, I'll give you my current reading, including that typical "shadow," but stick with me, and let's read this verse, just for what it actually says ... (thank you again, Mr Valiant) ... And then, dear Sparkman, you tell me wheather I've finally got it right, or if not ... where, exactly, I'm still missing the boat?

A) First the items about which the shadow are typical of ... However, I suspect that the real point of this verse is actually intended to be ... "dont allow anyone to be judging you" ...

"Therefore, any [one] to you, be him no[t] judging
in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of a festival or new-moon, or of sabbaths," (~Robin)


B) Next, the troublesome verse ... and let's break it out into two parts: first, the phrase that everyone seems to
be in agreement about, the typical "shadow" part ... the easy to understand part of this verse ...

"(which of the [things] intending, a shadow it be, ..."

"...in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of a festival or new-moon, or of sabbaths, (which of the [things] intending, a shadow it be, ..."


C) Now then, that part of the verse where any conversations about it always "goes south" ...

"...yet the body [it be] of [the] Anointed)"

(Mac4Yuma)
This should read as ..."But the body is Christ"

(Robin)
No! That is most definitely NOT what it says!!





***

verse2:16* Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει, ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων·

Therefore, any [one] to you, be him no[t] judging in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of a festival or new-moon, or of sabbaths,

no[t] {3361 PRT-N} therefore {3767 CONJ} any [one] {5100 X-NSM} to you {1473 P-2AP} be him judging {2919 V-PAM-3S} in {1722 PREP} unto a consuming {1035 N-DSF} or {2228 PRT} in {1722 PREP} unto a drinking {4213 N-DSF} or {2228 PRT} in {1722 PREP} unto a part {3313 N-DSN} of a festival {1859 N-GSF} or {2228 PRT} of a new-moon {3561 N-GSF} or {2228 PRT} of sabbaths/ of weeks {4521 N-GPN}


2:17* ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ.

(which of the [things] intending, a shadow it be, yet the body [it be] of [the] Anointed).

which [things] {3739 R-NPN} it be {1510 V-PAI-3S} a shadow {4639 N-NSF} of the[things] {3588 T-GPN} of intending {3195 V-PAP-GPN} the [thing] {3588 T-NSN} yet {1161 CONJ} a body {4983 N-NSN} of Anointed/ of Christ {5547 N-GSM}

 

[sparkman]

Hi robinriley,

My view of that clause is that it is saying the Reality or substance is Christ, with regards to the Sabbath being the shadow that is cast by the Reality.

Paul was trained by Gamaliel and I believe he was exposed to the Socratic cave analogy and this was part of what he was referring to.

This teaching of Socrates involved individuals who were chained in a cave in a manner so that they could only see shadows of true objects in the real world against a cave wall. Their view of reality was clouded due to this. They saw the shadows but not the reality.

Christ is the Reality, from which the shadows obtained their shape.

Those who focus on elements of the Old Covenant, including the Sabbath and Holy Days, tend to embrace the shadow rather than the Reality which is Christ.

I am an ex Sabbath/festival observer who has since came to understand that the Old Covenant is not a requirement of salvation. This is my history with those verses.

This document makes some reference to the Socratic cave and Colossians 2:

http://www.christcore.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Colossians-2.pdf

I would also point to Matthew 11:28-30 which shows that Christ is the Sabbath. In addition, the annual festivals, sabbatical years and Jubilee Year pointed to him. I am going to work on a thread concerning this.

(Robin)
I'll get back to talking to "shadow," but I just wanted to say that I greatly appreciate the help given me in better reading this, especially verse 2:17, which has always been the problematic one ... the most helpful comments were from our English friend Valiant, even if he did eventually put me on ignore; thank you for your help.

About the "shadow" ... Yes Hebrews chapter 10 is most helpful, but then for me that was never the problem. That is, I've always understood the typical relationship of the "shadow," but it's where the words get twisted around in the next verse, that has always bothered me.

Most every time anyone attempts to discuss these two verses, the conversation always seems to ... well, not become very helpful ... so, dear Sparkman let's again revisit the two verses, I'll give you my current reading, including that typical "shadow," but stick with me, and let's read this verse, just for what it actually says ... (thank you again, Mr Valiant) ... And then, dear Sparkman, you tell me wheather I've finally got it right, or if not ... where, exactly, I'm still missing the boat?

A) First the items about which the shadow are typical of ... However, I suspect that the real point of this verse is actually intended to be ... "dont allow anyone to be judging you" ...

"Therefore, any [one] to you, be him no[t] judging
in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of a festival or new-moon, or of sabbaths," (~Robin)


B) Next, the troublesome verse ... and let's break it out into two parts: first, the phrase that everyone seems to
be in agreement about, the typical "shadow" part ... the easy to understand part of this verse ...

"(which of the [things] intending, a shadow it be, ..."

"...in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of a festival or new-moon, or of sabbaths, (which of the [things] intending, a shadow it be, ..."


C) Now then, that part of the verse where any conversations about it always "goes south" ...

"...yet the body [it be] of [the] Anointed)"

(Mac4Yuma)
This should read as ..."But the body is Christ"

(Robin)
No! That is most definitely NOT what it says!!





***

verse2:16* Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει, ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων·

Therefore, any [one] to you, be him no[t] judging in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of a festival or new-moon, or of sabbaths,

no[t] {3361 PRT-N} therefore {3767 CONJ} any [one] {5100 X-NSM} to you {1473 P-2AP} be him judging {2919 V-PAM-3S} in {1722 PREP} unto a consuming {1035 N-DSF} or {2228 PRT} in {1722 PREP} unto a drinking {4213 N-DSF} or {2228 PRT} in {1722 PREP} unto a part {3313 N-DSN} of a festival {1859 N-GSF} or {2228 PRT} of a new-moon {3561 N-GSF} or {2228 PRT} of sabbaths/ of weeks {4521 N-GPN}


2:17* ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ.

(which of the [things] intending, a shadow it be, yet the body [it be] of [the] Anointed).

which [things] {3739 R-NPN} it be {1510 V-PAI-3S} a shadow {4639 N-NSF} of the[things] {3588 T-GPN} of intending {3195 V-PAP-GPN} the [thing] {3588 T-NSN} yet {1161 CONJ} a body {4983 N-NSN} of Anointed/ of Christ {5547 N-GSM}

 

[sparkman]

@robinriley,

In addition, concerning the judging, I relate this package to Galatians 4:21-31 and the judging that Judaizers were doing in regards to elements of the Old Covenant...as it says, the children of the Old Covenant persecute the children of the New Covenant..so I relate these verses to the judging that is going on in Colossians 2. I see a lot of this sort of judging going on with regards to demanding that Christians are underneath elements of the Old Covenant, including Sabbath, Holy Days and unclean meats. My organization did the same thing..condemning other Christians concerning their Sunday observance, etcetera as unbelievers.

I will desist from comments until you are done so I can read what your remarks are.

 

[robinriley]

Hi robinriley,

My view of that clause is that it is saying the Reality or substance is Christ,
with regards to the Sabbath being the shadow that is cast by the Reality.

(Robin)
And therein lay the problem ...

Now then, as Mr Valiant and I discussed, there is no actual verb "is" in this last phrase, but the phrase does
call fro there to be one ... it's what's called an Elipisis Figure of Speech ... an omission on purpose, and being
that it's a "Relative Ellipsis," this omitted word is to be supplied from a cognate word in the context ... specifically,
the preceading verb from "as shadow IT BE" ... that is, we recognize the Ellipsis "[it be]" (in brackets to show the
reader that it is added) in the required location ..."the body [it be]" ...

With me so far ... no real problem, yet, since we're on tract, linguisticly ...

Now then, take a very careful look at the next word ..."χριστοῦ" ...smost people read this as the "Christ" ... I happen to think it should be read as the "Anointed" ... but that's just a matter of preference, and has nothing to do with what the problem is; just so as to avoide any controversy over this, let's go with the normal reading "Christ" ...

"χριστοῦ" ... of Christ/ of Anointed {5547 N-GSM}


Do you see the problem? ... retorical question, of course you don't, you're still looking through those doctrinal lenses!
Sorry, that was harsh ... but this all gets so un-necessarily frustrating ... if only we would FIRST read the words, before
enhanching things with our doctrinal bent ...

Now, do you see the problem ... actually it's not a problem with what you can see (the fact, in other words) ...
That is, it's the problem that you bring to the reading, with your mind alreadhy reading it otherwise ...

Now do you see ... see ... the word as it really exists, for what it really says?

"χριστοῦ" ... of Christ/ of Anointed {5547 N-GSM}

Ok ... here's a clue ... the word is GSM ... that is masculine, singular ... genitive
Now do you see ...

Ok ... here it is ...just the facts ... being genitive, it says ..."Of" ..."of Christ" ...
"...yet the body [it be] ...OF... [the] Christ)"


Does not say "the body [is] the Christ" ... says "the body [is] of the Christ"

And, since we all want to bring in other supporting verses, this just so happens to be a very unique phrase,
one that Paul created, and is used many times by Paul in other verses ..."the body of Christ" ...
However, there is ...No... other place in scripture where anyone says ..."the body IS Christ" ... Does this not tell you anything?