A lot here, will take a while, but let me clarify my position, I believe Paul is talking about QUALIFICATION OF BELIEVERS, the whole circumcision argument is about qualifications. the question is for what? In Acts 15, the complaint comes from Jerusalem, where they were concerned about qualifications. In Col 2 it is the same argument and in Gal it is the same argument, there is a consistancy, you are qualified in Christ by your faith in Christ promise & performance not by your Promise & performance. that is the same argument made in Gal 3 Promise of Abraham vs your performance in the Mosaic Covenant.
Yes, which is just the point. The qualification is receiving Christ's work for us.
The other things listed in Col. 2 are possible distractions from that simple gospel, philosophy, asceticism, etc. And focus on feasts and food and drink offerings, while shadows of things to come, are not the reality, which is Christ.
It follows the same pattern as the other items:
Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit,
according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Col 2:18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,
Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
These were all potential distractions from Christ, who met all the requirements for them.
Are you aware that the Covenant of Creation and Moses are a specific type of covenant, they are performance based covenants called suzerainty covenant, and that Noah's, Abraham's, David's & the New Covenant are Royal Grant Covenants? so when paul make the statement in Gal 3 about the law coming 430 years later not making void the promise, he is referring to the legal arrangement of the covenant NOT the Substance of the Law. Now referring back to Acts 15, when they were makeing the recommendation as to what to impose on the gentiles, they were not talking about doing away with the Law of Moses, Moses was read in the synagogue "week to week" . BUT WERE TALKING ABOUT NOT OFFENDING THERE JEWISH HOSTS. REMEMBER THE COMPLAINT IS FROM CERTIAN BROTHER FROM JERUSALEM. WHERE THEY PRACTICE THE LAW.
13After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me.
14“Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name.
15“With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,
16‘AFTER THESE THINGS I will return,
AND
I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN,
AND
I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS,
AND
I WILL RESTORE IT,
17SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD,
AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,’
18SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.
19“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are
TRUNING TO GOD FROM AMOUNG THE GENTILES
20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
21“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every
Sabbath.” that is not talking about abandoning the sabbath it is talking about keeping it. I am out of time for today. I didn't get to everything, so I will be back later[/QUOTE]