col 2:16 the accurate interpretation and the final word on the text

Adventist Heretic · Aug 10, 2015

Congratulations Tall, you got me in to the classical Evangelical Trap. Reasoning Sabbath from Moses instead of Genesis. To clarify, Tall Sabbath is from Creation not Moses that is the basis of Keeping it. So weather they are obligated from Moses is irrelevant, they are obligated from the Creation covenant.

Adventist Heretic · Aug 10, 2015

tall73 said:
Please show me the texts you are basing point two on so I can consider them.

here is an article, it for you.

1. summary of the postion
http://mydigitalseminary.com/parallels-between-creation-and-the-temple/

2. Detailed article. http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...a/1419263294620/beale_eden-temple-mission.pdf

3. sermon 1
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=414131315365

4. sermon 2
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=41413131779

Adventist Heretic · Aug 10, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
Only to the extent that women attending an assembly are not required to "love their wives as Christ loved the church;" or grandparents not being required to "obey your father and mother" who are already dead. Differing requirements for different groups are standard fare. Did someone who was from the tribe of Dan have the same instructions and requirements as the Levites? Could Naftali produce an Israelite king?

If you can understand that, how is it you cannot comprehend that the gentiles were not required to follow Moses?

i got that, see previous post for explination

tall73 · Aug 10, 2015

icedragon101 said:
Congratulations Tall, you got me in to the classical Evangelical Trap. Reasoning Sabbath from Moses instead of Genesis. To clarify, Tall Sabbath is from Creation not Moses that is the basis of Keeping it. So weather they are obligated from Moses is irrelevant, they are obligated from the Creation covenant.

That would at least be a better argument in regard to the Sabbath. But then you need to figure out what that does to Col. 2. And the all the things are listed together there. So what does it mean?

And for the record, it was not of my doing that the conversation went that direction. You started the line of reasoning based on your convictions about gentiles and Moses. I simply responded to what you were saying.

Adventist Heretic · Aug 11, 2015

tall73 said:
That would at least be a better argument in regard to the Sabbath. But then you need to figure out what that does to Col. 2. And the all the things are listed together there. So what does it mean?

It still meas what I say it mean, they are talking about people being quallifed because of Christ and they are not to be forbidden to participate. There is no hint of making them optional. That is read into the text. by your assumptions.

And for the record, it was not of my doing that the conversation went that direction. You started the line of reasoning based on your convictions about gentiles and Moses. I simply responded to what you were saying.

I am not going to argue with you over this. I was simply reminded that as an Evenglical you simply reject the notion of Sabbath from creation & Moses was just the care taker and Preserver of previous covenants. I allowed you to lead me to the Old vs New, rather then Creation vs New. But I do need to address one more thing Acts 15. Which I will do in the next post.

Adventist Heretic · Aug 11, 2015

Now concerning ACTS 15, you say they did away with the Law of Moses and the Sabbath along with it. Well I have another problem with that. It simply denies the historical reality.The cause and effect reality of Acts 15 come into play here. Now you will tell me Acts 15 was the origin of the Abandonment, and Paul and the N.T. Chruch are the proof of it. Well let's look at another person who attended ACTS 15. Take the case of Thomas. He was at the council and shortly after Acts 15, got on a camel and went down to India. The Silk Routes ran right through Antioch, so it was not uncommon for people to travel to different places by a Caravan. Now Tall if Thomas was at these meeting and knew exactly what went on there. Why did he teach all the disciples down in India to keep the Sabbath? Why did he not say it was optional as you say and Why did he Not impose the Lords's day on these believers? The Cause and Effect of History appears to be against you. and please not say it not in the bible so it does not count. Acts is only Paul's account of his ministry.

Adventist Heretic · Aug 11, 2015

tall73 · Aug 11, 2015

icedragon101 said:
I allowed you to lead me to the Old vs New, rather then Creation vs New.

No, you were already there in your OP before I said a word:

icedragon101 said:
Why else would Christ need to become your circumcision UNLESS HE wanted to you to enter the Mosaic Covenant and observe is requirements and receive it’s benefits? If Christ as become you Circumcision then he has made provision for you to receive the benefits and the obligations of Moses.

Adventist Heretic · Aug 12, 2015

tall73 said:
No, you were already there in your OP before I said a word:

Let me clarify, my position, what I forgot to take into account is that covenants are permanate See Gal 3:15-17 and binding on all who are born under that covenant after it is established. A all people born after the flood were subject to all the covenants that were before that, creation, Adam's & Noah's. Abraham was born subject to those, then a new covenant was made with him and was binding on all his ancestors at the time and afterwards. It was NOT binding on those with those whom the covenant was NOT made. They were subject to prior covenants. Isa 24 is very clear on this matter. The world suffers under penalty, and they are not subject to Abraham or Moses or David or Christ. What I forgot to mention is that Moses was a steward of ALL the covenants and an additional covenant ,David's , both Roman 3:1 & Gal 3:19 are clear on this matter.

What I failed to make clear is that the covenant made with Christ is the entrance requirement for ALL the covenants. Creation, Adam, Noah, Moses, David and Christ. those outside the Steward, now are able to enter the Steward and to take part of the blessing and benefits of the Steward. That is bigger then Moses alone. Notice that in the New covenant, we are priest and kings. In Moses only Aarons family were priests and only David's family could be kings. In Christ they meet and become unified and all his heirs are both priest and king. I want you to notice that Paul refers many times to the gentile salvation from Creation & Adam. Christ the second Adam. In Luke 3 he traces the linage back to Adam the son of God, this is in the context of Christ being called the beloved son, Son of God. The point being that He took his identity from the father and where Adam forgot his Identity, Christ remembered his.

Back to my point, Moses is a steward of All the Covenant given up to that point. When Christ came he did not undo the prior covenants. He made a new covenant, but it did not do away the Moses. Just like the Davidic covenant did not do away with Moses. Or Adam's covenant did not do away with the Creation Covenant. This idea that Moses was done away with is does not fit the patter that has already been established in scripture. It is absurd.

tall73 · Aug 12, 2015

icedragon101 said:
Now concerning ACTS 15, you say they did away with the Law of Moses and the Sabbath along with it. Well I have another problem with that.

I did not say they did away with it. I said they did not require the gentiles to keep the whole law of Moses. And I pointed to the text that said it.

The Jerusalem church went on keeping all of it.

It simply denies the historical reality.The cause and effect reality of Acts 15 come into play here. Now you will tell me Acts 15 was the origin of the Abandonment, and Paul and the N.T. Chruch are the proof of it. Well let's look at another person who attended ACTS 15. Take the case of Thomas.

I am by no means an expert on the church in India. However, do you have an historical reference that puts Thomas in Jerusalem? Undoubtedly some of the apostles are described as being there, but the historical sources I am showing have Thomas in the region of Pakistan as early as 40 AD, and then eventually moving onto India in Ad 52.

He was at the council and shortly after Acts 15, got on a camel and went down to India.

I keep reading he went on a ship.

The Silk Routes ran right through Antioch, so it was not uncommon for people to travel to different places by a Caravan. Now Tall if Thomas was at these meeting and knew exactly what went on there. Why did he teach all the disciples down in India to keep the Sabbath? Why did he not say it was optional as you say and Why did he Not impose the Lords's day on these believers? The Cause and Effect of History appears to be against you. and please not say it not in the bible so it does not count. Acts is only Paul's account of his ministry.

Articles from Oriental Orthodox sources and Nasrani sources indicate that the majority of early converts appear to have come from Jewish colonies in the area, along with others joined to them. This is supported by their use of a Syrian Aramaic dialect, their use of a Hebrew gospel of Matthew as recorded by a visiting church father, by modern genetic testing which is showing Nasrani DNA to be a mix of Jewish and other local groups, the adoption of Jewish customs etc. Some also note the name itself of Nasrani being similar to the Nazarenes who also used the Hebrew gospel of Matthew.

Some of the Nasrani's commenting on the articles agreed this was likely the case, and also some discussed that they kept sabbath more as a feast day than as a Jewish rite and called it a hangover from the Jewish earlier times.

tall73 · Aug 12, 2015

icedragon101 said:
Let me clarify, my position, what I forgot to take into account is that covenants are permanate See Gal 3:15-17 and binding on all who are born under that covenant after it is established. A all people born after the flood were subject to all the covenants that were before that, creation, Adam's & Noah's. Abraham was born subject to those, then a new covenant was made with him and was binding on all his ancestors at the time and afterwards. It was NOT binding on those with those whom the covenant was NOT made. They were subject to prior covenants. Isa 24 is very clear on this matter. The world suffers under penalty, and they are not subject to Abraham or Moses or David or Christ. What I forgot to mention is that Moses was a steward of ALL the covenants and an additional covenant ,David's , both Roman 3:1 & Gal 3:19 are clear on this matter.

What I failed to make clear is that the covenant made with Christ is the entrance requirement for ALL the covenants. Creation, Adam, Noah, Moses, David and Christ. those outside the Steward, now are able to enter the Steward and to take part of the blessing and benefits of the Steward. That is bigger then Moses alone. Notice that in the New covenant, we are priest and kings. In Moses only Aarons family were priests and only David's family could be kings. In Christ they meet and become unified and all his heirs are both priest and king. I want you to notice that Paul refers many times to the gentile salvation from Creation & Adam. Christ the second Adam. In Luke 3 he traces the linage back to Adam the son of God, this is in the context of Christ being called the beloved son, Son of God. The point being that He took his identity from the father and where Adam forgot his Identity, Christ remembered his.

Back to my point, Moses is a steward of All the Covenant given up to that point. When Christ came he did not undo the prior covenants. He made a new covenant, but it did not do away the Moses. Just like the Davidic covenant did not do away with Moses. Or Adam's covenant did not do away with the Creation Covenant. This idea that Moses was done away with is does not fit the patter that has already been established in scripture. It is absurd.

Please note that while Paul and Peter etc. included the gentiles in the benefits being priests and kings, etc. this was because of their connection to Christ, not their connection to the Mosaic law. At the council they still laid on them only certain requirements.

James upheld this in Acts 21. And all of Paul's letters fought for that ruling as well. And he is certainly not telling them they have to keep all of Moses' law when he says:

Gal 5:3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

Adventist Heretic · Aug 14, 2015

tall73 said:
I did not say they did away with it. I said they did not require the gentiles to keep the whole law of Moses. And I pointed to the text that said it.

The Jerusalem church went on keeping all of it.

I am by no means an expert on the church in India. However, do you have an historical reference that puts Thomas in Jerusalem? Undoubtedly some of the apostles are described as being there, but the historical sources I am showing have Thomas in the region of Pakistan as early as 40 AD, and then eventually moving onto India in Ad 52.

I keep reading he went on a ship.

Articles from Oriental Orthodox sources and Nasrani sources indicate that the majority of early converts appear to have come from Jewish colonies in the area, along with others joined to them. This is supported by their use of a Syrian Aramaic dialect, their use of a Hebrew gospel of Matthew as recorded by a visiting church father, by modern genetic testing which is showing Nasrani DNA to be a mix of Jewish and other local groups, the adoption of Jewish customs etc. Some also note the name itself of Nasrani being similar to the Nazarenes who also used the Hebrew gospel of Matthew.

Some of the Nasrani's commenting on the articles agreed this was likely the case, and also some discussed that they kept sabbath more as a feast day than as a Jewish rite and called it a hangover from the Jewish earlier times.

could your post a source

Adventist Heretic · Aug 14, 2015

tall73 said:
Please note that while Paul and Peter etc. included the gentiles in the benefits being priests and kings, etc. this was because of their connection to Christ, not their connection to the Mosaic law. At the council they still laid on them only certain requirements.

James upheld this in Acts 21. And all of Paul's letters fought for that ruling as well. And he is certainly not telling them they have to keep all of Moses' law when he says:

Gal 5:3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

remember tall Sabbath is from creation. the only thing i am trying to point out in Col 2 is that it is talking about qualifications and the they were being prohibited from participating, because of the lack of circumcision and sacrifice. Those that say this is a slam dunk are mistaken.

Adventist Heretic · Aug 14, 2015

tall73 said:
Please note that while Paul and Peter etc. included the gentiles in the benefits being priests and kings, etc. this was because of their connection to Christ, not their connection to the Mosaic law. At the council they still laid on them only certain requirements.

disagree here, it was because he completed the requirements for kingship and priesthood in the Mosaic covenant that he was able to given to those who believe in him,but they are not Seprate from the Mosaic covenant. the kingship is david's kingship, fulfilled by Christ. The priesthood was Aaronic preisthood, he was the High priest, they were Joined to make a new order a King/Priest, after the order of Melchizedek.

James upheld this in Acts 21. And all of Paul's letters fought for that ruling as well. And he is certainly not telling them they have to keep all of Moses' law when he says:

Gal 5:3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

Now tall I cannot figure out for the life of me why you keep quoting this, since I don't advocate for circumcision, this does not apply? Let's make it clear this does not say you don't have to keep the Sabbath. It says if you are going to be circumcised, you are going to have to sacrifice as well. No where dose it make the 10 commandment optional.

tall73 · Aug 18, 2015

icedragon101 said:
could your post a source

Acts 21 indicates that Jewish believers were zealous for the law, and still held on to Moses, the temple, etc.

Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,
Act 21:21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.
Act 21:22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.

a. the Jerusalem church was zealous for the law
b. the Jerusalem church supported Moses, circumcision, etc.

James goes on to state that he believes these charges against Paul to be untrue, and that Paul does live according to the law. He presents a solution that involves vows, sacrifices, the temple, etc.

Act 21:23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
Act 21:24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.

Now while James is concerned about whether the Jews in the diaspora are being turned from the law, he does not have any concern that Gentile believers are not keeping the law. Their requirements were already settled at the council, and he re-states them here:

Act 21:25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality."

tall73 · Aug 18, 2015

icedragon101 said:
remember tall Sabbath is from creation. the only thing i am trying to point out in Col 2 is that it is talking about qualifications and the they were being prohibited from participating, because of the lack of circumcision and sacrifice. Those that say this is a slam dunk are mistaken.

It presents them as yet another distraction from the key issue, Christ, along with philosophy, etc. They didn't need any of the things listed in the chapter because they were already fitted for salvation by Christ's work.

The message of the judaizers didn't change, and Paul's response did not either.

Nor have you addressed the shadow-substance argument. The judaizers wanted them to focus on the shadow rather than the reality. It was not required for them to do by the council.

tall73 · Aug 18, 2015

icedragon101 said:
disagree here, it was because he completed the requirements for kingship and priesthood in the Mosaic covenant that he was able to given to those who believe in him,but they are not Seprate from the Mosaic covenant. the kingship is david's kingship, fulfilled by Christ. The priesthood was Aaronic preisthood, he was the High priest, they were Joined to make a new order a King/Priest, after the order of Melchizedek.

Yet Peter says the Holy Spirit came on them when they had not been circumcised or observed Jewish rites, and the council did not lay on them the requirements you wish.

tall73 · Aug 18, 2015

icedragon101 said:
Now tall I cannot figure out for the life of me why you keep quoting this, since I don't advocate for circumcision, this does not apply? Let's make it clear this does not say you don't have to keep the Sabbath. It says if you are going to be circumcised, you are going to have to sacrifice as well. No where dose it make the 10 commandment optional.

Gal 5:3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

It does not say "if you get circumcised you have to sacrifice". It says "if you get circumcised you have to keep the whole law".

Your argument is that the gentiles were keeping the law. Clearly not or else he would not say the effect of them being circumcised is that they would have to keep the whole law.

It would be like a parent saying to their child, "if you hit your sister you will have to go to your room."

It would not make sense if the child was already confined to his room. It only makes sense if going to his room is a result of the action.

In the same way circumcision would require them to keep the whole law. They are clearly already not keeping it. And the council didn't require it.

Adventist Heretic · Aug 20, 2015

tall73 said:
Gal 5:3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

It does not say "if you get circumcised you have to sacrifice". It says "if you get circumcised you have to keep the whole law".

Tall I am referring to Col 2. circumcision and scarifice were linked together.

Your argument is that the gentiles were keeping the law. Clearly not or else he would not say the effect of them being circumcised is that they would have to keep the whole law.

Tall this brings us back to what is ment by law keeping? Is it the 10 commandments, the 613, or the cermonial as well or something More?I think it is talking about relying on your performance for salvation and acceptance and justification. That is what i believe he is talking about you are to rely on Christ. Rejecting Christ's, circumcision and sacrifice would be relying on your own performance for justification and acceptance. I don't think he is talking about doing away with the Law all together, this would contradict, Jerimiah's & Paul's statements on the Law in the heart and doing them.

In the same way circumcision would require them to keep the whole law. They are clearly already not keeping it. And the council didn't require it.

no one is arguing they they were commanding them to circumcise, so why are you making this argument???? It makes no sense. Scripture is very clear that Christ fulfilled the circumcision requirement and the Sacrifice requirement. No argument there. What I am arguing is that Christ by his fulling circumcision and sacrifice won the ability to enter back into the blessing that Moses was holding, In fact Now Christ is the steward of those blessing. You are arguing that they were done away with, but that cannot be the case, becase it contradicts paul statement's about Covenants.

"15Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,”i meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise"

Paul's says once a covenant is established it is Permanate, 1.cannot set it aside, 2. Cannot add to to it,
notice that the Mosaic covenant did not set aside the Abrahamic covenant. I would also reason if these rules hold up that Christ does not do away with Moses, or Noah or Adam or Creation or David's covenan, by the same logic.

Adventist Heretic · Sep 4, 2015

tall, you there??? ribbit, ribbit, ribbit

col 2:16 the accurate interpretation and the final word on the text

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads