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

Adventist Heretic · Oct 9, 2015

tall73 said:
I got your message that you wanted to continue. Been busy with other things.

Now, you indicated that Col 2 drink and food were references to the sacrifices. So then, if you are argument is that they were still keeping the feasts, would they not still be sacrificing according to this?

Yet you seem to suggest they were not sacrificing. What you do with the festivals you have to do with the food and drink.

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.
Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Tall you have a lot of question and a lot of post, and I have a limited amount of time. so I will be short. I thought I already answered this.

Adventist Heretic · Oct 9, 2015

tall73 said:
I would say he is certainly talking about both. The judaizers wanted them to be circumcised and to keep the whole law. We see this in Acts 15. They made it a salvation issue. He says to be circumcised would be to make Christ of no effect, because, as you said, they would be relying on their performance, rather than what He had already done. But he also talks about their freedom, because they are not under the whole law.

how dose this apply to the Sabbath, you are lumping circumcision and Sabbath in the same catagory. I am sorry they are not. Col 2 tell us the reason for not needing circumcison. you have been made complete in Christ, BECAUSE he has become your circumcision and your Sacrifice. you don't need those. No where does it say he has become your Sabbath.

However, he also says that if they become circumcised they would have to keep the whole law, ie. the whole law of Moses. They were not at that point keeping the whole law of Moses.

If someone said to you that if you sign on the dotted line of the Army recruiter you would now be under all the regulations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it would be clear what they meant.

By signing on the line you become part of the Army. You are then subject to their rules. But it would not really need to be said to someone already in the army, already subject to the code if they were re-upping for another tour.
They are already under the code.

Tall there is no disagreement here, the question is weather being under Christ does away with the Sabbath. I would be impossible to say yes to that because he claims it as a sign of His Lordship. "The son of Adam (Man) is Lord even of the Sabbath." You are right to say that under Moses it was a sign of the Jews, but under Christ it is a Sign of the Adamic Messianic linage, fulfillment and Lordship. So I don't see any way to do away with it. And the theology of the early church bares this out.

If the gentiles were already observing all of the mosaic law anyway, he would have no reason to tell them that they would be under the whole law.

Tall we need to get to define what the "whole" law is because Paul clearly says "the righteous requirements of the law will be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the spirit. " Now what does this mean? and what is included in this?

Adventist Heretic · Oct 9, 2015

What does the statement about the law written on the heart mean? The only other place that I am aware of that specifically mentions the law written on the heart is Romans 2.

It means that as people forgot or rebelled against God , he did not leave them with out some sort of guide.

Rom 2:9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
Rom 2:10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
Rom 2:11 For God shows no partiality.
Rom 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
Rom 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

This is of course part of the argument from 1:18 to 3:20 regarding everyone being guilty under sin. Both the Jew and Gentile have sinned and will be judged. But in this section he also mentions that some gentiles do by nature what the law requires. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts.

Now is he speaking about these gentiles spontaneously, naturally keeping the feast of trumpets? Or the Passover?
No, he is speaking about righteous moral principles which they show are written in their nature. They are doing what is right based on their response to God and the law He has put in them.

There is not disagreement here. I cannot figure out why you are keep beating a dead horse.

We see in the NT that Paul points out a number of times that the law is not the main standard for knowing righteousness any longer. Now the focus is life in the Spirit, vs life in the flesh. Jesus living out His righteous life in us. It changes it from an external observance to an internal desire to do His will when we walk in the Spirit.

No disagreement here. You seem to think that it dose away with the sabbath. How does being under Christ do away with the Sabbath or the festivals. it does not. Particularly since he said "I am Lord of the Sabbath?[/QUOTE]

tall73 said:
What does the statement about the law written on the heart mean? The only other place that I am aware of that specifically mentions the law written on the heart is Romans 2.

Rom 2:9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
Rom 2:10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
Rom 2:11 For God shows no partiality.
Rom 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
Rom 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

This is of course part of the argument from 1:18 to 3:20 regarding everyone being guilty under sin. Both the Jew and Gentile have sinned and will be judged. But in this section he also mentions that some gentiles do by nature what the law requires. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts.

Now is he speaking about these gentiles spontaneously, naturally keeping the feast of trumpets? Or the Passover?
No, he is speaking about righteous moral principles which they show are written in their nature. They are doing what is right based on their response to God and the law He has put in them.

We see in the NT that Paul points out a number of times that the law is not the main standard for knowing righteousness any longer. Now the focus is life in the Spirit, vs life in the flesh. Jesus living out His righteous life in us. It changes it from an external observance to an internal desire to do His will when we walk in the Spirit.

Adventist Heretic · Oct 9, 2015

bump, tall for some reason it's double posting

Winken · Oct 9, 2015

8 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Context: ..........already fulfilled in us who are in our present possessive permanent status (not a conditional "walk"). We are no longer victims of the old sinful nature; we are now victors in the Holy Spirit. Our "walk" is defined by God's Amazing Grace. We are the Righteousness of the law fulfilled in Christ.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made US free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak in dealing with the sinful nature, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness might be fulfilled in us,

5 For they that are of the sinful nature dwell in and on the sin/sins of the flesh; but they that are of the Born-Again, Spiritual Nature abide in, permanently, without exception, the Holiness of the Spirit.

Remember the Sabbath Day? Of course. Worship on Saturday? As you wish. The eariest of us gathered together on the First Day of the Week, Sunday. The point? Salvation is not measured by days and dates.

tall73 · Oct 10, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
The reference to blood in Acts 15 is a bit enigmatic. It can be taken a number of different ways. Tall - you put it down to eating blood. But that actually is covered by "things that are strangled." Strangling was understood to make the blood congeal in the veins and therefore not be properly removed by draining.

It could also be a reference to menstrual blood. But that would be also covered under the prohibition of inappropriate contentia - anything which violates Torah sexual standards.

That leaves "shedding of innocent blood" from the Noachide laws. That is how I interpret it.

I quoted both in Genesis 9 because it is interpreted both ways.

Adventist Heretic · Oct 10, 2015

tall73 said:
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Act 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
Act 15:31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

This is the actual letter that went to the gentile churches. The position of the judaizers was rejected. Only certain necessary things were required and no greater burden was placed on them. There is no mention of later going on to keep all the law as the judaizers wished. There is no mention of growing into other commands of the law.

Now if the law was really something they should be keeping, why not encourage them to do it? Why refer to the message as troubling? Why would the council intentionally delay them observing something that they should observe?

Years later James still holds to the same requirements.

Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Tall you seem to over look the fact that just before he sent out the letter he quoted Amos 9 and the rebuilding of the house of David. Why does he quote this and how is the house of David rebuild with out Sabbath? Only a Jew could rebuild the house of David and a Jew could not be consider a faithful Godly Jew without Sabbath?

Adventist Heretic · Oct 10, 2015

Remember the Sabbath Day? Of course. Worship on Saturday? As you wish. The eariest of us gathered together on the First Day of the Week, Sunday. The point? Salvation is not measured by days and dates.

You just made this up. you seem to be of the belief that being under Christ means doing a way with any of the 10 Commandments.

Adventist Heretic · Oct 10, 2015

Tall What does this mean.

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 turning to God from among 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.” What is the meaning of this thing?

Adventist Heretic · Oct 10, 2015

In Acts 21 the Jewish believers went on zealously keeping the Sabbath and all the rest of the law. The Sabbath was not abolished.

Note also that the new covenant is made with the house of Israel.[/QUOTE] Tall you need to clarify this.... How can the New Covenant be made with Israel and Sabbath not be part for all people who are under the New Covenant? How can the Early Church accept & that Sabbath was a sing of Creation and the 1000 year regin of Christ on earth and others say it was done away with?

tall73 · Oct 11, 2015

Food and drink offering exchange clarification.

tall73 said:
Now, you indicated that Col 2 drink and food were references to the sacrifices. So then, if you are argument is that they were still keeping the feasts, would they not still be sacrificing according to this?

Yet you seem to suggest they were not sacrificing. What you do with the festivals you have to do with the food and drink.

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.
Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

You indicated you already replied.

icedragon101 said:
I thought I already answered this.

However, I am not sure you replied to the aspect I was inquiring about. I had asked earlier in the thread what you thought the food and drink meant. You indicated:

icedragon101 said:
upon considering this question, I believe food & drink is an improper translation, meat or drink is correct, it could be referring to the meat & drink offering, again Jewish

To which I replied:

tall73 said:
If you take the meat and drink to be offerings, do you think the people being written to were sacrificing or not sacrificing?

icedragon101 said:
uncertian, haven't put much thought into it.

Later you said:

icedragon101 said:
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.

and

icedragon101 said:
Scripture is very clear that Christ fulfilled the circumcision requirement and the Sacrifice requirement. No argument there.

So you seem to indicate on more than one occasion that sacrifice was not necessary. Ok. But then when we look at Col 2, you are asserting that the things in the list are things the gentiles are being told they CANNOT participate in, yet they are qualified to participate in, and are participating in, and should participate in.

But the list includes food and meat offerings.

Whatever you do with one part of the list you have to do with the other. So when it says:

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.
Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

You would have to say

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink (offerings that you are presenting and should present), or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath (which you are keeping and should keep).

You are doing one thing with one part of the list, and another thing with another part of the list.

Moreover, in Acts 21 Paul goes to make arrangements for a vow that includes sacrifices. Does this mean that in your view all early Christians should be sacrificing? If not, then why was Paul sacrificing?

In my view it is simpler. The Jews kept the laws that applied to Jews under the law, the Gentiles were not required to keep all of the laws that applied to the Jews under the Mosaic law.

tall73 · Oct 11, 2015

icedragon101 said:
how dose this apply to the Sabbath, you are lumping circumcision and Sabbath in the same catagory. I am sorry they are not. Col 2 tell us the reason for not needing circumcison. you have been made complete in Christ, BECAUSE he has become your circumcision and your Sacrifice. you don't need those. No where does it say he has become your Sabbath.

Acts 15 lumps all of it together because the pharisees want them to keep the whole law of Moses and be circumcised. And Paul references in Galatians that if they become circumcised they have to keep the whole law.

It is not saying that Circumcision and the Sabbath are the same. It is showing that in their minds circumcision was full conversion and required Gentiles to keep everything that a Jew would under the law.

The council did not require them to keep everything a Jew would under the law. It required of them what the Law required of a Gentile who was not living in Israel, as the Gentile churches were not in Israel.

And see above on the sacrifice. You are not consistent with this in Col. 2.

tall73 · Oct 11, 2015

icedragon101 said:
Tall there is no disagreement here,

There is disagreement here. The judaizers wanted them to keep everything that would apply to a Jew in all the law of Moses. They wanted them to become full Jewish converts. That was what the circumcision was about, full conversion to Judaism. The council said no, just require of them what the law requires of Gentiles, not Jews.

Tall we need to get to define what the "whole" law is because Paul clearly says "the righteous requirements of the law will be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the spirit. " Now what does this mean? and what is included in this?

Look at the fruit of the Spirit and you see what is meant. It contrasts the flesh and the Spirit.

Note that he also uses similar language in chapter 2, as well as the language of the law on the heart in regards to gentiles, but the gentiles were not keeping feasts etc. by nature.

But in this case the judaizers wanted them to keep everything that would apply to a Jew in the the whole law of Moses. The council said that was unnecessary.

tall73 · Oct 11, 2015

icedragon101 said:
It means that as people forgot or rebelled against God , he did not leave them with out some sort of guide.

But the conscience doesn't teach the Passover or the Sabbath or circumcision on the 8th day, or the inherited land in Israel reverting in the year of Jubilee, or a tithe to support the Levitical sanctuary service, etc. which all would not have applied to Gentiles outside of Israel anyway. And cultures have not simply spontaneously started doing these things on the basis of conscience. But they have known basic morality, as Romans 2 indicates, through the conscience.

And the law of Moses tells us that things like sleeping with your close relative or sacrificing your child to Molech, etc. were things that God judged even the Gentiles not living among the Israelites for.

So Paul can say that the law was written on the hearts of Gentiles who did not even have the law. Because they were keeping by nature the parts of the law that applied to Gentiles.

Rom 2:9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
Rom 2:10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
Rom 2:11 For God shows no partiality.
Rom 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
Rom 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

There is not disagreement here. I cannot figure out why you are keep beating a dead horse.

There is disagreement here. Paul says the Gentiles had the law written on their heart. However, what was written on the heart was not all the things that the Judaizers wanted them to do. The Judaizers wanted total conversion to Judaism so that the Gentiles would have to do everything expected of a Jew.

The Gentiles were not required to keep all the parts of the law of Moses that a Jew would. That is why our Messianic friend noted that you were only required to keep the part of the law that applied to you. A Jewish man didn't have to keep the laws for Jewish women on uncleanness. A Jewish man of the tribe of Judah did not need to keep the regulations that applied to the priests of the tribe of Levi.

In the same way the council did not bind Gentiles with everything a Jewish person would do under the law of Moses. They are to live by the Spirit, and the few requirements of the law of Moses that would have applied to any Gentile that was not living in Israel.

tall73 · Oct 11, 2015

icedragon101 said:
Tall you seem to over look the fact that just before he sent out the letter he quoted Amos 9 and the rebuilding of the house of David. Why does he quote this and how is the house of David rebuild with out Sabbath? Only a Jew could rebuild the house of David and a Jew could not be consider a faithful Godly Jew without Sabbath?

Jesus, the Messiah, was the means of re-establishing the house of David. He is the Messianic king who rules on David's throne. And the house of David went right on keeping the Sabbath. Nor have I said otherwise.
The Jewish believers went right on keeping the Sabbath, and the council didn't even dream of changing that. The council dealt with what to do with the Gentiles.

tall73 · Oct 11, 2015

icedragon101 said:
Tall What does this mean.

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.

The main reason for him quoting it is stated right there. Peter described how God accepted the gentiles and gave them the Spirit. God didn't require them to become Jews, nor did He restrict Gentiles from receiving the Spirit. Now James is going to quote an OT text that shows both Jews (including David's house), and the rest of mankind.

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,

God restored David's house and throne by bringing forth the Messiah. But then the rest of the prophecy relates to others, a different group.

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.

At the time David's house is restored gentiles will seek the Lord. Well, they now had done so. But this raised the question of how they should be integrated into the Christian community. James says God anticipates the rest of men, Gentiles seeking Him. Therefore they should accept these Gentiles. If God anticipates Gentiles worshiping Him, and demonstrated that He would poor out His Spirit on them just as they were, why should they presume to require them to become full Jewish converts to be accepted? God did not require it, and the prophets predicted Gentiles worshiping Him.

They are not David's house. They are not Jews. They are the rest of mankind.

19“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among 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.” What is the meaning of this thing?

He mentions Moses being read from ancient times because the things he lists are consistent with what Moses says about Gentiles. He applies a ruling that is actually found in Torah, noting regulations which applied to Gentiles who were not residing in Israel. The Gentile churches did not need to live like Jewish converts as they worshiped while they were in Corinth and Rome. Nor did they need to live like Gentiles who were strangers in Israel. They simply needed to live like Gentiles, but walk in the Spirit. So rather than try to make them keep everything a Jew would, as the judaizers wanted, James said require of them what the law of Moses requires of Gentiles.

Now you have tried to make the synagogue statement the key part of the decision. But it did not even make the cut of the letter sent out. The letter sent out said they rejected the notion of the false teachers and that they only had a few requirements.

tall73 · Oct 11, 2015

icedragon101 said:
In Acts 21 the Jewish believers went on zealously keeping the Sabbath and all the rest of the law. The Sabbath was not abolished.

Of course the Sabbath was not abolished among the Jewish believers. And neither was sacrificing or vows, because Paul was about to go do them both. But that was for the Jewish believers. James was concerned that Paul was accused of turning Jewish believers from Moses. He had NO SUCH concerns about Gentile believers, but simply restated again the requirements for them.

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.
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.
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."

The Jewish believers were still circumcising. They were still making vows that included sacrifices. They were still doing all of it.

As for the Gentiles, they did not require this of them.

tall73 · Oct 11, 2015

icedragon101 said:
Tall you need to clarify this.... How can the New Covenant be made with Israel and Sabbath not be part for all people who are under the New Covenant?

First off you separate the festivals and the Sabbath, as you see the Sabbath from creation, and therefore different than later requirements which were only expressly instituted in the law of Moses. So let's treat the festivals first. I am sure this thread will eventually turn into a Sabbath only discussion at some point. But since you are still indicating you think Gentile Christians should keep the festivals, and the festivals appear in the list in Col. 2, let's look at that, then finish with the Sabbath. Because clarifying the first part of the list will help clarify the latter part. And you are using different arguments to support the Sabbath than you are the festivals and new moon.

Now as to the festivals and new moons, in the law of Moses the Gentiles living in Moab, or Rome or Corinth or China, unless they were full converts, were not bound to observe them. The council applied to Gentiles the laws that governed Gentiles. They did not apply to Gentiles the laws that applied to Jews.

So then Col 2:16 makes sense when it says don't worry about offerings of meat and drink, or festivals, or new moons, etc. The Judaizers wanted Gentiles to do all those things. But the council did not require it.

(By the way, I have not forgotten your argument about the Son of Man being Lord of the Sabbath, but we will get to that later in the Sabbath portion).

tall73 · Oct 11, 2015

The reason the council did not require them to become full converts is that this was seen as an undue burden. Imagine the conversation between an Ephesian Christian and a new convert had they sided with the Judaizers.

Christian: Well Jason, we are so glad you accepted Christ, and received the Spirit. Now there are a just a few things more to discuss. Here is your special garment with the blue tassles on it. This is the information scroll on the chariot-pool offers for the upcoming feast of Pentecost. And now if you just head over to that room next door they will take care of that minor matter of a foreskin.

Convert: er...on second thought.

Even if you take circumcision out of the equation, there was no reason to make Gentiles live like Jews in order to be Christians. The law didn't require it, and it would hinder those coming to Christ.

sahjimira · Oct 11, 2015

icedragon10for said:
nobody ????

There u r! I asked for a forum for Saturday Sabbath keepers but nothing yet. Hope this doesn't get remove,, I tend to post in the wrong
forum a lot. DDon't know why, I have such a hard time with it!

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

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Heimat

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

God of miracles.. He saved ME!

Similar threads