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

[Dave-W]

The term Lord's day came about as a direct way to distinguish it from Sunday.

Was Joel trying to "distinguish it from Sunday?"

Joel 1:15 Alas for the day! For the Lord's day is near, And it will come as destruction from the Almighty.

Joel 2.1 Blow a trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm on My holy mountain!
Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, For the Lord' Day is coming; Surely it is near,
2 A day of darkness and gloom, A day of clouds and thick darkness.
As the dawn is spread over the mountains, So there is a great and mighty people;
There has never been anything like it, Nor will there be again after it To the years of many generations.

Or the other prophets?

Amos 5:20 Will not the Lord's Day be darkness instead of light, Even gloom with no brightness in it?

Obadiah 1:15“For the Lord's day draws near on all the nations. As you have done, it will be done to you. Your dealings will return on your own head.

Zephaniah 1:7 Be silent before the Lord God! For the Lord's day is near, For the Lord has prepared a sacrifice, He has consecrated His guests.
Zephaniah 2:2 Before the decree takes effect— The day passes like the chaff— Before the burning anger of the Lord comes upon you, Before the day of the Lord’s anger comes upon you.

This is what is scriptural meant by "the Lord's day." The ECFs got it WRONG. It is not a festival to be celebrated; rather it is destruction to be mourned.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

So the answer is no, you don't have any scriptural proof...

Again false asssumption, lead's to false answers. You are still operating under the premise that the Lord's day is or was a replacement for Sabbath. You are also operating under the assumption that I advocate for the Lord's day as a replacement for the sabbath. I do not. You also opperate under the assumption that they are in conflict they are not. I cannot reason with a man who already thinks he know what the answer is and will not learn. I gave you the answer. If you have any morals what so ever you will at the very least make an effort to read the material that was in the link.
http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Early-Christian-Beliefs-Reference/dp/1565633571

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Was Joel trying to "distinguish it from Sunday?"

Joel 1:15 Alas for the day! For the Lord's day is near, And it will come as destruction from the Almighty.

Joel 2.1 Blow a trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm on My holy mountain!
Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, For the Lord' Day is coming; Surely it is near,
2 A day of darkness and gloom, A day of clouds and thick darkness.
As the dawn is spread over the mountains, So there is a great and mighty people;
There has never been anything like it, Nor will there be again after it To the years of many generations.

Or the other prophets?

Amos 5:20 Will not the Lord's Day be darkness instead of light, Even gloom with no brightness in it?

Obadiah 1:15“For the Lord's day draws near on all the nations. As you have done, it will be done to you. Your dealings will return on your own head.

Zephaniah 1:7 Be silent before the Lord God! For the Lord's day is near, For the Lord has prepared a sacrifice, He has consecrated His guests.
Zephaniah 2:2 Before the decree takes effect— The day passes like the chaff— Before the burning anger of the Lord comes upon you, Before the day of the Lord’s anger comes upon you.

This is what is scriptural meant by "the Lord's day." The ECFs got it WRONG. It is not a festival to be celebrated; rather it is destruction to be mourned.

None of those texts were fulfilled when John wrote Revelation, so your point is not valid. The point of those texts is talking about the final judgment, so not applicable.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

[QUOTE="EastCoastRemnant],[/QUOTE] could you answer me a few question.
Why should I listen to anything you say?
What are you qualifications, training and material read?
Why is your opinion more important then those who heard directly from the apostles?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

could you answer me a few question.
Why should I listen to anything you say?
What are you qualifications, training and material read?
Why is your opinion more important then those who heard directly from the apostles?

First of all, I do not expect you to listen to me.. you are a big boy, that is your prerogative. Just as I can choose to listen to you... or not. Or agree with you... or not.

What makes you think worldly qualifications or theology training qualifies anyone as an authority? I take my authority from God's Word. I think that historical account is important but only if it corroborates scripture... not in and of itself. Otherwise, I could read historical documents like the book of Judas and think it has something important to say.

I agree with you that John was not talking about the day of judgement when he was in vision... the only reference I have, Biblically is what was recorded in three of the gospels and what John would have heard and known. I do not take any credit for wisdom in trying to figure this out on my own, the Bible clearly lays it out for those that will see. The Lord claims the Sabbath as His (sanctified and made Holy at creation...the seal of His authority) and therefore John was in vision on that day.

It's obvious that you do not believe Adventist doctrine as I am not the only one that espouses this understanding within the church... maybe your unbiblical reasoning would be better appreciated in another denom's forum.

 

[tall73]

It's obvious that you do not believe Adventist doctrine as I am not the only one that espouses this understanding within the church... maybe your unbiblical reasoning would be better appreciated in another denom's forum.

Last I checked anyway he still attends an Adventist church and holds to some of the teaching.

This is the progressive section. The discussion won't insist on all 28.

A place for Progressive/Moderate Adventist discussion that does not insist on acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs.
All who wish to discuss are welcome.


House Rules-
All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules).

I will have to get back to Ice on the topic here soon. Been busy with other things.

 

[Dave-W]

None of those texts were fulfilled when John wrote Revelation, so your point is not valid. The point of those texts is talking about the final judgment, so not applicable.

Of course those texts are talking about final judgement. So was John. It was the day he saw the final judgement. So "Lord's Day" in Rev 1 has nothing to do with a day of the week. PERIOD.

 

[tall73]

Tall, I want to make a request that you don't dump pages and pages of arguments at one time. You need to make 1 argument per post and keep it short. If you have more then one argument put it in a second post and a third if necessary. It make it very diffuicult to respond to your post. Smaller posts are more effective and less confusing. I would rather have 12 different post to respond to then 1 or 2 MASSIVE Dissertation to scroll through. The larger it is the harder it is to respond to.

I will try to do so when possible. I have tried both approaches, some prefer one, some another. Since you prefer shorter I will try to do so.

 

[tall73]

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]

 

[tall73]

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?

Yes, if you like I can dig up a discussion I started on the Suzerainty covenants etc. some years back here.

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.

Yes, but he is doing more than that. The gentiles are the beneficiaries of the PROMISE. They do not need observance to the Mosaic law, which is the very thing the judaizers were saying they did.

It is about qualifications. But the qualifications are specifically about the promise made to Abraham in Romans 4, and in Galatians 3, and ultimately in Col 2 as well. So why say they were under the Mosaic law? They were under the promise to Abraham.

 

[tall73]

In Acts 15, the complaint comes from Jerusalem, where they were concerned about qualifications.

Now, you need to address what the qualifications were that they wanted to see:

Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."

The Judaizer contingent specifically wanted two things for the gentiles:

1. Circumcision.

2. keeping the law of Moses.

Yet, look at your argument on Col 2.

1. Circumcision--you say that Jesus fulfilled this through true circumcision. Agreed.

2. You indicate they were already keeping the law of Moses, and that spiritual circumcision was allowing them to do this. Therefore the Judaizers could not complain about their keeping of feasts, etc.

The problem with this is it does not match the historical reality. The Judaizers in Acts 15 said that the gentiles were to be required to keep the law of Moses, not that they were already doing it but just were not circumcised properly.

 

[tall73]

In fact his reasoning makes it very clear they WERE practicing all the requirement of Moses, including the Sabbath, New Moons & Festivals.

Point blank, why did the Judaizers at the council want the Gentiles to be commanded to keep the Law of Moses if they were already doing it?

Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."


Your narrative does not match the historical data. The Judaizers were not upset that the gentiles were keeping all the laws of Moses except circumcision. Rather they wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised AND ordered to keep the law of Moses.

They were not keeping the law of Moses or there would be no need for them to push for this command.

 

[tall73]

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

A. Yes, many were guests in the synagogue. However, note the council did not at all put the whole Mosaic law on the Gentiles. That was what the Judaizers pushed for, circumcision, and the law of Moses. Their position was rejected.

B. The requirements for Gentiles are debated. Some see them as Noahide requirements, some see them as a compromise since the Gentiles were meeting in the synagogue, so as to not offend the Jews.

C. Note that the reference to the Sabbath is about the reading of Moses in the Synagogue every Sabbath. No one disputes that. However, this statement was not included in the letter to the Gentile churches. The only thing they were told was the few requirements put on them. It was not required of them to keep the whole law of Moses, which you advocated in this thread. That view was rejected.

Now the Jewish believers went right on keeping the whole law. This arrangement was again cited years later in Acts 21.

 

[tall73]

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

Now you didn't seem to commit one way or the other to whether they were doing drink and food offerings. Yet this is critical to the text. The food and drink go right along with the feasts, etc. Either they were doing them all, or they were not doing them all.

 

[tall73]

if there is something in the reply that I have missed please copy it and repost it.

Gal 5:2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
Gal 5:3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

These verses make no sense in your paradigm. According to Paul they already were spiritually circumcised so they already were obligated to the whole law.

Yet Paul does not say that at all. He says anyone who accepts circumcision (physical) is obligated to keep the whole law.

He is clearly speaking to people right now who are NOT obligated to keep the whole law.

 

[tall73]

if there is something in the reply that I have missed please copy it and repost it.

Gal 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.


The law was added UNTIL the Offspring should come. What does this mean to you?

Gal 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.
Gal 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

What does it mean when it says the law was our guardian until Christ came?

 

[tall73]

What the Pharisee party wanted:

Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."


What the Pharisees actually got:

Act 15:23 with the following letter: "The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings.
Act 15:24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,
Act 15:25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.
Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:
Act 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

The pharisee party wanted the Gentiles to keep the whole law of Moses. The council did not do this.

So how can you say they were obligated to the law of Moses? How can you say they were keeping it?

Why would the pharisees want them to keep it if they were already keeping it?

 

[tall73]

IMO "Lord's Day" (referring to sunday) was a gross misunderstanding of the term by the Greek speaking early church fathers.

In Rev 1.10, the word "Lord's" is NOT a noun in the genitive (possessive) case; rather it is an adjective, as in "Lordy day." That could refer to any day of the week.

A parallel text might be helpful.

1Co 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.

The same construction is used of the supper pertaining to the Lord, as is used in the day pertaining to the Lord.

No, it is not a possessive. However, it is in relation to the Lord. If you take it to mean any day, however, why would he even mention it?

It sounds like his readers knew it signified a particular day, which had reference to the Lord.

 

[tall73]

OTOH "Lord's" day (in the genitive/ possessive case) is a direct reference to the day of judgement and destruction. (given the amount of foretold destruction works for Rev 1.10 also)

Yes, Lord's day appears in several NT texts, always with the genitive construction.
But that is not the construction that appears here, so what does the amount of destruction have to do with it?

So I would NEVER take "the Lord's day" to mean sunday. EVER.

I am not aware of any Scriptural passage that clarifies the phrase, so I am not sure I would rule out that meaning given the later use in Church writings of it being Sunday.

But without a definite Scriptural passage the best we have is best guesses.

 

[tall73]

Was Joel trying to "distinguish it from Sunday?"

Joel 1:15 Alas for the day! For the Lord's day is near, And it will come as destruction from the Almighty.

Joel 2.1 Blow a trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm on My holy mountain!
Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, For the Lord' Day is coming; Surely it is near,
2 A day of darkness and gloom, A day of clouds and thick darkness.
As the dawn is spread over the mountains, So there is a great and mighty people;
There has never been anything like it, Nor will there be again after it To the years of many generations.

Or the other prophets?

Amos 5:20 Will not the Lord's Day be darkness instead of light, Even gloom with no brightness in it?

Obadiah 1:15“For the Lord's day draws near on all the nations. As you have done, it will be done to you. Your dealings will return on your own head.

Zephaniah 1:7 Be silent before the Lord God! For the Lord's day is near, For the Lord has prepared a sacrifice, He has consecrated His guests.
Zephaniah 2:2 Before the decree takes effect— The day passes like the chaff— Before the burning anger of the Lord comes upon you, Before the day of the Lord’s anger comes upon you.

This is what is scriptural meant by "the Lord's day." The ECFs got it WRONG. It is not a festival to be celebrated; rather it is destruction to be mourned.

I am really having trouble following your argument. You went out of your way to show that Rev. 1:10 was NOT a possessive genitive. Now you reference texts that did use the possessive genitive to show the meaning?

Joe 1:15 Οἴμμοι οἴμμοι οἴμμοι εἰς ἡμέραν, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἡμέρα κυρίου καὶ ὡς ταλαιπωρία ἐκ ταλαιπωρίας ἥξει.

Can you explain please?