Col 2 does not condemn the Sabbath or Scripture

[BobRyan]

In this following post it is pointed out that in Col 2 - we do not find Paul condemning the Bible, no condemnation of eating, no condemnation of drinking - and no condemnation of God's Sabbath as we find it in the Ten Commandments.

As noted in my post above - "Bible details matter" even in Colossians 2
Paul is not deleting scripture in Col 2. He is condemning the practice of simply "making stuff up'

Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command.

But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.


Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)

=========================

In Mark 7:6-13 the Jews were simply "making stuff up" to get around one of the TEN Commandments - and of course Christ condemned them for that.

In Mark 2:19-22 they did it as well and Christ refuted their arguments.

Is it any wonder that in Col 2 the saints were contending with the same problem of man-made-doctrine and traditions -- "making stuff up"??

Not at all surprising.



Paul is focused on the problem of refuting the practice of 'making stuff up' --

 

[listed]

In this following post it is pointed out that in Col 2 - we do not find Paul condemning the Bible, no condemnation of eating, no condemnation of drinking - and no condemnation of God's Sabbath as we find it in the Ten Commandments.

Paul is focused on the problem of refuting the practice of 'making stuff up' --

In response to the title, I ask who is doing this. When I read your post you claim God is. Talk about making stuff up.

Tell us with Scripture where Paul promotes and requires keeping the Sabbath.

Remember you must then be endorsing Paul's writings as Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

It really isn't, I quote without referencing Col 2 here in objection to Elder111's assertion that I'm denying what both of you consider central issues of the faith,

And I by contrast - start this thread just on Col 2 - on the content of the chapter itself.

I point out that in the actual chapter of Col 2- Paul deals not with destroying scripture, nor with declaring and end to eating and drinking, nor with declaring an end to the Sabbath.

Rather Paul affirms the same condemnation of "making stuff up" as Christ does in Mark 7:6-13.

then in the next post you miss that I was quoting Col 2 and completely misunderstand my point, which is in large letters above. We have a small exchange on the meaning of Col 2 which then leads you to start this thread, still not understanding my point.

This thread stands on its own as a discussion of Col 2. The OP sets the context and subject.

It is not about attacking you it is about Bible study of Col 2.

If you have a case to make from Col 2 - feel free to do so.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It really isn't, I quote without referencing Col 2 here in objection to Elder111's assertion that I'm denying what both of you consider central issues of the faith,

And I by contrast - start this thread just on Col 2 - on the content of the chapter itself.

I point out that in the actual chapter of Col 2- Paul deals not with destroying scripture, nor with declaring and end to eating and drinking, nor with declaring an end to the Sabbath.

Rather Paul affirms the same condemnation of "making stuff up" as Christ does in Mark 7:6-13.

then in the next post you miss that I was quoting Col 2 and completely misunderstand my point, which is in large letters above. We have a small exchange on the meaning of Col 2 which then leads you to start this thread, still not understanding my point.

This thread stands on its own as a discussion of Col 2. The OP sets the context and subject.

It is not about attacking you it is about Bible study of Col 2.

If you have a case to make from Col 2 - feel free to do so.

No you didn't

Yes.. I did.

Look at the title of this thread.

And the opening post.

It is all there for everyone to read.

Impossible to miss the point, the subject, the content.

There are a number of people posting on this area of the board that are not Seventh-day Adventists and who keep the Sabbath and who agree with the points made in the OP - and with the title of the thread.

In fact if you look at the long list of even pro-sunday scholarship pointed to in my signature line below - you will find another group affirming the title and the OP.

Many on this section CF on the other hand would object to something in the title or something in the OP because their own opposition to the Ten Commandments is not in harmony with such statements.

hence this thread.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Seriously, why did you do that? That was a waste of bits.


All of which hinges upon your misunderstanding of why I brought up the text, which you still have yet to address.

At no point in this thread do we have any statement from me saying "this is why duolos is interested in Col 2" except here - where I point to it being utterly out of place as the focus of the thread.

You are not Paul - an Apostle, the Author of Col 2 etc.

This thread is about Col 2.

I agree with the points made in the OP of the thread

1. I don't mind having agreement with the OP.

2. If this is your way of expressing agreement - I admit it was hard to discern - I clearly missed your affirming posts.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

At no point in this thread do we have any statement from me saying "this is why duolos is interested in Col 2" except here - where I point to it being utterly out of place as the focus of the thread.

You are not Paul - an Apostle, the Author of Col 2 etc.

This thread is about Col 2.



1. I don't mind having agreement with the OP.

2. If this is your way of expressing agreement - I admit it was hard to discern - I clearly missed your affirming posts.

Except it is, because it comes not even disguised as an angel of light

again I find your logic illusive.

As all can seen from the content of the OP and from the title of the thread -- we have..anything but -- "let us just talk about those who complain about Ellen White".

the point remains -- Col 2 is the subject.

 

[BobRyan]

Well that would be because you misrepresented me in the OP and continue to do so by not continuing the discussion we were having .

sadly for that false accusation you are not quoted at all in the OP or in the title -

As it turns out --- you simply are not the subject of this thread - rather Col 2 is.

I am the author of the thread -- as it turns out - and everyone can read the title and the content in the OP.

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[bugkiller]

And I by contrast - start this thread just on Col 2 - on the content of the chapter itself.

I point out that in the actual chapter of Col 2- Paul deals not with destroying scripture, nor with declaring and end to eating and drinking, nor with declaring an end to the Sabbath.

Rather Paul affirms the same condemnation of "making stuff up" as Christ does in Mark 7:6-13.



This thread stands on its own as a discussion of Col 2. The OP sets the context and subject.

It is not about attacking you it is about Bible study of Col 2.

If you have a case to make from Col 2 - feel free to do so.

in Christ,

Bob

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom 8:1

4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. Col 2

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Col 2

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

No you didn't, you decided you'd weasel out of having been caught out misrepresenting me and start this thread for who knows what reason if not to continue in your merry little delusion that what you claim is my point in using Col 2 is my point in using Col 2.


And I used it in neither way, you still have yet to adequately address the way in which I use it either here or elsewhere.


To which I say that your prophet Ellen Gould White did make stuff up and on that basis alone she stands condemned by this passage and by implication you have been disqualified from the faith, you need to repudiate her and all her teachings or she'll take you away from Christ, who do you love more EGW or Christ?


It doesn't, and even if you had just copied and pasted the content from one post to another it wouldn't be, the only reason this thread has the title Col 2 does not condemn the Sabbath or Scripture is because you think I was/am condemning either with my use of it, which if you are claiming that your prophet wrote scripture then that's all well and good, I am condemning scripture, but since you haven't and didn't even acknowledge my suggestion of such last time I'm quite happy assuming you're toeing your denominational line on that one.

Neither does Col 2 support the Sabbath.

bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

Col 2 does not condemn eating, or drinking, or scripture , or the Sabbath.

And of course for all eternity after the cross we have Is 66:23 "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all MANKIND come before Me to worship".

As Christ said - scripture cannot be broken.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[bugkiller]

Col 2 does not condemn eating, or drinking, or scripture , or the Sabbath.

And of course for all eternity after the cross we have Is 66:23 "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all MANKIND come before Me to worship".

As Christ said - scripture cannot be broken.

in Christ,

Bob

Well I think its been said you're good entertainment.

bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

Your response to the text of Is 66:23 is understandable given your POV.

But I have the option of accepting the Bible as it reads - I am going to have to go with the Bible on this one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[listed]

Your response to the text of Is 66:23 is understandable given your POV.

But I have the option of accepting the Bible as it reads - I am going to have to go with the Bible on this one.

in Christ,

Bob

His response to your Isa 66:23 quote is right on the money. The text says from .... to and nothing about on. This is the way they spoke about time and the verse has nothing to do with the Sabbath.

 

[Supreme]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has undergone clean up. Please do not flame Christian figures other members follow, as this is against the General Theology Statement of Purpose.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[BobRyan]

Col 2 does not condemn eating, or drinking, or scripture , or the Sabbath.

And of course for all eternity after the cross we have Is 66:23 "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all MANKIND come before Me to worship".

As Christ said - scripture cannot be broken.

His response to your Isa 66:23 quote is right on the money. The text says from .... to and nothing about on. .

Until you notice two cycles given in Is 66 - one is weekly and the other monthly - neither of them ... daily.

The point is irrefutable and this is yet another reason why even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship affirms the Sabbath Commandment - as included in the moral law of God to this very day - and forever.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Another point of interest in Is 66:23 is that it does not use the term 'dailly' rather it uses TWO cycles - a weekly and monthly cycle.

And of course in the Bible - 'details matter'

 

[listed]

Until you notice two cycles given in Is 66 - one is weekly and the other monthly - neither of them ... daily.

The point is irrefutable and this is yet another reason why even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship affirms the Sabbath Commandment - as included in the moral law of God to this very day - and forever.

in Christ,

Bob

I did not think I am quite that stupid. I do not understand the continued need to insult me either.

I can not find any dictionary defining from or to as meaning on. Seems they mean more like leaving or arriving. You must have a private dictionary.

I also did not find any activity occurring on the Sabbath in that verse. All activity was after or before the Sabbath or new moon.

 

[BobRyan]

Those who don't see the Sabbath here - are free to choose whatever opinion they wish.

Is 66:23 "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all MANKIND come before Me to worship".

For the rest of us there is "From new MOON to new Moon AND from Sabbath to SABBATH shall all mankind come before Me TO BOW DOWN in worship".

TWO distinct cycles - "not just one - and it is daily" In fact these terms are never ever used for "daily" in the Bible - no not even once.

And Is 66 says this continues on for eternity even in the NEW heavens and the NEW Earth - affirmed again for us in Rev 21 that Isaiah 66 is in fact rock solid.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[listed]

Yes the word Sabbath appears in both passages. And the purposes they for do not prove anything.

 

[bugkiller]

Those who don't see the Sabbath here - are free to choose whatever opinion they wish.

Is 66:23 "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all MANKIND come before Me to worship".

For the rest of us there is "From new MOON to new Moon AND from Sabbath to SABBATH shall all mankind come before Me TO BOW DOWN in worship".

TWO distinct cycles - "not just one - and it is daily" In fact these terms are never ever used for "daily" in the Bible - no not even once.

And Is 66 says this continues on for eternity even in the NEW heavens and the NEW Earth - affirmed again for us in Rev 21 that Isaiah 66 is in fact rock solid.

in Christ,

Bob

Where do you get "on the Sabbath" in Isa 66:23?

bugkiller