Questions for Sabbath practitioners

expos4ever said:

Now to address this requests even though, as any Biblically literate reader will know, is posed in a manner that illicitly restricts what counts as legitimate Biblical evidence.

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and we in the modern west have been careless in understanding the implications. On a surface reading, a text like Luke 16:17 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think the Law of Moses has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which declare the abolition of the Law of Moses. Here is Matthew's version:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and think that the Law of Moses has been set aside, given that heaven and earth are still here?

There is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Law of Moses was retired 2000 years ago as Paul so forcefully argues (e.g. Eph 2:15): In Hebrew culture, “end of the world” language was commonly used metaphorically to invest commonplace events with theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of use of “end of the world” imagery to describe much more “mundane” events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away” is an apocalyptic metaphor?

It is Jesus’ death on the Cross where He proclaims “It is accomplished”. Note how this dovetails perfectly with the 5:18 declaration that the Law would remain until all is accomplished. Seeing things this way allows us to honour the established tradition of metaphorical end-of-the-world imagery and to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Law of Moses was retired.

Click to expand...

Not only is the Earth passing away a metaphor, another of Jesus' words tells us that not a jot or tittle can be removed from the Law. For those who rationalize that until the Earth passes away the Law remains, how do you ration away most of the 613 commands that you choose not to adhere?

daq said:

Ephesians 2:15 T/R
15 την εχθραν εν τη σαρκι αυτου τον νομον των εντολων εν δογμασι καταργησας ινα τους δυο κτιση εν εαυτω εις ενα καινον ανθρωπον ποιων ειρηνην

δογμασιν = dogma, plural, dogmas

Click to expand...

You are overlooking Paul's use of the word "νομον". This is word translated as law as in:

by abolishing in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances,

What is abolished? The Law ("νομον")

Here is the clincher: Paul uses this exact same word ("νομον") to obviously refer to Torah, not "man-made" ordnances or items of dogma, in these verses from Romans 3 to address the very same issue as here in Ephesians 2 - how we are justified and what the implications of that are:

because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

The Ephesians text loses all unity and coherence on a reading where it is not Torah, but rather distortions of it that are being abolished. Most specifically, the abolition of (only) man-made perversions or add-ons to Torah in no way explains what Paul goes on to say about the Jew and the Gentile being brought together. How would the abolition of only the man-made add-ons to Torah bring about the unification of Jew and Gentile - if the very thing that actually demarcated the Jew from the Gentile, the Torah, remains intact? On such a view, the Torah remains as what it always was - a covenant charter for Jew and Jew only.

expos4ever said:

You are overlooking Paul's use of the word "νομον". This is word translated as law as in:

by abolishing in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances,

What is abolished? The Law ("νομον")

Click to expand...

Terrible translation. It says the law of the commandments-ordinances-injunctions in dogmas.

Most all of the Sanhedrin injunctions, commandments, and ordinances were, of course, based on the Pharisaic outward interpretations of the Torah.

expos4ever said:

Here is the clincher: Paul uses this exact same word ("νομον") to obviously refer to Torah, not "man-made" ordnances or items of dogma, in these verses from Romans 3 to address the very same issue as here in Ephesians 2 - how we are justified and what the implications of that are:

because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

The Ephesians text loses all unity and coherence on a reading where it is not Torah, but rather distortions of it that are being abolished. Most specifically, the abolition of (only) man-made perversions or add-ons to Torah in no way explains what Paul goes on to say about the Jew and the Gentile being brought together. How would the abolition of only the man-made add-ons to Torah bring about the unification of Jew and Gentile - if the very thing that actually demarcated the Jew from the Gentile, the Torah, remains intact? On such a view, the Torah remains as what it always was - a covenant charter for Jew and Jew only.

Click to expand...

No, this is the clincher:


Herodian Temple Inscription

"NO FOREIGNER IS TO ENTER WITHIN THE BALUSTRADE AND EMBANKMENT AROUND THE SANCTUARY: WHOEVER IS CAUGHT WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO BLAME FOR HIS DEATH WHICH WILL FOLLOW."

This is one of the warning signs carved in stone that were placed at regular intervals in the partition wall of separation around the temple court which separated the Court of the Gentiles and kept them from going beyond their court any closer to the temple. The penalty was physical death for any Gentile going beyond the partition wall, and this was the law, though you will not find it in the Torah. This is exactly what Paul is speaking about in the Ephesians 2 passage.

Several of these stones have been recovered.


Temple Inscription Fragment

"NO FOREIGNER IS TO GO BEYOND THE BALUSTRADE AND THE PLAZA OF THE TEMPLE ZONE. WHOEVER IS CAUGHT DOING SO WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO BLAME FOR HIS DEATH WHICH WILL FOLLOW."

τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας

The law of commandments in ordinances abolishing.

Seems clear and reasonable to me.

What does it actually mean if the following translations and those like them are correct? (and wow, there sure are a lot of variations, and it's almost as if the translators are giddy over the opportunity to render their versions of this statement from Paul, lol).

New International Version
by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,

New Living Translation
He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups.

New American Standard Bible
by abolishing in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two one new person, in this way establishing peace;

NASB 1995
by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

NASB 1977
by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

Amplified Bible
by abolishing in His [own crucified] flesh the hostility caused by the Law with its commandments contained in ordinances [which He satisfied]; so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thereby establishing peace.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And he has canceled the hatred by his flesh and the law of commands in his commandments, that for the two, he would create in his Person one new man, and he has made peace.

Contemporary English Version
to destroy the Law of Moses with all its rules and commands. He even brought Jews and Gentiles together as though we were only one person, when he united us in peace.

Good News Translation
He abolished the Jewish Law with its commandments and rules, in order to create out of the two races one new people in union with himself, in this way making peace.

International Standard Version
He rendered the Law inoperative, along with its commandments and regulations, thus creating in himself one new humanity from the two, thereby making peace,

Literal Standard Version
the enmity in His flesh, having done away [with] the Law of the commands in ordinances, that He might create the two into one new man in Himself, making peace,

New American Bible
abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims, that he might create in himself one new person in place of the two, thus establishing peace,

New Revised Standard Version
He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,

Weymouth New Testament
by setting aside the Law with its commandments, expressed, as they were, in definite decrees. His design was to unite the two sections of humanity in Himself so as to form one new man,

Ephesians 2:15 by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace

What most of these translator interpretations are saying is tantamount to saying that the Messiah is not being truthful in what he says in passages like Matthew 5:17-19, Luke 16:17, Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, and Luke 21:33.

daq said:

What does it actually mean if the following translations and those like them are correct? (and wow, there sure are a lot of variations, and it's almost as if the translators are giddy over the opportunity to render their versions of this statement from Paul, lol).

New International Version
by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,

New Living Translation
He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups.

New American Standard Bible
by abolishing in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two one new person, in this way establishing peace;

NASB 1995
by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

NASB 1977
by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

Amplified Bible
by abolishing in His [own crucified] flesh the hostility caused by the Law with its commandments contained in ordinances [which He satisfied]; so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thereby establishing peace.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And he has canceled the hatred by his flesh and the law of commands in his commandments, that for the two, he would create in his Person one new man, and he has made peace.

Contemporary English Version
to destroy the Law of Moses with all its rules and commands. He even brought Jews and Gentiles together as though we were only one person, when he united us in peace.

Good News Translation
He abolished the Jewish Law with its commandments and rules, in order to create out of the two races one new people in union with himself, in this way making peace.

International Standard Version
He rendered the Law inoperative, along with its commandments and regulations, thus creating in himself one new humanity from the two, thereby making peace,

Literal Standard Version
the enmity in His flesh, having done away [with] the Law of the commands in ordinances, that He might create the two into one new man in Himself, making peace,

New American Bible
abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims, that he might create in himself one new person in place of the two, thus establishing peace,

New Revised Standard Version
He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,

Weymouth New Testament
by setting aside the Law with its commandments, expressed, as they were, in definite decrees. His design was to unite the two sections of humanity in Himself so as to form one new man,

Ephesians 2:15 by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace

What most of these translator interpretations are saying is tantamount to saying that the Messiah is not being truthful in what he says in passages like Matthew 5:17-19, Luke 16:17, Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, and Luke 21:33.

Click to expand...

Myself, I don't see a conflict between those translations and the other scripture references.

Moses calls Heaven and Earth as witnesses. Not the literal heaven and earth there imo.

I also thought the following was an interesting idea. Not saying the guy's an expert, but it looks to me like something worth exploring.

"To the Jews, the Temple was a portal connecting heaven and earth. They called it the “navel of the earth” and the “gateway to heaven” "
Heaven & Earth Passing Away?

Leaf473 said:

Myself, I don't see a conflict between those translations and the other scripture references.

Moses calls Heaven and Earth as witnesses. Not the literal heaven and earth there imo.

I also thought the following was an interesting idea. Not saying the guy's an expert, but it looks to me like something worth exploring.

"To the Jews, the Temple was a portal connecting heaven and earth. They called it the “navel of the earth” and the “gateway to heaven” "
Heaven & Earth Passing Away?

Click to expand...

I truly enjoyed that short read, and I loved the one thing the author said at the end of the post: "You are God's temple", and he got that part absolutely correct.

However it's always been that way, and if only people would actually study the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, they would be shown these things from God's Word.

And unfortunately for the author of the article: this true statement which he makes at the very end of the article invalidates everything he was speculating about before that ending statement.

daq said:

I truly enjoyed that short read, and I loved the one thing the author said at the end of the post: "You are God's temple", and he got that part absolutely correct.

However it's always been that way, and if only people would actually study the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, they would be shown these things from God's Word.

And unfortunately for the author of the article: this true statement which he makes at the very end of the article invalidates everything he was speculating about before that ending statement.

Click to expand...

You did me one better, I didn't even read the article to the end

Myself, I think a person can raise interesting ideas even if their conclusion is wrong.

The idea of the temple as a kind of nexus of Heaven and Earth: the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD or the ripping of its curtain at Jesus' death would be a cataclysmic event tantamount to Heaven and Earth passing away.

Leaf473 said:

You did me one better, I didn't even read the article to the end

Myself, I think a person can raise interesting ideas even if their conclusion is wrong.

The idea of the temple as a kind of nexus of Heaven and Earth: the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD or the ripping of its curtain at Jesus' death would be a cataclysmic event tantamount to Heaven and Earth passing away.

Click to expand...

It's the literal-physical interpretation that ends at Golgotha: but one must remember and believe that the words of the Master will not pass away.

Matthew 24:29 KJV
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

The powers of the heavens are the pillars upon which the veil was hung. The prototype prophetic passage is the shaking of the pillars in Isaiah 6:1-4, which refers to the earthquake in the days of Uzziah, (Zechariah 14:5).

Josephus Wars., Bk. 5, Ch. 5:4
But then this house, as it was divided into two parts, the inner part was lower than the appearance of the outer, and had golden doors of fifty-five cubits altitude, and sixteen in breadth; but before these doors there was a veil of equal largeness with the doors. It was a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of a contexture that was truly wonderful. Nor was this mixture of colors without its mystical interpretation, but was a kind of image of the universe; for by the scarlet there seemed to be enigmatically signified fire, by the fine flax the earth, by the blue the air, and by the purple the sea; two of them having their colors the foundation of this resemblance; but the fine flax and the purple have their own origin for that foundation, the earth producing the one, and the sea the other. This curtain had also embroidered upon it all that was mystical in the heavens, excepting that of the [twelve] signs, representing living creatures.
Josephus, Wars Book V

All that was mystical in the heavens: the Sun, the Moon, the Seven Stars, etc.

Matthew 27:50-51 KJV
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

What happened? The veil itself represents the heavens. The pillars of the heavens were rocked by the earthquake, and the massive beam from which the veil was hung was broken, taking with it the veil, ripping the veil in half from the top to the bottom, (and it was a handbreadth in thickness).

And the sun and moon and stars fell to the earth.

Is this a once-only-fulfillment type of prophecy? No, (for example see Hebrews 12:25-29 (quoting from Haggai 2:6)). And remember, we are to be crucified with Messiah.

daq said:

Ephesians 2:15 T/R
15 την εχθραν εν τη σαρκι αυτου τον νομον των εντολων εν δογμασι καταργησας ινα τους δυο κτιση εν εαυτω εις ενα καινον ανθρωπον ποιων ειρηνην
δογμασιν = dogma, plural, dogmas

Click to expand...

Where did you get your definition of δογμασι?

My sources give this definition: "a decree, edict, ordnance. From the base of dokea; a law"

Note these other uses of variants of δογμασι:

Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.

Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the ordinances for them to follow which had been determined by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.

In none of these texts does δογμασι = dogma. You wouldn't be selectively restricting the scope of meaning of dogma to suit your argument, would you?

daq said:

Why therefore do you side with those whom even Paul says lost the war in the debate over the true and proper interpretations of the Torah?

Click to expand...

Paul never comes close to saying this. You misrepresent Paul by unjustifiably electing to restrict the meaning of particular greek words to suit your purposes.

daq said:

It is because ultimately you seek only what is in your own best interest:

Click to expand...

Baseless speculation of course. Any reader with their wits remotely about them will know that this is tissue-thin effort at poisoning the well - you have a weak argument so you attempt to buttress it by casting entirely unsubstantiated aspersions upon my motivations.

daq said:

It's the literal-physical interpretation that ends at Golgotha: but one must remember and believe that the words of the Master will not pass away.

Matthew 24:29 KJV
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

The powers of the heavens are the pillars upon which the veil was hung. The prototype prophetic passage is the shaking of the pillars in Isaiah 6:1-4, which refers to the earthquake in the days of Uzziah, (Zechariah 14:5).

Josephus Wars., Bk. 5, Ch. 5:4
But then this house, as it was divided into two parts, the inner part was lower than the appearance of the outer, and had golden doors of fifty-five cubits altitude, and sixteen in breadth; but before these doors there was a veil of equal largeness with the doors. It was a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of a contexture that was truly wonderful. Nor was this mixture of colors without its mystical interpretation, but was a kind of image of the universe; for by the scarlet there seemed to be enigmatically signified fire, by the fine flax the earth, by the blue the air, and by the purple the sea; two of them having their colors the foundation of this resemblance; but the fine flax and the purple have their own origin for that foundation, the earth producing the one, and the sea the other. This curtain had also embroidered upon it all that was mystical in the heavens, excepting that of the [twelve] signs, representing living creatures.
Josephus, Wars Book V

All that was mystical in the heavens: the Sun, the Moon, the Seven Stars, etc.

Matthew 27:50-51 KJV
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

What happened? The veil itself represents the heavens. The pillars of the heavens were rocked by the earthquake, and the massive beam from which the veil was hung was broken, taking with it the veil, ripping the veil in half from the top to the bottom, (and it was a handbreadth in thickness).

And the sun and moon and stars fell to the earth.

Is this a once-only-fulfillment type of prophecy? No, (for example see Hebrews 12:25-29 (quoting from Haggai 2:6)). And remember, we are to be crucified with Messiah.

Click to expand...

It looks like we don't agree that there was ever a literal interpretation.

Suppose someone says I was going to try out for the play, but I got cold feet.

Does anyone think that the temperature of their feet dropped?

Well, yes... someone unfamiliar with that saying might think that.

Suppose the scripture said that Peter had decided he would stay with Christ to the end, but then he got cold feet.

Then today scholars might be speculating that he went over to the fire in order to warm up his feet.

I think a similar thing happens with the passages that talk about the law remaining as long as Heaven and Earth remain. People look outside and see Heaven and Earth and figure that the law must still be here as well.

Servant78 said:

Genesis 17:9-14 God commanded circumcision do you follow ?
@Soyeong
@LoveGodsWord

Click to expand...

So this is your answer to the answers that have been given you already? In your mind it is acceptable to ask another question? Is it because you have no argument against the answers you have been given? If you do please share it. If not why kick against the pricks?

LoveGodsWord said:

Absolutely, Jesus circumcised my heart in the new covenant to love the Lord my God with all my heart and my neighbor as myself. Circumcision is now fulfilled in Gods' new covenant promise in Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:24-27. This is what Acts of the Apostles 15 was over (see post # 7 linked). Which is why Paul says sometime latter after the decision at Jerusalem to the Corinthians gentile believers, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the of the commandments of God." - 1 Corinthians 7:19

Click to expand...

For the Lord our God will circumcise our hearts and the hearts of our seed with the circumcision made without hands. That which is of Christ in the cutting off the body of the sins of the flesh. That the body of sin be destroyed. Knowing that our man is crucified with him that the body of sin be destroyed so that we serve sin no longer. For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

daq said:

Where is there a question about the status of the law in what you asked me to begin with? You asked me who declared the winner and I answered you. Then you did not accept the resurrection as evidence for who was declared the winner and who declared it. Now you are confounding the discussion which appears to be one of your defense mechanisms.

Click to expand...

I do not follow your reasoning. We are discussing the status of the Law, right? How does the resurrection account settle the matter? There is no mention of the Law anywhere in that account. If there is an implied reference, please make your case.

daq said:

Unfortunately your position is based only in suppositions and extrapolations from the writings of Paul and doesn't come from any plain outright statements found in the scripture.

Click to expand...

You are simply doubling down on a demonstrably incorrect supposition - that the only thing that counts as "evidence" in a discussion of the scripture are "proof texts" - chunks of text that directly speak to the matter at issue.

This is so obviously incorrect, it should not be something we should be debating.

There are no texts in scripture that directly declare the doctrine of the Trinity, yet almost all Christians affirm this.

There are no texts, I believe in scripture that declare that, through Christ, God is "reversing the fall of Adam", yet there is powerful evidence to believe this.

You have an obvious motivation to disqualify valid scriptural arguments - neutral readers will see this.

daq said:

Ask the OP, I am not the one appealing to the authority of the Pharisees and trying to foist their interpretations upon those of us whom the Messiah has set free from their works of the Law.

Click to expand...

False. I have never appealed to the authority of the Pharisees - you know it, and anyone else who is following carefully knows it.

Why are you posting things you that surely must know will be seen to misrepresentations by anyone who is actually following this line of discussion carefully?

expos4ever said:

Where did you get your definition of δογμασι?

My sources give this definition: "a decree, edict, ordnance. From the base of dokea; a law"

Note these other uses of variants of δογμασι:

Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.

Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the ordinances for them to follow which had been determined by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.

In none of these texts does δογμασι = dogma. You wouldn't be selectively restricting the scope of meaning of dogma to suit your argument, would you?

Click to expand...

expos4ever said:

Paul never comes close to saying this. You misrepresent Paul by unjustifiably electing to restrict the meaning of particular greek words to suit your purposes.


Baseless speculation of course. Any reader with their wits remotely about them will know that this is tissue-thin effort at poisoning the well - you have a weak argument so you attempt to buttress it by casting entirely unsubstantiated aspersions upon my motivations.

Click to expand...

It's used in the Septuagint but never for the Torah: always for dogmas, decrees, and edicts of kings, rulers, despots, and so on.

Esther 3:9 (dogmatizo), Daniel 2:13, Daniel 3:10-12 (2 times), Daniel 3:29, Daniel 4:6, Daniel 6:8-26 (7 times).

Moreover I already pointed you to the companion passage in Colossians 2:14, and you have ignored it so that you might continue to do precisely what you accuse me of doing with the writings of Paul. This time I will quote the entire passage since Paul employs another form of the same word toward the end of the passage and expounds his meaning by the context.

Colossians 2:13-22 TS2009 W/Footnotes
13 And you, being dead in your trespassesc and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, Footnote: cEph 2:1.
14 having blotted out that which was written by hand against us – by the dogmasd – which stood against us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the stake. Footnote: dDogmas - also see Col 2:20 and Eph 2:15.
15 Having stripped the principalities and the authorities, He made a public display of them, having prevailed over them in it.
16 Let no one therefore judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths –
17 which are a shadow of what is to come – but the Body of the Messiah.e Footnote: eThe Body of Messiah is to give ruling on all matters, not the outsiders! See also Mat 18:15-20.
18 Let no one deprive you of the prize, one who takes delight in false humility and worship of messengers, taking his stand on what he has not seen, puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the Body – nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments – grows with the growth of Elohim.
20 If, then, you died with Messiah from the elementary mattersf of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to dogmas:d Footnotes: dDogmas - also see Col 2:14 and Eph 2:15. fSee Col 2:8 and Gal 4:3 and Gal 4:9.
21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle” –
22 which are all to perish with use – according to the commands and teachings of men?g Isa 29:13. Footnote: gSee also Mat 15:8-9, Mar 7:6-7.

Colossians 2:20 = dogmatizo (as in Esther 3:9).

Dogmas: commandments and teachings of men, clearly explained by Paul himself in Colossians 2:20-22, for anyone willing to pluck out the eye causing a stumbling problem.

So then, when Paul admonishes the Colossians to let no one but the body of Messiah judge them in eating or in drinking, or in respect to a feast, or a new month, or the observance of the Shabbat, which are a shadow of what is to come: he is quietly informing them that the Sanhedrin handwritten ordinances, dogmas, and decrees no longer have authority over them to force them to observe the Torah according to the natural minded outward Pharisaic old man way, which interpretations have been nailed to the stake and rendered obsolete, just as I have been saying from the beginning of this thread.

expos4ever said:

False. I have never appealed to the authority of the Pharisees - you know it, and anyone else who is following carefully knows it.

Why are you posting things you that surely must know will be seen to misrepresentations by anyone who is actually following this line of discussion carefully?

Click to expand...

Here is just one example from this thread.
The OP said this:

Servant78 said:

The Hebrew rested their bodies on the desert at the 7th day for 40 years, nobody entered the promised land.

Thats why Peter said "Are you trying to test God by putting at the necks of the gentiles the Law that neither we or our ancestors were able to bear"? Acts 15:10

The Law is contained in 613 Mitzvot, take all or leave all.

As Paul said those who practice days let them practice those who don't let them not.

Click to expand...

You then quoted only the statement concerning the 613 Mitzvot of the Pharisees and stated that you heartily agree with the statement that you quoted.

expos4ever said:

Servant78 said:

The Law is contained in 613 Mitzvot, take all or leave all.

Click to expand...

If I understand you, I heartily agree.

Click to expand...

While I did see your explanation that followed still yet it doesn't matter what your excuse was: the fact of the matter is that you do indeed appeal to the authority of the Pharisees in the above post.

Moreover, whether you know it or not, you do so against the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts, which expounds the Torah for us, and completes it by the addition of the mercy and grace which the natural minded rulers of the people omitted: and he overturns those same handwritten ordinances, dogmas, and decrees which were against us, which you appeal to in order to have an excuse so that you may feel justified to "honourably retire" the Word of the Father.

daq said:

Terrible translation. It says the law of the commandments-ordinances-injunctions in dogmas.

Click to expand...

I am afraid we need more than your say-so that this is a terrible translation.

In any event, in post 90, I believe I demonstrate two that the word to which you ascribe the meaning "dogma", a selective filtering that no doubts serves your agenda very well, actually has a broader semantic range - it can mean a "decree" or an "edict" as well. In fact, I showed from two specific examples in the New Testament how this word is used to mean something that is clearly not "dogma".