Col 2:16 is about not judging others

[BobRyan]

Col 2 is opposed to 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, inflated without 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)

back to a dead end

Those opposed to those Bible texts - will always view them as a "dead end"

I don't view 'them' -- 'those Bible texts', a 'dead end'. I view YOUR conclusions as a dead end to any Scripture.

The mere quote of the texts - sufficient "cause" to give rise to strong objection to them evoking the" dead end" response when these texts are quoted.

The point remains.

 

[BobRyan]

He was quoting SDA literature and books.

Micro snip... make it snippet ... is the sort of eisegetical "lifting" of quotes out of context that we see being condemned by all Bible students ... can't do that sort of thing with any text book and get "accuracy" as the result.

I don't mind sticking with the "obvious" -- and then returning to the topic at hand.

 

[Bob S]

Micro snip... make it snippet ... is the sort of eisegetical "lifting" of quotes out of context that we see being condemned by all Bible students ... can't do that sort of thing with any text book and get "accuracy" as the result.

I don't mind sticking with the "obvious" -- and then returning to the topic at hand.

Yep, accusations and no proof. The statements stand on their own Bob. So, why not be a good debater and answer the questions instead of "out of context", "out of context". PROVE YOUR POINT.

 

[BobRyan]

Yep, accusations and no proof. The statements stand on their own Bob.

I "prefer context".

The bend-and-wrench false accusation model "prefers to avoid context"

 

[BobRyan]

I don't view 'them' -- 'those Bible texts', a 'dead end'. I view YOUR conclusions as a dead end to any Scripture.

Oh so you might not oppose scripture ? might allow it?

Fine ... scripture


Page "one" we find this.
And this also on Page "One"
Don't miss it.

=============================--

Col 2 is opposed to 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, inflated without 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)

 

[BobRyan]

Col 2 is about not judging others, so the OP reads. Read the following: It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." {6T 356.4}

But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4}

Would this be portrayed as Judging???

You quote a statement saying we cannot receive Satan's subtleties as truth and then ask if that is really such a bad idea after all? or are you saying that to even know if something is a subtlety from Satan - would be wrong for Christians "to know"??

The statement in your post is that opposition to the Ten Commandments in the form of opposing the fourth commandment is "not a good thing" -- you place yourself at war with that statement. You have free will and can do that if you wish.

you have "Chosen" to make "Ellen White" your text... I have "chosen" Col 2.

 

[Bob S]

You quote a statement saying we cannot receive Satan's subtleties as truth and then ask if that is really such a bad idea after all? or are you saying that to even know if something is a subtlety from Satan - would be wrong for Christians "to know"??

I didn't write either one. I simply ask if what Ellen White wrote would be judging. Those who do not believe we are under any obligation to observe the old covenant according to Ellen would be lost. I personally would never tell even one person that they are lost. That is above my pay scale and it certainly would have been above Ellen's.

The statement in your post is that opposition to the Ten Commandments in the form of opposing the fourth commandment is "not a good thing" -- you place yourself at war with that statement. You have free will and can do that if you wish.

Where did you come up with that garbage???

How could you possibly construe from what I wrote in my post your accusation?

Then there is the fact Your post didn't address whether Ellen's writings telling us we are going to Hell because we don't keep Sabbath are ones of judgment. If we are not to judge one way or the other how is it Ellen gets a pass?

you have "Chosen" to make "Ellen White" your text... I have "chosen" Col 2.

You have chosen not to answer a very serious question

 

[Joelthe vicious]

17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. You were critical of the wrong thing my friend. The only thing I got wrong was the verse. NIV Nice try. What is your purpose?

"which is/are" - 'ha estin' .......

 

[BobRyan]

Col 2 is about not judging others, so the OP reads. Read the following: It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." {6T 356.4}

But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4}

Would this be portrayed as Judging???

You quote a statement saying we cannot receive Satan's subtleties as truth and then ask if that is really such a bad idea after all? or are you saying that to even know if something is a subtlety from Satan - would be wrong for Christians "to know"??

The statement in your post is that opposition to the Ten Commandments in the form of opposing the fourth commandment is "not a good thing" -- you place yourself at war with that statement. You have free will and can do that if you wish.

you have "Chosen" to make "Ellen White" your text... I have "chosen" Col 2.

I didn't write either one.

I prefer to accept the fact that you in fact chose the content in your post - in this case choosing to quote something Ellen White write.

Those who do not believe we are under any obligation to observe the old covenant

Those who reject "Do not take God''s name in vain" as a commandment applicable to all the saints -- supposedly confining it to "just the old covenant" have not been reading the New Covenant very closely -- as even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" section 19 admits.

 

[Joelthe vicious]

The mere quote of the texts

'mere quote'...? To skin a cat has many ways; one especially is your, the Bob Ryan's way.

 

[Joelthe vicious]

I prefer to accept the fact that you in fact chose the content in your post - in this case choosing to quote something Ellen White write.

I thought you already got your doctorate; or are you currently working on your next? Saint Andrews or Loma Linda? Must be LL ... medical I would say?

 

[BobRyan]

I thought you already got your doctorate; or are you currently working on your next? Saint Andrews or Loma Linda? Must be LL ... medical I would say?

I find your logic illusive at that point

 

[BobRyan]

The SDA church and Ellen would argue that Sabbath didn't mean the weekly Sabbath, that Sabbath was referring to some sort of Sabbath in the ceremonial laws.

The "shadow Sabbaths" were in fact the ceremonial Sabbaths not the weekly Bible Sabbath - as also
D.L. Moody,
R.C. Sproul,
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
The Westminster Confession of Faith (and many others) etc would all agree and so they all teach the Bible truth about the continued TEN Commandments as being included in the LAW of God written on the heart.

As you have seen a few dozen times by now.

Now you are telling me that Paul wasn't deleting those sacrifices in Col 2???

Col 2 is not about "deleting scripture" it is about refuting the efforts of some - to "make stuff up".

As I said before --- it is Hebrews 10:4-12 where find this regarding the animal sacrifices and offerings "He takes away the first to establish the second" - and so all ceremonies including the Shadow Sabbaths would have ended at the cross.

But in Col 2 - Paul himself keeps the Shadow Sabbaths. He point is not to find a way to delete them in Col 2 .. Col 2 is addressing the problem of those who like to make-stuff-up

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

from page 1 --Jun 16, 2016 #18

Col 2 is opposed to 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)

 

[Bob S]

The "shadow Sabbaths" were in fact the ceremonial Sabbaths

Yep, now you are seeing the light. I keep telling you and others Sabbath believers that the weekly Sabbath WAS ceremonial and now you are writing the same thing. Finally a breakthrough. Now you can realize that the ceremonial (ritual) Sabbath was sandwiched in between the other commandments that are dealing with morality. Morality is forever. Israel's ceremonial laws ended at the Cross and since the Sabbath was ceremonial it too ended at the Cross. A new covenant with its law of love supersedes the defunct 10 by adding all the things that constitute morality not just nine issues, understand?

 

[BobRyan]

The SDA church and Ellen would argue that Sabbath didn't mean the weekly Sabbath, that Sabbath was referring to some sort of Sabbath in the ceremonial laws.

The "shadow Sabbaths" were in fact the ceremonial Sabbaths not the weekly Bible Sabbath - as also
D.L. Moody,
R.C. Sproul,
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
The Westminster Confession of Faith (and many others) etc would all agree and so they all teach the Bible truth about the continued TEN Commandments as being included in the LAW of God written on the heart.

As you have seen a few dozen times by now.

Now you are telling me that Paul wasn't deleting those sacrifices in Col 2???

Col 2 is not about "deleting scripture" it is about refuting the efforts of some - to "make stuff up".

As I said before --- it is Hebrews 10:4-12 where find this regarding the animal sacrifices and offerings "He takes away the first to establish the second" - and so all ceremonies including the Shadow Sabbaths would have ended at the cross.

But in Col 2 - Paul himself keeps the Shadow Sabbaths. He point is not to find a way to delete them in Col 2 .. Col 2 is addressing the problem of those who like to make-stuff-up

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

from page 1 --Jun 16, 2016 #18

Col 2 is opposed to 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)

Yep, now you are seeing the light.

Glad to see agreement -- where we can find it.

 

[BobRyan]

Colossians 2 "Sabbaton" just as we see in Lev 23:32 - "Sabbaton" Day of Atonement.

 

[sparow]

In Rev 12 we see the work of the "Accuser of the brethren".

In Matt 7 (pre-cross -- and law in full effect) Christ condemns judging others.

In Col 2:16 we have this -

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


An example of NOT condemning eating OR drinking or remembering God's Ten-Commandment creation-Sabbath day to keep it holy. Rather Col 2 condemns the "commandments of men" - (as is so carefully avoided in the quotes we often see from Col 2)


Col 2 is 0pposed to 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. - so it is opposed to 'making stuff up' - via "man-made tradition"

As is Christ against it --

GOD speaks for God and HE already spoke to this point of changing His Law via church tradition. As we see in Mark 7:6-13

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it is shown via "Sola Scriptura" testing that it is traditions and "doctrines of men" that are at odds with scripture



You can't be serious.

Perhaps a short "summary" to refresh short term memory.
=============================================
=============================================



Do you say that as the "Accuser of the brethren" in Rev 12 - or do you have some "other source"??









And then of course we have "you".





And we all would agree to this -- the rebellious child could easily say to his/her parents "first you must be perfect then you may tell me to Honor my Father and Mother as God instructed in the Bible" -- but of course -- that is "old news"

No man should do what only God should do, but there are times when judging is mans work.

Revelation 2:2 (NKJV)
2 I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;

Even on this forum people are sent packing and their names remove from membership when required.

Using the OT for doctrine and correction by man does not constitute judgement in the sense that a person ejected from a congregation for any reason is not binding on God and when studying the messages to the seven churches people are not always cat out.

 

[BobRyan]

No man should do what only God should do, but there are times when judging is mans work.

Revelation 2:2 (NKJV)
2 I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;

Even on this forum people are sent packing and their names remove from membership when required.

Using the OT for doctrine and correction by man does not constitute judgement in the sense that a person ejected from a congregation for any reason is not binding on God and when studying the messages to the seven churches people are not always cat out.

True - but this board is not like church membership. teaching doctrines contrary to the denomination may simply be doctrines of some other mainline Christian group - still it is apostasy from the first denomination. This board is for all denominations so in that respect it is allowed to have a great many different beliefs aside from a basic core set.

However in agreement with your statement - while varying doctrinal points of view are allowed - a certain minimal standard of Christian "behavior" is expected no matter the doctrinal differences.

 

[Bob S]

The "shadow Sabbaths" were in fact the ceremonial Sabbaths not the weekly Bible Sabbath - as also
D.L. Moody,
R.C. Sproul,
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
The Westminster Confession of Faith (and many others) etc would all agree and so they all teach the Bible truth about the continued TEN Commandments as being included in the LAW of God written on the heart.

As you have seen a few dozen times by now.



Col 2 is not about "deleting scripture" it is about refuting the efforts of some - to "make stuff up".

As I said before --- it is Hebrews 10:4-12 where find this regarding the animal sacrifices and offerings "He takes away the first to establish the second" - and so all ceremonies including the Shadow Sabbaths would have ended at the cross.

But in Col 2 - Paul himself keeps the Shadow Sabbaths. He point is not to find a way to delete them in Col 2 .. Col 2 is addressing the problem of those who like to make-stuff-up

Bob, what ever happened to Matt5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

You use Heb 10 as verses to eliminate the sacrificial system and feast days. Jesus said nothing would be removed from the Law until ALL is fulfilled. You cannot have it both ways brother. Either the law has been fulfilled and we are not under any of it or all of it is still binding. Jesus didn't offer any "buts".

As to Sabbath mentioned in Col 2 is concerned, Paul was not stuttering when He mentioned feasts and then another feast. All the Israelite Holy days are mentioned in those verses. All were ceremonial laws, all are now shadows. Why would Paul write in 2Cor3:7-11 that the 10 commandments are done away? Isn't the weekly Sabbath one of the ten that were the ministry of death? How do you face those verses and have absolutely no regard for them? How do you completely deny what Paul wrote in so many places about the law ending with Jesus. How do you deny Acts 15: 10 "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

The yoke that Paul was referring to was the ministry of death. Israel couldn't bear the yoke so how can we. The law was not about salvation "it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
It is and has alway has been salvation by Grace. Yet the prophet of your church defies what Paul wrote and said this: It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." {6T 356.4} You and your church are so confusing. You are denying what Jesus did for Jews and all mankind.

 

[BobRyan]

The SDA church and Ellen would argue that Sabbath didn't mean the weekly Sabbath, that Sabbath was referring to some sort of Sabbath in the ceremonial laws.

The "shadow Sabbaths" were in fact the ceremonial Sabbaths not the weekly Bible Sabbath - as also
D.L. Moody,
R.C. Sproul,
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
The Westminster Confession of Faith (and many others) etc would all agree and so they all teach the Bible truth about the continued TEN Commandments as being included in the LAW of God written on the heart.

As you have seen a few dozen times by now.

Now you are telling me that Paul wasn't deleting those sacrifices in Col 2???

Col 2 is not about "deleting scripture" it is about refuting the efforts of some - to "make stuff up".

As I said before --- it is Hebrews 10:4-12 where find this regarding the animal sacrifices and offerings "He takes away the first to establish the second" - and so all ceremonies including the Shadow Sabbaths would have ended at the cross.

But in Col 2 - Paul himself keeps the Shadow Sabbaths. He point is not to find a way to delete them in Col 2 .. Col 2 is addressing the problem of those who like to make-stuff-up

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

from page 1 --Jun 16, 2016 #18

Col 2 is opposed to 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)

Yep, now you are seeing the light.

Glad to see agreement -- where we can find it.

Bob, what ever happened to Matt5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

You use Heb 10 as verses to eliminate the sacrificial system and feast days.

I would not wish to "use Hebrews 10" -- rather to 'read it'

3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,


“Sacrifice and offering You have not desired,
But a body You have prepared for Me;
6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure.
7 “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(In the scroll of the book it is written of Me)
To do Your will, O God.’”

8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

We need not "insert the idea" that animal sacrifices have ended - the text clearly says it.

What it does NOT say is "it is no longer a sin to take God's name in vain" and we all know it.

As to Sabbath mentioned in Col 2 is concerned, Paul was not stuttering when He mentioned feasts and then another feast. .

Col 2 is not where Paul says feasts dealing with animal sacrifices had ended - Hebrews 10 is where He did that.

In Col 2 Paul condemns the idea of "making stuff up" and of "judging others" ... just as Jesus condemned it in Mark 7:6-13 and in Matthew 7.

Pre-cross.
post-cross.

the same.

And that means that even after the cross - it is still a sin to "take God's name in vain" just as it was before... and we all know it.