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

BobRyan · Oct 23, 2015

tall73 said:
Back to Col 2:16

It seems so far that you think the passage would essentially have the following meaning:

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, because you are qualified to do these things.

If that is the case though, how does that make sense with food and drink being offerings?

Col 2 condemns "making stuff up" -- it does not condemn the Bible.

Food - Acts 15 says not to eat things strangled or things offered to idols. A rule about what you shall eat.
drink - Paul said not to get drunk with wine -- a rule about drink.

Obviously Paul was not in rebellion against those "Bible rules"

However as see here - they were 'making stuff up' even before the cross.

Mark 2 - The Jews made stuff up about what could not be done on Sabbath.
Mark 7:1-6 - the Jews made stuff up about food and drink.

Adventist Dissident · Oct 27, 2015

tall73 said:
I posed a question directly related to Col 2 but you did not respond. You say they did not have to sacrifice. But then you say that the list which includes, in your view,P

Tall maybe you need a refresher course on how to post, but when you bring up a post that you think I have over looked, it is coustomary to post that quote.

meat offerings
drink offerings
new moon
feasts
sabbaths

are not things that they are being told NOT to do, but things they are qualified to do.

How does this make sense when it includes meat and drink offerings? You are doing one thing with one part of the list and another with another part.

Tall I told you initially that I had not put much thought in the meat and drink offerings section. That has not changed. That is not where my focus is, not that it is not important just not what am foucusing on.

And other texts certainly do come into play. But you seem to be using different arguments for feasts and the Sabbath.

exactly what argument is differnet? that not spectific.

Tall this is the problem with jumping around from argument to argument and text to text. Confusion sets in and people get lost.

Adventist Dissident · Oct 27, 2015

tall73 said:
The council spelled out what was required of Gentiles.{/quote] We will go round and round on this one. you are reading in to the text what is not there. The text says they met to consider the question about "circumcison and the Law" if you look at the text after that it never mentions circumcision after that, but it speaks to the assumtions of why circumcision was important. mainly purity, spirutual, sexual, and bodily. Then he get to the Law of Moses and says from Week to Week from Sabbath to Sabbath the Law of Moses is preached.

Now Tall why is the Law specifically mentioned there in connection to the Sabbath and circumcision is not mentioned?

Because in the actual feast they would remove leaven from their homes.

In this passage he is not advocating actual removal of leaven from the homes. He is advocating removal of sin from the church, because sin acts like leaven, spreading throughout the whole "lump" of dough, the body of believers.

It is an analogy.

Click to expand...

Tall Why would Paul use that argument? especially if they were not keeping any of the feast? It seem like a very poor choice of an illustration. He would have had to explain to the gentile believer what Unlevened bread was and the signifiganc of the belief. The "analogy" assumes a certian level of understanding of the mosaic festivals, which in your view would not have been there. It does not make sense. sorry you're wrong

Adventist Dissident · Oct 27, 2015

RDKirk said:
Not in Philippi. The congregation in Philippi was wholly Gentile. No synagogue there, no Jews, and certainly there was no inclination of the Romans in Philippi to listen to Jews....which was the reason they used to arrest Paul and Silas.

So if not in Philippi--which turned out to the the congregation Paul was most pleased by--then we cannot presume that the Council expected to ride on the back of Jewish preaching already done. That can't be the meaning of the passage.

could you clarify your source on this. This assume an understanding of Jewish life that most people don't have so please explain yourself. In Acts 16 Paul meets a group of people that have been kick out of the local synagogue, as Christ predicted John 16:2

Adventist Dissident · Oct 27, 2015

RDKirk said:
Acts 15:29 refers to the specific practices of Graeco-Roman idol worship.

again an explination with no refrence or source. Just take my word for it.

Adventist Dissident · Oct 27, 2015

tall73 said:
The house of David. David was not a Gentile.

Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Tall that did not answer the question. Who are of the House of David in the passage. They have to be Jewish. Which is the problem with your explanation, there are no Jews. Which brings me to something that is over looked. In 722 b.c. they Assyarins came and conquered the 10 northern tribes and guess where they took them, right in the area of Colossae,and Galatia. This seems to be the heart of the problem in solving the problem. People are over looking this. That the initial success was among these groups. Colossaians, Galatians, I & II Peter, 1,2,&,3 John were addressed to many of these Jewish Gnostic Believers. Paul In Glatians referres to these people not as gentiles but Uncircumcised.

Adventist Dissident · Oct 27, 2015

tall73 said:
I didn't say you cut "for" out the passage. I said you ignored that the word "for" was signifying that the sentence that starts with "for" is the conclusion of the forgoing argument, not a new argument.

He referenced the things in the law that were required of Gentiles outside of Israel. Then He referenced the preaching of the law....his ruling was in keeping with the law.

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

The last sentence is tied to the one right before it. Both are discussing the law, not circumcision.
To this I will say you are just WRONG

I did do something with them. I noted that the commands were actually what was required of Gentiles outside of Israel, not just a collection of purification issues.

If they were going to go just with purification issues then there are many, many more in the law. In fact all of the law dealt with holiness, purgation, purity, etc. because God dwelt in the sanctuary in the midst of an unclean people.

Adventist Dissident · Oct 27, 2015

BobRyan said:
Col 2 condemns "making stuff up" -- it does not condemn the Bible.

Food - Acts 15 says not to eat things strangled or things offered to idols. A rule about what you shall eat.
drink - Paul said not to get drunk with wine -- a rule about drink.

Obviously Paul was not in rebellion against those "Bible rules"

However as see here - they were 'making stuff up' even before the cross.

Mark 2 - The Jews made stuff up about what could not be done on Sabbath.
Mark 7:1-6 - the Jews made stuff up about food and drink.

answered all these question already

BobRyan · Oct 27, 2015

Neither food nor drink nor Sabbath is being banned in Col 2.

Rather what is being banned is 'making stuff up'

"16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 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.

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."

This is not Paul - condemning the Bible - rather it is Paul condemning the man-made-religion that "makes stuff up"

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

Hint - food laws in Acts 15. Paul is not condemning actual Bible teaching.

Food - Acts 15 says not to eat things strangled or things offered to idols. A rule about what you shall eat.
drink - Paul said not to get drunk with wine -- a rule about drink.

Obviously Paul was not in rebellion against those "Bible rules"

However as we see here - they were 'making stuff up' even before the cross.

Mark 2 - The Jews made stuff up about what could not be done on Sabbath.
Mark 7:1-6 - the Jews made stuff up about food and drink

He is condemning those inside the church - that are "making stuff up". It is not the worshipers of false gods that are accounted of high honor in the church among Christians - it is fellow Christians. And Acts 20 says "men will arise - from among your own selves" teaching perverse doctrine.

BobRyan · Oct 28, 2015

icedragon101 said:
answered all these question already

I like this next answer best

icedragon101 said:
again an explination with no refrence or source. Just take my word for it.

tall73 · Oct 28, 2015

icedragon101 said:
Tall maybe you need a refresher course on how to post, but when you bring up a post that you think I have over looked, it is coustomary to post that quote.

meat offerings
drink offerings
new moon
feasts
sabbaths

Tall I told you initially that I had not put much thought in the meat and drink offerings section. That has not changed. That is not where my focus is, not that it is not important just not what am foucusing on.

exactly what argument is differnet? that not spectific.

Tall this is the problem with jumping around from argument to argument and text to text. Confusion sets in and people get lost.

You did not state initially that you did not want related texts examined. Since you have a listing of practices addressed and a statement about being judged regarding them it seemed rather natural to include other information about these practices.

Now however you are also saying that this part of the text, the meat and drink, are not your focus. Well no, perhaps they are not your focus. But you cannot claim to have the accurate and final word on the text if you do not in fact address each part of the text.

How can it not also be your focus if it is part of the passage you are trying to interpret, and is part of the very verse that is usually in dispute, and part of a list of things that they are to not let anyone judge them regarding.
Whatever you do with one part of that list you have to do with the other part of the list

I have quite a bit I would like to say in response to your latest thoughts on the other texts, but since you want this to be only on Col 2, I will simply not respond on any other texts from here on out.

In any case, as to the list of Col 2:16, whatever you do with one part of the list you must do with the other. So you cannot just leave part of it out of your analysis.

Also, are you advocating keeping the new moon?

tall73 · Oct 28, 2015

icedragon101 said:
Tall maybe you need a refresher course on how to post, but when you bring up a post that you think I have over looked, it is coustomary to post that quote.

I had already reviewed the entire exchange in post 151.

Adventist Dissident · Oct 28, 2015

BobRyan said:
Col 2 condemns "making stuff up" -- it does not condemn the Bible.

Food - Acts 15 says not to eat things strangled or things offered to idols. A rule about what you shall eat.
drink - Paul said not to get drunk with wine -- a rule about drink.

Obviously Paul was not in rebellion against those "Bible rules"

However as see here - they were 'making stuff up' even before the cross.

Mark 2 - The Jews made stuff up about what could not be done on Sabbath.
Mark 7:1-6 - the Jews made stuff up about food and drink.

Bob I am not sure what side you are on, Pro Sabbath or against Sabbath. If you could clarify.

Adventist Dissident · Oct 28, 2015

tall73 said:
You did not state initially that you did not want related texts examined. Since you have a listing of practices addressed and a statement about being judged regarding them it seemed rather natural to include other information about these practices.

Now however you are also saying that this part of the text, the meat and drink, are not your focus. Well no, perhaps they are not your focus. But you cannot claim to have the accurate and final word on the text if you do not in fact address each part of the text.

How can it not also be your focus if it is part of the passage you are trying to interpret, and is part of the very verse that is usually in dispute, and part of a list of things that they are to not let anyone judge them regarding.
Whatever you do with one part of that list you have to do with the other part of the list

I have quite a bit I would like to say in response to your latest thoughts on the other texts, but since you want this to be only on Col 2, I will simply not respond on any other texts from here on out.

In any case, as to the list of Col 2:16, whatever you do with one part of the list you must do with the other. So you cannot just leave part of it out of your analysis.

Also, are you advocating keeping the new moon?

Tall again you are trying to hard to take it to a place i was not going. As far as the final word. that is just marketing, no one would read the post if it were just "another" post on col 2 no one would even look at it, Please try a little harder Tall.
Tall what I want is people dealing with one thing at a time. not Col 2,then Acts 14, then Gal 3, then Hebrews 4. it creates confusion and it dose not deal with the underlying assumptions. Tall you seem not to be able to understand you are starting with assumptions and you are reasoning from those assumptions. I reject those assumptions. So you will not be able to convince me until you deal whit the assumptions. The more we examine the text the more you come up empty.

Now if you want to pick up where were at on ACTS 15 we will do that but We are on Acts 15 now, unless there is anymore to say on Col 2.

Adventist Dissident · Oct 28, 2015

tall73 said:
I had already reviewed the entire exchange in post 151.

Tall i still don't know what you were talking about, because you did not post your objection. Try man try.

RDKirk · Oct 28, 2015

icedragon101 said:
could you clarify your source on this. This assume an understanding of Jewish life that most people don't have so please explain yourself. In Acts 16 Paul meets a group of people that have been kick out of the local synagogue, as Christ predicted John 16:2

Read up on the Roman history of Philippi.

during the Roman civil war that followed the assassination of Julius Caesar. His heirs Mark Antony and Octavian confronted the assassins of Caesar, Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus, at the Battle of Philippi on the plain to the west of the city during October in 42 BC. Antony and Octavian were victorious in this final battle against the partisans of the Republic. They released some of their veteran soldiers, probably from legion XXVIII and colonized them in the city, which was refounded asColonia Victrix Philippensium. In 30 BC, Octavian became Roman emperor, reorganized the colony, and established more settlers there, veterans possibly from the Praetorian Guard and other Italians. The city was renamed Colonia Iulia Philippensis, and then Colonia Augusta Iulia Philippensis after January, 27 BC, when Octavian received the title Augustus from the Roman Senate.

Following this second renaming, and perhaps after the first, the territory of Philippi was centuriated (divided into squares of land) and distributed to the colonists. The city kept its Macedonian walls, and its general plan was modified only partially by the construction of a forum, a little to the east of the site of Greek agora. It was a "miniature Rome," under the municipal law of Rome and governed by two military officers, the duumviri, who were appointed directly from Rome.

The last point is important: Emperial decrees for the city of Rome applied as well in Philippi. Around 47-49 AD, the Emperor Claudius decreed that all Jews be exiled from Rome, which included the Christian Jews Priscilla and Aquilla (Acts 18:2). This decree applied as well to Philippi, thus if there had been any Jews there, they would have already been expelled when Paul and Silas arrived and found no synagogue there. Inasmuch as Lydia appears to have already been a God-fearer, there may have been Jews in Philippi previously.

But for sure, the objection to the activities of Paul and Silas differed legally from the objections they faced in other cities. In other cities, the objections were always brought by outraged Jews. In Philippi, it was brought by Romans and specifically for violation of Roman law--a unique occurrence in scripture.

And they brought them to the magistrates, and said, “These men, being Jews, exceedingly trouble our city; and they teach customs which are not lawful for us, being Romans, to receive or observe.” -- Acts 16

But what was the real story there? We know it was not the gospel itself that was the violation of Roman law, because Paul preached that same gospel to a couple of Roman governors literally for years and was never charged for it. What had happened was that Paul and Silas were preaching something that sounded basically Jewish to pagan ears, and Jews were forbidden from being in the city.

RDKirk · Oct 28, 2015

icedragon101 said:
again an explination with no refrence or source. Just take my word for it.

Read up on Graeco-Roman pagan temple practices--something Luke's audience of course already knew. I studied Latin in high school and college, and read about it as class study.

tall73 · Oct 29, 2015

icedragon101 said:
Try man try.

I have posted my views already in the thread if anyone wants to read them.

Now you are saying I am assuming, trying hard, etc. You invited me here. I figured we would discuss things as maybe it would be worthwhile. You seem dissatisfied with the discussion. Alright, we can just disagree then.

God bless

Adventist Dissident · Oct 29, 2015

BobRyan said:
I like this next answer best

bob I hope you know I was challaening him, not asking you to take my word for it.

Adventist Dissident · Oct 29, 2015

tall73 said:
I have posted my views already in the thread if anyone wants to read them.

Now you are saying I am assuming, trying hard, etc. You invited me here. I figured we would discuss things as maybe it would be worthwhile. You seem dissatisfied with the discussion. Alright, we can just disagree then.

God bless

Tall i gave you an answer and a reply to ACTS 15, you have not responded to that, let me review. the councils met to consider 2 points 1.circumcision and 2 the law. the first part of the response is dealing with the underlying issue of circumcision, mainly purity and reconcilation , Paul states the heart is being purity, by the Holy spirit, now the other issue of , sexual purity, bodily purity an pure health. the second deals with the law and they would hear the rest on sabbath. NOW WHY IS THAT NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER?

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

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Junior Member

Junior Member

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency