Col 2 condemns commandments of men - not commandments of God

[EastCoastRemnant]

sabbathkeeper&wife,

1. Sorry, but you are not saying what God said about the ssdo doctrine.

2. Elder Andrews, the most ablest historian of the Adventist ever had said that the Catholic Church Early Church Fathers did not have any new light concerning the neglecting of the sabbath anymore than we do today concerning the sabbath.
He said if it is true that the word says that the Jewish sabbath was abolished and christians observed the first day as the Lords day and as the sabbath, then it is foolish for anyone to reject such simple and true light.
He rejected the notion that the Cc started the Sunday sabbath afterwards like in Constantine days.
He knew this meant the sabbath was only for Jews under the law of Moses and Jews for perpetual generations.
If your denomination wants to believe SSDO it would be better to make it a denominational doctrine of conviction and not a doctrine of the Bible because that is what it is. Jerry kelso

Can you post his quotes... thanx.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Rome...starting sabbath? You are wrong as I have showed by scripture before the church, in the early church and after the gentiles came into the picture.
If the apostles thought so much of the sabbath they would have mentioned it at the council for the gentiles to keep.

You're right. But, in the early church and after the gentiles came into the picture, the apostles, because everybody kept it, at the council thought so much of the Sabbath they appropriated and relied on the status quo of its practice and observance by / in the Church, for their conclusions and decisions to be read in the churches alongside the Scriptures every Sabbath in every place to everybody "with one accord", particularly to the Gentiles, Acts 15:21,25,30,35,36 to the rejoicing of everybody, verse 31...

...obviously to the resentment of the Church today.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Further to

You're right. But, in the early church and after the gentiles came into the picture, the apostles, because everybody kept it, at the council thought so much of the Sabbath they appropriated and relied on the status quo of its practice and observance by / in the Church, for their conclusions and decisions to be read in the churches alongside the Scriptures every Sabbath in every place to everybody "with one accord", particularly to the Gentiles, Acts 15:21,25,30,35,36 to the rejoicing of everybody, verse 31...

...obviously to the resentment of the Church today.

Further to Gerhard's point... if there was a change to the corporate day of worship which was firmely entrenched and well known to even the Gentiles, the Jerusalem Council would have made mention of the change... to say because it wasn't mentioned means it was no longer important opens the door to changing every other precept that wasn't mentioned.... is marriage between a man and woman under God still in effect? If you believe the Jerusalem Council's silence on the matter, I guess not... see how this reasoning is flawed?

Silence does does constitute a change to God's Ordained and Sanctified 7th day Sabbath...

 

[jerry kelso]

You're right. But, in the early church and after the gentiles came into the picture, the apostles, because everybody kept it, at the council thought so much of the Sabbath they appropriated and relied on the status quo of its practice and observance by / in the Church, for their conclusions and decisions to be read in the churches alongside the Scriptures every Sabbath in every place to everybody "with one accord", particularly to the Gentiles, Acts 15:21,25,30,35,36 to the rejoicing of everybody, verse 31...

...obviously to the resentment of the Church today.

gerhardebersoehn,

1. What the council thought about keeping the sabbath statement is conjecture and your opinion.

2. Acts 15:21 is about the Torah being read every sabbath in the synagogues.

3. Physical circumcision-Old Testament. Spiritual circumcision- New Covenant.
Physical Water Baptism-Old Testament-law of purification. Physical Water Baptism-answer to a conscience of the new covenant. Spiritual circumcision-New Testament.
Sabbath-Old Testament-Jewish nation only under the Mosaic law which was till the seed should come which was the Messiah. It was not a moral law for it was ceremonial to freedom from slavery in Egypt and delivered by way of the RedSea deliverance.
They went out of Egypt on the Sabbath.
Israel marched around Jericho on the Sabbath.
The setting up of the tabernacle was on the Sabbath.
The Jews searched it Canaan on the Sabbath.
The Jews made war and were circumcised on the Sabbath and many more. Because the Sabbath was a Memorial Day of the Red Sea deliverance from Egypt and a typical practice of the rest in Christ to come. It was and can be broken without the committing of moral sin.
This means your creation Sabbath theory of being the reason for being Saturday only for the new covenant believers and being a moral law is false and debunked.
Quit being a slave to the mentality of the Mosaic law and quit being legalistic in trying to enslave new covenant believers by making them believe they are sinning if they don't keep the Sabbath on Saturday.
If you have a personal conviction about Saturday sabbath you should keep it to yourself and your church.
Quit trying to act like you are keeping the commandments and everybody else isn't.
This is the problem with the denominations who go to seed on incorrect contexts.
I have showed you the truth it is up to you to keep it to yourself and quit being legalistic because you have not shown or properly rebutted the truth of the Sabbath which is not Saturday sabbath day only for the church. Jerry kelso

 

[BobRyan]

I have showed you the truth it is up to you to keep it to yourself and quit being legalistic because you have not shown or properly rebutted the truth of the Sabbath which is not Saturday sabbath day only for the church. Jerry kelso

Already refuted by Isaiah 56:1-8 -- Sabbath for gentiles
Already refuted by Isaiah 66:23 - Sabbath for all mankind
Already refuted by Mark 2:27 -- Sabbath MADE for mankind.

======================= which brings us back to this focus on Col 2

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.

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"


So then Col 2 -- condemns the traditions and doctrines of man - and also approves upholding the Word of God --

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.

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 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)

Paul was speaking of the annual Sabbaths - they were instituted from the start such that they are only celebrated via "sacrifice and offering" -- making them shadows of the coming of Christ

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.

In that example "The commandment of God" = "Moses said" = "Word of God"

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

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

so then in answer to this

Paul shows this in Colossians 2 by not judging in respect of the holy days and the sabbath and the new moon. Paul called these were shadow of things to come which means it was not reality for the church. It will be a reality in the millennial kingdom because it was synomonous with Israel's earthly calling as the head of the nation because the law will go forth out of Zion.
Paul said hear were a shadow of things to come which is future. It is not a shadow of things today in the church.
He made a separation of the shadow of the sabbath etc. and the body of Christ.

We have this thread.

- suffice it to say that nothing in Col 2 says "Sabbath used to be a commandment of God - is now suspended - but will resume later in the millennium" - rather that entire idea is a commandment and tradition of man.

 

[jerry kelso]

Already refuted by Isaiah 56:1-8 -- Sabbath for gentiles
Already refuted by Isaiah 66:23 - Sabbath for all mankind
Already refuted by Mark 2:27 -- Sabbath MADE for mankind.

======================= which brings us back to this focus on Col 2

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.

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"


So then Col 2 -- condemns the traditions and doctrines of man - and also approves upholding the Word of God --

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.

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 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)

Paul was speaking of the annual Sabbaths - they were instituted from the start such that they are only celebrated via "sacrifice and offering" -- making them shadows of the coming of Christ

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.

In that example "The commandment of God" = "Moses said" = "Word of God"

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

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

so then in answer to this


We have this thread.

- suffice it to say that nothing in Col 2 says "Sabbath used to be a commandment of God - is now suspended - but will resume later in the millennium" - rather that entire idea is a commandment and tradition of man.

bobryan,

1. Why do you keep ignoring the context and time factor of the scripture in question?

2. Isaiah 56:1-8 was about gentiles who joined themselves to the covenant of the Jews. The sons of the strangers and strangers at the gate are gentiles and they were proselyted into Judaism which had the sabbath command not gentile heathens. They were still under the law of conscience. You are wrong again.

3. The context is the future kingdom age which is not the church age and the sabbath will be for mankind then.

4. Today is the church age and we have the commandment of keeping the sabbath holy because of the rest in Christ at the cross and the resurrection.
We are not judge each other of what day we observe the sabbath because of the freedom in Christ.
Keeping the sabbath on one particular day has no more benefits for a believer today than on the Jewish sabbath or creation sabbath. To think this is pure legalism.

5. The reason for the future sabbath for mankind is because of the need for those who are still rebels and because of theocracy with Christ. Jerry kelso

 

[BobRyan]

bobryan,

1. Why do you keep ignoring the context and time factor of the scripture in question?

Why make empty false accusations ?? As if that is the "bible answer" to something?

2. Isaiah 56:1-8 was about gentiles who joined themselves to the covenant of the Jews.

There is no "joined themselves to the covenant of the Jews" in all of Isaiah much less in Isaiah 56:1-8... and we both know it.

I prefer the real world - actual facts, actual Bible texts.

proselyted into Judaism which had the sabbath command not gentile heathens.

If the choice is between worshiping the One true God of the Bible or being a heathen... most here on CF know which one to pick.

I don't see how this is making your case at all.

3. The context is the future kingdom age

Just not in "real life" in Isaiah 56:1-8 it is present tense action of real gentiles observing the real Bible Sabbath "of the LORD (YHWH) Thy God"

 

[jerry kelso]

Why make empty false accusations ?? As if that is the "bible answer" to something?



There is no "joined themselves to the covenant of the Jews" in all of Isaiah much less in Isaiah 56:1-8... and we both know it.

I prefer the real world - actual facts, actual Bible texts.




If the choice is between worshiping the One true God of the Bible or being a heathen... most here on CF know which one to pick.

I don't see how this is making your case at all.




Just not in "real life" in Isaiah 56:1-8 it is present tense action of real gentiles observing the real Bible Sabbath "of the LORD (YHWH) Thy God"

bobryan,

1. No false accusations just real biblical facts.

2. No joining to the covenant? The context mentions it.
The Gentiles had no covenant unless they were proselyted into Judaism.
You need to learn correct Jewish history. Trust me Messianic Jews don't agree with Gentiles having to keep ssdo. You are wrong again. Jerry kelso

 

[BobRyan]

bobryan,

1. Why do you keep ignoring the context and time factor of the scripture in question?

Why make empty false accusations ?? As if that is the "bible answer" to something?

2. Isaiah 56:1-8 was about gentiles who joined themselves to the covenant of the Jews.

There is no "joined themselves to the covenant of the Jews" in all of Isaiah much less in Isaiah 56:1-8... and we both know it.

I prefer the real world - actual facts, actual Bible texts.

proselyted into Judaism which had the sabbath command not gentile heathens.

If the choice is between worshiping the One true God of the Bible or being a heathen... most here on CF know which one to pick.

I don't see how this is making your case at all.

3. The context is the future kingdom age

Just not in "real life" in Isaiah 56:1-8 it is present tense action of real gentiles observing the real Bible Sabbath "of the LORD (YHWH) Thy God"

2. No joining to the covenant? The context mentions it.
The Gentiles had no covenant unless they were proselyted into Judaism.

New covenant - in OT "made with the house of Israel" Jeremiah 31:31-33 just like it is in the NT Hebrews 8:6-10.

One gospel in all ages.

 

[BobRyan]

Trust me Messianic Jews don't agree with Gentiles having to keep ssdo. You are wrong again. Jerry kelso

You are confusing Messianic Jews with non-Christian Jews. Between the two of us - I am the one over on the Messianic Jewish section of this board the past 3 months or so.

Here is my post on the thread about gentiles keeping the TEN Commandments including the Bible Sabbath commandment "made for mankind"

Nov 18, 2016 #31

 

[jerry kelso]

Why make empty false accusations ?? As if that is the "bible answer" to something?



There is no "joined themselves to the covenant of the Jews" in all of Isaiah much less in Isaiah 56:1-8... and we both know it.

I prefer the real world - actual facts, actual Bible texts.




If the choice is between worshiping the One true God of the Bible or being a heathen... most here on CF know which one to pick.

I don't see how this is making your case at all.




Just not in "real life" in Isaiah 56:1-8 it is present tense action of real gentiles observing the real Bible Sabbath "of the LORD (YHWH) Thy God"



New covenant - in OT "made with the house of Israel" Jeremiah 31:31-33 just like it is in the NT Hebrews 8:6-10.

One gospel in all ages.

bobryan,

1. You never answered my question.
Gentiles had no covenant during the Old Testament Mosaic law. Even Paul said that in Ephesians.

2. Jeremiah 31:31; the new covenant has not been made with the nation of Israel yet and will not until the end of the tribulation called Jacob's trouble so they inherit their covenant promises concerning the land and the kingdom in the millennial reign.
I know your prophecy of the spiritual Jew and you are wrong.
Both Jeremiah and Hebrews 8:7-13 have not been fulfilled for the Jews otherwise their sins would be forgiven and no man would have to teach them. You are wrong as usual.

3. One gospel in all ages of salvation for man's soul. Jerry kelso