Col 2 is not opposing the Bible - it is opposing making stuff up via traditions of man

BobRyan · Feb 24, 2019

BABerean2 said:
"making stuff up" would be claiming that Jesus is coming back on October 22, 1844, which is also known as "the great disappointment".
.

how nice then that no Seventh-day Adventist ever did that - but a sunday-keeping, pork-eating, immortal-soul believing baptist preacher by the name of William Miller did. Is that detail helping you with your Col 2 statement?

(The point being - Miller's doctrines were not SDA)

BABerean2 · Feb 25, 2019

BobRyan said:
(The point being - Miller's doctrines were not SDA)

Millerites ----> SDA (Ellen G. White)

Christ contrasts the Old Covenant with the higher standard of the New Covenant:

Mat 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.'

Mat 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mat 5:23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,

Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Mat 5:25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.

Mat 5:26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.'

Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Mat 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

Mat 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

Mat 5:31 "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'

Mat 5:32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

Mat 5:33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.'

Mat 5:34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne;

Mat 5:35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.

Mat 5:36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.

Mat 5:37 But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

Mat 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'

Mat 5:39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Mat 5:40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.

Mat 5:41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.

Mat 5:42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

Mat 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'

Mat 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,

Mat 5:45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Mat 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

Mat 5:47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?

Mat 5:48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

...................................................................

Confirmation of the contrast between the Old Covenant and New Covenant is found below.

2Co 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

2Co 3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,

2Co 3:8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?

Gal 4:24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—

Gal 4:25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—

Gal 4:26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Gal 4:27 For it is written: "REJOICE, O BARREN, YOU WHO DO NOT BEAR! BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR! FOR THE DESOLATE HAS MANY MORE CHILDREN THAN SHE WHO HAS A HUSBAND."

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.

Gal 4:29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.

Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREEWOMAN."

Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

Heb 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH—

Heb 8:9 NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS IN THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DISREGARDED THEM, SAYS THE LORD.

Heb 8:10 FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS IN THEIR MIND AND WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.

Heb 8:11 NONE OF THEM SHALL TEACH HIS NEIGHBOR, AND NONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL SHALL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST OF THEM TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.

Heb 8:12 FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."

Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Heb 12:18 For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest,

Heb 12:19 and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore.

Heb 12:20 (For they could not endure what was commanded: "AND IF SO MUCH AS A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT SHALL BE STONED OR SHOT WITH AN ARROW."

Heb 12:21 And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, "I AM EXCEEDINGLY AFRAID AND TREMBLING.")

Heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels,

Heb 12:23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Heb 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

.

BobRyan · Feb 25, 2019

BABerean2 said:
"making stuff up" would be claiming that Jesus is coming back on October 22, 1844, which is also known as "the great disappointment".
.

how nice then that no Seventh-day Adventist ever did that - but a sunday-keeping, pork-eating, immortal-soul believing baptist preacher by the name of William Miller did. Is that detail helping you with your Col 2 statement?

(The point being - Miller's doctrines were not SDA)

BABerean2 said:
Millerites ----> SDA (Ellen G. White)

Christ contrasts the Old Covenant with the higher standard of the New Covenant

A. Wrong thread.
B. This has nothing to do with promoting the Old Covenant as C.H. Spurgeon pointed out.
C. Miller had the opportunity to join in founding the Seventh-day Adventist church but chose to remain as a non-Seventh-day Adventist that he always was.
D. details matter.
E. Now back to the actual topic of this thread. the OP that you are ignoring.

First we note just how "little" of Col 2 you allow in your own post - and how much of Col 2 is in the OP and being ignored in your post.

BobRyan said:
proof for Col 2 -- condemning the traditions and doctrines of man - and 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.

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".

Acts 15:1-2 the historic context of some folks 'making stuff up' and saying that one cannot be saved unless they comply with the made-up rules. In Col 2:14-15 Paul points out that salvation is through Christ who paid the debt of sin owed. Then Paul goes after all the various forms of making-stuff-up showing how it is condemned.

Col 2:
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ

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)

============= Christ Himself condemned Bible-denying traditions of man

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

================= Accuser of the Brethren condemned

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"

Tone · Feb 25, 2019

BobRyan said:
proof for Col 2 -- condemning the traditions and doctrines of man - and 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.

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".

Acts 15:1-2 the historic context of some folks 'making stuff up' and saying that one cannot be saved unless they comply with the made-up rules. In Col 2:14-15 Paul points out that salvation is through Christ who paid the debt of sin owed. Then Paul goes after all the various forms of making-stuff-up showing how it is condemned.

Col 2:
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ

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)

============= Christ Himself condemned Bible-denying traditions of man

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

================= Accuser of the Brethren condemned

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"

Sounds like DENOMINATIONALISM!

BobRyan · Feb 25, 2019

Tone said:
Sounds like DENOMINATIONALISM!

Depends on whether you consider Christianity a "denomination" in Col 2 , or the Jewish religion a "denomination" --- or the faction of Christian Jews that were causing the "stir" in Acts 15 and Col 2 as they opposed all the other Christian Jews.

ace of hearts · Feb 25, 2019

BobRyan said:
how nice then that no Seventh-day Adventist ever did that - but a sunday-keeping, pork-eating, immortal-soul believing baptist preacher by the name of William Miller did. Is that detail helping you with your Col 2 statement?

(The point being - Miller's doctrines were not SDA)

He was a key figure in what is now SDA group.

ace of hearts · Feb 25, 2019

BobRyan said:
how nice then that no Seventh-day Adventist ever did that - but a sunday-keeping, pork-eating, immortal-soul believing baptist preacher by the name of William Miller did. Is that detail helping you with your Col 2 statement?

(The point being - Miller's doctrines were not SDA)

A. Wrong thread.
B. This has nothing to do with promoting the Old Covenant as C.H. Spurgeon pointed out.
C. Miller had the opportunity to join in founding the Seventh-day Adventist church but chose to remain as a non-Seventh-day Adventist that he always was.
D. details matter.
E. Now back to the actual topic of this thread. the OP that you are ignoring.

First we note just how "little" of Col 2 you allow in your own post - and how much of Col 2 is in the OP and being ignored in your post.

You actively tell about the jots and tittles of the law that aren't enforce today.

ace of hearts · Feb 25, 2019

BobRyan said:
Depends on whether you consider Christianity a "denomination" in Col 2 , or the Jewish religion a "denomination" --- or the faction of Christian Jews that were causing the "stir" in Acts 15 and Col 2 as they opposed all the other Christian Jews.

Are you representing your church as Christianity and others aren't?

BobRyan · Feb 26, 2019

Tone said:
Sounds like DENOMINATIONALISM!

Depends on whether you consider Christianity a "denomination" in Col 2 , or the Jewish religion a "denomination" --- or the faction of Christian Jews that were causing the "stir" in Acts 15 and Col 2 as they opposed all the other Christian Jews.

ace of hearts said:
Are you representing your church as Christianity and others aren't?

I am representing the non-Christian Jews of the NT as "not Christian" however - Christianity as Paul points out was considered a "sect" of Judaism.

BobRyan · Feb 26, 2019

BABerean2 said:
"making stuff up" would be claiming that Jesus is coming back on October 22, 1844, which is also known as "the great disappointment".
.

how nice then that no Seventh-day Adventist ever did that - but a sunday-keeping, pork-eating, immortal-soul believing baptist preacher by the name of William Miller did. Is that detail helping you with your Col 2 statement?

(The point being - Miller's doctrines were not SDA)

ace of hearts said:
He was a key figure in what is now SDA group.

Miller never called himself a "Seventh-day Adventist".

Ellen White was a key figure in our church and was United Methodist. But we cannot count her pastors or John Wesley as SDA any more than we can call William Miller an SDA.

Read the book "Great Controversy" and you will find a glowing review of John Wesley's contribution to Christianity -- but that does not make him SDA.

BABerean2 · Feb 26, 2019

BobRyan said:
I am representing the non-Christian Jews of the NT as "not Christian" however - Christianity as Paul points out was considered a "sect" of Judaism.

Would you view those below as wicked people for meeting on Sunday, which is a practice forbidden by the "prophetess" of SDA?

Act_20:7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

1Co_16:2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

Was William Miller wrong for meeting on Sunday, based on the scripture above?

Do you eat pork, as did the Gentiles like Cornelius?

Do you think the soul is not "immortal", based on the scripture below?

Mat_10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

.

BobRyan · Feb 26, 2019

Tone said:
Sounds like DENOMINATIONALISM!

Depends on whether you consider Christianity a "denomination" in Col 2 , or the Jewish religion a "denomination" --- or the faction of Christian Jews that were causing the "stir" in Acts 15 and Col 2 as they opposed all the other Christian Jews.

ace of hearts said:
Are you representing your church as Christianity and others aren't?

I am representing the non-Christian Jews of the NT as "not Christian" however - Christianity as Paul points out was considered a "sect" of Judaism.

BABerean2 said:
Would you view those below as wicked people for meeting on Sunday, which is a practice forbidden by the "prophetess" of SDA?

You don't know what you are talking about - SDAs met many times on Sunday for evangelistic - gospel meetings even in the 1800's

Try another side trail if the intent is to derail this thread. Or post your idea on the SDA topic area of CF.

Was William Miller wrong for meeting on Sunday, based on the scripture above?

Many people "meet" on Sunday -- so also do I at times. All you quoted for us from the NT was "one meeting" and "saving money on week-day-1". Every SDA I know has had at least one "meeting on Sunday" where they heard the gospel being presented at an evangelistic meeting and has "saved money" including on week-day-1.

Do you eat pork, as did the Gentiles like Cornelius?

No I don't, William Miller did though.
And you don't have a Cornelius-eating-pork text aside from "you quoting you" .. we all knew that right?

Try another side trail if the intent is to derail this thread. Or post your idea on the SDA topic area of CF.

Do you think the soul is not "immortal", based on the scripture below?

Mat_10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

In the sense that "immortal" is defined as "surviving the first death even if in the dormant state of 1 Thess 4" -- then of course I believe in that sort of "immortal soul".

1 Thess 4
13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

But that is not how most people define the term.

Definitions matter.

ace of hearts · Feb 26, 2019

BobRyan said:
Depends on whether you consider Christianity a "denomination" in Col 2 , or the Jewish religion a "denomination" --- or the faction of Christian Jews that were causing the "stir" in Acts 15 and Col 2 as they opposed all the other Christian Jews.

I am representing the non-Christian Jews of the NT as "not Christian" however - Christianity as Paul points out was considered a "sect" of Judaism.

Ah then when you talk about the sabbath and Jews and gentiles being in the synagogue on the sabbath you're not talking about Christians being in the synagogue. Wonderful! that agrees with the Scripture.

ace of hearts · Feb 26, 2019

BobRyan said:
how nice then that no Seventh-day Adventist ever did that - but a sunday-keeping, pork-eating, immortal-soul believing baptist preacher by the name of William Miller did. Is that detail helping you with your Col 2 statement?

(The point being - Miller's doctrines were not SDA)

Miller never called himself a "Seventh-day Adventist".

Ellen White was a key figure in our church and was United Methodist. But we cannot count her pastors or John Wesley as SDA any more than we can call William Miller an SDA.

Read the book "Great Controversy" and you will find a glowing review of John Wesley's contribution to Christianity -- but that does not make him SDA.

Where did I say William Miller was SDA?

ace of hearts · Feb 26, 2019

BobRyan said:
Depends on whether you consider Christianity a "denomination" in Col 2 , or the Jewish religion a "denomination" --- or the faction of Christian Jews that were causing the "stir" in Acts 15 and Col 2 as they opposed all the other Christian Jews.

I am representing the non-Christian Jews of the NT as "not Christian" however - Christianity as Paul points out was considered a "sect" of Judaism.

You still consider Christianity a sect of Judaism by your posts.

You don't know what you are talking about - SDAs met many times on Sunday for evangelistic - gospel meetings even in the 1800's

Try another side trail if the intent is to derail this thread. Or post your idea on the SDA topic area of CF.

We're not insane.

Many people "meet" on Sunday -- so also do I at times. All you quoted for us from the NT was "one meeting" and "saving money on week-day-1". Every SDA I know has had at least one "meeting on Sunday" where they heard the gospel being presented at an evangelistic meeting and has "saved money" including on week-day-1.

Shame on you for engaging in vain worship not acceptable to God. Said TIC.

No I don't, William Miller did though.
And you don't have a Cornelius-eating-pork text aside from "you quoting you" .. we all knew that right?

What evidence do you have concerning Cornelius' diet and personal habits?

Try another side trail if the intent is to derail this thread. Or post your idea on the SDA topic area of CF.

Mat_10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Great verse. What do you mean by quoting it?

BobRyan · Feb 26, 2019

BABerean2 said:
Do you think the soul is not "immortal", based on the scripture below?

Mat_10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

In the sense that "immortal" is defined as "surviving the first death even if in the dormant state of 1 Thess 4" -- then of course I believe in that sort of "immortal soul".

1 Thess 4
13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

But that is not how most people define the term.

Definitions matter.

ace of hearts said:
Great verse. What do you mean by quoting it?

I am wondering if you are actually reading the post at this point.

BobRyan · Aug 30, 2019

Interesting enough - this same chapter does come up about a bazillion times on this area of the board - as the following post shows ..

nChrist said:
Romans 14:5-6 KJV One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Colossians 2:13-17 (KJV) 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 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 the sabbath [days]: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

Thank you for posting that...At this point I should point out that the texts you just quoted are already quoted and also referenced on this forum by one or two other members of the board about a bazillion times to raise the question of whether Romans 14 mentions the 7th day Sabbath (which it does not) and the question of whether Col 2:8-23 is condemning man-made-traditions as it says it is - or whether it could be imagined to condemn scripture itself.

(posted so many bazillions of times that there are actually several threads here devoted to that very point).

In any case thanks for posting those texts "again".

BABerean2 · Aug 30, 2019

BobRyan said:
Interesting enough - this same chapter does come up about a bazillion times on this area of the board - as the following post shows ..

Thank you for posting that...At this point I should point out that the texts you just quoted are already quoted and also referenced on this forum by one or two other members of the board about a bazillion times to raise the question of whether Romans 14 mentions the 7th day Sabbath (which it does not) and the question of whether Col 2:8-23 is condemning man-made-traditions as it says it is - or whether it could be imagined to condemn scripture itself.

(posted so many bazillions of times that there are actually several threads here devoted to that very point).

In any case thanks for posting those texts "again".

Former SDA pastor Dale Ratzlaff, on the Sabbath in the New Covenant:

Why did the Apostle Paul compel the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage" in Galatians 4:24-31?

.

BobRyan · Aug 30, 2019

BABerean2 said:
Former SDA pastor Dale Ratzlaff, on the Sabbath in the New Covenant:
.

As Christ said - even what he knew before he appears to no longer know. Sad.

BABerean2 · Aug 31, 2019

BobRyan said:
As Christ said - even what he knew before he appears to no longer know. Sad.

What is the history of SDA, which is less than 200 years old?

.

Col 2 is not opposing the Bible - it is opposing making stuff up via traditions of man

Junior Member

Newbie

Junior Member

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Newbie

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Newbie

Junior Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency