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

[BobRyan]

Bible topic and OP and title of this thread

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"

mind-numbing bible-devoid response

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

Please be serious.
Stay on topic
respond to the details in the OP

 

[BABerean2]

Please be serious.
Stay on topic
respond to the details in the OP

The topic is...

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

The SDA view of Colossians 2:16-17 would be "making stuff up via the traditions of a" woman.

That woman was Ellen G. White, known as the "prophetess" of Adventism.

She ignored Paul telling the Galatians to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage" in Galatians 4:24-31.

She ignored the change in the law found in Hebrews 7:12.

She ignored the contrast between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant found in Hebrews 12:18-24.

She ignored Christ contrasting the Old Covenant with the New Covenant in Matthew chapter 5, with the words "But I say...".

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.


She also could not decide if the door was open, or was it shut?

Ellen G. White® Estate: Ellen G. White and the Shut Door Question

.

 

[BobRyan]

Bible topic and OP and title of this thread

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"

mind-numbing bible-devoid response

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

Please be serious.
Stay on topic
respond to the details in the OP

The topic is...

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

True that is the topic...

and these are the texts given in the OP

=========from the Op
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"

=========end of OP

T
The SDA view of Colossians 2:16-17 would be ...<obligatory rant deleted here>

Unless you wildly imagine that the texts just given were authored by SDAs - you have not yet shown yourself willing to follow the topic, the OP, the texts given.

the point remains.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Hello Bob.

It is not about my logic, it is about what the text really says.

You need to read the entire context including all the verses, not just a verse here and there.

Colossians 1:21-23
And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach, if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard...

This is what Paul is preaching and that is the direct context.

Colossians 2:6-7
Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith...

Again the correct context, Christ and faith in Him.

The verse you quoted now follows.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Bob, the context is Christ Himself and the faith in Him, not in some philosophical explanation of life. This verse is not talking about being judged.

Colossians 2:13-14
When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us...

Paul repeats over and over again the Gospel of Jesus Christ, this is the real context.

The verse we are discussing is about judging others according to the shadow of the law. This verse has nothing to do with the philosophical arguments in verse eight. I am stunned that you do not see that Paul, is now talking about judging according to the law?

Colossians 2:16-17
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. Things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

It is all about Jesus and faith in Him, everything else is a shadow and that includes the Sabbath day. No one can judge you regarding a Sabbath day.

Read the text Bob, verse eight is not the context, the context is the fullness of Christ Himself and the faith in him!

Your previous reply did not state the context.

If I understand you correctly, this supports your point as well:

14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.--Ephesians 2

Those ordinances can only be ones that originated from God, and only HE could abolish them.

 

[BobRyan]

in the OP the span of Col 2:8-23 is shown to include very specific pointers as to the subject regarding
"8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men,"

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"

Hello Bob.
You need to read the entire context including all the verses, not just a verse here and there.

Colossians 1:21-23
And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach, if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard...
.

vs 21-23 are indeed interesting as I already highlighted in the OP

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)

 

[BABerean2]

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)

Can you explain why you failed to mention Colossians 2:16-17, which addresses the Sabbath?

.

 

[BobRyan]

Can you explain why you failed to mention Colossians 2:16-17, which addresses the Sabbath?

.

Can you explain why you failed to mention even one text from the OP??

Can you explain why you apparently failed to even read the OP which has this quote in it?

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)

 

[klutedavid]

You may need to retract your statement below.

but a sunday-keeping, pork-eating, immortal-soul believing baptist preacher by the name of William Miller did

Can you support your criticism that William Miller was a pork eater?

If not Bob, then I would ask that you retract this statement.

 

[klutedavid]

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 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.



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.



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.


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.

Once again you mentioned that William Miller ate pork; you need to be able to provide the evidence that establishes that Mr Miller liked bacon.

You cannot denounce a dead person with an allegation that is impossible to support.

 

[BobRyan]

You may need to retract your statement below.

Can you support your criticism that William Miller was a pork eater?

If not Bob, then I would ask that you retract this statement.

Can you support your wild claim that Miller even remotely claimed to hold to Lev 11 laws regarding clean and unclean foods? If not why make stuff up like that??

 

[BobRyan]

Once again you mentioned that William Miller ate pork; you need to be able to provide the evidence that establishes that Mr Miller liked bacon.

You cannot denounce a dead person with an allegation that is impossible to support.

utter nonsense and we all know it - Miller was a commissioned baptist minister and had no teaching at all in support of Lev 11 clean vs unclean foods. How is that that "you making stuff up" is supposed to be a problem for me??

I am simply not falling for that. I think you already knew that.

 

[BABerean2]

Can you support your wild claim that Miller even remotely claimed to hold to Lev 11 laws regarding clean and unclean foods? If not why make stuff up like that??

Do you think William Miller was not a part of the history of the SDA, based in the film below?

Who produced the film?

About the Film | Tell the World

.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you think William Miller was not a part of the history of the SDA,

The protestant Reformation and all of Christian history play a part in the formation of the SDA church but I would not label them all as SDA. Miller never joined the SDA church, never kept the Sabbath and would never have called himself SDA.

But he is a great example of championing the pre-millennial second coming as well as the Protestant standard Historicist method of prophetic interpretation

Hint: the Title and OP topic of this thread is the content of Col 2. Consider posting on topic.

 

[klutedavid]

The protestant Reformation and all of Christian history play a part in the formation of the SDA church but I would not label them all as SDA. Miller never joined the SDA church, never kept the Sabbath and would never have called himself SDA.

But he is a great example of championing the pre-millennial second coming as well as the Protestant standard Historicist method of prophetic interpretation

Hint: the Title and OP topic of this thread is the content of Col 2. Consider posting on topic.

Miller never joined the SDA because he died fourteen years before the SDA started.

 

[BABerean2]

Hint: the Title and OP topic of this thread is the content of Col 2. Consider posting on
topic.

SDA claim worshiping on the first day of the week, is wicked, even though we find the first century Church gathering on the first day of the week.
Consider this fact when reading Colossians chapter 2.


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 the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


Mar_16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Mar_16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Luk_24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

Joh_20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Joh_20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Act_20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

1Co_16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

.

 

[BobRyan]

SDA claim worshiping on the first day of the week, is wicked,
.

Not sure who you are quoting - clearly not me.. would you consider posting on the topic of this thread... yet?

 

[BobRyan]

Miller never joined the SDA because he died fourteen years before the SDA started.

All the SDA leaders were alive during his day and the SDA solution for his 2300 year timeline was presented to him... he rejected it.

Your statement that Miller was not an SDA is not disputed here by me.

What is more his doctrine was not SDA so it was not merely "failure to find the clubhouse" but in fact doctrinal position as a licensed Baptist minister.

The point remains.

Have you considered the concept of posting on the actual topic of this thread yet?

 

[BABerean2]

All the SDA leaders were alive during his day and the SDA solution for his 2300 year timeline was presented to him... he rejected it.

Your statement that Miller was not an SDA is not disputed here by me.

What is more his doctrine was not SDA so it was not merely "failure to find the clubhouse" but in fact doctrinal position as a licensed Baptist minister.

The point remains.

Have you considered the concept of posting on the actual topic of this thread yet?

Would you consider the estate of Ellen G. White to be an accurate source of the history of your doctrine?

See the link below for an article from the White estate.

Ellen G. White® Estate: The "Shut Door" Documents

.

 

[BobRyan]

Would you consider the estate of Ellen G. White to be an accurate source of the history of your doctrine?
.

Would you consider the Col 2 topic to be the topic of this thread?

 

[klutedavid]

You omitted a number of important verses from this second chapter of Paul's letter to the Colossians. These verses (Colossians 2:9-14) announce a new revelation from God that is far above the older revelation found in the law.

Below is one of these verses that you omitted to support your argument. The argument that the second chapter of the letter to the Colossians concerns the tradition and commandments of men

Colossians 2:11
And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.

Paul is not referring to the 'commandments of men' in the verse shown above. I'm not surprised that you omitted this verse Bob, as it destroys the premise of your argument.

Shown below is the act of circumcision that Paul is talking about in that verse Colossians 2:11.

Leviticus 12:3
On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Omitting verses that conflict with a preferred interpretation of the scripture is a very old ploy indeed.