Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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 usingafter 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"
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
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 usingafter 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"
What is the history of SDA, which is less than 200 years old?
.
The topic is...
"Col 2 is not opposing the Bible - it is opposing making stuff up via traditions of man"
T
The SDA view of Colossians 2:16-17 would be ...<obligatory rant deleted here>
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.
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 usingafter 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...
.
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 usingafter 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 even one text from the OP??Can you explain why you failed to mention Colossians 2:16-17, which addresses the Sabbath?
.
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)
Can you support your criticism that William Miller was a pork eater?but a sunday-keeping, pork-eating, immortal-soul believing baptist preacher by the name of William Miller did
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.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.
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.
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.
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,
Miller never joined the SDA because he died fourteen years before the SDA started.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.
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,
.
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?
Would you consider the estate of Ellen G. White to be an accurate source of the history of your doctrine?
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?