It's been done enough. And I have no idea why you want to start all over again at the beginning of the same argument--to be followed by another 500 inconclusive posts that repeat what was in the previous several run-throughs. At least that's how I look at it.
Cheers
These threads can seem like they never end (And there is always a new one when they do end). And those who see the Sabbath as important for Christians today have often spent years discussing the details of the texts involved. So it can seem overwhelming to go through each response from 10 different people, and address their points.
But if you are going to discuss it in a way that lends credibility to your view, then I think you do need to do more than one pass on each text, or just posting them with a position statement about them. You have to respond to follow-ups that point out details regarding the text that your position statement didn't address, or that it addressed, but you need to clarify.
When you post a text that you see conveying important information about the subject, then others take that seriously by looking at all the aspects of that text, that is not a distraction. That is seeing whether your claim of the import of the text matches with the details of the text itself.
In most of these discussions on a particular text touching on the Sabbath question it is not until the second or third round of post-and-response that you get a clear understanding of how each side views the various aspects of the text, so that those can be further clarified and tested against what the text says.
If there are two different positions on the same text, then both cannot be correct (or if one is alleging both can they have to explain how). But as more and more of the aspects of the text are examined it is usually seen that one or the other view matches up with the text, or that neither does.
So discussing the context of Col. 2 for, instance, is important to understanding the portion that mentions sabbaths.
@HIM responding to you regarding the context was not a distraction, but was taking seriously the post your put forward, and was an invitation to see whether you agreed with his take on the context, or had other information to offer. The context of a passage has bearing on the meaning. If you won't address his comment that indicates the context is not in line with your interpretation, then you are not addressing fully the arguments about the meaning.
Colossians 2 is a rather complex text for a few reasons. While I recognize that, as you stated, your view does not depend on just one text, it is true that Col. 2 is an important text in the debate. It might be helpful to start a thread just on that scripture and go through all the data.
If you want I could start a thread and list some of the various issues that each side needs to address about the meaning of the text. On a forum you have no obligation to engage in that sort of discussion on the details. But it does impact how people receive your arguments.
As someone who has changed views on the subject, and looked at it a fair amount, I have learned a lot in discussion of the text, whichever side of the debate I fell on at the time. And while I don't recommend forming views about the text in the context of heated debate, I do think that discussing the details in such debates can help point out issues you may need to re-think, or explain more fully. And in the end it is a chance to think through more of Scripture, which is a blessing even if some of the process is not.
