TIME TO UNLEARN THE LIES ABOUT GOD’S WORD

[expos4ever]

Funny that. I thought that was what you were doing....

Well, if you are not doing that, where have you addressed the "but now" argument?

And by "addressed", I mean really addressed - not where have you danced around it, or where you have otherwise evaded it by a long diatribe that, while true, does not actually address my point.

Let me make it simple for you. Please answer this question:

Given the undeniable fact that a "but now" follows the statement in verse 20, what does Paul mean by the phrase "but now", if not that the material provided in verse 20 is in the past?

Based on past behaviour, I wager you will dance away from this simple, clear, and entirely reasonable request - you will tell a long winding tale that, for all its merits, will not actually engage the words "but now" and explain why Paul used those 2 words.

 

[expos4ever]

It is impossible that Colossians 2:16 to be talking about Gods' 4th commandment for God's 4th commandment has never pointed forward to things to come but points backwards to the finished work of creation *see Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11.

Notwithstanding the possible merits of other elements of your argument, your reasoning here does not work. Simply put, the fact that the Sabbath is identified as pointing backwards does not, by itself, preclude it also serving in the role of "looking forward".

 

[expos4ever]

....you will find Colossians 2:16 is not a reference to Gods' 4th commandment of the 10 commandments but is a reference to the ceremonial "sabbaths" plural in the annual Feast days connected to the meat and drink offerings and animal sacrifices that are shadow of things to come pointing to Jesus.

First,

But let us assume the plural anyway, for the sake of the argument. Your position appears to be this: Since Jesus's sacrifice clearly "completes" or "fulfills" the role played by animal sacrifices in the Law, we can see those things as "shadows" and set them aside. By contrast, I believe you are saying, the Sabbath is not about "sacrifice" for sin so there is no equivalent justification for seeing the Sabbath law as a shadow. Ok so far.

But why are you assuming, if indeed you are explicitly or implicitly making such an assumption, that "shadows' can only exist with respect to matters of "sacrifice"?

What if the rest offered by the Sabbath is a shadow of the rest offered in Christ as in "come to me all ye who are heavy-laden and I will give you rest"

What's good for the goose is good for the gander - if Jesus can "complete" laws focused on sacrifice why can He not also "complete" laws focused on rest?

This may be a hopeless request, but please try to address this argument on its own terms.

 

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON

After Staff Review

This Thread
is Now
Permanently Closed

RV: Flaming and Goading

MOD HAT OFF​