protestants in denial

Quoting Eric B,
"All I see in my interlinear are (eh's); not "kai", and your making one of the "or"s "that, while one of the possible definitions of the word, still is not proven in what you have just posted; but was conjured up to try to make only only feasing the issue. But then there are other lawkeeping groups who believe the feasts are still obligatory, (and that you are just as disobedient as the sundaykeepers)and they will have some other answer to do away with that."

"All I see in my interlinear are (eh's); not "kai", ".
Novum Testamentum Graece, Wuertembergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart, 1968, p. 512, Pros Kolossyeis 2, 16,(8), Meh oun tis ymahs krinetoh en brohsehi KAI en posei eh en merei heortehs ...
HRDGpl and Th : txt p46 B 1739syp have EH. Two manuscripts against the rest how many?
The immediate context of the association with "of feast" demands KAI - the whole idea is one of "feasting".

 

So you change the word based on what you think the context "demands"? The context is OT practices; not just "feasting".

 

What, dear Eric B, makes YOU think "The context is OT practices"?
HERE, is the CHURCH - the CHRISTIAN Church, being judged, yea, indeed condemned by the world of this Christian era for what she does in practice above judgement, immune to censure or condemnation, celebrating her Sabbaths' Feast, Paul her solicitor, she being hid in Christ in God, enjoying the fulness of God in Him - and you say, "The context is OT practices"?

 

What, dear Eric b, do you mean, I, changed the word? If you have 'kai' AND in the place of 'eh' OR, then not only the context, but the text - the originals - demands it. You simply ignored my referring to the manuscripts.
To what next will you resort to boost you on in your headlong flight of denial?

 

Revision of Discussion between Eric B and Gerhard Ebersoehn
CGE quoting Eric B:
"That little word "OR"”
Good you make this statement, for man shall live by every word of God's.
"That little word "OR"” –
First, delete that reference of yours (#2228) because it doesn't apply every time.
Let's see:
"... en brohsei KAI en posei EH en merei heortehs EH neomehnias EH sabbatohn ...". –
One occurrence on its own, and one correlative, that is, two times its effect.
The first EH (your second) is used indicatively or demonstratively:
"with regard to eating and drinking, THAT, with regard to feast".
It virtually takes the place of "eating and drinking" which is implied (a second time) through ellipses: "in eating and drinking (Dative), THAT with regard to (eating and drinking) of feast".
Please report me to my Greek teachers for incorrectly applying the sound principles of grammar and syntax they have taught me. But you'll have to explain my errors to them.
You say I "leave out" the word, “or”, or "butcher" it.
The text does not use EH "OR" between "eating" and "drinking". It uses the conjunction, "and" – kai, thus making of it ONE CONCEPT, that of "FEAST". The unitary idea is therefore: "eating AND drinking OF feast" – it includes, “of feast”.
Thus the Genitive of the text "OF feast", is done justice to – it is not "butchered".

The "eating and drinking" is found in the Dative, it being referred to by the expression "en merei" – "with regard to".
Neither "Feast", nor "month's", nor "Sabbaths'" are in the Dative; they are in the Genitive, and therefore, "with regard to" has bearing on "eating and drinking" ONLY, making perfect sense it being the "with regard to the ‘feasting’ (eating and drinking) OF Feast (‘celebrating’) WHETHER (EH) OF month's, OR (EH) OF Sabbaths' (‘occurrence’)".

I give account of EACH instance of "the little word "OR"" – EH, in good, accurate, English, idiom. But I give account of each and every OTHER factor involved in the text - which your version miserably FAILS to do.
Butchering of the text? How does Paul put it, “dividing the Word of God”, “rightly”?

Eric B:
“All I see in my interlinear are (eh's); not "kai", and your making one of the "or”'s "that”, while one of the possible definitions of the word, still is not proven in what you have just posted; but was conjured up to try to make only feasting the issue. But then there are other law-keeping groups who believe the feasts are still obligatory, (and that you are just as disobedient as the Sunday-keepers)and they will have some other answer to do away with that.

quote:
It is an unfortunate fact for you, dear Eric B, that the clause, "he not regarding the day, does not regard it to the Lord", does not occur in the original. Disregard it, because you should, and notice what difference it makes to the whole context. It will show you that the passage reads "the strong" were those who "regarded" days. Tradition got it "the weak", regarded days.

Eric B:
It doesn’t have to say that; it is a parallel principle, for one thing. And no one ever transferred the concept of "weak" and "strong" to the days. That is clearly about meats, and I have never seen anyone say otherwise. You are doing that now as yet another straw-man to try to prove your point. It does not say WHICH are weak or strong; the point is NEITHER should judge the other, but rather "be fully assured in his own mind".

quote:
However the Sabbath Day is not here discussed whatsoever. Paul clearly speaks of certain days regarded more important than the rest of the days regarded important, which indicates that some period of regarded or important days – like those of the Passover Season – were involved in the issue in the Church.
But the issue not at all was about days or their regarding – everybody according to the text regarded days; it was about food, which some believed was the content of God's Kingdom.
I need not cite the verses that declare it – you know them as well or better than I do. But you must have forgotten about them, making such an issue of the days that all and everybody of the Church regarded!

Eric B:
Just like in Col. You try to push the issue off onto some law that you do not believe in keeping. The entire NT church was being assaulted by those trying to get them to keep the Law, and other practices like vegetarianism. So food and drink was one issue, and days of worship was another. You cannot lump them all into one thing, under the banner of "meats". There were many issues people were judging over.

quote:
Christ still and always will be the Law of God, sharper than a two-edged sword, as Hebrews in close context to the Sabbath, says. We can't get away from HIM, or from the redemption he has wrought, and "that's why there is the Sabbath Day of God still binding upon God's People".
Here is another instance of my 'butchering' of the text. Please pay attention to every word I wrote – it's in the text, clear and bright as that sword's glitter!

Eric B:
Christ is the Law, and He is the Sabbath rest; not [any longer] a literal day. That is the point of that passage.

quote:
The thought just came up, maybe you should change your 'displayed name' to 'Protestant in denial'.

Eric B:
Your name should be "Old Covenant Israelite in Denial"

Second Consideration:

Quote:
“All I see in my interlinear are (eh's); not "kai", and your making one of the ‘or’s, “that”, while one of the possible definitions of the word, still is not proven in what you have just posted; but was conjured up to try to make only feasting the issue.”

“All I see in my interlinear are (eh's); not "kai" ...”

Answer:
Two variant readings against all the rest, have eh's; not "kai".
If ‘EH’ (and not ‘kai’), it normally should have been used twice, before “eating”, as well as, before “drinking” (translated ‘either … or’). Because it occurs only once in the two variants, the fact strengthens the probability ‘EH’ in them is a mistake.

Or, while you insist the ‘EH’ must be there in between “eating” and, “drinking”, then it should be ‘correlating’ with the next after ‘EH’, and will result in an even messier set-up: ‘Do not you be judged in eating, whether in drinking, or with regard to drinking (by ellipses) of feast …”. “Eating” now is not “eating”, but is “drinking” and once more “drinking” – intemperateness – and something Paul would certainly have judged and condemned the Colossian believers for in strongest terms. He would not have said “Do not you be judged by anyone”.

You insist it must be an EH ‘OR’, in between “eating”, and, “drinking”.
If not a correlative as in the above, the Colossians weren’t judged for doing both, but for ‘either eating or for drinking’? The grammarians call ‘eh’, a ‘Disjunctive’ that ‘contradicts’ – “einander Ausschliessendes” (Bauer)! Which of the two things, “eating”, “OR”, “drinking” were the Colossians not to be judged then?

Nestle did wisely to give preference to ‘kai’, “and”, having decided on textual as well as exegetical evidence. For are not both “eating” AND “drinking” essentials “OF feast” (or of “OF feasting”)?
“Eating AND drinking” was the one, and spiritual, “feast(ing)” of Christians in their practice – their practice of “feast” in faith of Jesus Christ, whether on occasion “of month’s, or, of Sabbaths’ ”.

So much then, for the first (and erroneous) “OR”, of ‘(your) Interlinear’.


‘EH’, number two:

Eric B:
... and your making one of the "or”'s "that”, still is not proven in what you have just posted; but was conjured up to try to make only feasting the issue.

Answer:
“… “that” ... conjured up” ...
On the one hand, I “butcher”; on the other, I “conjure up” . . .
“… “that” (eh) ... conjured up” ... Yet you admit, “while one of the possible definitions of the word”! Which shows you indeed are well informed, but does not so well discern – because you are simply not prepared to?

We have three ‘eh’s’. The last two are a pair, forming the correlative: “whether … or”, correlating “of month’s”, and “of Sabbaths’”. Now WHAT “OF month’s, or, OF Sabbaths’”? WHAT, but “eating and drinking”? The first (real) ‘eh’ obviously must be relative, used like a Pronoun, “that”, ‘indicating and assuming the actual existence of the event or subject’, namely “eating and drinking – that (an) eating and drinking of month’s, or, of Sabbaths’”.
How should I make it clearer? By mixing up the issue in Colossians 2 with that in Romans 14 like you do?

“"that” ... conjured up to try to make only feasting the issue.”
“Only feasting the issue”.

Yes, but with what significance attached? Not feasting per se, but the feasting or celebration “of Sabbaths’”. Not gluttony, but spiritual eating and drinking by faith of Christ. That really, was “the issue”. The world – in the last analysis – condemned the Church for believing in Christ; it condemned the Church for Sabbaths’ Christ-Feast!
You, Eric B, have confirmed it!
I feel like writing this observation in capital letters, “JUDGED FOR SABBATHS’ CHRIST-FEAST”! Precisely what Paul had in mind! If you could grasp, you would have been persuaded to change your own predisposition.


“But then there are other law-keeping groups who believe the feasts are still obligatory, (and that you are just as disobedient as the Sunday-keepers) and they will have some other answer to do away with that.”

Let them have it their own way! Of what concern are they? Do they honour Christ whom they don’t even believe is Lord and God?

The principle, “the feasts are still obligatory”, today is truer than ever, they all being binding in Jesus Christ! If one feasts Christ, he feasts all the Old Testament feasts; he feasts the Feast of God, His Son, in Whom the Father takes great delight.
There’s no dichotomy in what I say.
What says Hebrews 4? It, after having given a summary of Christ’s achievement of having obtained rest and having given rest to the People of God and having entered into His own rest as God, concluding from it, says, “THEREFORE (ara) there remains valid for the People of God a keeping of the Sabbath Day!”
So does Paul, in fact, exactly so! Says he, after having given a summary of Christ’s achievement of having obtained rest and having given rest to the People of God through his death and resurrection from the dead,
“THEREFORE (oun – Christ “having triumphed IN IT”), do not you (the Body of Christ’s Own) be judged by anyone in eating and drinking of feast whether of month’s, or, of Sabbaths’ (Christ-)Feast”.


Statement:
It is an unfortunate fact for you, dear Eric B, that the clause, "he not regarding the day, does not regard it to the Lord", does not occur in the original. Disregard it, because you should, and notice what difference it makes to the whole context. It will show you that the passage reads "the strong" were those who "regarded" days. Tradition got it "the weak", regarded days.

Eric B:
It doesn’t have to say that; it is a parallel principle, for one thing. And no one ever transferred the concept of "weak" and "strong" to the days. That is clearly about meats, and I have never seen anyone say otherwise. You are doing that now as yet another straw-man to try to prove your point. It does not say WHICH are weak or strong; the point is NEITHER should judge the other, but rather "be fully assured in his own mind".

“It doesn’t have to say that”, namely, “WHICH are weak or strong”,

Yet it does. First, many – just as well every Sunday-dogmatician – has made capital of the inference that if the weak only ate herbs, it meant the weak observed days too, and it is the strong who did not observe days. Not surprising that they would refuse the opposite implication, that if there is no non-regarding of days, the strong should be those who had in fact regarded days.
But simply read the text without the ‘non-regarding’ clause. While 14:2 says the weak person eats only herbs, it must be deduced that those “who are strong” (15:1) are those persons who “eat” – who “eat” of all the food involved irrespective. “One regards one day more important; another regards every day equally important. Let every one be sure in his own mind. He minding the day, does so to the Lord. And the person eating, eats to the Lord, thanking God.”
Clearly the ones regarding days are those eating irrespectively, and therefore they are the strong. Sort of adding and subtracting logic, I admit; but forced upon one through the logic of Sundaydarians. They are simply answered in kind. I am not the one who erected a straw man to demolish; they are the implicated! And so is any Sabbath-opponent, like yourself.

The point – in Romans 14-15 – is NOT, “NEITHER should judge the other, but rather "be fully assured in his own mind".”

The point is, neither SHOULD JUDGE the other, full stop.
I have a strong feeling you will agree. Which will bring us to the crux of the passage – Romans 14-15 – which cannot be expressed better than by Paul himself, where he negatively, states: “For the kingdom of God is NOT MEAT AND DRINK; but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (in these things serving Christ)”, 14:17-18. It shows what some made ‘the point’ of: “meat and drink”. Not ‘days’, regarded or not regarded. Or the crux of the passage – Romans 14-15 – which cannot be expressed better than by Paul himself, where he positively, states: “Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: That ye may with one mouth glorify God” … not one saying he regards one day more important than the other ‘to the Lord’, and another, he regards every of the regarded days important ‘to the Lord’; one claiming he eats not ‘to the Lord’, and another he eats ‘to the Lord’, because it is not “likeminded toward one another”, not “with one mouth to the glory of God”, but the one judging the other in a spirit unlike the Spirit of righteousness and peace and of joy.

One unconditionally conditional fact remains: EVERYBODY, “regarded days” – “one, one day above the other days regarded; another, every of the regarded days alike”.
Where does Sunday-regarding / -esteeming / -observance feature? Where does Sabbaths’ NON-regarding / -esteeming / -observance feature? Nowhere whatsoever! Has ever a strawman been erected the like of?
“... it is a parallel principle ...” of what, or in what? Of, or, in, the following: “… that the passage reads "the strong" were those who "regarded" days”? That “tradition got it "the weak", regarded days”? If I could make out your point, I would have been able to answer it. In other words, what you are saying is pointless.

“... no one ever transferred the concept of "weak" and "strong" to the days. That is clearly about meats, and I have never seen anyone say otherwise.”

Tradition has it, I said, and need not quote authors and sources multiple that do transfer the concept of "weak" and "strong" to the days. The better reading of the text proves the fallacy of THEIR concept.
If we agree on the fact and ‘principle’ the concept of "weak" and "strong" does NOT transfer to the days, so much to our credit; so much to the discredit of those who habitually transfer to the days the concept of “weak” and “strong”.

“It does not say WHICH are weak or strong ...”

In 15:1 Paul supposes: “WE then, who are strong …”. Paul includes himself with the “strong”. Who are “the strong”?
In verse 4 Paul supposes the Jews, they being those for whom “aforetime things were written … for OUR learning”. Paul was a Jew, and therefore a Sabbath-keeper as well as one who “regarded days” – naturally.
In 14:1 “the weak” are those “received” – obviously ‘received’ by ‘the strong’! The Church in Rome was started by Jews – and by Paul the Jew himself. He sees himself and his co-workers as God’s “servants” (verse 4) – Israel. They were Sabbath-keepers naturally. As a matter of course, they also would have been those who “regarded days” – verse 5 further – undeniably.
It may safely be inferred from the context then, that those who “regarded days important”, were “the strong”. But Sunday-advocates would have it the other way round, at all costs, even to the point where they to their own whims see fit to insert into God’s Words, their own.

“... the point is NEITHER should judge the other, but rather "be fully assured in his own mind".”

In fact! “Be fully assured in his own mind” – not be brazen, but teachable. Paul doesn’t give everyone permission to obey his own feelings – he incites every one to make sure he stands fast in God’s ways. Which never while “everybody” (?) “in his own mind” (?) mysteriously agrees on Sunday-sacredness, would permit God’s Sabbath Day to be despised and denied.

 

v.11. 13 mentions circumcision.
14 mentions the "handwriting of ordinances " (written Law).

So then, from there, we get to additional practices in v.16, food& drink, feasts, new moons and the sabbath ("days" is actually added to the text).
v21 carries it even further with "taste not, touch not, handle not". More OT practices!

And as I am learning now through debates with the preterists (they do have some good points that are overlooked by the majority "the rudiments of the world" also refers to the Old Covenant.

Thus, as I said, the context is the [entire] OT Law; not just feasts. That is only ONE thing mentioned in the text.

I didn't mean particularly you ["I"]; but translators do it too. Then, how do we know who is right?

Then, we have to get into detailed discsussions
of Greek grammar that the average person doesn't know, and it takes a lot of time to learn. Meanwhile, the person is stumped, and you "win" the argument by default. This reminds me of the JW's and their claim that John 1:1 should be "A god". But the entire context of the Bible sdisproves this, as there are no legitimate "gods" working next to the Father.
So likewise we look at:

OK, the KJV margin has "for eating and drinking". But then, this is not the "or" that is decisive here.

I acknowledged that the word could be translated "that", but still, that is not affirming your point. We still have to check by the context. Even if the first "or" is not there, and it is "eating and drinking"; then we have "eating and drinking, OR, in RESPECT OF a holy day, OR of the new moon, OR of the sabbath". In no way can you ball all of that together into your "sabbaths Christ feast". We have "holy day" mentioned there, AND "the sabbath", which once again, incorrectly had "days" added; but the annual sabbaths ARE the "holy days"; so this is referring to the weekly sabbath, and that is what you are adcovating. then, there's also "new moons", which are altogether separate occasions. Sorry, but all your grammatical wrangling cannot make this only "feasts". "let no one judge you in eating and drinking THAT in respect to a holy day, or new moon...", etc. makes no sense, and it is a jump to change it to "let no one judge ou for observing Christ's sabbath feast". You're omitting all of the different practices mentioned there! This thing about "pairs" of correlatives doesn;t prove anything; there can be trios.

We have to compare scripture with scripture. That helps determine issues like this. Both are saying the same thing, and yourposition has to try to explain away both through grammatical suppositions.

So the real issue they were being "judge" by the world for was "gluttony"? They were being judged for not being gluttonous? This is getting more and more desperate! That is nowhere in the context. If this was in 1 Cor.11, then you would have a point. Clearly, it is those pushing old covenant laws being criticized here.

They do believe Christ is Lord, and some , God, as well. (Armstrong, some of the MEssianic/Sacred name groups). But they are using the same argument as you, and to them, you are using the same argument as us when you justify not keeping ALL of the Laws. So it is of concern. If you;re right; their right; but then if their right; you're wrong. What a situation to be in!

That's right; "THEREFORE". That rest He gave them IS that "Sabbath-rest" being spoken of. "He gave them rest; THEREFORE, there remains a ["sabbath-"] rest...". This right here shows how the "sabbath rest" is fulfilled and not violated even when a day is not literally "kept". And it is for THIS reason, that in Col. we are not to be judged for it-- by those (called "the circumcision") advocating that the entire letter of the Law is still in effect and must be kept literally by Christians, as we constantly see Paul dealing with.

Well, I don't argue everything the sunday dogmatarians do, so you are the one who brought "weak and strong" into it. Like you said, "Let them have it their own way! Of what concern are they?" And I am not a sabbath-opponent. I acknowlede that the sabbath has a more biblical basis than Sunday. But I still have the right to defend myself scripturally from those who say it must be kept like in the OT, and having to change the principles of scripture, or the meanings of statements to do it.

 

Dear Eric B,
I think we are finding some plusses along the line - it's not all negative - I mean our discussion. Thanks for your patience which I acknowledge to my shame sets an example to me in Christian attitude.
I especially appreciate your last response. Hope to give it proper attention as soon as possible. I think I noticed in it cardinal arguments, which, if agreement could be reached on, will decide others besides. So please bear with me.

 

Gerhard Ebersoehn in discussion with eric B,
As promised:
Originally posted by Eric B:
"So you change the word based on what you think the context "demands"? The context is OT practices; not just "feasting"."

Answer:
What, dear Eric B, makes YOU think "The context is OT practices"?
HERE, is the CHURCH - the CHRISTIAN Church, being judged, yea, indeed condemned by the world of this Christian era for what she does in practice above judgement, immune to censure or condemnation, celebrating her Sabbaths' Feast, Paul her solicitor, she being hid in Christ in God, enjoying the fullness of God in Him - and you say, "The context is OT practices"?

Eric B:
"v.11. 13 mentions circumcision.
14 mentions the "handwriting of ordinances " (written Law).

So then, from there, we get to additional practices in v.16, food& drink, feasts, new moons and the sabbath ("days" is actually added to the text).
v21 carries it even further with "taste not, touch not, handle not". More OT practices!

And as I am learning now through debates with the preterists (they do have some good points that are overlooked by the majority "the rudiments of the world" also refers to the Old Covenant.

Thus, as I said, the context is the [entire] OT Law; not just feasts. That is only ONE thing mentioned in the text."

Answer:
Let us begin with your second "additional practices in v.16 ...". While these make up the debated subject, they should wait for further findings before they can be classed OT or NT, and will be looked at, at the end.

Next to your last remark, "the context is the [entire] OT Law; not just feasts ...". This is too sweeping a claim so that even if anything "mentioned in the text" were OT Law, it will on its own have to show its relevance to the "practices in v.16" – which to expect there has not the slightest provocation, seeing the whole Letter deals with the Christian Church in its Sitz im Leben in the world of Greek philosophy.
Besides is this, "the context is the [entire] OT Law; not just feasts" – not what you are supposed to prove by illustration? But instead you are using it as proof by illustration of itself. (A master in this ‘methodology’ is the great Professor Samuele Bacchiocchi of Pope’s golden medal fame.)

Then with reference to your reference to the "preterists", from whom you have "learnt ... "the rudiments of the world" also refers to the Old Covenant".
You do not explain and I am unable to guess how they have taught you that, so that speaking of verse 16, it is only fair not to count their view in on the plus side for saying "the context is OT practices".
They in any case only could have used the same arguments you could present, because the source of any argument is supposed to be the Letter itself, and only itself.
It is however impossible (for me) to see how the preterists are able to assert what you say you have learnt from them. Paul's words are clear enough – he says, the "rudiments (‘first’ principles, axioms – even philosophical 'gods' like "wisdom" and "knowledge") are, "OF THE WORLD". Isn't that enough it's not Old Testament – not what is God's Word forever?
Besides, there is a HUGE difference between the Old Covenant and the Old Testament. You will find the Old Covenant (of works) in both the Old and New Testaments, just as you will find the New Covenant in both Testaments – things irrelevant to our discussion.

Disputation:
“v21 carries it even further with "taste not, touch not, handle not". More OT practices!”

One may take an entire year and read the Old Testament from beginning to end, and be unable to find these “practices” mentioned or just suggested. These practices “taught”? Never!

Once again, these are the “commandments and doctrines of men”, says Paul in verse 22. They are or were not Christian ‘practices’.
And they stood in direct opposition with what the Church in actual practice practiced, namely, to feast by “eating and drinking”.
No, the "taste not, touch not, handle not" of verse 21 were “things which (had) a show of wisdom in will-worship, and false humility, and neglecting of the body (‘asceticism’), dishonourable and to the satisfying of the flesh (or sinful propensities of human nature)” – in other words, were humanism – the humanism of Greek philosophy and wisdom and OF THE WORLD! (The fetishes of the ‘liberalism’ of the day.)
Paul presupposes these “things” are NOT even supposed possible in the Body of Christ’s Own, saying, “Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments OF THE WORLD, why (‘my goodness, it’s unimaginable!’) as though living in the world (= in the ways and beliefs of this world) are you subjected to (things like), Do not touch” etc.
Mark, the word “ordinances” is supplied. Sure, these “practices” mentioned, in essence were ‘laws’ – the KJV is right in describing them as such. The point is though, they were “the commandments and doctrines of MEN” – NOT, God’s, not even the commandments and doctrines of the Old Testament.
These “practices” were ‘legalism’ and they were ‘legalism’ in the extreme. But why should ‘legalism’ necessarily be Judaism (not to speak of why legalism necessarily should be ‘Old Testament’)? Judaism is a legalistic system, no one denies. But “the world” had a few things to teach Judaism in legalism! Humanism all together is a system or religion of salvation through self-righteousness and works of laws and “practices” = ‘legalism’! It even and in fact manifests itself in Christiandom!
Nothing suggests the “practices” mentioned in verse 21 were Old Testament, even if it were Judaism. It’s final.
But just to still further confirm, view the chiastic structure of our passage – which you may find as an html article on www.biblestudents.co.za .
The “practices” mentioned fell beyond the borders of the Church. There existed a marked delineation between the “practices” mentioned in verse 21 and the “practices” of the Church mentioned in verse 16.

Thus there remains two references of yours courtesy demands should further be considered. They are:
"v.11. 13 mentions circumcision.
14 mentions the "handwriting of ordinances " (written Law)."

"v.11. 13 mentions circumcision."
Here is a typical example of an incidence of the New Covenant in Old Testament colours in the New Testament, or, of the Old Testament in New Covenant terminology ... and power!
You are certainly not going to object to the plain truth the circumcision Paul here has in mind is NOT the Old Testament circumcision? He with so many words defines it as “the circumcision of Christ”! He also with so many words states it is “NOT done with hands”.
And YOU know it is the regeneration of the heart Paul writes of here – both, themes of the Old Testament as well as of the New.
Therefore, that, in the context of 2:16, is ONE MORE thing mentioned in the text that is NEW 'Testament' or New Covenant – that is the Eternal Covenant of Grace – a 'practice' indeed of God's own doing, and not the works and doctrine of man trying to be unto himself the law and redeemer.

We have one more example of "more OT practices!" to consider; I quote:
"14 mentions the "handwriting of ordinances" (written Law)".
Now please don't expect the fossilised explanations of this expression.
Paul "solicits" – ‘acts attorney’, paraclehtos (2:2) – to his beloved brethren so encompassed by the calamities the world imposed upon them.
First consider the existentiality – the plain down to earth and practical implications – this phrase is meant to have had for the Church in its straights of being judged and condemned by the world for its – in the eyes of the world – irksome, obstructive, stupid and obnoxious Christian Faith and Church-life.
Only then, are we equipped with the right understanding of the "handwriting of ordinances" to apply it to Christian faith and practice of later times and generality.
The expression, 'the ordinances in written Law' (nearer to the literal), is the Law; not just the ‘ceremonial’ Law, but 'Moral Law' – the Law that judges, condemns and kills its transgressor (“the Law is for its transgressor”). The "handwriting of ordinances" WITH the “principality (authority) and power (government, behind it)”, HAD been nailed to the cross in the body of Jesus and in his body HAD been “taken out of the way” to eternal redemption.
No second’s doubt!
But understand, that is not the literal meaning of the text, nor its contemporary intention.
This phrase / expression is inclusive – it does apply spiritually to the Law, say the Law of Ten Commandments – in the last analysis to all the Scriptures. But it in its historic setting had direct and practical implications for the Colossian Christians as the Church of Jesus Christ in space and time their own. "Handwriting of ordinances" has direct bearing on the ‘practices’ of the Church of Christ in the world, manifestly displayed in the enjoyment of her Sabbaths’ “Feasting, whether of month’s or of Sabbaths’”.
Second aspect never to be left out of consideration!
Is the context and kind of this, ‘Old Testament’? Perhaps in the magic dream-world of Sunday-dogmaticians, but not in textual or historic context.

The historical setting was this:
Here was the Body of Christ’s Own – the Christian Church – assailed by the worldly authorities and powers who judged her and condemned her – who, in actual fact, summonsed her to appear in court – doing exactly what she was judged and summonsed for: simply living her Christian Faith, and feasting her Christian Sabbaths!
Here was Paul, “comforting” her, reminding her, “these things are but the shadow of coming things – of the Body of Christ’s – let no man judge you regarding it! Let nobody beguile you of your reward in Christ. Their humility is hypocrisy; so holy their worship in their own estimation as if of angles. But you, eating and drinking – feasting of Christ through faith, receive nourishment ministered by joints and bands (of love and the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ), and being CLOSELY KNIT TOGETHER (into this one Body of Believers), increase with the increase of God!
What a picture of the Church! What comfort Paul brings them! But it is a picture and a comfort inconceivable apart from its historic and immediate presence in the world.
It is all, New Testament, the setting, the background, the context, the text, the terminology, the ideology, the vision, the prospect – it is all New Testament, the very conflict between world and Church.
I hope that answers your remonstration, “we get the additional practices in v.16, food& drink, feasts, new moons and the sabbath ... More OT practices!”
It was the Sabbath “the Seventh Day (of the week) God so (consistently) spoke of” “throughout the times past” “in the Son”, “but in these last days” of the Christian era, even more so.
(I need not tell you, God never “thus concerning spoke about” the First Day of the week – luckily, it saves me much effort.)

 

This is just like Galatians, where your side tries to ptove it is only pagan practices that the Christians are falling into. But while the pagans may have had celebrations that could be called "holy days", and may have observed new moons (but this stills eems to be more a Mosaic law), still, they did not have "sabbath days", even though the sabbatarians try to call their days (such as Sunday) "false sabbaths".

I was probably wrong on "rudiments of the world", as I see that "world" is cosmos and not age. Generally, references to "the age" are what are taken as referring to the Old Covenant age. I will have to look to see if the preterists stilltake this statement as referring to the Old Covenant, and if they do, there is probably some OT reference that can be connected to it.

The "circumcision" Paul speaks of is the spiritual one; but the reason why he does, is to contrast it with the physical one; being pushed on the Church the Jews.

The Jews were also Hellenized; which explains the philosophy and enamoration with angels some of them fell into. The nation was spiritually on it way down (and it gets far worse when the final war starts a few years after this was written), so all such references cannot be assumed to be purely pagan, and not coming from the Jews.
"Touch not; taste not" CAN be found in the OT! They are the dietary Laws from Leviticus. Even if it was some pagan addition as you suggest; the principle would still carry over. "taste not, touch not" has nothing to do with feasting. It is the avoidance of eating certain things, or even touching them (with its curse of rendering one "unclean until the even") that is being delineated.

The "handwriting of ordinances"is the Law with its condemnation, as you say. Christ gives us a new law, which as He shows in the sermon on the mount, is different from "what they of old time say" (hence the Law of Moses in the letter being "the COMMANDMENTS OF MEN", along with the interpretations and other works added to them). People living by the letter were not actually keeping the Law (not realizing that hated was still murder an lust still adultery), and thus still under that "certificate of death", as Bob and others call it.

 

Protestants in denial 3

Eric B:
“... translators do it too (“change the word”). Then, how do we know who is right?
Then, we have to get into detailed discussions
of Greek grammar that the average person doesn't know... Meanwhile, the person is stumped, and you "win" the argument by default. ... But the entire context of the Bible disproves...”

Comment:
Just reckon how many arguments the translators have won in this way! They set the trend for the whole of Christendom, and have won the argument by default, the entire context of the Bible disproves regardless.
I specifically have their Sunday-dogma in mind.

“The entire context of the Bible disproves”, or, the entire context of the Bible must approve, is your golden rule! It cannot be claimed for Sunday-worship – you agree (as you told me). But the entire context of the Bible confirms the Sabbath God’s appointed day for the service of His worship. I, speaking for myself, I attach NO other values to the Sabbath Day but to serve God and His glory in the face of Jesus, and his People for the same end. To render service to – to be loyal, attending servant, is the Sabbath Day’s sole purpose, value and virtue. It is all ever GIVEN to it by God. To that end it is “the Sabbath Day in force for the People of God” – Law! New Testament Law – not Old Testament Law; New Testament Law not by the blood of animal sacrifices, but by the blood of the Lamb of God. Because by the blood of the Lamb of God, it is by the resurrection of Him from the dead – He could not be held captive in death and grave – but “triumphed in it”, that is, in His resurrection!
What is Law – Divine Law? It is that which is established by the Divine Word of Promise (eschatology), and is sealed with Blood of Sacrifice.
We read the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 up to verse 17, and never further, through verses 24 to 26. Yes, there would come an Altar Whereon was discovered our nakedness, and polluted by our sins, against Whom we lifted up the breaking tool: the Altar of God Who became sin for us, so that we, by the sacrifice of Him, might be saved unto God. That’s where the Ten Commandments really ended. God commanded it so.
The Ten Commandments were commandments not divinely ordered until confirmed and sealed by blood of sacrifice.
Paul says the same thing in Colossians – not until Christ was nailed to the cross became He unto us God’s Law, and not until nailed to the cross and raised from the dead, did he in Himself take out of the way forever all previous Law and every condemnation of before.
Behold now, the rejoicing crowd, eating and drinking of feast – in fact eating and drinking of Christ-Feast! See them, celebrating, whether of month’s, or, of Sabbaths’ celebration – “Body of Christ’s Own”! (The redeemed are those purchased by the blood of Christ and released from guilt and condemnation by the resurrection of Him from the dead.)
This was a Christian Faith, and a Christian Congregation, and a Christian motivation: would it not be a Christian celebration of a Christian Day?
Which Day then, was it, if not the Christian Sabbath? Does not the entire context of the Bible approve?

Eric B:
“... he KJV margin has "for eating and drinking". But then, this is not the "or" that is decisive here.”
The “or” may not be that ‘decisive’, but nevertheless strengthens the idea of the oneness of “eating and drinking” in being an “eating-and-drinking-of-feast”, showing the nature of it in whole. It was no legalistic parochialism, but the spontaneous and Christian ‘celebration’ of the Sabbaths’ Days of Worship.
Therefore to translate the word, “that”, is also not that ‘decisive’ to have the phrase “eating and drinking” affirm this very point, yet it contributes much to the same effect.
“We still have to check by the context” – and in this case will find it in harmony with the idea to “ball” the different aspects of the context “together into “Sabbaths’ Christ-Feast””. There is nothing contrary to the idea, and everything in favour of it.

I shall now have to assume again a more technical approach.

Consider:
“Even if the first "or" is not there, and it is "eating and drinking"; then we have "eating and drinking, OR, in RESPECT OF a holy day, OR of the new moon, OR of the sabbath".

Here is the English idiom employed of the possessive (or ‘Genitive’) word, “OF”, with the function of a relative (or ‘Dative’).
Greek though, being a much more ‘precise’ language than English, will not allow it.
The English can in fact be less ambiguous. In stead of reading “in RESPECT OF”, read “with regard to”, and the possessive feeling largely disappears while a nuance of relativity is gained.
‘En merei’ – “with regard to”, is found in the Scriptures incidental, as here in Colossians, with the Dative following required. When relative or / and incidental, ‘en merei’ will not accept a Possessive (Genitive) following.
In our text therefore, where ‘en merei’ is used both relatively and incidental, the Genitive “OF feast” that follows, implies there must be an Ellipses – where a word or words or a concept, is omitted in expression but is present in thought. In this instance: “eating and drinking” is present in thought. So: “… in eating and drinking, or with regard to eating and drinking of feast”. The “eating and drinking” as one concept in the Dative belongs to “feast” in the Genitive, thus creating a further single concept: “eating-and-drinking-of-feast”, which simply may be rendered, “celebration”.
The rest is simple: It is the “celebration of month’s, or, of Sabbaths’”.
Ellipses is characteristic of all language to the extent without the use of it, it will be practically impossible. This very sentence may illustrate, where the Pronoun “it” represents “language” and “ellipses”. Pronouns are a case in hand of Ellipses – it stands “for”-‘pro’ something not mentioned but implied and supposed. Another illustration is, ‘This very sentence may illustrate …’ Illustrate what? Illustrate “ellipses”.
Just so in our text, Colossians 2:16.
No, this is not “all grammatical wrangling” – this is exegesis all pure and lawful. And it makes perfect sense to read the passage like this: “Do not you allow yourselves be judged by anyone of the world in your eating and drinking, or, with regard to your eating and drinking of feast – whether of month’s, or, of Sabbaths’ occasion”. In fact, a nearer to literal and more syntactically slavish rendering is scarcely imaginable.

Consider:
“...Sorry, but all your grammatical wrangling cannot make this only "feasts". ... This thing about "pairs" of correlatives doesn’t prove anything; there can be trios. ... You're omitting all of the different practices mentioned there! ... We have "holy day" mentioned there, AND "the sabbath", which once again, incorrectly had "days" added; but the annual sabbaths ARE the "holy days"; so this is referring to the weekly sabbath, and that is what you are advocating. then, there's also "new moons", which are altogether separate occasions. ...

Answer:
I tried to arrange your remarks in logical order, from there the ...’s.
Do your “trios” consist of “altogether separate occasions” which “we have mentioned there”: “... "holy day" ... AND "the sabbath" ... then ... also "new moons"?
You say “there’s” this “trio” of “holy days”, “mentioned there”? You maintain, “We have ... the annual sabbaths (that) ARE the "holy days" ... mentioned there”; “all of the different practices mentioned there”.

I’m flabbergasted! You say I, “conjured up” the words and concepts I maintain are there, but yours, you say, “we have mentioned there”?
I can’t see “holy”, or “day”, or “the sabbath”, or “new moons”, or, “annual”, or “the annual sabbaths”, or “practices”.
Instead there are these words: “regarding eating and drinking of feast, either / whether of month’s, or, of Sabbaths’”.
“Feast” you ‘butcher’; and “day”, and “month”, and “annual” and “the” and “Sabbath” and “practices”, you, ‘conjure up’.
“Day” isn’t mentioned at all; so your words, “annual” and “the” and “practices”, and they aren’t suggested by anything. (Only “practices” if referring to the Christian “practice” of Sabbaths’ celebration.)
Then where the Plural, “Sabbaths’”, Genitive, ‘is mentioned there’, you ‘have’ the Singular; and where the Singular, “month’s”, Genitive, ‘is mentioned there’, you ‘have’ the Plural. Every instance of something’s “mention” is of definitive importance, yet you could not present a single true claim!

“... altogether separate occasions ...”
When I say separate occasions of celebration, “either of month’s, or of Sabbaths’”, you disapprove! Where I still keep them together, saying they are the Christians’ celebrations of their Sabbath Days, “whether of month’s, or, of Sabbaths’ (weekly) occurrence”, you dissect them “altogether”, and make of them “separate occasions” of “days” (“holy days”), or “new moons”, or “annual Sabbaths”, or, “the weekly Sabbath”.

Style and syntax:
Paul is jubilant. He throughout his Letter repeats ideas in various ways as could he not compress the greatness of it into a single word or expression. For example, see 1:25-26, where he in awe describes “the word of God … the mystery”; “ages … generations”; “riches … glory” … and so virtually every thought he employs he doubles.
He continues the same style in chapter 2 and in the proximity of verse 16. In 14, “blotting out … took out of the way”; “handwriting (‘order’) = ordinance”; “contrary … against”. In 15: “principalities … powers”; “exposed … triumphed”.
Likewise in 16! Find it not strange then that the “in eating and drinking” of the Dative should be repeated by Paul’s use of ‘en merei’ – “with regard to / in respect of”, which by ellipses does exactly that, so that “eating and drinking” is made a very close equivalent or ‘double’ of “feast”. He “balls all together” into ‘Sabbaths’ Christ’s-Feast’.

 

No he does not! You just bring in grammatical possibilities, and assume he does, and then run wild with it!

I do not see you as proving that. It is just a supposition. You take "it must be a oneness of eating and drinking", and then jump right into your "eating and drinking OF sabbath feast". Right there, it is hard to follow all of these gramatical suppoitions and alaims; so I guess everyone is to just take your word for it, or go and take up doctorate in ancient Greek. This is a common tactic and substitute for genuine biblical support for one's doctrine. It "looks" scholarly, though. If the sabbath obserance is God's truth for today, and is so important; then it should be clear like all of the other truths of Christ; not something hidden behind centuries of wrong translation, and only now redsicovered by one person or one scholarly work, and that the average person cannot understand.

I was aware that it could be "in respect of", as that was in the margin. Still, note that this rule is only true When relative or / and incidental.

So now, you go purely on implication, of what "MUST" be true, rather than clear proof. Then your whole lesson on "ellipses" forcing it to refer to "eating and drinking". This is often used as a substitute for proof. But this 'implication" is not absolute, and can be subject to the interpreter. So at the most; this could possibly be true; but it would require much further study among the scholars; but most have already come to the conclusions reflected in the translations which they have published, which renders it "in respect of a holy day or new moon, or sabbath..."etc.

And where do you get the words "eating and drinking" in there TWICE? This is what I mean. You use these suppositions, and from them take the liberty to change the text at will. After all, it "MUST" mean that; regardless of what the texy says! We can make the Bible say anything we want like that.

"Let no man therefore judge you in food, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days] ". You know that the word translated "holy day" is what you are translating "feast". IT is literally "a festival". The annual sabbaths in the OT were feasts". Look at all of "heorte"/1859's other uses. It always refers to the OT "feasts", such as the Passover; never the Church's "Feast gatherings". Yet there was a weekly sabbath as well. So one refers to the annual; and the other refers to the weekly; even though that last "days" was added, as I pointed out.
Sorry, but all of those grammatical suppositions cannot change all of this.
The word used on Col. translated "new moon" means literally "the festival of the new moon". SI don;t know how you could incredulously claim that I made all of those things up.

Likewise, once again, even if your "let no one judge in in regard to eating and drinking of feasts" interpretation is true; that was never limited to any "sabbath" in the New Testament. The Christians had their love-feasts whenever they met; which we see in acts was every day of the week, even, at least at times. Once again, what Paul is telling them is not to let anyone judge them over OT celebrations (that the judgers maintained must be kept), for THESE were the shadows of Christ; not the Christian's feast gatherings themselves.

 

Eric B, quoting CGE:
“Yes, but with what significance attached? Not feasting per se, but the feasting or celebration "of Sabbaths'". Not gluttony, but spiritual eating and drinking by faith of Christ. That really, was "the issue". The world – in the last analysis – condemned the Church for believing in Christ; it condemned the Church for Sabbaths' Christ-Feast!

Eric B exposing misunderstanding:
“So the real issue they were being "judge" by the world for was "gluttony"? They were being judged for not being gluttonous? This is getting more and more desperate! That is nowhere in the context. If this was in 1 Cor.11, then you would have a point. Clearly, it is those pushing old covenant laws being criticized here.”

CGE defending:
“That is nowhere in the context.”
Where do I say it is? I don’t say it; I say “Not gluttony, but spiritual eating and drinking by faith of Christ.”
Can’t you read?
Who gets “desperate”? It must be desperation that drives you to yet more repetitiveness and greater assertion, “Clearly, it is those pushing old covenant laws being criticized here.” Haven’t you said that before but never substantiated?
Who are “being criticized here”? Who in fact, are here condemned? Is it not the Church “of Christ’s Own” – “YOU”?
By whom is this Church of Christ’s Own judged, criticised and condemned?
Does not Paul say, “by anyone” – that is, by anyone of the world opposing and condemning the Church?
Of course! Who else?
Who then, would be “those pushing old covenant laws”? The world? By way of elimination, who else but the world?
Would the “world” – “philosophy”, “gnosis”, the “dogmaticians” of the Helenistic “domain”, “principalities”, “powers” – have pushed old covenant laws? What would they care for old covenant laws?
So then it must be the Church that condemns and judges – ‘criticises’ – the Church? The Church observing old covenant laws condemning the Church for observing old covenant laws?
Are you trying to be funny?

No, here is the Church of Christ’s Own celebrating – “feasting” – her Sabbaths for the sake of Christ’s worship, “judged” and “condemned” by the world of pagan philosophy exactly for being Christian. Paul hints at nothing besides; this was the real – and ONLY – ‘issue’ that concerned him, the Church, and the world. It was not – clearly not – a matter of some – “anyone” inside or outside the Church – “pushing old covenant laws being criticized”.

Eric B:
“But they (‘Unitarians’) are using the same argument as you, and to them, you are using the same argument as us when you justify not keeping ALL of the Laws. So it is of concern. If you’re right; they’re right; but then if they’re right, you're wrong. What a situation to be in!”

Luckily I’m not in that position, thank God. Just grace! But they are NOT “using the same argument” as I, and to them, my arguments are just as unacceptable as to you, or even worse!
I use only one ‘argument’ to justify keeping the Christian Sabbath Day, and it is Christ and His Church only. So it is of concern. If I’m right, they as well as you are wrong; and if you or they were right, Paul wasted all his effort and energy to stand by the Church in her being judged and condemned by the world for being Christians … What a desperate situation to be in!


Eric B, quoting CGE:
“What says Hebrews 4? It, after having given a summary of Christ's achievement of having obtained rest and having given rest to the People of God and having entered into His own rest as God, concluding from it, says, "THEREFORE (ara) there remains valid for the People of God a keeping of the Sabbath Day!"
So does Paul, in fact, exactly so! Says he, after having given a summary of Christ's achievement of having obtained rest and having given rest to the People of God through his death and resurrection from the dead,
"THEREFORE (oun - Christ "having triumphed IN IT"), do not you (the Body of Christ's Own) be judged by anyone in eating and drinking of feast whether of month's, or, of Sabbaths' (Christ)-Feast". ”

Eric B remonstrating:
That's right; "THEREFORE". That rest He gave them IS that "Sabbath-rest" being spoken of. "He gave them rest; THEREFORE, there remains a ["sabbath-"] rest...". This right here shows how the "sabbath rest" is fulfilled and not violated even when a day is not literally "kept". And it is for THIS reason, that in Col. we are not to be judged for it-- by those (called "the circumcision") advocating that the entire letter of the Law is still in effect and must be kept literally by Christians, as we constantly see Paul dealing with.

Answer:

Consider:
“That rest He gave them IS that "Sabbath-rest" being spoken of.”
Sorry again to differ; sorry, because we only seemingly agree while true agreement for all our dialogue would have been so compensating!
“That rest He gave them IS that "Sabbath-rest" being spoken of.” The Text, once more, demands accuracy, so that that rest He gave them (4:8) IS Jesus Christ in His entering into His own rest as God (4:10) – which in both texts, IS Jesus Christ in resurrection from the dead. The supposition of verse 8, “If Jesus had given them rest” has no uncertainty about it – isn’t conditional at all. Christ availed; He “triumphed in it”, that is, He triumphed in His resurrection “FROM THE DEAD” (Col.2:12-15). He conquered the ultimate “powers” of this earthly “dominion” and “dominion of darkness” – sin and death, and the instigator of sin, satan, “murderer from the beginning”. Christ triumphed “having entered into His own rest”. It is equivalent of Christ “exalted” (Eph.1: 19-23) – “made higher than the heavens” (Hb.7:26).
In this sense ONLY, “IS” Christ “the rest” spoken of in Hebrews.
Truth of Grace is therefore, that Jesus had given them rest – “them”, “the People of God”. “Seeing therefore it is still true that some must enter into God’s rest … we who do believe, do enter (God’s) rest” : 4: 6, then 3. “For unto us the Gospel (of Christ) was preached!” (4:2)
This is the BASIS; this, the moving factor; this, the motive; this, the PRIZE (“the GREAT prize”).
Then?
“Therefore there remaineth …” the same thing? No, because that is already the status quo and accomplished fact of Christ’s achievement, namely, the rest of God. Hebrews has a word for it, the ‘anapausis’. It is not still awaiting accomplishment; it had been “finished”; it, “finished all the works of God”.
“Now (=”therefore”), there remaineth FOR THE PEOPLE of God …”, not what God had already done, but what they must do – it is “for the People of God”; it is God’s further gift to them, a gift of His grace and love, yet not that Gift and not that Grace and not that Love … Himself!
But “BECAUSE” of Himself, “there remaineth for the People of God their Sabbatismos – their keeping of the Sabbath Day”. “Sabbatismos” – it is not “anapausis”.
“That (R)est He gave them IS that "Sabbath-rest"” … no, that Rest He gave them IS Jesus Christ who had given them rest, and “If Jesus had given them rest” then there “Therefore remaineth a keeping of the Sabbath for the People of God”.
The one, a rest, God’s only Rest in Christ, His ‘anapausis’; the other, a work, a duty, an answer – a law – “for / unto the People of God”, their “Sabbatismos”.

 

Don't try to play games! You're the one who added this word, inmsinuating that that was what they were being judged for. "gluttony" contrasted with "spiritual eating or drinking". Still, the question remain; why would the world "judge" them for this? The pagan world would judge them for not worshipping the emperor, bt other than that, they didn't care what anybody did. (they granted religious freedom so long as the emporor was worshipped).
However, Jews, who had not really accepted the Gospel, and were still trying to attain righteousness through the Law, would judge the Church, to which many of them had turned. This we see clearly in Galatians 5 and 6.

"world" also means "age", and the Old Covenant was an "age". Jews were "Hellenized" and used all sorts of philosophy as well. Just look at Titus: 1:10-14 "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts,
sluggards.
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for
filthy illegal gain's sake." We get into thinking that every evil mentioned was from the pagans; like only the pagans were a problem in the Church, but as I am learning more and more, the unconverted Israelites were the biggest foes of the Church at this time.
They also did have "principality and power" in their Sanhedrin, which is the instrument used to persecute the church.

What unitarians? I was talking about Armstrong offshoots, sacred name, and messianic groups, few of which are unitarian, but most binitarian, and some even trinitarian.

You're doing nothing but trying to throw my words back at me just for arguments sake, now. They aregue just like you that Col.2 and every other pertinent scripture means something else; perhaps not the same exact thing you are saying; but with them it all basically boils down to "'let noone judge you but the Body of Messiah'. The Body of Messiah is our group, not those Sundaykeeping Churches (or sabbath churchs that do not keep all the commandments), so it is telling THEM not to judge us; not US not to judge them". Same basic thing you are saying.

HOLD IT right there! It is well known that "Jesus" in verse 8 is really a mistranslation of "Joshua"; the same name; but representing the OT figure who led the children to the promised land! So any argument, or "ellipses", or whatever other grammatical device you try to build off of that, falls.

But the whole thrust of the passage is "He that has entered into His rest has ceased from his own works. (v.10) Yet now, you are still pitching some 'duty'; the opposite of what the passage is saying. That is the great irony. The literal resting on the sabbath was itself "work".
It was not the new promise, because in thebiginning of the chapter, he begins talking about the promise, and says in v.4 "for he spoke in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise"; meaning that the sabbath was not the ultimate promise; but rather the shadow of somethign else; that was "in that wise" spoken of in the same fashion. It held the place of the true promise. It's from THIS point that we get "THEREFORE"; not a "status quo" of accomplished rest of Christ, but contrasting it with the original literal sabbath. It is still a spiritual application of "sabbatismos", so both that and "anapausis" can be used.

 

I think we're nearing the close of our present discussion. I hope I'll be able to finish off with my next post. So here's for now:

Eric B:
“People living by the letter were not actually keeping the Law (not realizing that hate was still murder an lust still adultery), and thus still under that "certificate of death", as Bob and others call it.”

GE:
Well said!
But those very people supposedly living by the letter of the Law, were they actually living by the letter? They ‘added’ many more, so weren’t really living by every word of God’s! That is true in principle and generally, everywhere, and always.
Nevertheless that is NOT the issue in the Letter to the Colossians. The Church truely lived by the letter as well as by the spirit of the Law – the spirit of God’s, Sabbath-law only. If one read the minimum of words of the Greek as the minimum of words of interpretation, the impression one gets is that the Church should not allow anyone to judge her or condemn her for being so festive, eating and drinking of feast, of month’s, or, of Sabbath’s, because these things are indeed a sign of what awaits her, even the reality of the Body of Christ’s. Therefore, don’t be robbed of your reward in Him, but receive nourishment to wax great with the vitality (and energy – Eph.1:19f) of God who raised Christ from the dead to become head of this Body.
Who will judge me for believing thus? Who will say I cannot claim to be a Christian? Who will punish me for being happy in Christ’s and God’s evidence of love towards me through His Sabbath Day? My believing His joyous Sabbath Day, could that? Or will it like the silent shadow always evidence the going forward and the growth of Christ’s Own, its Head faithfully shining and showering over, administering grace and love and joy?

Eric B, quoting G:
“Just so in our text, Colossians 2:16 [where “eating and drinking” is duplicated through Ellipses]. …

Eric B:
“So now, you go purely on implication, of what "MUST" be true, rather than clear proof. Then your whole lesson on "ellipses" forcing it to refer to "eating and drinking". This is often used as a substitute for proof. But this 'implication" is not absolute, and can be subject to the interpreter. So at the most this could possibly be true; but it would require much further study among the scholars; but most have already come to the conclusions reflected in the translations which they have published, which renders it "in respect of a holy day or new moon, or sabbath..."etc.”

GE:
Which is not much different from ‘mine’!
What I emphasise – the Christian character and essence of the Sabbaths celebrated by the Colossian Christian Church – is in fact reconcilable with this ‘conclusive’ translation. ‘My’ translation is only a more literal and more concentrated version of the Greek, and being more accurate, brings out more precisely and faithfully, the Christian character and essence of the Sabbaths the Colossian Christian Church celebrated.
This ‘published’ translation though, depends more on “what ‘MUST’ be true” than mine or the original. Mine uses Ellipses only where the Greek does; this translation uses ‘implication’ where not even necessary, for example using ‘holy day’ instead of “feast”.
I won’t go into further detail again, in view of how useless my explaining the incidence of Ellipses in the Greek before seems to have been.
But I am grateful that in whole this remark of yours is more affable than any of earlier discussion.

Eric B, quoting ‘my’ translation:
“"Do not you allow yourselves be judged by anyone of the world in your eating and drinking, or, with regard to your eating and drinking of feast - whether of month's, or, of Sabbaths' occasion". ...”

Eric B:
“And where do you get the words "eating and drinking" in there TWICE? This is what I mean. You use these suppositions, and from them take the liberty to change the text at will. After all, it "MUST" mean that; regardless of what the text says! We can make the Bible say anything we want like that.”

GE:
This is what I mean! No sooner surprised by affability, disappointed by monotony: “And where do you get the words "eating and drinking" in there TWICE?”
What was my explaining Ellipses for? To fall on ears deaf to reason?

I’ll repeat:
I get it in there twice through giving account of ‘en merei’ with the Dative required by relativity and incidental reference – as in the first and occurring incidence of ‘en brohsei kai en posei’ without ‘en merei’. The principle applies even in the English language: “judged in eating and in drinking or with regard to (that / with regard to it, i.e., “eating and drinking” the second time by Ellipses) of feast …”.
Now if that doesn’t explain to you, I give up, considering the numerous incidence even while writing this sentence of the unavoidability of Ellipses.
I use these suppositions and linguistic ‘laws’, and from them derive the implicated, required, intended, meaning of the text. It CANNOT be ignored “at will” unless unfaithfully!

GE (Eric B):
“After all, it "MUST" mean that; regardless of what the text says!”
It "MUST" mean OT practices; it "MUST" mean ‘trios’; it "MUST" NOT mean NEW Testament practices – it "MUST" NOT mean the very thing the Colossian Christians should NOT be judged in: their Christian feasting their Christian Sabbath Days!
“We can make the Bible say anything we want like that.”

Eric B:
“"Let no man therefore judge you in food, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days] ". You know that the word translated "holy day" is what you are translating "feast". It is literally "a festival". The annual sabbaths in the OT were “feasts”. Look at all of "heorte"/1859's other uses. It always refers to the OT "feasts", such as the Passover; never the Church's "Feast gatherings". Yet there was a weekly sabbath as well. So one refers to the annual; and the other refers to the weekly; even though that last "days" was added, as I pointed out.
Sorry, but all of those grammatical suppositions cannot change all of this.

The word used on Col. translated "new moon" means literally "the festival of the new moon". So I don't know how you could incredulously claim that I made all of those things up.

Likewise, once again, even if your "let no one judge in regard to eating and drinking of feasts" interpretation is true; that was never limited to any "sabbath" in the New Testament. The Christians had their love-feasts whenever they met; which we see in Acts was every day of the week, even, at least at times. Once again, what Paul is telling them is not to let anyone judge them over OT celebrations (that the judgers maintained must be kept), for THESE were the shadows of Christ; not the Christian's feast gatherings themselves.

GE:
So we’re back to square one. We fell a far way, having almost reached the last square.
If you haven’t incredulously made all of those things up yourself (“food ... or ... drink ... holy ... day ... new moon ... the ... sabbath”), you relied on it as on your own conviction.

Eric B
“You know that the word translated "holy day" is what you are translating "feast".”

GE:
You’ve noticed!

Eric B
“It is literally "a festival".”

GE:
It is literally "OF feast / OF feast(ing)" in context the literal feasting of the Colossian Christians.

Eric B
“The annual sabbaths in the OT were “feasts”. Look at all of "heorte"/1859's other uses. It always refers to the OT "feasts", such as the Passover ...”

GE:
So what? In the Old Testament the feasts were the days of the Church worshipping none other than the Christian God.
So, “... never the Church's "Feast gatherings"” is just not true.

Eric B
“Yet there was a weekly sabbath as well.”

GE:
What keen observation!

Eric B
“So one refers to the annual; and the other refers to the weekly ...”

GE:
In the Old Testament, yes! But in the New Testament, and here in Col.2:16, those "Feast gatherings" are all converged and concurring in the Christian celebration of “Feast, whether of month’s, or, of Sabbaths’ (feasting)”.

Eric B
“ ... even though that last "days" was added, as I pointed out.”

GE:
I have no problem with it. In fact, "days" was added because of Ellipses. In other words, it not really ‘was added’ but all the while was ‘there’ by ‘implication’.

Sorry, but all of these grammatical suppositions cannot be wished away.

Eric B
“The word used in Col. translated "new moon" means literally "the festival of the new moon".”

GE:
No, not in Colossians; in the Old Testament, sure! But here in Colossians we don’t have to do with the Old Testament Church, but with the New Testament Church “feast ... of month’s, or, of Sabbaths’” recurrence, “literally”. Sorry! (And you would not have been so sorry, have you stood by the text “literally”!)

Eric B quoting GE:
“There is nothing contrary to the idea (of "balling together") the different aspects of the context into "Sabbaths' Christ-Feast"), and everything in favour of it.”

Eric B:
“I do not see you as proving that. It is just a supposition. You take "it must be a oneness of eating and drinking", and then jump right into your "eating and drinking OF sabbath feast". Right there, it is hard to follow all of these grammatical suppositions and claims; so I guess everyone is to just take your word for it, or go and take up doctorate in ancient Greek. This is a common tactic and substitute for genuine biblical support for one's doctrine. It "looks" scholarly, though. If the sabbath observance is God's truth for today, and is so important; then it should be clear like all of the other truths of Christ; not something hidden behind centuries of wrong translation, and only now rediscovered by one person or one scholarly work, and that the average person cannot understand.”

GE:
I am obliged to deny mine “is a common tactic and substitute for genuine biblical support for one's doctrine”. My discoursing with you witnesses my disclaimer. I have stuck to the text as nearly and as concisely as possible; I have restricted myself to the historic background and existentiality of the Colossus Congregation; have tried to bring into testing play each and every aspect for the exercise of sound exegesis. As I have said, mine is an up-stream attempt with nothing in common with the easy and liberal and peace-loving compromising with commonality.
How many times now have you returned to your first and many times answered argument, “I do not see you as proving that (There is nothing contrary to the idea of "balling together" the different aspects of the context into "Sabbaths' Christ-Feast", and everything in favour of it.”). It is just a supposition. You take "it must be a oneness of eating and drinking", and then jump right into your "eating and drinking OF sabbath feast".
You show you perfectly understand my understanding of the text, and have explained it well. You thereby have shown you perfectly understand the text, and have explained well its simplest meaning, for that’s exactly its literal wording and supposition: “Let yourselves not be judged by anyone in eating and drinking, or with regard to it of feast, of month’s, or, of Sabbaths’ (feasting).”
I am obliged!

Eric B:
“Right there, it is hard to follow all of these grammatical suppositions and claims ...”

GE:
“Hard to understand”, you say, yet have just given perfect insight in “all of these grammatical suppositions and claims”. So I guess everyone is to just take your word for honest you don’t understand. For really there’s no need to go and take up a doctorate in ancient Greek. This is a common tactic and substitute for genuine biblical support for one's doctrine. You could simply read that translation you used as an example of a “conclusive translation”, and find no place or space in it for all the ‘conjured’ and ‘additional’ ‘OT practices’ you insist ‘are there’. It "looks" scholarly, though, just like the scores of treatises and D. Div.-theses stocked up in Sunday-apologetics libraries.

Yes, If Sabbath observance is God's truth for today, and is so important, then it WOULD be clear like all the other truths of Christ, and not something hidden behind centuries of dogmatic translations and commentaries and catechisms, so that the average person must understand it the way dogmaticians and pastors want them to.
(You considerately corrected my ‘dogmaticians’ to “dogmatarians”. But I use ‘dogmaticians’ because they are more like magicians.)

 

Whether people add to it or not; the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. Adding to it is just an additional error. It doesn't mean you're OK if you have the letter only, with no additions. (of course, it's having the letter only which forces one to add to it, since there are so many gray areas that our natures like to get by on.

But the letter is not the spirit, like your side tries to make it out to be.

Even if this translation [cough]interpretation[/cough] was true; the most that would mean is what Rom.14:6, 10 says: "He that regards the day, regards it unto the Lord; and he that regards not the day, to the Lord he does not regard it. He that eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he that eats not, to the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks. But why do you judge your brother? or why do you set at nothing your brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." You try to say "well, that was a different subject", or whatever; but it is saying exactly the same thing. It no less removes the command for the one who observes to judge the one who does not observed; whether he is himself being judged for keeping it or not.Else, Paul would say they were the ones to be judged for not keeping it.

Once again; a feast IS a holy day. I'm sorry, you can try to discredit the translations, but you look like the one grabbing for a grammatical possibility to change the text to something nobody has ever read it as. (Just like the JW's and John 1:1, once again).

You have to prove first that it is "eating and drinking OF...", rather than "Eating and drinking OR...". Once again; why has noone else ever read it like this? I guess its the Satan-breathed Sunday conspiracy, right? (But then not even the other Sabbath-keepers have changed this verse like this! They take it to mean, once again "let no one judge you...but the Body of Christ"; meaning their group; and the "is" is actually added also (like "days"; so it's not even "the body IS of Christ; yet you change this to "reality of the Body of Christ’s!") You are using this so-called "ellipsis" to totally rewrite the text, and there is no proof that it was ever written like this before for us to be the ones who rewrote it.
Now, I notice in your English "example", you admit the first "or" is there before "with regard to". It was the "or" you were trying to change to "OF"; but with that "or" there you have no warrant to add "of"; so it is just “judged in eating and in drinking or with regard to feast..."; and thus a second (possessive) "eating and drinking" is not called for at all! "with regard to" points back to JUDG[ING]— the subject of the immediate overall context; not "eating and drinking"! If I use your method of repeating words to bring out the true meaning; it is "JUDGE you for eating or drinking or JUDGE you with regard to a feast day...".
These types of arguments "fall on ears deaf to reason" because that's what they're DESIGNED to do! Who can really understand all of that right away? (which you play on in your later resonse, at the bottom). But it looks so well studied/researched; can't answer it right away; so Wow! He really knows his stuff, and must be right! I better quit my job with its Saturday schedule now!
All I am saying here is all of that is not necessary to understand the basic meanings of God's Word.

Yes; I step back and grant you more and more of the benefit of the doubt to show you that it STILL does not necessarily prove your doctrine!

Even though OT Israel has been called "the Church of the OT"; it is only in the limited sense of being the assembly of God's people. But it is very different from the Church of the NT; which is Christ's spiritual body. The Church's feast-gatherings were not contigious with the OT feasts; though some did continue to (and were allowed to, with the liberty they were granted) have their feasts on them.
However, in light of this:

Amazing! So now you're the one telling me that the OT and NT "church" are different! Yes, they are different; but a NT writer will still use OT words that the readers (familiar with the OT) will understand. You have the NT "Church" separate from the OT in terminology; but still one in the same in practice!

No it's NOT there by inplication. There are "hody days", and there is "the sabbath" day. "Day" yes; "day'S"; no; unless you are speaking of weekly sabbaths as a plural. The word is italicized meaning it just isn't in the original! You're the one wishing things into existence; so why shouldn't I just wish them back out of existence?

You haven't proven they aren't there. I showed you where the whole context is OT practices being imposed on them, and that pagans would not be "judging" them for keeping sabbath feast celebrations; and to simply read the translation; I see them all listed in the passage. The common reading DOESN'T look scholarly! It looks SIMPLE, like just reading the text that has been handed down to us! You are the one coming in with all of this deep linguistic arguments; saying everyone else is wrong, and rewriting the text based on some grammatical possibilties; more like a magician than anyone else!

You just demolished your own case! (once again trying to hash my words back at me!) If your reading of the text is true; then it WAS "hidden behind centuries of dogmatic translations and commentaries and catechisms". That was just what I was saying: "centuries of wrong translation"! Now, that's what you just described, in your own words. The question then would be Why? Why would that proper translation be lost all these centuries, and only you and whatever material you are using come out with "the truth" all of a sudden? Oh, but then how do I know it is really not some other person doing the same thing with some other doctrine (JW's, etc) who is right? After all, the Greek grammar does allow an indefinite article before any noun!
I believe God has preserved His word properly translated (though with some minor translational errors —that have been found, admitted, and corrected; but otherwise; you could still get a sense of what it is teaching. He obviously has not preserved your reading of it.

[ February 20, 2005, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[double post]

 

What I think will be my last considerations and reconsiderations,
Eric B: quoting:
"That is nowhere in the context."
Where do I say it is? I don't say it; I say "Not gluttony, but spiritual eating and drinking by faith of Christ."
Can't you read?
Eric B:
Don't try to play games! You're the one who added this word, insinuating that that was what they were being judged for. "gluttony" contrasted with "spiritual eating or drinking". Still, the question remains, why would the world "judge" them for this? The pagan world would judge them for not worshipping the emperor, but other than that, they didn't care what anybody did. (they granted religious freedom so long as the emperor was worshipped).
However, Jews, who had not really accepted the Gospel, and were still trying to attain righteousness through the Law, would judge the Church, to which many of them had turned. This we see clearly in Galatians 5 and 6.

Eric B quoting GE:
Who gets "desperate"? It must be desperation that drives you to yet more repetitiveness and greater assertion, "Clearly, it is those pushing old covenant laws being criticized here." Haven't you said that before but never substantiated?
Who are "being criticized here"? Who in fact, are here condemned? Is it not the Church "of Christ's Own" - "YOU"?
By whom is this Church of Christ's Own judged, criticised and condemned?
Does not Paul say, "by anyone" - that is, by anyone of the world opposing and condemning the Church?
Of course! Who else?
Who then, would be "those pushing old covenant laws"? The world? By way of elimination, who else but the world?
Would the "world" - "philosophy", "gnosis", the "dogmaticians" of the Hellenistic "domain", "principalities", "powers" - have pushed old covenant laws? What would they care for old covenant laws?

quote:
No, here is the Church of Christ's Own celebrating - "feasting" - her Sabbaths for the sake of Christ's worship, "judged" and "condemned" by the world of pagan philosophy exactly for being Christian. Paul hints at nothing besides; this was the real - and ONLY - 'issue' that concerned him, the Church, and the world. It was not - clearly not - a matter of some - "anyone" inside or outside the Church - "pushing old covenant laws being criticized".

Eric B:
""World" also means "age", and the Old Covenant was an "age". Jews were "Hellenized" and used all sorts of philosophy as well. Just look at Titus: 1:10-14 "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, sluggards.
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy illegal gain's sake."
We get into thinking that every evil mentioned was from the pagans; like only the pagans were a problem in the Church, but as I am learning more and more, the unconverted Israelites were the biggest foes of the Church at this time.
They also did have "principality and power" in their Sanhedrin, which is the instrument used to persecute the church.

Eric B quoting GE:
"But they ('Unitarians')
Eric B:
What unitarians? I was talking about Armstrong offshoots, sacred name, and messianic groups, few of which are unitarian, but most binitarian, and some even trinitarian.

Eric B quoting GE:
Luckily I'm not in that position, thank God. Just grace! But they are NOT "using the same argument" as I, and to them, my arguments are just as unacceptable as to you, or even worse!
I use only one 'argument' to justify keeping the Christian Sabbath Day, and it is Christ and His Church only. So it is of concern. If I'm right, they as well as you are wrong; and if you or they were right, Paul wasted all his effort and energy to stand by the Church in her being judged and condemned by the world for being Christians ... What a desperate situation to be in!
Eric B:
You're doing nothing but trying to throw my words back at me just for arguments sake, now. They argue just like you that Col.2 and every other pertinent scripture means something else; perhaps not the same exact thing you are saying; but with them it all basically boils down to "'let none judge you but the Body of Messiah'. The Body of Messiah is our group, not those Sundaykeeping Churches (or sabbath churches that do not keep all the commandments), so it is telling THEM not to judge us; not US not to judge them". Same basic thing you are saying.

Eric B quoting GE:
The Text, once more, demands accuracy, so that that rest He gave them (4:8) IS Jesus Christ in His entering into His own rest as God (4:10) - which in both texts, IS Jesus Christ in resurrection from the dead. The supposition of verse 8, "If Jesus had given them rest" has no uncertainty about it - isn't conditional at all. Christ availed; He "triumphed in it", that is, He triumphed in His resurrection "FROM THE DEAD" (Col.2:12-15).
Eric B:
HOLD IT right there! It is well known that "Jesus" in verse 8 is really a mistranslation of "Joshua"; the same name; but representing the OT figure who led the children to the promised land! So any argument, or "ellipses", or whatever other grammatical device you try to build off of that, falls.

Eric B quoting GE:
This is the BASIS; this, the moving factor; this, the motive; this, the PRIZE ("the GREAT prize").
Then?
"Therefore there remaineth ..." the same thing? No, because that is already the status quo and accomplished fact of Christ's achievement, namely, the rest of God. From God's side, so to speak; and from our side, in and through Jesus Christ by faith, reading, "For He that IS entered" (also 4:14, 8:1, 9:12). From our side also, by faith in Jesus Christ, reading also, "For we who believed do enter into (His) Rest"; "some ... provoked (God's anger) howbeit not all" (3:16). "Some" did believe, and thus, "came out of Egypt by Moses", and so with us by Christ, also we through faith by Christ have indeed entered His Rest. "Let us labour therefore to enter into THAT Rest", 4:11 referring back to the rest that Christ availed in verse 10, "as God from His own works". Hebrews has a word for it all along, the 'anapausis' / 'katapausis' of God, Jesus Christ. (Don't now try to rob Christ of this glory and bestow it upon Joshua of old, for in the face of Jesus it pleases God to place and find His glory - upon and from no one else.)
This Rest of God is not still awaiting accomplishment except by us and all future generations, by entering by faith. It had been "finished" in and by Jesus Christ; IT -in fact HE- "finished all the works of God". "And being made perfect (in resurrection from the dead) HE, became the Author (and Finisher) of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him."
"Now (="therefore"), there remaineth FOR THE PEOPLE of God ...", not what God had already done, but what they -we- must do: It is "for the People of God"; God's further gift to them, a gift of His grace and love, yet not that Gift and not that Grace and not that Love ... Himself!
But "BECAUSE" of Himself, "there remaineth for the People of God their Sabbatismos - their keeping of the Sabbath Day". "Sabbatismos" - it is not "anapausis".

GE quoting Eric B:
"That (R)est He gave them IS that "Sabbath-rest""
GE:
... Never read it!
No, that Rest He gave them IS Jesus Christ who had given them rest, and "If Jesus had given them rest", and AS the Rest "entered" = "finished" = "rested" = "obeyed", THEN, there "Therefore remaineth a keeping of the Sabbath for the People of God".
The one, a rest, God's only Rest in Christ, His 'anapausis'; the other, a work, a duty, an answer -a law- a spiritual rest being their keeping of the Sabbath Day non the less, "for / unto the People of God", their "Sabbatismos".

Eric B:
But the whole thrust of the passage is "He that has entered into His rest has ceased from his own works. (v.10) Yet now, you are still pitching some 'duty'; the opposite of what the passage is saying. That is the great irony. The literal resting on the sabbath was itself "work".
It was not the new promise, because in the beginning of the chapter, he begins talking about the promise, and says in v.4 "for he spoke in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise"; meaning that the sabbath was not the ultimate promise; but rather the shadow of something else; that was "in that wise" spoken of in the same fashion. It held the place of the true promise. It's from THIS point that we get "THEREFORE"; not a "status quo" of accomplished rest of Christ, but contrasting it with the original literal sabbath. It is still a spiritual application of "sabbatismos", so both that and "anapausis" can be used.

GE:
You reason of "the original literal Sabbath", referring to it, writing: "... for he spoke in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise"; meaning that the sabbath was not the ultimate promise; but rather the shadow of something else; that was "in that wise" spoken of in the same fashion. It held the place of the true promise."
Then you conclude, writing: "It's from THIS point that we get "THEREFORE" ... contrasting it with the original literal Sabbath".
'Contrasting' the 'original' Sabbath with the 'original Sabbath'? Then surely we find in verse 9 it is the 'original' "Seventh Day"?
I do NOT say it is the ""status quo" of the accomplished rest of Christ" we find in verse 9; I say it is "the original literal Sabbath" (just like you), BASED upon the ""status quo" of the accomplished rest of Christ" found in both the foregoing and the following verses - which textual pertinence you want to disprove.

So everything you say yourself confirms, and in no way does away with the Sabbath as the Day of the People's acceptance of their being represented by Christ in eternal rest in God. Everything, except your negation in the phrase, "not a "status quo" of accomplished rest of Christ", and the last clause of your last sentence. For herein - in everything you have discovered yourself - is forbidden that ""anapausis" can be used" instead of 'sabbatismos' - instead of the way the Word of God has it - it being "a spiritual application of "sabbatismos"" whether a 'literal' or physical or in space and time an 'application' by the People or not. It changes nothing of its 'spirituality'.
The 'Sabbatismos' is the Sabbath Day 'applied' or used by "the People of God" for its sole and ultimate PURPOSE for being: To serve the worship of Him, to lead to the Rest that is His, to point to the Goal and Prize wherefore it is called "the Sabbath OF THE LORD, the Sabbath OF your God"!
And it is 'applied' or used by "the People of God" for its sole and ultimate REASON: The fact that "Jesus had given them rest"; and that He Himself, "has entered into His own rest as God".
You say it yourself!


1. You cannot deny the immediate provocation for "therefore" - the fact Jesus had given them rest and Himself had entered into His own rest through resurrection from the dead. 2. Nor could you oppose the promissory and the fulfilled causal motives of God's own speaking "thus concerning the Seventh Day", which you have well defined when you wrote:, "It was not the new promise, because in the beginning of the chapter, he begins talking about the promise, and says in v.4 "for he spoke in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise"; meaning that the sabbath was not the ultimate promise; but rather the shadow of something else; that was "in that wise" spoken of in the same fashion. It held the place of the true promise." 3. God never "spoke" but "through the Son". "In these last days" God only no longer spoke through the Son "through the prophets", but through Himself and through His own works of accomplishment all having culminated in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. 4. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, "On the Sabbath" - never forget!

Both the 'anapausis' (Jesus) and the 'sabbatismos' (Sabbath's-practice or "application") belong to God, and belongs to Him in both respects: with respect to the True Rest, as well as to the Rest-Day. "Therefore, the Son of Man (who is God) is Lord indeed of the Sabbath Day". The True Rest is of the Essence of the Rest Day. "One is here greater than ..." the Sabbath indeed! The One the Lord; the other the Serf. (The honour of the Serf is being the Serf of this Lord and of this People. Could you think of anything more honourable? It is an "Appointed Day", "Holy Day", thereby.)

Dear Eric B,
I think we both at this point have exchanged about everything we could think of, and it looks we haven't come nearer to one another in the least.
Karl Barth says the only bridge between believing and not believing (one another) is one's confession. To me it is a beautiful illustration of the Church, which is the place and opportunity of a common and confessed faith, the Faith of the Faith in Jesus Christ.
So I don't think I can do better than just confess before God and you, what I believe, having already confessed before God and you, in Whom I believe!
At the same time my confession, I pray, before God and you, will be a protestation against what I do not believe.


So for even further consideration:

Eric B:
"You're the one who added this word ('gluttony'), insinuating that that was what they were being judged for."

GE:
I didn't insinuate it. I stated gluttony was NOT what they could be judged for, for the very reason they in truth were judged for an "eating and drinking" of gluttony's opposite, namely, the "eating and drinking of feast of month's, or, of Sabbaths'", by and of the Faith of, and in, Jesus Christ - a spiritual "eating and drinking". Not to say the Congregation didn't actually eat and drink! What of the Lord's Supper; or even what you've mentioned, their 'love-feasts'? The New Testament doesn't bother to tell us more, because what was important was it was a feasting of Christ-Feast!

You say that I say that "they were being judged for "gluttony" contrasted with "spiritual eating or drinking"", and that therefore, "the question (still) remains", "why would the world "judge" them for this?".
The 'question' would not have 'remained', have you not made the false supposition; have you not turned my words upside-down, because I said they were being judged for "spiritual eating and drinking", NOT for gluttony. What I actually said, answers your question, "why would the world "judge" them for this?". The world would judge them for their spiritual eating and drinking OF CHRIST-FEAST and not worshipping the emperor instead!

Eric B:
"The pagan world would judge them for not worshipping the emperor, but other than that, they didn't care what anybody did. (They granted religious freedom so long as the emperor was worshipped)."
GE:
In politics rules and policies are made to brake (unlike in the Bible God's commandments). Paul describes the world as deceitful in this Letter.
To learn from this Letter is the hard reality of a "handwritten ordinance, a document of law" that was issued "against us" by none less than the "authorities" - verse 14. The "Rule" or 'law', the "principality" or 'government' - of the land (or "world") - "judged / condemned" the Church. That's what Paul says.
Then Paul doesn't say the "Principalities" or "Authorities" prosecuted the Christians for not worshipping the emperor; he says they judged them for "feasting of Sabbaths". That's what Paul says.

The "powers" of this world cared a lot about what the Christians did. It all the time tried to dissuade them from the Faith and from their great Reward; it in every possible manner hoped to force them into conformity with itself.
God did not judge the Church. Paul did not condemn his brethren. The Body did not judge one another - it was not divided. No one incriminated the other. Their unity and order and peace and love was renowned worldwide and they were an example to all the other Congregations. That's what Paul says.

Eric B:
"However, Jews, who had not really accepted the Gospel, and were still trying to attain righteousness through the Law, would judge the Church, to which many of them had turned."
GE:
I do not deny what you say and am aware of the historic truth of what you say as well as you are, and of the fact it can be inferred from Paul's writings.
However, this impression and this knowledge is not obtainable from Paul's Letter to the Colossians. In this Letter he never mentions the Jews except to say that among those who have "put on Christ", undoubtedly the Colossian Congregation, "there is neither Greek, nor Jew ... but Christ is all and in all".
And he never mentions a Judaistic practice or doctrine anyone of the Body was "still trying to attain". Whatever practices or doctrines Paul does refer to, were, either the "doctrines of men", described in many other similar ways defining it as of the "world" (of the "cosmos" or "age"), or, "the knowledge of His will", described in many other similar ways defining it as of the dominion of Christ - "Head of the Church". They were not double-minded - not hesitatingly Christian, hesitatingly Judaists. The Colossian Christian Community was vibrant, progressive, PURE Christianity!

The great Christian doctrine of righteousness by faith - the anti-pole of "righteousness through the Law", although the grand presupposed truth of the Christian Faith, not expressly forms the specific subject of this Letter, as it is in the Letter to the Roman Congregation where the Jews were more in number and had greater influence.
In Colossians, "the world" was "Greek" and humanistic, and not "Jew" and 'legalistic' ('Old Testamentish') - which is absolutely clear from the whole of the Letter. Jews, unlike in Rome, in Colossus must have been the minority by far.

A further distinction of the Colossian Congregation - without a single exception - indicated, was that no one of them ever turned away from the Faith to the imposing and luring world. Paul commended them, especially: "Ye serve the Lord Jesus ... ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance". "ALL the Body by joints and bands from the Head receiving nourishment ... increases (in the grace and unity of God "in Him") with the increase (vitality, energy) of God." As Jesus prayed, "That they all may be one as thou Father, in Me, and I in thee".
Don't you envy this Church? I do!

Eric B:
"Still, the question remains; why would the world "judge" them for this?"
Do you, saying "still", admit "eating and drinking" was "spiritual"? Why question it? From where does the question "remain"? You import the "question" from nowhere - it never occurs and never is suggested - not in the letter! No, Paul tells the reader, in so many words, "why would the world "judge" them", and for what? For "eating and drinking, that, in respect of (eating and drinking) of feast, either of month's, or of Sabbaths'" ... with so many words! Why not believe Paul?

Eric B:
""world" also means "age", and the Old Covenant was an "age"."
GE:
Now I see what till now has puzzled you so about the word 'cosmos'! Clearly the influence of the 'preterists' was it?
In algebra if a=b and c=b, then a=c! Neat! But useless with one's mind "on things above". Worthless for "spiritual understanding".
You once again act your old stunt, catapult from a thousand years back into the Colossian situation, the 'Old Covenant'-idea. Then all of a sudden the real "world" of the Colossian situation ceases to exist, and you enter your own dream world.

Paul also refers to a previous 'state' or 'age' in this Letter, but it is not the "Old Covenant" (from the Old Testament); it is this:
"... members which are upon the earth - fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness - which is idolatry ... in the which you in the past used to walk, when you lived in it".
Come again, is this that which you have gone to the Old Testament for, to bring it over and in here?

"Who hath delivered us (the Colossian Congregation) from the power of darkness, and has transformed us into the Kingdom of His dear Son." The "power of darkness" is the "world" meant in Colossians.
"The Gospel, which is come unto you, as in all the world ...". Here, the 'world', is the geographical and demographical 'world'.
Nowhere in Colossians will you find Paul saying or just thinking the 'world' 'cosmos' is the "age" of the "Old Covenant".
Could you see it, you won't insist, "Still the question remains". When the Church is judged, it is judged by the world of the day, by the world the world, the immoral, godless Hellenistic world with all its boasting in wisdom and knowledge. Not by the Old Covenant found in the Word of God, and not because of it! No, the Church is judged and condemned by law of the real world - and by "anyone" of it whether prosecutor at law or professor at science / philosophy ... "anyone" representing this world, IS, the Greek 'cosmos'!

You correctly claim: "The pagan world would judge them for not worshipping the emperor, but other than that, they didn't care what anybody did."
I could not have expressed my viewpoint, better myself! What besides, might you say, did the world in fact judge the Christian Community for than for not worshipping the emperor and not Christ; for not worshipping the "world" of the emperor, but the Christ "above" (where is hid in Christ in God our life); for not worshipping the "dominion" of the emperor, but the "dominion" of Christ; for not believing the "authority" of the emperor, but the "authority" of Christ; for not believing the "knowledge" of the emperor, but the "knowledge" of Christ? For not believing the godhead of the emperor, but the divinity of Christ!
What you here say, is the confirming of the 'world' of Paul's mind being the 'world' of the emperor as over against the 'world' of Paul's mind being the realm and reign and universe of the Saviour of the world, the Christ in whom the Christian Body of Believers living in the city-state of Colossus, believed.
The situation ends up in the intolerable, unacceptable, accursed and damned presence in this world and worship of the emperor, of the world and worship of the Christian Christ. The Christian Community facing trial! Facing judgement! Facing condemnation! Facing extinction! The Christian Church affronting the emperor; the Christian Congregation confronting the emperor!
But Paul intervenes, for Christ intercedes for His Own of whom He is the Head and the Lord and the God, assuring the Community: Don't be afraid, Christ has vanquished! Christ has triumphed! Christ in that He triumphed, extinguished the issue of law against you (us). Having forgiven you all trespasses, He removed all judgement contrary you (us). He even blotted out this law-order in that He nailed all law to his cross. He annulled any judgement against you (us).
Therefore then, don't you let yourselves be judged by anyone! I Paul your solicitor, say.
You know very well with regard to what Paul told the Congregation they should not be judged!
Now I ask you once more, was it with regard to their Christian faith, or not? Was it in respect of their feasting and celebrating Jesus their Saviour, or not? That, dear Eric B, is the ONLY 'question remaining' which you cannot but answer affirmatively. And having answered it affirmatively (how could you not?) you have affirmed the Sabbath is Christian, and is Christian Faith, because it is Resurrection Faith!

Eric B:
"We get into thinking that every evil mentioned was from the pagans; like only the pagans were a problem in the Church, but as I am learning more and more, the unconverted Israelites were the biggest foes of the Church at this time.
They also did have "principality and power" in their Sanhedrin, which is the instrument used to persecute the church."

GE:
No objection! I only ask, with reference to which Scripture are you making this observation? Colossians? The supply me the references, please.

Eric B:
"You're doing nothing but trying to throw my words back at me just for arguments sake, now. They argue just like you that Col.2 and every other pertinent scripture means something else; perhaps not the same exact thing you are saying; but with them it all basically boils down to "'let none judge you but the Body of Messiah'. The Body of Messiah is our group, not those Sundaykeeping Churches (or sabbath churches that do not keep all the commandments), so it is telling THEM not to judge us; not US not to judge them". Same basic thing you are saying."

GE:
I'm no "Armstrong offshoot". I'm a Calvinist if anything if I weren't an ordinary, Protestant, 'Reformed' Christian. I only know the Armstrong people teach a 72 hour entombment - which I think is rubbish. And that they teach Jesus Christ is not God the only "I AM" - which I think is blasphemy and anti-Christ. I won't allow them any consideration in interpretation of this for me vital Scripture of Colossians 2:16f. By what I gather from your reference to their interpretation of our text above, it confirms my estimation of their whole system, as being Christ-less and idolatrous so haughty it is.
"Same basic thing" I am saying? Are you honestly believing what you accuse me of here? I ask, not because I care about me being falsely accused, but for your part - how could you say that before God and Christ and your own conscience?
But the baddest thing about all this is, is this your refutation of my supposition the Sabbaths the Colossian Congregation celebrated by feasting Christ the Resurrected was Christian by reason of it?

Eric B:
"HOLD IT right there! It is well known that "Jesus" in verse 8 is really a mistranslation of "Joshua"; the same name; but representing the OT figure who led the children to the promised land! So any argument, or "ellipses", or whatever other grammatical device you try to build off of that, falls."
By far the most authoritative and most numerous Bible scholars stand by the 'translation', "Jesus", which simply is the transliteration of the original and stands for Jesus Christ as can be seen from the context and message. (In other words, both exegetically and hermeneutically.) The author of the Letter never refers to Joshua; but in almost every sentence and phrase to Jesus Christ. When he mentions the name, "Jesus" then, to whom would any sound-minded person think he refers? "We see Jesus!" (2:9) is the whole theme of the Letter! "Jesus was made Surety." (7:22) I maintain Jesus was made Surety for the fact "There therefore remains a keeping of the Sabbath Day for the people of God" - 4:9 I maintain Jesus was made Surety by feat of having given them rest, and by feat of Himself having entered into His own rest as God" - 4:8 and 10. What glorious and joyous establishment of God's Sabbath Day it is by "Jesus the Mediator of the NEW COVENANT" (12:24)!
"Jesus" appears seven times in this Letter for Jesus Christ. So what misconception it is "It is well known that "Jesus" in verse 8 is really a mistranslation of "Joshua"".

I only mention this to confirm the Sabbath's basis in New Testament terminology and presupposition, which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, throughout and without exception.


Eric B:
"But the whole thrust of the passage is "He that has entered into His rest has ceased from his own works. (v.10) Yet now, you are still pitching some 'duty'; the opposite of what the passage is saying. That is the great irony. The literal resting on the sabbath was itself "work"."

GE:
"The literal resting on the sabbath was itself "work"."
I fully agree.
It also applies to God, resting on the Seventh Day. In that He rested, He "finished". In that God "finished", He "energised / exercised / worked" the "finishing of all His works" - God's act and ultimate act of his "power" or "energy". Only one event in all of history - in all of God's eternity and in all of man's creation - answers to this "rest" of God's - it is Christ Jesus, "when God raised Him from the dead"! (Eph.1:19f)
Hebrews 4:8 to 10 deals with this event and because of this, cannot deal with any other, or with the mere work of rest of any mere man (like Joshua). It therefore deals with this Person, so that "he who entered" is none other than "He Who entered", God, in "Jesus" His Christ, upon His entering into His own Rest in the event of His ultimate deed of work, His rest, in the resurrection of Him from the dead. The reason for the Sabbath - "Jesus" the Son of Man - "is here" - is God - and "is greater than" the Sabbath, and comes before the Sabbath as well as after it. We literally find it so in the construction of verses 8, then 9, then 10.
We therefore do NOT find "The Rest" of God in verse 9, but the Sabbath Day of Rest of God, the prerequisite for which we find in verses 8 and 10, both in which we find Christ in resurrection from the dead the Real "Rest of God", Who "has GIVEN THEM (the People of God) Rest", and "Who has HIMSELF ENTERED into His own rest as God from His" - through and in His resurrection from the dead. "THEREFORE THEN REMAINS A SABBATH-REST FOR THE PEOPLE OF GOD". It is for the People of GOD - for the SAVED, the Church. It is FOR THEM, as Jesus Lord of the Sabbath declared: The Sabbath (Day) was made / energised / created FOR MAN - not only for his sake the salvation of him, but for also his duty and keeping being already and eternally saved through Jesus' resurrection from the dead.

Not I, but God, is so "still pitching some 'duty'". He never ever left man without duty. In fact we the redeemed are saved, the Bible says, "unto good works". But what privilege and blessing duty is - especially when duty from God, and because of such great Reason as Jesus having entered into His own rest and as having given them (us) rest thereby! God "still" invites you, to enter into a sabbatismos still left, still valid, for the People of God His Church. "Today, if you hear His Voice - if you hear Jesus Christ God's Rest - harden not your heart!" 'For if Jesus gave (you) rest, there remains for (your) enjoyment and duty, a keeping of the Sabbath Day of the LORD - for thus has He entered into His own rest as God from His.' (Paraphrased of course but I believe as near to the true intent of the Scripture as possible.)

 

It is hard to read your responses because you quote a whole lot of points you don't even answer; then you quote quotes of yourself, and quotes of yourself quoting me; etc. and without using the tags that sets the quoted text apart from the new material. Then you repeat stuff adding new comments inbetween. And it is so long. It is hard to gather the new responses!
Anyway,

No; they wouldn't care about their "Christ-feast". They wanted them to ADD some homage to the empeor to it; not do away with the feast. Paul nowhere talks about emperor worship in this passage; that is you trying to take my argument in your favor. (but then you even acknowledge this and repeat it yourself!)

the "handwriting of ordinances" refers to the written Law (which includes "circumcision"; also mentioned). The temple institution and Sanhedrin were also "authorities"; "principalities" and "governments" under the Romans; but nevertheless, still active, and having power over the people. Look at how Jesus (in Matt.5 and elsewhere) refers to "the council".

And that was by trying to force them to add pagan practices; not by trying to stop the Christian pratices. They would not care if a group of people had feasts in honor of Christ; any more than other groups having feast in honor of any other gods. It was only the Jews who were that directly opposed to the name of Christ.

Once again; they could have Christ if only they would worship BOTH Him and the emperor. And the pagan injunctions against the Christians had nothing to do with any covenant God had with them. (just like the "manmade additions" others claim regarding the "handwriting of ordinances") So they could therefore not be "nailed to the Cross". They were never legitimate (to God) to begin with.

Yes, and those harassing them over the Law were not seen as truly part of the Church. Some crept in or "bewitched" the Christians; but they were clearly denounced as false preachers; or "ministers of Satan".

Apparently; those that were there (how many ever that was) were still harassing the Church. Just remember; many Christians were Jews, and these people would continue to receive flack from their families.

I was once again granting you the benefit of the doubt. Even if it meant what you say; you still would not have any historical proof that pagans "judged" the Church just for having a spiritual feast.
I also notice that this word "judge" (krino) is almost always associated either with God, or the Law. Never "persecution by the pagans"! God legitimately judges by His spiritual Law; man falsely judges by the Letter!

You are answering stuff from before. You must have missed or not gotten up to where I admitted that I was wrong on "world" in that respect.

But precisely one of the implications from the Gospel being taught; is that the Hebraic paradigm is just as much apart of the "cosmos" as the Hellenistic one! One was no better than the others; though the Hebrews liked to look down on the Gentiles as "dogs". This is one of the main reasons why the Jews opposed the Gospel so much in the first place!

What you still have not addressed is that even if it did mean "christ sabbath feast"; that still does not prove it is binding on everyone else. Once again; Romans 14:5ff "One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind. He that regards the day, regards it unto the Lord; and he that regards not the day, to the Lord he does not regard it. He that eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he that eats not, to the Lord he eats". Therefore; "let no one judge you" for it. But then they were not to judge others for not keeping it.
Once again; I am not "admitting" your view; but granting you the benefit of the doubt just for the sake of that point. You still have not proven satisfactorily that the text is to be rendered "Christ sabbath feast" anyway. So you can't go on and act as if that is a given , and then continue to rewrite the context of the passage based on it.

I know you're not an Armstrong offshoot. Still; you're method of changing the meanings of passages that disprove mandatory sabbath observance is very similar to theirs. (though I see that you go way beyond them in the extent you are willing to go to change the text!)
(And actually; they do teach that Christ is God the I AM; one of very few cults that do!)

 

We're getting things mixed up now. v.4 is the original sabbath; being contrasted with the spiritual rest [from "workS"; not "work" on a day of the week] of v.9.
You had said "
“Therefore there remaineth …” the same thing? No, because that is already the status quo and accomplished fact of Christ’s achievement, namely, the rest of God. Hebrews has a word for it, the ‘anapausis’. It is not still awaiting accomplishment; it had been “finished”; it, “finished all the works of God”.
“Now (=”therefore”), there remaineth FOR THE PEOPLE of God …”, not what God had already done, but what they must do – it is “for the People of God”; it is God’s further gift to them, a gift of His grace and love, yet not that Gift and not that Grace and not that Love … Himself!"
The problem here is that you are apparently looking at "therefore" as the agent of "contrast". No; quite the opposite; "therefore" is SUPPORTIVE; denoting that one thing MEANS or LEADS TO the other; not contrasts it.
The contrast is, "seeing therefore that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief...For if J[oshua] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."... cont.

cont. ...If you take this to "the [spiritual] rest" of "Jesus Christ", contrasted" with "another day"; meaning "the literal sabbath"; then look what you have rendered: Jesus DID NOT really give us rest; and that is why "therefore" we still need the literal sabbath! I guess if He didn't; then we still would be under the OT Law; wouldn't we! (but then; we would have no hope at all; because "by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified"!)
"IF J_____ HAD given them rest..." is saying that [whoever this is] did NOT really give them rest. He mentions the seventh day; then says "IF Joshua (superseding Moses as the leader and enforcer of the Law) had given them rest...". So this is contasting the literal day as not giving the true rest. Therefore, the true rest is something ELSE!
So "the immediate provocation for 'therefore'" as you put it "- the fact Jesus...had entered into His own rest through resurrection from the dead" means that "...giveS them rest [as He] Himself" rests. This is something different from the DAY of religious duty the Israelites had!
You will notice that the name "Joshua" is never otherwise used in the NT. It was basically the same name; and the translators got it mixed up. Of course; it fits well into your theory, so that will slant you in that direction.

I don't see where you prove that the two words cannot be interchanged when they are both describing types of "rest". I don't see how all of this stuff I am saying is somehow proving your point. The passage is speaking of spiritual rest in contrast to physical rest on a day. You apparently don't get this. There can be no spiritual application of literal rest on a day; because (to you) it is already spiritual; right? So you continue to think of it meaning the literal day, and when I point out what it really means; I am really proving your point.

So it is to keep man "already" saved? God already saves us, but we ust keep it that way by resting on a sabbath? Here lies the problem. That is just a slick rehash of works-justification. We don't initially earn it; but we just "keep" it through our works. But when we get to the resurrection; it will ultimately be because of our works, then!

Yes, we are saved unto good works. But this passage is not talking about that. It is contrasting us with Israel. Israel had the sabbath, (and though many were chastized for not keeping it throughout the OT by the time of the NT; they were not only keeping it; but had added all sorts of further strictures upon it. Yet they still had "not entered into His rest". Yet you persist in trying to make some "duty" of physical rest the true spiritual rest!

But that's not what the text says. Obeying what the text says is to CEASE from one's own workS (not "WORK" as one does on a day; but rather "religious duties"!) What you have described (in interpreted as keeping a day) is to continue in one's "works" and not enter the true rest!

 

Eric B quoting GE:
But those very people supposedly living by the letter of the Law, were they actually living by the letter? They ‘added’ many more, so weren’t really living by every word of God’s! That is true in principle and generally, everywhere, and always.
Eric B:
“Whether people add to it or not; the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. Adding to it is just an additional error. It doesn't mean you're OK if you have the letter only, with no additions. (Of course, it's having the letter only which forces one to add to it, since there are so many grey areas that our natures like to get by on.)”

GE:
“Sin is lawlessness”; yet you claim lawlessness is the only thing that’s “OK”. Lawlessness – not even “having the letter only” – is what ‘our natures like’, and the law is that what our natures would like ‘to get by’, but cannot. “O wretched man I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death?”
“... the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. Adding to it is just an additional error”. And if you think you can do without even “the letter only”, you’re just bluffing yourself. “Know you not, brother, how that the Law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?” Death gnaws at death’s body and the letter kills until our dying day. Law is for the transgressor and who is not its transgressor all the days of his life? You perhaps? Not I, I must confess – I stand in need of grace every breath of my life, of the grace of God through Jesus Christ. “I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Christ (to me) is the Word and Law of God. Jesus is God’s Blessing of the Sabbath Day, God’s Sanctification of the Sabbath Day, God’s Finishing of the Sabbath Day, God’s Rest of the Sabbath Day, All the Works of God of the Sabbath Day – “for God thus concerning of the Seventh Day spoke” – “through the Son”, as “of old”, so “in these last days”.
His Word never passes, never changes, but “is”, “forever”, “the Same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow”, “Jesus”!

Enjoy your grey areas; I’ll revel in God’s certainties.
Eric B quoting GE:
Nevertheless that is NOT the issue in the Letter to the Colossians. The Church truly lived by the letter as well as by the spirit of the Law – the spirit of God’s, Sabbath-law only.
Eric B:
“But the letter is not the spirit, like your side tries to make it out to be.”

GE:
“My side”? Who’s on my side? Glad to hear there are some after your glee over my solo recitative!
Eric B quoting GE:
If one read the minimum of words of the Greek as the minimum of words of interpretation, the impression one gets is that the Church (“you”) should “not allow anyone to judge (her) or condemn her for eating and drinking of feast, of month’s, or, of Sabbath’s, because these things are indeed a sign of things a coming, even the reality of the Body of Christ’s. Therefore, don’t be robbed of your reward in Him, but receive nourishment to wax great with the vitality (and energy – Eph.1:19f) of God who raised Christ from the dead to become head of this Body.” (This is hardly a paraphrasing of the passage; it is much rather a literally accurate rendering of the text.)
Eric B quoting GE:
What I emphasise – the Christian character and essence of the Sabbaths celebrated by the Colossian Christian Church – is in fact reconcilable with this ‘conclusive’ translation. ‘My’ translation is only a more literal and more concentrated version of the Greek, and being more accurate, brings out more precisely and faithfully, the Christian character and essence of the Sabbaths the Colossian Christian Church celebrated.
Eric B quoting GE:
In the Old Testament, yes! But in the New Testament, and here in Col.2:16, those "Feast gatherings" are all converged and concurring in the Christian celebration of “Feast, whether of month’s, or, of Sabbaths’ (feasting)”.
Eric B quoting GE:
I am obliged to deny mine “is a common tactic and substitute for genuine biblical support for one's doctrine”. My discoursing with you witnesses my disclaimer. I have stuck to the text as nearly and as concisely as possible; I have restricted myself to the historic background and existentiality of the Colossus Congregation; have tried to bring into testing play each and every aspect for the exercise of sound exegesis. As I have said, mine is an up-stream attempt with nothing in common with the easy and liberal and peace-loving compromising with commonality.
How many times now have you returned to your first and many times answered argument, “I do not see you as proving that (There is nothing contrary to the idea of "balling together" the different aspects of the context into "Sabbaths' Christ-Feast", and everything in favour of it.”). You show you perfectly understand my understanding of the text, and have explained it well. You thereby have shown you perfectly understand the text, and have explained well its simplest meaning, for that’s exactly its literal wording and supposition: “Let yourselves not be judged by anyone in eating and drinking, or with regard to it of feast, of month’s, or, of Sabbaths’ (feasting).”
I am obliged!

GE:
Noticing how you quote me without comment, should I deduce from it you agreed with those sections? If you agreed, I am unable to comprehend how you can disagree with anything else I’ve said except that you must have disregarded totally everything you thus quoted.


Eric B:
“Even if this translation [cough] interpretation [cough] was true; the most that would mean is what Rom.14:6, 10 says: "He that regards the day, regards it unto the Lord; and he that regards not the day, to the Lord he does not regard it. He that eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he that eats not, to the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks. But why do you judge your brother? or why do you set at nothing your brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." You try to say "well, that was a different subject", or whatever; but it is saying exactly the same thing. It no less removes the command for the one who observes to judge the one who does not observed; whether he is himself being judged for keeping it or not. Else, Paul would say they were the ones to be judged for not keeping it.”

GE:
Consider: “Even if this translation [cough] interpretation [cough] was true...”
Yes, cough and scorn, for you’re coughing and scorning at :
“Meh oun (Not therefore then [for the resurrection of Christ])
tis (anyone [of men / of the world])
hymahs (YOU [the Church not of men / not of the world])
krinetoh (let judge / condemn / incriminate / sue)
en brohsei kai en posei (in drinking and in eating / celebrating)
eh en merei (or with regard to)
heortehs (‘that’ OF feast)
eh neomehnias (either OF month’s)
eh sabbatohn (or OF Sabbath’s).
That’s what you’re ridiculing.
“Not therefore anyone you let judge you in eating and in drinking or in respect OF a feast of a new moon or of Sabbaths” – Marshall. “Something nobody has ever read it as”? Like “none else ever read it?” You wish! I’m not the only one suspected of not telling the truth, suspected of wrangling the Word, and by simple deduction, accused of lying.
Was Paul also lying?

Eric B:
“... the most that would mean is what Rom.14:6, 10 says...”
GE:
We – or rather I – have finished talking on this false equalisation.

Eric B quoting GE:
This ‘published’ translation though, depends more on “what ‘MUST’ be true” than mine or the original. Mine uses Ellipsis only where the Greek does; this translation uses ‘implication’ where not even necessary, for example using ‘holy day’ instead of “feast”.
I won’t go into further detail again, in view of how useless my explaining the incidence of Ellipsis in the Greek before seems to have been.
Eric B:
“Once again; a feast IS a holy day. I'm sorry, you can try to discredit the translations, but you look like the one grabbing for a grammatical possibility to change the text to something nobody has ever read it as. (Just like the JW's and John 1:1, once again).”

GE:
Again this groundless comparison between me and the JW’s. Never mind!
Consider:
“Once again; a feast IS a holy day”.
Once again, have I objected? A feast is a holy day feasted, isn’t it? It’s for the Christians’ feasting of their holy day(s) they were accused, prosecuted and persecuted. Wasn’t it?
“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.” KJV
Even this ‘translation / interpretation’ is nothing to laugh at since it defends the Church even in her observing of her Sabbath days and holy days and new moon feasts – in observing her “trios” – as you wanted it to mean her “Old Testament practices”!
It’s for the Christians’ feasting of their holy day(s) they were accused, prosecuted and persecuted – that’s what YOU refuse to admit, because, do you admit, you admit the Sabbaths of the Christians’ feasting were as real as their feasting of Jesus Christ was! I'm sorry, you can try to discredit the Sabbath, but you look like one with his mind set and grabbing for an excuse not to change it or his own illusions.

Eric B quoting GE:
This is what I mean! No sooner surprised by affability, disappointed by monotony: “And where do you get the words "eating and drinking" in there TWICE?”
What was my explaining Ellipsis for? To fall on ears deaf to reason?
I’ll repeat:
I get it in there twice through giving account of ‘en merei’ with the Dative required by relativity and incidental reference – as in the first and occurring incidence of ‘en brohsei kai en posei’ without ‘en merei’. The principle applies even in the English language: “judged in eating and in drinking or with regard to (that / with regard to it, i.e., “eating and drinking” the second time by Ellipsis) of feast …”.
Now if that doesn’t explain to you, I give up, considering the numerous incidence even while writing this sentence of the unavoidability of Ellipsis.
I use these suppositions and linguistic ‘laws’, and from them derive the implicated, required, intended, meaning of the text. It CANNOT be ignored “at will” unless unfaithfully!
Eric B quoting GE:
It is literally "OF feast / OF feast(ing)" in context the literal feasting of the Colossian Christians.

Eric B:
“You have to prove first that it is "eating and drinking OF...", rather than "Eating and drinking OR...". Once again; why has none else ever read it like this? I guess its the Satan-breathed Sunday conspiracy, right? (But then not even the other Sabbath-keepers have changed this verse like this! They take it to mean, once again "let no one judge you...but the Body of Christ"; meaning their group; and the "is" is actually added also (like "days"; so it's not even "the body IS of Christ; yet you change this to "reality of the Body of Christ’s!") You are using this so-called "ellipsis" to totally rewrite the text, and there is no proof that it was ever written like this before for us to be the ones who rewrote it.
Now, I notice in your English "example", you admit the first "or" is there before "with regard to". It was the "or" you were trying to change to "OF"; but with that "or" there you have no warrant to add "of"; so it is just “judged in eating and in drinking or with regard to feast..."; and thus a second (possessive) "eating and drinking" is not called for at all! "with regard to" points back to JUDG[ING]— the subject of the immediate overall context; not "eating and drinking"! If I use your method of repeating words to bring out the true meaning; it is "JUDGE you for eating or drinking or JUDGE you with regard to a feast day...".
These types of arguments "fall on ears deaf to reason" because that's what they're DESIGNED to do! Who can really understand all of that right away? (which you play on in your later response, at the bottom). But it looks so well studied/researched; can't answer it right away; so Wow! He really knows his stuff, and must be right! I better quit my job with its Saturday schedule now!
All I am saying here is all of that is not necessary to understand the basic meanings of God's Word.”

GE:
Consider:
“You have to prove first that it is "eating and drinking OF...", rather than "Eating and drinking OR...".”
GE:
Why should I prove it if Paul says it in so many words, using the Possessive Genitive of the word “feast” – “OF feast” – ‘heortEHS’? It was the Christians’ “eating and drinking OF feast” – their “celebration of Feast whether of month’s, or of Sabbaths’.
The idea is further enhanced by the Dative that necessarily follows ‘en merei’ indicating incidence and relativity, which through Ellipsis in this instance (again) is and can’t be anything but “in eating and drinking”. So it’s "in eating and drinking OF..."
Two 100% sure reasons for saying it is "eating and drinking OF...", and not at all "Eating and drinking OR..." as you want it! (The KJV saying “or” regardless, means “eating and drinking OF”.)

You want it your own way which demands it must be “trios” mentioned – that’s why you want “or” in there. To what gain, only you will know, because, as I have said before, demanding your “trios”, makes YOU saying – just like ‘HNG’s’ – the New Testament Church observed all the Old Testament feasts according to the old dispensation or gone by “ministration”. You, not me. I maintain the Church feasted their Sabbaths with spiritual feast of Christ, full stop. You say it’s “trios” “in there” – “trios” of “the letter” of Old Testament Law. Aren’t the ‘Holy Name’ groups the ones who insist it is all the Old Testament Feast Days (separately) that are found here supposed and condoned? Then you compare me, with them, but not yourself?


Consider:
“Once again; why has none else ever read it like this?”
GE:
Refer above, Marshall, Nestle Interlinear, for one, and, in essence, the KJV for another. There must be several more.

Eric B quoting GE:
So we’re back to square one. We fell a far way, having almost reached the last square.
If you haven’t incredulously made all of those things up yourself (“food ... or ... drink ... holy ... day ... new moon ... the ... sabbath”), you relied on it as on your own conviction.
Eric B:
“Yes; I step back and grant you more and more of the benefit of the doubt to show you that it STILL does not necessarily prove your doctrine!”

GE:
‘My doctrine’ is the Sabbaths mentioned in Colossians are supposed of Christian feasting. But that’s not even half ‘my doctrine’. The greater part of ‘my doctrine’ is, the Sabbaths mentioned in Colossians are supposed of Christian feasting “by reason of” (oun) Jesus Christ risen from the dead.
It’s exactly what it’s saying, and needs no ‘proof’ from me. Least of all it needs the support of ‘Holy Name Groups’.

Eric B quoting GE:
So what? In the Old Testament the feasts were the days of the Church worshipping none other than the Christian God.
So, “... never the Church's "Feast gatherings"” is just not true.
Eric B:
“Even though OT Israel has been called "the Church of the OT"; it is only in the limited sense of being the assembly of God's people. But it is very different from the Church of the NT; which is Christ's spiritual body. The Church's feast-gatherings were not contiguous with the OT feasts; though some did continue to (and were allowed to, with the liberty they were granted) have their feasts on them.
However, in light of this: quote: (GE) “No, not in Colossians; in the Old Testament, sure! But here in Colossians we don’t have to do with the Old Testament Church, but with the New Testament Church “feast ... of month’s, or, of Sabbaths’” recurrence, “literally”. Sorry! (And you would not have been so sorry, have you stood by the text “literally”!) “ Amazing! So now you're the one telling me that the OT and NT "church" are different! Yes, they are different; but a NT writer will still use OT words that the readers (familiar with the OT) will understand. You have the NT "Church" separate from the OT in terminology; but still one in the same in practice! ”

GE:
Amazing!

Eric B quoting GE:
I have no problem with it. In fact, "days" was added because of Ellipsis. In other words, it not really ‘was added’ but all the while was ‘there’ by ‘implication’.
Sorry, but all of these grammatical suppositions cannot be wished away.
Eric B:
“No it's NOT there by implication. There are "holy days", and there is "the sabbath" day. "Day" yes; "day'S"; no; unless you are speaking of weekly sabbaths as a plural. The word is italicized meaning it just isn't in the original! You're the one wishing things into existence; so why shouldn't I just wish them back out of existence? ”

GE:
But thanks for admitting ‘Sabbath DAYS’. The KJV however, has “an holyday” for the Greek “heortehs” = “of feast”, Singular, Genitive, Noun, one word – not two, three, words, Article, Noun and Adjective. Therefore what counts is the fact “day” (as well as “holy”) “is there by implication”, or, in other words, by Ellipsis. Sorry then for the Plural, accidentally. No big issue. I did stress the fact ‘heortehs’ is Singular though, as such assimilating “eating and in drinking” while making of it one concept, “eating-and-drinking-OF-FEAST” – only letting ‘existing’ words “in the original” have their own say. Wish it out of existence? You, I, anybody, wish the Word of God out of existence?