protestants in denial

Eric B:
“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!")”

GE:
This time I’ll follow your example and just pass, but not because I am unable to disagree.

Eric B:
“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.”
GE:
Above you’ve seen what you say isn’t true. I render the text either with or without indication of Ellipsis wherever, and it each time says the same thing: “Do not you let yourselves be judged by anyone in eating and drinking, or / that, with regard to feast’s, whether of month’s or of Sabbaths’” – NOT A SINGLE word ‘added’ and meaning exactly the same as rendering it with Ellipsis: “Do not you (the Body of Christ’s (own)) let yourselves be judged by anyone (of the world) in (your) eating and drinking or (in (your) eating and drinking) of feast, either of month’s, or, of Sabbath’s (recurrence)” – with Ellipsis a few times. It could be multiplied only to make things clumsier. (E.g., “judge”, as you’ve shown.) Why should one fill in where Ellipsis does the job more efficiently? Omitting the repeated ideas won’t alter the meaning any bit. They are there, the ideas, and cannot but steer the understanding in the right way. They also cannot be replaced with strange and irrelevant concepts. They must, and have appeared mentioned in context, at least once in an initial instance.

Having the pivotal case for argument of Ellipsis, “eating and drinking” the second time before “of feast”, omitted, will also, not change the essential meaning in any way.
The essential meaning will however change once a foreign and impertinent concept is used.
So, “ever written like this before” or not, doesn’t matter. What matters is the fact we have no contamination of the true meaning with any of our own ideas when accounting for Ellipsis properly.
In any case, who said the work of an ever truer translation of the Word of God had been perfected? Truth is, more recent ‘Translations’ and ‘Versions’ have become the later the more suspicious.

Eric B:
“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"...”.

GE:
Now, please, why don’t you this time quote me verbatim like you often do? Because you can’t, because I never was “trying to change (the "or") to "OF"”. Shows how inattentive and / or prejudiced you read my arguments.
I cannot make out which ‘eh’ you refer to; but here’s a list of all the possibilities:
One: “eating OR drinking” – which should be an “and” (kai).
Two: “OR with regard to” – its emphatic nature asking for a Pronoun: “that”. It poses no problem though to give it its usual meaning of “or”, in which case Ellipsis is strongly felt: “judged in eating and drinking, or, judged with regard to eating and drinking of feast”.
Three: Most naturally appears as a correlative, “whether … or”: “judged with regard to eating and drinking of feast whether of month’s or of Sabbaths’ (recurrence)”. But also poses no problem when interpreted primitively, “or”, “judged with regard to eating and drinking of feast, or with regard to eating and drinking of month’s, or with regard to eating and drinking of Sabbaths’”.
Nowhere do I haul in foreign concepts from the Old Testament. The Ellipsis is Ellipsis only because it is relative to and contained in immediate context.
Nowhere do I try to make of any “or”, an “of”. Thanks.

Consider:
“... you have no warrant to add "of"...”.
GE:
In the first place, I don’t “add "of"” – it’s there, this time by inflection – the inflection of Case – of the Possessive Genitive Case – contained in the termination ‘-EHS’ of the word ‘heortehs’ (OF feast), Feminine, Genitive, Singular. Most basic grammar.

Consider:
“... and thus a second (possessive) "eating and drinking" is not called for at all!”
GE:
Again, why don’t you quote me verbatim like you love to? Because you can’t, because I never claimed a second (possessive) "eating and drinking" exists, because "eating and drinking" IS NO ‘possessive’, but is a Dative Relative and Incidental, answering ‘en merei’ which requires a Dative Relative and / or Incidental. A bit more complicated Syntax, but nevertheless most basic.

Considering:
“"with regard to" points back to JUDG[ING]— the subject of the immediate overall context; not "eating and drinking"!”

GE:
For the third time, why don’t you quote me verbatim? Because you can’t, because I never claimed “"eating and drinking" is “the subject of the immediate overall context”. To my knowledge the ‘Subject’ of a sentence or clause is the doer of the action, and “eating and drinking” has not that animal trait of being able to act whatever you must have had in mind it did. Or I must be misunderstanding you, and must therefore presume you meant to say, ‘subject-matter’, which is something quite different than “the subject”. Still, I don’t make “eating and drinking” the big deal; in fact I maintain the physical aspect of it was of minor importance, and that the Church feasted their Sabbaths by a spiritual = by faith “eating and drinking”. What was important was that they feasted their Sabbaths by a spiritual = by-faith-“eating-and-drinking”-OF-CHRIST! The main, predominant and determining pre-supposition of the passage is that those were Christians who were thus celebrating their Faith – the Christian Faith . . . and Practice. And that therefore, they were judged and condemned by the world.

Consider:
“... to JUDG[ING]— the subject of the immediate overall context...”
GE:
Not even the judging was the big deal. Paul advised the Church not to bother their being judged by the world, for Christ has triumphed over all principality through resurrection from the dead – which is the grand subject-matter of the whole passage. So be free in joyous celebration of your Sabbath Days, Paul told them. Told he them further, “these things are the spectre / only the shadow of (better) things a coming (for you the Suffering for Christ), yes, “even the Body of Christ’s Own”, the Church Triumphant, “increasing with the increase of God” your PROSPECT!

Consider:
“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...".”

GE:
Yea! I thought it might never occur to you! Your using of Ellipsis is excellent; just don’t forget the Possessive of “a feast day” – it should be “OF a feast day”. The Case – more so than the implication per se – “forces” one to keep in mind that which though unsaid “is in there”, namely, “eating and drinking”.

Eric B:
“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:
I appreciate your kinder attitude although packed with sarcastic innuendos.

Considering:
“I better quit my job with its Saturday schedule now!”
A Seventh Day Adventist most probably would have said, yes, of course, even though he might have made use of your Saturday schedule to his own convenience!
But never mind, the Sabbath Day is ALL, about God and HIS works, ALL, about God, and HIS perfecting through Jesus Christ of “all the works of God”. If not, then Jesus, Son of Man, is NOT Lord of that Sabbath Day. If you believe what GOD has done by the “energising of the exceeding greatness of His power when He raised Christ from the dead”, then, and then only, could you begin to get an idea of the meaning of God’s rest of the Sabbath Day in which He ended and finished and perfected “all the works of God”, and blessed all his creation in Jesus Christ, and sanctified unto Himself a Sabbath Day … and a Sabbath-People, for whom, the Sabbath was made.
The Sabbath is NOT about our works, or even about our not working. We are unable to do any work it seems a resting weighed against the greatness and power of God’s own doing of the Seventh Day. We also will consider our cessation from work ever so perfect on the Sabbath Day, as you have stated, a work on God’s Day of Rest. And we shall reckon it as filthy, sinful rags, despicable in God’s sight had He not seen it and us in and through Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and Man. In the end it is the works of Christ of and on the Sabbath Day that God considers and esteems as were they our works on and of the Sabbath Day. In the end it is a matter of faith – not of works.
Therefore rather go do your job; somewhere Paul said if you don’t provide for your family you’re worse than an unbeliever! Never dare use God’s Sabbath Day as an excuse for sloth. The “monstrous range” of the Sabbath Truth (Karl Barth) will find one out wherever one may hide. As the writer to the Hebrew Christians said, The Word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword – in the hand of the Great Conqueror. He says it nearby where he writes about the Sabbath Day.
Eric B quoting 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 archives and libraries.
...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.)
Eric B:
“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!”

Considering:
“You haven't proven they aren't there. I showed you where the whole context is OT practices being imposed on them”
GE:
And I’ve shown you where the whole context proves NEW Testament practices, as THEM the Believers, being CONDEMNED!


Considering:
“I showed you ... that pagans would not be "judging" them for keeping sabbath feast celebrations”
GE:
And I’ve shown you how the pagans would not have done anything less to the Christians for being Christians and for feasting their Christian feasts.

Considering:
“... to simply read the translation; I see them all listed in the passage.”
GE:
And I’ve shown you by reading this ‘conclusive translation’ – the KJV – there’s nothing “in there” to the contrary it was the Christian Church that celebrated / observed / feasted / kept these ‘practices’ for being the spontaneous outflow of their simple faith in the work of Christ – for being Christian practices. And that there’s nothing in there that requires these ‘practices’ must be or had been ‘Jewish’ of ‘Judaistic’, or ‘OT practices’. I don’t see them listed in the passage; I don’t know how you see them listed.

Considering:
“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 possibilities; more like a magician than anyone else!”
GE:
“The common reading” – KJV – does look simple; it is not to say it is perfect; it is not to say it isn’t scholarly. Nevertheless the KJV is NOT “the text that has been handed down to us” in the original, but also, is a ‘translation’, and therefore, also is an interpretation – a human and fallible attempt at the perfect rendering of God’s Word.
ANY well written ‘translation’ of this or any Scripture will look “SIMPLE” – and for the naïve and innocent – PURE. The more ‘scholarly’ in fact, the simpler and more fluent etc. a translation will look. It’s only when tested against the original by painstaking effort, that its genuineness or falseness may be discovered. (An excellent example: John 20:19!) And the resultant contra-translation may be difficult to understand and look awkward and even backward, but truer and purer to the Word of God.

I attempt an as concise and as uninfluenced and unprejudiced “reading” as possible. If you take exception at my attempt at simplicity therefore, I am powerless to prevent you.
Any other ‘reading’ will also “look simple”, and in fact may read much easier and be understood much easier than even the KJV. It is not to say it is better; it could be totally “wrong” and plainly false, as the example I gave you of ‘Die Nuwe Afrikaanse Bybel’ that reads: “Let nobody PRESCRIBE to you to keep the Sabbath”! The text will have to be completely rewritten to make that ‘translation’ possible. Some versions may be more subtle in their misleading, some even courser than this NAB, yet be written in most sublime language.

Eric B quoting GE:
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,
Eric B:
“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. ...”

I must admit I contradicted myself in that I made this statement while at the same time contending the KJV does not actually differ with ‘my’ rendering. But my mention of the translations not necessarily includes every translation. And surely there are those – especially newer ‘Translations’ – that are shocking examples of disinterest in God’s Word for God’s Truth. My example once more: (‘Die Nuwe Afrikaanse Bybel’ 1988), “Let nobody PRESCRIBE to you that you should keep the Sabbath”. Others may be not so blatant as I’ve said, but few consciously so translate as to avoid the impression Paul referred to ‘OT practices’.

Now I say it’s hypocrisy not to practice what one preaches. But to preach that which while practicing one is teaching is contrary God’s Word and should not be practiced, that baffles me completely. I mean people who claiming no Sabbath or Sabbath Law applies to Christians, yet every Sunday keep it holy.
Could I have had you in mind?

Eric B:
“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?”

GE:
Why do you think is translating a non-stop enterprise? I am of the opinion it used to be to constantly improve on preciseness in representing the original. But since the RCC became the chief in charge of translating and spreading of the Bible, I have grave grave doubts and many instances for good reason of my doubts.
Of old the prophets were often unfaithful – they were human beings, nevertheless had to proclaim: “Thus saith the LORD!” Nowadays the translators stand in the old prophets’ shoes. They are human beings; will they not also be tempted and coerced to proclaim: “Thus saith the LORD” while the LORD had never so spoken? I deal with not a few incidences of such unfaithfulness in my book, ‘The Lord’s Day in the Covenant of Grace’. You will find it on the webb at http://www.biblestudents.co.za.


Considering:
“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?”
GE:
That’s for you to make sure about and decide what you are going to do about whatever you’ve witnessed proven or exposed false.


Considering:
“After all, the Greek grammar does allow an indefinite article before any noun!”
GE:
As we say in Afrikaans, what has that got to do with the price of eggs?

Eric B:
“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.”

GE considering:
“I believe God has preserved His word properly translated”.
So do I with great reserve, for translation can be instrumental to the demolishment of sound doctrine like nothing else. The devil himself doesn’t sleep nor slumber.

Considering:
One “could still get a sense of what it is teaching.”
GE:
Sometimes – perhaps more often than not – one is capable of sensing what the Scriptures is truly teaching exactly by means of a ‘wrong’ or ‘improper’ ‘translation’. Nowhere is it so acutely actual as in the case of ‘Sabbath’-Scriptures.

 

I never said anything about "lawlessness"; yet this is a common sabbatarian charge against those who disagree with their doctrine. The spirit is not "lawlessness"; because it goes beyond the letter of the law to the "spirit" of the Law--it's true intent. Sometimes, this is the Letter plus more (adultery, murder, etc); and sometimes this renders the letter unnecessary (OT rituals that are shadows of Christ).

If that's the case; then we are still bound to keep all the feasts [annual]; plus circumcision; plus animal sacrifice and all the other temple rituals. Oh, but then we don;t have the Temple anymore! What can we do? God did once command these things; and "His Word is the same yesterday; today and forver". Add He "changes not"!

When I make several quotes without comment; look down to my next comment following the last quote. That is an answer to all of them; so it's a way of answering several isolated comments once; instead of repeating the same answer for each quote in their individual order. I believe you have done it before too; so I don't know why you're trying to take my instances of doing it as "non-answers"! Only it is easier to decipher the responses from the answers (and looks neater) if you use the QUOTE feature.

Well; they are right that they are "condoned" --if done "unto the Lord" (and not trying to justify onesself by the works of the Law!); where they are wrong is that they are BINDING on all; and they; like you, use this claim of "condoning" to remove a clear disproof against sabbath days as "binding duties" on all. However; they are more consistent than you; because this would include annual holy days; not just weekly sabbaths. And they are able to do it without rewriting the text.
Once again; if this passage is condoning something; it is not necessarily binding everyone under it; but rather the same principle would apply in reverse: others are not to be judged for not keeping the day.

But those few translators you mentioned are still a relative handful compared to everyone else. How can only these people be right, and no one else take notice and change? Once again; it could only be a Sunday conspiracy theory.

No, your doctrine seems to be that it is a binding "duty" to all. At least, that's what your arguments sound like.

Now we're just talking past each other saying "I've shown...". But you still haven't shown that this is new testament practices binding on all; and not simply that one group's own freely chosen devotion to the Lord. Or that the pagans would persecute them for simply minding their own business of celebrating a feast; and not because of some other things they were doing or not doing.

sabbaths, holy days, and new moons; as mandatory observances, were Jewish practices.

 

First you make this charging accusation of inattentiveness or prejudice; then you go and admit that you don't even know which word is in question.

Which "or" has been changed to "of" in your translation? It is obviously "eating and drinking, OR in respect of a holy day", which you change into "eating and drinking OF feast".

Regardless of whether it is from "ellipsis" or not; you still replaced "or" with "of".

Yes; that's what I meant. (I knew it could be misunderstood as "grammatical 'subject'"; but still; I thought you'd get it, because I said "the subject of the context"; not "the subject of the sentence".

Yes it is the big deal; because you are trying to make all of the possesives refer back to "eating and drinking" rendering the text "eating and drinking of feasts, or eating and drinking of sabbaths or eating and drinking of moons; etc". But What I am saying is that it is JUDGING in regard to eating or drinking; or JUDGING in regard to feast days; or JUDGING in ragard to new moons, or JUDGING in regard to the sabbath.

No, it's not the big deal; but it is what those posessives are referring back to.

[REMEMBER: all of these quotes are being answered here together; I am not ignoring the earlier ones].

Still; if I put all of that word-for-word ranslation you cited together; I can get "Not therefore then, anyone, YOU let judge, in drinking and in eating / celebrating, or with regard to OF feast;* OF month’s, or OF Sabbath’s." 'that' and either(*) is added by ellipsis; right? But that is an assumption; because without it; I could see where the possessives would refer back to "judge". So another proper ellipsis would be "Let no one judge you in regard to eating and drinking or the observance of feast, or [the observance of] new moons; or [the observance of] the sabbath day"

I admit nothing of the sort. The whole debate ultimately hinges on this; because if Rom. and Col. are saying the same thing: let no one judge ANYONE over ANY days; but whoever keeps a day keeps it unto the Lord; then all of this grammar and stuff means nothing. Once again; granting you the benefit of the doubt: "Let no one judge you for eating of your sabbath-feasts". This nowhere says "all Christians are bound to keep the sabbath". Nowhere does it say that it is still a binding "duty" for all. But it does go right long with Romans 14. If they so choose to keep the day (and its "feast") unto the Lord; let no one judge them for it. Yet you have to dismiss this like nothing.

 

But then it becomes impossible to anyone false or true; when they all have convincing grammatical arguments like this.

Because the JW's claim there should be an indefinite article before theos in John 1:1. They argue that in other places, like "a prophet is without honor in his own country"; that an indefinite article is not in the Greek; but it ia added there --by "ellipsis". But we can disprove it by other means. Like the fact that while there can be more than one prophet; (for one to be singled out with an indefinite article); there can onlybe one God; so there is no such thing as "A god" to us.

Not really; because you believe this passage reads something totally different from what we have been reading. I believe that God has not allowed His word to be changed; even by "imperfect humans" that much.

Then what in the world are we arguing about? I am arguing against the idea that one must "keep" the day; by following the OT command not to do any work on that day (with the exception of removing "the Jews' additions; of course).
What you said I could agree with; especially that people's taking it to their convenience means He is not Lord of that day (to them). THis is what I realized when I was first shown from Col., Rom.14 and Gal. that I can keep the day "unto the Lord" myself, but not judge others over it. What 'fun' was that, then? I'm no better than the Sunday keepers. What's the purpose of keeping it, then? The sabbath then lost all of its significance. It was just a tool to try to be better than others. That was never what it was about in God's eyes, but that was what it was to the Jews and the Judaizers, and to these modern sects and cults today. And that is why I argue against it; not because I am pushing Sunday.
I can still respect the significance of the sabbath, and if I could start my own church; I would probably choose Sat. to meet on. But not forbid anyone to work, or whatever else.
You must realize, that you spoke of a "duty", and "lawlessness", and all that stuff just like the SDA's, Armstrong groups, SNG and all the rest arguing that no one should work on it. (the difficulty faced in getting the day off is supposed to be part of one's "trials of the faith"; thus further proving its whole significance to God). That is why I argued so long. But if there is no ban on working, then there is no real debate.

No.

 

GE:
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.


My last Post on this topic:

Eric B:
“No; they wouldn't care about their "Christ-feast". They wanted them to ADD some homage to the emperor 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!)”

Considering:
“No; they wouldn't care about their "Christ-feast".”
GE: Yet that is what Paul says the Church was judged for.

Considering:
“They wanted them to ADD some homage to the emperor to it”
GE:
Where do you read it? Read all the ‘warning’ pericopes, 1:28, 2:8, 2:16, 2:18, and in between, and you won’t find the slightest suggestion of it – except if anyone suppose the emperor the representative or a figure of the “world” Paul speaks of, like I did (‘acknowledged’) in my previous post. To which you refer, saying, “Paul nowhere talks about emperor worship in this passage; that is you trying to take my argument in your favor.”
GE:
Thanks for putting it straight, “Paul nowhere talks about emperor worship in this passage”!
Consider:
“... that is you trying to take my argument in your favor.”
I, trying to take your argument in my favour? So it must be you who in the first place claimed Paul talks about emperor worship in this passage. In fact so it was; you countered my argument with just that when you claimed the Christians were allowed their Sabbaths but were condemned for not worshipping the emperor. Then again it was you when you claimed it was the Jews who added or wanted added to the Christians’ Sabbath-observance something of emperor worship. Man you’re muddled.
While we actually agree there is no direct or indirect involvement of emperor worship in this Letter, least of all should the JEWS want the Christian Church “ADD some homage to the emperor”.

You bluntly refuse to submit to the Law of God, the Law of His Sabbath Day the Day of His worship for His People. It is the only problem with you – not the understanding of Colossians 2:16-17.
The Sabbath DAY is as Present Truth to the Christian Community from the very beginnings of Christianity as the Community itself, according to this Scripture of Colossians 2:16-17. To deny and refuse the fact and abiding truth of the Sabbath Day is plain wilful disobedience and disregard for the Lordship and Rule of Christ over His Church in the world.
Not to admit the validity, applicability and DUTY of the Sabbath DAY and its celebration is not to admit Christ’s resurrection for being suitable and sufficient motive and BASIS for the Day of Worship-Rest of the People of God – like undeniably argued in Hebrews 4:8 to 10 and undeniably presupposed in this here Scripture of Colossians 2:16-17. (Not even referring to the MANY other NT Scriptures confirming the Sabbath Day (Seventh Day of the week), Christian Faith because of the work of Christ.)
To obstinately refuse to consent to the fact the Church was assailed and assaulted, judged and condemned for her Faith and Freedom “in Him”, Christ, while feasting her Sabbaths, is derogatory to the attainment of Jesus Christ through resurrection from the dead. It is EXACTLY what Paul counselled the Church NOT to be judged in and not to allow itself be subjected to.

YOU, Eric B, judge the Church in respect of her Sabbaths for her eating and drinking of Christ-Feast. YOU, refuse the Church its Christ-obtained freedom and pleasure. YOU, say to her: “Don’t touch! Don’t taste! Don’t handle!”, just like the world of old. Don’t eat nor feast of Sabbaths or face the charges, say you!
You call to the bench “Attorney at Law” (paraclehtos) PAUL, and he calls the Risen Christ, True and Faithful Witness for the defence.
Cross-examine you:
‘Do the defence feast their Sabbaths by reason of You, Jesus they call their Christ?
Yes, they do!
So you’re the instigator of their Sabbaths’ feasting?
You’ve said it.
How is it, Sir?
By my resurrection from the dead.
Indeed? No further questions, your honour; I rest my case!
As I said before:
The Church has this assurance and guarantee – this ‘Covenant for the Defence’ – in the lawsuit: ‘Eric B versus Christian Community’:
“Having quickened you together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the written law-ordinance against us and having rejected it as evidence contrary us, having nailed it to the cross, having put off the (prosecuting) RULERS and AUTHORITIES, HE EXPOSED THEM to shame having TRIUMPHED over them in it (dying and rising).”
Nevertheless gives sentence ‘for the State’ Eric B: “You’re hereby judged and condemned not because you didn’t do away with your Sabbaths-Christ-Feast, but for allowing the Jews to ADD to your Sabbaths’ Feasting some homage to the emperor.”

Meantime this Eric B outside the court room believes there’s no legal system violate-able, seeing the Law no longer exists according to himself. So either he thinks himself above the Law, or is unethical in his judgement. Or both things.

Eric B quoting GE:
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.
Eric B:
“The "handwriting of ordinances" refers to the written Law (which includes "circumcision"; also mentioned).”

GE:
Why mention, in view of the fact you’re discoursing with me? Never held it doesn’t. I have said more than once “ALL LAW”, ‘moral law’, ‘spiritual’, “Ten Commandments”; ‘ceremonial law’, ‘sacrificial’, ‘literal’ – ALL LAW, even the whole of Scriptures!
Jesus, crucified, removes every possible judgement against those His, seeing HE DIES ALL LAW CRUCIFIED / SACRIFICED; and RISEN, He confirmes every right and privilege of those His, seeing HE RISES ALL LAW VINDICATED, VINDICATOR … “FOR THE PEOPLE”!
It is the only thing Paul is driving at in this issue of judgement against the Christian Community for celebrating her Sabbaths’ Christ-Feast – the only thing. They were “condemned” by the world while they were “IN HIM”; they were vindicated by Christ while they were “IN HIM”. In whatever they did, “whether in feast of month’s or in feast of Sabbaths’”, they were blameless – “Let no man judge you!”

Eric B:
“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".”
GE:
Again, ALL LAW, “taken” to the cross in the body of Jesus Christ AS, ALL SIN, “carried” in His flesh, “vanquished”, “removed”, extinguished, “nullified”, “abolished” – even these: The temple institution and Sanhedrin, "authorities", "principalities" and "governments", under the Romans, under the Jews, still active, and having power over the people today, tomorrow – sine qua non, ALL LAW! Went down all unrighteousness by THE LAW and “in Him”; came up All Righteousness by THE LAW “in Him and through Him”. Alleluia, unto worship and praise of His Name!

Eric B quoting GE:
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.
Eric B:
“And that was by trying to force them to add pagan practices; not by trying to stop the Christian practices. 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.”

Consider: “And that was by trying to force them to add pagan practices; not by trying to stop the Christian practices.”
GE: Answered above.

Consider: “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.”
GE: simply incorrect – everybody and all authorities and majorities took exception to Christianity and the Christian Faith. Pagans were safe in their pagan world, doing whatever they liked. Paul tells the Believers, You are safe “in Him”, do whatever you do, do well as unto God! And the Christians were persecuted for their Faith and Practice everywhere by everybody in power – by the “world” in a word.

Consider: “It was only the Jews who were that directly opposed to the name of Christ.”
GE: How naïve! Contradicts what you have just said, that the Christians were expected by “pagan injunction” to worship the emperor.
You think it possible to have Christ and worship both Him and the emperor? “You cannot serve two gods” … who was it that said it? If I remember correctly it was one of the lords served Himself who said! Then just as impossible as it is today, was it then.

Eric B:
“Once again; they could have Christ if only they would worship BOTH Him and the emperor.”
GE:
You know, you talk nonsense. Paul also knew, and warned there’s no either or in serving Christ. He was of the opinion once out of the kingdom of darkness, entered into the kingdom of God’s Light unreservedly; one is either “dead” in one’s sins, or alive – “quickened together with Him” “unto God” – and many more illustrations from his Letter!

Eric B:
“And the pagan injunctions against the Christians had nothing to do with any covenant God had with them.”
GE:
Again you’re talking against your own better knowledge. The whole of this Letter proves you wrong in your assertion.
For our purposes one may accurately describe “any covenant” simply with the loyalty / allegiance the Christians showed amongst themselves and to Jesus Christ – clearly what “the world” found offensive and what it regarded as token of disloyalty to itself and its own principalities, ideological (“philosophy”, “wisdom”) or political (“rule”, “power”). Again, you only need to read the ‘warning’-passages.

Eric B:
“(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.”
GE:
Once more, already answered, above. If Christ not nullified ‘manmade’ law in that He nullified Divine Law by His death and resurrection, He could not have nullified Divine Law – ‘moral law’, ‘law’ that “has to do with sin” and the “law of sin” therefore. If He was unable to destroy the weaker, how could He be able to destroy the stronger?

Eric B:
“They were never legitimate (to God) to begin with.”
GE:
So was and is sin, not legitimate to God, against the Law of God; yet was it taken to the cross, nailed to the cross and removed by the cross. (Saying ‘cross’ actually meaning Jesus.)
This is the Christian’s surest consolation and comfort and rest, that Christ reigns, Lord and King, Almighty God, who thrones kings, and dethrones kings. No law of land or lord is ever made but God designed to serve His own design – his Eternal Purpose and Covenant of Grace – by it.

Eric B quoting GE:
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:
“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".”
GE:
You’re again confusing Scriptures. Where do you see (Judaistic) ‘false preachers clearly denounced’ in Colossians? In the passage you imply by quoting the word “bewitched”? That’s Gal.3:1! In Colossians it is the True Church judged and condemned by authorities and / of the world literal and ideological. Yes, also with ‘bewitching’ tactics, 2:4 “beguile with enticing words”, by “any man” outside the “closely knit” Christian Communion; 2:8, “any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit after the traditions of men, after the first principles of the WORLD, and NOT after Christ”. Judaism? If, then completely paganised Judaism! See also 3:18 for another example of the world’s vain and foolish philosophy being the “beguiling” agent.
And not “crept in” (not even Paul, but Jude), but directly attacking and assaulting the Church from OUTSIDE with measures of civil be it religious, ‘law’ – by “judging” through “written document of law”. The Christians were prosecuted by law of the land for their Faith. That is, they were persecuted – the case in Colossus.
Jude the whole Letter deals with persons who left the Church and then infiltrated back to spoil it from inside. In 19 it says they “separated” themselves spiritually; in 16 that they filled high positions (the were ‘false teachers’ therefore) from where they dazzled the People with their eloquent arrogance.
The difference is clear: in the Jude-situation the assault was from within; in the Colossus situation the assault came from without.
This difference non the less, it is impossible to say even from Jude the ‘false teachers’ were former) Jews and not (former) Gentiles. They were perverted and perverted the Gospel is all it can be said. I got the impression myself from Jude it was more likely the ‘pagan’ converts-aberrant who were ‘that directly opposed’ to the name and doctrine of Christ.
Point is, the two Letters cannot be appreciated on par, and therefore it cannot be said Colossians supposes ‘false teachers’ of Jewish stock ‘adding’ Judaistic extras to the Christians’ Sabbath-keeping. It is a false comparison.

Eric B; quoting GE:
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.
Eric B:
“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.”
GE:
Pure speculation, not necessarily nor exactly, and improbable in the specific case of the Colossian circumstance. In Colossus, I repeat, the converted ‘pagans’ formed the majority by every indication, and many of them would continue to receive flack from their unconverted families. We could say with certainty few Christians in Colossus were not pagans and few if any were not still harassed by the pagan world surrounding them.

Eric B quoting GE:
"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 the world would "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:
“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!”

GE:
Thanks, but I don’t need the benefit of doubt. Doubt in this matter is of no benefit.
They were persecuted / prosecuted by ‘law’ of “jugdement”, “against” them, by “hand-written document of ordinance / law” “contrary” them.
Not ‘persecution’? Then what is?
Consider:
“... you still would not have any historical proof that pagans "judged" the Church just for having a spiritual feast.”
I have it in this very Letter; and I have it in many other NT Scriptures. Just living their Faith for the Christians was ‘having a spiritual feast’ – Christ-feast! The Lord’s Supper and the Sabbaths were THE two special instances of such “Feast”.

Eric B quoting GE:
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'!
Eric B:
“But precisely one of the implications from the Gospel being taught is that the Hebraic paradigm is just as much a part 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!”

GE:
No comment.
Continued ...

 

Eric B quoting GE:
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:
“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 not". 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.

GE:
Thank you Eric B, for getting nearer to the little but real things that make the difference.
Consider:
“... that still does not prove it is binding on everyone else.”
I don’t say the ‘Law’ must be “repeated” in the NT in order to be ‘binding on’ Christians (‘on everybody else’). It is the anti-nomians who so insist. They (and you?), shout, the Letter the Letter! – not New Testament believers ordinary who also believe God’s Law is still binding and as ever … in and through and because of Jesus Christ!

If Jesus Christ has become the Law unto the Church, whatever flows from His Life and Work and Word – and ultimately from His Victory / Triumph – by the very working of God’s Holy Spirit becomes to them God’s Law and Demand and Command and Will and Power … all those wonderful things expressing whatever as the Delight of God. That, to me, is God’s Law, nowadays, under the New Testament. That, to me, had always BEEN God’s Law, from eternity to eternity. Everything ‘engraven’ whether on stone or on paper or on a heart as hard as a rock, from the nature of it, indicated its temporariness (‘temporality’?), transitoriness, incompleteness and in fact weakness and deficiency. (Not, like the SDA’s, finality and indestructibility.)
If what I say is true, then in Colossians 2:12ff we have a perfect example of it, and a PRECEDENT CREATED by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead for the observance and indeed the celebration amongst themselves and before God and the world of His Holy Sabbath Day to the length of days.
Of course also, this is not the only text in the New Testament making of the Sabbath of the LORD your God, His Commandment. In fact, each and every text about the Sabbath in the New Testament Scriptures asks, to be understood from this perspective, that the Sabbath Day is the “Lord’s Day”. And if ‘the Lord’s Day’ then also the People’s Day of Worship Rest in Jesus Christ. That’s NEW Testament ‘Law’; that is what I believe!

Then too and not so joyous, is the clarion call of God’s Sabbath Law, that the devil’s false sabbath law must be countered, exposed, and vanquished! It is senseless in this our times to be Sabbatharian (or a-Sabbatharian), and not anti-Sundaydarian. Without mercy, viciously, uncompromisingly, exposing and extinguishing devil’s worship in the Body of our Lord Jesus! Soft soothing salve will only help the ulcer fester more profusely. It must be removed at the core, and that is where it shot roots in the core of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Sunday and Sunday sanctification and Sunday worship have no right of symbiosis with the heart of Christianity, Jesus’ resurrection. It’s a cancer that will infest the whole Body through putrefying lies.

Consider:
“... Once again: Romans 14:5ff...”.
No please, not again!


Eric B:
“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!) ...”

GE:
No comment.

Eric B quoting GE:
"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"".

Eric B:
“...If you take this to be "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...”
GE:
I’m glad you said “If you...”, because I did not. Therefore, no further comment necessary.
Consider:
“... then look what you have rendered: Jesus DID NOT really give us rest ... and that is why "therefore" we still need the literal sabbath!”
GE:
I shall just now ask you to recall this statement / supposition of yours.

Eric B:
“... 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"!)

GE:
Everything you argue hangs on the tentative: “If you...”.

Eric B:
“"IF J_____ HAD given them rest..." is saying that [whoever this is] did NOT really give them rest...”
GE:
Recall Eric B above: “... then look what you have rendered: J_____ DID NOT really give us rest ...”
GE:
Now who’s right? You say, “did NOT really”; and I say (according to you), “DID NOT really”. Mine has two Emphatics in; yours only one; still, what’s the difference?
But recall a few words back, and find the answer in your own supposition: “...If you take this to be "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...”
“If you take ...” is the same sort of Supposition as “If Jesus gave …”.
Agreed? (I assume yes.)
Now, if you take this very Supposition to be the spiritual rest of "Jesus Christ", then look what you have rendered: Jesus DID really give us rest! – No difficulty! That is what I did. I did NOT “take this to be "the [spiritual] rest" of "Jesus Christ", contrasted with "another day"; meaning "the literal sabbath". Not in the least! The trouble lies with your idea for using the word “meaning”, “..."the [spiritual] rest" of "Jesus Christ" contrasted with "another day", meaning "the literal sabbath"”. You – not I – make “"another day", meaning "the literal sabbath"”.
“Another day” is an unfortunate translation (I don’t say it is a wrong translation!) of ‘allehs meta tauta hehmeras’ – literally and precisely, “another day AFTER THESE THINGS”. It is not stated as a supposition, but as a fact: “Had Jesus given them rest, He (God), AFTER THESE THINGS (He had spoken of BY AND IN JESUS) would not have spoken of (yet) another day thereafter.”
Jesus is God’s FINAL revelation. This Letter expresses this same truth in other words in other places (e.g., 6:6, 9:12, 9:26-27). Jesus – His “day” or ‘era’ – is God’s last Opportunity granted for repentance and for entering in into the Rest of God. “Day” therefore in verse 8b is not “Sabbath-keeping” in verse 9. They are totally unrelated literally and ‘spiritually’. The Sabbath is not God’s last chance to accept Jesus – Jesus is God’s last chance to us to believe in Jesus and to enter into His ‘spiritual’ Rest.
And “If you hear His voice today, (but notwithstanding) harden your heart”, I’m afraid it’s tickets with you. There’s not “another day after these things” – after this day “today” – Christ’s ‘day’ – to hearken and change your heart and enter in! God “limited” the day – it stops here, where God now for the last time invites, “boldly (quickly, no time to waste, fearless, because we have seen He is touched by our infirmities) come unto the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy”.
So pleads the writer with his readers, “If Jesus had given them rest, hearing His voice this day His, “today” – no next time in front ….”.
“That’s why God left you the Sabbath Day”, for you the People of God if you hear, to believe and enter into His Rest, “For He having entered into His Rest from His own works as God from His, RESTED!” “IT IS FINISHED!” [“God FINISHED” “on the Seventh Day”, 4: 4-5!] The Good News never lets go of historicity.
Notice the Participle use of “having entered” – eiselthohn in verse 10, it explains the REASON WHY, WHY God’s People have a Sabbatismos still remaining valid for them: “He (Jesus), having finished, having entered” = having rested the People of verse 8.
I say again: NO other reason or purpose or justification for the NEW Testament Sabbath Day! It is the faithfulness of God His Word of Oath, “Jesus”, will be the reason for it, and nothing besides “added”! Jesus, his resurrection only!
So is received NEW Testament Law. We don’t look for what we should know or very well do know, will not be found – some repetition verbatim of the Fourth Commandment. If one cannot believe God at His Living WORD, how can one believe Him at his Written Word?

In the premise or conjunction, an Indicative is indeed used: “If Jesus rested them” – ‘ei gar autous katepausen’ – it is presupposed a fact, taken for granted true; not postulated a possibility, not a truth argued upon an untruth.
If Joshua had been the subject however, the Supposition would have been untrue, because Joshua never rested the People.
“God (the Speaker from verse 3b), would not have spoken (Future Subjunctive ‘elalei’) of another day after these things” (“these things” before mentioned with reference to the history of Israel) had Jesus NOT given them (Israel in its broadest sense) rest!
Therefore Jesus (or the day of Jesus) here in fact spoken of by God (in Christ) in whom and by whom God indeed rested the People, IS that ‘day’ He “would have spoken of”.
With reference to Jesus having truly rested the People, God not only speaks of the Old Covenant, but also of the New and Eternal Covenant of Grace.
(“Some” indeed DID enter, were indeed “faithful” – 3:2; “some provoked, howbeit not all” – 3:16. Those of old, entered into the SAME REST as “we which have believed do enter into” (4:3) under the New Testament – they while sabbatimos remained; we, while sabbatismos remains.)
Since therefore it is Jesus Christ the Rest spoken of here –“He won’t speak of another day after these things”– Jesus is God’s last Word to a People entering upon death to have them saved in time, “in time of need” (4:16).
So, finally, we have seen how a Supposition can function as the strongest possible Affirmative. Hence, “If Jesus had given them rest” means exactly THAT “Jesus had given them rest”. And for the purpose of our discussion this then is further given as the reason for why the Sabbath is still valid for the People of God, both before and after, in verse 8 and again in verse 10.
What is in between in verse 9, is not ‘the same thing’ – ‘sabbatismos’ is not ‘anapausis’. And further, the "another day" of verse 8b, does NOT mean "the literal sabbath". It means the “day” of Christ – His immediate, Living Confronting us the People of God, inviting: “Today, if you hear MY VOICE …!” It ‘really’ is, God’s-Rest-to-enter-in-Person, “Jesus”, the Last of God’s ‘days’ for us, the last time His Voice shall be heard to us.

Eric B:
“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 contrasting the literal day as not giving the true rest. Therefore, the true rest is something ELSE!”

GE:
“If Jesus had given them rest”, just as well and much better than “If Joshua (superseding Moses as the leader and enforcer of the Law) had given them rest”, is “contrasting the literal day as not giving the true rest.”
Haven’t I maintained just it?
“Therefore, the true rest (katapausis / Jesus / His Voice Today) is something ELSE” than the Sabbatismos. How else?

Eric B:
“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!”
GE:
It in fact is something different from and far Greater than the DAY of religious duty the Israelites or the Christians ever had.

Eric B:
“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.”
GE:
True, “the name "Joshua" is never otherwise used in the NT”. It also could basically have been the same name than Joshua. As in “Jesus’ here, it means, “God with us, Saviour of His People”.

Continued ...

 

Eric B:
“I don't see where you prove that the two words (‘anapausis’ and ‘sabbatismos’) cannot be interchanged when they are both describing types of "rest".”
GE:
It is noteworthy that the writer does ‘interchange’ different words for the single concept of God’s ‘spiritual’ Rest for the People – His Rest in Jesus Christ and through Him – namely, the words ‘anapausis’ and ‘katapausis’. Of greater significance though is the fact the writer interchanges these words (to describe the single concept of God’s ‘spiritual’ Rest for the People – His Rest in Jesus Christ and through Him), pertaining the OLD Covenant or Dispensation of the Law wherein the Sabbath stood prominent as Commandment of the Law. At the same time the writer refers the Sabbath as “the Seventh Day”, twice. He does not call it a ‘rest’ – anapausis’ or ‘katapausis’.
Then, speaking about the NEW Covenant or “day” or ‘era’ of Jesus Christ, the writer employs the same ‘interchangeable’ words, either ‘anapausis’ or ‘katapausis’, to describe the single concept of God’s ‘spiritual’ Rest for the People – His Rest in Jesus Christ and through Him. “Day” and “rest” – ‘hehmera’ and ‘anapausis’ / ‘katapausis’, are perfectly interchangeable concepts (as described above) in verse 8: “If Jesus had given them rest (katepausen), then would He not afterward have spoken of another DAY”, OR, “would He not afterward have spoken of another”, “REST”.
These two ‘interchangeable’ words, “rest”, and “day”, indicating the same concept of God’s Rest in Jesus Christ, the writer uses to the same end: TO GIVE BASIS to God’s “Sabbatismos for the People of God”. It makes sense to say the Rest (Jesus), is “WHY there is a Sabbatism / a keeping of the Sabbath Day still valid for the People of God”.
‘Anapausis’ / ‘katapausis’ and ‘sabbatismos’, though “both are describing types of "rest"”, cannot be used interchangeably because they are describing different types of “rest”. Both types of “rest” are ‘spiritual’ because they both have to do with the worship in Spirit and in Truth of God. Yet they are not one, not the same, but different, the one being Jesus Christ in Truth; the other “a keeping of the Sabbath for the People of God” in faith; the one a Person, the other a Day; the one of God’s doing, the other of - or rather – FOR the People’s doing. Even so it’s not theirs, not of their doing, but it is God’s and of His doing, “available” / “remaining”, “for”, “the People”.

Eric B:
“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.”
GE:
You’ve said it! You obviously don’t get it!

Eric B:
“There can be no spiritual application of literal rest on a day”
GE:
If not spiritual, the Church’s physical assembling and physical worshipping on the physical Day of physical Worship-Rest to God must be most abominable to Him, being man’s supreme work of self-righteousness – to God who is worshipped in Spirit and in Truth or not at all but blasphemed in the face through the hypocrisy of arrogant worshippers!

Eric B:
“... 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.”
GE:
Huh?

Eric B quoting GE, Eric B highlighting:
“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.
Eric B commenting:
“So it is to keep man "already" saved? God already saves us, but we must 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!”
GE:
No certainly, you are right, and I have expressed myself wrongly here – actually ambiguously. But you have read me now often enough in other statements to know what you here distracted is not my ‘doctrine’.
Certainly the Sabbath or its keeping does NOT save any man, but it is an instrument of God’s appointment to the service of the worship of Him by the People, and indispensable as the PLACE AND OPPORTUNITY IN SPACE AND TIME for Christian worship as the Community of the saints and for the proclamation of the Word and witness to the world in doctrine and faith and practice – exactly as it happened in the Colossian Church. That is what I meant, saying, “The Sabbath (Day) was made not only for his sake, the salvation of him, but for also his duty”. “The salvation of him” is what is “for his sake” – the free gift of grace – not the Sabbath. And so it was not intended. You must be honest, I did not mean those things you accuse me of having said.

Eric B quoting GE:
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 Voice– 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.)
Eric B:
“Yes, we are saved unto good works. But this passage is not talking about that. It is contrasting us with Israel.”
GE:
This passage is talking to us as God’s Israel, the Church of all ages and worlds, “for (whom) the Sabbath was made” and “for (whom) a Sabbatismos – Sabbath-keeping – still is valid”.

Eric B:
“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!”

Eric B quoting GE:
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".
Eric B:
“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!”
GE:
Consider:
“... to continue in one's "works" and not enter the true rest!”
You oppose the two principles one may in fact by faith enter the true rest and may continue by faith in good works. Throughout the Scriptures both principles are at work simultaneously and the one without the other does not exist. Having entered in the true rest will see the same person or Corporate Body of the Church continuing in God’s field of labour. Which is of grace and itself is a grace and token of mercy, a gift and a privilege, as I have many times said before. (Have you ever been unemployed yet wanting in nothing? Have you tasted what is to sit having nothing to do while you don’t need to do anything? Well, I have.)

Eric B:
“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"!)”
GE:
Forgive me for using your own words again to explain what I think would have been true and according to the doctrine of Christ: Obeying what the text says is to CEASE from one's own works of righteousness – not "WORK" as one does on a day, nor one’s "religious duties", but works of “unbelief” (whereby also most “did not enter”), vain complacency, hypocrisy and pride, and, worst, works of one’s OWN righteousness! Cf., if God says, “YOU shall do no work”, I say, God shall do no work especially on the Sabbath Day; if God says, “You shall rest on the Sabbath Day, I say, you will not rub out corn neither go through the fields on the Sabbath Day; if God says “the Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the LORD”, I say, the First Day is the Lord’s Day; if God says because of Christ, I say, because of the letter of the Law; if God says, by resurrection of Jesus from the dead, I say, for the sake of order in the Church. Etc. under which I could have quoted quite a few of your slogans.
Therefore, What I, according to you, “have described / interpreted as keeping a day, is to continue in one's "works" and not enter the true rest”, for sooth is nothing of the sort.

Christ be with you, my friend!

 

You're the one who's muddled. I never said the text was describing emperor worship. It was you who claimed that the pagans were persecuting the Church for having a sabbath feast. I bought up emperor worship to point out that this was the only thing the pagans would persecute the Church for. Never said it was discussed there; my whole point is that it wasn't. And then I never said the Jews were trying to get the Church to worship the emperor. Once again; you're the one getting what I'm saying all mixed up.

And here again; you're mixed up; considering what you said in your last post. It doesn't make sense to answer this now; until you catch up to my response to that in my last post before this.

You're the one judging me in the above statement. That's the whole point of this discussion of Col.2:16. It's the sabbath movement that has orthodox Christianity on trial for not "obeying" this element of "the Law". I have never criticized you for keeping it. The only thing I criticize you for is violating this scripture saying not to judge me; and then trying to rewrite its meaning to justify your judgment.

1 Tim. 1:6-11 "From which some having miss the mark have turned aside unto vain arguments;
Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully ;
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the
ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for
manslayers,
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers (p. slave traders,
kidnappers), for liars, for promise breakers, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."

You're trying to say it was the civil law (or not so civil) of the pagans that was the "handwriting of ordinances" that was nailed to the Cross. But Paul is referring to the Law of Moses. It was the Old COvenant that was supersed. Gentile laws have nothing to do with it, as they never condemned anyone before God.

Still; you think it is only laws that they "added" that were abolished. But even that Laws, which they were pushing, wthat God had commanded in the OC were abolished. Like sactifices, etc. The sabbath was a part of this.

They took exceptions for specific REASONS. It was the Jews who were threatened because of Christ in His own right. What He stood for meant the end of their system. The pagans were not threatened at all by what they saw as just a new tribal god among all the others. It was their refusal to worship the emperor that made them take exception.

Of course it's imp[ossible-- before God. But the pagans didn't know that. So many other groups worshipped their gods; and then gave homage to the emperor, and there was no conflict. The pagans did not automatically know that Christ was not just some new god being created by His followers.

You're still talking about what believers knew. I'm talking about what the pagans knew. They were blinded. 1 Cor. 8:5-7 "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords
many,) But TO US there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Nevertheless there is not in every man that knowledge..."

Uh, it was the pagans who I was saying were not in any covenant with God; not the Christians. You're not even reading my statements in context.

What does "weaker/stronger" have to do with it? It is not man's laws that people were spiritually condemned (before God) by. There would be no reason to nail to the Cross something that was never binding before God in the first place.

And by WHAT comes knowledge of sin? The Law.

I earlier showed you where "philosophy" and even "cosmos" was applied to the Jews as well.

Regardless; both the Jews and pagans used both inside and utside tactics. Does not prove that Col. is dealing with pagans only.

And elsewhere, we see Paul dealing with Jews trying to get Gentile converts to live like the Jews. Even Peter got caught up in this error.

 

Once again; makes no sense to address this further until you catch up to the discussion on hypothetical quitting of job. (Of course, by the time you get up to this, you will be past that).

Well before, you looked like you were holding this "another day" up as a continued sabbath for today. What would be the point of holding up "if Jesus gave the rest, then he would not have spoken of another ___", then?

He led them to the Promised Land. That was what was being alluded to in the passage. The rest being taught here is the antitype of the promised land. It was in that context that God had said "I swore they would not enter my rest".

And Joshua was a type of Jesus. Still; we must recognize the distinction between them; given the common name.

That's not proving how I prove your point. It is just throwing my words back at me once again.

No, but we are given liberty to keep that day or not. What is abomination is judging others for not keeping it. But once again, we need to catch up to the discussion on working on the day.

and the spiritual rest is not "keeping" a day. But then now you seem to be saying something like that at times. Once again; the discussion on work.

Once again, what you are saying now seems to be what I would believe. But those were not my slogans (I say the first Day, etc.) I don;t know why you keep accusing me of pitching Sunday.
For the rest of the statements; we might as well just discuss the other issue, because all of that hangs on what you really mean by keeping the sabbath.

 

Ja, another word, please, asking,

I don't wan't to plead innocent of increasing transgression where words multiplied (OT warning!)
I don't want to make excuses either. I'm guilty.
Lots of my 'judging' though was no more than retorical, especially in my 'court scenes', not to be taken too seriously.
T 'ball together': I believe in God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; I believe the Scriptures the Written Word of God and final authority in matters of faith and life and worship.
I believe in the Holy Communion of the saints, the Congregation of the Elect in the Name Jesus Christ and for the witness and proclamation of the Gospel in the world, the work and creation of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore I believe God equiped His Church with the Lord's Day, as it always had been the Sabbath of the unchangeable and faithful LORD your God, that Jesus accordingly finished all the works of God "in fulness of Sabbath's-time" and God rested and took great delight in the exceeding greatness of His Power when He raised Christ from the dead.
Christian regards
Gerhard Ebersoehn

 

I can't help coming back again on Board, to post this from your Confession, dear Eric, in which you may recognise my reason for the Sabbath's reason-for-being:
Eric Bolden: "The church is not supposed to be just another religion, but rather fellow believers united in Christ, worshipping Him, learning about Him and experiencing Him in one another. This is what the true church continues to be, despite the institutions built around it."

 

Wile I certainly have been waiting for this discussion to end, I still think you should read my February 28, 2005 08:20 PM post (around the middle of the previous page). If you are not arguing against working on the day; then we don't disagree as much as we thought.

 

Dear Eric B,
something on the working issue's in here:

Eric B quoting GE:
Now, please, why don’t you this time quote me verbatim like you often do? Because you can’t, because I never was “trying to change (the "or") to "OF"”. Shows how inattentive and / or prejudiced you read my arguments.
I cannot make out which ‘eh’ you refer to; but here’s a list of all the possibilities:
Eric B:
“First you make this charging accusation of inattentiveness or prejudice; then you go and admit that you don't even know which word is in question.
Which "or" has been changed to "of" in your translation? It is obviously "eating and drinking, OR in respect of a holy day", which you change into "eating and drinking OF feast".”
GE:
Negative! I show you the whole list of ‘EH’s’, and NO one has been changed by me into ‘OF’. The ‘OF’ – as I explained thoroughly – is NOT by Ellipsis, but by Inflection: in the Suffix heort-EHS. “Eating and drinking” is present by Ellipsis though – “eating and drinking OF Feast”. This is how I wrote it since we began our discussion, and you haven’t noticed?
No! You refuse to admit, hanging on like a terrier: “Regardless of whether it is from "ellipsis" or not; you still replaced "or" with "of".” I translated correctly, showing, the Genitive, which the KJV does not do that clearly. Sometimes the English language can also take things for granted, you know? The problem is not with the KJV so much as with your scheming to escape from being convinced of truth.

Eric B:
“Yes it (judging) is the big deal; because you are trying to make all of the possessives refer back to "eating and drinking" rendering the text "eating and drinking of feasts, or eating and drinking of sabbaths or eating and drinking of moons; etc". But What I am saying is that it is JUDGING in regard to eating or drinking; or JUDGING in regard to feast days; or JUDGING in regard to new moons, or JUDGING in regard to the sabbath.”
GE:
First, to remove a little obstacle to getting to the gist of my viewpoint (referring you again to the very last point above): “... all of the possessives refer back to "eating and drinking" in fact! But not in the order you smuggle in, “rendering the text "eating and drinking of feasts, or eating and drinking of sabbaths or eating and drinking of moons; etc".” (Prettily with an “etc”!) “All of the possessives refer back to "eating and drinking"”, but not with all the Plurals you have, and also not with the Singular you omit! So that ‘rendering the text’ the way you do, is far from ‘rendering the text’ the way I do. My way renders the text exactly: “eating-and-drinking-of-feast, whether eating-and drinking-of-month’s(Sing.)-feast, or, eating-and drinking-of-Sabbaths’-(Plural)-feast”: In all, two recurring events: “of month’s” (probably the Lord’s Supper), and, “of Sabbaths” – undoubtedly the weekly “Sabbaths’ Day”.

Eric B:
“Still; if I put all of that word-for-word translation you cited together; I can get "Not therefore then, anyone, YOU let judge, in drinking and in eating / celebrating, or with regard to OF feast;* OF month’s, or OF Sabbath’s." 'that' and either(*) is added by ellipsis; right?”
GE:
I truly appreciate your honesty – it should lead us somewhere somehow to where the parallel lines hopefully will meet.
To answer:
No, regrettably, 'that' and either(*) is NOT added by ellipsis. “That” = ‘EH’ = “or”. Remember our rather lengthy discussion of the Pronominal quality of ‘EH’?
WITHIN ‘EH’, “eating and drinking” is presented by Ellipsis. No different than ordinary English: “Do not you let judge you anyone in eating and drinking (‘en’ plus Dative ‘brohsei kai en posei’), OR (‘eh’, = “that”) with regard to eating and drinking”:– “eating and drinking” derived from ‘en merei’ plus the required Dative of Relativity and Incidence –brohsei kai posei– which you won’t find written there, but which is repeated there through Ellipsis (which is present there by omission). [*See Blass Debrunner (cited at the end) for the Conjunctive nature and function of ‘eh’.*]
Eric B:
“But that (Ellipsis) is an assumption; because without it; I could see where the possessives would refer back to "judge". So another proper ellipsis would be "Let no one judge you in regard to eating and drinking or the observance of feast, or [the observance of] new moons; or [the observance of] the sabbath day".”
GE:
Consider:
“But that (Ellipsis) is an assumption; because without it; I could see where the possessives would refer back to "judge".”
Even supposed as without Ellipsis then, the text simply forces one to ‘refer back’ – the principle I build ‘my interpretation’ on: It is an “eating-and-drinking-OF-feast”! Obliged!

Consider:
“So another proper ellipsis would be ... [the observance of]”
Exactly! Here at last it seems the parallel lines do meet!
You may call it “observance”; I call it a “feasting” / “celebration” seeing it is an ‘observance’ by “eating and drinking” spiritually of Jesus Christ (not excluding by a possible physical eating). Point is: Ellipsis functions; is legitimate!
Only ask yourself a few questions:
Where is “[the observance of]” mentioned, because it must be truly present in the nearby context to be implicated through Ellipsis? It is mentioned in the words “eating and drinking of feast”, or in only the words “eating and drinking”! Therefore yes, “proper ellipsis would be "Let no one judge you in regard to eating and drinking or the observance of feast”!
Also ask yourself:
For being of what nature, does Paul condone and the judging party the ‘world’ condemn, the “observance” or ‘celebration’ or ‘feast’ “concerned” (Dative and ‘en merei’)?
Was the “observance” Christian, or was it un-Christian?
Did Christians, feast it –“observe”– it? (Christians did!)
Who else, could have “observed” it? (Nobody!)
Did Paul condone it, or did he condemn it? (He condoned it!)
Therefore: The “observance” was Christian!
Eric B:
“The whole debate ultimately hinges on this; because if Rom. and Col. are saying the same thing: let no one judge ANYONE over ANY days; but whoever keeps a day keeps it unto the Lord; then all of this grammar and stuff means nothing. Once again; granting you the benefit of the doubt: "Let no one judge you for eating of your sabbath-feasts". This nowhere says "all Christians are bound to keep the sabbath". Nowhere does it say that it is still a binding "duty" for all. But it does go right long with Romans 14. If they so choose to keep the day (and its "feast") unto the Lord; let no one judge them for it. Yet you have to dismiss this like nothing.”

GE:
For you, “The whole debate ultimately hinges on this; because if Rom. and Col. are saying the same thing...”, “BECAUSE IF” – not for me. If we could agree not to agree on this point, we would have made good progress.
But just take the word “judge”, and from just it, see how Romans 14 and Colossians 2 are NOT “saying the same thing”:
In Romans Paul says, “Don’t one judge the other” – he presupposes brethren in the faith the one turning against the other.
Paul therefore finds fault with the Church in Romans: You are not acting like Christians! You are divided, and make of the non-essential the essential!
In Colossians Paul says, “Do not you, let judge you, anyone!” – he presupposes brethren in the faith standing united against a common foe. Paul therefore sympathises with the Church and “comforts” them (2:2). He takes up the cudgels for them: What you practice is your Christian inheritance and right and with your implementation of it there’s no fault to be found: You are behaving like Christians; keep on enjoying, “don’t let anybody judge you in it!”
The ‘judging’ in Romans was sinful and revealed inner weakness and the pride of the believers. The ‘being judged’ in Colossians implied the commendable; was referred paragon of the Freedom in which the Church stood undaunted against the world.
In Romans the Church ‘judged’ and it ‘condemned’ one another; in Colossians the world ‘judged’, and the world ‘condemned’, the Church.
In Romans brother judged / condemned brother unjustly, disregarding the other’s devotion. In Colossians the world regarding its blameless devotion judged / condemned unjustly the Church.
Paul in Romans reprimands the Church sternly; in Colossians Paul, while condoning and defending the faith and action of the Church – “presented holy, unblameable” (1:22) “in Christ” before the Judgement seat of God, warns and rejects with contempt the world’s unjust judging of the Church.

Yes, the concept ‘judged’ is used in both passages, but in each with many and largely different connotations. Romans 14 and Colossians 2 are NOT “saying the same thing”.
And so we could go on and shall see there’s NOTHING “the same thing”. The whole debate ultimately does NOT hinge on this.
I thought we have long ago lost Romans 14. I do not submit to hermeneutics of Colossians 2:16-17 by alien invasion. I also won’t submit to hermeneutics by alien invasion of Romans 14, where you after everything said, again shuttled in from vastest space, “whoever keeps a day keeps it unto the Lord”.

“All of this grammar and stuff” is the Text; is the Word – God’s Word, not mine. “It means nothing” to you; it means everything to me. So you throw in the towel, but won’t separate with your world-title belt.

Eric B:
“Once again; granting you the benefit of the doubt: "Let no one judge you for eating of your sabbath-feasts". This nowhere says "all Christians are bound to keep the sabbath". Nowhere does it say that it is still a binding "duty" for all.”
GE:
Granting me, “the benefit of the doubt”? What doubt?
Yes, I say the text “says "all Christians are bound to keep the sabbath"” – not so much by “the letter” – but by showing they in fact did, and thereby for later generations created a perfect, undeniable, precedent. But what they did they did on grounds of Christ’s doing, and therefore by irrevocable precept – not only precedent. Look what New Testament Law looks like!
I have always said the Sabbath is “for the People of God” and not for everyone – not for “anyone” else who may even judge all Christians for ‘keeping the Sabbath’. So for example imagine yourself accepting and enjoying the Sabbath Day!
What does "Let no one judge you for eating of your sabbath-feasts" tell you? That "all Christians are bound to keep the sabbath"”, or that Christians are FREE to keep the Sabbath? “The love of Christ constraineth us.”

Eric B:
“If they so choose to keep the day (and its "feast") unto the Lord; let no one judge them for it.”
GE:
“If they so choose ...”
Not reiterating the same objections against your referring to Romans 14, now asking you: Who chooses? Is it up for grabs by anyone according to anyone’s liking? “Joying and beholding your order”, says Paul, while he comforts the Church in her feasting her Sabbaths’ Day, challenging the whole world and all principalities and powers of the kingdom of darkness, Don’t you dare judge the Church if they so choose! Is that your choice, that it isn’t binding – not inviting, not begging, not pleading, “Enter in, enter in!”? I won’t say it does – it’s up to you to ‘decide’ if, or not. You, decide, mighty man!

Eric B:
“But then it (to decide) becomes impossible to anyone false or true; when they all have convincing grammatical arguments like this.”
GE:
“... when they all have convincing grammatical arguments like this.” All? And everyone differently? You think it possible based on the single Text? You think it possible linguistically for one and precise language, the Greek, they all, have convincing grammatical arguments? Come on! Name but one, and show, his convincing grammatical arguments “like this”, nevertheless against ‘this’ and proving ‘this’, wrong and false! Only one!


Eric B:
“Because the JW's claim there should be an indefinite article before theos in John 1:1. They argue that in other places, like "a prophet is without honor in his own country"; that an indefinite article is not in the Greek; but it is added there --by "ellipsis". But we can disprove it by other means. Like the fact that while there can be more than one prophet; (for one to be singled out with an indefinite article); there can only be one God; so there is no such thing as "A god" to us.”
GE:
Your example? BY analogy of one false application of Ellipsis you do away with all Ellipsis and deny its function in this specific and totally unrelated instance? If “the JW's claim” is that one instance, then you overwhelm me with the credit due all those who so thoroughly have dismantled “the JW's” false “claim”.

continue...

 

continued,
Eric B:
“(GE believe(s) God has preserved His word properly translated) Not really because you believe this passage reads something totally different from what we have been reading. I believe that God has not allowed His word to be changed; even by "imperfect humans" that much.”
GE:
This passage may be read as is from the KJV with exactly the same meaning as I would have rendered it with. It all depends on what predisposition one reads it with.
Now let me tell you one thing you obviously are unaware of, that “what we have been reading” in this passage mostly has never been “what we have been reading”, but what we have been brain-washed to read INTO it!
First of all one could freely generalise and say everybody always says this passage condemns Sabbath-keeping – says, “judge”, means condemning what is WRONG, and that the WRONG condemned, is Sabbath-keeping (like in Romans 14) , ‘they say’.
But by reading the exact same lines, word for word the same, the thought is conveyed to the honest and open mind that here –in Colossians 2– is a judging spoken of, not of Sabbath-keeping nor of Sabbath breaking, and as a WRONG justly judged, but of a RIGHT, unjustly judged!
Next one could freely generalise and say everybody always says in this passage it is Paul who judges and condemns Sabbath-keeping – that he tells the Church, and I quote: NAB, “Let nobody prescribe to you to keep the Sabbath!”
But by reading the exact same lines in the KJV, word for word the same, the thought is conveyed to the honest and open mind, that here is Paul comforting and reassuring the Church NOT to allow herself be judged for her Sabbaths’ Day or its, correct, feasting!
And so I can go on and lift out opposing impressions allegedly obtained from the text, but falsely so, they having originated in and having been fetched and imported from Tradition, and not from the Text!
So what little value can you attach to “what we all have been reading”. We have all been listening to tradition, and have not really been reading.
Back to the original! There we have every word and all the convincing grammatical factors against which to test opinion, interpretation and tradition or whatever what is not the text or according to the text itself. (Don’t go to another passage that has nothing to do with the issue here!)

Eric B:
“Then what in the world are we arguing about? (if not about working on the Sabbath) I am arguing against the idea that one must "keep" the day; by following the OT command not to do any work on that day (with the exception of removing "the Jews' additions; of course).
What you said I could agree with; especially that people's taking it to their convenience means He is not Lord of that day (to them). This is what I realized when I was first shown from Col., Rom.14 and Gal. that I can keep the day "unto the Lord" myself, but not judge others over it. What 'fun' was that, then? I'm no better than the Sunday keepers. What's the purpose of keeping it, then? The sabbath then lost all of its significance. It was just a tool to try to be better than others. That was never what it was about in God's eyes, but that was what it was to the Jews and the Judaizers, and to these modern sects and cults today. And that is why I argue against it; not because I am pushing Sunday.
I can still respect the significance of the sabbath, and if I could start my own church; I would probably choose Sat. to meet on. But not forbid anyone to work, or whatever else.
You must realize, that you spoke of a "duty", and "lawlessness", and all that stuff just like the SDA's, Armstrong groups, SNG and all the rest arguing that no one should work on it. (the difficulty faced in getting the day off is supposed to be part of one's "trials of the faith"; thus further proving its whole significance to God). That is why I argued so long. But if there is no ban on working, then there is no real debate.”
GE:
Consider: “if there is no ban on working, then there is no real debate.”
I think you’re seriously wrong here. The real debate about the Sabbath only starts when the side-issue of work on the Sabbath Day had been settled – it doesn’t end there. (I always think of the figure from the Letter to the Hebrews of the two-edged sword. God’s Word is sharper, says it, than this sword when dealing with the Sabbath-truth.) Barth’s famous words: “the monstrous scope of the Sabbath” or of its truth or doctrine, are most appropriate. This respected theologian wrote more than one large paragraph on the Sabbath doctrine, and each word of it carried weight, the side issue of work on the Sabbath Day regardless.

My stance on work on the Sabbath Day I hope to have taken on the grounds of Christ’s virtue and merit, not because of any dismissal from duty. I’m supposing an absolute irrevocable, inescapable DUTY. God’s Law is valid – today, as ever before or beyond, and more so than ever before or after because now God’s Law is Jesus Christ Living Confronting me – you – whomever He graciously may will to confront. In Christ is the Sabbath Day confronting me, you, the Church Corporate Body of Christ’s Own. There is no Church where is no Sabbath Day. If my work or not working interferes with this God’s design for His Day, namely for His Worship, then the Law looms over me like a dark cloud.
Such work is easy to recognise and easy to indicate: such works are works like of serving Mammon and greedy and selfish interest.
If one’s duty – one’s whole duty as his Christian duty – requires of him to work on the Seventh Day of the week the Sabbath of the LORD your God, then fine – it’s his duty. May God find every workman of His working when He comes. But we know with Whom we have to do – God is not mocked.

Colossians is about God’s glory in the face of Jesus Christ, the Church celebrating her Sabbaths’ Day for His worship. Colossians 2:16-17 entails the grand vista of the “monstrous range” of the Sabbath and its doctrine. Colossians does not presuppose small issues of million pounds penny pinching or global yet ever so bourgeois social relationships.
Colossians concerns the Body of Christ’s as the Witness and Proclamation to the world and before God and among one another of the Crucified and Risen who is the Inspiration and Power and Dictum of its every breath and movement.
There therefore is this very real debate between you and me about the very real reality and pertinence of the Sabbath Day for believers in and followers of Jesus Christ.
The Sabbath is not for our may-be’s – it is for the sure promises and mercies of God!

Eric B:
“You're trying to say it was the civil law (or not so civil) of the pagans that was the "handwriting of ordinances" that was nailed to the Cross. But Paul is referring to the Law of Moses. It was the Old Covenant that was superseded. Gentile laws have nothing to do with it, as they never condemned anyone before God.”
GE:
Consider:
“Gentile laws have nothing to do with it (the "handwriting of ordinances"), as they never condemned anyone before God.”
Gentiles and emperors condemned and put to the stake Christians they thought as before God, thinking indeed themselves to be God. Civil law in those ancient times was holy and divine law in the eyes of its makers. Wiping out God’s People and their Faith was, the religion of the day.


Consider:
“"handwriting of ordinances" that was nailed to the Cross ... Paul is referring to the Law of Moses.”
GE:
Sure he does! And the law of Moses was civil law while religious law; ‘ceremonial’ law while ‘moral’ law; ‘sacrificial’ law while ‘spiritual’ law; “law of Moses” while Law of God. But we see Jesus. We see Him, and taking in his body ALL law – even laws of men and governments and courts – to the Cross! To the cross, and to it, nailing it, taking it out of the way, abolishing it: Wave this useless “court-order against us” that “condemns” us, is “contrary us” – ignore it, it’s “made a shame” of by Christ! Don’t you be judged!
The Christian finds his comfort and strength in Jesus Christ even in the case of being brought before the courts of law of the land – through real “hand-written ordinance by law”. It was the very situation of discomfort of the Colossian Congregation feasting their Sabbaths’ Day in the hostile world that prompted Paul to write to them.
Still you think, “Still (I) think it is only laws that they "added" that were abolished.” How can you still think so? Haven’t I argued those Laws even what God had commanded in the Old Covenant were abolished? Like sacrifices, etc., even the Ten Commandments? And WITH them, the Sabbath? And with THEM, even the laws and ordinances of rulers and lands!
What I have denied all along and ‘still’ deny, is that ANY laws, “were push(ed)” upon the Church ‘religiously’. What I on the contrary have argued is that judgement was being served upon the Church by “statutory” ‘decree’ – ‘cheirographon tois dogmasin’ = “by enactment of a legislative body (the “rule” / “government” (‘emperor’) of the “world”) expressed in a formal (“written”) document” = court order = “to judge”. In the particular circumstance of the Colossian Congregation that ultimately meant to be “condemned”.
I have all along maintained “pushing laws” is not what “to judge” means.
Here’s the true point of difference between us – laws weren’t ‘pushed’, they were “taken out of the way”!


Eric B:
“They took exceptions for specific REASONS. It was the Jews who were threatened because of Christ in His own right. What He stood for meant the end of their system. The pagans were not threatened at all by what they saw as just a new tribal god among all the others. It was their refusal to worship the emperor that made them take exception.”
GE: I can’t see that the Christians’ “refusal to worship the emperor ... made them (the pagans) take exception”, but that they “were not threatened at all by what they saw”.
Meanwhile the religion of the Gentiles more than the Jewish religion was in fact historically threatened by the New Faith. Christians were killed by the thousands by the pagan religious authorities for no other reason they felt and in fact were threatened by the New Faith. The religion of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth notwithstanding persecution or precisely because of persecution, posed the ‘threat’ that soon was to replace the ideology, authority and religion of pagan emperors, law and order.
During the first century despite the short periods of persecution under them, the Jews were the bearers of the Gospel rather than its opponents. That was when Paul wrote his Letter to the Colossian Church.
Therefore the laws whereby the Church was “judged” / “condemned” / “incriminated” (‘krinoh’) were laws of the pagan world-state and pagan world-religion, “against” them, and “contrary”, that is, “opposing” them. They were not laws “added” whereby the Church supposedly was to be ‘educated’, ‘corrected’, ‘improved’, ‘converted’, or, ‘misled’, ‘tempted’, ‘corrupted’, to the Jewish religion and Judaistic idealism. Not here in Colossians.


Eric B:
“Of course it's impossible (to have Christ and worship both Him and the emperor)-- before God. But the pagans didn't know that. So many other groups worshipped their gods; and then gave homage to the emperor, and there was no conflict. The pagans did not automatically know that Christ was not just some new god being created by His followers.”
GE:
You’re making an overkill of no kill. The gentleman protests too much.

Eric B:
“You're still talking about what believers knew (there’s no either or in serving Christ). I'm talking about what the pagans knew. They were blinded. 1 Cor. 8:5-7 "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But TO US there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Nevertheless there is not in every man that knowledge..."”.
GE:
This Scripture you’re quoting is true in what it says in itself. What has it got to do with Colossians 2:16-17 though? That the world of pagans and pagan non-gods would not judged and condemn the Christians for believing in Christ and keeping His Sabbaths’ Feast? I think it would imply just the opposite! “TO US there is but one God, the Father ... and one Lord Jesus Christ ... Nevertheless there is not in every man that knowledge” – meaning trouble for “us”!

Eric B:
“Well before, you looked like you were holding this "another day" up as a continued sabbath for today. What would be the point of holding up "if Jesus gave the rest, then he would not have spoken of another ___", then?”
GE:
“"(A)nother day"” I have last time explained is metaphor for “rest”, and “rest” is metaphor for Jesus. Jesus is God’s rest, is His last (and only) redemption and salvation. After this “rest” which God had given us in Jesus Christ, there comes no further ‘rest’. Jesus’ ‘day’, is the last ‘day’, is the last “Today!” on God’s calendar for the world. I am the Way, said Jesus – there’s no second ‘way’ to God and His Rest or Salvation. There never had been another before. God has only this one day for everyone, “TODAY, if you hear His Voice, harden not your heart!” “The GOSPEL, was preached unto them, like unto us”!
I am the door, said Jesus, and no other door is to open for anyone tomorrow; and by none other than THIS Door any before had entered in. “There is no other day after these things” which is after Jesus, after His rest, after His “day”, after His “having entered into His own rest as God”! And no other Day had there been before for any man how godly; he was unable to create his own.
There’s no Jesus after “this Jesus whom you have crucified but whom God raised from the dead”. (Peter) “There is no other Name given!” Not ever before; not ever “after these things”. This is the day! Today! Christ’s day!
“There is no other day after these things” – after His “having entered into His own rest as God”: “THEREFORE”! What concerns us here, what has direct bearing on us, today, “seeing Jesus had given them rest”, “HAVING entered in into His own rest Jesus” (Participle-use), is this: “Therefore there remains a keeping of God’s Sabbath Day for His People!” “God thus concerning the Seventh Day had spoken: And God on the Seventh Day rested from all His works.” You have never seen Law have you not seen it in the New Testament!
Having problems to grasp? I regret I cannot be of better help even though the Sabbath is such an urgent matter in the eyes of God and of those He employed to write down His Will to us. O Jesus, be merciful! O Christ be Thou mine Rest!

Eric B:
“and the spiritual rest is not "keeping" a day. But then now you seem to be saying something like that at times...”
GE:
That’s what I’ve been saying all along, “the spiritual rest is not "keeping" a day”! The ‘anapausis’ is NOT the ‘sabbatismos’ even though only ‘spiritually’ dedicated and ‘spiritually’ acceptable to God.
What it seems to me you are saying, is: “the spiritual rest is not, comma, "keeping" a day”, at all. If I’m wrong, then good I’m wrong!

 

Eric is correct to a point. IF we can insert Christ the Creator's OWN 7th-day Sabbath memorial of HIS creative act in making mankind - into an "obsoleted, optional list of personal preferences" - then "fine" no judging others for choosing a tradition that honors them - but no "truth" to tell anyone who is not keeping them other than the clear fact that they are purely individual choices.

However - as it turns out - you can not insert Christ the Creator's own 7th day Holy Day memorial into Romans 14 and you can not insert it into Col 2.

And that is where Eric's logic fails.

However to the extent that GE DOES insert Christ the Creator's Holy day into the list mentioned in Col2 - he falls squarely into the trap that Eric has described.

Col 2 clearly shows that the list given is either "wrong" (worship of Angles comes to mind) or at best "optional choices" along the lines of a personal preference.

I see no way out of it for GE once he accepts the failed premise that Eric offers for including Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh-day MEMORIAL of HIS creative acts - into this list.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yeah; we've been through that; and you were not able to prove that the Sabbath wasn't apart of either passage. You just assert it.

Now, for GE:

No; I did notice you wrote "eating and drinking of feast". What I'm saying is that it is "eating and drinking; OR in respect of a holy day" ["feast"]. Ellipsis or no ellipsis; you have not given enough real proof to show there is warrant to change the verse like that; except that one wants it to be defending a sabbath feasts from "judging", rather than defending Christian liberty from those using the sabbath to judge. "predisposition"; like you said. So while you point out others' predisposition; you should not deny your own.

See; you have me on trial again! I'm trying to escape your "truth". Who's judging? Who would have more reason to "scheme to escape"; being guilty of what the scripture is talking about? Considering you say we don't even have to quit our jobs; what reason would I scheme against the truth?
I'm certainly not judging you for keeping your sabbath feast. But you're judging me, with those words.

Whether it's plural or not doesn't even make a difference. It doesn;t change whether it is "OF" those things; or "OR in regard to" those things.

You're just stating this; not proving it.

And that's your opinion. You're making "eating and drinking" refer to everything else on the list; rather than being the first item on (apart of) the list.

Correct. But that is quite different from what you have.

The observances were Jewish practices that of the Christians (who had been Jews) continued; but some stopped, and some tried to persuade Gentiles to keep. We see Paul criticize Peter over this; and you have not even addressed thhis, to be denying that Jews would ever judge Christians for not keeping the Sabbath; but only pagans would judge them for keeping it. Christians could partake of them "unto the Lord"; or not partake of; rather whatever they did; they were not to be judged for doing it or not doing it.

So in once case; outsiders were harassing the Church, and in another; internal arguments were brewing. The outsiders had either crept intot he church; or were successful in influencing some within; so we will see the same issues from within and from without. This does not prove the two pasages are totally unrelated.

And look how respectful you are of "God's Word"-- "alien invasion"! I'm sorry, bud, but Romans 14 is god's word too. People should focus more on interpretaing scripture by scripture, rather than by trying to change the meanings on the grammatical level where it is hard to prove right away, so you can stump the other side and claim victory in the argument.
But perhaps I'll consult some Greek scholar some day, and see what he says about that "eating and drinking OF feast".

But there is no proof there. There is nothing about "all Christians". There is nothing about "bound"/("binding"). You just manufacture this stuff out of nowhere. "do not let anyone judge you" speaks of "FREEdom; not "binding". It's the ones judging who are trying to make them BOUND by something!

I didn't do away with all elipsis. I showed where that too is subject to the CONTEXT of all scripture taken as a whole. We see there, with grammatical tricks like that, you can make the Bible say anything you want it to; and that is how groups like the JW's thrive; on verses like that.

And nobody says the "wrong" is sabbathkeeping. It is judging others for not keeping; and not keeping it is the "right".

 

But it's not just tradition. Not even other sabathkeepers go to this length to prove the sabbath. Are they going by "tradition" too? Why doesn;t Bob read the text this way? HE certainly is not of any sunday 'tradition" conspiracy!

So I can work on the day if I really have to; but what; no personal interest; fun; hobbies; etc? Shall we make a list of acceptable and unacceptable things like the Jews did? (this would also be many old-time Christians' guideline for Sunday observance.)

Yes, they thought they were gods; but they didn't know of the true God; and their laws that were against the true God were not binding on anyone before God.

OK. I remember you saying that way before, somewhere. But it's easy to forget; because you are taking it in this passage to be pagan "laws" (against Christian feasts) ONLY. But if you admit that the Law of God/Moses, including the sabbath were nailed to the Cross; then there should be no problem admitting that Pail is telling them not to let anyone judge them over these things.

Judge" is more associated with the legislative body of the Jews; and its enforcement of the Law of Moses. they had "courts" and "decrees" and condemned people too.

Because the Jews accused them of sedition before the Romans. Most of the rest of direct persecution of Christians by Romans came after the Temple was destroyed, and when the Church was really spreading across the Empire. THEN, the authorities became threatened by it and began really persecuting it; until one empeeor saw how it could be used and manipulated to his own aganda, and accepted it as the state religion. But in NT times; it was just seen a sect of the Jews that refused to worship the emperor, and were excluded by the Jews from the waiver they were granted from worshipping the emperor.

Actually; the context is on meats offered to idols. My point was that it still holds that they were not threatened by the true God, whom they didn't know. So they didn't know, nor care why Christians couldn't worship Jesus and the emperor. They just persecuted them for not worshipping the emperor; not for some feat that they did probably in private anyway.

You only admit spiritual rest is not keeping a day, so you can separate 'anapausis' and 'sabbatismos' as two separate things that continue side by side. But this passage is showing that sabbatismos is a shadow of the true anapausis that was promised in the OT; bit never delivered through people like Joshua (with the physical "promised land" and Moses (with the sabbath law).

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However - as it turns out - you can not insert Christ the Creator's own 7th day Holy Day memorial into Romans 14 and you can not insert it into Col 2.

And that is where Eric's logic fails.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In going "through that" we find that you had NO reference to Christ the Creator's Seventh-day Holy Day in Romans 14.

(Or have you found once since then?)

In going "through that" we find that you ONLY have the annual "Shaddow" (predictive) Sabbaths in Col2 and NOT the "weekly" Prescriptive PRE-FALL Memorial of Creation created by Christ AS THE 7th day of our SEVEN day week!

In fact - we see that ALL MANKIND IS obligated to that day in Isaiah 66 LONG after the cross -- (far from being personnal preference and optional)

In Matt 24 Christ instructs His followers about events FORTY YEARS after the cross saying "pray that your flight NOT be on THE Sabbath day".

This is AFTER the writing of Col 2!

The case you "invent" fell apart before it got started - which is why I point out that GE was not wise to allow for your failed premise.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No; you just stuck "annual feasts" in there with no proof whatsoever; but presumed to disprove something. (just like GE sticks "eating of sabbath-feasts" in this one! I wish I could find that old discussion on the Sabbath/Gal.4, from about a year ago. The one on the "ham sandwich" is still on page 6 of the index).
You are GE are so much alike in your argument tactics, and will stop at nothing to read things into or out of the text; or even changing the text itself!
Which one is right, then?

 

"FIRST DAY" BIBLE TEXTS

Millions of conscientious Christians attend church every Sunday, the first day of the week. They do so believing that somewhere, somehow, someone changed the day of worship. Either that, or they aren't aware that God set aside the seventh day, not the first day of the week as His holy day.
It is true, a change has been made.
But by whom? We've discovered that God made the Sabbath during the first week of earth's history. He set it aside as a weekly appointment between man and Himself — as a blessing, a refreshment, a date between two lovers so to speak (God and man).
If God changed His mind about His special appointment day with us, wouldn't He have recorded so momentous an adjustment in the Bible?
We've already seen that the beast power claims to have made the change, but what does the Bible say about it?
There're eight texts in the New Testament that mention the first day of the week. Look at them carefully.
Matthew 28:1
Mark 16:1, 2.
Mark 16:9.
Luke 24:1.
John 20:1.
John 20:19.
Acts 20:7, 8.
1 Corinthians 16:1, 2.
The first five texts simply state that the women came to the sepulcher early on the resurrection morning, and that Jesus rose from the dead.
Now look up John 20:19 in your Bible. It tells us that Jesus appeared to the disciples later on the resurrection day. It says that the reason they were assembled was "for fear of the Jews."
They were scared. No telling when the Jews might grab them and treat them to the same fate as their Master. They were hiding.
They had seen their beloved Master die on Friday. They "returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Luke 23:56. And now they're hiding with the doors shut "for fear of the Jews." John 20:19.
There's no mention of a change.
The seventh text is Acts 20:7, 8. It says "and upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together."
This was a night meeting — the dark part of the first day of the week. In Bible reckoning, the dark part of the day comes before the light part. Genesis 1:5 — "and God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The dark part comes first.
The Bible reckons a day from sunset to sunset.
The seventh day begins at sunset Friday evening. The first day of the week begins sunset Saturday evening.

Paul is together with his friends on the dark part of the first day of the week — Saturday night. This is a farewell get-together. He preached until midnight, when poor Eutychus falls out the window. (Acts 20:9).
You can imagine how relieved they were when it was found that God spared his life. Verse eleven says that they talked till the break of day and then Paul departed. Verse thirteen shows that Paul spent that Sunday morning traveling to Assos.
There's nothing here either concerning a change of the Sabbath.
The New English bible translates this text like this:
"On the Saturday night, in our assembly for the breaking of bread, Paul, who was to leave the next day, addressed them, and went on speaking until midnight." Acts 20:7.
The last text mentions the first day of the week in 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2.
It says — "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." Verse three tells that he will bring the offering to Jerusalem.
As he had done in Galatia, so Paul also requests of those in Corinth to have a collection all ready when he would come to take it to the poor saints in Jerusalem. There's nothing in the text about a church service, but each person is to "lay by him in store." The first day of the week was the best time for the people to set money aside because later in the week it would be spent. That's true today as well! Paul requested this so that "there be no gatherings when I come." 1 Corinthians 16:2.
At this time the Christians are suffering hardship in Jerusalem and Paul is making his rounds to the churches taking up a collection for them. (We should be that thoughtful today).
There's nothing in this text either about a change of God's Sabbath to Sunday.
Concerning worship, what was Paul's custom?
Here it is.
"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbaths reasoned with them out of the scriptures." Acts 17:2.
Jesus, as our example also had the custom of attending church on Saturday, the seventh day. (Luke 4:16).

The great time prophecies of the Bible have all been fulfilled on schedule. Thus the accuracy and dependability of God's word are firmly established.

----------------

Claudia Thompson
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.christiangraphics.org