Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Introducing Thugpreacha
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 133 (852777)
05-16-2019 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ringo
05-16-2019 3:28 PM


Re: Thugzy Unplugged
That is exactly HOW you are deceived, utterly delusional. You can't read the Bible piecemeal like that, it has to be read in the context of the whole thing. Words may have different meanings in different contexts, but whole teachings may not mean what you think they mean if you read everything that applies to them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 05-16-2019 3:28 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 05-17-2019 11:44 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 05-17-2019 1:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(2)
Message 32 of 133 (852808)
05-17-2019 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
05-16-2019 12:52 PM


Re: Thugzy Unplugged
Well it is because you have deluded yourself and allowed yourself to be deluded that you feel like your specific brand is the end all of Christian religion. Newsflash....
It is not.
I respect your opinions and those of others here because that is the beginning of understanding and learning. Closed mindedness is for people who fear that they may not be completely secure in their own beliefs because otherwise why all the vitriol? Evangelical types tend to clump together in their isolated echo chambers, reveling in the collective discorded music of psuedo-superiority and ignorance that suffocates any and all semblance of discovery or truth.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 05-16-2019 12:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 33 of 133 (852813)
05-17-2019 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
05-16-2019 4:29 PM


Re: Thugzy Unplugged
Faith writes:
You can't read the Bible piecemeal **** that, it has to be read in the context of the whole thing.
On the contrary, a library doesn't have an overall context. You're trying to reconcile War and Peace with Animal Farm and Catcher in the Rye, which is why you're so confused. And your confusion shows up as anger.
Faith writes:
... but whole teachings may not mean what you think they mean if you read everything that applies to them.
A "whole teaching" should not contradict its parts. For example, you cherry-pick a verse about shedding blood and twist that into an endorsement of capital punishment - but you ignore where God forbade killing Cain and you ignore where Jesus forbade killing the adulterous woman. If there is a "whole teaching" about capital punishment it certainly is not an endorsement. Either the Bible is inconsistent about the subject or your interpretation is just flat-out wrong.

Welcome back, Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 05-16-2019 4:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 34 of 133 (852825)
05-17-2019 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
05-16-2019 4:29 PM


Re: Thugzy Unplugged
OK, what about this one?
Update Your Browser | Facebook

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 05-16-2019 4:29 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 05-18-2019 2:45 AM Phat has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 35 of 133 (852843)
05-18-2019 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
05-16-2019 1:28 PM


Re: Thugzy Unplugged
quote:
"know them by their fruits" passage refers to the burgeoning Roman Church which had fruits such as no meat on Fridays and relics to be adored and condemning marriage of clergy
So are you saying Roman Catholics existed during the time of Paul?
When did the Roman Catholic church start?
Can you provide some detail on what clued you in on the date?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 05-16-2019 1:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 05-18-2019 12:44 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 36 of 133 (852844)
05-18-2019 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by LamarkNewAge
05-18-2019 12:31 AM


Re: Thugzy Unplugged
No, it looks to the future but I think there were some roots earlier.
606 AD when Phocas declared the Bishop of Rome the supreme whatever, bishop I guess, or maybe Pontiff, conferring on him a general authority over all the churches. I think it was Pope Gregory who said this made the Pope the Antichrist.
Got the information from the book History of Romanism by Dowling I think. May have to look it up.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by LamarkNewAge, posted 05-18-2019 12:31 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by LamarkNewAge, posted 05-18-2019 12:54 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 40 by LamarkNewAge, posted 05-18-2019 9:15 PM Faith has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 37 of 133 (852845)
05-18-2019 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
05-18-2019 12:44 AM


Re: Thugzy Unplugged
quote:
No, it looks to the future.
So the Epistle to the Colossians (chapter 2) references were not taken by you to be about THEN existing Roman Christians?
(I quoted your reference to a quote of Jesus, but you were also thinking of the Colossian's quote, which was said to be by Paul)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 05-18-2019 12:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 38 of 133 (852846)
05-18-2019 1:19 AM


Am I correct in assuming you were thinking of Colossians 2?
The part about "touch not" and "taste not" caused you to think of certain modern Roman Catholic doctrines?
I think the epistle was talking about Yom Kippur.
Yom Kippur - Wikipedia
quote:
8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
Let No One Disqualify You
16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,
19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations”
21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch”
22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)”according to human precepts and teachings?
23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
ESV
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 05-20-2019 11:28 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 39 of 133 (852848)
05-18-2019 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Phat
05-17-2019 1:46 PM


Re: Thugzy Unplugged
Phat writes:
OK, what about this one?
Update Your Browser | Facebook
You need to have a word with your alter ego about bare links.
(And some sensible people don't use Facebreach.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 05-17-2019 1:46 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Phat, posted 05-20-2019 8:13 AM Tangle has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 40 of 133 (852867)
05-18-2019 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
05-18-2019 12:44 AM


Can you clarify if Colossians looks to future heresy or past/present traditions
Perhaps we can start a thread on this, but I am wondering whether this comment of yours was based on Colossians and "Paul's" opponents.
(To me, the author of Colossians seems to have had pre-Gnostic views. I mean he seemed to be anti-Jewish and feeling that the Old Testament was based on a somewhat evil law and told of a Creation by no-so-good forces. I want your view though)
quote:
I'm sure you have no clue that the "know them by their fruits" passage refers to the burgeoning Roman Church which had fruits such as no meat on Fridays and relics to be adored and condemning marriage of clergy, which has led to the horrors of sexual molestation of children, not to mention all the sexual liaisons supposedly condemned by the church that went on in the monasteries. All of their superstitions lead to bad fruits, and all are against God's word.
The post you responded to quoted Colossians 2:8 which had Paul talking about "elementary spirits of the world" being responsible for traditions.
(I am still interested in your opinion of Colossians even if this was not on your mind during your above comment)
Colossians 2:20 said the same thing.
From the Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges:
(2:20 note)
quote:
‘ ‘‘, see Colossians 2:8, note. The rudimentary teaching of the world, summed up in law with its rules and ordinances.
Colossians 2 - Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary for Schools and Colleges - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
Rudimentary teaching of the cosmos or elemental spirits of the cosmos?
quote:
ADDITIONAL NOTE ON CHAPTER Colossians 2:8
‘— ‘‘.
I. The word ‘— has a remarkable history, as may be seen from the following summary of its meanings, with the addition of the earliest undisputed authority in each case. Starting from the root idea of ‘—, a row, it means besides the line, i.e. shadow, of a sundial (Aristoph.):
(a) A letter of the alphabet ( ‘—, Plato), the alphabet, ‘—.
(b) The A, B, C, i.e. the rudiments, or elements of a science.
(c) The material elements of the universe (Plato; cf. Wisdom of Solomon 7:17; Wisdom of Solomon 19:18; 4 Maccabees 12:13).
(d) The stars and heavenly bodies; the signs of the Zodiac, Diog. Laert. 6. 102, ‘—.
(e) The spiritual powers at the back of these elements, e.g. in the great Paris magic-papyrus the moon-goddess is ‘— , and in the ‘ ‘‘ of “Hermes Trismegistus” the ‘— come as gods before the supreme God and make their complaint of the arrogance of men.
(f) In particular the demons or genii in nature. The Test. of Solomon (see Introd. p. xxvii.) speaks of “the 36 ‘—, the world-rulers (‘) of this darkness” (cf. Ephesians 6:12) who address Solomon ( 72).
(g) Tutelary spirits (Byzantine writers). This usage is frequent in modern Greece, where ‘‘ is used of the local spirit of the threshing-floor, the rock, etc. Observe also that ‘‘ and ‘‘ are used of magic at least as early as the Byzantine writers.
II. In the N.T. (b) is undoubtedly the meaning in Hebrews 5:12, for ‘— is defined by the following genitives; and (c) is almost necessary for 2 Peter 3:10; 2 Peter 3:12; but much discussion has arisen over the other passages, Galatians 4:3; Galatians 4:9 and our Colossians 2:8; Colossians 2:20.
[1] It is urged[101] that St Paul, either in his own person or by way of adopting the terminology of his opponents, uses it in the sense of (f) or at least (e); that he is contrasting these genii or spiritual powers with Christ; that in Colossians (with which alone we are concerned) he says that the false teachers teach in accordance with these inferior powers (cf. also Colossians 2:15) and not in accordance with Christ. If this be right he is also perhaps contrasting the magical use of elements with the true Mystery (Colossians 1:26 sq.).
The date, however, of the Test. of Solomon is most uncertain, and failing that we have no clear evidence that ‘— possessed this meaning at all as early as 1st cent. A.D.
[2] The Fathers generally explain the passages in the sense of (d), thinking either of Gentile adoration of the stars, etc., cf. Augustine, dicunt omnia sidera partes Jovis esse et omnia vivere atque rationales animas habere, De Civ. IV. 11, or of the Jewish observance of new moons, feasts, and Sabbaths regulated by the moon, etc. So Chrysostom.
But to both [1] and [2] there is the serious objection referred to in the notes.
Colossians 2 - Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary for Schools and Colleges - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
This issue is important because verses 2:8 and 2:20 were both wrapped around a clear (to me) reference to the Old Testament. Older commentaries tended to see Colossians as a polemic against gnosticism, but this is very outdated. Gnosticism did not seem to exist in the first century (except TO ME Colossians was "Gnostic", so I feel Gnosticism sort of did exist), plus there is the amazing fact that the opponent's views (attacked by the author of Colossians) were anti-Gnostic (that is the opponents were Jewish and/or Jewish Christian).
From the same Cambridge Greek Commentary:
(verse 2:16 notes)
quote:
‘. Since the monthly and weekly holy days are mentioned immediately after, this doubtless refers to the annual festivals. For the same gradation, though in reverse order, cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:3 [4], 2 Chronicles 31:3; also Galatians 4:10.
. Here only in N.T. but frequent in LXX. The first day of the month, Numbers 10:10; Numbers 28:11, i.e. the first day that the new moon was seen. For its importance in O.T. times see Amos 8:5; Hosea 2:11; Isaiah 1:13, and Ezek. often, e.g. Ezekiel 26:1. For its observance in post-Biblical times see Isr. Abrahams in Hastings, D. B. III. 522.
‘, “or of a sabbath day.”
The Aramaic Shabbtha’ ‘, fem. sing. (Dalman, Gram. 1894, p. 126, and Lexicon, s.v.), was transliterated into Greek as ‘ and declined as a plural, a singular ‘, e.g. John 5:9, being even formed from it.
....
Observe
[1] Of the five points mentioned, ‘ referred to exclusively Jewish days, and, so far as we know, also. Presumably therefore St Paul was thinking only of Jewish customs under the first three heads as well.
[2] The principle of St Paul’s “loosing” these laws has a wide application, not only to purely ecclesiastical laws about holy days, but even to the quasi-Biblical laws of fasting and the Sunday, The latter indeed is far the more important point, for the observance of a day of rest is certainly pre-Mosaic, and is indirectly enjoined in Genesis 2, besides being included in the entirely moral code of the Ten Commandments. The logical deduction from St Paul’s words would appear to be that to observe the Sunday solely for the reason that it is enjoined upon us (i.e. in the fourth commandment by a legitimate adaptation of the language) is to fall back to the position from which he was trying to keep the Colossians. But to observe it from other motives, e.g. the desire to glorify God and to make the best use of our time and to preserve to others the religious privileges that we possess, agrees completely with the liberty of the Christian. In these days of disregard of God’s will generally it is very hard to understand how a religious person can do anything to relax the religious observance of the Sunday. See Origen, c. Cels. VIII. 21-23. Compare also Romans 14:5; Galatians 4:10-11. For a convenient summary of Talmudic laws on the Sabbath see Edersheim’s Life and Times, II. Append. XVII.
Colossians 2 - Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary for Schools and Colleges - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
A New Moon and Days only refer to the Jewish religion, as the commentary just said.
quote:
16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
Circumcision was mentioned in verse 11.
The "shadow of the things to come" is only a reference to the Jewish written law.
The Torah.
Not inspired by God but actually from the "elemental spirits"?
quote:
20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations”
21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch”
22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)”according to human precepts and teachings?
Human works that are inspired by the elemental spirits?
This is not a polemic against Gnostic teaching (as older, foolish, ignorant scholars used to claim).
This IS Gnostic teaching!
Here is a (very) conservative source that (sort of) noticed some of what I just said.
quote:
Colossians, Paul’s letter to the
In the NT, the seventh letter of Paul. Religious teachers had come into the Lycus valley and were disturbing the tranquillity of the Church at Colossae. There has been much scholarly discussion about their identity. Were they Gnostics”of the kind that flourished in the 2nd cent. CE? Or Jewish Christians? Or apocalpyticists, in view of their asceticism as a means of heavenly ascent and a share in the worship of angelic hosts (2: 18)?
Although Gnosticism was most fully manifest in the 2nd cent. CE, traces of it are already evident earlier, and some detect it as the false teaching which the epistle to the Colossians seems to reflect. Gnosticism was an eclectic mixture of speculation about the universe which it regarded as divided between good and evil powers that fought in the world. Salvation was available to the privileged group of initiates who possessed the essential knowledge (gnosis) conveyed by a revealed figure. Along with visionary experiences Gnostics promoted an extreme asceticism and distrust of the material world, so that some scholars regard the epistle’s discouragement of self-abasement and the worship of angels (Col. 2: 18) and the concept of pleroma (Col. 1: 19) as references to Gnosticism.
On the other hand, the epistle does not seem to be concerned to refute Gnostic docetism; nor were Gnostics actually given to the worship of angels”indeed these beings were thought to have had a hand in the creation of the evil world. For these reasons, another view is that the teaching which Colossians refutes is that of Jews who did have their special days of abstinence and of celebration (Col. 2: 16) and who did venerate angels as messengers of God; they refused devotion to Christ (Col. 1: 15-20), and they held the Law to be the appointed means of salvation. Moreover, the false teachers demanded circumcision. All of this points to Judaism as the heresy attacked: but they may have been Jewish Christians, since in Col. 4: 11 the author pointedly mentions those few Jewish Christians who still support him. True, the epistle contains nothing of the violent abuse in which Paul denounced Jewish Christians in Galatia (Gal. 3: 1), but in this case the whole approach is more restrained and tactful and consists more of a positive statement of Christian belief. Possibly this is because later in life and experience, Paul was learning better apologetics. But was Paul the author? It is widely doubted. The long sentences are unlike other Pauline letters. Many little words (particles like ”so’ or ”but’) typical of other letters are absent in Colossians; the great theological theme of the headship of Christ over the universal Church and the neglect of a future eschatology all point to another author.
Yet there remain good reasons for holding on to the traditional view. Paul was quite capable of adapting his language to the occasion (cf. 1 Cor. 9: 19-23); and there remains the expression of a hope for the future (Col. 3: 4; 3: 24) and the theme of the present life in the Spirit is already anticipated in earlier epistles. But for many readers the obvious connection with the authentic letter of Paul to Philemon (Col. 4: 9) is decisive.
The essence of the epistle’s message is that of the unique role of Christ; in him the Christian community enjoys the certainty of salvation. Paul uses the Jewish concept of wisdom (Col. 1: 9), which was also attractive to converts from paganism, and was an early example of refining concepts in order to express the Christian faith in terms intelligible to new audiences for whom an alien conservative framework was meaningless. It was a very subtle argument. In Christ the wisdom of God was made plain and his purpose executed. Other familiar words were used: ”fulness’ (Col. 1: 19; 2: 9) and ”mystery’ (Col. 1: 26 f.; 2: 2), by which Paul claimed that the whole being and power of God was present in Christ; there were no secondary intermediaries, such as the Jewish law (Col. 2: 14). Thus Paul, though indeed a man of the 1st cent., firmly rejected its mythologies, whether Jewish or Hellenistic, which interposed various kinds of supernatural barriers between God and humanity. For Paul the transcendence of God was absolute and God deals with humankind through the historical work of Jesus the Christ (2: 6-7). Paul supplements his warning to beware of mystical aberrations with practical ethical advice for a Christian household (3: 18; 4: 1) and a reminder about proper courtesies in a secular society (4: 5).
If the epistle was written during Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, its date would be between 60 and 64 CE.
Sign up to receive email alerts from Oxford Biblical Studies Online
http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t94/e2117
2:14 clearly references the law. The Cambridge Greek Commentary translates it:
quote:
blotting out the bond of the Law signed by our conscience, with its requirements of innumerable ritual laws and customs, which was in itself our enemy”and Christ hath taken it from its position separating us and God, nailing it up in triumph, as cancelled, to His cross;
Look at the Cambridge Greek Commentary translation from Colossians 2:8-15 in its context
quote:
(Colossians 2:8) Be watchful not to be led astray. Many a false teacher is trying to carry you off as booty for himself by means of that philosophy of his of which you know, which is empty both intellectually and morally, which takes for its standard of conduct human tradition and worldly learning (which is really mere A, B, C), not the standard of the personal Christ. (Colossians 2:9) (It is a mistake to follow any such teaching) because in Christ, and in Him alone, dwells now and for ever nothing less than the sum of all the attributes of Deity, in Him incarnate, (Colossians 2:10) and also because you have already received all possible fulness in Him, and can get no more elsewhere than from Him, who is supreme in power over, and the one source of life to, every Power and Authority however high. (Colossians 2:11) Do they urge you to be circumcised? You received once for all the highest circumcision in Christ, a circumcision made without the touch of human hands, when you stripped off your body with its evil tendencies, when you received the circumcision that Christ gives; (Colossians 2:12) For you were buried with Christ in your baptism, in which, remember, you were also raised with Him, (not, of course, by baptism as a mere mechanical means, but) by your faith in the working of God to bring about such resurrection-life in you as He brought about in Christ’s resurrection. (Colossians 2:13) He raised Christ from the dead”did He not? So also did He raise you”you who were long dead, slain by your transgressions and the uncircumcised, unconsecrated, state of your bodies”but He made you alive together with Christ, at the same time forgiving (you, nay, I must say) us all our transgressions; (Colossians 2:14) blotting out the bond of the Law signed by our conscience, with its requirements of innumerable ritual laws and customs, which was in itself our enemy”and Christ hath taken it from its position separating us and God, nailing it up in triumph, as cancelled, to His cross; (Colossians 2:15) stripping Himself of all the spiritual powers who had before helped Him, and thus unreservedly showed them up in their real weakness, treating them as mere captives drawn in His train, and this on the scene of His own weakness, on His very cross.
It is an unconventional translation but it is scholarly.
2:8 has the typical "elemental spirits" translated as "worldly learning".
This 2:8-15 immediately preceded the even clearer references to Judiasm and the Torah in verses 2:16-23.
2:8-15 is already clear enough.
Elemental spirits brought human tradition: The Torah.
The Torah!
Yes, The Torah is said to be brought by humans via elemental spirits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 05-18-2019 12:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 05-18-2019 9:46 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 41 of 133 (852868)
05-18-2019 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by LamarkNewAge
05-18-2019 9:15 PM


Re: Can you clarify if Colossians looks to future heresy or past/present traditions
You get so involved in the details of some pretty arcane scholarship it is both impressive and disappointing because it goes so far afield of what I accept as Biblical truth. I'm pretty simpleminded you could say when it comes to the Bible, not the way ringo is who thinks he can trust his own judgment of what any particular Bible verse says, but in the way that Protestant Reformed tradition reads the Bible, reading each verse in the context of the entire sixty six books. This is also consistent with evangelical views in general.
So nothing in the Bible could even possibly be "pre-Gnostic," it is completely ANTI-Gnostic. Whatever your scholars say, there is plenty in the New Testament that shows that Gnosticism was alive and thriving at the time it was written, since much of it is intended to warn believers away from it.
I'd have to spend time on the Colossians passage to know what I think of it since it needs some reading in context that I haven't done. So I can't answer your question.
All I meant to address was the passage about "knowing them by their fruits" which I believe is pretty clearly argued by the Reformers to refer to the errors of the Roman Church, which would be documented in that book I menationed by John Dowling, The History of Romanism.
The Bible is meant for all human beings, it's not meant to be complicated the way you treat it, although it can't help being somewhat difficult for us after two thousand years and the cultural gaps between the first generation and ours. But it is very simple in the most basic sense: it clearly denounces Gnosticism for instance. Trying to make any of it support that heresy in any way is straining your brain for no good reason. Paul wrote Colossians as well as most of the rest of the NT. That's what tradition tells us and it's consistent with the Bible itself if you just take it as written.
Anyway. I think you need to give your brain a rest and just quietly accept what is clear in the text without jumping on all the arcane mysterious possibilities that garble the text to no good purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by LamarkNewAge, posted 05-18-2019 9:15 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by LamarkNewAge, posted 05-18-2019 10:14 PM Faith has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 42 of 133 (852870)
05-18-2019 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
05-18-2019 9:46 PM


Re: Can you clarify if Colossians looks to future heresy or past/present traditions
Thanks for the reply.
(Make my "pre-Gnostic" say "Proto-Gnostic", thus I still hold that "Gnosticish" reading of the author of Colossians)
You said Catholics eat no meat on Fridays (do you mean some Fridays like around Easter, but you made it sound like most Fridays) and also do not allow their Priests to have sex with females.
It sounded like you were thinking of Colossians 2:16-23?
quote:
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
COLOSSIANS CHAPTER 2 KJV
What did you think about this part of the Cambridge commentary?
(2:16 note)
quote:
[1] Of the five points mentioned, ‘ referred to exclusively Jewish days, and, so far as we know, also. Presumably therefore St Paul was thinking only of Jewish customs under the first three heads as well.
[2] The principle of St Paul’s “loosing” these laws has a wide application, not only to purely ecclesiastical laws about holy days, but even to the quasi-Biblical laws of fasting and the Sunday, The latter indeed is far the more important point, for the observance of a day of rest is certainly pre-Mosaic, and is indirectly enjoined in Genesis 2, besides being included in the entirely moral code of the Ten Commandments. The logical deduction from St Paul’s words would appear to be that to observe the Sunday solely for the reason that it is enjoined upon us (i.e. in the fourth commandment by a legitimate adaptation of the language) is to fall back to the position from which he was trying to keep the Colossians. But to observe it from other motives, e.g. the desire to glorify God and to make the best use of our time and to preserve to others the religious privileges that we possess, agrees completely with the liberty of the Christian. In these days of disregard of God’s will generally it is very hard to understand how a religious person can do anything to relax the religious observance of the Sunday. See Origen, c. Cels. VIII. 21-23. Compare also Romans 14:5; Galatians 4:10-11. For a convenient summary of Talmudic laws on the Sabbath see Edersheim’s Life and Times, II. Append. XVII.
It seems like the author of Colossians might have seen pre-Torah traditions, and the Torah itself as the human works to reject.
quote:
ESV
2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
quote:
2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
....
2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
....
2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
2:22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?
COLOSSIANS CHAPTER 2 KJV
You will have trouble with my reading of Colossian's labeling the Torah as a work of man.
You won't have trouble with the (real or imagined) idea of seeing the author peek into the future or at least warn about possible future practices (especially as regards Catholics)
You might not have trouble with seeing the Sabbath as being based on pre-Mosaic (pagan) practices.
What about this?
quote:
The principle of St Paul’s “loosing” these laws has a wide application, not only to purely ecclesiastical laws about holy days, but even to the quasi-Biblical laws of fasting and the Sunday

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 05-18-2019 9:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 05-18-2019 11:44 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 43 of 133 (852872)
05-18-2019 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by LamarkNewAge
05-18-2019 10:14 PM


Re: Can you clarify if Colossians looks to future heresy or past/present traditions
I just skimmed through some commentaries on that passage in Colossians and wow is it complex, full of historical references that would take a lot of time to understand. But that's in the service of trying to understand just what the heresy is that Paul is objecting to that the Colossians got seduced into. I wouldn't normally get into it on that level, I'd be reading it for its teaching on what we are to avoid in our Christian lives and not the scholarly background.
The commentary says Paul makes use of some Gnostic terms in order to use them to teach the CHRISTIAN view as the alternative to the Gnostic view. his use of those terms is probably what you are taking for a proto Gnostic point of view. But no, his objective is to teach Christian principles through those terms, and the Christian principles are far from the Gnostic principles. The commentary I looked at was David Guzik's. I like him because he's very organized and very straightforward. But I would suppose others cover the same concepts.
The references to meat and drink and new moons pretty clearly refer back to the Old Testament laws meant for the Jews, that were fulfilled in Christ and no longer to be practiced by believers in Christ. So it's not a reference to Catholic practices, although since they did have the rule about not eating meat on Fridays there's that much of a connection, a practice to be avoided too, but I don't think that's what Colossians has in mind: new moons were a Jewish thing, one that was practiced in a way God objected to in the OT, so the Jewish context applies better.
Of course I object to your calling the Torah a work of man. Jesus' sacrifice fulfilled all the Jewish laws so that we are no longer under their judgment, but that doesn't mean the Torah was not God's work. Jesus FULFILLED all those laws -- good thing too because we aren't capable of keeping them -- He didn't abolish them.
But it's probably a Jewish MYSTICISM too. The commentary says that there is a lot of disagreement about exactly what heresy Paul is writing about. It seems to have elements of Gnosticism, Jewish mysticism and possibly some other mystery religions. Being simpleminded as I said, I wouldn't get into all those questions unless I got involved in a serious study of the book. Otherwise, as I say above, it's clear enough what Paul is saying we are to avoid so I read it on that level.
I thought everybody knew that Catholics were not to eat meat on Fridays -- ALL Fridays --, that fish had become the staple Catholic Friday meal because of that rule. It was that way through my childhood. Meant you could pretty much count on a fresh fish meal at a restaurant on Fridays. Maybe it changed with Vatican II? I don't know.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by LamarkNewAge, posted 05-18-2019 10:14 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by LamarkNewAge, posted 05-19-2019 5:04 PM Faith has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 44 of 133 (852884)
05-19-2019 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
05-18-2019 11:44 PM


Re: Can you clarify if Colossians looks to future heresy or past/present traditions
quote:
The commentary says Paul makes use of some Gnostic terms in order to use them to teach the CHRISTIAN view as the alternative to the Gnostic view. his use of those terms is probably what you are taking for a proto Gnostic point of view. But no, his objective is to teach Christian principles through those terms, and the Christian principles are far from the Gnostic principles.
I don't think Gnostic views existed then. "Paul" invented them (not the real Paul, but the group that wrote Colossians) as a Christian concept, and they did not exist as any religious group anyway.
Gnostics were big on morality and they saw the Old Testament as evil.
I suspect much (if not all) of it came from a fierce Christian battle between European Christians and Jewish Christians.
There were roughly 3 camps:
Jewish Christian
European Christian
Gnostic
Gnostics were anti New Testament (like the author of Colossians).Gnostics seemed to generally be vegetarian (like the Jewish Christians), but I am not too sure about all of the groups that might be labeled "gnostic".
quote:
The references to meat and drink and new moons pretty clearly refer back to the Old Testament laws meant for the Jews, that were fulfilled in Christ and no longer to be practiced by believers in Christ. So it's not a reference to Catholic practices, although since they did have the rule about not eating meat on Fridays there's that much of a connection, a practice to be avoided too, but I don't think that's what Colossians has in mind: new moons were a Jewish thing, one that was practiced in a way God objected to in the OT, so the Jewish context applies better.
Just from the words alone, Colossians seems to be an attack on the "Sabbath of Sabbaths" (Yom kippur) with the big fast and regulations. Plus other festivals and feasts.
I also feel that the "new moon" requirements were fully supported by the Torah. Demanded actually.
The issue of the pork taboo (for example) is not 100% specified in "Paul's" attack here. I suspect that is part of the reference, since the Torah, generally, is attacked as a human work.
quote:
Of course I object to your calling the Torah a work of man. Jesus' sacrifice fulfilled all the Jewish laws so that we are no longer under their judgment, but that doesn't mean the Torah was not God's work. Jesus FULFILLED all those laws -- good thing too because we aren't capable of keeping them -- He didn't abolish them.
The Torah (which was the WRITTEN Law of Moses, and only an unwritten "tradition" if one assumes a pre-Mosaic law) was called a work of man.
quote:
16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,
19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations”
21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch”
22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)”according to human precepts and teachings?
quote:
But it's probably a Jewish MYSTICISM too. The commentary says that there is a lot of disagreement about exactly what heresy Paul is writing about. It seems to have elements of Gnosticism, Jewish mysticism and possibly some other mystery religions.
It looks like Judaism (or Jewish Christianity) was attacked, to me.
It was not an attack on the Lord's Supper.
It was not an attack on drinking.
The Torah (of Moses) was described as a work of man. With rules and laws that pre-dated Moses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 05-18-2019 11:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 05-19-2019 6:04 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 45 of 133 (852885)
05-19-2019 5:47 PM


The Law of Moses a work of man in Colossians 2:14.
(Faith, my computer is loading too slow to reach down to your post 43, so I did a general reply)
Colossians 2:14
I went to the Bible Hub commentaries.
Colossians 2:14 Commentaries: having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
The "EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)" commentay section (on left) shows this commentary at the top (more will be there as you scroll down)
quote:
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(14) Blotting out the handwriting”i.e., cancelling the bond which stood against us in its ordinances. The “handwriting” is the bond, exacting payment or penalty in default. (Comp. Philemon 1:19, “I Paul have written it with mine own hand; I will repay it.”) What this bond is we see by Ephesians 2:15, which speaks of “the law of commandments in ordinances,” there called “the enmity slain by the cross.” On the meaning of “ordinances” see Note on that passage. The metaphor, however, here is different, and especially notable as the first anticipation of those many metaphors of later theology, from Tertullian downwards, in which the idea of a debt to God, paid for us by the blood of Christ, as “a satisfaction,” is brought out. The Law is a bond, “Do this and thou shalt live.” “The soul that sinneth it shall die.” On failure to do our part it “stands against us.” But God for Christ’s sake forgives our transgressions and cancels the bond. It is a striking metaphor, full of graphic expressiveness; it is misleading only when (as in some later theologies) we hold it to be not only the truth, but the whole truth, forgetting that legal and forensic metaphors can but imperfectly represent inner spiritual realities.
The "EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)" (on the right side) commentary has this at the top.
quote:
Meyer's NT Commentary
Colossians 2:14. The participle, which is by no means parallel and synchronous with ‘ in Colossians 2:13, or one and the same with it (Hofmann), is to be resolved as: after that He had blotted out, etc. For it is the historical divine reconciling act of the death of Christ that is meant, with which ‘ ... cannot coincide, since that work of reconciliation had first to be accomplished before the ‘ ... could take place through its appropriation to believers.
is to be left quite in its proper signification, as in Acts 3:19, Revelation 3:5; Revelation 7:17; Revelation 21:4, and frequently in LXX. and Apocrypha, since the discourse has reference to something written, the invalidating of which is represented in the sensuous form of blotting out, even more forcibly than by (to score out; see Ruhnken, ad Tim. p. 81). Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 386 C, p. 501 B: . , Ep. 7, p. 342 C: ‘ ‘, Dem. 468. 1 in reference to a law: —, Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 51; Lucian, Imag. 26; Eur. Iph. A. 1486. Comp. Valckenaer, ad Act. iii. 19.
‘ the handwriting existing against us. What is thus characterized is not the burden of debt lying upon man, which is, as it were, his debt-schedule (Bleek), but the Mosaic law. A ‘, namely, is an obligatory document of debt (Tob 5:3; Tob 9:5; Polyb. 30:8. 4; Dion. Hal. v. 8; and the passages in Wetstein; also the passages quoted from the Rabbins in Schoettgen), for which the older Greek writers use ‘ or —, Dem. 882. 7, 956. 2; see also Hermann, Privatalterth. 49, 12. And the law is the ‘ confronting us, in so far as men are bound to fulfil it perfectly, in order to avoid the threatened penal curse; and consequently because no one renders this fulfilment, it, like a bill of debt, proves them debtors (the creditor is God). We are not to carry the figure further, in which case we should come to the halting point in the comparison, that the man who is bound has not himself written the ‘.[106] Hofmann maintains that this element also, namely, man’s having written it with his own hand, is retained in the conception of the figurative ‘. But the apostle himself precludes this view by his having written, not: — ‘. (which would mean: the document of debt drawn by us), but: ‘.; which purposely chosen expression does not affirm that we have ourselves written the document, but it does affirm that it authenticates us as arrested for debt, and is consequently against us. The words — ‘‘ appended (see below) also preclude the conception of the debt-record being written by man’s own hand. Moreover, the law is to be understood as an integral whole, and the various limitations of it, either to the ceremonial law (Calvin, Beza, Schoettgen, and others), or to the moral law (Calovius), are altogether in opposition to the connection (see above, .), and un-Pauline. The explanation referring it to the conscience (Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and others) is also at variance both with the word and with the context.[107] The conscience is the medium for the knowledge of the law as the handwriting which testifies against us; without the activity of the conscience, this relation, in which the law stands to us, would remain unknown. Exception has been taken to its being explained of the Mosaic law on account of the use of , seeing that this law existed only for the Jews. But without due ground; for it is in fact also the schedule of debt against the Gentiles, in so far, namely, as the latter have the knowledge of the (Romans 1:32), have in fact ‘— ‘ ‘— ‘‘ ‘ (Romans 2:15), and, consequently, fall likewise under the condemning sentence of the law, though not directly (Romans 3:19; Romans 2:12), but indirectly, because they, having incurred through their own fault a darkening of their minds (Romans 1:20-23), transgress the “ ‘—” (Dem. 639. 22). The earnest and graphic description of the abrogation of the condemning law in Colossians 2:14 is dictated by an apologetic motive, in opposition to the Judaism of the false teachers; hence it is the more inappropriate to understand with Cornelius a Lapide and others the covenant of God with Adam in Genesis 2:16, as was already proposed by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact (comp. Iren. Haer. v. 17. 3, and Tertullian).
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 05-20-2019 1:15 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024