Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
There's no thanks for you to extend, because, like I said, context clearly shows that it's speaking from the time perspective of when those rites were initiated during the old Covenant.
|
The grammar is crystal clear, the things are (present tense) a shadow of things to come (future tense). Acknowledging the grammar of what is actually written would of course refute your position, thus your vague referring to "context" as a means to rewrite the text with a past tense. You do not seem to realize this is, once again, a case of eisegesis: you assume what is going on in the verse, then interpret the phrases to support the assumption, even to the point of contradicting the plain grammar. Just like the Baptists do with
1 Peter 3:21, or trinitarians do with
1 John 5:7.
The critical assumption you make is "the Sabbath Commandment is changed to allow for not keeping the Sabbath DAY holy", although you have no such declarations in the Bible which would serve as the record of such a momentous change. Then, you appeal to passages like Colossians in order to "prove" your assertion, BUT are oblivious to the fact that you must first make the aforementioned assumption in order to interpret these passages as supporting the assumption.
That's called circular reasoning, and is qualitatively no different than trinitarians, who find all sorts of "supporting passages", but who have to have the doctrine in place FIRST and use it as a lens through which they interpret the so called supports.