Why Sunday

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

How ‘bout this?

Colossians 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:
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

It is plural so therefore we aren't dealing with the weekly calendar, but with how they were using the calendar. Or should i say abusing the calendar.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

How ‘bout this?

Colossians 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:
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

I believe it means ALL sabbath days of every kind.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I believe it means ALL sabbath days of every kind.

Yes

[Evang.Benincasa]

the point is in Isaiah 1:13-14, religious ritual void of true sincere love towards God was prohibited. A man who justs goes through the motions of marriage and fatherhood, cannot be considered actually a husband. Same goes for a wife. Same goes for children. It is the judging in Colossians and Romans is where we have to focus.

[Esaias]

Colossians 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:
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Colossians 2

[16] Let no man judge you for eating pork and catfish, or drinking coffee or tea, or not respecting a holy day, or not respecting the new moon, or not respecting the sabbath days.
[17] Which were a shadow of things that have come, but the substance which cast those shadows is Christ's physical body.

The first version is the Bible. The second version is what most people seem to think is the Bible.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

the point is in Isaiah 1:13-14, religious ritual void of true sincere love towards God was prohibited. A man who justs goes through the motions of marriage and fatherhood, cannot be considered actually a husband. Same goes for a wife. Same goes for children. It is the judging in Colossians and Romans is where we have to focus.

Exactly.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Colossians 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:
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Colossians 2

[16] Let no man judge you for eating pork and catfish, or drinking coffee or tea, or not respecting a holy day, or not respecting the new moon, or not respecting the sabbath days.
[17] Which were a shadow of things that have come, but the substance which cast those shadows is Christ's physical body.

The first version is the Bible. The second version is what most people seem to think is the Bible.

Absolutely, and therefore they contradict the other verses in the discussion.
The argument also goes along with meat offered to idols, and the effect that was having on the early church. Paul didn't advocate eating at the shambles, or breaking the law of Moses, or else the accusation against Paul in Acts 21:21, would of been true. Just like today (just without the internet, Facebook, or AFF) there were differing opinions on how to keep "ecclesiastically kosher?" Yet, the sabbath was never in question, yet, sabbaths, feast days, new moon observances were. Just as endless genealogies were also muddying the water, hence the keeping of Rabbinical traditions.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Absolutely, and therefore they contradict the other verses in the discussion.
The argument also goes along with meat offered to idols, and the effect that was having on the early church. Paul didn't advocate eating at the shambles, or breaking the law of Moses, or else the accusation against Paul in Acts 21:21, would of been true. Just like today (just without the internet, Facebook, or AFF) there were differing opinions on how to keep "ecclesiastically kosher?" Yet, the sabbath was never in question, yet, sabbaths, feast days, new moon observances were. Just as endless genealogies were also muddying the water, hence the keeping of Rabbinical traditions.

What I think a lot of people miss, and which I myself missed for many years in reading this passage, is that the Colossians were being judged or critiqued for doing certain things, not for not doing certain things.

The words "meat... drink" are actually participles. Eating and drinking. Paul said let no man judge you in your eating and drinking. The eating and drinking were something the Colossians were doing, for which they were being judged. Which the grammar demands the respecting the holy days, new moons, and sabbaths were also something the Colossians were doing, for which they were being judged by outsiders.

Also, because of the common misreading of the passage (people read that the Colossians were being criticised for NOT doing things, including the use of the Biblical calendar), people assume the problem causers in Colosse were Jews or Judaizers. But I believe that isn't the case at all.

When Paul had to deal with Judaizers the issue of circumcision vs uncircumcision is always in the forefront. Which of course we would expect. But in Colossians the issue in the forefront of the apostle's polemic is the gospel vs vain philosophy based on traditions about and derived from the cosmic elements.

Colossians 2:18 and 2:23 are generally recognised as two of the most difficult verses in the NT to translate. A very close and studious unpacking of those verses, within the larger context of the first 2 chapters, I believe shows what's actually going on. Basically, followers of the Cynic school of Greek philosophy had encountered and witnessed the Christian worship of the Colossians, and had begun criticising them for the Lord's Supper and other liturgical aspects of their faith (including their use of the Biblical calendar). Historically, these were main points of contention and criticism by Cynics - eating and drinking (liturgical feasting), and recognition of religious calendars and time keeping in general. Other points Cynics focused on in their harangues of others included ascetism and abuse of the body, ethics and humility, and the superiority of (Cynic) philosophy to all religion. Their philosophy was also based upon a cosmological view of reality and the "elements of the kosmos", from which they derived their entire outlook and manner of living.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What I think a lot of people miss, and which I myself missed for many years in reading this passage, is that the Colossians were being judged or critiqued for doing certain things, not for not doing certain things.

The words "meat... drink" are actually participles. Eating and drinking. Paul said let no man judge you in your eating and drinking. The eating and drinking were something the Colossians were doing, for which they were being judged. Which the grammar demands the respecting the holy days, new moons, and sabbaths were also something the Colossians were doing, for which they were being judged by outsiders.

Also, because of the common misreading of the passage (people read that the Colossians were being criticised for NOT doing things, including the use of the Biblical calendar), people assume the problem causers in Colosse were Jews or Judaizers. But I believe that isn't the case at all.

When Paul had to deal with Judaizers the issue of circumcision vs uncircumcision is always in the forefront. Which of course we would expect. But in Colossians the issue in the forefront of the apostle's polemic is the gospel vs vain philosophy based on traditions about and derived from the cosmic elements.

Colossians 2:18 and 2:23 are generally recognised as two of the most difficult verses in the NT to translate. A very close and studious unpacking of those verses, within the larger context of the first 2 chapters, I believe shows what's actually going on. Basically, followers of the Cynic school of Greek philosophy had encountered and witnessed the Christian worship of the Colossians, and had begun criticising them for the Lord's Supper and other liturgical aspects of their faith (including their use of the Biblical calendar). Historically, these were main points of contention and criticism by Cynics - eating and drinking (liturgical feasting), and recognition of religious calendars and time keeping in general. Other points Cynics focused on in their harangues of others included asceticism and abuse of the body, ethics and humility, and the superiority of (Cynic) philosophy to all religion. Their philosophy was also based upon a cosmological view of reality and the "elements of the kosmos", from which they derived their entire outlook and manner of living.

Yes, but the Cynic view (which a lot of Hellenism) was incorporated into the Rabbinical schools. If it were possible that they very elect would be deceived? That very elect were individuals like Paul, who are the cream of the crop of Israeli knowledge, and therefore could be able to see the heresy within Biblical Judaism, yet, have perfect understanding of the Christ revelation in the OT.

We must always, ALWAYS remember that Jesus or Paul didn't come up with a foreign religion. If they did they would of been ignored. Because after all schisms in first century Judaism was rife. What got the different camps of first century Judaism in a panic? It was, that Jesus and the apostles were exposing them for their heresies. The first century had messiahs by the bag full, but they weren't crucifying and stoning any of those imposters. The only ones who get threatened or killed are the ones who expose the false for exactly what it is.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

We must always, ALWAYS remember that Jesus or Paul didn't come up with a foreign religion.