Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | stjohn | 217261 | ||
Hi MJH, I do appreciate the time you spent in your response, and always appreciate the fact you're gracious and polite in your responses to everyone. I thought it was understood that those from our camp are never ever saying that God's law concerning the moral law(s) is/are absolutely still in effect and always will be. That was never nailed to the Cross. We are not forcing the moral law into the text at all. you are reading that into what we are saying. We are always speaking of the ceremonial law when discussing this subject. Never do we say that we should live like heathens, living in lawlessness, or that Paul taught that, as I believe your explanation implies we are saying. I hope that clarifies my/our position a bit. John |
||||||
2 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217264 | ||
Thanks John, I do understand that you stand by the "moral law" which is found within the Mosaic Law. But you do say you believe the "ceremonial law" is "nailed to the cross" and that is also a part of the Mosaic Law. In that view, you are placing a "part" (though not all) of the Mosaic Law on the same grounds as philosophy "according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." This is my main problem with your view of Col 2:14. No part, not even one small command from God can be placed in the flow of Paul’s argument in-as-much-as nailing it to the cross. Let me try to explain more clearly. Let us assume that God said through Paul, “You are no longer bound by nor required to participate in the ceremonial laws such as food, festivals, Sabbath, new moons.” Now, I think such a statement would violate the very law spoken of (Deut. 12:32), but I realize you don’t share that understanding. So lets assume he does this…cuts out and removes certain commands found in the covenant. Okay, fine. We stop following those commands. But, (and this is my point), would God ever have His Spirit speak through Paul and say, “That part of the law is based on human tradition and empty philosophies of this world?” Would he ever declare that these parts of the law are “against you?” Or, the same as “the elemental spirits of this world?” May it never be! If I were you, and I once was in thought, I’d say Paul was speaking against empty teachings (whether from Jews or Greeks it makes not difference) which are opposed to God’s Law which is the Law of Christ. Stop looking to this world for “special knowledge and spiritual esoteric encounters.” Jesus lived in a fleshly body and died and rose again in a fleshly body. He put to death these empty principles and triumphed over them by the cross. Therefore, since you were called to live a special king of life within God’s Kingdom, stop judging one another on disputable matters. One follows the Sabbath and one does not. Live in unity and remain in Jesus, but by all means stay away from those empty teachings based on human dogma. Does that make since? That at least holds God’s teaching found in Deuteronomy with respect, while still providing an option that God’s Law can be divided up into parts, some we follow, and some we do not. Eagerly looking forward to your response. This is helping me think these passages out again in some more depth. MJH |
||||||
3 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 217285 | ||
Greetings MJH! I have been doing some research on Col. 2:14, but I am by no means finished. :-) In regards to your analysis of the passage, a couple of points come to mind. 1) Clearly, when the phrase 'traditions of men' is used in Scripture, it indicates the perversions of God's Law (see v. 8). But, is that what Paul is discussing in v. 14? I have doubts for several reasons. a) In what way would these false teachings need to be nailed to the cross? What hold did they have on us? How did the cross do anything to them? It would seem to me that the only debt that could legitimately be nailed to the cross is the debt we owed God. b) Secondly, v. 17 speaks of these 'things' as being shadows of what was to come in Christ. This is the same language used of the Law in Hebrews 8 and 10. In what way would a false teaching be fulfilled in Christ? c) Finally, while Col. 2:14 uses a phrase that may or may not refer to the law, the parallel passage in Eph. 2:15 specifically speaks of the law being abolished in His flesh. Though the word 'law' is modified with several words in this text. I plan on doing some research in the LXX concerning Col. 2:14 and Eph. 2:15 to see if these particular words were ever used there in reference to the Mosaic Law. I have enjoyed digging into these passages my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217299 | ||
Tim, (quick note for now.) In regards to "a" I will return to answer. I've been meditating on this some more and have an idea that needs to be tested. Pluss I'm short on time. In regards to "b", Vs. 16-17 are not the same as vs. 14. Maybe an outline of Paul's flow in argument, as I understand it, would help. I'll put one together later when I have time. And "c". Eph 2:15 is a whole different connected discussion, but in short, I believe the "wall" spoken of is traditional laws taught that separated Gentiles and Jews from communion together (which is why Paul uses “dogma” again). These are not found in the actual Law of God. One can not find Gentiles removed from God's people because they are not physical Israel (Ruth is a perfect example.) The “ger [stranger] who sojourns with you” was not an Israelite but considered a full member and equally responsible towards the Law and had equal access to the Temple. Some have said the "wall" was the wall that Gentiles could not pass in the Temple, but the Greek word is different from that found in the Temple notice. I thought you did some research on "dogma" in the past and found one reference in a Jewish writing not included in the cannon, but maybe it was someone else or a different word? MJH I look forward to seeing what you come up with. |
||||||