GOD'S SABBATH AND THE REAL TRUTH OF COL 2:14-17 WHO DO WE BELIEVE GOD or MAN?

[Studyman]

And ask, why were the tablets God inscribed broken? And ask, why & how did the priests in the Law desecrate the sabbath without guilt? And ask, how did circumcision take precedence over sabbath if the 8th day fell on a 7th? And ask, how is it that God appointed another day, and why did He call it "today"?

Rom. 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

Paul is speaking about those who are "Weak" in the Faith. Why would you ignore the very basis of this chapter?
What does it matter what the the weak in Faith believe. One man thinks this, another man thinks the another. So what.

Let each of us be convinced in our own mind who to listen to and who to follow.

"12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."

Paul isn't telling folks to reject God's Instructions here if one feels like it. He is saying (paraphrase) you can't make someone Love God, or force a man to honor God with respect and obedience regarding this day or that. A man must be convinced in his own mind who is the Law Giver, and who is the son . It's called "Voluntary humility" in col. 2.

The question should be "after the Tables of stone were broken, what did God replace them with"?

Ex. 34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I (The Word which became Flesh) will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

The Priests we following the instructions given specifically to the Priesthood. Just like Jesus was following the instructions Specifically given to the Priesthood "after those days". They accused the Christ of braking God's Commandments for doing what the "Law" required, yet didn't condemn their own Priesthood for doing the same thing. He was once again, exposing their hypocrisy.

David said, in the Spirit, "Today" if you hear His voice harden not your hearts.

 

[posthuman]

Indeed, He will speak to this people
Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue,​

He who said to them, “Here is rest, give rest to the weary,”
And, “Here is repose,” but they would not listen.​

So the word of the LORD to them will be,
“Order on order, order on order,
Line on line, line on line,
A little here, a little there,”
That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive.
(Isaiah 28:11-13)​

 

[posthuman]

Paul is speaking about those who are "Weak" in the Faith.

how does Paul define "weak in the faith" ?

One person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
(Romans 14:2)​

hmm the one with comparatively "strong" faith doesn't appear to keep the dietary restrictions of the Law.

hey, doesn't Col. 2 mentions something about the dietary commandments in the Law?

 

[posthuman]

Romans 14:1 textual analysis --



'doubtful disputations' is a cryptic translation that may have made a lot more sense to a person who spake Anglish 500 years ago a lot better than it does now.

the word 'diakriseis' is the same one used in 1 Corinthians 12, in the list of gifts of the Holy Spirit, translated there as "discerning" spirits. also in Hebrews 5:14 it's the word "discern"

the word "dialogismon" is usually translated "thoughts" or "opinions" and in a few places, "disputes" or "dissension" ((1 Tim. 2:8, Philip. 2:14)). in James 2:4, some versions have "motives" -- "have you not become judges with evil motives?"

so KJV, breaking from how they handled these words everywhere else, decided to put "not to doubtful disputations" here, for what is more literally "not for discerning motives"
i guess they thought, this is about not trying to start arguments. but a big part of a lot of arguments seems to wind up being assuming & judging other people's motives, often slanderously. IMO looking at what the Greek is literally saying here brings that out.

 

[posthuman]

Rom. 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

Paul is speaking about those who are "Weak" in the Faith. Why would you ignore the very basis of this chapter?
What does it matter what the the weak in Faith believe. One man thinks this, another man thinks the another. So what.

Let each of us be convinced in our own mind who to listen to and who to follow.

"12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."

Paul isn't telling folks to reject God's Instructions here if one feels like it. He is saying (paraphrase) you can't make someone Love God, or force a man to honor God with respect and obedience regarding this day or that. A man must be convinced in his own mind who is the Law Giver, and who is the son . It's called "Voluntary humility" in col. 2.

The question should be "after the Tables of stone were broken, what did God replace them with"?

Ex. 34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I (The Word which became Flesh) will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

The Priests we following the instructions given specifically to the Priesthood. Just like Jesus was following the instructions Specifically given to the Priesthood "after those days". They accused the Christ of braking God's Commandments for doing what the "Law" required, yet didn't condemn their own Priesthood for doing the same thing. He was once again, exposing their hypocrisy.

David said, in the Spirit, "Today" if you hear His voice harden not your hearts.

you didn't answer a single one of the questions in the post you quoted..

.. did you mean to ignore the very basis of what you were replying to?

 

[gb9]

you didn't answer a single one of the questions in the post you quoted..

.. did you mean to ignore the very basis of what you were replying to?

of course not. I pointed out a couple of things Peter said in Acts 3, silence.

remember, house of cards theology. move one a fraction of an inch, the whole thing falls.

that is why some questions have to be ignored.

 

[posthuman]

Romans 14:1 textual analysis --

how does Paul define "weak in the faith" ?

One person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.​

(Romans 14:2)​

moving on to verse 3 . . .

Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.
(Romans 14:3)​

it's already established that the weaker brother is to be accepted without attacking him or judging him for the perceived motivations & reasoning behind his weak faith, and it's established that the "weak" faith in this context is the one living without freedom in things like diet ((one of the 4 things mentioned in Col. 2:14, btw)).

now, the person whose faith is "weak" - per the example given, the one who eats only vegetables - is instructed not to think to judge the one whose faith is "strong" - per the example, the one who eats anything - and likewise the strong are instructed not to despise the weak. a reason for this is given: "because God has welcomed him"

welcomed who?
the weak? the strong? i think clearly this means, "both"

For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
(Romans 14:17) ​

 

[posthuman]

Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
(Romans 14:4)​

the next verse re-iterates the injunction against thinking to judge one another by such things as food or drink. food or drink is of course only an example, not the whole singular subject of this section of the letter. that it is only used as an example to speak about a greater precept is ubiquitously common in Paul's mode of rhetoric here, and it's further corroborated by the reasoning he gives for insisting that we don't judge over such things. it's not about the specifics of food, it's about the fact that the Lord is judge, and the Lord is the One who upholds us.

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors exercise authority over them. It shall not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave
(Matthew 20:25-27)​

​

we are to consider ourselves servants of each other - not master of anyone. it's the master, not the servant, who judges

((but Christ made Himself servant, yet He is Master -- another proof He is God ))

 

[posthuman]

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. ​

(Romans 14:5-6)​

​

now we come to the place where there's contention.

Paul says one person esteems one day as special, and one person esteems all days alike. he doesn't say which one is "weak" and which one is "strong" in this context ((that's significant in its absence)), but he definitely ties this back to what he just said, about food and drink - comparing it directly in verse 5, stating that it is to the Lord in either case. there is no "eating anything is rejecting God, refusing to eat certain things is rejecting God" -- considering all foods alike is in honor of the Lord, and considering one food as special is in honor of the Lord.
this, what he uses the example of food for, is what he says about considering every day alike or one day as special. what sanctifies the food is giving thanks to the Lord, not some intrinsic quality of the meat or the vegetables.

The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing.​

(John 6:63) ​

​

what does this say about treating one day differently or all days alike, then? is either 'rejecting God' ? that doesn't to me to fit at all with the 'premise' or 'context' of what's being said; it seems like exactly the opposite of what we're being told here.
as far as honoring special days, which one is weak? which one is strong? heh, looking at verses 1-3, we're probably wiser to recuse ourselves from entertaining that question. but i'm a fool, for sure, so i'll say this much: it's not specifically stated here, ((tho Galatians 4:10 is a pretty big hint)) but the natural association is that with the case of food, one who sees all food as alike is strong, and one whose conscience persuades them that every food is not alike is weak, and that with days, the correspondence is 1:1 -- esteeming every day alike is as esteeming every food alike, and esteeming certain days as different is as esteeming certain foods as different.

we should look at the reasoning Paul gives elsewhere about foods, and the conclusion he reaches about them, everywhere else he talks about, to really get a picture of how this relates to observing special days vs. considering them all the same. i'm not doing so now, for sake of brevity.

 

[lightbearer]

Romans 14:1 textual analysis --

View attachment 182654

'doubtful disputations' is a cryptic translation that may have made a lot more sense to a person who spake Anglish 500 years ago a lot better than it does now.

the word 'diakriseis' is the same one used in 1 Corinthians 12, in the list of gifts of the Holy Spirit, translated there as "discerning" spirits. also in Hebrews 5:14 it's the word "discern"

the word "dialogismon" is usually translated "thoughts" or "opinions" and in a few places, "disputes" or "dissension" ((1 Tim. 2:8, Philip. 2:14)). in James 2:4, some versions have "motives" -- "have you not become judges with evil motives?"

so KJV, breaking from how they handled these words everywhere else, decided to put "not to doubtful disputations" here, for what is more literally "not for discerning motives"
i guess they thought, this is about not trying to start arguments. but a big part of a lot of arguments seems to wind up being assuming & judging other people's motives, often slanderously. IMO looking at what the Greek is literally saying here brings that out.

Where did you get all that from Posthuman?
First G1253 διάκρισις
From the BDAG... engagement in verbal conflict because of differing viewpoints, quarrel (Polyb. 18, 28, 3; Dio Chrys. 21 [38], 21) Ac 4:32 D. προσλαμβάνεσθαι μὴ εἰς δ. διαλογισμῶν welcome, but not for the purpose of getting into quarrels about opinions Ro 14:1.—M-M. TW. Sv.

Now for G1261 διαλογισμός
From the BDAG.... content of reasoning or conclusion reached through use of reason, thought, opinion, reasoning, design (Ps.-Pla., Axioch. 367a φροντίδες καὶ διαλογισμοί; mostly LXX; EpArist 216; Jos., Bell. 1, 320; TestJud 14:3) Lk 2:35; 5:22; 6:8; 9:47 (for the nuance in vs. 46 s. 3) Ro 14:1 (διάκρισις 2). διαλογισμοὺς ποιεῖσθαι devise plans (PEdg 60 verso, 2; 7=PCairZen 362 verso, 2; 7 [243/242 B.C.])

Not for the Purpose of getting into arguments over opinions rather than "not for discerning motives"

 

[posthuman]

the conventional, traditional, mainstream argument from the side who wishes to prevent any understanding of this chapter from interfering with submission to physical sabbath ordinance regulation is to say, this is all about food, and it's not about anything other than food. that "days" is only about purely human-origin, totally extra-scriptural and therefore wholly non-binding 'commandments of men' which some people, solely by weight of opinion and imagination, set apart as days for fasting from meat and only eating vegetables.
that there was some kind of "vegetarian day" celebrated in the ancient Mediterranean, and that's what Paul's talking about.

well..

y'all can think about that. i don't want to get into all that here, now, again for brevity's sake. but insofar as it relates to Colossians 2:14, it's not really important. there is already the connection to diet. put the justifications given in the scripture here in Romans 14 together with the justifications in the scripture in Colossians 2; do they make sense if we're only talking about some totally non-authoritative cultic human rules? are these arguments addressing freedom mere customs and traditions, or are they addressing potential objections to freedom from the Mosaic Law itself?

we have to remember, in Col. 2 ((among several other places)) we're warned not to be led astray by deceptive arguments. that's implying that they are in fact externally persuasive arguments being addressed here, particularly persuasive to believers who are not well grounded in the faith.

just for an example to get us thinking that way, what's more persuasive to a Christian without a firm understanding of the gospel? Hebrew Roots or Scientology?

 

[posthuman]

Where did you get all that from Posthuman?
First G1253 διάκρισις
From the BDAG... engagement in verbal conflict because of differing viewpoints, quarrel (Polyb. 18, 28, 3; Dio Chrys. 21 [38], 21) Ac 4:32 D. προσλαμβάνεσθαι μὴ εἰς δ. διαλογισμῶν welcome, but not for the purpose of getting into quarrels about opinions Ro 14:1.—M-M. TW. Sv.

Now for G1261 διαλογισμός
From the BDAG.... content of reasoning or conclusion reached through use of reason, thought, opinion, reasoning, design (Ps.-Pla., Axioch. 367a φροντίδες καὶ διαλογισμοί; mostly LXX; EpArist 216; Jos., Bell. 1, 320; TestJud 14:3) Lk 2:35; 5:22; 6:8; 9:47 (for the nuance in vs. 46 s. 3) Ro 14:1 (διάκρισις 2). διαλογισμοὺς ποιεῖσθαι devise plans (PEdg 60 verso, 2; 7=PCairZen 362 verso, 2; 7 [243/242 B.C.])

Not for the Purpose of getting into arguments over opinions rather than "not for discerning motives"

from biblehub.com, using Strong's etc. to see how the same word is variously translated in different places in various versions.

link: Romans 14:1 textual analysis

i see that what you're quoting here leads to the exact same conclusion.

 

[posthuman]

Not for the Purpose of getting into arguments over opinions rather than "not for discerning motives"

as i pointed out earlier, exact same word "discerning spirits" in 1 Cor. 12 is used here.

do you reckon there's a spiritual gift of "getting into arguments" ?

and exact same word is "motives/reasoning" or "thoughts" all over the NT, as your source agrees. those "reasonings" may be on the basis of opinion, but "opinion" by itself isn't a proper definition. it shares the root for our word "dialogue" -- which similarly encompasses a lot more than the word "opinion"

​

But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?
(Luke 5:22) ​

KJV has both "thoughts" and "reason" here for different forms of the same root; "reason" is the verb form ((Str. 1260)) and "thoughts" is the noun form ((Str. 1261))

 

[lightbearer]

as i pointed out earlier, exact same word "discerning spirits" in 1 Cor. 12 is used here.

Not arguing with you Bauer is. You know better than Bauer?
Here is the entire entry. He goes into 1 Cor 12 also.

Here take a look. I don't have time to look at the text myself tonight. There is probably a context and grammar issue for both instances to be translated differently. Maybe I will look at it later.

διάκρισις, εως, ἡ (s. διακρίνω; Pre-Socr., X. et al.; pap; LXX only Job 37:16; TestNapht 2:8; EpArist; Philo; Tat. 12, 1; Ath. 15, 2 ‘separation’ [of the elements]).
the ability to distinguish and evaluate, distinguishing, differentiation of good and evil Hb 5:14 (Sext. Emp., Hyp. Pyrrh. 3, 168 διάκρισις τῶν τε καλῶν καὶ κακῶν; Ath., R. 66, 21 πρὸς δ. νοητῶν). πνευμάτων ability to distinguish betw. spirits 1 Cor 12:10 (cp. Pla., Leg. 11, 937b ψευδομαρτυριῶν; Diod. S. 17, 10, 5 ἡ τῶν σημείων διάκρισις=critical examination of miraculous signs. ELerle, Diakrisis Pneumaton, diss. Hdlbg. ’46). σοφὸς ἐν διακρίσει λόγων skillful in the interpretation of discourse 1 Cl 48:5.
engagement in verbal conflict because of differing viewpoints, quarrel (Polyb. 18, 28, 3; Dio Chrys. 21 [38], 21) Ac 4:32 D. προσλαμβάνεσθαι μὴ εἰς δ. διαλογισμῶν welcome, but not for the purpose of getting into quarrels about opinions Ro 14:1.—M-M. TW. Sv.

ps it looks as if we have longer to edit our posts now...yahoo!

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

as i pointed out earlier, exact same word "discerning spirits" in 1 Cor. 12 is used here.

It's also the same word used in Hebrews 5:14 - " because of practice have trained their faculties for the distinguishing of both good and evil"

Also used in Job 37:16 in the LXX - "And he knows [the] distinction of clouds, and [the] extraordinary calamitous downfalls of [the] wicked. Job 37:16"

Thayers has - "μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν not for the purpose of passing judgment on opinions, as to which one is to be preferred as the more correct, Ro. 14:1"

Theological Dictionary of the NT has:

In the NT it usually means “differentiation,” at 1 C. 12:10 of the spirits of the prophets, at Hb. 5:14 between good and evil. R. 14:1: μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν, is enigmatically brief and not very clear. Zahn’s striking explanation: “Not for the sake of disputations about thoughts,” suffers from the defect that one would expect περί with the gen. or something similar instead of the gen. διαλογισμῶν. It is best to take διάκρισις here in the sense of “evaluation.” The weak man should be accepted as the Christian brother he claims to be. One should not judge the thoughts which underlie his conduct. This is for God alone to do, cf. v. 22.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

from biblehub.com, using Strong's etc. to see how the same word is variously translated in different places in various versions.

link: Romans 14:1 textual analysis

i see that what you're quoting here leads to the exact same conclusion.

biblehub uses Strong's numbers, but Thayer's for definition (I think). You can click on the Strong's # in your linked page and you'll see at the bottom of the page.

 

[posthuman]

Not arguing with you Bauer is. You know better than Bauer?
Here is the entire entry.

neither you nor Bauer is essentially arguing with me, unless you're just trying to find something to argue about for the sake of dispute.

go back and read the thread you initially started questioning me about; i said "not to doubtful disputation" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. it's cryptic, unclear. you agree with that, or you'd be telling me how "doubtful disputations" is the best way to state this -- Bauer would be too, but he's not. so it looks like he agrees with me too.

this word is only used three times in the Bible, here, in Corinthians, and in Hebrews 5:14 where it's clearly "discerning" or "distinguishing."
in the citation you gave, he gives as a secondary definition "quarrel"

Clarence e. Glad can argue with Bauer if he likes:





but it's not an argument with me, at all, and it's in all practicality the same thing: distinguishing motives/reasoning/thinking, quarreling over what one distinguishes the motives/reasoning/thinking to be.
neither Mssr. Glad, Mssr. Bauer, you, nor i think "not to doubtful disputations" is the clearest or most literal way to put this idea from Greek into English.
we all agree, you included. happy, happy happy

 

[Nehemiah6]

hmm the one with comparatively "strong" faith doesn't appear to keep the dietary restrictions of the Law.

This is correct. When Paul was writing there were many Hebrew Christians who were still feeling bound by the OT observances regarding dietary laws, holy day, new moons, sabbaths etc. So they were the weaker brethren who needed to be accommodated.

 

[ELOHIMLOGOS]

eek a new website. I cannot find my posts which were lost in space

 

[Nehemiah6]

eek a new website. I cannot find my posts which were lost in space

Just wave them goodbye and move on. Everyone was affected. That's the price of "progress".