Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Colossians Misunderstood - As Usual!
#1
Hello, this is my 1st post on this forum. ;D n00b <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

I have reciently brought one of your AENT's and I must say it's great so far, I watched the 1st 5 video's on the website over 4 times in anticipation so i was relieved to finally recieve my copy yesterday! <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin --> The studies in the back are also what I got it for as I want to understand the more Hebraic ways. I noticed alot of problems with what we are being taught in the church compared to what I was reading in the scriptures myself and this got me searching, been out of work about 8 months so have done mostly studying and prayer seeking. KJV is one of my favorite greek translations along with Young's Literal translation.

Colossians 2:14-17 etc i think we are all familier with, one of the KING passages for debunking the Sabbbaths and Feast days etc by most mainstream Christians.

I found However that it wasn't saying what we were told.

Paraphrase of KJV & AENT from head:

"Therefore let no one judge you...in these things... which ARE a shadow of things TO come, but the body of christ."

I can understand it in that way now as meaning these things are still, 'in', as the word 'is' in KJV is only a suggestion. So for a while I accepted that and it made sence finally.


But now looking to the Aramaic it suggests the abolishment type reading.

Rough from head:
"Therefore let no one judge you...in these things...which WERE a shadow of the things THEN future, but the body of Machiyach"

In short, besides the foot notes suggesting the aove KJV style understanding, what the heck is it saying as translated? It sounds like what the mainstream christians have been saying all along, that new moons etc were just a shadow until Christ came.

Reading the translated Aramaic there without footnotes is just confusing, moreso than the other versions, and ideas?

I'd like to read it as is and get the correct understanding but as it is it is sounding very much like the old, "they were shadows of christ, but no christ is hear don't bother with them" Basically could you please provide a way for me to understand it as the footnotes say (if that is the correct reading) without reading the footnotes? if that makes sence.

My brain hurts. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->

If I ever make it into the Kingdom (which I fearfully doubt alot - I'm an error box) I'm going to have to have some serious words with Paul!

Many thanks in advance, knux.
Reply
#2
Shlama Achi

I'm pretty sure Aramaic uses are here... only Murdock opts for were.

Addressing the theology of the passage:
The proper understanding of the 'Let no one judge you' part is that they shouldn't let their heathen friends judge and dissuade them from doing these "Jewish" things.

Blessings
Reply
#3
Copied exactly from the AENT:

17. Which were shadows of the things then future; but the body of Mashiyach.

-

That's what it says, read like that without the footnotes it suggests a different meaning, one of which I cannot understand simply by reading it other than the 'It's abolished' view.

Any thoughts? KJV says 'are things to come' etc. it's imperative I understand this as taken due to my studies that's all. The notes are helpfull but I need to be able to read it at the same time to present views etc and sort out these things I'm trying to. <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

Knux
Reply
#4
I'm seeing it differently than that Aaron. Isn't Paul speaking to the uncircumcised, and telling them not to be judged for not following all the customs of the circumcised?
Reply
#5
Jerry: That's a whole discussion in itself...I thought it would be good to share because I see that it has some weight in determining what the Aramaic is saying <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> I'm of the persuasion that the Torah and circumcision were in no way abolished or annulled and that Yeshua was not its adversary or enemy: how can the fullness of Torah that we see in Mashiyach be an enemy of Torah? (Hebrews 4:9, 1Corinthians 5:7 ... ) Since the discussion started on AENT, and the AENT is also trying to show the same as I've mentioned, I thought it would be good to mention <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->. My main point is that once we understand the depths of spiritual meaning behind physical commands is not the action itself, but something that can be found in Mashiyach, it doesn't mean we should forget the physical but embrace it as the demonstration of the spiritual. If it were the case that the 'Jewish' things were abolished by Mashiyach, the Netzarim were wrong in many regards: and even the Scriptures in the most simple understanding show that people should not dissuade the sons of Israel from keeping the commandments... for me, I see that if the natural branches of Israel are to keep these things and the wild branches grafted beside Israel are to forsake them, then there is a double standard.

But in any case AENT says were because it's based on Murdock's work for everything after Acts 16.

I shall add it to my erratum data that I'm compiling for AGR.

Blessings All
Reply
#6
I'm still confused as to my question and devoid of an answer. <!-- sCry --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cry.gif" alt="Cry" title="Crying" /><!-- sCry -->
Not having a go though.
Reply
#7
Shlama,


I hope I'm not reading the Aramaic wrong, because it REALLY looks like dee'thahen -- meaning "that are." i also believe that the context of the entire passage, as well as knowing that Paulus himself continued teaching and performing these very things shows us that he wasn't saying they were past. the Torah is a shadow. it is. present. the reality is embodied in Messiah. so Torah is Messiah's shadow. as long as Messiah exists, the commandments exist. we may perceive them better or slightly differently the closer Messiah comes to us, but the commandments remain, or else, if not, then where is the Body who casts the shadow? my Messiah has a shadow, and in His shadow I see very intriguing aspects of Him and His personality. to be sure, however, the reality IS Messiah! may He come soon to reign over His people!


if you pay attention to the context of verse 8, which speaks about a man plundering them in wisdom and the "stoicheon" / "elemental spirits" of the world, you realize that from the offset Paulus is warning them of the influence of Greek thinking and religious matters upon their Hebraic observance.

i believe this view is borne out further as the passage develops: verse 16 warns of "no person" deceiving them concerning the obviously Hebraic festivals, etc..

verse 18 picks it back up with this type of deceptive man's teaching, to be on the lookout for them.

verse 22 further clarifies that such things are the "commandments of men" - not Alaha's.

finally, i think attention should be paid to verse 14, from the Peshitta:

...and blotted out in His commandments the bill of our wrongs that was against us, and took it up from the midst, and He affixed it to His cross,

it was through the power of His commandments that He was able to blot out the bill of our wrongs -- not the commandments themselves. that would be circular thinking.

it is more productive to take in the whole of the context than single out a solitary verse and hope to understand it if it is removed from the context.


those are my two shekels worth! <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#8
Rafa Wrote:Well, it's not my belief that MarYah cannot change...but his instruction can. Simply because we can and do change. Surely one cannot say that Noah who was a righteous man had the same instruction as the cohenim Moses and Aaron taught, nor can we say today's legal code is a carbon copy of that of first century Jerusalem. Your interpretation is interesting, I know the Greek philosophy is potentially dangerous (1 Timothy 6:20) and was often used to suppress the teachings of scripture, but I have enormous difficulty with the idea of a "static" Torah. I prefer the idea of a summary of Torah. Better yet: a Torah for the Messianic Age, one that is distinct from the previous one tailored for that Age, but also consistent with it in its manner. A Torah which must be placed in its own "wineskin" so to speak. Again, its only my interpretation, the one I have felt the most comfortable with.


Shlama akh,


i think as well that promoting a static Torah is placing too stringent an interpretation upon a covenant that is indeed open to alteration, but not abolishment. there are many aspects within the Torah that are clearly delineated as "eternal" or "everlasting." i personally would be fearful to speak against those as having an end. however, there are also aspects which could well be altered over time, upon which no "everlasting" decree was ever placed by the mouth of the Holy One. the latter half of Ezekiel, concerning the future Temple, does well to show us the curious alterations of some of these commandments. the worship of the Messianic age possesses very distinct differences between it and certain disclosed commandments in the book of Exodus and Leviticus, for example. so i am definitely open to nuanced alterations of the Torah, as that is uncontestably shown in the Word itself. what i fear is to speak against the eternally-binding aspects of the Torah, and then especially of an abolishment of a divine covenant, as we're told in so many a place of His fidelity to His covenant. going to an extreme point in either position has dangers that can be avoided if we sincerely attempt an honest look at the mysteries of the covenant and it's open-to-revision status.

i can personally attest that this is not a view most Netzarim / Messianic believers hold - at least not with the majority with whom i fellowship, but i do feel that it is far closer to what Scripture actually shows. and anecdotely, the more i have read from the Peshitta the past handful of years, the more of this balance i gather from the Aramaic than i ever did from the Greek.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#9
Rafa Wrote:
Quote:there are many aspects within the Torah that are clearly delineated as "eternal" or "everlasting." i personally would be fearful to speak against those as having an end.

I certainly understand your fear of disobeying an eternal command, but from what I have understood, the word "Olam" does not mean forever but only a very long time. In fact the Greek translation "Aeon" carries the meaning even further (I would like to see how olam or its equivalent is used contextually in Peshitta Tanakh). So I prefer to think of things in terms of different ages. Like the rabbis who divided human civilization in three 2000 years periods (their division was if I am correct Torahless, against Torah, with Torah). Again this is disputable, but it seems to be the most consistent interpretation, or else how can we account for definite changes in the Torah throughout scripture? Again just my two cents. This is a worthy debate akhi.


Shlama akhi,

olam carries the idea of an unknown amount of time, so that it could be "age" as you propose, or else it could be "eternity" -- both are valid usages of the term; the same with goes with aeon. in both instances it cannot be consistently translated only one way, but context has to be considered. this is where it gets into personal preference or exegetical understanding, because whereas i might prefer "everlasting" as a definition in a particular passage, you might opt for "age / very long time, etc." at that point there could be genuine disagreements based on personal conviction, and both sides be completely within the bounds of the Word by resorting to the term's definitions. i guess it is not as simple as we'd like to have it.... <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: -->

the Peshitta AN"K seems to use ALAM, the Aramaic cognate of OLAM, in most of these instances, so i don't know that there is any real help in that respect.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#10
Burning one Wrote:Shlama,


I hope I'm not reading the Aramaic wrong, because it REALLY looks like dee'thahen -- meaning "that are." i also believe that the context of the entire passage, as well as knowing that Paulus himself continued teaching and performing these very things shows us that he wasn't saying they were past. the Torah is a shadow. it is. present. the reality is embodied in Messiah. so Torah is Messiah's shadow. as long as Messiah exists, the commandments exist. we may perceive them better or slightly differently the closer Messiah comes to us, but the commandments remain, or else, if not, then where is the Body who casts the shadow? my Messiah has a shadow, and in His shadow I see very intriguing aspects of Him and His personality. to be sure, however, the reality IS Messiah! may He come soon to reign over His people!

This perspective is helpfull and interesting I must say. Alot of the modern christian teachings is that Jesus / Y'shua is the 'substance' of the laws and feasts and sabbaths etc, thus abolishing them by inclination, authough it doesn't say that.

I'd be very intersted to hear more on your (dee'thahen -- meaning "that are.") bit because maybie your right? it might change the meaning.

Me as a person am a christian who through my own studying and praying and heartfully being in tears on my knees for answeres has came to the conclusion that not 'all' the law has gone, I've been despirate to get to the bottom of all this because as we all know Paul is confusing. Seems that he does away with the law and then a feew verses later says to 'uphold and do' it, this was one of the many things that sent alarm bells ringing and plundered me into studying what the bible really says. it was also scriptures like, "Blessed are those who do the commandments that they might have the right to the tree of life" etc, my foundations as a believer are now cracked and it isn't good. I know we are not to adopt the attitude of picking and choosing which commandments we like and thus I have been trying to find what is 'in' & 'out' because of the cross. I know some are out becasue we do not sacrifice lambs etc anymore. i've tried to look for a deviding line but can't find one.

Subsequently at the moment I try to keep sabbath and I don't eat Pig 'n'Prawns any more. Lots of evidence led me to those conclusions but as a gentile (or former gentile?) I'm unsure weather everything mensioned in scripture is for everyone rather than Jews etc, I understand what Paul is saying that we are to be jews 'inwardly' and 'Grafted in', so that seems to say we are all to be one, yet part of me is still struggeling to be sure of things, a mixture of truth and error is very confusing and dangerous.

This collossians passage is very important I feel because I have never understood it, only to mean everything is abolished, people would suggest it says they WERE shadows of things that WERE to come, but when I read it in most translations it was a different tense to what I was being told.

Reciently in the KJV I read that scripture:

Col 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:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

The 'is' is in italics and thus a suggestion, so if you remove that and replace the moons etc with 'these things', it now makes sence to me.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in (These Things)
Col 2:17 Which ARE a shadow of things TO come; but the body of Christ.

I know I'm repeating myself and I'm teaching some of you to suck eggs, for this I appologise.

It's just, I know the KJV isn't a perfect translation, I don't think any translation can be perfect. But I thought I had 'cracked' that scripture and could put it to rest, since reading it in the AENT (because there is alot of supporting evidence to suggest the Aramaic is more accurate), it seems to have blown everything up again, when I read it in the AENT I get the reading that those things ae now gone again. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> 'Were a shadow of things then future' etc.


I have more trust in the KJV than most other Greek based bibles, other translations that 'do away' with these things basically say:

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you about not doing (These Things)
Col 2:17 Which were a shadow of things to come; but the body is comprised of Christ, and not 'those' ordinancies.

Some people think (these things) are meat and drink offerings being done away with, others think it's kosher laws, sabbaths and feasts being done away with, others think it's just telling you to keep them. *sigh* <!-- s:nervous: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/nervous.gif" alt=":nervous:" title="Nervous" /><!-- s:nervous: -->


Tossed about with every wind of doctorine, that's me! Gotta get a grip on the truth. What is what and how can we be sure? In/from the Aramaic especially.
Reply
#11
If you want to talk about the Torah, I suggest you post a new thread in the 'Nazarene/Messianic Judaism Forum' as this forum relates to the Peshitta.
Yet, I'm not saying someone can't put in a few more words about di'ythahein. But as far as I can tell (as I know little of Aramaic) with respect to other verses using di'ythahein, it is best rendered is/are.

Murdock translates di'ythahein as follows:
  • that are: Luke 19:42, Hebrews 11:1, Revelation 1:19, Revelation 5:6
  • that be: 2Peter 1:3
  • which are: Revelation 5:8
  • which were: Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 9:10
  • {anomalous translation}: Colossians 2:22

But it's interesting that the verses Murdock opted to translate di'ythahein as 'which were' are both referring to Torah: we can see that his bias is creeping into the translation here.

On a similar note, can anyone tell me definitively what the last four Aramaic words of Colossians 2:17 actually translate to? My guess would be Etheridge does well in representing the Aramaic here: "which are shadows of those to come, but the body is the Meshiha." Yet what does it mean when it says but the body is the Meshiha?
Reply
#12
shlomo Aaron,

Aaron S Wrote:On a similar note, can anyone tell me definitively what the last four Aramaic words of Colossians 2:17 actually translate to? My guess would be Etheridge does well in representing the Aramaic here: "which are shadows of those to come, but the body is the Meshiha." Yet what does it mean when it says but the body is the Meshiha?

Instead of but the body is the Meshiha try for the body is the Meshiha, also look at "Colossians 2:15 - And, by yielding up his body...".

Interesting enough "And, by yielding up his body" doesn't show up in the Greek nor in the Latin; but it does relate to "for the body is the Meshiha" in Col 2:17

So the shadows (ie. the laws) were shadows of the Body of Christ. Meaning that Christ is of a higher importance than those laws (ie. the Body is superior to its shadow), as they served for the preparation in anticipation of the coming of Christ.

The following verses show exactly which heresy is being addressed.

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
???????? ???? ????????
???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????????. ?????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????????
Reply
#13
Regarding the last four words, it is also useful to start with a transliteration first, then move to the translation; word-for-word.

P'aG:Ro` * D'eYN * M:ShiY:Cho` * _W
the-body * of-that * the-Messiah * is

For me, word-for-word is the best, for it keeps one from straying from the source text.
But if using English syntax, and without adding any words, it would be:

"...; the body of that is the Messiah."

And what is "of that" referring to? As stated in the previous post, it is referring to the shadow, the one described in the first part of the verse. As in, "the body of 'the shadow' is the Messiah."
Reply
#14
It seems to be the same issue all over though. What reading is more correct.

Everyone reads and translates it another way, each way gives a different message.
Worst thing is they all make sence. <!-- sConfusedarcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="Confusedarcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- sConfusedarcasm: -->


Oh boy.
Reply
#15
Rafa Wrote:I have never heard of a man without a shadow, who destroys his own shadow a piece of himself. The teaching I have heard is that the Shabbat and other things in Torah contained a little bit of God, an embodiment of his presence. Like you said burning one- intriguing aspects of my Messiah I wish to learn about, and what better way than through the tools he has given ? Just not let the opposite extreme position of taking the shadow for the visible thing. If I was Orthodox I would say these are "divine icons" which help us in our walk with God <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink --> I agree with the COE that this is just not a core issue and not a reason for dispute. If somebody wishes to learn more by observing more of the commands of the Torah...so be it. Of course this is not a static Torah either and is in need of constant re-interpretation, it has fluidity. My position is a minority one, but I think it is the most consistent with the scriptures.

Shlama akhi,

well put! there is a balance involved, and hopefully as we grow, we grow in that way. i liked the "divine icons" comment -- very cool imagery!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)