Looking at Col. 2:16

[djconklin74]

Question on my mind: what does the first "or" mean, or how does it affect the interpretation of the text?

Col. 2:16: "Let no man therefore judge you in eating and in drinking
or in respect of [i.e., in that part of] a feast,
or of the new moon,
or of the sabbath-days"

[Fenris]

The next verse seems to make the meaning clear:

"Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

Paul is making the point that in his estimation, Biblical law is no longer in effect.

[RabbiKnife]

The next verse seems to make the meaning clear:

"Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

Paul is making the point that in his estimation, Biblical law is no longer in effect.

I love it when our Jewish space laser toting rabbi in training understands New Testament theology better than many Christians…

In particular Paul is pointing out that the physical isn’t deterministic

[davy]

I think some in Christ abuse that Col.2:16 Scripture, as also 1 Timothy 4:3-5 about the subject of God's health law.

I see God's health laws first given in the Old Testament time more like science than just religious dogma.

Shellfish is on God's do-not-eat list, and the reason ought to be simple. It's because shellfish are scavengers God created to cleanse the oceans and seas. That's too bad because I love shrimp, crab, and lobster. Yet eating a lot of shellfish can clog up your arteries, just as other scavenger meat will also do. So there's good reason why God originally commanded the Israelites to not eat from the unhealthy list of meats.

But under the New Covenant, the 'science'... behind that DID NOT CHANGE. It is still unhealthy to our flesh body to eat a lot of shellfish and scavenger meats. So can we really... say God's health law is now done away with in Christ Jesus? No, not really.

The difference is that in Christ we are FREED from religious penalties if we eat from the unhealthy list in God's law. Doesn't mean our flesh bodies will be as healthy if we continually eat from the unhealthy list, and that because of the 'science' of the poisons in the scavenger meats, God having designed scavengers to cleanse the earth of impurities.

[watchinginawe]

Question on my mind: what does the first "or" mean, or how does it affect the interpretation of the text?

Col. 2:16: "Let no man therefore judge you in eating and in drinking
or in respect of [i.e., in that part of] a feast,
or of the new moon,
or of the sabbath-days"

The Textus Receptus doesn't seem to make any distinction on the first "or". What are your thoughts? Are you intrigued by the difference between the TR and the NA26 perhaps?

I would guess the NASB where it says "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--", it probably could be read as "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to "food or drink", or in respect to a festival, or a new moon, or a Sabbath day...

So, in the NASB, you get "food and drink" as one thing in the list as opposed to the list in the KJV which is "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:..." all with the commas and everything with all uses of "or" by the same Greek word. Thus, meat is first in the list, drink is second, and so on.

[Reddogs]

The next verse seems to make the meaning clear:

"Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

Paul is making the point that in his estimation, Biblical law is no longer in effect.

So we are good with transgression of the law, when they rob us at the ATM and carjack our Mercedes-benz as we sit behind the wheel. Its all good...?

[Fenris]

So we are good with transgression of the law, when they rob us at the ATM and carjack our Mercedes-benz as we sit behind the wheel. Its all good...?

I'm not "good" with anything. I am not a Christian.

As pertains to Paul, in Romans 7 he says, "So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good."

He continues that "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual", that the law can't be kept because he (and by extension the reader) are flawed and imperfect. So when it comes to "salvation", the law cannot save.

Mind you, this is a Christian argument. I do not ascribe to it. I am simply repeating Paul's idea.

[RabbiKnife]

So we are good with transgression of the law, when they rob us at the ATM and carjack our Mercedes-benz as we sit behind the wheel. Its all good...?

I'm not "good" with anything. I am not a Christian.

As pertains to Paul, in Romans 7 he says, "So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good."

He continues that "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual", that the law can't be kept because he (and by extension the reader) are flawed and imperfect. So when it comes to "salvation", the law cannot save.

Mind you, this is a Christian argument. I do not ascribe to it. I am simply repeating Paul's idea.

Repeating and explaining his argument better than about 99% of evangelical
Pastors I’ve ever heard

[Reddogs]

So we are good with transgression of the law, when they rob us at the ATM and carjack our Mercedes-benz as we sit behind the wheel. Its all good...?

I'm not "good" with anything. I am not a Christian.

As pertains to Paul, in Romans 7 he says, "So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good."

He continues that "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual", that the law can't be kept because he (and by extension the reader) are flawed and imperfect. So when it comes to "salvation", the law cannot save.

Mind you, this is a Christian argument. I do not ascribe to it. I am simply repeating Paul's idea.

Christ asks you not only to follow the Law but to surpass it in righteousness. The law does not save it shows you what is sin and the corruption of iniquty, that what you mist turn from.

[Fenris]

Christ asks you not only to follow the Law but to surpass it in righteousness.

You're talking about Matthew 5, of course, as part of the Sermon on the Mount.

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The law does not save it shows you what is sin and the corruption of iniquty, that what you mist turn from.

Yes, that is standard Christian theology. I have already said this.

[Richard Aberdeen]

In Jesus, we "are not under law, but under grace."  Many Christians refuse to believe this and like Paul says, they "have fallen from grace." Whoever places themselves under God's law or other laws, rules and/or vain traditions, if they have the spirit of Jesus within them, are in great error.