Handwritten Dogmas and the Letter

[dak]

Paul is not overturning the Torah, rather, he no longer recognizes the authority of the rulers of the people in his day. Paul teaches the new Way of understanding the Torah taught by the Teacher of Righteousness whose Testimony we now read in the Gospel accounts and his Gospel is no different from that Testimony.

Colossians 2:13-22

The following translator understands the Colossians passage quite well, even to the point that it is the Body of Meshiah which is to judge regarding what is mentioned in the text, meaning that the word order, (which is not all that important in Greek, but critical in English translations), is not properly rendered in most if not all English translations. The phrase, the Body of Meshiah is more properly placed at the beginning of verse sixteen. This is why so many translators find the need to either add to this statement or change the meaning of soma from body to substance: for it does not read properly in English without adding to it or redefining words so as to make sense of it, and the reason why is because it does not belong where it is generally placed in English translations, (the end of verse seventeen).

Colossians 2:13-22 TS2009 W/Footnotes
13 And you, being dead in your trespassesc and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, Footnote: cEph 2:1.
14 having blotted out that which was written by hand against us – by the dogmasd – which stood against us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the stake. Footnote: dDogmas - also see Col 2:20 and Eph 2:15.
15 Having stripped the principalities and the authorities, He made a public display of them, having prevailed over them in it.
16 Let no one therefore judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths –
17 which are a shadow of what is to come – but the Body of the Messiah.e Footnote: eThe Body of Messiah is to give ruling on all matters, not the outsiders! See also Mat 18:15-20.
18 Let no one deprive you of the prize, one who takes delight in false humility and worship of messengers, taking his stand on what he has not seen, puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the Body – nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments – grows with the growth of Elohim.
20 If, then, you died with Messiah from the elementary mattersf of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to dogmas:d Footnotes: dDogmas - also see Col 2:14 and Eph 2:15. fSee Col 2:8 and Gal 4:3 and Gal 4:9.
21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle” –
22 which are all to perish with use – according to the commands and teachings of men?g Isa 29:13. Footnote: gSee also Mat 15:8-9, Mar 7:6-7.

The translator footnote for verse seventeen rightly says that it is the Body of Meshiah that is to rule on all matters, not outsiders: but it appears that the translator misses one thing, that is, the meaning of the Body of Meshiah in this context, and almost no doubt the Body of Meshiah in this context concerns the Tanak Body of the Meshiah. The Tanak Body of Meshiah was raised up in Matthew 27:51-53, and entered into the holy city, (Yerushalem of above, not Yerushalem of below, see Hebrews 12:22-24). The Tanak Body of Meshiah was therefore folded into the Body of Meshiah under the new/renewed covenant expounded by the Master himself in the Gospel accounts, (and also later by his apostles in their writings in the scriptures).

Thus it is the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, the Tanak Body of Meshiah, which is to be our judge in the matters mentioned in that portion of the text above where this is mentioned. If therefore we correct the word order, as it appears to be strongly implied in the Greek text, it should read and be rendered in the following manner.

Colossians 2:13-22
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
14 having blotted out the handwriting in dogmas/decrees that were against us, which were contrary to us: and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the stake:
15 having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Therefore let no one but the body of Meshiah judge you in food, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new month or the Shabbat:
17 which are a shadow of the things to come.
18 Let no one defraud you of the prize through [false] humility and the religion of the messengers, dwelling in the things which he has seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast the Head, from whom all the body, being supplied and knit together through the joints and bands, increases by the increase of Elohim.
20 If you died with Meshiah from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to dogmas,
21 Handle not, Taste not, Touch not,
22 (all of which things are to perish with the using), after the commandments and doctrines of men?

Nowhere in the scripture is the Torah ever called dogmas, and Paul explains at the end of the portion above that he speaks of the commandments and teachings or doctrines of men: that is surely not speaking of the Torah. However dogma does appear in the Septuagint, and is always used for edicts, decrees, dogmas, and proclamations from kings and-or rulers. In the sense of the Colossians passage above it no doubt pertains to the rulers of the people, the Sanhedrin, Elders, Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, and their handwritten dogmas and decrees which were against the people and contrary to us all: for their interpretations of the Torah were based on a natural minded, outward, and physical understanding of the Torah, which we know from Romans 7:14 is spiritual, just as Elohim Himself is Spirit, (John 4:24), and so also His Word is Spirit, and likewise the Testimony of the Meshiah is Spirit, (John 6:63).

The handwritten dogmas and decrees of the Sanhedrin, Elders, Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, which were binding upon the whole nation, and which were contrary and against the people, are the same letter which Paul says kills. The letter which kills is not the Torah. The letter which kills concerns the handwritten dogmas and decrees of the Sanhedrin, Elders, Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, which Paul speaks about in Colossians 2:14. Meshiah indeed triumphed over them and their carnal minded rulings, dogmas, and decrees in many places throughout the Gospel accounts for all to see: making a show of them and their hypocrisy openly before all the people, which is one of the main reasons why the rulers of the people had him crucified, (and he was an obvious threat to their power and authority).

Please have patience: this OP will be in three portions, (two more posts to follow).
.

 

[dak]

Letters:

John 7:14-18 KJV
14 Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.
15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, [G1121 γραμμα (γραμματα)] having never learned?
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

The Meshiah knows letters and yet the letter kills?

Acts 28:17-21 KJV
17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.
18 Who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me.
19 But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had ought to accuse my nation of.
20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
21 And they said unto him, We neither received letters [G1121 γραμμα (γραμματα)] out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee.

From whom might the "chief (foremost) of the Jews" in Rome possibly receive letters? especially concerning harm or evil concerning Paul? That really can only mean certain dogmas, decrees, or injunctions concerning Paul, and coming from the Sanhedrin, Elders, Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes at Yerushalem.

Pay extra close attention to this next passage: for Paul actually says that by the letter and circumcision they were transgressing the Torah. How can this be? It is by way of their incorrect interpretations of the Torah concerning circumcision, which was the natural minded, outward, physical interpretation of circumcision, and which by their own handwritten dogmas and decrees was forced upon the people, binding upon the whole nation, and yet it was the wrong interpretation: thus they were forcing the people to observe their own misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Torah which is spiritual, (Rom 7:14). After that statement Paul gives us the true meaning of circumcision, which is of the heart, and which is also taught in the Torah: and thus we have a choice to either choose life or death in our understanding of what we hear, (understand), and see, (perceive), in our reading of the Torah, (Deut 10:16, Deut 30:6, Deut 30:11-20, Rom 10:6-8). Moreover what Paul states in Rom 2:28-29 is not a set of multiple choice options: the things stated therein are emphatically stated to be the case, and one either believes what he says or does not.

Romans 2:27-29 KJV
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter [G1121 γραμμα (γραμματος)] and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; [G1121 γραμμα (γραμματι)] whose praise is not of men, but of God.

If the letter is the Torah then how can it be that the Sanhedrin, Elders, Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes might transgress the Torah by the letter? The letter in this case therefore cannot be the Torah: it concerns the handwritten dogmas, decrees, injunctions, and ordinances of the Sanhedrin, Elders, Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, which were binding on the whole nation, and which were against us because they were natural minded, outward, physical interpretations of the Torah which were incorrect interpretations of the spiritual and supernal Word of the Father who is Spirit.

Moreover gramma is also used for writings and-or scripture:

2 Timothy 3:15 KJV
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, [G1121 γραμμα (γραμματα)] which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 3:15 ASV
15 and that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings [G1121 γραμμα (γραμματα)] which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Is the Torah not scripture? Rightly divide: the letter which kills is not the scripture, and certainly not the Torah, rather, the letter which kills concerns the handwritten dogmas, decrees, injunctions, and ordinances of the Sanhedrin, Elders, Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, which were binding upon the whole nation, and which were against us because they were natural minded, outward, physical-minded interpretations of the Torah which were incorrect interpretations of the spiritual and supernal Torah-Word of the Father who is Spirit. The Torah is spiritual, Romans 7:14.

Dogma - New-Renewed Covenant Writings

Luke 3:1 KJV
1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree [G1378 δογμα] from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Acts 16:4 KJV
4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees [G1378 δογμα] for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

Acts 17:7 KJV
7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees [G1378 δογμα] of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.

Apart from Eph 2:15, Col 2:14, and Col 2:20, (G1379 δογματιζω), that's it for dogma in the R/C.
Strange how the translators forget the meaning when it comes to Eph 2:15, Col 2:14, and Col 2:20, huh?

Dogma - Greek Septuagint Tanak

Esther 3:9 Brenton Septuagint
9 If it seem good to the king, let him make a decree [G1379 δογματιζω] to destroy them: and I will remit into the king's treasury ten thousand talents of silver.

Daniel 2:13 Brenton Septuagint
13 So the decree [G1378 δογμα] went forth, and they began to slay the wise men; and they sought Daniel and his fellows to slay them.

Daniel 3:10-12 Brenton septuagint
10 Thou, O king, has made a decree [G1378 δογμα] that every man who shall hear the sound of the trumpet, and pipe, and harp, sackbut, and psaltery, and all kinds of music,
11 and shall not fall down and worship the golden image, shall be cast into the burning fiery furnace.
12 There are certain Jews whom thou has appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Sedrach, Misach, and Abdenago, who have not obeyed thy decree, [G1378 δογμα] O king: they serve not thy gods, and worship not the golden image which thou hast set up.

And there Are seven more instances which are probably too much for one post:

Daniel 3:29 - G1378 δογμα - rendered as the king's decree
Daniel 4:6 - G1378 δογμα - rendered as the king's decree
Daniel 6:8-26 - G1378 δογμα (5 times) - rendered as the king's decree

G1378 δογμα (with G1379 δογματιζω) is found seventeen times in the Septuagint and New-Renewed Covenant writings combined: fourteen times it is rendered "decree(s)" and the other three times it is rendered "ordinances", (at least in the KJV and ASV which I checked), and those three times, which are the final occurrences in the Renewed Covenant writings, are of course Eph 2:15, Col 2:14, and Col 2:20, (the one occurrence of δογματιζω in the R/C). Understand that the fix is in, literally, in the biased translations of carnal minded antinomian men who believe the Torah is abolished.
.

 

[dak]

The Greek text for Col 2:14 is the same in the T/R as with all the majority morph texts:

Colossians 2:14 T/R, BYZ, N/A, W/H
14 εξαλειψας το καθ ημων χειρογραφον τοις δογμασιν ο ην υπεναντιον ημιν και αυτο ηρκεν εκ του μεσου προσηλωσας αυτο τω σταυρω

The ASV is probably correct to render χειρογραφον as a bond in this case because it speaks of a handwritten legal document or handwritten legal bond, and therefore, of course, binding upon all the people because in this context it concerns the rulings of the Sanhedrin, handwritten by their Scribes. Moreover, generally speaking, the most important rulings were typically posted in public places for all to see, especially the Temple.

Colossians 2:14 ASV
14 having blotted out the bond written [χειρογραφον] in ordinances [dogmas] that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;

Thus we have:

Colossians 2:14
14 having blotted out the handwritten-bond of the dogmas/decrees against us, which were adversarial to us: and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the stake,

The Meshiah did not blot out the Torah or nail it to the stake so as to be figuratively destroyed with the flesh. It should clearly be understood as the handwritten-bonds, dogmas, and decrees of the natural minded, outward, and physical-minded interpretations of the Torah according to the Sanhedrin, Elders, Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, whose natural minded outward interpretations of the Torah were binding upon the whole nation, and yet adversarial to the people, as openly shown in many passages in the Gospel accounts where the Meshiah engages vehement disputes with them over some of their erroneous dogmas and decrees.

Ephesians 2:11-22
11 Wherefore remember that you, once nations/gentiles in the flesh, being reckoned Uncircumcision by the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands,
12 that you were in that time without Meshiah, alienated from the citizenship-commonwealth of Yisrael, and foreigners from the covenants of solemn promise, having no hope, and without Elohim in the world.
13 But now, in Meshiah Ι̅Η, you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Meshiah:
14 for he is our peace, having made both one, and having broken down the middle partition-wall of the enclosure,
15 having abolished in his flesh the enmity, the law of the injunctions in dogmas/decrees, that he might create in himself one renewed man, making peace,
16 and that he might fully restore them both in one body unto Elohim by the stake, having slain the enmity thereby.
17 And having come, he announced good news, peace to you that were afar off, and to those near:
18 for by him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.
19 Wherefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of Elohim,
20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and of the prophets, the chief cornerstone thereof being Meshiah Ι̅Η,
21 in whom all the building fitted together increases unto a holy temple in YHWH:
22 in whom also you are builded together for a habitation of Elohim in the Spirit.

Surely Paul mentions and goes into the teaching on the temple at the end of the above passage because it has to do with what he speaks of just before that in what we read in the passage. The middle partition wall is being used in this analogy because anyone who had been to the temple would have immediately known what he speaks of, even if a person only came at the feasts from far away, like those we read of from all over the known world in Acts 2, at Pentecost.

The partition wall which is mentioned here by Paul would have been the barrier that separated the Court of the Nations or Gentiles, and stone markers were placed at intervals all along this dividing wall to warn Gentiles not to go beyond that point: the penalty for which trespass was death. Several of these stone markers with their handwritten engraved warnings have been discovered with the texts still intact and legible. Paul's discourse here surely reveals that his usage of this analogy speaks of the doing away with the handwritten dogmas and decrees of the Sanhedrin, Elders, Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, which were based in natural minded, physical, outward interpretations of the Torah.

Istanbul Archaeology Museum:

Herodian Temple Inscription

Recent posts have featured biblically related artifacts from the Archaeology Museum at Istanbul. Yet another very important exhibit housed there is an inscription from the Herodian temple, (so call…

leonmauldin.blog

"NO FOREIGNER IS TO ENTER WITHIN THE BALUSTRADE AND EMBANKMENT AROUND THE SANCTUARY: WHOEVER IS CAUGHT WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO BLAME FOR HIS DEATH WHICH WILL FOLLOW."

This is one of the warning signs carved in stone that were placed at regular intervals in the partition wall of separation around the temple court which separated the Court of the Gentiles and kept them from going beyond their court any closer to the temple. The penalty was physical death for any Gentile going beyond the partition wall, and this was "the law", although you will not find it anywhere in the Torah. This is exactly what Paul is speaking about in the Ephesians 2 passage.

Israel Museum:

Temple Inscription Fragment

Some biblical texts are especially illuminated by archaeological finds. For example, Acts 21:28 records the false charge against Paul, “He also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled …

leonmauldin.blog

"NO FOREIGNER IS TO GO BEYOND THE BALUSTRADE AND THE PLAZA OF THE TEMPLE ZONE. WHOEVER IS CAUGHT DOING SO WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO BLAME FOR HIS DEATH WHICH WILL FOLLOW."

None of this concerns the Torah being abolished, abrogated, or set aside.
This third post is the completion of the OP.
.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Well, I did a little Grok investigation of the OP.


Colossians 2:14 (Greek text, Nestle-Aland/UBS): ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ’ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ. Literal rendering: "Having blotted out/wiped away the against-us cheirographon with [its] dogmasin, which was opposed to us, and He has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross."

Key Terms Breakdown​

1. ἐξαλείψας (exaleipsas)— "Having blotted out / wiped away / erased / canceled"
   • From ἐξαλείφω (exaleiphō): To wipe clean, obliterate, cause to disappear (often used for washing ink from papyrus). It implies complete removal with no trace left.
   • Strong imagery of erasing a document so it is as if it never existed.
2. χειρόγραφον (cheirographon)— "Handwriting" / "handwritten document"
   • Compound: cheir (hand) + graphon (writing). A document written in one's own hand, serving as legal proof.
   • In Greco-Roman papyri and ostraca: Commonly a certificate of indebtedness, IOU, bond, receipt, contract, or record of obligation/debt. It could also refer to handwritten declarations, oaths, or records in legal/religious contexts.
   • Not used elsewhere in the NT or LXX. Extra-biblical usage strongly supports "record of debt" or "bond of obligation" over a generic "handwriting." Many modern translations (ESV, NASB, NET) render it as "record/certificate of debt" for this reason.
   • Scholarly debate: Some argue it is not always strictly a debt certificate (e.g., KS Kim's papyri study suggests broader handwritten declarations/oaths), but the dominant view in NT commentaries ties it to indebtedness in this context.
3. τοῖς δόγμασιν (tois dogmasin) — "With its decrees/ordinances/requirements" (dative plural of δόγμα, dogma)
   • Dogma: Decree, ordinance, formal regulation, or established tenet. In the NT: Used for Caesar's decrees (Luke 2:1), apostolic council decisions (Acts 16:4), and here. It can refer to human or divine rules.
   • Grammatical nuance: Dative case suggests "consisting of" or "with regard to" the dogmas — i.e., the cheirographon that is defined by or arising from these decrees. Not "handwriting of dogmas" in a possessive sense that merges them completely (though older translations like KJV do this).
   • Contextually links to regulations whose violation creates debt (sins/trespasses in v.13).

Full sense: Christ erased the record of debt (our sins/violations) with its legal demands/decrees that stood against us, by nailing it (the cheirographon, singular) to the cross.

Is "Dogma" a Dubious Translation for "Debt"?​

• Not exactly dubious, but layered: Dogma does not mean "debt." Cheirographon carries the debt/obligation sense. The phrase combines them: The handwritten debt-record defined by or consisting ofthe decrees.
  • "Debt" is the dominant modern scholarly rendering for cheirographon because of its legal-papyri background. Older "handwriting of ordinances" (KJV) can misleadingly suggest the Law/Torah itself was erased.
  • Your intuition is fair: Treating the whole as just "dogmas" (human rules) or equating it directly to Torah risks oversimplifying. The verse emphasizes forgiveness of trespasses (v.13) via canceling the accusatory record, not primarily abolishing rules.

Broader Context and Interpretations​

• Immediate context (Col 2:13-15): God made you alive with Christ, forgiving all trespasses by canceling this record. This leads to disarming powers and triumph. The focus is atonement — sins as debt paid/erased — and victory over accusing forces.
• Common views:
  • Record of sin/debt: Christ cancels our IOU of guilt (most widespread; aligns with Fr. De Young and many Orthodox/Protestant readings). The dogmas are God's laws (or their demands) that highlight our failure.
  • Torah/Law itself: Some see it as nailing Mosaic ordinances (esp. ceremonial). Less precise given grammar and context.
  • Human traditions/decrees: Fits forum-style views (Pharisaic add-ons or Colossian ascetic rules). Dogma can mean this, and Col 2:16-23 critiques imposed regulations.
  • Oath/declaration under rules (minority scholarly): Handwritten commitment to observe certain dogmas, now canceled.

Fr. Stephen De Young (as referenced earlier) emphasizes the debt/sin record canceled by atonement, tying it to Second Temple ideas of sin as indebtedness. He sees continuity with Torah's fulfillment rather than abolition.

Summary Assessment​

The translation isn't "dubious" but reflects real lexical range. Cheirographon legitimately evokes debt record far more than a plain "handwriting," while dogma supplies the regulatory framework behind the debt. The verse is about erasing the accusatory evidence of our sins (nailed to the cross), not a straightforward cancellation of God's Torah. This fits the atonement focus and avoids anachronistic over-application to later debates.

It powerfully portrays grace: The debt is gone, the charges dismissed, and victory won.

 

[dak]

Well, I did a little Grok investigation of the OP.


Colossians 2:14 (Greek text, Nestle-Aland/UBS): ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ’ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ. Literal rendering: "Having blotted out/wiped away the against-us cheirographon with [its] dogmasin, which was opposed to us, and He has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross."

Key Terms Breakdown​

1. ἐξαλείψας (exaleipsas)— "Having blotted out / wiped away / erased / canceled"
   • From ἐξαλείφω (exaleiphō): To wipe clean, obliterate, cause to disappear (often used for washing ink from papyrus). It implies complete removal with no trace left.
   • Strong imagery of erasing a document so it is as if it never existed.
2. χειρόγραφον (cheirographon)— "Handwriting" / "handwritten document"
   • Compound: cheir (hand) + graphon (writing). A document written in one's own hand, serving as legal proof.
   • In Greco-Roman papyri and ostraca: Commonly a certificate of indebtedness, IOU, bond, receipt, contract, or record of obligation/debt. It could also refer to handwritten declarations, oaths, or records in legal/religious contexts.
   • Not used elsewhere in the NT or LXX. Extra-biblical usage strongly supports "record of debt" or "bond of obligation" over a generic "handwriting." Many modern translations (ESV, NASB, NET) render it as "record/certificate of debt" for this reason.
   • Scholarly debate: Some argue it is not always strictly a debt certificate (e.g., KS Kim's papyri study suggests broader handwritten declarations/oaths), but the dominant view in NT commentaries ties it to indebtedness in this context.
3. τοῖς δόγμασιν (tois dogmasin) — "With its decrees/ordinances/requirements" (dative plural of δόγμα, dogma)
   • Dogma: Decree, ordinance, formal regulation, or established tenet. In the NT: Used for Caesar's decrees (Luke 2:1), apostolic council decisions (Acts 16:4), and here. It can refer to human or divine rules.
   • Grammatical nuance: Dative case suggests "consisting of" or "with regard to" the dogmas — i.e., the cheirographon that is defined by or arising from these decrees. Not "handwriting of dogmas" in a possessive sense that merges them completely (though older translations like KJV do this).
   • Contextually links to regulations whose violation creates debt (sins/trespasses in v.13).

Full sense: Christ erased the record of debt (our sins/violations) with its legal demands/decrees that stood against us, by nailing it (the cheirographon, singular) to the cross.

Is "Dogma" a Dubious Translation for "Debt"?​

• Not exactly dubious, but layered: Dogma does not mean "debt." Cheirographon carries the debt/obligation sense. The phrase combines them: The handwritten debt-record defined by or consisting ofthe decrees.
  • "Debt" is the dominant modern scholarly rendering for cheirographon because of its legal-papyri background. Older "handwriting of ordinances" (KJV) can misleadingly suggest the Law/Torah itself was erased.
  • Your intuition is fair: Treating the whole as just "dogmas" (human rules) or equating it directly to Torah risks oversimplifying. The verse emphasizes forgiveness of trespasses (v.13) via canceling the accusatory record, not primarily abolishing rules.

Broader Context and Interpretations​

• Immediate context (Col 2:13-15): God made you alive with Christ, forgiving all trespasses by canceling this record. This leads to disarming powers and triumph. The focus is atonement — sins as debt paid/erased — and victory over accusing forces.
• Common views:
  • Record of sin/debt: Christ cancels our IOU of guilt (most widespread; aligns with Fr. De Young and many Orthodox/Protestant readings). The dogmas are God's laws (or their demands) that highlight our failure.
  • Torah/Law itself: Some see it as nailing Mosaic ordinances (esp. ceremonial). Less precise given grammar and context.
  • Human traditions/decrees: Fits forum-style views (Pharisaic add-ons or Colossian ascetic rules). Dogma can mean this, and Col 2:16-23 critiques imposed regulations.
  • Oath/declaration under rules (minority scholarly): Handwritten commitment to observe certain dogmas, now canceled.

Fr. Stephen De Young (as referenced earlier) emphasizes the debt/sin record canceled by atonement, tying it to Second Temple ideas of sin as indebtedness. He sees continuity with Torah's fulfillment rather than abolition.

Summary Assessment​

The translation isn't "dubious" but reflects real lexical range. Cheirographon legitimately evokes debt record far more than a plain "handwriting," while dogma supplies the regulatory framework behind the debt. The verse is about erasing the accusatory evidence of our sins (nailed to the cross), not a straightforward cancellation of God's Torah. This fits the atonement focus and avoids anachronistic over-application to later debates.

It powerfully portrays grace: The debt is gone, the charges dismissed, and victory won.

There are at least four types of evidence in the three-part OP:

1) Scripture evidence
2) Historical evidence
3) Archeological evidence
4) Cultural evidence

Using extra-biblical evidence is bad form because the entire Greek language, beginning with the Septuagint, is basically a language on loan, primarily used for the purpose of explaining the Hebrew text and its meaning in a different language, Greek. The Greek terms in the Septuagint take on the meanings found in the Hebrew text, (as close as is possible). This happens much more than most people probably realize, that is, for example, scholars turning to the Greek classics, and relying on word meanings taken from the classics which sometimes do not agree with how biblical Greek employs those same words, allowing errors to enter into translations.

This is precisely what has been done with χειρόγραφον, except that instead of the Greek classics they went to Greco-Roman papyri and ostraca because, as you said, that word is not found anywhere else in the Greek Scriptures. They made a choice, a decision, essentially a guess based on extra-biblical or non-biblical sources rather than logos already found in the contexts. Who can say whether or not their choice was based on antinomian biases?

QUOTE]:

• χειρόγραφον (cheirographon)— "Handwriting" / "handwritten document"
  • Compound: cheir (hand) + graphon (writing). A document written in one's own hand, serving as legal proof.
  • In Greco-Roman papyri and ostraca: Commonly a certificate of indebtedness, IOU, bond, receipt, contract, or record of obligation/debt. It could also refer to handwritten declarations, oaths, or records in legal/religious contexts.
  • Not used elsewhere in the NT or LXX. Extra-biblical usage strongly supports "record of debt" or "bond of obligation" over a generic "handwriting." Many modern translations (ESV, NASB, NET) render it as "record/certificate of debt" for this reason.
  • Scholarly debate: Some argue it is not always strictly a debt certificate (e.g., KS Kim's papyri study suggests broader handwritten declarations/oaths), but the dominant view in NT commentaries ties it to indebtedness in this context.

[END QUOTE.

Colossians 2:15
15 having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

The above happened in the Gospel accounts: he made a show of them openly, and that can only be all of the discussions and debates where he rebukes the Pharisees, Sadducees, Chief Priests, and their Scribes. Then he indeed triumphed over them, for although he was crucified, the Father raised him from the dead, and that absolutely verifies that his Testimony was received by the Father, approved by the Father, and sealed for all time by the Father.

The verse above is not speaking of angelic archon types of principalities and powers: it speaks of the rulers of the people whose dogmas and doctrines he utterly refuted to their faces. It was all about the extra-biblical additions they had foisted upon the Torah, and when those erroneous interpretations are removed, (nailed to the stake), we are set free to walk with Meshiah in HIS interpretations of the Torah which he received from the Father, and which is pleasing to the Father, having been set free from the natural man, carnal minded dogmas and law of the Sanhedrin, Pharisees, Sadducees, Chief Priests, and Scribes.

 

[dak]

Summary Assessment​

The translation isn't "dubious" but reflects real lexical range. Cheirographon legitimately evokes debt record far more than a plain "handwriting," while dogma supplies the regulatory framework behind the debt. The verse is about erasing the accusatory evidence of our sins (nailed to the cross), not a straightforward cancellation of God's Torah. This fits the atonement focus and avoids anachronistic over-application to later debates.

It powerfully portrays grace: The debt is gone, the charges dismissed, and victory won.

Also here, in the summary, (I don't know whether that is you or Grok), the author is forced to yet again resort to χειρόγραφον and its extra-biblical meanings to actually bring the summary together, "Cheirgraphon legitimately evokes debt record", however that is not found the scripture: it is from extra-biblical Greco-Roman papyri and ostraca.

Moreover those who even hint that it is the Torah which was nailed to the stake, (which you did not do, but many others here do indeed believe), such a one is teaching a form Gnostic heresy.

The Torah was given by the disposition/instrumentality of angels, (Acts 7:53), ordained/prescribed/appointed/arranged by angels in the hand of a mediator, (Gal 3:19-20).

Galatians 3:19-20 TS2000
19 Why, then, the Torah? It was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made. And it was ordained through messengers [in this sense no doubt angels] in the hand of a mediator.
20 The Mediator, however, is not of one, but Elohim is one.

Galatians 3:20 T/R-BYZ-N/A-W/H
20 ο δε μεσιτης ενος ουκ εστιν ο δε θεος εις εστιν
20 Moreover the mediator is not one, but Elohim is one.

There are two mediators of whom Paul speaks in the above: one is Mosheh, who fulfilled the office of the Kohen, standing between the people and the Most High as a mediator, (see Deut 5:5). The other is the Great Mediator, the Son of Elohim, who has seven stars in his right hand, and the seven stars are the seven angels, (Rev 1:20). Thus Gal 3:20 should read just as it appeared in the oldest Uncial Greek texts, (which did not contain diacritics), just as I have rendered it above: "the mediator is not one" because the Great Mediator, the Son of Elohim, gave the Torah to Mosheh by way of the instrumentality of the holy angels in his right hand. Thus Paul speaks exactly to the point he is making: the only one who is a mediator having angels in his right hand is the Son of Elohim in Rev 1:20, (hence the Gal 3:19 statement cannot be speaking of Mosheh).

What therefore is one actually saying when he or she says that it was the Torah that was nailed to the stake? They would be speaking lashon hara against the Son of Elohim and his holy angels as if, (according to the Col 2:15 statement), they were evil principalities and powers who gave Mosheh the Torah, which was supposedly, according them by the passage, against us. That's full-blown Gnostic heresy, pretty much what early Gnostic dualism tried to do against the Father, YHWH.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Using extra-biblical evidence is bad form because the entire Greek language, beginning with the Septuagint, is basically a language on loan, primarily used for the purpose of explaining the Hebrew text and its meaning in a different language, Greek. The Greek terms in the Septuagint take on the meanings found in the Hebrew text, (as close as is possible). This happens much more than most people probably realize, that is, for example, scholars turning to the Greek classics, and relying on word meanings taken from the classics which sometimes do not agree with how biblical Greek employs those same words, allowing errors to enter into translations.

This is precisely what has been done with χειρόγραφον, except that instead of the Greek classics they went to Greco-Roman papyri and ostraca because, as you said, that word is not found anywhere else in the Greek Scriptures. They made a choice, a decision, essentially a guess based on extra-biblical or non-biblical sources rather than logos already found in the contexts. Who can say whether or not their choice was based on antinomian biases?

Your reaction seemed very arbitrary to me. Because Christian Scholars do this sort of thing as part of their language analysis. e.g. Michael Heiser, New Testaments studies footnotes etc. But I did Grok your reply in case you are some kind of "Greek Expert" and have caught Grok in a mistake from not using trusted sources etc. I will also add the reply seems arbitrary base on mainstream Christians using more questionable sources like Strongs Concordance rather than official Bible Lexicons and Interlinear translations etc. But this was Grok response to your objection.


The critic's objection is thoughtful but overstated. Using extra-biblical evidence (papyri, inscriptions, ostraca) for rare/hapax words like χειρόγραφον (cheirographon) is standard, responsible philology—not "bad form" or arbitrary guesswork. Biblical Greek (LXX + NT) does adapt secular Greek terms to Hebrew concepts, but it doesn't create a sealed "biblical-only" dialect disconnected from the living language. Words carry their ordinary range unless context clearly shifts them.

On Cheirographon Specifically​

• Hapax status: Correct—it appears only here in the NT and not at all in the LXX (though related forms exist in Tobit for legal notes). No direct "Septuagint precedent" to fall back on.
• Core meaning: Compound of cheir (hand) + graphō (write) = "handwritten document." In everyday Koine Greek, this often meant a personally signed legal instrument: contract, receipt, declaration, oath, or bond.
• Papyri/inscription evidence: The dominant scholarly view (pre- and post-Kim) ties it heavily to certificates of indebtedness or records of obligation—hence modern translations like ESV/NASB/NET ("record of debt" / "certificate of debt"). Adolf Deissmann's early 20th-century work popularized this from Egyptian papyri.

Kyu Seop Kim's 2017 study (the one the critic likely references) challenges the narrow "debt certificate only" consensus. Kim examined many papyri/ostraca and concluded cheirographon covers broader handwritten declarations: receipts, loans, contracts, and especially records of oath or commitment to observe regulations. He suggests in Colossians it could be a "handwritten document containing a declaration/oath regarding observance of religious regulations." This partially supports the forum view (oath to human/Pharisaic dogmas).

However, Kim does not eliminate debt/obligation language entirely, and context still favors an accusatory record tied to trespasses (v.13). Most commentaries retain the debt/IOU imagery because it fits atonement theology beautifully (sins as debt nailed/erased).

LXX influence point: Valid in principle—many NT words gain Hebrew-flavored meanings via the Septuagint (e.g., dikaiosynē for covenant faithfulness, not just Greek "justice"). But for a true hapax absent from the LXX, we must consult the wider Koine pool. Ignoring it would leave us guessing blindly. Scholars routinely do this without "antinomian bias"—it's how we understand baptizō, agapē, etc.

Colossians 2:14-15 in Context​

Full Greek (v.14): "...blotting out the cheirographon with its dogmas (tois dogmasin) that was against us and opposed to us, and He has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross."

• The cheirographon (singular) is the main thing nailed/erased. The dogmas (decrees/requirements) describe or constitute it.
• V.13 ties it explicitly to "forgiving us all trespasses" → accusatory record of guilt, not the Torah itself or purely human traditions.
• V.15: "Having disarmed the rulers and authorities (archas kai exousias), He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it [the cross]."

Principalities/powers debate:

• Standard view (majority Nicene/Orthodox/Protestant): Spiritual powers (demonic/angelic forces) behind pagan idolatry, false philosophy, and accusation. Paul uses the same terms elsewhere for cosmic/spiritual entities (Col 1:16; Eph 6:12). Christ's victory publicly shames them by canceling the debt they could use to accuse.
• Human rulers view (your forum poster and some Torah-focused interpreters): Jewish authorities (Pharisees, Sanhedrin) whose "dogmas" (extra traditions) Jesus refuted in the Gospels, then triumphed over via resurrection. Possible, especially given Col 2:16's food/festival/Sabbath context and critiques of ascetic "regulations." But this is minority; it downplays Paul's cosmic language elsewhere.

Balanced Takeaway​

The critic rightly warns against importing classical Greek or papyri meanings that ignore biblical context. But dismissing all extra-biblical evidence for a hapax is overly restrictive—it would cripple exegesis. Kim's broader "oath/declaration" sense actually enriches possibilities without requiring a full "only human traditions" reading.

Best synthesis (aligning with Fr. De Young-style Orthodox and many evangelical views):

• Christ cancels the accusatory record of our sins (the "debt" created by violating God's standards and/or imposed rules).
• This disarms both spiritual accusers and human legalistic judgment.
• It does not erase the Torah as God's good instruction but removes its condemning power for those in Christ (cf. Rom 7-8).

The forum reading protects Torah zeal by blaming only "extra-biblical additions." That's understandable, but the grammar and immediate context (forgiveness of trespasses → victory) point more to sin's debt than solely Sanhedrin dogmas. Both elements can coexist: human traditions amplify accusation, but the root is our guilt before God.

 

[dak]

Your reaction seemed very arbitrary to me. Because Christian Scholars do this sort of thing as part of their language analysis. e.g. Michael Heiser, New Testaments studies footnotes etc. But I did Grok your reply in case you are some kind of "Greek Expert" and have caught Grok in a mistake from not using trusted sources etc. I will also add the reply seems arbitrary base on mainstream Christians using more questionable sources like Strongs Concordance rather than official Bible Lexicons and Interlinear translations etc. But this was Grok response to your objection.


The critic's objection is thoughtful but overstated. Using extra-biblical evidence (papyri, inscriptions, ostraca) for rare/hapax words like χειρόγραφον (cheirographon) is standard, responsible philology—not "bad form" or arbitrary guesswork. Biblical Greek (LXX + NT) does adapt secular Greek terms to Hebrew concepts, but it doesn't create a sealed "biblical-only" dialect disconnected from the living language. Words carry their ordinary range unless context clearly shifts them.

On Cheirographon Specifically​

• Hapax status: Correct—it appears only here in the NT and not at all in the LXX (though related forms exist in Tobit for legal notes). No direct "Septuagint precedent" to fall back on.
• Core meaning: Compound of cheir (hand) + graphō (write) = "handwritten document." In everyday Koine Greek, this often meant a personally signed legal instrument: contract, receipt, declaration, oath, or bond.
• Papyri/inscription evidence: The dominant scholarly view (pre- and post-Kim) ties it heavily to certificates of indebtedness or records of obligation—hence modern translations like ESV/NASB/NET ("record of debt" / "certificate of debt"). Adolf Deissmann's early 20th-century work popularized this from Egyptian papyri.

Kyu Seop Kim's 2017 study (the one the critic likely references) challenges the narrow "debt certificate only" consensus. Kim examined many papyri/ostraca and concluded cheirographon covers broader handwritten declarations: receipts, loans, contracts, and especially records of oath or commitment to observe regulations. He suggests in Colossians it could be a "handwritten document containing a declaration/oath regarding observance of religious regulations." This partially supports the forum view (oath to human/Pharisaic dogmas).

However, Kim does not eliminate debt/obligation language entirely, and context still favors an accusatory record tied to trespasses (v.13). Most commentaries retain the debt/IOU imagery because it fits atonement theology beautifully (sins as debt nailed/erased).

LXX influence point: Valid in principle—many NT words gain Hebrew-flavored meanings via the Septuagint (e.g., dikaiosynē for covenant faithfulness, not just Greek "justice"). But for a true hapax absent from the LXX, we must consult the wider Koine pool. Ignoring it would leave us guessing blindly. Scholars routinely do this without "antinomian bias"—it's how we understand baptizō, agapē, etc.

Colossians 2:14-15 in Context​

Full Greek (v.14): "...blotting out the cheirographon with its dogmas (tois dogmasin) that was against us and opposed to us, and He has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross."

• The cheirographon (singular) is the main thing nailed/erased. The dogmas (decrees/requirements) describe or constitute it.
• V.13 ties it explicitly to "forgiving us all trespasses" → accusatory record of guilt, not the Torah itself or purely human traditions.
• V.15: "Having disarmed the rulers and authorities (archas kai exousias), He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it [the cross]."

Principalities/powers debate:

• Standard view (majority Nicene/Orthodox/Protestant): Spiritual powers (demonic/angelic forces) behind pagan idolatry, false philosophy, and accusation. Paul uses the same terms elsewhere for cosmic/spiritual entities (Col 1:16; Eph 6:12). Christ's victory publicly shames them by canceling the debt they could use to accuse.
• Human rulers view (your forum poster and some Torah-focused interpreters): Jewish authorities (Pharisees, Sanhedrin) whose "dogmas" (extra traditions) Jesus refuted in the Gospels, then triumphed over via resurrection. Possible, especially given Col 2:16's food/festival/Sabbath context and critiques of ascetic "regulations." But this is minority; it downplays Paul's cosmic language elsewhere.

Balanced Takeaway​

The critic rightly warns against importing classical Greek or papyri meanings that ignore biblical context. But dismissing all extra-biblical evidence for a hapax is overly restrictive—it would cripple exegesis. Kim's broader "oath/declaration" sense actually enriches possibilities without requiring a full "only human traditions" reading.

Best synthesis (aligning with Fr. De Young-style Orthodox and many evangelical views):

• Christ cancels the accusatory record of our sins (the "debt" created by violating God's standards and/or imposed rules).
• This disarms both spiritual accusers and human legalistic judgment.
• It does not erase the Torah as God's good instruction but removes its condemning power for those in Christ (cf. Rom 7-8).

The forum reading protects Torah zeal by blaming only "extra-biblical additions." That's understandable, but the grammar and immediate context (forgiveness of trespasses → victory) point more to sin's debt than solely Sanhedrin dogmas. Both elements can coexist: human traditions amplify accusation, but the root is our guilt before God.

However, look what Grok did in your copy/paste:

"Core meaning: Compound of cheir (hand) + graphō (write) = "handwritten document." In everyday Koine Greek, this often meant a personally signed legal instrument: contract, receipt, declaration, oath, or bond."

Did I not say that bond, (from the ASV), was possibly correct and post it? And Grok posted the actual meaning of the compound word, (which I was about to do myself when I came back here), and why? Because we have only this one occurrence in all of scripture.

Again, just for impact: "Compound of cheir (hand) + graphō (write) = "handwritten document."

That's Grok admitting that. Why therefore does one even need to turn to Greco-Roman papyri and ostraca when we already know the meaning of the compound word? This appears to have been more of a search by scholars to find an alternative understanding of cheirographon by broadening its meaning because they simply do not like what it says.

I hate to say it, (I'm not much of a KJV fan), but in this case the KJV rendered cheirographon for exactly what it means.

Moreover look at Thayer's heretical statement on this word:

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
G5498 χειρόγραφον, χειρογραφου, τό (χείρ and γράφω), a handwriting; what one has written with his own hand (Polybius 30, 8, 4; Dionysius Halicarnassus 5, 8; others); specifically, a note of hand, or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to he returned at an appointed time (Tobit 5:3 Tobit 9:5; Plutarch, mor., p. 829 a. de vitand. aere al. 4, 3; Artemidorus Daldianus, oneir. 3, 40); metaphorically, applied in Colossians 2:14 ((where R. V. bond)) to the Mosaic law, which shews men to be chargeable with offences for which they must pay the penalty.

Not only does he state that Col 2:14 applies to the Torah, but he goes on to say it is being used metaphorically. Where does Thayer get the idea that cheirographon is being used by Paul metaphorically? Is it metaphoric in the archeological evidence in the image files I posted in Reply#3? Are they not handwritten dogmas and decrees, carved in stone, warning gentiles not to go beyond the wall of separation because it will result in their execution/death? And who put those warnings there? And what exactly was Paul speaking about in the Ephesians passage which also employs dogmasin. He said this wall of separation was torn down.

.......having broken down the middle partition-wall of the enclosure....... from Eph 2:14

Th enclosure is the temple enclosure. The middle partition wall separated the outer court of the gentiles from the inner precinct where, according to their Sanhedrin dogmas and decrees, gentiles were not allowed to enter. This itself appears to be much more likely metaphorical, but note that what he speaks of is not metaphorical: it was a real wall, in the real temple, separating and prohibiting gentiles from getting any closer to the temple beyond their own court, the court of the gentiles. The metaphor is in using real things to describe spiritual things, in this case closeness, being brought nearer to the Creator, (although in reality He does not dwell in temples made with the hands of men, but we need the metaphor so as to understand the concept being taught).

Has Grok really taken all of this into account?
It can only respond to what you ask about or put into it.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

However, look what Grok did in your copy/paste:

"Core meaning: Compound of cheir (hand) + graphō (write) = "handwritten document." In everyday Koine Greek, this often meant a personally signed legal instrument: contract, receipt, declaration, oath, or bond."

Did I not say that bond, (from the ASV), was possibly correct and post it? And Grok posted the actual meaning of the compound word, (which I was about to do myself when I came back here), and why? Because we have only this one occurrence in all of scripture.

Again, just for impact: "Compound of cheir (hand) + graphō (write) = "handwritten document."

That's Grok admitting that. Why therefore does one even need to turn to Greco-Roman papyri and ostraca when we already know the meaning of the compound word? This appears to have been more of a search by scholars to find an alternative understanding of cheirographon by broadening its meaning because they simply do not like what it says.

I hate to say it, (I'm not much of a KJV fan), but in this case the KJV rendered cheirographon for exactly what it means.

Moreover look at Thayer's heretical statement on this word:

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
G5498 χειρόγραφον, χειρογραφου, τό (χείρ and γράφω), a handwriting; what one has written with his own hand (Polybius 30, 8, 4; Dionysius Halicarnassus 5, 8; others); specifically, a note of hand, or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to he returned at an appointed time (Tobit 5:3 Tobit 9:5; Plutarch, mor., p. 829 a. de vitand. aere al. 4, 3; Artemidorus Daldianus, oneir. 3, 40); metaphorically, applied in Colossians 2:14 ((where R. V. bond)) to the Mosaic law, which shews men to be chargeable with offences for which they must pay the penalty.

Not only does he state that Col 2:14 applies to the Torah, but he goes on to say it is being used metaphorically. Where does Thayer get the idea that cheirographon is being used by Paul metaphorically? Is it metaphoric in the archeological evidence in the image files I posted in Reply#3? Are they not handwritten dogmas and decrees, carved in stone, warning gentiles not to go beyond the wall of separation because it will result in their execution/death? And who put those warnings there? And what exactly was Paul speaking about in the Ephesians passage which also employs dogmasin. He said this wall of separation was torn down.

.......having broken down the middle partition-wall of the enclosure....... from Eph 2:14

Th enclosure is the temple enclosure. The middle partition wall separated the outer court of the gentiles from the inner precinct where, according to their Sanhedrin dogmas and decrees, gentiles were not allowed to enter. This itself appears to be much more likely metaphorical, but note that what he speaks of is not metaphorical: it was a real wall, in the real temple, separating and prohibiting gentiles from getting any closer to the temple beyond their own court, the court of the gentiles. The metaphor is in using real things to describe spiritual things, in this case closeness, being brought nearer to the Creator, (although in reality He does not dwell in temples made with the hands of men, but we need the metaphor so as to understand the concept being taught).

Has Grok really taken all of this into account?
It can only respond to what you ask about or put into it.

I get it. I would see this a lot in Muslims and the New Atheists trying to disprove Christian claims with AI, when they don't understand all the stuff around the issues to get the results, not to mention using more spurious sources as well.

 

[dak]

I get it. I would see this a lot in Muslims and the New Atheists trying to disprove Christian claims with AI, when they don't understand all the stuff around the issues to get the results, not to mention using more spurious sources as well.

I suppose that would be similar, (Muslims and the New Atheists doing such a thing), but I was not suggesting that about you. Regardless of your faith background I already see you as a genuine truth seeker.

 

[dak]

――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――



And behold, a sower on a leukos-white horse went forth to sow, and in his hand was a toxon-seedbow: and a crown was given unto him, and he went forth conquering and to conquer, (by the seed of the Logos).

And after him there went forth a second rider on a pyrrhos-fiery red horse, and he had a name, Sopater Pyrrhos, the Red, and to him it was given to take peace from the land, that they should slay one another: and there was given unto him a great machaira-sword of spiritual warfare.

And there came a mighty voice, saying, Think not that I am come to bring peace upon the land: I came not to bring peace, but a machaira-sword. For I am come to sever a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and the enemies of a man shall be those of his own household. There shall be five in one house parted asunder, three against two, and two against three, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against her mother; mother in law against her daughter in law, and daughter in law against her mother in law.

And after that, behold, a rider on a black horse, and he had a name, Symeon Nijer, the Black, and he had a pair of scales in his hand: and there came famine upon the land, not a famine of bread, but a famine of hearing the Logos-Word of YHWH, (the Bread of Life).

And after him, behold, a cros-pale green horse, and the one seated thereon had a name, Death, and Hades followed with him. And there was given unto them authority over the fourth part of the land, to kill with the rhomphaia-sword which pierces even unto the soul, and with famine, and with death, and by the beasts of the land.

And there came a mighty voice, saying, Sheol and Abaddon are manifest before YHWH: how much more therefore the hearts of the sons of men! I know your works, and charity, and ministry, and faith, and your patience, and your last works are moreso than the first. But I have a few things against you, for you suffer that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, if they do not repent of their deeds. And I will kill her offspring with Death: and all the assemblies shall know that I am he who searches the reins and hearts, and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
.