Textual Discrepancies In Colossians 2:18

[Hidden In Him]

Well people earn PhDs by writing about the 'Colossian Heresy,' but I don't think you'll find that it was a Jewish sect. It seems to have been some sort of proto-gnosticism that was inflicting the church in Colosse...

I've read this interpretation a couple dozen times over myself, Steve, but not only does it concoct a supposed heresy out of nothing (i.e. as there is no historical evidence for it whatsoever), but it totally contradicts what is known of true NT-era Gnosticism. The Gnostics utterly despised the Jewish laws, and considered them to be nothing more than the arbitrary, nonsensical and needless commands of a cruel and evil god who had given them to men only to keep them under subjection. This is why they rejected them out of hand completely. That this sect would in some way be proto-typical of early Gnosticism or an amalgamation of early Gnosticism with anything else is completely illogical.

About it not being a Jewish sect (or one with strong Jewish leanings), to argue this, one would again also have to establish from the historical record that there was some heretical religious group in existence during NT times that had adopted Jewish law without being Jewish.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I wonder, is the OP's post referring to humans worshiping angels or Angels worshiping humans?

'Angelic worship' of the beguiler, pretending 'angel' who judges and condemns true believers whose Nourishment ministered is Christ the Substance of their eating and drinking while holding to the Head of Christ's Own, the Body growing with the growth of God.

 

[marks]

So for those interested in discussing it, which is the correct reading? I hold that the TR reading is illogical, as no man can investigate or "intrude" into anything he has not seen. He can only investigate into what he thinks he has.

I've seen many intrude into what they have not seen. All the time on forums, I think.

 

[marks]

So for those interested in discussing it, which is the correct reading? I hold that the TR reading is illogical, as no man can investigate or "intrude" into anything he has not seen. He can only investigate into what he thinks he has.

Hi HIH,

Am I understanding you correctly here, that your methodology for manuscript criticism is, which view makes more sense to you?

If it seems illogical, then it must not be correct?

Much love!

 

[Nancy]

I've seen many intrude into what they have not seen. All the time on forums, I think.

Glad to see you back @marks !

 

[marks]

Glad to see you back @marks !

Thank you Nancy!

Good to be back! Little trip to the mountains, my wife and I left all the tech at home. I even forgot I had a cell phone!

Much love!

 

[Hidden In Him]

Hi HIH,

Am I understanding you correctly here, that your methodology for manuscript criticism is, which view makes more sense to you?

If it seems illogical, then it must not be correct?

Much love!

Correct. I view the reading "investigating into those things he has not seen" as an obvious addition to the original text, in an attempt to deny that the heretics have actually even seen anything at all. But this is unnecessary. As you were saying, people "see" things theologically all the time, but this does not necessitate that what they are "seeing" is true. It simply means they think they see something in the word, and they are investigating into it deeper to see if it has even more "merit."

As you say, I see this on the forums continually. People teaching really bad theology on numerous issues, and who think they see it taught in this verse, and this passage, and in another verse, etc.

Anyway, yes. The idea that one would investigate into things one has never even seen is illogical to me, and appears to be an addition to the text.

Hope you had a great New Years. I'm too busy for much back and forth, so I may have to leave it at that right now, but thanks for the post, and be blessed. Talk to you whenever I can : )

 

[marks]

Correct. I view the reading "investigating into those things he has not seen" as an obvious addition to the original text, in an attempt to deny that the heretics have actually even seen anything at all. But this is unnecessary. As you were saying, people "see" things theologically all the time, but this does not necessitate that what they are "seeing" is true. It simply means they think they see something in the word, and they are investigating into it deeper to see if it has even more "merit."

Hi HIH,

Thank you for your response though with little time!

I have to say that I prefer to conform my thinking and what seems logical to me to whatever appears to me to have the most defensible reading based entirely on the manuscripts.

If the manuscript evidence is strong for one reading, but I select another reading because it makes sense to me that way, how can I be certain that I'm not just making it read according to my predetermined theology?

Anyway, that's how I look at things.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Couldn't remember if I posted an actual detailed answer to the question . . .

18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly 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 increase that is from God. (Colossians 2:18-19, KJV).

Let no one cheat you of your reward, by any of these wrong things . . .

taking delight in false humility
worship of angels
intruding into things . . . ? not seen?
vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind
not holding fast to the Head

All of these are the wrong things, and will rob one of their reward.

So the question is, Intruding or Investigating into things Seen or Not Seen.

I hold that the TR reading is illogical, as no man can investigate or "intrude" into anything he has not seen. He can only investigate into what he thinks he has.

The argument is that someone can only intrude or investigate what they think they have in fact seen.

This argument presupposes that the person in question is infallible on this point, and under no circumstances might be mistaken, thinking that they have seen when they have not.

Since fruitfulness in our lives brings reward, getting off that pathway of works that God prearranged will rob us of that reward.

The passage applies to those who have not seen, and intruding into what you actually haven't seen though you think you do is to walk in blindness, you think you know but you don't, you think you're going the right direction but you're not.

Investigating, the alternative translation being proposed, I see that God often says that He does not want us to be ignorant, that we are to make certain about things, I don't see how Investigation belongs on a list of things that are wrong and will steal away your reward. That seems illogical to me, at least aside from trying to learn more about evil things. But as a blanket statement I don't see it.

Anyway, I know there may be no response, that's OK,

Much love!