Just another little disagreement as to what conclusions can be reached in
reading a particular passage in the Bible.
Blainerb
In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:10:10 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dean, the words of Romans 14 eliminates all holy days. To escape
this conclusion, one must add some sort of contextual
consideration. Such is perfectedly permissible ... the
larger context of a passage is always an important
consideration. But, your conclusions regarding the
observance of the sabbath is based upon this contextual consideration and not
upon the literal wording of the passage. You could be
right BUT not necessarily. Agreed? So there is room
for disagreement on this issue (?)
jd
cd: If Romans 14 eliminates all Holy Days why then did
Christ and Paul keep those Holy Days? Why did the early Christians keep the
Sat. Sabb. and honor the first day?On considering the Contextual meaning
relating of the passage in Question one must insert the passage into the
context of the entire chapter or the meaning of the passage will be
lost-and once that is done insert the chapter into the entire Bible. The
context of the chapter deals with eating herbs or meats on Holy days and
to not judge ones brother if they eat herbs or eat other foods. No where in
the context of this passage does it mention the Sabbath-it is speaking of the
Feasts of Israel (ie called Holy Days). Is there not a Commentary available
for you or Terry to research?If not E-Sword is a good starting place.Your
argument would be better fought using Col 2:6. Romans 14:5 Is teaching us to
be fully persuaded that there is not sin involved-breaking a commandment is
sin therefore the Sabbath is obligatory.
|
- Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Blainerb473
-
