|
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 12/18/2005 11:05:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Just another little disagreement as to what conclusions can be reached in reading a particular passage in the Bible.
Blainerb
cd: The bible say to study to show thyself approved. Some passages must be studied-I see no problem here-you bias against the Bible is showing Blain-better cover it.
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 Dean Moore
-
