amen. hard to be fully persuaded with all the ambiguity tho. Where you read "NT against Sabbath," i read reaffirmation for it
ok and i think a lot of the prob w/A238 is that Pents have seen fit to append it, not the verse as it stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord
Why then at the council meeting in Acts did the elders decide to lay on the Gentiles no further burden than they abstain from pollutions of idols, from fornication, and from things strangled with blood. Why were those 3 things chosen to be mentioned for the Gentiles to follow - when all 3 things were clearly prohibited in the OT? This would have been a perfect place for the elders to command the Gentiles to be sure and obey the Sabbath, but there is no record of them doing that. They emphasized 3 items from OT law keeping as essential for the Gentiles to keep, nothing more. Hmmm.
|
very nice. It might also be noted that @ "The Sabbath was made for man..." would have been a great spot for Christ to abolish the Sabbath, and yet He did not. Actually, there is a sense in which He had just wiped it out, legally speaking, but i think we are going to be hard-pressed to improve upon
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath,"
iow, let no one get you all plexed about your "days," and follow your heart.
Even for...gag...Easter, i guess.
Threaded Mode
