Replies

Romans 14 1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

1.In context the verse you quoted is referring to "days" that have something to do with eating and drinking. This could have been fasting days or a controversy about vegetarianism.

2. When the sabbath of the Lord is being referred to in scipture there are specific greek words that are used...every time. None of these are used in these verses.

3. Paul was accused of many things. But he was never accused of sabbath breaking or teaching others to break the sabbath. If his audience understood that he was advocating this there would have been controversy. He wasn't so there wasn't.

4. Paul's own words affirm that he believed in the validity of the scriptural sabbath of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Act 24:13 Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me.
Act 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

5. The notion that this verse supports breaking a commandment of the Lord Jesus Christ is traditional revisionism of holy scripture.

This could have been fasting days or a controversy about vegetarianism.

COULD have been?

5. The notion that this verse supports breaking a commandment of the Lord Jesus Christ is traditional revisionism of holy scripture.

We sure can't have any of THAT; can we!!

Matthew 12:1-14

1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath."
3 But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions,
4 how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?
5 "Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?
6 "But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.
7 "But if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the innocent.