Why do we no longer keep the Sabbath?

[brianbbs67]

Show me how God's day of rest was changed by Him. I have studied Theology and read Tanakh, KJ, Strong's, Thomson, NKJ and many others. God says he does not change, why would his day? All of my study, shows that there are lots of beliefs, some right to me , others not. But, since Peter's church worshipped on the Sabbath, why are we not?

Constantine decreed Sunday. Roman church(325) approved and adopted "christmas" and other pagan traditions.

If we follow as Christ instructed, known of this would hold water. I am sure this has been covered before, but I am truly curious.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 55 by 2timothy316]

My mistake, I see I wrote Asia when I meant to write Arabia. The Letter to Galatians was clear on his timeline. Acts contradicts Paul's own story.

Did Paul go to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion to consult with the apostles?

The details between Paul and Luke are not irrreconcilable neither can they be catagorized as "embellishment" which implies untruths.[ul]The record at Acts 9:20-25 describes Paul’s spending time with the disciples in Damascus and “immediately� beginning to preach in the synagogues there. ... On the other hand, Paul’s letter to the Galatians speaks of his going off into Arabia after his conversion and then of his returning to Damascus. (Ga 1:15-17) ..

Paul may have gone into Arabia right after his conversion in order to meditate on God’s will for him. In such a case, Luke’s use of the word “immediately� then would mean that immediately upon his return to Damascus and upon associating with the disciples there, Paul began his preaching.

However, at Galatians 1:17 Paul is evidently emphasizing the fact that he did not immediately go up to Jerusalem; that the only place outside of Damascus to which he went during that early period was Arabia. So, the trip to Arabia does not necessarily have to have come immediately after his conversion. It may be that Paul first spent some days in Damascus and quickly made public renunciation of his previous course of opposition by expressing his faith in Christ in the synagogues. Thereafter he may have made his trip into Arabia (the actual purpose of which is undisclosed) and upon his return continued his preaching in Damascus, becoming stronger in it to the point that his opposers sought to put him to death. The two accounts are complementary rather than contradictory, and the only question is as to the precise order of events, which simply is not provided.[/ul] - Bible Encyclopedia Insight on the Scritpures Vol II p 586

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus called Peter "Satan" and a part of a trap or snare. Why anyone would follow Peter after that, and after his denials of Jesus, is beyond me.

Jesus didn't call Peter Satan, he told Satan to "get behind him" after Peter had made a misguided and inaccurate remark. More importantly Jesus didn't reject Peter so there is no reason for Christians to.

Peter, after this incident was chosen to be privileged to see the tranfiguration, he (Peter) was entrusted after this incident to arrange for and participate in the Memorial (Last supper) and Jesus included Peter in those he commended as being his most loyal friends; evidently Jesus did not hold the "Get behind me Satan" against him.


Was Peter forgiven for denying Jesus?

While it would be wrong to underestimate Peter's denial of Jesus, Jesus himself predicted this would be a temporary fall that he (Jesus) would not hold it against him. Jesus added "... after you have returned, strengthen your brothers". So not only would Jesus view Peter as "returned" to a favorable standing but this makes it clear Jesus had a further use for Peter. After Jesus resurrection Jesus only appeared Peter and specifically asked him to carry on his work.

[CSMM]

[Replying to post 60 by 2timothy316]

I am not adding a timeline. You just can't fit the two stories together. Paul created the timeline when he says what he did and when. Straight to Arabia and not conferring with humans. Acts has him getting the message from Ananias. Acts has him in Jerusalem coming and going with Apostles when Paul says he saw none other than Peter and supposedly James after 3 years. Paul said he wasn't known by face in Judea.

Galatians 1: 18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 20(In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.


That certainly doesn't fit Acts' version of Paul with Apostles coming and going.

He did not go to Jerusalem again for 14 years!!

[CSMM]

[Replying to post 62 by JehovahsWitness]

You are making something up that the Gospel of Matthew did NOT say. Jesus said directly to Peter and called him Satan. It doesn't say Jesus said to Satan. It is clear :

23But he turned and said TO***PETER***, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrancef to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.�

The word he called Peter in Greek is part of a trap or snare, like can be found in Isaiah 8 for a stumbling block.

Jesus also said there would be false people who could possibly fool even the elect. So you can't trust Peter's backing Paul. Jesus said so in Matthew's warnings.

â—„ 4625. skandalon â–º
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
stumbling block.
Scandal; probably from a derivative of kampto; a trap-stick (bent sapling), i.e. Snare


Mt 24:
For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

That seems to be what happened in Acts.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 60 by 2timothy316]

I am not adding a timeline. You just can't fit the two stories together.

Yes you did and I can and I did.

[CSMM]

[Replying to post 65 by 2timothy316]

not.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 64 by CSMM]

The word "called" is not in the scripture, you just made that up, adding a word that is not there.

All we know is what Jesus said and that's not the same thing. For example, if said TO you: "All pedophiles should be in jail", I am not necessarily calling YOU a pedophile; Jesus wasn't even looking at Peter when he said the words in question. More importantly as I outlined, it is abundantly clear that following this incident, Jesus did NOT view Peter either as condemned or a traitor and he (Jesus) continued to have and voice his confidence in Peter's integrity.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Galatians 1: 18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. [...]


That certainly doesn't fit Acts' version of Paul with Apostles coming and going.

He did not go to Jerusalem again for 14 years!!

Can you prove this? Galatians doesn't mention 14 years.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 56 by 2timothy316]

Jesus called Peter "Satan" and a part of a trap or snare. Why anyone would follow Peter after that, and after his denials of Jesus, is beyond me. Jesus said he would deny to the father anyone who would deny him. The leader of the church after James was murdered at the Temple was Simon Clopas. Simon Cephas may have been a created character for the Romans.

Don't know the Simons offhand. But, it is clear Christ wanted his church established by him for whatever reasons. Wasn't Peter a blind man to begin with? Until healed by Christ?

"feed my sheep speech"?

[brianbbs67]

I am enjoying the debate. But, no one has told me how God released or changed the Sabbath. The other details can be argued(Acts). But, since none of us were there and oral tradition written later can be a bit off, what do we hold true, definitely ?

The 7th day seems to be the simplest, which cuts through.