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.

[CSMM]

[Replying to post 48 by 2timothy316]

You also have a problem with Paul claiming anyone can be related to Abraham without circumcision. That was a perpetual covenant in the flesh.


Gen 17:9And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 48 by 2timothy316]

As I said in a prior post, Eusebius said that Luke only wrote what he was present for in Acts. He did not use what others told him. This eliminates most of Acts today.

No it doesn't. Eusebius was not there at the writing of Acts. In fact he was born almost 2000 years after the book of Acts was completed. His work is not flawless. At times, he misinterprets and even misunderstands men and their actions. In chronology, he is sometimes inaccurate. These are known flaws in his work. He even ends up supporting the trinity doctrine and thus abandoning his previous stance of only One Almighty God.

The Muratorian canon said basically the same thing. The 3 versions of Paul's conversion contradict in Acts. Paul's own letter about what he did after his conversion contradicts the Acts version. You can't prove anything with Acts. WHere is the letter from James that Acts claims James wrote about circumcision?
There should be copies all over the place.

At anyrate whatever all Bible writers write is inspired by God. If there is a contradiction then it is our misunderstanding. Not the Bible writers fault. 2 Timothy 3:16.

There is no contradiction between Acts and what Paul wrote. What scriptures are you talking about? More than likely as before you're seeing what you want to see like before about the spies being from James which is not the case. They were not planted by anyone faithful the the teachings of Jesus. There is no indication that they were planted at all.

Both writings of Acts and Paul's letters are true and no letter from James is needed.

[CSMM]

[Replying to post 52 by 2timothy316]

Acts and Galatians totally contradict. Acts has Paul right away preaching in synagogues in Damascus. Paul claims he was to go to gentiles so he right away went to Asia..

Acts has him coming and going with the Apostles. Galatians said he only saw Peter and James when he finally went after 3 years.

Acts has Paul tell a conversion story that totally contradicts the conversion story first told in Acts. So Paul as a liar. Acts has him say the talking light gives him his mission directly instead of blinding him and sending him to Ananias to get his mission.

[CSMM]

[Replying to post 52 by 2timothy316]

Paul said he told Peter off after the men from James came and Peter backed off from Gentiles. James and Paul were clearly not on the same page. Paul complains of men spying on their freedom. James was a strict keeper of the law.
His followers, who were Ebionites, called Paul a fraud.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 52 by 2timothy316]

Acts and Galatians totally contradict. Acts has Paul right away preaching in synagogues in Damascus. Paul claims he was to go to gentiles so he right away went to Asia.

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. It describes his preaching activity up until the time he was forced to leave Damascus because of a plot against his life. 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) It is not possible to assign the trip into Arabia a definite place in the order of these events.

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� 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.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 52 by 2timothy316]

Paul said he told Peter off after the men from James came and Peter backed off from Gentiles. James and Paul were clearly not on the same page. Paul complains of men spying on their freedom. James was a strict keeper of the law.
His followers, who were Ebionites, called Paul a fraud.

James made his stance clear about the previous Law Code. in Ac 15:6-29.

Peter said, "And he [Jehovah] made no distinction at all between us and them, but purified their hearts by faith. So why are you now making a test of God by imposing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our forefathers nor we were capable of bearing?"

Barnabas and Paul spoke and there is no mention of the sabbath or a disagreement. Then James spoke in agreement with Peter saying, "Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood."

Nothing about the Sabbath at all. So they were all on the same page eventually. God's Holy Spirit unified them.

Here's James adding to what Peter said, he didn't reject what Peter said or correct him. James supported Peter's words.

[CSMM]

[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. You have to make up stories to make it fit, when it clearly is two different stories. We do not know who wrote the additions to Acts that Luke clearly did not write. No personal friend of Paul could have made all the mistakes in Acts compared to Paul's own version. The disappearing Ananias as well. It may have been a spoof on the Ananus who was high priest, and who Paul was supposedly dragging Jesus followers off for in his ravening wolf phase, that Jesus in Matthew warned against to be followed by sheep's skin.

[CSMM]

[Replying to post 56 by 2timothy316]

You have no letter from James as any stance. Luke likely never met James. Galatians has Paul rarely in Jerusalem. The only thing you have is a letter from James excluding gentiles in its address, and contradicting Paul's justified without works. You also have external writings showing James was a strict keeper of the law. Even Acts shows thousands of followers zealous for the law who were angered at Paul's teaching against it.. No one had authority to change it.

[CSMM]

[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.

[2timothy316]

[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. You have to make up stories to make it fit, when it clearly is two different stories.

Actually from what I see you have made up the story by creating your own timeline where there isn't one provided. Putting Paul in places that Acts doesn't disagree with but just doesn't mention. I am pointing out what you have added.

We do not know who wrote the additions to Acts that Luke clearly did not write.

The opening words of Acts refer to the Gospel of Luke as “the first account.� And since both accounts are addressed to the same individual, Theophilus, we know that Luke, though not signing his name, was the writer of Acts. (Lu 1:3; Ac 1:1) Both accounts have a similar style and wording. The Muratorian Fragment of the late second century C.E. also attributes the writership to Luke. Ecclesiastical writings of the second century C.E. by Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian of Carthage, when quoting from Acts, cite Luke as the writer.

You said 'clearly'? Not really.

No personal friend of Paul could have made all the mistakes in Acts compared to Paul's own version.

The mistakes are yours, not the Bible writer's. You're making mistakes were there are none by adding your own timeline where there is no timeline noted and misunderstanding what timeline there is by listening to a guy that in known for making more than a few chronological mistakes.

Acts doesn't hold every action of Paul. Acts 9:18, 19 says, "He [Paul] then got up and was baptized, and he ate some food and gained strength." This 'gaining strength', Luke doesn't tell us about the period of time or where Paul did this. But Paul does tell us in his own words in Gal 1:17 where he 'gained strength'. You have assumed that Paul gained strength in Damascus or Jerusalem. But Luke doesn't actually say where and you have mistaken it for a contradiction.