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 38 by JehovahsWitness]

Only Paul dropped the law, and someone edited Peter into Acts.. EUsebius tells what was in the Bible. He said in Acts there was only what Luke witnessed and not what others told him. He did not see Peter having a vision about gentiles.. Isaiah proves followers of YHWH had to keep the Sabbath. Ezekiel shows uncircumcised foreigners would not be allowed in his holy place.

9Thus says the Lord GOD, "No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary.

IMHO EL ELyon was the Father Jesus was talking about. Not YHWH, who was a son,as shown in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX. YHWH only inherited Jacob according to Deuteronomy 32, from Elyon. You can check out the ESV for a recent Bible version. The DSS was Q4 Deut if I recall correctly. There are LXX versions online. The Nations were divided by the number of the sons of God. The LXX has angels of God and sons of God, so the DSS version is backed up (and earlier than the MT).. The NT writers all used the LXX for their quotes. Hebrews quotes the LXX and NOT the MT in your bibles. So no one should diss the LXX.[/quote]

[CSMM]

[Replying to post 40 by 2timothy316]

Galatians 2. Paul complains about spies, and the men from James, and he puts Peter down for separating from gentiles. It is obvious they were not on the same page.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 40 by 2timothy316]

Galatians 2. Paul complains about spies, and the men from James, and he puts Peter down for separating from gentiles. It is obvious they were not on the same page.

Ahhh I see the confusion now.

Do you know why it says 'false brothers' are there because of James? Acts 12:17 "But he [Peter] motioned to them with his hand to be silent and told them in detail how Jehovah had brought him out of the prison, and he said: “Report these things to James and the brothers.� With that he went out and traveled to another place."

Those other so-called brothers were there to deliver the account of how God helped Peter escape prison to James and others. There is no indication that Peter or James knew what kind of 'brothers' these guys were as this was the first time James had even met these people. But it is clear that Paul called them all out on their behavior and all those with the right heart responded correctly. James was one of them according to Acts 15 starting at verse 13.

So neither Peter or James knew what kind of 'false brothers' these people were until Paul pointed it out.

[CSMM]

[Replying to post 43 by 2timothy316]

Yes I know why Paul was upset about James and Peter's behavior towards gentiles. They were not on the same page. Paul told Peter off. By the end of Acts, even Barnabas left Paul. Most of Acts was fabricated, but it does have James and thousands zealous for the law, and angry at Paul's false teaching.



Acts 21:20When they heard this, they glorified God. Then they said to Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the Law. 21But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs.…

[bluethread]

So, where does one find that in the explicit explanation of it's purpose in Ex. 20:11? Was the creation of the world on the other six days nonspiritual activity on Adonai's part?

Principles don't come in explicit statement, one has to meditate on that which is not said but implied. Take the law of love of neighbour. If we understand the principle, although it cannot be found explicty in the bible, we will understand that deliberately running them over with your car violates the principle. However there is no mention of cars in the bible.

JW

However, you did not say that is A principle that you believe is implied after some meditation. You said, "The principal upon which the Sabbath law is based ...". The principle on which the Sabbath law is based is clearly stated in Ex. 20:11 as a commemoration of the creation. One might believe there are other principles that are implied, but they are not the basis of Shabbat.

Regarding the commandment to love one's neighbor, the point is clearly stated as referring to taking vengeance and bearing a grudge. Yeshua did not change that. He responded to a question regard who is one's neighbor, by telling a story to show what a neighbor is.

[JehovahsWitness]

However, you did not say that is A principle that you believe is implied after some meditation. You said, "The principal upon which the Sabbath law is based ...".

Yes that is correct I did say the words above. I told you the principle, or at least one of the principle upon which the law is based. I enlarged on how we can arrive at the principle because you asked me to show you explicit mention of the principle. I explained that you won't neccessarily see a "explicit verses" saying "this is the principle" because you asked me to show you one.

" The principle on which the Sabbath law is based is clearly stated in Ex. 20:11 as a commemoration of the creation.

Yes, I don't disagree in that, the Sabbath law is definitely related to the 7th day rest mentioned in Genesis. Did you have a point to make in this regard?

[JehovahsWitness]

IMHO EL ELyon was the Father Jesus was talking about. Not YHWH, who was a son,as shown in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX. YHWH only inherited Jacob according to Deuteronomy 32

So you don't believe YHWH (Jehovah in English) was the name of the God of the Jewish people, is that right? You base this on Deut 32? Which verse exactly? Whose "son" do you believe Jehovah to be? (I take it you believe YHWH (Jehovah) to be a human son of a bible character... feel free to explain more.







JW

ps: As one of Jehovah's Witnesses we believe the bible canon to be authorative, if Eusebius said anything that is in conflict with scripture we will favor scripture. If you feel capable of making a case as to why we should place Eusebius' authority over that of God's word the bible feel free but until then I'll simply ignore that point.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 43 by 2timothy316]

Yes I know why Paul was upset about James and Peter's behavior towards gentiles. They were not on the same page. Paul told Peter off. By the end of Acts, even Barnabas left Paul. Most of Acts was fabricated, but it does have James and thousands zealous for the law, and angry at Paul's false teaching.

I don't see this in scripture at all. It appears you have been taught to believe this. I see only conjecture and extreme speculation. There is no evidence that Acts was fabricated. Only your word which I see no evidence to be true. It's as if you're reading the reports of fiction but refusing to read the solution to the fiction. I'll go ahead and give you some insight on human behavior. We all don't see eye to eye a first with some people when a solution is not clear. It was the same back in the 1st century but they dealt with it and the majority stayed unified regardless and that is the point of Acts. You know, the part that you don't like and can't accept.

Acts 21:20When they heard this, they glorified God. Then they said to Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the Law. 21But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs.…

Those that said that to Paul were not true Christians. From the Christian Apostles in Jerusalem, they decided what was necessary for Jews and Gentile alike who wanted to follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. Circumcision was not mentioned. Ac 15:6-29. Paul said it best, "where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, foreigner, Scythʹi·an, slave, or freeman; but Christ is all things and in all." Col 3:11 There is no law against or for circumcision under the Law of the Christ. So if someone wanted to get circumcised that's fine, they are breaking no law under the Law of the Christ. Those that demanded it were missing the whole point of circumcision. One can be physically circumcised but if their heart wasn't spiritually exposed to God then that physical circumcision means nothing. Notice Jeremiah’s words to Israel in his day. “All the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart.� Jer 9:25, 26.

[bluethread]

However, you did not say that is A principle that you believe is implied after some meditation. You said, "The principal upon which the Sabbath law is based ...".

Yes that is correct I did say the words above. I told you the principle, or at least one of the principle upon which the law is based. I enlarged on how we can arrive at the principle because you asked me to show you explicit mention of the principle. I explained that you won't neccessarily see a "explicit verses" saying "this is the principle" because you asked me to show you one.

" The principle on which the Sabbath law is based is clearly stated in Ex. 20:11 as a commemoration of the creation.

Yes, I don't disagree in that, the Sabbath law is definitely related to the 7th day rest mentioned in Genesis. Did you have a point to make in this regard?

My point is that is the principle on which it is based. Yes, one can extrapolate certain principles related to Shabbat, but those are not the principles on which Shabbat is based.

[CSMM]

[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. 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.

You can't partake of a passover unless circumcised in the flesh, and you can't enter YHWH's sanctuary unless circumcised in the flesh AND heart..

Ez44:9“Thus says the Lord GOD: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary.

So uncircumcised gentiles can't be priests. The Sabbath also is required as in Isaiah 56.