Saturday and Sunday

[Meowzltov]

It is clear that in order for the apostles to appease the Jews to get a hear in by them, they must be seen to follow the Jewish customary ways. They did so as a Trojan Horse to penetrate the hearts of the Torah observers without being detected, dismissed and kicked out without getting the chance to preach to their own people.

I don't think this for a second.

 

[Berean777]

I don't think this for a second.

Ok that is one vote of confidence. Let us hear from other brothers and sisters what they think as well.

 

[BobRyan]

The apostles met on Sunday to break bread (Acts 20). Gentiles were released from Sabbath observance. (Acts 15). Sounds pretty official to me.

Acts 15 makes no mention of the Sabbath and no mention of the command to Love God and no mention of the command not to take God's name in vain.

You appeal to a red herring -- misdirection.

 

[BobRyan]

It was already scripture that the 613 were given to Israel and its converts (who were then Israel) and not to the Gentiles. So they changed nothing.

Those who rely on that narrow view - forget to tell you that "the NEW COVENANT was made with the HOUSE of ISRAEL and the HOUSE OF JUDAH" as if -- you would not put 2+2 together in Jer 31:31-33 and Hebrews 8:6-10.

That little rabbit trail does not go very far.

 

[BobRyan]

Saturday is the Sabbath.

The seventh day is the Sabbath.

NO TEXT says "week day 1" is the Lord's day OR that week-day-1 is the Sabbath nor "the Christian Sabbath".

And we all know it.

 

[JohnRabbit]

excellent points, all!

good job, BobRyan!

 

[bugkiller]

Those who rely on that narrow view - forget to tell you that "the NEW COVENANT was made with the HOUSE of ISRAEL and the HOUSE OF JUDAH" as if -- you would not put 2+2 together in Jer 31:31-33 and Hebrews 8:6-10.

That little rabbit trail does not go very far.

Yeah wile others will indicate Acts of the Apostles is untrue in its testimony about gentiles being included. The same will also deny the words of Jesus recorded in John's Gospel.

bugkiller

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Paul was told to put his customary Jewish outfit on and portray himself under the law to show to the Jews that the Jewish apostles are not teaching contrary to the law of Moses. James then states that the Gentiles are not to follow this instruction. Then Paul set out to convince the Torah observers, all the while the opposition were accusing the apostles of being against the people, and the law, and this place (Temple): and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place (Temple).

It is clear that in order for the apostles to appease the Jews to get a hear in by them, they must be seen to follow the Jewish customary ways. They did so as a Trojan Horse to penetrate the hearts of the Torah observers without being detected, dismissed and kicked out without getting the chance to preach to their own people.

The apostles used this method as a Trojan horse to achieve their directive to preach the gospel into the hearts of the citizens all the while, while appearing to not have left Torah observances. This is evident because of the ways they were kicked out a number of times from the temple, whenever they tried to access the hearts of Jews in preaching to them.

What gives this away is that the accusers tried to portray the apostles in a bad light to show that they even brought along with them Greeks to the temple, hence polluting the Holy place.

That is why Paul is instructed by James:

Acts 21:23-24
Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

Paul was instructed to just pretend and put on the cover of an obedient Torah observer. James didn't say observe the Torah, quiet the opposite. So that this pretentious act isn't witnessed and talked about by the believing Gentiles, James would further instruct to tell the Gentiles the following:

Acts 21:25
As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

It would be hypocritical for the apostles to ask Paul to observe the Torah whilst deliberately instructing the Gentiles that they are not to. This pretentious ACT, hence the ACT OF THE APOSTLES, by the apostles was just to fish along their own people by pretending to be observers of the law, nothing more and nothing less.

God bless

Why was Peter so concerned when some friends of James came to Antioch and then Peter didn't eat with the gentile believers?
Were the gentile believers eating what was forbidden by Jews to eat? Curious

Galatians 2:
11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong.
12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision.
13 As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.


.

 

[Berean777]

Why was Peter so concerned when some friends of James came to Antioch and then Peter didn't eat with the gentile believers?
Were the gentile believers eating what was forbidden by Jews to eat? Curious

Galatians 2:
11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong.
12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision.
13 As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.


.

Very good find!

 

[JohnRabbit]

Why was Peter so concerned when some friends of James came to Antioch and then Peter didn't eat with the gentile believers?
Were the gentile believers eating what was forbidden by Jews to eat? Curious

Galatians 2:
11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong.
12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision.
13 As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.


.

the jews were very discriminatory when it came to the gentiles. they had taken the "works of the law" or "works of law" to a "whole 'nother" level (see matthew 15:1-12, john 18:28).

for instance, the jews would avoid touching a gentile in fear of being defiled because they didn't know if the gentile had touch a dead body - numbers 19:11-13. (and for similar reasons)

so peter didn't want to be seen as "defiled" in the eyes of the jews, and in this case it's because the gentiles were not circumcised - per verse 12 (again, see matthew 15:12, john 18:28).

so paul simply told peter that they shouldn't send out mixed signals to the gentiles and spent the rest of the chapter and on into the rest of the book explaining that the "works of the law" means that you're relying on yourself for cleansing and leave the sacrifice of the Christ of no effect.

paul was showing peter that the jews needed to understand the christian is justified by faith and not by "works of law"!

and gal 2:16 is basically the theme of galatians:

Galatians 2:16(NKJV)
16knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

 

[BobRyan]

Why was Peter so concerned when some friends of James came to Antioch and then Peter didn't eat with the gentile believers?
Were the gentile believers eating what was forbidden by Jews to eat? Curious

Not in the actual Bible. Some might tell such stories using their own "imagination" as their source "text".

But no actual text says that.

Galatians 2:
11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong.
12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision.
13 As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

This issue was "eating WITH" the Gentiles -- it says nothing about not eating the same food or drinking the same water.

Peter repeats that same "man made tradition" about eating WITH the gentiles and about entering the home of a gentile - in Acts 11 where PETER said the lesson is "call no MAN unclean" -- just when some were hoping for "call no rat sandwich unclean" on threads that discuss a similar topic.

There IS a Gospel for 'call no man unclean' -- but there is no such thing as the "rat sandwich gospel' -- Christ did not die on the cross so Christians can eat rats.

 

[BobRyan]

===================================
Dies Domini

From the Sabbath to Sunday

18. Because the Third (the Sabbath) Commandment depends upon the remembrance of God's saving works and because Christians saw the definitive time inaugurated by Christ as a new beginning, they made the first day after the Sabbath a festive day, for that was the day on which the Lord rose from the dead. The Paschal Mystery of Christ is the full revelation of the mystery of the world's origin, the climax of the history of salvation and the anticipation of the eschatological fulfilment of the world. What God accomplished in Creation and wrought for his People in the Exodus has found its fullest expression in Christ's Death and Resurrection, though its definitive fulfilment will not come until the Parousia, when Christ returns in glory. In him, the "spiritual" meaning of the Sabbath is fully realized, as Saint Gregory the Great declares: "For us, the true Sabbath is the person of our Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ".(14) This is why the joy with which God, on humanity's first Sabbath, contemplates all that was created from nothing, is now expressed in the joy with which Christ, on Easter Sunday, appeared to his disciples, bringing the gift of peace and the gift of the Spirit (cf. Jn 20:19-23). It was in the Paschal Mystery that humanity, and with it the whole creation, "groaning in birth-pangs until now" (Rom 8:22), came to know its new "exodus" into the freedom of God's children who can cry out with Christ, "Abba, Father!" (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). In the light of this mystery, the meaning of the Old Testament precept concerning the Lord's Day is recovered, perfected and fully revealed in the glory which shines on the face of the Risen Christ (cf. 2 Cor 4:6). We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath", from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes the dies Christi!

=============================================

The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II - argues the SAME two points.

1965 -- first published 1959

(from "The Faith Explained" page 243

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day- which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

========================================

Question for non-Catholics.

Should non-Catholics follow the Catholic lead on this point??...

or the Bible?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Meowzltov]

Acts 15 makes no mention of the Sabbath and no mention of the command to Love God and no mention of the command not to take God's name in vain.

You appeal to a red herring -- misdirection.

Gentiles were released from observing laws peculiar to Jews. Since observing the Sabbath has to do with remembering the Exodus from Egypt, it is a very Jewish thing. Thus it is included in those laws not binding on Gentiles.

 

[Meowzltov]

Those who rely on that narrow view - forget to tell you that "the NEW COVENANT was made with the HOUSE of ISRAEL and the HOUSE OF JUDAH" as if -- you would not put 2+2 together in Jer 31:31-33 and Hebrews 8:6-10.

That little rabbit trail does not go very far.

This has nothing to do with my point. Gentile believers in Acts 15 were specifically not required to become Jews.

 

[Meowzltov]

EVEN your own Catechism claims that the Sabbath commandment is to be fulfilled by Catholics by weekly worship services -- instead of claiming 'the Sabbath commandment is to be ignored by Catholics... there are only 9 commandments for Catholics'

OMGosh. Can you only bring up rehashed stuff that I have already replied to????????

 

[bugkiller]

Not in the actual Bible. Some might tell such stories using their own "imagination" as their source "text".

But no actual text says that.

Galatians 2:
11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong.
12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision.
13 As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

This issue was "eating WITH" the Gentiles -- it says nothing about not eating the same food or drinking the same water.

Peter repeats that same "man made tradition" about eating WITH the gentiles and about entering the home of a gentile - in Acts 11 where PETER said the lesson is "call no MAN unclean" -- just when some were hoping for "call no rat sandwich unclean" on threads that discuss a similar topic.

There IS a Gospel for 'call no man unclean' -- but there is no such thing as the "rat sandwich gospel' -- Christ did not die on the cross so Christians can eat rats.

But God made a covenant with Noah permitting such.

bugkiller

 

[Meowzltov]

But God made a covenant with Noah permitting such.

bugkiller

Noah was a Gentile.

 

[bugkiller]

Noah was a Gentile.

So am I.

bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

Gentiles were released from observing laws peculiar to Jews

"laws peculiar to Jews" is that you 'quoting you' again?

At some point the Bible should be of interest to you.

 

[BobRyan]

This has nothing to do with my point. Gentile believers in Acts 15 were specifically not required to become Jews.

hint: We are not talking about "becoming Jews".

Even your own Pope John Paul II admits to this glaringly obvious Bible detail the Ten Commandments were never "for just Jews" -- and your own denomination knows it.

Consider joining him instead of opposing him so often.