If you Love Me - KEEP My Commandments

[BABerean2]

Matthew 16:15-19
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. rsv

Are you implying that Peter is the rock, instead of Christ?

 

[Jan001]

Are you implying that Peter is the rock, instead of Christ?

Christ is the ROCK, the Cornerstone of the Church, and He is ruling right now over all the earth from heaven. Peter is the Rock, Jesus' representative upon the earth, in the same capacity for the NC as Moses was for the OC. Peter's office is above the offices of the other apostles of the NC just as Moses' office was above the offices that the Judges held under the OC.

Exodus 18:19-27
Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God be with you! You shall represent the people before God, and bring their cases to God; 20 and you shall teach them the statutes and the decisions, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do. 21 Moreover choose able men from all the people, such as fear God, men who are trustworthy and who hate a bribe; and place such men over the people as rulers of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. 22 And let them judge the people at all times; every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves; so it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. 23 If you do this, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace.”
24 So Moses gave heed to the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. 25 Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. 26 And they judged the people at all times; hard cases they brought to Moses, but any small matter they decided themselves. rsv​

 

[BABerean2]

Christ is the ROCK, the Cornerstone of the Church, and He is ruling right now over all the earth from heaven. Peter is the Rock, Jesus' representative upon the earth, in the same capacity for the NC as Moses was for the OC. Peter's office is above the offices of the other apostles of the NC just as Moses' office was above the offices that the Judges held under the OC.

You might want to read the Book of Hebrews again.

Christ is the only mediator between God and man in the New Covenant.

(Heb 7:22)　 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.
(Heb 7:23)　 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing.
(Heb 7:24)　 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood.
(Heb 7:25)　 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
(Heb 7:26)　 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens;
(Heb 7:27)　 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
(Heb 7:28)　 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

Heb 8:6　 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.　



All men are made of the same rotten flesh that I am made of.

Peter's office is not above that of the Apostle Paul. They were both Apostles in the same way.
There was an occasion when Paul had to correct Peter in regard to the Galatian believers.

Gal_2:11　 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

.

 

[Jan001]

You might want to read the Book of Hebrews again.

Christ is the only mediator between God and man in the New Covenant.

(Heb 7:22)　 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.
(Heb 7:23)　 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing.
(Heb 7:24)　 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood.
(Heb 7:25)　 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
(Heb 7:26)　 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens;
(Heb 7:27)　 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
(Heb 7:28)　 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

Heb 8:6　 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.　



All men are made of the same rotten flesh that I am made of.

Peter's office is not above that of the Apostle Paul. They were both Apostles in the same way.
There was an occasion when Paul had to correct Peter in regard to the Galatian believers.

Gal_2:11　 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

.

Paul did not correct Peter. Paul corrected Cephas, one of the 70/72 disciples, according to Eusebius, the man who wrote the history of the early church. Look at the original Greek translation for this passage. Peter is the apostle to the circumcised. Cephas is the disciple who was chastised by Paul.

Peter actually stood up to all the Jews who criticized his eating with the Gentiles. Check out Acts 10 and Acts 11. Peter was not afraid of any Jews after Jesus rose from the dead.


I am not rotten and my deeds done for Jesus are righteous deeds.

I was first sanctified/made holy/saved by Jesus Christ by my own baptism which He commanded in Matthew 28:18-20. I became His faithful disciple when I received Baptism. Baptism washed away all my sins. Now, I keep myself saved/sanctified by obeying Jesus' commandments to the best of my ability with the Holy Spirit's help. If I continue in righteous living until I die, I will be approved to inherit eternal life.

1 Corinthians 6:11
And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. rsv


Acts 22:16
And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’ rsv​

 

[BABerean2]

Paul did not correct Peter. Paul corrected Cephas, one of the 70/72 disciples, according to Eusebius, the man who wrote the history of the early church. Look at the original Greek translation for this passage. Peter is the apostle to the circumcised. Cephas is the disciple who was chastised by Paul.

Peter actually stood up to all the Jews who criticized his eating with the Gentiles. Check out Acts 10 and Acts 11. Peter was not afraid of any Jews after Jesus rose from the dead.


I am not rotten and my deeds done for Jesus are righteous deeds.

I was first sanctified/made holy/saved by Jesus Christ by my own baptism which He commanded in Matthew 28:18-20. I became His faithful disciple when I received Baptism. Baptism washed away all my sins. Now, I keep myself saved/sanctified by obeying Jesus' commandments to the best of my ability with the Holy Spirit's help. If I continue in righteous living until I die, I will be approved to inherit eternal life.

1 Corinthians 6:11
And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. rsv


Acts 22:16
And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’ rsv​

Galatians 2:11
(CJB)　 Furthermore, when Kefa came to Antioch, I opposed him publicly, because he was clearly in the wrong.
(ESV)　 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
(Geneva)　 And when Peter was come to Antiochia, I withstood him to his face: for he was to be condemned.
(GW)　 When Cephas came to Antioch, I had to openly oppose him because he was completely wrong.
(LITV-TSP)　 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was to be blamed.
(KJV)　 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

(NKJV)　 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;

(KJV+)　 ButG1161 whenG3753 PeterG4074 was comeG2064 toG1519 Antioch,G490 I withstoodG436 himG846 toG2596 the face,G4383 becauseG3754 he wasG2258 to be blamed.G2607

G4074
Πέτρος
Petros
pet'-ros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. Compare G2786.

Total KJV occurrences: 162




(Joh 1:39)　 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
(Joh 1:40)　 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
(Joh 1:41)　 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.


(Joh 1:42)　 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.


.

 

[BobRyan]

indeed --

John 1:42
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

1 Cor 10
For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

1 Cor 3
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

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

Probably should start a thread on that topic if people are interested in it.

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic Ten Commandments command us to keep holy the Lord's day[ which is not the Sabbath

They claim it is the Sabbath Commandment obligation being satisfied - and as you point out they insists that the TEN Commandments (and not merely NINE) are obligatory for the saints.

What you have overlooked is that they insist that the LORD's DAY as given in the actual Bible - is the seventh-day Sabbath.

I point this out "in detail" in this post.

Dies Domini pt 13 -
"the Sabbath ...is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why unlike many other laws - it is not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart!!

Here Pope John Paul argues two points in his document "Dies Domini"

1. That the TEN Commandments (all TEN... not just NINE ) still remain. What does that mean about the SABBATH Commandment? gone - or remains? or bent to point to??

2. In the second quote John Paul II Refers to the OT Sabbath as the LORD's Day -

Pope John Paul II

Dies Domini pt 13 -
"the Sabbath ...is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why unlike many other laws - it is not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart!! In setting this commandment within the context of the basic structure of ethics, Israel and then the church declare that they consider it not just a matter of community religious discipline but a defining and indelible expression of our relationship to God, announced and expounded by biblical revelations.

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

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



In these quotes we see "TEN Commandments" and "DECALOGUE" not "630"

2056 The word "Decalogue" means literally "ten words."11 God revealed these "ten words" to his people on the holy mountain. They were written "with the finger of God,"12 unlike the other commandments written by Moses.

2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations.They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. the Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.


these Catholic Catechism statements seem to support what John Paul II and what "The Faith Explained" have said in their two points above --

2056 The word "Decalogue" means literally "ten words."11 God revealed these "ten words" to his people on the holy mountain. They were written "with the finger of God,"12 unlike the other commandments written by Moses.13 They are pre-eminently the words of God. They are handed on to us in the books of Exodus 14 and Deuteronomy.15 Beginning with the Old Testament, the sacred books refer to the "ten words,"16 but it is in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ that their full meaning will be revealed.

2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations.They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. the Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.

2063.... the words of the Decalogue remain likewise for us Christians. Far from being abolished, they have received amplification and development from the fact of the coming of the Lord in the flesh.26

2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christiansand that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 The Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."29

(Application in James 2)
2069 The Decalogue forms a coherent whole. Each "word" refers to each of the others and to all of them; they reciprocally condition one another. the two tables shed light on one another; they form an organic unity. To transgress one commandment is to infringe all the others.30 One cannot honor another person without blessing God his Creator. One cannot adore God without loving all men, his creatures. the Decalogue brings man's religious and social life into unity.

Key question:

In legal terms - what does it mean to change one of the TEN commandments in the law - so that its obligation, its authority, its observance is now transferred to some other day - other than the one as given in that Command??[/QUOTE]

The sabbath of the Israelites under the Old Covenant was merely a shadow

Do you even read Catholic material??

Dies Domini pt 13 -
"the Sabbath ...is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why unlike many other laws - it is not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart!!

Here Pope John Paul argues two points in his document "Dies Domini"

1. That the TEN Commandments (all TEN... not just NINE ) still remain. What does that mean about the SABBATH Commandment? gone - or remains? or bent to point to??

2. In the second quote John Paul II Refers to the OT Sabbath as the LORD's Day -

The Lord's day is tied to the Melchizedek priesthood of the New Covenant.

I ask again - do you read Catholic material??

Do you even read Catholic material??

Dies Domini pt 13 -
"the Sabbath ...is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why unlike many other laws - it is not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart!!

Here Pope John Paul argues two points in his document "Dies Domini"

1. That the TEN Commandments (all TEN... not just NINE ) still remain. What does that mean about the SABBATH Commandment? gone - or remains? or bent to point to??

2. In the second quote John Paul II Refers to the OT Sabbath as the LORD's Day -

BobRyan does not choose to understand the truth of Jesus' gospel

You say that in opposition not only to the Bible - but in opposition to the Catholic statements we all can READ - in the example above.

Is that sort of tactic supposed to be "compelling"?? (As you continue to ignore every detail posted??)

 

[BobRyan]

John 1:42
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

Paul did not correct Peter. Paul corrected Cephas,

I find your logic "illusive" just then.

Peter, James and John were noted pillars in the NT church - according to Galatians 2.

5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. 6 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.


Exercising eisgesis in the middle of the text trying to get Cephas to not be Peter - is futile for it means that "James, Cephas and John" were the leading Apostles and not Peter at all.

 

[Jan001]

Galatians 2:11
(CJB)　 Furthermore, when Kefa came to Antioch, I opposed him publicly, because he was clearly in the wrong.
(ESV)　 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
(Geneva)　 And when Peter was come to Antiochia, I withstood him to his face: for he was to be condemned.
(GW)　 When Cephas came to Antioch, I had to openly oppose him because he was completely wrong.
(LITV-TSP)　 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was to be blamed.
(KJV)　 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

(NKJV)　 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;

(KJV+)　 ButG1161 whenG3753 PeterG4074 was comeG2064 toG1519 Antioch,G490 I withstoodG436 himG846 toG2596 the face,G4383 becauseG3754 he wasG2258 to be blamed.G2607

G4074
Πέτρος
Petros
pet'-ros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. Compare G2786.

Total KJV occurrences: 162




(Joh 1:39)　 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
(Joh 1:40)　 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
(Joh 1:41)　 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.


(Joh 1:42)　 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.


.

There was another man named Cephas. This was his given name. He was not Simon Peter. Most Bible translations make the mistake of changing the name Peter into Cephas in the Book of Galatians, but the Greek Scriptures make a distinction between Peter and Cephas in this particular Book. Look up the following passage on biblegateway.com using the Mounce translation from the Greek.

Galatians 2:1-11
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage— 5 to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; 7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; 10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do.
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.​

This Cephas is not one of the apostles. He is one of the original 70/72 disciples.

The apostle named Peter did not meet up with Paul in Antioch (who was preaching to the Gentiles). Peter had an entirely different mission from God. Peter was commanded to preach to the Jews/circumcised.

Paul would not have used two different names for the same person in this one passage because Paul was a learned man and this would definitely not be acceptable grammar.

The historical record states that the person that Paul rebuked was Cephas, one of the 70 disciples, and not Peter the apostle.

What did the apostle Peter actually do when he was criticized for eating with Gentiles? He silenced these Jews by his exhortation. Peter did not cower before any Jews.

Acts 11:1-3, 17-
Now the apostles and the brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, 3 saying, “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” ........
17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” 18 When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.” rsv
​

I won't be changing my mind on this topic.

 

[Jan001]

They claim it is the Sabbath Commandment obligation being satisfied - and as you point out they insists that the TEN Commandments (and not merely NINE) are obligatory for the saints.

What you have overlooked is that they insist that the LORD's DAY as given in the actual Bible - is the seventh-day Sabbath.

I point this out "in detail" in this post.




Key question:

In legal terms - what does it mean to change one of the TEN commandments in the law - so that its obligation, its authority, its observance is now transferred to some other day - other than the one as given in that Command??


Do you even read Catholic material??

Dies Domini pt 13 -
"the Sabbath ...is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why unlike many other laws - it is not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart!!

Here Pope John Paul argues two points in his document "Dies Domini"

1. That the TEN Commandments (all TEN... not just NINE ) still remain. What does that mean about the SABBATH Commandment? gone - or remains? or bent to point to??

2. In the second quote John Paul II Refers to the OT Sabbath as the LORD's Day -




I ask again - do you read Catholic material??

Do you even read Catholic material??

Dies Domini pt 13 -
"the Sabbath ...is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why unlike many other laws - it is not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart!!

Here Pope John Paul argues two points in his document "Dies Domini"

1. That the TEN Commandments (all TEN... not just NINE ) still remain. What does that mean about the SABBATH Commandment? gone - or remains? or bent to point to??

2. In the second quote John Paul II Refers to the OT Sabbath as the LORD's Day -





You say that in opposition not only to the Bible - but in opposition to the Catholic statements we all can READ - in the example above.

Is that sort of tactic supposed to be "compelling"?? (As you continue to ignore every detail posted??)

Yes, I do indeed read Catholic material. I also do seek to understand correctly what I am reading.

The Sunday Lord's day of the Christians is definitely not the Saturday Sabbath day of the Jews.

Here is a link to the whole Dies Domini document:
http://www.scborromeo.org/docs/dies_domini.pdf

Please quote paragraphs 13 and 14 of Dies Domini in their entirety from now on instead of just "part" of paragraph 13.

Here is paragraph number 14 for you:

14. In the first place, therefore, Sunday is the day of rest because it is the day "blessed” by God and “made holy” by him, set apart from the other days to be, among all of them, “the Lord’s Day”.

 

[BABerean2]

Paul would not have used two different names for the same person in this one passage because Paul was a learned man and this would definitely not be acceptable grammar.

Christ gave Simon Peter the name of Cephas.
Therefore, he did go by two different names.

(Joh 1:39)　 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
(Joh 1:40)　 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
(Joh 1:41)　 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.


(Joh 1:42)　 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

None of the disciples were perfect.

Peter suffered from Foot-in-Mouth on more than one occasion, because he was a man made of flesh.

Maybe in the Catholic Church Peter is claimed to be perfect.
However, he is not perfect in the Bible.

.

 

[bbbbbbb]

There was another man named Cephas. This was his given name. He was not Simon Peter. Most Bible translations make the mistake of changing the name Peter into Cephas in the Book of Galatians, but the Greek Scriptures make a distinction between Peter and Cephas in this particular Book. Look up the following passage on biblegateway.com using the Mounce translation from the Greek.

Galatians 2:1-11
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage— 5 to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; 7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; 10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do.
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.​

This Cephas is not one of the apostles. He is one of the original 70/72 disciples.

The apostle named Peter did not meet up with Paul in Antioch (who was preaching to the Gentiles). Peter had an entirely different mission from God. Peter was commanded to preach to the Jews/circumcised.

Paul would not have used two different names for the same person in this one passage because Paul was a learned man and this would definitely not be acceptable grammar.

The historical record states that the person that Paul rebuked was Cephas, one of the 70 disciples, and not Peter the apostle.

What did the apostle Peter actually do when he was criticized for eating with Gentiles? He silenced these Jews by his exhortation. Peter did not cower before any Jews.

Acts 11:1-3, 17-
Now the apostles and the brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, 3 saying, “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” ........
17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” 18 When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.” rsv
​

I won't be changing my mind on this topic.

What a pity. Your mind is made up and you will not be confused by the facts.

 

[BABerean2]

 

[Jan001]

Unfinished post.

 

[Jan001]

Christ gave Simon Peter the name of Cephas.
Therefore, he did go by two different names.

(Joh 1:39)　 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
(Joh 1:40)　 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
(Joh 1:41)　 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

If two men had the same name, two different names would need to be used to distinguish between the two men. Paul would not have called one man two different names in the same passage in the same letter if he was speaking about only one man. However, if Paul meant two different men, he needed to use two different names in the same passage.

Galatians 2:7-8
but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles)

9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” rsv​

Most Bible translations make the mistake of changing Peter's name into Cephas in all these verses or else they change Cephas' name into Peter in all these verses.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. Cephas meant rock in Aramaic. http://www.behindthename.com/name/cephas

Matthew always used the name "Peter" instead of "Cephas" in his gospel which he wrote for the Christians of Jewish heritage when he was talking about "Simon Peter".

Paul wrote mostly for a Greek-speaking audience.

1 Corinthians 9:5
Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? rsv
​

Please note that Cephas is not considered an apostle. These "brothers of the Lord" are not Jesus' apostles.

1 Corinthians 3:22
whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, rsv
​

This Apollos and this Cephas are not apostles.

Matthew 12:46
While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. rsv​

The disciples of the Lord (the men who became His apostles including Simon Peter) were already inside with Jesus when He was told that His mother and his brothers were outside.

​

Peter's name was always listed first in all lists of apostles as a sign of respect for his office of chief steward/apostle.

​

(Joh 1:42)　 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

None of the disciples were perfect.

Peter suffered from Foot-in-Mouth on more than one occasion, because he was a man made of flesh.

Maybe in the Catholic Church Peter is claimed to be perfect.
However, he is not perfect in the Bible.

No, Peter is not claimed to have been a perfect man by the Catholic Church. However, because he is in heaven right now, he became perfected before he entered there.

Matthew 5:8
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. rsv

​

Since we'll never agree on these topics and I have no more to add, it's time to bid farewell, adieu, adios to these topics.

 

[Jan001]

What a pity. Your mind is made up and you will not be confused by the facts.

I believe I already have been fully informed of the facts. That is why I will not be changing my mind.

 

[Jan001]

That poor man. I pity him.

He traded the pearl of great price (Catholic faith/Jesus' gospel) for a faux pearl (his own man-made religion which relies upon his own false, personal interpretations of the Scriptures.

 

[BABerean2]

That poor man. I pity him.

He traded the pearl of great price (Catholic faith/Jesus' gospel) for a faux pearl (his own man-made religion which relies upon his own false, personal interpretations of the Scriptures.

Yes. When a person uses the Bible as their system of interpretation it does often cause them to trade in one system of interpretation for another. The same thing happened to me...

.

 

[BobRyan]

Well I think we would all agree that this thread is not about the two or three names we find for Peter

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

Ex 20:6 "love Me and KEEP My Commandments"
John 14:15 "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments"

So may argue that all that was before the cross - so pay no attention to that part of "scripture" -- it is not for Christians. Yet "Chrisitan" means - follower of Christ and Christ is speaking both in John 14 - and in Exodus 20.



By contrast to that speculative conclusion we have --

"what matters is KEEPiNG the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
"the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

So then what about Christ coming up with a different set of commandments - that are not those of God? Not those of God the Father and thereby negating the Commandments of God to replace them with other commandments - that come from Christ? Is that what we find in the New Testament?

Not according to Jesus' words in John's Gospel.

John 5:19 "19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner."

John 8:28 "28 So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.

John 12:49 49 For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

John 14: "10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works."

Which is why in John 14:15 we see this
15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

Instead of "keep My Commandments - not My Father's commandments - just mine"

And it is why John 15:10 does not say that either

John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

And of course God the Father gave Jesus the ministry of "Savior" to the world such that Jesus prayed "Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me - nevertheless not my will - but Thy will be done"

John said - Jesus kept His Father's Commandments.

John said - we should do as Jesus did.
1 John 2: 6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

==================================================
Jesus is the One that gave us the TEN Commandments - they were spoken by HiM as we see in the NEW Covenant

Heb 8 (And Jer 31:31-33)
6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,
“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will effect a new covenant
With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day when I took them by the hand
To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.

Exegesis demands that the moral law of God written on the mind and heart in Jer 31:31-33 is the one that Jeremiah and his readers knew.


Do you view Jesus as opposed to the Father or the two and the Holy Spirit are "ONE God" in your/our monotheistic religion?

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

If you oppose the Commandments of God in NT times - then answer this question -

In Eph 6:2 - "honor your father and mother for this is the first commandment with a promise" -- what Law - what unit of Law is it to be found that 'honor your father and mother" is the FIRST commandment with a promise??

First commandment where??

Two simple questions - easy answer to each one - Yesterday at 11:09 AM #383
Resolves the entire debate on this thread.

 

[BABerean2]

Ex 20:6 "love Me and KEEP My Commandments"
John 14:15 "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments"

So may argue that all that was before the cross - so pay no attention to that part of "scripture" -- it is not for Christians. Yet "Chrisitan" means - follower of Christ and Christ is speaking both in John 14 - and in Exodus 20.



By contrast to that speculative conclusion we have --

"what matters is KEEPiNG the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
"the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

So then what about Christ coming up with a different set of commandments - that are not those of God? Not those of God the Father and thereby negating the Commandments of God to replace them with other commandments - that come from Christ? Is that what we find in the New Testament?

Based on this argument, all children must be circumcised because God commanded Abraham to circumcise all of his male offspring and based on your logic God never changes any of His commandments...

This type of logic produced Paul's battle with the Judaisers in the Book of Galatians. It started in Acts chapter 15.

That battle is still occurring on this thread.

The battle on this thread is mainly over the 4th commandment, which is the "sign" of the Sinai covenant. Even though we never find the Apostle Paul telling Gentile believers that they must keep the Sinai Sabbath, we are told it was done.

And even though Colossians 2:16-17 clearly states that the Sabbath day was a shadow of Christ, we are told we are taking the verses out of context.

And even though Paul told the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai covenant of "bondage" in Galatians 4:24-30, some here are able to ignore this text.

We are supposed to forget that those who said Jesus was coming back on October 22, 1844 are now being held up as authorities on doctrine.

Sadly, for most of the history of the Church the Judaisers have won the battle between the Old Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant fulfilled in Blood at Calvary.

It is the Body of Christ that has suffered the consequences.

I wonder what the Apostle Paul would say if he were here today?


Gal 5:12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!


Php 3:2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.

.