Info on SDA

[me_again]

I don’t agree that Jesus is giving Peter unlimited power. Why? Because I believe YOUR OPINION of what is being said here is wrong. My beliefs align with what Ellen White says.
benidict;6887074:

so you admit my friend, that you have given up the authority of the Magesterium, for the authority of Ellen G. White. Correct? Peace

Richard Kastner hit the nail on the head i.e. faithful SDAs will align themselves with Ellen White’s interpretations of the bible because they believe that she is God’s last day prophetess.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Putting my :twocents: in: it is known that the Apostles did not speak Greek, but Aramaic, and maybe Hebrew ( compare Spanish and Italian ). Jesus called the Apostle Simon bar Jonah “Kephas” in Aramaic. One of the meanings of this noun is “rock”. Therefore, Simon bar Jonah is the “rock” ( Kephas ) on which He will build His Church.

In translating from Aramaic to Greek ( Koine ), “Kephas” would become “petras”, which is a feminine noun.

Why would it become petra. The word for Peter is translated petros.

We know that Simon bar Johna was not a woman, so to make “rock” in Greek fit in, it was changed to “petros”. The closest English or European translation is Peter ( Pietro, Pietor, Pedro, etc. ). If we translate “Kephas” to the same languages we would get the same results.

The gist is that Jesus changed Simon bar Jonah’s name to Kephas because He Knew that Peter would be a rock for the other Apostles and the early believers to lean or depend on, which he had proven to be in the book of Acts. If all this is not so, then why did Jesus change Simon’s name?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Here’s the breakdown of Matt.16:18 again.

And g1161 δέ de

I say g3004 λέγω legō

also g2504 κἀγώ kagō

unto thee, g4671 σοί soi

That g3754 ὅτι hoti

thou g4771 σύ sy

art g1488 εἶ ei

**Peter, g4074 Πέτρος Petros **

and g2532 καί kai

upon g1909 ἐπί epi

this g5026 ταύτῃ tautē

**rock g4073 πέτρα petra **
I will build g3618 οἰκοδομέω oikodomeō

my g3450 μου mou

church; g1577 ἐκκλησία ekklēsia

and g2532 καί kai

the gates g4439 πύλη pylē

of hell g86 ᾅδης hadēs

shall g2729 κατισχύω katischyō

not g3756 οὐ ou

prevail against g2729 κατισχύω katischyō

it. g846 αὐτός autos

You will notice that the Greek word for Peter is Petros. This is the only designation for Peter in the bible and in fact as Strong’s says,

Petros
Peter = “a rock or a stone”

1. one of the twelve disciples of Jesus

doesn’t mean just any Peter. IT’S A DESIGNATION FOR PETER THE APOSTLE. Jesus says. Thou art Peter (Petros). He calls Him by this word that is the only word used to designate Peter and then He says upon this rock (petra) I will build my church. This word petra as I have said is never used to designate Peter. It is however used to designate Jesus.

Matthew 7:24
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:.

Matthew 7:25
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Luke 6:47Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

Romans 9:33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
1 Corinthians 10:4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

All this is no accident. I believe it is God’s way of showing us exactly who He is talking about. The Rock upon which Jesus built His church was

Matt.16:16 the Christ, the Son of the living God.

That would be Jesus.

 

[me_again]

GOD BLESSED THE SEVENTH DAY [Saturday]. It means on this day and only on this day can we have a very special fellowship with God. You can’t get this fellowship by keeping Sunday holy.

That is the teaching of Ellen White.

 

[me_again]

The order to keep the Saturday sabbath is strictly for the Jews and here is what our Lord specifically said about it**:**

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the [Saturday] Sabbath day. (Deut. 5:15)

The Ten Commandments are binding as moral law, but not because we believe we are under the same covenant as Israel. Christians are under the New Covenant and are not bound by the shadows contained in the Old Covenant.

Adventists should consider that in Deuteronomy, the reason for the Saturday sabbath being given to the Hebrews was this**:**

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

SDAs will insist that the sabbath was given at creation and was not just for Israel. But look at the introduction to Deuteronomy 5:1-3**:**

Moses summoned all Israel and said**:**
Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.

The sabbath is a memorial of creation. This reasoning is in Exodus 20. But it is also a fact that the Saturday sabbath is a memorial of Israel’s deliverance from bondage in Egypt, as recorded in Deuteronomy 5.

Deuteronomy affirms that this covenant was made with the Hebrews… at horeb, and explicitly says it was not made with their fathers.

If the Saturday sabbath was given to man at creation, then why is there no record of it being kept by people before Moses?

The Catholic Church recognizes the moral precept of setting aside regular time for rest and also the New Testament precept of not neglecting to assemble ourselves together**;** and this is applied to the first day of the week**:** Sunday, the day of the resurrection.

The Jewish people looked at the Saturday sabbath and remembered creation .(Exodus 20:8); Christians look at Sunday and remember the NEW creation (2 Cor 5:17).

The Jewish people looked at the Saturday sabbath and remembered their deliverance from slavery in Egypt (Deut. 5:15); Christians look at Sunday and remember their deliverance from slavery to the law (Romans 8:2).

The Jewish people looked at the Saturday sabbath and carefully guarded it, looking forward to entering into God’s eternal rest**;** Christians experience Sunday as a weekly Easter, a celebration of rest in Christ, who is the fulfillment of the old covenant sabbath and in whom Christians find their sabbath, their rest (Hebrews 4:10).

Jesus is our sabbath rest.

 

[Protestant101]

Richard:

Although I disagree with you in your interpretation of scripture and consider you, and all SDA in error bordering on heresy, I do want to say that in our “discussions” I have not acted with any patience ( 2 Tim 4:1-2 ) or Christian charity. For this I wish to apologize and ask your forgiveness. Although we do agree to disagree it is to our detriment not act as Christians in all things. I realize with extreme sadness that I have not. I do hope that you will accept.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Hey; I appreciate hearing that…It is always a blessing to see such efforts at attaining peace. One thing I do like about you/your posts is your spirit of inquiry; that is, you keep asking why. (in your own way of course…), I agree, that I also have not always acted in Christian patience here; and I will say I have experienced the love and forgiveness, that can only come from Christ. May God continue to bless us as we try to come together on this forum, in His name.

 

[adrift]

Why would it become petra. The word for Peter is translated petros.

.

The way you say earth in Spanish is tierra. Now I decide to name my son earth. I would not name him tierra because that is a female ending. I would change the female ending to o rendering it Tierro for a boy’s name.

That is what happened with Petro. It should have been Petra but because it was denoting a man it has the male ending. The structure of the sentence "Your name is Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build my Church clearly demonstrates what rock is being spoken about. That the keys to heaven is given to Peter at the same time is not accidental. The Greek because of gender use causes a distinction where none exists.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

The way you say earth in Spanish is tierra. Now I decide to name my son earth. I would not name him tierra because that is a female ending. I would change the female ending to o rendering it Tierro for a boy’s name.

That is what happened with Petro. It should have been Petra but because it was denoting a man it has the male ending. The structure of the sentence "Your name is Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build my Church clearly demonstrates what rock is being spoken about. That the keys to heaven is given to Peter at the same time is not accidental. The Greek because of gender use causes a distinction where none exists.

As a Christian Jew, I have questions about how on “earth,” regardless of what Yeshua (Jesus) attached as a meaning to Peter’s name, yet knowing Peter’s impulsive, sometimes petulent, on one occasion physically violent (cuts of a man’s ear with a sword to show that he meant what he told Jesus about not letting Jesus suffer), and what the proud, boastful Peter would do in denying Jesus 3 times during Jesus’s most trying moments, that Jesus would take the unconverted Peter and give him the keys of the Kingdom. Jesus is the Rock of our salvation. Not Peter.

Jesus, at one point, turned to Peter, when Peter said Jesus should not suffer in Jerusalem, and called Peter, ha-satan (satan). Jesus was talking about the knowledge He had already given to Peter and the rest of the disciples to teach the rest of the world.

Jesus grafted the Gentiles into the religion He had given to Moses, but infused by Jesus with Messianic meaning. Though Moses was not perfect, he was transfigured. This was done by Jesus Christ, the One we say we worship.

Since we know that Paul, Peter, John and the rest of the disciples kept, for example, Pesach (Passover), beginning at sundown on Nisan 14, long after Pentecost, and years after the Jerusalem Council, when almost all Christians observed the Shabbat and the annual festival of precept (ie. the annual feast days and times) well into the second century, AD/CE, then how is it that the Peter everyone seems so concerned with, did not make the changes in the religious calendar that many here say he did?

Afterall, is it not true that Peter knew and worked with Yeshua (Jesus) during the three and one-half years of Jesus’ ministry?

In Matthew, chapter 23, Jesus tells His disciiples and followers, after quite a long point-by-point castigation of the scribes and Pharisees, and others, “When the teachers sit in Moses’ seat in the synagogues and teach, do not do as they do. For, they say but do not do. But when they sit in Moses’ seat in the synagogues and teach, LISTEN TO THEM and DO what they SAY.” They could only read the Book of the Law as given to Moses by God, Himself when they sat there. These were many of the same things that Jesus had taught His disciples to teach,with Messianic meaning, to first the non-believing Jews. Then to the Gentiles.

What strange things did the apostles teach to the Gentiles that so upset Gentile leaders such that Roman pagans martyred many of the apostles during the first century?

I wonder if, rather than defending any named religious institution’s beliefs and claims about authority, we should perhaps do better to answer some unanswered questions.

Shalom in Yeshua

 

[benidict]

Hi Ben,
First, let me say that those who were stoned because they carried a stick of wood of a certain length during the Sabbath, were stoned illegally. I mean that carrying a stick of wood was no big deal to Christ. Nor was a stone of a certain weight or more. Later regulations about which shoe you put on first. Or, carrying a too-heavy cloth, etc. during the Sabbath, which to satisfy the rabbi’s, would be merely attached to one’s clothing rather than carried in the hand. Jesus stood up to all of these. The regulation that allowed a young man to forswear title to his parents’ home to the Temple, and allowed him then to take his parents’ home away from them at the time he covenented with the Temple priests, was one that angered Jesus the most. The reason? None of those regulations was part of the Law God the Son spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai!

Those added regulations were all “heavy burdens laid upon the people.” Jesus then went on to say, In vain they (the rabbi’s, and Pharisees, etc.) do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Yet, in other places when He was asked questions usually meant to try to trip Him up, He would say, “What sayest the Law of Moses.” The Talmudic Mishna writings of the sayings of the “sages,” were the ones created by the religious leaders to make big names for themelves, and to encourage attitudes of rebellion against the limits of the very written Law that Moses had received from God the Son, Himself.

Man’s laws versus God’s Law seems to have been the real issue all along.

Shalom in Yeshua

shalom my friend. so the two men moses had executed for gathering sticks on the sabbath was illegal? did moses interpret the law wrong? if so, why did God not confront moses about this? he certainly got upset with moses for striking the rock when he should have been speaking softly to it. i think the wrongful death of two individuals would have been alot more serious in the Lords eyes, more so than how one gets water from a rock. your thoughts please. and thank you in advance. i do have a love of studying the torah and other Jewish writings. and am always happy to here what one has to say about these to whom they were given. Peace

 

[benidict]

Richard Kastner hit the nail on the head i.e. faithful SDAs will align themselves with Ellen White’s interpretations of the bible because they believe that she is God’s last day prophetess.

you are soo correct my brother, you get the prize. this is the gist of the matter. who is the persons authority. is it the God given Church of Jesus Christ? or some generic teaching of men or women. ive made my choice. and i for one would rather die, than deny the things i have seen and learned in HIS Holy Church. Peace as it is written. do not be decieved by philosophy or vain conceit. bible is back at my c.h.u. so im paraphrasing.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

shalom my friend. so the two men moses had executed for gathering sticks on the sabbath was illegal? did moses interpret the law wrong? if so, why did God not confront moses about this? he certainly got upset with moses for striking the rock when he should have been speaking softly to it. i think the wrongful death of two individuals would have been alot more serious in the Lords eyes, more so than how one gets water from a rock. your thoughts please. and thank you in advance. i do have a love of studying the torah and other Jewish writings. and am always happy to here what one has to say about these to whom they were given. Peace

Benedict, Thank you for your inquisitiveness. Most refreshing.
First God commanded Moses to strike the rock. Moses did so. Then, to get water to flow from the rock, God told Moses to only speak softly to the rock. Instead, because he was upset that the rock didn’t produce water, Moses disobeyed God’s instruction, and struck the rock again. God was upset with Moses because, even though God (really God the Son, the One whose voice Moses heard speak the laws, statutes and judgments to, ie. God’s Law) is willing to hear us cry out to him in anguish, He is still the God Who, once He has instructed us, as He did Moses at the rock, we are to obey His laws, statutes and judgments as we seek, through the Holy Spirit, to obey His Ten Commandments just as He gave them to Moses on tables of stone. God the Son is the “Rock of Ages.”

God said of His Everlasting Covenant as recorded in Exodus 34, vs. 10 and onward, "I shall not alter the things that have gone out of My lips. his second or “Everlasting Covenant” is where He spoke to Moses about having no graven images to bow down to, to keep the feast of unleavened bread (a perpetual reminder of the flight from Egypt to physical freedom, also looking forward to the sacrifice of Yeshua for our sins, both before and after Yeshua’s death, resurrection and ascension, and to the remembrance of deliverance to be celebrated in the New Jerusalem, etc.) Also, the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot/Pentecost), the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Booths/Tabernacles). They are listed in Exodus 34. But there was no animal sacrifice after God spoke this to Moses.

There had been no ratification of this new covenant with a sacrifice as there had been with the one just before it. The first one was where man told God, “all that the Lord has commanded we will do.” Man broke the first one, the one in which man made the promises. The Everlasting Covenant was the one in which God the Son made the promises. That was the only “New Covenant” which existed when Christ said to His disciples, “This is My blood of the New Covenant.”

Ezekiel said that God the Son would write His laws, His Statutes and His Judgments on their hearts of flesh after “taking from them their hearts of stone.” He said, through the prophet, Ezekiel, that He would “cause them to obey My laws and My statutes, and keep my Judgments and DO THEM.” I know I’m rambling…it’s late and I’m now 65 yers old. But, tis is so very important.

The One who said He would cause us to "obey My laws and My statutes and keep My Judgments and do them was none other than the Yeshua who was nailed to the cross. He died that we might see His beauty in His Law, that many selfish and sinful Jews refused to see or “do.” The fault did not lie with the Law. It was man’s problem of selfish blindness that caused the Holy One of Israel to come, live the Law He gave to Moses perfectly, die and be resurrected that we might see that beauty.

The difference between the “old” law and the “new law of liberty” is that, because Jesus was and is our Lamb slain, and He sent the Holy Spirit to comfort and guide us, we live, as we learn more how, the Law He gave us. Jesus grafted us in among the faithful of Israel, to follow His original Plan, whose basis in His just precepts has never changed. \

Come on home to His Olive Tree; Y’Israel (only means Salvation).

Baruch ata Elohim
Amen. Shalom alechem)

That was the one the laws of which they knew before Moses went up the mountain the first time, but disobeyed it by bowing down to the golden calf that Aaron had built.

 

[adrift]

As a Christian Jew, I have questions about how on “earth,” …, that Jesus would take the unconverted Peter and give him the keys of the Kingdom. Jesus is the Rock of our salvation. Not Peter.

How on earth could God choose as the father of His people a person who would marry his sister and then lie that she wasn’t his sister?

How on earth could God choose as a Patriarch a man that lied and deceived his father in order to obtain a blessing belonging to his brother?

How on earth could God choose a king that murderes a man in order to have his wife?

How on earth are you able to judge a Peter to know if he was converted?

That Jesus gave Simon a new name, God never renamed a person without purpose and the Keys to heaven in order to be the visible head is in Scriputre.

How on earth do you equate Jesus naming Peter head with Peter being the rock of Salvation? One does not equate to the other. Incidently, where in Scripture is Jesus referred to as the rock of salvation?

Jesus is our salvation. Jesus established a Church with Peter as the head. If you love Jesus you would love His Church. They cannot be seperated from Jesus because that is the way Jesus set it up. The Church is the "Pillar and Foundation of truth
The answer to the questions are God’s ways are not ours. He chooses those others feel are unworthy. Who are we to question?

 

[Javl]

Richard:

The following is a cut and paste explanation of Matt. 16:16-19, of the Catholic view.

Let us again examine the text and context of the important dialogue handed down to us by the evangelist Matthew. After asking: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (Mt 16:13), Jesus asked his apostles a more direct question: “But who do you say that I am?” (Mt 16:15). It is already significant that Simon answered in the name of the Twelve: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:13-16). One might think that Simon made himself the spokesman for the Twelve by force of his own more vigorous and impulsive personality. Possibly this factor came into play to some extent. However, Jesus attributed his answer to a special revelation from the heavenly Father: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father” (Mt 16:17). Above and beyond factors of temperament, character, ethnic background or social status (“flesh and blood”), Simon was the beneficiary of an illumination and inspiration from on high that Jesus identified as “revelation.” In virtue of this revelation Simon made a profession of faith in the name of the Twelve.

Here is Jesus’ declaration, which in the very solemnity of its form manifests the binding and constitutive meaning that the Teacher intends to give it: “And so I say to you, you are Peter” (Mt 16:18). The declaration is indeed solemn: “I say to you.” It involves Jesus’ sovereign authority. It is a word of revelation, of effective revelation in that it accomplishes what it says.

A new name was given to Simon, the sign of a new mission. That this name was given is confirmed by Mark (3:16) and Luke (6:14) in their accounts of the choice of the Twelve. John also speaks of it, indicating that Jesus used the Aramaic word Kephas , which in Greek is translated as Petros (Jn 1:42).

We should remember that the Aramaic word Kephas which Jesus used, as well as the Greek word Petros which translates it, means “rock.” In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus gave the example of the “wise man who built his house on rock” (Mt 7:24). Addressing Simon, Jesus declared to him that because of his faith, a gift from God, he had the solidity of rock upon which an unshakable edifice could be built. Jesus then stated his own decision to build on this rock just such a building–his Church.

In other passages of the New Testament we find similar although not identical images. In some texts Jesus himself is not called the “rock” on which something is built, but the “stone” which is used in building, the “cornerstone” which ensures the solidity of the structure. The builder then is not Jesus, but God the Father (cf. Mk 12:10-11; 1 Pet 2:4-7). Thus the viewpoints are different.

The Apostle Paul expresses yet another perspective when he reminds the Corinthians that “like a wise master builder” he “laid the foundation” of their Church and then indicates that this foundation is “Jesus Christ” (cf. 1 Cor 3:10-11).

Through the diversity of particular viewpoints one can nevertheless notice a basic relationship allowing us to conclude that by giving him a new name, Jesus made Simon Peter a sharer in his own capacity as foundation. Between Christ and Peter there is a foundational relationship rooted in the profound reality where the divine vocation is translated into a specific mission conferred by the Messiah.

Jesus went on to say: “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). These words attest to Jesus’ will to build his Church with an essential reference to the specific mission and power that in due time he would confer on Simon. Jesus described Simon Peter as the foundation on which the Church would be built. The Christ-Peter relationship is thus reflected in the Peter-Church relationship. It imbues it with value and discloses its theological and spiritual meaning, which is objectively and ecclesially the basis of its juridical significance.

Matthew is the only evangelist who records these words for us. But it must be remembered that Matthew is also the only one who collected the recollections concerning Peter specifically (cf. Mt 14:28-31). Perhaps this was with reference to the communities for which he wrote his Gospel and in which he wanted to instill the new idea of the “assembly called together” in the name of Christ present in Peter.

On the other hand, the “new name” of Peter which Jesus gave to Simon is confirmed by the other evangelists, without any difference in meaning attributed to it than that given by Matthew. Moreover, there is no other meaning it could possibly have.

(continued)

 

[Javl]

(continued)

The evangelist Matthew records another metaphor which Jesus used to explain to Simon Peter, and to the other apostles, what he wanted to do with him: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19). Here too we immediately note that, according to biblical tradition, the Messiah possesses the keys of the kingdom. The Book of Revelation repeats the expressions of the prophet Isaiah and presents Christ as “the holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open” (Rev 3:7). The text of Isaiah (22:22) which concerns a certain Eliakim was seen as a prophetic expression of the messianic age when the “key” would not be for opening or closing the house of David (as a building or as a dynasty), but for opening the “kingdom of heaven,” this new, transcendent reality proclaimed and ushered in by Jesus.

Jesus is the one who, according to the Letter to the Hebrews, “entered the heavenly sanctuary” (cf. 9:24) through his sacrifice. He possesses its keys and opens its gates. Jesus handed these keys over to Peter, who thus received power over the kingdom, power which he will exercise in Christ’s name, as his steward and the head of the Church, the house which gathers together those who believe in Christ, the children of God.

Jesus indeed said to Peter: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:19). This is another simile Jesus used to show his will to confer on Simon Peter a universal and complete power guaranteed and authenticated by heavenly approval. This does not mean only the power to formulate points of doctrine or general norms of action. According to Jesus, it is the power of “binding and loosing,” that is, of doing whatever is necessary for the life and development of the Church. The opposing terms “binding-loosing” serve to show the totality of the power.

It should be immediately added, however, that the aim of this power is to open the entrance to the kingdom, not to close it: “open,” that is, to make it possible to enter the kingdom of heaven and not to place obstacles that would be equivalent to “closing” it. This is the proper purpose of the Petrine ministry, rooted in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ who came to save and to be the gate and shepherd of all in the communion of the one fold (cf. Jn 10:7, 11, 16). Through his sacrifice Christ became “the gate for the sheep,” the symbol of which was that built by Eliashib, the high priest, who with his priestly brothers worked to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century before Christ (cf. Neh 3:1). The Messiah is the true gate of the New Jerusalem built through his blood shed upon the cross. He entrusted the keys of this gate to Peter so that he might be the minister of his saving power in the Church.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Hey; I appreciate hearing that…It is always a blessing to see such efforts at attaining peace. One thing I do like about you/your posts is your spirit of inquiry; that is, you keep asking why. (in your own way of course…), I agree, that I also have not always acted in Christian patience here; and I will say I have experienced the love and forgiveness, that can only come from Christ. May God continue to bless us as we try to come together on this forum, in His name.

Thank you for your understanding and agreement. I do lose sight of what it’s all about many times. When I get hit in the head and wake up to what my actions are I try my best to put things right, as per God’s words. Whether we are right, or not, our “dialogues” should never be carried on in anger, which I was doing, but in Christian Charity and patience. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Farsight001]

Here’s what I found in the Catechism on the Sabbath and Sunday:

2175 - Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man’s eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:

Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord’s Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.

2176 - The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship “as a sign of his universal beneficence to all.” Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

2190 - The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation,** has been replaced by Sunday** which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ.

2191 - The Church celebrates the day of Christ’s Resurrection on the “eighth day,” Sunday, which is rightly called the Lord’s Day (cf. SC 106).

2192 - **“Sunday . . . is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church” **(CIC, can. 1246 § 1). “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass” (CIC, can. 1247).

2193 - "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound . . . to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord’s Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body" (CIC, can. 1247).

2194 - The institution of Sunday helps all “to be allowed sufficient rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives” (GS 67 § 3).

2195 - Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord’s Day.

The intent of these entries is clear. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Sabbath should be kept Holy (as stated in my previous post to which you took exception) and has been replaced by Sunday.

Also, items 2189 - 2195 are presented “In Brief” and I was unable to find the full text anywhere online. Anyone know why that is? Am I just looking in the wrong place?

And in those quotes, do you ever see it actually say that the sabbath was changed to Sunday? No. In fact, it says that it is still Saturday. And in those quotes, do you see any statement that says we no longer have to keep the sabbath holy? No. I don’t know where you get the idea that it does. We have Sunday as our main day of worship instead of Saturday. That in no way means or implies in any way that we don’t keep Saturday holy any more. Don’t try and invent intent into the paragraphs. The intent is to mean exactly what they say and nothing more.

 

[adrift]

And in those quotes, do you ever see it actually say that the sabbath was changed to Sunday? No. In fact, it says that it is still Saturday. And in those quotes, do you see any statement that says we no longer have to keep the sabbath holy? No. I don’t know where you get the idea that it does. We have Sunday as our main day of worship instead of Saturday. That in no way means or implies in any way that we don’t keep Saturday holy any more. Don’t try and invent intent into the paragraphs. The intent is to mean exactly what they say and nothing more.

What do you think “replaced” means?

 

[RonTheNewJew]

How on earth could God choose as the father of His people a person who would marry his sister and then lie that she wasn’t his sister?

How on earth could God choose as a Patriarch a man that lied and deceived his father in order to obtain a blessing belonging to his brother?

How on earth could God choose a king that murderes a man in order to have his wife?

How on earth are you able to judge a Peter to know if he was converted?

That Jesus gave Simon a new name, God never renamed a person without purpose and the Keys to heaven in order to be the visible head is in Scriputre.

How on earth do you equate Jesus naming Peter head with Peter being the rock of Salvation? One does not equate to the other. Incidently, where in Scripture is Jesus referred to as the rock of salvation?

I never referred to Peter as God, or as a Rock. Why would Jesus tell Peter that he is Peter, then tell Peter that Peter is a Rock, which always means strong, or strength, etc., when He knew that Peter was as weak as He knew Peter was? Keys always refers to knowledge. In the case of Peter, as head of anything, with the knowledge that Jesus had given him and the rest of the disciples, when it came to loosing or binding anything, it could only have been loosing or binding things on earth, based on the knowledge that Jesus had given them. Peter was not told that he was God, which is the power you say Jesus ascribed to Peter.

It sounds to me like you are saying on one hand that Jesus, who was, and is, God, could not have been telling Peter that there was a solid rock (the knowledge Jesus had given Peter, whose character Jesus knew was anything but a firm, strong rock,) as a metaphor for the strength of law and justice that He, as God the Son had given Moses and the prophets during the history of Israel. I don’t think Jesus was repetitive when in such a serious discussion about what, rather than which human, would be the foundation of His Synagogue (the word that would have been used when Jesus spoke to Peter)

He had given Peter, and the rest of His disciples, the knowledge of the Kingdom, that they would then use in making decisions about how to spread the word of Jesus’ love and truthfulness that comes only from the transcript of His character: His Law. Major parts of it were not kept and observed, through their own selfishness and conceipt, by the Jews. Jesus said so when he sometimes told His critics: “What saith the Law of Moses?”

Why would Jesus tell His followers, after verbally chastising the Pharisees and scribes, to do exacty as they (scribes, Pharisees) say when they sat in Moses’s seat where they could only read the Law of Moses, the Torah, if He intended to allow a human being the “keys” to make any changes he (Peter) felt like making??

It was, afterall, Jesus, as God the Son, who gave the Everlasting Covenant, outlined in Exodus 34, after which He said, “I shall not alter the thing that has gone out of My lips.” This covenant was ratified by the very blood of Jesus, Himself, on the cross. The Law has not changed. Only the promises of the first covenant, promises made by man, were replaced by the promises of God (putting His laws, His statutes and judgments into man’s new hearts of flesh after their hearts of stone were removed by the remembrance of Jesus dying to nail our accurately listed sins (we are daily accused by satan who knows our every thought).

In our hearts, there His laws are to be written (this would take the knowledge of His Law) so that,as the prophet, Ezekiel, said, we would keep His laws, and “walk in My statutues and My judgments and DO them.” Ezekiel was giving us a prophecy about what the Gospel had been and should always be.

 

[me_again]

GOD BLESSED THE SEVENTH DAY [Saturday]. It means on this day and only on this day [Saturday] can we have a very special fellowship with God. You can’t get this fellowship by keeping Sunday holy.

That is the SDA teaching of Ellen White.

The Old Testament order to keep the Saturday sabbath is strictly for the Jews and here is what our Lord specifically said about it**:**

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the [Saturday] Sabbath day. (Deut. 5:15)

Adventists should consider that in Deuteronomy, the reason for the Saturday sabbath being given to the Hebrews was this**:**

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the [Saturday] Sabbath day.

The Ten Commandments are binding as moral law, but not because we believe we are under the same covenant as Israel. Christians are under the New Covenant and are not bound by the shadows contained in the Old Covenant. The Catholic Church celebrates the resurrection of Jesus on Sunday, which is the day He rose from the dead.

 

[adrift]

adrift;6890552:

I never referred to Peter as God, or as a Rock. Why would Jesus tell Peter that he is Peter, then tell Peter that Peter is a Rock, which always means strong, or strength, etc., when He knew that Peter was as weak as He knew Peter was?.

Jesus renamed Simon to Kephas which is rock. Jesus said that this Kephas is what He would build His Church upon. Peter was weak as all humans are. That God used him is not surprising.

Keys always refers to knowledge.

The expression “power of the keys”

is derived from Christ’s words to St. Peter (in Matthew 16:19). The promise there made finds its explanation in Isaiah 22, in which “the key of the house of David” is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda. Christ by employing this expression clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church.

In the case of Peter, as head of anything, with the knowledge that Jesus had given him and the rest of the disciples, when it came to loosing or binding anything, it could only have been loosing or binding things on earth, based on the knowledge that Jesus had given them. Peter was not told that he was God, which is the power you say Jesus ascribed to Peter.

Never said that

It sounds to me like you are saying on one hand that Jesus, who was, and is, God, could not have been telling Peter that there was a solid rock (the knowledge Jesus had given Peter, whose character Jesus knew was anything but a firm, strong rock,) as a metaphor for the strength of law and justice that He, as God the Son had given Moses and the prophets during the history of Israel. I don’t think Jesus was repetitive when in such a serious discussion about what, rather than which human, would be the

I don’t think that is what Jesus was saying.

foundation of His Synagogue (the word that would have been used when Jesus spoke to Peter)

Church

, The - The term church is the name employed in the Teutonic languages to render the Greek ekklesia (ecclesia), the term by which the New Testament writers denote the society founded by Jesus Christ

The old law would not pass away until its fulfillment upon the cross.

Are you saying that the requirements of the dietary laws, circumcision etc. are still required?

 

[RonTheNewJew]

That is the SDA teaching of Ellen White.

The Old Testament order to keep the Saturday sabbath is strictly for the Jews and here is what our Lord specifically said about it**:**

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the [Saturday] Sabbath day. (Deut. 5:15)

Adventists should consider that in Deuteronomy, the reason for the Saturday sabbath being given to the Hebrews was this**:**

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the [Saturday] Sabbath day.

The Covenant to which Jesus referred when He told His disciples, “This is My blood (grape juice that represented His blood. Thy did not break God’s Torah by drinking real blood)-of the New Covenant” was given to Moses by God the Son (Jesus in human flesh) on Mount Sinai. It was the second time that God the Son gave His Law to the people, our spiritual forefathers, at Sinai. But, the second time, it was God the Son who made the promises. Not the first one after which man made the promises to God. The second one He called the Everlasting Covenant and said, “I shall not alter the thing which has gone out of My lips.” That is the Covenant the Jesus ratified with His own blood on the cross.

With His once-for-all-time sacrifice, He gave life to all those faithful Jews, and there were some, who understood that Emanuel would come, live the only Law He ever gave to anyone, perfectly, then die to do two things:

1. forgive, hence justify all those before and after His sacrifice, thus blotting out the list of sins accurately kept by satan, our enemy, and
2. Send the Holy Spirit, His only representative, to be with us if we have faith in Jesus’ promise of salvation if we love Him and keep His commandments, given at Sinai). This process of sanctification takes a life-time, but we will be judged by the Law, but not whether we kept it perfectly, but that we tried only under the power of the Holy Spirit through prayer to Jesus Who hears us when we pray, and are covered by His grace and mercy. Read Exodus 34. Leviticus 20-23, etc.

The Ten Commandments are binding as moral law, but not because we believe we are under the same covenant as Israel. Christians are under the New Covenant and are not bound by the shadows contained in the Old Covenant. The Catholic Church celebrates the resurrection of Jesus on Sunday, which is the day He rose from the dead.

The year when Jesus was crucified, Passover began on a Friday, Nisan 15, starting at sundown, Thursday evening. The third day of Passover is when Jesus was resurrected. The following year, the “third day” would have come on a different day than today’s Sunday. Passover comes on a different day each year.