An open question on the character of the divine in relation to Judgement

reply to post by adjensen

The underlined passage there is flat out wrong -- the Catholic church did not "change the Sabbath", and explicitly says so in the Catechism. The Jewish Sabbath is still what it was, just as the Judaic Law of Leviticus, for example, is still what it was.

2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."104 Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath,105 it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) 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

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."109 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.

2177 The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church.

2180 The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."117 "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day." [i.e make sure it is evening, do not keep Sabbath]

2182 Participation in the communal celebration of the Sunday Eucharist is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church. The faithful give witness by this to their communion in faith and charity. Together they testify to God's holiness and their hope of salvation. They strengthen one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

2185 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body.123 Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest. The faithful should see to it that legitimate excuses do not lead to habits prejudicial to religion, family life, and health

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.
Vatican.va Catechism

So this is what they tell unthinking Catholics openly...
- You must keep Sunday
- Sunday observances replaces the Sabbath
- Sunday is the heart of Church life
- Sunday is a testimony of your faithfulness to Christ
- Sunday is something that the faithful are bound to keep
- Sunday comes from apostolic tradition
- Sunday is a day of obligation (with direct replacement effects of the Sabbath)

And this is what the same church tells thinking people who have ears to hear:

From this we may understand how great is the authority of the church in interpreting or explaining to us the commandments of God - an authority which is acknowledged by the universal practice of the whole Christian world, even of those sects which profess to take the holy Scriptures as their sole rule of faith, since they observe as the day of rest not the seventh day of the week demanded by the Bible, but the first day. Which we know is to be kept holy, only from the tradition and teaching of the Catholic church.” — Henry Gibson, Catechism Made Easy, #2, 9th edition, vol. 1, p. 341-342.

hmm, so from the tradition and teaching of the Catholic church. So does this “tradition” come from the Bible perhaps...Let’s explore:

Sunday is founded not on Scripture, but on tradition, and is a distinctly Catholic institution."
- Catholic Record Sept. 17, 1893 .

The New Testament makes no explicit mention that the apostles changed the day of worship, but we know it from tradition." - The New Revised Baltimore Catechism (1949) p.139

Oh, this is not looking good...a (apostolic) tradition that has no basis in the Bible at all....surely this can’t be....surely the Bible gives a vague inkling that the apostles worshipped on Sunday right

“Question. What warrant have you for keeping Sunday preferably to the ancient sabbath which was Saturday?
“Answer. We have for it the authority of the Catholic church and apostolic tradition.
“Question. Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?
“Answer. The Scripture commands us to hear the church (St.Matt.18:17; St. Luke 10:16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess 2:15. But the Scripture does not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath.
“St John speaks of the Lord’s day (Rev 1:10) but he does not tell us what day of the week that was, much less does he tell us what day was to take the place of the Sabbath ordained in the commandments. St.Luke speaks of the disciples meeting together to break bread on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7. And St. Paul (1 Cor.16:2) orders that on the first day of the week the Corinthians should lay in store what they designated to bestow in charity on the faithful in Judea: but neither the one or the other tells us that this first day of the week was to be henceforth a day of worship, and the Christian Sabbath; so that truly the best authority we have for this ancient custom is the testimony of the church. And therefore those who pretend to be such religious observers of Sunday, whilst they take no notice of other festivals ordained by the same church authority, show that they act more by humor, than by religion; since Sundays and holidays all stand upon the same foundation, namely the ordinance of the (Roman Catholic) church.” — Catholic Christian Instructed, 17th edition, p. 272-273.

WHAT! The Catholics are instructing me that nowhere was worship held on Sunday by the apostals....hmmm, and yet they want us to believe that Sunday comes to us from apostolic tradition. This is called being lied to unconsciously believing a lie (yet the church is fully conscience of lying straight at you).

What did the mouth-piece for the pope in America have to say:

Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes.
Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day - Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes. Did Christ change the day’? I answer no!”
“Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons.” — James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, Md. (1877-1921), in a signed letter.

Oh, so officially lying to your face that Jesus somehow wanted us to keep Sunday (in direct opposition to what they say in the Catechism) and telling us the (Catholic) Church changed the day

So why is it that Catholics keep Sunday (and other Protestants follow that lead)?

“Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
“Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
“Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
“Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” — Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50, 3rd edition, 1957.

What’s this, the Catholic Church changed the day....but, but, but I thought the apostles kept Sunday. No adjensen...No

“Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:
“1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.
“2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws...
“It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible.”
— Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Magazine, USA (1975), Chicago, Illinois, “Under the blessing of the Pope Pius XI”.

So the only reason some should actually follow Sunday would be because they actually believe Jesus instituted the Catholic church (let’s just say I will be doing future threads showing that this is not the case).

So how do Catholics authorities think of the goyim who believe what is written in the Catechism is gospel truth...stullied in the eyes of every thinking man. Say it isn’t so Joe....

“I am going to propose a very plain and serious question to those who follow ‘the Bible and the Bible only’ to give their most earnest attention. It is this: Why don’t you keep holy the Sabbath day?...
“The command of the Almighty God stands clearly written in the Bible in these words: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.’ Exodus 20:8-10...
“You will answer me, perhaps, that you do keep the Sabbath; for that you abstain from all worldly business and diligently go to church, and say your prayers, and read your Bible at home every Sunday of your lives...

“But Sunday is not the Sabbath day. Sunday is the first day of the week: the Sabbath day is the seventh day of the week. Almighty God did not give a commandment that men should keep holy one day in seven; but He named His own day, and said distinctly: ‘Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day’; and He assigned a reason for choosing this day rather than any other - a reason which belongs only to the seventh day of the week, and cannot be applied to the rest. He says, ‘For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it’, Exodus 20:11, Genesis 2:1-3. Almighty God ordered that all men should rest from their labor on the seventh day, because He too had rested on that day: He did not rest on Sunday, but on Saturday. On Sunday, which is the first day of the week, He began the work of creation; He did not finish it. It was on Saturday that He ‘ended His work which he had made: and God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.’ Genesis 2:2-3...

“Nothing can be more plain and easy to understand than all this; there is nobody who attempts to deny it. It is acknowledged by everybody that the day which Almighty God appointed to be kept holy was Saturday, not Sunday. Why do you then keep holy the Sunday and not Saturday?

“You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! But by whom? Who has the authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, ‘Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day’, who shall dare to say, ‘Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day: but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead?’ This is a most important question, which I know not how you answer...

“You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet, in so important a manner as the observance of one day in seven as the holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the Ten Commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding. Who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible, and the Bible only you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered.”

Excerpts from “Why Don’t You Keep Holy the Sabbath Day?”, pages 3-15 in The Clifton Tract, vol. 4, published by the Roman Catholic Church 1869.

What, the Catholic church tells us that all men were to follow God Almighty with this commandment...not just the Jews

“Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code (ten commandments) was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai...Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity--love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5)...The (Catholic) Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day...He (God) claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy...”
The Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. 4, “The Ten Commandments”, 1908 edition by Robert Appleton Company; and 1999 Online edition by Kevin Knight, Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Oh no, why isn’t he describing the 10 commandments as Judiac Law adjensen? a-a-a Divine code – BLASHEMY!!!

So what are we learning about the Catholic church’s official doctrine versus their open statements....A bunch of dishonest liars!

And what does God have to say about a doctrine based on “tradition”

(Matthew 15:3,6,9) But He answered and said to them, why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?...And you void the commandment of God by your tradition...But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

-"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men...And he said to them. 'You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions.'" Mark 7:7,9

p.s I will get to your other points...one at a time. I like to make sure people are left without a leg to stand on in regards to each point

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


Apparently your problems with reading comprehension continue. Let me use big letters that you might be able to better discern:

The underlined passage there is flat out wrong -- the Catholic church did not "CHANGE THE SABBATH", and explicitly says so in the Catechism. THE JEWISH SABBATH IS STILL WHAT IT WAS, just as the Judaic Law of Leviticus, for example, is still what it was.

Get that? Your statement that the Catholic Church CHANGED the Sabbath is flat out wrong.

All the rest of it, once again, comes down to you and your foolish legalisms. Do you think Paul's admonition of "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?", in response to their desire to be ruled by legalisms, was only meant for Galatians?

Sunday worship is documented in the New Testament, Saturday worship for non-Jews is not. Pure and simple, like it or leave it.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


Romans 14:1-13

14 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

reply to post by adjensen

Actually, no, you didn't. You claimed there that Paul had written Hebrews, which he did not,

I wrote down what my study Bible says who is traditionally held to have written Hebrews. And you know Paul did not because, and the name of the real author is???

the bit in Colossians refers to an "annual Sabbath", without any supporting evidence for it. If a person has multiple uses for the same word, and does not qualify it,

Lucky for me, verse 16 and 17 qualify it...open up your eyes. Is the weekly Sabbath of the Divine Law related at all to the what people eat and drink and new moons of the Ceremonial law (that was nailed to the cross)...uh, no.

Col. 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (KJV)

So which rest (sabbaths) DAYS relate to new moons and what you eat and drink and are a shadow of things that were completed in Jesus Christ (v.17)?

Considering that we are already told in Isaiah (66:22, 23) that the Sabbath will continue in Heaven and the New Earth it is obviously not the weekly Sabbath. Please try to think a little harder before you post next time.

In a nutshell, here is the prophetic significance of each of the seven Levitical feasts of Israel:

1) Passover (Leviticus 23:5) – Pointed to the Messiah as our Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7) whose blood would be shed for our sins. Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover at the same hour that the lambs were being slaughtered for the Passover meal that evening.

2) Unleavened Bread (Leviticus 23:6) – Pointed to the Messiah's sinless life (as leaven is a picture of sin in the Bible), making Him the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Jesus' body was in the grave during the first days of this feast, like a kernel of wheat planted and waiting to burst forth as the bread of life.

3) First Fruits (Leviticus 23:10) – Pointed to the Messiah's resurrection as the first fruits of the righteous. Jesus was resurrected on this very day, which is one of the reasons that Paul refers to him in 1 Corinthians 15:20 as the "first fruits from the dead."

4) Weeks or Pentecost (Leviticus 23:16) – Occurred fifty days after the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and pointed to the great harvest of souls and the gift of the Holy Spirit for both Jew and Gentile, who would be brought into the kingdom of God during the Church Age (see Acts 2). The Church was actually established on this day when God poured out His Holy Spirit and 3,000 Jews responded to Peter's great sermon and his first proclamation of the gospel.

5) Trumpets (Leviticus 23:24) – The first of the fall feasts. Many believe this day points to the Rapture of the Church when the Messiah Jesus will appear in the heavens as He comes for His bride, the Church. The Rapture is always associated in Scripture with the blowing of a loud trumpet (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:52).

6) Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27) – Many believe this prophetically points to the day of the Second Coming of Jesus when He will return to earth. That will be the Day of Atonement for the Jewish remnant when they "look upon Him whom they have pierced," repent of their sins, and receive Him as their Messiah (Zechariah 12:10 and Romans 11:1-6, 25-36).

7) Tabernacles or Booths (Leviticus 23:34) – Many scholars believe that this feast day points to the Lord's promise that He will once again “tabernacle” with His people when He returns to reign over all the world (Micah 4:1-7).
source

Thank you for another giant wall of text that takes a straightforward statement, dissects and reframes it in order to make it sound like it says the exact opposite of what it does.

How is sabbath days framed in the context of the ceremonial law and saying it was a shadow of something fulfilled in Christ a straightforward statement against the weekly Sabbath of the Divine Law when the Divine Law remains forever and the Sabbath is a memorial to creation and is not a shadow of anything.

Jesus says:

Luke 16:17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law (or to become void ESV)

So knowing this multiple principles at play, is it any wonder that the major view in bible commentaries agree with what I have said in analysing this verse, is it any wonder that the Catholic church agree with Adventist analysis in relation to this whole Sabbath topic. I am sorry you can’t understand the Bible properly, it is truly a shame. But if you want to come on this thread and introduce this topic while framing it negatively about Adventists (when I am trying to do an inclusive thread to bring in non-Christians into a religious discussion) then I am going to make a good and proper example out of your terrible theological understanding and your interest to sabotage me in drawing people to Christianity.

The problem that you have is that there are very clear indications in scripture that you are wrong, so you need to twist the text in order to diffuse it.

The problem is that your level of Bible scholarship is terrible, you aren’t able to analysis verses inclusive of principles that Jesus himself has set, and you have no understanding of the kind of authorities that approve that interpretation.

However, viewed holistically (the only way to read the Bible, in my opinion,)

Please do this more, it would help you out a lot

If that's the case, then why restate any of them?

So when Jesus is asked a question He is meant to keep his mouth shut now...?

but as Paul says:

Who ever said that you are justified by the law?

Isaiah 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

We are to be sincere in following God, the one who we have faith in. Following what He commands of us is a sign of our love for Him and a testimony of His Divine precepts that help lead others to God.

Again, I ask you -- is Paul in hell for worshiping on Sunday, and for encouraging others to do the same?

Please cite the verses that clearly show Paul worshiping God on Sunday, separate from Sabbath and encouraging other to worship God on Sunday as well. I hope your verses are a little more substantial than few people eating bread together or collecting money. Such things are not worshipping God.

How about you tell me what you mean by hell?

Paul neither held weekly worship of God on Sunday, or encourage others to do the same, nor is he burning in hell right now (and neither are any dead people who might be deemed wicked)

The question is whether salvation hangs on a technicality, which particular day you view as being appropriate for worship, and whether we are bound by that, or whether Christ liberated us from it. The SDA claims it does hang on a technicality, everyone else claims it doesn't.

Canon XXIX.

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

Soooo...no one cares about this huh! The Catholic church just said right there that if I don’t follow their day (they made up out of thin air) that I am accused from Jesus. Do you think the Catholic church makes this “technicality” a salvation issue? Clearly they do. You come on this forum trying to defend the Catholic church as much as you can and what, you thought I would be too dumb to see what the Catholics have to say about this

Everyone else claims it doesn’t matter what particular day you worship or whether we are bound by that

- 2177...Sunday...is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church.
- 2180 The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass.
- 2185 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation
Catecism of the Catholic church

Clearly you don’t read too well adjensen, which then results in having to deal with statements you make based on no sense of reality (an all too familiar occurrence with you)

The only ones who don’t care are the ones unconsciously following the authority of the Catholic church whose whole doctrine of Sunday obligation and ecclesiastical authority and built from multiple lies.

The only ones that don’t care are the ones that are already beguiled wondering after the beast in worshipping his image unconsciously.

The only ones that suddenly don’t care on the issue are those that bring it up on the thread, see that the argument is going way south against them and seek to bail from it.

“Protestants...accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change...But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that...In observing the Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope.” — Our Sunday Visitor, February 15, 1950.

“It was the Catholic church which...has transferred this rest to Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Therefore the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the (Catholic) church.” — Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today, p. 213.

it should come as little surprise that the vast majority of people do not subscribe to the SDA doctrine that results in the belief that people are saved by works (Saturday worship) and works alone.

It should come as little surprise that the Catholic church thinks that all protestants have completely discredited theology other than Adventist’s who are te one ones that can support their theology from the Bible alone.

It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.” — Priest Brady, in an address reported in The News, Elizabeth, New Jersey, March 18, 1903.

It should come as little surprise that the one who thinks Adventist’s teach saved by works alone is the one who has to lie to himself (as I have been clearly teaching faith and obedience), and has never read any Ellen White books or serious SDA theology in his life.

Episcopal Church:

"Is there any command in the New Testament to change the day of weekly rest from Saturday to Sunday? None." (Manual of Christian Doctrine p.127)
- "We have made a change from the seventh day to the first day, form Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the one holy Catholic and apostolic church of Christ." (Why we keep Sunday. p.28.)

They [the Protestants] deem it their duty to keep the Sunday holy. Why? Because the Catholic Church tells them to do so. They have no other reason...The observance of Sunday thus comes to be an ecclesiastical law entirely distinct from the divine law of Sabbath observance...The author of the Sunday law...is the Catholic Church.” — Ecclesiastical Review, February 1914.

PLEASE LEARN adjensen the difference between Judaic law and Divine Law, it is not some airy fairy concept that I just made up....the Catholic church is making it abundantly clear that Sabbath is apart of Divine Law (the Divine Law that will never pass away or become void in any regard)

The "it doesn't matter" argument is bolstered by the words of Christ. The "it does matter" is bolstered by the words of the false prophet Ellen White

- Please show me these “words of Christ” in relation to this topic
- Please show me these words of Ellen White (who you try a come on here to turn people against as an authority yet are now trying to use her to support yet another unsourced personal opinion of yours)

ETA: I know that you won't read it, but for the benefit of others who may be interested in the "truth" of Ellen White

I will be reading it, although I have read all these kinds of things before anyway (that don’t hold any water on closer inspection)...I am just dealing with the Sabbath issue first which is the order I told you I would take. What is it adjensen, the argument on Sabbath going WAY south on you and panicking to distract the reader...lol....distracting others from the debate at hand is about all you can hope for at this stage.

The fact of the matter is adjensen, every doctrine of Adventists is fully supported by the Bible alone. If you are going to get into a theology debate against an SDA on differences then expect to find no support for your position as time progresses and overwhelming support for the SDA position. If any Christian wanted to follow theology of the highest degree of truth they would all have to follow SDA theology whether Ellen White is in the picture or not. We will find out that White was a prophet soon enough when we get to that debate.

Let me use big letters that you might be able to better discern: The underlined passage there is flat out wrong -- the Catholic church did not "CHANGE THE SABBATH", and explicitly says so in the Catechism.

2175 Sunday... for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath.
2176 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant
2180 The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."117 "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.
2184 The institution of the Lord's Day helps everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives
2188 Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church's holy days as legal holidays.
2190 The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday

When Canon XXIX accurses any Christian before God for keeping the Sabbath (because they are denying Catholic authority) and tells Christians that Sunday observance replaces the sabbath (2175, 2190), that Sunday is now a law of the Lord (2180), that the day of rest (2184 taking over the attributes of the design of the Sabbath) must not be kept from any early than the evening of Saturday (2180) because this is technically the Sabbath (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown)...oh and what’s this, Christians should have it as their priority to get Sunday recognised by civil authorities to be a legal holiday (2188) (sounds like ingrained doctrinal plans for Sunday Law around the world for the universal church).

Let me use big letter’s ...TO ANYONE WHO HAS EYES TO SEE AND EARS TO HEAR UNDERSTAND WHAT IS SAID IN THE CATECISM AND CANON LAW, THAT THE ORIGINAL BIBLICALLY SANTIFIED DAY OF REST AND SPIRITUAL FOCUS HAS BEEN REPLACE BY SUNDAY AND HAS BECOME A LAW PUNISHABLE BY BEING ACCURSED FROM GOD IF ONE DOESN’T FOLLOW IT. THEY HAVE CHANGED THE OBLIGATION OF THE DAY OF REST, THUS THEY HAVE CHANGED THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT FOR THOSE WHO ARE TO FOLLOW GOD...stop being blind and deaf

Get that? Your statement that the Catholic Church CHANGED the Sabbath is flat out wrong.

Get it...try to think a little harder before you speak...my statement quoting the Catholic church say that they have changed the obligated weekly day of rest and worship to God is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

Sunday worship is documented in the New Testament, Saturday worship for non-Jews is not. Pure and simple, like it or leave it.

I am all ears ready and willing to see this worship of God communally on Sunday....please provide your verses!

All the rest of it, once again, comes down to you and your foolish legalisms.

Let’s see..you ignore all my quotes from the NT about faith and keeping the commandments and then try to frame this all about legalism. This is what the Bible thinks of your foolish statement

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

1 John 2:4 If someone claims, "I know God," but doesn't obey God's commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth.

No light in you, doesn’t know God (a liar not living in truth)....the Bible is not giving you a good recommendation here adjensen...what a pitty for you and the worth of any opinion you have to give

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic

Actually, no, you didn't. You claimed there that Paul had written Hebrews, which he did not,

I wrote down what my study Bible says who is traditionally held to have written Hebrews. And you know Paul did not because, and the name of the real author is???

No one knows who wrote it, though rudimentary analysis of the message and writing clearly indicates that Paul did not.

Col. 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (KJV)

You apparently missed the word "OR" in that sentence. In context, that means that these are separate things. In addition, you apparently didn't read "in respect of an holy day" which obviously means that NO Jewish celebration of a day was to be observed (or at least you weren't supposed to judge someone else on whether they did or didn't celebrate it.)

I find it ironic that you criticize someone else's "Biblical Scholarship" when you can't even seem to get basic English words correct.

How is sabbath days framed in the context of the ceremonial law and saying it was a shadow of something fulfilled in Christ a straightforward statement against the weekly Sabbath of the Divine Law when the Divine Law remains forever and the Sabbath is a memorial to creation and is not a shadow of anything.

Jesus says:
Luke 16:17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law (or to become void ESV)

So, as we've discussed before, and you've evaded, the Catholic Church has not changed the Sabbath, nor has it changed the Law, so if you think that this passage is relevant, and means that you must still adhere to Sabbath observance, as the Jews did, are you adhering to it all? Because, as it is pointed out, if you wish to live by the Law, you will be judged by it.

Canon XXIX.

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

What, are we still in the Fourth Century? This admonition arose out of the final throes of the era of Christian Jews, and was a ban on claiming to believe in Christ while still wanting to live under the Law.

If the Catholic Church was adamant against worship on the Jewish Sabbath, they wouldn't have daily Mass, including Saturday. I will, in fact, be in church tonight for Stations of the Cross, but I will be celebrating the life, passion and sacrifice of Christ, not meeting some archaic legalism that Christ wiped away.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


If you want to quote 1 John 2:4...

4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

...then you might as well quote the rest of it...

1 John 2:22-25

22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

So knowing this multiple principles at play, is it any wonder that the major view in bible commentaries agree with what I have said in analysing this verse, is it any wonder that the Catholic church agree with Adventist analysis in relation to this whole Sabbath topic. I am sorry you can’t understand the Bible properly, it is truly a shame. But if you want to come on this thread and introduce this topic while framing it negatively about Adventists (when I am trying to do an inclusive thread to bring in non-Christians into a religious discussion) then I am going to make a good and proper example out of your terrible theological understanding and your interest to sabotage me in drawing people to Christianity.

Dude, you're not trying to draw people to Christianity, you're trying to draw them specifically to Seventh Day Adventist and you're most likely scaring them away. You're not promoting Jesus Christ, you're promoting a day of the week! You've given it higher regard than Jesus himself in this thread!

You're not doing yourself any good by saying things like, "I am sorry you can't understand the Bible properly" when it's obvious to me that you have more research to do on the details of the Millennium yourself.

If you want to set an example, start focusing on Jesus and not what day you worship him on.

reply to post by Deetermined

Dude, you're not trying to draw people to Christianity, you're trying to draw them specifically to Seventh Day Adventist and you're most likely scaring them away. You're not promoting Jesus Christ, you're promoting a day of the week! You've given it higher regard than Jesus himself in this thread!

Unfortunately this is the nature with threads where people don't have full understanding of past history of what is going on between other people. Adjensen and I have been butting heads with each other recently. I think it first started on a topic to do the the state of the dead. Adjensen is a strong believer in Catholic theology and on that thread with much Catholic support posting alongside with him adjensen learnt that his views on the state of the dead were actually not supported scripturally anywhere near he originally thought. A bunch of veteran catholic posters on this forum don't take kindly to being schooled scripturally by an SDA when they think their church is the defacto standard of true teaching in Christianity. Adjensen also knows that I post often on the topics of the mark of the beast, the NWO and prophecy. Adjensen definitely doesn't like it when I link these up to the Catholic church as he is the strongest defender of them here.

The best way adjensen tries to defend against the information I put out is to try and discredit the source of the information with opinion on topics he has not researched before in any semblance of depth. A prime example of this is my thread before this one titled Clinton, Bush, Obama, Hitler....Good enough Papists to deserve a commemorative coin or Vatican hung painting?. The read is about linking Vatican influence to Hitler and the most recent US President and their policies. The thread is meant for people to see what force maybe behind America's steady lose of civil liberties, the war on terror and the economic collapse. Adjensen (and FlyersFan) go on to the thread, don't wish to discuss anything related to civil liberties or help people understand the world, he goes on there and says:

Given your previously demonstrated propensity to only use biased, anti-Catholic and disreputable sources, I think it safe to say most of what you've posted here is dubious, at best.
adjensen post

FlyersFan posts within a couple of minutes of the OP (which is 10,000 words long) she states an opinion backed up by no evidence to turn people from the thread. FlyerFan continues to try and disrupt the thread not addressing any issues in the post until I do a full post to her sending her running off in silence with her tail between her legs.

Adjensen however continues on...not any errors in the post, giving opinions and trying to turn the topic towards discussing the Sabbath which he describes as slavish, Ellen white and ex-Jesuit Alberto Rivera. All these things the thread had nothing to do with (just trying to distract the minds of the reader for the original evidence).

Eventually adjensen makes the bold statement:

To date, all we've seen you make are statements that are absolutely false, and easily refutable with facts that a three year old can look up. adjensen quote

All the while never having addressed a single point in the OP at all or with evidence. With this is a frustrating situation....

So I challenge adjensen to address 65 or so statements made in the OP that the basis of the thread is on seeing that he is so confident they are easily proved false and me wanting to actually here so debate on the OP and not all these distractions adjensen is trying to raise.
Adjensen then doesn't seek to argue any points that I raise and says

As I commented earlier, claims that you make against the Vatican may well have some validity
adjensen quote

adjensen comment earlier was on a separate post from the OP where I had to provide a full big slab of evidence specifically on the topic of the Nazis and the Croatian Ustashi transferring the gold of the victims them plundered into the Vatican Bank. Now all of a sudden when challenged to stump up with information to prove any of his claims he capitulates and decides there is a great deal of merit to what I have said in my OP.

Now what do we see from adjensen in this thread?
Comes onto the thread , we know that adjensen agrees with the statement (keeps this to himself), but adjensen doesn’t agree with any kind of truth coming from an SDA or theology I believe in so he tries to sabotage the thread by not talking on the content of the message but who is the messenger is and framing the theology of the person in a negative way (when he doesn’t know anything about SDA theology)

Then FlyersFan has her chance to jump on the bandwagon to support adjensens opinion with more opinion of her own (knows nothing of SDA theology), making multiple posts of just drivel with no support of facts. FlyersFan does not stick around long when my initial post to Adjensen on evidence for the Sabbath probably gets a little beyond her ability to respond (and flees to save face...to fight another day with more sabotaging opinion of drivel based on no reality).

The only non-Christian posting on this thread recently is AfterInfinity and that was a few days ago and he didn’t respond to my last post. I see no one had an issue with the content I posted to him on the The background to our creation. Did anyone realise that the source for more than have that information is from Ellen White visions which I simply paraphrased. Did anyone detect anything that was fundamentally in accurate about what I said...No.

Would anyone else here be able to give a clear understanding of the background of our creation which makes it understandable to people why Satan is able to exist at all....without Ellen White’s visions on the state of affairs in heaven before the fall Christians have little to no ability to explain to non-Christian why we exist and why Satan still exists.

Why would I advocate for a Christianity other than SDA Christianity which is the only one that can answer these difficult sticking points people have against Christianity. Why would I advocate a Christianity other than SDA Christianity when I perceive the Tribulation period to begin within the next couple of years and all Christianity will be lost to God if the receive the Beast’s mark which is Sunday worship. I am not interested in lukewarm, halfway measure Christianity that will lead others astray during the Tribulation. I am interested in people who will be powerful advocates for liberty and God when the whole Earth is under severe delusion. I am interested in building people with knowledge so they won’t be deceived, so they can discern truth (when the world is being lead into error). I am not interested for people who want a Christianity that is comfortable for them. God wants all of our lives and has great plans for those who are interested in seeking after His Truth and serving Him.

You don’t know my background with AfterInfinity...I have posted extensively to him before on reasons to have faith in God by using arguments of science, archaeology, history ect... (probably 8 pages of a thread worth to have concrete evidence). I have probably posted more concrete evidence for AfterInfinity to have faith in God than anyone else on the forum. I don’t appreciate these accusations against how I have argued here when you don’t know the multiple dynamics at play and the background for what has already been said.

The only way I can try an do a thread in the future without adjensen (and FlyersFan) trying to sabotage it is not show him very clearly where he is wrong...adjensen tries to sabotage me so in return he will be made to face facts which will shame the worth of his opinion which I know he can’t back. Adjensen has a clear vendetta out against me so no partial explanation of where he is wrong is acceptable. He will learn exactly where he is wrong so I can get on with threads for people who have ears to listen.

I will be posting on the Millenium stuff to you next so hold your horse on what you think facts are as what I have seen so far is not looking promising at all to support your case.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

Adjensen and I have been butting heads with each other recently. I think it first started on a topic to do the the state of the dead. Adjensen is a strong believer in Catholic theology and on that thread with much Catholic support posting alongside with him adjensen learnt that his views on the state of the dead were actually not supported scripturally anywhere near he originally thought.

Um, no. I don't know who you're thinking about, but it's not me.

You and I first butted heads when you claimed that Jesuits had taken copies of Ellen White's Great Controversy and changed them before releasing them in China. This, in your mind, was proof that the Catholic Church "had it out" for the SDA, which puffed you up.

However, a bit of digging later, I found that the estate of Ellen White (which controls the publication of that book, apparently,) had investigated that very incident and found that the Jesuits had nothing to do with it -- they found the people who did it, and they weren't Catholics. (My posts regarding this is here.)

Now, a reasonable person would have replied to that "oh, okay, I was wrong, thanks for the info", but you, instead, continued to labour in your claim that "it must have been Catholics," which led me to the obvious conclusion (in conjunction with other ridiculous claims that you made, like "Catholics killed 200,000,000 people in the Inquisitions," a number higher than the entire population of Europe in the 14th and 15th Centuries,) that you're a nut, who believes anything that you hear, regardless of facts, so long as it agrees with your biases against Catholics.

I will repeat my earlier statement that some of the things that you claim are likely true -- I'm no apologist for the horrendous actions of both the Catholic and Protestant churches in the past -- but I will also repeat that your claims aren't worth the time of sorting through the unsubstantiated garbage for the nuggets of truth that might be buried in the trash.

There are people on this site who I consider utterly credible -- Catholics, Protestants, atheists, agnostics, all sorts. They achieve that status by showing that they base their arguments or presentation of fact with well-researched, non-biased sources of evidence, so, while I may not agree with them, I can respect that their perspective has some merit.

You do not qualify for that status, and unless you change your methodology, you never will. You may not care about that, but it explains why most people do not take the claims that you've made in this thread seriously. While a broken clock might be right twice a day, that doesn't make it much of a clock.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by JesuitGarlic

 

Here are some references for you:
Deuteronomy 28:1-2
Deuteronomy 30:1-10
Isaiah 65
Jeremiah 31
Zechariah 8
These links with scripture posted might help too.
www.compellingtruth.org...
www.gotquestions.org...

If there is something wrong with my research on the millennial period (where I am referencing Revelation) why aren't you able to break down for me where my understanding of Revelation is wrong by citing the exact verses, chronology of events and putting it into your own thoughts?

Deuteronomy 28:1-2
A conditional prophecy that has no mention of a millennium of anything...the Jews failed to be faithful to the words of the Lord so thus broke the promise and will receive nothing.

Deuteronomy 30:1-10
Verse 10 clearly shows it is a conditional promise. No mention is made of any millennium. Do you read the verses you are posting to me?

Isaiah 65
This chapter is dealing our life back on Earth after the millennium in Heaven. The passage like the others above, makes no mention of any millennium period what we do know is that in verse 17 a new heaven and an new earth is created. This suggests that the former earth will pass away and this verse correspond to Revelation 21:1,2 where the scene of the new earth is introduce (after the millennium in the heaven as told to us in Rev. 20) and there too that the present Earth had disappeared.

Do you know why the present Earth had disappeared? At the end of the 1000 years Satan is let loose to deceive people again. The only people who are around are those that did not make it to heaven and they are raised up again in what is known as the second resurrection. Satan and the wicked see the heavenly city and Satan makes out to the people that he has raised them up from the dead and that they can take the Heavenly city (that last sentence is from Ellen White visions). They surround the city and are about to attack it (this is known as the battle of Gog-Magog described in Revelation 20:7-9). This is the part where the former earth passes away. Just as they are about to attack Jesus appears on His throne and all the wicked are made to see every sin they had done in their minds and they become contrite knowing that Jesus is actually God, Satan has deceived them again (who they turn upon) and that God’s judgment upon them is just and warranted (a combination of Revelation 20:11-13 plus Ellen White visions). At this point the whole earth (except for the heavenly city) is turned into a Lake of Fire and the wicked are consumed away to nothing (length of burning in accordance to the deeds that they had done Rec.20:12). The Earth is purged of all trances of sin by fire and the old landscape we be indistinguishable. It is at this point that your Isaiah 65 passage become relevant and meshes with the rest of scripture.

Verses like Isaiah 65:21 how we will build houses and inhabit them and plant vineyards and eat the fruit of them is actually describing some of the thing we will do on the new earth than lasts forever. We will be given a country residence (where we can grow fruit or whatever and we will have a residence in the heavenly city (then known as the New Jerusalem) where we will all come together each month to eat from the tree of life (Revelation 22:2) and worship before the Jesus each Sabbath (Rev. 22:3 and Isaiah 66:22, 23).

Do you really think the wolf is going to lay down with the lamb and the lion eat straw (Isaiah 65:25) just because Satan is chained up in some unknown place for some unknown reason...??? Satan is bound to the Earth for 1000 years. it is a bottomless pit for him because he cannot go any else, all those in Christ are already in heaven, all those who aren’t in the book of life are dead awaiting the second resurrection to receive final judgment, he has nothing to do, no one to tempt, he will be bored out of his brain will the redeemed in God are going through the life records to understand why they are there, why others aren’t and what the length of time the judgment for the others will be.

Jeremiah 31
The land of Israel was devastated by war and God promised to have His people rebuild (v.4). Some were fulfilled in partiality to Judah’s restoration (25:19-20) and some will be fulfilled at the end of time. The whole chapter makes no mention of anything to do with the 1000 years.

Zechariah 8
Your entire chapter makes no mention of the future millennium period. The chapter is dealing with the coming back to Judah after years of exile. Verse 19 for instance the “fast for the fourth month” is making a reference to the breaching of Jerusalem’s walls by Nebuchadnezzar’s army on July 18 586 B.C. (Jeremiah 39:2), “fast of the tenth” is commemorated the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem by the forces of Nebuchadnezzar on January 15 588 B.C. This whole passage and every passage you have provided has nothing to do with the millennium period...it is not me who is lacking in research.
------
www.compellingtruth.org...

After the rapture of the church, after the seven-year long tribulation, after the war of Armageddon and the resurrection of the saints, Jesus will rule on the earth for one thousand years (Revelation 20:4-6)

Can you please show me where the Bible says the tribulation period is going to be 7 years long?
The only mention of anything prophetically over a 7 year period is the prophecy of the 69th and 70th week period when the Jesus would begin His ministry (after being baptised). This is covered in Daniel chapter 9:25-27 and tells of the time 483 years (69 weeks or 483 prophetic days) after the order went out by Artaxerxes I to rebuild Jerusalem in 457 B.C. where Jesus would be anointed (baptised) in 27 A.D, crucified after 3.5 years of public ministry (cut off mid week) which brought an end for the need of the sacrificial system (temple curtain torn from top to bottom).
www.truthinhistory.org...
www.whitehorsemedia.com...

Using a prophecy which relates to the time of Jesus’ first arrival which relates to a time period about 2000 years ago as the time period of the 7 year tribulation is moronic.

How do people think that they can guess when Jesus is to come (at the end of the tribulation period) if “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32). When someone puts a definitive time on when things are going to come to an end then you should know that this is not based on correct Biblical principles.

Why would Jesus rule on the Earth for 1000 years?
The Revelation 20:4-6 passage makes no reference to Jesus being on the Earth.

Then we, which are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Master in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Master." 1Thessalonians 4:17.

This passage clearly points out that the redeemed are taken up into the air and will remain with Jesus forever (first in the Heaven for 1000 years, then back to the New Earth forever).

Why do you think Jesus gives us this warning:

Matthew 24:24-26 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. See, I have told you ahead of time.
So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.

Jesus is telling us that when he comes the second time He is not going to touch the ground but remain in the air (before taking the redeemed back to Heaven). Anyone who is pretending to be Jesus (false-Christs) will be looking to set a kingdom up on Earth and will be walking the Earth so it doesn’t matter if a supposed Jesus figure is said to be here or there on the Earth, we know it is a fake.

This is how the second coming of Jesus is described:

Nahum 1:5,6 The mountains quake before Him, The hills melt, And the earth heaves at His presence, Yes, the world and all who dwell in it. Who can stand before His indignation? And who can endure the fierceness of His anger? His fury is poured out like fire, And the rocks are thrown down by Him.

The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly. The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again. Isaiah 24:19-20

the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." 2 Peter 3:10

Does that sound like a millennium of peace to you?

1 Thessalonians 5:3 While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly...

A false-christ is going to present himself to us and make out that the millennium of peace has started. You are going to be taken in by this (because you don’t hold biblical principles of God’s warnings for us to sort fact from fiction) and be telling people like me to cast aside our differences so that the golden-age can begin. Unfortunately, your lack of biblical knowledge is what makes you at this stage, apart of the group that is described as the false prophet, apostate protestant churches that will give people into the hands of the false-christ Satan because of lack of knowledge.

It will take me too long going through all the errors of the linked passages you gave me (as they are plentiful and drastically alter the conclusion when based on multiple layers of faulty understanding) so I will just leave the first one there (unless you wish me to explain anything more specific in that passage.

I will explain a couple in the next one as well.

www.gotquestions.org...

The Bible tells us that when Christ returns to the earth He will establish Himself as king in Jerusalem, sitting on the throne of David (Luke 1:32-33).

This verse is used to support the established reign of Jesus on Earth for 1000 years but is this really the case. Yes Jesus will return and establish a kingdom on Earth but He doesn’t do this on His second return to Earth, He does it on His third return to Earth (when He comes down with the Heavenly city, the New Jerusalem), and when he establishes His kingdom on Earth it is not for 1000 years, even the verse cited tells us how long it is for.

Luke 1:33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.

The unconditional covenants demand a literal, physical return of Christ to establish the kingdom... The Palestinian Covenant promised Israel a restoration to the land and occupation of the land (Deuteronomy 30:1-10)

As I mentioned earlier, this is not an unconditional covenant, v. 10 clearly shows that it is conditional.

Those are just a couple of examples from the beginning of each of how poor the scholarship is on both those articles cited. You think my understanding is poor, ah no. My understanding can spot contradictions in Biblical principles a mile away because I grew up in a church that writes on these topics all the time and when they write, no contradictions to other verses are made. That is the standard I am accustom to so when I see people have this particular understanding of prophecy or that it just looks really really sloppy. This is another reason why I would not wish to advocate a Christianity to a person other than being an Adventist, people’s lack of knowledge on prophecy matters is enough to be caught up in the last days delusion and remain lost forever. Creating people (false prophet Christians) who will be a hindrance to Truth during the tribulation is in a sense worse that having people with no understanding of Biblical matters at all.
------------

Once again, salvation is only relevant to believing who Jesus said he was and what he came here to do. [and]
I think with every religion we have has some misinterpretations (leading to lies), but I don't think that keeps us from also learning the truth that leads to salvation either. There is no perfect church because it is made up of men, but the Holy Spirit will lead us to believe what's important enough to lead us to salvation.

Both these statements are very confusing in there vagueness. On one hand you are advocating that all you have to believe is that Jesus was the Messiah , God in the flesh and did what he came here to do (Well even Satan and Hitler believe that so are they going to be saved too?). Then on the other hand you say all other religions have some element to them which still enables people to find the truth of Salvation (which to you is believing that Jesus was the Messiah and died for our sin, correct me if I am wrong). So do you see the contradiction here. Every other religion does not teach Jesus is God. And considering this is a prerequisite to your version of salvation, everyone who is not a Christian through-out all ages is to be in burn and Christian’s, no matter what they do are saved.

Can you thrash out your salvation principles a bit better because at this stage your version of God sounds to tad undesirable.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


I'm sorry, Jesuit, but I don't have it in me to correct everything that's been misinterpreted in your post.

I'll pick just one.

Why would Jesus rule on the Earth for 1000 years? The Revelation 20:4-6 passage makes no reference to Jesus being on the Earth.

Because that's what God promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Peace on earth. Yes, the Millennial period will be here on earth (at least for the Jews who have been refined by fire).

You're not making much of a case when you quote Ellen White, sorry.

Zechariah 14:9-17

9 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.

10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.

11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

13 And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour.

14 And Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the heathen round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.

15 And so shall be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the beasts that shall be in these tents, as this plague.

16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

Stop fighting amongst yourselves, God is good and through Christ we can see past our differences and work together to find common ground. Is this is what is meant when Jesus said?

Luke 12:51-52

51Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! 52From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three;

I ask you is religion right or is religion just another fence that draws lines between us, If you cannot see the deceptions and than how will you know?
The world is as dark as midnight right now and prophecy is our best bet through the dark times because even if Christ is with us, it's us that has to make the choice.

All the teachers and all that where given duties by God, have to answer to God for denying the warnings that where given by God and Christ to prepare for his coming.

God is calling and you have to know by their fruit and how to look past tradition and being brainwashed to follow leaders who are equal to you all your life, for they do not know that they have been set up to fall a great fall.

The church so beautiful but those who run it have wandered from true faith and have been taking bites of the forbidden fruit and with power,greed and envy have pierced themselves with many griefs.

reply to post by Deetermined

Romans 14:1-13
14 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

The Sabbath commandment in the Divine Law (the law that will never change or pass away) is not a disputable matter. You can depute it, but you have no scriptural authority to stand on. My faith is not weak, it is rock solid and have no issues talking on such matters. If learning what is said in scripture is a cause to raise issues about your faith then perhaps you need to question yours...mine is fine

..then you might as well quote the rest of it...1 John 2:22-25

I am failing to see the relevance to the sabbath issue. If I wanted to go in that same vain I could just say "read the whole Bible", become Adventist

You're not making much of a case when you quote Ellen White, sorry.

Please show me my Ellen White quote that didn't make my case and I will back it up another way.

Zechariah 14:9-17
9 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth:

I agree that Jesus will be king over all the earth...my dispute is that for every reference you cite for it to be related to the millenium there is never any mention that it is a millenium, alternatively I have cited many times that when Jesus reigns on the New Earth from the New Jerusalem it is forever. If my one is backed up by scripture and yours isn't then it makes perfect sense that the 1000 years where the saints are going through the Book of Life (which is in Heaven) would be in Heaven as well, especially when it is described that after the Tribulation the earth descends into darkness.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give its light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

How does the Earth enter a millennium of peace after the trib if the Earth is in darkness...does this sound like the place that the golden era will be?

reply to post by adjensen


Sorry for my tardy reply...I must have missed your post

So, as we've discussed before, and you've evaded, the Catholic Church has not changed the Sabbath

Adjensen you are squabbling over that the meaning of "changed" is. I have multiple quotes of of the mouths of authoritative Catholic sources saying they changed it. I have a full analysis of the Catechism saying they replaced it, taking the elements of the original Sabbath and making it Sunday instead, saying that it is now a Law for Christians to follow.

so if you think that this passage is relevant, and means that you must still adhere to Sabbath observance, as the Jews did, are you adhering to it all?

It is not about me thinking it is relevant. I know it is relevant. I know it is truth. You have to decide if it is Truth. There is no argument you can make to say that the Divine Law has passed away....you are not supported any where. I have provided information to you to show that it is Truth, I think I have made a solid case and could go on longer about it if you pressed me but to any reasonable person you should see that there are points that I raised and explanations given that would probably haven't thought of before and you owe it to yourself to research these matters in an objective way yourself.

Jesus was a Jew and the ultimate example of how His Law should be kept so how did Jesus keep the Sabbath? Was Jesus pleased with how the Jews were being told to keep the Sabbath by religious leaders at the time or did He need to rebuke them and try to draw them back to what He intended it to be?

Do you dispute that it had not been corrupted by additional man made specifics that were outside of what God originally prescribed?

adjensen, I want you to read this on the Sabbath and tell me what you think, if it is wrong in any way. It should tell you a lot about how SDAs keep the Sabbath and whether this is inline with God's teachings. I hope you will read it carefully because you seem to have a problem about what the requirements of the Sabbath are and try to negatively slant it when there is no reason to do so when you know more about it.

was a ban on claiming to believe in Christ while still wanting to live under the Law.

The ceremonial law and the divine law are two different things with no overlap. The ceremonial law was done away with at the cross. We are told that were can still practice the ceremonial law if we wish but not to judge others for not doing so. On the other hand we know specifically that the divine law remains active forever. If there was no Law, then there is no sin and no need for repentance and asking forgiveness. Is this what you are proposing, no law/no sin/no wrong. The Catholic church is cursing people from God because they are following all aspects of the divine law....not the ceremonial law (which the should not be cursing on either, but just not judging others on or making a salvation issue our of it).

You might want to check out this post I have made much documents much early christian history of Sabbath keeping being the predominate form (follow up on the cited reference as there are many quotes that I didn't include just so I would not bore people with info overload).

If the Catholic Church was adamant against worship on the Jewish Sabbath, they wouldn't have daily Mass, including Saturday.

Maybe, mass is hardly something that lasts all day though or actually gives God any worship. A ritualistic sacrifice of God's literal body when God's sacrifice for us was made once for us is more akin to a witchcraft ceremony and puts God in a continual state of helplessness on the cross. Mass on Saturday or any day does not count as any kind of worship that God seeks for us to participate in.

not meeting some archaic legalism that Christ wiped away.

Show me where Jesus erased it? Show me where the divine law was erased by Jesus?

What is it about the Sabbath Jesus set out that is archaic legalism/slavish....(please read the link on the Sabbath before responding with any uninformed stupid comments)

Oh....I am still eagerly waiting to see these clear scriptural references of Paul and Sunday worship of God (please do not forget in your next post).

I agree with Jesuit on this one guys, I'm sure Constantine was the emperor of Rome to convert to Christianity and was the first to proclaim Sunday his empire a day of rest. He didn't convert without bringing his pagan roots to the church.