Why the Catholic Church changes the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday

[BobRyan]

This exchange was "on topic" -- with points brought up and responded to -

Today at 12:44 PM #464

I really like it when posts are on topic and deal with the actual subject.

If you want to talk about 'naming other denominations that are not your own' please feel free to start such a thread.

 

[bugkiller]

We are much more likely to continue to "stick with the Bible" rather than resort to emotional appeals to "move past the Bible" -- I am sure you will agree that this is the best course to follow.

Really? Which Bible would that be? When we quote the Bible most Christians use you do not like those details and throw them out.

bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God:"

and how do we "show" love for God? 1 John 5:2-3 answers the question -
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

Ephesians 6:2 tells us that the 5th commandment is the "FIRST commandment with a promise" in that still-valid still-bindng-on-the-saints - Unit of Ten.

Revelation 14:12 "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" -- contrasted with the mark of the beast in Revlation 14

Mark 7:6-13 Jesus Christ condemns all attempts to edit/delete/attack one of the TEN commandments - one of God's Commandments.

1 John 5:2-3 answers that question[/QUOTE]

seventh day adventists should change their name so they can move on to more important things

We are much more likely to continue to "stick with the Bible" rather than resort to emotional appeals to "move past the Bible" -- I am sure you will agree that this is the best course to follow.

==================== 1934


The Reply:

THE CATHOLIC EXTENSION MAGAZINE
180 Wabash Ave., Chicago, Illinois
(Under the Blessing of Pop Pius XI)

Dear sir:
...
(3) We also say that of all Protestants, the Seventh-day Adventists are
the only group that reason correctly and are consistent with their teachings. It is always somewhat laughable to see the Protestant Churches, in pulpit and legislature, demand the observance of Sunday of which there is nothing in the Bible.

With best wishes,
Peter R. Tramer, Editor

Really? Which Bible would that be?

Your confusion noted.

The ones I quote range from KJV/NKJV/NASB and on rare occasions NIV.

And as in the example above - when the Bible texts get quoted - you ignore them. Perhaps you are confused about Bible translations and want a thread on that - go ahead and start one. No need to derail this thread with that topic.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BABerean2]

This exchange was "on topic" -- with points brought up and responded to -

Today at 12:44 PM #464

I really like it when posts are on topic and deal with the actual subject.

If you want to talk about 'naming other denominations that are not your own' please feel free to start such a thread.

This video contains many of the SDA claims that we have already disproven over and over again.

Here are just a few of their arguments.


Claim: As Christians we are to do what Jesus did. Jesus kept the Sabbath day.

Reality: Jesus worked on the Sabbath because the Jewish priests worked on the Sabbath day in the temple. Did He break the Sinai covenant?
No. Because He was the ultimate High Priest.



Claim: We are baptized into Christ through a ceremony using water.

Reality: True Christians have Christ baptized into us through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The water ceremony is merely a symbol of our being born again of the Spirit, as found in John chapter 3.


Claim: Abraham kept the commandments of God.

Reality: Abraham did circumcise his male offspring as he was commanded.
There is no reference to Abraham keeping a Sabbath day. He also had a sexual relationship with his bondwoman, which was not his wife.



Claim: In Matthew 24:20 Jesus warned the early Church not to flee from Jerusalem on the Sabbath day during the year 66 AD, so the Sabbath day was to still be observed.

Reality: The city gates were locked on the Sabbath day and they could not leave on that day.



Claim: Jesus said in Matthew chapter 5 that the law would not pass away until heaven and earth passed away.

Reality: Jesus said in Matthew chapter 5 that He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it before heaven and earth passed away.



Claim: It mentioned the reference to the commandments in 1 John chapter 5 in an attempt to make us think this was a reference to the 10 commandments.

Reality: The video ignored the commandments of Christ in 1 John chapter 3.



Claim: Jesus never changes. This is true. However, the law does change based on scripture.

Reality: Hebrews 7:12 says that the law does change.


And on and on it goes offering the same claims, but ignoring John 15:10 and Hebrews 12:18-24, which prove the SDA doctrine is not scriptural.

Now I know where the Bait-and-Switch strategy came from...

.

 

[BobRyan]

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God:"

and how do we "show" love for God? 1 John 5:2-3 answers the question -
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

Ephesians 6:2 tells us that the 5th commandment is the "FIRST commandment with a promise" in that still-valid still-bindng-on-the-saints - Unit of Ten.

Revelation 14:12 "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" -- contrasted with the mark of the beast in Revlation 14

Mark 7:6-13 Jesus Christ condemns all attempts to edit/delete/attack one of the TEN commandments - one of God's Commandments.

1 John 5:2-3 answers that question

That post contains many of the texts you have not disproven -- rather .. they remain

This video contains many of the SDA claims that we have already disproven over and over again.

Here are just a few of their arguments.


Claim: As Christians we are to do what Jesus did. Jesus kept the Sabbath day.

1 John 2:4-9
4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.


Another great example of a Bible text - you were not able to refute

Claim: We are baptized into Christ through a ceremony using water.

Romans 6
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Another great example of a text you have not been able to refute.

As we all believe that water baptism is symbolic - yet it remains as Paul states the matter in Romans 6 -- your objections not withstanding.

More "actual Bible" -- please

Claim: Abraham kept the commandments of God.

Genesis 26
4 I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”

That was written by Moses for his readers - and the same phrase is used multiple times in the OT - to refer to the LAW of God - that even in Romans 3:19-21 is admitted to 'define sin'.

Another great example of a Bible text you were unable to refute.

"More actual Bible - please".

BTW - as we all know - it is 'still' a sin to "take God's name in vain" and the Exodus 20:7 regarding that point - remains as well.

Since your entire post just goes on along the same pattern of referencing some Bible text that does not agree with your POV and then failing to refute it...

Will leave it at this.

BTW - even the RCC admits that the TEN Commandments are included in the moral law of God - binding on all mankind.

 

[BobRyan]

And on and on it goes offering the same claims, but ignoring John 15:10 and Hebrews 12:18-24, which prove the SDA doctrine is not scriptural.

Now I know where the Bait-and-Switch strategy came from...

You are using an "extreme" level of pure imagination in that part of your post -- did you want to point to some logic or fact before ending that point?

 

[BABerean2]

BTW - even the RCC admits that the TEN Commandments are included in the moral law of God - binding on all mankind.

Rev_17:3　 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

Rev_17:4　 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication.

Rev_17:6　 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.

Rev_17:7　 But the angel said to me, "Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.

Rev_17:9　 "Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.

Rev_17:18　 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth."


You may want to be more careful about who you are using as your source of doctrine.

So far you have used the bondwoman and now you are using the woman who sits on the beast.

.

 

[bugkiller]

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God:"

and how do we "show" love for God? 1 John 5:2-3 answers the question -
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

Ephesians 6:2 tells us that the 5th commandment is the "FIRST commandment with a promise" in that still-valid still-bindng-on-the-saints - Unit of Ten.

Revelation 14:12 "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" -- contrasted with the mark of the beast in Revlation 14

Mark 7:6-13 Jesus Christ condemns all attempts to edit/delete/attack one of the TEN commandments - one of God's Commandments.

1 John 5:2-3 answers that question

No it does not, because you intend it to say something it dose not. You have a reading problem.

We are much more likely to continue to "stick with the Bible" rather than resort to emotional appeals to "move past the Bible" -- I am sure you will agree that this is the best course to follow.

Really? You know I thought about what if any anything to say here. The problem seems to be the rules and your self persecution complex. Both simply prohibit me from posting the truth.

Your confusion noted.

Maybe yours.

The ones I quote range from KJV/NKJV/NASB and on rare occasions NIV.

And as in the example above - when the Bible texts get quoted - you ignore them. Perhaps you are confused about Bible translations and want a thread on that - go ahead and start one. No need to derail this thread with that topic.

in Christ,

Bob

No Bob I have not. I have in fact commented on them many times showing what you mean them to say is invalid.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

That post contains many of the texts you have not disproven -- rather .. they remain

hogwash!!!

1 John 2:4-9
4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

First thing is you have the pronouns improperly assigned. I used to have the same problem.

Secondly we are in Jesus which easily refutes your idea on the above verses.

Thirdly there is no intention to require us to keep the law as Jesus did. We simply can not keep the law as even Isaiah notes in 63:17. That complies with Ps 14 and 53 not to mention Romans 3 and more.

You simply refuse these Bible details.

Another great example of a Bible text - you were not able to refute



Romans 6
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

What exactly do you mean by verse one? Is it that we now obey the law contrary to Scripture? Only if you continue to use partial sentences such as I Jn 3:4. Half truths are full lies.

Another great example of a text you have not been able to refute.

As we all believe that water baptism is symbolic - yet it remains as Paul states the matter in Romans 6 -- your objections not withstanding.

More "actual Bible" -- please



Genesis 26
4 I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”

That was written by Moses for his readers - and the same phrase is used multiple times in the OT - to refer to the LAW of God - that even in Romans 3:19-21 is admitted to 'define sin'.

Yes and so was Deut 5:3 you must throw out to support your theology.

Another great example of a Bible text you were unable to refute.

"More actual Bible - please".

BTW - as we all know - it is 'still' a sin to "take God's name in vain" and the Exodus 20:7 regarding that point - remains as well.

WE do not deny that fact at all. But then it really goes back to your half truth supported with a partial sentence taken out of context.

Since your entire post just goes on along the same pattern of referencing some Bible text that does not agree with your POV and then failing to refute it...

Your theology does not agree with the Bible. Thus all you can present is your opinion.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

You are using an "extreme" level of pure imagination in that part of your post -- did you want to point to some logic or fact before ending that point?

John 15:10 is not an extreme level of imagination. You simply can not accept this without defeating your entire position.

bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God:"

and how do we "show" love for God? 1 John 5:2-3 answers the question -
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

Ephesians 6:2 tells us that the 5th commandment is the "FIRST commandment with a promise" in that still-valid still-bindng-on-the-saints - Unit of Ten.

Revelation 14:12 "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" -- contrasted with the mark of the beast in Revlation 14

Mark 7:6-13 Jesus Christ condemns all attempts to edit/delete/attack one of the TEN commandments - one of God's Commandments.

1 John 5:2-3 answers that question

That post contains many of the texts you have not disproven -- rather .. they remain

This video contains many of the SDA claims that we have already disproven over and over again.

Here are just a few of their arguments.


Claim: As Christians we are to do what Jesus did. Jesus kept the Sabbath day.

1 John 2:4-9
4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.


Another great example of a Bible text - you were not able to refute

Claim: We are baptized into Christ through a ceremony using water.

Romans 6
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Another great example of a text you have not been able to refute.

As we all believe that water baptism is symbolic - yet it remains as Paul states the matter in Romans 6 -- your objections not withstanding.

More "actual Bible" -- please

Claim: Abraham kept the commandments of God.

Genesis 26
4 I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”

That was written by Moses for his readers - and the same phrase is used multiple times in the OT - to refer to the LAW of God - that even in Romans 3:19-21 is admitted to 'define sin'.

Another great example of a Bible text you were unable to refute.

"More actual Bible - please".

BTW - as we all know - it is 'still' a sin to "take God's name in vain" and the Exodus 20:7 regarding that point - remains as well.

Since your entire post just goes on along the same pattern of referencing some Bible text that does not agree with your POV and then failing to refute it...

Will leave it at this.

BTW - even the RCC admits that the TEN Commandments are included in the moral law of God - binding on all mankind.

hogwash!!!First thing is you have the pronouns improperly assigned.

There now see -- we have presented our positions... me from the Bible - and you from "whatever".

Now then -- back to the subject of the thread.

 

[BobRyan]

And on and on it goes offering the same claims, but ignoring John 15:10 and Hebrews 12:18-24, which prove the SDA doctrine is not scriptural.

Now I know where the Bait-and-Switch strategy came from...

You are using an "extreme" level of pure imagination in that part of your post -- did you want to point to some logic or fact before ending that point?

John 15:10 is not an extreme level of imagination.

True - the text is not -- but your statement above is.

 

[BobRyan]

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God:"

and how do we "show" love for God? 1 John 5:2-3 answers the question -
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

Ephesians 6:2 tells us that the 5th commandment is the "FIRST commandment with a promise" in that still-valid still-bindng-on-the-saints - Unit of Ten.

Revelation 14:12 "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" -- contrasted with the mark of the beast in Revlation 14

Mark 7:6-13 Jesus Christ condemns all attempts to edit/delete/attack one of the TEN commandments - one of God's Commandments.

1 John 5:2-3 answers that question[/QUOTE]

seventh day adventists should change their name so they can move on to more important things

We are much more likely to continue to "stick with the Bible" rather than resort to emotional appeals to "move past the Bible" -- I am sure you will agree that this is the best course to follow.

==================== 1934


The Reply:

THE CATHOLIC EXTENSION MAGAZINE
180 Wabash Ave., Chicago, Illinois
(Under the Blessing of Pop Pius XI)

Dear sir:
...
(3) We also say that of all Protestants, the Seventh-day Adventists are
the only group that reason correctly and are consistent with their teachings. It is always somewhat laughable to see the Protestant Churches, in pulpit and legislature, demand the observance of Sunday of which there is nothing in the Bible.

With best wishes,
Peter R. Tramer, Editor

Really? Which Bible would that be?

Your confusion noted.

The ones I quote range from KJV/NKJV/NASB and on rare occasions NIV.

And as in the example above - when the Bible texts get quoted - you ignore them. Perhaps you are confused about Bible translations and want a thread on that - go ahead and start one. No need to derail this thread with that topic.

No it does not, because you intend it to say something it dose not. You have a reading problem.Really? You know I thought about what if any anything to say here. The problem seems to be the rules and your self persecution complex. Both simply prohibit me from posting the truth.Maybe yours.No Bob I have not. I have in fact commented on them many times showing what you mean them to say is invalid.

bugkiller

Here again - our two positions are clear... mine from the actual Bible - and statements pertaining to the topic of this thread.

And yours from ... "whatever" you wish.

No back to the topic of this thread.

 

[BobRyan]

Rev_17:3　 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

Rev_17:4　 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication.

Rev_17:6　 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.

Rev_17:7　 But the angel said to me, "Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.

Rev_17:9　 "Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.

Rev_17:18　 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth."


You may want to be more careful about who you are using as your source of doctrine.

So far you have used the bondwoman and now you are using the woman who sits on the beast.

.

1. I agree that Revelation 17 texts exist.
2. The topic of this thread happens to be about the historic changes and claims the RCC has made about the Ten Commandments and specifically the Sabbath commandment.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BABerean2]

1. I agree that Revelation 17 texts exist.
2. The topic of this thread happens to be about the historic changes and claims the RCC has made about the Ten Commandments and specifically the Sabbath commandment.

in Christ,

Bob

You agreed with me on at least one thing.

.

 

[Bob S]

1. I agree that Revelation 17 texts exist.
2. The topic of this thread happens to be about the historic changes and claims the RCC has made about the Ten Commandments and specifically the Sabbath commandment.

in Christ,

Bob

There you go putting a "ten" where there isn't one. SDAs have to insert words that are not in scripture to make their doctrines work.

Isn't it about time the SDAs give up on the Catholic church changing the day, being the beast and getting all us apostate Protestants to do all the dirty work of rounding up SDAs like cattle to the slaughter. Isn't it about time to come up with a more reasonable dirty player like Islam? The beast power, Sunday laws and SDA persecution were supposed to happen during the life of your prophet. I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: “Some food for worms, [Sister Clarissa M. Bonfoey, who fell asleep in Jesus only three days after this vision was given, was present in usual health, and was deeply impressed that she was one who would go into the grave, and stated her convictions to others.] some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.” {1T 131.3} www.https://egwwritings.org, her angel told her so, instead she is buried beside a Mason Oblique.

I believe she had that "vision" from her "I was shown" in 1855. Her "I was shown" was her accompanying angel. Of course the church has down played the event as being "conditional", but we know from the many false prophesies that this one is just the same.

To this day I cannot believe I, too, fell for all that nonsense.

 

[BABerean2]

William Miller said that Jesus would return on October 22, 1844. When Jesus did not return on that day, Miller later admitted that he had been wrong. However, some of the group could not let it go. They said something must have happened on that day. They finally decided that Christ had moved from one part of heaven to another on that day and thus the "1844 Investigative Judgment" doctrine was born.

If you start wrong, you will usually end up wrong.

Being buried beside of a Mason Oblique would be an example...

.

 

[Bob S]

William Miller said that Jesus would return on October 22, 1844. When Jesus did not return on that day, Miller later admitted that he had been wrong. However, some of the group could not let it go. They said something must have happened on that day. They finally decided that Christ had moved from one part of heaven to another on that day and thus the "1844 Investigative Judgment" doctrine was born.

If you start wrong, you will usually end up wrong.

Being buried beside of a Mason Oblique would be an example...

Yep, it was a save face made up excuse that satisfied the flock. Today it is a different story. Many are seeing through all the falsehood concocted since 1844 and are wearing out the hinges on the back doors of their churches.

 

[BABerean2]

Yep, it was a save face made up excuse that satisfied the flock. Today it is a different story. Many are seeing through all the falsehood concocted since 1844 and are wearing out the hinges on the back doors of their churches.

It is my understanding that the group still operates as a corporation owned by the descendants of Ellen G. White.

I met with a local SDA pastor a couple of times. He told me he was a direct descendant.

.

 

[BobRyan]

Rev_17:3　 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

Rev_17:4　 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication.

Rev_17:6　 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.

Rev_17:7　 But the angel said to me, "Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.

Rev_17:9　 "Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.

Rev_17:18　 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth."


You may want to be more careful about who you are using as your source of doctrine.

So far you have used the bondwoman and now you are using the woman who sits on the beast.

.

1. I agree that Revelation 17 texts exist.
2. The topic of this thread happens to be about the historic changes and claims the RCC has made about the Ten Commandments and specifically the Sabbath commandment.

--- As we saw here

Your own church says that all TEN of the TEN Commandments are applicable to Gentiles. (Including the Sabbath Commandment)

Did we not cover that point already?



CCC - Catholic Church Catechism
The obligation of the Decalogue

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

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God:"
and how do we "show" love for God?
1 John 5:2-3 answers that question


Dies Domini pt 13 -

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

CCC -- Catholic Catechism

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


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


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


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


(Application in James 2)

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

There you go putting a "ten" where there isn't one. SDAs have to insert words .

Obviously your wild speculation did not survive the facts in the thread.

Who is supposed to fall for stuff like that?