Make a list of all your SDA doctrines, you will not find that combo in the Early Church Fathers, Who

D.A. Wright · Aug 10, 2019

klutedavid said:
Constantine was not a pope.

Very Good! That's why I was careful to specify the title of Emperor in another post. The distinction is certainly not lost on me.

klutedavid said:
The claim is that a Catholic pope changed the day.

Did you even read my post? I can't take precious time which has been granted to me by the Lord to engage in self-entertaining, pseudo-dialogue in a sandbox. Try to keep up.

klutedavid said:
We need the evidence.

There is none. No direct connection can be made. It was logistical, delegative in nature. Ultimately, the devil himself was behind it. By your implied logic, a compelling case could be made that Nixon was completely innocent.

You're making the same mistake that has become the massive spiritual epidemic of these times:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

mmksparbud · Aug 10, 2019

D.A. Wright said:
Logical fallacy is widely popular within the argument against the perpetuity of the fourth commandment. To what else does one really have to resort? It's easy enough to justify a faith handed down from family or recommended by friends or friendly people, but once it is challenged on its own merits, an adult mind has two options: Follow logic and reason or cling to tradition and, if the logic becomes too bothersome, resort to self-deceit. It's mostly subconscious and very much deserving of patience and prayer.

Yes, I've always struggled with patience. Though I have a very warped sense of humor with a severe sarcastic edge, I also have a very no nonsense type of attitude both of which constantly get me into trouble with the mods. :prayer:

klutedavid · Aug 10, 2019

mmksparbud said:
I already stated Constantine was never a pope! The statement made is that it has been changed and I really do not care who they were or what their title was---it was not changed by God.

At the Catholic counsel of Laodicea is also where the Sunday observance was determined. It was held in 364
Canon 29

“Christians must not judaize by resting on the [Jewish] Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring 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 (excommunicated) from Christ.
Canon 37
It is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them.

Canon 38
It is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.

They were trying to distance themselves as far as possible away from the Jews. They had to make this proclamation for the Christians were keeping the Sabbath.
You can look it up yourself, no secret.

Did you notice, 'and, if they can, resting then as Christians'. So it appears that not all Christians could even rest on Sunday let alone on Saturday.

The council of Laodicea was not held until 364 AD which is some thirty years after the edict by Constantine in 321 AD.

I have previously researched the council of Laodicea.

Once again the same critical error exists. If Christians are resting on the Sabbath day, then Saturday must have been a rest day in the Roman Empire. So the Roman Empire must have had Saturday and Sunday as rest days in 364 AD?

I am aware that the Sabbath was a rest day in Israel in the first century. But I have no historical sources to confirm that the Sabbath day, was a day of rest in the Roman Empire during the first century.

One could attend a synagogue on the Sabbath day but a day of rest on the Sabbath would not be possible. For any Roman citizens in the first century; this is the reason for Constantine's declaration in the fourth century. Constantine declared a day of rest on Sunday but not for everyone.

There seems to be so much historical confusion.

D.A. Wright · Aug 10, 2019

mmksparbud said:
Yes, I've always struggled with patience. Though I have a very warped sense of humor with a severe sarcastic edge, I also have a very no nonsense type of attitude both of which constantly get me into trouble with the mods.

I'm actually starting to have some success staying just this side of the mods' ire.

klutedavid · Aug 10, 2019

mmksparbud said:
Yes, I've always struggled with patience. Though I have a very warped sense of humor with a severe sarcastic edge, I also have a very no nonsense type of attitude both of which constantly get me into trouble with the mods.

Oh no, don't tell me you are in trouble with the moderators.

klutedavid · Aug 10, 2019

D.A. Wright said:
Very Good! That's why I was careful to specify the title of Emperor in another post. The distinction is certainly not lost on me.

Did you even read my post? I can't take precious time which has been granted to me by the Lord to engage in self-entertaining, pseudo-dialogue in a sandbox. Try to keep up.

There is none. No direct connection can be made. It was logistical, delegative in nature. Ultimately, the devil himself was behind it. By your implied logic, a compelling case could be made that Nixon was completely innocent.

You're making the same mistake that has become the massive spiritual epidemic of these times:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

If you don't have the time to discuss then don't post. You cannot make people feel as though they are imposing upon you, if they disagree with your SDA dialogue.

Why even mention 'Nixon' if your time is so precious?

klutedavid · Aug 10, 2019

D.A. Wright said:
I'm actually starting to have some success staying just this side of the mods' ire.

Your not struggling with the moderators also?

What is going on here, why would anyone have a problem with the moderators?

mmksparbud · Aug 10, 2019

klutedavid said:
Did you notice, 'and, if they can, resting then as Christians'. So it appears that not all Christians could even rest on Sunday let alone on Saturday.

The council of Laodicea was not held until 364 AD which is some thirty years after the edict by Constantine in 321 AD.

I have previously researched the council of Laodicea.

Once again the same critical error exists. If Christians are resting on the Sabbath day, then Saturday must have been a rest day in the Roman Empire. So the Roman Empire must have had Saturday and Sunday as rest days in 364 AD?

I am aware that the Sabbath was a rest day in Israel in the first century. But I have no historical sources to confirm that the Sabbath day, was a day of rest in the Roman Empire during the first century.

One could attend a synagogue on the Sabbath day but a day of rest on the Sabbath would not be possible. For any Roman citizens in the first century; this is the reason for Constantine's declaration in the fourth century. Constantine declared a day of rest on Sunday but not for everyone.

There seems to be so much historical confusion.

Once again you are bringing in "the Roman Empire" :doh:

That is the problem when you start mixing civil and religious laws.

"Once again the same critical error exists. If Christians are resting on the Sabbath day, then Saturday must have been a rest day in the Roman Empire. So the Roman Empire must have had Saturday and Sunday as rest days in 364 AD?"

What does one have to do with the other? What does a Roman Christian observing the Sabbath have to do with there was a Roman Empire wide observance of it?? Nothing.

Laodicea was 30 years after Constantine, yes, I know, I put the date there -- and?? There would not have been a need for it to be stated if there was no problem about it!!

mmksparbud · Aug 10, 2019

klutedavid said:
Your not struggling with the moderators also?

What is going on here, why would anyone have a problem with the moderators?

People loose their patience on this sites. I was reported once for telling someone to "use their head," Something my step-mother and virtually every teacher I know has said. But they felt it was goading and flaming. Oh, well. You guys have a tendency to get totally irate at us over the Sabbath issue. Some posts have gotten very vicious. I never report anyone unless it is very vile--but I've been reported over the silliest of things--I once said to "get your big boy pants on."---Well---if God can say it---

Job_38:3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

Translation---get your big boy pants on!
Mods didn't like it.

D.A. Wright · Aug 10, 2019

klutedavid said:
The council of Laodicea was not held until 364 AD which is some thirty years after the edict by Constantine in 321 AD.

If you recall, you basically came to the defense of a position of someone who established the whole matter as taking place around 350 AD--Now, this is actually an informative answer that will, doubtless, simply be passed over for one suitable for appealing to some kind of emotional support, or used as an opportunity to introduce some more disjointed, inconsequential facts.

klutedavid said:
If you don't have the time to discuss then don't post.

I believe I'll continue to use my own judgment as to what, how and when to post, as I deem appropriate.

klutedavid said:
You cannot make people feel as though they are imposing upon you, if they disagree with your SDA dialogue.

If you are actually concerned about imposing upon me, why agitate the issue?

And, again, I can and will do as I see fit within the rules of the forum. And, rest assured, your approval will, in all likelihood, not be sought.

By the way, I believe the passive-aggressive "if they disagree with your SDA dialogue" is probably a reportable offense. Just a heads up in the interest of Christian charity.

klutedavid said:
Why even mention 'Nixon' if your time is so precious?

The fact that you don't understand the analogy calls into question something I would probably be reprimanded by the mods for suggesting.

Well, we're off-topic and slinging barbs. Too much fun being had here to last much longer, eh?

D.A. Wright · Aug 10, 2019

klutedavid said:
Your not struggling with the moderators also?

What is going on here, why would anyone have a problem with the moderators?

Haven't you heard? Truth is wildly unpopular.

Original Happy Camper · Aug 10, 2019

Dale said:
Paul doesn't talk about Jesus doing the work of a sacrificial priest in a heavenly tabernacle. When Paul does talk about a heavenly Temple, he doesn't talk about a portable Tabernacle, a tent made to be carried in the desert. Instead, he talks about a heavenly building of stone. Jesus is the "chief cornerstone." Instead of Jesus performing some mysterious service of propitiation that we cannot see, Paul talks about believers being joined together in a stone temple infused by the Holy Spirit.

John 5:22
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

John 5:27
And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

John 5:30
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just;

Romans 14:10
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.

Can you tell me when we all "stand before the judgment seat of Christ"?

D.A. Wright · Aug 10, 2019

mmksparbud said:
You quote that there are Christians who "no longer keep the Sabbath" while at the same time saying that no Christian kept that Sabbath---I'm getting whiplash here! You see it, but refuse to see it! Aren't you getting dizzy?

The Everlasting Gospel:
"If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." (John 15:10)
"If you love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15)
"I and my Father are one." (John 10:30)

The cry of the "faithful" through the ages:
..."All that the LORD has spoken we will do. (Exodus 19:8)
..."We will not have this man to reign over us." (Luke 19:14)
.

Daniel Marsh · Aug 21, 2019

Original Happy Camper said:
[QUOTE="Daniel Marsh, post: 7419372
25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your idols. 26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you, and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

That is all fine and good.

But the most holy portion of the sanctuary is about judgment and that is what Jesus our High Priest is doing today.

We will be judged by the law of GOD which is in the ark of the testament which is below the mercy seat.

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Exodus 25
8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

Jesus showed Moses the tabernacle in Heaven.

Revelation 22:12
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

The reward is eternal life or destruction. Our Judge, Jesus Christ, makes the decision which reward we will receive.

I can share more about how Jesus in the Heavenly sanctuary is paralleling the High priest's duties in the earth sanctuary if you are interested.

Psalm 77:13
Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?[/QUOTE]

Based on Romans 8 he is praying for us to the father as our lawyer.

None of your proof texts proves that Jesus is writing down people's sins.

Since, Jesus is God and as such is all knowing there is no need for him to do that.

Daniel Marsh · Aug 21, 2019

Original Happy Camper said:
Romans 14 King James Version (KJV)

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.

I am not judging anyone, just polite discussion.

Daniel Marsh · Aug 21, 2019

D.A. Wright said:
Here's what I have:

No more time to argue against "cornfield" red herrings and other logical fallacies.

Live long and prosper.

I am referring to Adventist history, not a logical fallacy of any kind.

Daniel Marsh · Aug 21, 2019

mmksparbud said:
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL!!!! --- Seriously? You expect me to go by what Catholics believe and taught???? I go by the bible---not by Catholic church fathers!! You are free to follow whomsoever you will!!

You just proved that the early church was Catholic.

Daniel Marsh · Aug 21, 2019

mmksparbud said:
You always get it backwards---your early church fathers did not teach what the apostles did.

The Apostles taught them.

Daniel Marsh · Aug 21, 2019

D.A. Wright said:
Who's this "we" you're talking about? Never have I encountered such a talent for stating emphatically both the obvious and, at the same time, inconsequential.

Although I suspect you assume entirely too much in holding that the "early church fathers," of whom you seem to be in danger of deifying, actually sat at the apostles feet and learned as did the disciples from Christ Himself.

Mainline Church Historians and Theologians.

Daniel Marsh · Aug 21, 2019

mmksparbud said:
You do not know your history as well as you think you do.

“Question: How prove you that the church had power to command feasts and holydays?
“Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.
“Question: Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?
“Answer: Had she not such power, she could not a done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; -she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day of the week, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.” Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism On the Obedience Due to the Church, 3rd edition, Chapter 2, p. 174 (Imprimatur, John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York).

“The Catholic church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday...The Protestant World at its birth found the Christian Sabbath too strongly entrenched to run counter to its existence; it was therefore placed under the necessity of acquiescing in the arrangement, thus implying the (Catholic) Church’s right to change the day, for over three hundred years. The Christian Sabbath is therefore to this day, the acknowledged offspring of the Catholic Church as spouse of the Holy Ghost, without a word of remonstrance from the Protestant World.” James Cardinal Gibbons in the Catholic Mirror, September 23, 1983.
“Sunday is our mark or authority...the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.” Catholic Record of London, Ontario, September 1, 1923.

The first Sunday law: Emperor Constantine was never an official Pope: Official line of succession goes from Paul to Linus to Anacletus. However, he is the first acknowledged Christian to institute Sunday observance laws.

The text of Constantine's Sunday Law of 321 A.D. is :

"On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. (Given the 7th day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them the second time." Codex Justinianus, lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; translated in History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, D.D., (7-vol.ed.) Vol. III, p.380. New York, 1884

Stephen Keenan writings was nothing more than his personal opinions, not an official Catholic Source. In fact, it was created by anti-catholics.

It is from the same source that made up the strossmyer speech.

Rest of your quotes do not prove that a Pope changed the day of worship.

Make a list of all your SDA doctrines, you will not find that combo in the Early Church Fathers, Who

Stealth Defender Of Holy Writ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Stealth Defender Of Holy Writ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Stealth Defender Of Holy Writ

Stealth Defender Of Holy Writ

One of GODS Children I am a historicist

Stealth Defender Of Holy Writ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads