Spanish Inquisiton

Valletta · Saturday at 9:48 PM

Amo2 said:
I believe this policy put the average Catholic at a disadvantage in debating or defending their faith against Protestants who allowed of course, their adherents to read what they wished, including Catholic works. I would laugh in the face of any SDA who told me I was sinning against God and the church for examining Catholic teaching for myself.

While SDAs are quite restrictive, I hope that no one would "laugh in the face" of any SDA authority for his or her rulings about content SDAs should not read or view:

'Diverse courts and cultures may debate the definitions and consequences of pornography (the literature of sexual deviance), but on the basis of eternal principles, Seventh-day Adventists of whatever culture deem pornography to be destructive, demeaning, desensitizing, and exploitative.'

Pornography - General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

Diverse courts and cultures may debate the definitions and consequences of pornography (the literature of sexual deviance), but on the basis of eternal

gc.adventist.org

JSRG · Saturday at 10:45 PM

Amo2 said:
Please do provide a more modern version of the Prohibited books list, that we may all examine for ourselves what was and was not permitted, if possible. So that none just have to take someone else's word for it. Thank you.

As I noted, the mere fact that the Catholic Church was translating and distributing Bible translations long before the 1960's would, by itself, demonstrate that the Bible was on the Index of Prohibited Books up until that point and only removed then. (some specific translations may have been, but there was clearly not any blanket ban on the Bible or translations)

That said, the final version of the Index of Prohibited Books prior to its abolition in 1966 was, I believe, the 1948 edition, which appears to be this:

Index Librorum Prohibitorum, 1949

The Liturgist · Sunday at 5:14 AM

Amo2 said:
Quality of content is of course more important, so is detail.

Quantity is no substitute for quality; the voluminous nature of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire does not prove its quality. Indeed, it is often the case that the longer a book is, the worse the quality, with the exception of encyclopedias and other reference materials.

Amo2 · Sunday at 3:16 PM

Valletta said:
While SDAs are quite restrictive, I hope that no one would "laugh in the face" of any SDA authority for his or her rulings about content SDAs should not read or view:

'Diverse courts and cultures may debate the definitions and consequences of pornography (the literature of sexual deviance), but on the basis of eternal principles, Seventh-day Adventists of whatever culture deem pornography to be destructive, demeaning, desensitizing, and exploitative.'

Pornography - General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

Diverse courts and cultures may debate the definitions and consequences of pornography (the literature of sexual deviance), but on the basis of eternal

gc.adventist.org

We are of course not talking about pornography. Neither does an official statement from the SDA church or any other regarding it, or any other matter, represent a list of prohibited books. I think all would benefit from clear and precise declarations from denominations explaining and or taking a stance for or against issues. That all might decide for themsleves, if they agree or not. This is a far cry though, from attempting to restrict the freedom of those of your denomination and or worse yet nation, from reading and learning other people's views for one's self. Correspondingly, freely deciding for themselves, what is correct or not. Such is in fact, necessary to the salvation of the individual Christian. They may not defer the responsibility of making right decisions, by rightly dividing the truths of holy scripture according to their personal knowledge and relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Who alone can save them, and free them from deception.

John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Valletta · Sunday at 3:31 PM

Amo2 said:
We are of course not talking about pornography. Neither does an official statement from the SDA church or any other regarding it, or any other matter, represent a list of prohibited books. I think all would benefit from clear and precise declarations from denominations explaining and or taking a stance for or against issues. That all might decide for themsleves, if they agree or not. This is a far cry though, from attempting to restrict the freedom of those of your denomination and or worse yet nation, from reading and learning other people's views for one's self. Correspondingly, freely deciding for themselves, what is correct or not. Such is in fact, necessary to the salvation of the individual Christian. They may not defer the responsibility of making right decisions, by rightly dividing the truths of holy scripture according to their personal knowledge and relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Who alone can save them, and free them from deception.

Your leaders are telling you not to read pornographic books. So they didn't give you a list, did you laugh in their face? It is similar, in fact leaders of a religion have a duty to give some rules or guidelines. The Catholic Church has a Creed which we call the Apostle's Creed. The Catholic Church did not ban all Bibles, only those not properly translated or where men added false information. It seems you are going way out of your way to try and find fault with others.

Amo2 · Wednesday at 1:25 PM

Valletta said:
Your leaders are telling you not to read pornographic books. So they didn't give you a list, did you laugh in their face? It is similar, in fact leaders of a religion have a duty to give some rules or guidelines. The Catholic Church has a Creed which we call the Apostle's Creed. The Catholic Church did not ban all Bibles, only those not properly translated or where men added false information. It seems you are going way out of your way to try and find fault with others.

I think you know there is a major difference between what you are speaking of above, and what I am addressing, which you may not want to admit and or acknowledge. Nevertheless, who am I to judge exactly what your thoughts are. So let me point out the difference. The one as you are addressing above, is the authority of those of a particular chosen faith, willfully submitting to the leaders of that faith. Which faith they can safely leave at any time, without societal, state, and or national condemnation and real time negative effect for doing so. That which I am addressing is concerning state or nationally supported and enforced religion, the dictates of which are most obviously not chosen by those who disagree and or dissent from said dictates. Who cannot safely leave the state or national religion without serious consequences, including societal condemnation, rejection, support, and or opportunity. Including penalties of various degrees all the way up capital punishment, death. As the chronicles of historical record concerning many a religion do reveal. Including Roman Catholicism, Protestants, and other professed Christian entities. With the Roman Catholic Church being the Mother, or original form of professed Christianity, which exercised such authority. Having won the first competition for real political power over other vying professed Christian entities, unto Imperial mandated "Christianity". Which is the exact danger I am addressing.

Not the examples you are presenting, as though these were the same thing. Which they absolutely are not. Nevertheless, while history reveals these events to be established truth, Roman Catholics themselves were also the ones who stood up to protest these very abuses. Being excommunicated, societally and nationally outcast, punished, and even killed for doing so. They stood fast though, against all invasions of their personal liberties, and gladly took upon themselves the title of Protestants. Whom this Protestant knows and declares to be the main fiber and force of the great freedoms and liberties which so many have enjoyed now for many centuries. The bulwarks of which we can presently see crumbling before our very eyes, as our numbers and voices decrease over the natural and or contrived effects of time.

Roman Catholics themselves migrated to this nation by the millions, continuing to do so to this very day. A great many of whom have and do support our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Even though it be at odds with many a Vatican stated or supported teaching or principle. My ancestors being among them, in fighting in our nations wars in defense of our nations founding principles. When I continue to protest the abuses and or interference of Roman Catholicism within governments of the past and or today, or other denominations or religions involved in the same, I am only continuing what a great many Roman Catholics of the past including my own ancestors have already done. Who thereby afforded me the exact freedoms I have to do so today. Without ensuing tyrannical imprisonment, abuse, or societal abandonment by a government enforcing religious dogma. Roman Catholics today must decide for themsleves to mix their religion and politics or not today as well. As the Vatican never has stopped its political teachings given to the entire world in Encyclicals and Doctrinal Notes, which it fully expects its adherents to legislate whenever and wherever possible. Per-

Catholic Politicians

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life

which may be viewed at the following link.

Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life

Valletta · Wednesday at 3:57 PM

Amo2 said:
I think you know there is a major difference between what you are speaking of above, and what I am addressing, which you may not want to admit and or acknowledge. Nevertheless, who am I to judge exactly what your thoughts are. So let me point out the difference. The one as you are addressing above, is the authority of those of a particular chosen faith, willfully submitting to the leaders of that faith. Which faith they can safely leave at any time, without societal, state, and or national condemnation and real time negative effect for doing so. That which I am addressing is concerning state or nationally supported and enforced religion, the dictates of which are most obviously not chosen by those who disagree and or dissent from said dictates. Who cannot safely leave the state or national religion without serious consequences, including societal condemnation, rejection, support, and or opportunity. Including penalties of various degrees all the way up capital punishment, death. As the chronicles of historical record concerning many a religion do reveal. Including Roman Catholicism, Protestants, and other professed Christian entities. With the Roman Catholic Church being the Mother, or original form of professed Christianity, which exercised such authority. Having won the first competition for real political power over other vying professed Christian entities, unto Imperial mandated "Christianity". Which is the exact danger I am addressing.

Not the examples you are presenting, as though these were the same thing. Which they absolutely are not. Nevertheless, while history reveals these events to be established truth, Roman Catholics themselves were also the ones who stood up to protest these very abuses. Being excommunicated, societally and nationally outcast, punished, and even killed for doing so. They stood fast though, against all invasions of their personal liberties, and gladly took upon themselves the title of Protestants. Whom this Protestant knows and declares to be the main fiber and force of the great freedoms and liberties which so many have enjoyed now for many centuries. The bulwarks of which we can presently see crumbling before our very eyes, as our numbers and voices decrease over the natural and or contrived effects of time.

Roman Catholics themselves migrated to this nation by the millions, continuing to do so to this very day. A great many of whom have and do support our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Even though it be at odds with many a Vatican stated or supported teaching or principle. My ancestors being among them, in fighting in our nations wars in defense of our nations founding principles. When I continue to protest the abuses and or interference of Roman Catholicism within governments of the past and or today, or other denominations or religions involved in the same, I am only continuing what a great many Roman Catholics of the past including my own ancestors have already done. Who thereby afforded me the exact freedoms I have to do so today. Without ensuing tyrannical imprisonment, abuse, or societal abandonment by a government enforcing religious dogma. Roman Catholics today must decide for themsleves to mix their religion and politics or not today as well. As the Vatican never has stopped its political teachings given to the entire world in Encyclicals and Doctrinal Notes, which it fully expects its adherents to legislate whenever and wherever possible. Per-

Catholic Politicians

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life

which may be viewed at the following link.

Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life

First, as to the banning of Bible, you, as a good number of others, were simply misled. I hope you now realize how Catholics have and do revere the Bible. The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church--no Catholic Church, no Bible. As to governments, heads of state have often made whatever their own religion as that of the people. Moral issues, such as abortion and human trafficking, are often caught up in politics and what any religion can and should do, including the Catholic Church, is to continue to address those moral issues as per the teachings of Jesus passed down through the Apostles. Over the almost 2000 years of the Catholic Church there have been numerous problems and wrongs that needed to be righted, the times of the reformation were no different in this respect. There are well-known cases of saints coming forward having to straighten out the popes. It is the unfortunate results of the reformation that such a loss of unity took place.
I think your anti-Catholicism is showing by suggesting the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are somehow in violation of Catholic teaching. It is true that mostly Protestants were involved in the creation of those documents, but remember Catholics were severely discriminated in the colonies, in most of the colonies Catholics were not even allowed to vote or be involved in politics. In Virginia Catholic priests were arrested for just entering the colony.

The Liturgist · Wednesday at 7:55 PM

Valletta said:
First, as to the banning of Bible, you, as a good number of others, were simply misled. I hope you now realize how Catholic have and do revere the Bible. The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church--no Catholic Church, no Bible. As to governments, heads of state have often made whatever their own religion as that of the people. Moral issues, such as abortion and human trafficking, are often caught up in politics and what any religion can and should do, including the Catholic Church, is to continue to address those moral issues as per the teachings of Jesus passed down through the Apostles. Over the almost 2000 years of the Catholic Church there have been numerous problems and wrongs that needed to be righted, the times of the reformation were no different in this respect. There are well-known cases of saints coming forward having to straighten out the pope. It is the unfortunate results of the reformation that such a loss of unity took place.
I think your anti-Catholicism is showing by suggesting the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are somehow in violation of Catholic teaching. It is true that mostly Protestants were involved in the creation of those documents, but remember Catholics were severely discriminated in the colonies, in most of the colonies Catholics were not even allowed to vote or be involved in politics. In Virginia Catholic priests were arrested for just entering the colony.

It’s also the case that anti-Catholic discrimination continued, and continues even now, on many levels even after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights theoretically made such discrimination unlawful.

SabbathBlessings · 2025-07-10T05:40:42-0500

Valletta said:
The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church--no Catholic Church, no Bible.

If I didn't know what I know about the Catholic church and only heard statements like this, should make anyone who understands God pause, to put so much power and authority over God's Word.. As if it was not for the Catholic church God would be powerless and would never prevail getting His Word out there. Thank goodness for the all mighty powerful Catholic church who knows better than the Bible and God Himself to modify the Word of God and His own personally written and spoken Testimony Exo 31:18 as they see fit over the authority of God.

Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday in the Third - Protestant Fourth - Commandment of God... The Church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.'
—Catholic Record, September 1, 1923.

The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine law". The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts a vicegerent of God upon earth
—Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art. Papa, II, Vol. VI, p. 29.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.

God's Word is the light to our path, not the Catholic church
Psa 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

And no one can add/edit to His Word,

Pro 30:6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

God promised He would not alter His Word- who has more authority than God to edit something He said is He would not- God's own personally written and spoken Testimony Exo 31:18
Psa 89:34 My covenant I will not break,
Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips.

The Bible is the Word of God, not the word of the catholic church. When a church exalts themselves over the Word of God, essentially over God, its these sentiments we were warned about in Scripture Isa 14:14 and as seen in Rev 13 Dan 7 & 8 etc

A better statement is, God's Word prevailed, despite the efforts of those who tried (and still try) to control it.

JSRG · 2025-07-10T19:24:43-0500

SabbathBlessings said:
Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday in the Third - Protestant Fourth - Commandment of God... The Church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.'
—Catholic Record, September 1, 1923.

I'm not sure why anyone would care what a random Catholic newspaper (from over a century ago at that) said; it means as much as a blog post does.

SabbathBlessings said:
The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine law". The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts a vicegerent of God upon earth
—Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art. Papa, II, Vol. VI, p. 29.

This one carries a little more authority than a random newspaper, though obviously hardly constitutes some kind of official declaration of the Catholic Church. Still, setting that aside, there are bigger issues with this one. In fact, it's odd you post it, given that in a previous topic I already pointed out the problems with this; one of the big ones being that "modify" is a mistranslation. This is especially problematic given you put so much emphasis on that word.

Since you apparently missed it the first time, here we go again. The below is a slightly edited version of exactly what I posted to you the last time:

Before we get into the mistranslation, I should note quite a while ago someone offered this analysis:

I did a bit of research to find some more details. First off, this is the page on which the sentence appears – I’ve highlighted the relevant phrase.

Notice that the phrase appears in italics, after a citation: “Petrus de Anchar [asserit], in consil 373, n. 3, vers.” This citation is a reference to a book by Peter of Ancarano, whose name is also spelled Petrus de Anchar. The book in question is probably Consilium, which, according to an Italian page I found, is indeed by Peter of Ancarano and is available in printed form at the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. The book principally discusses a heresy called conciliarism.

After googling for more information about this Peter of Ancarano fellow, I think I may have found out why he seems to have said that the pope can modify divine laws. The explanation involves a case of marriage law, so bear with me.

This page contains a description of a controversy in the 1400s, when Peter of Ancarano was alive, involving two competing anti-popes. One of these antipopes refused to grant a marital dispensation to a couple who wanted to marry but were impeded from doing so because they were members of the same family by a previous marriage. The other anti-pope acted differently in a similar case invovling a couple who thought he was the rightful pope – he granted them permission to marry even though they too were impeded for the same reason the other couple was. Before he made this decision, this second anti-pope consulted Peter of Ancarano and asked him for his opinion.

Now, in this controversy some people appealed to divine law to prove that the pope could not grant a dispensation in these cases. Specifically, they appealed to Leviticus 18:16, which forbids a man to marry his brother’s wife. The couples in question were each a nobleman and his brother’s widow – they probably wanted to marry to keep an inheritance in the family. Peter of Ancarano apparently argued that the pope had the power to dispense with the law of Lev. 18:16, even though it was a divine law, because Old Testament laws don’t work in the New Covenant.

So that seems to be the context in which this claim about the pope “modifying divine law” appears: it is a reference to the pope’s power to dispense with canonical impediments arising from Levitical laws that are no longer binding in the New Testament. Not the whopper that Seventh Day Adventists appear to think it is.

This seems to add up, and clears up what it's talking about. However, there is another big problem that is not even touched on by that analysis, namely the fact that the usage of "modify" is a mistranslation to begin with.

The Latin word being translated as modify is modificare (or modifico--some dictionaries list Latin words as infinitive (modificare), whereas others use the first person singular present tense (modifico)). This is where the word "modify" in English comes from. However, meanings can shift over time, and especially when they cross languages. In Latin, modificare does not mean to modify; it means to set limits or to control or regulate. This can be easily confirmed by any Latin dictionary; see, for example, this one. Thus what this was saying, especially when viewed in the context of the above, is that the pope has authority to determine instances when divine law--the example being marriage law--does not apply. It says nothing about modifying it.

SabbathBlessings · 2025-07-11T06:06:12-0500

JSRG said:
I'm not sure why anyone would care what a random Catholic newspaper (from over a century ago at that) said; it means as much as a blog post does.

This one carries a little more authority than a random newspaper, though obviously hardly constitutes some kind of official declaration of the Catholic Church. Still, setting that aside, there are bigger issues with this one. In fact, it's odd you post it, given that in a previous topic I already pointed out the problems with this; one of the big ones being that "modify" is a mistranslation. This is especially problematic given you put so much emphasis on that word.

Since you apparently missed it the first time, here we go again. The below is a slightly edited version of exactly what I posted to you the last time:

Before we get into the mistranslation, I should note quite a while ago someone offered this analysis:

I did a bit of research to find some more details. First off, this is the page on which the sentence appears – I’ve highlighted the relevant phrase.

Notice that the phrase appears in italics, after a citation: “Petrus de Anchar [asserit], in consil 373, n. 3, vers.” This citation is a reference to a book by Peter of Ancarano, whose name is also spelled Petrus de Anchar. The book in question is probably Consilium, which, according to an Italian page I found, is indeed by Peter of Ancarano and is available in printed form at the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. The book principally discusses a heresy called conciliarism.

After googling for more information about this Peter of Ancarano fellow, I think I may have found out why he seems to have said that the pope can modify divine laws. The explanation involves a case of marriage law, so bear with me.

This page contains a description of a controversy in the 1400s, when Peter of Ancarano was alive, involving two competing anti-popes. One of these antipopes refused to grant a marital dispensation to a couple who wanted to marry but were impeded from doing so because they were members of the same family by a previous marriage. The other anti-pope acted differently in a similar case invovling a couple who thought he was the rightful pope – he granted them permission to marry even though they too were impeded for the same reason the other couple was. Before he made this decision, this second anti-pope consulted Peter of Ancarano and asked him for his opinion.

Now, in this controversy some people appealed to divine law to prove that the pope could not grant a dispensation in these cases. Specifically, they appealed to Leviticus 18:16, which forbids a man to marry his brother’s wife. The couples in question were each a nobleman and his brother’s widow – they probably wanted to marry to keep an inheritance in the family. Peter of Ancarano apparently argued that the pope had the power to dispense with the law of Lev. 18:16, even though it was a divine law, because Old Testament laws don’t work in the New Covenant.

So that seems to be the context in which this claim about the pope “modifying divine law” appears: it is a reference to the pope’s power to dispense with canonical impediments arising from Levitical laws that are no longer binding in the New Testament. Not the whopper that Seventh Day Adventists appear to think it is.

This seems to add up, and clears up what it's talking about. However, there is another big problem that is not even touched on by that analysis, namely the fact that the usage of "modify" is a mistranslation to begin with.

The Latin word being translated as modify is modificare (or modifico--some dictionaries list Latin words as infinitive (modificare), whereas others use the first person singular present tense (modifico)). This is where the word "modify" in English comes from. However, meanings can shift over time, and especially when they cross languages. In Latin, modificare does not mean to modify; it means to set limits or to control or regulate. This can be easily confirmed by any Latin dictionary; see, for example, this one. Thus what this was saying, especially when viewed in the context of the above, is that the pope has authority to determine instances when divine law--the example being marriage law--does not apply. It says nothing about modifying it.

You seem to be missing the point of my post.

I wasn't trying to give all the evidence of the Catholic church changing one of God's divine Law written by the finger of God.
For that we can see more here links from the catechism and pope Commandments of man or the commandments of God

Its these type of statements from Catholics over the centuries elevating them over God. As if God would had failed if it were not for the Catholic church and the Bible is their book, not the Word of God. Essentially making themselves above God.

The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church--no Catholic Church, no Bible.

If you want to buy into this narrative and history, that's your choice, but its not mine or what God's Word teaches

The Liturgist · 2025-07-11T17:49:52-0500

SabbathBlessings said:
If I didn't know what I know about the Catholic church and only heard statements like this, should make anyone who understands God pause, to put so much power and authority over God's Word.

While @Valletta made a provocative statement, as far as Western Christianity is concerned, it is correct - the Bible was propagated through Western Europe by what became the Roman Catholic Church, albeit mostly before the Great Schism with the Orthodox of 1054 that resulted from the doctrinal drift towards Scholasticism, and within the ancient church the Church of Rome historically was very important because, up until the events immediately preceding the Great Schism (which resulted in part from an over-reaction to meddling in ecclesiastical affairs by the Holy Roman Empire and other European powers, which contrasted with the carefully cultivated synergia between the Orthodox Church after the Triumph of Orthodoxy in 843 and the Byzantine Empire), the Roman church was extremely doctrinally conservative and had managed to stay out of all heretical movements except for Monothelitism, for which the Pope partially responsible, Honorius I, was duly anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Synod; of course the Roman church back then lacked Papal supremacy and regional bishops in the Roman church had the same authority they presently enjoy in the Orthodox Church (and in the Anglican Communion and a few other Protestant churches; the Anglicans in particular managed to both restore the autonomy of the diocesan bishops and also restore attendance at the Divine Office, that being Morning and Evening Prayer, which is something the Roman church has been attempting to do since the Reformation, as the privatization of the Divine Office, now called the Liturgy of the Hours in an attempt to stress the need for universal public celebration of it, as a private devotion of the clergy was recognized as a problem even before the Council of Trent; indeed the reforms to the Divine Office implemented by the Anglicans were based in part by a radical proposal by a Cardinal Quinones.

SabbathBlessings said:
to put so much power and authority over God's Word.

Scripture grants the Church, however we define it, whether one uses the invisible church ecclesiology favored by most Evangelicals, or the visible church ecclesiology favored by Rome and the Eastern Orthodox, or the local church ecclesiology favored by Baptists and Congregationalists and the Stone/Campbell movement, and other churches with a Congregational polity, and whatever model the SDA adheres to (which is ambiguous), has delegated authority as the Body of Christ through its ministers.

It was the early church which compiled the New Testament and supervised the inclusion of the Old Testament, and taught the correct interpretation of that through the Nicene Creed, which, far from being some sort of anti-Sabbatarian conspiracy, had everything to do with responding to the Arian heresy, for Arians threatened the Christian church and its integrity, and after being defeated at Nicaea, proved their corruption by conspiring to gain an influence over the ailing Emperor’s son Constantius, and thus managed to turn the heirs of the first Christian Emperor to the counterfait cult of Arianism, which can be thought of as the 4th century equivalent of the J/Ws, quite literally, and then used that Imperial power to aggressively persecute Christians, who at the time were not divided into denominations but rather existed as a united group which absolutely included the Church of Rome (as well as the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Cyprus, and the Church of the East in Mesopotamia and India, and the newly evangelized churches in Armenia, Ethiopia and Georgia.

The Liturgist · 2025-07-11T17:55:14-0500

SabbathBlessings said:
I wasn't trying to give all the evidence of the Catholic church changing one of God's divine Law written by the finger of God.

Those same fingers of God gleaned wheat on the Sabbath and engaged in other activities on the Sabbath which offended the Jews of the time as not being restful.

Insofar as Christ was the first Man in the true sense of the word, using His divinity to not only restore but glorify our fallen humanity by uniting Himself with it, and since Christ is the first-fruits of the Resurrection, the New Adam, the first complete human, and since He reposed in the tomb on Saturday after completing the work on the Cross of remaking mankind in his image, we can say that in retrospect, we know from Luke 24 that the Law was a prophecy of Christ, and the Sabbath commandment was a prophecy of what He would do on the seventh day, before rising in glory on the light of the first. Christ, our Paschal lamb was slaughtered, so that we might live; He reposed in the tomb, fulfilling the Sabbath, and He has risen in glory, trampling down death by death: Let there be light!

SabbathBlessings · 2025-07-11T19:19:27-0500

The Liturgist said:
Those same fingers of God gleaned wheat on the Sabbath and engaged in other activities on the Sabbath which offended the Jews of the time as not being restful.

The finger of God is the Holy Spirit and Jesus nor the Holy Spirit gleaned wheat on the Sabbath, His apostles plucked the tops of grain and ate while walking with Jesus because they were hungry. Its no different than picking a piece of fruit from ones garden on the Sabbath and eating. Was never a sin. I hope you are not taking the side of the Pharisees over what Jesus said, that they were guiltless Mat 12:7. Not because He bended the rules for He and His disciples while condemning the Pharisees for breaking God's law. God's Sabbath is not about being lazy sleeping all day, it is about forsaking all of our daily works and labors and fostering our relationship with God, on the day God set aside and sanctified for holy use Gen 2:1-3 Exo 20:11 Isa 58:13, not the man-made holy day God commanded us to do work and labors on. Exo 20:9. The counterfeit always comes after the original.

The Liturgist said:
Insofar as Christ was the first Man in the true sense of the word, using His divinity to not only restore but glorify our fallen humanity by uniting Himself with it, and since Christ is the first-fruits of the Resurrection, the New Adam, the first complete human, and since He reposed in the tomb on Saturday after completing the work on the Cross of remaking mankind in his image, we can say that in retrospect, we know from Luke 24 that the Law was a prophecy of Christ, and the Sabbath commandment was a prophecy of what He would do on the seventh day, before rising in glory on the light of the first. Christ, our Paschal lamb was slaughtered, so that we might live; He reposed in the tomb, fulfilling the Sabbath, and He has risen in glory, trampling down death by death: Let there be light!

Jesus did not fulfill the Sabbath so we can profane it. This is not a doctrine coming from Jesus. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for breaking the commandments from this same unit and replacing with their own traditions/laws. Jesus said this is worshipping Him in vain and the road that leads to a ditch Mat 15:3-14

Jesus never gave the authority to His church to countermand His teachings. If it going away from God's Word- its not coming from Him Isa 8:20 but the other spirit we were warned about.

The Liturgist · 2025-07-11T19:56:13-0500

SabbathBlessings said:
The finger of God is the Holy Spirit

This is wrong in two respects: firstly, Jesus Christ is fully God, and we worship one God in three persons, so any attribute of God applies to Him; secondly, if one were to try to attribute something to a specific person of the Trinity in the absence of a specific scriptural identification, only Christ our True God is known to have a human form and to have been seen by humans, ergo, the person of the Holy Trinity whom Moses interacted with at the giving of the Tablet is logically Christ, but this secondary point is almost entirely irrelevant, because the fingers of Christ are the fingers of God, for Christ is God incarnate.

Not an Archangel, not St. Michael the Archangel or any other created being, and not merely the Son of God, but fully God and fully man, who in the Incarnation united His uncreated divine nature with our human nature perfectly united without change, confusion, separation or division, so that God in whose image we are made assumed our image to restore and glorify it.

The Liturgist · 2025-07-11T19:57:58-0500

SabbathBlessings said:
I hope you are not taking the side of the Pharisees over what Jesus said, that they were guiltless

Your hopes are not in vain; I am completely opposed to the Pharisees because I believe their interpretation of the Sabbath was incorrect, and likewise their faulty scriptural canon and the Oral Torah and other practices which were carried on into Rabbinical Judaism.

The Liturgist · 2025-07-11T20:02:06-0500

SabbathBlessings said:
it is about forsaking all of our daily works and labors and fostering our relationship with God, on the day God set aside and sanctified for holy use

All days are now sanctified for Holy Use, since Christ commanded us to pray without ceasing. The Sabbath is specifically the day on which Christ rested in the tomb, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Genesis 1 and the Decalogue.

Thus, the Orthodox Church correctly observes the Sabbath by celebrating the Divine Liturgy on the Sabbath and on other days, for example, the Lord’s Day, the day of Creation and Resurrection, and also on Friday, the day our Lord was crucified, and Wednesday, the day our Lord was betrayed, and Thursday, the day of the Last Supper; even Monday and Tuesday are not without importance, for example, on Monday following the Feast of the Holy Trinity on Pentecost Sunday the descent of the Holy Spirit is additionally celebrated.

SabbathBlessings · 2025-07-11T20:03:28-0500

The Liturgist said:
This is wrong in two respects: firstly, Jesus Christ is fully God, and we worship one God in three persons, so any attribute of God applies to Him; secondly, if one were to try to attribute something to a specific person of the Trinity in the absence of a specific scriptural identification, only Christ our True God is known to have a human form and to have been seen by humans, ergo, the person of the Holy Trinity whom Moses interacted with at the giving of the Tablet is logically Christ, but this secondary point is almost entirely irrelevant, because the fingers of Christ are the fingers of God, for Christ is God incarnate.

Not an Archangel, not St. Michael the Archangel or any other created being, and not merely the Son of God, but fully God and fully man, who in the Incarnation united His uncreated divine nature with our human nature perfectly united without change, confusion, separation or division, so that God in whose image we are made assumed our image to restore and glorify it.

I prefer to allow the Scriptures to interpret themselves instead of our human reasoning.

The Holy Spirit and the finger of God is used interchangeably.

Math 12:28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you
Luke 11: 20 But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you

SabbathBlessings · 2025-07-11T20:04:56-0500

The Liturgist said:
All days are now sanctified for Holy Use, since Christ commanded us to pray without ceasing. The Sabbath is specifically the day on which Christ rested in the tomb, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Genesis 1 and the Decalogue.

Thus, the Orthodox Church correctly observes the Sabbath by celebrating the Divine Liturgy on the Sabbath and on other days, for example, the Lord’s Day, the day of Creation and Resurrection, and also on Friday, the day our Lord was crucified, and Wednesday, the day our Lord was betrayed, and Thursday, the day of the Last Supper; even Monday and Tuesday are not without importance, for example, on Monday following the Feast of the Holy Trinity on Pentecost Sunday the descent of the Holy Spirit is additionally celebrated.

There is no Scripture that says all days our sanctified by God. Again, using our human reasoning over the Testimony of God, while its a choice, I do not believe its a good one.

The 4th commandment is not just the commandment for the Sabbath, it is a commandment for all days. Exo 20:8-11. God never looked at the Sabbath as any different than the other 9 commandments (1 John 3:4 James 2:11-12) other than He placing His seal in the Sabbath commandment Exo 20:11 and I believe everything God does is by design and I do believe its a test of our loyalty to God or to another. Rom 6:16 It’s when man thinks they know better, when things go south.

The Liturgist · 2025-07-11T20:11:06-0500

SabbathBlessings said:
I prefer to allow the Scriptures to interpret themselves instead of our human reasoning.

The Holy Spirit and the finger of God is used interchangeably.

Math 12:28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you
Luke 11: 20 But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you

The point you’re missing is the unity of God - God Holy Spirit and the Only Begotten Son and incarnate Word of God, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ are consubstantial, of one essence, that of the unoriginate Father. You’re creating a division between the persons of the Holy Trinity that is simply inapplicable.

Out of curiosity did Ellen G. White declare in her writings that Jesus Christ (who is God according to her) did not carve out the stone tablets, or did she specifically claim that the Holy Spirit did in isolation from the other two persons of the Trinity?

Spanish Inquisiton

Well-Known Member

​

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Active Member

​

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Similar threads