Adventist view on the Mark of the Beast at the end time

reddogs said:

We can check like the techies do, and see who shot first Han Solo or the green alien, or we can look at the enormity of what they themselves say in what seems to be unending statements and quotes reflecting the historical position of the Catholic Church on the Sabbath:

• Rev. Stephen Keenan (A Doctrinal Catechism, 1857):
  “They should, if the Scripture were their only rule, wash the feet of one another, according to the command of Christ, in the 13th chap. of St. John; — they should keep, not the Sunday, but the Saturday, according to the commandment, ‘Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath-day;’ for this commandment has not, in Scripture, been changed or abrogated…”
• William Cave (citing Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria):
  “They assembled on Saturdays, not that they were infected with Judaism, but only to worship Jesus Christ the Lord of the Sabbath.”
• Priest Brady (1903):
  “Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.”
• Our Sunday Visitor (1950):
  “Protestants… accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change… But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that… in observing Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the Church, the pope.”
• Rev. Stephen Keenan (A Doctrinal Catechism, 1857):
  “Of course these two old quotations are exactly correct. The Catholic Church designated Sunday as the day for corporate worship and gets full credit – or blame – for the change.”
• Rev. Stephen Keenan (A Doctrinal Catechism, 1857):
  “Had she not such power, she could not have 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, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.”

Click to expand...

To quote myself yet again:

I have noticed something repeatedly with you. You will post a bunch of incorrect information. Then when someone points out major problems with it, instead of actually responding to their points, you ignore it, and instead do one of the following:
1) Quickly change the subject
2) Throw out a bunch more unverified and inaccurate information (often a bunch of quotes you have clearly never bothered to verify)
3) Offer no reply at all

This time we have a combination of #1 and #2. Rather than offer any explanation for why you posted blatantly false quotes and were called on it, you just change the subject and throw out additional vague quotes that you have just copied and pasted from someone else, most likely without verifying them.

Now, I always hesitate to go further down these rabbit holes, both because it is tedious, and also because diverting from the actual subject being discussed means that the problems of the earlier claims can be obscured due to the new detour. But I suppose it may be worth it for readers, as the argument he is making--even though it once again does not actually address the various things posted against him--is one that sometimes see.

In the first place, though, I have no idea why the William Cave quote is there. William Cave was not a Catholic, but an Anglican. Furthermore, his quote says nothing at all on the subject. All he says is that Christians has religious assemblies on Saturday. This quote sometimes gets wrenched out of context to try to cite as evidence the Christians were keeping the Saturday Sabbath at that time, but if one takes the time to look it up for context, you will see he is only saying that they had religious assemblies on the Sabbath, not that they were practicing Sabbath rest. So if that was your claim, you misused Cave... and if that wasn't your claim, then I have no idea why you brought him up to begin with.

Now we come to the question of these "the Catholic Church says that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath and this isn't in scripture" quotes that are offered. This is an argument that you will often see from Adventist or Adventist-like groups. Essentially, they throw out a bunch of quotes--usually rather old ones--from various Catholics making some variation on the argument "the move from Saturday to Sunday is not stated in the Bible, and was done by the Catholic Church, and so Protestants who hold to Sola Scriptura and who claim that Sunday is the Sabbath are being inconsistent and actually accepting the Catholic Church's authority."

One can certainly find Catholics, particularly in the past, making such statements, because they thought it was a good argument against Protestantism. I think it's a pretty bad argument, but something being a bad argument has rarely stopped some people from making it. But that is the key point to remember: This is an argument. This is not doctrine. One can't help but notice from these quotes is that they don't come from actual formal dogmatic statements from the Catholic Church. Heck, they usually don't even come from works that explain doctrine, but rather apologetic works or newspapers (sometimes those apologetic works may be by a priest or even a bishop, but their purpose is apologetic rather than doctrinal). Our Sunday Visitor is a newspaper. "Priest Brady", whoever he is, is just a random priest (and a priest saying something no more suddenly makes it official doctrine than if I were to find something a particular Adventist pastor said and claim it's formal Adventist belief). "A Doctrinal Catechism", despite its name, is not really a catechism on doctrine but really just an apologetic work for Catholicism written in the style of a catechism. Incidentally, the second-to-last quote offered by reddogs is not even from that, but a 1997 issue of This Rock magazine, another apologetic work. Seeing a pattern? These are all apologetic works, save for perhaps Our Sunday Visitor, but the article in question was clearly of apologetic intent. Heck, some of these don't even use the "not in scripture" argument at all, but merely assert the transition from Saturday Sabbath to Sunday Lord's Day was done by the Catholic Church without claiming this was extra-scriptural.

It should be also noted that while some Catholics may have thought the above argument was one worth using, others clearly did not, even disagreeing with the basic premise. Hence why other Catholic apologists never made this argument or in fact asserted that the Bible does teach the practice of keeping Sunday. See, for example, this article (which is principally about a historical argument, but still asserts that passages of Scripture "indicate that, even during New Testament times, the Sabbath is no longer binding and that Christians are to worship on the Lord’s day, Sunday, instead.") Now, maybe someone doesn't think the Bible does support this, but the point isn't what you think, but that of Catholics as that is what is being discussed. And there is no "historical position" of the Catholic Church itself that observance of Sunday goes against Sola Scriptura. I do note that the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which essentially was the churchwide catechism from the mid 16th century until the late 20th century, appeals to scripture on the subject ("The Apostles therefore resolved to consecrate the first day of the week to the divine worship, and called it the Lord's day. St. John in the Apocalypse makes mention of the Lord's day; and the Apostle commands collections to be made on the first day of the week, that is, according to the interpretation of St. Chrysostom, on the Lord's day. From all this we learn that even then the Lord's day was kept holy in the Church"). Some individual Catholics might have thought worship on Sunday was inconsistent with Sola Scriptura and therefore used it as an argument, but others did not, and at any rate it's rarely used nowadays as an argument which is why people have to dredge up stuff from so long ago in these quotes.

With this understanding, we now turn to the assertion that the "Catholic Church" changed the Sabbath to the Lord's Day. Unlike the claims about it not being found in scripture, the Catholic Church making such a change is more of an actual position of the Roman Catholic Church. But this is where an important point emerges, which what it means that the "Catholic Church" did any such thing. The claim of the Roman Catholic Church is that it traces itself directly back to the church of the apostles. Protestants obviously disagree, asserting that at some point along the way, the Roman Catholic Church got corrupted and lost its way and stopped being the same church as that of the apostles. But given we are talking about Catholic belief on the subject, what matters is... well, Catholic belief. The Roman Catholic Church has the position of (1) it is the church of the apostles, and (2) the apostles made this shift to the Lord's Day. Therefore, this shift being its work is in the sense that the apostles did it and it is the same church as the apostles.

This point is made in some good detail here (not a Catholic source, by the way):

So all these vaguely cited quotes--and whatever other ones of the same variety you could throw out--end up proving is that some Catholic writers have used a bad apologetic argument in the past and that the Catholic Church thinks it's the church of the apostles.

There is one more oddity to be discussed. Those who throw out these quotes are generally hostile to the Roman Catholic Church and reject it. So why is it suddenly here that the Catholic Church--or perhaps more accurately in these quotes, the statements of individual Catholics--should be trusted implicitly?

And so we end our foray into this detour that reddogs has launched. With that, I want to again stress the important points I have brought up that have remained unanswered, for anyone who is entering the topic at just this post and is not fully aware of everything that has gone into this.

Originally, reddogs made a bunch of claims about Easter, providing no evidence. I mentioned how what he was claiming was as far as I can tell completely made up, and asked for evidence. Reddogs in reply declined to provide any evidence at all, or even say anything more on that specific question, and instead made a bunch of news claims that he offered no evidence for, along with throwing out a bunch of new quotes on a different subject altogether.

I then pointed out how he did not respond to what I said, that so many of the new claims he made he made with zero evidence, and that there were severe problems with the quotes he threw out, including some of them being flat-out false. As in, the person he offered the quote from never made that claim. In one case, I noted how years ago I had pointed out the quote was false, challenged him to point to where in the work it was (I even helpfully included a link to it), and he never did. Here he makes the same quote, I again pointed this out and challenged him. Now, in such a case I would have expected someone would have either shown where the quote was (not possible, as it isn't real) or acknowledge their error and apologize. Reddogs did neither and instead ducked the entire subject again. I responded yet again, pointing this fact out, and asking again for him to actually address my points, such as offering evidence for the inaccurate claims he made without evidence, or to explain his usage of false quotes.

After that, reddogs did not respond to me again. I was willing to to leave the issue there and let the readers decide for themselves who was dodging who's points, particularly as the argument was becoming tiring. Then Valletta came in and pointed out again reddog's refusal to interact on the false quotes he provided. Although this was essentially the same point I had made, this time reddogs did respond, but essentially changed the subject again and threw out more vaguely sourced quotes, as one can see from the post of his I am quoting. As has been the case repeatedly, this did nothing to actually address the problems that were pointed out (in this case by Valletta), chief among them being the false quotes reddogs was distributing. Well, let readers decide the issue for themselves.

reddogs said:

Two dominant elements brought into Christianity from paganism by Rome were Sun worship symbols and the religious practices of ancient Babylon] "The solar theology of the Chaldaeans [Babylonians], had decisive effect . . . [upon the] final form reached by the religion of the pagan Semites, and following them, by that of the Romans when [the Roman emperor] Aurelian, the conqueror of Palmyra, had raised 'Sol Invictus' [the invincible sun-god] to the rank of supreme divinity in the Empire"--The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 11, pp. 643, 646-647.

Click to expand...

Which had no impact on Christian worship according to the Cambridge History of Christianity, volumes 1-3.

reddogs said:

The adversary is good with misdirection, and I tend not to bite...

Click to expand...

But @JSRG is not the adversary and he raises legitimate points.

reddogs said:

We can check like the techies do, and see who shot first Han Solo or the green alien, or we can look at the enormity of what they themselves say in what seems to be unending statements and quotes reflecting the historical position of the Catholic Church on the Sabbath:

• Rev. Stephen Keenan (A Doctrinal Catechism, 1857):
  “They should, if the Scripture were their only rule, wash the feet of one another, according to the command of Christ, in the 13th chap. of St. John; — they should keep, not the Sunday, but the Saturday, according to the commandment, ‘Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath-day;’ for this commandment has not, in Scripture, been changed or abrogated…”
• William Cave (citing Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria):
  “They assembled on Saturdays, not that they were infected with Judaism, but only to worship Jesus Christ the Lord of the Sabbath.”
• Priest Brady (1903):
  “Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.”
• Our Sunday Visitor (1950):
  “Protestants… accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change… But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that… in observing Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the Church, the pope.”
• Rev. Stephen Keenan (A Doctrinal Catechism, 1857):
  “Of course these two old quotations are exactly correct. The Catholic Church designated Sunday as the day for corporate worship and gets full credit – or blame – for the change.”
• Rev. Stephen Keenan (A Doctrinal Catechism, 1857):
  “Had she not such power, she could not have 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, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.”

It just goes on and on... Papal Quotes: Sabbath Change & Their Authority

Roman Catholic and Protestant Confessions About Sunday

It is generally known and freely admitted that early Christians observed the seventh day as the Sabbath, and that mere men changed God's times and laws.

www.sabbath.org

Catholic Quotes about the Sabbath | Sabbath Truth

What have mainstream denominations historically said about the Sabbath? See Catholic Quotes about the Sabbath here ...

www.sabbathtruth.com

Catholic Quotes on Changing Sabbath | Sabbath Facts

In this post we explore some Catholic quotes on changing Sabbath! These are coming from various Catholic sources, and you can...

sabbathfacts.org

Click to expand...

Are you quoting from an AI? If so please tell us which one.

Also, the fact remains, the book you cited does not say what you claim it does - it is an inaccurate citation. Christian clergy have never used Pagan vestments.

In fact Christian vestments, including the mitre, the alb, and the sakkos, worn by bishops, are directly based on the vestments worn by the ancient Jews, with minor differences in the style between them. The Syriac Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox and Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox preserve the turban-like shape of the original mitre, but other mitres are certainly valid and elegant; and indeed the Copts actually use all three styles of mitres (the turban shaped Emma, the Patriarchal crown-mitre like that worn by Eastern Orthodox bishops, and the two-sided pointed mitre worn by Western and Armenian bishops, which is worn by Coptic presbyters.

And the Coptic Orthodox Church is entirely devoid of Pagan practices and is also one of the most persecuted churches in the world, one with a steady stream of martyrs who have attested to its legitmacy and been baptized in Christ in their own blood, such as St. Mina and St. Abanoub.

Hentenza said:

So I love the Lord and worship Him. I don’t keep the Saturday sabbath but keep the Lord’s day on Sunday. I don’t keep the law of Moses because it was never given to me but I walk in the Spirit and keep Jesus two love commandments. So, do I get the mark if the beast or do I receive the seal of God?

Click to expand...

I do keep the Saturday Sabbath objectively because of the worship praxis of the Eastern Orthodox yet I am still accused of false worship because i also worship on the First Day!

So even if you did worship on the seventh day, it probably wouldn’t be enough to satisfy some people.

The sad part of all of this is that St. Paul plainly instructed us not to judge each other on the issue of Sabbath observance, a special case of the more general Dominical prohibition on judging others (unless we ourselves want to be judged; I would prefer to avoid incurring divine judgement).

I myself would not be criticizing any Sabbatarian denomination, and indeed do not criticize Sabbatarian denominations, except in response to the false statements they make about other denominations including my own; being accused of false worship is exceedingly offensive, to the point of being intolerable, and i beg members to be charitable and stop doing this.

As proof @Hentenza and anyone else, have you ever seen me criticize the Molokans or Sabbatarian Anabaptists from the 16th century?

reddogs said:

he Bible has many places were it shows that people are marked to signify sin or show who they follow, so it has precedence:

Job10:14 -If I sin, then You mark me, And will not acquit me of my iniquity.

So here Job is saying we are marked by Yahweh if we sin.

We read in Ps 37:37 -Mark the blameless man, and observe the upright; For the future of that man is peace.

Here we see the blameless and upright man is also marked.

Next in Eze 9:4 -and the Lord said to him, 'Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations that are done within it.'

Again a mark on the forehead by Yahweh who morn over the evil being done.

The following are verses that refer to a seal of God.

John 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

2 Cor 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Note that the previous verses seem to indicate a spiritual seal, not a physical seal. The following verses seem to be more of a physical seal

Rev 7:2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
Rev 7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

Rev 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

The seal of a king gives his name, shows or declares his claim to authority, and thirdly, the region of his rule. Henry VIII, King of Britain, Wales and Scotland for example. How is the seal used or what is the purpose of a King's seal:

Dan 6:15 Then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed.
Dan 6:16 Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee.
Dan 6:17 And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.
So the seal of the King is a statement that his decree is not to be changed, not to be changed by anyone.

Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Note that the sign of circumcision is also a seal of righteousness. A sign and a seal are synonymous.

Isa 8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.

Neh 9:38 And because of all this we make a sure covenant, and write it; and our princes, Levites, and priests, seal unto it.
...
Neh 10:29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes;

2 Tim 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

To depart from iniquity is to keep God's law. The disciples of God, those who call on the name of Christ, are sealed with His law.

Ezek 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

Ezek 20:20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God.

So the law seals you and the sabbath is a sign of God, or His seal, representing His authority as Creator. So you can see where this is going, God shows his seal of his authority in his commandments especially with the declaration of his name, his claim to authority, and the region of his rule in the following.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Notice that we can find the seal of God in verse 11.
The name given: the Lord
His title: Creator
His domain: heaven and earth to include all inhabitants

Click to expand...

Jesus through John told him only the servants will be sealed

Rev 7:3 saying, “Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.”

How does God Himself directly from His own mouth tell us how to be His servant?

Isa 56:1 Thus says the Lord:
6.“Also the sons of the foreigner
Who join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him,
And to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants—
Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And holds fast My covenant—

If people would study Isaiah and see the trajectory from Isa 53 showing Jesus coming as our Sacrificial Lamb for our sins all the way to chapter 66 the New Heaven and New Earth. And this special invite from the LORD in 56 inviting everyone to join themselves to Him and be His servant. As they say all are called, few are chosen because few respond to His call.

Only God's servants with be with the Lamb of God and sealed by God,

Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.

Rev 19:5 Then a voice came from the throne, saying, “Praise our God, all you His servants and those who fear Him, both small and great!”

God after speaking His Testimony the Ten Commandments this was said:

Exo 20:20 And Moses said to the people, “Do not fear; for God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.”

Why fearing God and keeping His commandments is the whole duty of man

Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
14 For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.

Why in these last days God is calling His people back to fear Him and keep His commandments......

Rev 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— 7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”8 And another angel followed, saying, “Babylon[f] is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.”9 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”12 Here is the patience of the saints; here[h] are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

Sadly we are a society that their fear for God comes from commandments of men, which Jesus said makes the word of God void and our worship to Him in vain.

Isa 29:13 Therefore the Lord said:

“Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths
And honor Me with their lips,
But have removed their hearts far from Me,
And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,

Mat 15: 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,”[a] 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

8 “‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

The mark of the beast is over our worship. Jesus told us what was false worship- keeping commandments/traditions of men- fearing men over the commandments of God, fearing God quoting from the Ten Commandments.

No wonder God said Remember on the 4th commandments because it points to Him as our Creator Exo31:18, the only God we are told to worship Rev14:7

The Liturgist said:

I do keep the Saturday Sabbath objectively because of the worship praxis of the Eastern Orthodox yet I am still accused of false worship because i also worship on the First Day!

So even if you did worship on the seventh day, it probably wouldn’t be enough to satisfy some people.

The sad part of all of this is that St. Paul plainly instructed us not to judge each other on the issue of Sabbath observance, a special case of the more general Dominical prohibition on judging others (unless we ourselves want to be judged; I would prefer to avoid incurring divine judgement).

Click to expand...

The sad part is that certain sabbatarians deny that Paul even said that or meant that because they are stuck on the sabbath command being a moral command. They continually quote Peter to prove that Paul is hard to understand so we must be wrong.

The Liturgist said:

I myself would not be criticizing any Sabbatarian denomination, and indeed do not criticize Sabbatarian denominations, except in response to the false statements they make about other denominations including my own; being accused of false worship is exceedingly offensive, to the point of being intolerable, and i beg members to be charitable and stop doing this.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Their only concern is to evangelize the Christians to their incorrect way of thinking.

The Liturgist said:

As proof @Hentenza and anyone else, have you ever seen me criticize the Molokans or Sabbatarian Anabaptists from the 16th century?

Click to expand...

Never read anything from you criticizing these groups.

Hentenza said:

Never read anything from you criticizing these groups.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and I am profoundly disinclined to do so.

My default position is one of love and appreciation, especially for religious minorities, even if they are not traditional Christians.

The Molokans are also of regional interest in the US because a number settled in California, and I’ve met some Russian Orthodox of Molokan descent.

Doctrinally these groups are both Sabbatarian, with the Molokans being very much akin to Messianic Judaism. I also usually have very good relations with the MJs on the forum.

Hentenza said:

Absolutely. Their only concern is to evangelize the Christians to their incorrect way of thinking.

Click to expand...

Which is really a shame as they don’t realize the distress and actual harm their antics cause.

Hentenza said:

The sad part is that certain sabbatarians deny that Paul even said that or meant that because they are stuck on the sabbath command being a moral command. They continually quote Peter to prove that Paul is hard to understand so we must be wrong.

Click to expand...

Amen to that. There is also the belief that the interpretations of their denomination are the only obvious ones, which leads to the false accusation that we are “disobeying God’s word.” Even in my case, as someone who keeps the Sabbath in addition to worshipping on the First Day, the Lord’s Day, which as you rightly point out is not obviously used in the Old Testament to refer to the Sabbath (having looked at the cited texts, I’m not even sure if we could say it is used implicitly as such). Rather, according to my praxis, the Sabbath is the day of rest because on that day Christ reposed in the tomb, and thus on that day, we remember His rest, and also our prayers focus on the salvation of our loved ones who are asleep in the Lord (Soul Sabbaths, we call them, this is also the praxis in the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Maronite Orthodox), or, specifically in the Eastern Orthodox church, the Blessed Virgin Mary (the Syriac Orthodox and Maronite Orthodox commemorate her on Wednesday; we commemorate on that day the betrayal of Christ by Judas; on our calendar Monday is focused on the angels and bodiless powers, on Tuesday St. John the Baptist (both days are repentance themed in the Syriac Orthodox church and they normally don’t celebrate the Eucharist on them unless a major feast day like Christmas falls on them), and on Thursday both churches commemorate the Holy Apostles, but the Syriac Orthodox also commemorate on that day all the major church fathers, whereas we do that on the Sabbath; on Holy Thursday we commemorate the Apostles and St. Nicholas of Myra. And on Friday both churches commemorate the Crucifixion, and on Sunday the Resurrection.

This weekly cycle I expect you and other Western Christians will find strange, particularly St. Nicholas getting a weekly commemoration (he is extremely important in the Greek church since he was tortured in the Diocletian persecution yet still engaged in great generosity and also was deposed for slapping Arius at Nicaea, since under the ancient canon law clergy, especially bishops, are prohibited from hitting anyone in an attempt to bring about repentence (a presbyter who is married and a father might well be able to spank his children, but a bishop who is celibate has no business smacking anyone), but was subsequently forgiven after repenting and after a dream reportedly shared by multiple fathers of the council, which is a fascinating incident.

Now I want to be absolutely clear, I am not saying this unusual Byzantine system is the only correct one, or am I saying the Byzantine and West Syriac (Syriac Orthodox and Maronite Catholic) systems are collectively correct, for most churches including most of those I regard as being doctrinally correct and most Oriental Orthodox churches, all of them except for the Syriac Orthodox and Indian Orthodox, do not use this system, other than the very basic aspect of commemorating the Crucifixion on Friday, the Repose of Christ on the Sabbath, and the Resurrection and descent of the Holy Spirit on Sunday. Indeed they have their own very beautiful systems (the Copts celebrate the Incarnation of our Lord on the 29th day of every Coptic month, which corresponds to the 25th day of Julian Calendar months, in reference to the Annunciation on March 25th and Christmas on December 25th, and the Ethiopians do something similar, which I quite like in both cases), merely that it exists, and in this system, the Sabbath is so important that I keep it, to venerate the Theotokos, pray for my departed loved ones, and prepare for the celebration of the Eucharist the following day; additionally I also relax on the Sabbath after the work-week, for which I have always been grateful for it, although I do not observe this rest in a legalistic manner (one thing I like about the Karaites is the various severe Rabinnical restrictions on what is allowed on the Sabbath they do not follow, for example, they will drive to their synagogue on the Sabbath, which seems reasonable; I myself believe we should follow the example of our Lord and His Apostles who were not ashamed to glean for wheat on the Sabbath or do other things conventionally defined as work at the time, neither should we judge those who keep it on a day other than the Seventh Day. Indeed many Adventists actually work on the Sabbath in fields such as health care, aviation, electrical power and other issues of critical infrastructure, particularly health care since as you may know there are quite a number of Adventist doctors, which is something I like very much, particularly those who work free of charge.

Indeed in the Orthodox church there is an entire category of saint called the “unmercenary healer.” If a Christian provides medical services without charge to those who need but cannot afford them, that qualifies them for sainthood under our belief system in a category alongside the Holy Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, Fathers of the Church, Ascetics, Monastics and the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets. St. Cosimas and Damian are two of the better known unmercenary healers in the West, and St. Panteleimon is quite important among the Eastern Orthodox.

Obviously I have no qualms about Evangelical churches like yours not having any of these elaborate worship practices; indeed before they got rid of the traditional hymns I was happy to go to the church in which I was baptized, indeed, it experienced a brief revival around 2020-2021, but after the unusual events in 2024, the Hispanic pastor who had brought fresh life to it was gotten rid of and replaced by a Lesbian woman and the congregation has dwindled to the smallest I’ve ever seen it. And the organ that once accompanied me in song on Sunday mornings in the 1980s and early 90s has sat unused since the funeral of one lovely lady we had who reposed around 15 years ago.

Likewise one of my favorite churches in the US, which for a long time I used as my profile picture or avatar on this forum, Park Street Church in Boston, has very simple but elegant Congregationalist worship.

The Liturgist said:

Indeed, and I am profoundly disinclined to do so.

My default position is one of love and appreciation, especially for religious minorities, even if they are not traditional Christians.

The Molokans are also of regional interest in the US because a number settled in California, and I’ve met some Russian Orthodox of Molokan descent.

Doctrinally these groups are both Sabbatarian, with the Molokans being very much akin to Messianic Judaism. I also usually have very good relations with the MJs on the forum.

Click to expand...

I’ve had good relationships with MJs here except for one that continually tries to debate me quite forcefully. Back when I was an advisor in this website (from 2008 to 2015) I had a fellow advisor that was MJ and she was one of the most loving and Christian people that I’ve ever met. I still think about her and pray for her every now and then. This website was extremely busy back then and required constant maintenance and tweaking so we used to have voice conferences by phone. We had staff from just about every very denomination including SDAs, Catholic, EO, Lutheran, etc. and never questioned or debated each other denominational preferences but encouraged one another instead. Ask @MarkRohfrietsch, he was part of this group. You would have loved it.

Hentenza said:

I’ve had good relationships with MJs here except for one that continually tries to debate me quite forcefully. Back when I was an advisor in this website (from 2008 to 2015) I had a fellow advisor that was MJ and she was one of the most loving and Christian people that I’ve ever met. I still think about her and pray for her every now and then. This website was extremely busy back then and required constant maintenance and tweaking so we used to have voice conferences by phone. We had staff from just about every very denomination including SDAs, Catholic, EO, Lutheran, etc. and never questioned or debated each other denominational preferences but encouraged one another instead. Ask @MarkRohfrietsch, he was part of this group. You would have loved it.

Click to expand...

Yes, Mark has told me about that era. It sounds like it was a good and interesting era. It’s a pity the impact big tech has had on forums, but I’m grateful for what we have now, very grateful.