• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Bible affirmation of God's Creation-Sabbath rest - vs week-day-1 statements

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
There was definitely a change to the day that occurred within the first century.

You are of course welcomed to that preference - but nothing in the Bible says such a thing - I will be sticking with the Bible itself on this one.

To cite the Catholic tradition as being the cause of this change to that day, is ridiculous Bob.

Not given the fact that they themselves claim tradition for it - and of course that you have yet to come up with a single "Sabbath is now on week-day-1" or "week-day-1 is our new day of worship" or "we meet every week day 1 for worship"....

even though we DO have the fact that BOTH Jews and gentiles met 'every Sabbath in the Synagogue" to hear Gospel preaching in Acts 18:4.

A statement for which there is no equal in all of scripture for week-day-1.

And we all know it.

we also know this --

Dies Domini pt 13 -
"the Sabbath ...is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why unlike many other laws - it is not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart!!

Here Pope John Paul argues two points in his document "Dies Domini"

1. That the TEN Commandments (all TEN... not just NINE ) still remain. What does that mean about the SABBATH Commandment? gone - or remains? or bent to point to??

2. In the second quote John Paul II Refers to the OT Sabbath as the LORD's Day -

Pope John Paul II

Dies Domini pt 13 -
"the Sabbath ...is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why unlike many other laws - it is not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart!! In setting this commandment within the context of the basic structure of ethics, Israel and then the church declare that they consider it not just a matter of community religious discipline but a defining and indelible expression of our relationship to God, announced and expounded by biblical revelations.

Dies Domini

From the Sabbath to Sunday

18. Because the Third (the Sabbath) Commandment depends upon the remembrance of God's saving works and because Christians saw the definitive time inaugurated by Christ as a new beginning, they made the first day after the Sabbath a festive day, for that was the day on which the Lord rose from the dead. The Paschal Mystery of Christ is the full revelation of the mystery of the world's origin, the climax of the history of salvation and the anticipation of the eschatological fulfilment of the world. What God accomplished in Creation and wrought for his People in the Exodus has found its fullest expression in Christ's Death and Resurrection, though its definitive fulfilment will not come until the Parousia, when Christ returns in glory. In him, the "spiritual" meaning of the Sabbath is fully realized, as Saint Gregory the Great declares: "For us, the true Sabbath is the person of our Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ".(14) This is why the joy with which God, on humanity's first Sabbath, contemplates all that was created from nothing, is now expressed in the joy with which Christ, on Easter Sunday, appeared to his disciples, bringing the gift of peace and the gift of the Spirit (cf. Jn 20:19-23). It was in the Paschal Mystery that humanity, and with it the whole creation, "groaning in birth-pangs until now" (Rom 8:22), came to know its new "exodus" into the freedom of God's children who can cry out with Christ, "Abba, Father!" (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). In the light of this mystery, the meaning of the Old Testament precept concerning the Lord's Day is recovered, perfected and fully revealed in the glory which shines on the face of the Risen Christ (cf. 2 Cor 4:6). We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath", from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes the dies Christi!

=============================================

The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II - argues the SAME two points.

1965 -- first published 1959

(from "The Faith Explained" page 243

"
we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day- which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

========================================



In these quotes we see "TEN Commandments" and "DECALOGUE" not "630"

2056 The word "Decalogue" means literally "ten words."11 God revealed these "ten words" to his people on the holy mountain. They were written "with the finger of God,"12 unlike the other commandments written by Moses.

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


these Catholic Catechism statements seem to support what John Paul II and what "The Faith Explained" have said in their two points above --

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

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

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

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

(Application in James 2)
2069 The Decalogue forms a coherent whole. Each "word" refers to each of the others and to all of them; they reciprocally condition one another. the two tables shed light on one another; they form an organic unity. To transgress one commandment is to infringe all the others.30 One cannot honor another person without blessing God his Creator. One cannot adore God without loving all men, his creatures. the Decalogue brings man's religious and social life into unity.


Key question:

In legal terms - what does it mean to change one of the TEN commandments in the law - so that its obligation, its authority, its observance is now transferred to some other day - other than the one as given in that Command??

Note from the above quote --

=============================================

The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II - argues the SAME two points.

1965 -- first published 1959

(from "The Faith Explained" page 243

"
we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day- which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

========================================
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You are of course welcomed to that preference - but nothing in the Bible says such a thing - I will be sticking with the Bible itself on this one.



Not given the fact that they themselves claim tradition for it - and of course that you have yet to come up with a single "Sabbath is now on week-day-1" or "week-day-1 is our new day of worship" or "we meet every week day 1 for worship"....

even though we DO have the fact that BOTH Jews and gentiles met 'every Sabbath in the Synagogue" to hear Gospel preaching in Acts 18:4.

A statement for which there is no equal in all of scripture for week-day-1.

And we all know it.

we also know this --



Note from the above quote --

=============================================

The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II - argues the SAME two points.

1965 -- first published 1959

(from "The Faith Explained" page 243

"
we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day- which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

========================================
Hello Bob.

On the topic of breaking bread on a Sunday. Do you reject all written accounts, apart from the scripture, from the first three centuries?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Hello Bob.

On the topic of breaking bread on a Sunday. Do you reject all written accounts, apart from the scripture, from the first three centuries?

On a thread titled "Bible affirmation of..." and then some subject... generally the idea is to find the Bible support or lack there-of for the doctrine being discussed.

Protestant reformation was real big on this "sola scriptura idea".

There is a "pile" of fraudulent documents (Ignatius letters) where all scholars on both sides agree that at least half of them are total fakes.. and Calvin and others condemned the entire "pile" as either outright fakes or "rife with interpolation". Much fraud used to sustain unbiblical ideas from extra-Biblical sources... is a confirmed fact.

Hence the title.

I do not deny that "over time" man-made-tradition made changes.

To cite the Catholic tradition as being the cause of this change to that day, is ridiculous Bob.

A hard statement to explain given what Catholic scholars themselves admit.

=============================================

The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II - argues the SAME two points.

1965 -- first published 1959

(from "The Faith Explained" page 243

"
we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day- which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

========================================
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

listed

are you?
May 14, 2011
9,126
1,817
✟53,797.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You are of course welcomed to that preference - but nothing in the Bible says such a thing - I will be sticking with the Bible itself on this one.
Sticking with the Bible or the teaching of your church and your personal agenda?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
4,085
3,104
Midwest
✟374,509.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sticking with the Bible or the teaching of your church and your personal agenda?
Good grief. Another thread on the Sabbath? SDA's are a one string banjo. "Sabbath.." plink, plink.. :rolleyes: Do they ever talk about the gospel?
 
Upvote 0

listed

are you?
May 14, 2011
9,126
1,817
✟53,797.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
On a thread titled "Bible affirmation of..." and then some subject... generally the idea is to find the Bible support or lack there-of for the doctrine being discussed.

Protestant reformation was real big on this "sola scriptura idea".

There is a "pile" of fraudulent documents (Ignatius letters) where all scholars on both sides agree that at least half of them are total fakes.. and Calvin and others condemned the entire "pile" as either outright fakes or "rife with interpolation". Much fraud used to sustain unbiblical ideas from extra-Biblical sources... is a confirmed fact.
You do the same to support your view. That is the pot calling the kettle black when both are black.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
4,085
3,104
Midwest
✟374,509.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You do the same to support your view. That is the pot calling the kettle black when both are black.
Preaching the gospel is certainly not a personal agenda. It's not about me or my church. It's all about CHRIST. :oldthumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
On a thread titled "Bible affirmation of..." and then some subject... generally the idea is to find the Bible support or lack there-of for the doctrine being discussed.

Protestant reformation was real big on this "sola scriptura idea".

There is a "pile" of fraudulent documents (Ignatius letters) where all scholars on both sides agree that at least half of them are total fakes.. and Calvin and others condemned the entire "pile" as either outright fakes or "rife with interpolation". Much fraud used to sustain unbiblical ideas from extra-Biblical sources... is a confirmed fact.

Hence the title.

I do not deny that "over time" man-made-tradition made changes.



A hard statement to explain given what Catholic scholars themselves admit.

=============================================

The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II - argues the SAME two points.

1965 -- first published 1959

(from "The Faith Explained" page 243

"
we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day- which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

========================================
Hello Bob.

An interesting reply by you.
There is a "pile" of fraudulent documents (Ignatius letters) where all scholars on both sides agree that at least half of them are total fakes.. and Calvin and others condemned the entire "pile" as either outright fakes or "rife with interpolation". Much fraud used to sustain unbiblical ideas from extra-Biblical sources... is a confirmed fact.
I need the source of your information.

Which half of the documents are fake?

What do you think of the author Irenaeus?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Hello Bob.

On the topic of breaking bread on a Sunday. Do you reject all written accounts, apart from the scripture, from the first three centuries?

On a thread titled "Bible affirmation of..." and then some subject... generally the idea is to find the Bible support or lack there-of for the doctrine being discussed.

Protestant reformation was real big on this "sola scriptura idea".

There is a "pile" of fraudulent documents (Ignatius letters) where all scholars on both sides agree that at least half of them are total fakes.. and Calvin and others condemned the entire "pile" as either outright fakes or "rife with interpolation". Much fraud used to sustain unbiblical ideas from extra-Biblical sources... is a confirmed fact.

Hence the title.

I do not deny that "over time" man-made-tradition made changes.

To cite the Catholic tradition as being the cause of this change to that day, is ridiculous Bob.

A hard statement to explain given what Catholic scholars themselves admit.

=============================================

The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II - argues the SAME two points.

1965 -- first published 1959

(from "The Faith Explained" page 243

"
we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day- which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

========================================

Hello Bob.

An interesting reply by you.

I need the source of your information.

Which half of the documents are fake?

False doctrine is the "wine of Babylon" Ignatius' bottles of wine are known by all sides to be horribly corrupt - if you call 50% confirmed outright fraud as "horribly corrupt" and the remaining suspected of being "rife with interpolation
"The real Ignatius, lived about 110 AD. A total of 15 letters were allegedly written by Ignatius. We take the view that all 15 of Ignatius's letters are forgeries. The fact that neither Eusebius (300 AD) nor Jerome (495 AD) make reference to the first 8 Ignatian letters (Tarsians, Antiochians, Hero, Philippians, Maria to Ignatius, Mary, 1st. St. John, 2nd St. John, Virgin Mary) makes it likely that they were composed as late as 300-500 AD. It is this reason that all scholars reject these first 8 letters as forgeries. Some scholars, however accept that the remaining "7 Ignatian letters" are genuine. These 7 Ignatian letters are: Polycarp, Ephesians, Magnesians, Philadelphians, Romans, Smyrnaeans, Trallians. We feel these scholars are in error and that even the 7 Ignatian letters are forgeries. Some take the view that all of Ignatius' writings are forgeries and unreliable. There are fifteen books attributed to Ignatius. Eight are surely forgeries and spurious. Seven are considered by some as genuine, although many scholars also believe they are all forgeries. Again, we view all Ignatius' writings as forgeries. They purport to be written by Ignatius, who lived about 110 AD. We believe it is clear, however, that they are all no earlier than 220 AD, more likely 250 AD. Although they are forgeries, they do represent the views of the author in time of 250 AD. "

=========================================================
Robert Ellis Thompson (Presbyterian) notes:

In 1557 Valentin Pacaeus published in Greek twelve epistles bearing the name of Ignatius of Antioch. Their genuineness was at once called into question by Calvin and other good scholars, but they were treated as an authority for primitive episcopacy by Drs. Whitgift, Hooker, Andrews, Hall and others who favored that form of government.

(The Historic Episcopate, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1910, p. 76)

Protestant historian Philip Schaff concurs:

The Larger Greek Recension of Seven Epistles with eight additional ones. Four of them were published in Latin at Paris, 1495, as an appendix to another book; eleven more by Faber Stapulensis, also in Latin, at Paris, 1498; then all fifteen in Greek by Valentine Hartung (called Paceus or Irenaeus) at Dillingen, 1557; and twelve by Andreas Gesner at Zurich, 1560. The Catholics at first accepted them all as genuine works of Ignatius; and Hartung, Baronius, Bellarmin defended at least twelve; but Calvin and the Magdeburg Centuriators rejected them all, and later Catholics surrendered at least eight as utterly untenable. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, chapter 13, § 165. The Ignatian Controversy)

William Cureton, an important and key Ignatian scholar, also confirms this assessment:

. . . others, with J. Calvin, did not scruple to denounce the whole as a barefaced and stupid forgery. (Corpus Ignatianum: A Complete Collection of the Ignatian Epistles, London: Francis & John Rivington, 1849, p. xvii)

Better the Bible - than something that is primarily corrupt forgery
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
What do you think of the author Irenaeus?

Over the Bible? A historic figure ? I suspect so.

But has God protected every fragment Irenaeus wrote? OR was he known to have infallible doctrine?

Good questions.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Over the Bible? A historic figure ? I suspect so.

But has God protected every fragment Irenaeus wrote? OR was he known to have infallible doctrine?

Good questions.
Hello Bob.

Calvin is not an expert on the validity of early church letters.

The following seven letters preserved under the name of Ignatius are generally considered authentic as they were mentioned by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century.

Seven Authentic Letters:
The Letter to the Ephesians,
The Letter to the Magnesians,
The Letter to the Trallians,
The Letter to the Romans,
The Letter to the Philadelphians,
The Letter to the Smyrnaeans,
The Letter to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna.
(wikipedia)

Do you accept these letters written by Ignatius?
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Over the Bible? A historic figure ? I suspect so.

But has God protected every fragment Irenaeus wrote? OR was he known to have infallible doctrine?

Good questions.
Hello Bob.

We need these early authors to be accurate, otherwise we will lose the New Testament.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Hello Bob.

We need these early authors to be accurate, otherwise we will lose the New Testament.

So the Catholic argument is that you can't know Jesus is the Christ from reading the Bible - you need an early church father to tell you that... and you can't know what the early church fathers said without having the Catholic church tell you what they mean - and you can't know what the Catholic church means without having your local pope or priest tell you what to think ... etc.

But as it turns out - we have already had the Protestant reformation -- so all of that is already debunked.

Though it is "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader to see that you are "going there" on a thread that starts with "what does the Bible say".
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Hello Bob.

Calvin is not an expert on the validity of early church letters.

The following seven letters preserved under the name of Ignatius are generally considered authentic as they were mentioned by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century.

Seven Authentic Letters:
The Letter to the Ephesians,
The Letter to the Magnesians,
The Letter to the Trallians,
The Letter to the Romans,
The Letter to the Philadelphians,
The Letter to the Smyrnaeans,
The Letter to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna.
(wikipedia)

Do you accept these letters written by Ignatius?

Calvin didn't
Luther didn't
I prefer the Bible over a pile of letters already confirmed to be majority-fake. I prefer not to drink from a well that is confirmed to be polluted.

Give me the Bible "instead".

Ignatius letters "confirmed fakes" created by the RCC
"Donation of Constantine" Confirmed fraud -- created by the RCC.

The RCC over time has been an "engine for forgery" - and this is irrefutable in the examples above -- all scholars agree.

Those who resort to that source because they can't trust the Bible - are appealing to dark-ages-flawed-logic already debunked in the Protestant Reformation.

They have free will - they can do that if they wish.

This thread is about the actual Bible. And we can read it.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So the Catholic argument is that you can't know Jesus is the Christ from reading the Bible - you need an early church father to tell you that... and you can't know what the early church fathers said without having the Catholic church tell you what they mean - and you can't know what the Catholic church means without having your local pope or priest tell you what to think ... etc.

But as it turns out - we have already had the Protestant reformation -- so all of that is already debunked.

Though it is "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader to see that you are "going there" on a thread that starts with "what does the Bible say".
Hello Bob.

I know the SDA have not produced an authoritative Bible translation based on the early church manuscripts. So the question I will ask you Bob, is which church council, church confession, does the SDA subscribe to?

Your church is a paid member of some earlier church organization, so which one is it?

The Protestants had to borrow heavily from the work of earlier church movements. For example Bob, how would a protestant in the fifteenth century know what the New Testament was?

How could a Bible translator in the fifteenth century know which letters belonged in the New Testament, and which letters did not?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Hello Bob.

I know the SDA have not produced an authoritative Bible translation based on the early church manuscripts.

True - we don't create our own Bible translations but we do have NT language scholars and OT language scholars with articles published in peer-reviewed-journals. All the Bible translations I have been quoting from "NASB, NKJV, KJV, YLT" etc are done by groups -- none of them from "just one denomination" except KJV.

How does this help your point???

So the question I will ask you Bob, is which church council, church confession, does the SDA subscribe to?

Has nothing to do with this topic - but the The Nicene Creed is a very generic statement of faith fully compatible with the SDA 28 Fundamental beliefs.

Your church is a paid member of some earlier church organization, so which one is it?

None. What in the world are you talking about???

We consider ourselves to hold to Protestant principles and doctrine.

As for our starting point - we had a small group of interdenominational Bible students studying the Bible to find what it said and create our doctrinal platform - assisted by direct visions from God - messages from Christ himself appearing in visions to confirm points or clear up points of question when they could not easily be worked out by those studying the material.

However I have not quoted any SDA material, our scholar, or any of our authors for the doctrinal statements I have been defending (except in cases where someone asks about what our authors say on some subject - which almost never happens on this area of the board).

As for Calvin and Luther - neither of them were SDA -- both rejected the pile of corrupt texts known as the Ignatius letters and both of them affirmed the "sola scriptura" principle of the Protestant Reformation.

The Protestants had to borrow heavily from the work of earlier church movements. For example Bob, how would a protestant in the fifteenth century know what the New Testament was?

How would they not since even the first century Christians were reading it?

How could a Bible translator in the fifteenth century know which letters belonged in the New Testament, and which letters did not?

How could they not... since no NT writer said "we must wait 1500 years for Catholics to tell us what to read"? No scholar of any denomination claimed to have "discovered" the NT in the 15th century and no scholar claimed in the 15th century that some NT book/letter had not been read for centuries but was now as of this point - supposed to be read.


You seem to be stuck on trying to discover the reason for the Protestant Reformation - true??
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The N.T. Scriptures were immediately accepted as being the word of God. Paul quotes Luke 10:7 alongside Deut. 25:4 (1 Timothy 5:18), and Peter endorses Paul's letters in 1 Peter 3:15-16. The ECFs quote extensively from the N.T. showing that they regarded them as authoritative. For example, somewhere around AD 95, Clement of Rome wrote: 'Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos.....' Clement did not wait for any authority to tell him that 1 Corinthians was inspired Scripture. Clement also quoted from Psalm 118:18 and Hebrews 12:6 and described them both as the 'Holy Word.'

Polycarp, in his letter to the church at Philippi, quotes from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 2 Thes., 1 & 2 Tim., and Hebrews. He quotes 1 Peter so often and widely that Bruce Metzger suggests that he must have known it practically by heart. He introduces quotations by saying, "Remember what the Lord said in His teaching....." and "As the Lord said......" He also wrote, " I trust you are well versed in the sacred Scriptures and that nothing is hid from you." He assumed that his readers also has access to the N.T. Polycarp died in AD 155, long before the Roman Catholic Church reared its head.

The Latin Vulgate is a late 4th century document containing all of the OT and NT


The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New Testament. The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in a 7th or 8th century codex from the library of Columban's monastery at Bobbio; it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 A.D.

The "NT unknown until 15th" century fiction -- died a horrible death - a long time ago.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0