• 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.

The Sabbath Day

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,701
6,118
Visit site
✟1,055,873.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps we are confusing issues as well. There are several:

1. When did Sunday originate. Was it original?
2. When did Sabbath cease to be observed?
3. When was the view that the solemnity was transferred started?
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
Because of the place he was working on his degree, and those who read it approving of it.

But then you would need to explain why they have since stopped publishing it, ruled out any contact with his teacher, stopped putting it in any bookstores, etc. and supposedly are trying to revoke his degree due to what he has done with the information in the book since.

They clearly don't regard him as a Catholic apologist.

That's not much of an argument, is it?

The church never changes her doctrine and the Pope never makes a mistake: the claim of infallability. So the Pope didn't make a mistake when he approved Bacchiocchi's book with an papal Imprimatur.

So even if what you said is true that they tried to remove the book which I'm skeptical, it does not make any difference. The church constantly employs such tactics to clear herself from suspicion.
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
Perhaps we are confusing issues as well. There are several:

1. When did Sunday originate. Was it original?
2. When did Sabbath cease to be observed?
3. When was the view that the solemnity was transferred started?

All these questions become irrelevant or less significant when the church claims the responsibility for the change.

A clear jesuit tactic is to mud the water, introduce too many unknowns: confusions. So without directly questioning, the integraty of original issue was compromised.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,701
6,118
Visit site
✟1,055,873.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sounds to me you are in denial. Many times have you seen the official documents claiming the pope changed it? The papacy and RCC is the same, being the papacy is the head. Some of the early christians did keep both days to begin and then later on kept only sunday. And church of Judea and Antioch kep the true sabbath until they were eradicated and driven out by the papal power.

I am not in denial. I am stating that there is a a differnece between officially recognizing something and establishing something to start with. The church instituted Sunday. There is no doubt about that. It was not recorded in Scripture. There is no doubt about that either.

Where the real issue comes in is whether the practice was ORIGINAL to the apostles, but not recorded in Scripture. If it was then the church instituted it, but it was not wrong. If it was not original to the apostles then the church instituted it and it WAS wrong.

When discussing the issue with Catholics you have to at least try to deal with their view of tradition. They believe that the apostles did things that were not recorded in Scripture which are preserved in tradition. That is what Bacchiocchi is addressing. He is saying that the tradition is old, but not as old as the apostles. For that he must look at the earliest statements.

You also have another issue. You say that the papacy IS the church as its head. But if the head of the church being the pope is ALSO original then we have a BIG problem beyond just the Sabbath.

So when do you see the papacy coming to this prominence? This too must also be established.

Not entirely true. EO church split from RCC.

They both split from each other, but that makes my point. They continue the practice, though the don't necessarily hold that the solemnity was transferred.

The other churches though split off much earlier.

Because the papacy did not receive its political arm until over a century later when it could enforce it.

But this doesn't fly with history. We see by the 190's Victor 1 called a synod to settle the easter dispute and excommunicated all who didn't accept the western position even then. It was only through the beseeching of Irenaeus, etc. that he was persuaded not to take such a harsh measure.

So when exactly do you see the papacy forming?

Because the revisionist' view deviates from our traditional view on the issue that the papacy changed the day.

Your argument implies that the pope merely stamped it for formality since it was already practiced.

But the truth is that the papacy made an official decree and since the Church claims to have the power to correct heretics, it persecuted those who did not recognize the Church's authority.

A. It was already practiced. And the council of Laodicea also tried to stamp it officially. The point was the practice was already there. The real question was for how long?

B. You have not said how Bacchiocchi's view is revisionist. Those documents exist. The day was practiced. People did denounce Sabbath. It is not revising anything. It is pointing out that some of these things existed earlier than Adventists generally liked to admit.

We won't convince any hardened Catholics of our views if we make poor characterizations of theirs. That is my issue.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,701
6,118
Visit site
✟1,055,873.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Have you any of you read the book... ¨Ten commandments twice removed¨?

Its really good, the authors are Danny Shelton and Shelly Quinn

I read the full book from which it was taken, I think the title was "Anti-christ Agenda".
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,701
6,118
Visit site
✟1,055,873.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's not much of an argument, is it?

The church never changes her doctrine and the Pope never makes a mistake: the claim of infallability. So the Pope didn't make a mistake when he approved Bacchiocchi's book with an papal Imprimatur.

So even if what you said is true that they tried to remove the book which I'm skeptical, it does not make any difference. The church constantly employs such tactics to clear herself from suspicion.

Of course it is an argument. The church acknowledged the historical facts. That is a GOOD thing. Because it shows that we are all looking objectively at the same data.

But for Bacchiocchi to be actually an apologist he would have to be arguing for the observance of Sunday, in deference to the Church. He is clearly not doing that.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,701
6,118
Visit site
✟1,055,873.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All these questions become irrelevant or less significant when the church claims the responsibility for the change.


Of course they claim responsability. But you are failing to see WHY!. They claim responsability as an argument against those who hold to Sola Scriptura. That is their target. They say that the practice was orginal but OUTSIDE the scope of Scripture. Therefore its current practice by protestants shows that they accept something outside of Scripture. They maintain that it was an apostolic practice. We disagree. That is the issue.
 
Upvote 0

Jimlarmore

Senior Veteran
Oct 25, 2006
2,572
51
75
✟25,490.00
Faith
SDA
No. He made it a civil observence. Not religious.

I understand that but wasn't he considered to be an early pope? We are trying to find the origin of this tradition aren't we? Certainly, this can be considered as a legal start for this even if it wasn't religious per se'.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,701
6,118
Visit site
✟1,055,873.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A clear jesuit tactic is to mud the water, introduce too many unknowns: confusions. So without directly questioning, the integraty of original issue was compromised.

Actually looking at the details of claims is not introducing "confusions." It is dealing with facts which are not always as cut and dry as evangelistic sermons.

Moreover I have no idea what a Jesuit tactic would be. But I do know that what you are employing is guilt by association by trying to state that my argumentation is similar to Jesuits.

And if looking at details is a Jesuit tactic, well then it is high time we started employing that tactic. We can't claim to have the truth if we won't dig into the details to get at the truth.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,701
6,118
Visit site
✟1,055,873.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I understand that but wasn't he considered to be an early pope? We are trying to find the origin of this tradition aren't we? Certainly, this can be considered as a legal start for this even if it wasn't religious per se'.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

No. He was not a pope. He was emporer.

The pope was in Rome. The emporer was in Byzantium, the "new Rome" which Constantine founded after moving the headquarters of the empire from Rome to the east.

One was a bishop, one a ruler.

The only way to be pope is to be bishop of Rome. Constantine was never a bishop.
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
I am not in denial. I am stating that there is a a differnece between officially recognizing something and establishing something to start with. The church instituted Sunday. There is no doubt about that. It was not recorded in Scripture. There is no doubt about that either.

Where the real issue comes in is whether the practice was ORIGINAL to the apostles, but not recorded in Scripture. If it was then the church instituted it, but it was not wrong. If it was not original to the apostles then the church instituted it and it WAS wrong.

When discussing the issue with Catholics you have to at least try to deal with their view of tradition. They believe that the apostles did things that were not recorded in Scripture which are preserved in tradition. That is what Bacchiocchi is addressing. He is saying that the tradition is old, but not as old as the apostles. For that he must look at the earliest statements.

You also have another issue. You say that the papacy IS the church as its head. But if the head of the church being the pope is ALSO original then we have a BIG problem beyond just the Sabbath.

So when do you see the papacy coming to this prominence? This too must also be established.



They both split from each other, but that makes my point. They continue the practice, though the don't necessarily hold that the solemnity was transferred.

The other churches though split off much earlier.



But this doesn't fly with history. We see by the 190's Victor 1 called a synod to settle the easter dispute and excommunicated all who didn't accept the western position even then. It was only through the beseeching of Irenaeus, etc. that he was persuaded not to take such a harsh measure.

So when exactly do you see the papacy forming?



A. It was already practiced. And the council of Laodicea also tried to stamp it officially. The point was the practice was already there. The real question was for how long?

B. You have not said how Bacchiocchi's view is revisionist. Those documents exist. The day was practiced. People did denounce Sabbath. It is not revising anything. It is pointing out that some of these things existed earlier than Adventists generally liked to admit.

We won't convince any hardened Catholics of our views if we make poor characterizations of theirs. That is my issue.

You are still ignoring the most important fact of the whole matter: the church claims the change was her act and has proof. Not even the lousiest lawyer in the world will defend a person who admits his guilt.

I have already addressed most of the points you again brought up. I'll just have to leave it here to avoid further irritation.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,701
6,118
Visit site
✟1,055,873.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are still ignoring the most important fact of the whole matter: the church claims the change was her act and has proof. Not even the lousiest lawyer in the world will defend a person who admits his guilt.

I have already addressed most of the points you again brought up. I'll just have to leave it here to avoid further irritation.

the Church claims it was her act SINCE the time of the apostles, who they attribute the practice to. If the apostles changed it, then it is not changing God's law in a blasphemous way ,but is instead part of the new faith. It would not therefore qualify for a criteria of the identification of the beast power.

They would also say the authority of the papacy was given by Christ Himself to Peter. Therefore he RIGHTlY (in their view, not mine mind you), used his authority.


You have not at all addressed the issues. You are altering the issues to suit your tastes.

The real issue is whether their claim of apostolic origin is true. This is why Bacchiocchi took up that theme.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,701
6,118
Visit site
✟1,055,873.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It all rests on the usual early issues. If Christ gave Peter authority from the outset, if Sunday was original, etc. then the saints of Daniel 7 are a totally different group. The pope would not qualify on any grounds if these were true.

Therefore the real battle is over these early issues.

You ought to be thanking Bacchiocchi for showing how the development of Sunday/Sabbath views shows a definite line of development rather than an existing established truth from the apostles.

There is just no reason to discredit him when he is helping our case. If anything you ought to question those who simplify the issue so much that knowledgable Catholics will not take them seriously.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,701
6,118
Visit site
✟1,055,873.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps we are confusing issues as well. There are several:

1. When did Sunday originate. Was it original?
2. When did Sabbath cease to be observed?
3. When was the view that the solemnity was transferred started?

My reason for posting this was not to confuse the issue in Jesuit-like fashion, whatever that may mean, but was to point out something that might actually help your argument.

The prophecy is speaking of changing the law.

Mere observance of Sunday, or both Sunday and Sabbath does not change the commandment. It is supressing Sabbath observance or transferring solemnity that does that.

Therefore I was trying to re-focus the debate on the essential element.
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
You can justify anyway you like. In the end, Bacchiocchi and other revisionists marginalize our traditional teaching and the Spirit of Prophecy and thus absolves the Papacy as the beast of the Revelation or at least cloud the water.

My two last quotes on this...

'I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws'. ---(Early Writings, p. 32).

'I differ from Ellen White, for example, on the origin of Sunday. She teaches that in the first centuries all Christians observed the Sabbath and it was largely through the efforts of Constantine that Sundaykeeping was adopted by many Christians in the fourth century. My research shows otherwise. If you read my essay HOW DID SUNDAYKEEPING BEGIN? which summarizes my dissertation, you will notice that I place the origin of Sundaykeeping by the time of the Emperor Hadrian, in A.D. 135.' ---"Fee Catholic Mailing List", Bacchiocchi, Feb 8, 1997.

The attack on Ellen White's writing runs deep. It is for goal of silencing the voice of seperation and to achieve the goal of the great ecumenical movement.
 
Upvote 0

Sophia7

Tall73's Wife
Site Supporter
Sep 24, 2005
12,364
456
✟84,145.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here are just a few quotes from the ECF that are referenced in the Daniel and Revelation Committe Series, Volume 2, Symposium on Daniel. They are not quoted directly in the book but only summarized. Shea deals extensively with Hippolytus and Jerome, as well as the anti-Christian philosopher Porphyry. If you have the book, you can look up the analysis of the historical records in Chapter 4 (article by William H. Shea), beginning on p. 256.

The Epistle of Barnabas, ch. 4:
The final stumbling-block (or source of danger) approaches, concerning which it is written, as Enoch [the Latin reads “Daniel” instead of “Enoch”] says, “For for this end the Lord has cut short the times and the days, that His Beloved may hasten; and He will come to the inheritance.” And the prophet also speaks thus: “Ten kingdoms shall reign upon the earth, and a little king shall rise up after them, who shall subdue under one three of the kings” [very loosely quoted]. In like manner Daniel says concerning the same, “And I beheld the fourth beast, wicked and powerful, and more savage than all the beasts of the earth, and how from it sprang up ten horns, and out of them a little budding horn, and how it subdued under one three of the great horns” [also very inaccurately cited].
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, ch. 26:
1. In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and give their strength and power to the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings.” It is manifest, therefore, that 555 of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord. For that the kingdom must be divided, and thus come to ruin, the Lord [declares when He] says: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.” It must be, therefore, that the kingdom, the city, and the house be divided into ten; and for this reason He has already foreshadowed the partition and division [which shall take place]. Daniel also says particularly, that the end of the fourth kingdom consists in the toes of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar, upon which came the stone cut out without hands; and as he does himself say: “The feet were indeed the one part iron, the other part clay, until the stone was cut out without hands, and struck the image upon the iron and clay feet, and dashed them into pieces, even to the end.” Then afterwards, when interpreting this, he says: “And as thou sawest the feet and the toes, partly indeed of clay, and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided, and there shall be in it a root of iron, as thou sawest iron mixed with baked clay. And the toes were indeed the one part iron, but the other part clay.” The ten toes, therefore, are these ten kings, among whom the kingdom shall be partitioned, of whom some indeed shall be strong and active, or energetic; others, again, shall be sluggish and useless, and shall not agree; as also Daniel says: “Some part of the kingdom shall be strong, and part shall be broken from it. As thou sawest the iron mixed with the baked clay, there shall be minglings among the human race, but no cohesion one with the other, just as iron cannot be welded on to pottery ware.” And since an end shall take place, he says: “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven raise up a kingdom which shall never decay, and His kingdom shall not be left to another people. It shall break in pieces and shatter all kingdoms, and shall itself be exalted for ever. As thou sawest that the stone was cut without hands from the mountain, and brake in pieces the baked clay, the iron, the brass, the silver, and the gold, God has pointed out to the king what shall come to pass after these things; and the dream is true, and the interpretation trustworthy.”
Hippolytus, Fragments from Commentaries, “On Daniel”:
The interpretation by Hippolytus, (bishop) of Rome, of the visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, taken in conjunction.

1. In speaking of a "lioness from the sea," he meant the rising of the kingdom of Babylon, and that this was the "golden head of the image." And in speaking of its "eagle wings," be meant that king Nebuchadnezzar was exalted and that his glory was lifted up against God. Then he says "its wings were plucked off," i.e., that his glory was destroyed; for he was driven out of his kingdom. And the words, "A man's heart was given it, and it was made stand upon the feet of a man," mean that he came to himself again, and recognised that he was but a man, and gave the glory to God. Then after the lioness he sees a second beast, "like a bear," which signified the Persians. For after the Babylonians the Persians obtained the power. And in saying that "it had three ribs in its mouth," he pointed to the three nations, Persians, Medes, and Babylonians, which were expressed in the image by the silver after the gold. Then comes the third beast, "a leopard," which means the Greeks; for after the Persians, Alexander of Macedon had the power, when Darius was overthrown, which was also indicated by the brass in the image. And in saying that the beast "had four wings of a fowl, and four heads," he showed most clearly how the kingdom of Alexander was parted into four divisions. For in speaking of four heads, he meant the four kings that arose out of it. For Alexander, when dying, divided his kingdom into four parts. Then he says, "The fourth beast (was) dreadful and terrible: it had iron teeth, and claws of brass." Who, then, are meant by this but the Romans, whose kingdom, the kingdom that still stands, is expressed by the iron? "for," says he, "its legs are of iron."

2. After this, then, what remains, beloved, but the toes of the feet of the image, in which "part shall be of iron and part of clay mixed together? "By the toes of the feet he meant, mystically, the ten kings that rise out of that kingdom. As Daniel says, "I considered the beast; and, lo, (there were) ten horns behind, among which shall come up another little horn springing from them; "by which none other is meant than the antichrist that is to rise; and he shall set up the kingdom of Judah. And in saying that "three horns" were "plucked up by the roots" by this one, he indicates the three kings of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia, whom this one will slay in the array of war. And when he has conquered all, he will prove himself a terrible and savage tyrant, and will cause tribulation and persecution to the saints, exalting himself against them. And after him, it remains that "the stone" shall come from heaven which "smote the image" and shivered it, and subverted all the kingdoms, and gave the kingdom to the saints of the Most High. This "became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth."

3. As these things, then, are destined to come to pass, and as the toes of the image turn out to be democracies, and the ten horns of the beast are distributed among ten kings, let us look at what is before us more carefully, and scan it, as it were, with open eye. The "golden head of the image" is identical with the "lioness," by which the Babylonians were represented. "The golden shoulders and the arms of silver" are the same with the "bear," by which the Persians and Medes are meant. "The belly and thighs of brass" are the "leopard," by which the Greeks who ruled from Alexander onwards are intended. The "legs of iron" are the "dreadful and terrible beast," by which the Romans who hold the empire now are meant. The "toes of clay and iron" are the "ten horns" which are to be. The "one other little horn springing up in their midst" is the "antichrist." The stone that "smites the image and breaks it in pieces," and that filled the whole earth, is Christ, who comes from heaven and brings judgment on the world.​
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,701
6,118
Visit site
✟1,055,873.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You can justify anyway you like. In the end, Bacchiocchi and other revisionists marginalize our traditional teaching and the Spirit of Prophecy and thus absolves the Papacy as the beast of the Revelation or at least cloud the water.

Clouding the water with facts is not clouding.

And if you are elevating our "traditional" teachings, are you upholding Scripture and history, or our own closely held tradition?

Bacchiocchi has doubtless convinced many of the Sabbath truth. but he is trying to make sure we don't use foolish arguments. (And hey, let's be honest, he wants to sell a book or two!).

My two last quotes on this...

'I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws'. ---(Early Writings, p. 32).

'I differ from Ellen White, for example, on the origin of Sunday. She teaches that in the first centuries all Christians observed the Sabbath and it was largely through the efforts of Constantine that Sundaykeeping was adopted by many Christians in the fourth century. My research shows otherwise. If you read my essay HOW DID SUNDAYKEEPING BEGIN? which summarizes my dissertation, you will notice that I place the origin of Sundaykeeping by the time of the Emperor Hadrian, in A.D. 135.' ---"Fee Catholic Mailing List", Bacchiochi, Feb 8, 1997.
So your argument boils down to the fact that he disagrees with EGW on interpretation of history.

Has it occured to you that EGW herself edited her writings to reflect new insights and mistaken sources on history?

Would she think that we should take her word without investigating the facts?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,701
6,118
Visit site
✟1,055,873.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The attack on Ellen White's writing runs deep. It is for goal of silencing the voice of seperation and to achieve the goal of the great ecumenical movement.

You edited this after the other comment was made.

Was EGW attacking her own writings when she updated historical references in her own writings?
 
Upvote 0

djconklin

Moderate SDA
Sep 8, 2003
4,019
26
75
Visit site
✟26,806.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
(And hey, let's be honest, he wants to sell a book or two!).

Over at CARM a critic (I'll let him be anonymous!) claimed that Dr. Bacchiocchi made so much money from his books that he could afford to buy a top of the line, turbo-charged, red Volvo (plus something else but I've forgotten). So, I sent Dr. Bacchiocchi an email and asked him about that. He said it was white and it was not turbo-charged. He also noted that he made more money as a real estate agent in Rome in 5 years than he has in the past 25 years as an SDA teacher and writer.
 
Upvote 0