Thunder Lauriston lecture on "Why Sunday worship cannot be the Mark of the Beast"

[SabbathBlessings]

As I said - its in Scriptures, but the SDA movement already invented a (complicated) explanation of it.

The SDA church did not write and did not speak the Ten Commandments that is in God's Holy Temple Revelation 11:19, that we will all be judged by James 2:10-12 that defines sin when broken 1 John 3:4 Romans 7:7 which is why the Ten Commandments are placed under His Mercy Seat in the Most Holy of His Temple. You're argument is with a much Greater Authority.

Which by itself proves its in Scriptures, or else you would not have a need to explain it.

Scripture explains it.....people choose to ignore just looking at Col 2:14 KJV gives context to Col 2:16-17 but no one ever quotes it because they would have to explain the obvious contradictions. Finger-written is not handwritten, contrary and against is not holy and blessed, ordinances are not commandments Neh 9:13, nor does it fit with the rest of scriptures. This is why we are warned not to make a doctrine out of one scripture and ignore the rest of scripture. If we are seeking Truth to God's Word we have to take all the scripture in account and all scriptures have to reconcile. God said not to edit His commandments Deut 4:2- to think that man would know better than God is a dangerous teaching.

 

[trophy33]

The SDA church did not write and did not speak the Ten Commandments that is in God's Holy Temple Revelation 11:19, that we will all be judged by James 2:10-12 that defines sin when broken 1 John 3:4 Romans 7:7 which is why the Ten Commandments are placed under His Mercy Seat in the Most Holy of His Temple. You're argument is with a much Greater Authority.

Scripture explains it.....people choose to ignore just looking at Col 2:14 KJV gives context to Col 2:16-17 but no one ever quotes it because they would have to explain the obvious contradictions. Finger-written is not handwritten, contrary and against is not holy and blessed, ordinances are not commandments, nor does it fit with the rest of scriptures. This is why we are warned not to make a doctrine out of one scripture and ignore the rest of scripture. If we are seeking Truth to God's Word we have to take all the scripture in account and all scriptures have to reconcile. God said not to edit His commandments Deut 4:2- to think that man would know better than God is a dangerous teaching.

As we already know, your division of the Mosaic instructions into "commandments" and "ordinances" is something you yourself cannot properly do, so you basically always go to "the 10 commandments", only. Which is not biblical at all.

Either the whole law is put aside (as the New testament says) or just some parts of it (as you say), but you cannot say which ones.

 

[ozso]

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."
Col 2:16

It explicitly and literally says that Sabbath, together with rules about drinking and festivals, belonged to shadows, not to the reality in Christ.

Indeed, the SDA movement is here for quite some time so you have already come with your explanation of the verse ("Sabbath is not the Sabbath"), but thats just your explanation of what is in Scripture. Your argument, that its not in the Scripture, is therefore false.

Yeah but accepting the correct interpretation of Col 2:16 that's been held since the 1st century, destroys 19th century doctrine that is held dear.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

As we already know, your division of the Mosaic instructions into "commandments" and "ordinances" is something you yourself cannot properly do, so you basically always go to "the 10 commandments", only. Which is not biblical at all.

Either the whole law is put aside (as the New testament says) or just some parts of it (as you say), but you cannot say which ones.

I have no misunderstandings with the laws we are to keep. Your post doesn't address anything and does what you usually do, instead of addressing the post with scripture, you just go personal. Suit yourself, this all gets sorted out soon enough.

 

[ozso]

It was written by the apostles with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. All scripture is God-breathed.

On one hand you're saying the founding church fathers were guided by the Holy Spirit in their writings, and on the other hand you're saying their writings are the traditions of men.

God gave us the scripture. He is in charge of His Word.

What you're acknowledging as scripture was written by the founding fathers of the church, whom you also reject as those teaching the traditions of men.

The apostles kept the commandments of God, taught us to keep them, did not keep Sunday sacred, but kept every Sabbath.

Not according to the founding church fathers which includes disciples who personally knew and were taught by the apostles.

You keep claiming the founding fathers (the Apostles) changed the Sabbath but yet can't find one quote showing this change from scripture, because it did not happen in scripture- something we were warned would happen though but not by God Dan 7:25, the apostles did not have the authority to countermand God, nor would they, which is why they advocated we keep the commandments of God which includes the Sabbath commandment. The devil has been deceiving the whole world for a very long time and has been an enemy over God's remnant people who keep the commandments of God Rev 12:17 KJV. Much of history has been re-written and if you want to place your trust in the catholic church narrative over God's Word, that's a choice one can make. My faith is in Jesus, who gave us His Word to be a light for our path Psalms 119:105 and warns us about changing and going outside of it. Isaiah 8:20 Proverbs 30:5-6

The writings of the church fathers who personally knew and were taught by the apostles, make it clear that the apostles abandoned the Jewish custom of worship on the Sabbath.

"But why is it, you ask, that we gather on the Lord's Day to celebrate our solemnities? Because that was the way the Apostles also did." - Tertullian

And just in case there is any confusion as to the identity of the Lord's Day:

"And on the day which is called Sunday there is an assembly in the same place of all who live in cities or in country districts; and the records of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read as long as we have time." - Justin Martyr.

One can accept that, or conclude that Christ's church failed immediately after he left it in the hands of his apostles and disciples.

 

[ozso]

I have no misunderstandings with the laws we are to keep.

Yet somehow you can't list any of them beyond eleven.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Yet somehow you can't list any of them beyond eleven.

The Ten Commandments should be a given, so there are Ten right there…

We have the greatest commandments in the law of Moses so we are already at 12…are there more laws to keep yes, but I already proved how little you know about me and going off faulty assumptions is never a good idea. Sadly most people can’t even accept the basic Ten Commandments written by the finger of God spoke by God and scripture says we will be judged by. James 2:10-12.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

On one hand you're saying the founding church fathers were guided by the Holy Spirit in their writings, and on the other hand you're saying their writings are the traditions of men.

What you're acknowledging as scripture was written by the founding fathers of the church, whom you also reject as those teaching the traditions of men.

Not according to the founding church fathers which includes disciples who personally knew and were taught by the apostles.

The writings of the church fathers who personally knew and were taught by the apostles, make it clear that the apostles abandoned the Jewish custom of worship on the Sabbath.

"But why is it, you ask, that we gather on the Lord's Day to celebrate our solemnities? Because that was the way the Apostles also did." - Tertullian

And just in case there is any confusion as to the identity of the Lord's Day:

"And on the day which is called Sunday there is an assembly in the same place of all who live in cities or in country districts; and the records of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read as long as we have time." - Justin Martyr.

One can accept that, or conclude that Christ's church failed immediately after he left it in the hands of his apostles and disciples.

No, there is no scripture from any of the apostles that says the Sabbath commandment is to be abandoned. You keep going outside of scripture to prove your case we are warned not to do that. Isaiah 8:20. The RCC claim a lot of things, and many follow that organization over God's Word, God said no editing the commandments Deut 4:2. If you wish to believe what is written outside scripture over God's Word, that's a choice one can make and I hope it works out for you. I trust God's Word and we are told its danger to go outside the Word of God the scriptures are the path to follow Psalms 119:105, not the Roman catholic church.

 

[Gary K]

As we already know, your division of the Mosaic instructions into "commandments" and "ordinances" is something you yourself cannot properly do, so you basically always go to "the 10 commandments", only. Which is not biblical at all.

Either the whole law is put aside (as the New testament says) or just some parts of it (as you say), but you cannot say which ones.

I believe that is an unjust accusation. SabbathBlessongs has given scripture after scripture to back up his assertions and you've ignored them. Refute the scriptures and his reasoning instead of making ad hominem attacks. That is the Christian thing to do.

 

[ozso]

I believe that is an unjust accusation. SabbathBlessongs has given scripture after scripture to back up his assertions and you've ignored them. Refute the scriptures and his reasoning instead of making ad hominem attacks. That is the Christian thing to do.

The quoted verses have been posted numerous times before and have been addressed. The idea that they have to be addressed each time they are reposted seems unreasonable. Also one isn't likely to keep addressing what's essentially the same argument + verses template the same way each time a variation of it is posted.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The quoted verses have been posted numerous times before and have been addressed. The idea that they have to be addressed each time they are reposted seems unreasonable. Also one isn't likely to keep addressing what's essentially the same argument + verses template the same way each time a variation of it is posted.

Disagreeing is not the same as addressing with scripture. All of my answers are my own, no template is used, I do repost my bible study from Col 2:14-17 because it's the same answer for those who quote Col 2:16-17 but no one has yet to address the argument with scripture. Usually instead of the scripture being address, they want to talk about anything else, like SDA, EGW, the RCC anything but scripture.

 

[ozso]

No, there is no scripture from any of the apostles that says the Sabbath commandment is to be abandoned. You keep going outside of scripture to prove your case we are warned not to do that. Isaiah 8:20. The RCC claim a lot of things, and many follow that organization over God's Word, God said no editing the commandments Deut 4:2. If you wish to believe what is written outside scripture over God's Word, that's a choice one can make and I hope it works out for you. I trust God's Word and we are told its danger to go outside the Word of God the scriptures are the path to follow Psalms 119:105, not the Roman catholic church.

Saying their writings are scripture and saying their wirings are outside of scripture makes no sense. The Catholic church was founded by those who wrote the scripture that the Catholics canonized as being scripture and compiled into the New Testament you're getting scripture verses from. As much as one may want to, Christ's 1st-2nd century church can't be separated from scripture and vice versa. The two are symbiotic.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Saying their writings are scripture and saying their wirings are outside of scripture makes no sense.

The writings they claim are from the apostles outside of scripture have not been proven and I for one am not taking their word for it, you can. God told us not to go outside of scripture Isaiah 8:10 and the apostles do not teach another gospel than what Jesus taught or do they contradict God or themselves from what is in scripture.

The Catholic church was founded by those who wrote the scripture that the Catholics canonized as being scripture and compiled into the New Testament you're getting scripture verses from. As much as one may want to, Christ's 1st-2nd century church can't be separated from scripture and vice versa. The two are symbiotic.

The RCC say a lot of things, as stated you can place your trust in them, my trust is in God and His Word.

We will have to agree to disagree and everything will get sorted out soon enough.

 

[Leaf473]

Well it was the Universal (Catholic) Church of Christ when the Muratorian Canon, which is believed to date to 200 A.D., became the earliest compilation of canonical texts resembling the New Testament.

I've talked about this in other places. People basically stop responding as the situation becomes clear.

I was told growing up that the early Christians knew what was scripture, that it was obvious.

But those Christians in Italy around 150 AD didn't know. They've got some books that we use today, and, interestingly, they add the book of Wisdom.

Just as an example,

The Epistle of Barnabas (translation J.B. Lightfoot)

The Epistle of Barnabas (translation J.B. Lightfoot). On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

 

[ozso]

Disagreeing is not the same as addressing with scripture. All of my answers are my own, no template is used, I do repost my bible study from Col 2:14-17 because it's the same answer for those who quote Col 2:16-17 but no one has yet to address the argument with scripture. Usually instead of the scripture being address, they want to talk about anything else, like SDA, EGW, the RCC anything but scripture.

The argument is that the interpretation you give of Col 2:14-17 is incorrect and conflicts with the interpretation held by the church since the first century. Several of the verses you repeatedly post like Col 2:14-17 actually say the opposite of what you're saying they say. Also a lot of what you say is practically verbatim to what other SDA posters say which is practically verbatim to SDA literature I've read. It's basically posting commentary interspaced with verses that don't actually say what the poster is saying, and then repeatedly reposting variations of the same thing, and expecting those who are counter debating to follow the same formula.

 

[Leaf473]

Well that's the thing. Lots of anti-catholic Protestants don't acknowledge that what they call the Holy Scriptures of the Holy Bible, were separate gospels and epistles that the Catholics assembled to become that Holy Bible. So those going on about the lack of authority traditions of men are unwittingly discrediting the Bible.

To put it in really simple terms, the Bible is a tradition of the Catholic Church. If you say you want nothing to do with Catholic traditions, you're saying you want nothing to do with the Bible.

To use a modern example: it's like saying that you want to drive Cadillacs, but you don't want drive anything made by General Motors.

 

[Leaf473]

I believe that is an unjust accusation. SabbathBlessongs has given scripture after scripture to back up his assertions and you've ignored them. Refute the scriptures and his reasoning instead of making ad hominem attacks. That is the Christian thing to do.

Hi Gary K, I'm glad you stopped by

Do you believe the entire law of Moses can be reasonably separated into commandments and ordinances?

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 24:3 - New American Standard Bible 1995

Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!”

www.biblegateway.com

 

[ozso]

I've talked about this in other places. People basically stop responding as the situation becomes clear.

I was told growing up that the early Christians knew what was scripture, that it was obvious.

But those Christians in Italy around 150 AD didn't know. They've got some books that we use today, and, interestingly, they add the book of Wisdom.

Just as an example,

The Epistle of Barnabas (translation J.B. Lightfoot)

The Epistle of Barnabas (translation J.B. Lightfoot). On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

I don't get what you're getting at here. Most scholars consider Gospel of Barnabas to be a late medieval work, post-1300. So those Christians in Italy around 150 AD likely didn't ever see it.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The argument is that the interpretation you give of Col 2:14-17 is incorrect and conflicts with the interpretation held by the church since the first century. Several of the verses you repeatedly post like Col 2:14-17 actually say the opposite of what you're saying they say. Also a lot of what you say is practically verbatim to what other SDA posters say which is verbatim practically
to SDA literature I've read. It's basically posting commentary interspaced with verses that don't actually say what the poster is saying, and then repeatedly reposting variations of the same thing, and expecting those who are counter debating to follow the same formula.

Who is the first church? It is made up of what is in scripture, not what was written outside of scripture. The church has always been established in the commandments of God and His Word, first church said it is what matters 1 Cor 7:19, first church kept every Sabbath Acts 18:4, the first church said the commandments of God and faith in Jesus shows the fruit of a saved person Revelation 14:12 and showing the commandments being kept until Jesus comes Revelation 22:14-15. Anything that contradicts this is not coming from God Isaiah 8:20 but "the other spirit" who has deceived the world and makes war with God's remnant people who keep the commandments of God from the beginning Revelation 12:17 KJV. We have to decide which side of the war we want to be on. The apostles warned us -For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock Acts 20:29 and this is who you want to put place your faith in, the ones the apostles warned us about, the ones who would think to change times and laws Dan 7:25. I place my faith in God's Word because outside of that there is no light Isaiah 8:20 Proverbs 30:5-6 so if you see contradictions between what is written in scripture and written outside, there are reasons for that, which is why we receive the warning so we won't be deceived, but not everyone has faith in God's Word because they have itching ears 2 Timothy 4:3

 

[SabbathBlessings]

To put it in really simple terms, the Bible is a tradition of the Catholic Church. If you say you want nothing to do with Catholic traditions, you're saying you want nothing to do with the Bible.

To use a modern example: it's like saying that you want to drive Cadillacs, but you don't want drive anything made by General Motors.

Nonsense.