The Church The Papacy Says You Should Join

[brakelite]

nevermind what the calendar says.

What about what God says? "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy..."

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Are you really honouring the Lord by denying His authority in favour of another day authorised only by man with no scriptural support?

I honor the Lord by spending a day of rest and prayer/worship of Him. It doesn't matter what the calendar says.

Of course, I acknowledge that you and I differe on that regard. I acknowledge your beliefs there, and respect them, and aren't interested in arguing over it.

 

[brakelite]

I think some folk don't read THE WHOLE bible, but just the parts they like.

Or perhaps they do read the whole Bible but discard the parts they don't like? Like the 4th commandment for example?

 

[Phoneman777]

That is why the Lord dedicated the first day of the week for Christian worship, rest, and good works.

The three verses in the Bible which are used to support Sunday sacredness are no support at all.

1) Acts 20:7 is an account of a farewell meeting that started around sunset Saturday night and ended sometime before sunrise Sunday morning, when Paul departed at first light - no Sunday morning service here.

2) John 20:19 finds the disciples gathered not for church, but "for fear of the Jews", which makes possible the likelihood the disciples were scared that after the Jews rested on Sabbath, they would come for the disciples the same way they came for Jesus just a few short hours before.

3) 1 Corinthians 16:2 is instructions for the church member to "lay by him in store" on the first day some money for the saints in Jerusalem, which means to "put in storage until later" - NOT TO LAY IT IN A COLLECTION PLATE AT CHURCH, which meaning is erroneously derived from the passage. Paul knew when the Friday workday was over, the people didn't have time to settle their financial affairs before the Sabbath started, so he told them to set something aside after the Sabbath was over when there was time to figure out how much they could spare after handling things.

So, the Lord did not dedicate Sunday as a day of rest, cause He's already identified it as a work day way back at Sinai, right?

 

[Phoneman777]

I honor the Lord by spending a day of rest and prayer/worship of Him. It doesn't matter what the calendar says.

Of course, I acknowledge that you and I differe on that regard. I acknowledge your beliefs there, and respect them, and aren't interested in arguing over it.

Sure it does :) You and I can't make a single thing holy, not a day of the week nor even ourselves - God is the One Who makes things holy, right?

That's why He said "keep it holy" - because He made it holy for us to keep holy.

If I asked you to "keep" my fireplace lit while I run to the store and you enter my living room to find the fireplace cold and damp, how can you "keep" a fire burning that's not even lit, right? In the same way, we can't keep any day holy except the only one God already made holy.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Sure it does :) You and I can't make a single thing holy, not a day of the week nor even ourselves - God is the One Who makes things holy, right?

That's why He said "keep it holy" - because He made it holy for us to keep holy.

If I asked you to "keep" my fireplace lit while I run to the store and you enter my living room to find the fireplace cold and damp, how can you "keep" a fire burning that's not even lit, right? In the same way, we can't keep any day holy except the only one God already made holy.

Again, we're disagreeing on what the important part of the commandment is here. I acknowledge your views and don't see any benefit in arguing about it.

 

[brakelite]

That may be so. But the fact remains that God allows the Antichrist just 3 1/2 years to do his dastardly deeds.

Therefore you will find in both Daniel and revelation:
Forty and two months (42 mths)
One thousand two hundred and three score days (1260 days)
Time, times, and half a time = 1 yr + 2 yrs + 6 months = 3 1/2 yrs

On the other hand the Papacy has been around for about 1500 years. It displays the characteristics of the Antichrist, but never has any pope had total and absolute control over all the inhabitants of the earth.

G'day mate. Yes, the Catholic church has been around for a little over 1500 years now. But what we need to recognise is the particular form it took at specific times in history. The code of Justinian was an empirical law granting the bishop of Rome secular as well as religious authority within the its jurisdiction, which at that time, encompassed a small amount of Europe, later extended by the efforts of Clovis, Charlemagne etc to cover all Europe. That code was signed in 533 AD. The Justinian law was the predominant law throughout Europe for the following centuries until 1793, precisely 1260 years! Coincidence? However, when Justinian brought that into law,, the bishops of Rome, the Popes, could not exercise that authority because the barbarian tribes, in particular the Goths, held the upper hand in Rome. The bishops could do nothing without Gothic approval. They could not appoint new popes, or exercise their assumed civil or secular authority without the approval of the Gothic king. Not until 5 years later when under orders from Constantinople, and after pleadings from the Roman bishop, did Bellisarius enter Rome with his armies and give the Goths the boot. Only then did the Roman church have autonomy in both civil and religious matters. Thus began the true papacy. While there were continuing skirmishes for a time, 538AD marks the time of Papal autonomy, free for the most part from outside influences. The Gothic nation was the final horn of those three to be uprooted, and from which there remains today no European national progeny. Mark those dates....533 and 538 AD.
Then comes Napoleon. He introduced a new law. The Napoleonic era began. His laws became European standard law and decreed that the Papacy was no longer the over-arching rule over kings and queens, having secular s well as religious authority, and when was this signed into law? 1793. When however was this brought into effect? Again, by an army representing the new authority...this time led by General Berthier who entered Rome, took the pope captive, exiling him, disbanding the college of cardinals and confiscating the papal states declaring them a republic. When did this annulment of papal power take place? When was this mortal head wound inflicted? 1798. Precisely 1260 years after Bellisarius established papal supremacy in the 6th century. Coincidence?
And when was that mortal head wound healed? IN 1929 when Mussolini once again established the Papal power as a civil authority by granting it the Vatican city as an autonomous state through the lateran treaty. Today, the Papacy covets its former glory and power...only this time globally. No longer content with just Europe, she has far broader schemes that encompass every nation, kindred, tongue and people, and in the very short future, will accomplish this goal, even if only for a short time when the kings of the earth give the beast its authority.

Only a blind man (or woman) can not see how history has so strikingly met all the prophetic details required to identify the Papacy as the true Antichrist, and how devastatingly dangerous is the concept of a future individual to come which concept hides the real antichrist from view.

 

[brakelite]

Again, we're disagreeing on what the important part of the commandment is here. I acknowledge your views and don't see any benefit in arguing about it.

Would that be because you don't have an argument to present? You speak often of being honest about Mormon doctrine and your willingness to be open about what you believe not accepting what you believe to be the false misapprehensions of your adversaries...yet here you "see no sense in discussing it" ?? Sunday is part and parcel of Mormon doctrine as much as it is for most other "Christian" denominations. But you don't want to defend it now?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Would that be because you don't have an argument to present? You speak often of being honest about Mormon doctrine and your willingness to be open about what you believe not accepting what you believe to be the false misapprehensions of your adversaries...yet here you "see no sense in discussing it" ?? Sunday is part and parcel of Mormon doctrine as much as it is for most other "Christian" denominations. But you don't want to defend it now?

I'm not interested in "defending" anything. Only understanding. I understand your position quite thoroughly, and I've explained mine, so that's the end of it. Nothing more to be said.

 

[quietthinker]

Again, while I respect your beliefs, overly stressing "the day of rest MUST be Saturday!" strikes me as legalistic. For me, the important thing is having the day of rest and honoring the Lord, nevermind what the calendar says.

Jane, the commandment also says don't murder. Now when its economically a proposition to make war on another country because they have what is wanted, do you send your sons and daughters along to kill other mothers sons and daughters because that's what the cultural majority approve. Is the commandment not to murder no longer an issue and can it be decided with impunity that the voice of the cultural majority is right??

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Jane, the commandment also says don't murder. Now when its economically a proposition to make war on another country because they have what is wanted, do you send your sons and daughters along to kill other mothers sons and daughters because that's what the cultural majority approve. Is the commandment not to murder no longer an issue and can it be decided with impunity that the voice of the cultural majority is right??

Again: I understand your (I'm assuming SDA) position and acknowledge it. I'm not interested trying to change your mind or otherwise argue.

 

[brakelite]

I understand your position quite thoroughly

Great. You understand then that the observance of the 7th day as opposed to the first day is a matter of whose authority we acknowledge. For us, it is God. Now while you claim to have presented your view, that isn't quite true JD. You haven't explained how man's authority, the "cultural majority", takes precedence over God.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Great. You understand then that the observance of the 7th day as opposed to the first day is a matter of whose authority we acknowledge. For us, it is God.

I understand that it your perspective.
I don not share it, but I thoroughly understand your views. Thank you for explaining.
I have no interest in trying to change your perspective.

For us, it is God. Now while you claim to have presented your view, that isn't quite true JD. You haven't explained how man's authority, the "cultural majority", takes precedence over God.

Are you actually interested in understanding my perspective, or are you just interested in trying to change it (aka wanting to argue)?

 

[brakelite]

I understand that it your perspective.
I don not share it, but I thoroughly understand your views. Thank you for explaining.

Are you actually interested in understanding my perspective, or are you just interested in trying to change it (aka wanting to argue)?

Now you are prevaricating JD. It was a simple question. Whose authority is greater? God? Or the "cultural majority"?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Now you are prevaricating JD. It was a simple question. Whose authority is greater? God? Or the "cultural majority"?

Going to be blunt here:
I understand your position, and thank you for sharing it. I am not interested in trying to change that or otherwise arguing. You're striking as only interest in that, and hence I'm not interested.

 

[quietthinker]

Again: I understand your (I'm assuming SDA) position and acknowledge it. I'm not interested trying to change your mind or otherwise argue.

I understand what your'e saying Jane, nevertheless this matter will become a global issue in short time and choices that are made re this will determine whose banner we march under.

When Daniel's three friends where there on the plain of Dura with the rest of the population and the command was given to fall down and worship the golden image Nebuchadnezzar had set up it must have been terribly inconvenient for them, in fact the order, after being given a warning that if they didn't capitulate they would be burnt alive. You know the story; they got thrown into the fire. God's Commandment to not worship other gods was not nullified because the cultural majority had other ideas and God honoured their faithfulness.

The fourth Commandment is just as binding as the first. Many claim to have Jesus as their Saviour but are they willing to keep his Commandments. In fact, the litmus test as to who one gives allegiance to will make the seventh day Sabbath a focus not far hence. Take the Commandment as seriously as Daniels mates did or will you say to God, thank you for sharing your Commandment but I'm not interested?.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I understand what your'e saying Jane, nevertheless this matter will become a global issue in short time and choices that are made re this will determine whose banner we march under.

When Daniel's three friends where there on the plain of Dura with the rest of the population and the command was given to fall down and worship the golden image Nebuchadnezzar had set up it must have been terribly inconvenient for them, in fact the order, after being given a warning that if they didn't capitulate they would be burnt alive. You know the story; they got thrown into the fire. God's Commandment to not worship other gods was not nullified because the cultural majority had other ideas and God honoured their faithfulness.

The fourth Commandment is just as binding as the first. Many claim to have Jesus as their Saviour but are they willing to keep his Commandments. In fact, the litmus test as to who one gives allegiance to will make the seventh day Sabbath a focus not far hence. Take the Commandment as seriously as Daniels mates did.

Not interested in arguing.

 

[brakelite]

Going to be blunt here:
I understand your position, and thank you for sharing it. I am not interested in trying to change that or otherwise arguing. You're striking as only interest in that, and hence I'm not interested.

That's fine, you don't have to answer me...but you need to answer it for your own sake. To settle it in your own mind. To ask the question of yourself. When we are challenged in these last days to heed and/or discern between the commandments of man and the commandments of God (see Revelation 13:15-18 and 14:6-12) then you need to have solid ground to stand on. This isn't about me or any presumed idea on your part concerning my desire to simply argue a point. This is life and death business.

 

[Waiting on him]

That's fine, you don't have to answer me...but you need to answer it for your own sake. To settle it in your own mind. To ask the question of yourself. When we are challenged in these last days to heed and/or discern between the commandments of man and the commandments of God (see Revelation 13:15-18 and 14:6-12) then you need to have solid ground to stand on. This isn't about me or any presumed idea on your part concerning my desire to simply argue a point. This is life and death business.

Maybe she isn’t seeking to save her life?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

That's fine, you don't have to answer me...but you need to answer it for your own sake. To settle it in your own mind. To ask the question of yourself. When we are challenged in these last days to heed and/or discern between the commandments of man and the commandments of God (see Revelation 13:15-18 and 14:6-12) then you need to have solid ground to stand on. This isn't about me or any presumed idea on your part concerning my desire to simply argue a point. This is life and death business.

In your perspective. Not please quit trying to shove it down my throat when I have repeatedly said I am not interested.