As many of you know, I believe the title "antichrist" cannot be applied to the papacy, because the papacy does not fulfill the characteristics of "antichrist" explicitly expounded in the epistles 1 and 2 John. As I see it, the term "antichrist" should not be applied where the Bible does not give us a precedent for doing so. One may call the papacy the "little horn," "man of lawlessness," or "beast" if one believes the passages introducing those figures refer to the papacy. However, the papacy does not correspond to the attributes explicitly predicated of the "antichrist" in the epistles of John.
Adventists with whom I converse frequently respond that insofar as the papacy (allegedly) stands "against" or "in place of" Christ, it deserves being called "antichrist." Nevertheless, even were the papacy so opposed to Christ, one could not call the papacy "the antichrist" (as Adventists do) precisely because "the antichrist" is already identified in 1 John 2.22; 4.3; 2 John 1.7, and its characteristics do not match those of the papacy. Neither does the papacy match the characteristics of "an antichrist" (1 Jn. 2:18), a term is equivocal with "the antichrist" (cf. 1 Jn. 2:22; 2 Jn. 1:7). (And remember, the papacy is not simply "an antichrist" among Adventists; it is "the antichrist.")
Along the same lines, one cannot call the papacy the "antichrist of Bible prophecy" (as Adventists also do) since the application of the term "antichrist" to the papacy is not made by any biblical prophecy. Honestly, I do not understand why Adventist evangelists claim Dan. 7 and Rev. 13 refer to "the antichrist." When I first heard an Adventist evangelist make this claim as a teenager, I was confused, because I knew the Bible does not identify either of these powers as "the antichrist." I wondered on what basis Adventist evangelists issued this claim. I dismissed my doubts then, because I trusted Adventism, and thought I simply hadn't read enough. Years later, however, I came to recognize my initial confusion as appropriate and correct.
I find it sad and frustrating that Adventists, when confronted with these facts, still insist on referring to these entities (or more directly, the papacy) as "the antichrist." They do not have a biblical basis for doing so, and instead, seem bound by an Adventist tradition which refuses correction.
I'd like to know what happened to "give me the Bible."
73 comments:
Hugo, you're just asking for it, aren't you? ;~)
On reading the Catholic response I see they claim because they "say" that Jesus is the Christ that eliminates them as the anti-christ. What if what they "do" and "say" are not compatible. For instance if I say that I love my wife and then go with another woman do I REALLY love my wife? There's a phrase that goes "saying don't make it so".
Tom, Adventists say they are Christians. But if they sin then that means they aren't? You have heard of the wheat and the tares? Catholics confess Jesus as Lord. Some may not live that out, but that only makes them bad Christians not anti-Christs.
Fr. Jim
You're right, Tom, "saying don't make it so". That's why Catholics tend to focus their lives more toward helping humanity wherever they can. The Catholic Church does have the largest charitable organization in the world, after all. And they do all of this in imitation of Christ who was a "Man who went around doing good". That's what it actually means to be a Christian, actually doing what Christ did.
Blessings to you, friend!
Hi Tom,
If you go with another woman can you not make it up with your wife?
When we commit serious sin, can we not be forgiven?
Yes, all Christians (as the name implies) are to be Christ-like in everything we do. That means, denying ourselves, taking up our cross and following him. Where? To death, to suffering and total self-sacrifice, so that in sharing His sufferings we might also share in His Glory.
I have found in Catholicism the full understanding of what this means. We are not shy away from suffering, but to accept it with joy! For we make up in our suffering what is lacking in Christ's! What a statement! Luckily it is biblical (St Paul).
I digress. Sorry, got a bit excited!
Much love,
Clement
I have no problem with accepting that Catholic people are Christians. I never implied that THEY are the antichrists. I applaud the charity work and the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. The issue though in this post was about antichrist. Part of the problem with this term is that most people see an image in their minds created by Hollywood. I believe the scriptures refer a religious authority or authorities that contradict what Christ taught. The fact that the Church states that it has authority to change what Christ taught by word and example places it in opposition to Christ. The best example that I see although there are also others is the Church's claim to have changed the 7th day Sabbath to Sunday.
Tom, I think this whole post was just for you. Jesus wanted us to worship on the Lord's Day and the Apostles followed his teaching. You don't have to be Jewish to be Christian. That was the first great battle in the Church. Your side lost to men like Peter and Paul. The Catholic Church does have authority because Christ founded it and gave it authority, not to change the truth but to protect the truth. In fact it was the Catholic Church that gave you the scriptures. You're welcome. It is up to you to prove that your prophet EG White had the authority to change what the Apostolic Church has always taught.
Fr. Jim
Hi Tom,
Welcome to the blog, it is great to be able to talk to you! I hope you will bear with us, and stick around for what tend to be lengthy and involved discussions!
You said:
"...the Church states that it has authority to change what Christ taught by word and example.."
Tom, I have to start by being honest and tell you this is categorically untrue. The Catholic church and the papacy make many claims but one of them is not the authority to alter Christ's teaching, in fact quite the opposite, the Church claims to infallibly hold to and defend the Gospel and preach it to the ends of the earth as the apostles were commanded to do.
The Sabbath / Sunday issue is particularly pertinent for Adventists, of course, and it is a tricky one because of the lack of strong scriptural evidence on either side. Hugo (who hosts this blog) has written a number of essays on his website (http://www.catholicadventist.com/Answers/index.html) and there are a many posts and comments on this blog relating to the matter.
The short of it is, the Catholic church follows the example of Christ and His apostles. The Church was born on a Sunday (Pentecost), many of Christ's resurrection appearances were on Sundays, and the historical writings of the early church right back to the Didache (written according to modern scholarship in around AD 70) confirm that Christians have always met on a Sunday, the Lord's Day, to celebrate and give thanks (Eucharist in Greek) for the resurrection (which was on a Sunday), as this was the day of the New Creation, and the source of our hope, joy and salvation!
We are under the New Covenant, certain laws, practices and sacrifices have been fulfilled, we have come to a new and greater hope!
I appreciate there is an awful lot to unpack here, especially if you are hearing all these things for the first time, so please do look into it, ask questions here and we will try and answer them!!
God bless you, Tom.
Clement
Tom, et al:
The Johannine epistles, speaking of the antichrist, emphasize what an antichrist 'confesses' (1 Jn. 2:23; 4:2-3; 2 Jn. 1:7) and the 'teachings' he opposes (2 Jn. 1:9-10; 1 Jn. 2:27). It is obvious the antichrist is identified by what he says, what he teaches, what he confesses... that is, his doctrine.
The Catholic Church emphatically does not embrace the characteristic doctrines** of "antichrist."
We do not need to speak of actions; the text does not speak of them.
In 1 John, John makes clear that there is an antichrist that is in the future (coming), but that antichrists have already appeared (have come) in his day, and that the spirit behind antichrist is already at work in certain false teachers.
The man who is “the antichrist” in 2:22 is not indicated by John as being the predicted antichrist. This man, who speaks lies about Christ, is not coming, but is currently causing problems [in fact he/or they have recently left John’s congregations (2:19)]. John is not conflating the two kinds of antichrists (future and present), nor is he contradicting himself. John always has a clear sense of many antichrists (who can be ‘the antichrist’ in their claims), and a future antichrist, which his congregations have been warned about.
Who is this antichrist who is to come in the future and that the churches have been warned about? It’s the ‘little horn’ of Daniel, it’s the ‘man of lawlessness,’ of Paul and it’s the ‘beast’ of Revelation. Paul, like John, is clear that his churches are to look out for a coming future falling away. The both contend against many false teachers in their own day but also clearly see the real danger as in the future. Also, the figures of the little horn, the man of lawlessness and the beast, reveal intertextual correspondence, and a clear mimicking of Christ, and are aptly called ‘antichrist.’
The flexibility, and at least some perceived continuity, between the many antichrists and the predicted future antichrist shows that this title is capable of wider use than the restrictive use you seek to make of it. There are still many antichrists, but there is only one predicted antichrist who was to come. The Bible does indeed give us precedent for both uses.
ant
But ant, John is very specific and clear about the characteristics of "antichrist", whether future or present. And based upon those very limited and specific characteristics, the Papacy cannot therefore be "antichrist".
To apply to "antichrist" the characteristics of the "little horn", "the beast", and the "man of lawlessness" is to conflate very different contextual terms from different authors, except perhaps for the Revelation. However, it should be pointed out that John, who wrote Revelation, never once uses his term "antichrist" to identify any of the characteristics of the "beast". This would seem to indicate that the two are not necessarily connected in his mind. Therefore, it would seem inappropriate to conflate the two terms since John himself does not do this.
Blessings!
Just a thought:
With Peter being the first pope, can the pope really be the antichrist?
Clement
Hi Clement,
I believe the common rebuttal would be to simply deny that Peter was ever historically a bishop of a Church, let alone of Rome.
Blessings!
"Jesus wanted us to worship on the Lord's Day and the Apostles followed his teaching."
Really? Where does Jesus say that?
Catholic authorities through the centuries have always said the church changed this, in the post-apostolic period, by its own authority.
Hi Anonymous,
I believe you are incorrect.
The Church has always taught that the first day, which was and is the common day for Christians to come together and celebrate the Eucharist, began in the first century with the Apostles.
Seeing as Christ rose from the dead on the first day (spiritually the "eighth day"), and that He appeared to the Apostles seven consecutive times on the first day (seen as divine significance since the number seven implies completion), and that the Church "officially" began on the first day (Pentecost), lent credence to this concept.
Thus, St. Justin the Martyr, writing only 40-50 years after the death of the last Apostle, could describe the practice of the Christians to congregate on the first day as a well established commonality in his time to the Roman government. If the practice for Christians to meet together on Sunday, the first day, was not already well established prior to his time, then he could not have written about it as he did.
When one begins to put all of this information together, as well as other points I did not already cover, then it is difficult to escape the conclusion that first day meetings of the Christians is the most ancient and original practice. Therefore, the Church is correct in what she has said regarding this.
Blessings to you my friend!
PS: Why don't you provide a nickname so that we'll have something to call you instead of "Anonymous".
Where did Jesus ever give anyone the authority to change His laws. The ten commandments were written in stone by God. Because someone started to worship with the pagans who worshipped the sun does not impute any authority by God to change his law. If you can pull out the fourth commandment (the third according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church) then what is to stop anyone from stealing , killing. Any authority that Jesus gave to the disciples does not give them leave to start disregarding the commandments.
Another argument that is posed is that Jesus rose on the first day. Great, but he also RESTED on the Sabbath day. He arose on the first day Sunday to begin to begin the work of His church. Sunday is a day of work , not rest. His example even in His death showed that the Sabbath was still valid. calling it The Lords day doesn't change things. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath Luke 6:5
Isn't this opposing or taking the place of Christ when you purposely change His laws?
Hi "Anonymous",
Again, why not out, of convenience, provide us with a nick name so that we will know that it is you instead of someone else?
Now on to your comments.
1. The early Christians did not begin worshipping on Sunday because of the pagans. In fact, it has been suggested that the pagans did not even worship "on" Sunday. There were many different "pagan" groups around all doing their own thing. They were not all united on when and how or who to worship. Thus, there most likely was not a "general" gathering of pagans on the first day of the week. If anyone has any historical documents that show the contrary to be true, I'd be greatly interested. Thanks in advance!
Even though the typical Sunday gathering of Christians as a common practice apparently began long before his time, St. Justin does explain to the Roman authorities the Christian reasons for doing so in his first apology. I'd invite you to read his apology in its entirety as it gives an excellent picture of the Christians up until the mid second century.
2. It is a fact, those Christians who do not observe a weekly "sabbath" rest of 24 hours also believe that it is wrong or sin to murder, steal, dishonor parents, take God's name in vain, worship idols, etc. They do not see it as necessary to cease from working one day a week. They do not believe that this was ever required of Gentiles who did not seek to join the nation of Israel in the flesh. They believe that Gentile Christians are only bound to those commandments found in the Gospel specifcally taught as necessary by Christ, and the commandments imposed upon Gentiles coming to Christ in Acts 15. Keeping a literal 24 hour rest period was never implied or stressed by either Christ or His Apostles.
3. You bring up the fact that Christ rested in the tomb on Saturday, thus validating Sabbath observance for Christians. The Church has always remembered the Sabbath day as being special because it was specially chosen by God in the Hebrew Scriptures as "His day". And furthermore, the Church recognizes that the Sabbath is extra special and significant because of what you said about Jesus resting in the tomb on that day. Therefore, in view of these very valid things, the Church has always held the Divine Liturgy especially on Saturday to commemorate these realities. Saturday, next to Sunday, can truly be said to be the holiest time during the weekly cycle that the Church observes reverently in her worship.
Regarding the 24 hour "rest" mandate from work, the Church does not hold to be encumbent upon the Christian to observe for the reasons mentioned previously.
4. You said that Sunday is a day to work. You are exactly right! Everyday is a day to work and do good for our fellow man. Even when the Church comes together to celebrate the Divine Liturgy on whatever day, it is considered work, work of the people. Therefore, the Church works always just as Christ and His Father continuously work for us (cf. John 5:16-18).
Hope that helped!
Hi All!
Can someone please show me a single way the Church "changed the Sabbath?"
I bet I can show you more than a few ways the "Sabbath Keepers" of today changed the Sabbath.
The Sabbath was not changed by the Church. The Jews are still celebrating the Sabbath today. So, nope, the last time I checked the catholic Church did not take the Sabbath away from anyone.
Those that have fashioned the Sabbath into a Christian day of rest and worship are the ones guilty of changing the Sabbath.
Blessings,
ATFOJ
ATFOJ, good food for thought,I never took that angle.
I know you have more where that came from.
God Bless
Nature.B
David wrote:
"Seeing as Christ rose from the dead on the first day (spiritually the "eighth day"), and that He appeared to the Apostles seven consecutive times on the first day (seen as divine significance since the number seven implies completion), and that the Church "officially" began on the first day (Pentecost), lent credence to this concept."
David, an explicit declaration of Jesus would have made your statement correct. Alas, it is just a mere statement without foundation. Also, personally, I would say the church of Christ started even before the Pentecost (unless we believe that the disciples were not part of the church before the Pentecost. But maybe it depends how we define the term "church"). But anyway, there is nothing that positively proves that Sunday was supposed to be the day Christians gather together for the Eucharist (above all if we consider that the last supper, the first Eucharist, didn't occur on Sunday).
You mentioned Justin Martyr and his first apology. He wrote that "Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration".
Now, what us interesting is that we see none of the apostles teaching this in the Bible. Where do we see one the apostles saying that Sunday is the day on which Christ's disciples are to gather together (as you asked before, David, show us the verse)? Nowhere!
Again, while it makes sense to presuppose that an early proximity to the apostles' time would assure a greater accuracy as for their teachings, there is in fact no guaranty that the Fathers of the church were always correct, above all when we consider the fact that the apostles themselves spoke, in the Bible, about heresies and wrong doctrines creeping into the church when they were still alive. They spoke about the spirit of antichrist already at work when they were still around. Paul spoke about the wolves that would not spare the sheep after his departure.
Satan didn't wait to introduce errors within the church (don't forget that John said that Satan knows he has a short time (Revelation 12:12)). He did it before the time of Jesus. He did it during the ministry of Jesus. He continued during the time of the apostles and, of course, has kept doing it since then.
So even the writings of the Fathers of the church have to be checked against Scripture to see whether they are true (like the Bereans did).
Hi ATFOJ!
You said: Can someone please show me a single way the Church "changed the Sabbath?"
I bet I can show you more than a few ways the "Sabbath Keepers" of today changed the Sabbath.
The Sabbath was not changed by the Church. The Jews are still celebrating the Sabbath today. So, nope, the last time I checked the catholic Church did not take the Sabbath away from anyone.
Those that have fashioned the Sabbath into a Christian day of rest and worship are the ones guilty of changing the Sabbath.
In the nearly one and a half years that I have seen this discussion, here and on other blogs, I have to say that you have analyzed and summarized the truth of the matter more clearly, more accurately, and more succintly, than anyone. I tip my hat and nod my head to you and thank you!
The point you make is brilliant!
A group of 19th centurty New England puritans take a Calvinist Sunday worship service, perform it on Saturday, include some Biblical language around it, place a set of restrictions between sundown Friday evening to sundown Saturday evening (restrictions which have, by the way, been changed by that group over the past 160 years of their existence), then build a vibrant organization around this which makes the claim that they are God's true church, and that the climax of salvation history will be based on each person's choice regarding which day they go to church.
And yet so much of the Biblical law regarding the ture and proper observance of the Sabbath is either neglected, ignored, or both.
Thank you once again ATFOJ, for pointing out who indeed really changed the Sabbath! Brilliant!
God bless all!!!
Hi Still,
Are you faulting the Church for coming together on Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist? Which day would you rather have them meet upon?
I guess what I'm really asking is, what is your main point that you are trying to convey?
Thanks!
Hi Still,
You said: But anyway, there is nothing that positively proves that Sunday was supposed to be the day Christians gather together for the Eucharist (above all if we consider that the last supper, the first Eucharist, didn't occur on Sunday).
And herein lies the problem when so much empahsis is placed on a day rather than the event.
The Eucharist is not about a day. The Eucharist is about the saving act of Jesus Christ giving His body and blood to us so that we may, by His grace and through our faith, receive that gift He gave to us on the cross and by His resurrection...even eternal life.
He offered Himself on Friday, was in the grave on Saturday, and rose from the dead on Sunday. And while these days have significance, it is NOT about any of these days, but about all that happened during those days...the event...and more importantly the event of Jesus Christ...His life, His death, His resurrection.
God bless all!!!
I concur with you Mike. It is not about days, but about Christ. Sunday simply became the logical time to especially come together to "give thanks" ("eucharistia" in Greek) for the Christian community.
Though any day is appropriate for the celebration of the Eucharist, Saturday and especially Sunday were considered the most significant times for the Church. But I am still at a loss at seeing Still's point that he is trying to convey to us. Please Still, help us out.
Blessings!
Still said: Now, what is interesting is that we see none of the apostles teaching this in the Bible. Where do we see one the apostles saying that Sunday is the day on which Christ's disciples are to gather together (as you asked before, David, show us the verse)? Nowhere!
No Still you show us where they preached sabbath!
Still God gave us brains we use our logic.
1 Cor 16:2,Every sunday
Acts 2:1 Pentecost
Acts 15:4-6-29 Jerusalem council
Acts 20:7 breaking bread sunday
John 20:1 First day of the week
John 20:19 First day of the week
John 20:26 eight days later
Rev 1:10 (John was at the Cross)) the Lords day.
Jesus appeared to the Apostles 7 times,after the resurrection.
Jesus said to enter eternal life, these commandments Math 19:18
Justin Martyr,
Ignatius of Antioch( 100-115) wrote the lords day when life first dawned on us thanks to Jesus and his death and resurrection.
(there are more,My notes are not with me)
We reharsh this issue over and over again, I understand, we leave no leaf unturned because this blog is read daily, especially by my RCI students.
God Bless
Nature.B
David,
For memory, let's remember that what we are answering to is the comment made by Fr. Jim, which was:
"Jesus wanted us to worship on the Lord's Day and the Apostles followed his teaching."
to which Anonymous answered:
"Really? Where does Jesus say that?
Catholic authorities through the centuries have always said the church changed this, in the post-apostolic period, by its own authority".
Then you answered to Anonymous and then I commented on your answer.
So it started when Fr. Jim said that Jesus wanted us to worship on the Lord's day (of course, Sunday for Catholics). This is where Anonymous and myself disagree. We see nowhere in the Bible a call for worship on Sunday made by Jesus.
Now by definition there is nothing wrong in celebrating the resurrection of Jesus on Sunday (even every Sunday if people want). We don't need God's permission to celebrate anything that is not evil. But to call Sunday THE day of worship in opposition to the Sabbath day is wrong. And this is the issue. The Catholic church doesn't simply speak of celebration. She speaks of replacement. Here is what the Catholic catechism says:
"2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:
Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death" (emphasis mine)
With a text such a the one above, it is clear that Sunday observance is not just a celebration of Jesus' resurrection. It is also purely and simply about the replacement of the Sabbath day as the worship day (remember, the text says,"no longer keeping the sabbath"). And this is simply not biblical. Nowhere in the Bible do we see Jesus declaring that, starting at the day of His resurrection, His disciples were to replace the Sabbath day worship with the Sunday worship.
As you mentioned yourself, David, Jesus appeared several times to His disciples. He had many occasions to tell them about the change of the day of worship. He didn't say anything about it.
In short, Jesus never spoke about a change of the day of worship before the cross. He never spoke about it during the last supper. He never spoke about it when He was on the cross before His death. He never spoke about it after His resurrection.
This proves that Jesus never had the intention to make the change in the first place.
Hi Still,
Thank you very much for the quote from the Catechism, it was very interesting and enlightening. I have not spent much time in it, though I have read some of it. It is a rather thick document, after all (my weak excuse for lack of thoroughness ;).
I believe that I understand your main contention against the Roman Church now, and I agree with you! No where do we read Jesus or His Apostles even hinting at the first day as a "replacement" for worship on the seventh. From what I can see, the early Church celebrated the Eucharist almost every day, as this is witnessed to in Acts 2 among other places; as well as the Didache's call to gather together "daily". I see nothing in the Ante-Nicene Fathers that even suggests that the first day is to be considered a "replacement" for the seventh day. It apparently was not thought of in that way.
It is interesting to note that the Orthodox (both "eastern" and "oriental") have never considered Sunday as a "replacement" for the Sabbath, either in terms of worship (which they freely have on both days), or in terms of rest (which is believed not to be encumbent upon the Christian). This was actually one of the things that drew me toward the Orthodox side, as I saw this as respresenting closer the Ante-Nicene understanding.
Still, I believe you have greatly sharpened the discussion on this issue. I also greatly appreciate it! I would be very interested to hear our Catholc friends' explanation on this, as I find this to be quite fascinating.
God Bless!
Still and David:
Still wrote, "As you mentioned yourself, David, Jesus appeared several times to His disciples. He had many occasions to tell them about the change of the day of worship. He didn't say anything about it."
On what do you base this assumption?
After the Resurrection, Jesus hung with the fellows for 40 days. Where in the Bible is everything Jesus said during those 40 days recorded? We have no idea, what Jesus may or may not have said during those six weeks.
Are you going to tell me that a) He just repeated what He told them during the previous 3 1/2 years? Then why did He bother to hang around? Or b) every thing he said that was important was written down. In which case, why did He bother to hang around since there is very little written down that He said after the resurrection.
Surely if Jesus remained on earth for 40 days after the resurrection, something important was going on, but clearly 38 days of it was not recorded in Scripture.
Hello and God Bless everyone.
"its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath".
Well of course. Sunday tries to immitate the ceremonial observance of the Jewish Sabbath. So I don't think there is anything wrong with that line.
David don't you think going to your church on Sunday does just that? It replaces the "ceremonial observance" ONLY. "Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath", and this is because of Jesus' ressurection and the Eucharist.
1166 "By a tradition handed down from the apostles which took its origin from the very day of Christ's Resurrection, the Church celebrates the Paschal mystery every seventh day, which day is appropriately called the Lord's Day or Sunday."36 The day of Christ's Resurrection is both the first day of the week, the memorial of the first day of creation, and the "eighth day," on which Christ after his "rest" on the great sabbath inaugurates the "day that the Lord has made," the "day that knows no evening."37 The Lord's Supper is its center, for there the whole community of the faithful encounters the risen Lord who invites them to his banquet:38
Hi Armando,
What do you suppose the Catechism means by using the phrase "ceremonial observance"?
Thanks and blessings to you!
Just a note of clarification. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is actually quoting St. Ignatius of Antioch (writing in the early 2nd century) in paragraph 2175 when it says:
"Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death"
This is pertinent to the discussion concerning how the earliest Christians understood mandatory observance of the sabbath w/ respect to gathering on the Lord's Day.
Still said; In short, Jesus never spoke about a change of the day of worship before the cross. He never spoke about it during the last supper. He never spoke about it when He was on the cross before His death. He never spoke about it after His resurrection.
You are CORRECT STILL!
JESUS NEVER INTENDED TO TELL THEM EVERTHING IN 3 1/2 YEARS
Still, John 16:12 Jesus said'I still have many things to tell you,...when HE, the spirit of TRUTH comes, he will guide you into the whole truth
John 20:30 there are many other "SIGNS" that Jesus gave in the presence of his disciples..not recorded in this book.
Could 7 visitations on sunday be one of those signs?
John 14:25..the Helper the Holy Spirit..will teach you all things...
Still, Jesus left some work for the Holy Spirit to Guide the Church.
Read my thread under Papacy I listed the early Church Fathers guided by the Holy Spirit
This is of Paramont importance proving the point that without the "Apostolic Church" Christianity is rudderless.
God Bless the Church listening to the Constant guidance of the HELPER.
David, as an orthodox, you may not accept this statement by Pope Gregory:Pope Gregory I
"It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these [men] but preachers of Antichrist, who when he comes will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work. For because he [the Antichrist] pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be held in reverence; and because he compels the people to Judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed. For this which is said by the prophet, ‘You shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath day’ [Jer. 17:24] could be held to as long as it was lawful for the law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ, has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For if anyone says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered. He must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the apostle Paul saying in opposition to him: ‘If you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing’ [Gal. 5:2]" (Letters 13:1 [A.D. 597]).
Well, little me called sabbatarians Anti-Christ, because the culture at the time was Judaist (Anti Christ) against Christians. I was advised by fellow bloggers to back off that kind of language.
In the Spirit of Brotherly Love.
Nature.B
Hi Nature B,
Thank you for that quote from Pope St. Gregory the Great. I actually knew about that one, and find it interesting. Especially in light of our current conversation.
What is really fascinating about it to me is that he says that those who forbid work from being done on the Lord's day (i.e. sabbatizing the Sunday) are of the antichrist, but then a little further down he talks about observing the Lord's day free from work? It came across as somewhat confusing to me. Perhaps someone here can speak to this?
Thanks and God bless!
Hi Alan,
Thanks for that bit of information. When I read that quote from the Catechism I thought that some of the language sounded similiar to St. Ignatius.
Perhaps you can help me here. I know that there are "short" versions of his letters, and the longer "recensions". I believe, if I am not mistaken, that the longer "recensions" are not held as genuine by scholars. That quote you provided, is it from the shorter or longer "recension"?
Thanks and blessings!
"That quote you provided, is it from the shorter or longer "recension"?"
Hi David, good question! In fact, I have heard of three recensions discussed with an even shorter, more condensed version. But of the "longer" and "shorter" recensions, according to CCEL, the quotation in question is from the shorter recension. You can read it here at this link, which contains the shorter version (first paragraph) and longer version following that.
The longer version is a obviously fleshed out a lot more: "Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for “he that does not work, let him not eat.” For say the [holy] oracles, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.” But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]."
I opt for the shorter.
Hello David,
By ceremonial observance it only means the actual act as a community to come together weekly for God. Sunday just happens to be the day the apostles did this and when Christ ressurected. This in a way replaces the sabbath-keeping the Jewish community had to do. We replace and fulfill them with our participation in the Divine Liturgies (listening to the Word of God and taking the Eucharist).
Back in the CCC it says:
2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.
That being said, this does not replace Gods Sabbath which is his eternal rest and hhe invites us to share with him.
Hebrews 4:
9 Therefore, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God.
10 And whoever enters into God's rest, rests from his own works as God did from his.
11 Therefore, let us strive to enter into that rest, so that no one may fall after the same example of disobedience.
David, another good read is the Sabbath chapter in St. John of Damascus' - An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm
Blessings.
Hi Alan,
Thanks for that.
That quote of Ignatius, doesn't it say in the Greek literally along the lines of something like:
"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord’s life..."
Instead of,
"...living in observance of the Lord’s day..."?
Also, which letter is that from anyways?
Thanks for your help in this, and God bless!
Hi Armando,
Thanks for that link. I'll check it out.
Also, thanks for your explanation of "ceremonial observance". So you do not think that "ceremonial observance" comprehends a mandatory rest from labor? That certainly was part and parcel of the Sabbath commandment. What are your thoughts on this?
Also, I would like to say that I do agree with most of what you said. However, even though I understand Sunday's unique and special quality, seeing that it is the resurrection day, I do not see how a common assembly on that day alone constitutes a "fulfillment" of the Jewish Sabbath. Indeed, it cannot. As Mike stated above, and which I agree with him wholeheartedly, it is not about days, but about Christ. It is the ever present, continuous, and contemporary reality of Christ's incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and His glorious second coming that is "remembered" during the Divine Liturgy that is the fulfillment of God's rest. And this is true regardless of the day that the Liturgy is performed upon.
Jesus said, "Come unto Me all you who are weary and heavy burdened, and I will give you rest." (Matt.11:28) Jesus Himself is the fulfillment of the Sabbath, not a day in time. It is true that when we partake of the Eucharist, that we are communing with Christ. However, it must always be borne in mind that it is not the day that we do this on that matters, but the Presence. This, I believe the Orthodox have generally understood and held to. Thus, that may be why they have never seen Sunday as a "fulfillment" of the Jewish Sabbath.
Blessings!
David,
It's from the Letter to the Magnesians. As to the Greek, I can't say much about that. Only that every reputable translation I have read uses "Lord's Day".
David,
Literally, it reads "according to the Lord's" where "day" or "life" must be supplied.
Thank you Alan and Hugo. I appreciate the information.
So what do you two think of what Still said regarding the idea that the Catechism teaches the "replacement" of the Sabbath with Sunday? I find it to be quite to the contrary to what I have found in the early Christian writings. I have read quite a few Orthodox responses to the Sabbath question (important to me seeing how I used to keep it), and it seems that pretty much none of them understand Sunday as a replacement for the Sabbath. I read St. John of Damascus' An exact exposition of the orthodox faith chapter 23 where he speaks about the Sabbath, and could not find this "replacement" theology. He seemed to me to be presenting the early Christian view of it, that we now observe the Sabbath spiritually by "resting" from our works of evil.
Perhaps Still and myself have misunderstood the Catechism's meaning?
Thank you both for your patience, and God's blessings to you!
Hi everyone. May the Peace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with you today!
David Atkins:
What the catechism states is the the moral obligation of the sabbath is fulfilled in the celebratin of the Lord's Day (I'm paraphrasing as I don't have it handy). That, to my knowledge, is exactly what sabbath-keeping Christians of today claim when they attempt to keep parts of the sabbath law in tact (sundown to sundown rest and refrain from certain tasks). However, I've never known a sabbath-keeping Christian to keep the liturgical requirements of the sabbath (which would not have been "done away" in Christ's sacrifice). And that's just one way sabbath-keeping Christians fall short of actually "keeping" the sabbath. This is where we actually get our catholic liturgical form of the mass.
One has only to read what is involved in truly keeping the sabbath holy as was commanded by God and you quickly come to the conclusion that what sabbath-keeping Christians are doing today is noteworthy and faithful, but clearly not what God commanded.
There is much more to keeping the sabbath holy than simply resting from sundown to sundown and refraining from certain 'work'. These are neglected by Christian sabbath-keepers and they claim the abolishment of the Laws to justify it.
Take for instance the fact that most sabbath-keeping Christians will not work on Saturday, at all. Jews do not restrict themselves in this way. The work they are prohibited from doing is anything that would 'create' something. This is very important in that it is seen to mirror God's creative work and the very thing they are supposed to rest from. In other words, if you are an accountant, crunching numbers all day, you can go to work. But...there's one problem...you can't drive a car! Cars are combustion engines and require fire to start them so you are not to drive or ride in a car. Not to mention, you would most certainly have to turn on a light. Ha, burning a candle and creating light. God's work, can't do it.
Now sabbath-keeping Christians will tell you this is way too strict for the keeping of the sabbath of today because God did away with the Laws. Well, you can't have it both ways. Besides, the Scriptures do not reflect this.
This is where they are guilty of fashioning the sabbath into a Christian day of worship.
The fact of the matter is, if you take away all that is ceremonial in the law, you are left with 'a' command and no way to 'keep' it. So anyone facing this dilemma will have to do some choosing as to what exactly institutes "keeping" the sabbath by Christians. This is what has been done by sabbath-keeping Christians. But that is contrary to Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture does it tell us as Christians how we are to keep the sabbath holy. Why? Because that command doesn't exist for Christians. This forces you to belong to one camp or the other. Christian or Jew? There are only two Covenants and two very clear ways of keeping them Holy. The Jews have The Law. We have Baptism and the Eucharist.
Sabbath-keeping Christians are standing in the middle of two Covenants and fall short of keeping either one sufficiently.
It's really not very complicated. I always find it very curious that SDAs and other sabbath-keeping Christians claim that the Church changed the sabbath. Christ instituted the Lord's Day, not His Apostles. The Church guides its believers in seeing the fulfillment of the sabbath in the Lord's Day. Just as Christ and the Apostles did in seeing Christ in the Old Testament.
The Church does not claim to have changed the sabbath, only the day to worship our Lord.
Blessings,
ATFOJ
Hi Hugo, have you ever posted a Blog on harmonic signs of scripture, e.g : John 20:30 there are many other "SIGNS" that Jesus gave in the presence of his disciples..not recorded in this book.
Jesus appearing 7 times on sunday after the resurrection. There are 524 times numerals of 7 are mentioned in the Bible,this divine harmonic scheme(EWTN). Should this be left alone as mystery?
Nature.B
These questions are for Still:
In your estimation, what would you deem as proper "Christian" Sabbath observance? Would worshipping together in the Eucharist as a Christian community on Saturday be considered by you as the proper "Christian" Sabbath observance? If not, then, in your estimation, what would be lacking?
Thanks, and blessings to you!
Hello David,
Thanks for your reply,
Q: "So you do not think that "ceremonial observance" comprehends a mandatory rest from labor?"
A: I do think that we should make the best effort to not do any secular work on Sunday and I think the Orthodox agree there also. Sunday is a Holy Day. But it isn't a "law" to not work either and I am sure the Church has some guidelines for us to follow if we do have to do some secular work.
About the "fulfillment", what I mean to say is to fulfill a day for God alone. I am not sure how I can express what I think here so I think I will leave that part out of here.
You gave a link once about the sabbath from www.orthodoxinfo.com. I find some things written there to be very intersting. JPII once said that "the Church must breathe with her two lungs" with regard to the Church of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
There is a document I searched in that site and in regards to sunday it reads: "In place of the Old Testament sabbath, in the New Testament the day following the sabbath, the "Day of the Lord" or the "day of resurrection," came to be celebrated the Christians."
In this persons personal writing about Orthodox understanding should I not be translating "in place" to be another way of saying "replace"?
Blessings.
David, sorry the link for the document is: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/averky_ent.aspx
Hi Tonya, Are you by any chance HC from CAF? If you are it's me, Patrick Murebil from CAF.
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:-)
God bless all!!!
Hi Patrick! Great to 'see' you!
Yep, it's me. You found me out :O)
Hi Tonya, it is great to see you too! I thought I recognized your Spirit-filled wisdom and insight. Welcome to this blog...it is really really good to say the least and the participants here from all faith communities are really nice Christians and the dialouge is more civil even in the midst of disagreement.
BTW...I go by my real name here...Mike...but I really do miss Patrick from time to time...LOL But I don't want to derail this thread's good discussion by exploring multiple personalities...LOL Soooo...it is really nice to see you...stick around and contribute...your thoughts and insights and spirit are indeed valuable!
Also, if you get a chance, check out David Atkin's blog "Former Adventist Dialogue"...there are some really good essays by him over there...and I'm currently over there discussing God's salvation love as revealed in His covenants. You can click on a link to his blog in the left hand column on this blog. Take care!!!
My apologies to everyone for my sidetrack here...but Tonya is a dear and good friend and I'm glad she is here!
God bless all!!!
Thank you Mike. God Bless you for your kind words. I am honored. The Holy Spirit deserves ALL the credit for His guidance in my life.
This indeed seems more civil. I've been lurking for a while. I probably won't interject very much as I can learn way more by 'listening'. :-D
I am enjoying the friendly discussion and will stay tuned in.
Afterall, we are all soliders of Christ and all desire to do His will above all.
God Bless,
Tonya
Hi people,
Sorry I haven't responded to anything yet lately. I am out of town for a few days. I will catch up later.
God bless you all.
hello friends
i find ur comments quite nice.
but i will be much thankful if anyone can explain "revelation 13 and 17" bcos it talks about the antichrist very well.
TOM...i dont get your arguement well...what do u really mean???
again, i find it quite fascinating when David said the church was built on st. Peter. i wish you will find me the true meaning of the greek words :- "petra and petros" as Our Lord and Saviour used.
i hope to get my answer sooner. thank you and God bless us all.
hello friends
i find ur comments quite nice.
but i will be much thankful if anyone can explain "revelation 13 and 17" bcos it talks about the antichrist very well.
TOM...i dont get your arguement well...what do u really mean???
again, i find it quite fascinating when David said the church was built on st. Peter. i wish you will find me the true meaning of the greek words :- "petra and petros" as Our Lord and Saviour used.
i hope to get my answer sooner. thank you and God bless us all.
Hi Black son.., welcome to the Blog.
John is the writer of Revelation.
He already explained who the Anti Christ is in 1John 2:18-22.
Remember John 6.66, some Jews turned their backs on Jesus and did not accept him as the Messaiah. Even today Jews think more of Moses than Jesus. Therefore Jews are the Anti- Christ, plus Muslims.
Interestingly God who knows all, gave them a Sign, Circumcision and sabbath.
Today we all see them attending Church on the sabbath (The sign)thats the Anti- Christ.
Blk Son, Protestants argue the greek petras or whatever.
Math 16:17 Jesus told Peter..it is not flesh or blood that has revealed this to you, BUT MY FATHER IN HEAVEN.
Therefore God Chose Peter to be the head of the RC Church.
I personally don't speak greek so I follow Gods Choice.
sharing
Nature.B
Hi there,
In response to your question, Black Son of God:
Jesus spoke Aramaic, as we see from His shout of anguish from the cross (Matt 27:46 and Mark 15:34).
So when he names Simon "Rock", "Petros", the word he used is Kepha. So the sentence goes, "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church"
The Greek transliteration gives us Petros for Kepha. Some people (like yourself I am guessing) suggest that petros meant small pebble and petra meant rock. While this may be true in later dialects of Greek it is not clear that this is the case for the Koine Greek in which the New Testament and Septuagint are written (Perhaps David Atkins can help us out here?). Even if in everyday language, petro WAS pebble, and petra rock, the writer of the Gospel could not translate Kepha to Petras for the name of a man, as Petra is a feminine noun, thus Petros is written as it is the masculine form of the word for rock.
In considering this passage, it is also (as always) crucial to consider its immediate context. In this chapter, Matthew presents two similar statements, one from Simon Peter about Jesus, and one from Jesus about Simon Peter. Let's look at them again side by side: (Matt 16:16-19)
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
So Peter says to Jesus, You are the Christ the Son of the living God. And Jesus responds, You are the son of Jonah, the Rock on which I will build my church.
Jesus goes on to give Peter the keys to the kingdom. This is very significant, as the keys symbolise authority, authority over the Kingdom of God, to bind and to loose.
It would be very odd if, Jesus said to Peter, you are but a pebble, but I will build my church on a rock. However, here are the keys to the kingdom.
What are your thoughts Black Son of God?
Blessings,
Clement
Hi Black Son of God, read Isaiah 18:2 & 7. Maybe you might consider the term 'Bronzed son Of God' it is scriptural. My daughter Mixed like Obama read the text and said she is more bronzed than black,LOL.
a fleeting thought?
Nature.B
I want to make sure that it is understood that the Catholic Church does not teach that Jews are the anti-Christ.
Fr. Jim
Hi Fr.Jim, I said: Today we all see them attending meetings on the sabbath (The sign)thats the Anti- Christ.
Thats How I read(Lk 10:26..how do you read?), not the Catholic Church.
Adventist read one way, I read the other.
Nature.B
Hugo,
Considering the antichrist, I think that there are several misconception here. The four texts from the epistles of John are not the first one to speak about the antichrist(s).
Psalm 2:2 says:
"The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One.".
This text is mentioned again in Acts 4:26 when the expression "Anointed One" is applied to Jesus.
Notice that the kings and the rulers are against the "Anointed One". Christ means "Anointed One". So the kings and rulers are antichrists.
Now, let's look at what Revelation 17:18 says:
"The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth" (the woman being the woman riding the scarlet beast, the one whose name is Babylon the great and who was drunk with the blood of the saints).
Protestants (and some catholics) have historically identified that "city that rules over the kings of the earth" as being the Vatican. And since the kings and rulers are antichrists, the power represented by that city that rules over them is also antichrist and, in fact, is the Antichrist "par excellence", as you said (since this power is the ultimate power ruling over all the kings of the earth).
STill said: The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth" (the woman being the woman riding the "scarlet" beast, the one whose name is Babylon the great and who was drunk with the blood of the saints).
Scarlet..purple and Gold are the Colours of Pagan Rome boasting their wealth. Roman History.
Still; John wrote this on the island of Potmos, The woman is Babylon Rome, the Emperor Nero to Hadrian to over 80 Emperors is responsible for the "Blood of the Saints" persecuting Johns followers of Christ.
The Woman is Rome Babylon reigns over the Kings of the Whole world.
Over 80 Emperors(Beast) persecuted Christians until Constantine.
Constantine's Rome was 325 AD.
The Under ground Church survived until the reign of Constantine.
The Miracle that 'kills'(upsets) the protestants, is that Peter and Paul Conquered Rome with the (JN 14:16) HELPER, at the end; with Bascilicas built over their Tombs.
Still your own SDA Theologian Samuele Bacchiocchi,studied in Rome and agreed that Pagan Rome was the beast.
SDA is still preaching this nonsense although they have lost thousands of pastors over this unfortunate interpretation.
Sharing and learning
Nature.B
Still, your thread was correct about the Anti Christ Kings.
according to John the Jews among them were Anti-Christ
1John 2:19: These people really did not belong to our fellowship, and that is why they left us; if they had belonged to our fellowship, they(Jn6.66) would have stayed with us. But they left so that it might be clear that none of them really belonged to us.
20 But you have had the Holy Spirit poured out on you by Christ, and so all of you know the truth.21 I write you, then, not because you do not know the truth; instead, it is because you do know it, and you also know that no lie ever comes from the truth.
22 Who, then, is the liar? It is those who say that Jesus is not the Messiah(Jews today). Such people are the Enemy of Christianity, they reject both the Father and the Son. 23 For those who reject the Son reject also the Father; those who accept the Son have the Father also.
Still, I personally preach this truth, that Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah, bear the sign that the Omnipresent God gave them(Ex32:17) for that very reason (1 Cor 10:11)as a warning. You know the Signs Circumcision and sabbath.
Sharing and learning.
Nature.B
Now concerning the expression "confessing Christ", we have to be careful here.
Confessing Christ doesn't just mean confessing with one's mouth. If it were the case, then the demons also confessed Christ. In Matthew 8:29 they said:
"What do you want with us, Son of God?".
Here, the demons recognized (confessed) that Jesus was the son of God (whereas the Jews didn't). So, just because the demons made that confession, does it mean that they are pro-Christ now? Doubtful.
Let's take another example, the young girl with a spirit of divination, in Acts 16:16-18:
"Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, “These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.” And this she did for many days.
But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And he came out that very hour. "
It is interesting to see that the girl was saying the truth. She was confessing that Paul was indeed a servant of the Most High God. But she was saying this under the influence of a demon.
Now, was this demon pro-God? Not at all.
These two examples show that confessing is not just about saying something. Jesus spoke about those who say "Master, Master" but refuse to obey Him. The true confession is the one which is followed by obedience. Without obedience, what we say is just wind.
So, when we apply this to the Church, it is not what we say that matters and is a true confession. It is the demonstration of this confession.
As John said in 1 John 1:3-6:
"4 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did"
Nature, if you are trying to make the point of turn about is fair play then that is fine by me. You can make the Bible say whatever you want if there is no magisterium. So many Protestants have discovered that to their dismay. I can prove that EG White is the Anti-Christ quite easily. I do wish they would finally get over the 19th century anti-Catholic canards.
Fr. Jim
Still, I Can't follow, my Catholic bible has no word in 1 John that says Confess. You must be using KJV.
That may be (is) a willful deception..Luther(protestant) and
KJV commonaly used or misused the word 'confession' to distort or diminish its effect in their bibles when used in John 20:21.
I will not take that bate sorry!
Nature.B
Fr.Jim, the American College Encyclopedic Dictionary says:
SAY ; is to speak or utter a word.
CONFESS: to acknowledge or vow, to disclose a secret, fault, or crime.
As I stated before, I have had many a fight with protestants on the abuse of the word confess.
That was a willful deception by Luther when he was UNBOUND(Mat 16:18) by the POPE, and knew he lost that ministry.
Protestant bibles have sprinkled that word in the bible like sand in a cake.
Sharing
Nature.B
Still,
>>>"The four texts from the epistles of John are not the first one to speak about the antichrist(s)."
They are the only ones to explicitly use the term "antichrist." Therefore, when we speak of "the*** antichrist" and "the*** antichrist of bible prophecy" as Adventists so commonly do, we must speak of the only entity identified as "the antichrist," which entity cannot be the Catholic Church based on all textual data.
Now, you cite several scriptures speaking of those who oppose the Messiah: kings and rulers in the days of the apostles, and the kings of the earth in Rev. 17. And though scripture never calls these "antichrists," yes, we could creatively*/innnovatingly apply the term "antichrists" to them insofar as they are anti-Christ. But are they "the antichrist" of whom early Christians were warned, and whose eschatological coming they anticipated (1 Jn. 2:18)? No. Are they more worthy of the title "antichrist" than the figure explicitly named such by John? Of course not.
And this is the problem.
Should I identify someone who does not meet the specifications of 2 Thess. 2 "the man of lawlessness" and "man of lawlessness par excellence?" No matter how "lawless" he might be, if he does not meet the specifications of 2 Thess. 2, applying these titles to him is confusing and likely inappropriate.
...Now, as for your broad, extra-scriptural, uses of the term, here's a question: why would Satan not be the "antichrist par excellence?" Is he not the ultimate opponent of God? How will we limit the fullest application of the term "antichrist" to the Catholic Church (your "antichrist par excellence")? These are the difficulties of defending a Protestant/Adventist tradition.
Hi Still, I confess, I erred with the words confess and confession; however you said: Here, the demons recognized (confessed(acknowledged)) that Jesus was the son of God (whereas the Jews didn't). So, just because the demons made that confession(acknowledgment), does it mean that they are pro-Christ now? Doubtful.
NO they are Ant-Christ.
The demons acknowledged(confessed) their enemy(Christ).
Still said: It is interesting to see that the girl was saying the truth. She was 'confessing' that Paul was indeed a servant of the Most High God. But she was saying this under the influence of a demon.
The demon in the girl was acknowledging(confessing) his enemy which is Christ with Paul.
I can stand in Court and (acknowledge)Confess to the Judge my robber; yet I despise him for his actions.
I can confess that sabbatarians are the Anti Christ because they wear the banner of the sign (Circumcision or sabbath) of the Jewish Anti- Christ 1 John 2:22.
But it would be up to you to make a CONFESSION(admission of guilt) that you are fully aware of that fact, yet you insist on flying that banner(Anti-Christ) for financial gain by employment.
This would be the proper way to use these words.
N.B. This exercise was for the benefit of my new class of RCI X -Adventist students, who read this Blog daily.
Nature.B
Sharing and Learning
Nature.B
TAKE A SNICK PEEP OF REVELATION 14:6-12 POWERPOINT SERMONS SAMPLES:
CLICK-N-VIEW-BROWSE THROUGH POWERPOINT SERMONS...
http://www.scribd.com/people/documents/12126650-chouchou27?page=1
TO DOWNLOAD ALL 83 POWERPOINT SERMON MESSAGES ONE-BY-ONE WITH ONE CLICK…
http://www.4shared.com/u/pvpvtzst/fe91b159/THE_HOLY_SPIRIT_POWER.html?sId=2YXyNNpauc8YM8wT
491. "Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, 'full of grace' through God,[Lk 1:28 .] was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of JESUS Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of ORIGINAL SIN.[Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803
Jesus said, "I did not come to destroy the laws or the prophecies, but to fulfill them." Can anyone on this blog show me where is it written that He changed His mind and said, "Except for the Sabbath and keeping it Holy, I am changing that because my Father made a mistake and really meant that you can keep any day you want Holy whenever it works for you, or not!" If He did not say it it didn't happen. Don't tell me that He said it in secret to His disciples and only the Pope knows the secret. GOD changeth not!
Hi Curious,
On the SDA2RC Forums, we are having a discussion about the sabbath. I would invite you and other SDAs (and Catholics) to come there and participate in that discussion.
I am doing there, what SDAs (including myself when I was a SDA) have always claimed yet I never truly witnessed...and that is the claim that SDAs base their beliefs on a doctrine on ALL the verses in the ENTIRE Bible on a given subject. Having never seen any result or product to that end regarding the sabbath, I thought, I'd use that as the basis for a topic of discussion.
There are some ground rules that I've laid down to keep the discussion focused, in context, and on topic....it seems too easy for us in these online discussions to go way off topic way too easily.
So, I would love to have you and other SDAs come and discuss the sabbath on the Forum. The discussion can be found in the thread titled:
A Catholic Study in the Book of Revelation
The ground rules can be found, and the discussion begins, on page 15 (I think) of that discussion thread. You can link to the Forum in the upper left hand column of this Blog, and sign in from there.
Come...let us reason together...
God bless all!!!
Post a Comment