Where does the Bible say...

BreadOfLife said:

WRONG.
You have ZERO New Testament evidence for that claim – NOR do you have any extrabilical evidence....

The "Lord's Day" is SUNDAY - not Saturday . . .

Click to expand...

Challenge accepted:

The context shows that the "day" spoken of, in each texts presented is "the LORD('s)". John as a physical Jew, who was following the Messiah (Jesus), thus a Christian, was on the Isle of Patmos, for what reason?


It is even given in other places:


What is this "word of God" and the "testimony/witness of Jesus"? We do not have to in any way guess, for John tells us in parallel fashion:


This is found way back in the OT:


So, when John references "the Lord's day", it is in the context of "the word of God", which are God's Commandments. Well, which commandment then? Again, we do not have to guess, for John tells us:


What specific commandment, was John citing? The 4th Commandment, specifically, Exodus 20:11,


The whole Commandment:


That little word "of" is possessive. Thus when God speaks, by His own voice, the He (the LORD) has chosen a specific (definite article) "day", it is thus "the LORD('s) ... day", being His sabbath, the 7th day, from the foundation of the world in Genesis 2:1-3,4, where therein it is "God('s; the LORD's) ... day".

The "word of God" = God's commandments:


and the "testimony of Jesus" is the Spirit of prophecy (Revelation 19:10), and as found all throughout scripture:


Therefore, notice again the connection of the Apostle and prophet John, who receives a "vision", in connection with keeping God's commandments, and was resting specifically on "the LORD's day":


The Law (Lord's day) and the testimony (spirit of prophecy) again are witnessed therein in its proper context.

It always speaks of the 7th day the sabbath of the LORD, His holy day.

Line upon line, and no need for a single non-scriptural source to re-define by the man of sin's tradition.

The Phrase "the Lord's day" is found in use in the OT, as shown from Isaiah 58:13, etc. John is not making up any novel (new) idea, but the Holy Ghost is inspiring and citing from the OT scriptures, as is done all over Revelation 1. Called an "epanados" or Chiasm:


Revelation 1:10 is simply citing Isaiah 58:13 in the midst of the parallelism from the OT.

Isaiah 58:13

BreadOfLife said:

WRONG.
You have ZERO New Testament evidence for that claim – NOR do you have any extrabilical evidence....

The "Lord's Day" is SUNDAY - not Saturday . . .

Click to expand...

Challenge accepted:

Some have said that "the Lord's day" is simply unique, and that if John (in Revelation 1:10) had meant "sabbath" he would have written "sabbath". This is actually presumption, based upon a false apriori, about what certain individuals themselves think the Holy Ghost/Spirit ought to have inspired John to write. Beware, that is a very dangerous path to take. They also say that "sabbath" is always called "sabbath" in the NT.

Actually, No.

The "sabbath" is called "sabbath" in the NT, that is for certain:


Yet, it is also called God's "rest":


It is also called "the seventh day":


It is called "the seventh":


It is also referred to as being "according to the commandment":


It is also referred to as the culmination of the 7 day week:


It is also referred to as "the day (that is approaching in the week (also the great Cosmic final day, dual use)"


All of which terms are also used in the OT, as the OT and NT are in perfect harmony.

The Bible (KJB) is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

The many times that the "Sabbath" of the LORD is given in the Old Testament (Genesis to Malachi)


The many times that the "Sabbath" of the LORD is given in the New Testament:


Additional references are:


Additionally, further references in the Greek are [every single 'first [day] of the week' text, as each text clearly shows that the first day is simply a number, with no special association or designation, other than it is simply one day toward the culmination of the week, being the 7th Day the Sabbath of the LORD thy God]:


That the Sabbath [of the Lord thy God], [being] the 7th day, is always the culmination of the week in God's Created order and is always referred to as such in all of scripture.

Therefore, every single “first [day] of the week” text upholds the 7th Day Sabbath, and is undeniable evidence of its continued existence and prominence.

The body of believers may gather on any and every day with no injunction anywhere found in scripture against such, and in truth they met "daily", "continually", etc (Mat 26:55; Mar 14:49; Luk 22:53, 24:33,36; Acts 19:9) and likewise among the followers of Jesus Christ (Luk 24:51,53; Acts 1:3,9, 2:46-47, 5:42, 6:1, 16:5, 17:11,17; Heb 3:13, etc).

The "Lord's day" according to scripture, is the 7th day, the sabbath day of the Lord.

I love you ReChoired!

BreadOfLife said:

WRONG.
You have ZERO New Testament evidence for that claim – NOR do you have any extrabilical evidence. ...

The "Lord's Day" is SUNDAY - not Saturday . . .

Click to expand...

Challenge accepted:

Even Rome's own "Challenge To Protestants" on this, stated quite clearly, that "the Lord's day" (Rev. 1:10) was not Sunday (they assumed it to be the eschatological day of the Lord, which was proven incorrect elsewhere already):

Original:

https://archive.org/download/roman-catholicism-christian-sabbath-romes-challenge/Roman Catholicism - Christian-Sabbath - Rome's Challenge.pdf

Protestant Reprint:

https://archive.org/download/doctrine-sabbath-roman-catholicism-romes-challenge-on-sabbath-and-sunday/Doctrine - Sabbath - Roman Catholicism - Rome's Challenge On Sabbath And Sunday.pdf

You can also read it here:

ROME'S CHALLENGE - WHY DO PROTESTANTS KEEP SUNDAY?

WaterSong said:

I love you ReChoired!

Click to expand...

Glory be to the LORD God. Alofa atu.

Now, let's get to "tradition":

What does our brother Paul mean by the words "the tradition" in 2 Thessalonians 3:6?

"tradition", "traditions" - bad sense


In certain passages the word "custom" simply means a positive habit, or repeated action (Luke 4:16, likewise "manner" (Acts 17:2)).

Other times it means a place of gathering taxation, as "sitting at the receipt of custom" (Matthew 9:9 - Mark 2:14 - Luke 5:27), or giving "custom to whom custom" (Romans 13:7) is due.

Also, it can mean a bad tradition, a wicked custom.

"custom" - evil or heathen sense


"customs" - wicked sense


There are two known places that the word "tradition" is utilized in a positive meaning.

"tradition" - good sense


Brothers and sisters, we should study this together and look at all of the connecting words, and ask our Father for understanding to understand what this means so that we are united together by the word. Let us read the surrounding words, and allow the Holy Spirit of God to enlighten us by teaching us what these things mean.

In prayerfully reading the text, and asking God about this, I continued to read, and here is what I was shown in the same place.


As instructed of God, "the tradition" that Paul speaks of, is not "walking disorderly" (vs 6), and to "follow us", being the example of Paul and others, who "walked not disorderly" (vs 7), and did not "eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you" (vs 8), so that they would be an "ensample unto you who follow us" (vs 9).

We see "commandment" (vss 6,10,12) in regards "the tradition" (vs 10), in that "if any would not work, neither should he eat.", and that this was the orderliness and ensample of Paul's life. This is then contrasted in the next verse to those who are "disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies." (vs 11). This same "command" and exhortation is that those who are presently "disorderly" should "with quietness they work, and eat their own bread." (vs 12) as Paul and others did.

Paul finishes out by telling them who are orderly to "continue in well doing" (vs 13), as they had learned of his own ensample and manner of living, laboring with his own hands to provide for himself while ministering the Gospel.

This is "the tradition", the living custom, the continued godly habit of Paul that he speaks of, and was this that is handed down, in example, in demonstration. Work for the Lord instead of going about as "busybodies", who are "working not at all", "walking disorderly", and who expected to eat of the food of the group, when they would not work with their hands as Paul. No free lunch, and whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might,, as unto the Lord, might best sum it up.

The "and" in this instance means in contrast between the false walking and the true walking.

Example


"walking disorderly" is in contrast with the walking orderly which is "the tradition" or custom or habit set by Paul and others as the example.


It could then be paraphrased as such

See in vs (7)


The "follow us" is "the tradition", the habit that Paul and others had set amongst them. May I show you? Paul refers back to the previous time in 1 Thessalonians


I see yet a little more in that Paul bases that commandment on his own manner and habit and knowledge of the scriptures, as he himself followed the example of Jesus to work with his own hands and to follow the commandments of God in the word of God.

Paul was raised as an Hebrew of the Hebrews, and thus skills, such as tent making, carpentry, fishing and the like were taught unto the children in life, that they might find the enjoyment and blessing of true labouring, to reap the reward through such. Like as gardening. He who does not sow does not reap. Paul would also have backing for this in the Old Testament texts,


The prayerful and thoughtful responses, along with the unity of thought have helped solidify the conclusion arrived at concerning the words of Paul in regards "the tradition" in 2 Thessalonians 3:6.

I have heard others give an entirely different meaning to these words which could not be reconciled with the text itself and strained them by forcing them to mean what they wanted them to mean, and they could not justify their position based upon the words themselves, but only added to the words their own meanings and definitions, to suit their own practices; whatever those were.

When someone brings up the word "tradition" in regards their teaching or action, we ought to then be more careful to discern, and to ask for evidence from God's word about such practices or teaching, whether it be of God or of men.

As a challenge to myself, and to all who read, a question to ask oneself.

Is there anything which I personally do as a habit, a custom, a tradition, even a teaching, or even a thinking, which cannot be sustained by God's word, and might be contrary to that example therein and if so, will I give it up to follow God?

Now, let's get to "tradition":

Instruction was passed by mouth and written word (hence "letter", "epistle"):


Paul stated that all things needed to be proved by the word of God:


Jesus himself, and Paul and Peter warned of false "traditions" that were already in circulation in their day.


Others were already corrupting the word:


The question is what "traditions" was Paul referring to in context? Made up stuff with no other foundation than devils and men?


Notice, that in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, this is referred to before:


Paul already told them in 1 Thessalonians, and it was in regards the second coming (see context) and what they (Thessalonians) were to be doing unto the coming of Jesus.

So Paul himself, actually referred to his personal face to face speaking, and also written in an earlier "our epistle". (1 Thess.)

In 1 Thessalonians 1:3, we see that Paul commended them for their "work of faith and labour of love".

In 1 Thessalonians 1:5 (2:2-5) it speaks of the "gospel" did not come in "word" ("speak", "exhortation", "words") only, but in "power" (Holy Spirit).

In 1 Thessalonians 2:8 it speaks of the "gospel" having been "imparted".

In 1 Thessalonians 2:9 it speaks of the "gospel" having been "preached" and also of the "labour and travail".


And so Paul continues by speaking of his example of labour (not in laziness, indolence as some were, being busybodies, etc) among them, and in the gospel:


Herein is then the "tradition" which Paul spake of that was spoken unto them:


And more:


Ain't that sumthin'.

Paul wasn't referring to man-made 'tradition' that came along later and passed itself off as truth.

ReChoired said:

Your translation is in egregious error:

Sunday Fraud: Church "Fathers" on the Lord's Day

Two points can be made:

1. The Greek word for "day" does not even appear in the passage. It has been added by the translators.
2. Even if the addition of the word "day" is correct, the passage does not specifically say which day is meant by the Lord's day. It could just as well refer to the Sabbath, since that is the only day the Bible says belongs to the Lord.

Another thing I have found, is that people attempt to define "the Lord's day", not by scripture, as is proper, by the so-called "ECF" (easily confused fellows; of the 1-4th century AD, etc), instead of going back to the real "fathers"; the Patriarchs and Prophets of Scripture themselves, like John, James and Peter and Paul, and even further back unto Abraham, Moses, David, and those like them, and have those "fathers" tell us, as mouthpieces for God. I find them in the inspired and preserved words of God, and I do not find people like spurious Ignatius, imaginary Didache, self-refuting pseudo Barnabas, etc.

They would place those persons in afteryears above the definition that Jesus gave.

Spurious and Imaginary?

Yes, Spurious, Imaginary, etc:

The writings so often cited to try to define "the Lord's day" outside of scripture, and long after John passed from the scene, are often forged (like Ignatius) and also abused, of which any may see that here - Sunday Fraud: Church "Fathers" on the Lord's Day

The Bible says:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

God even warned all that they would "think" to "change times and laws" (of which the 4th Commandment, the 7th day the Sabbath of the LORD is both time and law) of the Most High God:

Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Notice some of the fraud:

Here is the long form of the citation, since there are several conflicting:

"... For if we still live according to the Jewish law, and the circumcision of the flesh, we deny that we have received grace.—ch. 8.

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].—ch. 9.

It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism.—ch. 10.

These things [I address to you], my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ . . . .—ch. 11. ..." - ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library​

Let's examine the longer form first, with which the reader will immediately notice a severe problem. The very quote that is supposed to prove that "Christians . . . never [worshipped] on the Sabbath" actually commands "every" Christian to "keep the Sabbath"! Moreover, since the quote also forbids Judaizing, it follows that the writer of the long form of this epistle believed that Sabbath keeping transcended Judiaism. In other words, a Christian could tell people that they needed to keep the Sabbath without being guilty of Judaizing!

The words "and after the observance of the Sabbath" were intentionally deleted from the quote. Another example of fraud?

Now to the other shorter form. The epistles of Ignatius are spurious or forgeries - Link or Link.

Amazing, having to rely upon spurious writings, pseudo-works, which are forgeries.

The original Greek (Didache 14:1) does not have the word for "day" anywhere in that sentence and secondly, neither is the word "Sunday" present.

"... 1. Κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου συναχθέντες κλάσατε ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσατε, προεξομολογησάμενοι τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν, ὅπως καθαρὰ ἡ θυσία ὑμῶν ᾐ. ..." - The Twelve Apostles-Didache​

Where is the word for "day" (hemera)? Where is the word for "Sunday"? Where is the word "first"?

It literally reads, "κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου" (Lord of Lord).

The translation that most propose to prove Sunday sacredness or that it is the 'Lord's day' is imaginary.

So far, we have spurious and imaginary.

Then they attempt Pseudo Barnabas:

According to pseudo-Barnabas (ought we to really trust a letter that claims to be from another, didn't Paul warn about such letters being circulated? 2 Thessalonians 2:2), we are too wicked (Christians are too wicked???) at present to keep the 7th day the Sabbath of the LORD, and will not be able to keep it until we are sanctified when Christ returns (so we are going to keep Sabbath again in the New Heavens and New Earth, that doesn't sound like people use this quote for). Because we are too wicked to keep the Sabbath now, we must keep Sunday instead. What good does this reasoning do for the cause of Sunday sacredness or holiness if we are too wicked?

Pseudo Barnabas also teaches the earth ends in the 7,000th year from creation. Do they accept this also?, No, as they believe in the false philosophy of evolutionism and long-agism.

Any may also see the forgery of Justin Martyr here - Doctrine - Sabbath - William H Shea - The Justin Martyr Forgery About Sabbath And Sunday The First Day Of The Week : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Click to expand...

Yes, you can refer to the Early Church Fathers as, “Easily Confused Follows” and cut & paste all of the SDA manure you want – but as far as I know – not ONE of them engaged in false prophecies.
Had any “Great Disappointments” lately? Remember – it only takes ONE false prophecy for a person to be a false prophet . . .

As to the evidence from the Early Church – it’s interesting that whenever an anti-Catholic wants to dispute what the Early Church taught and believed – they simply deem all of the Early Church writings as “spurious” or “forgeries”. The very SAME can be said of the writings of your false prophetess (E.G. White).

You guys pervert all of the Scriptures pertaining to the Sabbath – then you completely IGNORE the verses and admonitions about NOT letting people judge you about keeping the Sabbath. As I have already shown you – Paul makes this adamantly clear in Col. 2:15-17.

As to the Early Christians that continued to adhere to the Sabbath – it was a Jewish custom that was NOT expected of NON-Jewish Christians – as I showed you from their letter regarding the Judaizers in Acts 15.

Finally – your attempts to discredit the Didache – which in fact speaks of the Lord’s Day - are nothing but SDA desperation at its worst. Can you find an online version with that phrase omitted? Perhaps – but I could also produce versions with “Mickey Mouse” in the title . . .

ReChoired said:

Challenge accepted:

Who was the Sabbath made for according to scripture?

Yes, there is an Adam at Genesis, but it is really the greater Adam:

Mar_2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Rom_5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Rom_5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

1Ti_2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.​

Did you see who the Sabbath was made for?

The "Lord's day" according to scripture, is the 7th day, the sabbath day of the Lord.

Genesis 2:1-3,4 - 'the seventh day', 'God', 'day', 'the LORD God' [… God [the LORD] … day …]

Exodus 16:23 - "to morrow [the seventh day] is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD', 'to day' [… the LORD … day …]

Exodus 16:25 - 'to day [the seventh day]; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day' [.,. the LORD … day …]

Exodus 20:8-11 - 'the sabbath day', 'the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God', 'the sabbath day' [… the LORD … day …]

Exodus 31:15 - 'the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD ... the sabbath day' [… the LORD … day …]

Exodus 35:2,3 - 'the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD', 'the sabbath day' [… the LORD … day …]

Leviticus 23:3 - 'the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD'

Deuteronomy 5:12,14 – 'the LORD', 'the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God' [… the LORD … day …]

Psalms 92:1 - 'A Psalm or Song for the sabbath day. It is a good thing to give thanks unto the LORD'

Isaiah 56:6 - 'Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath [day] from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant' (context new covenant) [… the LORD … [day] …]

Isaiah 58:13 - 'the sabbath ... my [the LORD's] holy day ... the holy [day] of the Lord' [… [the LORD's] … day …]

Isaiah 66:22,23 – 'the LORD', 'one sabbath [day] to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD' [… the LORD … [day] …]

Jeremiah 17:21 - 'saith the LORD... on the sabbath day' [… the LORD … day …]

Matthew 12:8 - 'the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day' [… the Lord … day …]

Mark 2:28 - 'the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day' [… the Lord … day …]

Luke 6:5 - 'the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath [day]' [… the Lord … [day] …]

Revelation 1:10 - 'the Lord's day'​

Click to expand...

And your ENTIRE argument falls FLAT because you begin with a false premise.
The Sabbath is NEVER mentioned in Genesis. We don't see that word until Exodus.

Genesis merely states:
Gen. 2:2-3
“And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation”.

Remember – Jesus said that HE is the Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28) – and that the Sabbath was made for man – and NOT the other way around.

HE is the New Lawgiver – not Ellen White. Jesus had PLENTY of things say about the Sabbath – and ONE specific thing He DIDN’T say.
- He challenged the idea that doing good deeds on the Sabbath were a violation (Matt. 12:12);
- He suggested that the children of Abraham should be freed on the Sabbath from all that unjustly binds them (Luke 13:15-16).

In the NT - Jesus reinstated EVERY Commandment (Matt. 4:10, 5:34, 19:18-19, Luke 12:15) – except for ONE:
The Sabbath Commandment.

WHY do you think that is?

ReChoired said:

Now, let's get to "tradition":

Instruction was passed by mouth and written word (hence "letter", "epistle"):

2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.​

Paul stated that all things needed to be proved by the word of God:

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

1Co 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.​

Jesus himself, and Paul and Peter warned of false "traditions" that were already in circulation in their day.

Col_2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

2Pe_3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.​

Others were already corrupting the word:

2Co_2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.​

The question is what "traditions" was Paul referring to in context? Made up stuff with no other foundation than devils and men?

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.​

Notice, that in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, this is referred to before:

2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.​

Paul already told them in 1 Thessalonians, and it was in regards the second coming (see context) and what they (Thessalonians) were to be doing unto the coming of Jesus.

So Paul himself, actually referred to his personal face to face speaking, and also written in an earlier "our epistle". (1 Thess.)

In 1 Thessalonians 1:3, we see that Paul commended them for their "work of faith and labour of love".

In 1 Thessalonians 1:5 (2:2-5) it speaks of the "gospel" did not come in "word" ("speak", "exhortation", "words") only, but in "power" (Holy Spirit).

In 1 Thessalonians 2:8 it speaks of the "gospel" having been "imparted".

In 1 Thessalonians 2:9 it speaks of the "gospel" having been "preached" and also of the "labour and travail".

1Th 2:10 Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe:
1Th 2:11 As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,
1Th 2:12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.
1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.​

And so Paul continues by speaking of his example of labour (not in laziness, indolence as some were, being busybodies, etc) among them, and in the gospel:

1Th 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.​

Herein is then the "tradition" which Paul spake of that was spoken unto them:

1Th 4:2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
1Th 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
1Th 4:4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
1Th 4:5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
1Th 4:6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.
1Th 4:7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.
1Th 4:8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
1Th 4:9 But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.
1Th 4:10 And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more;
1Th 4:11 And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;
1Th 4:12 That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.
The Coming of the Lord
1Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1Th 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.​

And more:

1Th 5:12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
1Th 5:13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves.
1Th 5:14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
1Th 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
1Th 5:16 Rejoice evermore.
1Th 5:17 Pray without ceasing.
1Th 5:18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
1Th 5:19 Quench not the Spirit.
1Th 5:20 Despise not prophesyings.
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Th 5:24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
1Th 5:25 Brethren, pray for us.
1Th 5:26 Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.
1Th 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.
1Th 5:28 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.​

Ain't that sumthin'.

Paul wasn't referring to man-made 'tradition' that came along later and passed itself off as truth.

Click to expand...

In 2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul was referring to the Traditions - ORAL and written - that THEY taught to the people.
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

He NEVER stated that these Traditions would ALL be written down. In other words - there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15.
Ain't THAT somethin'?

As to the rest of your post - it's complete nonsense because purposely conflate Sacred Tradition with "traditions of men" that are condemned in Scripture. There is NO secondary or minor tradition (small t) that places itself on par or above Scripture. Sacred or Apostolic Tradition, however, IS on par with Scripture per 2 Thess. 2:15.

Your reference to the verses in 1 Thess. 5 have absolutely NOTHING to say about Sola Scriptura or condemning Sacred Tradition.
It's like you made it up as you went along. You know - like Ellen G. White . . .

Mungo said:

So you try to calm things down by throwing petrol on the fire.

Click to expand...

Actually... what I posted was the solution to putting the fire OUT... People who come into these threads with nothing but
rudeness, contempt for others, and arrogance do NOT deserve to be heard in my opinion.

I left this site for about 4 months and the same debate with the Catholics is going on. A Catholic defending their faith to a Protestant
is like trying to sell a pair of shoes to someone who has no feet. A huge waste of time.

My comment was simply a remark regarding the above.

BreadOfLife said:

​

And your ENTIRE argument falls FLAT because you begin with a false premise.
The Sabbath is NEVER mentioned in Genesis. ...

Click to expand...

Um, how did God find it there?

That is the LORD God speaking, correct? He is the Truth, correct?

BreadOfLife said:

In 2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul was referring to the Traditions - ORAL and written - that THEY taught to the people.
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

He NEVER stated that these Traditions would ALL be written down. In other words - there is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15.
Ain't THAT somethin'?

As to the rest of your post - it's complete nonsense because purposely conflate Sacred Tradition with "traditions of men" that are condemned in Scripture. There is NO secondary or minor tradition (small t) that places itself on par or above Scripture. Sacred or Apostolic Tradition, however, IS on par with Scripture per 2 Thess. 2:15.

Your reference to the verses in 1 Thess. 5 have absolutely NOTHING to say about Sola Scriptura or condemning Sacred Tradition.
It's like you made it up as you went along. You know - like Ellen G. White . . .

Click to expand...

I highlighted the words for you, in the translation you gave, "WERE (past tense) TAUGHT (already in 1 Thess. as pointed out to you)". (PS. I hope you don't mind me replying after your mannerisms, as I hope if you post that way, you also might better read that way.)

BreadOfLife said:

Yes, you can refer to the Early Church Fathers as, “Easily Confused Follows”

Click to expand...

Thank you. I will continue to do so, at your own approval.

BreadOfLife said:

In 2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul was referring to the Traditions - ORAL and written - that THEY taught to the people.

Click to expand...

I did say that quite plainly (Without desirous of being impertinent, Do you read my material?)


I then spent two whole posts showing exactly what Paul said to them, as he later made known. According to Paul, and others, what they said (oral) had to agree with that is written, even as the Acts 15 council likewise demonstrated. Otherwise, what happens is a mere "lip service" (mouth), and not agreeing with hand (written/action materials). It would be hypocrisy (possibly even contradiction) if the two didn't match and agree with the other.

BTW, Seventh-day Adventists (as I am now), believe in Law (written) and Testimony (spoken).

BreadOfLife said:

anti-Catholic

Click to expand...

I am not anti-Catholic, in spite of all the times you (and others) say it of me. I am anti-Catholicism (theology, faith/practice, not person). Most of my family is Catholic. I was Catholic. So, nothing against the people as individuals.

WaterSong said:

I'm married to a member of the RCC. His entire family remain RC. His mother held an office in the church, as much as woman may do so. I know of what you speak. For the most part the Roman Catholic has been taught the RCC doctrine/dogma from the time they were infants attending services as the homily filled their ears and began the hard wiring into their tender malleable psyche.

My participation in discussions of this sort, as pertains to RCC doctrine/dogma, isn't with the hope of changing the mind of any RCC member who may participate.
Though I will admit if any one of them does reconsider and start their independent research into the truth of God's church, or those lurking and reading these discussions do feel led to consider what is being revealed as to God's words through Christ , not the RCC, that is a blessing.

My participation is to bring the truth of Christ as I understand it, as we all do who enter into discussions in any BDF, in comparison to what RCC members espouse in contrast and as they've been taught by the church. One thing in particular. That their salvation is able to be made forfeit. Which is false. However, that leads the RCC member to cleave to the church and its edicts in order to "remain saved".
There is also no purgatory in the teachings of Christ. Purgatory makes Christ's death on the cross immaterial.

In short, it is to help anyone who may be a new Christian seeking understanding to find it in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And in the course of that if it assists those type readers to consider the RCC is not the church of Christ, all's the better. We're speaking of and to souls here! Eternity is a long time to be wrong.

The RCC is the antithesis of the truth of God in Christ. Everything the RCC leads people to hold dear is contrary to what God decreed as righteous.
And to beat someone to it, no I am not anti-Catholic. If I were I'd be single. Rather, I am pro-Gospel truth.

That is not in any way meant to insult any RCC. I've had that discussion and said those very words to my husband and we're still married. (lol)
Rather, what those words mean to impart is the faith of the RCC member is in their church, and then God.

Their Catechism speaks of faith in God the Father however, that faith is to be aligned with faith in the leading of the church to proper understanding of God and His Word.

There are a lot of things wrong with the RCC. Not that they'll admit that. However I believe those who seek the truth of God in Christ are entitled to know that if they happen on a discussion of this sort.

Lastly, this thread was clearly started to instigate a conflict between participating RCC members and whomever accepted the invite to enter in.
Those non-Catholic members who do participate hold to the same thing as myself. Countering the falsity with the truth of Christ. That isn't a rebuttal in kind to the spirit of strife that initiated this conversation. That, as I see it, is an act of love.

Proverbs 10:12
Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.

You don't have to enter into this discussion thinking to change a Catholic members mind. Rather, consider entering in to do as Jesus commanded you.
1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

One of these days I'll be a woman of few words.
Today is not that day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

(edited missing sentence)

Click to expand...

Thank you for this beautiful and heartfelt reply... I am an ex-Catholic... My mother died believing everything she was taught by this institution. Two days after she was buried... I went to the priest who officiated her funeral and asked to be ex-communicated... I told the priest that I wanted his blessing to leave the Catholic church as well as the assurance that I am not going to hell.... He was most gracious... and informed me that if the church had hurt and damaged me that much... that I was indeed free to leave... THIS of course means nothing... but it was the beginning of freedom for me.

Thank you for clarifying the reasoning of your contributions... ( which you certainly did not owe me )... I respect the desire and obligation one might feel in defending against lies and untruths... My position is that people who are rude, demeaning and arrogant do not deserve to be heard.
I realize that these forums are most lenient and allow for all types of beliefs and opinions... It's just the bee in my bonnet is all...

Since I have left the church... I have no desire to talk Catholicism with anyone. God bless you for your patience and perseverance.

BreadOfLife said:

“spurious” or “forgeries”. The very SAME can be said of the writings of your false prophetess (E.G. White).

Click to expand...

I didn't say all the 'ecf' were spurious or forgeries. Just the ones under discussion and cited appropriately. I have spent a long deal in reading the 'ecf', and ones that most Catholics (western) probably haven't read, like the Eastern (Greek) and Syriac, etc ones.

However, if you have anything against sister White, please bring it forth in specifics (not broad generalities) and we can look at them together. I am not afraid of doing this.

BreadOfLife said:

Remember – Jesus said that HE is the Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28) – and that the Sabbath was made for man – and NOT the other way around.

Click to expand...

Agreed already. Is that really the issue? If so, we are in agreement, and no need to continue suggesting that we are not. Jesus is (present ongoing tense) Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was in deed made for 'the man' (koine Greek), and that man is Jesus Christ (Col 1:16; &c, as already stated).

BreadOfLife said:

HE is the New Lawgiver

Click to expand...

New Law giver? There is ever only one Lawgiver:


Are you referring to John 13:34? If so, let's look at it to be sure.

BreadOfLife said:

– not Ellen White.

Click to expand...

Well, that is nothing new. Since when does an actual Seventh-day Adventist say/teach/practice that Ellen White is the Lawgiver? She, herself, has stated in print on numerous occasions:

BreadOfLife said:

Jesus had PLENTY of things say about the Sabbath – and ONE specific thing He DIDN’T say.

- He challenged the idea that doing good deeds on the Sabbath were a violation (Matt. 12:12);
- He suggested that the children of Abraham should be freed on the Sabbath from all that unjustly binds them (Luke 13:15-16).

Click to expand...

I agree with all of that, including the one thing He (Jesus) didn't ever say, that mankind is not the keep the 7th day, the Sabbath of the LORD God Holy.

Yes, the sabbath of the LORD is in harmony with "good" (def. by Bible) deeds.

Yes, the Jews (CoA) should indeed be freed from every "unjust" binding that was not in harmony with God's Law. Jesus contrasted the pharisaical regulations with what God actually stated on the matter. Examples upon request.

BreadOfLife said:

In the NT - Jesus reinstated EVERY Commandment (Matt. 4:10, 5:34, 19:18-19, Luke 12:15) – except for ONE:
The Sabbath Commandment.

Click to expand...

In actual practice and in word, that is simply not so.

The very LIFE of Jesus reinstated it (as He is the Living (Example) Law), as it had been darkened by pharisaical regulations. Jesus' own example reinstated it:


Matthew 4:10, deals with "worship", even as the sabbath commandment defines that worship in the context of the 7 days (all 7) of the week.

Notice in Matthew 5, the order of progression, as it is the unfolding of the entire Ten Commandments:
Just as Israel of old:


So too Jesus: