Who is the Whore of babylon

[epostle]

For evidence of Christian Sabbitarians in the 2nd century.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thayer's Definition:
1) himself, herself, themselves, itself
2) he, she, it

LSJ Definition:
reflexive Pron., self:—in oblique cases used for the personal Pron., him, her, it:

Wycliffe translated from the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek. The KJV and the Douay Rheims are younger than the versions I listed and the Douay Rheims was translated from the Latin Vulgate as well.

The KJV was based on the the revised Bishop's Bible.
REVISED.

This was NOT a perfect translation. The KJV, on the other hand is touted by MOST Protestant scholars to be the closest thing to a perfect translation. I would disagree - but that is irrelevant. Part of the revision that took place in the KJV was in John 1, regarding the word αὐτὸ.

YOUR problem is that you disagree with anybody who doesn't see it YOUR way, regardless of the scholarship and history.
Now - since the consensus of Greek scholarship renders this word as "Him" - the onus is on YOU to tell us why "it" is the more correct definition.

 

[gadar perets]

The KJV was based on the the revised Bishop's Bible.
REVISED.

What does that matter? Revisions can be towards truth or error.

This was NOT a perfect translation. The KJV, on the other hand is touted by MOST Protestant scholars to be the closest thing to a perfect translation. I would disagree - but that is irrelevant. Part of the revision that took place in the KJV was in John 1, regarding the word αὐτὸ.

A revision towards error done to promote the trinity doctrine.

YOUR

problem is that you disagree with anybody who doesn't see it YOUR way, regardless of the scholarship and history.
Now - since the consensus of Greek scholarship renders this word as "Him" - the onus is on YOU to tell us why "it" is the more correct definition.

The NT is founded upon the OT. The "logos" in the OT was not a person, but YHWH's spoken words, thought, reason, etc. Show me two witnesses from the OT where the logos is a person without reading a person into the text. BTW, I am not interested in the philosophical arguments of deceived men. Show me from Scripture.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What does that matter? Revisions can be towards truth or error.
A revision towards error done to promote the trinity doctrine.

What motive would the "Reformers" have for promoting a "Catholic" doctrine?? ESPECIALLY since YOU say that these earlier Protestant translations rendered John 1:1 as NON-Trinitarian??

Protestants jettisoned all sorts of Catholic doctrines during this period in an effort to further divorce themselves from the Catholic Church - so tell me:
Why didn't even ONE Protestant Father agree with YOUR assessment of John 1:1 after the KJV??
Keep in mind that NOT all Protestants at the time were "KJV Only" adherents.

The NT is founded upon the OT. The "logos" in the OT was not a person, but YHWH's spoken words, thought, reason, etc. Show me two witnesses from the OT where the logos is a person without reading a person into the text. BTW, I am not interested in the philosophical arguments of deceived men. Show me from Scripture.

This is a silly request - and a transparently trick question.
The Trinity was not revealed until CHRIST taught it.

HOWEVER - we DO have more implicit examples in the OT of the Trinity, as shown in the following passages:

God as Multiple Persons (Trinity) in the OT
Genesis 1:26
“Then God said, ‘Let US make mankind in OUR image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’”

Genesis 3:22
“And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of US, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Genesis 11:7
“Come, let US go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

Isaiah 6:8
“Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for US?’”

The Son is God in the OT
Zech. 12:10
“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on ME, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

Isaiah 7:14
All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means 'God is with us').

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

The Holy Spirit is God in the OT
Judges 3:10
The Spirit of the LORD came on him, so that he became Israel’s judge and went to war. The LORD gave Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram into the hands of Othniel, who overpowered him.

Judges 13:25
And the Spirit of the Lord began to move upon him at Mahaneh Dan between Zorah and Eshtaol.

Micah 3:10
But as for me, I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the LORD, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression, to Israel his sin.

Samuel 16:14
But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the Lord troubled him.

 

[gadar perets]

What motive would the "Reformers" have for promoting a "Catholic" doctrine?? ESPECIALLY since YOU say that these earlier Protestant translations rendered John 1:1 as NON-Trinitarian??

Protestants jettisoned all sorts of Catholic doctrines during this period in an effort to further divorce themselves from the Catholic Church - so tell me:
Why didn't even ONE Protestant Father agree with YOUR assessment of John 1:1 after the KJV??
Keep in mind that NOT all Protestants at the time were "KJV Only" adherents.

Fear. They were so brainwashed by statements like, "If you reject the trinity you will be lost forever." Or, "You can't be a Christian unless you believe in the deity of Christ." Or, "If you deny the Son is God, you deny the Father as well." They also saw how men like Arian were treated and did not want the same for themselves.

This is a silly request - and a transparently trick question.
The Trinity was not revealed until CHRIST taught it.

I did not ask you to show me the trinity in the OT. I asked you to show me the "logos" as a living being. Such a concept was foreign to the Apostles.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Fear. They were so brainwashed by statements like, "If you reject the trinity you will be lost forever." Or, "You can't be a Christian unless you believe in the deity of Christ." Or, "If you deny the Son is God, you deny the Father as well." They also saw how men like Arian were treated and did not want the same for themselves.

STUPID answer.

They weren't "afraid" of the Church - and that's why they left and began inventing doctrines like Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Limited Atonement, Double Predestination, Irresistible Grace and other heresies. What makes you think that they were "afraid" of inventing another heresy??

I did not ask you to show me the trinity in the OT. I asked you to show me the "logos" as a living being. Such a concept was foreign to the Apostles.

And I told you that this was a silly request because He hadn't been revealed as a living being yet - UNLESS you understand the concept of Christophany - or appearances of the Logos prior to the NT.

For example - in 1 Cor. 10:4, Paul tells us that Christ was the Rock which followed the Hebrews in the desert and from which water flowed.

In Gen. 16:13, Hagar addresses the "Angel" of the Lord, ‘You are the God who sees me,’ as she observed, ‘I have now seen the One who sees me’.”

In fact - of the over 200 references to the Hebrew word for "Angel" of the Lord in the OT - the consensus is that about a third of them refer to Christophanies.

 

[gadar perets]

STUPID answer.

They weren't "afraid" of the Church - and that's why they left and began inventing doctrines like Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Limited Atonement, Double Predestination, Irresistible Grace and other heresies. What makes you think that they were "afraid" of inventing another heresy??

I didn't say they were afraid of "the Church". They were afraid of losing their salvation because they were so indoctrinated with that belief.

And I told you that this was a silly request because He hadn't been revealed as a living being yet - UNLESS you understand the concept of Christophany - or appearances of the Logos prior to the NT.

For example - in 1 Cor. 10:4, Paul tells us that Christ was the Rock which followed the Hebrews in the desert and from which water flowed.

In Gen. 16:13, Hagar addresses the "Angel" of the Lord, ‘You are the God who sees me,’ as she observed, ‘I have now seen the One who sees me’.”

In fact - of the over 200 references to the Hebrew word for "Angel" of the Lord in the OT - the consensus is that about a third of them refer to Christophanies.

There are NO "Christophanies" in the OT (Theophanies and Christophanies).

 

[BreadOfLife]

I didn't say they were afraid of "the Church". They were afraid of losing their salvation because they were so indoctrinated with that belief.

And I told you that the Protestant Fathers wouldn't have cared. They were piling up one heretical teaching on top of another and it didn't faze them - so your argument goes OUT the window . . .

There are NO "Christophanies" in the OT (Theophanies and Christophanies).

I just gave you TWO examples.
As I keep saying - denial is NOT a valid argument. Unless you can explain those verses - you have LOST this debate.

 

[brakelite]

For evidence of Christian Sabbitarians in the 2nd century.

The very fact that the Laodicean council forbad the observance of the Sabbath is proof positive that Christians, for the first 400 years until that council, at the very least, still observed the true 7th day Sabbath. And that was just in that area where the council felt it had jurisdiction. What about the Celtic churches and the Assyrian, Ethiopian, and Indian churches that chose to keep the commandments of God rather than those of men?

 

[epostle]

The very fact that the Laodicean council forbad the observance of the Sabbath is proof positive that Christians, for the first 400 years until that council, at the very least, still observed the true 7th day Sabbath. And that was just in that area where the council felt it had jurisdiction. What about the Celtic churches and the Assyrian, Ethiopian, and Indian churches that chose to keep the commandments of God rather than those of men?

People with doctorates in church history can't find any evidence of Sabbatarianism in the 2nd century, and neither can you. What was forbidden in the 4th century was adhering to Mosaic Laws, it doesn't prove Sabbath worship. You make lame assertions, but still have no proof. You twist and distort the council of Laodicea to support Ellen White's agenda, just as you reject the Council of Nicae. In fact, there is no council you accept, just your own twisted version of it. It's called a straw man fallacy. You also think that every letter of every official document is permanently binding on Catholics, because you have NO CONCEPT OF DEVELOPMENT. That's why your cult makes references to outdated meaningless documents.
Most of the Council of Laodicea dealt with rules for the priesthood. However:

Canon 16
The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures. (even with large font your blindness forbids you to see this)

Before the arrangement of the Ecclesiastical Psalmody was settled, neither the Gospel nor the other Scriptures were accustomed to be read on the Sabbath. But out of regard to the canons which forbade fasting or kneeling on the Sabbath, there were no services, so that there might be as much feasting as possible. This the fathers prohibit, and decree that on the Sabbath the whole ecclesiastical office shall be said.​

The canons of the synod of Laodicea are available for all to see, without the extreme editorializing from made-in-America cults: CHURCH FATHERS: Synod of Laodicea (4th Century)

Brakelight, you're straining gnats trying to prove what can't be proven. There is no evidence of Sabbatarianism in the second century. Laodicea in the 4th century only proves that Judaizing was wrong. And for the 100th time, I fulfil my Sunday obligation by going to Mass on SATURDAY AT 5:00 p.m. which is meaningless to you anyway. (but blows a big hole in EGW's teachings)
What did the fathers prohibit? KNEELING AND FASTING ON SATURDAY, but Brakelight refuses to get it.

 

[brakelite]

People with doctorates in church history can't find any evidence of Sabbatarianism in the 2nd century, and neither can you. What was forbidden in the 4th century was adhering to Mosaic Laws, it doesn't prove Sabbath worship. You make lame assertions, but still have no proof.

You mention straw men. Then you mention that there is nothing to prove Sabbath worship. Thing is bro, no-one is talking about Sabbath worship. There is nothing in the 4th commandments that stipulates worship...whatever you may mean by that term. What God requires, is that on Sabbath we rest...as per the meaning of the word...as per the commandment...just as God also rested.
Canon 29, taken from the Laodicean synod that you quoted so conveniently above, says the following...
Canon 29
Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

No twisting or turning on my part at all. The council forbad the observing of the 4th commandment as God required, made the church above the laws of God by changing His commandment in preference to a man-made day (the so-ill-named "Lord's Day...the 1st day of the week) transferring the obligation to rest from the Sabbath to Sunday. Clear and simple. This was called Judaising. What it really was was obedience...which your church made into a curse by persecuting all such as chose to obey God rather than men.

Thus is your proof...that at least to the 4th century, there were Christians who still observed Sabbath by resting on that day, as per the commandment. Your attendance at mass at 5.30 is not an observance of Sabbath. You may call it worship, but it is not Sabbath keeping, and it is not in any sense a fulfilment of your obligation to rest on God's holy sacred day...the 7th day of the week...Sabbath.

 

[gadar perets]

And I told you that the Protestant Fathers wouldn't have cared. They were piling up one heretical teaching on top of another and it didn't faze them - so your argument goes OUT the window . . .

Not only did they care to not lose their salvation back then, but the same holds true today. Their fear of losing their salvation prevents them from obeying the leading of the Holy Spirit as it teaches us to obey YHWH's laws under the New Covenant (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

I just gave you TWO examples.
As I keep saying - denial is NOT a valid argument. Unless you can explain those verses - you have LOST this debate.

You replied within 17 minutes which tells me you did not even bother to read my link and if you did, you read to refute instead of to understand.

1 Corinthians 10:4 must be understood with Exodus 17:6 in mind; "Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel." 1 Corinthians 10:4 is figuratively making reference to Exodus 17:6 which is a shadow of Messiah. To "smite the rock" is to kill the Messiah. The rock could not yield water until it was smitten. Similarly, the Messiah Yeshua could not give forth "rivers of living water" until he was put to death and then resurrected unto eternal life (glorified). John 7:39 shows this "living water" to be the Holy Spirit. Yeshua was not physically present with them in the wilderness. Spiritually speaking he was. That is why the verse says "spiritual drink" and "spiritual Rock." Even if one were to believe Yeshua physically followed Israel, that would not prove he was YHWH since YHWH was not personally leading or following Israel in the wilderness. Scriptures reveal that the Angel of YHWH, YHWH's representative, followed them (Exodus 14:19).

In Gen. 16:13, Hagar addresses the "Angel" of the Lord, ‘You are the God who sees me,’ as she observed, ‘I have now seen the One who sees me’.”

Why didn't you quote the full verse?

Gen 16:13 And she called the name of YHWH that spake unto her, Thou God sees me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that sees me?
​

YHWH was speaking to her THROUGH the angel (vs.11). She certainly was not speaking to the Son unless you read the Son into the text as you soooo love to do.

 

[gadar perets]

Canon 16
The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures.(even with large font your blindness forbids you to see this)

Before the arrangement of the Ecclesiastical Psalmody was settled, neither the Gospel nor the other Scriptures were accustomed to be read on the Sabbath. But out of regard to the canons which forbade fasting or kneeling on the Sabbath, there were no services, so that there might be as much feasting as possible. This the fathers prohibit, and decree that on the Sabbath the whole ecclesiastical office shall be said.The canons of the synod of Laodicea are available for all to see, without the extreme editorializing from made-in-America cults: CHURCH FATHERS: Synod of Laodicea (4th Century)

Canon 16 says they were keeping the Sabbath. The paragraph you quoted beginning with "Before the arrangement" is merely some deceived commentators notes as are everything else in red at that link.

Canon 49
During Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day and on the Lord's Day only.


Canon 51
The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths and Lord's days.
​

It seems to me they were keeping both days at that time, but Canon 29 forbids them to do it according to Scripture.

Canon 29
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
​

Notice the scare tactic at the end? Typical of deceived men to try and scare people into obedience. They do the same with the trinity.

​

 

[brakelite]

The commandment says to "remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy". How do we do that? By ceasing from our common labour on that day...by not mixing the profane from the sacred.
The Catholic Church however says "we have the authority to suspend, abrogate, and annul altogether God's laws, so we have decided to make anathema all who would choose to observe Sabbath, for we say they must observe Sunday, what we designate "The Lord's Day".
( It is irrelevant in the minds of Catholics that Lord Jesus called the Sabbath "His day".)

 

[BreadOfLife]

Not only did they care to not lose their salvation back then, but the same holds true today. Their fear of losing their salvation prevents them from obeying the leading of the Holy Spirit as it teaches us to obey YHWH's laws under the New Covenant (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

You can rave on ALL day long about how "scared" the Protestant Rebels were regarding the invention of new theology - but the truth speaks for itself.

The flurry of man-made doctrines during this time completely negates your claim that they were simply too "afraid" to part with Catholic teaching regarding the Trinity.
They stuck with it because it is BIBLICAL TRUTH.

You replied within 17 minutes which tells me you did not even bother to read my link and if you did, you read to refute instead of to understand.

1 Corinthians 10:4 must be understood with Exodus 17:6 in mind; "Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel." 1 Corinthians 10:4 is figuratively making reference to Exodus 17:6 which is a shadow of Messiah. To "smite the rock" is to kill the Messiah. The rock could not yield water until it was smitten. Similarly, the Messiah Yeshua could not give forth "rivers of living water" until he was put to death and then resurrected unto eternal life (glorified). John 7:39 shows this "living water" to be the Holy Spirit. Yeshua was not physically present with them in the wilderness. Spiritually speaking he was. That is why the verse says "spiritual drink" and "spiritual Rock." Even if one were to believe Yeshua physically followed Israel, that would not prove he was YHWH since YHWH was not personally leading or following Israel in the wilderness. Scriptures reveal that the Angel of YHWH, YHWH's representative, followed them (Exodus 14:19).

I don't read links.
If you can't present your position in your post - don't waste my time with a link written by somebody else.

Why didn't you quote the full verse?

Gen 16:13 And she called the name of YHWH that spake unto her, Thou God sees me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that sees me?
​

YHWH was speaking to her THROUGH the angel (vs.11). She certainly was not speaking to the Son unless you read the Son into the text as you soooo love to do.

NO - the text says that GOD was speaking TO her - not through the Angel.
The "Angel" of the Lord WAS God.

All the way back from verse 7, it says that the “Angel of the Lord” was talking to her.
Then, in verse 13, it says the following:

New International Version
She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: "YOU are the God who sees me," for she said, "I have now seen the One who sees me."

New Living Translation
Thereafter, Hagar used another name to refer to the LORD, who had spoken to her. She said, "You are the God who sees me." She also said, "Have I truly seen the One who sees me?"

English Standard Version
So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, “YOU are a God of seeing,” for she said, “Truly here I have seen him who looks after me.”

Berean Study Bible
So Hagar gave this name to the LORD who had spoken to her: “YOU are the God who sees me,” for she said, “Here I have seen the One who sees me!”

New American Standard Bible
Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "YOU are a God who sees"; for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?"

King James Bible
And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, THOU God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?

 

[epostle]

You mention straw men. Then you mention that there is nothing to prove Sabbath worship. Thing is bro, no-one is talking about Sabbath worship. There is nothing in the 4th commandments that stipulates worship...whatever you may mean by that term. What God requires, is that on Sabbath we rest...as per the meaning of the word...as per the commandment...just as God also rested.
Canon 29, taken from the Laodicean synod that you quoted so conveniently above, says the following...
Canon 29
Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

No twisting or turning on my part at all. The council forbad the observing of the 4th commandment as God required, made the church above the laws of God by changing His commandment in preference to a man-made day (the so-ill-named "Lord's Day...the 1st day of the week) transferring the obligation to rest from the Sabbath to Sunday. Clear and simple. This was called Judaising. What it really was was obedience...which your church made into a curse by persecuting all such as chose to obey God rather than men.

Thus is your proof...that at least to the 4th century, there were Christians who still observed Sabbath by resting on that day, as per the commandment. Your attendance at mass at 5.30 is not an observance of Sabbath. You may call it worship, but it is not Sabbath keeping, and it is not in any sense a fulfilment of your obligation to rest on God's holy sacred day...the 7th day of the week...Sabbath.

Canon 16 says they were keeping the Sabbath. The paragraph you quoted beginning with "Before the arrangement" is merely some deceived commentators notes as are everything else in red at that link.

Canon 49
During Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day and on the Lord's Day only.


Canon 51
The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths and Lord's days.
​

It seems to me they were keeping both days at that time, but Canon 29 forbids them to do it according to Scripture.

Canon 29
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
​

Notice the scare tactic at the end? Typical of deceived men to try and scare people into obedience. They do the same with the trinity.

​

The commandment says to "remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy". How do we do that? By ceasing from our common labour on that day...by not mixing the profane from the sacred.
The Catholic Church however says "we have the authority to suspend, abrogate, and annul altogether God's laws, so we have decided to make anathema all who would choose to observe Sabbath, for we say they must observe Sunday, what we designate "The Lord's Day".
( It is irrelevant in the minds of Catholics that Lord Jesus called the Sabbath "His day".)

You can't read. Whatever Christians were adhering to keeping a Saturday Sabbath, they were Judaizing and doing so illegally. It was the Judaizing that was the problem, not Saturday assemblies to hear the Gospel. Scriptures were read on Saturday, but there was no Mass. The Church had a problem with Judaizers, that problem no longer exists. Laodicea was for the 4th century, not the 21st. At this point in history, there was no Bible as we know it. Again, you disregard historical context, and have no concept of development.

"The Catholic Church however says "we have the authority to suspend, abrogate, and annul altogether God's laws, so we have decided to make anathema all who would choose to observe Sabbath, for we say they must observe Sunday, what we designate "The Lord's Day".

No, the Church does not say that. That phrase does not exist anywhere in the Council of Laodicea or in any church document. It is a FABRICATION.

"God's laws" for the Sabbath was for the Jews, just as circumcision was for the Jews. But circumcision of 8 day old babies is not mandated in your made-in-America cult. Jesus rose from the dead on SUNDAY, appeared to the Apostles mostly on SUNDAY, Ascended on SUNDAY, but these mind-boggling events are secondary to your 18th century Judaizing and demonizing of the Church.

Furthermore, if strict Sabbath keepers existed in the 2nd-4th centuries of the Church, they would have stood out. There would have been some historical record. But there isn't any. Your "evidence" was dreamed up in the 18th century. You haven't even dreamed up a name of any such Sabbatarian, because they didn't exist.

I could post walls of what the Early Church Fathers said about Sunday worship. But it would fall on deaf ears. That's because you have nothing to do with that CHURCH. You guys are too busy making up lies and videos that scare little children.

 

[gadar perets]

I don't read links.
If you can't present your position in your post - don't waste my time with a link written by somebody else.

The article at that link was written by me. I also posted my position on 1 Corinthians 10:4, but you ignored it.

NO

- the text says that GOD was speaking TO her - not through the Angel.
The "Angel" of the Lord WAS God.

All the way back from verse 7, it says that the “Angel of the Lord” was talking to her.
Then, in verse 13, it says the following:

New International Version
She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: "YOU are the God who sees me," for she said, "I have now seen the One who sees me."

The ANGEL (Messenger) of YHWH started talking to Hagar in verse 8. He is YHWH's "MESSENGER", not YHWH Himself. Did Hagar really see YHWH / God? Of course not (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16). As YHWH's representative, the messenger speaks as though he is YHWH. The prophets do the same thing.

 

[gadar perets]

You can't read. Whatever Christians were adhering to keeping a Saturday Sabbath, they were Judaizing and doing so illegally. It was the Judaizing that was the problem, not Saturday assemblies to hear the Gospel. Scriptures were read on Saturday, but there was no Mass. The Church had a problem with Judaizers, that problem no longer exists. Laodicea was for the 4th century, not the 21st. At this point in history, there was no Bible as we know it. Again, you disregard historical context, and have no concept of development.

They were keeping the Sabbath Day. They were hearing the Gospel and even partaking of what you call the Eucharist on Sabbath. How ignorant can men possibly be to say it is "Judaizing" to not work on the Sabbath in obedience to YHWH's command? That is exactly what Satan desires; to cause men to disobey YHWH. May YHWH have mercy on your profound ignorance and disobedience.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The article at that link was written by me. I also posted my position on 1 Corinthians 10:4, but you ignored it.

If you can't whittle down your thought to post in a concise manner on this forum - don't bother sending me a link.
I don't follow links to long essays and I don't watch videos. The truth should be pain and simple enough to present here.

The ANGEL (Messenger) of YHWH started talking to Hagar in verse 8. He is YHWH's "MESSENGER", not YHWH Himself. Did Hagar really see YHWH / God? Of course not (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16). As YHWH's representative, the messenger speaks as though he is YHWH. The prophets do the same thing.

She spoke to the "Angel" of the Lord and said "YOU are the God who sees me."
She didn't say "HE is the God that sees me" which she WOULD have if this "Angel" was not God.

 

[gadar perets]

If you can't whittle down your thought to post in a concise manner on this forum - don't bother sending me a link.
I don't follow links to long essays and I don't watch videos. The truth should be pain and simple enough to present here.

I did whittle it down for your simple mind, but you still ignored it. As for my link, it deals with the overall false teaching of Christophanies, not just one verse you are interested in. It is positions like yours that keep Christians dumbed down.

She spoke to the "Angel" of the Lord and said "YOU are the God who sees me."
She didn't say "HE is the God that sees me" which she WOULD have if this "Angel" was not God.

If she really saw God, then explain the three verses I cited (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16).