This link will take you to an interview with Angus T Jones whith another Seventh Day Adventist Tv channel doing a more deep interview. See the link Below.
http://sda.biggytv.com/watch/Turning_Point:_Angus_T_Jones/specials/
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Asking the Pope about the Change of the Sabbath
Thomaston, Georgia May 22, 1934
Pope Pius XI Rome, Italy
Dear Sir:
Is the accusation true, that Protestant's accuse you of? They say you changed the seventh' day Sabbath to the, so called, Christian Sunday; identical with the first day of the week. If so, when did you make the change and by what authority?
Yours truly, (Signed) J. L. Day
(Reply)
THE CATHOLIC EXTENSION MAGAZINE (The largest Catholic Magazine published in USA) 180 Wabash Avenue, Chicago, Illinois (Under the blessing of Pope Pius XI)
Dear Sir:
Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:
(1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.
(2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say this Church, instituted by Christ, to teach and guide men through life, has the right to change the Ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to the Sunday. We frankly say, "Yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday Abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages, and a thousand other laws."
(3) We also say that of all Protestants, the Seventh-day Adventist are the only group that reason correctly and are consistent with their teachings. It is always somewhat laughable to see the Protestant Churches, in pulpit and legislature, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in the Bible.
With best wishes, (Signed) Peter R. Tramer, Editor
http://www.bible-sabbath.com 2
Mr. James L. Day first heard the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church at an evangelistic meeting in Thomaston, Georgia in 1934. Upon hearing the sermon on the change of the Sabbath he was greatly perplexed and thought the way to find out for himself the truth of the matter was to write to the Pope.
This letter was written by Mr. Day personally, upon his own initiative, to Pope Pius XI, who was then the ruling Pope of the Catholic Church. He said he waited thirty days for a reply and then received this letter from the editor of THE CATHOLIC EXTENSION, which is printed under Mr. Day's letter. The Pope had sent Mr. Day's letter to Mr. Tramer, who was editor of the Question Box of this magazine, for reply. The answer was sent under the blessing of the pope.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
What the horns of the Lamb once look like
Eagle
Amendment I (Religion)
Document 66
James Madison to Edward Livingston
10 July 1822Writings 9:100--103
I
observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the
immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it
does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always
been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation,
that the deviation from it took place in Congs., when they appointed
Chaplains, to be paid from the Natl. Treasury. It would have been a much
better proof to their Constituents of their pious feeling if the
members had contributed for the purpose, a pittance from their own
pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that
can now be done, may be to apply to the Constn. the maxim of the law, de
minimis non curat.
There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the
Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least,
as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of
the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution.
Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on
more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was
always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and
merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which
all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious
purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I
presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for
religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction
enforcing the worship. I know not what may be the way of thinking on
this subject in Louisiana. I should suppose the Catholic portion of the
people, at least, as a small & even unpopular sect in the U. S.,
would rally, as they did in Virga. when religious liberty was a
Legislative topic, to its broadest principle. Notwithstanding the
general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this
branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts
of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old
error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt.
& Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the
tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both
the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And
in a Govt. of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found
in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject.
Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation
between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have
no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has
done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in
greater purity, the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of
all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was
right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be
established in exclusion of every other; And that the only question to
be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland
proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect,
was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now
States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that
all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of
equal & entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since
the declaration of Independence, has shewn that its success in Colonies
was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent Country. If a
further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in
the examples furnished by the States, which have abolished their
religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the
cases excepting that of Virga. where it is impossible to deny that
Religion prevails with more zeal, and a more exemplary priesthood than
it ever did when established and patronised by Public authority. We are
teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings
& Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other
lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the
aid of Govt.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I
observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the
immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it
does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always
been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation,
that the deviation from it took place in Congs., when they appointed
Chaplains, to be paid from the Natl. Treasury. It would have been a much
better proof to their Constituents of their pious feeling if the
members had contributed for the purpose, a pittance from their own
pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that
can now be done, may be to apply to the Constn. the maxim of the law, de
minimis non curat.
There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the
Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least,
as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of
the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution.
Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on
more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was
always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and
merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which
all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious
purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I
presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for
religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction
enforcing the worship. I know not what may be the way of thinking on
this subject in Louisiana. I should suppose the Catholic portion of the
people, at least, as a small & even unpopular sect in the U. S.,
would rally, as they did in Virga. when religious liberty was a
Legislative topic, to its broadest principle. Notwithstanding the
general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this
branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts
of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old
error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt.
& Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the
tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both
the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And
in a Govt. of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found
in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject.
Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation
between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have
no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has
done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in
greater purity, the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of
all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was
right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be
established in exclusion of every other; And that the only question to
be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland
proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect,
was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now
States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that
all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of
equal & entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since
the declaration of Independence, has shewn that its success in Colonies
was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent Country. If a
further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in
the examples furnished by the States, which have abolished their
religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the
cases excepting that of Virga. where it is impossible to deny that
Religion prevails with more zeal, and a more exemplary priesthood than
it ever did when established and patronised by Public authority. We are
teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings
& Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other
lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the
aid of Govt.
Amendment I (Religion)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)