"you'd have to prove that the little horn was Constantine" HUH? I don't see how that's a logical response to my statement.... "So the beast shall think (think = H5452 = "bear in mind, that is to hope" to change times and laws *and* they shall be given into his hand.... so he will succeed! ... amazing" I have established a motive. I have not stood to accuse Constantine or anyone else of being ANY of the beasts talked about in the book.... My point was only that the motive to change the times and laws is CLEAR. It was told that it would happen before the coming of the Messiah, by now it *has* happened... you haven't argued that at all... in fact while you criticize my use of the calendar as a supporting point, and admit that the Sabbath has changed to the first day/eighth day (which would make the 7th day the day before, regardless of what calendar you use), AND having established the motive, your response is that I have to prove who the beasts are? No... you can speculate who the beasts are... if ever I have enough information to definitively argue who they are (as I do regarding the Sabbath) then I assure you I will share it with you all... until then I don't think one must find the culprit before they can establish definitively that a crime has been committed. Rather the reverse is clearly the case to any logical mind. "Lastly, as to your: "Jesus never said He was changing the Sabbath!" *sigh* Really? He also never said God was a trinity. He never said anything about a rapture, and you likely believe that, too. He never outright said: "You should totally baptize babies," but we should and (some of us) do. " Ok, so in other words, you have found no argument that confirms the messiah said he was changing the sabbath and instead would rather bring up unrelated points.... I would agree he never said God was a trinity, in fact because he says (and is backed up by Torah) that Yahweh Echad (is one). and that he is Echad with the father. Rapture.... "Joh 14:2 InG1722 myG3450 Father'sG3962 houseG3614 areG1526 manyG4183 mansions:G3438 if it were notG1490 so, I would have toldG2036 G302 you.G5213 I goG4198 to prepareG2090 a placeG5117 for you.G5213 Joh 14:3 AndG2532 ifG1437 I goG4198 andG2532 prepareG2090 a placeG5117 for you,G5213 I will comeG2064 again,G3825 andG2532 receiveG3880 youG5209 untoG4314 myself;G1683 thatG2443 whereG3699 IG1473 am,G1510 there yeG5210 may beG5600 also.G2532 " So he's leaving... and coming back to receive us so that where he is (the place he's preparing) we might be also.... That sounds a little like what today's christians refer to as the rapture. So it appears in this example there is foundation, though perhaps not to the extent that the Left Behind series portrays it.... Baptism of babies has indeed become a tradition unfounded in scripture. As indeed those who were baptized in scripture were not babies but were adults at the time of their baptism.... However baptism in general is established in scripture not arbitrary tradition. Largely the baptism of babies eases the notion that some people still cling to called original sin, or the sin of being created. As if one's baby doesn't live til their teenage years, in order to be baptized of their own volition, people were afraid their baby wouldn't go to heaven. However if you read scripture and see the purpose of baptism (and if you get passed the notion of original sin or that those not baptized in water go to hell whether they've done wrong or not) then you will see that baptism of a baby isn't nearly as meaningful as baptism of an adult who actually has sin to be forgiven and can be grateful for such a cleansing. As indeed, even the one who lived his life without sin wasn't baptized as a baby unaware of what's happening... but rather as an adult when he could recognize what was happening, and indeed the Father spoke when the adult without sin nonetheless was baptized alongside many sinners by one who claimed himself not worthy to baptize the other. Furthermore the baptism with water was the tradition established by John the Baptist, but John the Baptist insists there is one coming who baptizes not with water but with the Fire of the Ruach HaKodesh... Believe it or not there are churches that believe one can be baptized not in water but in the holy spirit. However a parent concerned for their child's eternal soul can't confirm that their child has been baptized in the holy spirit as they can in water... so that's the tradition they cling to, even though it's clear which baptism is more meaningful than the other. Any more examples of nonrelated topics you'd like to throw at me, I'll be happy to seek answers to... "Though I try to find the answer to all the questions they ask, though I know it's impossible to go living through the past... don't tell no lie." - Bob Marley.... but of course unrelated topics... don't relate to the topic at hand lol.... "I'm sure by your constant use of "Yah"" "I AMH1961 hath sentH7971 me untoH413 you." "ThusH3541 shalt thou sayH559 unto the childrenH1121 of Israel,H3478 I AMH1961 hath sentH7971 me untoH413 you. " Of course I am is the translation of the name being given.... haYah, the shortened version of.... H3068 יהוה yehôvâh yeh-ho-vaw' From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069. show me a biblical backing for your use of the word "God" and I'll further justify this again condescending talk with more of a response. As to your "more righteous than thou" mentality in reference to Bob Marley, you should be ashamed... as Bob Marley brought more to faith through his music than you could ever hope to. Perhaps God only works through the arrogant who look down upon even other believers for their differing beliefs. Further, he uses Jah, not Yah as I do... but if you're gonna call his son 'Jah' 'Zeus' or Jesus then I don't see a problem with calling his Father Jah instead of Yah. It's inaccurate on both accounts... but gives reference to someone who is clearly defined as the one spoken of in the Bible, whereas God could be in reference to any number of religions... Heavens Gate cult members would've called God God, but wouldn't have called God Yah or Jah. Lord isn't exactly an accurate name of God either, but I don't accuse you for using the word. Focus "monergism" focus, what are we talking about here? The Sabbath.... why you must talk about everything but the topic at hand to make your point is quite obvious to me... you lack supporting arguments. If I'm wrong then prove it with supporting arguments not irresponsible and irrelevant accusations... though I can make them too.. "given your use of baptism as an example of why scripture doesn't have to state when a change to scripture occurs, I could conclude you've never read (and understood) the scripture about baptism and it's purpose, and further can conclude that you don't remember your baptism as it was done before you can recall. I can also conclude that if I can convince enough people to believe something contrary to scripture, then it CAN ACTUALLY change scripture... as obviously scripture isn't the basis of the beliefs, but rather tradition... right?" Of course all that is entirely speculative, and while it may be true, it certainly doesn't follow automatically as a result of the evidence given.... like I said irresponsible and irrelevant. But just for arguments sake... are you suggesting that one who smokes pot is condemned to hell? or that they couldn't make a scripturally backed argument beyond the comprehension of someone who instead "drinks coffee" (oh the HUMANITY!)...