FORENSIC DEBATE BY SCHOLLARS AND THORNE BLACKWOOD
THE 50-POINT MASTER INDICTMENT: OFFICIAL FORENSIC RECORD
Case: A Forensic Audit of the Manuscript "Jews and Adventists Worship Pagan Roman Saturday" The Defendant: Thorne Blackwood
HEADER SHEET: THE OMEGA PANEL
THE MODERATOR
Harlan Sterling: Legal Chair and Procedural Authority.
THE PROSECUTION
Team Adventist: Dr. Elias Vance (Theologian), Dr. Harlan Stone (Historian), Sister Elena Richards (Traditionalist).
Team Jewish: Dr. Miriam Levinson (Secular Historian), Rabbi Elias Cohen (Orthodox Scholar).
Team Catholic: Bishop Ignatius Aurelius (Canon Law), Father Lorenzo Rossi (Jesuit Historian), Cardinal Vittorio Moretti (Theologian).
=================================================================================================
THE DEFENDANT
- Thorne Blackwood: Author & Forensic Auditor of JEWS AND ADVENTISTS WORSHIP PAGAN ROMAN SATURDAY
=================================================================================================
PART I: THE ASTRONOMICAL AUDIT (The Theft of Time)
Q1 Dr. Elias Vance (SDA Theologian): Mr. Blackwood, you categorically reject the midnight-to-midnight civil day that governs every aspect of modern life. You anchor your rejection in Leviticus 23:32’s "evening-to-evening" mandate. Yet, Genesis 1:5 establishes the fundamental rhythm of the day as "there was evening and there was morning," a pattern repeated before any covenant was given. By what precise exegetical principle do you claim that a later Levitical command overrides this primordial creational archetype, thereby rendering the entire global temporal system used by billions of Christians and Jews not merely mistaken, but ontologically profane?
===================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: The principle is the absolute hierarchy between descriptive phenomenology and prescriptive jurisprudence. Genesis 1:5 is descriptive; it explains the flow of creation. Leviticus 23:32 is performative law: “From evening to evening shall you celebrate your Sabbath.” This is not a suggestion about how days "feel"; it is a statutory command defining how covenant agents must measure sacred duration.
The midnight boundary is the Dies Civilis a Roman bureaucratic invention codified for taxation and military discipline. God’s time breathes with the biological reality of the setting sun; Rome’s time is a mechanical box designed to enslave human activity to the State. To force divine holiness into a Roman box is to commit a category error of the highest order: elevating the creature’s administrative convenience above the Creator’s statutory command.
=================================================================================================
Q2 Dr. Harlan Stone (SDA Historian): You argue that the weekly Sabbath is governed by the luminaries because Genesis 1:14 appoints them to rule over mo’adim (appointed times). Yet Genesis 2:1–3 pronounces the Sabbath holy before the luminaries are given any specific jurisdiction over it in the text. How can a chronologically posterior divine appointment (Day 4) retroactively subordinate a primordially anterior sanctification (Day 7) without destroying the logical unity of the creation account?
=================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Creation is a teleological hierarchy of delegation. Genesis 2:3 announces the sanctity of the Sabbath; Genesis 1:14–18 enacts the constitutional charter that delegates the governance of time to the luminaries. They are appointed “for signs, and for seasons [mo’adim], and for days and years.”
Leviticus 23:2–3 immediately subsumes the weekly Sabbath under mo’ed #1. Posterior delegation does not nullify anterior sanctity it specifies the mechanism of administration. To treat the Sabbath as an autonomous moral island detached from the mo’ed system is to tear a single thread from the constitutional fabric and pretend it remains self-sustaining. You cannot have the "Time" of Genesis 2 without the "Clock" of Genesis 1.
=====================================================================================================
Q3 Dr. Miriam Levinson (Jewish Historian): The Jewish people have preserved Saturday Sabbath observance through every empire, exile, and persecution for 1,700 years. This continuity is documented and unbroken. Are you seriously accusing the entire house of Israel of a collective metaphysical apostasy from the true calendar? On what concrete historical evidence do you base this sweeping indictment?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: The continuity is real, Dr. Levinson, but it is phenomenological, not ontological. The form (Saturday) has been preserved; the mechanism (Lunar Observation) was surrendered. The decisive break occurred in 359 CE under Hillel II. Facing Roman bans on lunar sightings, the Sanhedrin invoked pikuach nefesh (preservation of life) to publish the fixed mathematical sod ha-ibbur a computational calendar aligned with the Julian week.
Rabbinic sources acknowledge this shift as the termination of the court’s authority to sanctify the new moon by observation. The continuity you celebrate is the continuity of the Hillelite Compromise, not the continuity of Sinai. The true day was never lost; it was hidden in the luminaries while human institutions drifted into Roman compatibility to survive.
====================================================================================================
Q4 Dr. Elias Vance (SDA Theologian): Even granting Hillel’s arithmetic adjustment for the sake of argument, the Jewish people still maintain strict septenary succession from Saturday to Saturday. Why does the mere fact that the calendar was once politically negotiated invalidate the ongoing covenantal essence of the Sabbath?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Because covenantal identity is preserved by the mode of derivation, not just numerical succession. When the count is decoupled from direct lunar observation and re-grounded in a civil compromise, the seventh day becomes a human construct. Normative Judaism confesses this bifurcation: it uses a civil Saturday for commerce and weekly rest, but a Lunar calendar for the High Holy Days. This public admission is fatal. If the Sabbath were truly the "Seal of God," it would be computed on God’s religious clock not Caesar’s civil one. You cannot have a "Civil Seal" for a "Holy God.”
Q5 Father Lorenzo Rossi (Jesuit Historian): The seven-day week is older than Rome. Babylonian and Assyrian records show a septenary rhythm long before Hellenistic astrology. Why do you insist on labelling the entire structure "pagan" simply because Rome adopted it?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: I call it Pagan because of its Dedicatory Ontology. By the 2nd century, Rome had explicitly re-consecrated the week to astral deities (Dies Saturni, Dies Solis).
Deuteronomy 12:3 explicitly forbids allowing astral powers to claim sacred space. If you dedicate a temple to Zeus, it becomes a pagan temple regardless of who built the bricks. Similarly, resting on Dies Saturni the day Rome assigned to Saturn/Chronos is structurally idolatrous. The structure may be ancient, but the consecration is Roman. You cannot occupy a time-slot claimed by a planetary demon and call it the Lord's Day.
=====================================================================================================
Q6 Dr. Miriam Levinson (Jewish Historian): You assert that the Sanhedrin’s dissolution was the direct consequence of Hillel’s calendrical compromise. What primary sources or historical sequence do you offer to support this as a deliberate quid pro quo?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: The sequence is concrete and documented. Hillel II publishes the fixed mathematical calendar in 359 CE. Historical records indicate he received immediate imperial favor, including tax exemptions. Within a generation, the Patriarchate is abolished (c. 425 CE) and the Sanhedrin never reconvenes. This is not coincidence; it is the price of the bargain. The Jews traded their Judicial Sovereignty (control over time) for Temporal Peace (survival in the Diaspora). The modern Saturday Sabbath is the receipt for that liquidation sale.
=====================================================================================================
Q7 Dr. Elias Vance (SDA Theologian): Seventh-day Adventism arose explicitly to restore the biblical Sabbath against the Roman Sunday substitution. You contend that Adventists have merely relocated the locus of holiness within the very Roman framework they claim to oppose. Explain, in precise theological terms, why the "Remnant" concept fails here.
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: The Remnant doctrine fails here because it assumes that correcting which day you keep is sufficient without correcting how days are defined. Adventism rejected the Papal Sunday while retaining the Papal Calendar infrastructure. That is not restoration; it is rescheduling. A remnant restores jurisdiction, not labels. If the authority governing time remains Roman midnight-to-midnight, uninterrupted seven-day cycles divorced from the luminaries then the Sabbath, regardless of weekday name, remains civil. Adventism repainted the walls of Babylon; it did not rebuild the foundations of Gods word.
=====================================================================================================
Q8 Dr. Harlan Stone (SDA Historian): Your lunar Sabbath model introduces "friction" a weekly cycle that wanders relative to the fixed civil calendar. This disrupts labor schedules, commerce, and international supply chains. Are you seriously proposing that God designed His covenant to be incompatible with stable civilization?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: I am stating that God designed His covenant to be incompatible with unquestioned civilization. Scripture never presents economic stability as a priority. In Exodus 16, God intentionally destabilized Israel’s work rhythm through the Manna cycle. The Sabbath was introduced as a divinely ordained interruption, not a convenience. Revelation 13 warns that the faithful will be excluded from "buying and selling." A calendar that integrates seamlessly with global commerce cannot perform that prophetic function. The "friction" you fear is the very proof of its holiness.
=====================================================================================================
PART II: THE IDENTITY AUDIT (The Theft of the Name)
Q9 Bishop Ignatius Aurelius (Catholic Prelate): You characterize the name "Jesus" as a Romanized construct. Yet Christian theology holds that names pass through languages without loss of referent transliteration is valid. Why do you insist that translation in this case constitutes "ontological substitution" rather than faithful transmission?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Because this was not translation of meaning; it was replacement of authority. Translation preserves semantic content. Iēsous does not preserve the theophoric content of Yehoshua ("Yahweh is Salvation"), nor does it preserve the prophetic designation Immanuel ("God With Us"). Furthermore, the Jews who rejected the Messiah never used Yehoshua for Him; they used Yeshu. This means the Greek name was not translating Jewish usage; it was inventing a usable identifier after the fact. Transmission requires continuity of origin. Here, the origin is absent. What survives is not a translated name, but a newly authorized one.
====================================================================================================
Q10 Rabbi Elias Cohen (Orthodox Scholar): You rely heavily on Jewish polemical texts (like Toledot Yeshu) to argue that the divine element of the name was deliberately stripped. Yet polemical literature is by definition biased. How can you elevate hostile sources into forensic proof without committing circular reasoning?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Because hostility is diagnostically decisive. It reveals what a community refuses to affirm. If the Sanhedrin believed the Nazarene bore divine authority, the theophoric name (Yehoshua) would have been unavoidable. Instead, the divine syllable is excised in every record. Neutrality is not required to establish negation. The total absence of theophoric affirmation across hostile and neutral Jewish records alike demonstrates that Yehoshua was never accepted as His name. Christianity did not inherit a rejected Jewish name; it retrofitted one centuries later to bridge a theological gap.
=====================================================================================================
Q11 Father Lorenzo Rossi (Jesuit Historian): You argue that the letter "J" is chronologically disqualifying. Yet linguists note that orthography evolves. Why should the late formalization of a letter invalidate centuries of usage?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Because the issue is not phonetic drift but temporal impossibility. For over a millennium, the name now spoken ("Jesus" with a hard J ) did not exist in any spoken form. It could not be heard, uttered, or recognized as such by the Apostles or early believers.
When a name emerges only after printing technology crystallizes spelling in 1524, it ceases to be apostolic and becomes editorial. A name cannot precede the alphabet that enables it. Invocation of a name that did not exist in the historical period it claims to represent is not continuity it is anachronistic fiction.
====================================================================================================
Q12 Dr. Elias Vance (SDA Theologian): If you reject "Jesus" as a later construct and acknowledge that "Yehoshua" was rejected by Jewish authority, what name do you assert carries sufficient prophetic and theological legitimacy to identify the Messiah?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: The only name that meets those criteria is IMMANUEL. It originates in prophecy (Isaiah 7:14), not translation. It is authorized by God the Father, not retrofitted by institutions.
It declares Ontological Identity ("God With Us") rather than just function. It embeds divine presence ("El") without relying on the contested theophoric syllable. Every other name in this debate is either rejected, invented, or derived. Immanuel stands alone as the uncompromised revelation.
=====================================================================================================
Q13 Dr. Miriam Levinson (Jewish Historian): Mr. Blackwood, your dismissal of the name "Jesus" borders on linguistic conspiracy theory. Every serious historian Jewish or Christian acknowledges that "Jesus" (Iēsous) is simply the standard Greek derivation of the Hebrew name Yehoshua or Yeshua. This was a common name in the Second Temple period. On what basis do you reject this established etymology? Are you denying the basic linguistic fact that He was a Jew named Yeshua, simply to prop up your "Roman invention" narrative?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Dr. Levinson i will answer your question with utmost caution and logic it deserves. Christian apologetics frequently assert that the Messiah’s “real Jewish name” was Yeshua, derived from Yehoshua, meaning “YHWH saves.” This claim is presented as evidence of historical authenticity and continuity with Judaism. However, when examined under logical and historical scrutiny, the claim collapses under its own weight.
The Jewish authorities who opposed the Nazarene did not merely misunderstand him. They accused him of blasphemy, denied his messianic status, and according to the Christian narrative itself sought his execution. Rabbinic Judaism to this day maintains that the Messiah has not yet come. This position has been consistent for nearly two millennia.
This creates an unavoidable contradiction.
If the Jewish community truly called him Yeshua, a theophoric name meaning “YHWH saves,” then they would have been confessing, by name alone, that he was an agent of divine salvation. Such a confession would constitute implicit recognition of messianic legitimacy. No community that rejects a claimant as Messiah simultaneously names him “YHWH saves.”
Conversely, if the Jewish authorities rejected him and continue to reject him then they could not have used a salvific theophoric name to identify him. This conclusion is not theological; it is logical. Hostile witnesses do not assign honorific, salvific names to those they condemn to death.
The historical record confirms this logic. Jewish polemical and rabbinic sources do not preserve the name Yehoshua or Yeshua as a confessional identifier. Instead, they consistently employ Yeshu, a deliberately truncated form that removes the divine element. This linguistic excision is not accidental; it is categorical rejection.
Christianity is therefore not preserving a rejected Jewish name. It is retroactively inserting a theophoric meaning that Judaism never affirmed. The claim that “Yeshua means Saviour” functions as a theological backfill, not as historical testimony.
The result is paradoxical:
Christian theology requires Jews to have named him “YHWH saves” in order to authenticate him while simultaneously insisting that those same Jews rejected him and still await a Messiah.
Both claims cannot be true.
Either: The Jews acknowledged him (which history denies), or The name “Yeshua” as a confessional, salvific identifier is a later construct
This contradiction exposes the deeper issue already established in this audit: the name was not preserved from prophecy, but reconstructed to solve a theological problem created by substitution.
Isaiah did not say, “You shall call his name Yeshua.” Isaiah said, “You shall call his name IMMANUEL.” That name requires no Jewish endorsement, no linguistic reconstruction, and no retroactive meaning assignment. It stands as a divine declaration, not a human compromise.
=====================================================================================================
Q14 Dr. Elias Vance (SDA Theologian): Matthew 1:21 records the angel saying, “You shall call His name Jesus.” Do you reject this verse as spurious, or how do you reconcile it with your position that “Jesus” is a later construct?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: I do not reject the verse, but I recognize its stratified ontology. It is a Greek translation layer. A Hebrew-speaking angel addressing a Hebrew maiden would have quoted the Hebrew prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 verbatim. He would not have spontaneously invented a Greek personal name that did not yet function as such in the 1st century. The verse preserves the translator’s interpretive gloss, not the verbatim angelic utterance. The authoritative speech-act is the Father’s oracle in Isaiah; the gloss is ministerial. In addition Joseph had this alleged angelic visit in a year 4 BC , show me scriptural evidence that Mathew knew Joseph and that Joseph told anybody contents of the alleged dream.
=====================================================================================================
Q15 Sister Elena Richards (SDA Lay Theologian): Does the precise name truly matter if the heart and intent are directed toward the true Person? We know who we are praying to. Why moralize over linguistics when devotion is the essence?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Because Revelation 14:1 mandates the remnant be sealed with “the Father’s name written on their foreheads.” “Jesus” is a paternal orphan it contains no reference to YHWH or El. Immanuel embeds “El” as divine presence. A right heart in a wrong name is still unsealed. The power is in the revealed name God authorized, not in human sentiment. To pray in a Roman alias is to accept a manageable saviour, stripped of paternal authority, rather than the un-absorbable God-with-us.
Same thinking could be applied to fallen Angels they also serve the master it just happened to be the wrong one, Sister Richards how would you answer this using your own logic ?
====================================================================================================
Q16 Dr. Harlan Stone (SDA Historian): Acts 7:45 records Stephen’s speech where he says Joshua brought the tabernacle into the Promised Land “with Jesus” (Iēsous). This is Joshua son of Nun. How do you explain this textual fact, and why does it not fatally undermine your argument that “Jesus” was a unique or sacred name?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Acts 7:45 is one of the strongest confirmations of my argument. The text uses Iēsous for a military commander (Joshua), proving the name was never inherently sacred or unique. It was a common Greek convention. If Iēsous carried divine, salvific power or ontological distinction, Stephen would not casually apply it to a servant of Moses. The text shows that early Christians did not see Iēsous as a special, divinely inspired name. They treated it as a linguistic placeholder. The claim of sacred uniqueness is a post-hoc fabrication by later theology.
=====================================================================================================
Q17 Dr. Elias Vance (SDA Theologian): Acts 13:6 introduces Elymas the sorcerer, also called Bar-Jesus “son of Jesus” who opposes Paul and is struck blind by him. If the name “Jesus” (Iēsous) carries the unique divine authority you say it should, why does the New Testament allow a magician to bear that name without any apparent ontological conflict?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Acts 13:6 is catastrophic to any claim that the name “Jesus” is inherently sacred. Bar-Jesus (Βαριησοῦς) literally means “son of Jesus/Joshua.” A man bearing this name was a sorcerer and an enemy of the gospel. Paul curses him with blindness.
If the name itself conferred sanctity, protection, or power, Bar-Jesus would have been shielded. He was not. Paul’s action proves that power belongs to the Person, not the syllables. The early believers did not treat Iēsous as a sacred talisman. They treated it as a common name. Only centuries later did tradition theologize the name, retroactively supplying it with meaning it never carried in the text.
====================================================================================================
Q18 Bishop Ignatius Aurelius (Catholic Prelate): You argue that translators preserved Hebrew words like “Amen”, “Hallelujah”, and “Satan” while replacing Yehoshua. Why should we accept that this selective preservation proves deliberate intent to suppress the theophoric name?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: The pattern is not phonetic necessity it is theological selectivity. “Amen” (ἀμήν), “Hallelujah” (ἀλληλουϊά), and “Satan” (Σατανᾶς) are transliterated directly. They are kept because they pose no jurisdictional threat. Amen is neutral; Hallelujah is praise; Satan is the adversary.
Yehoshua, however, embeds “Yeho-” (YHWH). Every utterance confesses the bearer belongs to the Creator. That was unacceptable to an empire seeking universal appeal without Jewish particularity. The selective preservation is strategic omission. Words for the devil were tolerable. A name that bound the Saviour to the Jewish Creator was dangerous. So the empire colonized the name, removed the Yeho-, and left a politically neutral sound.
=====================================================================================================
Q19 Dr. Elias Vance (SDA Theologian): You claim that renaming the Messiah after Joshua a servant and deputy under Moses lowers His rank. Yet the New Testament itself draws typological parallels between Joshua and Jesus (Hebrews 4:8). Why is this not God-ordained typology?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Because typology requires distinction, not identification. Joshua (Yehoshua) was a servant under Moses. The New Testament uses him as a type of the Messiah. But typology demands escalation. When the Greek translators standardized Iēsous for both the type (Joshua) and the antitype (Messiah), they erased that escalation. The King who is “counted worthy of more glory than Moses” (Hebrews 3:3) is now linguistically identified with a deputy under Moses. This is ontological leveling. The name change reduces the King to a servant figure. This is not innocent typology; it is subtle demotion.
====================================================================================================
Q20 Bishop Ignatius Aurelius (Catholic Prelate): You assert that removing “Yeho-/Yah-” from the name severs the Messiah linguistically from the Creator. Yet the New Testament repeatedly affirms the Son’s unity with the Father. Why should the absence of a syllable constitute severance?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Because doctrine is not preserved by abstract statements alone it is preserved by concrete ontological markers. The theophoric name Yehoshua is the Family Seal. “Yeho-” embeds YHWH. When that seal is removed when the name is stripped to Iēsous the linguistic ontology changes. The Son no longer bears the Father’s name in His own.
Rome could never fully worship “God with us” a Messiah whose name constantly invoked YHWH. But a Greek Iēsous, stripped of Hebrew identity, could be marketed to the world as a Universal Saviour. A saviour without the Father is manageable. The removal of Yeho- is strategic severance.
====================================================================================================
Q21 Dr. Miriam Levinson (Jewish Historian): You claim the motive behind the name change was to “hide the Father.” Yet Jewish tradition itself avoids pronouncing the Tetragrammaton and uses substitutes like Adonai. How is this different from what you accuse Christianity of doing?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Jewish caution preserves the name in the text; Greek substitution deletes it. One protects; the other erases. The Greek transliteration removes the paternal syllable entirely. The motive is revealed in the outcome: a Messiah whose name no longer binds Him to the Jewish Creator can be absorbed into pagan frameworks without constantly invoking YHWH. One protects the name; the other hides it.
====================================================================================================
Q22 Cardinal Vittorio Moretti (Catholic Eminence): You argue that a Messiah named Immanuel cannot be absorbed. Yet the Catholic Church has always taught that Christ’s name is exalted above every name. Why do you claim the name “Jesus” was chosen to make the Messiah manageable?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Because supremacy in doctrine can coexist with neutrality in name. Philippians 2:9 exalts “the name that is above every name” but which name? The Greek Iēsous a name stripped of theophoric content. A Messiah named Immanuel (“God with us”) is un-absorbable. He cannot be systematized into a Gentile framework without constant reference to the Jewish Creator. But a Messiah named Iēsous can be spiritualized and redistributed as a universal figure. The name without the Father is manageable.
====================================================================================================
Q23 Dr. Elias Vance (SDA Theologian): You summarize the motives behind the name change as threefold: to delete authority, lower rank, and manufacture a neutral saviour. On what direct evidence do you base this claim of intent?
Thorne Blackwood: The evidence is pattern, selectivity, outcome, and silence.
- Pattern: Every theophoric name loses its divine element, while neutral/negative words are preserved.
- Selectivity: The sound of the adversary is kept; the sound of YHWH is erased.
- Outcome: A neutral Greek word perfect for universal marketing.
- Silence: No church father corrects the loss because it served the emerging Gentile church. Intent is inferred from consistency. When the result is exactly what empire needs a saviour without the Father coincidence becomes implausible.
====================================================================================================
PART III: THE TEXTUAL & CRUCIFIXION AUDIT
Q24 Dr. Harlan Stone (SDA Historian): Mr. Blackwood, you assert repeatedly that the Gospel texts as we possess them are “Greek redactions.” Yet the manuscript tradition does not preserve any Hebrew or Aramaic originals. Explain why the absence of earlier-language manuscripts does not fatally undermine your position.
===================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: The absence of originals is one of the strongest indicators of colonization. When a movement originates in a Semitic culture, addresses a Semitic audience, and revolves around Torah, the expectation of Hebrew source material is structural. Their absence is Evidentiary.
Redaction rarely announces itself. What survives are linguistic fingerprints: anachronistic terms (like “Easter” in Acts 12:4), Roman legal categories, and calendar assumptions foreign to Torah. The trail is not missing it was buried under imperial adoption.
===================================================================================================
Q25 Dr. Elias Vance (SDA Theologian): You argue that the traditional Friday–Sunday crucifixion framework collapses regarding the “three days and three nights” sign. Yet the Church has long understood this phrase idiomatically. Why should a literal reading override consensus?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Because the phrase was offered as a Sign, not a metaphor. Signs are falsifiable by design. When the Messiah invoked Jonah (Matthew 12:40), He specified duration. A Friday afternoon burial to early Sunday morning resurrection does not even reach two full nights. That is not interpretive tension; it is numerical failure. Consensus cannot rescue a broken sign.
====================================================================================================
Q26 Father Lorenzo Rossi (Jesuit Historian): You contest the identification of “Preparation Day” with Friday. Yet by the first century, Paraskeuē was widely used to denote Friday. Are you not ignoring usage?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: I am distinguishing Usage from Origin. Paraskeuē means preparation. Its later association with Friday arises precisely because Rome normalized a fixed weekly Sabbath. John 19:31 explicitly clarifies that the Sabbath following the crucifixion was a “High Day” (megas sabbaton 15th Nisan). That clarification would be unnecessary if the Friday–Saturday model were assumed. The text itself warns you not to default to the weekly model. By the way did God at Exodus give Israelites preparation day or did they create it on their own?
=====================================================================================================
Q27 Dr. Miriam Levinson (Jewish Historian): You place decisive emphasis on the 14th and 15th of Nisan as fixed Torah dates. Yet Second Temple Judaism recognized multiple layers of observance. Why do you insist on a rigid calendrical hierarchy?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Because Torah itself establishes hierarchy. Weekly Sabbaths recur; Annual Sabbaths anchor history. Passover and Unleavened Bread are not flexible customs they are appointed memorials. When an annual Sabbath (15th) coincides with a crucifixion event explicitly framed as Passover (14th), it governs interpretation. The weekly Sabbath cannot override the feast that gives it meaning. Remember the High Priest entering the Sanctuary other then when God said he paid the price by death.
====================================================================================================
Q28 Dr. Harlan Stone (SDA Historian): You criticize both Catholic and Adventist practice regarding the Lord's Supper. Yet Christian theology holds that Christ instituted a new ritual the Eucharist where believers partake of His body and blood. Why do you insist this must remain a Passover meal, and why do you reject the standard understanding of partaking in the “blood"?
===================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: I reject it because Torah forbids it. Leviticus 17:10 is explicit: “I will set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off.” Immanuel, a Torah-keeping Jew, would never command His Jewish disciples to commit a sin by drinking blood literal or symbolic. That concept is a Gentile perversion of the text.But Roman invented Jes-us would as it seems.
The ritual He affirmed was the Passover (Pesach).
- The Bread: Unleavened bread, representing a life without sin (leaven).
- The Cup: Represents the New Covenant cut in His blood, not the drinking of the blood itself. Rome turned this Hebrew memorial into the “Eucharist" a paganized mystery rite. Adventists and Protestants rejected the "Real Presence" but kept the Roman Ritual Form and the "Blood" theology. They should have returned to the Passover Meal on the 14th of Nisan. If Messiah had Passover meal he would have eaten flesh and drank vine but not his flesh or his blood, further more Exodus Passover meal set example of what to eat and what to drink, any variations are not authorised by God or Messiah, but Roman Jesus allegedly is fine with drinking blood and eating flesh symbolically . Pagans do it for real .
====================================================================================================
Q29 Cardinal Vittorio Moretti (Catholic Eminence): Christianity understands itself as guided by the Spirit into truth over time. Why should later development be assumed corrupt rather than organic?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Because development that contradicts original constraints is not organic it is Divergent. The Spirit does not reverse prophecy or relocate authority from heaven to empire. Organic growth preserves genetic code. The moment a system abandons Genesis 1:14 and the Passover chronology, it has not grown it has mutated.
=====================================================================================================
PART IV: THE PROPHETIC AUDIT (Isaiah 4:1)
Q30 Dr. Elias Vance (SDA Theologian): Your manuscript invokes Isaiah 4:1 the “Seven Women” prophecy as a present-tense indictment. On what grounds do you assign it juridical force over modern churches?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: My application is Juridical. Prophecy that identifies conditions remains actionable whenever those conditions reappear. Isaiah 4:1 is about Authority. The text defines three refusals: they reject the man’s Bread (Doctrine), his Garments (Righteousness/Statutes), and his Authority while demanding his Name. That profile is modern. Institutions today claim Christ’s name while rejecting Torah and divine timekeeping. That is not coincidence; it is recurrence. However Dr.Elias i challenge you to prove to me that your organisation is not covered by Isaiah’s Prophecy .
=====================================================================================================
Q31 Sister Elena Richards (SDA Lay Theologian): You accuse Adventists of refusing the “bread” of Torah. Yet Adventism teaches obedience. What is being refused?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: You distinguish "moral law" from "Torah" because tradition taught you to. Torah is a covenantal framework. The bread refused is Statutory Obedience: feast days, calendar authority, judicial distinctions. These are dismissed as “ceremonial” because they resist abstraction. Eating bread means internalizing governance, not just quoting commandments.
=====================================================================================================
Q32 Sister Elena Richards (SDA Lay Theologian): You also claim the “garments” of righteousness are lacking. Adventists emphasize modesty. On what basis do you assert the church is uncovered?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Because righteousness is Distinguishable. Garments separate priest from civilian, holy time from civil time. When a people dress, live, schedule, and worship indistinguishably from the surrounding culture, they are uncovered. Adventists keep Roman time and use Roman nomenclature. That is borrowed attire. To wear the robes of Rome while claiming the righteousness of God is to be spiritually naked. Sister Elena, how does your church interprets Isaiah’s about 7 women on what basis it excludes it self from the 7 women.
=====================================================================================================
Q33 Dr. Miriam Levinson (Jewish Historian): You equate the “name” demanded by the women in Isaiah 4:1 with Christological identity. Why is this not a metaphor?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Because names are legal instruments. Isaiah 4:1 is explicit: “Let us be called by thy name.” This is a claim of Ownership. The women reject governance (bread/garments) but demand identity. That mirrors modern Christianity: claiming Christ’s authority while refusing His calendar and Law. Only naming carries that legal weight. They want the Brand (Christian) without the Burden (Torah). History has prove Isaiah’s vision as correct, 7 women represent all churches that got his name but neither one has got Immanuel name given by God, why is that Dr. Levinson?
=====================================================================================================
Q34 Father Lorenzo Rossi (Jesuit Historian): You accuse the Church of substituting institutional authority for divine authority. Yet structure provides unity. Why is order evidence of corruption?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Order is not corruption. Replacement is. The moment institutional order contradicts original constraints, it ceases to be stewardship and becomes sovereignty. Structure is legitimate only when subordinate. When it legislates beyond mandate (e.g., Easter over Passover), it usurps. Unity achieved by altering foundations is consolidation, not unity. Israel had unity while worshipping golden calf does that make it any better?
=====================================================================================================
Q35 Dr. Elias Vance (SDA Theologian): Believers sincerely identify as Christians in good faith. Why characterize this as identity theft?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: Dr. Vance, Because development does not discard origin. The prophecy is explicit: they want the name without the terms. When identity is claimed while authority is rejected, it becomes appropriation. Calling oneself “Christian” while worshipping on Roman time is rebranding. Good faith does not validate a false passport. Christianity is only as good as the name it carries is it not?
=====================================================================================================
PART V: THE JURISDICTIONAL VERDICTS
Q36 Moderator Harlan Sterling: Summarize the charge against Judaism.
Thorne Blackwood: Jurisdictional Surrender under Coercion. They traded the Moon for survival in 359 CE. The charge is legal displacement.
Q37 Moderator Harlan Sterling: Against Catholicism.
Thorne Blackwood: Institutional Substitution. They replaced divine appointments with civil sacraments to align worship with empire.
Q38 Moderator Harlan Sterling: Against Adventism.
Thorne Blackwood: Insulation of Compromise. They claim remnant status while using Rome’s clock, repairing the wall with untempered mortar.
Q39 Dr. Harlan Stone: Clarify the “Two Clocks Problem.”
Thorne Blackwood: Religious systems use one clock for Feasts (Lunar) and another for Sabbath (Civil/Solar).
This bifurcation proves the weekly Sabbath has been downgraded to civil status. Sacred time cannot be governed by two competing authorities.
Q40 Father Rossi: Why is the year 1524 significant?
Thorne Blackwood: It exposes Retroactive Identity Construction. The letter “J” did not exist until 1524. A name that cannot be spoken in the era it claims to identify cannot be original. It is editorial.
Q41 Dr. Vance: Explain the “Preparation Day” trap.
Thorne Blackwood: It elevates Custom above Law. “Preparation” describes activity, not date. John 19:31 clarifies the following Sabbath was a High Day. Building chronology on custom is methodologically indefensible.
Q42 Moderator Sterling: What is the remedy for the calendar?
Thorne Blackwood: Return jurisdiction to Genesis 1:14.
Allow the luminaries to govern appointed time. Abandon the civil week.
Q43 Moderator Sterling: What is the remedy for the name?
Thorne Blackwood: Return to Isaiah 7:14. Call Him IMMANUEL. It requires no linguistic reconstruction or retroactive justification. It declares Nature, not just function.
PART VI: THE ESCHATOLOGICAL CLOSING (The Final Crisis)
Q44 Dr. Elias Vance (SDA Theologian): Mr. Blackwood, you ignore Paul in Colossians 2:16: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat... or of the new moon... which are a shadow.” How do you maintain their binding nature?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: You read the verdict backward. Paul said “Let no man JUDGE you,” not “stop keeping them.” The context is stoicheion (rudiments of the world/philosophy). Colossians were being judged by ascetics for how they feasted. Furthermore, if the Sabbath is a “shadow” of the Millennium, you cannot remove the shadow until the Reality arrives. To remove it now is to blind the church to prophecy.
=====================================================================================================
Q45 Dr. Harlan Stone (SDA Historian): The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) settled the Easter issue. Why align with the failed “Quartodecimans”?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: They didn’t fail; they were Excommunicated and Hunted. I align with them because they chose apostolic fidelity (14th Nisan) over imperial popularity. Their “failure” to survive the Roman purge is evidence of their persecution, not their error.
====================================================================================================
Q46 Father Lorenzo Rossi (Jesuit Historian): You speak of the “Lord’s Day” in Revelation 1:10. On what textual basis do you define it?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: I define it by the Creator’s ownership. The only day God ever claimed as “My Holy Day” (Isaiah 58:13) is the Sabbath. But since the Sabbath is Lunar, the “Lord’s Day” cannot be Sunday or Saturday. John was in the Spirit on God’s Time, observing a Lunar Sabbath Creators 7th Day.
====================================================================================================
Q47 Moderator Harlan Sterling (The Final Verdict): Mr. Blackwood, this Tribunal is coming to a close , please deliver your final forensic statement.
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: What has been proven:
- The Theft of Time: The luminaries were fired; Caesar’s clock was hired. The Two Clocks Trap proves the Sabbath is civil.
- The Theft of Identity: The 1524 Trap proves the name "Jesus" is a modern construct. Immanuel remains the only uncolonized name.
- The Theft of Narrative: The Preparation Trap proves the Friday crucifixion is a custom, not a law.
- The Theft of Authority: Tradition guards substitution as if it were revelation.
The evidence does not demand agreement. It demands decision. One may continue to worship within a system designed for commerce, control, and convenience or return to the mechanisms God placed beyond human reach. The luminaries for Time. Immanuel for Identity. The record is complete. The choice is yours.
Extension sought by 3 Participants
PART VII: THE SMOKING GUNS (The Evidentiary Lock)
Q48 Dr. Elias Vance (SDA Theologian): Mr. Blackwood, you claim the continuous seven-day cycle is mathematically impossible under Torah law. Yet Genesis 1 establishes a simple 1–7 rhythm. Why do you complicate this with Ezekiel 46:1? How does a prophecy about a gate prove the weekly cycle is false?
=====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: It proves it through Logical Non-Contradiction. Ezekiel 46:1 establishes three categories of days with specific laws for the East Gate:
- The Sabbath: The Gate must be OPEN.
- The New Moon: The Gate must be OPEN.
- The Six Working Days: The Gate must be SHUT.
Here is the trap for your Roman Week: In a continuous cycle, the New Moon eventually falls on a "Tuesday" (or any working day).
- If the New Moon falls on a Tuesday, the Law requires the Gate be OPEN (because it is New Moon).
- But because it is a "working day" (Tuesday), the Law requires the Gate be SHUT.
The Gate cannot be open and shut at the same time. This physical impossibility proves that the New Moon cannot be a working day. It stands apart from the week. The New Moon resets the count, creating a "Third Category" of time that prevents the collision. The Roman Calendar makes God’s Law mathematically impossible.
==================================================================================================
Q49 Sister Elena Richards (SDA Traditionalist): You speak harshly against the church, calling it the "Synagogue of Satan" based on Revelation 3:9. Adventists believe we are Spiritual Israel. Why do you apply this slur to a people who keep the Commandments?
==================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood: I apply it because the definition of "Jew" (Spiritual Israel) is Covenantal, not sentimental. A "Jew" in the Apocalypse is one who keeps the Torah, the Time, and the Name of the King.
The text defines the "Synagogue of Satan" as those who “say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie.” If you claim to be Israel (the Remnant) but you:
- Keep Rome’s Time (Civil Saturday),
- Pray to Greece’s Name (Jesus),
- And reject Zion’s Statutes (Feasts/Torah), Then you are masquerading. You are a Gentile church wearing the robes of Israel. You have stolen the title without keeping the terms. That is the definition of the Synagogue of Satan a counterfeit Zion.
==================================================================================================
Q50 Sister Elena Richards (SDA Traditionalist): Adventists celebrate the Ordinances (Foot Washing and Communion) once every quarter. You call this a "Severance Strategy." Is this not simply a pastoral decision?
====================================================================================================
Thorne Blackwood:
Because in Scripture time is not a backdrop to events; time creates the event. God does not authorize sacred acts in abstraction. He appoints them in time, fixes them to heaven, and binds obedience to precision. From Creation itself, the authority to govern sacred appointments is assigned to the luminaries, not to institutions, councils, or convenience. Passover is one of those appointments. It is not a symbol that may be reenacted at will; it is an annual memorial fixed by statute to the fourteenth day of the first month beginning of the 15th. Its authority does not come from emotion or repetition but from exact obedience to the date God appointed. Remove the date and the command ceases to exist.
When Messiah Immanuel ate with His disciples, He did not invent a new ordinance and He did not inaugurate a new ritual. He kept Passover, exactly as it had been commanded since Exodus. What later tradition calls the “Last Supper” is, by Torah definition, nothing more and nothing less than a Passover meal. Scripture provides no authorization for a freestanding ritual called “the Lord’s Supper” detached from the Passover date. The breach occurs when time is altered. By moving the meal from the 14th/15th of Nisan, which is annual, lunar, and divinely fixed, to a quarterly schedule determined by administrative decision, the Church guarantees that the ritual will almost never coincide with God’s appointment. This is not incidental; it is structural. A quarterly civil cycle cannot align with a lunar feast. Once the time is changed, the act itself is no longer the same act.
At that moment the ritual is severed from the Calendar of God and reattached to the calendar of empire, to civil time, fiscal quarters, and institutional convenience. What was once obedience to heaven becomes governance from below. Having severed the ritual from its appointed time, the institution then substitutes it with a shortened, abstracted ceremony stripped of Exodus, emptied of chronology, and reshaped to conform to Roman liturgical form. Whether one accepts or rejects Roman sacramental theology is irrelevant; the structure remains Roman. The ceremony now claims divine authority while operating entirely outside divine jurisdiction.
This is where Isaiah’s prophecy becomes decisive, and it must be read without anachronism. Isaiah did not know Christ, Christianity, or later theological titles. He knew only one messianic name: Immanuel. When the seven women say, “Only let us be called by your name,” they are not asking for a religious label. They are demanding the authority, legitimacy, and covering of God-with-us while explicitly refusing His governance and His order. They will eat their own bread, define doctrine themselves; they will wear their own garments, define righteousness themselves; but they want the name, the legitimacy, the protection. The quarterly “Lord’s Supper” is the exact expression of that posture: bread chosen by men, eaten on man-made time, while invoking the authority of Immanuel.
And the conclusion must be spoken plainly. There is no biblically authorized Lord’s Supper. There is no freestanding Last Supper. There is only Passover. There was Passover in Egypt, Passover under the kings, Passover in exile, and Messiah Immanuel kept Passover with His disciples exactly as it had been kept since Exodus. Anything else is not development, not clarification, and not growth. It is replacement. A ritual detached from God’s appointed time is no longer a memorial of redemption; it is evidence of jurisdictional theft, the taking of Immanuel’s name while rejecting Immanuel’s calendar, authority, and law. The calendar proves the act. The alteration proves the violation. The verdict follows.
Comments