ON THE BRINK OF CATASTROPHE

 

“‘This world is headed for absolute catastrophe at 1000 miles an hour and we are not even going to die with dignity. That's the horror of it all.’   The man who has everything and has done everything appears to agonise over what still needs to be done - including saving the planet. ‘That's what keeps me going. I mean, enough is enough.’"  (The Weekend Australian,  Global Warfare, March 23, 1994).

 

These are the words of Ted Turner, owner of the highly successful CNN International Broadcasting Network, a man who knows news and understands world developments.  Since 1990, we have been proclaiming a similar message to the leaders of the world, yet everyone still behaves as if everything is normal.

America's businessmen know more about the true condition of the world than do its prophets. At a time when their voice is needed more than ever, its prophets have fallen silent.  Why?  Is it because they know that if we are right they are doomed?

We have proven more than once that the gospel they are preaching is not the right one, that there has been a great falling away from the truth of God, yet they continue to ignore our Gospel and the damage they are causing to their followers and the world with their gospel.  

Since we started this work, in accordance with biblical prophecies, we have shown “the Way” (Acts 9:2; 19:9,23; 24:14,22), and revealed more biblical prophecies than anyone else, yet our messages continue to be ignored and we still "cry in the wilderness".  In previous editions, we revealed the prophecies about the “false prophet”, the "abomination of desolation", the “holy place”, and others, and in this edition, we continue that work by revealing the prophecy about the end time "beast" which will plunge the world into the great tribulation.

Biblical prophecies are revealed before they are fulfilled, as a warning of God's impending intervention in world affairs. For the world this is bad news, but for the people of God this is great news. Our salvation is truly at hand. There has never been greater proof of God's involvement in world affairs than fulfilled prophecy. The time has arrived for humanity to choose between God and Satan, between the ways of life and the ways of death.

The leading forces in the world are determined to wipe out any trace of holiness from the world.  They do not realise that in so doing they are leading the world to catastrophe and digging their own grave. The United Nations, with whom rested the hope of humanity for a world of "peace, justice, and prosperity," has proven once again that it is totally bankrupt, morally and spiritually.

The genocide in Bosnia is a case in point. The UN tied the hands of one of the combatants, and left the other armed to the teeth. Then they claimed the high moral ground on pretence of even-handedness.  The commander of the UN troops in Bosnia even went before the world media to denounce the Bosnian soldiers as cowards for running away from the advancing Serbian forces. They expected the Bosnians to fight with handguns against the Serbian tanks. 

The Bosnian government and people fell into the trap of believing the United Nations’ guarantees of protection in the so-called "safe heavens" in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

What the media headlines do not tell you is that there is a hidden agenda in the Bosnian war. European leaders do not want to see a Muslim state established in the heart of Europe. Hence, their reluctance to intervene and stop the Serbian onslaught.  It is only after the Bosnian government accepted a form of federated union with Croatia that the first serious attempts were made to force a settlement.

What we have in the Balkans, and in many other places, is not a localised ethnic war, but a fully-fledged religious war. The Orthodox Church in particular is on the march, and the world better take note. The Russian Orthodox Church may have suffered a serious setback when its wayward child - the communist system - collapsed, but its dream of conquering the world has not diminished.

As those in power around the world are beginning to realise that this planet cannot sustain even the present population let alone the explosion which threatens to double it within a generation, you will see leaders taking desperate measures in an effort to maximise their people's survival. Since no other force has proven as enduring and as capable of rousing people's hopes and pride in times of national and international stress, you will soon see religious leaders calling on their faithful to march again under their religion's standards. The results will be catastrophic for the world. Jesus' warning that unless God intervenes to put a stop to this human madness no flesh would be left alive, will finally be fulfilled.

The slide into the precipice has been accelerated by the recent decision of the United Nations to become the moral and spiritual policeman of the world.  Not in upholding God's law, but Satan's rule.

The case of the Tasmanian homosexual who took his case to the United Nations is well known. The UN Human Rights Committee demanded that the Tasmanian Government overturn its anti-gay provisions from its Criminal Code because they violated "basic human rights".

 

"'I am amazed that a UN human rights committee would consider it a basic human right that people should be able to commit sodomy,' said the Tasmanian Attorney-General, Mr Ron Cornish.

[But] a Melbourne University law lecturer who has been an adviser to the Tasmanian gays, Mr Wayne Morgan, said the UN findings on sexual orientation made it likely that other cases of discrimination on similar grounds from other countries would succeed."  (SMH,  April 12, 1994).

 

Of course! All that is needed is for the ground to be broken in one country and the floods of hell are opened everywhere.  People may well remember that the first public demonstrations by the "gay liberation movement" took place in New York in the early 1970's. Only two decades later this cancer is well established all over the world and upheld by many national, and now international, governing bodies.  In all major world centres, the most vocal and visible demonstrators are those demanding their "liberation": "homosexual liberation", "feminist liberation", "lesbian liberation", "animal liberation", "paedophile liberation", "gluttony liberation" and now "transgender liberation".

The day the UN Human Rights Committee decided for homosexuality, the Australian public broadcasting network - the ABC - presented a lengthy panel discussion on the plight of the transvestite people ("transgenders", as they like to be called). They were complaining that the UN decision does nothing for them. Being free to do whatever they want in private is not good enough. They want to be able to go out in public, tell people about their gender preferences, and be loved for it.  But when they do that they say that they usually get bashed, and they wonder why? Now, they want the United Nations to do something for them too.  And, nice and obliging as those at the UN are, they will no doubt find a way to uphold the transgenders' "basic rights" too.  

The degrees of moral, spiritual and physical degradations in this world have reached such a level that unless God intervenes to save His people soon there will be nothing left to save. The world is quickly reaching the level in which it will be impossible for anyone to lead a holy life.

Jesus Christ said that His followers are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavour, it is good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot (Matt.5:13). The earth without the people of God will be good for nothing but to be destroyed. The Scriptures say that "when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished" (Dan. 12:7). Who are the holy people in these dangerous times if not those who preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God?

People around the world may have heard of, or seen on their television sets, the charade called "Sydney Gay Mardi Gras Festival" which takes place in this city once a year. Sydney is fast becoming the world centre for the most audacious homosexual behaviour.  During their festival, which is attended by their likes from all over the world, they compete in displaying themselves in a parade through the streets of Sydney in highly provocative and vulgar poses and costumes. After the parade, they congregate in a large stadium where they indulge in their "basic rights" all night long.

During the parade, they vilify, ridicule, and lampoon political and religious figures, angels and deities, and anyone they hold a grudge against. One of their favourite caricatures is dressing like Catholic nuns and calling themselves, "sisters of perpetual indulgence".      

 

Last year, the New South Wales Government introduced draconian legislation that prohibits anyone from "vilifying" homosexual people, but does not prohibit the homosexuals from doing the same to the "straight" people.  In this state, one can blaspheme, take the name of God in vain, and say anything he wants against God, Jesus Christ and the angels, but heaven help those who dare speak against a homosexual. They can lose their house and spend 20 years in jail.

New South Wales has become the first state in the history of the world to have officially turned from Christianity to paganism.  The leaders of traditional Christianity supported the passage of the gay anti-vilification bill in the NSW parliament. One major denomination even spent heavily on media advertising in support of that bill.  Because they no longer regard homosexuality as a sin, they want to prevent us from speaking against it too. But we cannot obey a law that goes against the law of God and against our conscience.

The New South Wales and Australian Governments provided many thousands of dollars to prostitute collectives and hundreds of thousands of dollars to homosexual organisations. Why?  For "educational purposes”!  Naturally they provided nothing for us; we are not "educational".  Admittedly, we did not request anything - we are bound by our Christian principles never to impose ourselves on the public. Nevertheless, since our magazines were sent to all the State and Federal ministers, as they are to all the world leaders, they could have made a gesture of support.

Throughout history, the servants of God received more honour from foreigners than from their own people. We are grateful to the Kings, Presidents, Prime Ministers and other national leaders who have sent us words of gratitude and encouragement.  However, this is no longer enough.  Nothing short of complete repentance will suffice this time. No refuge in concrete bunkers, in deserts, or in mountaintops will save anyone from the coming wrath of God.

One of our readers suggested that we go to the church leaders and tell them about our work because, "many would be happy to help us produce a better quality magazine." Our articles, she said, deserve to be made known to more people. She did not know that these magazines have been sent to as many national and religious leaders as we could locate.  It made little difference.

Now our call for repentance is accompanied by definitive proof that dark clouds are gathering from the north over the whole world.  If they ignore these writings now they do so at their own peril and that of their own people.   

 

"Repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and receiving of the Holy Spirit, for the Kingdom of Heaven is truly at hand" (Acts 2:38; Matt.3:2)...

 

“My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also FOR THE WHOLE WORLD.

“Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in Him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him...  He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now. He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him...

“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world - the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life - is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

“Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.   (1John 2:1-4, 9-10, 15-17).

 

 

 

 

 

 

                       THE “SPLENDOUR” OF THE CATHOLIC “TRUTH”

 

In 1993, the Vatican published Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, “The Splendour of Truth”.   We decided to  investigate  what  the  Splendour  of  the  [Catholic]  Truth”  is all  about.  This is what  we  found.  

        

Millions of people around the world go to church on Sundays and celebrate Easter, Christmas and various saints days in the belief that these are the Holy Days Jesus Christ wanted them to observe.  What they do not know is that even today, nearly two thousand years after the establishment of the first New Testament churches, there are still a large number of Christians who worship on Saturdays and celebrate the Passover, Days of Unleavened Bread, Day of Atonement and the Feasts of Weeks, Trumpets and Tabernacles.     

Sometime in the history of the Christian Church, a great schism occurred which split the "body of Christ" into two irreconcilable camps. The questions are: when did this schism occur, why did it happen, who was responsible for it, and which side should one follow for it is clear that both camps cannot be right.

Whenever this issue has been debated in the past, a whole range of obscure, difficult to obtain, ancient sources have been quoted to support one viewpoint or another, with the result that the average people were in no position to discover the truth and decide for themselves. It was more convenient to leave the matter to those who were "educated" in the Scriptures, in the belief that they knew what they were doing. Surely thousands of priests, ministers, church leaders, evangelists and millions of their followers could not be wrong, could they?

You will be surprised to know how many people preach what they ought not to and how little attention most churchmen have paid to the teachings of the Bible.  Fortunately, our society has provided the means by which anyone can discover the truth without much difficulty. All one has to do is go to the local library and search in any of the major encyclopaedias under such topics as : Sunday, Easter, Christmas, Passover, Quartodecimans, calendar, Roman religion, Holy Days, and whatever other topics these articles may refer you to. Of course, the indispensable guide in such studies is the Bible for, in the final analysis, it alone can tell us what we need to know about the correct Christian Holy Days, salvation, and any other questions of Christian concern.

If you undertake such a study, you will discover that at the time Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, a major controversy erupted over the question of the correct Holy Days. A minority group advocated the observance of the "Jewish" Holy Days, while the majority sought to establish a new set of "Christian" Holy Days. The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD resolved this dispute in favor of the majority and decreed that those who adhered to the Jewish Holy Days be declared heretics.   The problem is that when the Roman ecclesiastical authorities took this decision, they did not use the Bible as their guide, but the writings of the so-called, "Church Fathers."  What follows is an account of the implications of this decision from the respected Encyclopaedia Britannica.

 

"The Julian calendar brought order into the computation of dates and, being in principle a solar calendar, was successful in correlating the civil and astronomical years over a long period, thus keeping the seasons and the months in step. However, it could act only as a guide for the regulation of the dates of religious festivals in the Christian Church because the chief of these were founded on events dated by the Jewish lunar calendar. The Christian Church had therefore to find a method of reckoning these festivals and of synchronizing the observance of each by Christians throughout the world."

 

Why? Why couldn't the new "Christian Church" continue to reckon these religious festivals according to the Jewish lunar calendar? The Jews had been observing these festivals for over a thousand years and had no difficulty synchronising their observance in the countries in which they were scattered by the various invaders. By the time this became an issue with the Romans, the earlier Christian Church had been observing these "religious festivals" for more than two centuries too. They did not have difficulties with the lunar calendar either.

It was not the Christian Church which needed a new way of reckoning these "religious festivals," but the Roman Church, and that for reasons other than the ones stated here, as it shall become obvious shortly.

 

"This necessitated the construction of a combined lunisolar calendar. Those festivals based on Jewish reckoning were movable, i.e., they were held on a different date each year in consequence of their dependence on the phases of the moon; while those established by later ecclesiastical decree, e.g., commemorations of saints, could be immovable, i.e., on the same date each year, through being reckoned by the solar calendar and not by the lunar.  The earliest question to be decided was the date of Easter, which is the most important of the church's festivals and from which the dates of all other "movable" feasts are determined."  (Underlining ours).

                                                                                                                                                             

Indeed, if Easter could be given a new date and meaning and be isolated from its Jewish roots, all the other "Jewish" Holy Days could be done away with too and a new set of "Christian" Holy Days be created.

 

"There arose by the 2nd century AD, disputes among Christians concerning the date on which it was proper to celebrate Easter. Because the crucifixion occurred before the Jewish Passover,"

 

The crucifixion occurred on the day of the Jewish Passover, not before it. It occurred at the beginning of the Days of Unleavened Bread. This is what Moses told the people of Israel when they were delivered from Egyptian slavery: "And it shall be, when your children say to you, 'What do you mean by this service?' that you shall say, 'It is the Passover sacrifice of the Lord, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households'" (Ex. 12:26-27). Jesus Christ became the Passover sacrifice for those who believe - He died on that day not before it. 

 

"Easter was computed according to the Jews' mode of determining this festival. The Passover was ordained to be celebrated on the 14th day of the first month of the new year; i.e., of the lunar month whose 14th day falls on or next following the vernal equinox.

 

Notice how cleverly and unassumingly the authors cross over from Easter to Passover. They know that originally Easter was another name for Passover, but from here on Easter and Passover take on different meanings. "The word Easter, which comes from the Anglo-Saxon, is a term derived from the pagan goddess of the dawn. The Latin variation, Pascha, is from Hebrew antecedents; it is derived from the Passover, or their freedom from the Egyptians, which is celebrated in the Jewish calendar of feasts." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, article under Easter, p.177).  Back to the Britannica:

 

 "However, because the civil calendar was of solar origin and because Sunday was the main day for Christian congregational worship, it became generally agreed that the Sunday next following the date of the old Jewish Passover should be the date set aside for Easter."

 

Sunday was not the main day for Christian congregational worship during the apostolic age. Saturday was.

In many countries, Easter is still called Pascha - the Latin name for Passover. The Romans, however, sought to change both its date and its meaning for reasons which had nothing to do with standardising its observance throughout the empire, and more to do with synchronising its observance to coincide with the worship of an old god - the Sun god - whose symbol it became shortly afterwards.

 

"There were, however, those who wished to take a more literal view and to observe the exact Jewish date and so celebrate Easter on the 14th day of the lunar month; i.e., on the day usually conceded to be the time of the full moon."

 

The early Christians celebrated the Passover on the 14th of the lunar month because the Apostles did so.  For them, the question of changing the "Jewish" Holy Days with "Christian" Holy Days never arose. They simply continued to observe the Old Testament Holy Days in the spirit of the New Testament.  It was only when the Romans took interest in Christianity that this became an issue.

 

"These literalists, or Quartodecimans, as they were called, were a minority and were regarded as heretics.

 

Wasn't that wonderful? People who were not Christians came into the Church and regarded as heretics those who were observing their Christian traditions. 

 

"In 325 the ecumenical Council of Nicaea ordained that Easter day should thenceforth be celebrated on the Sunday immediately following either that full moon which occurs on the day of the vernal equinox or, if there is no full moon on that day, then on the Sunday following that full moon which occurs next after the day of the vernal equinox or, if there is no full moon on that day, then on the Sunday following that full moon which occurs next after the day of the vernal equinox.  In order to prevent the festival from coinciding with either the Jewish Passover or with the celebrations of the Quartodecimans, special provision was made, should the full moon actually occur on a Sunday, to defer the celebrations of Easter until the next Sunday.” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Easter and the Ecclestiasical Calendar,” Vol. 4, 1970, p. 616).

 

At last we have the truth: the main purpose for changing the Christian Holy Days with Roman Holy Days was to break any connection between them and their Jewish background. How many people know that originally Easter meant Passover and that it commemorated not the resurrection, but the crucifixion of Jesus Christ?

The impression the Roman ecclesiastical authorities wanted to convey was that the changes they instituted at the Council of Nicaea freed the Christian Church from its Jewish entanglements. What occurred in fact was the appearance of a new church - the Roman Church - which had no resemblance to the Churches of God established by the Apostles: not in beliefs, doctrines, practices, nor in Holy Days.  

The Romans sought to differentiate between the Jewish and the Quartodeciman celebrations of the Passover as if they were different. In meaning they were different - the Christians no longer sacrificed lambs on that day - but in their date of observance they were not. They both celebrated it on the 14th day of the first lunar month. The name Quartodeciman comes from the Latin term for fourteen.

The Romans made the Passover the main target of their changes because that Holy Day represented the connection between the Christian Church and its Jewish background. Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself on that day, according to the Old Testament sacrificial laws. In the Old Testament, Passover signified the passing of Israel from slavery to freedom, while in the New Testament it signifies our passing from sin to holiness, from the bondage of Satan to the freedom of God, from death to life. Without the background of the Jewish Scriptures, not only does Jesus' sacrifice become meaningless, but His divinity is obliterated too.   Now a few things from the New Encyclopaedia Britannica:

 

"Regular Christian corporate worship on Sundays goes back to the apostolic age, but New Testament writings do not explain how the practice began. Jewish Christians probably kept the Sabbath at the synagogue, then joined their Gentile fellow believers for Christian worship after the close of the Sabbath at sundown, either in the evening or early Sunday morning."

 

Notice how the Romans justified changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. They acknowledged that the Scriptures did not "explain" worship on Sundays, that the "Jewish Christians probably kept the Sabbath at the synagogue." Not probably, but surely, for we have the writings of the Apostles which tell us that they did so.  After the Jewish Christians were expelled from the synagogues, they continued to worship on the Sabbath and observe their "Jewish" Holy Days. When the Gentile Christians joined them, they also worshipped on the Sabbath and observed the Old Testament Holy Days.

The explanation that the Jewish Christians kept the Sabbath at the synagogue, then joined the Gentile Christians in their Sunday worship, would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that it tries to hide an apostasy of universal proportions. 

 

"When the church became predominantly Gentile, Sunday remained as a customary day of worship."

 

It remained? How was it a customary day of worship before then? Who kept it as a day of worship before the Gentiles became predominant - the Jews? The Encyclopaedia Britannica writers and editors ought to have researched their facts better. This is nothing short of an apologetic work for the Catholic Church.

 

"Assemblies for the Eucharist were common on Saturday, however, as well as on Sunday in the Eastern churches into the 5th century, and Eastern canons forbade the practice, customary in the Roman Church, of fasting on the Sabbath.

The term Lord's Day, signifying the triumph of Christ in His resurrection and the beginning of a new creation, was in use by the end of the 1st century (Revelation 1:10; Didache 14; Ignatius of Antioch, Magnesians 9:1). Some writers referred to the Sabbath as the rest promised to the people of God at the end of time and to Sunday as "the eight day," or beginning of a new world (Hebrew 4:4-11; Letter of Barnabas 15)."

            

Sabbath was not the day of rest promised to the people of God at the end of time. It was a day of rest for the people of God from the beginning of time. What "some writers" thought is totally irrelevant and wrong, and that is proven by the fact that they counted Sunday as "the eighth day" in a week of seven days.   

 

"In 321 the Roman emperor Constantine decreed Sunday to be a legal holiday and forbade all trade and work other then necessary agricultural labor. Later emperors extended the prohibition to include public amusements in the theatre and circus. Church councils of the period were more concerned to enforce the obligation of Sunday worship, the earliest being the Spanish Council of Elvira  c. 300; but a synod of Laodicea (c.381) enjoined Christians not to "Judaize" but to work on Sabbath and rest, if possible on the Lord's Day.

 

Isn't that extraordinary?  Not only was the day of worship changed from the Sabbath to Sunday, but also people had to prove that they did not "Judaize" by working on the Sabbath. A total onslaught on the people who wished to remain faithful to the Christian ideals and practices established by the Apostles.

 

"The Old Testament commandment of Sabbath rest received a spiritual interpretation [what interpretation?] from the Church Fathers when they applied it to Sunday; e.g., Augustine of Hippo held that the Sabbath rest from servile work meant abstention from sin (compare Tract. in Joannis, Book III, chapter 19; Book XX, chapter 2).

"A literal application of the Sabbath law to Sunday became evident in conciliar canons and civil laws of the Frankish kingdoms in the 6th century, climaxed by Charlemagne's capitulary adopted by the Council of Aachen, 789 (canon 80).

 

So, contrary to the initial assertion that "regular Christian corporate worship on Sundays goes back to the apostolic age," it now transpires that the change of worship from Sabbath to Sunday was an extraordinarily lengthy process lasting well into the sixth century. In fact, it lasted until our time, for the Romans never managed to completely obliterate from their dominions the Christians who continued to worship on the Sabbath and observe the same Holy Days as Jesus Christ and His Apostles did.

 

“Medieval legislation thereafter repeatedly sought to enforce the ‘holiday’ of Sunday, as also of many other holy days, for the benefit of serfs and labourers.   Sabbatarian laws applied to Sunday were also continued by the Protestant Reformation."

 

The term "Sabbatarian" comes from the Sabbath - the seventh day of the week - and should never be applied to Sunday. Using it in this context is misleading and devious.

 

"The Acts of Uniformity of Edward VI in 1552 and Elizabeth I in 1559 required all persons to attend worship on Sunday, the later imposing a fine for neglect to do so. The Church of England's Canons of 1604 (number 13) make similar provision. Many Puritans were strongly Sabbatarian in sentiment. Some of them referred to Sunday as ‘the Sabbath’."

                                                                                                                                                                

So, first tell people to worship on Sunday, and then tell them to pretend it is the Sabbath.  Puritan logic for you.

 

"In the Puritan colonies of New England, the so-called Blue Laws of Sunday observance were especially severe. Today some states and cities in the United States have statutes restricting certain trades and amusements on Sunday. Church laws continue to insist upon the moral obligation to attend worship every Lord's Day." (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Ed., vol.16, History of the Church Year, p. 305).

 

Moral obligation comes from human beings; spiritual obligation comes from God. The American Puritans insist upon moral, not spiritual obligation. If they insisted on spiritual obligation, they would be forced to worship on the Sabbath, for that is the day which was sanctioned by God as a day of worship and rest.

Encyclopaedia Britannica makes some interesting comments also under the entry for Roman religion.

 

"Christianity, unique in its universal charity and unique also in its demand for a noble effort of faith in Jesus' blend of divinity and humanity, was the religion that prevailed in the Roman world."

 

Wrong! Christianity did not prevail, but rather, was prevailed upon by the Roman world. What ensued is a Christianity which is unrecognisable by the standards of the Apostles.

 

"It satisfied the emperor Constantine's impulsive need for divine support, and from AD 312 onward, by a complex and gradual process, it became the official religion of the empire.

For a time, coins and other monuments continued to link Christian doctrines with the worship of the Sun, to which Constantine had been addicted previously."

 

This then is the reason why the Romans changed the day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday - Emperor Constantine was "addicted" to worshipping his Sun god on that day. How many Christians know why they worship on Sunday?

 

"But even when this phase came to an end, Roman paganism continued to exert other, permanent influences, great and small.”

 

Indeed, virtually all the Roman "great and small" pagan influences are found in the traditions of the Catholic Church today.

 

"The emperors passed on to the popes the title of chief priest, pontifex maximus

 

Wrong again! The emperors acquired that title from the chief Roman priests in the first place.  At the height of his power, Augustus usurped that title for himself and from him it passed on to all Roman emperors until close to the end of the empire.

For a while, the emperors eclipsed the Popes, but after the decline of the empire, the Popes became the undisputed leaders of the Western world.  When the title “Pontifex Maximus” was handed back to them, the Popes accepted it without hesitation as their right.

The Popes continued to dominate the Roman religion and serve in the temple as chief priests surrounded by the Vestal Virgins throughout the empire in the same way that they now serve in the Vatican surrounded by the nuns. The organisation and hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church is virtually identical to that of the ancient Roman religion.

 

"The saints, with their distribution of functions, often seemed to perpetuate the many numina of ancient tradition.  The ecclesiastical calendar retains numerous remnants of pre-Christian festivals - notably Christmas, which blends elements including both the feast of the Saturnalia and the birthday of Mithra.”

 

Now this has to be the most astonishing admission of all.  People celebrate Christmas not because it is the birth of Christ, but the birth of Mithra, His spiritual enemy. And what do the priests and ministers tell their followers? That it is the birth of Christ.  How would you feel if your family and friends exchanged gifts and were being merry on the day your enemy was born, then said that they celebrated your birthday? Bear in mind that neither Jesus Christ nor His Apostles celebrated Jesus' birthday. The Bible does not sanction the celebration of birthdays.

 

"But, most of all, the mainstream of Western Christianity owed ancient Rome the firm discipline that gave it stability and shape, combining insistence on established forms with the possibility of recognising that novelties need not be excluded, since they were implicit from the start." (New Encyc. Britannica, 15th ed., Vol.18, Roman Religion).

 

Rome did not give Christianity "discipline...stability and shape." It gave it intolerance, deception, hatred, murder and lies. It killed the true Christians and forced underground those who escaped.

Now this is what The New Catholic Encyclopedia says about Easter:

 

"Controversy surrounded the determination of the date of Easter from the 2d to the 8th century...  The Asiatic practice in the 2d century of observing Easter on the day of the Jewish Passover conflicted with the Roman custom of celebrating Easter on Sunday, the day of the Resurrection.

Occasionally, the Quartodecimans celebrated Easter on the day that other Christians were observing Good Friday. Originally both observances were allowed, but gradually it was felt incongruous that Christians should celebrate Easter on a Jewish feast, and unity in celebrating the principal Christian feast was called for. However, an attempt by Pope Victor I (189-198) to impose Roman usage proved unsuccessful in the face of a determined opposition led by Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus. Although Quartodecimanism waned in the 3d century, it survived in some Asiatic Churches as late as the 5th century."

 

Notice how the earliest attempt to force the change of Christian observance from Passover to Easter was made by a Pope. Why? Because "unity in celebrating the principal Christian feast was called for." Who called for it? We are not told, but it was the Romans not the Christians.  If unity was called for, why did they not unite behind those who, from the beginning, have been observing the same Holy Days as the Apostles?

 

"The Council of Arles (314) hoped to achieve uniformity by observing Easter on the same day as the See of Rome, which was charged with announcing the date in advance through circular letters. A similar effort was made in the East at the Council of Nicaea (325). The exact wording of the Nicene decree is uncertain, but it apparently approved the practice of celebrating Easter on the Sunday after both the 14th of Nisan and the vernal equinox, thus implicitly rejecting both Quartodeciman and Jewish calendars" (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.5, Easter Controversy, p.8).

 

The Romans never accepted the inalienable authority of the Scriptures. For them, tradition and the decrees of the Pope play a more important role. As they felt superior to their conquered peoples, they distanced themselves from their culture and religion.  When Christianity proved irrepressible, they sought to accommodate it within their old religious practices and beliefs. They discarded everything "Jewish", and gave Christianity a new face. But the new Christianity retained few connections with the original church, except in name. Moreover, the new Christianity became the enemy of the true Churches of God and sought to eliminate them by every means. That is the "splendour" of the Catholic "truth"!

 

 

 

 

 

THE QUARTODECIMAN CONTROVERSY FLARES AGAIN

 

When the Quartodecimans were declared heretics they did not disappear from the empire, they simply went underground. Throughout the history of the Roman Empire, and later during the Catholic Holy Roman empires, these "heretics" surfaced again and again. Whenever they were asked to explain their position, they invoked the Bible as their authority. But showing the Bible to a Catholic priest during the Middle Ages was like putting a red flag in front of a bull. The conclusion was inevitable: the Bible had to go.

So the Catholic Church decreed that no one was to possess and read that book outside the church. For centuries, anyone found owning a Bible risked being declared a heretic. The church's explanation was that only its priests could interpret it. Untrained people, they said, were bound to come to erroneous conclusions which were damaging both to themselves and to the church.

This interdiction was easy to police as long as the Bible could be proliferated only by hand written manuscripts.  But with the development of mechanised printing and mass media this became an impossible task. The Protestant Reformation and Counter-Reformation would not have been possible without these important technical developments.

After the original shock, the Catholic Church went on to prosper and expand again, even managing to bring back some of its lost sheep, as it happens these days with the disaffected Anglicans after the ordination of women. (One can argue that going from the Anglican to the Catholic Church is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire, but for many people belonging to a church is more important than following the Scriptures).

Earlier this century, the Catholic Church found itself on the defensive again when a new wave of fundamentalist churches revived the old Quartodeciman controversy with unexpected intensity and far reaching consequences. Unlike the Protestant Reformation, which only skimmed the surface of the Bible, the Churches of God sought to return to the fundamentals of the church before the Council of Nicaea corrupted them.   But unlike in ancient times, when the Roman ecclesiastical authorities found it easier to eliminate the "heretics," nowadays they are forced to explain their actions by the standards of the Bible. That is difficult for them to do because, from the beginning, the Catholic Church placed more importance on tradition and the edicts of the Pope than on the Bible.

Most of the Catholic beliefs, doctrines and practices can be traced back to pagan times before the Roman Empire became Christian. Of the few which claim to be of Christian origin, most originated with the so-called "Church Fathers" who themselves can be shown to have been apostate believers. Even the title "Church Fathers" should warn people that something is not right, for Jesus Christ forbade His followers to call anyone on earth (spiritual) father (Matt.23:9).

When the Churches of God decided to raise the Quartodeciman issue again, they chose as their main target the Easter celebrations. They produced a number of booklets which purport to show that the resurrection did not occur on Sunday and the crucifixion not on Friday, and that Jesus Christ was in the grave EXACTLY three days and three nights, not half that time as traditional Christians believe.  

The reasoning behind this strategy seems to be that by demolishing the idea of Sunday resurrection, the traditional "Good Friday-Easter Sunday" celebrations would collapse and people would return to observing the original Passover in its rightful time. In their calculations, however, the Churches of God overlooked one important development: the Catholics no longer use their old arguments to support Easter celebrations. By now a whole new theology has developed around this event.

At first, the Romans replaced the Passover with Easter in order to "synchronise" religious celebrations throughout the empire and changed the day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday to satisfy emperor Constantine's "addiction" to worshipping the Sun god.   The resurrection was not mentioned as a reason for these changes at the Council of Nicaea for a good reason: the early Christians did not celebrate it. For them, the crucifixion was the important event because it was unique to Christ - He willingly took our sins and the penalty of death upon Himself - whereas the resurrection will soon become an event common to everyone.

Nowadays, Easter is associated with the resurrection of Jesus Christ and by trying to discredit it, the Churches of God are made to look as if they are un-Christian, impious, and irreverent towards Christ. They are victims once again of the revenge of the Catholic Church.  But this does not seem to have deterred the Worldwide Church of God and its splinter churches. They continue to produce publications which show that by replacing Passover with Easter, and the day of worship from Sabbath to Sunday, the Catholic Church distanced itself from Christ, therefore it has no right to call itself Christian.  

In the booklet "The Resurrection Was Not on Sunday," the Worldwide Church of God wrote:

 

"The doubting Pharisees were asking Jesus for a sign-supernatural evidence-in proof of His Messiahship.  

Jesus answered: "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS in the heart of the earth" (Matt.12:39-40) . . ."

"What is wrong with these plain, simple words of Jesus? How do these wise and prudent theologians know Jesus was crucified 'Good Friday' and rose 'Easter Sunday'?  The simple answer is, they do not know it for it is not true! It is merely tradition, a tradition we have been taught from childhood and carelessly assumed! Jesus warns against 'making the word of God of none effect through your tradition' (Mark 7:13)...

Notice Mark 8:31. 'And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the priests, and scribes, and be killed, and AFTER three days rise again.'

And if Jesus were in the grave only from Friday sunset to Sunday sunrise, then this text, too, must be torn out of your Bible or else you must reject the sign Jesus Christ gave! If he arose from the dead after three days, it might have been more than 72 hours, but it could not have been a second less.

Notice now Mark 9:31. '...They shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.' The duration expressed here must be between 48 and 72 hours. It could not be one second past 72 hours, and Jesus still rise from the dead the third day.  And it could not be Friday sunset to Sunday sunrise, because that is only 36 hours, carrying us into the middle of the second day, after he was killed."

        

The authors of this diatribe fail to realise that their examples demolish the very arguments they try to prove. First, they quote Matthew 12:39-40, which says that Jesus will be in the grave THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS. Then, Mark 8:31 which says that Jesus will be killed and AFTER THREE DAYS RISE AGAIN.' And finally, Mark 9:31 which says that after Jesus is killed, He will be risen THE THIRD DAY.

 

From these examples they conclude that Jesus could not have risen one second earlier, nor one past, the 72 hours. The fact that the same author - Mark - used both expressions: "after three days rise again" and "he will be risen the third day," fails to register with them that the Bible allows a certain degree of flexibility in determining the length of time He spent in the grave.

If their arguments are right, it would mean that God sent His angels down to earth with precision stop watches and told them to stand by the tomb of Jesus Christ and make sure that the resurrection occurred not one hour, not one minute, not even ten seconds earlier or later, but exactly on the dot of 72 hours. With that kind of reasoning, is there any wonder that they find themselves in deep water with so many of their doctrines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                          WHEN DID THE RESURRECTION OCCUR: SATURDAY OR SUNDAY?

 

There are four accounts of the resurrection in the Bible - one in each of the four Gospels.  We will analyse them all, beginning with the Gospel of Matthew, to find out when the resurrection occurred and settle this question once and for all. 

 

"Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it.

His countenance was like lightening, and his clothing as white as snow. And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.  But the angel answered and said to the women, 'Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold I have told you.’   So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and run to bring His disciples word." (Matt. 28:1-8).

 

         The two women came to the tomb of Jesus Christ "after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn."  The Jewish days begin at sunset and continue until the next evening. Some theologians have postulated that the two women came to the tomb early that day, meaning Saturday after the sun set, but the word "dawn" tells us that these events took place on the morning of the first day - the day we now call Sunday.

The fact that both the women and the guards were terrified tells us that these events occurred right then and there. If Jesus Christ had been resurrected the previous day afternoon, He must have come out of the tomb while it was still sealed.

If that were the case, what purpose did the earthquake and the rolling back of the stone the next morning serve, just to terrify the women and the guards?  There is nothing in the Gospel of Matthew to remotely suggest that the resurrection might have occurred the previous day.   The Gospel of Mark gives us the following account:

 

"Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him.   Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.  And they said among themselves, 'Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?' But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away - for it was very large.    And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.  But he said to them, 'Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him.  But go and tell His disciples - and Peter - that He is going before you in Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.'" (Mark 16:1-7).

 

No mention of an earthquake here, but all the other details are similar. An angel of the Lord - a young man - was waiting for the women inside the tomb and told them that Jesus was not there because He was risen. The words, "very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen" tell us that these events took place early the first day of the week. One cannot conclude from these words that the resurrection occurred the previous day.  Therefore Mark confirms that the resurrection occurred early the first day of the week, not Saturday afternoon.  Now let us go to the Gospel of Luke.

 

"Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.  But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb.

Then they went in and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.  And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.  Then, as they were afraid and bowed their faces to the earth, they said to them, 'Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.'"

And they remembered His words. Then they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest."  (Luke 24:1-9).

 

Unlike the other Gospel writers, Luke was a Gentile.  He gathered his information from other sources after he converted to Christianity. He did his best to be as accurate as possible, nevertheless, the information he gathered from second hand sources was not as reliable as that found in the other Gospels.  He has two angels instead of one and their message was slightly different.  Nevertheless, these differences do not change the main thrust of the story: the stone was rolled away that morning, the tomb was empty, and the angels said that Jesus was not there because He was risen. When was He risen? As in the other Gospels, no exact time is given, but the description of events leaves no doubt that it occurred early that morning.

Now we come to the Gospel of John.  In John we have as close a first witness account as we can get.  Apostle John was at the scene of the resurrection within minutes after its fulfilment.  He spoke with the women who witnessed the events early that morning and saw Jesus Christ personally later that day.  Not surprisingly, He gives us additional vital information that establishes once and for all the time of the resurrection.

 

"On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.   Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, 'They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.'

Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb.  So they ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first.  And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in.    

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself.

 Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and saw and believed.  For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again to their homes.  But Mary stood outside by the tomb weeping, and as she wept she stooped down and looked into the tomb.  And she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

Then they said to her, 'Woman, why are you weeping?' She said to them, 'Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.'   Now when she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus.  Jesus said to her, 'Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?' She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said to Him, 'Sir, if You have carried Him away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him away.'

Jesus said to her, 'Mary!' She turned and said to Him, 'Rabboni!' (which is to say, Teacher).

Jesus said to her, 'Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, I am ascending to My Father and Your Father, and to My God and your God.’

Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things to her.  Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, 'Peace be with you.’

Now when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.  Then Jesus said to them again, 'Peace to you!  As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.'"  (John 20:1-21).

 

 The earthquake described by Matthew, but not mentioned here, must have occurred before the women went and told the Apostles that Jesus' body was not in the tomb. They came back with the Apostles, and looked in the tomb again, then all returned home except Mary Magdalene.  She remained at the tomb, weeping and wondering what had happened to Jesus' body. She looked again inside the tomb and, as she did, the angels told her that Jesus was no longer there because He was risen.  Still dazed from weeping and from all these events, which she did not understand, she turned around and saw another person standing there.  Now, notice carefully the discussion that followed, for it contains the key to understanding the time of Jesus' resurrection. Jesus asked her:

 

“‘Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?'  She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said to Him, 'Sir, if You have carried Him away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him away.'  Jesus said to her, 'Mary!'  At that time her eyes were opened and recognising Jesus, exclaimed 'Teacher!'"  

 

As she wanted to take hold of Him, Jesus said: "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father."  How long did it take Jesus to ascend to the Father and return?  Here is the answer:

 

"Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, 'Peace be with you.’

Now when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.  Then Jesus said to them again, 'Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.'"

 

It took Jesus less than twelve hours to ascend to heaven, present Himself to the Father, and return to show Himself to the disciples.  If He had been resurrected the previous day, why did He not go to heaven and return when He had enough time to do so?  And if He was resurrected the previous day and did not go to heaven, where did He spend that night, in the garden around a campfire chatting with His angels?

After the trauma of the crucifixion, would the Father have resurrected Him and left Him in suspense until the next morning only to show Himself to Mary Magdalene and ask her to pass on a message to His Apostles? The angels could have delivered that message just as well.  But a few extra hours in the tomb made no difference to Him; He was not aware of the passage of time.   The conclusion is inevitable: not only do the Gospels not support the idea of a Saturday resurrection, they make it very clear that it occurred on Sunday morning. In this regard, traditional Christians are right and the Churches of God wrong. 

Now let us find the truth about the crucifixion?

 

 

 

 

 

WHEN DID THE CRUCIFIXION OCCUR: WEDNESDAY OR FRIDAY?