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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
The
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
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
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
The authors of this diatribe fail to realise
that their examples demolish the very arguments they try to prove. First, they
quote
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?