Saturday, March 29, 2008

CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE OR FREEDOM

22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Galatians 4:22-31 (King James Version)

GOD'S PLEDGE OF SECURITY

God's Pledge of Security

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished. 2 Peter 2:9.


In the time of trial before us God's pledge of security will be placed upon those who have kept the word of His patience. . . . The pillar of cloud which speaks wrath and terror to the transgressor of God's law is light and mercy and deliverance to those who have kept His commandments. The arm strong to smite the rebellious will be strong to deliver the loyal. Every faithful one will surely be gathered. . . . {Mar 96.1}

What part will you act in the closing scenes of this world's history? . . . Do you realize the grand work of preparation that is going on in heaven and on earth? . . . Let none now tamper with sin, the source of every misery in our world. . . . Let not the destiny of your soul hang upon an uncertainty. Know that you are fully on the Lord's side. Let the inquiry go forth from sincere hearts and trembling lips, "Who shall be able to stand?" Have you, in these last precious hours of probation, been putting the very best material into your character building? Have you been purifying your souls from every stain? Have you followed the light? Have you works corresponding to your profession of faith? {Mar 96.2}

Is the softening, subduing influence of the grace of God working upon you? . . . Are you letting your light shine to illumine the nations that are perishing in their sins? Do you realize that you are to stand in defense of God's commandments before those who are treading them underfoot? {Mar 96.3}

It is possible to be a partial, formal believer, and yet be found wanting and lose eternal life. It is possible to practice some of the Bible injunctions and be regarded as a Christian, and yet perish because you lack qualifications essential to Christian character. . . . While mercy lingers, while the Saviour is making intercession, let us make thorough work for eternity. {Mar 96.4}

The great crisis is just before us. To meet its trials and temptations, and to perform its duties, will require persevering faith. But we may triumph gloriously; not one watching, praying, believing soul will be ensnared by the enemy. {Mar 96.5}

Maranatha, Ellen G. White, p.96.

Friday, March 28, 2008

OBAMA & CLINTON ON JUDICIAL WATCH MOST WANTED LIST

Obama and Clinton on Judicial Watch Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians List

By Dana Gabriel http://www.newworldordermustbestopped.com/DanasBlog1.html

Hillary Clinton’s ethics have been questioned in the past, but for the most part Barack Obama has enjoyed a relatively free ride in the way of scrutiny from the mainstream media. It is true that Obama doesn’t have the baggage of a Clinton or John McCain, but his name did appear on the Judicial Watch, Washington’s Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians list for 2007. Judicial Watch is a non-partisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability, and integrity in government, politics, and the law.

Here’s what Judicial Watch had to say about Obama who made the list. “A Dishonorable Mention last year, Senator Obama moves onto the ten most wanted list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin Tony Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections. It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.”

Here’s what they had to say about Clinton. “In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.”

The truth is that this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. For those who might think that I am bashing the Democrats and signaling out Obama and Clinton, rest assured that Republicans are not immune to corruption. Former Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee both cracked the top ten list as well. Although McCain did not make the list, there is more than enough dirt on him already. It is not surprising that Ron Paul’s name is no where to be found.

Unfortunately, many are able to expose the corruption of the other party, but are complacent, ignorant, or blind to their own party’s corruption. The point is that you probably don’t get to this level in your political career without being severely compromised. There are more than enough skeletons in Obama’s, Clinton’s, and McCain’s closet to bring them down anytime.

It is looking more like it will be Clinton or Obama as president. During the presidential campaign it is possible that McCain could self implode. There is also a chance that old and maybe even new scandals could be exposed, thus insuring a Democrat in the White House. Obama claims that he is the candidate for hope and change, but it appears as if little would really change if he is elected. The only thing that could change is there might be someone other than a Bush or a Clinton as president.

A GOVERNMENT ENGINEERED FOOD CRISIS

Jewish World Review March 28, 2008 / 21 Adar II 5768

A government engineered food crisis

By Linda Chavez





http://www.jewishworldreview.com/ As if a housing crisis, rising energy costs and a soft labor market weren't enough to cause economic anxiety for the average American, now consumers are feeling the pinch of rapidly escalating food costs. The United States has long prided itself in being the breadbasket of the world, and Americans have traditionally paid a smaller share of their income on food than citizens of other developed countries. But the days of cheap milk, bread, beef and poultry may well be over — and Uncle Sam is partly to blame.


In 2007, the cost of a gallon of milk increased 26 percent; eggs went up 40 percent; and a loaf of white bread went from $1.05 to $1.28 from 2006 to 2008. Steep increases in the price of oil have contributed to these higher costs, but the federal government has played a pernicious role as well. By mandating that oil companies increase the amount of ethanol they blend with gasoline, the government has not only artificially increased the cost of corn, which is what most U.S. ethanol is made of, but has driven up the cost of other grains as well. Inflated corn prices encourage farmers to divert more acreage to corn, which means they plant less soy and wheat, which, in turn, drives the prices of those commodities up as well. The aggregate price of wheat, corn, soy oil and soy meal in the U.S. will be $61.7 billion higher in the 2007/2008 crop year than it was in 2005/2006.


Corn prices affect a host of other food prices as well. If you've ever looked at the ingredient labels on everything from bologna to canned tomato soup, you'll see that corn syrup is a common ingredient of many processed foods. Corn is also a common grain used in feed for cattle, poultry and hogs. As a result, prices for meat and poultry are going up, but even with higher prices, some companies in the meat industry still can't make a profit, and many are being forced to cut jobs and close plants. I've seen this firsthand as a member of the board of directors of Pilgrim's Pride, the nation's largest chicken producer, where we have already had to shut down one plant and close six distribution centers to cope with record losses directly attributable to soaring feed costs.


But what is most galling about the impact of government mandated ethanol production is that it does little or nothing to solve our energy problems. Ethanol proponents argue that it is cleaner than petroleum — which improves air quality — and that it and other alternative fuels will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Both claims are dubious.


Corn-based ethanol is inefficient as a fuel for automobiles, reducing vehicle gas mileage by 20-30 percent in vehicles using E85, the highest ethanol content fuel. Fewer miles-per-gallon of gas essentially eliminates any savings achieved, even by mixing ethanol with gasoline in the lower 9 percent ethanol blends required in all U.S. gasoline today. And of course, it also takes energy to produce ethanol — for farming and distilling the corn and transporting the final product to the pump — and much of that energy will come from carbon-based fuels.


None of these arguments has stopped the aggressive ethanol lobby from getting its way with Congress, however, and pressure increases in presidential election years as Iowa farmers encourage candidates to pledge allegiance to ethanol during the Iowa caucuses.


If ethanol really were the miracle fuel its proponents claim, you'd think there would be huge profits in producing it in the free market. But that's not the case. Consumers not only pay for ethanol at the pump, they're paying taxes as well to subsidize ethanol production in the U.S. — and they're paying a hidden tax to keep cheaper, foreign sugar cane ethanol from competing with the domestic corn-based product. Subsidies to gasoline blenders amount to about 51 cents per gallon, and the government imposes a 54-cent tariff on foreign ethanol so that it can't provide a cheaper alternative for U.S. consumers.


And matters will only get worse as government mandates higher bio-fuel content in U.S. gasoline from the current 9 percent to 15 percent by 2015. Ethanol won't solve the energy crisis, but it may well lead to a food crisis in the U.S. and elsewhere. The U.S. Agency for International Development reports that the cost of providing wheat, corn, cereal and other foodstuffs to poor nations has gone up 41 percent since October 2007, which will mean we can provide less assistance to starving people around the world. Federal policy is literally diverting food from the table to the gas tank — and it's time we stopped it.

Source: http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/chavez032808.php3

KING ABDULLAH PLANS INTERFAITH CONFERENCE

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. (AP)
Last update - 21:14 25/03/2008
Saudi King plans first interfaith conference to include Jews
By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent, and The Associated Press
Tags: Muslims, Christianity

In a rare departure from government practice, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah is planning to convene an interfaith conference for Muslims, Christians and Jews, according to the Saudi-owned Al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper.

The call for religious dialog to include Jews is the first by the monarch, whose country's regulations prohibit the importation of non-Muslim religious objects including crucifixes and stars of David.

The Saudi King said representatives of the three major monotheistic faiths need to work together "to defend humanity" from harm, speaking in an address he delivered in Riyadh on Monday.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat, which is published in London, quoted King Abdullah as saying he had discussed idea of a summit to promote religious dialog a number of months ago with the Pope.

"I proposed to him to address God by means of the commandments he commanded the monotheistic faiths in the bible, the New Testament, and the Koran," the king said.

The monarch said he is disturbed by the breakdown of the family unit across the world, as well as the damaged to the principle of "loyalty to humanity."

"I plan, god willing, to hold summits - not just one - so as to hear the opinion of my Muslim brothers all over the world. We will start to meet with our brothers in every faith I have mentioned - the bible and the New Testament," he said.

King Abdullah said the kingdom's top clerics had given him the green light to pursue the idea.

In response to the Saudi initiative, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger said, "our hands are extended to any peace initiative, or to any dialogue whose goal is to bring an end to terror and violence. I have said many times that the true way to reach the long-awaited peace is through interfaith dialogue."

Rabbi David Rosen, head of inter-religious relations at the American Jewish Committee, said he was delighted by the Saudi announcement.

"Religion is all too often the problem, so it has to also be the solution, or at least part of the solution, and I think that the tragedy of the political initiatives to bring peace has been the failure to include the religious dimension," he said.

Related articles:
  • Saudi king invites Iranian President Ahmadinejad to Mecca for hajj
  • Saudi prince: If Israel quits Arab land, it could join Arab world
  • Hamas no-shows at interfaith meeting in West Jerusalem

  • Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/968247.html

    JESUS PRAYS FOR THE (BELIEVERS) CHURCH

    John 17

    1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

    2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

    3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

    4I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

    5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

    6I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

    7Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

    8For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

    9I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

    10And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

    11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

    12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

    13And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

    14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

    15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

    16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

    17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

    18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

    19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

    20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

    21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

    22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

    23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

    24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

    25O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

    26And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

    THE SCRIPTURES OUR SAFEGUARD


    The Scriptures Our Safeguard

    Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? Heb. 1:14.


    So long as the people of God preserve their fidelity to Him, so long as they cling by living faith to Jesus, they are under the protection of heavenly angels, and Satan will not be permitted to exercise his hellish arts upon them to their destruction. But those who separate themselves from Christ by sin are in great peril. . . . {Mar 95.1}

    Satan is now more earnestly engaged in playing the game of life for souls than at any previous time; and unless we are constantly on our guard, he will establish in our hearts, pride, love of self, love of the world, and many other evil traits. He will also use every possible device to unsettle our faith in God and in the truths of His Word. If we have not a deep experience in the things of God, if we have not a thorough knowledge of His Word, we shall be beguiled to our ruin by the errors and sophistries of the enemy. False doctrines will sap the foundations of many, because they have not learned to discern truth from error. Our only safeguard against the wiles of Satan is to study the Scriptures diligently, to have an intelligent understanding of the reasons of our faith, and faithfully to perform every known duty. The indulgence of one known sin will cause weakness and darkness, and subject us to fierce temptation. . . . {Mar 95.2}

    Are we opening the door of the heart to Jesus, and closing every means of entrance to Satan? Are we daily obtaining clearer light, and greater strength, that we may stand in Christ's righteousness? Are we emptying our hearts of all selfishness, and cleansing them, preparatory to receiving the latter rain from heaven? . . . {Mar 95.3}

    The work of overcoming is a great work. Shall we take hold of it with energy and perseverance? Unless we do, our "filthy garments" will not be taken from us. We need never expect that these will be torn from us violently; we must first show a desire to rid ourselves of them. We must seek to separate sin from us, relying upon the merits of the blood of Christ; and then in the day of affliction, when the enemy presses us, we shall walk among the angels. {Mar 95.4}

    Maranata, Ellen G. White, p.95.

    Thursday, March 27, 2008

    THE EDICT OF NANTES

    The Edict of Nantes (1598)

    Henry, by the grace of God king of France and of Navarre, to all to whom these presents come, greeting:

    Among the infinite benefits which it has pleased God to heap upon us, the most signal and precious is his granting us the strength and ability to withstand the fearful disorders and troubles which prevailed on our advent in this kingdom. The realm was so torn by innumerable factions and sects that the most legitimate of all the parties was fewest in numbers. God has given us strength to stand out against this storm; we have finally surmounted the waves and made our port of safety, -- peace for our state. For which his be the glory all in all, and ours a free recognition of his grace in making use of our instrumentality in the good work. . . . We implore and await from the Divine Goodness the same protection and favor which he has ever granted to this kingdom from the beginning. . . .

    We have, by this perpetual and irrevocable edict. established and proclaimed and do establish and proclaim:

    I. First, that the recollection of everything done be one party. or the other between March, 1585, and our accession to the crown, and during all the preceding period of troubles, remain obliterated and forgotten, as if no such things had ever happened.

    III. We ordain that the Catholic Apostolic and Roman religion shall be restored and reestablished in all places and localities of this our kingdom and countries subject to our sway, where the exercise of the same has been interrupted, in order that it may be peaceably and freely exercised, without any trouble or hindrance: forbidding very expressly all persons, of whatsoever estate, quality, or condition, from troubling, molesting, or disturbing ecclesiastics in the celebration of divine service, in the enjoyment or collection of tithes, fruits, or revenues of their benefices, and all other rights and dues belonging to them: and that all those who during the troubles have taken possession of churches. houses, goods or revenues, belonging to the said ecclesiastics, shall surrender to them entire possession and peaceable enjoyment of such rights, liberties, and sureties as they had before they were deprived of them.

    VI. And in order to leave no occasion for troubles or differences between our subjects, we have permitted, and herewith permit, those of the said religion called Reformed to live and abide in all the cities and places of this our kingdom and countries of our sway, without being annoyed, molested, or compelled to do anything in the matter of religion contrary to their consciences, . . . upon condition that they comport themselves in other respects according to that which is contained in this our present edict.

    VII. It is permitted to all lords, gentlemen, and other persons making profession of the said religion called Reformed, holding the right of high justice [or a certain feudal tenure], to exercise the said religion in their houses.

    IX. We also permit those of the said religion to make and continue the exercise of the same in all villages and places of our dominion where it was established by them and publicly enjoyed several and divers times in the year 1597, up to the end of the month of August, notwithstanding all decrees and judgments to the contrary.

    XIII. We very expressly forbid to all those of the said religion its exercise, either in respect to ministry, regulation, discipline, or the public instruction of children, or otherwise, in this our kingdom and lands of our dominion, otherwise than in the places permitted and granted by the present edict.

    XIV. It is forbidden as well to perform any function of the said religion in our court or retinue, or in our lands and territories beyond the mountains, or in our city of Paris. or within five leagues of the said city..

    XVIII. We also forbid all our subjects, of whatever quality and condition, from carrying off be force or persuasion, against the will of their parents, the children of the said religion, in order to cause them to be baptized or confirmed in the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church; and the same is forbidden to those of the said religion called Reformed, upon penalty of being punished with especial severity.

    XXI. Books concerning the said religion called Reformed may not be printed and publicly sold, except in cities and places where the public exercise of the said religion is permitted.

    XXII. We ordain that there shall be no difference or distinction made in respect to the said religion, in receiving pupils to be instructed in universities, colleges, and schools; nor in receiving the sick and poor into hospitals, retreats and public charities.

    XXIII. Those of the said religion called Reformed shall be obliged to respect the laws of the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church, recognized in this our kingdom, for the consummation of marriages contracted, or to be contracted, as regards the degrees of consanguinity and kinship.

    [Source: James Harvey Robinson, ed., Readings in European History 2 vols. (Boston: Ginn, 1906), 2:183-185.]

    Source: http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/nantes.html

    ************

    EDICT OF NANTES, the law promulgated in April 1598 by which the French king, Henry IV., gave religious liberty to his Protestant subjects, the Huguenots. The story of the struggle for the edict is part of the history of France, and during the thirty-five years of civil war which preceded its grant, many treaties and other arrangements had been made between the contending religious parties, but none of these had been satisfactory or lasting. The elation of the Protestants at the accession of Henry IV. in 1589 was followed by deep depression, when it was found that not only did he adopt the Roman Catholic faith, but that his efforts to redress their grievances were singularly ineffectual. In 1594 they took determined measures to protect themselves; in 1597, the war with Spain being practically over, long negotiations took place between the king and their representatives, prominent among whom was the historian J. A. de Thou, and at last the edict was drawn up. It consisted of 95 general articles, which were signed by Henry at Nantes on the 13th of April 1598, and of 56 particular ones, signed on the 2nd of May. There was also some supplementary matter.

    The main provisions of the edict of Nantes may be briefly summarized under six heads: (r) It gave liberty of conscience to the Protestants throughout the whole of France. (2) It gave to the Protestants the right of holding public worship in those places where they had held it in the year 1576 and in the earlier part of 1577; also in places where this freedom had been granted by the edict of Poitiers (1577) and the treaties of Nerac (1579) and of Felix (1580).(1580). The Protestants could also worship in two towns in each bailliage and senechausee. The greater nobles could hold Protestant services in their houses; the lesser nobles could do the same, but only for gatherings of not more than thirty people. Regarding Paris, the Protestants could conduct worship within five leagues of the city; previously this prohibition had extended to a distance of ten leagues. (3) Full civil rights were grantedto the Protestants. They could trade freely, inherit property and enter the universities, colleges and schools. All official positions were open to them. (4) To deal with disputes arising out of the edict a chamber was established in the parlement of Paris (le chambre de l'edit). This was to be composed of ten Roman Catholic, and of six Protestant members. Chambers for the same purpose, but consisting of Protestants and Roman Catholics in equal numbers, were established in connexion with the provincial parlements. (5) The Protestant pastors were to be paid by the state and to be freed from certain burdens, their position being made practically equal to that of the Roman Catholic clergy. (6) A hundred places of safety were given to the Protestants for eight years, the expenses of garrisoning them being undertaken by the king.

    In many ways the terms of the edict were very generous to the Protestants, but it must be remembered that the liberty to hold public worship was made the exception and not the rule; this was prohibited except in certain specified cases, and in this respect they were less favourably treated than they were under the arrangement made in 1576.

    The edict was greatly disliked by the Roman Catholic clergy and their friends, and a. few changes were made to conciliate them. The parlement of Paris shared this dislike, and succeeded in reducing the number of Protestant members of the chambre de l'edit from six to one. Then cajoled and threatened by Henry, the parlement registered the edict on the 25th of February 1 599. After similar trouble it was also registered by the provincial parlements, the last to take this step being the parlement of Rouen, which delayed the registration until 1609.

    The strong political position secured to the French Protestants by the edict of Nantes was very objectionable, not only to the ardent Roman Catholics, but also to more moderate persons, and the payments made to their ministers by the state were viewed with increasing dislike. Thus about 1660 a strong movement began for its repeal, and this had great influence with the king. One after another proclamations and declarations were issued which deprived the Protestants of their rights under the edict; their position was rendered intolerable by a series of persecutions which culminated in the dragonnades, and at length on the 18th of October 1685 Louis revoked the edict, thus depriving the Protestants in France of all civil and religious liberty. This gave a new impetus to the emigration of the Huguenots, which had been going on for some years, and England, Holland and Brandenburg received numbers of thrifty and industrious French families.

    The history of the French Protestants, to which the edict of Nantes belongs, is dealt with in the articles France: History,and Huguenots. For further details about the edict see the papers and documents published. as Le Troisieme centenaire de l'edit de Nantes (1898); N. A. F. Puaux, Histoire du Protestantisme francais (Paris, 18 94); H. M. Baird, The Huguenots and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (London, 1895); C. Benoist, La Condition des Protestants sous le regime de l'edit de Nantes et apres sa revocation (Paris, 1900); A. Lods, L'Edit de Nantes devant le parlement de Paris (1899); and the Bulletin historique et litteraire of the Societe de l'Histoire du Protestantisme Francais.

    Source: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Edict_of_Nantes

    CAP CALLS FOR REFERENDUM ON SPP

    Leader of CAP Calls for Referendum and General Strike Regarding SPP

    By Dana Gabriel

    The battle lines are being drawn and the Canadian Action Party (CAP) is front and center, fighting the North American Union agenda. They are very adamant that Canada’s sovereignty should not be negotiated away. On their websites homepage it states, “A decision regarding the restructuring of Canada into an integrated North American Union with a common currency is a decision for the citizens of Canada – not for a minority government with an ineffective opposition.”

    CAP is demanding full disclosure of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). In a recent video address, their leader Connie Fogal called for a referendum and general strike in regards to the SPP. A general strike might be hard to organize, but it would be an effective way of protesting and drawing further attention to this whole process of deeper integration.

    CAP is concerned, and rightfully so, that any parliamentary vote to try and stop the SPP would probably not succeed. After all, it was the Liberal Party under Paul Martin who began the SPP process, and under Stephen Harper’s Conservative Government, this agenda has only accelerated. CAP is absolutely correct that there needs to be a referendum concerning the SPP, as it should be the people who decide its fate and not politicians whose allegiances might lie elsewhere.

    CAP wants NAFTA replaced with a trade deal that places Canadians best interests ahead of those of multinational corporations. Fogal said that, “NAFTA was the beginning of the institutional, administrative restructuring of the three nations into a North American Union.”

    Many Canadians and Americans are taking action to further expose and stop the North American Union. Resolutions stating concerns about the SPP have recently been presented in Missouri House and Senate committees. This is all very encouraging, and with every small victory we are that much closer to defeating this agenda.

    The Canadian Action Party and their leader Connie Fogal need to be commended for their efforts in trying to stop the North American Union. Fogal said, “If Canada is to be restored to an independent, sovereign and democratic nation, if that is what you want, then your political leaders must take back control of our rules and procedures immediately into the hands of a democratic Parliament. They must act immediately to move the control of our government out of the hands of a cabinet apparatus and a bureaucracy that have abandoned their duty to the citizens and to the public good, and they must disembowel the corporate rule.” Integration into a North American Union is already happening, but there is still time to stop it if we act now.

    Source: http://newworldordermustbestopped.com/DanasBlog1.html

    THE 'UNCLE AL' ELECTIONS

    Op-Ed Columnist

    The Uncle Al Election

    Tony Cenicola/The New York Times

    By GAIL COLLINS
    Published: March 27, 2008




    When I was a kid in Cincinnati, there was a local children’s TV show that always featured a race. Little boys and girls ran around in circles for what seemed like a very long time, until the host threw up his hands and yelled: “Everybody wins!”

    “Uncle Al,” said my brother, Gary.

    The participants did not necessarily enjoy the experience. “I cried for hours,” said my sister-in-law, Laura.

    The race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has now turned into one very long Uncle Al show. Everybody wins! Nobody loses! How do we make them stop?

    The genius that is the Democratic Party has somehow managed to create a system in which two candidates can run for five months in all 50 states and neither one can possibly win enough delegates to clinch the nomination.

    We should have known this was coming when people started talking about how exciting the Clinton-Obama race is. We live, after all, in a country where the Christmas shopping season begins in October. We have a sports calendar in which basketball leaches into baseball, which leaches into football. Too much of a good thing is our middle name. Now, the Democratic primary has become the McMansion of politics.

    Many are the suggestions for how to make it stop, all of which boil down to making Hillary Clinton go away. The most entertaining by far is the call for Howard Dean to Lay Down the Law. Stop the bloodshed, Howard! The governor of Tennessee announced that as party chairman Dean “needs to step up and bring some closure.” Truly, anybody who believes that Howard Dean can make Hillary Clinton do anything she doesn’t want to do is living in Fantasyland.

    Who do they think she is, the Clinton campaign mutters — some girl who’ll give way so the guy can get what he wants?

    Anyway, Clinton argued, sitting backstage at an event in Philadelphia, fighting a cough, the voters don’t want it to be over. At her church on Easter Sunday, she said, people kept coming up and begging her to keep going. “We have people who deserve to have their voices heard.”

    The church part is undoubtedly true. There are very few instances in American history where presidential candidates have been begged by their fellow parishioners to pack it in and go home. And there are plenty of other people who wouldn’t mind letting this go on for a while longer to see just how Obama fares in those Midwestern states that have seemed immune to his charms lately.

    Right now he’s ahead by almost every conceivable count. The superdelegates, who will almost surely have to decide the nomination, have been around the political block a time or two. They know what a mess they would create if they seemed to be ignoring the popular will.

    But the idea that Clinton would quit at this juncture goes contrary to every single thing we have learned about her over the past 17 years. She may irritate people. She may lose the health care initiative. She may even imagine that she was under fire in Bosnia when in fact she was standing on the tarmac accepting flowers from a little blonde girl. But she never gives up.

    The one unassailable fact about Hillary Clinton is not that she’d make the best decision when the phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House. It’s that if the phone rang at the same time that her polls were at 12 percent and her attorney general was under indictment and the economy was in the tank and California had just broken off and fallen into the sea, she would still pick up the receiver.

    There isn’t a right or wrong to this argument — only strategy. Obama didn’t overexert himself to help find a way to let Michigan and Florida re-vote because it wasn’t to his advantage. And while ending the negativity would be nice, the Obamaites would mainly like to call a halt because they don’t want to risk something weird and undesirable happening. Hillary plans to continue in the hope that the weird and undesirable will occur.

    “I wouldn’t be doing this if I didn’t think number one, that I would be a better president and number two that I would be a better candidate to beat John McCain,” she said. “I believe that with all my heart. Now, he may equally believe it. But I’m not about to walk out on these upcoming contests.”

    I say her strategic desire to keep fighting trumps his strategic desire to put the lid on it. Even though there really is something very upsetting about a struggle that goes on and on and on without resolution. I know this because, with one phone call to Ohio, I managed to find three people who are still haunted by Uncle Al’s race. As we all know, three people constitute a trend.

    “I used to dream that my family was sucked into the TV, one by one,” said Catherine Tape, who works with my brother. “They had to run in circles around our basement stairs, and I was responsible for getting them out. But I couldn’t.”

    “Maybe there should be a support group,” my sister-in-law said.

    Maybe Howard Dean would like to join.

    Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/opinion/27collins.html?th&emc=th

    WARNINGS OF END-TIME DELUSIONS



    There are three notable examples of End-time delusions and rationales, detailed in the writings of EGW:

    Sabbath vs Sunday Issue Joins

    The third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God. Rev. 14:9, 10.


    Heretofore those who presented the truths of the third angel's message have often been regarded as mere alarmists. Their predictions that religious intolerance would gain control in the United States, that church and state would unite to persecute those who keep the commandments of God, have been pronounced groundless and absurd. . . . But as the question of enforcing Sunday observance is widely agitated, the event so long doubted and disbelieved is seen to be approaching, and the third message will produce an effect which it could not have had before. . . . {Mar 172.1}

    Men of faith and prayer will be constrained to go forth with holy zeal, declaring the words which God gives them. The sins of Babylon will be laid open. The fearful results of enforcing the observances of the church by civil authority, the inroads of spiritualism, the stealthy but rapid progress of the papal power --all will be unmasked. By these solemn warnings the people will be stirred. . . . As the people go to their former teachers with the eager inquiry, Are these things so? the ministers present fables, prophesy smooth things, to soothe their fears and quiet the awakened conscience. But since many refuse to be satisfied with the mere authority of men and demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord," the popular ministry, like the Pharisees of old, filled with anger as their authority is questioned, will denounce the message as of Satan and stir up the sin-loving multitudes to revile and persecute those who proclaim it. {Mar 172.2}

    As the controversy extends into new fields and the minds of the people are called to God's downtrodden law, Satan is astir. The power attending the message will only madden those who oppose it. The clergy will put forth almost superhuman efforts to shut away the light lest it should shine upon their flocks. By every means at their command they will endeavor to suppress the discussion of these vital questions. The church appeals to the strong arm of civil power, and, in this work, papists and Protestants unite. {Mar 172.3}

    Maranatha p.172.

    =

    The Peace and Safety Cry

    They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. Jer. 6:14.


    Papists, Protestants, and worldlings will . . . see in this union a grand movement for the conversion of the world and the ushering in of the long-expected millennium. {Mar 260.1}

    "The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." 2 Peter 3:10. When the reasoning of philosophy has banished the fear of God's judgments; when religious teachers are pointing forward to long ages of peace and prosperity, and the world are absorbed in their rounds of business and pleasure, planting and building, feasting and merrymaking, rejecting God's warnings and mocking His messengers--then it is that sudden destruction cometh upon them, and they shall not escape. 1 Thessalonians 5:3. {Mar 260.2}

    Like the dwellers in the vale of Siddim, the people are dreaming of prosperity and peace. "Escape for thy life," is the warning from the angels of God; but other voices are heard saying, "Be not excited; there is no cause for alarm." The multitudes cry, "Peace and safety," while Heaven declares that swift destruction is about to come upon the transgressor. On the night prior to their destruction, the cities of the plain rioted in pleasure and derided the fears and warnings of the messenger of God; but those scoffers perished in the flames; that very night the door of mercy was forever closed to the wicked, careless inhabitants of Sodom. God will not always be mocked; He will not long be trifled with. "Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it." Isaiah 13:9. The great mass of the world will reject God's mercy, and will be overwhelmed in swift and irretrievable ruin. But those who heed the warning shall dwell "in the secret place of the most High," and "abide under the shadow of the Almighty." His truth shall be their shield and buckler. {Mar 260.3}

    Maranatha p. 260.

    =

    Betrayed by Friends and Relatives

    A man's foes shall be they of his own household. Matt. 11:36.


    When the law of God is made void, and the church is sifted by the fiery trials that are to try all that live upon the earth, a great proportion of those who are supposed to be genuine will give heed to seducing spirits, and will turn traitors and betray sacred trusts. They will prove our very worst persecutors. "Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them;" and many will give heed to seducing spirits. {Mar 197.1}

    Those who apostatize in time of trial will bear false witness and betray their brethren, to secure their own safety. They will tell where their brethren are concealed, putting the wolves on their track. Christ has warned us of this, that we may not be surprised at the cruel, unnatural course pursued by friends and relatives. {Mar 197.2}

    We shall find that we must let loose of all hands except the hand of Jesus Christ. Friends will prove treacherous, and will betray us. Relatives, deceived by the enemy, will think they do God service in opposing us and putting forth the utmost efforts to bring us into hard places, hoping we will deny our faith. But we may trust our hand in the hand of Christ amid darkness and peril. {Mar 197.3}

    The followers of Christ must expect to encounter sneers. They will be reviled; their words and their faith will be misrepresented. Coldness and contempt may be harder to endure than martyrdom. . . . {Mar 197.4}

    Parents will turn harshly against their children who accept unpopular truth. Those who conscientiously serve God will be accused of rebellion. Property that was willed to children or other relatives who believe the present truth will be given into other hands. Guardians will rob orphans and widows of their just dues. Those who depart from evil will make themselves a prey through laws enacted to compel the conscience. Men will take to themselves property to which they have no right. The words of the apostle will be verified in the near future: "All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." {Mar 197.5}

    Maranatha p.197.

    Wednesday, March 26, 2008

    SABBATH VS. SUNDAY: THE REST OF THE STORY


    SABBATH VS. SUNDAY: THE REST OF THE STORY
    'Deception': Christians war over worship day
    Centuries-old clash continues over disputed commandment

    Posted: March 16, 2008
    5:24 pm Eastern

    By Joe Kovacs
    © 2008 WorldNetDaily


    This sign at the Mesa Avenue Church of Christ in Grand Junction, Colo., is typical of churches announcing their worship services on Sunday.

    Two thousand years after Jesus walked the Earth, Christians are at war with each other concerning – as strange as it may sound – a day of the week mentioned in the Ten Commandments.

    The issue boils down to: "When is God's Sabbath?" In other words, what is His holy day of rest?

    Most Christians today think it's Sunday, when the majority of churches hold services.

    But others confidently say it's Saturday, calling Sunday worship "the most flagrant error of mainstream Christianity," believing Sunday-keepers are victims of clever deception.

    Some high-profile evangelical pastors such as California's Greg Laurie say it's simply "wrong to set Saturday apart as a special day for worship."

    Today, some high-school sports teams refuse to play in state tournaments for the sole reason the events are held on Saturday – what they say is God's Sabbath.


    Scottish sprinter Eric Liddell

    Conversely, the 1981 film "Chariots of Fire" was based on the true story of Eric Liddell, a Scottish sprinter and Christian missionary who disqualified himself from his best event at the 1924 Olympics because the race was on Sunday – the Sabbath in his view.

    Christians seem irreparably split, as this issue goes back to the beginning of time itself.

    In the beginning ...

    There are seven days in a week, but historians have no consensus about the cycle's origin, since it has no basis in astronomy.

    The Bible, though, indicates God created the Earth and its life forms in six days, and then rested on the seventh.

    "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it." (Genesis 2:2-3)

    Biblically speaking, the first six days of the week had no special name. They were simply identified by ordinal numbers, such as the first, second and third day. But the seventh day was given a unique name. In Hebrew, it's "shabbat," meaning "rest." In English, the word is "Sabbath," and it's detailed in the Fourth Commandment.

    "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work ... . For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day." (Exodus 20:8-11)

    In many languages, the word used for the seventh day of the week – what we call Saturday – is actually the same word used for "Sabbath." In Greek, it is sabbaton; Italian, sabato; Spanish, sábado; Russian, subbota; Polish, sobota; and Hungarian, szómbat. Even the French "samedi" is from the Latin "Sambata dies," for "day of the Sabbath."

    Names of days in today's English come from ancient paganism, where they were originally associated with celestial objects and heathen gods.


    Table traces the seven days of the week from their pagan Latin origin through the names of Norse gods to their current names in English

    In the King James Version of the Bible, the word "Sabbath" appears 137 times. The word "Sunday" is absent, though its equivalent, the first day of the week, occurs eight times – nine if the "first day" of creation is counted.

    Some examples of the use of Sabbath include:

    • "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant." (Exodus 31:15-16)
    • "But pray ye that your flight be not in winter, neither on the sabbath day." (Matthew 24:20)
    • "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." (Mark 2:28)

    Most biblical scholars have little disagreement when asked what day the Bible specifically calls the Sabbath.


    Prof. Richard Bauckham

    "The seventh day, Saturday," says Richard Bauckham, professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. "No other day is called the Sabbath in Old or New Testaments."

    In 2001, Jan Marcussen, a Seventh-Day Adventist from Thompsonville, Ill., was so sure there was no Bible verse declaring the first day to be the Sabbath, he offered up to $1 million for clear, Scriptural proof.

    "I didn't get even one response claiming the $1 million from any theologian, bishop, cardinal, pope or anyone else," Marcussen, author of "National Sunday Law," told WND. "Why not? Because they can't. [Observing Sunday as the Sabbath] is the biggest hoax the world has ever seen."

    But while the Bible never calls the first day of the week a Sabbath, the vast majority of Christians today gather for worship then. Many think Sabbath-keeping was either abolished or moved to Sunday once Jesus rose from the grave.

    "There's not a simple answer," said Dr. Roger Felipe, a Baptist preacher from Marco Island, Fla., who is also director of programs for Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, part of Trinity International University. "From [today's] Christian point of view, the Sabbath is Sunday."

    There is little, if any, argument Jesus and His fellow Jews observed the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week, as the Bible states, "as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read." (Luke 4:16)

    But it's what took place after His death and resurrection that's key.

    The rising of the Son

    One reason many Christians provide for gathering on Sunday is the belief Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week.

    "It's a powerful symbol," says Felipe.


    An angel informs women that Jesus is not in the tomb, but has already risen.

    His sentiments echo a 1998 writing by Pope John Paul II in which the pontiff referred to the origins of Sunday-keeping.

    "In the weekly reckoning of time, Sunday recalls the day of Christ's Resurrection," the pope stated.

    But the idea Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday is not universal.

    The Bible is actually silent on the precise moment of resurrection. Jesus' followers came to His tomb before dawn on the first day of the week (Sunday), but they did not witness Him coming back to life. They merely found an empty tomb.

    A tomb with a view

    "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen," is what an angel told the women. (Luke 24:5-6)


    John Pinkston, Congregation of God Seventh Day

    "Christ was already gone!" exclaims John Pinkston, a retired Air Force navigator who is founder and president of the Congregation of God Seventh Day in Kennesaw, Ga. "So that shoots in the foot the belief that He was raised on Sunday."

    Pinkston is typical of many Sabbath-keepers, believing Jesus was neither killed on a Friday, nor raised on Sunday. He believes Jesus was actually put to death on a Wednesday, and remained in the grave 72 hours until Saturday evening. When the women came to the tomb early Sunday, they found it empty, indicating Jesus arose prior to their arrival.

    Even the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, a Sunday-keeper and chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., agreed with that timetable, telling WND in 2001, "I personally believe He was crucified on Wednesday evening ... and rose after 6 p.m. Saturday evening."

    Most Christians today think Jesus died on a Friday and rose on Sunday. They point to Scriptures indicating a Sabbath day followed Jesus' execution. But Sabbath-keepers claim it was not the weekly Sabbath of Saturday approaching. Rather, they say it was an annual Sabbath, a "high" holy day in the Hebrew calendar known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which supposedly occurred on a Thursday the week Jesus was killed. The Gospel of John mentions that Sabbath was the annual type.

    "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) ... ." (John 19:31)

    In other words, Sabbatarians say there was more than one day of rest that week. Their timeline has Jesus slain on Wednesday – the day before the "high day" annual Sabbath on Thursday. They believe Jesus was in the grave for a full three days and three nights, finally arising Saturday evening, the second Sabbath of the week.

    The mention of "three days and three nights" is important for many, as Jesus used that phrase to prove His divine identity:

    "For as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so I, the Son of Man, will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights." (Matthew 12:40, New Living Translation)

    There's disagreement if that phrase means a full three days and three nights – 72 hours – or merely parts of three days and three nights, leading many to stick with the Friday-evening-to-Sunday-morning timeline.

    The last shall be first?

    Beyond the resurrection issue, there are several Bible references to "the first day of the week," none of which are clear on the Sabbath issue.


    Prof. Margaret M. Mitchell

    "The New Testament evidence is not conclusive, and nowhere 'ordains' or instructs [Sunday-keeping]," said Margaret M. Mitchell, professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

    Mitchell says the "evidence is, historically speaking, tantalizing but not absolutely clear."

    She notes the apostle Paul, for instance, in 1 Corinthians 16:2, "calls on the Corinthians to treasure up on the first day of the week."

    "He does not explicitly say there whether the envisioned context is a gathering of the assembly, or if this refers to what people do in their own homes," Mitchell said.

    Another mention of the first day is in Acts 20:7, as Paul is shown breaking bread with fellow believers in ancient Troas, a peninsula in modern-day Turkey: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them ... ."

    Mitchell told WND: "This text appears to show a particular Sunday eucharistic gathering, but it does not tell us if this replaced the Sabbath observance or stood alongside it, [i.e., people observed both]."

    Interestingly, while most Bible versions use the phrase "first day of the week" in Acts 20:7, a 1990 word-for-word translation of the same Scripture by Greek experts Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort in the New Greek English Interlinear New Testament from Tyndale House Publishers, actually renders it as "one of the Sabbaths."

    Their version reads: "And on one of the Sabbaths having been assembled us to break bread, Paul was lecturing them ... ."

    If the Tyndale translation is accurate, it could heighten the Saturday-vs.-Sunday controversy, since this alleged evidence for Sunday worship may not have been a Sunday at all, but the usual Saturday Sabbath.

    'The Lord's Day' – or is that 'Day of the Lord'?

    And then there's something called "the Lord's Day." Though mentioned just once in the Bible, many today assume it means Sunday.

    The Scripture, written by the apostle John on the Greek island of Patmos, says, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet." (Revelation 1:10)


    Depiction of John on Patmos by Pat Marvenko Smith, (c) 1992. Used with permission. Revelation Illustrated

    Some Sabbatarians like Pinkston believe the term has no connection to the first day of the week.

    "It's not talking anything about Sunday," he said. "It's talking about the 'Day of the Lord' mentioned in the Old Testament. It's prophecy about when Christ comes back. The Book of Revelation reveals the events of the 'Day of the Lord.' It has nothing to do with a worship day."

    Others think it is indeed a worship day, but not Sunday. They suggest "the Lord's Day" is actually a Saturday Sabbath, noting Jesus called himself "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28) and that God referred to the Sabbath as "my holy day." (Isaiah 58:13)

    Thus, according to this reasoning, if any day of the week were really "the Lord's Day," it's the seventh-day Sabbath, not Sunday.

    However, Prof. Bauckham in Scotland believes there's good evidence from early Christian sources the phrase does indeed refer to Sunday.

    "John probably means that his visionary experience happened during the time when other Christians were gathered for worship," he said.

    "The other interpretation [equating it with the 'Day of the Lord'] doesn't really make sense because the earlier parts of the vision are not placed temporally at the end of history. That is only approached over several chapters [into Revelation]."

    The Encyclopedia Britannica equates Sunday with "the Lord's Day" in Christianity, stating, "The practice of Christians gathering together for worship on Sunday dates back to apostolic times, but details of the actual development of the custom are not clear."

    The New Testament, penned within the first century, never specifically mentions a Sabbath change.

    "From a logical point of view," says Pinkston, "if the New Testament had intended for us to start worshipping on the first day of the week, then we'd find ample evidence for it. Yet, it's not in there."

    One example Sabbatarians point to is when Paul is shown preaching to both Jews and Gentiles (non-Hebrews) on a Sabbath, and not Sunday. He's then asked to preach again on the following Sabbath.

    "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. ... And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." (Acts 13:42-44)

    The argument is, if there were some kind of worship on the first day of the week, then Paul would have just told the people – especially those with no connection to Jewish customs – to simply come back tomorrow (Sunday) to learn more, rather than wait an entire week for the next Sabbath to arrive.

    Man of the Sabbath

    A well-known expert on the Sabbath is Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, a retired theology professor at Andrews University in Michigan.


    Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi

    Bacchiocchi earned his doctorate in Church History at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and was awarded a gold medal by Pope Paul VI for his summa cum laude class work and dissertation, "From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity."

    Bacchiocchi, a Seventh-Day Adventist, believes there's no Scriptural mandate to change or eliminate Sabbath-keeping, and he singles out the Catholic Church for its role in changing the day.

    "The Church of the capital of the empire, whose authority was already felt far and wide in the second century, appears to be the most likely birthplace of Sunday observance," he writes.

    In the 1876 book, "The Faith of Our Fathers," James Cardinal Gibbons, the Catholic archbishop of Baltimore, agreed the shift to Sunday was not based on the Bible, but was solely the work of the Catholic Church.

    "You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify," Gibbons wrote.

    Bacchiocchi also told WND: "Anti-Judaism caused the abandonment of the Sabbath, and pagan sun worship influenced the adoption of Sunday."

    He says evidence of anti-Judaism is found in the writings of Christian leaders such as Ignatius, Barnabas and Justin in the second century. He notes these three "witnessed and participated in the process of separation from Judaism which led the majority of the Christians to abandon the Sabbath and adopt Sunday as the new day of worship."

    Bacchiocchi also explains the influence of pagan sun worship provides a "plausible explanation for the Christian choice of Sunday" over the day of Saturn. Its effect wasn't just limited to Sunday. It apparently led to the placement of Jesus' birth in late December.

    "The adoption of the 25th of December for the celebration of Christmas is perhaps the most explicit example of sun worship's influence on the Christian liturgical calendar," Bacchiocchi writes. "It is a known fact that the pagan feast of the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti – the birthday of the Invincible Sun, was held on that date."

    Christian facts, pagan Mithras

    One of the Roman names for this "Invincible Sun" god in the days of the apostles was Mithras. There are striking similarities between the ancient worship of Mithras and today's Christianity, leading some to think early Christians adopted Sunday worship from heathen customs.


    The pagan sun god Mithras, also known as 'the Invincible Sun'

    For instance, Mithraism's sacred day of Sunday was said to be called "the Lord's Day."

    Donald Morse, a retired professor at Temple University, wrote a 1999 essay comparing the tenets of Mithraism to modern Christianity, explaining Mithras was worshipped on Sunday; was born of a virgin known as the "mother of God" on Dec. 25; was part of a holy trinity; and had a "Last Supper" with his 12 followers before his death and resurrection at Easter time near the spring equinox.

    Mithraists were also taught they had immortal souls that went to a celestial heaven or an infernal hell at death.

    "All of these religions intermingled in those days," Morse, who is Jewish, told WND. "There's no way to know who stole from whom."

    On the change from Sabbath to Sunday, Morse suggested early Christian leaders including Paul felt "the best way to convert pagans was to not have them change too much. Just accept their [pagan] holidays, as long as they accepted Jesus as Messiah. They didn't really have to do much more than that."

    There's no place like Rome

    As Christianity spread through the pagan Roman Empire, it was finally given official toleration in the year 312 by Emperor Constantine, who purportedly had a vision that prompted his soldiers to fight under a "symbol of Christ," leading to a key military victory. The emperor then restored confiscated church property and even offered public funds to churches in need.


    Roman Emperor Constantine sees a symbol of Christ in the sky before the battle at Milvian Bridge outside Rome in A.D. 312

    Sunday observance received a historic boost when Constantine – himself a pagan who is said to have adopted Christianity at least nominally – established Sunday as the first day of the week in the Roman calendar and issued a mandatory order prohibiting work on that day, in honor of the sun god.

    On March 7, 321, he decreed, "On the venerable Day of the Sun, let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed." Farmers were given an exception.

    "The importance of the actions of Constantine cannot be overstated," says author Richard Rives in "Too Long in the Sun." "During his reign, pagan sun worship was blended with the worship of the Creator, and officially entitled 'Christianity.'"

    Before the end of the 4th century, Sunday observance prevailed over Saturday.

    At the Council of Laodicea in 363, the Church of Rome – today known as the Roman Catholic Church – declared: "Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord's Day [Sunday]; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."

    In 380, Emperor Theodosius made Sunday-keeping Catholic Christianity the official religion of the empire, outlawing all other faiths:

    We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that the shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics.

    While some went along with the decrees, others apparently did not. A letter from Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, possibly reveals Saturday Sabbath-keeping in his own town, while Sunday was being observed in Rome. It led to the well-known proverb, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

    Once Sunday had the imperial power of the Roman Catholic government behind it, Saturday Sabbath-keepers became less visible, though some Sabbatarian websites have documented mentions of seventh-day observers through the centuries.

    For example, the Catholic Church persecuted Sabbath-keepers in the 15th century. At the Catholic Provincial Council of Bergen, Norway, in 1435, it was said:

    We are informed that some people in different districts of the kingdom, have adopted and observed Saturday-keeping.

    It is severely forbidden – in holy church canon – [for] one and all to observe days excepting those which the holy pope, archbishop, or the bishops command. Saturday-keeping must under no circumstances be permitted hereafter further that the church canon commands. Therefore we counsel all the friends of God throughout all Norway who want to be obedient towards the holy church to let this evil of Saturday-keeping alone; and the rest we forbid under penalty of severe church punishment to keep Saturday holy.

    The Catholic Encyclopedia even refers to Sabbath-keeping as "the superstitious observance of Saturday," noting it was forbidden by that council.

    Coming to America

    As Christianity headed west, the earliest settlers to America included both Sunday-keepers – such as the Puritans who landed at Plymouth, Mass., in 1620 – and Sabbath-observers like the Seventh Day Baptists, whose first church was founded in Newport, R.I., in 1671.

    When the Puritan Christians used the word Sabbath, they would mean Sunday – "the Lord's Day" – and passed rules enforcing its observance from sunset Saturday to sunset Sunday.

    Connecticut's so-called Blue Laws of the 1650s had strict codes of conduct said to include:

    • No one shall run on the Sabbath day, or walk in his garden or elsewhere, except reverently to and from meeting.
    • No one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep house, cut hair, or shave, on the Sabbath day.
    • No one shall read Common-Prayer, keep Christmas or saints-days, make minced pies, dance, play cards, or play on any instrument of music, except the drum, trumpet, and the Jews-harp.
    • Adultery shall be punished by death.


    Instructions for colonists in New Haven, Conn., drafted in 1655 and published in London in 1656 became known as blue laws.

    In her 1909 book, "The Sabbath in Puritan New England," historian Alice Morse Earle documented "lists of arrests and fines for walking and travelling unnecessarily on the Sabbath," regarded here from Saturday evening to Sunday evening:

    A Maine man who was rebuked and fined for "unseemly walking" on the Lord's Day protested that he ran to save a man from drowning. The Court made him pay his fine, but ordered that the money should be returned to him when he could prove by witnesses that he had been on that errand of mercy and duty. As late as the year 1831, in Lebanon, Conn., a lady journeying to her father's home was arrested within sight of her father's house for unnecessary travelling on the Sabbath; and a long and fiercely contested lawsuit was the result, and damages were finally given for false imprisonment.


    Spring of 1642: Puritan settlers in New England observe the Sabbath on Sunday, Courtesy the Stamford Historical Society, Stamford, Conn.

    Christians observing the Sabbath on Saturday also spread throughout America, but in fewer numbers than Sunday-keepers.

    The teachings of the Seventh Day Baptists are said to be instrumental in the founding of the Seventh-day Adventist Church – which claims a membership today of 15 million – and the Church of God (Seventh Day) – which has more than 200 congregations in the U.S. and Canada and a worldwide fellowship of more than 300,000.

    Other Christians promoting Saturday rest include many offshoots of the Worldwide Church of God, such as the United Church of God, Living Church of God, Church of God International, Philadelphia Church of God and Intercontinental Church of God.

    Messianic Jews, including Dallas-based Zola Levitt Ministries, are also seventh-day proponents.

    Some Sabbatarians, such as Richard Ames of the Living Church of God, produce TV shows like "Tomorrow's World," asking, "Which day is the Christian Sabbath?"

    On one program, Ames points to Luke 4:16 in the Bible and says, "It was Jesus' regular custom to worship on the Sabbath, and since that time, and centuries before, the Jewish community has very carefully documented their observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, Saturday. In other words, history demonstrates that time has not been lost, that the seven-day cycle has been accurately recorded to this day."

    In another episode, Ames' colleague, Roderick C. Meredith, calls Sunday observance "the most flagrant error of mainstream Christianity" and "the most obvious deception of all."

    "Do you realize that this deception is blinding millions of people from knowing God?" asks Meredith.

    Despite such rhetoric, many Catholic and Protestant Sunday-keepers reject Sabbath-keeping on Saturday.


    Greg Laurie

    Greg Laurie, a WND columnist and senior pastor of Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, Calif., one of the eight largest Protestant churches in America, maintains it's wrong for Christians to observe Saturday, claiming Jesus and the apostles never taught anyone to keep the Sabbath. He says it's the only one of the Ten Commandments not specifically repeated in the New Testament.

    "Of all the New Testament lists of sins, 'breaking the Sabbath' is never mentioned," Laurie said. "That is because it was given to the Jews, not the non-Jews."

    Back in Florida, Sunday-keeper Roger Felipe thinks God is not overly concerned with the Sabbath issue.

    "Paul is very clear that we Christians don't use [one particular day] as a determining factor if someone is right with God," Felipe said.

    At the same time, though, the minister supports the idea of resting one day each week to stay on track with God.

    "Humanity has forsaken the importance of Sabbath rest," he said. "God desires us to be renewed spiritually. We should observe a day ... to be consecrated and to be devoted to God, to be renewed and refreshed. In terms of affecting the human quality of life, it would do us very well to observe a Sabbath rest."

    Source: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57978