Deeds Of God Title Banner

Main Menu


Articles View Hits

Scroll down a page to skip the 'anti-evolution' spiel.  You may already not believe in it! 

*** The theory of evolution suggests that life types - species if you will - have shifted in graduations from one life type to another, over hundreds of mllions of years.  Rather than many types of creature being created by God all at once, in the beginning, they say that life began as simple organisms (origin unknown) and mutated into more and more complex types of life in response to pressures of competition, or unexploited opportunities for sustenance.

  Many millions of children have been taught this deadly falsehood from sources they were told to trust.  They grew up, scoffed at Jesus and God as folk tales of the uneducated, and then they lived out their lives and died.  It was probably Satan's single greatest battle strategy thus far in his campaign, and his most important battle victory.  The scriptures seem to say those children, as many as grew up and died believing this, as denyers of Jesus, will not inherit their place in heaven.

   Cash rewards of more than a quarter of a million dollars have been offered (and may still be offered even today) for a paleontologist or any other scientist to find the transitional fossils that will show, in the case of even a single creature, that evolution actually has occurred.  These rewards have never been claimed.  Not once.  Not ever.  A transitional fossil is referred to as 'the holy grail' of fossil hunting.  It is called that by some scientists.  To be the scientist that confirmed - in even one case - that evolution has occurred would make that scientist a legend forever.  Not one scientist has ever acheived this goal.  Fossil beds abound throughout the world - on every continent.  Not once has a transitional fossil been found and confirmed.

   Consider how big of a fossil bed you could create with the skeletons of those hundreds of millions of persons who lived and died believing in EVOLUTION instead of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.  It is one of the wickedest and cruelest lies of all time, and yet EVOLUTION is still stubbornly taught today.  Old Professor's that made their academic reputations spouting profundities concerning EVOLUTION have raised up young Professors that had to prove their worthiness by showing an adept understanding of the great subject of EVOLUTION.  They wrote books about it.  They've given thousands of lectures about it.  If EVOLUTION were to be shown as a false and silly lie, then their professional lives could be viewed as little else but the same.  They are on a merry-go-round of falseness, and there is no graceful way for these poor people, adherents of a vast false branch of science, to extricate themselves from the lie they live in without losing face, fame, pride, professional stature, perhaps even retirements.  They must push the lie forward and forward and forward.  Everything depends upon it lasting just a little longer - at least until they can retire.  But a University is a 'mill' and it produces new professors, and these too must be trained in the mold of 'EVOLUTIONIST', else how could it be explained that they were taught otherwise.  So, it is a false and disproven doctrine, ugly and deadly, pushed along by those that know one thing:  When evolution officially dies, so do their careers.  Better that your children should rot forever in hell than that they should be revealed as selfish and cynical purveyors of the most God-hating lie in history.  

 Evolution.  Do your children believe in it?  Do you allow your local schools to get away with teaching it?  Get the facts!  Your average scientist is brighter than your average Christian I would guess, and for decades, we've let that be our reason for gobbling up whatever science feeds us.  After all, scientists create amazing things!  Well, guess what?  There are things they are good at, and things they are horrible at.  Science is absolutely horrible in Earth History and in Religion.  They are absolutely geared to miss the mark totally in each subject.  You simply cannot believe them concerning these two subjects because they break their own rules of Scientific Experimentation and Enquirey in the spinning of the yarns which they try to pass off as truth in these two areas.  Satan owns them lock stock and barrel regarding these two subjects - really and truly.  Keep that in mind - consider it.  Maybe you'll come to agree if you do not now.     

Creation! In six days all things were created by God, Jesus at His side, and on the 7th day He rested, commanding that man rest as well.

1st day: Created heavens and Earth, but Earth was still formless and void. Light and darkness also created.

2nd day: An expanse was created in the middle of the 'waters' and it was named heaven.

3rd day: God gathered waters below heaven into one place. Dry land appeared. God introduced vegetation and food bearing trees.

4th day: God placed lights in the heavens for signs, seasons, days, and years. Created the sun to govern the day, and the moon to govern the night, and created the stars, and placed them in the heavens to give light to the Earth.

5th day: God created the creatures of the waters and he created the winged birds of their various kinds. He blessed them to multiply greatly.

6th day: God created the creatures of the Earth and the creeping things. Then God said "Let us make man in Our image, according to our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

God blessd them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Then God said "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed: it shall be food for you and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food." God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.

And on the 7th day God rested, and He 'blessed' and 'sanctified' the Sabbath, as it says in the end of Genesis Chap1 and the begining of Genesis Chap 2.

We swim in an ever present sea of created things and are one ourselves. A spoon full of rich topsoil holds as many tiny lives as there are humans on Earth, it is said. And these of many different species. How complex is the interrelationship? How complex are the created things? Creation is so complex that every decade of school textbook has been forced to alter the "scientific truth" we teach our children. New vantage points simply produce new vistas, from the microscopic to the astronomic. The story changes as the data comes flooding in. And so does science's story of how it all came to be.

But the ancient scriptures of God had no such option to constantly change - nor did they end up needing to.  They claimed authorship by God, so changing them to suit the times was out of the question. Yet they have stood againt all inquiries and challenges for thousands of years. Science, claiming a greater and truer knowledge, must change it's story often. How can this be?  How can 'SCIENCE' have been so wrong for so long, and yet still stand at the edge of the cliff playing it's flute and crying out "Follow me!  I will lead you to the real truth, and you can live unbound by the childish fables in the scriptures."  Few more successful Generals has Satan ever produced.   How many have died and lost their souls in obedience to science rather than God? 

Proper science is the study, in my view, of what God did and how he did it, and how we can do some of it too. In that context, it's a healthy interest in our Father's activities. Science as religion, as a replacement for believing in God and Jesus, is an evil and rebellious notion. I imagine God seeing it as the pot trying to argue the potter out of existence by proving there is clay and a potter's wheel, or discovering the secret of the wheel's rotation.

I understand why science has to retool their explanations for things every ten years or so. I think we all do.  And we don't feel like discarding science because of it.  They have proven themselves able to discover new and wonderful things.  But new findings come in, and they find out they were wrong about various things they thought and taught as fact. So they rewrite the text books. Fair enough. But to claim or imply that God and Jesus are fables for the simple and the ignorant, or that the universe and life formed itself one small step at a time - such notions require an extreme level of selective blindness. Scientists can't look very far into the 'accidental creation' theory before it all becomes insupportable, yet without accidental creation, isn't purposeful creation the only possible alternative?  Why aren't they saying so?  Why isn't science advertising that, concerning the dogma that there is no creator, they have now proven themselves indisputably wrong? 

The things man creates decay and become disordered from the original plan. Getting even a few simple humanly manufactured systems to function in a coordinated manner towards some determined purpose is a difficult chore. Machines rust or break or bend, wear, and corrode. Things simply don't function well for long periods of time if they are at all complex - not the things man builds.

Shall we believe then that this world gradually formed itself through the clever use of scientific principals and the patient use of trial and error until it finally got itself right? Imagine telling a group of scientists that if they would leave labware and the chemicals out on a table in a locked and abandoned chemistry lab, an important experiment would eventually perform itself and record the results for future use. No one would buy that, would they? Are they supposed to be idiots, to believe such non-sense? But they are themselves part of a de facto religeon demanding belief in far far more insupportable ideas.

They have their sacred tenants, and one of them is that 'religion has it wrong' . As a scientist you're allowed to give some verbal mention of a possible higher power, but you are not really allowed to say that science is confirming what the sacred scriptures already told us. You're not likely to get a teaching job in any prestigeous American university with that as your professed philosophy, at any rate. Scientists are just not well served to acknowledge God because the 'Scientific Culture' is scornful of such thinking - scornful of Jesus.  And God professing scientists will usually lose at least some stature in the eyes of their peers.  After all, Christianity is the religion of the janitor, the recovering drug addict, the alcoholic whose actions destroyed their family.  It is the faith of the unwashed and unglamorous.  So, could it also be theirs as well? 

 The most functional people - intelligent and hardworking scientists, often living their lives in a clean and sensible way, are certainly in this group - are among the hardest to reach.  They adapt so easily and well to all environments - even false ones.  And false environments ask a lot less of you here on this side of the veil, though they are an unending curse upon you when you pass on to the next.

But you scientists, please consider that there is no greater scientist than God, and let all Christians apologize for the way that some of the early theologically inconvenient discoveries were treated by the Church. You scientists all have souls beneath the labcoats, and you'd better not let the opinions of your peers keep you from entering heaven through the narrow door (Jesus). It's open for you too, but its narrow for you too. None of your peers will be able to help you on the day that your maker demands an account. We're all in that same position.

Creation is a wonder of wonders, even in it's reduced state due to the corruption of sin in the world. It will be fantastic to see it renewed. It will be renewed sometime in the future. Why not believe that it was all made at once, because it is all deeply and vitally inter-related. Most plants produce oxygen as their waste gas, too much of which eventually poisons them off.  Animals produce carbon dioxide, too much of which eventually poisons them off. Are we to suppose that the plants - magically bringing themselves into being - were then able to wait around for the half billion or so years it took for animal life to hit the mutation jackpot and magically produce itself? How did plants get there in the first place? There are so many highly unlikely improbabilities that would have to not only coincide, but then keep coinciding to bring about a sustainable Earth. It just didn't happen. We are created.

Who hasn't seen a picture in a geology book where a rock is identified as being '3 to 4 billion years old'?  OK, which is it - 3 billion or 4 billion?  Geology is the branch which specializes in the age of rocks.  Can they seriously not know what affect a billion years has on a rock?  What then of the picture that says 'This rock is 1 to 2 billion years old'?  Since they have no idea what affect 1 billion years has on a rock, couldn't it have been made yesterday?  That's only a difference of a billion years from what they estimated, and even they have admitted that they don't know what affect a billion years has on a rock.  Ludicrous - ridiculous!  They emit lies from their face and proclaim them to be truths that should be taught to young children in our schools.  It is shameful God-cheating fantasy. 

They have no idea how old the Earth is, and even a cursory review of what they put out as truth shows that they mix truth with utter fiction and think nothing of either anyway.  Nor do the different branches of science even create a cohesive fantasy - they contradict each other horrendously in their dates and their descriptions of how it all came about.  And they care about that not at all, so long as they are on the same page pertaining to their denial that God created it all with Jesus at His side. 

We are created!!!!  The creation shouts it even louder than Christians ever could.  Two or three inches of moon dust is not 4 billion years worth.  It's only a few thousand years worth.  The accumulation rate has been studied.  The mud and silt deposited in the Mississippi River delta says the same thing.  A few thousand years, not a few billion years.  There are actually a lot of clues everywhere in nature. The rotation of the earth slows by 1/1000th of a second each day, according to scientists.  Every three years it's a second more to complete a planetary rotation. Only three thousand years ago the day was completed about 1000 seconds more quickly.  That's about 15 minutes gone from the day.  So what would it have been 300,000 years ago?  The day was about 1500 minutes shorter, perhaps.  There's only 1440 minutes in a day.  So, if even 300,000 years ago there are tremendous problems with making the scientific scenario work, why do they even talk about millions and billions of years?   Dead wrong and won't admit it. 

So imagine the mind of the being who thought it all into existence in six well ordered days. Staggering. Scientists, that's your maker and He loves you. Can't more of you commit to proving His hand in science? Imagine a world where all of the smartest people love their creator and work to prove His existence for the stubborn non-believers. All Praise To God. Hopefully it can one day be so.

On the 7th Day God Rested

There is no good to be had in avoiding a question some people might have, which it is only natural for a Christian or potential Christian to consider: Should we rest on the 7th day, which is almost universally held to be Saturday?

Or to jump out of chronological sequence and move to the days of Moses, should we keep the 4th commandment and honor the Sabbath as God's commanded holy day of rest?

No matter how much you study this issue, it just keeps coming out the same; you certainly have no scriptural authority or mandate to replace Saturday with Sunday. Even some of the greatest early fathers of the Catholic church openly admitted as much - justifying Sunday as Lord's Day on the strength of the Popes authority as a change God approved of.  Sunday as the Lord's day is strictly an invention of man.

In 321 A.D. Roman Emperor Constantine, a politician through and through, began to try to merge the Christians and the Pagans so that they might fall, to the degree possible, under the common umbrella of those who would be loyal to him. One of the compromises he made was to legitimize Christianity while simultaneously making it more palatable to the pagan.

The result was that Christianity began to assume a growing respectability in the Roman Empire, but there was pressure and laws were enacted to shift the worship day from Saturday (God's Sabbath) to Sunday (the Roman's 'venerable day of the Sun', which related to worshipping their false Sun god) There is reference to Jesus as the 'Sun of Righteousness' in the scripture, and this was employed to some degree in putting a good face on the matter. And it was pointed out that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, making Sunday a pretty special day - or at least that particular Sunday. Anyway, that seems to be where the shift in days originated. Even earlier, in the late 2nd century, Bishops of Rome such as Sixtus convinced Christians to celebrate a Resurrection Day on a certain Sunday in the Spring of the year. At first it remained only an annual celebration.

But it nearly coincided with an annual pagan festival held by Roman sun worshippers. These pagans thought of every Sunday as the Sun's day - the weekly day honoring their Sun god.  It was probably handy to have the Christian Holiday coincide with the pagan holiday.  There would be less disruption to work, you could sort of celebrate with your pagan neighbor, etc. The two holidays could just sort of blend together over time.  Maybe their kids would have a piece of lamb dedicated to Jesus while at your house, and then your kid could have a piece of beef from a cow sacrificed to the sun, over at their house.  See the problem?  Now you're eating food sacrificed to false Gods!  Just to be polite and fit in with the neighbors. 

In about 200 A.D another Roman Christian bishop - Victor - made this annual Spring celebration of the Resurrection mandatory, threatening to eject uncooperative bishops. So then it soon came to be that while most Christian churches in the world celebrated the Lord's day each Sabbath, the Roman Christians didn't - switching to Sunday. Some Egyptian Christian churches followed suit, as Rome had much influence over all things Egyptian at about this time. The church of Alexandria Egypt is one such example.

In 321 A.D. Constantine enacted a law that said work should cease on Sunday within the cities, though it could continue on farms and in agricultural areas. So in one stroke Constantine mandated observance of Sunday as a day of rest, and also made it more difficult for a Sabbath keeping farmer to justify resting on the Sabbath since he couldn't go into town on Sunday and sell his wares (because Sunday was now Constantine's rest day), and if he rested on Saturday also, then almost 30% of his week was lost to him.  It was starting to be inconvenient to keep the Sabbath. Very inconvenient.

Now, it can be and has been asserted that the Pope was given authority to replace a law of God with a new law, if that Pope was given the assignment to do so by God. And this was what is stated to have happened at the Council of Laodocia where by Papal decree Sunday worship was legitamized.

But - and this is a gigantic allowance - it must be realized that if the Pope is allowed to change a law of God based merely on his claiming that God directed him to do so, then you have just given that Pope power and authority beyond and above the very scriptures themselves. It now takes no more than the Pope's direction to alter, substitute, or eradicate any the directions which were given by God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit to the Christian church.

Here's a danger with that. It is somewhat universally accepted that a man cannot be convicted of a crime based merely on the accusation of only a single other man. It takes two or more witnesses to establish a matter. So then, how could we have arrived at a situation where God's testimony can be overridden by the utterance of a mere Pope, one single man, yet a man who has murdered can walk away a free man (barring other evidence) even though a witness claims to have seen the murder occur? If the murderer denies having done the act then it is one man's word against another. But if God says Sabbath and the Pope says Sunday, then the Pope walks away a winner? What madness!

We place the Holy Scriptures at the mercy and interpretation of a single human, the Pope, and which human being is not susceptible to being misled by the Evil One? It would, however, be not so harmful, so long as the single man in question is infallible. And there is a doctrine of Papal infallibility officially held by the Catholic Church. It holds that the Pope will be correct in what he speaks or pronounces because God will always ensure that he is correct. But, that entire notion can quickly be shown as a false one by reviewing a few centuries worth of Papal decisions and pronouncements. So, you end up, all considered, with God's laws having been altered by Popes, and these Popes can easily be shown to have been in error at various times throughout history in certain other matters.

Now it is wrong to pick on Roman Catholics and I don't mean to do so. Many of God's greatest deeds were done through that Church. But this denomination holds that the Pope can alter God's laws if God divinely tells the Pope to do so. I feel compelled personally to object to that reasoning, as both an unwitnessed and an unsubstantiated transfer of power from God to the Pope. Peter was told by Jesus to care for and lead his sheep. Peter was not told to reinvent God's utterances. So, just as Reuben (one of 12 sons of Israel) lost his place of leadership for taking upon himself the rights held only by his father (he slept with his father's concubine Bilhah, who was the mother of Reuben's own half brothers Dan and Naphtali) ) I suspect that the Catholic church of Rome, which was basically Peter's church, lost it's rights to it's place of leadership because of trying to change times and dates set by God the Father as if it were somehow a Catholic right to do so rather than a right belonging strictly to God the Father.

Now Reuben was not executed. Through the tearful prayers of his father Jacob (certain ancient writings hold) God was prevailed upon to spare Reuben - but not without consequence. Reuben lost the rights of the firstborn to Judah, the fourth born son. Genesis 49:8 among others  Simeon and Levi - the number 2 and 3 brothers - are believed to have been skipped because they were very excessively cruel in their revenge against Hamor for their sister Dinah's violation (Gen 34), and bad also to Joseph their brother who was thrown into a pit by some of his brothers, then later pulled out and sold to slave traders.  But Reuben worked to keep his unruly brothers from killing Joseph, and while Reuben was away from the pit that they had thrown Joseph into it was Judah that talked them into taking Joseph out of the pit (where he was meant by them to die) and selling him instead to passing Ishmaelite slave traders. (Genesis 37) 
But concering the Pope, it seems clear to me that God would not allow such power in a mere man without providing confirming signs of such a power transfer. When He made Moses a ruler, he provided many signs. When He made Aaron high priest, He again provided many signs that this Aaron was His chosen man. In fact, even Jesus felt that there needed to be confirmation of what He said and taught. He accomplished this with signs and miracles. He accomplished this by referring to the scriptures that supported what He was saying. And Jesus's authority was also upheld by the voice of God from heaven at times.

Should any reasonable Christian hold that Jesus Himself should feel that He needed to demonstrate confirmation of His authority to explain how he fulfilled scripture, but a Pope doesn't need any such confirmation to literally change God's laws? The Son of God feels it needful and right to authenticate His identity and authority but a Pope has no such need? Clearly that is a ludicrous notion. That actually gives Popes a magnitude of authority which even Jesus did not try to claim, though He could rightfully have done so!

There are a few little hints in the scriptures about this Sabbath question, I think. I'm speculating, and you may not agree. But consider this, just as food for thought. It concerns types, or foreshadowings, if you prefer:

First, the one previously mentioned: of Jacob's twelve sons, Rueben was the oldest and should have received the rights of the first born. But Rueben apparently slept with his father Jacob's concubine when Jacob was gone away on a trip. Genesis 49:4  This was Bilhah, Rachael's handmaid and the mother of Reuben's younger half-brothers Dan and Naphtali. Reuben, who was the first born, lost his rights to the double portion because of this. He lost his place as First son. But it was the fourth son, Judah, who was elevated into Reubens place. The fourth was preferred after the first lost it's deserved place. Did the Sabbath - the 4th commandment - take on the mantle as identifying those who belonged to God once the Jewish people started worshipping false Gods, being untrue to their own God (the God who had made them special among all the peoples of the Earth) and even denying the Messiah sent to them? Did they decide to ignore Jesus, refuse to recognize Him or His rights to assume His place of leadership among them? Did the Jewish priests and scribes decide to take the place of Jesus like Reuben got it into his head to take a place reserved for his Father?

Peter was mentioned in some of the Gospels first among all of the Apostles. And Jesus definately seems to have placed him in charge of keeping his sheep, telling him three times at one point to take care of His sheep. But Peter was not called the one 'Jesus loved'. That was John, usually the 4th mentioned among the apostles. The fourth was preferred over the first in this regard See John 21; 15-24.

The early church seems to have observed the Sabbath, but it was the Roman church - Peter's church - which put itself into God's role in so far as changing the times of worship from Saturday to Sunday, doing so initially during the 2nd through the 4th century A.D. It took upon itself what had been reserved to the Father- the right to make laws. In fact, it overrode God's stated law concerning rest on the Sabbath. It did something similar to what Reuben did - it took for itself something which had been reserved for the Father.

So, which law says we should rest on the Sabbath? The 4th law. The 4th of the ten commandments. But there are actually two other commandments. One is to 'Love God with your heart, your strength, and your soul'. The other is 'to love your neighbor as yourself'. So there are 12 commandments in a way. The last two are summations of the first 10, however. Does God love that 4th law in the same way that he loved the (usually) 4th listed Apostle in Gospels, the Apostle John? Do you remember how John was referred to as one that might tarry until Jesus returned? (John 21: 15-24) Is the 4th commandment the law that He loves, as John was the Apostle whom He loves? Does he expect our observance of the Sabbath to tarry until he returns?

What about this, just to reach a little: Noah was a preacher of righteousness, the scriptures say. So Noah would probably have preached to keep the Sabbath, as it was one of the great laws since the time of Adam. It was a law that must surely have been observed from the time of Adam until the flood by at least a few - by at least Noah and probably his family. The Bible says Noah was a righteous man. A man blameless in his time. A man who walked with God. And Noah's was the little family chosen to be preserved through the destruction of the planet by water.

Noah like most Hebrew names has a meaning. It means Rest or Hope. Rest? The Sabbath is for rest. Is there a connection at all. Will those who preserve faith in God's rest day - the Sabbath - be saved like the people who had faith in this man who's name means 'Rest'? Truthfully, I don't know. I just feel that the law of observing the Sabbath was not among those completed when Jesus came. John, writing Revelation at around 90 A.D. from Patmos says "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and ..." which tells us that John thought there was a "Lord's Day" long after Jesus had been crucified in around 30 A.D. But which day is the Lord's day? In Matthew 12:8 Jesus says, concerning Himself "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." So the Lord's Day is Sabbath. And in Luke 6:5 Jesus says concerning Himself "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." So, the Sabbath was a day that Jesus not only recognized, but also a day that He said that He was the Lord over. Again, Sabbath is decidedly the Lord's Day - from Jesus's own mouth.

Many groups, some in every century since Jesus, have determinedly worshipped on Saturday, believing it to be the Lord's day. The 7th Day Batists, the 7th Day Adventists, the Moravians, the English, Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish Sabbath keeping groups of the 16th century, certain Norwegian Christians under Catholic government in the 15th century, Bohemians in the 14th century, and Waldenses groups in that same Bohemian geographical area at that time and earlier in the 13th century. Some Welsh churches in the 12th entury A.D. were Sabbath meeters. Some 10th and 11th century Scotts were among Sabath keepers. Certain Bulgarian Christians of the 9th century kept Saturday worship. Belgians, people of India, even certain Chinese are mentioned as 8th century Sabbath respecting Christians. Many in Scotland and Ireland in the 7th and 6th centuries - many Celts in general - were inclined to worship on Saturday. Both St. Columba of Scotland and the earlier St. Patrick of Ireland taught Saturday as God's true Sabbath, and the day of rest, while offering some church functions on Sunday. In all of these centuries, the one enemy the Sabbath consistently faced were the Popes of Rome, eager for power and control of God's people and quite ready to coerce others into abandoning the Saturday Sabbath in those places where it hung on, despite having no shred of scriptural authority for doing so. Popes really do have a bad track record in many respects.

The old Roman Empire was broken into 10 parts upon it's disintegration, and the Popes were able to eliminate 3 major groups - the Herulii, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths- from among these 10 parts via various intrigues and political manipulations which resulted in those 3 peoples being largely destroyed. This does fit well with the vision Daniel had (Daniel Chapter 6) of a little horn, arising among the horns of a 10 horned beast, plucking up three large horns on the 10 horned beast by the roots. This little horn had eyes and was boastful. Truly it does fit well with the emergence of the Papacy among the remaining European nations of the fallen Roman Empire. At any rate, this little horn, whatever it's identity, is destined, also per Daniel Chap 6, to make war with the saints. It will also seek to alter times and dates. It will ultimately be subdued by the power of the Ancient of Days, at the time that He comes to take charge of His kingdom. My point is, it looks like it may be a bad thing to be on the Popes side. We'll see.  It depends on how you interpret Revelation and other such prophesy.  I am still working to interpret it correctly.   

Is the Sabbath day God's 'consolation covenant' with man, who seems to always place other God's (such as these usurping Popes) before Him, thus breaking the 1st and mightiest commandment? Does the fourth law currently suffice in God's eyes because man so often violates the 2nd law, making images or idols to place beside or even before God, thus violating God's second law? Does it replace the 3rd law, since we so very often break it in our culture, cursing out loud using God's name in our lives, our movies, our literature?

There were 4 of the 10 commandments that man was to observe for the sake of our Father, and 6 that we were to observe for the sake of our family and our neighbor. Of the 4 involving respect for the Father, only one is something we are to share together with Him. That is the Sabbath.

Is the Sabbath the next best choice for a people that simply will not have God and only God as the first priority in their life. Is it like when Jacob's son Judah was the substitute 'firstborn son' that he chose after having to displace Reuben, who tried to usurp for himself the place reserved for his father (Bilhah's bed)?

So, since the change from Sabbath was an invention of man, and clearly even Popes could not have legitimately claimed such authority as to unilaterally alter God's law, then the correct Sabbath was and still is Saturday, and there seems to be no plausible excuse not to honor Saturday as the holy day of rest.

Do you have to rest?  We Christians are evangelists.  It was Jesus' teaching that one could do 'good' on the Sabbath.  So, He and His Apostles ate a little grain from the grainfields they passed, as they travelled along on their way to do good, even if it was the Sabbath.  Even in Mosaic Law, there were things which the Priests had to do while others rested. 

We might be able to take the position that all of the Old Testament was uprooted to make way for the New Testament.  But, the New Testament tells us to 'Honor God' as well as to 'Love Our Neighbor'.  If God personally wrote with His finger to treat the Sabbath Day differently, then that must be one expected behavior if we are to honor Him.  But, there are the 10 Commandments, and there is Mosaic Law.  Mosaic Law has been replaced by the New Covenant, instituted in Jesus' blood.  God Himself sent Jesus.  So, when we were told by Jesus that He brought a New Covenant, we do not disrespect God to follow it.  Still, some of God's sensibilities are outlined in the 10 Commandments....and we honor those, though we honor them like Priests.  Christian Priests.  So, if the Sabbath finds you evangelizing, good!  Evangelize.  But as for treating it the same as any ordinary day, we have to remember that at the very beginning of Genesis God made that day Holy.        

And there is no serious doubt that Saturday is the same day as the ancient Sabbath. I've read that over 100 languages actually have a name for their 7th day of the week - their 'Sabbath' or 'Saturday' - which actually sounds phonetically like either Sabbath of Saturday. If you believe in the Tower of Babel then that makes sense. I believe!

Protestant churches give the Popes a de facto nod of supremacy over Jesus by claiming that scriptural authority is the only true authority except pertaining to the 4th commandment, which the Popes have altered. I think they are in great error there, but only God can say how heavily to weight and interpret that error. For most of my Christian life I was not a Christian. Then I was a Sunday worshipper. Now I am a Sabbath believer, and that's my reasoning for it. I've looked at the scriptures used to defend Sunday, and those to defend Sabbath, and I see no real comparison in strength. Saturday clearly carries the scriptural seal of autenticity, and wins in my mind. Perhaps I'll see it differently some day, and if I do, then I'll change accordingly, if perhaps a little sheepishly.

But let me finish by saying that God has indisputably done many great deeds through numerous denominations of Christian chrches, many of whom were Sunday keepers and still are. He still does today.  I think you can be a church that is closer to the Biblical scriptures than another, but I don't believe in a super-church, or a church that is the 'one correct church among them all'.  That would give reason for pride, and God knows better than to give us a reason for pride.  Pride is one of our greatest weaknesses as humans, and it leads us to sin very quickly. 

Many people, Christians of good conscience, simply don't see it as I'm currently seeing it. Others do see it much this way, but prefer not to change. God will probably judge me much more harshly for my many sins than He will any other more devoted and obedient Christians that are merely confused on a point of their doctrine (if indeed it even does turn out that they are wrong, for God Himself decides what is right and wrong). So, while doctrine matters, the life you lead probably matters more once you are some sort of Christian believer.

In summary, Sabbath rest was Saturday rest as we would speak it in the English language today. It's apparently a law which is still in affect, like the rest of the 10 commandments. If you believe this way, the scriptures support your choice. If you prefer Sunday, you will be in agreement with a much, much larger group of Christians, but you will probably be wrong in your decision scripturally speaking. So, why do things wrong when it's unnecessary? God may not be very lenient on this point for all we know. It is placed higher on the list than murder, just as food for thought. And in Mosaic law there were reasons, such as war, which might justify killing people. But there was no leeway given for breaking Sabbath intentionally. Only to respond to an unforseen emergency, like your valuable family ox had gotten stuck in the mud and was going to dire if you didn't act quickly.  There is an example in scripture of a man caught gathering wood on the Sabbath who was stoned to death after the Jewish leaders consulted with God on the proper punishment.  So, I suspect that God expects us to take a serious view of His Sabbath. Pray about it!

Back to Science pretending to know history:  Who among us did not see a picture in our geology book where a rock of some sort sat upon a speciman plate with a caption that said something like "This  marble was formed 2 to 3 billion years ago."?  Good gracious - the very branch of science which specializes in rocks has no idea what sort of effect 1 billion years has upon a rock?  Was it three billion years ago or was it two?  That's a billion years difference, friends, and they have no faintest idea what affect a billion years has on a rock. Doesn't it follow that if we see a rock where the caption reads "This granite was formed approximately 1 billion years ago" then it is safe to assume that it might also have been formed yesterday?  That's a billion year difference, and we've established that they don't really know what affect a billion years has on a rock.

When our judgement day comes, let's not hope some notable scientist is standing there beside us to explain to God why we ignored Jesus.  They are good at science, but deadly poor at history.  God have mercy on us all. 


©2017 Daniel Curry & 'Deeds of God' Website