The Official Website Of The Seventh Day Remnant Movement
To combat the transparent lies
Many of our dear Roman Catholics friends have been taught that Nero was the Antichrist spoken of in Revelation. Is this true? Does prophecy confirm this? As many are aware, the book of Revelation is replete with activity of this Antichrist, and most Catholics insist this book speaks of Nero. But is it really speaking of the ancient Roman ruler? Truth is, there is a very simple way to find out. What does the very first verse of Revelation say?
Besides the fact that a whopping 99% of the prophecies of Antichrist cannot possibly see fulfillment in Nero. (Yet 100% of them are fulfilled by the Popes) How's it possible for the Book of Revelation to speak of the acts of a man named Nero, or any man that hated Christians that was alive before Revelation 1:1 was penned? The very first line in this prophetic book declares quite clearly that the prophecies written therein are "things which must shortly come to pass."
Historic FACT is...
Yes, Nero was "an" Antichrist like many Antichrists in the world today. But it is clear that he could not have been "the" Antichrist prophecy speaks of in the book of Revelation because he would have to have been born, come to power and he would have had to done all the acts declared of him in the entire book. That would be literally impossible to do from the grave. So, if Nero isn't the prophesied Antichrist? Who is? And do all the prophecies really find fulfillment in this Antichrist? See this video to find out...(For an in depth look see this http://www.remnantofgod.org/666-CHAR.htm )
Do we as Sabbath keeping Christians keep the annual feast days, or have they been abolished at the cross of Christ? What does the Word of God say about this?
In this passage it is clear "something" has been nailed to the cross. Many believe this means the Law of God, or the Ten Commandments is nailed there because the term "Sabbath days" is used in this passage. However, once we look just a little bit closer we notice an easy and obvious fact that always seems to be missed. The term "sabbath days" is in fact mentioned here. But what most miss is it's being mentioned in the same breath with the "meat, drink, holydays, and new moons." Nowhere are the terms, "meat, drink, holydays, or new moons" used in the Ten Commandments. In other words, this cannot possibly be speaking of the weekly Sabbath that occurs each seventh day. Peering into the fourth commandment itself confirms it stands alone without the help of "meat, drink, holydays, or new moons." However, these terms are used quite often when speaking of annual feast days in the Word of God.
Out of the five annual feast days listed in Leviticus 23:23-37, which by the way the Lord said in Leviticus 23:38 are besides the weekly Sabbath of the Lord, three of them must be kept officially within the Tabernacle of the Lord. Those three feasts are the "feast of unleavened Bread, feast of weeks, and feast of ingathering." When the "...veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom." (Matthew 27:51) at the exact moment Christ died for us, it signified Christ's sacrifice as the "Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:29) was finished. No longer was the Temple the official residence of the Spirit of the living God. It is now written in 1 Corinthians 3:16, "...that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you"
Another reality to all this in the physical world is that, since 70A.D. there has been no such Temple anywhere on planet earth for those feast days to be officially kept. Therefore, even if you wanted to keep the feast days since then, it would be literally impossible to do because the stipulation is that three of them had to be kept in the Temple. Yes, many unknowing teachers have declared a third Temple is due to be built, and the sacrifices were to start anew. But that would declare what Jesus did was unfinished. According to Biblical jurisprudence, it would be a massive waste of time to build that thrid Temple. Our God stated quite clearly He no longer dwells in Temples made with human hands. "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;" (Hebrews 9:11) is dwelling in Heaven and His Spirit is within His people.
Even scoffers 2000 years ago unkowingly realized this. When speaking of Jesus they said, "...We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands." -Mark 14:58 No longer was the Temple sacrifice, or feast days spirtually worth anything when it came to salvation because the "Lamb of God which taketh away sin" (John 1:29) was already sacrificed on Calvary. The ancient feast days were a way of declaring faith in the "coming" Messiah.
All the feast day rituals and sacrificial offerings of ancient Israel were performed by them in a proleptic manner as a way of purposely proclaiming their faith in what was to transpire in reality during the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ when He finally arrived as Messiah and "made a shew of them openly." Those feast days purposely pointed to that cross. They were "...a shadow of things to come." as Colossians 2:17 puts it.
When a light shines on an object, and you follow it's shadow to that object, the shadow ends at that object. Just like there is no shadow on the other side, or behind that object, there is no shadow after the cross of Christ. To keep the feast days He prophetically and literally fulfilled, would be an insult to our Lord and Saviour. Keeping the feast days now, is the same as stating what He did on Calvary did not finish the work of Salvation; even though He plainly said with His very last breath, "...It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." - John 19:30
I hope and pray this truth was a blessing to behold.
For much more depth on this topic, click here
A true story I once heard will answer this perfectly...
"The professor of a university challenged his students one day with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".
The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he also created evil. Since evil exists, God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had proved that belief in God was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.
However, another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? Of course" answered the professor. The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does cold exist?" The professor answered, "What kind of question is that?...Of course cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?" The young student answered, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, is in fact the absence of heat. In this field, all things are able to be studied as long as they transmit energy, or heat. Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat. But cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have heat. Furthermore, does darkness exist? he continued. The professor answered "Of course." This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is simply the absence of light. Light can be studied and broken down into individual spectrums, darkness can not be broken down and studied. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam ends. Dark is a term that we as humans have created to describe what happens when there is lack of light." Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations of all sorts, crimes and violence everywhere in the world. These things are obviously evil." The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, evil is nothing more than a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man. After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back.
The young student that stood up to speak that day was... ALBERT EINSTEIN."
-author unknown
For much more depth on this topic, click here
Some have recently tried to use the following verse to say God DID create evil..
The only way to claim this means God creates evil is to take Him completely out of context. For example, when the Lord was finished creating all things on the sixth day, He said this...
Since all that God created was "very good," why does it appear God is saying in Isaiah 45:7 that He created evil? For the exact same reason He said He hardened Pharaoh's heart in the following passage.
Since we know that "God is love" according to 1 John 4:8, we also know that His love affects people differently, just like our love sometimes is misunderstood by others in our own lives. Jesus Himself said in John 3:19, "...light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Since they love to do evil deeds, anything that threatens those evil desires would be hated. Their love for evil makes them hate God because it is also plainly written in Matthew 6:24 that, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other..." Jesus also said, "He that hateth me hateth my Father also." (John 15:23)
An easy way to explain God's love and how it affects people would have to be using the Nature He created for us. For example, take a lump of clay, and a lump of wax and place them outside in the desert Sun. After waiting a few moments, what do you find? The lump of clay is hardened, and the lump of wax is softened. Both were affected differently by the heat of the sun in the exact same way people are affected differently by the love of the Lord. The same love God showed both unto Moses and Pharaoh softened Moses' heart but hardened Pharaoh's. When the Lord stated in Exodus 10:1 that He "hardened" Pharaoh's heart He was being truthful. If it wasn't for Pharaoh's love of darkness, God's love never would have hardened his heart. The love of God was despised by Pharaoh just like Jesus illustrated previously in Matthew 6:24. Therefore, the fact some hate the Light while others love it, doesn't lesson the love at all. That love sent from Heaven will in fact "create evil" in some hearts by their hatred of it in the same way that same love will create "good" in those who love it.
Those that hate the Lord take His Word out of context in the same way Satan did in the Garden of Eden 6000 years ago. Let's take one more example of this love of God from the very same book of Isaiah that the scoffers use to claim our God creates evil to prove the Truth for what it is again.
Notice it says that the Lord was "pleased" to "bruise" Jesus in this prophetic statement regarding His death on the cross. If what the scoffer says is true, and God really creates evil, then the Father Himself must be the one that placed Jesus on that cross. Problem is, Historic fact is, and Scriptures confirm, it was the Jewish nation that placed Him on that cross. Pilate even admitted he found Jesus committed no crime, still the Jews insisted and Pilate asked them what "they" wanted him to do to Jesus...
The hatred of the Light of God caused the Jewish nation to crucify Jesus Christ. Man has free will and the Lord honors it at this time by stepping back to allow them to do the evil their hearts desire. So again, the Lord was truthful when He said He was "pleased" to allow Jesus to be "bruised." If it wasn't for God's love in this day, they never would have killed Jesus, and we never would have a Saviour. Yes, this could have been done differently, but as man makes his descision to walk away from His God, evil is always there at the ready to guide them. In this case, the Lord was able to take advantage of man's shortcomings in a way that would help him in the end.
One more thing must be made clear here. The word "create" in Isaiah 45:7 is from the Hebrew word, bara' {baw-raw'} It can also be translated "dispatch." (See Strong's # 1254) That being shared, the above explanation regarding how God's inaction allows for Satan to do his evil deeds becomes even clearer. No, God does not "create" evil. He allows mankind to do evil acts because God has given him free will. Therefore, when God is asked to leave man's side, He does as He is asked. Evil is then dispatched to fill the void.
Yet ANOTHER thing The Lord said through the prophet Jeremiah the following. "And thou shalt say, Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise from the evil that I will bring upon her: and they shall be weary. Thus far are the words of Jeremiah." (Jeremiah 51:64)
Many use this verse and others like it to say God does evil. But the truth is, the Word says in Isaiah 5:20 "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Yes, it is called "evil" in the Word, but as we all know, Satan likes to re-word how God speaks. He's been doing it since Eden. God knows how people htink. He knows they will assume that which He sends their way is evil "to them" because they don't like being dealt with for their sins. But the Lord sends all of us trials we make not like that actually help us grow in faith and clamor closer to His side.
To answer the question bluntly? James 1:13-14 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: (14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
ONE LAST THING that should hopefully lock this all down. As is clear, the thought I am trying to convey here is that God does not create evil. What He does is back away from mankind when after using his free will he asks him to. Notice this in the book of Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Some that do not study the Word properly will use this out of context to confirm God does do. But if they just read down 2 more verses they would have seen this...
There you have it. The Lord doesn't send evil. He just stops sending the good things to those that prefer evil over the good.
As we all know, God created one wife for Adam as the perfect help meet in the Garden of Eden.
With that said. Do you believe God created all things perfectly? Like bee's are made for flowers, flowers open to the Sun, bunnies eat grass, fish swim, birds fly, etc. I am sure you will agree that you can see the Creator's wisdom in how He fashioned His creation. This being the case, you must also agree what God did in creation week, specifically on day six when He created Adam and Eve, man cannot hope to improve upon.
As we also know, pastors, or as their called in Scripture, "bishops," are directed in the Word of God to be "the husband of one wife" according to 1 Timothy 3:2.
In the very next chapter we see the apostle Paul tells Timothy that pastors are to, "...be thou an example of the believers" (1 Timothy 4:12) So there you have it, one wife per husband is the instructed will of God.
When Jesus resurrected Sunday morning 2000 years ago He did something some of His followers have a hard time understanding to this day. For some reason, after Jesus arouse from the dead He folded the napkin that was about his head..
The Lord made sure in the written Word to tell us that the napkin was neatly folded and placed at the head of that stony slab His body was laid on that Friday evening just before Sunset. Why would Jesus make it a point to share such a thing as this in the Bible?
In order to understand the significance of the folded napkin, you have to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of the day. The folded napkin had to do with the duty of the servant as is dictated by the actions of his Master. This was taught to every Jewish child for thousands of years and it most assuredly speaks of a truth we as Christians today can embrace. When the servant set the dinner table for the master, he always made sure that it was exactly the way the master wanted it. The table was furnished perfectly each and every time the master sat down to eat. As he ate his meal, the servant would wait just out of sight until the master had finished his meal so as to be ready to clean the table for him when he was done. As tradition dictates,when the master was finished eating, he would rise from the table, pick up the napkin, wipe his fingers, his mouth, and clean his beard. He would then wad up the napkin and toss it on the table. Doing this was the sign the servant watched for. He was taught that the wadded napkin meant, "I'm done.You may clean the table." However, if the master got up from the table, for whatever reason, with the folded napkin still beside his plate, the servant would not dare touch the table. He knew that folded napkin meant, "I'm not finished yet. I will be back soon"
Over the years many have claimed Jesus made alcoholic wine at the Wedding of Cana, or at the last supper. However, the Word of God is rather plain in that this is not the case at all.
Common sense tells us that the mention of drinking this wine "NEW" in the kingdom of God means it is in fact "New Wine" But what is "New Wine" in Scripture?
Here it is obvious that new wine simply means the juice of grapes. A cluster is what you find on a grape vine. This being the case, this means the word "wine" in Scripture is used to speak of both fermented as well as unfermented grape juice just like the word meat can be used to describe fruit, bread, and flesh in Scripture.
To further verify this as fact, as Christians we know that a prophet of God would never do that which is considered sin. The prophet Daniel and his understudies refused the King's wine in their day further proving that it had to have been fermented wine he was offering them.
If fermented wine would cause Daniel to defile himself, then it could not have been fermented wine Jesus used to represent His blood at the last supper either. If a prophet won't do it, surely the Lord who speaks to those prophets wouldn't do it either. To further confirm this, notice Jesus also used unleavened bread to represent His flesh. Leaven permeates the whole lump of bread just as sin does the flesh.
Christ has no sin, therefore even the bread, representing His flesh, would have no leaven either because as we know symbolically speaking leaven represented sin. Fermented wine is nothing more then rotten grape juice. Therefore it too could not be used to represent His blood because Jesus was not going to be allowed to rot in the grave...
Just like any other plant or animal on earth that dies. Rotten, or fermented grape juice releases a gas as it decays proving corruption has set in. This is why Jesus said in Mark 2:22, "And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles." As grape juice ages it releases a gas just like the gas released by yeast that causes the loaf of bread to rise. The wine skins, or bottles as they were called back then, would stretch at the seams as the new wine aged. Therefore, if you placed new wine in and old wine skin that was already stretched to its limits, it would naturally burst and you would loose the grape juice. That being said, it is clear that at the Last Supper, the wine representing Jesus' blood could not have been fermented because in so doing it would be considered corrupt. And a
If a prophet of God refuses to defile himself with fermented wine, then the wine that Jesus created at the wedding of Cana could not possible have been fermented. Because then He would have been causing everyone at that wedding to defile themselves. This is not something our Lord and Saviour would ever do.
Ask any natural healer and they will tell you grape juice can heal many ailments, including stomach problems. The "wine" in this verse is definitely unfermented. Fermented wine would make stomach problems worse.
UPDATE:
Proverbs 31:4,5 "It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted."
As Christians, are we not slated to reign with Christ as kings? If a king could not drink back then, why is it ok for those in training as kings now to drink? And if we drink, do we not "forget the law" while doing so? And yes, some will say the next passage makes it ok.
Proverbs 31:6 "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts."
First off, the only way to make drinking "ok" by using this passage is to do so out of context with the preceding two. Still, this passage is not saying it is ok to drink wine. It's saying only those that are headed for death (hell) can drink it.
ALSO: In the Sanctuary services we find instructions that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that alcohol is not only deadly to the soul, it is in fact unholy and unclean.
The Bible blesses us with proof that the Biblical diet is not only spiritually better for us, it's physically and mentally better as well. Notice...
Amazing how the biblical diet that Daniel and his friends chose was the best thing for their bodies. Yet today we see all sorts of people declaring, "you need the meat for proteins!" However, look at the cow, giraffe, elephant, hippo, or rhino. Or go back a few thousand years and look at the largest animal ever lived. The brontosaurus! None of these animals ate meat! Where did they get their proteins? That's right! In the same place we were designed to get them!
One more thing to note here is that God fed them manna 40 years in the desert because they needed to get HEALTHY before entering the promised land! Manna is not meat.
PROPHETIC STATEMENT
PROPHETIC STATEMENT REPEATED BY CHRIST (He is speaking to Jews here)
PROPHECY FULFILLED
Also notice what Jesus Himself said to the Jews...
ANOTHER PROPHETIC FACT...
For much more on this topic, click here to view a 13:53 minute video. Or click here for the text transcript of that video.
Two separate God's are mentioned here clearly. This verse proves Jesus Christ is considered an absolute separate part of the Godhead. The Father Himself (he saith) is calling His Son, "O God" in this passage. This passage also declares God the Father is the God of Jesus Christ as well when it says, " therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness..." Did you catch that? One God is speaking to the other God, saying that "thy God" has anointed Him, His Son! The wording of this passage makes it so clear that there is more then ONE God in the Godhead thereby blasting the trinity theology of "one" God completely and utterly out of existence.
What about the THIRD person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit?
Clearly we see the Holy Spirit is being called God here. Peter exposes the lie "to the Holy Ghost" and then tell Ananias that his lie was actually "unto God" to clarify and confirm the Spirit God.
In Jeremiah 51:9 We see God saying that "We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed: forsake her, and let us go every one into his own country: for her judgment reacheth unto heaven, and is lifted up even to the skies." Why would God use the word "We" when "I" would have sufficed if only ONE God existed?
Truth is, there are MANY Verses in the Word that confirm God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are in fact truth regarding all this. These are just a few. Still, my favorite passage sin all this have to be the following...
One "Holy" ise proclaimed for each person in the Godhead!
For much more on this topic, click here
If Peter was a Pope, then why do the disciples (including Peter) ask Jesus the following question AFTER Jesus already "supposedly" only gave the "Keys to the Kingdom" to Peter?
In Matthew 16:18 Jesus is declaring Peter as "the rock" upon which Jesus builds His church. The latter part of the passage (verse 19) speaks of the duty of such a church. I go into more detail about this duty on my Confessional page. What I do want to point out is that TWO CHAPTERS LATER the Apostles are asking "who is the greatest..." The Vatican declares Jesus placed Peter as "the greatest" in Matthew 16, yet much later on in Matthew 18 we find this is a lie because the Apostles, of which Peter is one, are asking who is the greatest! If Jesus really did install Peter as Pope, there should be no question in Matthew 18 of this sort. The Apostles never should have asked Jesus "who is the greatest."
For much more on this topic, click here
cru·ci·fy (krs-f)
tr.v. cru·ci·fied, cru·ci·fy·ing, cru·ci·fies
1. To put (a person) to death by nailing or binding to a cross.
-The FREE Dictionary.com
"For the sake of expediency, the victim was likely affixed to the cross by ropes, nails, or some combination of the two. In popular depictions of crucifixion (possibly derived from a literal reading of the translated description in the Gospel of John, of Jesus' wounds being 'in the hands'), the victim is shown supported only by nails driven straight through the feet and the palms of the hands, which is possible, if there was a foot-rest to relieve the weight; on their own, the hands could not support the full body weight[1].
Another possibility, that does not require tying, is that the nails were inserted just above the wrist, between the two bones of the forearm (the radius and the ulna). The nails could also be driven through the wrist, in a space between four carpal bones (which is the location shown in the Shroud of Turin). As some historians have suggested, the Gospel word χειρ (cheir) that is translated as 'hand' may have in fact included everything below the mid-forearm. Indeed, Acts 12:7 uses this word to report chains falling off from Peter's 'hands', although the chains would be around what we would call 'wrists'. This shows that the semantic range of χειρ is wider than the English 'hand', and can incorporate nails through the wrist. SOURCE: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/crucify
Even Hollywood unknowingly verifies this as fact. Yes they unknowingly show Jesus nailed "in the palms" of the hands instead of the wrists. Yet, whenever they show a Roman soldier "shaking hands" with another soldier they show him grasping the forearm of the man. The "wrist" was considered to be part of the hand back then just as the "palm" and fingers" are considered part of the hand today.
EASY FACT TIDBIT is such that if Jesus was crucified in the "palms" of His hands, then He would have fallen forward at the moment of death as the weight of His body rested entirely on the nails in His "hands" because He would no longer be alive to support His own weight by standing on the nail in His feet, nor could He support His weight by supposedly clenching His fists around the nails driven through His palms.. Yet, the Bible clearly says when they came to break the legs of those hanging on the cross they found Jesus already dead...
Nowhere in any of the four Gospels does it say that Jesus body fell forward after death.
Many will say that after the cross of Christ, the Biblical diet changed to allow us to eat all that the Almighty created. The devil has been very instrumental in hiding the basic common sense of this Biblical fact. One question... Did the Almighty Creator RE-CREATE all the people on planet earth so as to make their bodies able to consume foods they were not designed for originally? Or, did the Almighty RE-CREATE the unclean animals so as to make them suddenly edible to us? Seems like a dumb question doesn't it? Then why do so many people choose to believe they can now eat food that is proven dangerous to their bodies?
Another basic fact is, have you ever noticed the high death rate in the USA due to people eating unclean foods? Everything from cancer, heart disease, strokes, liver diseases, kidney diseases, blood disorders, etc. Ever notice this as well? In countries where unclean food is scarce, people not only live longer, they have extreme rare occasions of all the diseases we see as normal everyday life occurrences in the USA. Is it a Biblical fact that we should not only be prospering in our souls, we should also be blessed with healthy bodies? it is written in
Fact is, there is New Testament evidence that the Bible Christians did not eat unclean foods after the cross of Christ and some declare. 3.5 years after the cross of Christ, Peter receives a vision of the Lord.
As we know, the Word says Peter misunderstood the vision in Acts 10:17.
Because of this misunderstanding, Peter confidently declares to the Lord Himself that he has never eaten anything unclean! However, the Lord keeps saying “kill and eat” and Peter keeps saying no, nothing unclean has entered my mouth! (See Acts 11:8) Again, keep in mind this is 3.5 years after the cross when some say it was ok to eat pork, or other unclean foods. Later on in the very same book of Acts we see Peter contemplates the vision of the sheet, and finally understands it completely. In fact, he understands it so clearly that he then shares with those looking on what it really meant.
So.. how is it they say you can eat pork after Christ's death, when Peter sees the vision was meant for MAN and not animals?
One more thing to ponder. How can it be that there were many types animals declared "unclean" by God in the book of Genesis before the flood, these same animals are still declared "unclean" by Peter in his vision recorded in Acts 10, they were still considered unclean in John's vision while on Patmos (See Revelation 18:2) and then Isaiah the prophet describes people that eat these unclean animals that are alive at the second coming to be worthy of death, how is it these animals are now considered CLEAN?
For much more on this topic, click here
A series of facts regarding conversation I have had over the years with Catholics. By the way, I used to be Catholic as well. Therefore I can attest personally that this is the mindset of the Roman Catholic.
Catholics agree bowing before Jesus or kissing His feet = worship in Scripture. However, Catholics disagree doing the exact same thing to Pope is worship?
Why is it when they bow before Jesus and kiss Him in Scripture it's called worship, but when they do this to the pope it's not called worship? You cannot have it both ways. It's either one or the other. Case in point. Look at Shadrach Meshach and Abednego from Daniel's day...
If you study the story you will find that King Nebuchadnezzar set up a 90 foot statue of gold of himself. He then demanded all in his kingdom to bow to the statue in worship at the sound of the music his court would perform at set intervals. If they refused they would be cast into the fiery furnace to die. On the coronation day of this statue, the king unveiled it and made the oration, wherein he demanded worship, and then the music played., EVERYONE BOWED except the three worshippers of the true God in Heaven.
QUESTION: If you were alive in that day, would you be bowing before the statue? Sadly, the Catholic would say yes because they wouldn't consider it an act of worship because "in their heart" they weren't bowing in worship, they were bowing to prevent death by fire. However, if it wasn't an act of worship to merely bow for any reason, why did Jesus step out of eternity for a moment to reward the three worthies with salvation from the fire that day?
If it was no big deal to bow before the statue, why did Satan make the king demand it, and why did Satan make the Roman Catholic church REMOVE Commandment #2 from their Catechism books where it says..
For much more on this topic, click here
We worship a God of perfection. When He proclaims certain prophetic characteristics of Antichrist, ALL OF THEM can point to only one. You cannot say Bill Gates is Antichrist because "Microsoft Windows" = 666, or Ronald Reagan is Antichrist because his name = 666 and so on. All the prophecies must pertain to one entity alone. For example, do the following prophecies find fulfillment in Bill Gates or Ronald Reagan, or anyone else for that matter?
All of them including the name that equals 666 can only be attributed to the Roman Catholic Popes. Click here to see all the facts on this...
The question that sparked this answer was, "why doesn't God use the blunt and amazing signs He used in the Old Testament like the pillar of clouds in the desert?" Check out this passage...
The word "cloud" here is the same word used for "cloud" in the Old Testament when He appeared before the Israelites in the desert for 40 years straight. Strong's Concordance translates the word cloud like this...
Strong's Number 3507
nephele {nef-el'-ay} from 3509; TDNT - 4:902,628; n f
AV - cloud 26; 26
1) a cloud
1a) used of the cloud which led the Israelites in the wilderness
For Synonyms see entry 5866
The truth is, the Lord is about to use a blunt and amazing sign as He did in the Old Testament before all the eyes of mankind. In fact, it's going to be the greatest sign any generation ever saw in the history of mankind. The Word of God says Luke 10:24, "For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them." In other words, the prophets of old look with intense interest in what we are about to witness with our own eyes. All of the prophets only saw our day in visions filled with symbols, but we will see it first hand if Jesus returns in our lifetime.
Now I know some are going to say, "but that's just ONE major event. The Old Testament has many of them." Yes, that's true. But you need to remember that these were events spread over the course of 4000 years. Most of the people alive never saw them "first hand" like we will. Most were only told about those amazing signs by their parents or someone that heard if from their parents.
Now, are you sitting down? We are literally living in what's called "the end times" right now. If you've done your bible study you know when the 2300 year prophecy of the prophet Daniel ended. Doing the math in March of 2015, we've been in the last days for just over 170 years. That's not even counting the previous signs that had to occur before the end times were even slated to start. If you go back to the global earthquake of 1755 that Revelation 6:12 speaks of, then there are even more prophesied events that happens in the Sun, moon and the stars that literally millions of people witnessed and reported on in those days. That being the case, mankind has seen literally hundreds of prophecies come true the last 260 years and most in the last 170. Yet, no one seems to know about any of this today. Why is that? It has to do with yet another prophesied event found in Amos 8:11 that says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:"
The prophet Amos saw out day clearly as possible in symbolic manner. So, all one needs to do here is look around. How many people do you know that read bibles? It used to be EVERYONE that claimed Jesus Lord read their bibles daily as little as 100 years ago. Today it's rare to see even in Christian families. That's why no one understands the signs of the times or even sees the fulfilled prophecies. The Bible says in Romans 10:17, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." This strange event is nothing new either. The Pharisees themselves had a problem in this area in their day. Jesus said to them in Matthew 16:3, "And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?"
Like back then at the first coming of Jesus, Satan now knows there are to be hundreds of prophetic fulfilments in everything from society to nature right before the second coming. So he confuses the preachers that do read bibles by giving them re-written bibles and corrupted teachers in the Bible colleges so they will be unable to "discern the signs of the times" just like the Pharisees 2000 years ago. These so called men of God have in turn confused everyone sitting in the pews of their churches, and they have confused everyone that doesn't go to church when they approach you at your workplace, sporting events, elevators, plane rides, walks in the park, grocery stores, or front door steps. Our generation has seen more prophetic fulfilments then ALL the previous ones combined, but because no one reads or trusts bibles anymore, no one can see what students of prophecy can see.
Thin of it this way.. One can see children in the Old Testament having trouble dealing with the blunt signs in their day not being frequent enough askign their parents, "how come the people in the future end times get so many signs to prove God exists for them one or two that happens every few hundred years?"
Absolute truth is such that, if all that is needed as it was in creation is present, then the grass on your lawn will be green. If one element is taken away then the grass will be brown and die. Also, if one element is added that was not designed to be there, the grass will die. Same thing goes for humans. God created man perfectly. Man created pollution, drugs, unhealthy food, anxiety, and other elements that take away from or add to that which was planned to make a perfect baby. And some blame GOD? Why?
Verses in question are...
It can be easily explained by events that transpired in Exodus. In chapter nine we read..
Yet in the previous chapter we read...
Basic Truth is...
James 1:13, "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:"
Nothing evil can come from God, nor does He tempt any man to do evil. What happened here is the Love that God offered Pharaoh was the same Love He offered Moses. In Moses' case, this love softened his heart, in Pharaoh's case it hardened it. It's not that God wanted to harden his heart at all. This was Pharaoh's decision. Mankind has free will to believe or not believe.
Look at it this way. Take a lump of wax and a lump of clay. Put both lumps in direct sunlight on a hot Summer day. What happens? The wax melts, but the clay hardens. Are there two different Suns in the sky wherein one melts and the other hardens? Of course not. The same sunshine that melts wax is the same sunshine that hardens clay. The human heart reacts to love in the same manner. One is drawn by God's love, another is repelled by it simply because some love righteousness and others love evil. In the case of the evil spirit of Saul, It's better understood when you see what 1 Samuel 16:14 says...
It's not that the Lord "sent" the evil spirit. It's that Saul's decision to be evil caused the Lord to "depart from Saul" and that action "sent" the evil spirit forward. So yes, in essence the Lord sent the evil spirit. But only because Saul made the decision to embrace evil, and the Lord cannot be in the presence of evil, so He departed from Saul." If the Lord never departed the evil spirit would never had been able to approach. The Lord grants all men FREE WILL to accept Him or reject Him.
Take evil in it's basic form for a prime example. God didn't create evil, it's the absence of God that causes evil to flourish. Check out "easy fact #3" for a true story in relation to this that happened recently that bluntly answers the question, "Since God created all things, did He also created evil?
Some say the "sons of God" are fallen angels, who had sex with women to create the Nephilim, or "giants in the earth." They do all this by using the following verse...
First, the word "giants" is translated as follows...
Strongs # H5303
נפל נפיל nephîyl nephil nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.
It is obvious where the word "Nephilim" came from that is used in bibles other then the King James. However, it appears the proper definition is more apt to be declaring they were bullies rather then men of gigantic proportions. Or "larger then life" as some are called today. This also shows how the devil can easily distort a single word in the bible to generate a totally different outcome. Back then, the word "giant" had one meaning, today another. The "cultural" changes of language and even slang terms cause people that are unaware of this fact of life to use their own understandings of these words to decipher Scripture. The Word of God is thousands of years old and cannot be defined by today's languages. To do so is to assume to be able to understand ancient terminology. Without understanding what the words meant to the people in the day it was penned, you cannot possibly know what the truth is on any given topic if in fact that topic carries a word changed by modern man. So be careful when studying the Word of God. It can be a gold mine of wonderful truths if handled correctly.
After researching the word "Nephilim" a little more to close the case on this, I found it to be a word adopted via the Apocryphal book of Enoch which was later placed in Strong's Concordance and other bible dictionaries as if it was a word used in the original King James Bible. When the word is examined in all formats (dictionary, Strong's Concordance, Encyclopedias, bible commentaries, etc) it proves the word "giants" in Genesis 6:4 is still better translated using words of today like, "bullies, cruel, terrible, sinister, felons, etc" Only in man's "opinion" do we hear this strange concoction of demonic monsters raping women. Nowhere in Scriptures does such an account find validity.
Using a time sensitive context viewpoint on this we see that when you look at the meek and gentle people of God in contrast to the, fighters, bullies, and felons of the Nephilim, we find they would indeed appear as giants because of their strange and hateful ways that "overpower" the meek. Something the gentle people of God saw as strange and "larger then life" I'm sure, because being lead of God they would naturally walk in a more loving manner. Scientific fact is, before the flood, all people were "giants" in the true sense of the word by today's standard. Men were on average 16 feet tall and women around 14 feet. After the flood, mankind lost a lot more then years of life. They lost their magnificent stature as well. To further illustrate my findings regarding the word "giants" in Genesis 6:4. The Easton Bible Dictionary's first definition of "giants" is as follows...
(1.) Heb. nephilim, meaning "violent" or "causing to fall" (Gen. 6:4). These were the violent tyrants of those days, those who fell upon others. The word may also be derived from a root signifying "wonder," and hence "monsters" or "prodigies." In Num. 13:33 this name is given to a Canaanitish tribe, a race of large stature, "the sons of Anak." The Revised Version, in these passages, simply transliterates the original, and reads "Nephilim."
If you investigate the word "giants " in Genesis 6:4 you will find it speaks more of their "attitude" size rather then their "physical" size.
One last thing. As many are aware, we have entered into the last days. History is literally repeating itself in the way Jesus described this earth would be today. It is most assuredly like the "days of Noah" is it not? I can clearly see that there are again "giants" in the land when I look around and see people who follow the way of Cain that are bold in their sin against the Lord and each other. They are again filling the earth with all sorts of sin and violence just like in Noah's day just before the flood. Their actions are of course bringing on their own final judgment as it was in Noah's day. The cup of iniquity is nearing the brim speedily. Man is willfully placing their sinful pleasures above God and His peace. Problem is, there is no second chance after this great and dreadful day. When I look around with Christian eyes, I too see "giants in the land."
As for the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:4 being translated to depict fallen angels. Common sense has to be graphically called upon here to ask the question. Would God call fallen angels the sons of God? Some say the "sons of God" are good angels as well. However, Mark 12:25 says we will be like Angels that can't "marry" when Heaven starts...
So, if the "sons of God" are now good angels in Genesis 6:4, they are now committing adultery and or fornication by having sex with women without marriage.
Who are the "sons of God" according to your bibles? Read the following passages most that preach "sons of God = angels" never seem to share...
Does this series of passages describe fallen angels? Or is it describing the followers of God? The Sons of God were, and still are the people of God. They sinned in that they took women to wife that God specifically commanded against. It's that simple.
First of all, do a short Bible study and you will find the word "meat" was associated with different types of food. For example, both flesh and baked goods were called "meat" in the Old Testament numerous times. So... did Jesus eat the fish? Or was it that He was offered fish and honeycomb, but "chose" to eat only the honeycomb.. Please take note that He was also offered gall on Calvary to drink and "chose" not to drink it.
Just because Jesus is offered something to eat or drink, does not mean He will automatically eat it. Plus, prophecy did touch on His diet...
All too often the additions of the KJV translators comes off as inspired. Like the uninspired punctuation throughout the Bible, certain phrases in the KJV were added after it was penned by men of God to supposedly help the story line flow better. Translating Hebrew into English is not an exact science by any means. The phrase, "Even him" was added after the verses were inspired. In any event, it is in fact referring to Jesus Christ and not Satan the "Even him" is referring to. There are two ways to verify this.
For those of the SDA denomination, Sister White also says...
When you read from verse #1 down, you see it is speaking of how we are to treat others as we walk in this world with Christ. Verse 8 is saying that we must show charity even if someone has personally sinned against us. Charity = love in translation. With that said, the following verse in that passage confirms that if we show love to others, no sins against us will matter in how we treat them.
In today's language, verse 8 would be saying... "..have fervent love for each other, for love like this will cover a multitude of wrongs committed against us."
It's similar to the way a child lashes out against a parent, or directly disobeys. No matter how much hate is displayed by the child, the parent's love covers those sins up and still loves the child no matter what. It can be seen confirmed in Proverbs 10:12 as well where it says, "Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins." or Proverbs 17:9 which says, " He that covereth a transgression seeketh love; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends."
Some are preaching today that the tithing system was abolished at the cross. They seek to teach this by using the assumption that the tithe was somehow instituted by Moses in the ceremonial law, which by the way was in fact abolished at the cross according to Colossians 2:14-17. However, was tithing a law given to Moses, and was he instructed of God to pen them into a temporary system that would eventually end at the arrival of Messiah? Was the tithe part of the types and shadows of the ceremonial law that illustrated Christ's sacrifice as some preach? Or was the tithe a truth that was already in place from the beginning of time?
Simple basic truth is, both Abraham and Jacob were known to give a tithe unto the Lord long before Moses' ceremonial laws were penned. Reality dictates the fact that, because the tithe offering predated Sinai, we have both a timeline and absolute truth in the written Word that it could not have been part of the ceremonial law that ended at Christ's cross. All that was penned by Moses pointed to prophetic events Christ would fulfill when He came as Messiah. Tithing is not a prophetic doctrine. If it is, I challenge all those that preach the tithe ended at Calvary to contact me with the scriptures that prove this.
The tithing was set up back then to support the ministers, and it is used in the exact same manner to this day. The reason there is a movement to stop the tithe from flowing is simply because Satan knows God's true ministers need it to be able to work for the Lord full-time as did the Levite's of old in order to do the work they were called to do. I could in now way do all that I do for the Lord now if I had a 9-5 job. Much of my ministerial duties would simply end.
Who receives the tithe?
The Lord has always worked through His ministers since day one. When we tithe we give the tithe to the minister that is feeding us the spiritual food that God instructs him to share with us. Yes, it is a man we give the tithes to, but that is not to say it is not given unto God when we do this. The minister uses the tithing to be able to work full-time for the Lord. He has bills like everyone else does. But he does not work a secular job to pay those bills. So, when you tithe, the word says in Colossians the following truth.
In other words, we do not tithe to people, no matter how blessed they may appear to be. The tithe belongs to God and God alone. Yes, we give it to the men of God, but they are ordained of God to use the tithe for His good purpose. We need not worry about how the tithing is used because God will protect His money and he will make sure you are blessed for giving it. However, if you tithe to a minister, or a church that you know for a fact is in apostasy, then you will be held accountable for funding such a work that cripples the work of Christ. Make sure the man of God you tithe to is preaching that which the Lord has written in the Word and nothing else, and make sure he is not yoked with a denomination known to preach heresy and even waste the tithe on ungodly things.
Is it sin not to tithe?
Yes, to rob is to steal, and what does commandment #8 say?
If you knowingly deny God His tithe, you not only steal from God, you are personally doing your part to stop the funding of the Gospel message in these last days. You will be held accountable! What does the Lord say concerning those that rob Him?
How far does this curse go? What happens to those that steal from God?
If you steal the tithe from God, you are a thief who covets that which is not his, and you will not gain Heaven, for it is written that in Heaven, , "..there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." -Revelation 21:27
As we know the Lord God created all that is seen and unseen within six literal days, and then rested and sanctified (set apart for holy use) the seventh day.
The seventh day, or "Sabbath" as we rightfully call it, is a memorial each week that reminds us of all that He has done for us in creation week. As we look around and see the trees, the animals, the oceans, the sky and even our loved ones we realize all of this was the end result of His creating it. Psalms 111:4 clearly says, "He hath made his wonderful works to be remembered: the LORD is gracious and full of compassion." When we remember His Sabbath we are acknowledging Him as our Creator. According to the fourth commandment, this is our duty as Christians.
There is another reason the word "remember" is being used in that passage that many Christians fail to catch. In Isaiah 46:10 we read, "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" Since the Lord knows "the end from the beginning," it is obvious He knew we would be taught to forget His Sabbath near the end of time. We can confirm this as fact when we see what His prophets say regarding this topic. For example, Daniel the prophet predicted the following regarding the beast of Revelation that he will, "...think to change times and laws:" (Daniel 7:25) of God. As we can clearly see, most Christian churches do in fact keep Sunday instead of Sabbath holy each week. The Sabbath is within the heart of the "Law" of God is it not? When we see all the churches following after the beast as was prophecied they would in Revelation 13:3, we see that yes, the Lord is saying to "remember" His Sabbath because the churches have indeed forgotten it. In short, the word "remember" in Exodus 20:8 is in fact a prophetic statement that came about on March 07, 321AD and has been active ever since.
Many people have been taught by false teachers that the Law of God is abolished. If, and when you come upon such a person try this. Ask them, "do you believe the Ten Commandments are God's law and being as such, righteous?" Absolutely everyone I ask says yes, they do believe the Ten Commandments of God, which is His Law, is in fact righteous. Now share them 5 quick Bible verses.
One more time, before sharing the final verse, ask then, do you truly believe the Ten Commandments of God are righteous? They will say yes. According to the four verses just shared, would you also agree that the Law of God is a perfect example of His righteousness? They again will say yes. Now share the final verse.
If you preach God's Law is abolished, then just as the Atheist has done for centuries, you now preach all that God is has been abolished. In truth, you are now Atheist.