Showing posts with label မိစၦာပုရာဖက္ေစာ ေက. Show all posts
Showing posts with label မိစၦာပုရာဖက္ေစာ ေက. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

Sunday Deception
Vatican admits the change of Sabbath was their act not the Bible
Rome’s biggest challenge

“Prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the Catholic Church alone. The Catholic Church says, by my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week. And lo! The entire civilized world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the Holy Catholic Church” (Thomas Enright, CSSR, President, Redemptorist College [Roman Catholic], Kansas City, MO, Feb. 18, 1884).
There can be no doubt that Christ, His disciples, and the first-century Christians kept Saturday, the seventh-day Sabbath. Yet, today, most of the Christian professing world keeps Sunday, the first day of the week, calling it the Sabbath. Who made this change, and how did it occur?

No serious student of the Scriptures can deny that God instituted the Sabbath at creation and designated the seventh day to be kept holy. “And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made” (Genesis 2:2–3). It was later codified as the Fourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8–11).

The Word of God makes it expressly clear that Sabbath observance is a special sign or “mark” between God and His people. There is also no uncertainty that Christ, His disciples, and the first-century Christians kept the seventh-day Sabbath as commanded—the day we now call “Saturday” (Mark 2:28; Luke 4:16).

Is There Any Biblical Support for Sunday Observance?

There is absolutely no New Testament text stating that God, Jesus, or the apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday—not a text, not a word, not even a hint or suggestion. If there were, those chapters and verses would be loudly heralded by Sabbath opposers. Had Paul or any other apostle taught a change from Sabbath to Sunday, the first day of the week, an absolute firestorm of protest would have arisen from conservative Jewish Christians. The Pharisees and scribes would have insisted that Paul or any other person even suggesting such a thing be stoned to death for the sin of Sabbath-breaking. This would have been a much larger issue than the controversy over circumcision!

The self-righteous Pharisees had already falsely accused Christ of breaking the Sabbath because He violated the added man-made rules and traditions they placed upon the Sabbath (Mark 2:24). The total absence of any such controversy over a change in the day of worship is one of the best evidences showing the apostles and other New Testament Christians did notchange the day. On the contrary, we have a record of many Sabbaths that Paul and his traveling companions kept long after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Read of them in your own Bible in Acts 13:14, 27, 42–44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; and 18:4. Acts 13:42–44 is especially significant in that Paul and Barnabas, when speaking at a Jewish synagogue, were invited to speak again the nextSabbath. This would have been Paul’s golden opportunity to tell the people to meet with him the next day rather than waiting a whole week for the Sabbath. But, “on the next Sabbath almost the whole city [Jews and Gentiles alike] gathered to hear the word of the Lord.”
Yet today, most of the Christian professing world keeps Sunday, the first day of the week, calling it the Sabbath. The question arises then, who changed the Sabbath to Sunday, and how did it occur? The answer may amaze you!

Biblical Testimony

The New Testament plainly shows we are to continue keeping the commandments (Mathew 5:17–18; 19:17; 28:20)—all ten of them. Where, then, do men get the “authority” to change the Fourth Commandment by substituting Sunday for the original Sabbath Christ and the apostles kept?

The Bible prophesied many centuries earlier that the time would come when men would think to change times and laws (Daniel 7:25). Many Bible prophecies are “dual” in nature—that is, they have a type and antitype, an earlier and a later fulfillment. Though speaking specifically of the soon-coming antichrist, we can see the forerunner type documented in history.

The Watering Down of the Sabbath in the First 300 Years
The Christians during the apostolic era, from about 35 to 100 A.D., kept Sabbath on the designated seventh day of the week. For the first 300 years of Christian history, when the Roman emperors regarded themselves as gods, Christianity became an “illegal religion,” and God’s people were scattered abroad (Acts 8:1). Judaism, however, was regarded at that time as “legal,” as long as they obeyed Roman laws. Thus, during the apostolic era, Christians found it convenient to let the Roman authorities think of them as Jews, which gained them legitimacy with the Roman government. However, when the Jews rebelled against Rome, the Romans put down their rebellion by destroying Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and again in A.D. 135. Obviously, the Roman government’s suppression of the Jews made it increasingly uncomfortable for Christians to be thought of as Jewish. At that time, Sunday was the rest day of the Roman Empire, whose religion was Mithraism, a form of sun worship. Since Sabbath observance is visible to others, some Christians in the early second century sought to distance themselves from Judaism by observing a different day, thus “blending in” to the society around them.

During the Empire-wide Christian persecutions under Nero, Maximin, Diocletian, and Galerius, Sabbath-keeping Christians were hunted down, tortured, and, for sport, often used for entertainment in the Colisseum.

Constantine Made Sunday a Civil Rest Day

When Emperor Constantine I—a pagan sun-worshipper—came to power in A.D. 313, he legalized Christianity and made the first Sunday-keeping law. His infamous Sunday enforcement law of March 7, A.D. 321, reads as follows: “On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed.” (Codex Justinianus 3.12.3, trans. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 5th ed. (New York, 1902), 3:380, note 1.)
The Sunday law was officially confirmed by the Roman Papacy. The Council of Laodicea in A.D. 364 decreed, “Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honour, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ” (Strand, op. cit., citing Charles J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, 2 [Edinburgh, 1876] 316).

Cardinal Gibbons, in Faith of Our Fathers, 92nd ed., p. 89, freely admits, “You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we [the Catholic Church] never sanctify.”

Again, “The Catholic Church, … by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday” (The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893).

“Protestants do not realize that by observing Sunday, they accept the authority of the spokesperson of the Church, the Pope” (Our Sunday Visitor, February 5, 1950).

“Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change [Saturday Sabbath to Sunday] was her act… And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things” (H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons).

“Sunday is our mark of authority… the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact” (Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1, 1923).

What a shocking admission!

A Prophecy Come to Pass!

At this point we need to note an amazing prophecy. Daniel 7:25 foretold, “And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws.” Quoting Daniel 7:25, Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible says:

“He shall speak great words against the Most High] Literally, Sermones quasi Deus loquetur; “He shall speak as if he were God.” So Jerome quotes from Symmachus. To none can this apply so well or so fully as to the popes of Rome. They have assumed infallibility, which belongs only to God. They profess to forgive sins, which belongs only to God. They profess to open and shut heaven, which belongs only to God. They profess to be higher than all the kings of the earth, which belongs only to God. And they go beyond God in pretending to loose whole nations from their oath of allegiance to their kings, when such kings do not please them! And they go against God when they give indulgences for sin. This is the worst of all blasphemies!

And shall wear out the saints] By wars, crusades, massacres, inquisitions, and persecutions of all kinds. What in this way have they not done against all those who have protested against their innovations, and refused to submit to their idolatrous worship? Witness the exterminating crusades published against the Waldenses and Albigenses. Witness John Huss, and Jerome of Prague. Witness the Smithfield fires in England! Witness God and man against this bloody, persecuting, ruthless, and impure Church!

And think to change times and laws] Appointing fasts and feasts; canonizing persons whom he chooses to call saints; granting pardons and indulgences for sins; instituting new modes of worship utterly unknown to the Christian Church; new articles of faith; new rules of practice; and reversing, with pleasure, the laws both of God and man.­–Dodd” (Emphasis his; Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Volume IV, p. 594).

Who Changed the Sabbath to Sunday?

Your Bible says, “But in vain [uselessness] they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7).

Further, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word [the Bible], it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).

“Prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the Catholic Church alone. The Catholic Church says, by my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week. And lo! The entire civilized world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the Holy Catholic Church” (Thomas Enright, CSSR, President, Redemptorist College [Roman Catholic], Kansas City, MO, Feb. 18, 1884).

“The Pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ. The Pope has authority and has often exercised it, to dispense with the command of Christ” (Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop).

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Seeing Revelation 13 in Context

Seeing Revelation 13 in Context
After reading Revelation 12. A great question arises:
How is it that a woman, who symbolically represents the church of God; who symbolically represents God's people, ends up sitting upon the dragon in Rev. 17?
How could she be sitting on the power who is seeking to destroy the Messiah and the pure church? How is it that, with the exception of the faithful remnant, the woman ends up sitting on this seven headed red monster in Revelation 17?
How is it that she exchanges the crown of the heavenly Jerusalem upon her head, to having the earthly kingdom of Babylon and it's mysteries upon her forehead? How can this happen when we know that the dragon is defeated by the blood of the Lamb? Why does this woman take on the name of MESSIAH the PRINCE, the name of Christ, (Christian) and then plays the harlot with the dragon prince and his kings of the earth?
These are the issues explained in Revelation 13.
However, scriptures triumphantly point out that not all play the harlot. There is STILL A "PURE WOMAN", a people who are faithful to Christ
Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem still has her citizens!
These are the "remnant" of her seed, the children of the true church of Christ.
14.1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
Revelation 12 makes it clear that the true church is not the popular recognized church. The true church is in the Wilderness during the 1260 years
Some will ask, should we not look to the church which for ages has been the favored of kings and nations to find the true church instead of looking to a people who through those centuries were a despised and obscure people?

No, the true church is not the prominent church. The Bible teaches the true church is a "remnant". The true church is the offspring, not of the church which is prominent with the kings of the earth, but the offspring of the church which was hiding in the wilderness throughout almost thirteen centures: namely, the 1260 year period.

Who Controls the earth and the sea?
The connecting link between Revelation 12 and 13 shows the dragon going forth to war against the faithful remnant and he, that is the dragon, took his stand on the sand of the seashore, where he orchestrates his war upon God's people.
Some bibles omit verse 18, others place it in Rev. 13:1, still others say, it is John, who was standing on the seashore in Rev. 13:1, but the Greek reads "And he stood"--thus refering back to the dragon. The dragon takes his stand on the seashore.
The dragon, the accuser of the brethren has been thrown down, (12:10) he's been "conquered by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony, (12:11), but he "yet is" and he is "filled with wrath because he knows his time is short" (12:12). For 1260 years that old serpent sent God's true church into the wilderness (12:14) till the earth beast helps her (12:16) but then the dragon's rage increases, as he makes war against those who keep God's commandments and have the testimony of Jesus. (12:17) He takes his stand on the sands of the seashore in his effort to control the land and the sea. (12:18)

BUT, before we go into the dragon's activities, as he gathers the people of earth to worship him, let's look back to see that there is ANOTHER, standing upon the earth and the sea, ONE clothed with a cloud and a rainbow upon his head, and his face as the sun and his feet as pillars of fire. This Being stands upon the sea and upon the earth. (Rev. 10:1,5)
THIS ONE is none other than the ONE declared worthy of worship in chapter 5!
He declares the end of Prophetic time, (Rev. 10:6) (1260 years ended in 1798, the 2300 years ended in 1844)
This declaration is made as the seventh trumpet angel prepares to sound and announces the investigative judgment (10:7;11:18,19)
YES, He will judge, righteousness will prevail!
The finishing of the mystery of God is in progress. (10:7)
The rainbow is (Genesis 9:14-17) the token of God's "everlasting covenant" which He established with every creature upon earth. The rainbow is seen around the throne of God as Christ takes the book of the covenant at His inauguration as Priest and executor of the covenant in Revelation 5. So in Revelation 10 we see this mighty angel who is no less a personage than Jesus Christ, setting His right foot on the sea, and His left upon the dry land, showing His supreme power and authority over the whole earth. He will act His part in the closing scenes of the great controversy with Satan. He will fulfill the covenant made with mankind in mercy and justice.
He is standing on the earth and the sea with an open "little scroll" in His hand. Could this be a portion of the covenant that was not yet understood concerning God's endtime dealings with man? The prophecies of Daniel which point to the investigative judgment and endtime events, had been sealed until the time of the end?
The announcement of the end of prophetic time (1260 years ended in 1798, the 2300 years ended in 1844) brought great sweetness to the believers in God, but then bitterness follows, for they thought Christ would come and take them home to heaven, but Christ has not yet come. The great proclaimation that sounded round the world at the close of the prophetic timelines that did not end with Christ's 2nd coming, but announced that HE has entered into judgment and stands upon the sea and earth with authority. Christ began the pre-advent judgment in 1844. When HE comes He will execute the results of that judgment and deliver His followers.
But the dragon ALSO MAKES HIS LAST STAND.
Can we keep the picture of CHRIST in our minds, and not be discouraged as we see the dragon with his two beasts take their stand?
Will we trust that JESUS is implimenting the everlasting covenant.

Revelation 10 is situatated between the 6th and 7th trumpet. Christ is shown IN CONTROL. This is just prior to the seventh trumpet, or "the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."
What does the seventh trumpet announce?
"The time has come for the judgment of the dead, and that you should reward your servants the prophets and the saints, and those who fear your name, small and great, and should destroy those who destroy the earth. Then the temple of God was opened in heaven and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple." Rev. 11:18-19
The Two Contenders
So once again we see the two contenders for the kingdom. Each has taken his stand over the land and the sea--over the peoples and nations of the earth.
MESSIAH THE PRINCE
--He stands upon the land and sea (Rev. 10:1)
--Voice like a lion roars (Rev. 10:3)
--The Lamb (Rev. 14:1)
--Lives, was dead, yet alive evermore (Rev. 1:18)
--He is on throne of God (Rev. 14:3, 22:1)
--He calls " whosoever will" come! (Rev.22:17)
--He will judge the people of earth before the ark of the testament in the sanctuary in heaven. (The ark of the covenant contains the ten commandments)Rev. 11:18-19, 1 Kings 8:9
THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS
--He takes his stand on the seashore (Rev. 12:18)
--His beast has the mouth of a lion (Rev. 13:2)
--His 2nd beast has horns like a lamb (Rev. 13:11)
--His beast is fatally wounded yet heals (Rev. 13:3)
--The dragon's throne (Rev. 13:2)
--Forces and deceives people to worship him (Rev. 13:13-15)
--He makes war against those who keep God's commandments and have the testimony of Jesus. (Rev. 12:17)

Another thing we see, is the emergence of a false, or counterfeit TRINITY! The dragon pretends to be God the father, and sends one "like unto himself" into the world. Thus we have the "papacy" who claims to be "in the place of" Jesus, upon earth! Later we have the 2nd beast arriving out of the earth, acting the role of the Holy Spirit--bringing people to worship the "anti" (in the place of) Christ.
The Lord of heaven permits the world to choose which ruler they would have over them. Every human being must take sides, either for the true and living God, the Creator of heaven and earth, the sea and the fountains of water, (Rev. 14:7)
or choose the dragon who takes his stand on the seashore and appears as an angel of light, whose ministers are also transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2Cor. 11:14-15)


THE BEAST FROM THE SEA Now we come to the seven-headed sea beast.
It's heads are:
4. Roman Empire .......................5. Papal Rome 3. Greecian Empire .............................6. Wounded Head
........................................................................(State/Church seemingly dead
2. Medes and Persian empire ...........................7. Restored State/Church
.................................................................. with Papal Primacy
1. Babylonian Empire ..........................................................................................................
The dragon takes his stand upon the seashore and we see a beast arise out of the sea.
ART by ASHLIN
Remember the Beasts in Daniel 7 which came out of the sea? This beast in Revelation is all four of those beasts wrapped into one.
A leopard body (Greece);
bear feet (Media Persia),
a lion's mouth, (Babylon)
the terrible beast (Roman)
These four constitute four of it's heads. The religious ideas and ideologies of these kingdoms are very much in the thinking patterns of this beast from the sea.
Yet there are three heads left, and it is upon these three heads that John's focus is drawn.
It is these three heads that identify this beast from the dragon itself. The MAIN HEAD of this beast is the Roman Papal Power!
This is the 1260 year papal head, who blasphemed (took God's preogatives) and persecuted God's saints.
The next head, is the wounded head, when the papal political power seems dead,
and the last head is the restored head, also described as "Babylon". Thus this is the Papal beast. It is identified as such. For it is the power that continued for forty-two months (read more on the 1260 years) It sits on the same seat as imperial emperor of Rome
In Daniel 7 the last beast is the dreadful beast--Rome, out of which a horn with a "face" emerges. Now we will see that all the rest of these heads is but a continuation of Rome.
As we look back in history we see that the Roman empire was not only Pagan but also Christian.
That is-- the Roman empire, under it’s emperors, itself starts forcing Christianity from 313-538.
Constantine, according to Church History books, was very concerned about the divisions in doctrine found in Christianity and made every effort to secure agreement and make it “a proper religion for the empire.”
Constantine called for church councils and appointed the presiding Bishop (which was not always the bishop of Rome). It was Constantine who, in 321 A.D., legalized Sunday. Albeit, he could not have done so, if Christianity had not already apostasized and thought they could change God's law. Constantine legalized Sunday, thinking he could unify Christians and pagans. This law of 321 was a bait thrown to compromising Christians, and sun worshipping Romans who glorified the day exalted to the sun, as a rallying point of unity and peace. Constantine wanted a religion that would unite his empire. Constantine built magnificent churches adorned with images and pictures, where the pope sat on a lofty throne. Hereafter, this call for Sunday rest was ever confirmed by emperors and other Christian princes, and sanctioned by popes, with ever increased rigor, and abuses.

Socrates, a church historian of the fourth century, wrote: "For although almost all the churches throughtout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this."
Sozomen writing in the same century: says "The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria."
History reveals that the emperors from Constintine to Justinian had heavy input into the forming of the "Roman Church".
Justinian never distinguished the Roman state tradition from Christianity. He considered himself the Christian Emperor, and defined his mission as “maintaining the Christian faith in its purity and protecting the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from any disturbance.” He felt he was the servant of God and executor of his will and the empire was the instrument of God’s plan in the world. He was ruthless in stamping out anything he considered “heresy”.
Just like Revelation points out, the power of the papacy actually traces it's roots back to Roman Emperors, it is NOT a separate identity from Rome at all, that is; it is simply ANOTHER HEAD, literally sitting in the seat of the Roman Emperors. The Papal system has it's roots in CHRISTIAN EMPERIAL ROME, whose whole focus was to merge paganism with Christianity and come up with a "unifying" religion. The papal system is NOT ROOTED in apostolic Christianity. To this day it carries the name of ROME.
The Papacy says it is sitting in the seat of Peter. It claims that it has a direct line to Peter. But history shows that the Papacy, complete with much of it’s doctrines, has it’s direct line to the so called “Christian Emperors” of Rome--to the dreadful beast of Daniel 7,;, not to Peter, or the apostles at all.
The true church flees into the wilderness because of persecution!
Revelation 13 deals with the last three heads. In 538 the Emperor Justinian, by law, gave the Rome Pope his power (see 1260 years) And in the west, the power of the emperor waned as the power of the papacy grew.

The War against the Covenant
This beast speaks blasphemes, and blasphemied God's name and sanctuary.
What is blasphemy? John 10:33 tells us: blasphemy; that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Blasphemy is ascribing the prerogatives of God to human beings. The accession of the Roman church to power marked the dark ages. Faith in Christ for salvation was transferred to faith in the church and the papacy. People were taught that the pope was their earthly mediator, and stood in the place of God to them, that the priests forgave their sins, and that there was no salvation outside that system. The ultimate blasphemy is their claim to have the power of creation-- the power to create CREATOR!
From the book Dignity and Duties of the Priest by St. Alphonsus De Liguori (Imprimatur 1927)
page 27 “The priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priest, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution.” Page 32-33
“O wonderful dignity of the priests,” cries out St. Augustine; “in their hands, as in the womb of the Blessed virgin, the Son of God becomes incarnate.”…Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, since by saying the words of consecration he creates, as it were, Jesus in the sacrament, by giving him a sacramental existence, and produces him as a victim offered to the eternal Father….
The power of the priest,” says St. Bernardine of Sienna, “is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world.”
Page 36
St Clement, then had reason to say that the priest is, as it were, a God on earth…Innocent III has written: “Indeed, it is not too much to say that in view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many gods.
Thus we see the blatant blasphemy! Daniel 8 tells us this power tries to reach into heaven itself where Christ is ministering for HIS people daily, and they cast HIS truth and HIS sanctuary to the ground.
Oh, how precious is the knowledge that CHRIST, the ONE who knows the heart, the ONE WHO is eternally righteous, just and merciful, is our judge, not some sinful, fallible, human being!
This beast persecuted the saints -- the true church is in the wilderness during those same 1260 years (Rev. 12:14)
Christians were required, on pain of punishment, torture or even death to avow their faith in this blasphemes heresy. Thousands who refused were killed. This is the beast we are dealing with, as the dragon takes his stand on the seashore to make war with the last remnant of the TRUE CHURCH. This beast is experienced in making war with God's saints.
The deeds of this beast are given more detail in Daniel 11
Here we see Pagan Rome tries to "break" the Prince of the Covenant (Daniel 11:22) upon the wooden cross-- (and you will notice to this day the "bent cross", which is the occultic symbol of the "defeated Christ", is carried by one who claims to be the "earthly representative" of Christ) for Papal Rome obtained it's seat FROM pagan Rome (not from Peter) In (Daniel 11:23) see a deceitful league is made between pagan Rome and Christian Rome.

From here on in Daniel 11 we see the war this Roman Christian power wages upon the covenant of God!
(Dan. 11:28) His heart shall be against the holy covenant
(11:30) He has indignation against the holy covenant
(11:30) He has intelligence with them that forsake theholy covenant
(11:32) He flatters those that do wickedly against the covenant.

This power works against the Lord's covenant and tries to eclipse the Lord's work in the heavenly sanctuary with it's own earthly system!
Isaiah 56 tells us plainly what is included in the "everlasting covenant"
It tells us that "also the sons of the stranger (GENTILES) that join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His, everyone that keeps the Sabbath from polluting it, and takes hold of HIS covenant...for the Lord will gather others,(GENTILES) besides those that are gathered unto him ... blessed is the man that keeps the sabbath from polluting it and keeps his hand from doing any evil...and takes hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off."

Yet what has this BEAST POWER DONE? == It has assumed to change the law of God, (Dan. 7:25) and tells the world that a different law is now in place. It has thrown out the everlasting covenant by calling it the "old covenant" and brought in a DIFFERENT covenant that is not the establishment of the everlasting covenant of God, but a different humanistic covenant with different human laws and a different human day, not sanctified nor blessed by God. This day brought in by "those against God's covenant" is the day of the SUN GOD. This is the rival system to true worship from ancient history to this day.
And this SUN WORSHIP DAY WILL BE ENFORCED upon the world on pain of death.


THE WOUNDED HEAD

John's focus is on what happens "in the time of the end"---His focus is on the last three heads. Something strange is taking place. The beast receives a terrible wound. One of it's heads is fatally wounded.
In 1798, Napolean made a new set of laws, and the law of Justinian which gave the Papacy primacy and authority, was revoked. The papacy's 1260 years of primacy ended. The power of the papacy was mortally wounded.
Isn’t it marvellous how God shows us that He is the victor! He has shown us in Rev. 12 that the dragon was defeated by the blood of the Lamb! Here in Rev. 13 he shows us that this beast is defeated. History portrays the tyranny of this system and how people gave their lives to be free of it. Even the political forces had enough and turned against this system and the political power of the papacy was destroyed in 1798.
History revealed the truth-- . But people do not learn from history and they will once again “wonder after the beast” and it will all happen again. Revelation tells us that for a season, this beast seems to be out of the way. But the dragon RESURRECTS it.
Revelation structures it's scenes in an interesting way. Future scenes will be presented, then the events leading to that scene, finally the future scene is presented once more. For example; the seventh trumpet first says that the kingdoms of earth have become the kingdoms of Christ. The twenty-four elders give thanks that Christ has begun to reign. Then John goes back and depicts the scenes that lead up to this. --Nations angry, the time for judging the dead, the temple opening and the ark is seen. (The investigative judgment) Then there is thunder and an earthquake, and great hail.
In Revelation 13 John tells us this beast is wounded, but the wound heals. In amazement the whole world wonders after the beast, and worship the beast, and end up worshiping the dragon, for he had given authority to this beast. This is clearly speaking of events from 1798 onward. Then the author goes back discribing events leading up to this time. What emerges is a description of the past as IDENTIFICATION of this beast, who WILL YET, in the future, be worshipped by all the inhabitants of the earth.
But those whose names are in the book of LIFE will not worship him.
So we see this is all about worship! This takes us back to the TWO contenders for our allegiance. Which one do we choose?

The dragon takes his stand on the sands of the seashore and wages war on the remnant. The persecution, the tyranny, will all happen AGAIN!We must keep this in mind, for though-- during the sixth head, the political, STATE/CHURCH tyrannical aspect of the beast seems DEAD, yet this beast ends up
  • speaking like a lion,
  • it will have power over all kindreds, and tongues and people and nations
  • It makes war on the saints
  • All that dwell on the earth shall worship him
  • He will be killed by the sword
The Healthy Head
The seven-headed papal church/state beast in Revelation 13, has one head that is wounded and seems dead. This shows the time when STATE/CHURCH governments will appear to be dead. Yet the dragon's seven heads ARE NOT dead at all. He has another head operating at this time that is totally separated from papal beast. This is the movement we see described in Rev. 11. This is the movement from which the second beast in Revelation arises. This second beast does not arise among the crowded and struggling nationalities of the Old World, but comes up separated from the Roman beast, and separated from the beast's domain. Back in Revelation 11 it shows a beast emerging from the bottomless pit, just before the seventh trumpet announces the investigative judgment. This is the "sixth" phase of the dragon's plan emerging.
A power of satanic origin and character would rise to make war upon the Christian religion.. This prophecy received a most exact and striking fulfillment in the history of France. The spirit of revolution showed itself in it's most hideous colors in France, which was the cradle of revolutionary thought. During the French revolution the papal system and all Christianity was seriously attacked. Through Napoleon’s actions the papacy was not only seriously wounded, but ALSO kept from complete extinction. The spiritualistic demon beast of occultic religious practices (old age) now arises as the (new age). The dragon, seeing that the REFORMATION had seriously messed up his papal beast, now comes on with a new program. The Papacy tried to suppress the Bible. The Reformation brought it back. Then the fury of the French Revolution tried to destroy it. When this didn't work, "Evolution theories" and "Higher Criticism" arose to cast the Bible into the "myth" bin.

NOW WE MUST REMEMBER THAT GOD IS ALWAYS AT WORK, TOO.
He IS in control. He often turns the devil's plans around to advantage. The French Revolution showed the depths of terror Satan would plunge the world if he has control. His control was checked. And God brought in an era of freedom from the chaos of the devil's plans. However, the seeds of the devil's plan were planted and will again lead to a "reign" of terror.
Just previous to 1798 two main divisions against the power of the Vatican emerged. These two divisions were the Protestant Reformation and Humanist Renaissance Era. While one brought religious freedom, the other laid the foundation for the "NEW AGE" or "NEW WORLD ORDER".
Tomas Paine wrote a book called "Common Sense", which helped spark the American Revolution. This same Thomas Pain wrote a book called "The Age of Reason" which helped spark the French Revolution. Paine worked hard to bring in a "new world order". His writings were also instrumental in "sparking" the Russian revolution that ended up being communism.
But it was in AMERICA where the "winning combination" was formed.
THE BEAST WITH THE LAMB-LIKE HORNS This beast helps the "woman" of Revelation 12. Among the Christian exiles who first fled to America and sought an asylum from oppression and intolerance were many who determined to establish a government upon the broad foundation of civil and religious liberty. They established a Constitution which guaranteed people the right of self-government. Freedom of religious faith was also granted. Republicanism and Protestantism became the fundamental principles of the nation.
What made this "revolutionary" nation successful, while France descended into a reign of terror? It was the acceptance of Protestant Christain values, while separating Church from State.
Thus this beast starts out being "lamb-like", yet it grows great!
However, Protestantism represents just one of it's horns. The other horn is rooted in French Revolutionary ideas of a "New World Order".
The Founding Fathers of the United States believed they were engaged in a great experiment of "building" a New Order for the Ages (or a New World Order) that, unlike the old, would be based on the twin pillars of Liberty and Republican Democracy
The Pyramid being a great symbol was incorporated in the Great Seal of the United States which can be found on the back of a one dollar bill. Below the pyramid is the Latin expression Novus Ordo Seclorum ("New Order for the Ages" or "New World Order").
The secret teaching's of this New World Order are the teachings of Masonic Theology. Masonic Theology has it's roots in Pantheism. In his book; Morals And Dogmas, Albert Pike states
"All truly dogmatic religions have issued from the Kabbalah and return to it. Everything scientific and grand in the religious dreams of all the Illuminati: Jacob, Boehome, Swedenborg, St-Martin, and others; is borrowed from the Kabbalah....the Kabbalah alone consecrates the alliance of the Universal Reason With Faith, Power With Liberty, Science With Mystery; It has the keys of the present, the past and the future....Lucifer, the Light Bearer!....Lucifer, the Son of the Morning!....Is it he who bears the light?....Doubt it not!" (Morals And Dogmas, Albert Pike, pg. 321, 744, 745).

Don't think these teachings do not have a Christian veneer. They do-- they are very "spirit" conscious! But god becomes something "within you", something to develop within yourself, thus making people "gods". NEW AGE theology becomes the religion for a New World Order, which is nothing more than the goddess of Reason and "enlightenment" of the French Revolution. This "religion" goes back to the ancient religions of Babylon.
Thus we see America taking the part of the "Holy Spirit" making what appears to be, fire to come down from heaven-- and all the people will think this "NEW AGE" religion is from God. For it does embrace much of the same names and religious phrases as the Bible, in it's jargon to deceive.
Thus we see America building on SPIRITUALISM.
The Papacy is also building on SPIRITUALISM, "mary" is the guide of the papacy. Pope John Paul has dedicated himself to her, he has consecrated the world to her, and is following the blueprint presented by these apparitions.
The Vatican and America have joined hands in establishing this new world order.
America who emerged as separate from the papal beast, will set up an image of that beast.
We have noted that early Christianity became a beast, when political emperors and church leaders merged to create a "religion for the empire". Differenences in the Christian beliefs had to be squashed, and points of compromise between pagans and Christians were made to bring them into unity. The same will happen again. The New World Order will attempt to bring in a "religion" to unite the world, squash all objections, and attempt to offer a religion "acceptable" to the world's faiths.
But in so doing they no longer worship the God who created heaven and earth-- they are worshiping the wrong prince who appears as an angel of light. Now look, there is even an architectural resemblance between the church of Rome and the capital of the United States. The most striking part is the OBELISKS planted right in front of them. OBELISKS are ancient MONUMENTS TO SUN WORSHIP!
Does this not reveal the truth of the prophecies? From these two power centers will come the forced mandatory SUNDAY WORSHIP. Sunday, known in history as the "vulnerable day of the sun".
Ezekiel 8, gives a graphic picture of the false worship which the Lord calls an "abomination". It takes place in the house of the Lord, where the elders are secretly worshipping abominable things, yet with censors in their hands. In the inner court of the sanctuary they were standing, facing the east, worshipping the sun, while the woman were paying homage to the "queen of heaven" weeping for Tamuz.
The devil invades THE CHURCH!
Sunday is historically known as the Day of the Sun. Sunworship is the very basis of the pagan worship systems in honor of "the king of babylon, Lucifer, son of the morning". (Is. 14:12)
The issue in the last days will be over true and false worship:
Rev. 13:4 So they WORSHIPED the dragon (Satan) who gave authority to the beast, and they WORSHIPED the beast...
Rev. 13:8 And All who dwell on the earth will WORSHIP him, whose names are not written in the Book of Life...
Rev. 13:12 He causes the earth and those who dwell in it to WORSHIP the first beast,. . .
Rev. 13:15 As many as would not WORSHIP the image of the beast should be killed. . .
The angel cries with a loud voice:
Rev. 14:7 WORSHIP Him who made heaven and earth. . .
Rev. 14:9 If anyone WORSHIPS the beast and his image. . .he shall drink of the wrath of God. .
God says. "REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY, FOR GOD BLESSED AND SANCTIFIED THE SEVENTH DAY" (Ex.20)
The apostate protestants and the papal leaders will say "REMEMBER TO KEEP SUNDAY AS A DAY OF REST AND WORSHIP"
This issue isn't so much the day itself, but the ONE WHO sanctified that day and asked us to remember it. This whole issue is WHO DO YOU WORSHIP? WHO do you obey and follow? WHICH PRINCE?
Sunworship, new age, spiritualism-- it all points to one source. Do we want to partake of that source. Do we want to worship that prince?
Or will we heed the call of the angel in Revelation 14:
"Fear God, and worship HIM WHO MADE THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH" --
Force will be used by the beast powers. This "new world order" will be forced, and a terrible time of trouble will result.
It is interesting that both the NEW WORLD ORDER and the papacy carry the number "666".
The Papacy carries it in the name written in the triple crown, "Vicarius Filii Dei" which means, VICAR OF THE SON OF GOD!
The New World Order has "666" all over the place: The World bank code is "666", Australia’s National bank cards have "666" on them, the new credit cards in the United States are being assigned the prefix "666" on them, Central computers for Sears, Betz, Penney’s and Montgomery Ward have prefixed "666" on their systems. Shoes made in European Common Market have, stamped inside the label, the number "666". The I.R.S. uses the "666" prefix, tanks built by Chrysler Corp. use "666" on the side. 666 is even imprinted in every bar code. It goes on and on, there are too many to list.
The United States is already acting as "police man" of the world. In the September 11 aftermath, the U.S. insinuated that the world had better support the "anti-terrorist" war, or they would themselves be declared terrorists.
And the world said, "OK". The U.S. is the superpower that will give LIFE to the image of the beast and cause everyone to worship the first beast (papacy) on pain of death!
Now don't think this will be a simple thing. Satan's last deceptions are just that DECEPTIONS.
Many theories abound in contemporary Christian circles regarding the coming New World Order and the antichrist-- Many evangelicals think of the pope as the "false prophet" of Revelation. They think the mark of the beast is some economic banking chip or card--
Art used by permission by Pat Marvenko Smith, copyright 1992.
Click here to visit her "Revelation Illustrated" site.

One crucial point needs to be clarified. The anti-christ to be feared for HIS DECEPTION is NOT SECULAR oppression but RELIGIOUS DECEPTION!
The appearance of CHRISTIANITY being stamped out by some so called "anti-christ", may very well deceive many. Then the so called "true pope" ---will be embraced as leader of "true christianity" and all the churches will rally behind this "persecuted" pope to defeat the "antichrist"-- and those who oppose this movement will be CLASSIFIED AS PART OF ANTICHRIST.
It will be a masterstroke of a double-play deception through the two "sides" or faces of controlling powers, masterminded by the dragon himself.
Reading through the book "Thunder of His Justice" You will be accused of siding with antichrist, and singled out for punishment, if you do any of the following:
  • 1. You will be accused of sideing with antichrist if you refuse to acknowledge the popes authority as the representative of Christ, and be accused of thus fighting against Christ's divine and royal dominion
  • 2. You will be accused of siding with antichrist if you refuse to accept the traditions (SUNDAY) of the church as God's law which must be obeyed to regain God's favor.
  • 3. You will be accused of siding with antichrist if you refuse to accept the unity and christian movement to restore "christianity" with the "true pope" as the "primacy" and guardian of the disposition of faith. Thus you will be accused of being a "propagator of error"
  • 4. Those who resist this union to "drive out antichrist" will be declared as acting autonomous and independently of God in ordering own activities-- because of thier belief that people were given reasoning power to decide for themselves what is right and wrong.
  • 5. To believe in religious freedom outside of the recognized acceptable religious churches will mean being accused of siding with the antichrist.
  • 6. If you believe it is wrong to legislate moral issues ( then you will not only be accused of being with the antichrist, but you will be accused of promoting pornography, homosexuality, abortion and all manner of sinful lifestyles
  • 7. If you refuse to support the "christian movement" to restore Christianity, you will be accused of being a victim of hedonism because you make self the center of your actions if you continue to believe and maintain that religion is a matter between the individual self and God rather than submission to the church.
"Those who honor the law of God will be accused of bringing judgments upon the world, and they will be regarded as standing in the way of bringing peace to the earth. The world unites in warring against the commandments of God and setting up counterfeit commandments and a counterfeit worship system and demanding that all conform to the customs of the universally declared church or suffer economic sanctions and even death.
Revelation 14 reveals that God's wrath is poured out upon the beast and those who receive his mark of supposed supremacy over God's law. (Sunday has been held up by the papal church herself as the sign that she has authority OVER the law of God)

Yet who is the "PURE CHURCH" as revealed in Revelation-- who are the saints?
Revelation 14:17 "Here is the patience of the saints that KEEP GOD'S COMMANDMENTS AND HAVE THE FAITH OF JESUS."
The Sabbath will be the sign that we belong to the CREATOR who sanctified the seventh-day Sabbath (Gen :1-3 Ex. 20:8-11, Rev. 14:7).
Sunday is the sign that man thinks he has authority over God's law. It is the sign of "man".

 But the redeemed, who are not defiled with "harlot women" (Babylon) but follow the LAMB, and worship the Creator God, will sing His praises on Heavenly Mt. Zion. And stand before the throne the God!

Saturday, November 3, 2018

Saya Saw Patrick ဆယ္ဘုိ႔တစ္ဘုိ







ဒီဆရာ ဟာ ဆယ္ဘို႔ တစ္ဘို႔ အလႉခံေသာ္လည္း ဘုရားသခင္ကို ဆန္းၾကင္ဘက္ျပဳ ေသာ္ ဘာသာတရားေနာက္ေတာ္သို႔လိုက္၍ ဆယ္ဘို႔ တစ္ဘို႔မ်ား စားေနေသာသူသာျဖစ္သည္ စစ္မွန္ေသာ တမန္ေတာ္ မဟုတ္ပါဘူး ကုိယ္ေတာ္က၊ သင္တို႔သည္အဆက္ဆက္ခံ ေသာနည္းဥပေဒသကို အမွီျပဳ၍ဘုရားသခင္၏ပညတ္ေတာ္ကို အဘယ္ေၾကာင့္ လြန္က်ဴးၾကသနည္း။
ဘုရားသခင္၏ ပညတ္ေတာ္ကား၊ မိဘကိုရိုေသစြာျပဳေလာ့။ အၾကင္သူသည္မိဘကို ႏႈတ္ျဖင့္ျပစ္မွား၏၊ ထိုသူသည္ အေသသတ္ျခင္း ကိုခံေစဟုလာသတည္း။
သင္တို႔မူကား၊ အၾကင္သူသည္ ကိုယ္မိဘကို၊ သင္တို႔အသံုးရႏိုင္သမွ်ေသာ ငါ၏ဥစၥာသည္ အလႉဝတၳဳျဖစ္ေစဟုဆို၏၊
ထိုသူသည္ကိုယ္ မိဘကိုယ္ပင္ရိုေသစြာမျပဳရဟုဆိုၾက၏။ ထိုသို႔သင္တို႔သည္အဆက္ဆက္ ခံေသာဥပေဒသအားျဖင့္ ဘုရားသခင္၏ပညတ္ေတာ္ကိုပယ္ၾက၏။
လွ်ိဳ႔ဝွက္ေသာသူတို႔၊ ေဟရွာယသည္သင္တို႔ ကိုရည္မွတ္လ်က္ ဤလူမ်ိဳးသည္ႏႈတ္ႏွင့္ငါ့ထံသို႔ခ်ဥ္းကပ္၍ ႏႈတ္ခမ္းႏွင့္ငါ့ကိုရိုေသၾက၏။ စိတ္ႏွလံုးမူကားငါႏွင့္ေဝးလွ၏။ရွင္မႆဲခရစ္ဝင္ အခန္းၾကီး ၁၅း၄-၇
လူတို႔စီရင္ေသာ ပညတ္တို႔ကို သြန္သင္၍နည္းဥပေဒသေပးလ်က္ပင္၊ ငါ့ကိုအခ်ည္းအႏွီး ကိုးကြယ္ၾက၏ဟု၊ ေနာက္ျဖစ္ လတံ့ေသာအရာကို ေလ်ာက္ပတ္စြာေဟာခဲ့ၿပီ။
အေၾကာင္းမူကား၊ သင္တို႔သည္ ဘုရားသခင္၏ ပညတ္ေတာ္ကို ပယ္၍ ခြက္ဖလားေဆးျခင္းတည္းဟူေသာ လူတို႔မွဆက္ခံေသာ နည္းဥပေဒသကို ကိုခံယူလ်က္၊ ထိုသို႔ေသာ အျခားအက်င့္အေလ့မ်ားတို႔ကို က်င့္ေလ့ရွိၾက၏။
သင္တို႔သည္ အဆက္ဆက္ခံ ေသာနည္းဥပေဒသကို က်င့္ရေသာအခြင့္ရွိေစျခင္းငွါ၊ ဘုရားသခင္၏ပညတ္ေတာ္ကို ေလ်ာက္ပတ္စြာ ပယ္ၾကသည္တကား။
ေမာေရွ၏ ပညတ္ကား၊ မိဘကိုရိုေသစြာျပဳေလာ့။ အၾကင္သူသည္ မိဘကို ႏႈတ္ျဖင့္ ျပစ္မွား၏၊ ထိုသူသည္ အေသသတ္ျခင္းကိုခံေစဟု လာသတည္း။ရွင္မာကုခရစ္ဝင္ အခန္းၾကီး ၇း၅း-၇
ကၽြန္ေတာ္အေနျဖင့္မေပးနွင့္ မတားျမစ္ပါဘူး ေပးတဲ့သူကေတာ့ေကာင္းပါတယ္။တခုေတာ့ရွိတယ္ အစိတ္ပင္ေတာ့ေရမေလာင္နွင့္ေပါ့
ဒီဆရား အထက္ပါရွိေသာ သမၼာက်မ္းစာ၌ ေဖၚျပာထားသည္အတိုင္ လူတို႔စည္ရင္ေသာ ပညတ္တရားမ်ား လိုက္၍ လုပ္ေသာသူျဖစ္သည္။ သူတို႔ ဘယ္သူလူေတြလဲ သိေအာင္ ေအာက္ပါက်မ္းစာဖတ္ပါ
အေၾကာင္းမူကား၊ ထိုသူတို႔သည္ မိစာၦတမန္ေတာ္ျဖစ္ ၾက၏။ ခရစ္ေတာ္၏ တမန္ျဖစ္ေယာင္ေဆာင္၍ လွည့္ျဖားတတ္ေသာ အမႈေစာင့္ျဖစ္ၾက၏။
ဤအမႈသည္ အံ့ၾသ ဘြယ္ျဖစ္သည္မဟုတ္။ စာတန္ပင္လွ်င္ လင္းေသာေကာင္းကင္တမန္ ျဖစ္ေယာင္ေဆာင္တတ္၏။
သို႔ျဖစ္၍ သူ၏ ဆရာတို႔သည္လည္း ေျဖာင့္မတ္ျခင္းတရားကို ေဟာေသာဆရာျဖစ္ေယာင္ေဆာင္လွ်င္၊ အဘယ္ဆိုဘြယ္ ရွိသနည္း။ သူတို႔သည္ ကိုယ္က်င့္ေသာအက်င့္အတိုင္း ေနာက္ဆံုး၌ အက်ိဳးအျပစ္ကို ခံရၾကလတ့ံ။ေကာရိ ႏၱဳ ၾသဝါဒစာဒုတိယေစာင္ အခန္းၾကီး ၁၁း၁၃-၁၅
How The Sabbath Was Changed
How the Sabbath was changed to Sunday
Today I want to answer the question which so many listeners have been concerned about since our first broadcast on the Sabbath question. How did the change take place, substituting Sunday for Saturday as the day of worship? This is possibly one of the most disturbing religious questions among thinking Christians today. Unfortunately, the issue is not examined publicly very often for reasons that we’ll consider today. But multitudes have wondered when, how and why the change came about. We have established in previous broadcasts that the Bible itself speaks with absolute consistency on this subject.
No Change Documented in the Bible
In both Old and New Testament there is not a shadow of variation in the doctrine of the Sabbath. The seventh day, Saturday, is the only day ever designated by the term Sabbath in the entire Bible. Not only was Jesus a perfect example in observing the weekly seventh-day Sabbath, but all His disciples followed the same pattern after Jesus had gone back to heaven. Yet no intimation of any change of the day is made. The apostle Paul, who wrote pages of counsel about lesser issues of Jewish and Gentile conflicts, had not one word to say about any controversy over the day of worship. Circumcision, foods offered to idols, and other Jewish customs were readily challenged by early Gentile Christians in the church, but the weightier matter of weekly worship never was an issue. Why? For the simple reason that no change was made from the historic seventh day of Old Testament times, and from creation itself. Had there been a switch from the Sabbath to the first day of the week, you can be sure the controversy would have been more explosive than any other to those Jewish Christians.
History Gives Some Clues
If the change did not take place in the Scriptures or through the influence of the apostles, when and how did it happen? In order to understand this, we must understand what happened in that early church soon after the apostles passed off the stage of action. Paul had prophesied that apostasy would take place soon after his departure. He said there would be a falling away from the truth. One doesn’t have to read very far in early church history to see just how that prophecy was fulfilled. Gnosticism began to rise up under the influence of philosophers who sought to reconcile Christianity with Paganism. At the same time, a strong anti-Jewish sentiment became more widespread. Very speculative interpretations began to appear regarding some of the great doctrines of Christ and the apostles.
The Conversion of Constantine
ConstantineBy the time Constantine was established as the emperor of Rome in the early fourth century, there was a decided division in the church as a result of all these factors. I think most of you know that Constantine was the first so-called Christian emperor of the Roman Empire. The story of his conversion has become very well known to students of ancient history. He was marching forth to fight the battle of Milvian Bridge when he had some kind of vision, and saw a flaming cross in the sky. Underneath the cross were the Latin words meaning “In this sign conquer.” Constantine took this as an omen that he should be a Christian, and his army as well. He declared all his pagan soldiers to be Christians, and became very zealous to build up the power and prestige of the church. Through his influence great blocks of pagans were taken into the Christian ranks. But, friends, they were still pagan at heart, and they brought in much of the paraphernalia of sun-worship to which they continued to be devoted. We mentioned in a previous broadcast about the adoption of Christmas and Easter into the church. At the same time, many other customs were Christianized and appropriated into the practice of the church as well.
Sun Worship
You see, at that time the cult of Mithraism or sun-worship was the official religion of the Roman Empire. It stood as the greatest competitor to the new Christian religion. It had its own organization, temples, priesthood, robes—everything. It also had an official worship day on which special homage was given to the sun. That day was called “The Venerable Day of the Sun.” It was the first day of the week, and from it we get our name Sunday. When Constantine pressed his pagan hordes into the church they were observing the day of the sun for their adoration of the sun god. It was their special holy day. In order to make it more convenient for them to make the change to the new religion, Constantine accepted their day of worship, Sunday, instead of the Christian Sabbath which had been observed by Jesus and His disciples. Remember that the way had been prepared for this already by the increasing anti-Jewish feelings against those who were accused of putting Jesus to death. Those feelings would naturally condition many Christians to swing away from something which was held religiously by the Jews. It is therefore easier to understand how the change was imposed on Christianity through a strong civil law issued by Constantine as the Emperor of Rome. The very wording of that law, by the way, can be found in any reliable encyclopedia. Those early Christians, feeling that the Jews should not be followed any more than necessary, were ready to swing away from the Sabbath which was kept by the Jews.
Historical Accounts
Some of you may be greatly surprised by the explanation I’ve just made, and I’m not going to ask you to believe it blindly. I have before me a multitude of authorities to verify what has been said. Here are historians, Catholics and Protestants, speaking in harmony about what actually took place in the fourth century. After Constantine made the initial pronouncement and legal decree about the change, the Catholic Church reinforced that act in one church council after another. For this reason, many, many official statements from Catholic sources are made, claiming that the church made the change from Saturday to Sunday. But before I read those statements I shall refer to one from the Encyclopedia Britannica under the article, Sunday. Notice: “It was Constantine who first made a law for the proper observance of Sunday and who appointed that it should be regularly celebrated throughout the Roman empire.” Now you can check these statements in your own encyclopedias or go to the library and look into other historical sources.
Here is a statement from Dr. Gilbert Murray, M.A., D.Litt., LLD, FBA, Professor of Greek at Oxford University, who certainly had no ax to grind concerning Christian thought on the Sabbath question. He wrote: “Now since Mithras was the sun, the Unconquered, and the sun was the Royal Star, the religion looked for a king whom it could serve as a representative of Mithras upon earth. The Roman Emperor seemed to be clearly indicated as the true king. In sharp contrast to Christianity, Mithraism recognized Caesar as the bearer of divine grace. It had so much acceptance that it was able to impose on the Christian world its own sun-day in place of the Sabbath; its sun’s birthday, the 25th of December, as the birthday of Jesus.” History of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge.
Looking a bit further into historical statements, Dr. William Frederick says: “The Gentiles were an idolatrous people who worshipped the sun, and Sunday was their most sacred day. Now in order to reach the people in this new field, it seems but natural as well as necessary to make Sunday the rest day of the church. At this time it was necessary for the church to either adopt the Gentile’s day or else have the Gentiles change their day. To change the Gentiles day would have been an offense and stumbling block to them. The church could naturally reach them better by keeping their day.” There it is, friends, a clear explanation by Dr. Frederick as to how this change happened. Another statement very parallel to this one is found in the North British Review.
But let’s move on to a statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 153. “The church after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath or seventh-day of the week to the first, made the third commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s day.”
Catholicism Takes Credit for the Change
St. Peter's Square and BasilicaNow a quote from the Catholic Press newspaper in Sidney, Australia. “Sunday is a Catholic institution and its claims to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles. From the beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first.”
The Catholic Mirror of September 23, 1894, puts it this way: “The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday.”
To point up the claims we’re talking about, I want to read from two Catechisms. First, from the Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine by Reverend Peter Giermann. “Question: Which is the Sabbath day? Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day. Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church in the Council of Laodicea transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”
Second, from Reverend Steven Keenan’s Doctrinal Catechism we read this: “Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day; a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.”
Then from Cardinal Gibbons’ book, The Question Box, p.179, “If the Bible is the only guide for the Christian, then the Seventh-day Adventist is right in observing Saturday with the Jew. Is it not strange that those who make the Bible their only teacher should inconsistently follow in this matter the tradition of the Catholic Church?”
One more statement taken from the book, The Faith of Millions, p. 473. “But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn’t it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistency but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text from the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair.”
That is a most interesting statement, is it not, friends? And it is a very true statement. There is some inconsistency somewhere along the line, because we have examined the statements of history, and you can check them for yourself in any library. I’m not reading anything one-sided here at all. I’ve tried to give you an unbiased picture. Although we have seen the claims made by the Catholic Church in their publications, we are not reading them to cast any reflection upon anyone, by any means. We are simply bringing you a recital of what has been written and what claims have been made.
- From the Joe Crews Radio Sermon Library
Related Articles
Was God's law and the Sabbath changed?
Is Sunday Really Sacred?
Catholic Church Admits They Made the Change
Roman Catholic and Protestant Confessions about Sunday
The vast majority of Christian churches today teach the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, as a time for rest and worship. Yet it is generally known and freely admitted that the early Christians observed the seventh day as the Sabbath. How did this change come about?
History reveals that it was decades after the death of the apostles that a politico-religious system repudiated the Sabbath of Scripture and substituted the observance of the first day of the week. The following quotations, all from Roman Catholic sources, freely acknowledge that there is no Biblical authority for the observance of Sunday, that it was the Roman Church that changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week.
In the second portion of this booklet are quotations from Protestants. Undoubtedly all of these noted clergymen, scholars, and writers kept Sunday, but they all frankly admit that there is no Biblical authority for a first-day sabbath.
Roman Catholic Confessions
James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89.
"But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."
Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174.
"Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
"Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her-she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."
John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies (1 936), vol. 1, P. 51.
"Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days."
Daniel Ferres, ed., Manual of Christian Doctrine (1916), p.67.
"Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days?
"Answer. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of, and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.'
James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in a signed letter.
"Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day -Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes . Did Christ change the day'? I answer no!
"Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons"
The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.
"The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."
Catholic Virginian Oct. 3, 1947, p. 9, art. "To Tell You the Truth."
"For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the[Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible."
Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957), p. 50.
"Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
"Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.
"Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
"Answer. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."
Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About (1927),p. 136.
"Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday .... Now the Church ... instituted, by God's authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday."
Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Society (1975),Chicago, Illinois.
"Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:
"1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.
"2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws.
"It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible."
T. Enright, C.S.S.R., in a lecture at Hartford, Kansas, Feb. 18,1884.
"I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' The Catholic Church says: 'No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week.' And lo! The entire civilized world bows down in a reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church."
Protestant Confessions
Protestant theologians and preachers from a wide spectrum of denominations have been quite candid in admitting that there is no Biblical authority for observing Sunday as a sabbath.
Anglican/Episcopal
Isaac Williams, Plain Sermons on the Catechism , vol. 1, pp.334, 336.
"And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day .... The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the church has enjoined it."
Canon Eyton, The Ten Commandments , pp. 52, 63, 65.
"There is no word, no hint, in the New Testament about abstaining from work on Sunday .... into the rest of Sunday no divine law enters.... The observance of Ash Wednesday or Lent stands exactly on the same footing as the observance of Sunday."
Bishop Seymour, Why We Keep Sunday .
We have made the change from the seventh day to the first day, from Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the one holy Catholic Church."
Baptist
Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, a paper read before a New York ministers' conference, Nov. 13, 1893, reported in New York Examiner , Nov.16, 1893.
"There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week .... Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament absolutely not.
"To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years' intercourse with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question . . . never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated.
"Of course, I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history . . . . But what a pity it comes branded with the mark of paganism, and christened with the name of the sun god, adopted and sanctioned by the papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism!"
William Owen Carver, The Lord's Day in Our Day , p. 49.
"There was never any formal or authoritative change from the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath to the Christian first-day observance."
Congregationalist
Dr. R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments (New York: Eaton &Mains), p. 127-129.
" . . . it is quite clear that however rigidly or devotedly we may spend Sunday, we are not keeping the Sabbath - . . 'Me Sabbath was founded on a specific Divine command. We can plead no such command for the obligation to observe Sunday .... There is not a single sentence in the New Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed sanctity of Sunday."
Timothy Dwight, Theology: Explained and Defended (1823), Ser. 107, vol. 3, p. 258.
" . . . the Christian Sabbath [Sunday] is not in the Scriptures, and was not by the primitive Church called the Sabbath."
Disciples of Christ
Alexander Campbell, The Christian Baptist, Feb. 2, 1824,vol. 1. no. 7, p. 164.
"'But,' say some, 'it was changed from the seventh to the first day.' Where? when? and by whom? No man can tell. No; it never was changed, nor could it be, unless creation was to be gone through again: for the reason assigned must be changed before the observance, or respect to the reason, can be changed! It is all old wives' fables to talk of the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day. If it be changed, it was that august personage changed it who changes times and laws ex officio - I think his name is Doctor Antichrist.'
First Day Observance , pp. 17, 19.
"The first day of the week is commonly called the Sabbath. This is a mistake. The Sabbath of the Bible was the day just preceding the first day of the week. The first day of the week is never called the Sabbath anywhere in the entire Scriptures. It is also an error to talk about the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. There is not in any place in the Bible any intimation of such a change."
Lutheran
The Sunday Problem , a study book of the United Lutheran Church (1923), p. 36.
"We have seen how gradually the impression of the Jewish sabbath faded from the mind of the Christian Church, and how completely the newer thought underlying the observance of the first day took possession of the church. We have seen that the Christians of the first three centuries never confused one with the other, but for a time celebrated both."
Augsburg Confession of Faith art. 28; written by Melanchthon, approved by Martin Luther, 1530; as published in The Book of Concord of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Henry Jacobs, ed. (1 91 1), p. 63.
"They [Roman Catholics] refer to the Sabbath Day, a shaving been changed into the Lord's Day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they make more than concerning the changing of the Sabbath Day. Great, say they, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments!"
Dr. Augustus Neander, The History of the Christian Religion and Church Henry John Rose, tr. (1843), p. 186.
"The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a Divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic Church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday."
John Theodore Mueller, Sabbath or Sunday , pp. 15, 16.
"But they err in teaching that Sunday has taken the place of the Old Testament Sabbath and therefore must be kept as the seventh day had to be kept by the children of Israel .... These churches err in their teaching, for Scripture has in no way ordained the first day of the week in place of the Sabbath. There is simply no law in the New Testament to that effect."
Methodist
Harris Franklin Rall, Christian Advocate, July 2, 1942, p.26.
"Take the matter of Sunday. There are indications in the New Testament as to how the church came to keep the first day of the week as its day of worship, but there is no passage telling Christians to keep that day, or to transfer the Jewish Sabbath to that day."
John Wesley, The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., John Emory, ed. (New York: Eaton & Mains), Sermon 25,vol. 1, p. 221.
"But, the moral law contained in the ten commandments, and enforced by the prophets, he [Christ] did not take away. It was not the design of his coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken .... Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind, and in all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each other."
Dwight L. Moody
D. L. Moody, Weighed and Wanting (Fleming H. Revell Co.: New York), pp. 47, 48.
The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word 'remember,' showing that the Sabbath already existed when God Wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?"
Presbyterian
T. C. Blake, D.D., Theology Condensed, pp.474, 475.
"The Sabbath is a part of the decalogue - the Ten Commandments. This alone forever settles the question as to the perpetuity of the institution . . . . Until, therefore, it can be shown that the whole moral law has been repealed, the Sabbath will stand . . . . The teaching of Christ confirms the perpetuity of the Sabbath."









Saya Saw Patrick ဆယ္ဘုိ႔တစ္ဘုိ႔။ဘယ္ဘုရား ယံုၾကည္ကိုးျပီး ဆယ္တစ္ဘို႔ေတာင္းတာလဲ

Vatican declares its murderous hatred for Bible believers

[On August 24, 1572, Roman Catholics in France, by pre-arranged plan, under Jesuit influence, murdered 70,000 Protestants within the space of two months. The pope rejoiced when he heard the news of the successful outcome. (Read Great Controversy, chapter 15 for the details.) [If you don’t have a copy, write and we’ll send you one.] “Catholics say only 30,000 were slain. Protestants put the number at 70,000. We prefer the latter figure. If there were 70,000 Huguenots [French Protestants] in Paris the night of the massacre, so much the more justification for the slaughter . . . We have heard ring out many times the very bells that called the Catholics together on that fatal night. They always sounded sweetly in our ears”–Western Watchman, Nov. 21, 1912 [Roman Catholic].
“There was no village of the Vaudois valleys but had its martyrs. The Waldenses were burned; they were cast into damp and horrid dungeons; they were smothered in crowds in mountain caverns, mothers and babes, and old men and women together; they were sent out into exile in the winter night, unclothed and unfed, to climb the snowy mountains; they were hurled over the rocks; their houses and lands were taken from them; their children were stolen to be indoctrinated with the religion which they abhorred. Rapacious individuals were sent among them to strip them of their property, to persecute and exterminate them. Thousands of heretics” or Waldenses, “old men, women and children, were hung, quartered, broken upon the wheel, or burned alive and their property confiscated for the benefit of the king, and Holy See.”-Thompson – The Papacy and the Civil Power
“The greatest of all the ecumenical Councils held in the West previous to Trent had been Innocent III’s Fourth Lateran Council (1215).  In the 3rd Canon of that Council it is enacted that bishops should inquire at least once a year in every parish, with power, if need be, to compel the whole community on oath to name any heretics whom they knew.  An aider or abettor of a heretic is himself ipso facto excommunicate; if discovered and publicly excommunicated, he incurs civil death, and those who communicate with such abettors shall themselves be excommunicated.  For the heretics themselves, they are to be ‘exterminated,’ and any prince neglecting to exterminate them is to be deposed by the Pope, who will release his subjects from their allegiance.  Even, if we would otherwise have doubted what ‘extermination’ means in its final implications, the word is clearly glossed by St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa 2-2, xi, 3) ‘remove from the world by death.'” -Dr. G. G. Coulton – ANGLICAN ESSAYS:
“Experience teaches that there is no other remedy for the evil, but to put heretics (Protestants) to death; for the (Romish) church proceeded gradually and tried every remedy: at first she merely excommunicatied them; afterwards she added a fine; then she banished them; and finally she was constrained to put them to death.” –Cardinal Bellarmine famous champion of Romanism cited by Schumucker p. 76
Joh 16:1  These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
Joh 16:2  They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
Joh 16:3  And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
 March 12, 2000, Pope John Paul II ADMITTED the Roman Catholic Church KILLED the believers and does NOT know the Father or Jesus. To deny that, is to deny the very words of Jesus Christ. Pope asks pardon from Waldensian Protestants for past persecution
“That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other institution that has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant who has a competent knowledge of history . . . It is impossible to form a complete conception of the multitude of her victims, and it is quite certain that no powers of imagination can adequately realize their sufferings.”–W. E. H. Lecky, History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, vol. 2, p. 32, 1910 edition.  (An excellent though lengthy article describing in detail the right of the Roman Catholic Church to do this, will be found in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 12, p. 266.)
“For professing faith contrary to the teachings of the Church of Rome, history records the martyrdom of more then one hundred million people. A million Waldenses and Albigenses [Swiss and French Protestants] perished during a crusade proclaimed by Pope Innocent III in 1208. Beginning from the establishment of the Jesuits in 1540 to 1580, nine hundred thousand were destroyed. One hundred and fifty thousand perished by the Inquisition in thirty years. Within the space of thirty-eight years after the edict of Charles V against the Protestants, fifty thousand persons were hanged, beheaded, or burned alive for heresy. Eighteen thousand more perished during the administration of the Duke of Alva in five and a half years.”–Brief Bible Readings, p. 16.
“You ask if he (the Roman Catholic) were lord in the land, and you were in a minority, if not in numbers yet in power, what would he do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend upon circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would tolerate you: If expedient, he would imprison you, banish you, fine you; possibly, he might even hang you. But be assured of one thing: He would never tolerate you for the sake of ‘the glorious principles of civil and religious liberty’ . . . Catholicism is the most intolerant of creeds. It is intolerance itself, for it is truth itself.”–“Civil and Religious Liberty,” in The Rambler, 8, Sept, 1851, pp. 174, 178. [“The Rambler” was an English Roman Catholic journal published from 1848 to 1862].
“From the birth of popery to the present time, it is estimated by careful and credible historians, that more than fifty millions of the human family, have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy by popish persecutors,–an average of more than 40,000 religious murders for every year of the existence of popery to the present day. Of course the average number of victims yearly, was vastly greater, during those gloomy ages when popery was in her glory and reigned despot of the world; and it has been much less since the power of the popes has diminished to tyrannize over the nations, and to compel the princes of the earth, by the terrors of excommunication, interdiction, and deposition, to butcher their heretical subjects.”–John Dowling, The History of Romanism, pp. 541-542.
” ‘The church,’ says [Martin] Luther, ‘has never burned a heretic.’ . . I reply that this argument proves not the opinion, but the ignorance or impudence of Luther. Since almost infinite numbers were either burned or otherwise killed, Luther either did not know it, and was therefore ignorant, or if he was not ignorant, he is convicted of impudence and falsehood,–for that heretics were often burned by the [Catholic Church may be proved from many examples.–Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes de Controversiis, Tom. II, Lib. III, cap. XXII, 1628 edition [Bellarmine is one of the most respected Jesuit teachers in the history of the Gregorian University in Rome, the largest Jesuit training school in the world].

“There are many unquestionable cases of Protestants punished as heretics in nearly all the lands where Roman Catholics have had power, right down to the French Revolution [right down to 1798].”–G. G. Coulton, The Death-Penalty for Heresy, Medieval Studies, No. 18, 1924 edition, pp. 62 [The author was a well-known member of the French Academy and an enthusiastic champion of Catholicism].
“The Catholic Church has persecuted … when she thinks it is good to use physical force she will use it Will the Catholic Church give bond that she will not persecute?… The Catholic Church gives no bonds for her good behaviour.” –Western Watchman, Dec. 24, 1908

“The church may by divine right confiscate the property of heretics, imprison their person, and condemn them to flames.  In our age, the right to inflict the severest penalties, even death, belongs to the church.  There is no graver offense than heresy, therefore it must be rooted out.” – Public Eccliastical, Vol. 2, p.142.
Mr. Raywood Frazier, in the booklet “Catholic Words and Actions,” presents documentary proof of the intensive persecution of Protestants and non-Catholics in Columbia, South America, between 1949 and 1953. The Catholic Church had the support of the Columbian government in the destruction of many churches, and the liquidation of more than 1,000 documented cases — some of whom were shot, drowned, or emasculated. He says there is evidence of over 60,000 killed. Pope Pius XII awarded the President of Columbia with one of the highest awards which the Church bestows, and praised Columbia for its example of the Catholic faith.” (Pp. 59,60)
The defense of Roman Catholics to this presentation is as follows: “Communists destroy churches because they are God’s enemies; Catholic’s destroy churches because they are God’s friends… Against such men-founded churches… Catholics in Latin America should arise and wipe them out with fire.”John J. Oberlander, in The Voice of Freedom, 1954, p. 20.
The rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris, H.M.A. Baudrillart, revealed the attitude of the church and her leaders toward persecution. “When confronted with heresy,” he said, “she does not content herself with persuasion, arguments of an intellectual and moral order appear to her insufficient, and she has recourse to force, to corporal punishment, to torture.” The Catholic Church, The Renassance, and Protestantism, pp. 182-183
The following collection of quotes are cited from The American Textbook of Popery which in turn quotes from the Directory for the Inquisitors (page numbers listed are for the Directory)–
“He is a heretic who does not believe what the Roman Hierarchy teaches. —A heretic merits the pains of fire. –By the Gospel, the canons, civil law, and custom, heretics must be burned.”–148, 169
“All sects of heretics are condemned and various punishments are appointed for them and their accomplices.” –Pope Alexander IV, –p. 135
“Statutes that impede the execution of the duties which appertain to the office of Inquisitors are null and void.” –Pope Urban IV, p. 106
They who bury persons knowing them to be excommunicated, or their receivers, defenders, or favourers, shall not be absolved unless they dig up the corpse; and the place shall be deprived of the usual immunities of sepulture.” –Pope Alexander IV, p. 104
“All defence is denied to heretics.” p. 153
“For the suspicion alone of heresy, purgation is demanded.” –p. 156
“Heretics are by right condemned.” –p. 157
“He who is without the church can neither be reconciled nor saved.” –p. 144
By the way… The BIBLE says… Luke 3:14, “…, Do violence to no man”

Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
THE BARTHOLOMEW MASSACRE AT PARIS, ETC.
On the twenty second day of August, 1572, commenced this diabolical act of sanguinary brutality. It was intended to destroy at one stroke the root of the Protestant tree, which had only before partially suffered in its branches. The king of France had artfully proposed a marriage, between his sister and the prince of Navarrel, the captain and prince of the Protestants.
This imprudent marriage was publicly celebrated at Paris, August 18, by the cardinal of Bourbon, upon a high stage erected for the purpose. They dined in great pomp with the bishop, and supped with the king at Paris. Four days after this, the prince (Coligny), as he was coming from the Council, was shot in both arms; he then said to Maure, his deceased mother’s minister, “O my brother, I do now perceive that: I am indeed beloved of my God, since for His most holy sake I am wounded.” Although the Vidam advised him to fly, yet he abode in Paris, and was soon after slain by Bemjus, who afterward declared he never saw a man meet death more valiantly than the admiral.
The soldiers were appointed at a certain signal to burst out instantly to the slaughter in all parts of the city. When they had killed the admiral, they threw him out at a window into the street, where his head was cut off, and sent to the pope. The savage papists, still raging against him, cut off his
arms and private members, and, after dragging him three days through the streets, hung him by the heels without the city. After him they slew many great and honorable persons who were Protestants; as Count Rochfoucault, Telinius, the admiral’s son-in-law, Antonius, Clarimontus, marquis of Ravely, Lewes Bussius, Bandineus, Pluvialius, Burneius, etc., and falling upon the common people, they continued the slaughter for
many appeared presently like a stream of blood. So furious was their hellish rage, that they slew all papists whom they suspected to be not very staunch to their diabolical religion. From Paris the destruction spread to all quarters of the realm. At Orleans, a thousand were slain of men, women, and children, and six thousand at Rouen.
At Meldith, two hundred were put into prison, and later brought out by units, and cruelly murdered.
At Lyons, eight hundred were massacred. Here children hanging about their parents, and parents affectionately embracing their children, were pleasant food for the swords and bloodthirsty minds of those who call themselves the Catholic Church. Here three hundred were slain in the bishop’s house, and the impious monks would suffer none to be buried. At Augustobona, on the people hearing of the massacre at Paris, they shut their gates that no Protestants might escape, and searching diligently for every individual of the reformed Church, imprisoned and then barbarously
murdered them. The same cruelty they practiced at Avaricum, at Troys, at Toulouse, Rouen and many other places, running from city to city, towns, and villages, through the kingdom. As a corroboration of this horrid carnage, the following interesting
narrative, written by a sensible and learned Roman Catholic, appears in this place, with peculiar propriety. “The nuptials (says he) of the young king of Navarre with the French king’s sister, was solemnized with pomp; and all the endearments, all the assurances of friendship, all the oaths sacred among men, were profusely lavished by Catharine, the queen-mother, and by the king; during which, the rest of the court thought of nothing but festivities, plays, and masquerades. At last, at twelve o’clock at night, on the eve of St. Bartholomew, the signal was given. Immediately all the houses of the
Protestants were forced open at once. Admiral Coligny, alarmed by the uproar jumped out of bed, when a company of assassins rushed in his chamber. They were headed by one Besme, who had been bred up as a domestic in the family of the Guises. This wretch thrust his sword into the admiral’s breast, and also cut him in the face. Besme was a German, and being afterwards taken by the Protestants, the Rochellers would have brought him, in order to hang and quarter him; but he was killed by one Bretanville Henry, the young duke of Guise, who afterwards framed the Catholic league, and was murdered at Blois, standing at the door until the horrid butchery should be completed, called aloud, ‘Besme! is it done?
Immediately after this, the ruffians threw the body out of the window, and Coligny expired at Guise’s feet. “Count de Teligny also fell a sacrifice. He had married, about ten months before, Coligny’s daughter. His countenance was so engaging, that the ruffians, when they advanced in order to kill him, were struck with compassion; but others, more barbarous, rushing forward, murdered him. “In the meantime, all the friends of Coligny were assassinated throughout Paris; men, women, and children were promiscuously slaughtered and every street was strewed with expiring: bodies. Some priests, holding up a crucifix in one hand, and a dagger in the other, ran to the chiefs of the murderers, and strongly exhorted them to spare neither relations nor friends. “Tavannes, marshal of France, an ignorant, superstitious soldier
who joined the fury of religion to the rage of party, rode on horse-back through the streets of Paris, crying to his men, ‘Let blood! let blood! bleeding is as wholesome in August as in May.’ In the memories of the life of this enthusiastic, written by his son, we are told that the father, being on his deathbed, and making a general confession of his actions, the priest said to him, with surprise, ‘What! no mention of St. Bartholomew’s
massacre?’ to which Tavannes replied, ‘I consider it as a meritorious action, that will wash away all my sins.’ Such horrid sentiments can a false spirit of religion inspire!” The king’s palace was one of the chief scenes of
the butchery; the king of Navarre had his lodgings in the Louvre, and all his domestics were Protestants. Many of these were killed in bed with their wives, others, running away naked, were pursued by the soldiers through the several rooms of the palace, even to the king’s anti-chamber. The young wife of Henry of Navarre, awaked by the dreadful uproar, being afraid for her consort, and for her own life, seized with horror, and half dead, flew from her bed, in order to throw herself at the feet of the king her brother. But scarce had she opened her chamber door, when some of her Protestant domestics rushed in for refuge. The soldiers immediately followed, pursued them in sight of the princess, and killed one who crept under her bed. Two others, being wounded with halberds, fell at the queen’s feet, so that she was covered with blood.
“Count de la Rochefoucault, a young nobleman, greatly in the king’s favor for his comely air, his politeness, and a certain peculiar happiness in the turn of his conversation, had spent the evening until eleven o’clock with the monarch, in pleasant familiarity; and had given a loose, with the utmost mirth, to the sallies of his imagination. The monarch felt some remorse, and being touched with a kind of compassion, bid him, two or three times, not to go home, but lie in the Louvre. The count said he must go to his wife; upon which the king pressed him no farther, but said, ‘Let him go! I see God has decreed his death.’ And in two hours after he was murdered. “Very few of the Protestants escaped the fury of their enthusiastic persecutors. Among these was young La Force (afterwards the famous Marshal de la Force) a child about ten years of age, whose deliverance was exceedingly remarkable. His father, his elder brother and he himself were seized together by the Duke of Anjou’s soldiers. These murderers flew at all three, and struck them at random, when they all fell, and lay one upon another. The youngest did not receive a single blow, but appearing as if he
was dead, escaped the next day; and his life, thus wonderfully preserved, lasted four score and five years.

“Many of the wretched victims fled to the water side, and some swam
over the Seine to the suburbs of St. Germaine. The king saw them from his window, which looked upon the river, and fired upon them with a carbine that had been loaded for that purpose by one of his pages; while the queen-mother, undisturbed and serene in the midst of slaughter, looking down from a balcony, encouraged the murderers and laughed at the dying groans of the slaughtered. The barbarous queen was fired with a restless ambition, and she perpetually shifted her party in order to satiate it. “Some days after this horrid transaction, the French court endeavored to palliate it by forms of law. They pretended to justify the massacre by a calumny, and accused the admiral of a conspiracy, which no one believed. The parliament was commended to proceed against the memory of
Coligny; and his dead body was hanged in chains on Montfaucon gallows.
The king himself went to view the shocking spectacle. So one of his courtiers advised him to retire, and complaining of the stench of the corpse, he replied, ‘A dead enemy smells well.’ The massacres on St. Bartholomew’s day are painted in the royal saloon of the Vatican at Rome, with the following inscription: Pontifex, Coligny necem probat, i. e., ‘The pope approves of Coligny’s death.’”The young king of Navarre was spared through policy, rather than from the pity of the queen-mother, she
keeping him prisoner until the king’s death, in order that he might be as a security and pledge for the submission of such Protestants as might: effect their escape.
“This horrid butchery was not confined merely to the city of Paris. The like orders were issued from court to the governors of all the provinces in France; so that, in a week’s time, about one hundred thousand Protestants were cut to pieces in different parts of the kingdom! Two or three governors only refused to obey the king’s orders. One of these, named
Montmorrin, governor of Auvergne, wrote the king the following letter,
which deserves to be transmitted to the latest posterity. “SIRE: I have received an order, under your majesty’s seal, to put to death
all the Protestants in my province. I have too, much respect for your
majesty, not to believe the letter a forgery; but if (which God forbid) the order should be genuine, I have too much respect for your majesty to obey it.” At Rome the horrid joy, was so great, that they appointed a day of high festival, and all, with great indulgence to all who kept it and showed every expression of gladness they could devise! and the man who first carried the news received 1000 crowns of the cardinal of Lorraine for his ungodly message. The king also commanded the day to be kept with every demonstration of joy, concluding now that the whole race of Huguenots was extinct.
Many who gave great sums of money for their ransom were immediately after slain, and several towns, which were under the king’s promise of protection and safety, were cut off as soon as they delivered themselves up, on those promises, to his generals or captains. At Bordeaux, at the instigation of a villainous monk, who used to urge the papists to slaughter in his sermons, two hundred and sixty-four were
cruelly murdered; some of them senators..Another of the same pious fraternity produced a similar slaughter at Agendicum, Maine, where the populace at the holy inquisitors’ satanical suggestion, ran upon the Protestants, slew them, plundered their houses and pulled down their church.
The duke of Guise, entering into Blois, suffered his soldiers to fly upon the spoil, and slay or drown all the Protestants they could find. In this they spared neither age nor sex; defiling the women, and then murdering them; from whence he went to Mere, and committed the same outrages for many days together. Here they found a minister named Cassebonius, and
threw him into the river. At Anjou, they slew Albiacus, a minister, and many women were defiled and murdered there; among whom were two sisters, abused before their father, whom the assassins bound to a wall to see them, and then slew them and him.
The president of Turin, after giving a large sum for his life, was cruelly
beaten with clubs, stripped of his clothes, and hung feet upwards, with his head and breast in the river: before he was dead, they opened his belly, plucked out his entrails, and threw them into the river; and then carried his heart about the city upon a spear. At Barre great cruelty was used, even to young children, whom they cut open, pulled out their entrails, which through very rage they gnawed with their teeth. Those who had fled to the castle, when they yielded, were almost hanged.
Thus they did at the city of Matiscon; counting it sport to
cut off their arms and legs and afterward kill them; and for the
entertainment of their visitors, they often threw the Protestants from a
high bridge into the river, saying, “Did you ever see men leap so well?” At Penna, after promising them safety, three hundred were inhumanely butchered; and five and forty at Albia, on the Lord’s Day. At Nonne, though it yielded on conditions of safeguard, the most horrid spectacles were exhibited. Persons of both sexes and conditions were indiscriminately
murdered; the streets ringing with doleful cries, and flowing with blood; and the houses flaming with fire, which the abandoned soldiers had thrown in. One woman, being dragged from her hiding place with her husband, was first abused by the brutal soldiers, and then with a sword which they commanded her to draw, they forced it while in her hands into the bowels
of her husband.

At Samarobridge, they murdered above one hundred Protestants after promising them peace; and at Antisidor, one hundred were killed, and cast part into a lakes, and part into a river. One hundred put into a prison at Orleans, were destroyed by the furious multitude. The Protestants at Rochelle, who were such as had miraculously escaped
the rage of hell, and fled there, seeing how ill they fared who submitted to those holy devils, stood for their lives; and some other cities, encouraged thereby, did the like. Against Rochelle, the king sent almost the whole
power of France, which besieged it several months; though by their assaults, they did very little execution on the inhabitants, yet by famine, they destroyed eighteen thousand out of two and twenty. The dead, being too numerous for the living to bury, became food for vermin and carnivorous birds. Many took their coffins into the church yard, laid down in them, and breathed their last. Their diet had long been what the minds of
those in plenty shudder at; even human flesh, entrails, dung, and the most loathsome things, became at last the only food of those champions for that truth and liberty, of which the world was not worthy. At every attack, the besiegers met with such an intrepid reception, that they left one hundred and thirty-two captains, with a proportionate number of men, dead in the field. The siege at last was broken up at the request of the duke of Anjou, the king’s brother, who was proclaimed king of Poland, and the king, being wearied out, easily complied, whereupon honorable conditions were granted them.
It is a remarkable interference of Providence, that, in all this dreadful massacre, not more than two ministers of the Gospel were involved in it. The tragic sufferings of the Protestants are too numerous to detail; but the treatment of Philip de Deux will give an idea of the rest. After the
miscreants had slain this martyr in his bed, they went to his wife, who was then attended by the midwife, expecting every moment to be delivered.
The midwife entreated them to stay the murder, at least till the child which was the twentieth, should be born. Notwithstanding this, they thrust a dagger up to the hilt into the poor woman. Anxious to be delivered, she ran into a corn loft; but hither they pursued her, stabbed her in the belly, and then threw her into the street. By the fall, the child came from the dying mother, and being caught up by one of the Catholic ruffians, he stabbed the infant and then threw it into the river.
Foxe Book of Martyrs

In the eyes of the world these heroes have perished Without any recognition but God has inscribed their names immortally in His book of life. “Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.”
Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Revelation 7:13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. 7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

The Murder Of Anna And The Waldensians By The Roman Catholic Church

Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
In the first century there was no heresy for the simple reason that there was no orthodoxy. The “heresies” referred to in old translations of the New Testament are merely differences of opinion*. Small Christian communities believed what they wanted to and worshipped as they chose. As we have seen, there were no central authorities, no set rituals, no agreed canon of scripture, no Church hierarchy and no established body of doctrine. In line with the toleration practised throughout the Empire, each group of Christians was free to believe whatever it wanted. The natural consequence of this state of affairs was that ideas and practices in different communities diverged.
Towards the end of the second century Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, saw the dangers of numerous opinions developing. He attempted to establish an orthodox body of teaching. He wrote a five-volume work against heresies, and it was he who compiled a canon of the New Testament. He also claimed that there was only one proper Church, outside of which there could be no salvation. Other Christians were heretics and should be expelled, and if possible destroyed. The first Christian Emperor agreed. Gibbon summarises the edict that announced the destruction of various heretics:
After a preamble filled with passion and reproach, Constantine absolutely prohibits the assemblies of the heretics and confiscates their public property to the use either of the revenue or of the catholic church. The sects against whom the Imperial severity was directed appear to have been the adherents of Paul of Samosata; the Montanists of Phrygia, who maintained an enthusiastic succession of prophecy; the Novatians, who sternly rejected the temporal efficacy of repentance; the Marcionites and Valentinians, under whose leading banners the various Gnostics of Asia and Egypt had insensibly rallied; and perhaps the Manichæans who had recently imported from Persia a more artful composition of oriental and Christian theology.
The design of extirpating the name, or at least of restraining the progress, of these odious heretics was prosecuted with vigour and effect. Some of the penal regulations were copied from the edicts of Diocletian; and this method of conversion was applauded by the same bishops who had felt the hand of oppression and had pleaded for the rights of humanity*.
Further laws against heresy appeared in 380 under the Christian Emperor Theodosius I, who laid down the new rule:
We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom we adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of our own initiative, which we shall assume in accordance with divine judgement*.
St Augustine taught that error has no rights. He cited biblical texts to justify the use of compulsion, notably Luke 14:16-23 (especially Luke 14:23). Had not Christ himself blinded St Paul in order to make him see the true light? According to Augustine, coercion using “great violence” was justified. He made a distinction between unbelievers, who persecuted because of cruelty, and Christians, who persecuted because of love. A war to preserve or restore the unity of the Church was a just war, a bellum Deo auctore, a war waged by God himself.
He also found a way to avoid churchmen getting blood on their hands: dissension against the Church amounted to dissension against the State, so anyone condemned by the Church should be punished by the State. Centuries in the future such ideas would culminate in the activities of the Inquisition, which also required the secular authority to execute its judgements of blood. Augustine is often recognised explicitly as the father of the Inquisition, since he was responsible for adopting Roman methods of torture for the purposes of the Church in order to ensure uniformity. Already, in 385, the first recorded executions for heresy had been carried out under Emperor Maximus at the request of Spanish bishops. Priscillian, Bishop of Ávila, had been charged with witchcraft, although his real crime seems to have been agreeing with Gnostic opinions. Along with his companions he was tried and tortured. They confessed and were executed. The Church now had precedents for both witch-hunting and for persecuting heretics , with a moral unpinning provided by St Augustine.
The Murder Of The Waldensians

The Waldensians, or Vaudois, followers of Peter Waldo of Lyon, provided the next major target. They gave their money to the poor and preached the Christian gospel. Waldo attracted the hatred of the clergy when he commissioned a translation of the Bible into Occitan, the language of what is now southern France. The Waldensians started off as perfectly orthodox Roman Catholics, but after reading the bible their heresies mushroomed. They denied the temporal authority of priests and objected to papal corruption. They rejected numerous accretions, including the Mass, prayers for the dead, indulgences, confessions, penance, church music, the reciting of prayers in Latin, the adoration of saints, the adoration of the sacrament, killing, and the swearing of oaths. They also allowed women to preach. They were excommunicated as heretics in 1184 at the Council of Verona, and persecuted with zeal for centuries.
In a single day in 1393, 150 Waldensians were burned at Grenoble. Survivors fled to remote valleys in the Alps.
As usual, the Catholic propaganda machine swung into action to prove the satanic nature of the Church’s enemies. Waldensians were accused of various enormities identical to those supposedly committed by Cathars and witches. All of them worshipped black cats. They milked the handles of brooms into buckets. They used the brooms to fly – churchmen drew pictures of them doing it (see right)
In 1487 Pope Innocent VIII issued a bull for the extermination of the Vaudois. In response, Alberto de’ Capitanei, archdeacon of Cremona, organized a crusade and launched offensives in the provinces of Dauphine and Piedmont. The areas were devasted and survivers fled to Provence and to southern Italy. On 1 January 1545 King Francis I of France issued an order called the “Arrêt de Mérindol”. He assembled an army against the Waldensians of Provence, which carried out another series of massacres. Deaths in the Massacre of Mérindol ranged from hundreds to thousands, depending on the estimates, and several villages were devastated

The Battle of Armageddon

      The Battle of Armageddon This frightening apocalyptic word “Armageddon” refers to earth’s final battle which is gener...