On January 27, 2007, Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “How To Be Truly Successful.”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

In the Ian Fleming novels and later in the movies, the character of James Bond had the designation “007.” This was a license to kill in the branch of the secret service Bond was serving, which was a department of the British Government.

In this day and age we can observe what I have coined “spiritual 007.” It is not a license to kill physically, but rather to commit licentiousness under the guise of grace. After all, so goes the rationale, “God is merciful, and He loves us unconditionally.” “Spiritual 007” is a “license” to commit spiritual suicide and to murder others in a spiritual way through our bad example which they might adopt and follow.

Those who argue that they are free to sin–that they have spiritual license to sin–never seem to ask where our love for God is and how do we prove that love for God. “Spiritual 007” is a departure from what the spirit of the law embraces in regard to keeping the law of God and demonstrating that love for God through obedience. The Bible rejects the thinking: “I can sin all I want because I have God’s Spirit and am now under grace.” The concept and biblical truth of repentance and putting sin out of our life seems to escape this kind of mentality–as if the Holy Spirit somehow falls out of the sky on an individual without that person meeting first the biblical criteria of repentance, baptism and laying on of hands, as outlined in Acts 2:38 and Acts 8:18. The laying on of hands cannot be done by just anyone, but it has to be done by a true minister of God, and without true repentance, baptism is nothing more than a bath. It will produce no spiritual fruit, as outlined in Galatians 5, and which we are commanded by many parables of Christ to bring forth. We are also to grow in grace and knowledge all of our lives, not just during the time frame shortly before or after our repentance and baptism.

“Spiritual 007” is a sad commentary on the conditions of this world and the individuals who parade grace around as some kind of license to sin–by turning from the holy commands of God to follow the traditions and worship practices of men which we are commanded to reject. Paul admonished us: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1, Authorized Version). Christ obeyed His Father, and He told us not to disobey God’s commandments by keeping man’s traditions instead.

We must reject the spiritual  misconception that when we are under grace we have license to do whatever we want. Rather, we should seek God’s ways, especially as we are coming up to the Passover season, which is a time to examine ourselves and recommit and rededicate ourselves in a our sincere desire to obey God and put sin out of our lives.

“Spiritual 007” is a “license” we must avoid at all costs. The only license we should have is the one to obey God, which leads to eternal life–rather than a “license” to sin, which only leads to suffering and eternal death, if not repented of. We are to look to and follow the example of our elder brother, high priest and soon-coming ruler of this earth, Jesus Christ, by not adding or taking away from what we are told in His Word, the Bible.

No More Legal Spanking in California?

In an attempt to totally defy Biblical teaching, a California Assemblywoman wants to introduce a bill outlawing spanking of children up to 3 years in any manner, shape or form.

On January 18, 2007, the Mercury News reported the following:

“The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children? Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids. Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for some — and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best… The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, [Lieber] added, prohibiting ‘any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.’ Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.

“The idea is encountering skepticism even before it’s been formally introduced. Beyond the debate among child psychologists — many of whom believe limited spanking can be effective — the bill is sure to face questions over how practical it is to enforce and opposition from some legislators who generally oppose what they consider ‘nanny government.’… Lieber conceived the idea while chatting with a family friend and legal expert in children’s issues worldwide. The friend, Thomas Nazario, said that while banning spanking might seem like a radical step for the United States, more than 10 European countries already do so. Sweden was the first, in 1979…

“Doctors, social workers and others who believe a child has been abused are required by law to report it to authorities… Experts in child psychology disagree over whether spanking is a legitimate or effective way for parents to discipline their children. Professor Robert Larzelere, who has studied child discipline for 30 years, said his research shows spanking is fine, as long as it’s used sparingly and doesn’t escalate to abuse. ‘If it’s used in a limited way,’ the Oklahoma State University professor said, ‘it can be more effective than almost any other type of punishment.’ He added that children 18 months old or younger shouldn’t be spanked at all, because they can’t understand why it’s happening. As for Lieber’s proposal, the professor said: ‘I think this proposal is not just a step too far, it’s a leap too far. At least from a scientific perspective there really isn’t any research to support the idea that this would make things better for children.”

WorldNetDaily added the following well-considered comments, on January 23:

“‘It’s really awfully arrogant to try to protect my child from me,’ Karen England, of the Capitol Resource Institute, told WND. ‘If they want to protect children, protect them from predators.’…  Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, called it the wackiest bill of the year. ‘This punish-you-if-you-spank-your-children bill is intrusive, unenforceable, and the most blatant violation of parental rights I’ve ever seen,’ he said. ‘What’s next, jail time for parents who raise their voices at their children? We already have enough legitimate laws prohibiting physical abuse of children, and this proposal is certainly not one of them. Government regulation of parents’ discipline wipes out the right of parents to raise their own children. This is wrong. God gave children to parents, not to the state,’ Thomasson said. England agreed. ‘There already are safeguards in place,’ she said.

“‘Appropriate spanking is not “beating” or “abusing” a child, which is a ridiculous and offensive comparison,’ said Thomasson. ‘When appropriate spanking is lovingly administered, it can help a disobedient youngster to become a well-adjusted adult who respects authority.’… appropriate spanking of rebellious children from 2-10 ‘is the shortest and most effective route to an attitude adjustment.’…

“Brad Dacus, of the Pacific Justice Institute, called it yet another effort to expand the reach of government. ‘Even without this proposed new law, California gives such wide latitude to Child Protective Services that decent parents often get falsely charged with child abuse,’ Dacus said. ‘How much more if the state tries to outlaw all corporal punishment on young children?’ He said the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the fundamental rights of parents to direct and control the upbringing of their children.”

For more information on the BIBLICAL teaching on child discipline, please read our free booklet, “The Keys to Happy Marriages and Families.”

New US Passport Rules

The Associated Press reported on January 23:

“Americans flying to Mexico, Canada and the Caribbean made sure to bring their passports Monday because of a new rule going into effect Tuesday that requires them to show one to get back into the country. Only about a quarter of U.S. citizens hold valid passports, and most Americans are accustomed to traveling to neighboring countries with just a driver’s license or birth certificate, which have long been sufficient to get through airport customs on the trip home. The new regulations requiring passports were adopted by Congress in 2004 to secure the borders against terrorists…

“Starting Tuesday, Canadian, Mexican and Bermudan air travelers, as well as U.S. citizens flying home from those countries or the Caribbean, must display their passports to enter the United States. The only valid substitutes for a passport will be a NEXUS Air card, used by some American and Canadian frequent fliers; identification as a U.S. Coast Guard merchant mariner; and the green card carried by legal permanent residents. Active members of the U.S. military are exempt.

“For now, the rules affect only air travelers. Land and sea travelers will not have to show passports until at least January 2008. Air travelers who cannot produce a passport will be interviewed by customs agents, who will decide whether to let them into the country… The State Department issued a record 12.1 million passports in 2006 and expects to issue 16 million more this year to meet the increased demand.”

The World Condemns American Foreign Policy

Britain’s The Daily Mail wrote the following on January 23:

“The vast majority of Britons see America’s influence on the world as negative and 81 per cent disapprove of its actions in Iraq, a poll has shown. The damning verdict of the British public on the Bush administration’s handling of some of the world’s most crucial issues is backed by the majority of people around the globe, the survey for the BBC reveals… Three out of four people questioned in 25 countries disapproved of the way the U.S. is dealing with Iraq, where more than 100 died yesterday in one of Iraq’s bloodiest days this year. The poll, coming hours before President Bush’s annual State of the Union address Tuesday night, found that half of those questioned in all 25 countries believe the U.S. is playing a mainly negative role in the world. Some 68 per cent of those questioned around the world believe the U.S. military presence in the Middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents and only 17 per cent feel America’s presence there is a stabilising force.

“In addition to the overwhelming disapproval of U.S. actions in Iraq, 76 per cent of Britons condemned the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay and other prisons, 70 per cent were critical of the U.S. response to the Israel-Hezbollah war in the Lebanon, and 64 per cent disagreed with America’s response to Iran’s nuclear programme. Only 33 per cent of Britons saw U.S. influence in the world as mainly positive, 79 per cent disapproved of its approach to global warming and 55 per cent were against the way it handled North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme. More than seven out of ten Britons – 72 per cent – saw the U.S. military presence in the Middle East as ‘provoking more conflict than it prevents’… Two-thirds of Americans, 66 per cent, think the U.S. is on the wrong track.”

The State of the Union Address

AFP reported on January 24:

“US President George W. Bush has pleaded with a war-weary US public to give his unpopular Iraq strategy a chance, warning that a US defeat could ignite an ‘epic battle’ engulfing the entire Middle East. ‘For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective,’ Bush said in his annual State of the Union speech late Tuesday, striking a more defiant than downbeat tone despite his mounting political woes. Two weeks after unveiling a new strategy centered on sending 21,500 more soldiers into battle, the embattled president gave no ground to his critics and urged lawmakers and the US public: ‘Give it a chance to work.’

“Bush, fighting to save his presidency and derail pending congressional action against his Iraq plan, also laid out a handful of domestic policies to cut US gasoline use and pollution, expand health care, and reform immigration. But the chief goal of the 49-minute televised speech was to win a reprieve on Iraq from a skeptical US public and an increasingly hostile US Congress, led by opposition Democrats for the first time in a dozen years…

“The president also acknowledged a dramatic upsurge in sectarian violence, telling Americans leery of seeing US troops caught in the crossfire: ‘This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in.’ That appeared to be a reversal from Bush’s promise, made at an October 25, 2006 press conference, that ‘Americans have no intention of taking sides in a sectarian struggle or standing in the crossfire between rival factions.’ In fact, while Bush tied events in Iraq to the war on terrorism — which he declared in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks — he focused on the threat of future sectarian strife…

“The official Democratic response to the speech, delivered by Senator Jim Webb — a Vietnam veteran whose son is a Marine in Iraq — was tough and blunt. ‘The president took us into this war recklessly,’ said Webb. ‘The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought, nor does the majority of our military, nor does Congress. We need a new direction.’

“The New York Times editorial said that Bush ‘gave no hint’ of fresh policies, offering instead ‘a tepid menu of ideas that would change little.’ The main Washington Post story described Bush as ‘politically wounded but rhetorically unbowed,’ while the Los Angeles Times said his domestic plans were ‘too modest’ to ‘rescue the last quarter of his presidency from irrelevance and patch his tattered legacy.'”

Europe Ready for More Military Operations

The EUObserver reported on January 19:

“Europe says it is ready for more military action under the EU flag in 2007 after its ‘success’ in Congo last year, with the German EU presidency putting Kosovo, Bosnia, Lebanon and Afghanistan at the top of its defence agenda for the next six months… The EU now has two units that can be deployed for ‘crisis-management’ anywhere in the world 10 days after member states take a unanimous vote, in a decision that would ‘as a rule’ follow a UN security council resolution but that could also see the EU go it alone. Each group brings together 1,500 soldiers from two or three member states, which hold joint training exercises and wear both national and EU insignia – a blue disk with 12 gold stars – on the model of EU police missions in Bosnia and Macedonia.

“‘Europe can assume very important peacekeeping and peacemaking functions in this world,’ German defence minister Franz Josef Jung said… ‘Europe is a great peace project and we will continue to make our contribution [to global stability].’… No EU battle group has ever been tested in a real operation, but last year saw two major EU military projects: member states coordinated sending 9,000 European peacekeepers under a UN flag to Lebanon and dispatched 1,400 soldiers under an EU flag to Congo.”

China’s Desire to Use Military Might

Britain’s The Telegraph reported on January 19:

“The prospect of ‘Star Wars’ between China and the West loomed last night after Beijing used a ballistic missile to destroy a satellite in space… It suggests that the Chinese have developed a major new capability that underscores the communist regime’s desire to use its military might as well as burgeoning economic power to expand its influence… The test shows that the Chinese could soon have the capability to destroy the array of commercial satellites operated by the US, Europe, Israel, Russia and Japan.”

The article also pointed out:

“The ability to destroy satellites with such precision could undermine the US National Missile Defence programme, a network of rocket interceptors, computers and satellites intended to protect America and its key allies from nuclear attack. It became known as ‘Son of Star Wars’ after President Ronald Reagan’s so-called ‘Star Wars’ programme proposed in the 1980s.”

Russia Threatens or Being Threatened?

AFP reported on January 21:

“German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin were at odds after talks on energy relations amid EU doubts over Moscow’s reliability as a supplier. Merkel stressed the importance of ‘relations of trust’ and called for improved communication on energy between the European Union and Russia ‘in order to avoid tensions, misunderstandings or disappointments.’ But Putin defended Russian moves to drastically increase energy prices for neighbouring former Soviet countries — a policy that has led to supply disruptions to Europe through Belarus and Ukraine in the past 12 months…

“The European Union depends on Russia for a quarter of its energy needs. Much of the supply, particularly of natural gas, travels through the neighbouring former Soviet republics… A Russian embargo on meat imports from Poland — another issue clouding relations between the European Union and Russia — remained unresolved, despite hopes of a possible breakthrough ahead of the Putin-Merkel meeting… Germany has been Russia’s main ally in the European Union and the two are key trade partners but relations appear cooler than under Merkel’s predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder, who was openly friendly with Putin.”

AFP reported on January 22:

“A top Russian general warned that a missile defense system that the United States wants to deploy in eastern Europe would pose a ‘clear threat’ to his country. The United States confirmed it would soon begin formal talks on deploying the system in the Czech Republic and Poland, aimed at warding off rocket attacks from North Korea or Iran… Czech and Polish leaders rejected Russia’s fears as groundless… The US State Department reiterated its view that the missile system was not directed against Russia… Moscow has warned of ‘negative consequences’ if Prague agrees to host the missile system… Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said in November that it was a ‘destabilizing’ move to which Russia would respond.”

These Russian threats might not be just mere political propaganda. Many still remember Russia’s ruthless and brutal suppression of Czechian thirst for freedom in the late 60’s, when Russian troops illegally invaded Czechoslovakia, while the free world stood idly by. Only 20 years later did the Czechs gain democratic freedoms with the fall of the Iron Curtain. It is no secret that Russian leaders would love to bring Czechoslovakia and other former Russian “satellite” states back into the “fold ” of Mother Russia.  Will Russia’s thirst for power lead to the repeat of such terrible atrocities, as occured in the late 60’s, and will the Western World again fail to intervene?

Daniel 11:44-45 prophesies that frightening rumors from countries such as Russia and China will alarm the future leader of Europe. However, his resulting actions will be devastating for both power blocs.

Sunday Worship?

On January 9, 2007, the Catholic News Agency, Zenit, published an English translation of Pope Benedict XVI’s letter to Cardinal Francis Arinze, dated November 27, 2006. In the letter, the pope made some startling admissions as to how the Catholic Church CHANGED the observance from Saturday-Sabbath to Sunday, using some “biblical” justifications for that change. However, the Bible nowhere justifies the abolition of the weekly Saturday-Sabbath and the substitution of Sunday.

The pope wrote the following, as quoted by Zenit:

“The Second Vatican Council teaches that ‘the Church celebrates the Paschal Mystery every seventh day, which day is appropriately called the ‘Lord’s Day’ or ‘Sunday’… On the ‘first day after Saturday’, the women and then the Disciples, meeting the Risen One, understood that this was ‘the day which the Lord has made’ (Ps 118[117]:24) , ‘his’ day, the ‘Dies Domini.’… From the very outset, this has been a stable element in the perception of the mystery of Sunday: ‘The Word’, Origen affirms, ‘has moved the feast of the Sabbath to the day on which the light was produced and has given us as an image of true repose, Sunday, the day of salvation, the first day of the light in which the Savior of the world, after completing all his work with men and after conquering death, crossed the threshold of Heaven, surpassing the creation of the six days and receiving the blessed Sabbath and rest in God’. Inspired by knowledge of this, St Ignatius of Antioch asserted: ‘We are no longer keeping the Sabbath, but the Lord’s Day’… How much more necessary it is today to reaffirm the sacredness of the Lord’s Day and the need to take part in Sunday Mass!… The cultural context in which we live… must not let us forget that the People of God, born from ‘Christ’s Passover, Sunday’, should return to it as to an inexhaustible source, in order to understand better and better the features of their own identity and the reasons for their existence.

“The Second Vatican Council, after pointing out the origin of Sunday, continued: ‘On this day Christ’s faithful are bound to come together into one place. They should listen to the Word of God and take part in the Eucharist, thus calling to mind the Passion, Resurrection and Glory of the Lord Jesus and giving thanks to God who ‘has begotten them again, through the Resurrection of Christ from the dead, unto a living hope’… Sunday was not chosen by the Christian community but by the Apostles, and indeed by Christ himself, who on that day, ‘the first day of the week’, rose and appeared to the disciples (cf. Mt 28:1; Mk 16: 9; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1,19; Acts 20:7; I Cor 16: 2), and appeared to them again ‘eight days later’ (Jn 20:26). Sunday is the day on which the Risen Lord makes himself present among his followers, invites them to his banquet and shares himself with them so that they too, united and configured to him, may worship God properly. Therefore, as I encourage people to give ever greater importance to the ‘Lord’s Day,’ I am eager to highlight the central place of the Eucharist as a fundamental pillar of Sunday and of all ecclesial life.”

Our free booklet, “Europe in Prophecy” explains in detail WHY the abolition of Saturday-Sabbath worship is NOT authorized in Scripture. In addition, our free booklet, “Jesus Christ–A Great Mystery,” explains that Jesus Christ was NOT resurrected on Sunday, either. Our booklet, “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord,” shows that the Biblical “Lord’s Day” has absolutely nothing to do with Sunday. And finally, our new booklet, “The Meaning of God’s Spring Holy Days,” shows why the celebration of the weekly “Sunday Mass” or “Paschal Mystery” is not an acceptable substitute for the Biblically-mandated annual Passover service.

The Bible reveals that Jesus Christ was always the Son of God; that is, the second member of the God Family. However, the Bible also reveals that Christ BECAME the Son of Man when He gave up His divine glory and became a human being.

Hebrews 1:2 states that God “has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds.” The very next verse (verse 3) then describes Jesus, God’s Son, in this way: “who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high…”

From these two verses in Hebrews 1, we learn that God made the worlds through His Son–John 1 verifies this! In other words, God the FATHER made the worlds through His SON, as Hebrews 1:2 testifies. We also see that Jesus is described as being an exact image of God–a description that is, by itself, an indication of a father and a son. Add to this the fact that Jesus said that “‘…My Father is greater than I'” (Compare John 14:28).

The Father-Son relationship, existing from eternity, is the only way that the Bible accounts for a difference within the Family of God–both from and into all eternity. Otherwise, WHY is the Father greater than the Son? HOW did this come about? Was there a time when both were equal? The Bible does not teach this. It teaches that the Father was always greater than the Son–that is why the FATHER created everything THROUGH the Son. Note that God created through Jesus–He gave His Son a work to accomplish, and Jesus was and remains subordinate to His Father.

The Bible reveals that the Son of God willingly became–also–the Son of Man. He always was the Son of God, but He BECAME the Son of Man when He became a human being, living in the flesh without ever sinning. This is the reason why He–the “Man Christ Jesus”–is now our merciful High Priest and “Mediator between God [the Father] and men” (compare 1 Timothy 2:5). Christ always was and always will be the SUBORDINATE Son of God according to what is written in the Word of God.

We are setting forth below relevant sections from our booklet, “God Is A Family,” proving that Jesus Christ was always the Son of God, and that there was never a time when He was not the Son of God, or when the Father was not the Father:

“Some quote Romans 1:4 as proof of the concept that Jesus Christ—the second being in the Godhead—BECAME the Son of God at the time of His resurrection from the dead.

“In Romans 1:3–4, Paul states that God made a promise before ‘concerning HIS SON Jesus Christ our Lord who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead.’ Does this Scripture say that Christ became the Son of God through the resurrection of the dead? Without analyzing the rest of the Scriptures, and focusing on this passage alone, another possible way of understanding Paul’s statement could also be that the Son, who had been flesh, became again a powerful being through the resurrection from the dead. In other words, Romans 1:3–4 is not conclusive proof that Jesus Christ BECAME the Son of God at the time of His resurrection from the dead.

“Before we clearly present from the Bible what Romans 1:3–4 is saying, let us note another passage, Hebrews 1:5, which has been used in an attempt to prove that Christ BECAME the Son of God—that He was not the Son of God from all eternity. Hebrews 1:5 states, ‘For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten you”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?’ Does this passage mean that Christ became the Son of God when He came into the world (verse 6), and that God became the Father at that time? Another explanation—again, just looking at this passage alone—could be that God the Father begot the Son, Jesus Christ, as a human being at that time, and that God the Father will be, and has been, to Christ a Father in the truest sense of the word, as Christ showed through obedience in His human life that He was an obedient Son, even while in the flesh.

“When we view the passages in Romans 1 and Hebrews 1 in context with the other Biblical testimony, we must conclude that they cannot be used to validate the concept that Christ BECAME the Son of God at the time of His resurrection. If it were true that Christ became the Son of God through the resurrection, why did God the Father say before Christ’s resurrection, ‘This is My beloved SON, in whom I am well pleased.’ (Matthew 3:17)? When this event occurred, John the Baptist exclaimed, ‘And I have seen and testified that this is the SON OF GOD’ (John 1:34). Christ is identified many times in the New Testament as the ‘Son of God,’ prior to His death and resurrection (compare John 1:49; Matthew 4:3, 6; Matthew 8:29; Matthew 14:33)… The Jews KNEW that Christ claimed that He WAS the Son of God (compare Matthew 27:40, 43; Luke 22:70; John 9:35–37; John 10:33–36; John 11:4; John 19:7). When Christ died, the centurion recognized that Christ was ‘the Son of God’ (Matthew 27:54).

“In addition, we find a few Scriptures in the Old Testament that refer to Christ—the second being in the God Family—as the Son (compare Psalm 2:1–2, 7, 11–12; Proverbs 30:4). Generally, however, this terminology is not used in the Old Testament, as God was not clearly revealed as Father and Son in ancient times. Christ, as the Son of God, had to come to reveal the Father. The Jews were under the misimpression that they were worshipping ‘the Father.’ They did not understand that the God being functioning as the Messenger or Spokesperson of the Father and the God Family, who had been dealing directly with the ancients, was actually Jesus Christ. (Compare Christ’s words in John 8:54, ‘It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.’). Still, there are Old Testament passages that speak about God as ‘the Father.’ References to ‘the Father’ in the Old Testament can be found in Isaiah 63:16; Malachi 1:6; 2:10; 2 Samuel 7:13–14; 1 Chronicles 22:10; and Deuteronomy 32:6. In those passages, Christ—the ‘Word’ or Spokesman for the Father—communicated to the people the words of the Father.

“Since God created everything through Christ, it is also said in Isaiah 9:6 that Christ will be called in the future—after His Second Coming—the ‘Everlasting Father.’ This statement proves, too, that Christ existed for all eternity. He is referred to here as the ‘everlasting Father’ or ‘the everlasting Source’ of everything—the ‘beginning of the creation of God.’ However, when the Bible speaks of the ‘Father,’ it normally refers strictly and exclusively to the highest God being in the God Family. We find, then, that God was identified in Scripture as the Father and the Son prior to the human existence of Jesus Christ. God has been a Family for all eternity…

“Returning to Romans 1:3–4, Paul is addressing the fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. This showed WHO Christ was. Notice again what Romans 1:2–4 really says. God the Father made a promise concerning His Son Jesus Christ. We read that the SON was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. We also read that the SON was declared to be the Son of God WITH POWER according to the Spirit by the resurrection from the dead. Christ was already the SON when He was born as a human being—but He became POWERFUL when He became once again a glorified God being. He came back to His disciples after His resurrection to prove who He was, that God the Father had raised Him back to life, and that all authority or ‘POWER’ had been given to Him by the Father (compare Matthew 28:18 in the Authorized Version; see also Hebrews 1:3).

“We also read in Romans 8:3 that God sent ‘His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.’ Note whom God the Father sent to become a human being. It says, He sent ‘His own Son.’ Notice the same statement in Galatians 4:4: ‘When the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth HIS SON, born of a woman, born under the law.’ Hebrews 5:8 also emphasizes that Christ had to suffer in the flesh, although He was ‘a Son.’ He was already the Son of God PRIOR to His resurrection.

“In light of the foregoing, we understand that Hebrews 1 does not state that Christ was not the Son prior to His human existence. Rather, the Bible teaches consistently that the Son of God came into the world. He became a human being. Thus, He became the Son of Man as well.

“In thinking about Jesus in His preincarnate life, it is hard to describe the Father and Son relationship that existed from eternity in physical analogies. It is plain that although Christ was equal to God in one sense, He still said that God the Father was greater than He was (John 14:28). Also, Christ is and always has been the Spokesman for the Father and the Family of God. John 1:1 states: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God.’ What is important to understand from this verse is that Jesus was with God (the Father) at the beginning of creation. Further, Christ will be known again to the nations as the Word of God, when He returns to this earth. Revelation 19:13 describes His Second Coming in this way: ‘He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.’

“God the Father holds a superior position in the God Family in that He represents the final authority. Christ was, always is, and always will be subject to the Father—a structure of relationship that has always existed. The role in the Family of God between Father and Son not only stretches back through eternity, but it is a role that will continue forever into the future. Several decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we find a statement that was recorded by John, an apostle of Jesus Christ: ‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which GOD GAVE HIM to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John’ (Revelation 1:1). Jesus is not doing this by Himself. Rather, the revelation is received from God the Father, and Christ, as Spokesman for the Family of God, then sends it through His angel to John. We read in 1 Corinthians 15:24, 27–28, ‘Then comes the end, when He [Christ] delivers the kingdom to God the Father… For “He [the Father] has put all things under His [Christ’s] feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.’ The head of Christ is and will be—and always has been—God the Father (1 Corinthians 11:3).

“It may be difficult for us to comprehend that Christ WAS always the Son, and that the Father WAS always the Father. We may not be able to explain how that could have been the case, thinking, in using a human analogy, that God the Father must of necessity have existed prior to the Son’s ‘birth.’ This is not true, however, since the Bible tells us that the Son—Jesus Christ, the Word— did not have a beginning. The Bible teaches us that God the Father was always the Father and that Christ was always the Son. We cannot explain this revelation with our limited human understanding. Neither can we explain how God could have lived from all eternity, or that there were even two God beings from all eternity. However, we know this to be true. The Bible teaches it, and we must accept it ‘by faith’ (Hebrews 11:6), although the human mind might not be able to fully comprehend it (compare Romans 11:33; 1 Corinthians 13:12).

“We have also learned from the Bible that God the Father is the highest in the Godhead. The Bible nowhere says that He was NOT the highest from all eternity. In fact, we read that God the Father created everything THROUGH Jesus Christ—so the highest God being created everything, including the spiritual world, through a God being ‘lower’ than He. If we were to speculate, we could imagine, perhaps, that BEFORE anything was created, the two totally ‘equal’ God beings decided between themselves that one should become the highest. However, the Biblical record does not leave room for such speculation. We are clearly taught that the Father always was the highest. We can’t explain or comprehend how that could be. Likewise, we might not understand how Christ could have always been the Son, or how the Father could have always been the Father. Still, the Biblical record is clear in this regard.

“Therefore, we must conclude that God HAS ALWAYS BEEN a Family—and that God IS a Family today, presently consisting of the Father and the Son.”

Lead Writers: Norbert Link and Dave Harris

Our new booklet, “The Meaning of God’s Spring Holy Days,” has been sent to the printer in England. It has also been placed on the Web.

A new StandingWatch program was placed on Google Video and on our Website. It is titled, “Why This Terrible Weather?”

In the program, Norbert Link asked why we hear of severe weather conditions in Southern California, as well as in Germany and many areas around the world. Are there unknown causes and conditions for these terrible situations which have been largely overlooked? And what can we expect to occur in the future?

Annual Conference

The dates for the annual conference in San Diego are:

First Day of Conference: Friday, February 9, 2007

Last Day of Conference: Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Please continue to pray for a successful preparation for these important events.

Time and Location of Memorial Service for Edwin Pope:

Memorial Service for Edwin Pope will be held on Sunday, February 11, 2007. All family members and friends are invited to attend this special occasion. Please share this announcement with those who might be interested in attending, but who might not receive our weekly Updates.

The Memorial Service will begin at 11:30 am, followed by a potluck. The services will be held at the facilities of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, at 102 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910-2520. The facilities are located at the corner of 4th Avenue and D-Avenue.

If you are driving from the Los Angeles area, you might want to use the I-5 toward Santa Ana; take exit #9 onto CA-54 east; take the 4th Avenue exit and turn right. The facilities are on your right.

by Eric Rank

The Bible reminds us that we need not fear what others think about us. We have only God to fear. Yet, the Bible also instructs us against becoming stumbling blocks to others by our behavior.

When we tell others that we are Christians, how do they respond? Do they nod as if to finally understand the things we do? Or do they become confused because our behavior doesn’t match the true virtues of Christianity? As Christians, we are called to hold ourselves to a higher standard — God’s standard of life. Certainly, some people we come in contact with fall short of understanding the full richness of this way of life, but they probably have the ability to discern some aspects of Christian virtue. The virtues of love and kindness towards others might be the most dominant and pervasive of those known to most people. Do people we come in contact with see these virtues in us, or are they caused to stumble — perhaps discarding Christianity as a whole because of the hypocrisy they might see?

Even though it is important to remember that other people’s judgment is nothing compared to God’s judgment, we must realize that we are here in this life, answering God’s call, as ambassadors of God. The most difficult part about being a Christian is making our actions match our beliefs. We are setting an example to the world around us of God’s way of life. If people see contradictions between what we do and what we believe, it not only reflects poorly upon our character, but more importantly, we let down God. Since we sit as lamps on a lamp-stand to the world around us, the gaps between belief and action are much more visible.

The most difficult thing I have done, and will ever do, is to continuously commit my life to God. By answering this calling, not only do I have a new standard to live up to, but I have a job to do in representing God’s way of life. Certainly, this is a challenge, but the God promises that the reward is great.

On January 20, 2007, Dave Harris will give the sermon, titled, “Those Who Believe.”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

On May 6, 1954, something happened that had not happened before in recorded history: Roger Bannister ran a mile in under four minutes. Regarding this accomplishment Bannister said there was, “…a belief that it couldn’t be done, but I think it was more of a psychological barrier than a physical barrier.”

While it took all of recorded history for the first sub-four minute mile to be run, just 46 days later another runner, John Landy, beat Bannister’s time. Within three years 16 people had run sub-four minute miles. The psychological barrier was broken. The limits of possibility had been forever expanded.

To many people, keeping God’s commandments seems impossible. The characteristics Jesus described in the sermon on the mount—being poor in spirit, meek, hungry for righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers (Matthew 5:3-9)—are viewed as nice ideas that don’t work in the real world. Many times people don’t believe it is possible to implement those characteristics because they’ve never seen anyone live that way. To paraphrase Roger Bannister, many people have a belief it cannot be done.

We’ve been sent into the world to prove them wrong.

In Matthew 5:14 Jesus says we are “the light of the world.” To remind us that we have a responsibility beyond ourselves, Jesus continued, “A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:14-16).

When Roger Bannister ran a mile in less than four minutes he changed the world’s perception of what was possible. When we let our light shine—when we do good to those who hate us (Matthew 5:44), rejoice when suffering for Jesus’ sake (1 Peter 4:12-13), and really love God with all our strength (Mark 12:30)—we create new possibilities for those around us. Benjamin Franklin once said, “the best sermon is a good example.” By setting a godly example—at work, at home, in the world and even in the church—we set a pace for others to follow. Like those who followed Roger Bannister, we expand the limits of what they think is possible.

German Reactions to Bush Speech

Der Spiegel Online reported on January 12:

“It was US President George W. Bush’s last shot at keeping the US public behind him and turning the tide in an Iraq sliding ever faster toward chaos… Center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung was scathing in its commentary, beginning with the claim: ‘This war was wrong from the very beginning.’… The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung rips Bush on Friday: ‘For the Europeans, it is extremely disconcerting that the president and commander-in-chief of the West’s leading power shows himself to be so confident but at the same time so disconnected to reality and immune to advice… this fight can never be won militarily…’… The conservative Die Welt sees Bush’s strategy as one of escalation: ‘Bush’s strategy is reminiscent of Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia in 1970… No one should be under any illusion about where the situation is beginning to head — towards a massive FINAL STRUGGLE  for the Middle East…'”

Stoiber’s Way Out

Bavaria’s Edmund Stoiber announced on Thursday, January 18, that he will resign in September from all his political offices, including as Prime Minister of Bavaria, and as chairman of his party, the CSU. Reports about Stoiber’s demise and an internal power struggle had been published in the German press for several weeks. But until now, there were still speculations that Stoiber might avoid his resignation and “retirement.” With his public statements to the contrary, it appears that Stoiber’s political career is over.

Prior to Stoiber’s announcement of his resignation, Der Spiegel Online had reported, on January 15:

“He’s a former candidate for German chancellor and has ruled Bavaria for almost 14 years. But that’s not enough for Edmund Stoiber to enjoy job security. His support is disappearing fast — and early retirement looms… Stoiber himself, who inherited the party soon after his larger-than-life mentor Franz Josef Strauss died in 1988, has done little to dampen the flames of dissent. Considered indispensable for so long, it seems he is having difficulty believing that his flock is turning on him.

“The only person surprised by Stoiber’s rapid descent may be Stoiber himself. He lost a lot of steam with his unexpected, last-minute federal-election loss to Schröder in 2002 and his image was further tarnished during the long power struggle with Angela Merkel which followed. Finally, just after Merkel’s victory in the 2005 election, Stoiber unexpectedly declined the position of economy minister and chose to stay in Munich — after having told the country he was moving up to Berlin. After that, the Bavarian’s eventual demise seemed just a matter of time… Even as Stoiber looks around for friends to support him, those who have been at his side the longest are beginning to position themselves for the coming power struggle…”

EU Outstrips US Dollar

The Financial Times wrote on January 14:

“The euro has displaced the US dollar as the world’s pre-eminent currency in international bond markets, having outstripped the dollar-denominated market for the second year in a row… That represents a startling turnabout from the pattern seen in recent decades, when the US bond market dwarfed its European rival: as recently as 2002, outstanding euro-denominated issuance represented just 27 per cent of the global pie, compared with 51 per cent for the dollar… the trend among some Asian and Middle Eastern countries to diversify their assets away from the dollar has further boosted this trend… The euro has also risen to trade around $1.30 against the dollar, from around parity three years ago.”

Germany’s Democracy Threatened by EU

 The EUObserver reported on January 15:

“Germany’s state of parliamentary democracy is under threat from the European Union which is slowly taking away all the national parliament’s powers, the country’s ex-president has said. In an article for newspaper Welt am Sonntag, Roman Herzog pointed out that between 1999 and 2004, 84 percent of the legal acts in Germany stemmed from Brussels. ‘EU policies suffer to an alarming degree from a lack of democracy and a de facto suspension of the separation of powers. By far the biggest part of the current laws in Germany are agreed by the council of ministers [member states representation in Brussels] and not the German parliament,’ Mr Herzog wrote in a paper with Lüder Gerken, director of the Freiburg-based Centre for European Policy. ‘And each regulation that the German government adopts in the council of ministers, has to be transplanted by the Bundestag [parliament] into German law.'”

“The article continues by noting that Germany’s own constitution foresees the parliament as the ‘central actor in the shaping of the political community. Therefore the question has to be raised of whether Germany can still unreservedly be called a parliamentary democracy.’ The authors also complain that the EU constitution, over which there are currently renewed talks about its revival, will not solve this problem, nor that of the democratic deficit within the EU itself.”

The article in the EUObserver continued:

“… the comment from the former constitutional judge and president of the bloc’s biggest member state between 1994 and 1999 is not an isolated event. German parliamentarians themselves have also started to complain about not being consulted enough on what their government agrees in Brussels. In addition, the final technical step for Germany’s ratification of the EU constitution is being held up due to a similar complaint. Although both houses of parliament have overwhelmingly approved the document, Germany’s president Horst Köhler has refused to sign it off until the country’s constitutional court rules on whether the charter is taking too much power from the national parliament, after a centre-right MP filed a legal complaint in 2005.”

German Hans-Gert Pöttering New European President

The EUObserver reported on January 16:

“German Christian democrat Hans-Gert [Pöttering], elected as the new European Parliament president today, has pledged to stand up to pressure by big member states… MEPs picked their new president on Tuesday (16 January), with Mr [Pöttering] winning the plenary vote in the first round by an absolute majority of 450 votes… As a Christian democrat ally of German chancellor Angela Merkel, the current EU president, he hopes to boost influence of the European Parliament by working through his contacts in Berlin… Politically speaking, there are two key issues – both expected during the German presidency in the first half of the year – in which Mr [Pöttering] hopes the parliament can be actively involved in.

“The first is the more formal – the EU’s 50th birthday declaration… while the second initiative concerns the forthcoming talks on how to revive the EU constitution – put on ice after it was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. ‘We need reforms but also values and I’ll fight for both,’ Mr [Pöttering] pointed out, adding that the core of the EU constitution – including the chapter on its values – should survive the editing process of the treaty.”

The German Axis

The EUObserver pointed out on January 15:

“MEPs’ resolve will be tested during the coming weeks as they fight to get more of a say on the EU constitution and a planned European declaration in March. Current EU presidency Germany has so far indicated it will sideline the European Parliament focussing instead only on canvassing government opinion on the two key issues over the coming months. As part of the streamlined approach, chancellor Angela Merkel has sent a letter to member states asking that only heads of state and government and certain nominated officials should handle the thorny constitutional question, which sees 18 member states having largely ratified the document, two having rejected it and several likely tricky ratifications to come… The close knit approach is also set to be applied to the EU’s 50 year anniversary declaration in March, a statement that Germany believes is closely bound to talks on the EU constitution…”

The article continued:

“With the [new] president of the parliament… the German Hans-Gert Pöttering, and head of the socialists also a German – Martin Schultz – there may be some room for political leverage on the two issues… ‘If anybody is going to make sure we have an influence on this [anniversary] declaration, it’s Pöttering, or a combination of Pöttering and Schulz’ lobbying,’ said Liberal leader Graham Watson last week. The MEPs’ struggle on this issue is especially interesting because it comes as the Brussels assembly finds itself with less and less to do.”

New Extreme-Right Party Becomes Member of European Parliament

AFP reported on January 15:

“A new extreme-right group, including veteran French firebrand Jean-Marie Le Pen and Mussolini’s granddaughter, was formally created in the European parliament… The ‘Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty,’ group… has fulfilled the conditions for its formal recognition… Those rules notably include the requirement that at least 20 MEPs from five EU member states to sign up for the new political group. The formal setting up of the bloc allows it various rights including receiving official funding of around one million euros (770,000 dollars) and certain speaking rights…

“[The] founding principles include recognising ‘national interests, sovereignties, identities and differences’, and opposing a ‘unitary, bureaucratic, European superstate’. Its platform also includes commitments to Christian and traditional family values… Its formation was made possible by the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU on January 1 this month, as five Romanian MEPs have signed up as well as a Bulgarian.”

Europe and the USA Completely Disagree…Again!

On January 15, 2007, Der Spiegel Online wrote:

“Condoleezza Rice is on a tour of the Middle East in an attempt to win over Arab leaders to President Bush’s new Iraq strategy. But she is finding it difficult to avoid awkward questions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the failure of the US to get the Roadmap for Peace off the ground…

“The business daily Handelsblatt comments on the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians in the context of an editorial on Bush’s new Iraq strategy and its implications for the region… ‘The Europeans and the US government have completely different interpretations of reasons for the conflicts in the Middle East. For the Europeans the ongoing struggle between Israel and the Palestinians is central. This can quickly lead to war like the Lebanon conflict in summer 2006, and offers dictatorial politicians an emotionally charged platform from which to present themselves as champions of Arabs and Muslim. Bush sees things completely differently: For him the decisive ideological struggle of our time is being fought in the Middle East. The forces of freedom stand on one side and the extremists stand on the other. There is little room for political solutions and compromises.'”

Iraq Wants American Weapons–Not Troops

The Times On Line reported on January 18:

“America’s refusal to give Baghdad’s security forces sufficient guns and equipment has cost a great number of lives, the Iraqi Prime Minister said yesterday. Nouri al-Maliki said the insurgency had been bloodier and prolonged because Washington had refused to part with equipment. If it released the necessary arms, US forces could ‘dramatically’ cut their numbers in three to six months, he told The Times. In a sign of the tense relations with Washington, he chided the US for suggesting his Government was living on ‘borrowed time’. Such criticism boosted Iraq’s extremists, he said, and was more a reflection of ‘some kind of crisis situation’ in Washington after the Republicans’ midterm election losses… “Asked how long Iraq would require US troops, Mr al-Maliki said: ‘If we succeed in implementing the agreement between us to speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces, I think that within three to six months our need for American troops will dramatically go down. That is on condition that there are real, strong efforts to support our military forces and equipping and arming them.’

“The US Government is wary of handing over large amounts of military hardware to the Iraqis because it has sometimes ended up in the hands of militias and insurgents.”

Iran’s Coalition Against the USA

The following comments were published by ynet-news.com, on January 14:

“Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said they were ready to spend billions of dollars (euros) financing projects in other countries to help thwart US domination… Iran… is allegedly bankrolling militant groups in the Middle East like Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, as well as insurgents in Iraq, in a bid to extend its influence… After Venezuela, Ahmadinejad will visit newly elected leftist governments in Nicaragua [to meet on Sunday with Ortega, a former Marxist guerrilla] and Ecuador [for the inauguration of President-elect Rafael Correa] that are also seeking to reduce Washington’s influence in the region. Bolivian President Evo Morales, another critic of US policy, said he plans to meet with Ahmadinejad while both are in Ecuador Monday…”

Iran vs. USA

The China View reported on January 17:

“Iranian troops have shot down a U.S. pilotless spy plane recently, an Iranian lawmaker announced on Tuesday as the Islamic Republic was facing increasing military pressure from its arch rival — the United States. The aircraft was brought down when it was trying to cross the borders ‘during the last few days,’ … a member of the [Iranian] parliament… was quoted by the local Fars News Agency as saying. The lawmaker gave no exact date of the shooting-down or any other details about the incident, but he said that ‘the United States sent such spy drones to the region every now and then.’… The United States accuses Iran of using its influence to meddle in the region, especially in Lebanon and Shiite-majority Iraq, besides seeking a nuclear weapon, which has been rejected by Iran…  In a show of defiance, an Iranian government spokesman said on Monday that the country was pushing ahead with its plan to install at least 3,000 centrifuges for nuclear fuel production.”

USA vs. Iran

The Associated Press reported on January 17:

“Provocative words by President Bush and a fresh American military buildup in the Persian Gulf seem to mark a new focus on Iran that could signal another Cold War or even a deadly confrontation… Sending a second carrier to the Gulf for the first time since 2003 and positioning a Patriot missile battalion in the region, mark a broader U.S. stand in the Middle East at a time when diplomatic efforts with countries such as Iran and Syria have stalled. It also puts U.S. policy at odds with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group’s recommendation that the administration should reach out to Iran and Syria to bring more regional support to Iraq.

“Trita Parsi, an Iranian-born author and Middle East scholar, said the strategy will lead to an endless balance-of-power game that will drain American resources and undermine the U.S. position in the region… Members of Congress have also expressed concern and pressed the administration to say whether the U.S. military has plans to move into Iran or Syria, and if that could be done without congressional authorization… The escalation against Iran comes as polls show Americans are overwhelmingly unhappy with Bush’s Iraq policy. Seventy percent oppose sending more troops to Iraq, as he intends to do, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll last week.”

Iran Buys Missiles from Russia and the USA

Reuters reported on January 16:

“Russia has delivered new anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran and will consider further requests by Tehran for defensive weapons, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Tuesday… Moscow says the sanctions [previously imposed on Iran] do not apply to the missiles. The Russian military insists that the missile systems will protect Iran from air attacks, but do not pose a threat to neighboring countries.”

The Associated Press added on January 16:

“The U.S. military has sold forbidden equipment at least a half-dozen times to middlemen for countries–including Iran and China–who exploited security flaws in the Defense Department’s surplus auctions. The sales include fighter jet parts and missile components.”

U.S. Trial of the Year

Der Spiegel Online reported on January 15:

“It’s the trial of the year in the United States. Former Bush administration official I. Lewis Libby is… facing charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in the case of CIA agent Valerie Plame. The spotlight is on Bush’s pre-Iraq War propaganda… The United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby begins at 9:30 a.m. sharp on Tuesday morning. Libby, former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, is accused of having lied in order to cover up ‘concerted action’ by the White House to ‘discredit’ an enemy of US President George W. Bush… The Yale graduate is facing up to 30 years in prison. Libby is on trial for just one tiny segment of the propaganda battle the White House used to justify the invasion of Iraq…

“Before Christmas, rumors were still circulating in Washington that Bush would simply pardon Libby. But the risk associated with such a move must have seemed too great even to the most daring lawyers in the White House. Now the only hope left for the Bush administration is that the case has become so complicated that Americans are no longer able to make neither heads nor tails of it. Which is a distinct possibility. Even the quick and dirty version of the Valerie Plame affair is complicated enough. Joseph Wilson, a former US diplomat, travelled to Niger before the war in Iraq in order to verify secret service reports claiming that Saddam Hussein was buying uranium there for his presumed nuclear weapons program. He found out the story was a complete fiction — but Bush and Cheney continued to use the claim to beat the war drum. Wilson then humiliated the White House by going public with his findings. The mud slinging that followed was led by Libby … In the end, even the name of Wilson’s wife — Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent — was made public…

“But Libby, according to [special prosecutor] Fitzgerald, has lied repeatedly to the FBI and under oath to the grand jury. During his interrogation, Libby repeatedly stressed he had never known the name of Wilson’s wife and that he had learned it from journalists. But in fact Libby learned that name from his boss, Cheney. And Libby leaked it to the press… Libby… is… opting for a so-called ‘faulty memory defense,’ a method that is part of a notorious tradition in Washington. Richard Nixon is considered the tradition’s founder: He advised his co-conspirators in the Watergate affair to tell the jury they couldn’t remember the acts they were accused of. Large parts of the Reagan administration likewise suffered from collective faulty memory during the Iran-Contra affair. And now Libby also wants to swap out perjury for amnesia…

“Libby’s perjury look[s] like a third-rate crime, but the lies used to justify the war in Iraq weigh down the Bush administration to this day. Special prosecutor Fitzgerald will have to prove how important it was to the White House to maintain the illusion that the reasons for going to war were sound — and how vengefully Wilson was pursued because of this. That will be the only way to convince the jury that Libby couldn’t possibly just have forgotten the details of the campaign against Wilson.”

Severe Weather Conditions Destroy California Fruits

The Associated Press reported on January 16:

“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked the federal government Tuesday for disaster aid because of an ongoing cold snap that has destroyed nearly $1 billion worth of California citrus, and industry officials said shoppers will feel the sting through higher prices for oranges, lemons and other produce… Nearly every winter crop is affected by the freeze, from avocados to strawberries to fresh-cut flowers, but it’s the state’s citrus crop that stands to take the biggest economic hit… California is the nation’s No. 1 producer of fresh citrus, growing about 86 percent of lemons and 21 percent of oranges sold in the U.S… Florida produces more oranges, but those are mostly processed for orange juice. “More than 70 percent of this season’s oranges, lemons and tangerines… were still on the trees as nighttime temperatures in California’s Central Valley dipped into the low 20s and tens on four straight nights beginning Friday. The freeze ruined as much as three-quarters of the California citrus crop, growers say; the fruit is threatened whenever the mercury falls below 28 degrees… Damages from the current freeze will likely surpass those from a three-day cold snap in December 1998 that destroyed 85 percent of California’s citrus crop, a loss valued at $700 million… The state also suffered a deep freeze in 1990 – one that completely wiped out the $1 billion crop. It took growers two years to recover…

“Adverse weather has also taken a toll on the Florida-dominated orange juice industry in recent years. After two nasty hurricane seasons compounded by drought and crop disease, PepsiCo Inc… which sells juice under the Tropicana and Dole labels, and Coca-Cola Co… which owns Minute Maid, each raised orange juice prices over the past several weeks…

“Strawberries growing along the coastal regions of Southern California were mostly ruined… The freeze also destroyed flowers that would produce the next berry crop on each plant… Growers in the Imperial Valley also were worried about tender vegetables such as lettuce that may not have held up to five days of temperatures in the mid-20s… Throughout the cold snap, growers have tried to save their crops by pumping fields with heated irrigation water and running wind machines to circulate warmer air and keep it from rising off the trees. David Pruitt of Ball Tagawa Growers in Arroyo Grande has struggled to keep 200,000 square feet of greenhouses between 60 and 74 degrees. The company produces a variety of seedlings, including pansies and marigolds. The greenhouses are heated with hot water fired by gas boilers. The cold ‘multiplies our gas use enormously,’ Pruitt said. The boilers ‘are just cranking full blast.'”

Doomsday Five Minutes Away

The Associated Press reported on January 17:

“The world is nudging closer to nuclear or environmental apocalypse, a group of prominent scientists warned Wednesday as it pushed the hand of its symbolic Doomsday Clock closer to midnight. The clock, which was set two minutes forward to 11:55, represents the likelihood of a global cataclysm. Its ticks have given the clock’s keepers a chance to speak out on the dangers they see threatening Earth. It was the fourth time since the Soviet collapse in 1991 that the clock ticked forward amid fears over what the scientists describe as ‘a second nuclear age’ prompted largely by standoffs with Iran and North Korea. But urgent warnings of climate change also played a role…”Stephen W. Hawking, the renowned cosmologist and mathematician, told The Associated Press that global warming has eclipsed other threats to the planet, such as terrorism. ‘Terror only kills hundreds or thousands of people,’ Hawking said. ‘Global warming could kill millions…’

“Since it was set to seven minutes to midnight in 1947, the Doomsday Clock has been moved 18 times, including Wednesday’s adjustment. It came closest to midnight — just two minutes away — in 1953 after the successful test of a hydrogen bomb by the United States. It has been as far away as 17 minutes, set there in 1991 following the demise of the Soviet Union.

“The decision to move the clock is made by the bulletin’s board, composed of scientists and policy experts, in coordination with the group’s sponsors, who include Hawking and science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. Despite the organization’s new focus on global warming, the prospect of nuclear war remained its primary concern, the bulletin’s editor, Mark Strauss, told The AP. ‘It’s important to emphasize 50 of today’s nuclear weapons could kill 200 million people,’ he said.”

Petra–One of Seven New Wonders?

The Associated Press reported on January 16:

“Jordan’s ancient city Petra was officially declared a candidate Tuesday in the contest to name the new seven wonders of the world at a ceremony amid its rose-colored stone buildings. Contest founder Bernard Weber presented Jordan’s Queen Rania with Petra’s official candidacy at the event that included a presentation on the way the city’s first inhabitants lived. The New 7 Wonders of the World contest was launched in 2001 by Weber’s Geneva-based NewOpenWorld Foundation, which aims to promote cultural diversity by supporting, preserving and restoring monuments. It relies on private donations and revenue from selling broadcasting rights. Twenty-one sites around the globe are vying to be declared wonders of the world.

“Petra, located 162 miles south of the Jordanian capital Amman, is built on a terrace around the Wadi Musa or Valley of Moses. It was the capital of the Arab kingdom of the Nabateans, a center of caravan trade, and continued to flourish under Roman rule after the Nabateans’ defeat in A.D. 106. It is famous for water tunnels and stone structures carved in the rock, including Ad-Dayr, ‘the Monastery,’ an uncompleted tomb facade that served as a church during Byzantine times. Swiss explorer Johann Ludwig Burchhardt in 1812 discovered the city that is hidden behind an almost impenetrable barrier of rugged mountains… Egypt’s pyramids of Giza is the only other site in the Arab world that has reached the contest’s short-list. The New 7 Wonders of the World will be announced at a ceremony in Lisbon, Portugal on Saturday, July 7, 2007.”

It is important that we understand correctly the meaning and usage of the Hebrew word “Elohim,” as many teach that the word “Elohim” either ALWAYS conveys a singular meaning, or that it ALWAYS conveys a plural meaning. However, both of these teachings are WRONG!

It is correct that the Bible teaches that God is a Family, presently consisting of TWO immortal God Beings, called in Scripture God the Father and the Son of God, Jesus Christ. It is also correct that the Hebrew word, “Elohim,” translated as “God,” describes the God Family. However, the Bible does NOT teach that the Hebrew word, “Elohim,” ALWAYS refers to more than one God Being in the God Family. A thorough study of the Old Testament reveals that the word “Elohim” CAN refer to the entire God Family, but, depending on the context, it can ALSO refer to EITHER ONE of the God Beings within the God Family.

Jeremiah 31:1 is an example where one of the two God Beings, the LORD, speaks about Himself, calling Himself “God,” or “Elohim.” As many other Scriptures reveal, the word “LORD” refers mostly, but not necessarily always, to the Son, Jesus Christ. However, there are a few incidents where the Old Testament refers to God the Father as “LORD” as well (For proof, please read our free booklet, “God Is A Family.“)

In Jeremiah 31:1, we read:

“‘At the same time,’ says the LORD, ‘I will be the God [“Elohim”] of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people.'”

In this passage, Jesus Christ, the “LORD,” states that HE will be called “Elohim” in the future by all the families of Israel, and that they will be HIS people. In this passage, the word “Elohim” clearly refers to just ONE Member of the God Family–Jesus Christ–serving as a REPRESENTATIVE of the God Family.

Please note the following excerpts from our booklet, “God Is A Family,” explaining in more detail how the Hebrew word “Elohim” can apply to the entirety of the God Family, as well as to EITHER ONE of the two Members of the God Family. For the purpose of this article, we have highlighted certain phrases in the following quote, to show our teaching of the meaning of the word “Elohim.” Our booklet includes many more examples in this regard, but the following excerpts should suffice:

“The very Hebrew word translated ‘God’ in Genesis 1:26 reveals that God consists of more than one person. That Hebrew word is ‘Elohim,’ which CAN be used as a plural word. It CAN be singular in grammar, but plural in meaning… Grammatically, it can be a singular word, but it CAN have a plural meaning… George Knight writes in his book… that the word ‘Elohim’ is clearly a plural word. He explains that the same is true for the word ‘Adam.’ Normally, ‘Adam’ is translated as ‘man.’ The word ‘Adam’ CAN refer to the individual; it CAN refer to both man and woman; and it CAN even refer to ‘man-kind.’…

“George Knight goes on to explain that there are several words in the Hebrew, all ending with ‘-im,’ which are derived from a grammatically singular word that conveys plural meaning… The concept of water, in particular, is very interesting, as it CAN refer to a single drop of water or to a vast ocean. We understand though that it is the same kind of water in either case, and it is always referred to as ‘water.’ In that sense, water is BOTH SINGULAR AND PLURAL. Knight goes on to point out that the SAME IS TRUE for the word ‘Elohim.’ When we read that ‘Elohim,’ or ‘God,’ said: ‘Let US make man in Our image,’ we should realize that the word for man, ‘Adam,’ as well as the word for God, ‘Elohim,’ CAN BE SINGULAR OR PLURAL in meaning, depending on the context…

“We also need to remember that the word ‘Elohim,’ or ‘God,’ CAN refer to EITHER ONE of the two beings in the Godhead. EACH ONE IS CALLED, AND REFERRED TO AS ‘Elohim,’ or ‘God.’ In Genesis 1:26, God, or ‘Elohim,’ says, ‘Let US make man in OUR image.’ One God being speaks to the other God being, referring to both of them as ‘Us.’ When we read in Genesis 1:27 that GOD, or ‘Elohim,’ created man in HIS image, we understand that it was the one God being who actually did the creating, and we already know from the New Testament that God the Father created everything through Jesus Christ… “

Please note, in addition, that the Hebrew word “Elohim,” when applied to the true God, CAN refer to the unity of the God Family, consisting of the Father and the Son. This is proven by the fact that the word “Elohim” CAN be followed by a plural verb, even though in most cases, it is followed by a singular verb. But the latter is strictly a question of grammar. Even in English, we cannot say,”the club agree,” but we need to say, “the club agrees,” even though it is understood that the word “club” consists of more than just one member.

However, notice the following examples, as quoted from our booklet, “God Is A Family,” proving that the word “Elohim” MUST include MORE than just ONE God being:

“In Genesis 20:13, Abraham states, ‘And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, that I said to her [Abraham’s wife, Sarah], This is your kindness that you should do for me: in every place, wherever we go, say of me, He is my brother.’ The Hebrew word for ‘God’ here is ‘Elohim.’ The word for ’caused’ is in the plural in the original Hebrew, not in the singular.

“In Genesis 35:6–7, we read, ‘So Jacob came to Luz (that is, Bethel), which is in the land of Canaan, he and all the people who were with him. And he built an altar there and called the place El Bethel, because there God appeared to him when he fled from the face of his brother.’ The Hebrew word for ‘God’ is ‘Elohim.’ The word for ‘appeared’ is in the plural in the original Hebrew, not in the singular.

“In 2 Samuel 7:23, we read this prayer of David: ‘And who is like Your people, like Israel, the one nation on the earth whom God went to redeem for Himself as a people, to make for Himself a name…’ The Hebrew word for ‘God,’ ‘Elohim,’ is followed by a plural Hebrew verb, translated as ‘went’ in the English.

“The fact that the word ‘Elohim,’ when referring to the God of Israel, can be accompanied in the Hebrew by a plural word is important, as it rejects the claim that the God of Israel (‘Elohim’) can only be one personage. The above-cited examples of plural Hebrew words (the Hebrew expressions for ’caused,’ ‘appeared’ and ‘went’) make this very clear. In the Hebrew, the words for ’caused,’ ‘appeared’ and ‘went’ are distinctively plural, and cannot be understood to be singular… The fact that the Hebrew word ‘Elohim’ is at times accompanied by a plural (not a singular) Hebrew verb proves that ‘Elohim’ consists of more than just one being.

“It is true, however, that in most cases, the Hebrew word ‘Elohim,’ when referring to the God of Israel, is accompanied by a singular verb. This fact—that the word ‘Elohim’ can be either singular or plural, and the verb that follows the noun ‘Elohim’ may be in the singular in either case—should not surprise us. For instance, in German, we can observe the same principle when looking at the word for ‘police,’ which is ‘Polizei.’ One can refer to ‘Polizei’ as conveying a singular or a plural meaning, but the verb in German is always in the singular. As an example, a single policeman could say: ‘Hier steht die Polizei,’ meaning, ‘Here are the police.’ Note that in German, the verb is in the singular. Or, the policeman could say, ‘Die Polizei befiehlt.’ (‘The police order you.’) Note again, that in German, the verb is in the singular, although now the single officer who gives the order speaks on behalf of the entire police force. At the same time, a group of police officers could all refer to themselves as ‘the police.’ When they do, the verb associated with ‘Polizei’ is still singular in German.”

In conclusion, the Hebrew word for God, “Elohim,” CAN REFER TO MORE than one God being, or it CAN REFER TO EITHER ONE of the two God Beings. It would be wrong to teach that the Hebrew word “Elohim” is always singular, or that it is always plural. It can be either, depending on the context. In Jeremiah 31:1, the word “Elohim” clearly refers to ONE of the two God Beings–the LORD or the Son of God, Jesus Christ. The fact that the word “Elohim” CAN refer to MORE than just one God Being proves that God IS a Family, consisting of more than just ONE God Being, and that BOTH Members of the God Family ARE–and always have been–GOD! The amazing truth is that Christ’s true disciples CAN also become full members of the God Family. For more information, please read our free booklet, “God Is A Family.”

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Annual Conference:

As was announced in Update 275, the dates for the annual conference in San Diego have been finalized. They are:
First Day of Conference: Friday, February 9, 2007

Last Day of Conference: Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Please continue to pray for a successful preparation for these important events.

Time and Location of Memorial Service for Edwin Pope:

As previously announced, the Memorial Service for Edwin Pope will be held on Sunday, February 11, 2007. All family members and friends are invited to attend this special occasion. Please share this announcement with those who might be interested in attending, but who might not receive our weekly Updates.

The Memorial Service will begin at 11:30 am, followed by a potluck. The services will be held at the facilities of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, at 102 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910-2520. The facilities are located at the corner of 4th Avenue and D-Avenue.

If you are driving from the Los Angeles area, you might want to use the I-5 toward Santa Ana; take exit #9 onto CA-54 east; take the 4th Avenue exit and turn right. The facilities are on your right.

The editorial review of our new booklet on the Spring Holy Days has been completed, and the material will be sent to the printer shortly.

A new StandingWatch program was placed on Google Video and on our Website. It is titled, “Wars and Rumors of Wars.” In the program, Mr. Link discusses that Europe is upset with Russia for unilaterally shutting down its pipeline which is a major source of European oil imports; that Europe is worried about reports that Israel is preparing to attack Iran with nuclear weapons; and that Europe is appalled about President Bush’s decision to send more troops into Iraq. Mr. Link asks the question: What do all these developments mean?

Norbert Link’s video-recorded sermon, “How To Have a Successful Lasting Marriage,” has been posted on Google video. The audio version (“Successful Lasting Marriages”) has been posted, as usual, on our Website.

On January 13, 2007, Michael Link will give the sermon, titled, “Prepare Yourself.”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

When all human possibilities fail—when we face what may seem to be the “last straw”—what do we do?

Abraham
and Sarah reached that point in their desire for a child. Sarah was
past the age for childbearing. However, the Bible records that God
intervened to give them Isaac.

Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego
would not serve the gods of Nebuchadnezzar, nor worship his golden
image. Because of this, they were led to what was surely to be their
execution. Again, the Bible reveals God’s miraculous intervention.

Lazarus
died. His sisters and friends gave up all hope. In fact, Mary’s only
response was to say that her brother wouldn’t have died if Jesus had
been there earlier. But even death was overcome on that day!

Our
trials are no less insurmountable—at least in respect to our own
abilities or our own resources. There are times when we simply can’t do
it on our own. Like those men and women of the Bible who both faced and
then overcame the impossible, we will face ultimate trials.

When
we do, will we give up? Or, will we personalize the examples found in
God’s Word, and become strong through the certain hope of the immutable
promises of God—with whom ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE (compare Matthew
19:26)?

Angela Merkel in America

The Associated Press reported on January 4:

“President Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, two allies looking to boost their mutual interests, conferred Thursday on issues ranging from war and energy problems to the economy and global warming. In Washington for an Oval Office meeting with Bush, Merkel’s visit came just days after Germany assumed the presidencies of the 27-nation European Union and the G-8 industrialized nations. The U.S. has high expectations that, given its position, Germany will advance American interests, including boosting security in Afghanistan and advancing peace in the Middle East…

“Being seen to have friendly relations with Bush carries some risk for Merkel, given the president’s unpopularity in Europe. But she minimizes them by publicly raising points of difference such as her stance that the prison camp at Guantanamo should be shut down, as she did on her 2005 trip to Washington. German government spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm said in Berlin that Merkel will underline her support for putting the so-called quartet–the United States, the EU, Russia and the United Nations–at the center of a revived Middle East peace effort.

“Bush has stressed that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a top priority although he has not conducted the kind of personal diplomacy engaged in by Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to travel to the Middle East soon.”

The German tabloid Bild reported on January 5 that Rice will “report” to Merkel after her trip to the Middle East.

With the stepping down of Britain’s Tony Blair this year, many view Merkel as emerging as the top ally of the United States. Such a development would undoubtedly tremendously increase Germany’s influence in the world. However, such “friendly” relationship will not last, as the Bible clearly reveals, but, in the meantime, it might foster Germany’s prophesied leading role in the world. The German tabloid, Bild Online, wrote on January 9, in light of Germany’s presidency of the European Union: “We are EU!”

The World Condemns US Actions in Somalia

Reuters reported on January 10:

“U.S. forces hunting al Qaeda suspects launched a new air strike on southern Somalia on Wednesday, a Somali government source said, as international criticism mounted over Washington’s military intervention… The U.S. actions were defended by Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf, but criticised by others including new U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon, the European Union, and former colonial power Italy… Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema said Rome opposed ‘unilateral initiatives that could spark new tensions in an area that is already very destabilized.’… Monday’s attack on a southern village by an AC-130 plane firing automatic cannon was believed to have killed one of three al Qaeda suspects wanted for the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, a U.S. intelligence official said.”

Austria’s News Networld added that France condemned the U.S. attacks, stating that they only complicate matters and make the area less secure. It added: “Only Tony Blair defended the U.S. air strikes.”

Chirac Condemns the USA

AFP reported on January 5:

“French President Jacques Chirac has unleashed a torrent of criticism against the US-led war in Iraq, saying the conflict, which he fiercely opposed, had boosted the spread of terrorism. In a wide-ranging New Year’s foreign policy speech Friday, Chirac fired a broadside at what he called Washington’s ‘adventure’ in the Middle Eastern country, torn by sectarian strife almost four years after the invasion. ‘As France had foreseen and feared, the war in Iraq has sparked upheavals that have yet to show their full effects,’ Chirac [said].

“He said the conflict, which the United States still describes as part of the ‘war on terror’ it launched in 2001 following the September 11 attacks, had ‘offered terrorism a new field for expansion.’ Chirac said it had ‘exacerbated the divisions between communities and threatened the very integrity of Iraq’. ‘It undermined the stability of the entire region, where every country now fears for its security and its independence.’… The French leader attacked the ‘pitfalls of unilateralism’ in foreign affairs — a scarcely veiled reference to Washington’s decision to launch the Iraq war without United Nations backing.”

U.S. Debacle In Iraq Continues

AFP reported on January 10:

“US President George W. Bush took the blame for strategic blunders in Iraq, ordered 21,500 more US troops into battle, and warned Baghdad’s leaders to do more to shore up ebbing US support. ‘If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises’ to fight sectarian violence, he cautioned, ‘it will lose the support of the American people, and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.’ Bush, in a prime-time televised speech from the White House, said his new push aimed to crush terrorists, insurgents and rogue militias and help Iraq’s security forces take control of the entire country by November. ‘The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me,’ he told a war-weary US public nearly four years into the conflict. ‘Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.’… ‘We must expect more Iraqi and American casualties,’ said the president, whose poll numbers have plummeted as the US toll has climbed to more than 3,000 dead and many thousands wounded… The new plan will cost 5.6 billion dollars for the new US troops and about 1.2 billion in new spending aimed at shoring up Iraq’s battered economy, civil society, infrastructure and judicial system, the White House said.”

Der Spiegel Online reported on January 11:

“130,000 US soldiers haven’t been able to bring peace to Iraq. Now George W. Bush has admitted his error — and is sending in a further 21,000 troops. The US President is thus almost completely ignoring the recommendations of the Baker Commission… More blood, more money — that was Bush’s message. An extra 21,000 soldiers are to be sent to bring the situation in Baghdad and in Anbar province, a Sunni stronghold, under control. Bush named his strategy ‘The New Way Forward’ — but it seems suspiciously similar to all the previous failed attempts to stabilize Iraq.” In a related article, AFP wrote on January 10:

“Democrats wasted no time in slamming President George W. Bush’s latest strategy for Iraq, although rifts emerged among them about how best to respond to his plan to send fresh US troops to the war-torn country. Minutes after Bush in a nationally-televised speech outlined a last-ditch effort to salvage Iraq, Senate’s number two Dick Durbin repudiated the plan, and said it was time to pull US troops and let Iraq save itself. ‘It is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation. The government of Iraq must now prove that it will make the hard political decisions, which will bring an end to this bloody civil war,’ Durbin said. ‘Tonight President Bush acknowledged what most Americans know: We are not winning in Iraq, despite the courage and immense sacrifice of our military. Indeed the situation is grave and deteriorating,’ Durbin said, delivering the Democrats’ official response to the Bush speech. ‘Escalation of this war is not the change the American people called for in the last election,’ he said.”

However, will the Democrats actually DO something to prevent President Bush’s plans from being carried out? This appears very unlikely. As Der Spiegel Online remarks correctly, “The Democrats are just as divided over how to proceed over Iraq as Bush’s own party. Only one interest unites them: Until the presidential elections in 2008, it has to remain Bush’s war.” The German tabloid, Bild Online, predicted on January 11 that the Democrats will not show enough backbone to vote against providing the monetary support which Bush requests.

And so, the U.S. debacle in Iraq will continue…

Europe Unhappy With Russia

The pipeline “fiasco,” caused by Russia, affecting large parts of Europe, has been temporarily solved. But serious doubts about Russia’s arrogance and Putin’s intentions remain. Here is what transpired this week:

Der Spiegel Online reported on January 8, 2007:

“The conflict between Moscow and Minsk [Poland] over energy prices worsened on Monday, with potentially serious consequences for Western Europe. Russian pipeline operator Transneft shut down its… pipeline, which is the source of 20 percent of Germany’s oil imports…”

Great Britain’s The Times wrote on January 9: “The move raised further questions over whether Western Europe can trust Mr Putin for its energy supply. Experts said that Russia had a deeply entrenched habit of manipulating oil and gas supplies as a substitute for diplomatic policy…

“Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, told The Times last night that Germany will use its six-month EU presidency to improve energy security on the Continent. In her first interview with a British newspaper she signalled that she would take a harsher line towards Russia than her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder.”

Der Spiegel Online added on January 9:

“German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso have criticized Russia for shutting down a pipeline pumping oil to Europe. Russia’s move has dented its image as a reliable energy supplier, said Merkel… The latest energy spat between Russia and [Poland]… highlights how ruthless and arrogant Russia has become with its energy policy…

“Financial Times Deutschland writes… ‘the Russian move again shows how uncompromisingly hard the Kremlin is in enforcing its economic interests. Riding the wave of high world market prices for oil and gas, the Russian leadership has developed frightening arrogance. For the EU, which still regards Russia as a strategic partner, the warning signs are unmistakeable.’… Business daily Handelsblatt writes: ‘The case of Belarus harbors a lesson for western Europe: Russia is once again showing how irresponsibly it is handling its increased global role.’…

“The conservative Die Welt writes: ‘The Europeans must act together — not just because that makes them stronger. Also because Europe increasingly has to counter energy-hungry competitors such as China…'”

Der Spiegel Online reported on January 11:

“The… oil pipeline, connecting Russia with Germany and Central Europe, is open once again. Following a three-day suspension of supplies, the Russian operator of the pipeline said that oil began flowing again at about 8:30 a.m. on Thursday. The resumption of crude oil to Europe via Belarus comes a day after Moscow and Minsk reached an agreement in the tiff which had led to the pipeline’s closure…

“European concerns about the reliability of Russia as an energy supplier were heightened by the pipeline closure. One year ago, a dispute with Ukraine over natural gas prices led to an interruption of supplies to a number of European countries… European worry about Russia’s reliability as an energy supplier had already been high. Moscow has raised gas prices to a number of former Soviet states in recent years leaving the impression that it was using fuel prices as a foreign policy tool. In December, Russia more than doubled the price Belarus has to pay for natural gas to $100 per 1,000 cubic meters not long after Belarus began distancing itself from a proposal to reunite with Russia.”

Even though the problem seems to be solved temporarily, justified doubts about Russia’s reliability as an energy supplier remain.

These developments might be very interesting “forerunners” of a Biblical prophecy, stating that the end-time German or Austrian leader of a united Europe will respond with great fury to “news from the east and the north”–i.e., Russia, China and other Far Eastern countries (Daniel 11:44).

Mubarak Speaks Out on Saddam’s “Barbaric” and “Illegal” Execution

ABC News reported on January 5, 2007:

“Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has said pictures of the execution of Saddam Hussein were ‘revolting and barbaric’ and that experts considered his trial under occupation illegal. In his first comments on the execution, which took place on the first day of Eid al-Adha, the Muslim Feast of the Sacrifice, last Saturday, Mubarak told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth the timing was ‘unreasonable.’

“In the interview, he said he had written to President Bush asking him to postpone the execution, arguing that it would not be helpful at that time. He did not say how Bush responded. ‘Then the pictures of the execution were revolting and barbaric, and I am not discussing here whether he deserved it or not.

“As for the trial, all experts in international law said it was an illegal trial because it was under occupation. ‘Also, there was a conspiracy to carry out the execution before the end of the year,’ he added. Mubarak and Saddam were friendly in the 1980s but fell out over the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Mubarak had advised the United States not to invade Iraq to overthrow Saddam, saying that it would lead to chaos.”

Will Israel Attack Iran With Nuclear Weapons?

Great Britain’s The Sunday Times reported on January 6, 2007:

“Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons. Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear ‘bunker-busters’, according to several Israeli military sources. The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb. Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open ‘tunnels’ into the targets. ‘Mini-nukes’ would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout…

“The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years… The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that ‘Israel must be wiped off the map’. Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military action against Iran as a ‘last resort’, leading Israeli officials to conclude that it will be left to them to strike… Scientists have calculated that although contamination from the bunker-busters could be limited, tons of radioactive uranium compounds would be released… Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran…”

Israel Denies Report

AFP reported on January 7:

“Israel has drawn up plans to destroy Iranian uranium enrichment facilities with a tactical nuclear strike, a British newspaper said Sunday in a report rejected as ‘absurd’ by the Jewish state. The Sunday Times quoted several Israeli military sources as saying that two of the Jewish state’s air force squadrons are training to use ‘bunker-busting’ bombs for a single strike. ‘This is absurd information coming from a newspaper that has already in the past distinguished itself with sensationalist headlines that in the end amounted to nothing,’ retorted an Israeli official. ‘To think that we will launch an atomic attack against Iran, and on top of that that we would reveal it in advance to a foreign newspaper is doubly ridiculous,’ the official, who asked not to be named, told AFP. The Sunday Times — which in 1986 first revealed Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal — said the plans involved sending conventional, laser-guided missiles to open up ‘tunnels’ in the targets before ‘mini-nukes’ with a force the equivalent of one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb are fired in.”

Germany Alarmed Over Israel’s Alleged Intentions

Der Spiegel Online reported on January 8, 2007:

“The British Sunday Times has reported that Israel is preparing for a nuclear strike on Iran’s atomic weapons facilities. Planted or not, the story should serve as a wake-up call for the West… Germany’s papers Monday expressed alarm at the report and called on the West to stand firm on Iran so that Israel would not feel pressured into taking matters into its own hands. “The business daily Handelsblatt writes: ‘It’s not easy to believe Israel’s denials (that it is planning an attack), because top Israeli politicians and military officers regularly threaten Iran with violence. Deputy defense minister Ephraim Sneh said in November he did not want to rule out a military option against Iran as ‘a last resort.’ In October Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sent a similar warning to Tehran… The Israeli public is being systematically prepared for a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities… there is a reckless consensus: that the Iranian regime can not be dissuaded from developing the bomb using diplomatic means alone.”

“The left-of-center daily Berliner Zeitung writes: ‘Israeli politicians have not ruled out a pre-emptive strike against Iran in theory, and the fact that Israel has already bombed a foreign nuclear installation, in Iraq in 1981 — albeit with conventional means — speaks for the validity of the Sunday Times’ report. On the other hand, the obvious question is whether the article was deliberately planted in the media. Officially Israel is following a policy of ambiguity as to the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons. Recently, however, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert included the country in the ranks of the nuclear powers. Before that, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates had classified Israel as a nuclear power. Is the new report a new attempt to threaten Tehran with the bomb, without doing so directly — and also to test the reaction of the West?’

“The conservative daily Die Welt writes: ‘The headlines about Israel’s alleged attack plans against Iran can be clearly seen as a weapon of psychological warfare. Israel profits from such news: It makes the Iranians aware of the consequences of their policies and puts the world under pressure to not simply accept Iran’s nuclear program… It is irrelevant if the story is true or not. The only important thing is whether one believes Israel is ready to use force. The Israeli government has been making it clear to the world for months that it will not accept an Iranian nuclear bomb and will stop at nothing to prevent it. It is obvious that a military strike could be a last resort after other efforts have been exhausted. No state will simply look on as a regime which wishes its destruction arms itself. And Iran wants to wipe Israel from the map. Israel will act if the major powers fail to keep Tehran from developing the bomb. However, it is doubtful that the conflict could be solved with a single military strike… A protracted and bloody conflict is much more likely. This in turn can not be in the interests of the Americans and the Europeans. For this reason, they should deter the Israeli government from acting by itself. This however means resolutely confronting Iran and, if necessary, acting against Tehran even without a United Nations mandate. In short: (The West) cannot allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons under any circumstances.'”

Virtually all English Bibles, which we have today, do NOT accurately
set forth the order or divisions of the Biblical books, as originally
maintained and inspired by God.

THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Hebrew Bible of the Old Testament consisted originally of 24 books. It is to be divided into three sections:

(1) The Law (5 books of Moses)

(2) The Prophets (8 books)

— The former prophets—Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings (4 books)

— The latter prophets—Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 12 Minor Prophets (4 books)

(3) The Writings (11 books)

— Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs (4 books)

— Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther (4 books)

— Daniel, Ezra/Nehemiah, and Chronicles (3 books)

It
is fairly established today that the Hebrew Bible originally consisted
of 24 books (Compare, The Bible as Literature, The Barnes & Noble
Outline Series, p. 19; The Jerusalem Bible, p. xii: “The Jewish Bible
thus consists of ‘twenty-four books’”; Prof. Felix Just, of Loyola
Marymount University: “Jews count 24″; Encyclopedia Britannica,
copyright 1959, under “Bible”: “The 24 books of the Hebrew Canon have
become 39… in the English Bible, by treating each of the Minor
Prophets as a separate book, by separating Ezra from Nehemiah and
subdividing Samuel, Kings and Chronicles.”)

Some erroneously
claim that the Old Testament consisted originally of only 22 books.
They say that Joshua and Judges were originally only one book, and that
Samuel and Kings were originally only one book.

However, no
evidence has been found confirming that Joshua and Judges were ever
treated as one book. When considering the books of Samuel and Kings,
let us us take note of this quote from the Nelson Study Bible, on page
449: “First and Second Samuel were originally one book, ‘The book of
Samuel’ in the Hebrew Scriptures. When these Scriptures were translated
into Greek, around 150 B.C., Samuel and Kings were brought together
into a complete history of the Hebrew monarchy. This unit of Scripture
was divided into four sections: First, Second, Third, and Fourth
Kingdoms. Samuel and Kings were later separated again, but the
divisions of the Greek translation persisted. The result was a First
and Second Samuel and a First and Second Kings.”

We see then that originally, Samuel and Kings were TWO books, not just one.

Others refer to Josephus for their claim that the Old Testament consisted originally of only 22 books.

In
his work, “Flavius Josephus against Apion,” Josephus states, under
Section 8 (page 609): “For we have not an innumerable multitude of
books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but
only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times…
and of them, five belong to Moses…, the prophets, who were after Moses,
wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The
remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct
of human life.”

We can see from this quote that Josephus’
numbering of 22 books, by speaking of 13 prophetic books [as
distinguished from 8] and 4 writings [as distinguished from 11], is
clearly different from the Hebrew Bible, as maintained by the Jews.

Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible, p. 71, points out:

“There
is a strong Jewish tradition that it was Ezra the scribe who arranged
the canon, although collections of the Pentateuch and some of the
prophets existed long before his time. The books of the Hebrew canon
were arranged in three groups – the Law, the Prophets and the Writings
(which included the wisdom literature, some historical works such as
Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles, and one prophetic work, Daniel). The
prologue to the apocryphal Book of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus (about
130BC) contains evidence of this threefold grouping, but no indication
of the contents of each section… Josephus, the first-century AD
historian, acknowledged 22 books; the Apocalypse of Ezra (about AD 100)
acknowledged 24. If Josephus included Ruth with Judges and Lamentations
with Jeremiah the two agree.”

This suggests that Josephus was also referring to a different order of the books, not just a different number.

Halley’s
Bible Handbook confirms this conclusion, when stating: “The Hebrew Old
Testament contains exactly the same books as our English Old Testament,
but in different arrangement… these 24 books are the same as our 39.
Josephus further reduces the number to 22, to make it correspond to the
Hebrew alphabet by combining Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with
Jeremiah.”

Conclusion as to the Hebrew writings of the Old Testament:

Inasmuch
as the numbering of 22 books corresponds with a change of the
established order of the Hebrew Scriptures, its evidentiary value
must be rejected. The available evidence strongly supports the
conclusion that the Hebrew Bible was arranged by Ezra and delivered to
us in the order as listed in the beginning of this Q&A, consisting
of 24 books.

THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Greek
New Testament consisted originally of 27 books. They are to be divided
into five sections, i.e. the four gospel accounts, the book of Acts,
the general [a/k/a Catholic] epistles (James; 1 and 2 Peter; 1, 2 and 3
John; Jude), the epistles of Paul, and the book of Revelation.

Note how the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament have maintained the order of the books.

(1)
The Codex Sinaiticus was copied about 330 AD. It is one of the oldest
copies of the New Testament. It was written in Greek and is now being
maintained in the British museum. It contains, in this order, the four
gospels, the Catholic [or general] epistles, the Pauline epistles (with
Hebrews following 2 Thessalonians and preceding 1 Timothy), Acts, and
Revelation. (It also includes the uninspired works of the epistle of
Barnabas and the shepherd of Hermas).

(2) The Codex Vaticanus
was copied in the middle of the fourth century. It is now being
maintained in Rome. It contains, in this order, the four gospels, Acts,
the Catholic [or general] epistles, and most of the Pauline epistles.
The last book is Hebrews, following 2 Thessalonians.

(3) The
Codex Alexandrinus was copied around 400 AD. It was written in
Byzantine and Alexandrian. It contains, in this order, the four
gospels, Acts, the Catholic [or general] epistles, the Pauline epistles
(Hebrews following 2 Thessalonians) and Revelation (It also includes
the uninspired works of 1 and 2 Clement).

(4) The Codex Ephraemi
was copied in the 400’s AD. It contains, in this order, the four
gospels, Acts, the Catholic [or general] epistles, the Pauline epistles
(Hebrews following 2 Thessalonians) and Revelation.

(5) The
Council of Laodicea (about AD 363) lists, in Canon 60, all of the New
Testament books (with the exception of the book of Revelation), in this
order:

The four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John; the Acts of the Apostles; seven catholic epistles, namely, 1 of
James, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of Jude; and the fourteen epistles of
Paul, namely 1 to the Romans, 2 to the Corinthians, 1 to the Galatians,
1 to the Ephesians, 1 to the Philippians, 1 to the Colossians, 2 to the
Thessalonians, 1 to the Hebrews, 2 to Timothy, 1 to Titus, and 1 to
Philemon.

(6) E.W. Bullinger writes in “The Church Epistles,” under “Importance of their Order”:

“In
all the hundreds of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the order
of these seven epistles addressed to churches is exactly the same
[i.e., Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, and Thessalonians. We might add here that these are
actually nine epistles, not seven, but Bullinger counts 1 and 2
Corinthians as one epistle, as he does 1 and 2 Thessalonians, in order
to reach the number “seven.”]. We have examined the five most ancient
in existence, viz., the Codex Vaticanus (Cent. IV.), the Codex
Sinaiticus (Cent. IV.), the Codex Alexandrinus (Cent. V.), the Codex
Ephraemi (Cent. V.) and the Codex Bezae (Cent. V. or VI.) [We want to
note here that the Codex Bezae contains only a portion of the New
Testament Scriptures, i.e., the four gospels, the ending of 3 John, and
Acts]. The general order of the books of the New Testament takes the
form of groups, viz., (1) the Four Gospels, (2) the Acts, (3) the
General Epistles, (4) the Pauline Epistles, and (5) the Apocalypse…

“…
while the Pauline Epistles themselves vary in their order (e.g.,
Hebrews in some cases following Thessalonians [Let us also note that in
one ancient manuscript, Hebrews follows Galatians. In another
manuscript from 200 AD, P 46, Hebrews follows Romans, preceding 1 and 2
Corinthians, but omitting Galatians]), yet the order of these seven
[correctly, nine; see our comment above] addressed to the churches
never varies…”

Conclusion as to the Greek writings of the New Testament:

It appears that the most likely order of the New Testament Scriptures, as originally inspired, is as follows:

(1) The four gospel accounts, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John

(2) Book of Acts

(3) General or Catholic Epistles:

James; 1 and 2 Peter; 1, 2 and 3 John; Jude

(4) Pauline Epistles:

Romans; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians;
Philippians; Colossians; 1 and 2 Thessalonians; Hebrews; 1 and
2 Timothy; Titus; Philemon

(5) Book of Revelation

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Kalon Mitchell and Manuela Link were united in marriage on Sunday,
January 7, 2007. The marriage ceremony was performed by Evangelist
Norbert Link in the beautiful Rancho Bernardo Courtyard, where the
Church’s former offices were located. Michael Link was best man, and
Johanna Link was matron-of-honor. The weather was gorgeous, and about
80 guests enjoyed the occasion. Kalon and Manuela would like to thank
all for their tremendous help, as well as the many cards, wishes and
presents received from family members and friends around the world. The
couple resides in Escondido, California.

A new StandingWatch
program was posted on Google Video, as well as on our Website (standingwatch.org). It is titled, “True
Christianity–Don’t Be Deceived! In the program, Norbert Link discusses
the fact that recently, a popular television broadcast asked the
questions, Who is a Christian?, and, What is true Christianity? The
opinions of those interviewed were astonishing. In addition, a TV
evangelist announced that God spoke to him, telling him that a major
attack on the USA will happen shortly after September 2007. Mr. Link is
posing the question whether such a claim can be believed.

The text for our new booklet on the meaning of the Spring Holy Days has entered its final review cycle.

by Michael Link (26)

For the past several months, I’ve been in
more and more situations where I had to make the right decision. I can
certainly say that I have had my fair share of trials–some that I
could overcome easier, as well as those that were a bit tougher.

I
have been put on the spot several times, especially because of the
recent holidays and my refusal to celebrate them. Even though this
happens every single year, I have to explain to people why I don’t
observe Christmas. Since I’ve had to do this so many times, I know
better and better what I have to say, making the situation easier each
time. Sometimes, when it came to work or friends, I had to make a
decision whether I was going to compromise with the Sabbath, the
celebration of pagan holidays, or eating unclean foods. I can
undoubtedly say that I was being tested.

Just recently I had a
seemingly great job opportunity–one that would require a lot of time
and effort for it to become successful. My immediate response to the
job was required. It had its advantages and disadvantages. At the
beginning, all I could focus on was its advantages. I did not really
consider the negative aspects. There were many things to evaluate, but
the biggest challenge was the Sabbath, since a lot of the business
would be generated on the Sabbath.  Even though I would not work
on the Sabbath, I began to realize that due to the nature of the
business, the Sabbath could still be an issue for me in the future. If
called upon to choose, would I be able to pass the test?  I
counseled and prayed about the whole job situation. God knew that the
answer would be “no” for the time being.  For now, this job
opportunity is on hold, and I have God to thank since He knows best. As
long as I remain faithful and obedient on any challenge that is thrown
at me, I know that something even better will be the result.

On January 6, 2007, Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “Successful Lasting Marriages.”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

Recently, CNN broadcast a television program in the USA, exploring
the essence of true Christianity. “Experts,” TV evangelists and pastors
were interviewed, giving their version and understanding of what is a
Christian–and what is the true gospel message. Even though I did not
watch the entirety of the broadcast, what I did see was more than
enough! Depending on the speaker, concepts were introduced that we need
or must not preach a “prosperity gospel,” as God does or does not bless
His people physically. Some ministers open their church doors to just
about anyone, holding the most outlandish or God-rejecting
beliefs–without teaching the need for change. One preacher stated that
God’s people could be “raptured” at any time to go to heaven, while
others just gave a “positive” gospel message–a “social” gospel, so
that people can feel “good” and have a jolly good time in church.

When
listening to this hotchpotch of spiritual confusion, I was reminded of
God’s powerful words in Isaiah 8:20: “To the law and to the testimony!
If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no
light in them.”

The New Testament clearly tells us who is a
Christian, and who is not. Romans 8:9 says: “… now if anyone does not
have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.” A true Christian,
then,  is one in whom Christ’s Spirit dwells. He lives and thinks
as Christ does. He believes in the gospel that Christ taught–the
gospel of the Kingdom of God. He grows in the knowledge of Christ (2
Peter 3:18). He is able to discern between the spirit of truth and the
spirit of error (1 John 4:6).

With the Spirit of Christ within
him, a true Christian is subject to God’s Law (Romans 8:7). God’s Law
is in his heart (Isaiah 51:7). According to the unequivocal testimony
of Scripture, the one who claims that He knows Christ–that he is a
true Christian–“and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the
truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4). Christ came to keep His Father’s
commandments–the Ten Commandments, statutes and judgments–and He
expects of His disciples to do likewise (John 15:10; 14:15). Rather
than doing away with God’s Law, He came to reveal its spiritual intents
and purposes. He came to “exalt” it and “make it honorable” (Isaiah
42:21; compare Matthew 5:17-19). Obedience, therefore, is essential, as
Acts 5:32 shows.

What we are experiencing today was prophesied
long ago to happen. Christ warned His true disciples in Matthew 24:4-5:
“Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name,
saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.” Religious preachers
DO confess that Jesus was the Christ, the Savior of mankind, but they
deceive many through their wrong teaching. They claim that Christians
don’t have to keep God’s Law anymore–or that they are “free” to
worship God and Christ in any way THEY want. However, a true Christian
AGREES with Christ who said: “…’And in vain they worship Me, Teaching
as doctrines the commandments of men.’ For laying aside the commandment
of God, you hold the tradition of men…” (Mark 7:7-8).

Some have
pointed out that we are observing a “religious revival,” especially in
the United States. If so, this renewed interest in “Christianity” does
not appear to include a willingness to seek God’s truth and to keep His
Law. People who are becoming “religious” seem to flock to “teachers” of
their choice–who are teaching anything BUT the truth, it seems
(compare Jeremiah 5:31; 6:19; 2 Timothy 4:3-4). God’s people must not
be swept away by this dangerous mud slide and treacherous river of
Babylonian confusion. Rather, they must KNOW and hold fast to the true
God, and they must keep His Word of truth–nothing less will do!

Reactions to Saddam Hussein’s Death

Germany and Europe, as well as the Catholic Church stand united against the United States’ support of Saddam Hussein’s execution. And even many Arabs are upset about the timing and a perception that the trial against Saddam was unfair. All seem to agree that Saddam’s death will increase the violence in Iraq.

European and American Reactions

Der Spiegel Online reported on December 30:

“Saddam Hussein has been executed by hanging in Baghdad. Shiites danced in the street to celebrate while Sunnis mourned the dictator’s death…

“US President George W. Bush issued a statement from his Texan ranch welcoming the execution. Bringing Saddam to justice was ‘an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain and defend itself,’ the statement read. Bush added that the execution marks the ‘end of a difficult year for the Iraqi people and for our troops’. However he cautioned that Saddam’s death will not halt the violence in Iraq. “German politicians criticized the death penalty after hearing the news. ‘The federal government, like the European Union, rejects the death penalty on principle, irrespective of the circumstances,’ the Foreign Ministry said in a statement..'”

Austria’s Networld reported on December 30 that the European Union condemned Saddam’s execution as “barbaric.”

How the Vatican Sees It

The Associated Press reported on December 30:

“The Vatican spokesman on Saturday denounced Saddam Hussein’s execution as ‘tragic’ and expressed worry it might fuel revenge and new violence… In separate comments to the station’s English program, Lombardi said that capital punishment cannot be justified ‘even when the person put to death is one guilty of grave crimes,’ and he reiterated the Catholic Church’s overall opposition to the death penalty. Executing Saddam ‘is not a way to reconstruct justice’ in Iraqi society, the spokesman said. ‘It might fuel the spirit of revenge and sow seeds of new violence.’… In an interview published in an Italian daily earlier in the week, the Vatican’s top prelate for justice issues, Cardinal Renato Martino, said executing Saddam would mean punishing ‘a crime with another crime.'”

The Associated Press added on January 3:

“The Vatican’s official newspaper on Tuesday decried media images of Saddam Hussein’s hanging as a ‘spectacle’ violating human rights and harming efforts to promote reconciliation in Iraq… The paper added that: ‘in a country ever more disfigured by every kind of violence, you don’t need arrogant gestures…'”

Arab Reactions

Reuters reported on December 30:

“Saddam Hussein’s execution on Saturday angered many Arabs, but even some who felt the former Iraqi leader deserved to die voiced a sense of justice denied. Many said his hanging for crimes against humanity, on the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha, would worsen violence in Iraq…Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper, told Al Jazeera television: ‘Arab public opinion wonders who deserves to be tried and executed: Saddam Hussein who preserved the unity of Iraq, its Arab and Islamic identity and the coexistence of its different communities such as Shi’ites and Sunnis … or those who engulfed the country in this bloody civil war?’…

“In Afghanistan, which preceded Iraq as the first target in the U.S.-declared ‘war on terror,’ a top commander of the resurgent Islamist Taliban movement said Saddam’s death would galvanize Muslim opposition to the United States… In Mecca, Sunni Arab pilgrims voiced outrage that Iraqi authorities had executed Saddam on a major religious holiday… Beyond the Arab world, few Muslims seemed ready to defend Saddam, but many doubted that full justice had been done.  In Pakistan, Liaqat Baluch, a leader of a six-party opposition alliance of conservative religious parties, said Saddam was a ‘bad guy’ but his trial had been unfair.”

America’s Destroyed Dictator

On December 30, the British daily, The Independent, published the following editorial by Robert Fisk, titled: “A dictator created then destroyed by America”:

“Saddam to the gallows. It was an easy equation. Who could be more deserving of that last walk to the scaffold – that crack of the neck at the end of a rope – than the Beast of Baghdad, the Hitler of the Tigris, the man who murdered untold hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis while spraying chemical weapons over his enemies? Our masters will tell us in a few hours that it is a ‘great day’ for Iraqis and will hope that the Muslim world will forget that his death sentence was signed – by the Iraqi ‘government’, but on behalf of the Americans – on the very eve of the Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrifice, the moment of greatest forgiveness in the Arab world. “But history will record that the Arabs and other Muslims and, indeed, many millions in the West, will ask another question this weekend, a question that will not be posed in other Western newspapers because it is not the narrative laid down for us by our presidents and prime ministers – what about the other guilty men?

“No, Tony Blair is not Saddam. We don’t gas our enemies. George W Bush is not Saddam. He didn’t invade Iran or Kuwait. He only invaded Iraq. But hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead – and thousands of Western troops are dead – because Messrs Bush and Blair and the Spanish Prime Minister and the Italian Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister went to war in 2003 on a potage of lies and mendacity and, given the weapons we used, with great brutality.

“In the aftermath of the international crimes against humanity of 2001 we have tortured, we have murdered, we have brutalised and killed the innocent – we have even added our shame at Abu Ghraib to Saddam’s shame at Abu Ghraib – and yet we are supposed to forget these terrible crimes as we applaud the swinging corpse of the dictator we created.

“Who encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the greatest war crime he has committed for it led to the deaths of a million and a half souls? And who sold him the components for the chemical weapons with which he drenched Iran and the Kurds? We did. No wonder the Americans, who controlled Saddam’s weird trial, forbad any mention of this, his most obscene atrocity, in the charges against him. Could he not have been handed over to the Iranians for sentencing for this massive war crime? Of course not. Because that would also expose our culpability.

“And the mass killings we perpetrated in 2003 with our depleted uranium shells and our ‘bunker buster’ bombs and our phosphorous, the murderous post-invasion sieges of Fallujah and Najaf, the hell-disaster of anarchy we unleashed on the Iraqi population in the aftermath of our ‘victory’ – our ‘mission accomplished’ – who will be found guilty of this? Such expiation as we might expect will come, no doubt, in the self-serving memoirs of Blair and Bush, written in comfortable and wealthy retirement…

“… But [Saddam’s] execution will go down – correctly – as an American affair and time will add its false but lasting gloss to all this – that the West destroyed an Arab leader who no longer obeyed his orders from Washington, that, for all his wrongdoing (and this will be the terrible get-out for Arab historians, this shaving away of his crimes) Saddam died a ‘martyr’ to the will of the new ‘Crusaders’.

“When he was captured in November of 2003, the insurgency against American troops increased in ferocity. After his death, it will redouble in intensity again. Freed from the remotest possibility of Saddam’s return by his execution, the West’s enemies in Iraq have no reason to fear the return of his Baathist regime…”

Sadam’s Execution “Merely an Act of Shiite Revenge”?

ABC News reported on December 30 about an uncut video of Saddam Hussein’s execution, which is being placed on the Internet and which has been broadcast on several TV stations around the world. The video, which had apparently been shot on a cell phone by one of the two dozen witnesses, shows numerous provocations of Saddam by Shiites before, during and after the hanging. ABC News stated:

“There are five men in black face masks who are visible on the gallows platform around Saddam, acting as guards. As they guide him towards the trap door and put the noose over his head, they start chanting religious slogans with the names of Moqtada al Sadr (the head of the Mahdi army, accused of organizing death squads against Sunnis) and Baqr al Sadr (the father-in-law of Moqtada). Saddam, a Sunni, is outraged at this last-minute provocation, and tells them to ‘go to hell.’…

“… the impact of this video could be quite significant. First, it will reinforce Sunni suspicions that the execution of Saddam was merely an act of Shiite revenge for decades of repression under Saddam. The building where the execution took place was expressly chosen because it was once used as a detention center by a division of Saddam’s secret police that was focused on the Shiite Dawa party. Some of the witnesses whom the government invited to the execution had themselves once been tortured in that same building. Indeed, Prime Minister Maliki, who signed the execution order the day before the hanging, is a long-term member of the Dawa party and had himself been sentenced to death by Saddam back in 1980 before fleeing the country. “Worse, it will also reinforce the fears of Sunnis that Maliki’s government is beholden to the Mahdi army, Moqtada’s militia. Executions are generally expected to be solemn affairs–certainly not opportunities for thugs to score some final sectarian points before the ‘enemy’ is disposed of. The video itself seems quite distasteful–but it is informative to the extent that it reveals the political baggage that the current government carries on its shoulders. It does not add up to a pretty picture.”

Der Spiegel Online added on January 3:

“The international community has been outraged — especially at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose government not only let a (banned) mobile phone slip into the execution chamber, but also hurried up the hanging… German newspapers see the whole affair as a gruesome circus that either threatens western values or drives another wedge between Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites. Some even suspect Maliki of using Saddam’s execution as a sop to his Shiite supporters…

“The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

‘It would have been a miracle if Saddam’s execution had not raised new problems for the Baghdad government, the overstrained US army, or for the violence-plagued Iraqi people. But now a mobile-phone video has turned up, and the pictures and sound both show, first, just how degraded Saddam’s death was, and second how depraved a society has to be to turn the execution of a condemned thug into a cheap and coarse spectacle… The video also shows that neither the Baghdad government nor the American occupiers are in a position to control an execution… Saddam Hussein’s death won’t heal old wounds any more than it will satisfy a lust for revenge — the pictures are more likely to achieve the opposite effect. And a government that can’t even prohibit recordings of an execution will never be able to control its country.'”

Divisions Between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnites Continue

The Financial Times reported on December 30:

“Street celebrations and a handful of angry protests erupted in Iraq’s streets early this morning, as the country awoke to the news that former president Saddam Hussein, who had overshadowed Iraqi public life for over three decades, had been put to death. However, a series of blasts in mostly Shia areas left at least 68 Iraqis dead, while six US troops were reported killed, pushing the death toll for December to 109 and making it the worst month for US forces in two years…

“The different reactions and the continued sectarian violence reflect the legacy of Saddam’s regime, which was dominated by Sunni Arabs and brutally repressed Shia religious and political movements. The execution is unlikely to bridge this divide, as perceptions of Saddam’s hanging differ radically between Sunni Arab and Shia. Even the timing of his hanging seemed to reinforce the sectarian gap–although Iraqi law bans executions during religious holidays, it took place just as the Sunni’s Eid al-Adha feast was beginning. Shia begin celebrations a day later.”

Saddam’s Death Personal Vindication?

The New York Times wrote on December 30:

“The capture of Saddam Hussein three years ago was a jubilant moment for the White House, hailed by President Bush in a televised address from the Cabinet Room. The execution of Mr. Hussein, though, seemed hardly to inspire the same sentiment… After Mr. Hussein was arrested Dec. 13, 2003, he gradually faded from view, save for his courtroom outbursts and writings from prison. The growing chaos and violence in Iraq has steadily overshadowed the torturous rule of Mr. Hussein, who for more than two decades held a unique place in the politics and psyche of the United States, a symbol of the manifestation of evil in the Middle East.

“Now, what could have been a triumphal bookend to the American invasion of Iraq has instead been dampened by the grim reality of conditions on the ground there. Mr. Hussein’s hanging means that the ousted leader has been held accountable for his misdeeds, fulfilling the American war aim most cited by the White House after Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction proved nonexistent.

“But that war is now edging toward its fifth year, and the sectarian violence that has surged independent of any old Sunni or Baathist allegiances to Mr. Hussein has raised questions about what change, if any, his death might bring.

“’Saddam’s face has been on this process from the beginning and here goes that face,’ said Bruce Buchanan, a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin… the specter of Mr. Hussein remained intimately entwined with Mr. Bush and his father, George H. W. Bush. Two years after the Persian Gulf war, Mr. Hussein ordered an assassination attempt on the elder Bush, an act of spite that the 43rd president would never forget… Mr. Buchanan, a longtime observer of the Bush political family in Texas, said that these were no ordinary archenemies and that setting aside personal views entirely seemed impossible. ‘I think the president will see this as justice done and may well feel some sense of vindication, in part because of the attempt on his father’s life,’ he said. ‘It’s definitely part of the drama.'”

Italy Wants Worldwide Moratorium on Death Penalty

Der Spiegel Online reported on January 3:

“Rome is calling on European Union member states and the United Nations to push for an international moratorium on capital punishment. The move follows the controversial execution this weekend of Iraq’s former dictator Saddam Hussein, who was sentenced to death for committing crimes against humanity… Rome is hoping to gain the support of the 85 UN member states who recently joined a non-binding declaration against the death penalty…

“… the Italians are also seeking to get the European Union — which makes a ban on capital punishment a precondition for membership — to promote a global moratorium. Rome has also asked Germany to add the issue to the agenda at an upcoming meeting of justice ministers in Dresden.

“In Iraq, the government deflected the criticism, noting that the Italians themselves had executed former fascist leader Benito Mussolini during World War II. ‘They have no right interfering with the affairs of another country,’ Iraqi government official Yaseen Majeed told the Italian daily La Repubblica. ‘Mussolini’s trial only lasted one minute.” The dictator was executed by partisans and strung up in a square in Milan in April 1945. Mussolini’s granddaughter and European Parliament member Alessandra Mussolini said her ‘blood ran cold’ as she viewed the images of Saddam’s execution. ‘My mind immediately flicked to pictures of my grandfather, who also had his uncovered face exposed to the public for ridicule,’ she said.”

War Has Returned to Somalia

Der Spiegel Online reported on January 2, 2007:

“Ethiopia has driven the Islamists out of Mogadishu. Now the region is threatened with a new East African front in the clash of civilizations. The radical Somalis are looking for support from the Middle East, and Ethiopia has turned to the US government for support in its fight against the Taliban-like Islamists… War has returned to the Horn of Africa, and the outcome is unclear. With tanks and many thousands of soldiers, the Ethiopian Army moved into the Somali capital of Mogadishu last Thursday, taking control of airports and the presidential palace…

“‘Somalia is at risk of becoming the battlefield of a global war between an Islamist international force and Western anti-terrorism forces,’ warns Hamburg-based Somalia expert Volker Matthies. ‘While the Islamists receive sufficient support from fundamentalists from the Arab world, the weaker government of President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, recognized by the West, gets its support from Addis Ababa. So Ethiopia is turning into an east African bridgehead for the Americans in their war against terror.’…

“Still, the unsuccessful debate in the UN Security Council has made it clear that Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is now officially an ally of America. No one fears a bridgehead of the Islamists in East Africa more than the US, whose embassies in Nairobi and Darussalam were blown up in 1998 by Osama Bin Laden’s terrorists…

“… there are now renewed threats of war with Eritrea, which is among Ethiopia’s enemies and will not hesitate to arm the Islamists or even to send its own soldiers off to the fight. Ethiopia and Eritrea are extremely poor states, but each country nevertheless maintains an army of more than 180,000 very well prepared soldiers.

“The government in Addis Ababa already views itself as being in a bind… Now Ethiopian soldiers have crossed into the neighboring country, and the Islamists are calling up their allies in the Middle East to a ‘holy war’ against the invaders. They could now face a similar debacle as did the Americans in 1992, when they came to Somalia to combat a famine — and withdrew in humiliation after the desecrated body of a GI was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. There already is a similar photo on display today on the Internet. It shows an Ethiopian soldier, hands tied behind his back, his throat slit.”

Will Dollar’s Decline Prompt War with Iran?

WorldNetDaily wrote on January 2:

“Economists anticipate that the fall of the U.S dollar in world currency markets that began in 2006 will accelerate in 2007.

“‘The dollar could lose as much as 30 percent of its value in 2007,’ econometrician John Williams… told WND. ‘In 2007, we are likely to see the economic downturn of 2006 develop into a structural recession and yet we have international trade and federal budged deficits careening out of control.’… Bob Chapman… told WND, ‘Central bankers in 2007 will begin to move away from the dollar in their foreign reserve holdings.’…”Iran’s decision to hold only Euros may prompt a U.S. decision to launch a pre-emptive attack, Chapman speculated, with the public argument being Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons in defiance of the U.N. Security Council. ‘Saddam Hussein signed his death warrant,’ Chapman argued, ‘when he got the U.N. to agree that he could hold [his] oil-for-food reserves in euros. Ahmadinejad appears determined to go down the same path.'”

Dangerous Religious Deception in Iran…

ynetnew reported on December 31:

“A triumphal religious prophecy has appeared on an Iranian official state media website, heralding the return of the Shiite messiah. According to the website, ‘Imam Mahdi (may God hasten his reappearance) will appear all of a sudden on the world scene with a voice from the skies announcing his reappearance at the holy Ka’ba in Mecca.’…

“The Mahdi’s far sightedness and firmness in the face of mischievous elements will strike awe. After his uprising from Mecca all of Arabia will be submit to him and then other parts of the world as he marches upon Iraq and established his seat of global government in the city of Kufa.

‘Then the Imam will send 10 thousand of his forces to the east and west to uproot the oppressors. At this time God will facilitate things for him and lands will come under his control one after the other,’ the website declared. ‘After his appearance the Imam would remain in Mecca for some time, and then go to Medina… a descendant of the Prophet’s archenemy Abu Sofyan will seize Syria and attack Iraq and the Hejaz with the ferocity of a beast… finally Imam Mahdi sends troops who kill the Sofyani in Beit ol-Moqaddas (Jerusalem), the Islamic holy city in Palestine that is currently under occupation of the Zionists,’ the IRIB added…

“According to the Iranian series, the Mahdi will reappear on earth with Jesus: ‘We read in the book Tazkarat ol-Olia, ‘the Mahdi will come with Jesus son of Mary accompanying him.’ …Imam Mahdi will be the leader while Prophet Jesus will act as his lieutenant in the struggle against oppression and establishment of justice in the world. Jesus had himself given the tidings of the coming of God’s last messenger and will see Mohammad’s ideals materialize in the time of the Mahdi.'”

… And in the United States

The Associated Press reported on January 3:

“In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson predicted Tuesday that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in ‘mass killing’ late in 2007. ‘I’m not necessarily saying it’s going to be nuclear,’ he said during his news-and-talk television show ‘The 700 Club’… The Lord didn’t say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that.’ “Robertson said God told him during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September…

“In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America’s coastline in 2006. Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring’s heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction.”

The sad news is that the Bible predicts that the United States WILL BE experiencing man-made and natural disasters with increasing strength and frequency, as we are approaching the time of the return of Jesus Christ. But it is preposterous to claim that God “spoke” to someone to give him the precise date–especially, when that person does not teach that we must keep ALL of God’s Ten Commandments, INCLUDING the weekly Sabbath (Note our Editorial in this issue). We might also ask, HOW did God “speak” to that person?

Romania and Bulgaria Join the EU

Britain’s The Telegraph wrote the following on January 1:

“At midnight last night Romania and Bulgaria became the newest nations of the European Union, bringing with them some 30 million people from one of the poorest corners of the continent. Hundreds of thousands of people were expected to flock to street parties and concerts for the double celebration of New Year and EU entry, which they hope will… lead to greater prosperity and a final break with communism…. In both countries surveys have shown two thirds of respondents in favour of joining, despite misgivings about rises in prices and the cost of living…

“Britain [as well as most other European countries, including Ireland, Germany, Austria and The Netherlands] will not however be granting Romanians and Bulgarians the same unhindered access to its job market allowed to Poles and other eastern Europeans when they joined in 2004. In mid-December the Government launched a television, radio and poster campaign informing Bulgarians and Romanians that although they can visit Britain without a visa for three months they will need a work permit — in most cases — to gain employment.”

Reuters added on January 1:

“The accession of Romania and Bulgaria will raise the EU’s membership to 27, almost half of them former communist states cut off from the West by the Iron Curtain until 1989…”

“Angela Can Fix It…”

The BBC News published the following article on December 29:

“Chancellor Angela Merkel has chosen the motto ‘succeeding together’ for Germany’s six-month EU presidency starting on 1 January–at a time of weak morale in the EU. On the plus side, the EU is celebrating the entry of Romania and Bulgaria as new members, its economy is picking up and it claims global leadership on issues like climate change… there are widespread hopes among EU-watchers that ‘Angela can fix it’…

“Germany, as Europe’s largest nation and biggest economy, is being asked to revive the EU’s faltering sense of purpose. Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier says the German presidency expects to spend a lot of energy responding to unforeseen crises on the EU’s behalf…

“Mrs Merkel wants to save as much as possible of the original draft treaty, which provided for an EU president and foreign minister at the head of new structures for common European internal and foreign policies. At a special leaders’ meeting on 25 March 2007, 50 years after the signing of the Treaty of Rome, she will issue a ‘Berlin Declaration’, in an attempt to re-inspire Europeans with the ideal of continent-wide integration and to map out Europe’s common challenges…

“The Germans are themselves involved in a damaging split: Poland and the Baltic states strongly oppose the strategic deal done by former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin in 2005 to build a new North European gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea. It will supply customers in Western Europe, bypassing Poland, the Baltic states and Ukraine. Since then Russia’s robust use of its vast energy resources as a foreign policy tool has thrown prospects for a strategic EU-Russia partnership agreement into doubt. And the unsolved murders of several high-profile opponents of Mr Putin have led the Europeans to question whether this Russian leadership is committed to respecting civil rights and the rule of law, or even wants to be a constructive partner…

“Despite the mountain of problems much of Europe looks with hope to Mrs Merkel’s lead. Not only is Germany big enough to get things moving. But Angela Merkel, in her tactful way, has also chastised other European leaders for their lack of courage in [making] decisions. ”

Jerusalem Ex-Mayor Kollek Dies at 95

Deutsche Welle reported on January 2, 2007:

“Former Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek, who presided over the reunification of the city after the 1967 Middle East war, has died at the age of 95. Within days of the end of the war, Kollek ordered the stone wall which had divided Jerusalem to be torn down. He preached Israeli-Palestinian coexistence while attempting to balance the national aspirations of both people during nearly three decades as mayor. The Jerusalem Foundation, a charity founded by Kollek 40 years ago, said he died of natural causes. He is expected to be buried in a state funeral in Jerusalem on Thursday.”

Church of God members will recall the close friendship that existed between Teddy Kollek and the late Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God and the Ambassador International Cultural Foundation.

John 1:1 tells us that the “Word” was God. The “Word” is a reference
to Jesus Christ (compare Revelation 19:13; 1 John 1:1-3). John 1:14
tells us that Jesus Christ, the “Word,” “became flesh and dwelt among
us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth.”

Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
existed as a God being long before the events took place, which are
described in John 1:14–that is, long before He “became flesh.”
Philippians 2:5-11 tells us that Christ, who was “in the form of God,”
took “the form of a bond servant” and came “in the likeness of men.”
Hebrews 2:14 confirms that Jesus partook of flesh and blood, so that He
could die. As long as He was an immortal Spirit being, He could not die.

We
are told that God the Father made everything through Jesus Christ
(Hebrews 2:10; Colossians 1:15-17). We also read that no one has ever
seen God at any time (John 1:18). Christ elaborated to explain that no
one has ever seen the form of the FATHER at any time, nor has anyone
ever heard His voice (John 5:37; 6:46). And yet, we read that some of
the ancients in the Old Testament saw the very form of God, and they
heard His voice (Numbers 12:8; Deuteronomy 5:4). This means, they saw
and heard Jesus Christ, but not God the Father (compare 1 Corinthians
10:1-4, 8-9).

We read that God, in the Person of Jesus Christ,
together with two angels, appeared to Abraham, and they ate and spoke
with him (Genesis 18:1-15). Christ and His angels appeared as men
(verse 2). But this does not mean that they actually WERE men–that is,
flesh and blood human beings. They just manifested themselves AS human
beings. If the two angels had BECOME human beings at the time of
Abraham, they could have died–but God’s Word tells us that His angels
CANNOT die (Luke 20:34-36). If Christ had become a flesh and blood
human being at the time of Abraham, He could have died at that time,
too. But this would have been impossible. He had to become a human
being, at the time of the New Testament, to be able to die.

The
same is true when reviewing Christ’s manifestations AFTER His death and
resurrection. He was resurrected as a Spirit being–an immortal eternal
God being. As such, He cannot die anymore (Hebrews 9:27-28; 1 Timothy
1:17; Revelation 1:18). What, then, happened when He appeared to His
disciples after His resurrection, claiming that He had “flesh and
bone”? Had He BECOME a human being again? Hardly, as He was able to
appear and disappear at pleasure, and to go through closed doors (Luke
24:31; John 20:19-20). No human being, composed of flesh and blood,
could have done this.

Let us notice what exactly occurred when
Christ appeared to His disciples “in human form.” We explain this in
our free booklet, “Angels, Demons and the Spirit World”, when
discussing the powers of Satan and his demons. The context is the
inability of demons to manifest or materialize themselves–this power
is only reserved for God and His holy angels. To quote from our booklet:

“It
appears from Scripture that demons cannot materialize themselves the
way that angels can. Demons cannot appear as men. They can, however,
create an illusion, or an apparition that might look very real to
people. Examples of those illusions would include the appearance of
‘ghosts,’ or of a ‘lady,’ claiming to be ‘Mother Mary.'”We find the following interesting record in Mark 6:47–50: ‘Now when
evening came, the boat was in the middle of the sea; and He was alone
on the land. Then He saw them straining at rowing, for the wind was
against them. Now about the fourth watch of the night He came to them,
walking on the sea, and would have passed them by. And when they saw
Him walking on the sea, they supposed it was a ghost [Authorized
Version: a spirit], and cried out; for they all saw Him and were
troubled. But immediately He talked with them and said to them, “Be of
good cheer! It is I; do not be afraid.”‘ The disciples thought they saw
a ghost or a spirit, that is, a demon. The Greek word for ‘ghost’ is
‘phantasma,’ which has the meaning of ‘phantasm’ or ‘apparition.’

“In
Luke 24:36–42 we find another passage that sheds some light on the
inability of demons to materialize themselves. We read: ‘Now as they
said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said
to them, “Peace to you.” But they were terrified and frightened, and
supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you
troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and
My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not
have flesh and bones as you see I have.” When He had said this, He
showed them His hands and His feet. But while they still did not
believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food
here?” So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb.
And He took it and ate in their presence.’

“Christ manifested
Himself to the disciples as a being with flesh and bones. He even ate
food in their presence to convince the disciples that it was He, not a
spirit or a demon. The Greek word for ‘spirit’ is ‘pneuma’ and can
refer to demons (compare Matthew 8:16; 10:1; 12:43, 45; Luke 4:33, 36;
6:18; 7:21, etc.). We understand, of course, that Christ is not a being
with flesh and bones. Rather, at His resurrection He received a
spiritual body and became a life-giving Spirit (1 Corinthians 15:44–45,
50). He was able to manifest Himself, however, as a person with flesh
and bones. We saw earlier that angels can manifest themselves as human
beings as well. Demons cannot. Christ used this opportunity to show His
disciples that He was not a spirit or a demon, because demons cannot
manifest themselves as human beings with flesh and bones.

“We
read in Job 4:12–16 about Eliphaz’ encounter with a spirit: ‘Now a word
was secretly brought to me, And my ear received a whisper of it. In
disquieting thoughts from the visions of the night, When deep sleep
falls on men. Fear came upon me, and trembling, Which made all my bones
shake. Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair on my body stood
up. It stood still, But I could not discern its appearance. A form was
before my eyes; There was silence; then I heard a voice…’ Eliphaz saw
some kind of a form before his eyes but he could not discern the
appearance of the spirit. This indicates that it was a demon, as the
Bible does not show that God’s angels appear to man in such a way. It
was something like an apparition—a phantasm. It was what the disciples
thought they saw, too, when Jesus was walking on the water.

“Another
encounter with a demon is recorded for us in 1 Samuel 28… King Saul
consulted a witch to find out his future. During a séance, the witch
‘saw’ a demon, who pretended to be the dead Samuel. Saul could not see
the demon. The demon spoke through the witch to Saul. We note again
that the demon did not materialize himself as a being with flesh and
bones. Rather, it was an illusion.”

To summarize, Jesus became
ONLY ONCE a flesh-and-blood human being, living on earth as a man for
33 1/2 years. To accomplish this unique purpose of BECOMING human, God
the Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit, impregnated the
virgin Mary, so that she conceived and brought forth a child, whose
name was to be Jesus (Luke 1:26-35). Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
NEVER was a human being BEFORE this miraculous event, and He NEVER
again BECAME a human being AFTER His death and resurrection. However,
He did manifest Himself AS a human being in Old Testament times, as
well as after His resurrection. But these were just human
manifestations of the immortal and invisible God Being, Jesus Christ. He
decisively did not BECOME a human being during those manifestations.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

The dates for the annual conference in San Diego and the memorial service for Edwin Pope have been finalized. They are:

First Day of Conference: Friday, February 9, 2007

Memorial Service: Sunday, February 11, 2007

Last Day of Conference: Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Please pray for a successful preparation for these important events.

A new StandingWatch
program was posted on the Web. It is titled, “Germany’s Rise and
America’s Decline.” In the program, Norbert Link addresses the fact
that 2007 will be a big year for Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel will
become president of the European Union and of the G8 organization. At
the same time, we are observing a steady decline of America’s influence
in the world. Are these developments merely “coincidental”?