On Saturday, September 25, 2004, the Day of Atonement, Norbert Link will be giving the sermon, discussing the greatly misunderstood concept of the “unpardonable sin.” Mr. Link gave this sermon last week, while in Madison, Wisconsin, but due to technical difficulties, most of the sermon was not broadcast over Internet. Due to these difficulties, Mr. Link will give the sermon again this Sabbath.

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

This will be the last Update before the Feast of Tabernacles, which will begin in the evening of Wednesday, September 29, 2004. The next Update will be published for the week ending Friday, October 15, 2004.

We wish all of our readers a spiritually rewarding, joyful and profitable annual Holy Days season.

To some people, godly obedience is a small matter in their daily lives, as if it really was unimportant or too insignificant to ponder for any degree of time. Even when faced with clear and unambiguous commands and instruction from God, some find excuses and human reasoning for not obeying. Let us look at a few examples of disobedience and how they impacted individuals, and more importantly, how God viewed them. In 1 Samuel 15:3, Saul was given very specific instructions regarding the attack on Amalek: “… utterly destroy ALL that they have, and do not spare them.” They were to kill all the animals, women, infants and the men. In other words, NONE were to be spared.

Now let us look at what happened. As recorded in 1 Samuel 15:7-9, Saul spared Agag the king and the best of the animals. This was a clear violation of the instructions given by God. What was God’s reaction? Verse 11 reports God’s words: “I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.” God was regretting having set up Saul as king because of his disobedience. We get a little more understanding about this by what Samuel says about God’s mind, in verses 22-23: “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. [Notice the consequences of his blatant disobedience in the latter part of this verse:] Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He has rejected you from being king.”

This was a high price to pay for disobedience, for using human reasoning around a clear command. This world has been doing the same thing since the dawn of man — using human reasoning as an excuse not to obey clear commands from God.

Take the Sabbath, for example. The command is clear — it is from God — yet mankind uses human reasoning, such as, “Yes, we should set a day aside for worship, so we will use Sunday.” The problem with this line of reasoning is that God did not give us the prerogative of choice which day to hallow. Man has only the prerogative of obedience. Is it any wonder our nations are cursed? The importance of obedience is clearly demonstrated and unequivocally stated in Acts 5:32: “And we are His witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom [better: which] God has given to those who OBEY HIM.” God is not going to give His Spirit to those who blatantly disobey, be it in regard to the Sabbath, clean and unclean meats, tithing or any other clear and unambiguous command or instruction.

As we go about living our Christian lives, let us remember the importance of obedience and how imperative it is in God’s mind to reflect on the words of Christ in Luke 16:10: “He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much…”

Let us not apply human reasoning as Saul did and was rejected by God — but rather, let’s be willing to obey ALL that we have been commanded to do. Then, instead of being rejected, we can look forward to the glorious words of Christ: “Well done, good and faithful servant… Enter into the joy of your lord” (Matthew 25:21, 23).

Afghanistan — No Paradise

It was and still is the theory: If only the world would have, in a combined effort, acted in military harmony toward Iraq, then Iraq would have become a success. However, this theory is not without flaws. If it were true, then Afghanistan should be a much more successful place, than it is. After all, Europe and the Western world stood side-by-side with the United States in their efforts to free Afghanistan from terrorism and to bring them freedom, prosperity and democracy. Was this effort successful? So far, it has not been. Although the press does not report as much about the prevalent problems in Afghanistan, including terrorist attacks, they nevertheless exist. Recently, the German defense minister, Peter Struck, while touring Afghanistan, barely escaped death, when a bomb exploded close to him. The Taliban and al-Qaeda may not be as prominent anymore in Afghanistan, but they have not been defeated. They are now operating from, and in other countries, including Pakistan, and most notably, Iraq!

On September 21, OneWorld published a shocking article about present conditions in Afghanistan. Most may not even realize that Afghanistan has not yet had a democratic election since the world’s forceful liberation of the country. The first election is scheduled for early October. The prospects look grim. The article pointed out:

“Ahead of its first democratic elections in early October, Afghanistan is facing an acute food and malnutrition crisis and continues to suffer from the highest number of maternal and child deaths in Asia. According to a study by the UN World Food Programme (WFP), some 1.4 million Afghans are affected by continued drought and crop failure, adding that more than US $50 million is needed to tackle the severe situation facing the country.”

The article continued: “Dr Hedayatullah Stanek Zai, the ministry’s director general of policy and planning,… attributes the growing food insecurity to a multiplicity of factors ranging from limitations on population movement due to prevailing insecurity in some parts of the country to poor transportation, seasonal obstacles like harsh winters, a dramatic depletion of productive assets at the community and household level and lack of employment opportunities. Predictably then, according to Afghan health officials, the country suffers from an extremely high 45-59 per cent prevalence of chronic malnutrition, high mortality rates among children under five years (257 per 1000 live births), high maternal mortality rates (1600 per 100,000 live births), and the widespread prevalence of micronutrient deficiency diseases… Around 75 per cent of households in Afghanistan use unsafe water sources for drinking. Analysis of the 2004 National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment reveals that 37 percent of the Afghan population — almost 6.5 million people — are unable to meet their minimum food requirements, so constitute the top priority for assistance.”

Of course, noone is suggesting that the world’s military take-over of Afghanistan caused these present problems. It must be conceded, however, that they did not prevent or solve them, either. And when it comes to appreciation for the world’s efforts, it’s not given to the U.S. The article concluded: “While spotlighting the deficiencies, government officials concede that some development has taken place in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban regime… Remarks [Dr Roy] Mutahar, [national nutrition officer of the Afghan health ministry]: ‘But the credit for this goes to the United Nations and not the United States of America.'”

Germany Faces Serious Problems

As AFP reported on September 19, 2004, “Far-right fringe parties made huge gains in two former communist eastern states as German voters dealt fresh electoral blows to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s Social Democrats [and the most powerful opposition party, the CDU] amid ire over his economic reforms. The neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD) roared ahead in Saxony, polling 9.2 percent — a sixfold increase over 1999 and well above the five-percent hurdle necessary for parliamentary representation [This means, it received almost as many votes as the 9.8 percent of Schroeder’s SPD]. And the extreme-right German People’s Party (DVU) improved its score in Brandenburg slightly to 6.1 percent, up from 5.3 percent the last time at the polls… The results come just two weeks after the SPD posted its worst score in four decades in the western state of Saarland, and are the 10th time Schroeder’s party has lost in state elections since the chancellor was narrowly reelected in September 2002.”

In addition, observers have watched, with concern, the resurgence of neo-Communist parties in former East Germany. The frightening prognosis is that the recent elections only scratched the surface, and did not constitute a rare exception, or just a “protest vote.” Experts state, according to Der Spiegel Online, that up to 50 percent of the Germans are dissatisfied with the present situation in Germany. Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt stated to Bild Online that all German parties are to be blamed for the devastating election results, as they refused to tell the Germans “the truth.”

National and international observers point out that the Germans are not Nazis, but that the present situation does not help. They voice the opinion that Weimar [which led to Hitler’s rise] could not happen again. The Bible shows, however, that a strong leader will emerge in Germany in the future — so influential, powerful and charismatic, that in a crisis situation, ten leading or “core” European nations or groups of nations will give their power and authority to that leader to help them in their time of need.

Expect More Powerful Hurricanes

Jeanne struck a devastating blow to Haiti, leaving more than 2,000 people dead or missing — with the death toll likely to increase. But as the Wisconsin State Journal reported on Friday, September 17, 2004, more devastating hurricanes are to be expected. The article pointed out:

“Ivan, Frances and Charley delivered three staggering blows to the Gulf Coast and Florida, as well as Caribbean island nations, all in just five weeks. Now here comes Jeanne… Scientists say 65 million Americans living on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts should expect weather like this for another 30 years. Maybe more… ‘I don’t remember this happening before in such a short period of time,’ National Hurricane Center director Max Mayfield told reporters, ‘and the season is only half-over.’…

“‘The hurricane threat is much greater than it was in the 1970s through early 1990s,’ said federal meteorologist Stan Goldenberg… ‘It could last another 10 to 40 years.’… The period since 1995 is the most active nine consecutive years on record, said pioneering hurricane forecaster William Gray at Colorado State University.Why is the storm cycle intensifying now? Scientists aren’t certain what causes the decades-long shifts in the ocean-atmosphere interplay…. The amount of mechanical energy generated by a hurricane can translate to a power supply of 360 billion kilowatt hours per day — equal, by some estimates, to all of the electricity consumed in [the] United States in six months.”

Whether or not scientists are able to explain the undeniable increase of powerful and deadly hurricanes, the truth of the matter is that these phenomena were prophesied almost two thousand years ago. Jesus Christ minced no words, when describing such events just prior to His return. And He also made clear that they are interconnected with the way we live. He said, in Luke 21:25-26: “And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; men’s hearts failing them from the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”

Britain’s Loss of Memory

It may be shocking and hard to believe, but according to a recent poll, less than half of all Brits remember such basic commandments as the ones against stealing, murder and adultery. Less than five percent (!) are even aware of God’s commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. What a terrible indictment against Britain’s clergy whose job it is to boldly proclaim God’s Ten Commandments!

As WorldNetDaily reported on September 18, 2004, “According to a new British poll, the country is quickly forgetting the Ten Commandments. Only three of the laws – passed to Moses on tablets of stone in Old Testament times – made any showing in the poll… Less than half of the population remembered the admonitions not to steal, murder or commit adultery, but it appears that commandments such as ‘don’t take the Lord’s name in vain’ are fast becoming a distant memory. Only 9 percent of those polled recalled the commandment not to lie. Worst remembered of all the commandments was ‘keep the Sabbath day holy,’ which was correctly identified by only 4 percent of those polled.”

Need for European Military?

The Pakistan Times reported recently that Europe is concerned about strengthening its military powers. In the context of an accord by five EU states to create a European military police force deployable to crises situations worldwide, the article pointed out: “Dutch Defence Minister Henk Kamp called the European Gendarmerie Force (EGF)-initially involving France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands, but open to others later-a ‘milestone’ in Europe’s developing military muscle… Paris says Germany, Poland and Belgium are interested in the plans-which will not be a standing force, rather pulling police together when a crisis blows up-although they do not currently have the right kind of forces.

“German Defence Minister Peter Struck confirmed that Berlin will not take part, but called the plans ‘very sensible’ and suggested that they could be useful for potential flare-ups in the Balkans… ‘Today we are going to take a very important step in the anti-terrorist fight within the European Union in signing the first accord for a joint Spanish-French inquiry corps,’ Aguilar announced after conferring with French Justice Minister Dominique Perben.”

These seem to be small and insignificant steps toward the creation of a European army, in comparison with the military of the United States — the most powerful in the world — but they are nevertheless beginning steps for a powerful European army to emerge in the future. That time has not arrived yet. To suggest — as some overly zealous “commentators” do, that Europe’s “army” already equals the power and strength of the U.S. military, is ridiculous — because, at this point, there is no combined and effective European army. But it will happen, in due time, as prophesied in the Bible.

Old Europe Alive and Well

Associated Press reported on September 13, 2004, that “the leaders of Spain, France and Germany – who all opposed the war in Iraq – declared the ‘old Europe’ alive and well Monday and pledged to work toward a unified continent. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero hosted French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder at a meeting symbolizing Spain’s shift back to a Europe-oriented foreign policy, BREAKING with the former Spanish leader’s emphasis ON TIES with Washington.”

The article continued: “The French leader said the continuing fighting in Iraq was a grave problem. ‘We opened a Pandora’s Box that we’re unable to close,’ he said. Zapatero ordered the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq immediately after taking power in April and made a point of visiting Germany and France – Europe’s main opponents of the Iraq war – in his first series of trips abroad as Spain’s new leader. Zapatero last week called on other countries with troops in Iraq to FOLLOW HIS LEAD and bring them home. The three leaders pledged to work toward common policies in the areas of foreign affairs, defense and borders. They also promised to spur economic development, notably industries like car manufacturing, aerospace and shipbuilding.

“Schroeder said Zapatero has shown he wants SPAIN to play a STRONG ROLE in Europe and praised him for concessions that led to the June approval of the EU constitution. ‘It is … a historic achievement in European history,’ Schroeder said.”

Europe vs. America?

An exhibit in Brussels, Belgium, “sees Europe as ‘[the] new Roman Empire’,” claiming that “the European Union is poised to overtake America to become the premier superpower, according to an EU exhibition launched yesterday in the heart of Brussels,” as reported by telegraph.co.uk on September 14, 2004. The article continued: “Segments sketched across 80 yards of canvas predict that the 21st century will be the ‘European Century’ as the EU pushes its borders deep into Eurasia, North Africa, and the Middle East and comes to dominate world affairs through its vast ‘legal and moral reach.’… Entitled ‘The Image of Europe,’ the display is not a formal expression of EU policy but it captures views that can be heard every day in the corridors and canteens of the Union’s institutions. The exhibit was co-ordinated by the European Commission and sponsored by the European Council.”

According to the exhibit, as stated in the article, “The euro will break the ‘overbearing monopoly of the dollar’ by 2010 as China and India switch their reserves to punish America for its ‘stratospheric deficit.’ Casting the United States as the villain of modern times, it says: ‘The lonely superpower can bribe, bully or impose its will almost anywhere in the world, but when its back is turned, its policy is weakened.'”

The Euobserver added the following in its article, dated September 14, 2004:

“The tent opened to the public and revealed an impressive array of multimedia images charting the history – and future – of Europe and the EU in an exhibition entitled ‘the images of Europe’, jointly sponsored by the European Commission and the Dutch Presidency. In 2010, according to the exhibition, the EU will expand to include Albania, Armenia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia and the Ukraine. Following this, in 2015, the EU will take in Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Jordan, Israel, Palestine and change its name from the European Union to simply ‘The Union’. … Possibly the most unlikely event in this fantasy is that the EU will overtake the US in competitiveness by 2010, as projected in the exhibition and [enshrined] in the EU’s ‘Lisbon agenda.'”

Europe will indeed become most powerful, in the not-too-distant future, while the United States of America will decrease in power and influence. For a startling look at the future of these two power blocs, as prophesied in the Bible, please read our free publications, “Europe in Prophecy” and “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord.”

Who is Right?

The campaign for the election of the next U.S. President on November 2, 2004, is entering its final stages. And so, accusations and counteraccusations are increasing on both sides with dynamic strength and furor. Associated Press ran the following article on September 20, 2004, reporting on the shifting positions of both candidates regarding the Iraq war. The article pointed out:

“Staking out new ground on Iraq, Sen. John Kerry said Monday he would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein had he been in the White House, and he accused President Bush of ‘stubborn incompetence,’ dishonesty and colossal failures of judgment. Bush said Kerry was flip-flopping. Less than two years after voting to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, the Democratic candidate said the president had misused that power by rushing to war without the backing of allies, a post-war plan or proper equipment for U.S. troops. ‘None of which I would have done,’ Kerry said. ‘Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell,’ he added. ‘But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.’ Bush hit back from a campaign rally in New Hampshire, interpreting Kerry’s comment to mean the Democrat believes U.S. security would be better with Saddam still in power. ‘He’s saying he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy,’ the Republican incumbent said. ‘Today, my opponent continued his pattern of twisting in the wind,’ Bush said. ‘He apparently woke up this morning and has now decided, No, we should not have invaded Iraq, after just last month saying he would have voted for force even knowing everything we know today.'”

Apart from all of this rhetoric, the actual facts are quite disturbing. As the article continued to point out:

“With more than 1,000 U.S. troops killed in Iraq, including nearly 900 since Bush declared an end to major combat, with free elections in doubt, reconstruction efforts stalled and violence and kidnappings on the rise, Iraq could be Bush’s biggest political liability. Even some Republican senators have begun to publicly second-guess the president’s policies. But Kerry has failed to capitalize thus far, struggling for months to find a clear, consistent way to differentiate his views from those of his Democratic rivals during the primary season and, since the spring, his general election foe in the White House.”

Russia’s Power Grab

Associated Press reported on September 14 that “The State Department expressed concern Tuesday that efforts by President Vladimir Putin of Russia to concentrate more power in the Kremlin may set back the country’s democratic development. Putin announced Monday an overhaul of the electoral system as part of a plan to deal more effectively with terrorism. … The Bush administration has long been concerned about what it perceives to be a concentration of power in the Kremlin… Last January, the newspaper Izvestia published an opinion piece by Secretary of State Colin Powell as he was making an official visit to Moscow. The article said that ‘essential balance’ is lacking among the various branches of the Russian government. ‘Political power is not fully tethered to law,’ Powell wrote. He added that key aspects of civil society — ‘free media and political party development — for example, have not yet sustained an independent presence.'”

When considering the relevant Scriptures and some external sources, we can, indeed, find out the approximate time of Christ’s birth, but it is impossible to find out the exact date.

King David had divided the priests into several “courses” or divisions — that is, each group or “course” of priests was to serve God for a specific period of time. David had established 24 of those priestly courses. Luke 1:5-9 shows that Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, was of the course of Abijah (which courses are listed in 1 Chronicles 24) and that he executed the priest’s office before God in the order of his course or division. Each course lasted eight days — from Sabbath to Sabbath.

The account in Luke 1 records that Zacharias was serving God in the order of his division (verse 8); that he burnt incense (verse 9); and that his prayer was heard (verse 13). The angel Gabriel told him that his wife, Elizabeth, was to bear a son and his name was to be John (verse 13). Luke 1:23 clearly indicates that this event did not take place at the end of his course but sometime during his course or division, because it states that Zacharias, after he had received the vision, completed the days of his service, before he went home.

The courses started at the beginning of the sacred year. The first Hebrew month of the sacred year was called Nisan. Zacharias’ course, the course of Abijah, was eighth in order.

However, there were two sets of courses. The New Bible Commentary explains: “The course of Abijah to which Zacharias belonged, was one of twenty four courses into which David organised the priests. Each course was on duty in the temple for a week every six months.” This means, that every course ministered TWICE throughout a year.

When did the angel Gabriel appear to Zacharias? Did he appear to him during the first or the second course? As we will see, the angel appeared to Zacharias during the first course at the beginning of the year and not six months later in the autumn, when the courses started again.

To establish this point, we need to consider the time of the Messiah’s birth, and compare it then with the time of John’s conception and birth. We note that Joseph was going to be taxed (compare Luke 2:1-5). Taxation would come just after the fall harvest. The time of the fall Festivals (or annual Holy Days, such as the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles) was just after the fall harvest, when tithes were paid to the priests. History records that these taxations always took place at the end of the fall harvest, which was sometime in September or October, a logical time for taxation and travel.

In addition, we read that at that time of the year, shepherds were in the fields with their flocks (Luke 2:8), pointing again at the time of late summer or early fall. That is the time of year when Palestinian shepherds take their flocks into the field to graze at night (compare Wynne Progress, December 21, 1967, “The Christmas Story.”). However, Christ could not have been born at the end of December, the coldest month of the year, with hail and snow. Shepherds would not have been out in the fields in December.

We also read that Mary and Joseph stayed in an inn, when they arrived in Bethlehem. The word for “inn” is better translated as “guestchamber” or “guest room” (compare “Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible,” as well as Mark 14:14 and Luke 22:11, where the same Greek word, “kataluma,” is used). These guest rooms housed people in Jerusalem during the Holy Days. Christ’s birth then, based on the evidence presented herein, occurred during the FALL Holy Day season.

Based on the fact that Christ was born in early fall, we can determine that John the Baptist was conceived during the FIRST course of Zacharias’ ministry — and not the second. Note the following:

In Luke 1:26-35, Christ’s forthcoming birth was announced to Mary. The sixth month referred to in verse 36 is the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy. When Mary conceived, Elizabeth was six months pregnant. Christ was born in the autumn, in late September or early October. John was born six months earlier, in March or April. This means, based on approximately nine months or 280 days of human gestation, John must have been conceived in June — during the first course of Zacharias’ ministry.

This conclusion is also supported by the established fact that the Messiah was crucified in the spring of the year, at the time of the Passover, being 33 years and six months old. He began His public ministry, when He was about 30 years old (Luke 3:23), and His ministry lasted 3 1/2 years (compare Daniel 9:27, speaking about a prophetic week of seven prophetic days. In prophecy, a day counts as a year, compare Numbers 14:34. Christ would be killed “in the middle of the week,” bringing the sacrificial system to an end, that is, after 3 1/2 years.). The Passover occurred each year on the 14th of the first Biblical moon, or month — in the latter part of March to the first part of April. If we count back six months to His 33rd birthday, we can see that His birth must have been in the autumn, in late September or the beginning of October.

We might also note that Zacharias ministered in the ninth week of the new year, because during the third week of the Passover season, all the priests were ministering. He could not have returned home immediately because he would have to minister for the course when a Holy Day, Pentecost, began, and in which his course, along with the other 23 courses, would minister. As soon as he finished his course — the eighth one — he went home and his wife conceived (Luke 1:23-24). This would have been in the middle of June. As explained above, knowing when Elizabeth conceived, we can compute the time of birth for John the Baptist. Since the human gestation period is 280 days, we can go forward this amount of time to arrive somewhere at the beginning of Nisan (late March/early April), when John the Baptist would have been born. Six months later brings us to late September, or early October, when Christ would have been born.

When we summarize all the facts stated herein, it is clear that Jesus was born in the autumn — not on December 25. However, the exact date of His birth has been hidden from man. We have seen that:

(1) The courses (or divisions) of the priests started at the beginning of the sacred year
(2) The Sacred year begins on the first of Nisan, about April
(3) Zacharias served on the eighth course (ten weeks later, because of the Passover and Pentecost)
(4) Zacharias returned home about mid-June when his wife conceived
(5) John the Baptist was born about 40 weeks or 280 days later, i.e., in about late March of the following year
(6) Mary conceived when Zacharias’s wife, Elizabeth, was six months pregnant. John the Baptist was six months older than Jesus
(7) Since John the Baptist was born about late March, Jesus, six months younger, was born probably around late September
(8) The course (or division) referred to, when the angel Gabriel appeared to Zacharias, was the first course of the year because:

The evidence that Jesus Christ was born in the autumn, during the time of the annual autumn Holy Days, is compelling. God has, however, not revealed Christ’s exact day of birth, so as to prevent that the same be observed. We are told to observe Christ’s death — not His birth — until He comes again (1 Corinthians 11:26; compare, too, Psalm 116:15; Ecclesiastes 7:1).

Mr. Rene Messier picked up our new book on the Mystery of Christ from the printer in Canada. Copies were sent to England and should arrive in time for distribution at the Feast site. Free copies will also be distributed at the Feast site in California. Those who will not attend at our Feast sites will receive their copies after the Feast.

On Saturday, September 18, 2004, Norbert Link will be giving the sermon from Madison, Wisconsin. He will be discussing the greatly misunderstood concept of the “unpardonable sin.”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 2:30 pm Central Time. Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

Christianity is not for doubters!

You see, a follower of what is right and true must not equivocate. In the life of Jesus Christ, we do find struggles, but it was always a matter of overcoming and not giving in to sin. In His case, it was an issue of obeying and saying what was right and refusing to disobey.

For those around Him, this authoritative confidence of approach was shocking. When He taught in their synagogue on the Sabbath, we find this record of His impact: “And they were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Mark 1:22).

On another occasion, officers were sent to arrest Jesus: “Then the officers came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, ‘Why have you not brought Him?’ The officers answered, ‘No man ever spoke like this Man!’ ” (John 7:45-46).

For those in whom Jesus Christ is living today, the same must be true! Indeed, some will take exception to one who boldly lives by and says, what is true. If fact, some will be offended, and–as prophecy shows–some will persecute and even kill those who resolutely stand in the truth.

We live in a time of blended opinions. Christianity now suffers because its purported advocates really don’t stand up for the right and true way. Rather, accomodations have led to a watering down of the potent message of true Christianity!

James describes those who approach God without faith, that is, doubting, in this way: “…for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind” (James 1:6). In verse 8, this thought is added: “he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.”

Merely thinking that we are right and true is not enough. It takes more than just a positive approach. Consider that the very basis for how Jesus was able to fulfill His mission on this earth was His total reliance on God (Compare John 5:19).

James also made this key statement for us: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him” (James 1:5). Like Jesus, our source for what is right and true must be God.

Because what Jesus did was done in God, He was filled with the confidence of faith–He was sure about His teachings; about the work God had given to Him to accomplish; about the purpose of His life; and about His resurrection to eternal life; in fact, He was so sure that He was willing to lay down His life!

How sure are we?

No End To War?

Violence and war breed more violence and war. This is THE lesson of history, which man, cut off from God and following Satan’s evil devices, has not learned. God will send Jesus Christ to FORCE peace upon man — as man is UNWILLING, UNABLE and WILLFULLY IGNORANT as to how to bring peace to this war-stricken world.

The latest fighting in Iraq proves the point. As Associated Press reported on Monday, September 13, 2004, “U.S. warplanes pounded a suspected hide-out of al-Qaida-linked militants in the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Fallujah on Monday, killing at least 20 people and wounding 29, officials and witnesses said. Seven of the victims died when a shell hit an ambulance, a hospital official said.”

Again, we see innocent bystanders being killed in war. This is nothing new. In fact, we have become so accustomed to these tragedies, having our conscience seared and our eyes blinded to these terrible atrocities, that we call innocent victims, FOR WHOM we may claim to fight, “casualties of war” — as if this were to provide any justification for it.

As Associated Press continued to point out, the recent outbreak of violence “came a day after a surge in violence killed 78 people and wounded about 200 across Iraq as insurgents hammered central Baghdad with intense mortar and rocket barrages and violence appeared to be out of control.”

Violence only produces more violence. And everyone who takes the sword of war will perish by the sword of war — unless he repents. It is not too late for this world — and individuals — to repent of our carnal, war-mongering attitudes. But it is getting late — very late, indeed. Christ warned us that God will destroy those who destroy the earth (Compare Revelation 11:17-18).

War in Iraq

With the ongoing bloodshed in Iraq, several nations have reconfirmed their respective positions, or have added new ones to the plate. According to Associated Press of September 10, “Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder reasserted Germany’s right to disagree with the United States over Iraq, adding that it would be wrong to interpret his country’s opposition to the war as anti-Americanism…. Polls have generally shown that majorities in European countries, including Germany, reject the U.S. policy in Iraq.”

AFP reported on September 10 that “In Ankara, Turkey urged Washington to halt its ‘disproportionate’ use of force and said the government was following events with ‘great concern.'”

War on Terrorism a Failure?

As was reported by oneworld.net on September 8, 2004, a new report of Foreign Policy in Focus concluded that a “three-year ‘war on terrorism’… makes Americans more vulnerable rather than more secure.” The report also concluded that “Washington’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 has proven counter-productive to U.S. anti-terrorism efforts and that the administration has failed to protect likely future terrorist targets at home, such as seaports and chemical plants.”

The report was compiled by a task force of 23 experts, including former government officials who served under Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton; the general secretary of the National Council of Churches; an arms expert at the World Policy Institute in New York City; and a senior Pentagon official under Reagan.

The report noted that “the government currently is spending more money every three days on the war in Iraq than it has spent on ensuring the security of the country’s 361 commercial seaports over the past three years.”

According to the article’s summary of the report, “the administration has also taken a ‘hands-off approach’ to ensuring the security of much of the nation’s basic infrastructure, about 85 percent of which is owned or controlled by the private sector. The chemical industry, for example, has successfully stalled efforts at enhancing security at the 123 plants and facilities where a release of chemicals could threaten the lives and health of more than one million people, the report charges… On the foreign-policy front, the administration’s clear hostility to multilateral institutions has not only increased resentment towards the U.S. among foreign governments and their publics, but has also undermined prospects for arms-control efforts that are vital to efforts to control and reduce the global supply of weapons of mass destruction.”

Now it’s Russia’s Turn?

After the United States had developed and carried out the theory of pre-emptive warfare — meaning, that “we” strike first before “they” strike, when there is a perceived threat of attack — Russia has now declared that it will likewise embrace this new theory. Europe has been opposed to this concept.

Associated Press reported on September 12, 2004:

“Russia has the right to carry out pre-emptive strikes on militant bases abroad, Russia’s defence minister said Sunday, citing the recent school hostage crisis. He said Moscow and the United States see eye-to-eye on fighting terrorism. Sergei Ivanov did not say what countries might be possible targets for a strike…”

The article continued: “Ivanov told the NTV television channel he had spoken twice with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week, adding the U.S. administration was more receptive to Moscow’s arguments on how to fight terror than some European officials. ‘In that sense, it has been easier for us to find a basis for mutual understanding with the United States than with some of the European nations.’… In Sunday’s interview, Ivanov repeated an earlier statement that a ‘pre-emptive strike may involve anything, except nuclear weapons.'”

Many feel that the world has most certainly NOT become a safer place with the development of this new theory of warfare. And once a “pre-emptive strike” is launched, who is to say that nuclear weapons won’t be used, ultimately?

Germany Angry With Poland

As Associated Press reported on September 12, 2004, “On Friday the Polish parliament, in a nonbinding resolution, urged its government to present an estimate of wartime damage and seek reparations from Germany. It was a response to claims by some Germans for restitution of former property in Poland, which have drawn strong resentment.” In an attempt to appease Poland, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder “indicated in Warsaw last month that his government will advise courts to reject any German citizens’ claims against Poland.”

Whether Mr. Schroeder’s “advice” has any legal effect, is one question. Whether the Polish parliament’s resolution will be followed through or not, is another question. Associated Press reported, “The Polish government views the question of German reparations for World War II as closed, Warsaw’s ambassador to Germany said Sunday, indicating that it won’t follow a call by Polish lawmakers to seek compensation.”

According to the “Financial Times Deutschland,” this is not necessarily the position of Poland’s leader, President Kwasniewski. He said that the bill for the destruction of Warsaw and other Polish cities has not yet been presented.

Regardless, the damage has already been done. German politicians reacted with outrage to the nonbinding resolution of the Polish parliament. As Bild Online reported on September 12, 2004, the leader of Schroeder’s party, the SPD, called the resolution a “provocation.” The spokesman of the FDP said that both demands, from Germans and Poles, are “dangerous.”

Editor in Chief of Bild Online, Peter Boenisch, wrote this commentary:

“Here and there, … neo-national enemies of Europe are working. [Sixty] years ago, Hitler’s fanatic minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, who killed his own children at the end of the war, proclaimed, ‘When we step down, the world will tremble for another 1,000 years.’ Everyone, who endangers European collaboration today, instead of creating peace in Europe, helps Goebbels and his dark and morbid threats. And that, neither the Germans nor the Poles of the 21st century could possibly want.”

Tragically, a peaceful united Europe won’t stay peaceful. The world will be shocked when a finally established European resurrection of the ancient Holy Roman Empire will show its true colors.

China vs. Catholic Church

Reuters reported on September 11, that “the Vatican accused China Saturday of launching a fresh crackdown on Roman Catholics, upping the ante in its war of words against the Communist state.” The article continued: “China does not allow its Catholics to recognize the Pope’s authority and forces Christians to belong to state-backed patriotic associations if they want to worship openly… China broke links with the Vatican in the 1950s after expelling foreign clergy. The Vatican estimates it has about eight million followers in China, compared with about five million who follow the state-backed Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association. The [U.S.] State Department’s Annual Report on Religious Freedom, issued in December, rebuked China, saying that believers who did not belong to state-sanctioned groups suffered varying degrees of ‘interference and harassment.’ China rejected the criticism as unfair.”

European Leaders Speak Their Minds

European leaders have openly expressed their feelings on world issues, according to an article of Associated Press, dated September 11. The article reported about the “loose tongues of the outgoing European Commission. The 30 members of the EU executive are suddenly free to say what they want because of their imminent departure as a new leadership prepares to take charge Nov. 1. In a flurry of farewell speeches, they are revealing personal opinions in unusually frank terms.” And frank they are. As the article pointed out:

“One says admitting Turkey to the European Union would spread Islamic radicalism throughout the continent. Another calls Britain America’s slavish ‘spear-carrier’ and bemoans Europeans’ image in Washington as ‘sanctimonious wimps.’ … Chris Patten, the EU’s outgoing external relations chief, said Friday European Union members must share more of the burden of global leadership with Washington if they want to shed their image as ‘sanctimonious wimps’ in the United States… He chided France, Germany and Britain for forsaking their leadership of Europe. In relations with Washington, he said, Europe ‘should be halfway between London and Paris: It must be neither a brave spear-carrier for the Americans, nor an elegant thrower of paper darts.'”

USA Doomed?

Recently, Globalresearch.ca, recipient of the 2004 Democratic Media Award, published a frightening article, titled, “Is a USA Economic Collapse Due in 2005?” The Canadian-based Website stated in its article:

“The official US myth is that the recession of 2000-2001 ended in November 2001 and ‘recovery’ has been underway ever since. The reality is not so positive. Using record low interest rates, the Fed has lured American families into debt at record rates, creating what might be called a ‘virtual recovery,’ financed by record amounts of new consumer debt. There has never been a recovery before in which debt levels increase, rather the opposite…

“All this economic consumption has created the illusion of a recovering economy. Behind the surface, a huge debt burden has built up. Since 1997, the total of home mortgage debt for Americans has risen 94% to a colossal $7.4 trillion, a debt of some $120,000 for a family of four. Bank loans for real estate purchases have risen since 1997 by 200%, to $2.4 trillion. Average US home prices have risen by 50% in the period since 1998. In 2003 alone a record total of $1 trillion in new mortgage loans were made. In 1997 mortgages totalled $202 billion… Many banks have loans written in adjustable mortgage rates. As US interest rates continue to rise over the next twelve months or so, that will trigger a wave of mortgage defaults. Some industry experts fear a ‘bloodbath’ in 2005…

“The American family is highly indebted, not just for their home. The Federal Reserve data show a total US debt level now above $35 trillions, or some $450,000 for a typical family of four. Average consumer debt for credit cards, autos and such is at record highs. Carmakers continue to offer car loans, with loans for up to six or even seven years. Many Americans owe more on their car than it is worth. The debt grows. As long as Fed rates are at 43 year lows, the debt is manageable. When US rates rise, it becomes unmanageable for many…

“The largest buyers of US government debt have been the central banks of the Asia-Pacific. The central banks of Japan and China alone hold more than $1 trillion of US Treasury bonds as foreign currency reserves. Worldwide foreign central banks hold some $1.3 trillion of US government debt. If private debt is added, the United States is the world’s largest debtor, with some $3.7 trillion in net foreign debt, as of the start of this year, likely well over $4 trillions by now. In 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected [,] the US was the world’s creditor with a plus of $1 trillion…

“In the 12-month period to this April, the Bank of Japan spent a record $200 billions to buy US dollar bonds or, in effect, to finance the cost of Bush’s Iraq war. The Banks of China, South Korea and Taiwan bought almost as much dollar bonds. They did this for clear reasons: Their currencies are linked to the dollar, and were the dollar to fall against the Yen or the Yuan, Asian exports would suffer a decline, endangering their economic growth and leading to explosive rises in unemployment across Asia. By recycling their trade dollar surplus into buying US Treasury debt, they argue they are looking after their own needs. A dollar crisis in early 2005 could signal the next global crisis. The whole world is hostage to the misconceived economic policies of a dollar standard out of control.”

Australia Under Attack

On September 11, 2004, Reuters stated in an article that Australia’s top policemen warned: “Militants behind the deadly bombing of Australia’s Jakarta embassy have a second group poised for attack.”

The article continued: “Indonesian police have launched a nationwide hunt for al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiah militants blamed for the suicide car bomb attack that killed nine Indonesians and injured 182 outside the Australian embassy on Thursday… Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade reissued a travel advisory on Saturday warning citizens against non-essential travel to Indonesia and also issued a rare general warning for its nationals traveling overseas… Australia has never suffered a major terror attack on home soil but 88 Australians were among 202 people killed in nightclub bombings two years ago on Bali, an Indonesian resort island.”

The article also pointed out: “Security analysts have warned that the rift between the two big parties could leave Australia open to attacks similar to the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people three days before Spain’s March 11 elections. The pro-U.S. government was swept from power and the incoming Socialists quickly pulled the country’s troops out of Iraq.”

Lingering Questions on School Shooting in Russia

Associated Press reported on September 11, 2004, that “questions lingered over how authorities handled the three-day standoff that left at least 330 hostages dead.” It quoted the Russian daily Russkiy Kuryer as follows: “One of the most painful questions that the whole world is asking — why all the events surrounding the Beslan school No. 1 looked so out of control … probably has an answer: Because nobody was in charge of the operation.”

A.P. continued: “Referring to the Beslan crisis, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told The Associated Press on Thursday that ‘preliminary reports suggest there wasn’t the kind of coordination and leadership and direction and somebody being in charge.'”

The A.P. article concluded: “Lamenting the corruption and lapses in duty that allowed the attackers to bring their arsenal to the school, residents are demanding a full explanation of the circumstances that made the attack possible as well as how it all ended. Whether they will get it remains to be seen.”

The Bible says specifically which animals we may eat, and which we must not eat. A list of those “clean” and “unclean” animals can be found in several places, including in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. According to the Bible, such “popular” animals as pigs or swine, hares, rabbits, lobsters, shellfish, shark, or clams, are labeled “unclean” and are not to be eaten — even today.

In addition, the Bible specifically points out that we are not to eat blood or fat, even from clean animals. Leviticus 7:23-27 states:

“Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘You shall not eat any fat, of ox or sheep or goat. And the fat of an animal that dies naturally, and the fat of what is torn by wild beasts, may be used in any other way; but you shall by no means eat it. For whoever eats the fat of the animals of which men offer an offering made by fire to the LORD, the person who eats it shall be cut off from his people. Moreover you shall not eat any blood in any of your dwellings, whether of bird or beast. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”

Beyond this, the Bible does not contain a specific prohibition to eat any parts of clean animals, including liver, kidney, heart, tongue, or stomach.

The Church of the Eternal God and its corporate affiliates in Great Britain and Canada have concluded, after a careful study of the pertinent Scriptures, that it is up to individual choice whether someone wants to eat, or abstain from the consumption of certain parts of clean animals. At the last ministerial conference, the following was included in our minutes:

“The Bible plainly says that we should not eat blood, fat or unclean meat. Apart from that, it is up to individual choice. It must never defile conscience.”

Some have concluded that liver or heart can be eaten, but not kidneys, as the priests did sacrifice the kidneys to God. However, the Bible does not tell us why this was done, and to conclude, from Scripture, that it therefore constitutes a prohibition to eat kidneys stretches the Biblical account. We must note that while God specifically states that we are not to eat fat or blood, He does not give us such a prohibition for other parts of clean animals. Notice carefully God’s prohibition in Leviticus 3:14-17:

“Then he shall offer from it his offering, as an offering made by fire to the LORD. The fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is on the entrails, the two kidneys and the fat that is on them by the flanks, and the fatty lobe attached to the liver above the kidneys, he shall remove; and the priest shall burn them on the altar as food, an offering made by fire for a sweet aroma; all the fat is the LORD’s. This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor blood.”

The above-quoted passage refers to the peace offerings — “the only offering in which the offeror shared by eating a portion of the sacrifice… The animal could be an unblemished male or female ox (3:1), lamb, or goat (vv. 7, 12)… No mention is made of a peace offering of birds” (Ryrie Study Bible). The above-quoted passage pointed out that kidneys were to be burnt as a sacrifice, but when God gave the prohibition as to what not to eat, He only mentioned fat and blood, not kidneys (compare verse 17).

In Leviticus 7:1-10, the trespass offering is mentioned, which was to be made from a ram, as Leviticus 5:15 establishes. The priests were to eat from the meat, after doing the following: “… all the fat thereof; the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards, And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul that is above the liver [the fatty membrane surrounding the liver], with the kidneys, it shall he take away: And the priest shall burn them on the altar for an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a trespass offering (AV).” This passage does not include at all a prohibition to eat kidneys in general — apart from the context of a trespass offering — and even the trespass offering itself refers specifically only to a ram.

We are therefore not compelled to conclude that kidneys must not be eaten. Some feel that the definition of fat in the passages above includes kidneys, but this interpretation has been rejected by others, as going beyond the clearly revealed Word of God. If, however, somebody would eat kidneys and thereby defile his or her conscience, believing that they should not be eaten for religious or health reasons, then, of course, consumption of such food must be avoided (compare Romans 14:23).

Recently, we were asked the question whether chicken gizzards are fit to eat. According to the dictionary, a gizzard is “the second stomach of a bird, where food is broken up with the help of small stones the bird has swallowed.”

Since chicken is a permissible food, there is no reason to prohibit eating gizzards. The Bible does not say one way or the other, specifically, so it boils down to an individual decision. Some cut up gizzards and put them in Giblet Gravy for use with turkey and dressing at Thanksgiving. Others don’t eat them mainly because they are really tough to chew and one can certainly understand why, since they are used by the chicken in its digestive process. On the other hand, some like to eat them — or the stomach of the chicken — in chicken soup, and there is no Biblical prohibition — barring individual conscience — against doing so.

On Saturday, September 11, 2004, Dave Harris will be giving the sermon, titled, “Such Great Faith.”

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.

The Feast of Trumpets is next week – from Wednesday sunset to Thursday sunset. Date – September 16.

Please note that there will be two services that day:

Norbert Link will be speaking from Madison, Wisconsin at 11:00am CT; and Edwin Pope will be speaking from San Diego, CA. at 4:30pm CT. Norbert Link will also conduct Sabbath Services in Madison on September 18, 2004 2:30pm CT.

Recently in the U.K., the Butler report on the Iraq war was released to the public. Lord Butler concluded that in spite of billions of pounds spent, scores of British soldiers killed, 11,500 civilians dead, no weapons of mass destruction found, no immediate threat proven, flawed intelligence, Parliament and the British public having been misled — no one was to blame.

It appears that it is never our fault. Today, taking responsibility for our actions is so rare that it provokes comment. As one commentator said, “It is a cruel irony of modern life that the only people who can regularly be relied on to accept – indeed, to claim – responsibility for their actions are terrorist bombers. Elsewhere, in almost every sphere of activity, society seems to be in retreat, in denial.” However, while terrorists who bomb innocent civilian targets usually do accept responsibility for doing their terrible deed, they then blame the target for what they’ve done. For example, the 9/11 attacks in New York “had” to be carried out because of the “great Satan” (America).

Where did this all begin? Right at the dawn of civilization! Right at the beginning – where else? Genesis 3: 12 states: “Then the man said, ’The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.'”

The first man, Adam, said in effect, “It’s not my fault – YOU, God, made the woman – it’s all Your fault – here I was, after naming the animals, You took a rib out of me while I was asleep and made the woman – and she made me do it. SHE gave me the fruit – it’s not my fault! And if You hadn’t allowed the serpent into the garden, none of this would have happened!” Doesn’t that approach sound rather familiar?

And in the following verse, it states: “And the Lord God said to the woman, “‘What is this you have done?’ The woman said, ’The serpent deceived me, and I ate.'”

Now Eve climbs on the “no fault” bandwagon. No hint of apology or admission of wrongdoing. No sign of it whatsoever from either Adam or Eve. And that’s where the attitude of “It’s not my fault” all started from. It has shown no signs of abating in the last 6,000 years, although there have been honorable people, at times, who admitted when they were wrong. There have been some who have taken responsibility for the consequences of their actions. But they were the exceptions — and today, we live in a “no blame,” “no fault” society where other things or other people are the problem – never the self. That is how the world reacts and behaves. It is a blatantly dishonest approach when people are clearly at fault. But human nature, being what it is, doesn’t like to admit guilt.

Our approach — the approach of truly converted Christians — must be diametrically opposite. When we are wrong, we should admit our failings and guilt. Anything other than that would be lying – and therefore breaking one of the Ten Commandments. We may look at the ways of this world and make the commitment not to follow them. We are to be different – and this is just one area that proves the point.

Next time we are wrong on some matter and we may think – even for just a fraction of a second — that we can get out of it, by blaming someone or something else, let us remember that we will have to give account to God for OUR actions and reactions. That should really motivate us to admit our wrongs and change for the better. Let us not deceive ourselves. When we sin, it is our fault!

Bush Speech

President George W. Bush addressed the Republican Convention on September 2, 2004. We are bringing you the following excerpts from his speech:

“We will build a safer world and a more hopeful America and nothing will hold us back… I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy… In this world of change, some things do not change: the values we try to live by, the institutions that give our lives meaning and purpose. Our society rests on a foundation of responsibility and character and family commitment….

“Four years ago, Afghanistan was the home base of al-Qaida, Pakistan was a transit point for terrorist groups, Saudi Arabia was fertile ground for terrorist fundraising, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, Iraq was a gathering threat, and al-Qaida was largely unchallenged as it planned attacks. Today, the government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror, Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders, Saudi Arabia is making raids and arrests, Libya is dismantling its weapons programs, the army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, and more than three-quarters of al-Qaida’s key members and associates have been detained or killed.

“In Afghanistan, terrorists have done everything they can to intimidate people yet more than 10 million citizens have registered to vote in the October presidential election — a resounding endorsement of democracy. Despite ongoing acts of violence, Iraq now has a strong Prime Minister, a national council, and national elections are scheduled for January. Our Nation is standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, because when America gives its word, America must keep its word… Our allies also know the historic importance of our work. About 40 nations stand beside us in Afghanistan, and some 30 in Iraq… America is grateful, and America will not forget….

“The progress we and our friends and allies seek in the broader Middle East will not come easily, or all at once. …To everything we know there is a season — a time for sadness, a time for struggle, a time for rebuilding. And now we have reached a time for hope. This young century will be liberty’s century. By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world. By encouraging liberty at home, we will build a more hopeful America. Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom. This is the everlasting dream of America… Now we go forward grateful for our freedom, faithful to our cause, and confident in the future of the greatest nation on earth.”

Clinton Speech

Former President Bill Clinton is presently recuperating from a complicated quadruple heart bypass surgery. Many are praying for his speedy recovery. On July 26, 2004, Mr. Clinton gave a highly recognized speech at the Democratic Convention. We are quoting the following excerpts from his speech:

“The 21st century is marked by serious security threats, serious economic challenges and serious problems, from AIDS to global warming to the continuing turmoil in the Middle East. But it is also full of amazing opportunities to create millions of new jobs and clean energy and biotechnology, to restore our manufacturing base and reap the benefits of the global economy… To build that kind of world, we must make the right choices…

“Americans long to be united. After 9/11, we all just wanted to be one nation. Not a single American on September 12, 2001, cared who won the next presidential election… All we wanted to do was to be one country, strong in the fight against terror, helping to heal those who were wounded and the families of those who lost their loved ones, reaching out to the rest of the world so we could meet these new challenges and go on with our democratic way of life….

“America just works better when more people have a chance to live their dreams. And, secondly, we live in an interdependent world in which we cannot possibly kill, jail or occupy all of our potential adversaries. So we have to both fight terror and build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists…

“In the early days of the republic, America was divided and at a crossroads, much as it is today, deeply divided over whether or not to build a real nation with a national economy and a national legal system. We chose to build a more perfect union. In the Civil War, America was at another crossroads, deeply divided over whether to save the union and end slavery. We chose a more perfect union. In the 1960s, when I was a young man, we were divided again over civil rights and women’s rights. And again we chose to form a more perfect union…

“Now, again, it is time to choose. Since we’re all in the same boat, we should choose a captain of our ship who is a brave good man, who knows how to steer a vessel through troubled waters, to the calm seas and the clear sides of our more perfect union. That is our mission.”

EU vs. Great Britain

As Associated Press reported on September 3, 2004, “The European Union’s executive will take Britain to the Court of Justice of the European Communities in a dispute over the controversial nuclear power plant at Sellafield, EU officials said.” The article continued: “The European Commission had told Britain in March to give EU inspectors unfettered access to the Sellafield site or face legal action, in a stern warning welcomed by environmental campaigners. The European Union executive’s patience had run out after repeatedly asking British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) to open up access, under a European agreement, to a facility on the site in northwest England that stores spent nuclear fuel. Under the terms of the 1957 Euratom Treaty, EU inspectors have the right to enter nuclear facilities in member states to ensure that material is being stored safely and cannot end up in the wrong hands. But for several years, inspectors have been unable to gain access to a pond at Sellafield called B30 that stores irradiated fuel because of high radiation levels and poor visibility, Brussels complained.”

Attacks on Iraq’s pipelines

AFP reported on September 3 about serious and heavy attacks on Iraq’s pipelines. The article stated: “Saboteurs exploded a bomb on the strategic pipeline at 6:30 pm Wednesday by the town of Riyadah 50 kilometres (30 miles) south of Kirkuk, Iraqi officials said. They called it the most serious attack on the north’s oil infrastructure since the US-led invasion of Iraq.” The article continued: “Repeated sabotage of Iraq’s oil industry has cost the country more than a billion dollars in revenue. In particular, exports from the lucrative Kirkuk fields have been brought to a virtual standstill by insurgents for well over a year. A recent string of attacks has also damaged several pipelines in southern Iraq. That area accounts for 90 percent of exports from the country, which sits atop the world’s second-largest oil reserve.

What’s Happening in Russia?

While Russia’s leader, Putin, is blaming the terrible fiasco at a southern Russian school on terrorists, questions are being asked by some as to what happened — especially in light of the fact that Russia’s dealings with “Chechen rebels” have ended in tragedy before. Associated Press published an article on September 4, 2004, stating the following:

“More than 340 people, including 155 children, were killed in the violence that ended a hostage standoff with militants at a southern Russian school, a prosecutor said Saturday. President Vladimir Putin accused the attackers of trying to spark an ethnic conflict that would engulf Russia’s troubled Caucasus Mountains region.”

The article continued: “Two major hostage-taking raids by Chechen rebels outside the war-torn region in the past decade provoked Russian rescue operations that led to many deaths. The seizure of a Moscow theater in 2002 ended after a knockout gas was pumped into the building, debilitating the captors but causing almost all of the 129 hostage deaths. In 1995 – during the first of two wars in Chechnya in the past decade – rebels led by guerrilla commander Shamil Basayev seized a hospital in the southern Russian city of Budyonnovsk, taking some 2,000 people hostage. The six-day standoff ended with a fierce Russian assault, and some 100 people died.”

In addition, Reuters published an article on September 4, titled, “Moscow Angered at EU Demand.” The article explained: “Russia denounced today as ‘blasphemous’ a request by the EU’s Dutch presidency for an explanation for the bloody end to a mass hostage seizure at a school by Chechen gunmen. But Dutch foreign minister Bernard Bot, who made the request in a statement yesterday on behalf of the EU presidency, said he had been misunderstood… In a statement issued in the name of the EU presidency yesterday, Bot said all countries should work together to stop such tragedies, adding: ‘We also would like to know from the Russian authorities how this tragedy could have happened.'”

Questions are also being raised about Russia’s treatment or mistreatment of journalists. Associated Press reported on September 7, 2004:

“The detention of several journalists traveling to and from the deadly school siege in Russia is raising new concern about press freedom in the country, media watchdogs said Tuesday. There are also accusations that a prominent Russian journalist and critic of Moscow’s campaign in Chechnya, Anna Politkovskaya, was victim of a deliberate case of food poisoning…. Some analysts fear the Russian government may tighten its grip further following the school siege and other attacks in recent days blamed on Chechen separatists. ‘The fear of the Russian population will be used to justify further restrictions on the media,’ said Luitgard Hammerer, of Article 19, a London-based free speech group. … Chechnya is the most taboo subject, watchdogs say. ‘There is a complete blackout of information on what’s happening in Chechnya,’ Blatmann, of Reporters Without Borders, said. ‘In this critical moment, the Russian population has the right to receive independent and complete information.’ … Press freedom organizations say that in recent years Putin has been exercising strict control over much of the media, particularly broadcasters.”

The Bush Administration pointed out its different position regarding Putin’s “handling” of the Chechnya situation. As Associated Press reported on September 7, 2004, “The Bush administration differed Tuesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin and said that only a political settlement could end the crisis between Russia and the breakaway region of Chechnya.” But Putin’s hard course was again manifested, as the article continued to point out: “In an interview Monday with a group of foreign journalists and academics, Putin rejected Western calls for negotiations with Chechen rebel representatives, Britain’s Guardian and Independent newspapers reported. ‘Why don’t you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?’ the Guardian quoted Putin as saying sarcastically.”

In a related article, the Washington Times wrote in its editorial of September 7, 2004: “Vladimir Putin’s government, which has had trouble getting its stories straight every time there’s a massacre, now says it has determined that at least 10 of the 30 or so intruders who took more than a thousand hostages were Arabs, and the others were Chechens and Ingush who were trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Survivors of the massacre said some of their captors spoke Arabic, and Russian security agents confiscated notebooks in the rubble, inscribed in Arabic script.”

The ongoing consequences of this act of terrorism show how swiftly seemingly isolated events can cause major international difficulties. As reported by www.comcast.net, 9/9/2004, “The European Union, already at odds with the Bush administration over pre-emptive military strikes, reacted warily to a warning from Moscow that it too reserved the right to neutralize terror threats anywhere in the world.” The article continued: “Col. Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the chief of the general staff of Russia’s armed forces, said Wednesday that ‘we will take all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world.’ “

This article also showed that the prevailing position of the EU in matters such as this was against such pre-emptive strikes: ” ‘For us, it is by its nature a question that must be debated under the European framework, in the Group of Eight and of course in the United Nations,’ spokesman Herve Ladsous told reporters.”

Is Schwarzenegger Changing History?

www.nctimes.com published an article on September 4, regarding statements about Austria, as uttered in a recent speech by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Austrian historians are alleging that Schwarzenegger inaccurately described Austrian history. The article pointed out:

“Historians criticized Arnold Schwarzenegger for telling the Republican National Convention that he left a ‘socialist’ country when he moved away in 1968, noting that Austria had conservative leaders during the entire time he lived there. Some also were doubtful about Schwarzenegger’s remark that he saw Soviet tanks as a child, since he lived in an Austrian region occupied by British troops after World War II… In his convention address Tuesday, Schwarzenegger said: ‘As a kid, I saw the socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left’ in 1955 and Austria regained its independence. But Austria was governed by coalition governments that included the conservative People’s Party and the liberal Social Democratic Party, Martin Polaschek, a law history scholar and vice rector of Graz University, told the Vienna newspaper Kurier. Between 1945 and 1970, all the nation’s chancellors were conservatives — not socialists. And when Schwarzenegger left in 1968, Austria was run by a conservative government headed by People’s Party Chancellor Josef Klaus, a staunch Roman Catholic and a sharp critic of both the socialists and the communists ruling in countries across the Iron Curtain.”

The article published the following retort, in defense of Schwarzenegger: “Schwarzenegger’s spokeswoman, Margita Thompson, said the governor was not referring specifically to the Socialist party but rather to ‘a socialistic style of government and governing that he experienced when living in Austria’… [and] to a visit to the Soviet zone, which was as close as 30 miles to his family’s home. ‘Never in there did the governor reference that the tanks were where he grew up. It was a reference to visiting Soviet-occupied Austria,’ she said.”

The article also briefly commented on the (somewhat sad) reaction of the general Austrian public, as follows: “Many ordinary Austrians seemed in a forgiving mood Friday over any gaffes. ‘Maybe he has a wrong recollection — it’s so many years since he left,’ said Wilma Fadrany, 32, a waitress in Vienna. ‘There must be political reasons for such comments,’ she said. ‘You’ve got to tell the (convention delegates) what they want to hear in order to win them over. Politicians always talk the way it fits into their agenda.'”

Hurricane Frances’ Damage

According to an article of the Associated Press, dated September 6, 2004, “Hurricane Frances did more damage to the Kennedy Space Center than any other storm in history, tearing an estimated 1,000 exterior panels from a giant building where spaceships are assembled, officials said Monday.”

Even as the human and economic toll for Frances is tallied, another more powerful hurricane name “Ivan” is threatening to hit the state of Florida by late this weekend. This dangerous storm has already brought devastating destruction to several Caribbean islands.

Military Deaths in Iraq

Associated Press reported on September 7, 2004, that “U.S. military deaths in the Iraq campaign passed the 1,000 milestone Tuesday, with more than 800 of them during the stubborn insurgency that flared after the Americans brought down Saddam Hussein and President Bush declared major combat over.” The article continued: “The 1,003 figure includes deaths from hostile and non-hostile causes since the United States launched the Iraq campaign in March 2003 to topple Saddam’s regime. The vast majority of U.S. deaths – all but 138 – came after Bush’s May 1, 2003 declaration of an end to major combat operations. ‘Mission Accomplished,’ read a banner on an aircraft carrier where Bush made the announcement.”

IPS reported on September 7, 2004, that “The new outbreak of violence in Baghdad has shattered ceasefire talks between Shia militants and the Iraqi government.”

British Report on Iraq

Associated Press reported on September 7 that a British report concluded: “British Evidence on Iraq Thin.” The article continued: “Intelligence indicating Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons was ‘very thin,’ the author of a critical report on the British government’s case for war in Iraq said Tuesday. In his first public comments since publishing the results of his inquiry in July, Lord Butler said the weakness of a government dossier on the threat posed by Iraq had ‘come home to roost’ as no such weapons had been found.”

Germany and the Wall

A somewhat shocking survey was just published in Germany. Reuters reported on September 8, 2004, that “Fourteen years and a trillion euros after reunification one in five Germans would like to see the barrier that split the country during the Cold War put back, a survey found Wednesday. A poll by the Forsa institute found a quarter of western Germans wishing the 15 million east Germans were cut off again by the Berlin Wall, living in a different state, while 12 percent of eastern Germans wanted out of the united Germany….The lingering divisions have erupted in recent months as Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s government attempts to reduce unemployment and welfare benefits, touching a nerve in the east… Thirty-seven percent of west Germans said the 80 billion euros ($96.28 billion) the government pumps into the east each year was too much. But almost a third of east Germans thought it too little, Forsa said.”

Germany’s Economy

Associated Press reported on September 6, 2004, about Germany’s economy and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s recent state election defeats. The article stated: “Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder insisted on Monday that there was no turning back in cutting social programs despite pressure to reverse the unpopular measures after his party suffered a rout in a German state election. Schroeder’s Social Democrats lost 45 percent of their voter support Sunday in the small western state of Saarland, while the conservative Christian Democrats – the main opposition party at the national level – retained control of the local legislature and the governor’s post… Schroeder has staked his political future on the reforms, which he says are needed to boost Europe’s largest economy, reduce debt and fight unemployment. But the latest electoral defeat reignited criticism of his course inside his party and among labor unions. … In Sunday’s vote, support for the Social Democrats plunged to 30.8 percent from 44.4 percent in the last Saarland election in 1999, the party’s worst showing in the state since 1960. Those capitalizing on the backlash included the small far-right National Democratic Party, which came out of nowhere to win 4 percent of the vote with a platform opposed to Schroeder’s welfare-state cuts.”

Not in name, of course, but yes, if we understand properly what the word “Christians” stands for. Prior to New Testament times, nobody was called a “Christian,” per se. We read, in Acts 11:26, that “the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” Subsequently, the term became known as a description for Christ’s followers, and was used both by unconverted people (Acts 26:28) and by converted disciples (1 Peter 4:16).

A Christian, in the true sense of the word, is one in whom Jesus Christ lives — through the Holy Spirit. Paul said that Christ was living in him (Galatians 2:20), and that we are only true Christians, if His Spirit dwells in us: “But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he is not His” (Romans 8:9). Paul even adds the thought that we will only enter the kingdom of God by a resurrection from the dead, if the Holy Spirit dwells in us at the time of our death (Romans 8:11).

The substantial conditions based upon which we enter the Kingdom of God and inherit the promise of eternal life, are the same for every human being — regardless of whether he or she lived and died before or after Christ’s First Coming.

We know that Old Testament followers of God will be in the Kingdom of God. Christ said in Matthew 8:11: “And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” We read that king David will be ruling, as king, in the Kingdom of God. Jeremiah 30:9 points out: “But they shall serve the LORD their God, And David their king, Whom I will raise up for them.” Hosea 3:5 states: “Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God and David their king.” We also read: “My servant David shall be their prince forever” (Ezekiel 37:25).

We also read about a vision of the Kingdom of God, which was given to some of Christ’s disciples. In that vision, Moses and Elijah appeared in a glorified state, showing that they, too, will be in the Kingdom, once Christ establishes it here on earth (Matthew 16:28-17:9; Luke 9:27-36).

In addition, we find a rather long list of God’s Old Testament servants in the 11th chapter of the book of Hebrews. The list includes people like Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets. Verses 39-40 explicitly state: “And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise [of eternal life and of entering the Kingdom of God], God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect APART FROM us.”

So, they will be made perfect, in the first or better resurrection (compare verse 35), TOGETHER with us. In order to be resurrected, they must, however, “sleep in Jesus” (Compare 1 Thessalonians 4:14). That is, they must have believed in, and accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, as there is none other than Jesus, through Whom we can be saved (compare Acts 4:12).

The Bible reveals that Christ was the Personage within the Family of God Who actually dealt directly with mankind. God the Father created everything, including man, through Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:16). Christ talked with Abraham (John 8:56-58). He was the God being Who led Israel out of Egypt (1 Corinthians 10:1-4). It was Christ Who was tried by disobedient Israel (verse 9). And, most importantly, it was the Spirit of CHRIST which dwelled in the prophets of old, as 1 Peter 1:10-11 clearly proves: “Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST [WHICH] WAS IN THEM was indicating when [it] testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.”

We also read that, after Samuel anointed David, “the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward” (1 Samuel 16:13). Later, David prayed to God not to take His Holy Spirit away from him (Psalm 51: 11). Moses, too, had received God’s Holy Spirit. God took a portion of the Holy Spirit, dwelling in Moses, and gave it to seventy elders (compare Numbers 11:16-17, 25, 29). Later, Moses laid his hands on Joshua, In whom was already the Spirit of God (compare Numbers 27:18), and then “Joshua the son of Nun was FULL of the spirit of wisdom”
(Deuteronomy 34:9), that is, he received an extra portion of the wisdom of God, through God’s Spirit. Elisha asked for and received “a double portion” of Elijah’s Holy Spirit — which was, of course, IN Elijah (compare 2 Kings 2:9).

We read, too, that king Saul received the Holy Spirit, but he subsequently lost it again — showing that it IS possible to lose the gift of the Holy Spirit.

There is, however, one difference in regard to the receipt of the Holy Spirit in New Testament times, after the New Testament Church was founded. That is, that we receive the Holy Spirit today, after we are properly baptized. Today, baptism as an adult, after repentance and belief, is commanded and is the only guarantee that we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (barring extraordinary circumstances). Our free booklet, “Baptism – A Requirement for Salvation?,” explains this truth in detail. When reviewing the Old Testament record, we don’t read that the ancients, in Old Testament times, were baptized prior to the receipt of the Holy Spirit, but we DO read that some had, within them, the Holy Sprit of God the Father and Jesus Christ.

We also read that the gospel of the Kingdom was preached to Abraham (Galatians 3:8) and to ancient Israel (Hebrews 4:2). This message included the announcement of man’s potential for his entrance in the Kingdom of God, through Christ, and the rule of Christ, as King of kings, over all the earth, in the future (compare Isaiah 8:6-7).

In order to be able to enter the Kingdom of God, we must repent of our sins and obtain forgiveness, by accepting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We do so, today, by looking to the past — what Christ did for us, when He died for us. The ancients of old, who had been called by God, looked forward to this event, believing that Christ would accomplish it. In a sense, this even required more faith, and we can understand why Abraham, for example, is called “the father of all those who believe” (Romans 4:11). Paul gives a remarkable testimony about Abraham’s faith, in Romans 4:13-21. Abraham believed God who “calls those things which do not exist [yet] as though they did” (verse 17). Abraham was “fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform” (verse 21). God had promised that Christ would become the Savior of mankind (compare Matthew 1:21; John 1:29). He was the One “slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). Although it was certainly possible for Christ, when He was in the flesh, to sin, God the Father and Jesus Christ had the utmost confidence that Christ would not sin.

The ancients of old had to have that same faith, as well, believing in Christ as their Savior, BEFORE He had even died for them. Only the Spirit of Christ within them could have given them that kind of faith.

In conclusion, although the holy saints of God, living in Old Testament times, were not specifically referred to as “Christians,” they were, indeed, Christians, as we understand this expression today.

A new member letter was written by the ministry. A copy of the letter can be found at: http://www.eternalgod.org/lit/letters/.