Happy Feast of Trumpets 2008

Will you be insisting on the word of God today? 

September 30, 2008 is the Feast of Trumpets, Rosh Hashanah. This is the first day of the seventh month. 

(LEV. 23: 23-25) 23 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 24 “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a sabbath-rest, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation. 25 You shall do no customary work on it; and you shall offer an offering made by fire to the LORD.’”

Now, for those in the various COG's, I'm certain you will be hearing a lot about trumpets today. Most certainly you should be hearing about how trumpets were used by Moses and the Israelites. It is, after all, a memorial - a looking back - of trumpets. I know many of you will instead hear messages about the seven trumpet plagues; but you cannot have a memorial of the future. A memorial is a preservation of a memory; a commemoration. Have you ever asked why God would want the ancient Israelites to remember the seven very destructive trumpet plagues? "To warn mankind, of course," would be the standard response. How is this? 

Think about it. It isn't a looking forward. The ancient Israelites who have lived and died thousands of years before the second return of Christ were supposed to be wary of it? Are you certain? No, that can't be right.

Or perhaps it is supposed to be a warning to the end-time? People who do not regard the Feast of Trumpets or understand it are supposed to be warned by it.. how? Is it not part of your beliefs that God has to 'open the minds' of people to understand the holy days and the plan of God? Then how can people without their 'minds opened' possibly understand it? That can't be right either. 

Or perhaps you have heard that it is an annual reminder for you. You, who will be protected from the trumpet plagues. You, who follow the laws of God. You who are the hand-selected and chosen few. You who have your minds opened. You who have God's Spirit in you helping you. You who need no warning. Are you certain you need an annual reminder of the trumpet plagues? Is today the Day of Damocles? So, God holds the trumpet plagues over you once a year as an annual reminder that He will punish you if you mess up? How then does Jesus' sacrifice fit in? Does His sacrifice cover your mistakes or doesn't it? This certainly is the least right so far, by far!

Then what is it? Why this annual talk about the trumpet plagues? Is Revelation mentioned solely because it has the word "trumpet" in it?

If you say "It can be both", then please show me the chapter and verse where it says the Feast of Trumpets is anything other than a memorial of blowing of trumpets. Produce the verse that shows you should look forward to the end, then produce the logic to such a thing. I challenge you, as you should be challenging your ministry! Are you a Berean, or are you not? Have you just accepted something that is nowhere to be found in the word of God or have you PROVEN? You know Christ will return, and you believe trumpets will be part of that, but I don't ask you about that. I ask you to show me from the Bible where it says the Feast of Trumpets has anything to do with the return of Christ.

For almost thirty years I listened to sermons about the return of Christ on Trumpets. Are you aware that many splinter groups do not believe Christ will return on Trumpets? They believe the resurrection will be on Pentecost. Are you one of them? Then what does the Bible say to link the Feast of Trumpets with the final trumpet plagues? Already many people are realizing the vision Herbert Armstrong passed down was flawed.

Flawed?! How can an Apostle be wrong about something he specifically said would happen? (See my post on The Plain Error for more details on that subject.)

So then, what do we have? We have no Bible verses linking the Feast of Trumpets with the final trumpet plagues. Nothing links them, not one Biblical thing! What links them is the theory of a man who said the 7 holy days describe the plan of God... except that many people believe he got it wrong. I ask again - got it wrong? But.... if he got that wrong.... is there a slight possibility that he could be wrong about the link between the Feast of Trumpets and the final seven trumpet plagues of Revelation? Is there a slight chance? Answer that for yourself as soon as possible!

But certainly that's the only thing he is wrong about. It's neither here nor there. After all, you follow God, not a man.  Right? Ask yourself this "Will I be paying the Holy Day Offering today?"

If you are like most people in the COGs, today you will hear an offertory message read from Deuteronomy 16. 

(DEU. 16: 16) Three times a year all your males shall appear before the LORD your God in the place which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles; and they shall not appear before the LORD empty-handed.

Have you ever read that verse? Of course you've seen it more times than you can count, but have you ever READ it? Please tell me, where is the word "seasons" in that verse? Does is not say "three times"? Does it not list specifically the three times in a year: "at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles"? Those are specifically named holy days, not the wispy idea of seasons. Does not the entire chapter of Deuteronomy 16 deal with those three specific Holy Days? And again you can read Exodus 34: 18-24 and see the same thing. Please point out to me, then, where you get the phrase "three holy day seasons". Or please tell me where the Bible lays out three holy day seasons; spring, summer, and fall. Or please tell me why Pentecost - the "summer" holy day - nigh always falls in spring? Where is the "summer holy day season" if there are no holy days in it? About that offering you will give, did you know those were supposed to be burnt offerings? Where did any man get the authority to change that to money? "We have to give something." Right? Why not give Bibles? Why not give trumpets? Who said 'money is to be given in place of burnt offerings' anywhere in the Bible? Does it not make it perfectly clear what happened to all sacrifices? Does it not make it perfectly clear that Jesus fulfilled them (HEB. 10: 12)? Why, then, do you bring them back? Is Jesus' sacrifice insufficient?? Does the Bible itself not tell you what sacrifice a New Testament Christian is required to give?

(ROM. 12: 1) I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.

(EPH. 5: 2) And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.

(HEB. 13: 15-16) 15 Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. 16 But do not forget to do good and to share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. 

To sum up what we have so far - the Feast of Trumpets is a memorial of blowing trumpets, not a looking forward, but you will most likely be looking forward today; the holy days help you understand the plan of God but Herbert Armstrong is believed to be wrong about the plan of God that he taught Trumpets is supposed to picture; you will give an offering of money though the Bible says it should be burnt; you will be read Deuteronomy 16: 16 on Trumpets though it specifically mentions by name the three holy days it refers to; you will be giving an offering though the Bible says Jesus fulfilled them.

Are you certain you follow God and not a man? Are you so certain that you would bet your life on it? Are you sure you are not betting your life on it right now? Shouldn't you be certain?

Does the Bible not specifically say those who add to or take away from God's word will be cursed (DEU. 4: 2; DEU. 12: 32; ECC. 3: 14; REV. 22: 18-19)?! Perhaps you SHOULD think about those trumpet plagues after all!

Go; challenge your minister with these things. See if that one can answer these questions for you. They are that important! Because if you don't get those things from the Bible - from God - then from whom do you get them? From men! And if from men, then how can one ever claim "I follow God, not men"? 

Friends and deeply loved by Christ, you owe it to yourself, to your family, and to Christ Jesus who died for you, to make certain that you know and follow those things that are in the word of God. I ask you once more, are you going to insist on the Bible truth today?

We Are Not Levites

This is part two of a thread about tithing (see part one - Abraham Tithed?).

All talk about tithing is conditional upon proving the ministry are modern Levites since the law of tithing clearly states tithes are for the Levites (NUM. 18: 21). And that is exactly the claim Herbert Armstrong made - that his ministry were the modern Levites. In one place, he would show the Levites gone, and in another he would equate the Levitical priesthood to his ministers. (Many people in the COGs think Jeremiah 33: 21 is evidence of this.) Either way, he would claim the tithe law was not gone. So far as I have seen, everyone who claims tithing is still in force today either directly or indirectly relates the ministry to the Levites. At the end of the day, everything the COGs teach about tithing comes down to one word: "transferred". Some say the right to collect tithes has been “transferred”. Is this so?

But let's start at the heart of the matter. At Jesus' death, the Old Covenant was - in its entirety and sum - nullified. In Paul's day it was "passing away", as it had been since the day Moses mediated it (II COR. 3: 7, 11, 13). There were two parties to the covenant: the Word of God (who became Jesus Christ), and physical Israel (whom are now commonly referred to as "the Jews"). As a clear matter of law, upon the death of one of the parties, any covenant is nullified. Physical Israel is a perpetually renewing entity, and it seems reasonable that it could only die if it were completely wiped out. We know this has not happened. God is an eternal spirit being, and could never die... except He be made man and subject Himself to the authority of death. Any Bible-believing Christian believes this certainly has happened. The Word "married" and then "divorced" Israel for her unfaithfulness (JER. 3: 8, 20; HOS. 2: 2). Upon His death, Israel was freed from the Old Covenant (I COR. 7: 39). So all vestiges of the marriage, and the Old Covenant with all of its precepts, are nullified at the death of one of the two parties, that being the Word of God.

Not only that, but since a great number of things instituted in the Old Covenant pictured Christ, when He fulfilled them they also became obsolete. Most certainly we can see examples of this. Take Passover for instance. Christ is our Passover Lamb (I COR. 5: 7). He did away with the need for animal sacrifice, He therefore needed to change Passover. The "Lord's Supper", as it is commonly called, does not picture the leaving of Egypt, but the life and death of Jesus the Christ (LUKE 22: 19-20). Gentiles were once commanded to be circumcised before they could take part in the Passover (EXO. 12: 48), but not so for the Lord's Supper (ROM. 2: 28-29; I COR. 7: 19; PHP. 3: 2-3). Along those very same lines, we will see that one of these things that are done away with is the Levitical Priesthood.

Without reinventing the wheel, we will agree that the first tithe was for the Levite. Now, if the tithe was for the Levite, then it is highly questionable that a tithe still exists today, seeing as how the Levitical priesthood was not only replaced, but completely done away with. There are NO Levites [ie. practicing; by title or office] in the New Testament Church! If they were to remain, then all of their responsibilities would remain. Every person who stands to profit from tithe law by claiming to be a modern Levite also utterly ignores all of the other regulations of the Levitical priesthood. It is dishonest to claim to be the modern Levitical priesthood in order to take advantage of tithe laws, and then turn right around and reason away absolutely every other rule and regulation regarding the Levites. If anyone claims to be a modern Levite, let him rid himself of any and all inheritance first, put on mitre and ephod, THEN go ask others to give up their tithes!

The challenge is to prove the ministry are modern Levites. This is done by misquoting Hebrews 7: 12 like so: “For the priesthood being [transferred] of necessity there is also a [transfer] of the law [of tithes only].” So far as I can find, this was done on behalf of Herbert Armstrong by Herman Hoeh. The words translated as “transfer” here are Metatithemi (Strong's 3346) and Metathesis (Strong's 3331). They mean to change, transfer, exchange, disestablish, or remove. It has been said “Since the word can mean 'transfer', it means the tithes are transferred to the ministry.” That is completely read into this sentence relying on human reasoning (motivated in my opinion by greed).

Let's look at the context. Mr. Herbert Armstrong would often employ the phrase “top not come down” when he wanted to explain the importance of Biblical context. We have a case of that here. 

I am going to go into Hebrews. I will preface all of my comments on Hebrews with this bit of info - many think Paul did not author Hebrews. We don't know that for a fact, but even I believe there is a weighty case to be made that it wasn't Paul. Lacking a better name, I will credit Paul none-the-less.

The context of Hebrews 7 (and many of the surrounding chapters) is Paul explaining to the Hebrews how much greater Jesus Christ is than their human priests. He reasons that all Hebrews tithed to the Levites, but since even Abraham, the father of the all Israel, tithed to Melchizedek, then Jesus is greater even than Abraham. Paul adds that since Levi tithed to Melchizedek through Abraham, even Levites must admit that Melchizedek is greater than themselves. Paul then follows up by showing the flaws of the Levitical system and why the priesthood was changed from Levi/Aaron to Christ/Melchizedek (and the laws by necessity with it), and exemplifies the perfection of Christ and why it was given to Him.

What the Levitical minister must do is ignore all this, declare the law and priesthood transferred to themselves (borderline blasphemy), back up several steps and declare only the tithe law was transferred, and finally read into this an argument about the validity of tithing that Paul simply is not in any way shape or form trying to make. No offense meant, but Herman Hoeh was in error.

Top not come down! 

Let's again let the Bible interpret itself. Is the word “transfer” or is it “changed”?

Paul goes to great lengths to prove that Jesus Christ is not a Levite. Four and a half chapters of Hebrews is devoted to this end (HEB. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10). Christ was of Judah by human birth: (HEB. 7: 13-14) “For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood”. And Christ is of Melchizedek by divine rite: (HEB. 7: 11) “What further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?”; (HEB. 8: 6) “He has obtained a more excellent ministry”. Christ offers no daily nor yearly sacrifice to atone for Himself: (HEB. 9: 26) “He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world”. Christ serves at the tabernacle in Heaven, not the alter in Jerusalem (HEB. 8: 2). Christ is an inheritor of all things (ROM. 8: 17; HEB. 1: 1-4), whereas the Levites were inheritors of nothing but the tithe (DEU. 14: 27; NUM. 18: 20-24). God divorced Israel (ISA. 50: 1) and the Old Covenant, the one in which the Levites were established, was nullified at Christ's death (HEB. 9: 16-17); Christ is now a minister of a “better covenant” (HEB. 7: 22).  And if Christ is not a Levite, neither are we who follow after Him. (HEB. 10: 9) “He takes away the first that He may establish the second.“ Doesn't this verse, Hebrews 10: 9 say it all? Christ took it away!! He did NOT transfer it! 

Let's look a little more and let the Bible interpret the Bible.

(HEB. 7: 18-19) 18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

It was annulled and replaced! So, the Bible says the former law of sacrifices and rituals was annulled, including tithing which was a heave offering, was not transferred in tact, but rather a better hope has been brought in. 

God wants nothing to do with burnt offering and sacrifice for sin, etc (PSA. 40: 6; HOS. 6: 6; MATT. 12: 7; HEB. 10: 5). Paul himself worked with his own hands to earn his own keep. This would have been scandalous for a Levite! This one act proves, in and of itself, proclaiming loudly that Paul was not a Levite. The Levites are gone. 

(HEB. 8: 13) “In that He says, 'A new covenant, ' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” 

And again, 

(MATT. 23: 38) “See! Your house is left to you desolate.” 

The entire system vanished in 70 AD. It was not transferred.

Here is a verse so profound, and yet so easily overlooked; this single verse explains without need for any clarification, why the Levites are gone: 

(HEB. 10: 18) “18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.” 

The Levites are simply no longer needed. We can go straight to Christ and God! Who do we believe? God, or those who want to put themselves between us and God to make a profit of us (II COR. 2: 17; JUD. 1: 11)?

Never forget these verses:

(JOHN 1: 11-13) “11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.”

Jesus came to His own, which is the Old Covenant church, the Jews and the Levites, and they did not receive Him. They outright rejected Him! He is the “stone that the builders rejected” due to disbelief (PSA. 118: 22; ACTS 4: 11; I PET. 2: 7). And for such, those "branches" are for the remainder of this age "broken off" of the tree (ROM 11: 17-24).

Yet, for money's sake, men attempt to perpetuate the old system - that system which failed, rejected Christ, and was torn down. Do we not understand that we ARE NOT children born of natural descent, like the Levites, but we are born of God. This is a NEW order entirely, a NEW Covenant (LUKE 22: 20; II COR. 3: 6-11; HEB. 8: 8; HEB. 9: 15; HEB. 12: 24).

God does not give us the authority to change His set worship practices. Even so, there are many people who defend Herbert Armstrong's changing of the law. Take to heart the lesson of King Jeroboam the son of Nebat (I KING 12: 25-33). Pay special attention to verse 31 “...and made priests from every class of people, who were not of the sons of Levi.” Can it please God what was done? Setting up those who are not sons of Levi to be priests, nigh exactly as Jeroboam did?

The example of the Levites for the Church remains: that as they were set aside for the worship of God so we are set aside. As they refused to do their commission we must zealously perform ours. As they stole from God and the people, we must be generous and giving. The Aaronic Priesthood, the Levites, the sacrifices, and the offerings all pictured God's plan and His spiritual Church should learn these lessons. The sacrifices have been magnified and the old removed, and even the priesthood has been magnified and the old removed. It is established in Hebrews that the Levitical and Aaronic priests are gone, not transferred but replaced entirely by a Priest “after the order of Melchizedek” (PSA. 110: 4). (I don't even say to you “by a priesthood”, as in many, but “by a Priest” singular. The "priesthood" will not exist until the resurrection.) 

The first tithe suggests we keep the Levitical customs. If we keep one custom, accepting tithes, shouldn't we keep them all? Why do these modern Levites not keep the duties and responsibilities of the Levites? Have they not read?

(GAL 5: 3-4) 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised [or sets out to keep the Old Covenant in any way - including tithes] that he is a debtor to keep the whole law [including the WHOLE law for the Levites]. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Understand now that I am NOT saying we shouldn't give. But twisting the law to receive tithes is not a just stewardship of the Bible truth God left us.

Abraham Tithed?

This is the first post of a thread on tithing in the COGs.

Some people go to the first instance of a thing being mentioned in the Bible to establish the basis for that thing. A good practice. We first see the idea of giving a tenth when Abraham gave a tenth to Melchizedek.

(GEN. 14: 18-20) 18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. 19And he blessed him and said: "Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; 20and blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand." And he gave him a tithe of all.

Abraham tithed. Paul even confirms it in Hebrews 7. This was 430 years before the Aaronic priesthood. Tithing, as it is reasoned, is now clearly established as a precedent under the current system as well. 

...Or is it?

When preparing a new convert for the idea of tithing, the COGs will go back to Abraham. HWA demanded quite a large percentage of his followers' income. A large demand calls for a weighty claim to back it up. What more weight could be added than the idea that something was done since Abraham's day - or since the very beginning? HWA's reasoning behind mentioning Abraham was to say that tithing was done before Sinai, therefore it preceded the Old Covenant, and cannot be replaced when the Old Covenant was magnified. This is the first part of a two-part logic. First, claim Abraham tithed, and bring that idea forward into the New Covenant. Second, like the first, claim that when Christ replaced the Levites, He gave the tithes to the ministry. In other words - legitimize a regular income, then legitimize claiming the income for yourself.

Here's what happened. Abraham was on his way home from saving Lot out of captivity when he met Melchizedek at the valley of Shaveh. The war spoils weren't even divided yet. Once they were to be divided, Abraham told Bera, the King of Sodom, that he promised God he would accept nothing – not even so much as a shoelace – of the spoils for himself.

I want you to notice a few things about that.

Take a closer look at what Abraham did. He did not "tithe" regularly, he gave a tenth one time. There is a difference. The difference is in the frequency. "Tithe", as a noun, means "tenth", or "ten percent". But it can also be a verb, "to tithe", meaning:

.	to give or pay a tithe or tenth of (produce, money, etc.).

.	to give or pay tithes on (crops, income, etc.).

.	to exact a tithe from (a person, community, parish, etc.).

.	to levy a tithe on (crops, income, etc.).

[Definitions courtesy of dictionary.com]

Abraham gave a tenth (noun) one time, HWA sees him giving tenths (verb) regularly.

Abraham gave his tenth to none other than Melchizedek himself. This was most like a free-will offering. The law being 430 years later, and the sacrifices being added even after that, there is no reason to believe Abraham kept a tithe as law. Tithes are not said to be free-will offerings, but heave offerings (NUM. 18: 24-28; DEU. 12: 6, 11, 17). Deuteronomy 12: 17 makes a clear distinction between free-will offerings and heave offerings, so they were certainly different.

Abraham was not tithing on his own increase, or his regular income. He was tithing on the spoils of war.

(HEB. 7: 4) Abraham... gave a tenth of the spoils. 

It can be argued further that Abraham did not give a tenth of all the spoils of war. This word “spoils” in HEB. 7: 4 is the Greek word Akrothinion (Strong's 205), which means “the chief spoils, or the best of the spoils”. It is only used here. This is somewhat similar to the "tithe of a tithe" the Levites gave to Aaron the priest rather than the “first tithe” as the COGs call them. The gist of the word Akrothinion indicates the firstfruits – an idea many should be familiar with.

Abraham tithed of the spoils before they were divided up, not just his own. He promised God before the war began that he wouldn't keep so much as a shoelace. In other words, he tithed on other people's goods. Are we to tithe other people's goods? Or are we to give away the other 90% of our income as well? To the King of Sodom none the less? No one suggests that!

But the deep question is: does this in any way prove we should tithe today? What other things did Abraham do? Let's ponder that.. it's quite telling!

Abraham circumcised his males. Even though, according to the Mayo Clinic, one of the word's foremost medical institutions, "circumcision may have many health benefits", it is clear that there is no command for Christians to physically circumcise. Rather, the circumcision is of the heart. Abraham also offered animal sacrifices (as did Noah, and Abel). Yet we clearly understand there is no need for animal sacrifices in the New Testament Church. Jesus was our sacrifice. Now, we are living sacrifices. Abraham had an extramarital sexual encounter. That can't be good. Yet clearly even looking at a person who is not one's spouse to lust after them in one's heart is sinful. 

If we say “Abraham did it so we should do it”, does it follow that if Abraham DIDN'T do it, we shouldn't do it? I would think so. Yet we worship Christ as our Savior and he did not. I'm not trying to nit-pick about the father of the faithful. But to say “Abraham did it, therefore it is certainly commanded for us” is gross oversimplification and simply not so.

Not being satisfied with Abraham, HWA then moved to use Jacob as an example as well.

(GEN. 28: 20-22) 20Then Jacob made a vow, saying, "If God will be with me, and keep me in this way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, 21so that I come back to my father's house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God. 22And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God's house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You."

Jacob tithed. Or did he? Look closer at what is said here. In Genesis 28, Jacob is charged by his father Isaac to travel to a land called Padan-Aram, which is in modern day Syria, in order to take a wife from among his own cousins, the daughters of his uncle Laban. Jacob was on his way when he received a vision of the gate of heaven, and he spoke with God. God promised to bring Jacob home again, and to bless him with possession of his ancestral lands, and to make Jacob the progenitor of a great multitude. Jacob, grateful and in awe, promised to give a tenth of whatever he had to God upon his safe return as God promised. Jacob also made it conditional that God would have to bless him first. This was not a continual tenth, but a singular tenth of whatever he possessed at that time of his safe return - be it small or, as Jacob hoped, very great. So this was again not a true tithe as we understand tithing.

Friends and those deeply loved by Christ, when we listen to a person preaching, we should be like the Bereans and search the scriptures to find out if the message is true. I know how hard that can be! For thirty years I was a believer in Armstrongism. I was only recently set free from that unbearable yoke of bondage. It is hard when you only see one perspective. Sometimes coming to look at the problem from another angle is just not in a person's nature. Sometimes the pressures to conform are overwhelming. In that light, I give you this information freely in hopes that it will set you free as well.

*Part two of this thread is now available - We Are Not Levites

Rationalizating Armstrongism

Had a conversation last night with a good friend of mine in one of the COGs. He called to ask my opinion on the prophecies relating to the Feast of Trumpets since he was preparing for a sermonette. My short answer was, "You can say whatever you want. If it isn't what people already have convinced themselves of, whether it's true or not, they will not listen to you no matter what you say or do." He agreed.

We got into talking about other things. He said what most everyone has been saying to me lately: Herbert Armstrong is nothing to a person's salvation. I agree that he should be nothing to anyone's salvation! However, I disagree in the meaning of what my friend was really saying to me.

HWA is dead, but his ideas are very much alive. So long as his ideas are alive, he has meaning to someones faith. I cannot tell you how very many times I have been asked since learning the truth about HWA, "Do you believe the Spirit came through Herbert Armstrong?" The answer is an unequivocal "NO!" I absolutely do not believe that. Why would anyone ask that? The Spirit comes from God the Father through Jesus Christ directly to us. Is it because they believe the laying on of qualified hands is necessary to receive the Spirit? Partly. Cornelius, however, received the Spirit before Peter even baptized him (ACTS 10: 44-47), so that's not necessarily the case. The real question that was being asked is this: "Do you believe I, as a believer in Armstrong, have God's Spirit?"

Listen, I can no more tell you if you have God's Spirit than I can tell you that you will be burned up in Gehenna fire. I am simply not the Judge. I have no keys to lock you up or set you free. I would like to believe certain people in the COGs have God's Spirit working inside them. Yet I see an odd thing in most of them - rationalization of their beliefs. By that I mean, the people I have spoken with rationalize away all error and contradiction in what they believe.

Take for instance my friend's statement "Herbert Armstrong is nothing to a person's salvation." OK. On the surface it is something most people will agree upon. Now, take into account another statement by the same friend, "Herbert Armstrong changed the law out of necessity." What do those two statements have to do with each other? I'll try to explain. If HWA is nothing, if he is something we need to move past and let go of, then how on earth is he so important to what people believe that he can change the laws of God and they go along with it? If he is truly nothing to salvation and faith, then what he did to the immutable laws of God is also nothing - and MUST BE REJECTED! But those changes are not rejected; they are promoted. On whose authority are they changed? HWA's and HWA's alone. Is he then important to a person's faith? Without question!

Now let's take yet another statement from this same friend: "I have never placed Herbert Armstrong into such a high position in my faith. If I see something that is in error, then it has to be fixed." Great! Now, if only people would actually do that!! What can we find that is in error, then? I have several posts from which you may choose. I would specifically refer you to the Three Times In A Year parts 1 and 2. Other blogs have several; see my links for more info. But let's go with something simple for now - the Feast of Tabernacles. What does the law say about it?

(LEV. 23: 40, 42-43) "40 And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of beautiful trees, branches of palm trees, the boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God for seven days." "42 You shall dwell in booths for seven days. All who are native Israelites shall dwell in booths, 43 that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."

It doesn't say "hotel", it says "booth". The participants are required to dwell in one (NEH. 8: 13-15). It even instructs you on how to manufacture said booth. During the Feast of Booths, no one makes a booth! Now, what do people actually do? They go to a hotel and call it a temporary dwelling. Why? Do you even know why? In the olden days, most people camped out at the Feast; packed their own meals, had services under a tent, and the whole 9 yards. When the ministers saw the higher-ups getting hotel rooms, they wanted that too. After a bit, the people who could afford it wanted hotel rooms, that made the upper echelons need fancier hotel rooms, and everyone else roughed it. Then, when everyone wanted hotel rooms, a reservation system started, and ministers were getting first pick to ensure they got theirs. Everyone else got a discount, and all were happy -- except perhaps God, whose laws were being ignored.

Do you know that never once in all of my keeping of the Feast of Tabernacles did I even so much as see a bough of a tree displayed even for show? Let alone to dwell in. Now, this dilemma isn't something people are unaware of. It is an error which people are unwilling to fix. This directly contradicts what my friend said when he told me what he believes is not dependant upon what Armstrong taught and if he finds a problem he needs to fix it. Upon whose authority was the law 'changed out of necessity'? Armstrong's. Are the beliefs in line with the law? No. So there's a problem; people are following Armstrong while claiming they are not and no one is keeping their word to fix it. This is what I mean by rationalization.

Another friend of mine, when confronted with the holes in his theology, told me "I keep the law as best as I can." No. He most certainly does not. He keeps the law as best as he CARES TO. There's a big difference. They are breaking the law and they know it and they do nothing about it.

(HEB. 10: 26-28) 26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

And, therefore, in stark disagreement with my old friends, I maintain that Herbert Armstrong is without a doubt (and so very unfortunately) key to a person's faith and salvation. Yet, somehow my friends continue to rationalize and disagree with me. Have I given my own logic? Have I not shown specifically where the Bible law is being ignored? Have I not shown that people will not fix that? Have I not shown that they do this upon HWA's authority alone? But if they will not see the error in the plain things to correct it, how on earth can they possibly see the general error in attempting to keep the Old Covenant and then move into the keeping of the New?

So my friend says, "I have never met Herbert Armstrong. When I came into the church, I was taught by a minister, not HWA." That's a fact. Now, of what value is that fact? Let me ask - from whom did said minister get his credentials to preach? The Worldwide Church of God. And who started and ran that church as its Apostle and undisputed leader on earth? Herbert Armstrong. So all roads lead back to Herbert Armstrong. So the representative of HWA was the literal person who did the teaching and baptising, but they only did that because of HWA. To put it into another light, one using that very same logic would say 'I get the Spirit from Jesus Christ, not God the Father; so who is God the Father to me?' Of course we know that's a ridiculous statement! The logic is totally rotten. So also is the rationalization that since HWA was not the direct teacher he is nothing to the teachings.

I attempted to move my example to another realm. I used Ron Weinland as an example. I asked him, "If HWA is nothing, then why don't I just go to Ron Weinland's church right now?" "Well," my friend replies, "we now know that Ron Weinland is false. So to go there would not be a good thing." Aha! Exactly what I knew he would say. "So," I replied, "how then can you justify staying in Armstrong's church when I can demonstrate to you that everything Weinland does was done by Armstrong as well?" He was not willing to accept the truth that Ron Weinland is a Xerox copy of Armstrong. So I showed him some examples.

Take the prophecies for instance. HWA proclaimed Jesus would return in 1936 (read the Plain Truth, June/July 1934, especially page 3). Did that happen? Look around you. Now, to top that off, HWA again said Jesus would return by 1975 (remember "1975 In Prophecy"? Of course you do! Download it here [right-click the link, choose "save as"]). So these two times HWA was wrong. Then there were the never ending streams of "In three to four years..." predictions which all fell flat. (Try this "5 to 10 years, on the authority of Christ" failure from the Plain Truth, February 1967, see p. 47 under heading "End Viet Nam War Now", 4th paragraph.) Now we have a bona fide false prophet on our hands, speaking "very soberly, ON AUTHORITY of the living CHRIST!" (sic).

How is that different than Weinland? It isn't! My friend could only say, "Armstrong never claimed to be a prophet." It doesn't matter as much what one claims; it's what one does that really counts. I can rob a liquor store and claim not to be a thief - does that make me not a thief? No! So claiming not to be a prophet is hot air while you simultaneously claim God has revealed truths of prophecy to you and you alone and you then proceed to predict all sorts and forms of things (which all utterly fail)! My friend agreed eventually that 99% of what Armstrong predicted indeed failed. He followed it up with, "But that is nothing to my faith." Sorry, friend, I completely disagree.

I asked, "Weinland's predictions failed this past summer. They will fail this winter too. Now, what if in 20 years he makes another massive prediction and that fails - what do you say about the people that stay in his church?" His response gave me the impression those people were crazy. "Now, what if Armstrong said Jesus would return in 1936, and that having failed he said Jesus would return by 1975, and not only that but he made countless other predictions that all failed, and people still stayed in that church?" This is the same question, only with HWA instead of Weinland. WE are the people who STAYED! WE are the people who are CRAZY!

Nope. Didn't register with my friend. He tried to rationalize that, too. He backtracked and tried to tell me, "Well, Paul thought Jesus would return in his lifetime. I can't fault Armstrong for being wrong." Then you cannot fault Weinland either!

I am not trying to condemn Armstrong. But oh yes you most certainly MUST make a distinction between Paul and Armstrong. Paul wrote things that we think might have meant he believed Jesus would return in his lifetime. He never once said, "Jesus will return by 36 AD!" In Revelation 22: 20 Jesus says, "Surely I am coming quickly." And we can debate what He meant by that. But He never said, "Surely I am coming in the next three to four years." HWA claimed God spoke through him, that he was an Apostle, that he was revealed things, that the scriptures were clear, that if people didn't heed they were going to die... THAT makes it different!

Here is the crux of the problem:

(DEU. 18: 22) when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

Why is THIS problem not being fixed?? Why is this law NOT being followed? Especially when Paul says thus:

(GAL. 5: 3) And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

And when James says thus:

(JAS. 2: 9-10) 9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all

My answer - because the COGs keep the law as Armstrong taught rather than how it really is, and they keep it as best as they care to rather than as best as they can. Thus Armstrong is demonstrably and undeniably important to faith and salvation of those in his church.

I put it on the table. I told my friend that is the mentality of a CULT! And I will be no party to a cult. If I see that Armstrong is wrong, I actually move to fix it, which distances me from him and the others in the COGs. He told me it sounds like I am bitter against Armstrong, and that I had to put Armstrong behind me and move forward. No. I am not bitter. I am joyous and finally understand joy and peace. What I am is free from Armstrong. What I have done is put him behind me. Why I continually harp on the idea is only to show others that they have not put Armstrong behind them, as they claim to have done - as they very much need to do!

I told him at the start, "You can say whatever you want. If it isn't what people already have convinced themselves of, whether it's true or not, they will not listen to you no matter what you say or do." I was right; and I was talking to one of them.

Matthew 15 & Mark 7

Oh so many times I devoured the standard teaching about Matthew 15 and Mark 7. So satisfied with the explanation was I that I failed to question, test, and PROVE what I had accepted. I would like to take the time now to ask those questions I never did before as I should have been doing.

(MARK 7: 2) Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled [Strong's 2839: common, that is, (literally) shared by all or several, or (ceremonially) profane: - common, defiled, unclean, unholy.], that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault.

Jesus and his Apostles ate without washing their hands. This wasn’t just to say “with dirt on their hands”; that wasn’t what offended the Pharisees. To the Pharisees, their hands were just as defiled as an idol or pork. There are scores of things that could render the hands unclean. For example, touching the canonical Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament – because mice were often seen scurrying across them due to the fact they were stored close to the free will offerings.

eg. Jewish Encyclopedia: Treatise of Mishna and Tosefta

**Whatever was touched by something unclean, including the Torah, was also unclean. For those of you who think you keep the food laws by eating at restaurants but not ordering unclean foods, be aware that once unclean meat like bacon touches that grill, the whole grill becomes unclean. You can eat nothing cooked on it. IMHO, another example of cherry-picking.**

HWA tried his hardest to make this into an argument about dirt. It was never about dirt! The Pharisees didn’t ask about dirt, and Jesus didn’t respond about dirt. The Pharisees were commenting about ritually unclean hands; in the same fashion as pork was ritually unclean. The Pharisees were speaking of a ritual washing, not a “clean up before dinner” kind of washing. The hands weren’t to become clean with washing, but sanctified. One wasn’t supposed to even speak the name of God with unclean hands. Thus Jesus answered about the Talmud and what truly makes a person ritually unclean. This is a discussion about what makes holy and what makes unholy.

Some believe that Jesus here made all foods clean.

(MARK 7: 14-23) NIV (..also look at this in the NKJV) 

14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' [Strong's 2840: ceremonially or morally unclean, common, polluted] [this is the same word used in Acts 10: 15] by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.['2840]" 17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean[2840]? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." 20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him unclean. [2840] 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean."

The majority of Christians, and even some Bible translations, think this meant Jesus had decreed all meats clean. Technically this is untrue, since the cleansing could not occur until the New Covenant was ratified in His own blood. Jesus Christ is doing much more than stripping away layers of Talmud, however. He is laying down the groundwork for the magnification of the law to come later. He is bringing in the reality and removing the shadow.

(LUKE 11: 39) Then the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees make the outside of the cup and dish clean, but your inward part is full of greed and wickedness.

Here, HWA and hisministers would always interject, “But clean and unclean meats aren’t what the context of this discussion was about.” They continue, “Since the Jews added so much physical content to the law, through traditions of men without God’s consent, it ruined the spiritual intent of the law, and Jesus is merely teaching the spirit of the law here.” As a proof text, we are directed to Matthew 15.

(MATT. 15: 20) These are what make a man unclean[2840]; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him unclean. [2840]"

The context and question here is ‘what makes someone defiled?’ It most certainly does include food laws since at that time they most certainly could make someone defiled.

First, this is blatant and deliberate ignoring of what Christ is saying. Full well they reject the magnification of the law that they may keep the yoke of the Old Covenant! Yes, Jesus is discussing the overemphasis on the traditions contrary to the law. Washings, however, were not all contrary to the law; they were part of it (EXO. 40: 12, 30-31; also read LEV. 11-16 and see how many washings were commanded). Do we not understand that the Passover foot washing, as well as baptism, were cleansing rituals? We are clean (JOHN 13: 10)! Now nothing from the outside can defile us.

Yes, Jesus is directly addressing hand washing rituals. Yes He is directly addressing the Talmud. However, if the sub-context is the spirit of the law, as HWA freely admits, then this addresses so very much more than just physical hand washing. If Jesus was merely returning the law to its proper state by removing the Talmud, why didn’t He correct them from the washing laws in the Torah? They mention hand washings, He mentions adultery. He didn’t bring it back to its legal place; He brought it far above and beyond! It addresses taking our minds out of the shadowy, physical Old Covenant and placing it into the substantive, magnified and spiritual New Covenant.

Second, Jesus Christ says “nothing”, meaning nothing, which goes into the mouth can spiritually defile you. He doesn’t say “dirt that enters from the outside”. This was never about dirt! It was about ceremonial uncleanness! And so He says “whatever enters from the outside.” This may include dirt, but it does not by any means stop there. If He only meant dirt, why didn’t He say "dirt"? If this is about the digestive system purging impurities, then what about salmonella, ecoli, campylobacter, and other food-borne illnesses? Why pasteurize? Is Jesus mistaken? Jesus knew this isn’t about dirt or health! 

Why did He repeatedly say “nothing”? This is God in the flesh here; He said nothing that the Father didn’t give Him to say. If Jesus is only discussing the Talmud hand washings, He used a pretty large scatter gun by explaining exactly what does and does not defile a man. Jesus is laying the groundwork for the magnification of the law! Here Jesus lays out a list of things that can defile and things that cannot defile. Things that can defile you include things that come from inside you; spiritual things like “evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies”. Things that cannot defile you include things that come from outside of you; physical things like what goes into your mouth, and unwashed hands. Ask yourself, ‘which of these categories does meat fall into?’ Obviously they come from outside of you. How, then, can we claim Jesus is only speaking of unwashed hands – a very specific thing – when He says clearly “nothing” – a very broad and general thing?

Third, this word “defile” as Jesus uses it is the exact same word God used in Acts 10 where God says: 

(ACTS 10: 15) “What God has cleansed you must not call common [2840]” 

Whereas the word “defile” as the Pharisees use it is the exact same word that Paul uses in Romans 14 where he says: 

(ROM. 14: 14) I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean [2839] of itself 

In many other areas of the Bible, these words most certainly DO deal with foods.

To address the certain reaction by some who will inevitably say “I can think of a lot of things that could go into a man that would defile him.” I would reply, then, previous to that point, lust and sin have already defiled such a person.

Welcome To Escaping Armstrongism

Welcome to Escaping Armstrongism. Welcome new visitors and old. Welcome to those of my former congregation that have been peeking in. Please feel free to read and discuss. I want to take a minute out to warmly welcome you and explain a few things.

I should introduce myself to you. For the past 30 years I have accepted the teachings of Herbert Armstrong. I gave up family, friends, careers, opportunities of all strains and strands, all to accept what I truly felt was a calling from God to be a "firstfruit". It meant that much to me. Herbert W. Armstrong was the Apostle, and Worldwide was hijacked. I served on projects at church as often as I was able. I was a regular speaker. I was a faithful teacher of the ways. I gave sermon and sermonette, weekly and Holy Day. I know the teachings and I know the verses and I can promise you that I understood them as opposed to having just gone along for the ride. I did the research and could expound upon prophecy and matters of spirit. I was one of the truly faithful.

A couple years ago I was studying into a "minister" I used to call my own, his name is Ronald Weinland. I was impressed by the inexhaustible amount of deception that seeped from him. Yet his followers never seemed to get enough. It reminded me of the Trumpet whose writers mention their Editor in Chief Gerald Flurry at some 20:1 ratio over Christ. Ron's shameful error was publicly displayed when he touted his own books and predicted April 17th, 2008 would mark the opening of the first seal of Revelation. Death and hell never came. "It was all spiritual," he cried, "destruction will surely come by Pentecost!" Again, nothing. "Wait until July!" Still nothing. Now we are to believe God was merely putting out misinformation. The date was actually December all along! Certainly Ron was certainly no false prophet.

"Ahh!" I said. Here is the typical false prophet. Make a loud noise and fill people's hearts with trembling and fear; snatch up their money as fast as you can... until the time runs out. Then simply change the goal post and repeat.

"What fools his followers must be!" I chuckled mockingly. But little did I know, the joke was on me. Ron said he was the successor to Herbert Armstrong, but Herbert Armstrong wasn't like that. He would never make false prophecies, or change the law, or move the goalpost.

One day it dawned on me - oh, yes he would... and yes, he has.

This will probably startle some; turning you away from this blog in disgust. I implore you to hear me out. If you agree with me, then agree with me. If you don't then don't. But please give a man a chance to state his case.

I was studying one Sabbath evening, when I pondered the New Covenant. All at once, I "got it". An incredible torrent of joy washed over me. Jesus Christ DID magnify ALL THINGS! Our flaw was that we had only recognized the magnification of a few things.

For years I had studied with friends about how Herbert Armstrong was mistaken about some prophetic interpretations concerning the nature of Babylon the Great and the second coming of Christ. Time after countless time I sat through sermons hearing how Herbert Armstrong was either wrong or his teachings insufficient (eg. Harold Smith's 'Spiritual Compass' 1 & 2; Fred Coulter's 'Why God Hates religion' 1-5; Al Buchanan's 'Opening the Door' 1 & 2 among many others). If he was so wrong all the time, then was it at all possible that he could be wrong on salvational matters too? Could this joy be the evidence that God was answering my continual prayers for truth?

I studied late into the night, trying to see if what I thought was real or some elaborate emotional deception. Was I falling away? Was this Satan? Other horrible things feel pretty good, so joy wasn't necessarily proof. What did the ministers I trusted have to say? By the time I went to bed, I had managed to quench that joy and go back into believing Armstrong. Whew! A close call!

No man can be touched by the hand of God and go unchanged. I remembered the joy. I didn't know why I had none otherwise. Why was everything so academic? Why was it, when someone gave a message about joy, my friends and I all spoke afterwards about our confusion. Joy was a foreign language to us and everyone we knew. Even those who spoke about it didn't seem to really believe it. I started a study to prove all things. If HWA was correct, the evidence would be nearly unshakable. The writings of Alexander Hyslop were already proven false, could the rest stand?

I prayed to God to open my eyes to the truth no matter how it hurt. I prayed for Christ to let Himself in the door, since I didn't know how. Then I studied simple things, and found many inconsistencies. No one would answer my questions, however. Ministers, elders, older gentlemen - all expressed dissatisfaction with certain points but would not accept the whole was flawed. Some people insisted Herbert Armstrong was absolutely right about all things; some left our congregation over such things. There were problems in paradise. That perfect facade of Worldwide was clearly decaying - and fast! But to what end?

Many people were studying church government. One very close friend of mine even made it his personal area of expertise. He had proven to me conclusively that Jesus Christ is the Head over ALL THINGS and no man can come between us and our Lord. Ministers are merely helpers in our faith, not lords and masters and tyrants as they were clearly so in Worldwide. If Herbert Armstrong was wrong in prophecy, government, and small items, what else?

Two laws were said to be carried forward into the New Covenant along with the 10 Commandments - tithes and meats laws. They were said to be carried forward because they are seen in the Bible prior to Sinai. Could they stand up? Was this true?

I turned to tithes. After months of deep study and the writing of a 27 page Word document, I had proven to some that tithes were utterly unscriptural for the New Covenant. CONTRARY to Christ! Tithes are for Levites, and Christ put them away. God now wants 100% of us, not 10%, or 20%, or 30% of our income. Abraham never tithed regularly. He gave a tenth of the BEST of war spoils one time only; the rest he gave to the King of Sodom. That's not tithing. Others could not answer my questions without withdrawing to "That's not how I learned it." The greatest of all non-answers. Retreat to the authority of Armstrong rather than the Bible - how unbecoming those who have PROVED! (They had not proved.) One man I immensely respect told me, "I was blessed during third-tithe years, so I know it's required." That doesn't put meat on the tables of the thousands upon thousands who were not so lucky! I personally know a man who lost not one but two houses to tithes and suffers financially to this day from it. How does my good friend explain that? Certainly not from the Bible!

Then came a study about meats. I was asked online once if I condemn people who do not keep the Sabbath. I had to think for a long time. My answer - I cannot condemn anyone for any reason. Only Jesus Christ is the Judge. I set out to study meats and make such an argument that the people of the COGs could not condemn people any longer for what they ate.

If the two laws (meats and tithes) were carried forward then we should see clean and unclean meats in Genesis. Again, no scriptural evidence! Not even the Jews, who have had the written and oral Torah for over 3,000 years believe Noah had a meats law. Suddenly here comes Herbert Armstrong and he's supposed to know more about the Torah than the Jews? He was wrong about prophecy, wrong about tithes, wrong about government, and wrong about a host of small issues - but I am supposed to take his word over God's own Jews, the "keepers of the oracles of God"? 50 pages of Word document later, meats laws fell, and no one could provide convincing evidence against my 2 main points:

1) God never says "clean" and "unclean" in relation to food in Genesis, but rather they were clean and unclean for sacrifice.

2) Noah is indeed given all animals to eat in the first verses of Genesis 9.

I was very distraught about what I had found. Only the 10 Commandments were left. Only those 10 derivatives of the 2 main branches of the 1 eternal principle of love remained. Herbert Armstrong was wrong on "salvational" issues.

And then... the unthinkable struck. The one area I had never studied and never proved was suddenly set before me: Herbert Armstrong himself. I was introduced (without looking for this) to the truth about what sort of man he is, how he had an unbroken chain of false prophecy stretching decades, how 1975 In Prophecy was not his first major prediction of the second coming, how he had personal indiscretions I shudder to think about and will not mention here, how he made hundreds of thousands of dollars each year while his faithful lost homes, how he never directly preached Christ on those expensive trips abroad, how by the standards of I Timothy 3: 2-7 HWA was disqualified as an elder on no less than 9 points, and so much more... the painful truths kept coming; wave after wave of hidden truths kept from his followers over the years by men more worried about their incomes than the truth.

Still, no one had anything to say about my questions. One person told me to forget about Herbert Armstrong, he was nothing to my faith anyhow. Oh, what a misguided soul who doesn't even understand his own church. Herbert Armstrong called himself the "Spiritual and temporal leader of God's Church on earth". Herbert Armstrong is everything to the church he founded and built up. I knew what brainwashing was. I had never noticed it before, but I was a living a lie.

I pondered if the things I felt before about the New Covenant could be true. I accepted that Armstrong was wrong, and that Jesus is the Chirst and He magnified it all. Then, much to my surprise... the joy came right back! Just as potent as before.

Everything "snapped" into place. I "got it". I felt that ball of joy building up in my stomach. I had to talk to someone, I had to share my joy. I spoke to my sister and she encouraged me. My wife and I talked it over and she said it was the first time she ever understood the New Covenant. She "got it" too. I started to read about what Christianity was like in the first century. It was all true! Herbert Armstrong had falsified information about the first century church. Justin Martyr wasn't just a philosopher; he countered Trypho the Jew using only the scriptures. Mathetes countered Armstrong's teachings exactingly. Only a tiny fraction of what was given to first century Gentile Christians matched what Armstrong taught.

I had a choice - bury my head in the sand like I did before, or go forward this time.

It was time to leave that Church.

After researching many churches and coming to see much more, we went to the COG7. After the first church service, the minister said, "Jesus Christ is the most amazing gift you could possibly receive. How could you keep such a gift to yourself? Share that gift with others. Share Christ!" Now that joy I had felt was so much more. I felt all of the emotions of freedom crashing like waves. I had to fight it back. Now there was truth, and joy, and freedom, and a closeness to Christ that I had never known was even possible. How could this have been there all along, yet I was too self-interested to see it? The flood of God's Spirit carried away all of that old Armstrongism and I stood there a new man because of it.

I had to start this blog to share this overwhelming flood of joy with you. I want to share the Christ I now know with you. This isn't paganism. This isn't "worldy". This isn't Satan's deception. I never knew there was a whole community of people who had gone before me into this joy, and we all say the same things! They have been supportive to me. They have accepted me without question or condition. And they have one mind with me that we should spread the love of Jesus Christ, Head over all things to those who love Him, to all of those people who want to find Him, but are trapped in fear by Herbert Armstrong.

I know your fear. I shared it once with you. Now my old friends talk about me and wonder "why?" and say things like 'I was never called'. BAH! What do they know about me? I didn't leave them. I call out to them! Brothers, we were all deceived! Read this blog and see for yourself! Read your Bibles without the veil of Armstrongism and see for yourself!

And that, dearly loved by Christ, is why this blog exists. Please stay and read and let's help each other walk freely and boldly into the New Covenant.

The Lord bless you and keep you! Make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you! The Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace! (NUM. 6: 22-27)

Three Times in the Year - Part 2

In history, three times, not just one but three times each year, the Jews were to be at the one and only one place where God put His name. Hundreds of thousands of dispersed Jews from all around the Mediterranean arrived in Jerusalem each year to celebrate these three pilgrimage festivals, hence we see so many people gathered for Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2: 5-11.

What was that place? Where is the place where the Lord put His name? Was it Jerusalem? Close, but not exactly. 

It was the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies, which was at first carried in the tent of meeting and then located in the temple in Jerusalem. We know from I Kings chapters 5-8 that Solomon was allowed to build a temple in Jerusalem with a tabernacle within it. A wall of this temple was dug up recently at the Temple Mount. This temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC. A new one was constructed between 535-516 BC, and renovated by Herod the Great in 20 BC.

But the veil separating us from the Holy of Holies was torn in two (MATT. 27: 51). Then in 70 AD the temple was destroyed altogether (MATT. 24: 1-2). This physical tabernacle - it was a symbol of something greater to come (JOHN 2: 13-21). Christ now serves at the tabernacle in Heaven, not the alter in Jerusalem (HEB. 8: 1-5).

Herbert Armstrong, in his desire to follow G. G. Rupert's teachings on the Holy Days, could not quite put back the temple nor ask everyone to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year. He read the verses that clearly state we must go to the place where God put His name, and didn't quite know how to do that. So he interpreted that as saying travel was required, and he taught we must seek out the place where God put His name. (Let alone how he found it too expensive to carefully follow the law and be at this place three times a year; so he changed the law to one time per year.) Let's ask - was travel required? If it was required, then where did the people who lived in Jerusalem travel to? They didn't travel; they stayed home (NEH. 8: 14-16). So travel is not required, nor is it the focus of what's being said. Travel for travel's sake isn't the point; being where the Lord places His name is. They traveled because they were separated.

 

We must ask ourselves, then, where does the Lord place His name now? In the Old Covenant, that place was the Tabernacle of the Temple. Now, in the New Covenant, that place is still the Temple. But where is the Temple? It is in the Spiritual Body of Christ – His Church.

(II COR. 6: 16) 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them and walk among them.  I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”

This is EXACTLY according to prophecy!  In I Chronicles 17, God told David this would happen.

(I CHR. 17: 11-12) 11 And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever.”  

This is a prophecy; the “seed” here, the one who will build the house, is Jesus Christ (GAL. 3: 16).

 (I TIM. 3: 15) the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

There has been no physical Temple for almost 2,000 years. This new place, this new tabernacle, that we carry with us wherever we go, the ONE place where God puts His name, is the one true SPIRITUAL Church! I say true spiritual Church because there is only one, and it is no corporate organization made by men for tax rebates. All who have God's Spirit - be they Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free, Catholic, Protestant, or COG - are part of this Church. God alone knows exactly who these are.

Though we labor with Him, it is the Lord who builds this house (PSA. 127: 1). Today, in the New Covenant, this place where God puts His name is not in some hotel somewhere, nor in some distant city or group of cities. It cannot be discerned by local attractions. We did not and do not search it out ourselves, as if it were some hidden place you had to find; no, we were called to it. Called by the Father God Almighty Himself and brought along by Jesus Christ (JOHN 6: 44-45).  

THEY are doing this – God the Father and Jesus Christ are doing this - not us! This is about God and the Son of His love, Jesus Christ, Head over all things to His Church – not about men, and man’s things, and man’s rules, and man’s thoughts, and man’s organizations and cliques and Feast sites and traditions. This is spirit and this is truth and this is power!

As Psalms and Proverbs say, ‘fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge’. Truly concentrate on Christ as the Head of all things to His Church. Put all physical mindedness aside and concentrate on this truth, that Christ is our Savior and High Priest and ALL authority is given to Him.

Once you have that firmly fixed in your mind, the traditions of men and fantasies of men and the power of men to lord over you will melt away in the freedom and simplicity in Christ Jesus. Just like Peter as he sat in prison, the shackles will simply fall away and the prison door will open. And He will put His Spirit all the more in you, that Spirit that He gave on Pentecost day (should you want it); then He and our Father will dwell in you and help you. And they most surely will bring you into their Kingdom.

Brothers and sisters, loved more than words can express by the true God, YOU ARE THAT TEMPLE of the Living God!  YOU ARE THAT HOUSE Christ has built!  YOU ARE THAT PLACE where God places His name!  You need go NOWHERE! You are no longer separated! That place has come to you! And not three times a year, but every second of every minute of every day throughout the year and into eternity! If that Spirit of love and joy and reconciliation is truly within you, open your heart to God and SEE! See how far greater the New Covenant is beyond the Old. See how the old law has been magnified to a degree I can scarcely articulate to you! Put away your apprehension and step boldly into the freedom of the New Covenant!

Three Times in the Year - Part 1

Herbert Armstrong taught the 7 Old Covenant Holy Days were commanded for us today, and necessary for salvation. He taught that we cannot understand God's plan without them. Did he get them right?

From the time the Israelites left Egypt there was one place where the Lord could be found; until the time when the veil of the Holy of Holies was torn in two there was only one place where the Lord could be worshiped. At first, there was the pillar of fire and the cloud, then Mt. Sinai, then the Ark of the Covenant, then the Tent of Meeting, then the Temple. Later, the temple was rebuilt by Zechariah, and a new one was built by Herod. God specifically chose one and only one place from all of Israel in order to emphasize the differences between His true worship and that false worship of the pagan nations (DEU. 12: 5).

This does not mean “seek a new place each fall”. It meant to seek one place, and that place was sought, and it was eventually found in Jerusalem, though previously it was in Shiloh. And the way it was found was most certainly not by looking for the best hotel rates and local attractions. This one place was chosen by God. The place indicated to David for Solomon to build God's temple was also the place Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac, thus it was predetermined by God to be the place of His temple.

All of the people if Israel had to be present at this one place.

(DEU. 12: 13-14) 13 Take heed to yourself that you do not offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see; 14 but in the place which the LORD chooses, in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you.

Here God makes it perfectly clear, there was to be ONE place in ONE of the tribes’ land. There was not a temple in each of the tribe's lands (even though there were meeting places and eventually Synagogues). There was but one temple and one place at which the Lord's presence could be said to remain.

This one place was the location where the Holy Days were kept. To this one place the Israelites traveled to rejoice before God. It was forbidden to do this anywhere else (DEU. 12: 17-18).

The festival tithe items were not to be used in just any place (DEU. 12: 26). But if those items could not be easily transported to this one worship place, they could be sold and the money taken to the one and only worship place. Those holy offerings belong to God and were to be burned up, eaten by the priests, or eaten by the person who offered. But the festival tithe could be eaten, or sold and exchanged for what can be eaten – this makes no difference to God. The important part is that those tithes and offerings made it to this one and only place where God put His name (DEU. 14: 22-25).

Now God begins to explain when these holy meeting days that require being at the place where God puts His name will occur. Unleavened Bread is mentioned first, and it was to be kept only in the one place. You may only see Passover mentioned. Many Jews call the entire period "Passover", whereas the xCOGs do not.

(DEU 16: 1-8) Unleavened Bread

1 “Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover to the LORD your God, for in the month of Abib the LORD your God brought you out of Egypt by night. 2 Therefore you shall sacrifice the Passover to the LORD your God, from the flock and the herd, in the place where the LORD chooses to put His name. 3 You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, that is, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), that you may remember the day in which you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life. 4 And no leaven shall be seen among you in all your territory for seven days, nor shall any of the meat which you sacrifice the first day at twilight remain overnight until morning.

5 “You may not sacrifice the Passover within any of your gates which the LORD your God gives you; 6 but at the place where the LORD your God chooses to make His name abide, there you shall sacrifice the Passover at twilight, at the going down of the sun, at the time you came out of Egypt. 7 And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the LORD your God chooses, and in the morning you shall turn and go to your tents. 8 Six days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a sacred assembly to the LORD your God. You shall do no work on it.

Being at this one place was required for the Passover.  Next comes Pentecost.

(DEU. 16: 9-12) Pentecost

9 “You shall count seven weeks for yourself; begin to count the seven weeks from the time you begin to put the sickle to the grain. 10 Then you shall keep the Feast of Weeks to the LORD your God with the tribute of a freewill offering from your hand, which you shall give as the LORD your God blesses you. 11 You shall rejoice before the LORD your God, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite who is within your gates, the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are among you, at the place where the LORD your God chooses to make His name abide. 12 And you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and you shall be careful to observe these statutes.

Being at this one place was required for Pentecost.

Passover and Pentecost were kept in the exact same place as the Feast of Tabernacles. People were present at that one place for all three of these Holy Days, NOT JUST ONE!

(DEU 16: 13-15) Tabernacles

13 “You shall observe the Feast of Tabernacles seven days, when you have gathered from your threshing floor and from your winepress. 14 And you shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant and the Levite, the stranger and the fatherless and the widow, who are within your gates. 15 Seven days you shall keep a sacred feast to the LORD your God in the place which the LORD chooses, because the LORD your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you surely rejoice.

Verse 16 is a summary of verses 1-15. Again God emphasizes these three Holy Days. Again He emphasizes how being at this one destination was necessary.

(DEU. 16: 16) 16 Three times a year all your males shall appear before the LORD your God in the place which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles

At every one of the seven Holy Days, we were read to from this verse, Deuteronomy 16: 16.  We were told how we must never arrive at church services without money to give because God requires us all to make an offering at each of the seven holy days.  Did anyone ask why all of the burnt offerings were fulfilled, but these? And where in the law does a burnt offering become a money offering?

But that was seven times; not three. So we were told these were three holy day "seasons" spoken of here. Biblically, this simply is not so. This is odd to me, that a church which goes to such great lengths to teach Jesus was dead for 72 literal hours would not go to equal lengths to prove this is not speaking of "seasons" but three very literal Holy Days, mentioned by name in Deuteronomy 16. But that isn't the only place we can look.  Check Exodus 34 as well.

(EXO. 34: 18-24) 18 The Feast of Unleavened Bread you shall keep. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, in the appointed time of the month of Abib; for in the month of Abib you came out from Egypt. 19 All that open the womb are Mine, and every male firstborn among your livestock, whether ox or sheep. 20 But the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb. And if you will not redeem him, then you shall break his neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem.  And none shall appear before Me empty-handed. 21 Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; in plowing time and in harvest you shall rest. 22 And you shall observe the Feast of Weeks [Pentecost], of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering [Tabernacles] at the year’s end. 23 Three times in the year all your men shall appear before the Lord, the LORD God of Israel. 24 For I will cast out the nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither will any man covet your land when you go up to appear before the LORD your God three times in the year.

It is well known to the Jews that God meant three specific Holy Days required them being at the place where God put His name. But that doesn't bring in the 7 holy day offerings. By adding to God's very specific law, and taking away from it, Herbert Armstrong broke the very law he said is required for salvation.

(DEU. 12: 1) 1 “These are the statutes and judgments which you shall be careful to observe in the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you to possess, all the days that you live on the earth.

(DEU. 12: 32) Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.

[to be continued]

God HATES Religion

It's true! God hates religion. I know of a guy who believes he can prove it.

Don't worry, it's not as bad as you might initially think. That's some sensational and eye-catching tag-line there, isn't it though? I learned from an advertising master.

Now, odd as this may seem, I am going to link you out to a COG splinter group's website to listen to a 5-part audio series entitled "Why God Hates Religion" by Fred Coulter.  If this doesn't open your eyes to the fact that Herbert Armstrong was in error, I certianly don't know what will.  Even though I do not agree with every last minute detail of what Mr. Coulter says, I found this sermon series to be more than worthwhile.

This was watershed stuff for me. I hope it is watershed stuff for you too.

The Two Babylons

Friends and fellows still in a Church of God, I would like to ask you to think through something with me. This is something that has troubled me for many years. I don't mean to trouble you, but to maybe show you something you may or may not have otherwise been aware of before now.

Have you heard of or read the book "The Two Babylons"? If you've heard of it, you know that it formed the base of Herbert Armstrong's interpretation of prophecy. If there is a foundation, in my opinion, that foundation is British-Israelism. The first layer built upon that foundation, as I see it, is The Two Babylons. 

If you are unfamiliar with the book (I don't see how that could be possible, but in the off chance) that is where the idea of the Catholic Church being 'Babylon the Great' came from. Other terms you may be familiar with came from there, such as "Babylonian Mystery Religion" and "Daughter Churches". See, the idea, in summation, is that the Catholic Church is not a Christian church at all, but is an ancient Babylonian pagan religion, started by Nimrod himself, filled with mystery rites and such which eventually incorporated some Christian ideas, and was the 'mother' of the Protestant churches. God supposedly calls it "the Great Harlot", and is supremely angry with the Pope and all of his followers direct and indirect. The Pope is the Little Horn of Daniel and is destined to become the False Prophet of Revelation. Hence the main reason why the COGs are so very much opposed to the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches.

Enough overview... you get the idea. Those are very much core teachings in the xCOGs. I am personally only aware of one minister in all of the various splinters who does not base his prophetic interpretations on it.

Long story short(er), I wanted to ask if you personally believe this book to be inspired? If so, do you know why you believe so? 

Until a few years ago I believed the teachigs to be inspired - but, then again, I hadn't read the book until a few years ago. When I read the book I noticed some strange things. 

Primarily, I noticed it made the entirity of prophecy about the Catholic Church (the negative stuff, anyway). How can the only "bad guy" in all of prophecy be the Catholic Church? It didn't add up. Here we are supposed to have a Beast power and a False Prophet, but the Pope is the 11th and most powerful horn of the Beast and the False Prophet at the same time? 

How can the Beast, owing its power to the Pope, hate the Catholic Church and burn it with fire (REV. 17: 16), yet the Beast and the Pope are both together at the end and thrown into the Lake of Fire together (REV. 19: 20)? How can Revelation 18: 23 be about the Catholic Church when it has no 'merchants'? Why does REV. 18: 11-19 say the merchants and shipmen weap over the Catholic Church; are the Catholics the only ones who buy the goods listed in verses 12 & 13?

These are just some of the questions I have asked. But more importantly, do you know who wrote "The Two Babylons"? His name was Alexander Hyslop. He first published a pamphlet in 1853, which he greatly expanded upon in 1858. Did you know that he was a Presbyterian minister? Now, I ask you to think about that with me for a minute here. If the Catholic Church is "the Great Harlot" and "Mother of Harlots", then all Protestant Churches are harlots, right? Doesn't that mean the Presbyterian church is a 'harlot' as well? Why is a Presbyterian minister, self-proclaimed minister of harlotry, writing an inspired work? Do you, as a practicing member of the Church of God, believe any work by Protestants to be inspired? Then how do you explain this? Please think that through in your mind for a bit.

I would have you know more about Alexander Hyslop. If he wrote his pamphlet in 1853, then he certainly did his research in the 1840's. Did you know that the city of Babylon lay buried in sand until 1899 when archaeologist Robert Koldewey began unearthing it? That was a half-century later! Did you know that according to the best information we have available today, Nimrod and Semiramis (his supposed mother and wife) didn't even live in the same century? Where, then did Hyslop get his information? Most of what he needed to make such in-depth analysis and far-reaching conclusions about ancient history was completely unavailable to him. How did he get anything he concluded then? By human reasoning within his own mind. Basically, he took numerology and ancient mythology and arrived at his own conclusions. 

One Mr. Ralph Woodrow, once a firm believer in and promoter of Hyslop, was challenged to prove what he held to. The result was a book entitled "The Babylon Connection". In it he shows how Hyslop was more than just mistaken - in some places he was fraudulently incorrect. That means he puposefully falsified information. Mr. Woodrow went back and read the books Hyslop supposedly based his theories on and concluded they most certainly do not support Hyslop. I suggest you read "The Babylon Connection".

For more information, see the Wikipedia article on The Two Babylons.

Will you, dearly loved by God, spend some serious meditation time on this? Will you consider that the truth cannot come from fraud? No fountain can give pure water and filth. And then will you humbly and soberly consider the nature of Mr. Herbert Armstrong who promoted Hyslop's book and even based most of what he taught on it? You owe it to yourself and your family to go before God and ask for the truth of this to be clearly shown to you. I will be here to help you, and so are many other people available to help you, should you decide you need it.

The Ten Horns

I would like to ask some tough questions about our understanding of the Holy Roman Empire as it was taught to us by HWA. I do not have all the answers, but I do have some questions. If I’m going to study who Babylon the Great is, and certainly I found the teaching to be in need of some revision, I might as well ask about this too.

Could it be the description of Rome as the fourth beast of Daniel 7 (the seventh head of Rev. 13) was incorrect? Could it be that we were taught to WATCH intensely in one direction, but that direction isn’t the right one? Could it be that history doesn’t agree with HWA's traditional interpretation of the prophetic beasts – and therefore we need to study our Bibles again on a subject we thought we already knew?

I would like to quote from a booklet entitled “Who Is the BEAST?” by Herbert W. Armstrong (1960 edition). I will quote HWA, then respond with my own opinions.

 “The text says one of his HEADS was wounded to death.”

Yes, ONE of his heads was wounded, NOT the entire beast! If only the head was wounded, then why did the Western Roman Empire fall in its entirety? Think of that in terms of Greece. We know Greece had four divisions. If Greece is the third beast, and historically two of its four heads (Cassander and Lysimachus) were absorbed by a third (Seleucus) and the fourth (Ptolemy) was in constant battle with the third, then why didn’t the entire Greek beast die when TWO of its heads were lopped off and the other two fought bitterly? But we are to believe that the one head of the fourth beast is wounded, and that equals the downfall of Rome – the ENTIRE fourth Beast from Daniel’s perspective? Remember, we’re just talking about ONE head here. And why did the Eastern Empire remain in tact? Can half of a head die? Can half a beast die?

“The BEAST INCLUDED THE SEVEN HEADS and the TEN HORNS.”

Notice this as well, ALL ten horns are part of the Roman beast. We’re about to see this exact statement turned around in the next paragraph. 

 

“John sees the beast living in the days of its seventh head, the Roman Empire. And when that HEAD of the beast had its deadly wound, HIS -- the beast's -- deadly wound was healed. The horns now reign, one by one.” 

OK, note closely what is said here… AFTER the wound is healed, the ten horns begin to reign. This will also be turned around in the next paragraph.

“The Roman empire in Northern Africa was overrun by the Vandals, who sacked Rome in 455.”

BUT the Vandals were neither Roman, NOR part of the Roman Empire. They weren’t the first to invade. They only captured the North African portion of Rome, not all of the Western Empire. And the capital of the Western Empire at that time was Revenna, not Rome. So capturing Rome didn’t mean too much. It would be like capturing Philadelphia and declaring the capital of America has fallen. The Vandals also quickly withdrew, keeping only the island of Sicily.

“Then in 476 Odoacer set up his government at Rome, called the HERULI”

This is incorrect. Odoacer set up his government at Ravenna, NOT Rome.

“But it did not heal the deadly wound, for this was a government IN Rome. It was not a ROMAN government, but one of foreign barbarians.” 

I hope you caught that. Although they ruled in Italy (Rome was more than just Italy) the Heruli were also neither Roman NOR part of the Roman Empire. By his own criteria they are not a horn! "ALL ten horns are part of the Roman beast"

“Then there was the kingdom of the Ostrogoths, 493-554, another outside foreign people who ruled in the territory. But they were driven out of Italy and disappeared.”

Here we have a third Barbarian kingdom (Barbarians were not Roman; probably Assyrian according to HWA) ruling in Italy only but were neither Roman nor of the Roman Empire.

“These three kingdoms, sweeping into the Roman territory, filled the period known in history as the ‘transition age.’ (See Myers' Ancient History, page 571.) That is, a TRANSITION between the wound and the healing.”

**Mr. Armstrong confirms this information in his own hand. The Vandals, Heruli, and Ostrogoths were not Rome! Also, they ruled before the wound was healed! Remember? "...the beast's -- deadly wound was healed. The horns now reign, one by one." And since this is the case, according to Mr. Armstrong’s qualifier they cannot count as horns of Rome!!**

What’s more is Mr. Armstrong completely ignores the fact that the city of Rome was not the Roman capital at that time, Ravenna was. The capital was moved by Emperor Honorius in 402. And he completely ignores the first sacking of Rome and the following invasion by the Visigoths (meaning Western Goths - not to be confused with the Vandals) in 408-410. The Goths went on to remove Britain, Spain, and France from Roman control by 423. This is years before the Vandal invasion in 455! In fact, it was the Visigoths that drove the Vandals out of Europe and into North Africa in the first place. Why then aren’t the Visigoths counted as a horn? They did an awful lot more than the Vandals did. The answer - because they don’t fit the theory! This information does not fit the theory proposed by Alexander Hislop, so it is overlooked.

“Now Daniel saw a ‘little horn’ coming up AMONG these ten, before whom these first three were "plucked up by the roots."

Two things here are incredibly important. First, the little horn comes up among the other 10 (not the other three). The Pope preceded these people by a couple hundred years officially (and by Armstrong's own theology, the Pope was an ancient Babylonian thing). He didn’t come up among the groups here mentioned. Secondly THE VANDALS, HERULI, AND OSTROGOTHS COULD NOT BE THE FIRST THREE HORNS!!! They aren’t horns to be plucked up!!! They don’t count!!!

“That leaves 7 horns to come.”

NO!! It leaves 11 horns to come!! The little horn has not been identified, nor have his 10 companions.

“And of the little horn, Daniel 7 says ‘his look was more stout than his fellows.’ The papacy dominated completely all the horns to follow.”

No, it didn’t! Neither Justinian – maker of Popes, nor Napoleon who crowned himself, nor Hitler’s Third Reich (or, if you would like, Mussolini’s Italy according to HWA because I have shown you where HWA said the Beast was not Hitler's) were dominated by Rome. Besides this fact, did anyone consider it WASN’T the papacy who plucked up the Vandals, the Herulii, or the Ostrogoths? But actually the Vandals plucked themselves up (assisted by the Visigoths), the Herulii were plucked up by the Ostrogoths, and the Ostrogoths were plucked up by Emperor Justinian – NOT THE POPE!!! The pope wasn’t too terribly involved!!! From what I see, prophetically the little horn is not the Pope, he is IMHO the end-time King of the North, and the final Beast king - I could be wrong.

 

“The Deadly Wound HEALED"

"It was the fourth kingdom (symbolized by the fourth horn),”

But this is contrary to everything he said previous to this point!! According to what was said at the start, we can’t start counting off horns until AFTER the wound is healed! So at best this is the first horn!

“succeeding the fall of the Empire in 476, which really HEALED the deadly wound, and restored the EMPIRE.”

This brings us back to the wounding of the head. Is the East the fourth beast/seventh head, or is the West? How can only half of a head die? How can only half of a beast die? Why aren’t there TWO heads for the Roman beast? There are two kings, two capitols, and two separate kingdoms! They were linked through a common history before 395AD, but completely separate from one another after 395AD. And this remained so, even after this “healing”! Or is only the West the beast? HWA says 'yes'. These are questions I don’t have the answer to.

“In A.D. 554, Justinian, Emperor of the East, from Constantinople, set up his government through an Imperial Legate at Ravenna, Italy, and brought about what is known in history as the "Imperial Restoration" of the Empire.”

It may have been the imperial restoration, but think about this detail – if the Western Roman Empire is the beast in question here, not the East, then it is now not healed but conquered completely by the Eastern Roman Empire. Justinian ruled from Constantinople, not Rome. Legate or no it was a vassal. The western beast isn’t healed, the western beast is DEAD! How did the beast move from Greece to Rome in the first place? Rome absorbed Greece. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that the beast is now in the East? And according to one of his earliest statements, THIS is where the ten horns should BEGIN to reign one by one, “And when that HEAD of the beast had its deadly wound, HIS -- the beast's -- deadly wound was healed. The horns now reign, one by one.” So why do we look to the Holy Roman Empire as a continuation of the beast, and not to the Byzantine Empire?

That the Holy Roman Empire is the ten toes seems very unlikely. It doesn’t fit the pattern of the Bible. The empires, some very small and rather insignificant to the world, were completely insignificant to the area of Judea. The Bible focuses on that area mainly. Focusing on the Hapsburg dynasty isn’t typical. Similar to that would be focusing on the Mongol invasion of Europe. It doesn’t add up.

Also, there were more than just seven “restorations” of the Holy Roman Empire. It was always a difficult point to make that the seven remaining horns were the Holy Roman Empire. What complicated this even further is that we have seen there aren’t merely seven horns left, there are ten, and one little horn, totaling eleven. Many things have to be overlooked in order to fit this in, and that just isn’t right. 

If you really want to complicate matters further, read Daniel 2. In the statue dream, all ten toes exist at the same time and they are all smashed by the returning Christ. Jesus didn’t return at the end of each restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. Now read Revelation 13: 11-14, and Revelation 17: 9-13, & 16-17: this clearly states the final beast (which seriously appears to be the little horn and the King of the North both) and the ten horns all exist contemporaneously. This matches Daniel 7: 24 which states the little horn will come up in the presence of the other ten. Speaking of Daniel 7, verses 11-12 states the fourth beast was destroyed, but the other three remained for a season and a time. Put those together and we cannot have a little horn coming up separate from and thousands of years before the other ten.

I believe that HWA’s interpretation of the beasts was flawed by a very charismatic interpretation of the Bible found in Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons. I believe that Mr. Armstrong was sincere in wanting to understand. The fact of the matter is that it simply wasn’t (and isn't) time for God to reveal the meanings of the prophecies. Never the less, Mr. Armstrong’s description simply does not fit the account of the fourth beast of Dan. 7, or the beast of Rev. 13. The area of the Western Roman Empire may yet be the area of the fourth beast of Dan. 7 and the seventh head of Rev. 13. But maybe it isn’t! Has anyone checked to see if other nations or empires fit better? THEN WE HAVE NOT WATCHED! We have not PROVED! We have speculated and theorized, observed and opined, overlooked and rearranged, debated and accepted – but like a politician, we are long on words and short on real action. How can this please God?

I don’t have all the answers, I don’t even have a viable alternative save the nature of the Beast closely resembles the plans of the Muslim nations. But there’s no denying the traditional description is flawed. And I believe it to be fatally flawed because we tried to fit history to the theory put forth in the book The Two Babylons when we should have been fitting our beliefs to the Bible.

Clean/Unclean For Noah?

I certainly wonder how I came to believe what I did while I was a practicing Armstrongist.  One of the biggest parts of my life was following the meats laws.  One of the last things I studied before the scales fell from my eyes was meats laws.  I could not prove it without referring to my own (HWA inspired) thinking.  One popular argument was, "Meats laws were kept by Noah; therefore we must keep them."  Directly springing from this is the claim "Pig was never meant for human digestion."  Is this true?  Please look through this with me.

In the beginning, God created all things very good.

(GEN. 1: 31) “31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.”

Many people claim certain animals were an abomination to God from the start, but that isn’t Biblically so.  God proclaimed all things ‘very good’. This claim is to bolster the case that clean and unclean meats for food were known from the beginning.

Originally, both man and animal were only given plants as a food source by God.

(GEN. 1: 29-30) 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

God gave Adam and Eve every tree that grew in the Garden of Eden to eat from, except one.

(GEN. 2: 15-17) 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Because Adam and Eve did not obey, the ground’s productivity was cursed.

(GEN. 3: 17-19) 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

The error persists that God gave Adam animals for food.  This is absolutely not determined from a reading of the Bible text.  Three times God tells Adam that he may eat plants.  He allows Adam to eat animals zero times. This persists until the day Noah came out of the Ark.

Why would Abel have flocks if not for food?  We don’t know.  Perhaps God allowed them to be milked and shorn and used as beasts of burden, but not eaten.  It doesn’t say; except that the words of the Bible do not show that any animal was given to man for food at this time.  Abel used the animals for sacrifice – that is shown.  Abel sacrificed only animals, and only his best, and with faith.  Cain sacrificed plants, but not his best, and without faith.

(GEN. 4: 3-5) 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Here, the word "flock" is Strong's 6629, which almost always refers to sheep/goats (as opposed to pigs or cows, etc).  Notice that Cain’s sacrifice was otherwise acceptable to God.  It was the lack of faith in his attitude that really caused the issue.  

(HEB. 11: 4) “4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain”.  It was a lack of faith that caused Cain to disregard the sacrifice.

Many people claim that Cain was not accepted because he did not sacrifice sheep.  God doesn’t indicate that anywhere.  Grain and wine were often offered as burnt sacrifices, for example in the Grain Offering, Peace Offering, Sin Offering, and the New Moon Offering.  But this wasn’t a burnt sacrifice like we see being given by the Levitical Priesthood.  This was  most likely a freewill offering.  All freewill offerings included flour and oil.  Perhaps when we read that Cain brought the “fruit of the land”, we think “he brought fruit.”  That is not necessarily so.  He merely brought what the land produced.  That could have been wheat and oil and grapes.  We simply don’t know.  Point being, to say “Cain didn’t bring sheep, so God was angry” is not Biblically sound.

God taught Adam and his family the ways God desired to be worshiped for that time, including what is right from wrong for that time, and those same ways were moved forward thousands of years later.  This is completely in line with all Jewish understanding of the Torah.  Even the Jews, who have studied and preserved the Torah for 4,000 years, say Noah had no meats law given to him.

The xCOGs often quote Romans 3: 2 when they wish to bolster a belief they hold.  However, I doubt they will hold that verse up in this instance.  I do not claim the Jews are always right by any means.  But in this case, there is no evidence to doubt them with.

Why would Abel sacrifice the exact animal Moses was told to sacrifice over two thousand years later?  We cannot know for sure.  The logical answer is not that the laws of Moses existed at that time.  Paul tells us the law was given 430 years after Abraham (GAL. 3: 17), and God tells us the sacrifice laws were added after that (JER. 7: 22).  The logical answer is because God knows what symbol He prefers to use for Jesus Christ’s sacrifice.

The story of Noah displays the knowledge of clean and unclean animals prior to the flood.

(GEN. 7: 1-3) 1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean [ceremonially pure; Strong's 2889] animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean [not clean; Strong's 2889] animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

CLEAN [Strong’s 2889, Heb. Tahor, from 2891]: pure (in a physical, chemical, ceremonial, or moral sense):- clean, fair, pure (-ness).

[Strong’s 2891, Heb. Taher]: to be bright, i.e. (by implication) to be pure (physically sound, clear, unadulterated; in Leviticus uncontaminated; morally innocent or holy): be (to make, make one’s self, pronounce) clean, cleanse (self), purge, purify (-ier, self).

Everyone knows Noah took the animals two-by-two, but what’s usually omitted is that he took 7 pairs of “clean” animals but only 2 pairs of “unclean” ones.  These animals on the Ark may have been filthy with mud and what not, but that isn’t what God was referring to here by “clean”. Obviously it was a condition of un-holiness, or rather ceremonial un-cleanliness, in which they existed.  There was indeed the knowledge both of ceremonially clean and unclean animals before Sinai, but they were for sacrifice (although the purpose of the sacrifice is not specified).  The Bible simply does not give animals for food yet.

These animals are not to be understood as unclean for consumption; no animal is given to man at this point in history for food, clean or otherwise.  What Noah ate – his food law – just as it was for Adam, was plants.  This indicates that the ceremonial impurity of animals for sacrifice existed before the Law was given to Israel, but after Adam sinned. 

(GEN. 6: 21) “21 And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them.”

Now pay close attention to the very first thing that Noah does when he steps off the Ark:

(GEN. 8: 20-21) 20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.

These animals were not clean for food, they were clean for sacrifice!  And they pleased God’s heart.

Still yet, up to this point, God had only given plants to eat.  This was the law for both man and animal.  When the flood receded, Noah left the Ark and sacrificed clean animals to God.  Only then did God give animals to man for food.

(GEN. 9: 1-4) 1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing7431 [from 7430 a reptile or any other rapidly moving animal: - that creepeth, creeping (moving) thing.]  that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

God gives “everything that lives and moves” as food to mankind, except that nothing with its blood still in it may be eaten.  Many argue, “Everything… except the unclean animals.”  There are no such exceptions here.  “Moving thing” comes from a root word that specifically includes reptiles – all of which are forbidden in Mosaic law.  The clean animals were clean for sacrifice; clean for food does not factor in here.  He clearly says “everything”.  The original Hebrew word for “everything” really means “whole”, meaning the total sum, and is often translated “all” and “every”.  Anyone who says otherwise is not letting the Bible interpret the Bible.  God makes certain in the next verses that a misinterpretation cannot be made here, that perhaps someone might think this includes the right to cannibalism.  Man, therefore, is the only exception.

The xCOGs would never fail to argue, “God didn’t mean everything when He said ‘everything’.  Obviously He didn’t intend Noah to eat Black Widow spiders.  God gave all the green herbs, but did He mean poison ivy?”  Perhaps not.  Do we know those terrible things even existed back then?  In all honesty, that’s not an apples to apples comparison.  Comparing pigs which do not so much as have a poison gland to something poisonous which undoubtedly will kill you if you ingest it is not a fair comparison.  But this is all human reasoning, not relying on the Bible.  If we want to be semantic about it, the Bible says “as the green herbs”.  Were there clean and unclean green herbs?  No.  So when Armstrongism argues we shouldn't eat poison ivy, don't forget that poison ivy is not unclean!

Before the flood, no animals were given to man as food.  Now, ALL animals are given to man as food.  No exceptions are mentioned by God but man himself.  This was done by necessity, as there were few plants to eat.  It should be pointed out, however, that a few pairs of the clean animals would have been eaten first, since there were enough pairs to spare, until the rapidly-mating unclean animals could multiply.  Don’t forget that predatory animals would also need those clean pairs (they can’t eat the unclean ones or if they did you wouldn’t ever know they existed).  And 7 pairs, minus one pair used in sacrifice, minus one more pair that must survive, leaves 4 pairs of animals to last them and all the predatory animals.  That’s not a lot.  Eating unclean meats would have been a necessity.  This does not affect the ceremonial status of “unclean” animals for the purposes of sacrifice, however.

A Brief Encouragement

Unfortunately, the purpose of this blog makes the general discussion rather negative.  I want very much to be positive right now, and hopefully share Christ with you a bit and give you some real hope (not like the false hope that requires me convincing you of doom and gloom first).

I believe that Jesus Christ was indeed with the Father in the very beginning, and that through Him all things were created.  There is a good debate over at As Bereans Did about this if you disagree with me.  Jesus Christ and our Father planned and designed us.  It was their goal to have a family and to share all that they have - all things that are and ever will be - with you.  We know that all good things are from the Father of Light; so all He has to share with you is going to be good and goodness.

Now, this being that we know as Jesus Christ, being the Creator, knew ahead of time there was a possibility we would sin.  It didn't have to be, but it was likely. I would tend to believe it is better in the long run that we did, and got it all out of the way now.  Having bound Himself by His own name to charge all mankind who sin with the death penalty, He also knew there would be no hope for us, and no reason to bother creating us.  For love's sake, and for hope's sake, since He loved you so incredibly much, He asked permission to take that penalty upon Himself.  He volunteered to stand in for us and take every bit of that penalty upon Himself.  This was exactly what the Father needed; now there was hope; and He agreed.  Not because we loved Him, but because He so loved us. 

And when the time came, Jesus Christ, being a God and eternal, set asside all of that.  As if He folded His glory up like a shirt and put it asside.  Here is a being who possesses all things - He created all things that were created - and now He just hands it all over without so much as a plug nickel of payment.  For what? For you.

He came to this earth as a man, He hurt and He sweat and He stunk and He hungered as a man. He cried and He felt loss and He earned His living and He had no roof over His head at times, like a man.  He burned in the fire of time as we do.  His own siblings had no faith in Him.  His best friends did not understand Him.  One of them He knew would betray Him to death - a most horrible death.  And He submitted to it all.  For what?  For you.  

Oh, He could have come as a pampered brat and died more peacefully than He did.  But hundreds of years before, He inspired the prophets to tell of the very terrible things that would happen to Him.  Like a lamb before the slaughter, He accepted it all in silence; never complaining.  Why?  Because of His overwhelming love for you.

And then came the time when He would have to submit to the punishment He volunteered to. It wasn't so easy a thing. He felt the carnal pull of self-preservation. His mortal body loved life. Though He knew exactly what awaited, and saw death from a perspective we cannot currently understand, He feared. He prayed for another way, and He sweat great drops of blood! But He would not remit. There was no other way. At the time of Abraham He swore by Himself because He could swear by none Higher that He would do this.

And then - for the very first time in all eternity - there was only the Father. He was alone. That great being, that eternal Creator and mastermind of life... was no longer. And He did that for you.

But here is hope. Not that the world is going to burn with you on it. Not that banks will crash and the Beast will rage and the rocks will not hide. No. But that exactly as prophecied in Jonah, God the Father resurrected the dead to eternal life. Now, think about this for a bit... the Father resurrected a God being!  Now that is something! How much more, then, could He resurrect you? Because He loves you. Because He would die for you. Nothing that is or was or will be can stop Him. And you are a part of that if you only accept it. No man need come between you and God.  Just allow Christ to take part in your life; to guide you and teach you and sometimes correct you. He has done it all, and He will do it all. Why? Because He loves you.

That's all.  Just love.  It all boils down to love.

The Plain Error

I just wanted to go over a few things with you.  Many people call Herbert Armstrong (the initial "W." didn't stand for anything) the "End-time Elijah".  He was the prophet and Apostle of the Worldwide Church of God, and thus all of the xCOGs.  Even though he himself denied being a prophet, he sure proclaimed more than his fair share of prophetic interpretations and made a few prophecies of his own.  But were they accurate?

Many people go to the booklet "1975 In Prophecy" to show he was a false prophet.  But there are many excuses a person can make involving that.  There is a good chance that wasn't his material; he never said those things were certain; etc, etc.  So I decided to see for myself what other things he had said in the past.  I went to Herbert-W-Armstrong.org and read their collection of mimeographed Plain Truth magazines.  Is there any other evidence of his accuracy, or lack thereof?

Before I start, please read this verse:(DEU. 18: 22)"when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."  That's some pretty hefty stuff there!  Now, read verse 20 of the same chapter: (DEU. 18: 20) "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die."  Oh.   ....

That means this is very serious stuff here.  I'm not talking "I think tomorrow it will rain.", or "Christ is coming soon.", or even "This is the end-time."  All of those things are some form of telling the future or the other.  But God isn't interested in all that.  What God is referring to is the person who speaks in His name, claiming to be someone sent by God, perhaps claiming a title of some form, perhaps being a fulfillment of prophecy himself, and this person has a message for you to follow.   Unfortunately, Herbert Armstrong fit all of those things.

It is incumbent upon us, as faithful followers of God, to prove all things (ACT. 17: 11; I THS. 5: 21), and to test the spirits (I JOHN 4: 1).  If God says that a false prophet is a big deal to Him, it should be a big deal to us. God says, a false prohet must not be feared (respected).

So, what then?  If I show you, from Mr. Armstrong's own pen, or even from Garner Ted's as well, will you do what God has set before you to do?  Will you accept that Herbert Armstrong wasn't a man who made one mistake in 1975, but has a pattern from the beginning of claiming to know the interpretation of prophecy, yet was in fact being utterly wrong?

Please do not misunderstand me.  My goal is not character assassination.  I have no quarrel with Herbert Armstrong personally.  The reason I post this here is to help those people who are trapped in an xCOG and would like to know if leaving is a possible option.  This information helped me greatly.  I post it here as a help to people whom Christ loves deeply, not as some seedy act of vengeance.  These are the things that helped open my eyes and settle the decades of fear that had built up inside me.  I offer it to you in the hopes it will help you.

The following is a summary of what I read in the Plain Truth magazine for the years leading up to and including World War II.  I have added a couple things afterwards to show how the prophecies just kept coming.  Please read them and form your own opinion.

Note: anything preceded by an asterisk *, or surrounded in braces [], is my own comment.

Plain Truth, Feb 1934. 

Page 2 – predicts WWII leads immediately to the Day of the Lord; says “The end is here.”   

Page 3 – the Great Tribulation was already 3 or 4 years started.

Plain Truth, June-July 1934. 

Page 3 – a detailed chart described the Tribulation starting in 1928 and continuing until Jesus’ return in 1936.

Page 4 – “So this is the Tribulation.  We have been in the Tribulation since 1929 in the United States, and 1928 in Europe.”

Page 5 – 1936 is when the time of the Gentiles ends, and is the fulfillment of the prophecies of LEV. 26; plus many more details

Page 6 – Mussolini is the leader of the Beast power, reviving the Roman Empire

Page 7 – relates the “Elijah to come” with the Two Witnesses [IMHO, when he later takes that mantle of Elijah to himself, that also elevates him to one of the Two Witnesses]

Plain Truth, Aug 1934.

*This entire edition basically takes the material of Alexander Hyslop, from his book “The Two Babylons” and rehashes it.  Giving no credit to Hyslop, of course.

Page 1 – the generation alive at 1934 would be the ones to experience the Beast; “the plagues will soon be poured out”; these things will happen “within a matter of months”

Page 3 – the tenth revival of the Roman Empire was being formed by Mussolini

Page 6 – Mussolini has 5 of the 10 nations united already

Plain Truth, March 1935.

Page 1 – “It [prophetic fulfillment] will occur, and fill thousands of columns of magazine and newspaper space, in all probability within the next three or four months.”

*This was in response to a “major prophetic fulfillment” of 1934: the Dust-bowl.  Draught, however, was not what he said would come next.

Page 2 – “The time of God’s wrath --- the last plagues --- is at hand.”; in 1935 the insect prophecies of Joel 1 would be fulfilled; “We face the probability of a food shortage such as has never been known in American history!”; “The present order is Doomed!  Its final destruction…  is now but a matter of months off!”

Page 3 – Mentions Hitler’s secret weapons: the Stratosphere Rocket, the Z-Ray, the All-Piercing Bullet, the Rotative Gun, and The Strange machine gun; “The last plagues… are all here now!”; “The next war will end at Armageddon!  And it may start any hour!”

Page 7 – “…The resurrection must come before the present trouble ends!”

Plain Truth, July 1935.

Page 1 – “Just what is now taking place?  It is the collapse of every institution of man.”

Page 2 – still says Mussolini is raising up the Beast

Page 3 – “Every sign in the world today fulfils the prophecies which tell us we have come to the very last days…”; “…This present civilization is about to be overthrown and completely wiped out!”; “The Gentile nations are at the end of their allotted time.”;
The time is at hand.”

Page 4 – goes on more about Mussolini’s Beast; “Mussolini is starting a war that shall end at Armageddon!  It is the start of the final world war!  It is now starting!  Do you realize it?  It is starting, now!  This war starting now will only end at the second coming of Christ!”

Page 5 – “The Bible foretells every step Mussolini will take in the war now starting against Ethiopia, until he plunges the whole world into war!!  This is undoubtedly the beginning of the expected last world war, that culminates at Armageddon!”; claims 6 of 10 nations are under Mussolini’s power

Page 9 – the king of the south is Etheopia

*Please note at this point, civilization is supposed to come to a screeching halt in 1936!  I can find no record of the Plain Truth for the year 1936.

Plain Truth, Feb. 1938.

Page 2 – “The ‘beast’ then, stands for this Roman government, or for Mussolini individually, as its head.”; “The title ‘Il Duce’ is derived from the Saxon word ‘duce’, meaning ‘demon’.

*At this point, Mussolini is still the Beast leader.

Plain Truth, March 1938.

Page 1 - The Beast is now Hitler and Nazi Germany

*Without skipping a beat, not one mention nor retraction, Hitler is now the Beast leader.

Page 2 – But here the leaders are shown to give their power to Mussolini, this includes Germany and France

Page 6 – A “likely combination” of European nations that could have made up the Beast is listed.  It includes: Germany, France, Austria, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Rumania, and Yugoslavia, Italy is the 11^th nation and head.

Plain Truth, Jan. 1939.

Page 1 – 1936 was the end of “the times of the Gentiles”.

Page 2 – [after the time of the Gentiles] “And now what?  What is next to occur?  World war?  No --- not quite yet.”

*WHAT???  I thought the world war was NOW!, and that was in 1935!

Page 3 -  “Mussolini soon-appearing re-born Roman Empire  is the “Beast” power, and Mussolini undoubtedly is the “Beast”!!; Mussolini will fight Britain

Page 4 – Mussolini will fight Christ, and take Egypt

Page 5 – Mussolini will fight Russia at Armageddon

Plain Truth, Nov. 1939.

Page 1 – “We have been telling our readers consistently that the last prophesied world war --- the war which ends at Armageddon --- will be started by Mussolini (or his successor) and not by Hitler.”; “We have been telling you that the war of 1914-1918 never ended!”

*This wasn’t in the print!

*I give HWA credit here.  This magazine contains some of the only admissions of error I can think of from him.  “This may not, after all, be the “Armageddon War” at all.”

Page 2 – Stalin will meet the Allied powers at Armageddon.

Page 9 – Still claiming Mussolini is the leader of the Beast

Plain Truth, Jan. 1945.

Claiming Franklin D. Roosevelt might be our last President. 

*Sound familiar?  It should if you've read Ron Weinland's false prophecies.

Predicts the doom of the United States and Britain, and the failure of the United Nations

Plain Truth, March-April 1946.

Predicts a showdown in Palestine would spell the demise of either the U.S.S.R. or Britain

Plain Truth, April 1956.

Page 3 “Disease Epidemics Threaten USA in 2 Years”

I can only guess what that must have felt like to watch all of those things HWA said were sure all come to naught.  I know that Gerald Waterhouse said that if Herbert Armstrong died before the end of the age, the Bible is false.  Those are trmendously dangerous things to be teaching.

The reason I find all of this so important that I seem to harp on the idea is that, in his zeal to follow God, there is a possibility that HWA has led people away from God.  Dangerously away!  I find it is impossible for me to sit idly by and say nothing if I could say something at all and help even one person break free from that yoke of Old Covenant legalism and enjoy the invaluable gift of the New Covenant!

Prophecy for Fear and Control

I've spent some time reading Gerald Flurry's ... I mean, the Philadelphia Church of God's ... website, theTrumpet.com. I have to tell you, I see a very disturbing pattern there. Please let me explain.

Take this list of the current headlines as of 9/9/08: "UK Car Sales Crash", "Danger Lurks In America's Backyard", "Banks: Dominoes Ready To Fall", "Russia Attacks".
What do you see about these? They are all negative! Now, I'll readily admit, I chose these because they are negative, and there are several headlines there which are not negative. But I'm trying to prove a point. My point? Gerald Flurry is HWA-redux.

Why so negative? How often have I read "letter to the editor" sections in xCOG magazines where people ask that question. As always, the official respondent tries to smooth it all over by trying to show how it is the duty of the magazine to review the world in all of its aspects, and they try to emphasize how hope is on its way. So, in other words, that's not negativity, that's hope!

That's not hope, that's double-speak; 1984 style.

I am trying to get at a larger point here. But first, I want you to review this website. It is a review of the Plain Truth magazine, from 1934-1970. Please start with the earliest ones. Just review the headlines. You know what I notice? "WAR!", "Dictator", "BEAST", and prophecy - LOTS of prophecy. Now, review the next section. "Prophecy", "Doom", "Danger", "Fate", "Conquer", "Hitler", "War", "Trouble". Again, the same thing: prophecy and negativity.

If you want a fine adventure into the world of false prophecy, read the December 1948 edition entitled "NOW it Can Be Told!". In it, HWA describes how the seeds for World War III were being sown in San Francisco in 1948. The next section of magazines is even more interesting than that. HWA dedicates two magazines to the idea that Hitler was alive and plotting a come-back.
All of these prophecies, negative or not, had no disclaimer. There was no "it is my opinion". No "we could be wrong, but..." They were "prophecies for TODAY!" They were "revealed for the first time in 18 centuries." Yet they were wrong with a frequency unmatched by most politicians. Read them for yourself. No, really! Read those old magazines for yourself. The only way you can possibly have open eyes is to read these things and see for yourself the unbroken flood of false prophecy. Then perhaps you will see that Ronald Weinland, Gerald Flurry, Dave Pack, Rod Merideth, et al, are clones of Herbert Armstrong.

They have learned the formula. Part of it anyway. They just aren't as good of ad-men as HWA was. I'll tell them what they are missing. MORE BOMBAST!! They need FIRE! They need to make some COLOSSAL claims of WONDROUS and SECRET things using colorful phrases like "earth shattering" and "mind boggling"!!!

But what about the prophecy and the negativity is so appealing? Why so often? Why so many very wrong claims? Because - it's an ad; an advertisement! And this formula works. No different than "Your shirts will be NUCLEAR white; so white people will need sunglasses!", or "This herb tincture will cure baldness, regulate your bowels, and lengthen your life!", or "Our news team is the MOST biting, MOST dedicated, MOST up-to-date!", or even "Our beer will get you LOTS of women!"
Why do people advertise? Why, to make money, of course. What was another thing that appears in Herbert Armstrong's works almost as often as prophecy and fear? Requests for cash. And that, my fellows, is the reason for the insistence on tithes, offerings, donations, gifts, etc.

But how does a person keep all that money? Control. Control is what keeps the false prophecies from being challenged. Control keeps the money safely rolling in. Fear and control. A whole web of fear, based on prophecy, created the ripe-conditions and left minds ready for control. Add all the rules you want, make all the demands you care to, the people are under control. No one ever asked "Why is Herbert Armstrong living like a king while I can't afford meat?" Well, no one did without getting disfellowshipped. ...Fear!

Fear of loss. Fear of death. Fear of disfellowshipment. Fear of not qualifying for salvation. Fear of losing salvation. Fear of being condemned to the lake of fire. I am willing to step out on a limb here and say, if you are/were part of Armstrongism, you have wondered "will I be in the second resurrection?" That is fear; fear and doubt. All of this leads to more and more control. All of it is based on a heap of false prophecies.
It makes you afraid, and now you want to avoid that fearful end, so you ask, "What do I do? What do I do???" They were hoping for this very reaction. This is where they step in and say (imagine your best gentlemanly sales voice), "Why, I have the solution! It's quite simple. You just pay me a little bit of money, slip on this yoke to work up some safety, and stick around why don't ya?"
Sounds great to a person in fear! I'll buy a dozen if I can only live! And there you are, paying upwards of 30%+ of your income, a slave to their heavy yoke of bondage, and too afraid to even investigate any alternative.

But what if someone breaks the control and chalenges the leadership? A ready-made excuse is there: only the leadership is inspired by God to understand; everyone else is influenced by Satan. Well, we had better get back in line!

Not convinced? Let me quote to you one typical opening sentence, like many others I have seen and no doubt you have too, from the February-March 1955 Plain Truth magazine: "You ought to be gravely concerned -yes, FRIGHTENED about the conditinos in the world today." That was from an article by Garner Ted Armstrong entitled "WORLD WAR IS HERE - NOW!" And that was in 1955. Now, friends and fellows, why should we have been frightened? Let me ask you this - did Christ ever preach this way? Did He go to Galilee and proclaim "BE FRIGHTENED!"? Do the Apostles preach such things? No. It's all an ad; a cheap play on emotions. Pay attention next time you'r watching your favorite televangelist. Notice how the requests for money always come after some emotional piece. Fear or tear, it doesn't matter; it's all about stirring up your emotions to get you to give more. They always get people riled up, then say something like "I want you to get your checkbook out right now!" Of course they do! Right now, while your emotions are running high and you're likely to give more.

Prophecy was a gift from God. If taken as intended, it is a beautiful and hope-filled thing. It was never intended to be a tool for fear and profit and control. It is a blessing and should bring glory to God. It is part of God's love for us and we know God's love casts out fear. Prophecy should cast out fear! If there is any fear at all in prophecy, it is to get you to straighten out your life, not to bring in the cash. The end result of that is again the casting out of fear. Why do these men insist on twisting it like they do? How do they continually get away with it? I had to conclude that anyone who comes to me hawking prophecy is suspect. Take this lesson from the Didache, chapter 11, verse 6 "And let the apostle when departing take nothing but bread until he arrive at his resting-place; but if he ask for money, he is a false prophet."

50 Truths - Part 3

I've done enough in my two previous posts in this series, 50 Truths - Part 1, and 50 Truths - Part 2, to show the overall list of 50 items is spurious; now I wish to go through some of the individual "truths".

#3 First Tithe To God

I will have you know that all things belong to God (PSA. 50: 10-12).  To say the first tithe was God's is correct (LEV. 27: 30); inasmuch as it existed, and all that exists belongs to God.  But there is no special command that says "Give the first tithe to God; He gives it to His ministers." This argument has gone absolutely uninvestigated for decades.  Who does the tithe go to by law? The Levites (NUM. 18: 21), and the Levites alone!  It was a heave offering, given to the Levites, because they were not allowed to inherit nor own property (NUM. 18: 24).  Do these "ministers" own anything?  Why, YES!  Are these "ministers" Levites?  NO!  Then they violate very the law of God which they claim to teach.  Now, where in the New Testament does God give tithes to the ministers? Nowhere. Every possible example of the New Covenant shows giving is voluntary and motivated by the Spirit. In Hebrews 7, Paul shows the greatness of Christ in that even Levi tithed to Him; however the entire priesthood of Aaron & Levi is gone, thus there was a change in the law (HEB. 7: 12).  Paul never says we must tithe because Abraham tithed.  That is a deliberate misreading; Abraham never tithed regularly, he gave one time a tenth of war spoils. Paul was showing the greatness of Christ and His ability to replace the Levites, not continue them.

#4 The Government of God

If the claim is that government of God was restored at the "Philadelphia era", then this claim is false since the government preferred by Herbert Armstrong matched that of the Roman Catholic Church - one man, top-down, heirarchy.  He taught your very salvation depended on your faith in it.  He even claimed it was the one thing the Catholics got right. Meanwhile, he called them the "Great Whore".  Would you be surprised to learn that in the late 1930's, Herbert Armstrong excoriated this very type of government which he himself later adopted, because it came from the Catholics, and that your very salvation depended upon not participating in it?  Read his article entitled "Did Christ Reorganize the Church" from the February 1939 Good News magazine.  Keep in mind as you read that how, in 1933, only 6 years previous, HWA was one of the very 70 against which he teaches.

I forgot to mention... Ellen G. White also practiced that top-down, heirarchical government, before the official formation of the SDA church, which was supposedly introduced to HWA for the first time in 1,800 years.  That unofficially makes this a "Sardis Era" "truth".

#17 The Identity of Modern Israel

Not only is this "truth" not true (see my posts for more info), it was not restored to HWA - he plagierized it from J. H. Allen for crying out loud! The idea is called Brittish-Israelism or Anglo-Israelism, and it's hundreds of years old.

#18 Prophecy Can Be Understood Only If You Know Who Are The Modern Nations of Israel

To quote Herbert Armstrong, "POPPYCOCK!"  Prophecy can only be an effective tool for fear control, and profit, if false prophets can make absurd claims like this.

#19 The Annual Festivals

If the annual festivals were only revealed to Herbert Armstrong, then who are the Jews?  Why doesn't HWA's version of the Holy Days resemble the Jews' in almost any way?  For example, Tabernacles - when did HWA build a booth, and why didn't he?  HWA wasn't in any way the first to teach the holy days to Christians.  Like I said in an earlier post, the Old Covenant holy days were debated since the 1800's. That's well before HWA was called! If they were only revealed at this late date, then they aren't all that necessary, are they?  What I'll let you in on is that from the start the annual holy days were debated, and they were rejected because Christ has fulfilled them!

#20 The Authority of the Sacred Calendar Preserved by the Jews

Time and again HWA depends on the Jews for authority in one area, then completely disagrees with them in others.  Once again I will direct you towards the Feast of Tabernacles as an example of that.  If the aothority of the Jews was so sure in the calendar, why are debates over the calendar arguably the most divisive issue in the xCOGs today?  Tell me, did you notice Shavuot (Pentecost) was on Monday, June 9th this year (2008)?  Odd, eh?

#21 Second and Third Tithe

And again, HWA, who in one place holds the Jews up as keeping the oracles of God, here disagrees with the Jews.  The Jews never kept the second and third tithe in the way HWA taught them.  Some debate there even was a second and third tithe.  But let's look more closely at how the third tithe was supposed to be used (DEU. 26: 12-13).  Yet how was it used in the WCG?  It went to the ministers.

#22 There Has Been An Apostacy That Is Unprecedented In The Church of God

On one hand, this is true.  The "Church of God" really only dates back to around 1884.  However, since I know RW and HWA see the "Church of God" as a series of physical organizations dating from 33AD, I'll just play with that for a second.  Now, let's think for one minute - why are there eras if each and every one of them didn't "fall away"?  Well, that kinda destroys this whole claim, doesn't it?  "This was the biggest of all," he would say.  No it isn't.  Read the history.

#23 The Man of Sin is Joseph Tkatch, Sr.

Impossible.  Don't just read II Thessalonians 2: 4.  The man of sin is destroyed by Christ at His coming (II THS. 2: 8).  Joseph Tkatch, Sr. is deceaced, God rest his soul, and Christ isn't here yet.

#25 The Abomination of Desolation is what Joseph Tkatch Did in the Church

I don't know which of these "truths" to call "the biggest load of crap I've ever heard" because the next one only seems to out do the previous.  If Joseph Tkatch, Sr. initiated the Abomination of Desolation, spoken of in Daniel, that makes him the King of the North (DAN. 11: 31).  Why didn't those who were in Judea flee (MATT. 24: 15-22)?  I mean, it clearly says in Matthew 24: 22 "And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened."  Joseph Tkatch, Sr. passed away in 1995!  That was over a decade ago!!!

#32 Exekiel 5 Has Been Fulfilled In The Church

I used to believe this.  I used to accept that you can take an Old Testament prophecy about Israel and just substitute "United States" or "Church of God" at will.  No longer.

#36 No One Goes To Heaven, Not Even The 144,000

First I'll be anally retentive by quoting Acts 1: 9 "9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight."  Then I'll be a little more specific by referring you to Revelation 14: 1-3, and again by referring you to Revelation 15.

#40 Matthew 24: 14 Was Completely Fulfilled By Herbert Armstrong

Read the last part of Matthew 24: 14 "and then the end will come."  HWA died in 1986!  Is God a liar?  It would appear, according to RW, He is.  I disagree.

I am actually getting tired of going through this list.  Please excuse me if I discontinue updating my list at this point.  Everything after #40 becomes so distasteful to me, I feel I can hardly continue on in a right frame of mind.  I will leave my list here as is.  Perhaps I will revise it at a later date.

Hopefully this list, and the first two parts of this thread, have been helpful.

50 Truths - Part 2

In the previous post in this series, 50 Truths - Part 1, I went through Herbert Armstrong's first three "truths", as listed by Ronald Weinland in his own version entitled "50 Truths of God". This time, I would like to go through more of Ron Weinland's list. Let's see how they hold up, shall we?

Here are 21 beliefs of the "Sardis Era" church (not quite as short a list as the Weinlands would have us believe):

1. The Bible was held to be the only inspired writing.

2. The Holy Spirit is that which abides in the believer and not a third person.

3. Christ was in the tomb exactly three days and three nights, rising at the end of the Sabbath.

4. The apostolic organization and government must be followed today.

5. The "Church of God" is the inspired Bible name for God's people.

6. Prayer and anointing will save the sick.

7. Laying on of hands (at baptism) is to be practiced.

8. Lord's Supper is to be observed annually at the beginning of the 14th of Nisan.

9. The Sabbath is to be observed from even to even.

10. Payment of tithes on increase is obligatory.

11. Participation in carnal warfare is condemned.

12. The Law of clean and unclean meats is to be observed in this age.

13. Habitual use of narcotics and habit-forming drugs, alcohol and tobacco is condemned.

14. Under this gospel age the judgment is upon the house of God.

15. The return of Christ will be literal, personal and visible, is imminent, and He will sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem, ruling the world with the righteous saints on the earth.

16. Righteous saints will be resurrected at His second coming.

17. There will be a final regathering of the dispersed nation of fleshly Israel.

18. The dead are unconscious.

19. The wicked dead are resurrected to final judgment, with no probation but will be eternally destroyed.

20. The Third Angel's Message is a present day message.

21. The seven last plagues are literal and fall at the end of the gospel age.

This list was compiled by A. N. Dugger in Dugger's report in the 1936 Census on the Salem group's doctrinal beliefs, which I got from chapter 11 of a history on the Seventh Day Church of God on giveshare.org. 

Now, Ron Weinland lists only 3 "truths" revealed during the previous "church era" to HWA. This is now shown as being patently false. Mr. Weinland also attributes the next 18 truths in his list to HWA. This is also now shown as being patently false.

Let me summarize those 18 "truths" RW says are granted to HWA: X the government of God is top-down, gospel of the Kingdom of God, God is reproducing Himself,  X God is a family not a trinity, X man does not have an immortal soul, X the church is the "firstfruits" of the first resurrection, X Kingdom of God yet to come, God personally chooses the firstfruits, X 2nd resurrection to judgment, X literal Millennium, [these next 2 seem kinda duplicate to me] Holy Spirit only begets us, begotten not born again, [these next 2 again seem like duplicates] Brittish-Israelism, Brittish-Israelism necessary to understand prophecy, Old Covenant holy days mandatory, Jewish authority of the Hebrew calendar, second and third tithes.

I have placed a large red X in front of the "truth" that RW attributes to HWA, but is in fact one of the things believed by the so-called "Sardis era" before the time the so-called "Philadelphia era" had begun. I count 7 things. That's 7 out of 18 things, greater than one third, that Ron Weinland doesn't know about his own history! What I haven't mentioned is that A. N. Dugger's list also overlaps a few of RW's next 21 points which he claims were revealed after HWA's demise. Nor have I mentioned that the Old Covenant holy days were debated since the 1800's, and were being kept by some long before Herbert Armstrong came on the scene (I leave it unchecked since it wasn't the official position of the COG7). Also, I'm going easy here. RW has enough people working to show him a false prophet; they don't need my help. When you, if you have anything at all to do with Armstrongism, read that first list, I know that you recognize much more than 7 things which you believed. It's like I said, Armstrong was not the first in 1,800 years to teach anything.

If Ron Weinland doesn't know these things, then in what way is such a list presumed valid?

In my next post [which you can find here] I would like to go into much more detail about a few of the "truths" in Ron Weinland's list.

The Genesis Prophecies

I cannot emphasize enough how prophecy has been used as a tool for malice.  How many innocent and God-loved Christians were caught up, not because they wanted to be, into some cult or the other!  Why?  Because prophecy and fear are powerful motivators.  ALWAYS keep in mind - God's perfect love casts out fear!!

To that end, I have hoped that you who are trying to find the truth will allow me, in whatever small way I can, to love you as Christ loved me, and provide you with another way to see the scriptures. Not so I can be anything at all.  Name one thing I have asked of you except this: that you spread the gift of Christ to others.  This is the gift I received, and I give it to you.  If you have already received Christ, wonderful!  Please, let us study His word together in hopes that we can mutually come together in peace and grow in the knowledge of Christ.

Keeping in mind my recent posting on scatterings, I would like to take a second look at the prophecies of the book of Genesis.  Much of what HWA taught depended entirely on British-Israelism.  If we understand a few key points of prophecy, we will see the weakness of that theory, and hopefully (and joyfully) break from it.  Let's start at the beginning....

Everyone knows that Genesis 3: 15 is a prophecy of Christ.  In Genesis 4: 1-8 is the story of Cain and Abel.  Most people think this is a great little story, but it is much more - it is a prophecy too! With all due respect to the Jews, for whom I have great respect, Cain, the older brother, represents the Jewish Old Covenant church, and Abel, the younger brother, represents the Christian New Covenant Church (including the Messianic Jews, IMHO).  Cain was a farmer, as Israel was an agrarian nation; Abel was a shepherd, as Christ is the Lamb of God (JOHN 1: 29) and the Great Shepherd (HEB. 13: 20). Cain's sacrifice was perfectly fine in God's eyes but was not accepted because of faithlessness, as the Jews were not accepted because of their faithlessness; Abel's sacrifice was accepted through faith (HEB. 11: 14), as the Christians are accepted through faith.  Cain was jealous of Abel's blessings and set out to kill him, just as the Jews immediately set out to persecute and kill the Christians.

The parallels are simply hard to argue against.  But wait!  There's more...

Noah, that salty sea dog, is also a prophecy.  In his day, he was the preacher of righteousness in a world of evil (2 PET. 2: 5).  Many believe Noah represented Christ, who saves those whom He will from sin, and I don't disagree with that at all.  But Noah was a sign as God promised a remnant would escape from Israel (ISA. 1: 9; 10: 21; 28: 5; EZE. 6: 8; JOE. 2: 32; AMO. 5: 15; etc.)  This is as Paul attests (ROM. 9: 27; 11: 5).  Actually, read the entirety of Romans 9 and 11. What more could you call a "small remnant" if not 8 people saved alive?  And this was a small remnant - that Jesus Christ called only 120 people.  Thank God that small remnant was enhanced by the Apostles who called thousands of Jews!!  Just as Elijah thought he was the only one left, God reserved 7,000 to Himself, so was this early time after Jesus' resurrection.

Now, on to Abraham, the "Father of the Faithful".  We all should understand that Abraham in many ways, too many to list, enacted the part of God (eg. when he [picturing the Father] went to sacrifice his only son Isaac [picturing Christ], and a goat [again picturing Christ in a different respect] was placed in Isaac's stead). Prophecy was extant in his life.  But more specifically, let's look at his sons Ishmael and Isaac.  Galatians 4: 21-31 tells us in some fascinating detail that this was all symbolic of the two Covenants.  It is very important to read and digest this info!

The same thing reoccurs in Jacob and Esau.  This is the third time now that we have two sons, the older being the representative of the Old Covenant church and the younger being the representative of the New Covenant church.  Esau didn't love his birthright - the birthright which indeed belonged to the Jews - and sold it for something temporary and of relatively little value, just as the Jews traded Christ for a thief and a murderer (MATT. 27: 15-26). Jacob supplanted Esau (GEN. 27: 36-37), as the Christians supplanted the Jews.  Once again, the older brother hated the younger and desired to harm him (ACTS 8: 3).

Are we beginning to see how the Jewish experience was pre-planned and prophesied?  All that they did was done as an example for us (I COR. 10: 11).  There is no reason at all to believe the Old Covenant was what God had from the beginning, and intended to last forever for all peoples.

Now, on to what I think is the most significant part of the prophesies of Genesis - Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh!

Joseph, as everyone should already know, represents Jesus.  He was the beloved son, one of the sons of Israel, symbolically killed by his brothers in order to save them from death by famine (which is symbolically death from sin) (GEN. 45: 3-8).  Joseph's identity was hidden from his brothers, but Jesus will be revealed to the Jews in His good time.  

Jacob, when blessing the 12 sons in Genesis 49, blessed Joseph far above them all; treating him as a firstborn, and not Reuben, even mentioning "the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel".  Joseph is Jesus Christ!  For hundreds of years, men have tried to find the place where Israel was lost using these prophecies as a guide.  We call this Brittish-Israelism.  Their basis is verse 1, where Jacob says "Gather together, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days".  They say "The last days; that's now!"  Yet when you read their historses, the "last days" range from the times before Christ all the way to World War II.  For example, they trace the "serpent's trail" of Dan all through Europe according to this "last days" prophecy - but those places were named hundreds and hundreds of years ago.

As for the sons of Joseph, for the fourth time, we have two siblings, Manasseh and Ephraim (GEN. 41: 50-52). Manasseh was the first born, Ephraim the younger.  This is important, since we will see Manasseh does not represent the United States but represents the Old Covenant church and Ephraim does not represent Britain but the New Covenant church.... only this time, there's a twist!

We now go to the prophecies of Israel (GEN. 48: 8-21).  Jacob crossed his arms and blessed the younger brother over the older brother.  Indeed, the New Covenant church has been blessed above the Old Covenant church, though they are the first born, because of the hardness of their hearts.  Manasseh, consisting only of Israel, was to be one great nation, and Ephraim, consisting of all the faithful of the Gentile nations, was to become a great company of nations.  This is not end-time symbolism, but end-of-the-Old Covenant-time symbolism (II COR. 3: 7-18; 5: 17)!! And they were all adopted as sons into the house of Israel, as the New Covenant church is the Spiritual and the true Israel.

But I want you to notice the difference here in this prophecy - these sons come from the man who symbolized Christ - Joseph.  Manasseh is blessed, not cursed like Cain and Ishmael and Esau.  I conclude that in this prophecy, Manasseh, though symbolizing the Jews, actually symbolizes the faithful Jews, that holy remnant saved out by promise, that accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah and does His good and loving will.  Compare this to the Wave Loaves (LEV. 23: 17) ceremony where two loaves baked with grain from the Wave Sheaf ceremony and leaven are waved before God, just as the Wave Sheaf ceremony (LEV. 23: 11-15), which we know to symbolize Christ, was done.

How great is God!  How wonderful are all His works!  Truly, God tells the end from the beginning (ISA. 46: 10)!  Truly British-Israelism is a deception!  Some would call me deceived.  Hey, check out the historical facts behind British-Israelism for yourself and see if it isn't riddled with holes and nonsense.  Some would say I know something.  To that I reply I am nothing and know nothing (I COR. 8: 2).

There are more examples in the Bible of these things that I didn't put here.  See if you can find some.

HWA lvs EGW 4->

What a doozy of a study time I've had this evening last.  I can't tell you how blown away I am by history.  I love history... the REAL history.  (I put 'real' in caps so y'all know I'm a real former Armstrongist.)

HWA's greatest influence was G. G. Rupert.  I know that A. N. Dugger had a powerful and direct influence on HWA, but that influence seems to have pointed HWA in the direction of Rupert. Only thing is, I never saw the connection between HWA and Ellen G. White before.  I didn't see the connection because HWA went to great lengths to hide any connection to the SDA church.  I suppose I still have much to learn.  That only works to excite me more!

It would appear that Ellen G. White is the Terminator to HWA's T-1000. She was a prototype in almost every conceivable way.  I don't want to overstate anything; there were differences.  But Ellen G. White was a dress rehersal indeed.  I like to think that Ron Weinland isn't half the man HWA was.  No, really.  Everything RW does, he does because he saw HWA do it first, but RW can't claim half the success HWA achieved.  HWA did it best; but he wasn't the first.  Ellen G. White was the first.

I don't know about you, but I'm thinking about a cage match!

I don't know how HWA was influenced by her - directly, indirectly through Dugger or Rupert, or academically through books and histories, or what.  But, sometimes some things are so similar there is no way they are unrelated.  I will try to show more on those similarities in my upcoming posts about the 50 truths.

Scattered vs. Split

There is a condition extant in the xCOGs, that of believing they are scattered.  This is in response to a prophecy of scattering (ZECH. 13: 7) "Strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered".  However, Jesus Christ claims this verse is about Him, and not about Herbert Armstrong (MATT. 26: 31; JOHN 16: 32).

Biblically speaking, scatterings aren't just a church split, or even many splits.  Scatterings aren't just HWA dies and now the WCG has broken up into the xCOGs.  Do any Bible search on the word "scatter".  It will show you what I mean.  A scattering is when something is thrown all around and carried far away.  When a church splits, people aren't carried away across the earth. Most people find a different building a few miles away.  That isn't a scattering!

Seed is scattered (ISA. 28: 25; MARK 4: 26).

Enemies are scattered (NUM. 10: 35; PSA. 18: 14; 68: 1; 89: 10).

Wind is scattered (JOB 38: 24; JER. 18: 17).

These are scatterings!  Like a crowd running from a disaster - that is a scattering.  Now, who was the object of the scattering, and why?  Was it HWA and his WCG?  I think I can conclusively prove it most certainly was not.  It was Israel!

Israel was scattered across the earth throughout the nations (DEU. 4: 27; PSA. 44:11; JER. 30: 11; JER. 50: 17; EZE. 12: 15; 17: 21; 20: 23; JAS. 1: 1).  The Tower of Babylon was recorded as a prophecy of this very thing (GEN. 11: 1-9).

God used Israel's enemies to do the scattering (JER. 18: 17; 50: 17; ZECH. 1: 18-21).

God sent them away for their disbelief and sins (DEU. 28: 64; I KING. 14: 15; NEH. 1: 8).  The faithlessness of the people is the direct responsibility of their terrible religious leaders (JER. 23: 1; EZE. 34: 5-6; NAH. 3: 18; JOHN 10: 12).  This scattering is a punishment, but it is for the good of Israel (EZE. 22: 15; 36: 19; ZECH. 13: 9). 

(JER. 9: 16) even says a sword is drawn against Israel in their scattering; this is directly in line with (EZE. 5: 2, 12; 6: 8 and ZECH. 13: 7-9 and LEV. 26: 33).  

This is not referring to the WCG!  This is referring to ancient Israel!  But those in the xCOG say "Look, the scattering is at the end."  But, no.  The truth is that the scattering was several hundreds of years ago, and the gathering back is at the end (DEU. 30: 3; EZE. 11: 17; 20: 34, 41; 34: 12; JOE. 3: 2).  

The question then becomes, "When is "the end"?  No man knows.

Herbert Armstrong was fond of dualism in prophecy.  I still see duality all over in prophecy, even though I have no faith in Herbert Armstrong.  There is a duality to the scattering.  Unfortunately for those who would love the tithes of innocent Christians, it isn't in our day.  If Zecheriah 13: 7 is the start of the scattering, and Jesus claims He is that Shepherd, then there was the scattering of the Church, in His day (ACT. 8: 1).  The scattering of the newly-founded Church is the duality.

As another duality, God promised Israel that a remnant would be saved from among the Gentiles.  He promised He Himself would be their protection (EZE. 11: 16).  I have come to believe this referred, at least in part, to the coming of Christ, and the very few Messianic Jews who heeded Jesus' gospel are the remnant saved out. At first, there were no more than 120. That is certainly a remnant!

So, for all of those who still labor undert the difficult burden of misinterpreted prophecy, please listen to the Bible and let it explain itself.  Please take a second look at the idea that Herbert Armstrong was a great prophet and Apostle.  I know it is difficult, believe me!  I'm there only a few steps ahead of you.  Turn to Christ, ask Him to open your eyes and heart.  Request the truth from Him; no matter how it may hurt.  Then, step into the light of the New Covenant.

COG Theological Ancestry

I have come to a conclusion during my studies.  Lots of people have tried to write a history of their own "one true church".  They all try to link back to the Apostles.  WCG is no exception.  All of them are spotty, missing massive chunks of history, and glued together with opinion.  

In my studies you can trace the Sabbath tradition back to the Seventh Day Baptists in 1650.  There the road comes to a complete dead end.

However, if you want to know where you, as an xCOG member, came from theologically as opposed to historically, it's as easy as 1-2-3.   Herbert Armstrong claimed to be the first man in 1,800 years to preach the "truths".  He claimed direct divine inspiration from God.  Is this true? Not even close.  Here is your history:

Herbert Armstrong <- A. N. Dugger <- G. G. Rupert

If you go back to G. G. Rupert, you will find everything you need to know about what you believe.  A. N. Dugger (COG7) was a huge fan of G. G. Rupert, and Herbert Armstrong was a huge fan of A. N. Dugger.

Read these two articles for much more info:

The Remnant of Israel

Herbert W. Armstrong and Rupert

This is absolutely no case, in absolutely no way, of Herbert Armstrong being inspired.  HWA, unfortunately for many of his believers (and me), used G. G. Rupert's theories and said they were his own; giving no credit to their source.  He built an aura of divine inspiration, saying God directly led him to understand these things from a study of the Bible.  He created a myth of being the first person in 1,800 years to teach these "truths".  He said he was never taught by men.  He misled tens of thousands.

I cannot escape the fact, no matter how hard I tried, that Herbert Armstrong was not an honest man.

Side Thoughts

You know what I think is odd?  That the Old Covenant period did not last nearly as long as the New Covenant period has.  I find that odd for some reason.  This is my residual Armstrongism talkin'.

I base my statement on this (probably traditional as opposed to factual) claim from AskMoses.com:

"The Torah was given to the Israelites in the Sinai Desert on the 6th day of Sivan 2448 years after Creation. This corresponds to early summer of the year 1313 BCE."

This means the New Covenant period (~1975 years; from 33AD to 2008) has outlasted the Old Covenant period (~1393 years; from 1313BC to 70AD) by some ~582 years.

Also, check out this is neat little comparison on the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

50 Truths - part 1

I was recently meandering about aimlessly across our good friend, the Internet, when I happened upon a serious list.  Usually I enjoy lists. Cracked.com's top 10 lists are generally entertaining.  This particular list, however was more disturbing than anything else. The list I refer to is Ronald Weinland's "50 Truths of God". This is quite a few more than Herbert Armstrong's "18 truths".

Now, there was a day when I would have probably eaten something like this up - put it on a plate and sopped it up with a biscuit. However, since my recent change of opinion I find myself in great disagreement with the list.

I intend to take up some post time in order to address some of the particularly outstanding "truths".

*ahem*

Under the section header "Truths Remaining At the End of Sardis", there are three "truths" listed: the seventh day Sabbath, the name of God's church, and First Tithe to God.

About the seventh day Sabbath: it is true that the Sabbath of the Bible is the seventh day of the week, aka Saturday.

According to The Painful Truth's article about Sunday, only the Babylonians and Jews were known to keep time according to weeks, especially 7-day weeks. The Greeks and Romans did not. The only day of the week which the Jews named as opposed to numbered was the seventh day; the Sabbath. Therefore, it is historically accurate to say that the Sabbath of the Bible is the seventh day.

Buuuuuuttttt.... this first "truth" claims the seventh day Sabbath remained in the "Sardis Era". That claim needs to be verified. (In order to understand what a Sardis Era is, read the letters to the 7 churches found in Revelation 2 & 3. According to G. G. Rupert, and later Herbert Armstrong, those churches are symbolic for periods of time, called "eras". According to Herbert Armstrong, the Church of God (Seventh Day) is the dead Sardis Era, and his own Worldwide Church of God was the Philadelphia Era. Ron Weinland, as with most xCOG splinters, believe they are Philadelphia carry-overs into the Laodicean era.)

Any simple history check will lead you to understand that the seventh day Sabbath sprang up from virtually nowhere in England around 1650. Protestant reformation was all the rage back then. A group of Baptists (including William Saller, Peter Chamberlain, Francis Bampfield, Edward and Joseph Stennett) decided to keep the Sabbath. They had a great deal of influence on one Steven Mumford, who then came to America and preached the sabbath among the Baptists in New England with whom he fellowshipped.  Mumford was no great thing in the church, he was just a guy who came to America and preached the Sabbath. In 1671, after the first church split of a Sabbatarian group in America, the Seventh Day Baptist Church was born.

**Now, I want you to keep in mind something; something important. These Seventh Day Baptists were not any different from any other Baptist church, except they had a belief in the legality of the 10 Commandments. That's it. (I make it sound small, but I admit the implications are larger than they immediately appear.)

Also, notice how they do not have the marker, the indicator of a true church, the name "Church of God". Remember, according to Armstrongism, God's church bears his name.

Skip a few years ahead to 1831 when William Miller (a Baptist) started down the road to being a false prophet. He started the Advent movement by proclaiming the return of Jesus in 1843. He had a few years to gather a following. One Seventh Day Baptist, Rachel Oaks, introduced the idea of the seventh day Sabbath to the group, and that spread. After Miller's Great Disappointment, the addition of some other characters such as Ellen G. White, and a church split, the Seventh Day Adventists were born.

**Once again, notice the church does NOT bear the name "Church of God". Thus, the Worldwide Church of God claimed the SDA churh was never God's church. No matter how you want to spin it, the group that became the SDA church was undeniably the direct ancestor of the WCG.

Notice the cherry-picking of facts. According to Armstrongism, the SDA church is NOT God's church because they don't bear the name "Church of God" (and because they don't keep the holy days). This is despite the fact that one of HWA's greatest influences, G. G. Rupert, was an SDA minister for many years (or perhaps because of it). However, on the other hand, the Seventh Day Baptists ARE God's church, despite the fact that they are farther from Armstrongism than the SDA church?

Meanwhile, a man affiliated with the Adventist group (that later became the SDA church), one Mr. Gilbert Cranmer, was not impressed with Ellen G. White. He refused to accept her as a prophetess, and left in 1858 to form his own organization. His preaching was fruitful from the 1860's to the 1880's when the Church of Christ was formed, and immediately changed its name to Church of God, and shortly thereafter Church of God (Seventh Day).

Eventually there was a church split. A. N. Dugger, a man greatly influential on Herbert Armstrong, formed his own church. Herbert Armstrong went with him. In time, they got back together with the original organization and formed the General Conference of the Church of God (Seventh Day). This almost immediately led to three more splits.

Here is a nice history to fill in some gaps should you find yourself interested. (Take it with a grain of salt.)

Now, what does this history have to do with anything?

1) According to WCG's own criteria, the Seventh Day Baptists and the Seventh Day Adventists could not be the Sardis Era, since they were not named "Church of God". However, that is the very claim Armstrong makes - it is the second "truth". Otherwise, this would mean the "Sardis Era" started in 1884 when Gilbert Cranmer formed the "Church of God". Either way, this is clearly cherry-picking the criteria.

2) These groups did not start with a great deal of "truths" then die away from them, as the pejorative "dead era" would imply. At the first they were Seventh Day Baptists, who were Baptists being Baptists yet keeping the seventh day Sabbath. Also, William Miller did not at first keep the Sabbath, but it was introduced later. Only when we get into the 20th century will you see any buildup of so-called "truths". The COG7 was growing in "truths" while HWA was claiming they were dieing from them. At any rate, the details of the first "truth" claim "God's people have always obeyed the seventh day Sabbath." That simply isn't historically true!

As for the tithes; yes it is true the Adventists and COG7 teach tithing. They do not, however, demand tithes.  Most especially 3 tithes, 7 holy day offerings, tithe of a tithe, and free-will offerings as often as you can afford them like the WCG demanded. People are free to tithe or not; it's more of a guideline. The COG7 has no set rules to which people must adhere. Yet this doesn't even address the claim that tithes are unscriptural for the New Testament Church.

According to the law, only Levites were allowed to accept a tithe and tithes were of the garden, field, and flock only - cash income was not tithable. Unless a genuine pedigreed Levite wearing the legally commanded garb of a Levite and performing the legally commanded rituals of a Levite can be found, no one can tithe according to the law. That is Bible law! That priesthood in its entirety was replaced by the Living Christ anyhow, so even if one is located, I still will not be sending tithes to him. To do otherwise, in my view, is to deny the very High Priesthood and sovereignty of Christ Himself. I could go on and on about the tithe. Some day I might.

I conclude this third "truth" to be a tradition only and not a "truth" at all.

This effectively wipes out all three of the first "truths". In the next installment [which you can find here], I will move on to the "Truths Revealed During the Philadelphia Era".

The Name "Worldwide Church of God"

What some out there who don't know the Worldwide Church of God may be unaware of is that an important teaching of the church was that the name "Church of God" is critical; it is an identifier of the real church. Groups who are not called "Church of God" aren't the real church. Conversely, groups that are called "Church of God" are also not the real church unless they practice what Herbert Armstrong taught. But I want to concentrate on the name in this post.

In my studies (if you're exiting an xCOG, you know what I mean about studies) I came across a little known fact. Once upon a time, long long ago, Ignatius in his letter to Smyrna called the Church of God (and they did sometimes call themselves "Church of God" as a general descriptor) the "Catholic Church". Catholic means 'universal' (this was also a general descriptor). In the mind of a person in that place and time, 'universal' basically meant 'the whole world'. This is evident by Ignatius' statement "...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

What I mean by 'general descriptor' is that neither "Church of God" nor "Catholic" were agreed upon proper names. They were pretty much as generic as the term "Christian", or "Church at Corinth", etc. No one at that time had agreed upon proper names.

Given that info we can conclude, more or less literally, the Catholic Church is the original "Worldwide Church of God"!!!

No wonder Herbert Armstrong liked their hierarchy so much.

An Encounter With A Legalist

My wife owns her own business. A small number of the of the people in our former xCOG congregation frequented her business. One of them stopped in last night. This person was unaware that we have discontinued attendance with our former affiliation. A long conversation ensued.

My wife is smart. She knows what she was taught, she knows what she believes now, and she knows how I feel. She just doesn't have the Bible verses in her head like some people do. That doesn't make her argument any less valid; only less effective in the short term. I'm not the kind of person who can hold book/chapter/verse in my head either.

Well, this person kept referring to Herbert Armstrong's booklets. My wife kept trying to tell her that we must prove things from the Bible without referring to HWA's material. It didn't sink in. This person knew about the charges of plagiarism, and gave HWA a pass because "he's just a man and makes mistakes". My wife believes that a mistake is one thing, but repeatedly plagiarizing someone else's material and calling it your own, in addition to falsifying information, is not just a "mistake". Nothing phased her. My wife noted to me how, twice now, from two different people, she has gotten the same words, the same arguments, the same responses. This is directly in line with what I got.

The same words: "I fear...", "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...", "no one has the whole truth", etc. The same arguments: "Did the truth/Spirit come through HWA or not?", "We should immitate Christ and the Apostles", "The Holy Days are God's plan." Everyone we speak to appear to be programmed with what to believe and programmed with how to respond. Is this surprising to me? Yes! Why? I don't know; it shouldn't be. I know what brain washing is. I know how it works. One way is to sit a captive audience before a repetitive message and eventually they will believe it. The old addage "A lie told often enough becomes the truth" applies here. I'm just surprised that I was brainwashed and it's hard to believe my old friends were too. Now I see. And because I see, I am surprised at what I see.

Well, it eventually came down to how this person couldn't answer my wife's questions without referring to HWA, and my wife couldn't get this person to realize their dependance on HWA. This is what I see from everyone I talk to - circular reasoning and partial facts.

For instance, here is a highly abbreviated conversation I usually have:
[COG] "We have to keep the law."
[me] "Then why don't you keep the whole law?"
[COG] "Without the law, how will we know what is sin?"
[me] "By reading the New Testament and having the Spirit work from within us, rather than trying to keep a law that can't change our hearts."
[COG] "Jesus said the law will not pass away."
[me] "Then why are circumcision, sacrifice, the Levitical Priesthood, legal distinctions between Jew and Gentile, Passover, etc, etc. all magnified, but not those things you hold to?"
[COG] "How can the Holy Days be done away with; those are God's plan?"
[me] "I believe the whole Old Covenant was revoked at Christ's death and a New Covenant made in His blood."
[COG] "But then you believe the 10 Commandments were done away with! And those were written in stone."
[me] "So do you, as Deuteronomy 4: 13 says the 10 Commandments were the Old Covenant, stone or no stone, and everything else was added later. According to the law, when Jesus died, the whole agreement was rendered obsolete."
[COG] "But the Apostles were zealous for the law."
[me] "James also regarded the Talmud, do you? The Apostles were Jews, and they preferred the Jewish converts to be zealous for the law; there was no such requirement for the Gentile converts. Those Jewish converts who falsely taught the Gentiles to be Jews were the ones Paul wished would emasculate themselves.
[COG] "But there will be Sabbaths and Holy Days in the Millennium."
[me] "Yes. There will also be animal sacrifices, a temple, the Levitical priesthood complete with required garb and rituals, and probably circumcision too. That doesn't mean I need those things now."
[COG] "You should read the booklet about..."
[me] "I'm not going to refer to any booklet when I have the Bible. I don't follow HWA."
[COG] "Neither do I. I disagree with him on some things."
[me] "Then why do you always refer to him and his teachings?"
[COG] "Well, we need to keep the law."
... and round it goes.

This person referred my wife to her spouse who was better versed in the law. (Second verse, same as the first.) My wife did the right thing. She said "Listen, I can't go discussing this with everyone. Either they will ignore me or they will leave the congregation. Neither option is good for me." My wife and I agreed at the outset that we are not going to spread dissent, we are not going to try and convert anyone, we are not going to cause division, etc. We just left quietly out the back one day. That places a burden on the shoulder of the Minister, not that I want him burdened, but better he who will handle it as he wants it handled than we who will certainly cause even bigger problems. Even if everyone has to believe my wife and I are confused, so be it. We didn't cause division.

If anyone has any similar stories to share, please do. I'd love to hear what you've gone through and how you've handled it.

The "Apostolic" Church

I have to say that over the years I've spent many hours wondering foolishly about who is the "one true church". Was it the WCG? Was it the Catholic Church? Was it some unknown group I'd never heard of. Well, over the past weekend I read an article from a friend of mine on another blog and one major deciding factor he cited in converting to Catholicism from his xCOG group was that the Catholic Church was the only church unchanged in its history. Well, I have a problem with that.

The Catholic Church hasn't had a major change in a while. Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of "major" and "while". I mean, Vatican II was both major and recent by many people's standards. Starting and ending the Inquisition are both pretty major when you're on the block next. I would argue that the Catholic Church is not in reality this ancient bastion of first century Christianity, as my friend seemed to infer.

Ask a few questions to yourself.. Did Paul dress like a Pope? Did James array his house in gold and sit on a throne? Did Peter really speak ex cathedra (in the Bible)? Did the Apostles keep Easter, Lent, Christmas, etc? Did anyone crusade in the first century? I could go on and on...

Yes, there most certainly are changes, and some of them 'major', while most are centuries of 'minor' changes that have piled up. But to claim the Catholic Church alone can say, "Changes? What changes?" Is a bit of a stretch.

Now, which church can say, "Changes? What changes?" Worldwide? No! Oh mercy, no. There is one: Messianic Judaism. If your picture of faith depends on getting the most Apostolic you can possibly get, there's your huckleberry right there. The Jews alone can claim to be the most unchanged (well, as unchanged as having your temple destroyed in 70 AD can afford, anyhow). I mean, their stuff is still an ongoing quest to get the same source as right as they can. And then you add Christ, stir, and out comes Messianic Judaism. No Bible controversies apply, no speculation on what Peter could change, no challenge to whether the Apostles kept your traditions or someone else's. They were all Jews; even Christ.

"But wait a minute!", you might say to me, "Paul taught all that Judaism was gone with the Old Covenant." Yes. I agree he did. That much is clear. Of course, that doesn't by any stretch mean we shouldn't learn as much as we can about the Jews because that's where we all came from as Christians. Paul's teachings asside, I am not saying we should all become Messianic Jews. I am merely addressing the adamant timelessness of the Catholic Church here. The Messianic Jews are the only church to fit the criteria. It's the only real safe bet for un-change. So, the argument becomes, which of the Gentile Christian churches have the oldest tradition? Well, there you might have the Catholics as your best match. No one else has proof of their claims to back them up. Except, that is, for the Catholics. Errr.. Eastern Orthodox Catholics, I mean.

I stand by my claim. The Roman Catholics may arguably be the oldest, but they still have their fair share of change. Need I remind anyone that Luther was trying to return the Catholic Church back to Apostolic originality as well (as best as he understood it). I would say that it's the overwhelming popular opinion that the Catholic Church has changed considerably and currently bears little resemblance to its beginnings. "Great Whore" anyone? No? Nevermind, I don't care for Hyslop anyway.

I may have to go out on a limb here and postulate that if originality is your main concern, age shouldn't factor in. Age almost prescribes change. Take a Bible, study it, find a church that does what you believe you see there, then be satisfied. Don't condemn. Don't judge. Don't compare man to man. Don't demand others believe as you do (debate, yeah, but don't get all huffy about it). Just be happy in your relationship with Christ. I love my church, the COG7. They certainly aren't the oldest church at a whopping century and a half, but they do get down to what matters.