September To Order At 604 P: Fill & Download for Free

Philippians 2:6-86 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος...."Who, being [huparchon] in the form [morphe] of God [theou], thought it not robbery [harpagmos] to be equal [ison] with God. But ... took upon him the form [morphe] of a servant, and was made in the likeness [homoiomati] of men: And being found in fashion [schemati] as a man...." - Phil. 2:6-8, KJV."Who, although He existed [huparchon] in the form [morphe] of God [theou], did not regard equality [ison] with God a thing to be grasped [harpagmos], but emptied Himself, taking the form [morphe] of a bond-servant and being made in the likeness [homoiomati] of men. And being found in appearance [schemati] as a man...." - Phil. 2:6-8, NASB.Some trinitarians insist that this scripture proves that Jesus was (and is) "equal with God." But all the real evidence proves just the opposite! Phil. 2:6 is, in reality, proof that Jesus has never been equally God with the Father!To begin with, as the Watchtower Society has pointed out, the context of Phil. 2:3-8 indicates how Phil. 2:6 should be understood. The context stresses the concept of humility and obedience, and Phil. 2:6 itself is clearly meant as the prime example of this for all Christians. The extremely trinitarian The Amplified Bible, for example, translates Phil. 2:3, 5 this way:"Instead, in the true spirit of humility (lowliness of mind) let each regard the others as better than and superior to himself.... Let this same attitude and purpose and [humble] mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus. - Let Him be your example in humility."Then that very example of Jesus (Phil. 2:6-8) is given. - Cf. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1, p. 547.Most trinitarian interpretations of Phil. 2:6, however, as above, do not show Jesus as regard-ing God as "better than and superior to himself" in the beginning (as the context demands for this example)! Most of them, instead, twist that proper example of humility into just the opposite: an example of a person who regards himself already as equal to the Most High, Almighty God ("thought it not robbery to be equal to God"). Such an interpretation destroys the very purpose (Phil. 2:3) of Jesus' "example in humility" here!Paul is not telling us to regard ourselves as equal to others. (Whether we obey them or not is very important but is not the main point here.) He is clearly using Jesus as his example to teach that each Christian must, as the very trinitarian Amplified Bible above puts it, "regard others as better than and superior to himself"! And yet most trinitarian translations show Jesus doing the very opposite in this "example in humility" for all Christians!Something, then, is very wrong with the translation of Phil. 2:6 in most trinitarian Bibles! PHIL 2:6--------------------------------------------------------------HarpagmosNow notice how these two very trinitarian Bibles have rendered it:1. "He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ἁρπαγμὸς ] equality with God"[1] - NEB.2. "He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God" - TEV (and GNB).We believe that the translations by the trinitarian NEB and TEV Bibles of this part of Phil. 2:6 must be the intended meaning of the original writer of this scripture because (in part, at least) of the obvious meaning of the New Testament (NT) Greek word harpagmos.There could be some doubt about the meaning of the word harpagmos if we looked only at the NT Greek Scriptures (since harpagmos occurs only at Phil. 2:6 in the entire New Testament). We would then only have the meaning of the source words for harpagmos to determine its intended meaning.Even so, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance tells us that harpagmos means "plunder" and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: "to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force)." - #725, 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.“725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force. See 726 (harpazō).” - HELPS Word-studies, copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: "harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized." And, "harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away." Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 and #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.In fact, The Expositor's Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:"We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of `holding in possession,' `retaining' [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean `seize', `snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [`snatch violently'] into one which is totally different, `hold fast.' "Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is "akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force." - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.And the The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars"have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war." - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as "prize" used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its "prize"!We can easily see this "taken by force" meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma[2,3] and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan's A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 "plunder;" Job 29:17 "spoil" (a "prize" taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) "robberies;" Is. 42:22 "prey;" Is. 61:8 "robberies;" Ezek. 18:7 "plunder;" Ezek. 18:12 "robbery;" Ezek. 18:16 "robbery;" Ezek. 18:18 "plunder;" Ezek. 19:3 "prey;" Ezek. 19:6 "take prey;" Ezek. 22:25 "seizing prey;" Ezek. 22:27 "get dishonest gain" (through the use of "harpazo" or "force"); Ezek. 22:29 "robbery;" Ezek. 33:15 "has robbed;" and Malachi 1:13 "torn victims" (compare ASV).So, in spite of some trinitarians' reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).Many trinitarian translators, however, either make nonsense out of the meaning of Phil. 2:6 by actually using the proper meaning of "robbery" or "taken by force" without showing God's clear superiority over Jesus which the context demands, or, instead, making sense of it by choosing a word that doesn't have the proper meaning of "taking by force."For example, the King James Version (KJV) does use "robbery" (a nearly-accurate meaning for harpagmos) but obviously mangles the meaning of the rest of the statement so that it doesn't even make proper sense: "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." This is a nonsensical statement even by itself. In context it is even more inappropriate!Yes, as we have seen above, even in the KJV it is apparent from context that the purpose of this example is to emphasize lowliness of mind, humility: to regard others as better than yourself (vv. 3-5). Paul certainly wouldn't destroy this example of humility for fellow Christians by saying that Jesus is thinking that it isn't robbery for him to be equal with the Most High! Besides being a nonsensical statement, it is just the opposite of humility! Instead, to be in harmony with the purpose of Paul's example, we must find a Jesus who regards God as superior to himself and won't give even a moment's thought about attempting to take that most high position himself, but, instead, humbles himself even further.Scholar R. P. Martin, for example, feels the context (especially the obvious contrast of verses 6 and 7) clearly proves that harpagmos in verse 6 means Christ refused to seize equality with God. Emphasizing the fact that this is a contrast with verse 6, verse 7 begins with "but [alla]." In accord with this, he tells us,"V[erse] 6b states what Christ might have done [or could have attempted to do], i.e. seized equality with God; v. 7 states what he chose to do, i.e. give himself." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p. 604.The Phil. 2:6 footnote for ‘grasped’ (harpagmos) in the NAB (2002, by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) :[6] "Either a reference to Christ's preexistence and those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity. Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though . . . in the form of God (Genesis 1:26-27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Genesis 3:5-6."The NASB, on the other hand, chooses an English word for harpagmos that doesn't clearly bring out its full intended meaning: "[Jesus] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped [harpagmos]," when, of course, it should be: "did not regard equality with God a thing to be taken by force [harpagmos]." (Review the quote from the Expositor's Greek Testament above.)[4]An excellent illustration of the trinitarian's dilemma concerning an honest translation of Phil. 2:6 can be shown by the 1971 "Palm Sunday Controversy" in France (see June 15, 1971 WT):At every Palm Sunday Mass, Phil. 2:5-11 is read. The 1959 lectionary for France's Catholic Church read: "Being of divine status, Christ did not greedily hold on to [harpagmos] the rank that made him equal to God."In 1969 the Roman Catholic bishops of France authorized a new lectionary for their country. The Holy See in Rome approved it on September 16, 1969. In this new lectionary Phil. 2:6 was translated: "Christ Jesus is God's image [morphe, `form']; but he did not choose to seize by force [harpagmos] equality with God."This new translation, needless to say, started a great controversy and demonstrations by many Catholics throughout France. As one French Catholic magazine explained: "If he [Jesus] refused to seize it [equality with God], it must be that he did not already possess it."So much pressure was brought to bear upon the Church in France that the trinitarian Catholic bishops who had insisted upon the new honest translation were forced to change it. So, in an attempt to compromise, they rendered it: "He [Jesus] did not choose to claim to be the same as God."This newest version was also thoroughly condemned by the same trinity-defending French Catholic magazine. It noted that if Christ "did not choose to claim to be the same as God," this implied that he was not "the same as God," and "the practical effect of this substitution amounts to heresy and blasphemy."But, in spite of threats and demonstrations, the French episcopate refused to compromise any further. Le Monde reported,"this translation ... was accepted by the entire body of French-speaking bishops. The Permanent Council of the French Episcopate, that has just met in Paris, has ratified it; so it will stand."Why did these trinitarian Catholic scholars and Church officials insist on a translation of Phil. 2:6 that so obviously denies the "central doctrine" of the Catholic Church?This question was answered by an article in Le Monde (6 April 1971):"The scholars responsible for this change - a change ratified by the majority of French bishops - consider the new translation more faithful to the Greek text than the former [1959] one was."So the French Catholic cardinals, archbishops, and bishops found themselves in a dilemma. They could either give up their new, more honest, translation of Phil. 2:6 which would show they are more loyal to their trinitarian traditions than to the truth of the inspired scriptures (Matt. 15:6-9; 1 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 Tim. 4:3, 4; John 8:31-32), or they could keep their new official translation and thereby admit that many other French trinitarian Bibles (as well as many translations in other languages) have mistranslated Phil. 2:6. In order to take the latter course required not only a strong stand against tradition but the strength and courage to stand against the desires (and demonstrations, politics, economic pressures, etc.) of a large number of their countrymen. Courage of such a magnitude is rare in the ranks of tradition-bound Christendom!When even a number of the best trinitarian scholars are willing to admit the actual meaning (or even an equivalent compromise) of harpagmos at Phil. 2:6, it becomes necessary for honest-hearted, truth-seeking individuals to admit that Phil. 2:6 not only does not identify Jesus as God, but that it clearly shows Jesus is not God!The highly regarded The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, says:"Although the Son of God in his pre-existent being was in the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). In his earthly existence he was obedient to God, even unto death on the cross (Phil. 2:8) .... After the completion of his work on earth he has indeed been raised to the right hand of God (Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:22) .... But he is still not made equal to God. Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28)." - p. 80, vol. 2. [Emphasis found in quotations is nearly always added by me, as it also is here.] PHIL 2:6-------------------------------------------------Ison: "Equal”Of course most trinitarians ignore the proper translation of harpagmos. Among such "scholars" was the influential Dr. Walter Martin, the anti-"cult" Trinity defender. He tells us, in fact, that the word "equal" here further proves Jesus' absolute equation with God [but only if you mistranslate harpagmos first, of course].(Please consider: Being "equal to someone or something" [like being "the image of someone"] is really a statement that you are not really that person or thing at all! When we intend to identify someone or something, we come right out and say it. We do not say, "David is equal to the king of Israel;" "Jesus is equal to the Christ;" "Jehovah is equal to God;" etc.! No, we clearly say, "David is King over Israel" - 2 Sam. 5:17; "Jesus is the Christ" - 1 Jn 5:1; "Jehovah is God" - 1 Ki 18:39, Living Bible, ASV, Young's, and The Interlinear Bible; Ps 100:3, ASV, Young's, and The Interlinear Bible. - - - Remember, "LORD" in most Bibles is a mistranslation of "Jehovah.")"The term `equal' here," Martin writes, "is another form of ison [see MINOR 7-10], namely isa, which again denotes absolute sameness of nature, thus confirming Christ's true Deity." - p. 68, KOTC.So Martin tries to tell us that Phil. 2:6 is asserting that Jesus "thought it not something to be retained [harpagmos] to be of the absolute same nature with God." But, as we have seen (MINOR 7-11), isos does not mean "absolute equality of nature" - cf. Matt. 20:12; Luke 20:36 (esp. LB).Even the highly acclaimed trinitarian authority The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology admits that ison (and its related forms)"indicates more strongly an external, objectively measurable and established likeness and correspondence" - p. 497, vol. 2.A careful study of the NT uses of this word not only shows that it means an external likeness but that it may even be limited to a likeness of only one aspect of the original [MINOR 8 - "John 5:18 (`Equal': Ison)"].PHIL 2:6Isos (isa, neut.) "ἴσος ... prob. from 1492 [eido] (through the idea of seeming); similar (in amount or kind)" - Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.So when one thing is described as isa [ison] with another thing, they are still two separate different things. One is merely like or similar to another in a certain aspect.The very trinitarian The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol. 2, p. 968, discussing isos, reveals:"In Mt 20:12, `made them equal' means `put them upon the same footing,' i.e. regarded their brief service as though it were the very same as our long hours of toil. In Lk 20:36 the context restricts the equality to a particular relation." - Eerdmans Publ., 1984 reprint.In other words, ison at Matt. 20:12 makes the workers measurably "equal" to one another in only one external aspect: the amount of money they were to receive. They were really very unequal otherwise. Also in Luke 20:36, as the trinitarian reference quoted above tells us, those resurrected humans and God's angels are not necessarily considered equal in essence in this scripture but in only one particular relation: they will not die again. (See Living Bible.)And we see the same thing in the OT Septuagint:"so thy quarrel and enmity shall not depart, but shall be to thee like [isos] death." - Prov. 25:10, Septuagint Version, Zondervan Publ., 1970, p. 813."Quarrel" and "enmity" certainly are not absolutely equal to death (in spite of the fact that some could render this "shall be equal [isos] to death")! The similarity of the single quality of permanence is the only thing being equated here. The "quarreling" and "enmity" are a never-ending condition, like death itself.Furthermore, the fact that isa is neuter in this verse in Philippians means that Paul is not saying that Jesus is perfectly equal to God himself. You see, the word `God' here is the masculine form of the word, and for the word `equal' (whatever its intended meaning) to be applied wholly to the word `God' itself it must be of the same gender (masculine in this case - isos). - see the similar use of the neuter `one' used for the masculine `God' in the ONE study.Therefore, even if isa could mean absolute equality, only some thing (or things) about God are being considered - not God as a whole.[5] So Jesus is refusing to seize some thing or things (authority, power, immortality, ...?) that are similar to God's.That is why 4th century trinitarians were forced to use a non-Biblical word instead of isos in an attempt to provide just such a meaning for their trinitarian creedsSo if we translated this passage with the actual, full meaning of the word ison, the literal NT Greek - ("not taking by force [harpagmos] considered [hegeomai] the to be `equal' [isa] with god [theo]") - would be rendered: "did not even consider forcefully trying to become like God (even in any single aspect)." PHIL 2:6----------------------------------------------------Theos: "God"/"a god"Another thing we should know about Phil. 2:6, 7 concerns the phrase "of God" (θεοῦ or theou). A perfectly honest alternate translation of this verse can be: "though he was existing in the form of a god [i.e., `a mighty individual' in a similar sense that the Bible calls angels and Israelite judges `gods' - see the DEF and BOWGOD studies]." The NWT does not translate it that way, but grammatically and doctrinally it is a perfectly honest rendering and probably accounts for the 1959 French translation of Phil. 2:6, "being of divine status" and the NEB's "divine nature" and the renderings in Moffatt and the JB. (See the first part of the DEF study which discusses "god/divine.")This scripture contrasts Jesus as, first, being in "form of god" (morphe theou) and, then, (2:7) being in "form of slave" (morphen doulou). Both of these phrases use the word "form" followed by an anarthrous genitive noun. This means that we are being given a contrast of two grammatical parallels.If we should decide to translate the second half of this parallel as "form of a slave," then there can be no honest objection on grammatical grounds for translating the first part of this parallel as "form of a god." In fact it would seem more appropriate to translate it this way instead of "form of [the] God."That means it would certainly not be improper to interpret Phil. 2:6, 7 as "although he was existing in the form of one in a high position of mightiness and/or authority (as, in a lower sense, the position of angels, and even certain Israelite judges and kings, qualified them to be called `gods' occasionally in the inspired scriptures), he never even gave a thought about an attempt to seize equality with God, but instead, he gave up that exalted position he already had and took on the form of one in a lowly position."To show further that the anarthrous genitive theou ("God" or "a god") as found at Phil. 2:6 may be honestly translated "of a god," compare Acts 12:22 in any NT Greek-English interlinear Bible - "the voice of a god."The Watchtower Society, however, interprets Phil. 2:6 to mean that Jesus was in the form of God. That is, he was a spirit person as are all heavenly persons - see WORSHIP-1. The Father is a spirit person (John 4:23, 24 KJV, ASV); the angels are spirit persons (Heb. 1:7 KJV - also see Aid book, p. 1542 - and pp. 39 and 593 in the trinitarian Today's Dictionary of the Bible); men resurrected to heaven become spirit persons (Phil. 3:20, 21; 1 Cor. 15:44-53); and Jesus is (and was in the beginning also) a spirit person (1 Pet. 3:18, 1 Cor. 15:45).---------------------------------------------------MorpheAlthough it has been rejected by even many trinitarian Bible scholars, some others attempt to force an interpretation of morphe (μορφῇ) that includes the idea of "essence" or "nature." They do this only at Phil. 2:6 (Jesus "was in the form [morphe] of God") because the true meaning of morphe will not allow for the trinitarian interpretation that Jesus is God. But with their forced interpretation of morphe at Phil. 2:6 they can say that Jesus had the "absolute essence" and "full nature" of God!However, as even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:"Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.Thayer agrees that morphe is"the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance" - Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 418, Baker Book House. [Also see Young's Analytical Concordance (also compare the closely-related morphosis) and Liddell and Scott's An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.]It's easy to see why even many trinitarian scholars disagree with the forced "nature" interpretation of morphe when you look at all the scriptural uses of morphe (according to Young's Analytical Concordance, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978 printing and A Concordance of the Septuagint, Zondervan Publishing House, 1979 printing): Mark 16:12; Phil. 2:6, 7 in the New Testament and in the Old Testament Greek Septuagint of Job 4:16 "there was no form [morphe] before my eyes;" Is. 44:13 "makes it as the form [morphe] of a man;" Dan. 4:33 "my natural form [morphe] returned to me;" 5:6, 9, 10 "the king's countenance [morphe] changed;" 7:28 "[Daniel's] countenance [morphe] was changed." - The Septuagint Version, Greek and English, Zondervan, 1976 printing.Morphe is found at Mark 16:12 which is part of the "Long Ending" for the Gospel of Mark. Many scholars do not consider this as inspired scripture, but, instead, a later addition by someone to Mark's original inspired writing. However, even if this is the case, it is still an example of how morphe was used in those times since copies of the "Long Ending" were in existence at least as early as 165 A.D. (Justin Martyr).So notice especially how the New American Bible (1970), the Living Bible, The New English Bible, the Douay version, the New Life Version, and the Easy-to-Read Version translate morphe at Mark 16:12:"he was revealed to them completely changed in appearance [morphe]" - NAB."they didn't recognize him at first because he had changed his appearance [morphe]." - LB."he appeared in a different guise [morphe]" - NEB."he appeared in another shape [morphe]" - Douay."he did not look like he had looked [morphe] before to these two people" - NLV."Jesus did not look the same" - ETRV.Mark 16:12 - "He appeared in another form. Luke explains this by saying that their eyes were held. If their eyes were influenced, of course, optically speaking, Jesus would appear in another form." - People's New Testament Notes.These trinitarian translations show the meaning of morphe to be that of "external appearance" not "essence" or "nature"![6]The Living Bible even renders morphe at Phil. 2:7 as "disguise"! And the 1969 French lectionary (see section on harpagmos above) rendered morphe at Phil. 2:6 as image!The further uses of morphe, the very same form as used at Phil 2:6, by those first Christian writers to write after the NT itself was written (the Apostolic Fathers - about 90 A.D. to 150 A.D.) make a trinitarian rendering at Philippians 2:6 even more incredible:"There was no form [μορφῇ] before my eyes, but I heard a breeze and a voice." 1 Clem. 39:3, The Apostolic Fathers, Sparks, 1978, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publ."I want to show you what the holy Spirit, which spoke with you in the form [μορφῇ] of the Church, showed you" - Hermas, Sim. 9:1:1, Sparks.Also notice how the first Christian writers after the Apostolic fathers understood the meaning of morphe at Phil 2:6 itself:"... who being in the shape of God, thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God" - Christian letter from 177 A.D. sometimes ascribed to Irenaeus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), p. 784, vol. 8."... who being in the image of God, `thought it not ...'" - Tertullian, about 200 A.D., ANF, p. 549, vol. 3."...who being appointed in the figure of God ..." - Cyprian, about 250 A.D., ANF, p. 545, vol. 5.We can see, then, that, with the originally-intended meaning of morphe, Paul is saying that before Jesus came to earth he had a form or an external appearance resembling that of God (as do the other heavenly spirit persons, the angels, also).[7]So one in the morphe of a slave is one who has the appearance of a slave (but is not in actuality - thus, "taking the disguise [morphe] of a slave" - Phil. 2:7, Living Bible.).This is the obvious meaning of "form" here and it is still used in this sense even today. As an example The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (TNIDONTT) says:"According to Gen 18:1 ff., God appeared to Abraham in the form of three men." - p. 706, vol. 1.Although scripturally incorrect (see the IMAGE study: "Actual physical representations") some trinitarians today say that God was in the form of three men (or angels). Obviously they mean only that he appeared that way to men, but really was not what his outward appearance seemed: he was not actually three men!!).Isaiah 44:13, for example, says in the Septuagint: "The artificer having chosen a piece of wood, marks it out with a rule, and fits it with glue, and makes it as the form [morphe] of a man" - Zondervan, 1976 printing. Now a "Wooditarian" might well claim that the wood in this scripture `clearly has the full and complete essence, nature, etc. of Man,' but no objective, reasonable person would accept his wishful interpretation! Instead an honest interpretation can only be that the artificer made the piece of wood to appear like a man.The fact that it is in the form (morphe) of a man shows conclusively (as we should know anyway) that it is not a man! If the writer of this scripture had somehow intended to say that the artificer had indeed made the piece of wood into a real man, he would not have used morphe. He would have written that the artificer "makes it into a man." And, of course, it is equally true that Paul would not have said Jesus was in the form (morphe) of God if he had meant that Jesus was God! The use of morphe there shows that Jesus was not God!Yes, the fact that some trinitarians insist that morphe can mean the very essence or nature of a thing does not make it so. We know that `essence,' `nature,' `essential nature,' etc. were not intended here by Paul simply because of the way this word is always used in scripture. We know it also by the fact that there were words available to Paul which really did mean `essence' or `nature.' If Paul, or any other Bible writer, had ever wished to use a word indicating the nature, substance, or essence of something, he could have used phusis or, possibly, even ousia.Phusis, "φύσις... nature, i.e, .... d. the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others" - Thayer, #5449.Phusis, "φύσις, ... the nature, natural qualities, powers, constitution, condition, of a person or thing" - Liddell and Scott, p. 876."Phusis (φύσις), ... signifies (a) the nature (i.e., the natural powers or constitution) of a person or thing" - W. E. Vine, p. 775.Ousia, "οὐσία ... that which is one's own, one's substance, .... III. the being, essence, nature of a thing" - p. 579, Liddell and Scott's An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford Press.For example, Philo, the most popular Jewish scholar and teacher of these times (early to middle first century A.D.), used these two terms in speaking of God's nature:"[The prophet asks concerning the Creator:] Is He a single Nature (phusis) ... or a composite Being? .... Nevertheless he did not succeed in finding anything by search respecting the essence [ousia] of Him" - p. 99, Philo, vol. V, "On Flight and Finding," Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, 1988 printing.(Philo, as well as all other Jewish and Christian writers of this time never considered God to be more than one person, the Father alone! - see CREEDS, ISRAEL, and LOGOS studies.)Paul himself was very familiar with at least one of these terms:Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature [phusis] are not gods. - Gal. 4:8, NRSV. (Cf. 2 Pet. 1:4)Yes, if Paul had intended `nature,' `very essence,' etc., he certainly would not have used a word which means only external appearance (morphe). He would have used one of the words which really mean absolute nature!We also have morphe and isa as parallels in the "exalted pre-existent" (Phil. 2:6) first part of this passage. And we have morphe, homoiomati, and schemati as parallels in the humble "fleshly existent" follow-up (Phil. 2:7-8). Furthermore, the latter humbled "fleshly" part of this passage ("himself emptied taking morphe of a slave, becoming in homoiomati of men and having been found in the schemati of a man") is the antithetic parallel of the first "exalted" part ("morphe of God").In other words, there is a common meaning in all these parallel terms. They are used nearly synonymously. For example, even hyper-trinitarian W. E. Vine admits:"`It is universally admitted that the two phrases ["morphe of God" and "morphe of a slave"] are directly antithetical, and that `form' [morphe] must therefore have the same sense in both.'" - extreme trinitarian Vine is quoting from extreme trinitarian Gifford's "The Incarnation." - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 454.Therefore, if we can determine the meanings of the descriptive parallels (homoiomati and schemati) to "morphe" in the `humbled, fleshly' portion of this scripture, we will then know exactly what was intended by the word morphe in that phrase ("morphe of a slave"). And if we thus determine the meaning of morphe in "morphe of a slave," we will know exactly how morphe was intended to be understood in its exalted parallel: "morphe of God."What meaning do all these parallel words share? Like "image" they all mean, not the actual thing but a representation, a similarity, something with only the outward appearance of some other thing. Therefore, since "morphe" in the phrase "morphe of a slave" is proven by its synonymous parallels (homoiomati, schemati) to mean merely a likeness, then "morphe" in the further parallel of "morphe of God" must also mean merely a likeness! So, just with its own internal meaning alone, Phil. 2:6-8 shows that "morphe of God" must mean in a form like God's or similar to God!In other words, when we see `morphe of a servant' being further paralleled (and explained) by "likeness [homoiomati] of men" and "in fashion [schemati] [8] as a man," there should be no doubt left as to what Paul actually intended when he wrote `morphe of a servant'! Homoioma (which, of course, includes the form used in Phil. 2:7 - homoiomati) means nothing else but `likeness'![9]Even if, as a few trinitarians improperly claim, homoiomati meant "the same as" [and it clearly does not!], it would be asinine to say "he came to be the same as a man" if you intended to say "he came to be a man"! Either he is a man, or he is not! Saying he is "the same as" a man clearly indicates he is not really a man!And when we know that `morphe of a servant' means `external appearance like that of a servant,' then we know that this morphe's parallel in `morphe of God' must mean an "external appearance like that of God (or `a god')"!Paul simply would not have written that Jesus was merely SIMILAR in appearance (morphe) to God (as all real evidence plainly shows) if he thought that Jesus was God!----------------------------------------------Huparchon (or `Uparchon')Another less than forthright rendering of "being in form of God (or a god)" by a few trinitarian scholars involves the Greek word huparcho (translated "being" above). Huparcho (huparchon or uparchon [ὑπάρχων in Greek letters] is the actual form of huparcho used in this scripture) is sometimes "interpreted" by a few trinitarians in an attempt to show an eternal pre-existence (see TEV).[10] This is done in an attempt to deny the actuality of Jesus' creation by God. Similarly, Dr. Walter Martin in his The Kingdom of the Cults declares:"Christ never ceased to be Jehovah even during His earthly incarnation. It is interesting to note that the Greek term uparchon, translated `being' in Philippians 2:6 [KJV], literally means `remaining or not ceasing to be' (see also 1 Corinthians 11:7), hence in the context Christ never ceased to be God." - p. 94, 1985 ed.If uparchon really had such a meaning, we would expect it to be used especially for God. What else that exists has an eternal existence? But search as we will we never see this word used for God! Some examples where we would expect to see it used (if it really meant `eternal existence') in the Bible Greek of the ancient Septuagint are Is. 43:10, 25; 45:15, 22; 46:4, 9. Like all other scriptures referring to God, they use forms of the "be" verb (eimi), which may be used to mean an eternal existence, but they never use uparchon to describe his existence! (Is. 45:22, for example, says, "I am [eimi] the God and there is no other." - cf. James 2:19 [estin, form of eimi])[11] So why is uparchon never used for the only thing in existence that has always existed (and which will never cease to exist)?Uparchon is never used for God because it actually, literally means (in spite of Martin's "scholarly" declaration above):"to make a beginning (hupo, `under'; arche, `a beginning')" - W. E. Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 390.Strong's Exhaustive Concordance also defines huparcho as "to begin under (quietly), i.e. COME INTO EXISTENCE" - #5225.And the authoritative (and trinitarian) An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott tells us:"[huparcho] ... to begin, make a beginning ... 2. to make a beginning of ... 3. to begin doing ... 4. to begin [doing] kindness to one ... Pass. to be begun" - p. 831, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing. [12]So, even though it may be rendered into English as "existed" or "is," it nevertheless seems it should also be understood as something that has come into existence at some point.In that sense, then, huparchon is very much like another NT word, ginomai, γινόμαι [#1096, Thayer's], which also literally means "become" or "come into existence" but is sometimes translated into English as "is," "are," etc. E.g., 1 Peter 3:6 "whose daughters ye are [ginomai]," KJV, NKJV, NAB, RSV, NIV, is more properly understood as "you have become [ginomai] her children," NASB, NRSV, NEB, NWT - Cf. John 6:17, "It was [ginomai] dark."As respected trinitarian NT Greek expert Dr. Alfred Marshall tells us:"[Ginomai] denotes the coming into existence of what did not exist before.... This verb [just like huparchon] is therefore not used of God...."[13]Marshall further explains that although ginomai is often translated into English as "is," "are," "were," etc. it must nevertheless be remembered that it still retains the additional meaning of having come into existence! - p. 106, New Testament Greek Primer, Zondervan Publishing House, 1978 printing.For another good example of the similarity of huparchon with ginomai see Luke 16:23 and 22:44.Lk. 16:23 - "he lifted up his eyes, being [huparchon] in torment," NASB.Lk. 22:44 - "and being [ginomai] in agony he was praying," NASB.In very similar statements Luke has used the very similar (in meaning) huparchon and ginomai and the highly respected NASB has rendered them both "being." But in both cases their fundamental meanings of "coming into existence" (or "coming to be") must be remembered. In other words, the person had not always been in torment or agony, but at some point had "come to be" in such a condition!If you examine the following examples of the Biblical usage of huparcho, you will find they are clearly speaking of conditions which once did not exist but which have come into existence ("have begun to be"): Luke 16:23; Acts 2:30; Acts 7:55; Acts 8:16; Ro. 4:19; 1 Cor. 11:18; 2 Cor. 8:17; James 2:15.These last four verses not only show a state that has begun recently but a state that is transient, temporary - e.g., Abraham hadn't always been [huparchon] 100 years of age and certainly wouldn't continue to be 100 years of age: he had begun to be [huparchon] about 100 years old at this point - Ro. 4:19.1 Cor. 11:18, KJV says:"I hear that there be [huparchon] divisions among you [the Corinthian congregation]."Such divisions had not always existed there. Nor must they always continue to be there, or Paul would not have bothered to counsel them to heal their divisions. The complete understanding for this verse is, obviously:"I hear that there have begun to be [huparchon] divisions among you."2 Cor. 8:16, 17 tells us:"But thanks be to God, who puts the same earnestness on your behalf in the heart of Titus. For he [Titus] ..., being [huparchon] himself very earnest, he has gone to you of his own accord." - NASB.It should be obvious to everyone that Titus hasn't been earnest from all eternity. He obviously came to be earnest at some point in time. And, in fact, we are even told in verse 16 that at some point in time God put this earnestness in Titus' heart. Obviously it was not always there if God put it in his heart at some point! The meaning of huparchon as "having come [or begun] to be" is very certain from the context alone in these two verses.James 2:15 tells us, in the KJV: "If a brother or sister be [huparchon] naked [`without clothes' - NIV, NASB]," we must help him to become clothed again. Obviously the brother has not been naked for all eternity but has very recently come to be in this condition. It's equally obvious that the brother will not always continue in this condition. In fact his brothers are commanded to ensure that he not continue in this naked state. (Famed trinitarian Bible scholar Dr. Robert Young noted the correct, complete meaning for huparchon in this verse: "BEGIN to be [huparchon] naked" - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 ed.)Therefore, huparcho (or huparchon) does not mean "eternal pre-existence" as claimed by some trinitarians, and it certainly does not have to mean a condition that must continue to exist as Dr. Walter Martin also implies. Notice the solitary example (1 Cor. 11:7) he has selected to "prove" that uparchon means "not ceasing to be":"For a man ... is [huparchon] the image and glory of God" - NASB.NASB reference Bible refers this scripture to Gen. 1:26; 5:1; 9:6; and James 3:9. These scriptures all state that man was created or made in the image of God. (In fact James 3:9 literally says that men "have come to be [ginomai, #1096] in the likeness of God" and is usually translated in trinitarian Bibles as "have been made [or created] in the likeness of God." - NASB, NIV, RSV.)So there is the real parallel meaning for the huparchon of 1 Cor. 11:7 - created! There obviously was a time (before he was created) when a man was not the image of God. Furthermore, Martin's solitary "example" states that "a man" (NASB) is the image of God. This means that every man who lives has these qualities in some degree. However, not every man will have these qualities forever. Many, when they return to the dust of the earth, will cease to reflect God's qualities and glory! It would be much better to translate this verse literally as "For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he has come into existence [huparchon] in the image and glory of God."There is little doubt about what huparchon was actually intended to mean (regardless of how modern trinitarian translators wish to translate it). Noted trinitarian scholar and translator Dr. Robert Young (Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible; Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible; etc.) has even admitted in his Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary (p. 134, Baker Book House, 1977) that his own rendering of huparchon as "being" at Phil. 2:6 in his own published Bible translation should be, to be more literal,"beginning secretly [huparchon] in (the) form of God ...." - Phil. 2:6 [14]So, rather than any "eternal pre-existence" being implied by Paul's use of huparchon at Phil. 2:6 ("who `always having been' in God's form" - cf. TEV), it is more likely just the opposite: "Who came into existence (or was created) [huparchon] in a form [morphe] similar to God (or in God's image)"![15] Of course, if Jesus first came into existence in God's image, then he cannot be the eternal, always-existent God of the Bible (nor even the always-existent God of the trinity doctrine)!Or, put even more simply, since huparchon is never used for God himself, then its use for the pre-existent Jesus shows, again, that Jesus cannot be God!What we really have at Phil. 2:6-7, then, may be more accurately rendered:"who, even though he had come into existence as a glorious spirit person in a likeness [external form or guise] of God (or a god), never gave even the slightest consideration that by force he should try to become equal to God (in even a single aspect or quality), but, instead, emptied himself of his glorious form and took on the likeness [external form or guise] of a slave, being born in the likeness of men."When all is examined, Phil. 2:6 is, in reality, proof that Jesus has never been equally God with the Father!Part 2 - NotesPHIL 2:6At Philippians 2:8 the NWT say Jesus death was on a torture stake not a cross. Why? Because the Greek word stauros means an upright stake or pale. Semantyka greckiego słowa σταυρός (stauros) - Synopsa.plRegarding Philippians 2:9 let's look at some different translations:"God...gave him the name that is above every [other]name." NWT"God...gave him a name that is above every other name." New Living Translation"God...has given Him the name that is above every other name." CB Williams NT"God...gave Him the name that is above every other name. Beck"God...gave him the name which is above all other names." New Jerusalem Bible"God...gave him the name that is greater than any other name." Good News Bible"God has...given him that name which is greater than any other name." Knox Bible"God...has conferred on Him the Name which is supreme above every other." Weymouth NT"God...gave him the Name which stands above all other names." 20th Century NT"God...giving him a name that is above every other name." 21st Century NT"God has...given him the name above all others. Smith&Goodspeed's An American Translation"God...gave him the name which is above all other names." Jerusalem Bible"God...gave him a name which is above every other name." Living Bible"God made the name of Christ greater than every other name." New Century Version"God...gave Him a name that is greater than any other name." New Life Study Testament"God has given him...the name honored above all other names." God's Word BibleDo not these translators "understand the true nature and person of Christ" according to some?The reason for the insertion of the word "other" (and you have to notice that the NWT is the only one that actually has it in brackets), as 1 Corinthians shows, is that God is excluded by the word "ALL.""In that quotation All things are put under him, it is evident that God is excepted, who put all things under Him." 1 Cor 15:27 Montgomery NT [emphasis hers]Commenting on this, John V. Dahms points out,"I submit that a responsible reading of Philippians 2 finds the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son implied in it. AS J.J. Muller has said in commenting on this text: 'The glorification of the Father is the ultimate purpose of all things.'" The Subordination of the Son, JETS, September 1994, 351-64Philippians 2:9-11 and the Words OTHER and ALONE

ANSWER: The truth about the claim that “the Pope is about to enforce Sunday Law” is that the Papacy is indeed trying to implement Sunday law because Sunday is her supposed “mark” of authority/power over divine times and laws in order to reestablish UNIVERSAL Papal Supremacy under the leadership of the Jesuit Order (Pope Francis is a Jesuit who kept his silver Jesuit cross).[Authors Note: This answer will be frequently updated to add more analysis and resources regarding the Papacy’s push towards universal Sunday Legislation.]I. THE PAPACY’S SUNDAY AGENDA"Therefore, also in the particular circumstances of our own time, Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy."—Pope John Paul II, Dies Domini, 1998"In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church's holy days as legal holidays."—Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2188"A person who violates the sanctity of Sunday is to be punished as a heretic."—Pope John Paul II (quoted from Detroit News, July 7, 1998, pA1)The Catholic canonical definition of a “heretic”:"Whoever denies or places in doubt any truth that must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or repudiates the Christian faith as a whole, and does not come to his senses after having been LEGITIMATELY WARNED, is to be PUNISHED AS A HERETIC...whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the [1] Roman Pontiff or the [2] College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been LEGITIMATELY WARNED, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty."—Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic letter “Ad Tuendam Fidem”, Canon 1436 (May 18, 1998)“There is no graver offense than heresy... and therefore it must be rooted out with fire and sword.”—Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14 (1911): 767-768“A heretic merits the pains of fire....By the Gospel, the canons, civil law, and custom, heretics must be burned.”—“The American Textbook of Popery”, p 164 (quoting from the “Directory for the Inquisitors”).“Heretics may be not only excommunicated but also justly put to death.”—”Catholic Encyclopedia”, Vol. XIV, p. 768Notice what Pope Francis I said when during his historic visit to the United States of America in 2015. The trend is that the Papacy is using the Climate Change movement and the USA as a catalyst to promote a certain “rest” for “nature” and the “poor”."The biblical tradition clearly shows that this renewal entails recovering and respecting the rhythms inscribed in nature by the hand of the Creator. We see this, for example, in the law of the Sabbath. On the seventh day, God rested from all his work. He commanded Israel to set aside each seventh day as a day of rest, a Sabbath, (cf. Gen 2:2-3; Ex 16:23; 20:10). Similarly, every seven years, a sabbatical year was set aside for Israel, a complete rest for the land (cf. Lev 25:1-4)...On Sunday, our participation in the Eucharist has special importance. Sunday, like the Jewish Sabbath, is meant to be a day which heals our relationships with God, with ourselves, with others and with the world...The law of weekly rest forbade work on the seventh day, 'so that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your maidservant, and the stranger, may be refreshed' (Ex 23:12). [Sunday] Rest opens our eyes to the larger picture and gives us renewed sensitivity to the rights of others. And so the day of rest, centered on the Eucharist, sheds it light on the whole week, and motivates us to greater concern for NATURE [Climate Change] and the POOR [Socialism]."—Pope Francis I, Encyclical "Laduato si'" (May 24, 2015), Vatican.va, para. 71 & 237Notice what the AP News wrote under the headline: "Pope: Use Pandemic to Give the Environment a Vital 'Rest'" in 2020,"VATICAN CITY (AP) — The COVID-19 pandemic has shown how the Earth can recover 'if we allow it to rest' and must spur people to adopt simpler lifestyles to help a planet 'groaning' under the constant demand for economic growth, Pope Francis said Tuesday. In his latest urgent appeal to help a fragile environment, Francis also renewed his call for the cancellation of the debts of the most vulnerable countries. Such action would be just, he said, since rich countries have exploited poorer nations’ natural resources. 'In some ways, the current pandemic has led us to rediscover simpler and sustainable lifestyles,' Francis said in a written message. Citing the medical, social and economic crises triggered by the pandemic, Francis said it was 'time for restorative justice'. Francis invited ALL NATIONS to 'adopt more ambitious national targets to reduce emissions' harming the environment."—The Associated Press, Frances D'Emilio (September 1, 2020)More Details and Timeline of the “Push for Sunday Law”: [1] Towards Global Sunday Law and [2] Sabbath News ArchivesII. THE PAPACY’S AGENDA ANALYZED[UPDATES: Pastor Doug Batchelor, and others, provide a recent analysis of the Jesuit Pope Francis’s push towards Sunday Law.]Uploaded April 26, 2020: “Sunday Law News Report”Uploaded Sep 4, 2020: “How The Pope Plans To Save The Planet?”Uploaded Sep 18, 2020: “Climate Sunday Launches across Britain & Ireland”Uploaded by CNN Mar 1, 2010: “Blue [Sunday] Laws Survive” in AmericaUploaded by Bible Flock Box Nov 20, 2020: “Pope Francis, Climate Change, and Joe Biden”Pope Francis discusses climate change on the first call with BidenUploaded Dec 28, 2020: “Pandemic, Politics, Papacy, and Prophecy”Uploaded Feb 11, 2021: “Climate Change: Famines, Pestilence, Earthquakes”Written March 15, 2021 by Thomas D. Willaims, Ph.D.Pope Francis Calls for ‘New World Order’ After the PandemicPope Francis insists in a new book things will never be the same in a post-pandemic world, calling instead for a “new world order.”https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2021/03/15/pope-francis-calls-for-new-world-order-after-the-pandemic/?fbclid=IwAR3pM3LqOyjONdo-vSfE0C8DggQj6cIuHwq5gKLgtBulpWvQ9I-q_w3EB7QThe Papacy Behind Economic PolicyMAJOR U.S. COMPANIES PARTNER WITH POPE FRANCISThe “Council of Inclusive Capitalism” (CIC) is spearheaded by a strange combination of Lynn Forester de Rothschild (from the powerful family of the Rothschild business empire), Pope Francis I (the Jesuit theocrat of over 1.3 billion people), and 27 core leaders of Fortune 500 companies (whose companies have a cumulative worth of over $2.1 trillion). The total assets of this council are valued at over $10.1 trillion. This council seems to surpass the power of even most government leaders. One wonders how this powerful council will affect economic and political policy in the years to come.Business Insider reports:“The move toward a kinder capitalism just got religious. The CEOS of Bank of America, Visa, EY, BP, Johnson & Johnson, Salesforce, and several other Fortune 500 companies are joining forces with Pope Francis to promote a more inclusive form of capitalism in a new organization called the Council for Inclusive Capitalism With the Vatican.To join, business leaders must commit to measurable steps to create a more equitable and fair economic system, including adherence to the UN's sustainable development goals. As part of the commitment, the companies must take steps toward ending poverty, providing access to clear water, and reducing income inequality.This is not the first time the pope has taken a strong stance on capitalism. In the third encyclical of his papacy in October, Pope Francis rebuked free market capitalism. An encyclical is a way for religious leaders to establish a historical record of the church's teachings at the time. He's also repeatedly called for leaders to combat "dismal" inequality with fairer policies.In 2013, Pope Francis wrote a long statement, called an apostolic exhortation, chiding trickle-down economics, or the belief that as the rich get richer, their wealth trickles down and lifts up the middle class and poor as well."The marketplace, by itself, cannot resolve every problem, however much we are asked to believe this dogma of neoliberal faith," he wrote in the encyclical letter.In a statement, Pope Francis said an economic system that is more trustworthy is "urgently needed," adding that the business leaders on the council "have taken up the challenge by seeking ways to make capitalism become a more inclusive instrument for integral human well-being."The member companies of the new council represent more than $10.5 trillion in assets under management, companies with over $2.1 trillion of market capitalization, and 200 million workers in over 163 countries."This Council will follow the warning from Pope Francis to listen to 'the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor' and answer society's demands for a more equitable and sustainable model of growth," said Lynn Forester de Rothschild, founder of the Council and managing partner of Inclusive Capital Partners.—Marguerite Ward, “Pope Francis joins with CEOs of Fortune 500 companies to form a new council focused on creating a more equitable economy”, BusinessInsider Inc., (Dec 8, 2020, 8:59 AM)“The Pope means business. Capitalism met Catholicism on Tuesday, as business leaders from some of the world’s biggest Fortune 500 companies announced a new partnership with Pope Francis…The Council comprises 27 core members known as the "Guardians of Inclusive Capitalism", who represent companies with over $2.1 trillion in market capitalization and 200 million workers, making this council even more powerful than government leaders...The Council’s founding, spearheaded by Lynn Forester de Rothschild of the famous banking family, illustrates a collaborative effort of the environmental, social, and governance-focused practices occurring in the economic landscape already.”—Haley Messenger, “Big business gets its wings as leaders from major U.S. companies partner with Pope Francis”, NBC News, (Dec. 8, 2020, 6:17 PM PST)More on the Papacy’s Role in World Economics and Politics:The Papacy and the Council for Inclusive Capitalism (CIC)The Political and Economic Policy of the Papacy AnalyzedIII. THE HISTORICAL PROTESTANT VIEW REGARDING THE PAPACYGoing on about the comments that the Adventists were the ones who invented the teaching that the “Antichrist” is the Papacy… it is academically dishonest and lazy scholarship. The Seventh-day Adventist Church was not the original teacher of the historicist interpretation of Bible Prophecy which points to the Papacy as the Antichrist power on Earth.Did you know that the first person to call the seat of the Papacy, “antichrist”, was himself a Pope?Pope Gregory the Great wrote to Emperor Mauritius,“Moreover, I say confidently that anyone calling himself universal priest, or desires to be so called, shows himself, by this self-exaltation, to be the forerunner to the ANTICHRIST because by this display of pride he sets himself superior to others…”—Pope Gregory the Great (540-604 AD), in a letter to the Emperor Mauritius, Book 4, Letter 30In fact, the protestant reformers of the Great Protestant Reformation, among other great reformers, had taught the same historicist view as the Adventists:John Wycliffe (?-1384) → Catholic Scholar"We suppose that Antichrist, the head of all these evil men, is the pope of Rome." (Foxe's Book of Martyrs, p. 90)[Wycliffe died of a stroke while saying mass in 1384. In 1415, the Catholic church officially declared him a heretic and his writings as heresy. In 1428, his bones were dug up and burned and cast into a river].John Huss (1372-1415) → pre-reformation priest and martyr"The Pope is... the true Antichrist, of whom it is written, that he sitteth in the temple of God, among the people where Christ is worshiped.” (Foxe's Book of Martyrs, p. 90)[Huss was burned at the stake in 1415].Nicolaus Von Amsdorf (1483-1565) → Lutheran"He (the antichrist) will be revealed and come to naught before the last day, so that every man shall comprehend and recognize that the pope is the real, true antichrist and not the vicar of Christ ... Therefore those who consider the pope and his bishops as Christian shepherds and bishops are deeply in error, but even more are those who believe the Turk (ISLAM) is the antichrist. Because the Turk (ISLAM) rules outside of the church and does not sit in the holy place, nor does he seek to bear the name of Christ, but is an open antagonist of Christ and His church. This does not need to be revealed, but it is clear and evident because he persecutes Christians openly and not as the pope does, secretly under the form of Godliness." (Nicolaus Von Amsdorf, Furnemliche und gewisse Zeichen, sig.A2r.,v.)Martin Luther (1483-1546) → Lutheran"nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist. For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny." (Martin Luther, “First Principles”, pp. 196-197)"This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ." (Martin Luther, “Smalcald Articles”. II. IV 10-12)“We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist.” (Aug. 18, 1520). (Taken from “The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers”, by LeRoy Froom. Vol. 2., pg. 121).“Luther… proved, by the revelations of Daniel and St. John, by the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, that the reign of Antichrist, predicted and described in the Bible, was the Papacy … And all the people did say, Amen! A holy terror seized their souls. It was Antichrist whom they beheld seated o­n the pontifical throne. This new idea, which derived greater strength from the prophetic descriptions launched forth by Luther into the midst of his contemporaries, inflicted the most terrible blow o­n Rome.” (J. H. Merle D’aubigne’s “History of the Reformation of the Sixteen Century”, book vi, chapter xii, p. 215.)Matthias Flacius (1570) → Lutheran"The sixth and last reason for our separation from the pope and his followers be this; By many writings of our church, by the Divinely inspired Word, by prophecies concerning the future and by the special characteristics of the Papacy, it has been profusely and thoroughly proved that the pope with his prelates and clergy is the real true great antichrist, that his kingdom is the real Babylon, a never ceasing fountain and a mother of all abominable idolatry." (Flacius, Etliche Hochwichtige Ursachen und Grunde, warum das siche alle Christen von dem Antichrist…absondern sollen)Georg Nigrinus (1530-1602)"The Jesuits claim to be sorely offended and have taken my declarations as an insult and blasphemy in branding the Papacy as the antichrist of which Daniel, Paul, Peter, John and even Christ prophesied. But this is as true as it is that Jesus is the Messiah, and I am prepared to show it even by their own definition of the word 'antichrist'." (Translated from "Nigrinus, Antichrists Grundliche Offenbarung" fol. 6v.)"This Jesuit further contends that the Papacy cannot be antichrist because the Papacy has lasted for centuries, but that the antichrist is supposed to reign only for 3 1/2 years ... But no one doubts today that Daniel spoke of YEAR-DAYS, not literal days ... The prophetic time-periods of forty-two months, 1260 days, 1, 2, 1/2 times are prophetic, and according to Ezekiel 4, a day must be taken for a year." (Translated from "Nigrinus, Antichrists Grundliche Offenbarung" fols.28v. 29r.)John Calvin (1509-1564) → Calvinist Protestantism"Though it be admitted that Rome was once the mother of all Churches, yet from the time when it began to be the seat of Antichrist it has ceased to be what it was before. Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt .. I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." (“Institutes of the Christian Religion” by John Calvin, Vol.3, p.149)"Daniel and Paul had predicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God...We affirm him to be the Pope." (L. Froom, “Prophetic Faith of our Fathers”, Volume 2)John Knox (1505-1572) → Scotch Presbyterian“Yea, to speak it in plain words; lest that we submit ourselves to Satan, thinking that we submit ourselves to Jesus Christ, for, as for your Roman kirk, as it is now corrupted, and the authority thereof, whereon stands the hope of your victory, I no more doubt but that it is the synagogue of Satan, and the head thereof, called the pope, to be that man of sin, of whom the apostle speaks." (John Knox, The History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland, p.65)The Appellation from the Sentence Pronounced by the Bishops and Clergy: Addressed to the Nobility and Estates of Scotland 1558"yea, we doubt not to prove the kingdom of the Pope to be the kingdom and power of Antichrist." (Extracted from Selected Writings of John Knox: Public Epistles, Treatises, and Expositions to the Year 1559; edited by Kevin Reed Presbyterian Heritage Publications in1995)Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) → Anglican"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of Antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Works by Cranmer, vol.1, pp.6-7)Roger Williams (1603-1683) → First Baptist Pastor in America“Pastor Williams spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition." (The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52)The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) → Baptist"The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ." (1689 Baptist Confession of Faith)The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) → Presbyterian"There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God." (1646 Westminster Confession of Faith)Cotton Mather (1663-1728) → Congregational Theologian“The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them.” (“The Fall of Babylon” by Cotton Mather in Froom’s book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.)John Wesley (1703-1791) → Methodist"... In many respects, the Pope has an indisputable claim to those titles. He is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled, the son of perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers, destroyed innumerable souls, and will himself perish everlastingly. He it is that opposeth himself to the emperor, once his rightful sovereign; and that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped - Commanding angels, and putting kings under his feet, both of whom are called gods in scripture; claiming the highest power, the highest honour; suffering himself, not once only, to be styled God or vice-God. Indeed no less is implied in his ordinary title, "Most Holy Lord," or, "Most Holy Father." So that he sitteth - Enthroned. In the temple of God - Mentioned Rev. xi, 1. Declaring himself that he is God - Claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." (John Wesley, “Explanatory Notes Upon The New Testament”, p.216)“He [the Pope] is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers…He [the pontifex maximus] it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone” (Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, by Albert Close, pg. 110)Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) → Particular Baptist"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description.""Popery is contrary to Christ’s Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it. It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray." (Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome)Rev. James Aitken Wylie (1808-1890) → Presbyterian minister & Scottish Historian"The same line of proof which establishes that Christ is the promised Messiah, conversely applied, establishes that the Roman system is the predicted Apostacy. In the life of Christ we behold the converse of what the Antichrist must be; and in the prophecy of the Antichrist we are shown the converse of what Christ must be, and was. And when we place the Papacy between the two, and compare it with each, we find, on the one hand, that it is the perfect converse of Christ as seen in his life; and on the other, that it is the perfect image of the Antichrist, as shown in the prophecy of him. We conclude, therefore, that if Jesus of Nazareth be the Christ, the Roman Papacy is the Antichrist." (J.A.Wylie, Preface to "The Papacy is the Antichrist, A Demonstration")Ellen G. White (1827 - 1915) → SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS"This compromise between paganism and Christianity resulted in the development of "the man of sin" foretold in prophecy as opposing and exalting himself above God. That gigantic system of false religion is a masterpiece of Satan's power - a monument of his efforts to seat himself upon the throne to rule the earth according to his will.""To secure worldly gains and honors, the church was led to seek the favor and support of the great men of earth; and having thus rejected Christ, she was induced to yield allegiance to the representative of Satan - the bishop of Rome… Prophecy had declared that the papacy was to "think to change times and laws. (Daniel 7:25)" (E.G.White, The Great Controversy, pp.49-51)Other Reformers Include:Philipp MelanchthonHuldreich ZwingliThe Translators of the King James Bibleetc…“Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.”—Michael de Semlyen, “All Roads Lead to Rome”, Dorchestor House Publications, p. 205. 1991.)"Many of the great Christians of Reformation and post-Reformation times shared this view of prophetic truth and identified antichrist with the Roman Papacy. Among adherents of this interpretation were the Waldenses, the Hussites, Wycliff, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, the Baptist theologian John Gill, the martyrs - Cranmer, Tyndale, Latimer and Ridley."—”The Blessed Hope”, p.3Unfortunately, the churches have fallen asleep to the messages of their Church fathers who received light into the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.Because of this, the sons of Loyola, have infiltrated their protestant ranks for the purposes of uniting them with the Bishop of Rome, their old abusive mother, who for centuries had not recanted their blasphemy against the Living God and her supposed “infallibility”.IV. THE PAPACY IN THE BIBLE~OLD TESTAMENT~It is the Roman Catholic Church who says in her heart, “…‘I AM, and there is [1] NO ONE ELSE BESIDES ME; I shall not sit as a [2] WIDOW, Nor shall I know the [3] LOSS OF CHILDREN [the Protestants]’” (Isaiah 47:8).Notice in Isaiah 47:8, the woman calls herself “I am” which is a title that belongs to Jesus (compare this to John 8:58, Exodus 3:14, John 14:6).[1] “There is no one else besides me” (Her Political Power).“We have constantly sought during the whole course of Our Pontificate and striven, as far as it was possible, by teaching and action, to bind every Nation and people more closely to Us, and make manifest everywhere the salutary influence of the See of Rome…We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.”—Pope Leo XIII, “Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae” (June 20, 1894).[2] “I shall not sit as a widow” (Power over Kings/Governments).Revelation 17:2“With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.”[3] “I shall not know the loss of children” (Her Power over Churches).“It must be always clear that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic universal church is not the sister, but the mother of all the churches.”—“Dominus Iesus” (August 6, 2000).~NEW TESTAMENT~Revelation 18:7 (New Testament)“In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘[1] I SIT AS A QUEEN, and [2] AM NO WIDOW, and [3] WILL NOT SEE SORROW.’”[1] “I sit as a queen” (Her Political Power).“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”—Pope Boniface VIII, “Unam Sanctam” (Rome: 1302).[2] “I am not a widow” (Power over Kings/Governments).“The vicar of the incarnate Son of God, anointed high priest and supreme temporal ruler, (the Pope) sat in his tribunal impartially to judge between nation and nation, between people and prince, between sovereign and subject.”—Henry Edward Manning, “The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ” (1862): 46. [this source is a Catholic functionary][3] “I will not see sorrow” (Her Power over Churches).The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls the Church, “Mother and Teacher” (Article 3, “Catechism of the Catholic Church”).Excerpt from the Infamous Jesuit Oath:“My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant, and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope.”—This oath is taken from the book Subterranean Rome by Carlos Didier, translated from the French and published in New York in 1843. Dr. Alberto Rivera escaped from the Jesuit Order in 1967, and he describes his Jesuit oath in exactly the same way as it appears in this book. “Semper idem: always the same”.—The Jesuit Oath of Induction is also recorded in the Congressional Record of the U.S. (House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, Feb. 15, 1913, pp. 3215-3216).This oath is also very similar to the oaths of the Knights of Columbus and the Knights of Malta.The Bible says, “3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4).V. THE CATHOLIC VIEW OF THEMSELVES"The Pope is NOT only the representative [Vicar] of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under [the] veil of flesh."—The Catholic National, July 1895.The word “anti” in the original Greek means “instead of” or “in place of”. The term “Antichrist” actually means “one who puts himself in the place of Christ”. It is blasphemy of the highest order.The Bible definition of “blasphemy” is found in Luke 5:21."We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."—Pope Leo XIII, in an Encyclical letter, June 20, 1894. Also found in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (The Reunion of Christendom), June 20, 1894“Tradition, NOT Scripture, is the rock on which the [Catholic] church of Jesus Christ is built.”—Adrien Nampon (a Jesuit), from the Catholic Doctrine, as defined by the Council of Trent (p. 157)“But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.”—Pope Leo XIII, “Sapientiae Christianae: On Christians as Citizens” (January 10, 1890).“All dogmatic decrees of the pope, made with or without this general council, are infallible… Once made, no pope or council can reverse them…This is the Catholic principle, that the church cannot err in faith.”—”The Catholic World”, June 1871, pp. 422-423."The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ."—Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop. Cap."The Pope has the authority and often exercised it, to dispense with the command of Christ."—Ferraris’ Ecclesiastical (Catholic) Dictionary“The priesthood is the love of the heart of Jesus. When you see a priest, think of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—St. John Vianney (the patron saint of parish priests)“The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, AND the Vicar of God. ‘The Pope is of such lofty and supreme dignity that, properly speaking, he has not been established in any rank of dignity, but rather has been placed upon the very summit of all ranks of dignities…’ He is likewise the DIVINE MONARCH and SUPREME EMPEROR and KING OF KINGS” Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as [1] King of Heaven and [2] of Earth and of [3] the Lower Regions.”—Ferraris’ Eccl. Dictionary (Catholic) Article, Pope.This is blasphemy at the highest order. All of these titles belong to God alone and not the Bishop of Rome who calls himself “God of Earth”.//ABOVE: Notice the triple crown.VI. PROTESTANTISM RETURNS TO HER ABUSIVE MOTHER"Protestantism shall give the hand of fellowship to the Roman power. Then there will be a law against the Sabbath of God's creation, and then it is that God will do His 'strange work' in the earth."—”The S.D.A. Bible Commentary” 7:910 (1886). LD 130.1"How the Roman church can clear herself from the charge of idolatry we cannot see.... And this is the religion which Protestants are beginning to look upon with so much favor, and which will eventually be united with Protestantism. This union will not, however, be effected by a change in Catholicism, for Rome never changes. She claims infallibility. It is Protestantism that will change. The adoption of liberal ideas on its part will bring it where it can clasp the hand of Catholicism."—“The Review and Herald”, June 1, 1886. LDE"The professed Protestant world will form a confederacy with the man of sin, and the church and the world will be in corrupt harmony."—”The S.D.A. Bible Commentary” 7:975 (1891). LDE 130.3VII. THE BOTTOM LINE:Daniel 12:1 (The Warning of the Great End-Time Tribulation)“At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book.Matthew 24:15–22 (The Warning of the Great End-Time Tribulation)“15 Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the SABBATH. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.”Matthew 24:3–14 (The Signs of the End)“3 Now as He [Jesus] sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?’ 4 And Jesus answered and said to them: ‘Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, “I am the Christ,” and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. 9 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.’”Notice what this publication wrote all the way back in 1904 (117 years ago from the year 2021):"It is on the law of God that the last great struggle of the controversy between Christ and His angels and Satan and his angels will come, and it will be decisive for all the world.... Men in responsible positions will not only ignore and despise the Sabbath themselves, but from the sacred desk will urge upon the people the observance of the first day of the week, pleading tradition and custom in behalf of this man-made institution. They will point to calamities on land and sea—to the storms of wind, the foods, the earthquakes, the destruction by fire—as judgments indicating God's displeasure because Sunday is not sacredly observed. These calamities will increase more and more, one disaster will follow close upon the heels of another; and those who make void the law of God will point to the few who are keeping the Sabbath of the fourth commandment as the ones who are bringing wrath upon the world. This falsehood is Satan's device that he may ensnare the unwary."—"The Southern Watchman" (June 28, 1904)Even earlier than that:“The Lord has a controversy with his professed people in these last days. In this controversy men in responsible positions will take a course directly opposite to that pursued by Nehemiah. They will not only ignore and despise the Sabbath themselves, but they will try to keep it from others by burying it beneath the rubbish of custom and tradition. In churches and in large gatherings in the open air, ministers will urge upon the people the necessity of keeping the first day of the week. There are calamities on sea and land: and these calamities will increase, one disaster following close upon another; and the little band of conscientious Sabbath-keepers will be pointed out as the ones who are bringing the wrath of God upon the world by their disregard of Sunday.”—”The Review and Herald” (March 18, 1884, paragraph 14)What actually happens supernaturally behind the scenes?“Calamities in the Cities—When God's restraining hand is removed, the destroyer begins his work [Matt 13:28]. Then in our cities the greatest calamities will come. Is this because people do not keep Sunday? No; but because men have trampled upon the law of Jehovah. The Lord is slow to anger. This should inspire the heart with gratitude. ‘The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the Lord hath His way in the whirlwind and in in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of His feet’" (Nahum 1:3).—”Manuscript Releases”, vol. 3 [Nos. 162-209], p. 314.The Devil had always used the Commandments as a testing point of loyalty to God or Man. For example, Satan (through the use of the secular government of ancient Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar II), had tested the entire empire regarding the first two commandments regarding worship and idolatry. Three Hebrew boys, even on the threat of Death by fire, had stayed true to their God in those days of trial (Daniel 3).A similar test will be played out before the Second coming of Jesus Christ but it is specifically regarding the fourth commandment which regards the Sabbath. The sabbath is important because it is not only a time for a date with God, it is in fact the time-signature of God’s title as Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. The Sabbath is intrinsically connected to God’s Name, Title, and Territory. To change it is blasphemy at the highest order and any other Sabbath other than the Seventh-Day is counterfeit and is of the spirit of Antichrist.[Fun Fact: The word “Anti” (αντι) in the original Greek means “instead of” or “in place of” (also see Strong’s Concordance).]In other words, the Sabbath is important because the day on which we worship determines the authority we worship. In other words, the Sabbath is not only about personal rest/date with the Lord, it is about power, authority, and worship.Today, the counterfeit sabbath is Sunday and very few Christians know the history as to why that is. To make your own sabbath is essentially to denounce God’s own penmanship as the Creator of the Heavens and of the Earth “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. THEREFORE the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:11).Revelation 14:6–7“6 Then I saw another angel flying overhead, with the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation and tribe and tongue and people. 7 And he said in a loud voice, ‘Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come. Worship the One who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and the springs of waters.’”Notice the parallels with the Sabbath Commandment in Exodus 20:11 and Revelation 14:6–7. The Sabbath is part of the First Angels Message (one of three final warnings/messages given by God to the whole world before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ).In other terms, God, the master artist of Time, Space, and matter had written His final genuine signature as the author (artist) of Creation with the Sabbath. The Seventh-day Sabbath is a memorial of the Creator etched into Time itself so that no one would forget who He is. The Sabbath commandment (4th commandment) is the only commandment that starts with the word “remember”.Optional Read: How will the world end according to the Bible?VIII. RESOURCES: These resources will help you better understand the role “Sunday” has in our current events. Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. Let’s investigate history.To find out more about the HISTORY of how Sunday came into the Church, read:Constantine’s Christianity — Origins of a Compromised ChristianityYou will notice parallels on how Sunday keeping was vital to the early Catholic Church and how it relates to our current time.To find out how secret societies are involved, read:The Modern Tower of Babel — The Secret ThreadYou will learn WHO in the world will be helping the Papacy establish her primacy over the Earth.Jesuit Espionage — Undermining the Protestant ReformationYou will learn HOW the Papacy has been working under the nose of the Protestants of the world.The Jesuits and the Nazi Party — Killing the Sabbath-keepersYou will learn how the Papacy reacts to those who disagree with her, especially on the Sabbath.The Massacre of the Innocents — Brief History of Papal GenocideYou will learn how the Papacy reacts to those who disagree with her, especially on the Sabbath.The Counter-Reformation — the Five Methodologies the Papacy used to combat ProtestantismYou will learn how the Papacy reacts to those who disagree with her.To find out what Bible prophecy says about the role of the Papacy in our last days, read:What are the four beasts in Daniel chapter 7?You will learn who the antichrist and the little horn is.What are the different types of Christian eschatology?You will learn how the Jesuits undermined Protestant theology in terms of bible prophecy.

Why didn't the world do anything about the secession of Kosovo, but tries to hinder East-Ukraine and Crimea from becoming a part of Russia, or a new nation altogether?I read the answers to your question, some of which were balanced, but one of them was not only of a propagandistic nature and quite shameless.The commander of the Serbian “army” of trolls in Quora, again tried to distort the facts and deceive the public regarding the case of the Republic of Kosovo.To answer your question (as I have already explained through the answers to similar questions) the Serbian genocide against the Albanians became known to the world through the Serbian national program, known as the draft "Načertanije" 1844.According to this draft, the new Serbian state could include neighboring areas of Montenegro, northern Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina.[1]Since then and up till the very end of 20th century, the Serb official politics had composed 24 (twenty-four) programs on extermination of Albanian family. These genocidal programs envisaged the obliteration of renowned Albanian personalities, destruction of cultural, educational and scientific institutions, decrement till annihilation of Albanian population and colonization of Kosova.The tragic proportions of this organized crime are not only for the Balkans and as such it threatens the peace and the freedom of the whole region.This is the reason we consider it worthy to offer our arguments about Serb genocidal policy. We start with several facts from the history of Serbs: “When our army reached the Sanxhaku i Nishit / Sanjak of Niš in 1878, all the villages behind were left desolate. It was not known what names those settlements had before. Everything has been left in desolation.”“… Fining, arrests, merciless application of police measures, cutting of woods, persecutions, people left to the mercy of dogs, work without payment, destruction of cemeteries made Albanians fly away to Turkey, Antalya. One shouldn’t forget the methods used by Serbia, when it burnt to the ground the as a consequence — total cleansing was to follow accordingly…” — this is what was said in 1937.A high ranked Chetnik wrote the following in 1941: “I will be very happy when Kosta Pećanac will pass me the order — rivers Llapi, Sitnica and Drini will carry down flow Albanian heads for two months. Down there, in Kosova, there will be seen no white cap anymore.”“Shall we create Concentration Camps? All the Šiftari (a derogatory term for Albanians) are criminals…” - such writings were presented in 1945.The Milosevic’s plan 1989 - 1999 on extermination of Albanian population says:The land throughout Kosova should be burnt;The smoke from Albanian homes will prove that those parts have been exterminated one and for good;Carbonized bodies and houses burnt to the ground should sow lethal depression all over;And we shall say to the World: they make us kill them;The Soil of Saint Sava must be revenged. Albanians can be washed out only with knives and fire (Serb Church).During the period from 1878 through 1912 the Serb regime occupied and serbianized 714 (seven hundred and fourteen) Albanian villages of the Sanxhak of Nish / Sanjak of Niš using the European anti-Albanian attitude of that time.THE SERB GENOCIDE DURING THE PERIOD 1878 - 1999Serb atrocities over Albanians in the Sanxhak of Nish / Sanjak of Niš 1878 — 1912During the period from 1878 through 1912 the Serb regime occupied and serbianized 714 (Seven Hundred and Fourteen) Albanian villages of the Sanxhak of Nish / Sanjak of Niš using the European anti-Albanian attitude of that time.According to Turkish records, the Serb regime had occupied:48.000 houses;42.300 cattle stables;18.000 Granaries for wheat;48.000 kneading troughs.From each household have been taken:20 to 400 sheep;3 to 50 cattle;about 48.000 horses;50.000 carts and other household appliances.About Serb crimes committed in occupied lands (this occupation had been legalized by the Berlin Congress, 1878) we learn precisely from the English, Serb and Turkish evidence.This evidence says that from 1878 - 1912 had been cleansed 350.000 Albanians. The Serb press (“Samouprava” 1892 - 1894) emphasized that only in the region of Toplica had been massacred about 24.000 Albanians, mainly elderly, women and children.By the Law on “Colonization of foreigners” dated March 2nd 1865, and the Law on “Colonization of new lands” dated January 3rd 1880 by means of an ultimatum, 5.600 Serbs had been settled from Kosova in the Sanxhak of Nish / Sanjak of Niš.These documents are being kept in the Archive of Serbia. According to an account made by “The Committee - National Defense of Kosova”, the Albanian population in the Sanxhak of Nish / Sanjak of Niš in 1878 had been damaged to the amount of 40 million USD (forty million USD). Neither for crimes committed nor for the wealth confiscated, the Serb regime gave no account and did not take international responsibility nowadays. And they say: crimes do not stale.(Source: Hadži - Vasiljević. J, Albanska Liga, Belgrade, 1913, p. 7-19)Serb-Montenegrin Terror in Kosova 1912 - 1918The Serb Crimes in Kosova 1912 - 1915The policy and diplomacy of Nikola Pašić’s government will use two perfidious methods to keep Kosova under its rule.It will first isolate and arrest the main Albanian leaders, headed by Hasan Prishtina. Those arrested will be freed by the end of March, 1913 after it understood that everything was finally settled in London.Then the Serb Government in Prizren, Gjakova and Peja will organize signing up of Albanian petitions, pretending that they: “Are willing to remain within Serbia". The Archive documents contain the signature of Pašić.The evidence kept in the Archive of Serbia (Doc. No.1246) prove that, from the territories of Serbia and Montenegro, the following Albanians had immigrated to Turkey:The document proves the following truth: 395 European vessels had transported 239.807 Albanians to Antalya in Turkey. This figure does not include the children less than 6 years of age. The same document says that another 4.000 Albanian families immigrated to Antalya using continental roads.(Source: Documents on Foreign Policy of the Kingdom of Serbia, K. VII. S.I, Belgrade, 1980, pages: 617 - 618).The Committee of Kosova has the evidence that during 1912-1915, 500.000 Albanians had migrated to Antalya, while according to the Law on “The Colonization of Kosova” (1914) - 20.000 Serbs and 5.000 Montenegrins had been settled in Kosova.During the years 1912 - 1915132 Albanian villages had been burnt;1.250.000 various cattle had been absconded;320 Mosques;82 Schools; and8.450 Libraries had been destroyed.The Committee of Kosova had counted that till 1918, Albanian people has been damaged to the amount of 20 billion USD. However, for missing persons in prisons and concentration camps in occupied Albanian territories, one may never figure out.In 1915, on the fronts of Serbia, 5.800 Albanians had been taken as hostages and liquidated. This paperwork does not include the destruction of Luma region by Serb military forces, as well as destruction of additional 80 Albanian villages (1912 - 1915).Kosova during 1915 - 1918Kosova had been divided into two occupation zones during the period from 1915 to 1918:The Austro-Hungarian zone included: Mitrovica, Vushtrri, Lower Drenica (it was governed by Austro-Hungarian Office in Belgrade); Peja, Istog, Gjakova, Rugova, Plava, Gucia, Tivar and Ulqin (governed by the Austro-Hungarian Office in Cetinje).The Bulgarian Zone included: Llap, Gjilan, Prishtina, Upper Drenica, Lypjan, Ferizaj, Kaçanik, Shkup, Preshevë, Kumanovë, Prizren, Rahovec, Dragash, Gostivar, Dibër, Kërçovë and Strugë.Austro-Hungarian Empire has been a signatory party to a secret Treaty of 1881 with Serbia. The division of Kosova (1915 - 1918) proves that Serbia has been an enemy, same as Russia.Kosova turned into Concentration Camps 1918 - 1941In the Versailles Peace Conference (1919) the Government of the United Kingdoms of Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia, in a perfidious manner succeeded to avoid the issue of Kosova. They write to the Conference on pretence that the population of Malësia e Mbishkodrës (The Mountainous Ranges of Upper Shkodra) “is desirous to be part of Serbia”.The same procedure was carried out in the name of Dibra population, too. While data about the Christian population of Malësia e Mbishkodrës were sent in Albanian, those about Dibra population were made in Arabic language.According to the evidence in the Archive of Yugoslavia (The Fund S.14), in the years 1919 - 1921 commences sending of Kosova population to Concentration Camps, like those in Leskoc / Leskovac, Nish/Niš. 604 Albanian families had been settled in these Camps.By Prefectures, in these years (1919 - 1921) Albanians killed and houses burnt look like:According to the Police evidence, just by the end of the war (1918 - 1919), 13.000 Albanians have been killed. It is also said that, if not surrendered until March 10th, 1921 then the action for liquidation of 241 Albanian leaders with influence in the population will start. This was done so as to make Albanian population take refuge to Turkey.Starting from 1919 through 1941, year by year, immigrated Albanians:So, till August 1941, total number of Albanians taking refuge to Antalya reads: 255.878.(Statistics about this filed in the Archive DASIP in Belgrade).(Source: The Archive of Yugoslavia, The Agricultural Colonization Fund of Albanian territories: AJ- S.66 - 67 and S.14 and DASIP, Delegation to Ankara, 1921 - 1940).Immigration to Albania as a result of Serb terror 1919-1937Yugoslav statistics prove that the following number of Albanian families took refuge to Albania during years 1919 – 1937:Till the end of 1938, 4.046 Albanian families took refuge to Albania.(Source: AVIIB.K.17.95-a.d.pov. No. 429)The Yugoslav-Turk Convention 1944 – 1950The Yugoslav-Turk Convention scheduled the cleansing of Albanian lands starting from 1939 and to be completed in 1944.According to this Convention, displacement of Albanian families should be carried out as follows:In 1939: 4.000; 1940: 6.000; 1941: 7.000; 1942: 7.000; 1943: 8.000 and in 1944: 8.000 families.(See: DASIP B. The League of Nations in Geneva, 1939.D.II/39 - The Convention on violent displacement of Albanians).During the period 1918-1941, in order to make Albanians take refuge, computed in accordance with the world standards, Serbia had damaged Albanians to the amount of 30 billion USD (robbing and burning and other material damage)Liquidation of Albanians 1944 – 1950In the Assembly of Bujan (December 1943 – January 1944) the Representatives of Albanians declared that they are desirous to unite with Albania. The Serb diplomacy and policy once again convinced Europe when they said that: “Albanians do not deserve the independence” although Albanians were the only people which liberated itself on its own forces. This time, like other time, Europe believed and remained silent. In the Paris Peace Conference, the Albanian Representative was left to stay in the hallway, while, Moša Pijade and others represented Albania. The Objective was to hide the question of Kosova.These same phenomena are repeated again in London (1992) and Dayton (1995). Crimes against the Albanians continue to be committed even by the regime after World War Two. In spite the public Declaration, the rear stages are identified since November 21, 1944, when the Presidency of AVNOJ granted amnesty to all chetnik criminals, which collaborated with Nazism.On April 1st 1945 in Belgrade, the very first meeting of Political Bureau of Central Committee of Yugoslav Communist Party is dedicated to the issue of colonization of Kosova. The Academician Vaso Čubrilović, the author of the Elaborate on Extermination of Albanians (1937) is assigned to compose a new Elaborate, based upon the new circumstances. (Such scenarios were the Plan of Moljević (1941) and the Plan of Draža Mihailović (1942).The Elaborate was ready on November 3rd 1944, while the other one (in case of victory of chetniks) would be presented on February 5th 1945. On the basis of these Elaborates, the picture of Albanians killed by Prefectures, looked as follows:Albanian territories have been preoccupied by Yugoslavia till 1950. In 1945, 49.000 Albanians had been liquidated and their wealth and property has been given to the Serb colonists, which returned back to those lands on the basis of the Directive of Political Bureau of YCP Central Committee.(Source: The Archive of Albanian National Democratic Party, 1943 - 1952, Newspaper “BESA”, Istanbul; The Archive of Yugoslav Army, Belgrade, 1944 - 1950 - Crimes and Organizations in Kosova).Terror against Albanians 1950-1966- 60.000 families and their properties destroyedThe immigrations of Albanian families from Kosova, Macedonia and other lands to Turkey, year after year reads as follows:According to the Archive of the newspaper “Besa”, a body of the Albanian Community in Turkey, till the end of 1966, there were registered 414.500 Albanian immigrants to Antalya. The majority of these people name by name had been registered by the Newspaper “Nova Makedonija” (1950-1957).According to the Section for Passports of the Yugoslav Foreign Ministry, in Turkey had been settled (till 1967) over half a million “Yugoslavs”. Their wealth had been completely confiscated.(Source: The Archive of Yugoslavia – The Executive Council of Yugoslavia - Najava treće kolonizacije, 1988).This same Archive keeps the document stating that Albanians during the period from 1953 - 1974 had been damaged to over 8 billion USD (Convertible - hard currency).The Tito HQ for Extermination of Albanians 1950-1966Even in Tito's HQ established in 1950, among which the renowned are criminals against Albanians, like Aleksandar Ranković, Krste Crvenkovski and some other anti-Albanian campaigners, barbarous methods have been used, especially in the prisons.The analysts and researchers could recognize in detail all those pains, tortures and liquidations if studied the files of Albanian prisoners in various prisons of ex- Yugoslavia.Similar methods against the Albanians will be applied by Milosevic's regime since 1998 till June 12th 1999.KOSOVA DURING 1968 – 1990After the demonstrations in Europe and in Kosova (1968), Kosova articulates its demands for the Republic of Kosova, the University and the Constitution. The Albanian Patriotic Movement and their leader Adem Demaçi had articulated these demands even earlier, which is the reason why he had been set to prison. The Constitution of the leadership of Kosova (1974) will remain as a relict. In 1974, in Munich is published a book-pamphlet: Serb-Albania relations through centuries, where plans were composed to ruin the 1974 Constitution of Kosova. A year later Adem Demaçi, with his friends is set again to prison.In 1976 secret Serb circles compose the so-called BLUE BOOK about an attempt for Coup in Yugoslavia.In 1978, the same Serb circles along with the Serb Academy of Arts and Science start composing the Memorandum, which they will legalize on May 15th 1985. Scientists from Kosova will oppose this perfidious scenario. One year later, this Memorandum will be published as “an internal” material by the Academy (SANU).Since 1987 Serbia will be preparing for the 600th Anniversary of The Battle of Kosova. In 1989, March 23rd the Constitution of Kosova will be ruined. This is the start of the end of a despotic state. The wars that were conducted in ex-Yugoslavia, 1990- 1999 proved how unjust is the history when the creation of Yugoslavia was allowed.For crimes committed during these years, the UN Security Council established the International Tribunal in The Hague for war crimes in Yugoslavia.The Serb crimes in Albanian lands (1912-1913) had been investigated and publicized by The Carnegie Institute (1914), but no international punishment measures had been undertaken.Inter-states Accords that damaged the Albanian Nation:The Secret Accord between Serbia and Austro Hungarian Empire, June 28th, 1881;Inter-state Accord between Austro-Hungarian Empire and Russia, 1897;The Accord between Yugoslavia and Turkey, 1938 about the migrations of Albanians, andThe “Gentlemen” Agreement of 1953.The Serb Programs on Extermination of Albanians 1884 - 1995Načertanije, 1844The Program on the breakthrough to the Sea, 1881The Program on liquidation of Albanians, 1920Čubrilović’s Elaborate, 1937The Program of Ivo Andrić, 1939The Program of Moljević, 1941The Program of Draža Mihailović, 1942Čubrilović’s Elaborate, 1944 – 1945The Program for liquidation of Albanians, 1950The Memorandum of the Serb Academy, 1986The Laws on Slav colonization of Kosova, 1865 – 1995The Law on settlement of foreigners, 1865The Law on populated lands, 1880The Decree on colonization of Kosova, 1914The Decree on colonization of Kosova, 1920The Law on colonization of southern lands, 1931The Directive on re-colonization of Kosova, 1945The Law on granting apartments and colonization of Kosova, 1995Since 1878 through 1998, Serbia as occupier of Kosova, had damaged the Albanian Nation for 25 billion USD.In 1998 Serbia fights against Albanian Nation in KosovaIn February 27th 1998 Serbia starts an unannounced war in Kosova. For this war Serbia mobilized all its military and police forces. Only until September 1998, Serb military and police forces ruined to the ground 517 Albanian villages; displaced from their homes nearly 500.000 Albanians; killed or executed in a barbaric way, or massacred over 1.500 Albanians, children, elderly, barehanded, women.Over 60% of Kosova territory became “a burnt Land”. Until this September 1998, the Serb fascist military machinery destroyed over 50.000 homes in their attempts to make it impossible for Albanians to live in Kosova. It is now worldwide known.This war ended in June 1999.Source: The terror of Serbian occupier over Albanians 1844 - 1999, Prof. Dr. Nusret Pllana, 2013Some of the results of the recent Serbian criminal regime against Kosovo Albanians can be seen below:As you can see, the Serbian criminal regimes have never given up their intentions to exterminate the Albanian people with the aim of creating a greater Serbia.I believe that now you are able to distinguish that the case of Kosovo with East-Ukraine and Crime are not similar at all, therefore the world in the case of Kosovo has reacted differently.I hope I have answered your question.Footnotes[1] Greater Serbia - Wikipedia