Last Days Timeline, A literal interpretation of biblical prophecy, second edition by Gregory Supina - HTML preview

day of His ascension), we can start by searching for the year of Christ’s birth. Jesus began His ministry when He was

about thirty years old, and the last days began about three years later. So, if we find the year of his birth, we can then

add 33 years to it, in order to calculate the first year of the last days. Now, to find the year of Christ’s birth, we can

start by looking at the well-attested date of the death of Herod the Great, since Jesus was born approximately a year

before then. Most historians agree that Herod died by early spring in 4 BC. Some say he died even before then, in

December of 5 BC. Then it would likely take about a year to accomplish all the events that that Scriptures describe

for the time between Jesus’ birth and Herod’s death. Therefore, since Jesus was likely born in the fall, He was

probably born in September or October of 6 BC. But we know He certainly was not born on December 25, 1 BC.

The reason so many believe Jesus' birth occurred in the fall is because the shepherds were sleeping out in the fields

at the time of His birth (Luke 2:8). And, apparently, they only did this twice a year: (1) during the spring lambing

season or (2) while tending and preparing the sheep for the fall sacrifices of the high holy season. Now Jesus’ birth

would not likely occur in the spring, during the lambing season, although the shepherds would be out in the fields

then. For the shepherds could not safely leave the sheep while they were bearing lambs. Sheep are not hardy and

independent like some domestic animals. And it is doubtful that God would have called the shepherds to abandon

their sheep, who represented His people and urgently needed care in the spring, so those shepherds could spend time

with the Great Shepherd, with the newly born Messiah, while the sheep died. It would not convey a good message.

And these were not regular sheep tended by ordinary shepherds. All the sheep near Bethlehem, about six miles from

Jerusalem, were sacrificial animals. So the shepherds tended them for the souls going to God’s temple in Jerusalem.

But, during the high holy season, in either September or October, shepherds had to sort, inspect, prepare and move

hundreds of sheep every day for the sacrifices. For only the flawless and healthy sheep or lambs, without a blemish

or injury, could be sacrificed. Thus, while all this work was going on, those shepherds had no time to go home, but

had to sleep in the fields. Other shepherds only needed to sleep in the fields once a year, in the lambing season, but

these had to sleep in the fields twice a year. Since Bethlehem’s shepherds stayed out in the fields, preparing and

keeping watch over sheep on the night of Jesus' birth, His birth was most likely in the fall, that is, during the high

holy season in either September or October, when the shepherds could safely leave the sheep for a significant period

of time during the night. And this high holy season, with thousands of pilgrims visiting Jerusalem to make family

sacrifices at the temple, would also explain why there was no room for Jesus’ earthly family in the inn. For, in the

high holy season, travellers on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem would even fill the inns in nearby villages like Bethlehem.

The fall was the only feasible time that the temple’s sheep could remain secure enough for the shepherds to leave

them for several hours, as they went to witness the advent of Jesus, their Messiah. Furthermore, the sheep used as

sacrifices at that time of the year symbolically testified about the Messiah's sacrifice for sin 33 years later. The high

holy season—when the Day of Atonement and Feast of Tabernacles occurred—is the most rational and symbolic

time for God to bring the long-awaited Messiah to His people. And God chose to tell the shepherds about the birth of

Jesus, their Savior, Messiah and King (see Luke 2:8-18) because He is thee Great Shepherd, and humble like them.

Next, we also must conclude that the parents of Jesus stayed in Bethlehem for a lengthy period of time before the

wise men (the Magi) came to visit them. Those wise men did not come to Jesus at the same time as the shepherds,

not on that first night, when Jesus was born. For the angels told the shepherds that Jesus was lying in a manger and

in a barn, so they had to search for Him (Luke 2:12,16). And shepherds living there would know where all the barns

were located. But the wise men had to follow a “star” which stopped over a house where Jesus’ family were living

when they arrived (Mat. 2:2,9-11). Since the shepherds found Jesus in a barn, and seemed to see no star pointing to

the place where Jesus was born, it was not the same night that the wise men came. Since the wise men found Jesus in

a house, not in a barn, and they definitely saw a very prominent star pointing to the house, they visited Jesus later.

Also, the parents of Jesus were still residing in Bethlehem when they brought Jesus to the nearby Jerusalem temple

to “present Him to the Lord” as their firstborn (Luke 2:22-24). And this event refers to a ritual commanded in the

Old Covenant Law, which could only occur after Mary's lawfully commanded time of purification/rest. For God's

Law commanded a woman to rest for a full 40 days after a male child's birth (Lev. 12:2-4). These 40 days also must

have occurred before the wise men visited, since we know Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt immediately after seeing

the wise men (Mat. 2:13-15). So Jesus’ family definitely must have gone to the Jerusalem's temple, next to Herod's

palace, before fleeing from Herod into Egypt. And, before the wise men arrived, Joseph had moved his family out of

the barn where the birth took place, into a house, and likely did this the day after Jesus was born (Mat. 2:11). That Endnotes:

 

house likely belonged to one of Joseph's relatives, or could have been his own home, since Bethlehem was Joseph's home town. Remember, it was because Bethlehem was Joseph's home town that he had to go there in the first place. Each male Jew had to register in “his own city” (Luke 2:3). The only reason they stayed in a stable on the first night, when Jesus was born, would have been because they needed to find a place quickly, since Mary was already in labor. Late in the night, after being away for years, Joseph could not bother those living in or caring for his old house, nor could he disturb his relatives living near by. Rather, he had to take the first place available. Then, the next day, after Jesus' birth, Joseph could find a house for Mary and the baby, either by preparing his own home or going to a relatives home. Then they could stay in Bethlehem as long as they wanted. There would have been little or no pressure to leave Bethlehem. So it is possible that they stayed in a house for a whole year before the wise men came.

We know the wise men came to worship Jesus after Jesus was taken to the temple, more than 40 days after His birth. And we know Herod was still alive then, since Herod himself spoke to the wise men (Mat. 2:7-9). Then we also know Herod must have lived for some time after that day, since Joseph fled with his family to Egypt the very next day after the wise men came, to hide from Herod for an indeterminate period of time, until Herod died (Mat. 2:13-15). So Mary would have already healed and rested for the stipulated six weeks (40 days), as God's law required, and even as doctors recommend today, before she was forced to flee with her baby into Egypt. God would have ensured that Mary had at least 40 days for healing, even likely much longer than that, before she had to make the long and arduous trip to Egypt. So we know the family did not flee to Egypt the day after Jesus was born, as some assume.

Now look a little closer at how Herod ordered all the male babies in the district of Bethlehem to be slaughtered, after he found out that the wise men did not return to him as he commanded. Herod ordered the slaying of all Bethlehem’s children under two years of age, and he did this after estimating Jesus' age, in accordance with the time the star first appeared to the wise men (Mat. 2:7). So, first, we can assume that this moving star appeared to the wise men over their homeland (likely in Persia) on the day of Jesus' birth. It may have appeared a little before or after that but, since it seemed to signal His birth, it likely appeared on the day of His arrival on earth. Also, we assume it appeared on the day of Jesus’ birth since Herod specifically ordered the deaths of all children under two years old (Mat. 2:16). Thus, Herod would have known that a large and healthy one-year-old baby might be passed off as a small two-year-old, especially in the eyes of a male soldier. Also, a small one-year-old might be passed off as a baby only a few months old. So the only logical reason Herod would not order the soldiers to merely execute all babies under one year old, but to also not spare any new-borns, must have been because he thought the baby Messiah was about one year old. Herod would have allowed for a wide margin of error, commanding his soldiers to murder all babies under two years old, to ensure that they would not fail to kill the one-year-old Messiah—again, because a thriving one-year-old may look older and a baby failing to thrive might look much younger. So this suggests that the wise men told Herod that the “star” appeared about one year before they arrived, and that “star” had appeared on the very day of Jesus’ birth.

By the way, in eyes of Roman secular humanists, babies were not persons. So murdering babies was a relatively small matter to most Romans, such as Herod and his soldiers. Romans even allowed parents, whenever they desired, to abandon their unwanted babies on a hill, leaving them to die slowly and painfully. Thus, Roman historians would not have recorded a legally commanded slaughter of about thirty babies of parents who were not Roman citizens in Bethlehem, in a small hamlet of the subject kingdom of Judea. It would seem utterly insignificant to them. It would be like expecting a modern secular humanist to decry the abortions of thirty babies in a legal abortion clinic. So it is irrational to say this event did not occur just because no one can find a record of it in ancient Roman writings. That would be an irrational “argument from ignorance.” Just because secular writings do not confirm it, it is not fiction.

Next, consider how long it took for Joseph’s family to travel to and from Egypt before Herod died (Mat. 2:1-15). Surely Herod must have lived for at least a few more months after the family of Jesus fled. For, if God knew Herod would die within a very short time, why would God send that family, with the infant Messiah, on such a long and difficult journey? The trip would take about a month of hard travel by foot each way! If God knew Herod would live just a month or two after the family fled to Egypt, why would He send them all the way to a Jewish community in Egypt, likely all the way to Alexandria? Why would God not simply hide them in Israel for a couple of months? If God sent them all the way to Egypt, then made them immediately return to northern Israel after that, they would need to be constantly traveling for two months with a baby, slowly from Bethlehem to Egypt, then all the way back to Nazareth (where they had to go after Herod died). Rather, God would want them to stay in Egypt at least a month or two, in order to rest and prepare for the long journey back from Egypt, all the way to Nazareth. Walking journeys with an infant were so strenuous back then, that we assume the family stayed in Egypt much longer than one month.

Thus, when we add up all these necessary times between the birth of Jesus and Herod’s death, it is barely possible that Jesus was born in the fall of 5 BC. It is far more likely that He was born in the fall of 6 BC. When we calculate

Endnotes:

 

back to the earliest time (September) in the fall of 5 BC (when the shepherds would be living out in the fields), and

assume Herod died as late as April of 4 BC, the absolute maximum time span is eight months, if Jesus was born in 5

BC. But Herod likely died much earlier, possibly in December of 5 BC, and the high holy days likely occurred later

too, in October. That leaves a time span of two to four months. So it is unlikely that from Jesus’ birth to Mary’s forty

days of purification, plus the time of the wise men’s visit and the minimum two-month flight to Egypt until the day

of Herod's death, was only about three or four months, or even eight months. If the wise men came just after Mary's

purification (which is unlikely), and we allow only a two months for a trip to Egypt, it would be less than the

maximum time span of seven months. But that would also mean that Jesus would have been three to seven months

old when Herod ordered all babies under two years of age to be slaughtered. So would He kill the two-year-olds?

If Herod actually died in December, 5 BC, and the high holy season, when Jesus was most likely born, actually did

occur in October of that same year, it would leave less than three months for all the recorded events of the Gospels to

occur before Herod died, including the time for the wise men to travel all the way from Persia after they saw the star

appear, although it likely appeared on the day Jesus was born and that trip is more than a year. Thus, Jesus was most

likely born in 6 BC. If Jesus was born as late as October in 6 BC, and Herod died as early as December in 5 BC, it

would still leave almost 15 months for all the recorded events to occur. Since it seems the wise men arrived more

than a year after Jesus' birth, and Joseph’s family probably hid in Egypt for at least a few months, Jesus must have

been born in September or October in 6 BC. This is the only date that reconciles all the events in the Scriptures.

 

Then we must realize that it was about 8 BC when Caesar Augustus issued a decree to register all the males in the

Roman Empire and in its dependent kingdoms. This is the registration Joseph had to attend in his home town, the

place of his birth, where his family lived (see Luke 2:1). Of course, as many point out, some time would have

elapsed before Rome's subject kingdoms, like the subject kingdom of Judea, ruled by Herod the Great, carried out

Caesar’s decree. For they were not anxious to spend all the money, time and effort to do it. So it is highly likely that

the registration would not have been done in the subject kingdoms until more than a year or two after Caesar issued

his decree. The registration in Herod's kingdom would most likely have been announced, at the earliest, about a year

after the decree in 8 BC. Then it would have taken several months to complete, since all the men had to return to

their home towns, often involving journeys that took months. Thus, Joseph likely began his journey from Nazareth

to Bethlehem in either 7 BC or 6 BC, but most likely in the summer of 6 BC, slowly on foot with his pregnant wife.

Also, Quirinius was still an authoritative proconsul or consul in the region at that time. And notice how Luke said,

“this first enrollment happened [while] Quirinius [was] holding authority over Syria” (Luke 2:2, from: αὕτη

ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου, SBLGNT). The Greek participle here is a form of

ἡγεμονεύω, a very general term meaning: “to exercise an administrative position, be leader, command, rule, order”

(BDAG3). Therefore, Luke never said Quirinius was the “governor” of Syria at that time, as many seem to think.

And Luke was right about Quirinius holding a position of authority there. For historians say that, in about 12 BC,

Augustus made Quirinius a consul or proconsul in that region. Then Caesar later sent Quirinius to serve as a legate

in Galatia, in about 5 BC. So, if this “first enrollment” took place in 6 BC, it would have been while Quirinius held

Caesar’s authority over Herod’s subject kingdom, and Herod may have had to report to Quirinius about matters like

this registration. It even may have been Quirinius who pressured Herod into getting this disruptive and costly

enrollment completed, since Herod likely would have procrastinated as long as possible. Then Quirinius would have

left for his new post after the census was completed. Now, since Jesus was born when Joseph was forced to return to

his home town, to partake in that census of Augustus, while Quirinius still held this kind of authority in that region,

and since Quirinius was no longer an authority in that region by 5 BC, it is almost certain that Jesus was born in the

fall of 6 BC. Then Jesus began His ministry in the region of Nazareth and Gallilee at about 30 years old, in AD 25.

When we look at what Luke said about the age of Jesus at the beginning of His ministry, we need to remember that

Luke was a very reliable and careful historian, proved correct through all archaeological evidence found pertaining

to all the historical information he provided. And Luke said Jesus was “about thirty years of age” at His baptism, just

before He went out into the wilderness for forty days. Luke literally said, “Jesus was beginning about thirty of

years,” (Luke 3:23, from: ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα). So, if Jesus was born in 6 BC, He would be

about 30 years old in AD 25 (remember to account for the loss of one year when passing from BC into AD years).

Furthermore, Luke also declared that the utterance of God came upon John the Baptist “in the fifteenth year of the

general authority of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1, from: ἐν ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος).

And Jesus began His ministry very soon after that. Luke was not referring to the formal “reign” of Tiberius. Like

most people of the time, Luke was talking about the 15th year from the time Tiberius actually began to govern the Endnotes:

 

Roman Empire, in particular as the supreme commander of its army—since the commander of the Roman army was the ruler of the Roman Empire in the eyes of the people. Back then, most differentiated between a ruler's actual rule and the time when a ruler received his title, when large gatherings and celebrations recognized his rule. So, to Luke and the people, Tiberius did not begin to rule in AD 14, after Caesar died, when Rome officially recognized him as their sole emperor. Rather, his 15th year would actually be 14 years, plus at least a day, after he took control as the supreme commander of the Roman army—which was the “police force” enabling him to govern the entire empire.

So when did Tiberius become the commander of the Roman Army? Well, we know Tiberius commanded the army (and ruled the Roman Empire) long before AD 14, since Augustus (the previous emperor) did not fully participate in the rule of Rome during the last years of his life. Tiberius certainly was governing Rome by AD 12, when he was officially recognized as co-princeps with Augustus, that is, as an emperor with power equal to Augustus himself. Nevertheless, his actual reign began even before that, during his campaign in Germania, from AD 10 to 12. For that is when he began to serve as the supreme commander of the Roman army. That campaign was celebrated with a triumphal march in Rome, likely in January of AD 12. Because the father of Tiberius, not Augustus, presided over this triumphal march, it implies that the people already viewed Tiberius as the commander of the army and as the acting emperor of Rome at that time, although it was before he was officially proclaimed co-princeps. Of course, most historians of the day would be afraid to offend Augustus, or anyone else in power, and would not openly admit that the people considered Tiberius to be their real emperor during the Germania campaign, as the supreme commander of the Roman Army (that is, in either AD 10 or AD 11). But Luke did not need to guard himself against other powerful men in the Roman political arena. And, since the people of the day were not like modern historians, almost none of them would have considered Tiberius' actual reign to have begun in AD 14. The people all revered and feared Tiberius as the ultimate power in the Roman Empire long before AD 12, likely beginning in about AD 10.

Therefore, we must determine the 15th year of Tiberius by adding 14 years, plus an indeterminate fraction of one year to AD 10 or to AD 11 (that is, the “fifteenth year” is always less than 15 years, but always at least one day after 14 years). And, when we do this, we arrive at either the year AD 24 or AD 25. So the year in which John the Baptist received an utterance from God in Tiberius' 15th year, regarding the beginning of the Messiah's ministry, must have occurred in either AD 24 or AD 25. Then, not very long after receiving this utterance, John baptized Jesus as the High Priest and Messiah. After this baptism, Jesus was tempted in the wilderness for 40 days and began His ministry of teaching and gathering disciples. Therefore, we can safely say Jesus began His ministry in about AD 25, when He was about 30 years old, as Luke said. And this would necessarily mean that Jesus was born in about 6 BC, not 5 BC.

Now most church historians say Jesus' ministry lasted about three years. And we know He was crucified on the first day of the Passover, where that first day was clearly identified as a Friday. For the day Jesus was crucified was what the Jews called the “Day of Preparation” (Mat. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31,42), which we call a Friday, that is, the Jewish day beginning at sunset on Thursday and ending at sunset on Friday. But looking for the year of Jesus' crucifixion on a Passover occurring on a Friday is complicated, especially since we must convert a Hebrew calendar to our Roman calendar, and also account for the 10 days deleted during the conversion from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar. In AD 1582, Pope Gregory XIII issued an edict causing some Catholic nations to adopt his new calendar, which added ten days. Later, in 1752, England and other nations skipped 11 days ahead when they converted—although this was merely to catch up to the ten days added in 1582 by other nations.

Now we need to realize that a Jewish day begins at sunset, while our Roman days begin at midnight. So, when the Hebrew calendar days are transposed onto Roman (Gregorian or Julian) calendars, only the main part of the Jewish day (about the last 18 hours) are actually aligned with the dates on our Roman calendars. For example, if the Jewish day of the 14th of Nisan is represented by April 28th on our Roman calendar, but the 14th of Nisan would have actually begun the day before, just after sunset on April 27th. Then the 15th day of Nisan would begin at sunset on April 28th.

Also, the Jewish months are variable lunar months, where each month begins with a new moon. This means each month might be either 29 or 30 days long, because it only begins when the new moon can be seen after sunset. If a new moon does not occur then, the next day becomes the first day of the next month. Likewise, this means the full moon always occurs at the beginning of the 15th day of each Jewish month, which is the sunset on the 14th day of a Jewish month on our Roman calendars. In addition to this, there are other considerations we cannot control, and we rely on Jewish rabbis to adjust the Hebrew calendars to account for them. That is, what is considered to be a real new moon is determined by a rabbi, and some may differ in their decisions at times. So this could set off the calculations of the feasts by a day on any given year. Then, about seven times every 19 years, a Jewish year adds a whole month, a 13th month, since their 12 lunar months are about 11 days short of a true solar cycle (which is about 365¼ days). A Hebrew calendar, built on lunar cycles, has between 353 to 355 days in a twelve-month year, or 383-385 days for a

Endnotes:

 

Jewish thirteen-month “leap” year. Even so, the Hebrew calendar falls one day behind every 224 solar years or every

231 years of the Gregorian calendar. Considering all this, you can see how the job of transposing a Hebrew calendar

onto a Roman calendar is not a matter of simple, direct calculations, as some seem to think. And, because of this

complexity, different Hebrew calendars may even assign a different Roman calendar date to the same Jewish day.

Now Jesus celebrated the Passover Seder (i.e., the Last Supper), with His disciples, on the evening after the 14th of

Nisan, that is, after sunset (i.e., after about 6:00 pm. in Jerusalem). They prepared for it and went to the house where

they would celebrate it after sunset, after 6:00 pm. However, the Seder meal actually took place at the beginning of

the next Jewish day, that is, at the beginning of the 15th of Nissan, when the full moon occurred. Therefore, both the

end of the 14th of Nissan, and the beginning of the 15th of Nisan that evening, when Jesus ate the Passover Seder,

would occur on a Roman calendar's Thursday. For, after sunset on a Roman Thursday, a Jewish Friday began,

according to a Jewish calendar. And the Jews called the daylight hours of the 15th of Nisan (a Friday on our Roman

calendars) the same day that the Passover Seder meal was eaten on the evening before. When Jesus was crucified

during the following daylight hours, after the evening He ate the Last Supper, it was actually the same Jewish day.

And it was that day, the 15th of Nisan, that the Jews call a “Preparation Day” (Mark 15:42), since it was the day they

prepared for the Sabbath, which would begin that evening, on their 16th of Nisan. So that 15th of Nisan (which began

at sunset on Thursday) was indeed a Friday, the day when the Jews prepare for the Saturday Sabbath. And, in this

case, they would have a special Sabbath of the Passover week. Thus, on our Roman calendars, the end of 14th of

Nisan, and the beginning of the 15th (in the evening), would have occurred on what Romans would call a Thursday.

Of course, in our day, if lunar Hebrew calendars trace the Passover dates all the way back to the beginning of the

first century, they must rely on astronomical data, in order to follow lunar cycles back to that time. But astronomical

charts do not account for the days deleted while converting from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar (10 days in

1582). Rather, the astronomical charts simply count the days back from the current Julian Day Number (JDN), and

do not count days in the same way as our calendars do. Astronomical charts begin their count at 0 on the solar day

starting at noon about 1,794,108.5 days before January 1, 2000 (i.e., JDN 0 corresponds to January 1, 4713 BC on

the Julian calendar or November 24, 4714 BC on the Gregorian calendar). Also, the JDN simply corresponds to the

Gregorian calendar up to the day of that conversion, then switches to the Julian calendar. The JDN uses the Julian

calendar to display corresponding Roman calendar dates, if those dates occurred before the conversion. And, since

the conversion jumped from October 4, 1582 on the Julian calendar to October 15, 1582 on the Gregorian calendar

the very next day, there is no JDN for the days of October 5th to October 14th in 1582. A JDN converter simply treats

those days as though they did not exist. And, considering the fact that the 10 days added by the Gregorian calendar

did not change the day of the week (Oct. 4th was a Thursday and Oct. 15th was a Friday), it complicates calculations.

For, Oct. 15th would have been Monday, if 10 days were not deleted and if Oct. 4th on was just a normal Thursday.

Therefore, these astronomical charts used by the Hebrew calendar need to be adjusted by adding 10 days whenever

we convert their dates to a corresponding date on the Gregorian calendar, whenever a date occurred before October

15, 1582—in order to obtain a correct date and day of the week according to our current Gregorian calendar. So

October 4th on the Julian Calendar must become Thursday, October 14th, on the Gregorian calendar. These added 10

days will provide the correct day of the week in the place of the day which is 10 days prior to it. Yet most Jewish

calendars do not do this, or else they do it incorrectly, without accounting for the fact that October 5th to October 14th

do not actually have a corresponding JDN. So they sometimes provide a wrong date and a wrong day of the week.

If we look at the list below, it displays the Julian Day Numbers (JDN) and one Hebrew calendar’s (HC) dates that

were actually assigned to those numbers during the official week of the conversion from the Julian calendar (JC) to

the Gregorian calendar (GC). As you can see, the corresponding Roman calendar dates, which the JDN and this

particular Hebrew calendar associate with it, simply work down from modern times, using the Gregorian calendar.

Then both suddenly switch to the Julian Calendar on the day when the conversion took place (that is, at midnight,

October 4th in 1582). Some Hebrew calendars do not do this. Thus, there are several different Hebrew calendars.

Saturday: 2299162 (JDN) = 20 Tishri 5343 (HC) = 16 Oct. 1582 (GC)

Friday: 2299161 (JDN) = 19 Tishri 5343 (HC) = 15 Oct. 1582 (GC)

Thursday: 2299160 (JDN) = 18 Tishri 5343 (HC) = 4 Oct. 1582 (JC) = Oct. 14 (GC)

Wednesday: 2299159 (JDN) = 17 Tishri 5343 (HC) = 3 Oct. 1582 (JC) = Oct. 13 (GC)

Tuesday: 2299158 (JDN) = 16 Tishri 5343 (HC) = 2 Oct. 1582 (JC) = Oct. 12 (GC)

Monday: 2299157 (JDN) = 15 Tishri 5343 (HC) = 1 Oct. 1582 (JC) = Oct. 11 (GC)

Sunday: 2299156 (JDN) = 14 Tishri 5343 (HC) = 30 Sept. 1582 (JC) = Oct. 10 (GC)

Endnotes:

 

So Thursday, the 4th of October on the Julian calendar, can now be called Thursday, the 14th of October on the Gregorian calendar, if we make the Gregorian calendar proleptic (able to provide dates before Oct. 15, 1582). But, by the time we need to find the Thursday of the 14th of Nissan in AD 28, it is not as simple as merely adding 10 days to the Julian date. For one thing, the Julian had a leap year every four years like the Gregorian, yet the Gregorian omits three leap years every 400 years while the Julian did not. Basically, with this and other differences, the Julian calendar dates between March 3, AD 4 and March 1, AD 100, would subtract two days from the Julian calendar, not add ten days. The formula given in Wikipedia is: d=(y/100)-(y/400)-2, where the numbers are always rounded down to an integer and where “d” is the number of days to add or subtract while “y” is the year. So, in 1582, we calculate: (1582/100)-(1582/400)-2 = 15-3-2 = 10. We add ten days onto the Julian calendar date to get the Gregorian date on that year. But, in AD 28, when Jesus ate the Last Supper, we calculate: (28/100)-(28/500)-2 = 0-0-2 = -2. So we subtract two days from the Julian calendar in AD 28. And there are other factors involved which complicate matters.

Looking for a correct date and a correct day of the week from a Hebrew calendar, we start out by finding when the 14th of Nissan occurred during a range of pertinent years early in the first century, such as between AD 26 and AD 33. So, looking at one Hebrew calendar, it says the 14th of Nissan occurred on the following days in the following years: (a) In AD 26, on Friday, April 19; (b) in AD 27, Wednesday, April 9; (c) in AD 28, Monday, April 26; (d) in AD 29, Saturday, April 16; (e) in AD 30, Wednesday, April 5; (f) in AD 31, Wednesday, April 25; (g) in AD 32, Monday, April 14; and (h) in AD 33, Friday, April 3. On another Hebrew calendar, it gave the following dates: (a) In AD 26, on Friday, March 20; (b) in AD 27, Wednesday, April 7; (c) in AD 28, Monday, April 27; (d) in AD 29, Saturday, April 14; (e) in AD 30, Wednesday, April 3; (f) in AD 31, Monday, March 24; (g) in AD 32, Monday, April 12; and (h) in AD 33, Friday, April 1. As you can see, these two Hebrew calendars differ and neither displays any dates where the 14th of Nisan occurs on a Thursday in any of the years between AD 26 to AD 33. Therefore, if we trusted the faulty transposition of their data, we would think that none of these years could be the year Jesus was crucified, since His crucifixion definitely occurred on a Friday, the 15th of Nissan, which began with the first full moon after sunset on a Thursday, the 14th of Nissan. So now we need to do some calculations regarding these dates, to determine whether only one of these Hebrew calendars is wrong, or whether both actually display the wrong data.

We are most interested in the year AD 28, since it is the most likely year Jesus died and rose again. So, looking at he first Hebrew calendar, it says the 14th of Nissan occurred on Monday, April 26, AD 28 (JDN 1731401). And this is a Julian calendar date, not a proleptic Gregorian calendar date. On the Gregorian calendar, it would be Monday, April 24. And, through lunar charts, we know there was no full moon that evening. Therefore, this definitely could not be the real 14th of Nissan in AD 28. This Hebrew calendar is dead wrong. Then the second Jewish calendar says the 14th of Nissan fell on Monday, April 27, AD 28. But April 27th in AD 28 was a Tuesday on the Julian calendar and it was a Thursday on the Gregorian calendar. So this second calendar also provides the wrong day of the week. Still, if we look at the lunar charts for AD 28, we find that a full moon did actually occur before sunset on the Gregorian calendar’s date of Thursday, April 27 (JDN 1731404), and that would be Thursday, April 29th on the Julian calendar. So both Hebrew calendars have errors. However, we can confidently conclude that the first day of the Passover in AD 28 began after sunset on Thursday, April 27th on the Gregorian calendar. By our Gregorian calendar, Jesus ate the Last Supper after sunset on Thursday evening, April 27th in AD 28. After sunset the full moon was seen and the 15th of Nissan began. Then Jesus was crucified during the daylight hours of April 28th on the Gregorian calendar, but those daylight hours were still the 15th of Nissan on the true Hebrew calendar. None of the other years are feasible.

Lastly, Daniel's prophecy also confirms the time of the first advent of the Anointed One, who is Jesus (note that both “Messiah” and “Christ” mean “Anointed One”). But we must use a good interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy to be able to understand it. And the ESV certainly does not provide a good interpretation. The ESV says: “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an Anointed One, a Prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an Anointed One shall be cut off and shall have nothing” (Dan. 9:24-25, ESV). This is a poor translation in several ways. First, it implies that this prophecy is not not about “thee” one and only Messiah, but merely about “an” anointed one. Yet this prophecy clearly refers to an extremely important event and it is indeed about the one and only Messiah. Then this translation also uses the word “weeks” instead of “Sabbaths” or “Sabbath years” (the Hebrew is shabua, literally meaning “sevened,” and refers to either seven days or seven years). Yet, logically, it must refer to the seven-year cycles of the Hebrew calendar (e.g., Ex. 23:11; Lev. 25:4; Deut. 15:1 et al.). For it speaks about rebuilding an entire city and the coming of the Messiah many years after that. And the rebuilding of a city took decades, not weeks. Thus, these time periods cannot be “weeks” of seven days, but can only possibly refer to Sabbath years (sevens of years). And this should have been made clear.

Endnotes:

 

Furthermore, the above ESV translation divides the text wrongly for the last sentence in verse 25. We see this when

we look at how Daniel spoke about these Sabbath years. Beginning in verse 24, we see how Daniel spoke about the

Messiah's advent involving a total of seventy Sabbath years. Then, in verse 26, he said 62 Sabbath years would pass

before this Messiah was “cut off,” meaning He would be killed then. So Daniel spoke about two advents of the

Messiah. The first advent would occur after 7 + 62 Sabbath years, and the second would occur after an indeterminate

time and would involve one Sabbath of years, sometime long after the Messiah's death. Thus, it clarified that Jesus

would come a second time, namely after the seven years of the beast’s rule as the dominant world power. So this is

how the seventy Sabbaths must be divided: (1) There are seven Sabbaths (i.e., 7 x 7 years, or 49 years). This brings

us to a Year of the Jubilee (see Lev. 25:8-12), which symbolizes the spiritual ownership of Israel’s land, that it will

be returned to the Jews. (2) After this comes an additional 62 Sabbaths before the Messiah was to come and be “cut

off” in death. So these 62 Sabbath years are added to the first seven, in a countdown before the first advent of the

Messiah. Yet the ESV implies that only a rebuilding of Jerusalem will occur during the last 62 “weeks” (434 days).

A correct translation should read: “... from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem until the coming

of the Messiah [Anointed One], the Prince, there shall be seven Sabbaths and sixty-two Sabbaths. It shall be built again

with broad streets and a rampart, but in a troubled time.” Now—if we read these Sabbaths as periods of seven years,

not seven days, this indicates that there will be a total of 69 Sabbaths of years after a decree to restore and build up

Jerusalem, until the Messiah's first advent. This amounts to 483 years (69 x 7 = 483). As for the comment after this,

it simply warns God's people that they will experience much trouble while they rebuild Jerusalem. Then the 70th

Sabbath of years must refer to seven years in which the beast reigns (explained later by Daniel, see Dan. 9:26-27),

which occurs during the era of the seventh seal. Christ's second advent will occur just after those last seven years.

So now we must find out when the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was granted. After Daniel died, the books of Ezra and

Nehemiah provided many details about the rebuilding of Jerusalem. And they certainly knew that Daniel had

prophesied that the Messiah would come after a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. So they surely must have told us about

that important decree! And they did. “The going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem” in Daniel's prophecy

must have been the decree of Artaxerxes I (Ezra 7:11-26), granted during the seventh year of his reign (Ezra 7:7).

This was a decree to rebuild the city, not just to rebuild the temple, since this decree was made after the temple was

rebuilt during the time of Darius (see Ezra 6:13-15). Since Daniel spoke of a decree to rebuild the city, not merely

the temple, this decree of Artaxerxes must be thee decree. This decree not only provided funds for sacrifices, but for

all that Ezra desired to do. And we know that both Ezra and that Persian king desired to rebuild Jerusalem. For

Artaxerxes I is the same Persian king who also sent Nehemiah specifically to help rebuild Jerusalem (Neh. 2:4-6).

Now Artaxerxes I ruled from about 465 BC to 424 BC. So his decree, in his seventh year, was made six years plus at

least one day, but less than 365 days, after 465 BC. That puts us at about 459 BC, or possibly as late as 458 BC. But

Ezra mentioned that he left Artaxerxes during the “first day of the first month” (Ezra 7:9)—not the 1st of Nisan, but

first day of the first month in the seventh year of the king's reign. It seems that Artaxerxes planned to officially grant

the decree on the day he celebrated the beginning of his seventh year. For many ancient people believed that seven

was a special number signifying completion and perfection. Thus, Artaxerxes likely made a grand celebration as he

began his “magic” seventh year. And a planned date like this would give Ezra and his people time to prepare for their

journey to Jerusalem, allowing them to leave that very day, with a great celebration of many Jews in Persia, to flatter

the vain king profusely for his gracious decree to rebuild the capital of their homeland. Now, if we add sixty-nine

Sabbath years to 459 BC, we can calculate Daniel’s prophesied time of the Messiah coming to Israel, that is, not His

birth in Israel, but the time He “came” to Israel, the time He spoke to all Israel, to begin His ministry for Israel as

their Messiah. And 483 years after 459 BC is AD 25 (i.e., accounting for the year lost in the transition from BC time

to AD time). Thus, Daniel’s prophecy confirms that Jesus began His ministry in AD 25, and was born in 6 BC (30

years before that). Then, three years later, in AD 28, He died on the Passover day, rose from the dead and ascended.

So the last days began on April 28thof AD 28 (or on the day of the Pentecost, that is, on the 50th day after that).

[CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO PREVIOUS LOCATION IN BOOK]

===

2 [CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO PREVIOUS LOCATION IN BOOK]

Satan has never yet been cast into hell: Many seem to think the devil and his fallen angels were cast out of heaven

and directly into hell when they sinned. But they only think this due to a poor translation of one verse, II Peter 2:4.

Most translations of this verse read something like this: “... God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them

into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment” (ESV). And translations

like this are clearly wrong and self-contradicting. For how can Satan have been judged and sent to hell already, while Endnotes:

 

he is also being “kept until the judgment”? Logically, if he is being “kept for the judgment,” then he is still waiting to be judged and sent to hell. And the Bible frequently and categorically states that Satan and his demons exist on the earth, which may resemble hell at times, but is not the real hell. It is impossible for both to be true at the same time.

If Satan and the other fallen angels have already been judged, sentenced and cast into hell, then they are not still waiting to be judged, sentenced and cast into hell. But it is a fact that Satan is now being “kept” or “guarded until the judgment.” Thus, he has not yet been judged and cast into hell. Besides, we know that Satan will not be cast into hell until the day Jesus returns, as it says in Rev. 20:1-3. Even then, Satan will be released upon the earth again for a short time (Rev. 20:10). So this traditional interpretation of II Peter 2:4 is wrong. A correct interpretation of II Peter 2:4 actually tells us that Satan was cast down upon the earth and material universe, in chains and guarded in these realms until his judgment. Then, as Jesus returns to the earth and after his judgment of the earth, He will cast the devil and his minions into hell. The Greek text is: ... ὁ θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλὰ σειραῖς ζόφου ταρταρώσας παρέδωκεν εἰς κρίσιν τηρουμένους (SBLGNT). And there is absolutely nothing mentioned about “hell” in this text. Rather, we simply find the aorist participle form of ταρταρόω, which indicates a completed act of putting someone or something in a lower place. Since this verb is only used once in the entire New Testament, we must be careful about defining what it actually meant to the Author, God, when the apostle Peter wrote down His words and concepts through his mind and body of flesh. We cannot blindly assume this verb means “cast [someone] into hell.” To define this verb in the ecclesiastical way it was used here, we must look at how the first-century Jews, like Peter, used this word, and examine other examples of how the root of this word was used by the early church.

Two noun cognates of this verb (ταρταρόω) are found in the early Greek translation of the Old Testament (i.e., in the Septuagint), which Peter and most other Jews of that time often read and quoted. In it, one cognate referred to a place below a mountain and one referred to a deeper part of the sea. Thus, the ecclesiastical meaning of the verb cognate surely came from that popular Greek translation of the Scriptures, and must be: “to put or cast into a lower place.” And surely this is how Peter, who often read the Septuagint, would have used this verb cognate. The only reason this verb is translated as “cast into hell” is because it was sometimes used by pagan Greeks to imply, “cast down [into Hades].” So translators thought that Jewish Peter was using this verb with mythical, pagan Greek implications. And that is highly improbable, since Peter was trained as an orthodox Jew from birth. Rather, Peter would have used the Jewish ecclesiastical meaning established through the Jewish Septuagint. So II Peter 2:4 should actually read: “... God did not spare the sinning angels but, having cast them into a lower place, He handed them over in chains of darkness [over to guards], [so they are] now being guarded for judgment.” Peter was talking about how God cast the rebelling angels in heaven, those whom He created to be loveless, down lower to the earth.

Originally, Satan lived in heaven. Then, about the time that God created the material universe, Satan and many other angels rebelled against God, which is the definition of sin. Thus, God cast them down to the material universe, even to the earth, which is figuratively a much “lower” place than heaven. There, on earth, God has continuously guarded Satan and the fallen angels, in a way that limits their actions. Their “chains” are actually their forced perceptions of material existence, and the limits God places on their actions within these perceptions. Clearly, the first time Satan is mentioned (when he tempted Adam and Eve shortly after the creation of the material universe) must have been soon after he was cast down to the earth. And Satan's first sin, which caused him to be cast out of heaven to this lower place, down to the earth, must have occurred shortly before he tempted Adam and Eve. Thus, since Satan was cast down upon the earth soon after the creation of the universe, his first sin must have been entirely spiritual. And he took many angels with him when he committed that sin. So his first sin, up in heaven, seems to have been an attempt to make himself into his own god, the ruler of his own behaviors and destiny, even ultimately also the god of other earthly and heavenly creations. Then the angels who fell with him must have wanted to be their own gods too, and to seize control over God’s creations. All of them were too ignorant to know that such a thing is impossible for created beings, since they did not create any of the most efficient and beneficial ways of any creations and, therefore, any deviation from the Creator’s planned ways would only cause the destruction of those creations. Any attempt to be one’s own god can only end up making life worse, or lead to one’s death, possibly killing all whom one tries to rule.

Then Jude 6 likewise states: ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν. Taking into account the perfect tense of the verb in the last clause, this can be translated: “Also He [i.e., God] guarded and now keeps under guard , in everlasting chains under darkness, for the judgment of the great day, the angels [who] did not guard their own position of authority, but left behind their own habitation.” The perfect tense indicates that Satan “remains under guard.” And keep in mind that II Peter 2:4 said Satan and all the fallen angels are currently being guarded until judgment. So they have not yet been judged and are not yet sent to hell. For, if Satan and his demonic angels are being guarded, how could they have been sentenced and cast into hell, which is inescapable, and has no need for

Endnotes:

 

anyone to guard anyone in it? Rev. 2:1-3 tells us when they will be judged and sent to hell. But hell has an

impassible gulf between it and heaven. So there definitely is no need to guard them if they are already in hell right

now. Once they are cast into hell, there will be no chance of escaping and no need for them to be guarded at all.

There is only one who has the power to remove any spirit from hell, and that one is, of course, the almighty Creator.

Therefore, at the present time, Satan and the fallen angels are on this earth, being guarded by God. They were cast

down to the earth, which is a lower place than heaven, and is also a very dark and gloomy place, compared to

heaven. And all the demons are limited here, are all guarded and bound in chains, so they cannot do whatever they

want. In fact, Satan must always get permission from God before he does anything (e.g., Job 1:8-12; 2:3-6). But yes,

God, for many reasons, does indeed allow Satan to do many things. God punishes the wicked by handing them over

to Satan's delusions, allowing Satan to rule over and destroy their lives. God may also let Satan cause trouble for His

own children, for their training, so they may grow stronger in resolve and learn to distinguish God's ways from those

which are not God's ways. God may even allow Satan to cause His children trouble in order to humble them when

they grow proud, or for all kinds of other purposes. For when God allows Satan to do evil works, it produces a far

greater good in the end, that is, for the teaching and training of His own children. “And we know that for those who

love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28, ESV).

[CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO PREVIOUS LOCATION IN BOOK]

===

3 [CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO PREVIOUS LOCATION IN BOOK]

Scientists are not truly objective, but are actually very biased through blind faith in the religion of humanism:

I tend to indulge in protracted, repetitive rants that no one hears or reads. And, for no reason at all, here is another

one. Of course, all scientists are sinners and liars to various degrees, like literally all humans are. Each has one’s own

pet agenda and biases, with different levels of dishonesty. So not one is capable of pure objectivity, in spite of all

their training. All select evidence and interpret data with at least a some prejudice, fudge results to make them favor

a particular outcome which they personally prefer, seek more zealously that which supports their desires, ignore

some information which opposes their preconceived notions, and so on. If you account for pride, unacknowledged

ignorance and greed, along with the external pressures from authorities or financial backers, it becomes abundantly

clear that many of the most frequently affirmed “scientific facts” are not really facts at all. Some are even pure lies.

Yet, somehow, many now esteems and trusts scientists more than almost any other identifiable group of people! Of

course, we need scientists and every other kind of worker, so we should not believe that all science is false. But we

need to use logic and common sense when they say something. Is what they say supported by real evidence and

enough evidence to draw the same conclusion? Have their findings been scrutinized by trustworthy peers? Many do

not apply the same kind of scrutiny to the works of scientists that they do to other works. And scientific theories are

subject to the same kinds of checks and balances that we apply to the published speculations made by others. Then

those who carefully release their findings with honest and humble evaluations can be trusted more than those who do

not do this. But merely having a degree in science does not earn anyone any level of trust. No one should see

scientists as untouchable sources of all truth and knowledge, in the same way some see their religious cult leaders.

Even in matters of life, faith and personal relationships, some trust the words of scientists more than anyone else,

although the personal lives of most scientists repeatedly prove that they know virtually nothing about such matters.

And even when scientists sometimes do provide beneficial information, labour-saving devices or other good things,

it has usually come at a very high cost to human lives or the environment. For they have poisoned and polluted the

entire planet with their discoveries, and built so many weapons of mass destruction that the entire planet is now

threatened with complete annihilation. As for the way scientists counsel us in matters of life and relationships, it has

caused almost as much despair and death as the armies of despots and demons have caused by using their military

inventions. Scientific social programs and psychological therapies have oppressed, corrupted and destroyed as many

souls in the last century as all the wars combined. Just one look at their world-wide eugenics and abortion programs,

or the ways they manipulate millions into justifying their self-destructive behaviors, is enough to condemn their

pseudo-scientific religion of psychology as an evil cult. So their contradicting words and the fruits of their labors

have proved that they definitely are not all trustworthy and good people, although some are. So they obviously

should not be esteemed as gods! If anything, most have been more like demons. Yet many still treat them like gods.

Many declare that such and such a scientist or scientific study said this or that, so it must be absolute Gospel truth.

And some scientists love to be esteemed like gods, then play the god-impersonation game and pretend to know many

things they actually know nothing about. For instance, they pretend to know how people can live happy, fulfilled and

meaningful lives. They pretend that the priests of their religion, called psychologists, can “scientifically” determine

the reasons people do all they do and know what makes everyone become what they are. However, in reality, little of Endnotes:

 

this can ever be known through their dishonest approach to science. Yes, some of those things can be partially known through a true, honest kind of science, since true science inevitably leads to the same conclusions and truths that are found in God’s Word. And, while science should never be based on private interpretations of Scriptures, true science can illuminate what God intended His words to mean. But the real reasons for most behaviors cannot be determined scientifically, since the core motives for all behaviors are actually spiritual, and cannot be observed or measured by the flesh. Evidence of those spiritual attributes can be empirically observed, but not spirits themselves. The motives and intentions of spirits are impossible to know, since science can only study that which can be detected with the five senses or with physical instruments that aid the five senses. Nothing in the spiritual space-time continuum can ever be qualified and measured by any body or thing in the temporary, weaker, less real material space-time continuum.

Since the core factors causing most conscious behaviors are inner and intangible love, hate, morality and immorality, those root causes can never be identified or measured, and will always remain totally inexplicable in scientific terms. Nothing but religious terms, or figurative non-material terms, even in philosophy, can actually describe those inner sources of our actions in any meaningful way. Our spiritual or moral behaviors through our bodies, all that results from inner attributes like a just kind of love or an evil kind of hatred, can be clearly and frequently observed in all human beings. So they definitely exist, because they cause measurable behaviors, even detectable brain waves. Yet only these bodily effects can be measured or controlled by scientists, not the actual love or hate which causes them, nor the minds and wills which choose love or hate. Of course, secular humanists are materialists, who only acknowledge things they can perceive with their senses or with physical instruments, while denying even the existence of their own spirits and all their spirits choose, lest their spirits might interfere with the desires of their flesh. Yet those secular humanists send out their “priests” to provide false explanations of love, hate and morality, and call them “scientific theories.” But those are never real scientific theories, since they can never either confirm or disprove their “theories” through experiments which measure and control all the factors causing those behaviors. In fact, humanistic “priests” (psychologists) cannot even make any kind of a truly legitimate hypotheses, which is only the first step before experimentation. Yet they need repeated empirical observations from controlled experiments before they can produce any kind of truly scientific theory. Witch doctors are as scientific as psychologists, although psychologists with good elect spirits can become quite skilled at helping others with spiritual problems, just like many other elect souls called by God to serve in those same ministries. But it is a person’s spirit and God’s calling which makes a person a good and wise counsellor, along with one’s God-given experiences and spiritual training.

In reality, psychological “theories,” like many other “theories” proclaimed by humanists, are just irrational religious myths invented to appease and deceive their faithful supporters. The fact is that the most anyone can do in studying human behavior—especially the more complex behaviors involving relationships and justice—is observe the effects and very loosely categorize them according to their long-term benefits or the harm caused by them. And we must remember that none of those behavior patterns should be assigned to narrow, rigidly defined categories, since far too many unknowable factors and causes produce them. Completely different factors and causes, either spiritual or physical or both, which we often cannot know, can result in a similar effects in two different people. Since it is always impossible to identify, qualify or measure literally all the factors or causes, it is always impossible to precisely and “scientifically” categorize behaviors according to observed effects. We can only recognize some physical causes of some behaviors, although we can never even know all those physical causes. And almost all of the best behaviors, those which produce the best long-term benefits for all, are usually entirely spiritual, caused by God’s interventions upon spirits. And we also recognize that the worst behaviors are “evil,” from loveless spirits.

So the behaviors we inwardly want to encourage or discourage are all totally subjective and requiring purely spiritual or “religious” judgments. We see this when one atheistic secular humanist insists that the definition of ultimate good is to make the masses into mindlessly compliant slave drones, who blindly and peacefully serve the whims of the superior elite. Yet another atheistic secular humanist defines that as pure “evil,” then claims the ultimate good for all involves a democracy with equality, allowing for responsible freedoms through just laws. Neither believes in the existence of God, spirits, absolute truths, good or evil. And both think they are thinking rationally and scientifically with only their brains of flesh. Yet both fervently and resolutely define good and evil in diametrically opposed ways, through a firm resolve from their spirits, in a way which has absolutely nothing to do with true science or their own brains of flesh. Both are making strictly spiritual judgments, since science cannot possibly define any physical acts as being either good or evil. For literally nothing good or evil exists in the material realm. Only the motives and intentions of spirits as they use material things for spiritual purposes can define actions as being either good or evil.

So loving awakened elect spirits claim that God defined the most effectively beneficial behaviors or ways of life for us in His fulfilled Old Covenant laws and in His creations. So, when those laws are interpreted and applied in the ways God intended, they will produce a joyful, gratifying and loving life for the elect, and even the best possible life

Endnotes:

 

for the non-elect too, since those non-elect will not be murdering one another. Then these elect also claim that their

spirits have actually experienced how our God Jesus granted them the counsel of His Holy Spirit, to them His ways

and to rightly apply His fulfilled laws. So they are claiming that all those behavioral laws of God are spiritual,

entirely learned by their spirits from God’s Holy Spirit, then applied through their spirits. And, when those fulfilled

laws of God are actually applied in the ways that God’s Spirit teaches and trains the elect to apply them, they prove

to be the most effective ways to both spiritually and physically benefit all people and all life on earth, empirically.

Science is not able to tell us why some have an inner impetus to be just, moral and truly loving, while others have an

inner impetus to be extremely unjust, immoral and utterly self-centered. Nor can it actually define any of these inner

values in concrete terms. Yes, the physical brain produces brain waves as a resulting effect of spiritually defined

good or evil behaviors. And some functioning or dysfunctional parts of the brain can either enhance or weaken the

ability to exert physical self-control, enabling psychopaths to convincingly pretend to be good or causing “good

hearted” souls to act in bad ways through uncontrollable impulses from their brains of flesh. But nothing in the

physical brain can ever be associated with inner motives and intentions, with consistent, inner, inherent propensities

or tendencies towards either good or evil, with the ability to truly love or truly hate. Before the physical body even

begins to express good or evil, either sincerely or artificially, the spirit inside chooses the path of either good or evil.

Neither environment nor genetics can adequately and consistently explain the good or evil motives and intentions in

human souls. No empirically observed good or evil behaviors ever truly have any physical causes or even any kind

of scientific definitions. And whenever a scientist becomes so arrogant as to think he can discover who is an evil

psychopath through certain kinds of psychological tests or scans of the physical brain, they are proved wrong. For

the brain of flesh only a tool used by the spirit to express good and evil, not the cause. So a spirit may not be able to

physically express love or hate adequately because of a dysfunctional brain of flesh, but will still spontaneously

choose either good or evil directions in life. And those good or evil motives and intentions from minds of spirits can

actually physically alter the structures of physical brains and bodies over time. So we can sometimes observe the

effects of a spirit’s propensities in some older people, but only the spiritual effects, not the actual spirits themselves.

If scientists claim to find physical causes of good or evil, many will believe them, even though those scientists have

all defined good and evil subjectively, through each one’s own spirit. Then the people who believed them will falsely

condemn countless souls unjustly. For instance, when fascist “scientists” said the Arian race was the most superior

race, and Jews were the most evil race on earth, Germans murdered millions of innocent Jews, and went out to

murder millions of people through wars against other races, so they could provide more room and resources for their

superior Arian race. And those scientists said this even at a time when true science had conclusively proved that

there is only one human race, with merely slight variations of physical features among them all. And God’s Word,

which some of those fascists falsely claimed to believe, also declared this truth about one race of humans throughout

the world, whom Jesus came to save. Today, science has even more genetic proof of the relationship of all humans.

So there can be no scientific definitions of good and evil, no materialist definitions. We can only spiritually define

some people as evil, loveless psychopaths, while also recognizing that some souls with antisocial behaviors caused

by physical cognitive problems actually possess just and loving elect spirits. Pseudo-scientists have caused horrible

injustices for generations, the torture, maiming, lobotomies, incarcerations and deaths of countless innocent souls, all

with complete impunity. So it is time to stop all this. On the other hand, we have all empirically observed and fully

recognized that all humans possess an inner spiritual drive to become either justly loving or psychopathic. So this

can be used by truly scientific and rational processes to conclude that a spiritual realm exists, that a non-material

Creator, an intelligent Spirit, created all spiritual and material realities, all the physical laws holding the material

universe together, and all spiritual laws defining good and evil, while spirits are actually interacting with the material

realm. This is actually a truly logical and scientific theory, based on empirical observations of causes and effects.

Each human clearly does have a spirit, made of substances from a non-material space-time continuum. And all these

spirits are either inherently loving or loveless, either good or evil, just like spirits which the Bible calls God and

Satan. Yet many or even most scientists unscientifically and irrationally insist that a spiritual realm does not exist,

because they they maintain a totally blind, irrational and unquestioning faith in the dogmas of the Roman religion of

secular humanism. Solely through their religious biases, they refuse to acknowledge empirical evidence and logic.

After the borders of the ancient Roman Empire were altered by invading Romans from outside of their original

borders, Roman theistic humanists ruled the world. Then, during the 18th century, secular humanists began to gain

control over the masses, especially after the French Revolution. And those secular humanists eventually established

their priesthood of psychology, to provide “spiritual” guidance and counsel for their secular worshippers of human

gods. If we look at the personal opinions expressed by early psychologists, you will see that this is true. But, since Endnotes:

 

their secular religion and human-worshiping “church” of psychology generally refused to acknowledge the existence of spirits, or a spiritual space-time continuum, those priests of secular humanism began to trick masses of gullible Roman humanists into thinking psychology was a science, not a religion, and that they were scientists, not priests. These very religious priests actually succeeded in making others believe they were “objective researchers” who “scientifically” studied human behavior, although all their studies were related to the very same matters of life and spiritual morality that all the other priests of all other religions also claimed to study. So those psychologists lied.

Of course, psychologists were never truly “scientific” or “objective,” no more than the priests of any other religion. In fact, they were usually far more arrogant, close-minded and biased than the priests of most other religions, since most psychologists, until recent decades, rigidly conformed all their studies and actions to the “orthodox” dogma of their religion, secular humanism, and forced very irrational assumptions based on their preconceived notions taught by other secular humanists. Every honest and rational soul could see they were blindly faithful to extremely ignorant and illogical tenets of their ruthless faith, even racism based on evolutionary dogma. But psychologists themselves were not able to admit this about themselves. For they had repeated their ridiculous tenets to themselves so many times that they began to think those lies and delusions were true and real. Likewise, the people also began to believe their lies, once they had been repeated often enough, and because the people were duped into thinking psychologists were wise, knowledgeable, objective authorities looking out for their welfare. And a few actually were loving and good people, but their religion was very evil. Thus, in the same way the people had previously trusted the theistic humanists of the Roman church, and allowed them to commit atrocities with impunity, they now allowed these priests of secular humanism to commit horrifying deeds as well, with total impunity. Psychologists routinely lobotomized, drugged, imprisoned, experimented upon and killed millions, falsely diagnosing more millions in ways that caused them to be treated as inferiors. They established eugenics programs which kidnapped, imprisoned, abused and killed countless little children, as well as innocent adults. They kept half the world in their darkness.

Now it is time to admit that these priests of secular humanism are not actually scientific. Only medical doctors, called psychiatrists, use true science to diagnose and treat dysfunctional physical brains, such as cognitive disorders or the ways in which body chemicals affect behaviors. And, usually, psychiatrists are the best ones to consult in matters pertaining to the physical brain. For the physical brain and body can be studied in truly scientific ways, since true science is the methodical study of God’s material and spiritual creations without the contamination of human biases, where human opinions may influence hypotheses, but theories must be developed from evidence alone. But psychologists simply cannot either observe or control all the causes and effects of human behaviors. Thus, most psychologists are not qualified to handle any spiritual matters, although those with truly loving elect spirits that God has made wise through His experiential training might. But any loving elect soul can become equally qualified by God in the same way. And the wise, loving elect can only specialize in counseling for only some kinds of problems.

I know that, in our day, after the media has exposed many crimes of psychologists, they have been humbled, and a few loving, effective psychologists have taken the place of some loveless, evil ones. Yet all who become loving and effective have simply become more biblical, not more humanistic. Literally all truly loving psychologists (but not the fake “loving” ones) actually walk more according to their spirits, which are anonymously taught by God, and less by their amoral minds of flesh. Most would never admit this, since their humanistic religious leaders would denounce them. Still, the main task of today’s psychologists remain the same as the duties of God’s guiding and counseling priests since the beginning of time. A psychologist’s duty is to spiritually serve as a loving, faithful priest of God, even if they march under the banner of ruthless, pagan, Roman secular humanism, which tries to destroy all other religions through infiltration and lying propaganda. So all their purely humanistic theories, studies and works remain tainted with irrational, dark, ignorant, biased doctrines of their Roman religion, which is spiritually evil and never truly scientific. But experienced elect psychologists dismiss much of that evil and actually serve the real God.

It is impossible for these priests of secular humanism to entirely prevent all their religious biases from corrupting their studies. They are forced to base some conclusions on the false religious assumptions which their religious authorities in their deeply religious, secular-humanist universities command them to uphold. For, if they refuse to endorse some of those religious doctrines of secular humanism, they will be ridiculed, expelled, shunned and even physically attacked. But all honest and rational awakened elect souls realize that it is utterly impossible to observe, accurately measure and precisely calculate the influence from all the countless, varied and often unidentifiable factors which combine, in unpredictable ways, to cause the behaviors which psychologists falsely claims to study “scientifically.” At the very most, a psychologist can glean a small fraction of the relevant information regarding factors causing behaviors, mostly those relating to the body and brain of flesh. But that is a totally inadequate and insignificant knowledge, since spiritual factors are the primary causes of love and hate, joy or emptiness, and an abundant life or futility. Furthermore, psychologist often attempt to determine the causes of a behavior by studying

Endnotes:

 

the effects of that behavior, which is only useful for developing hypotheses to scientifically test. But the scientific

part of a study involves observing specific spiritual and physical factors, one at a time, to determine the precise

effects each will cause. So their methods disqualify and invalidate their conclusions, since they most often guess the

causes, without ever actually measuring the actual effects from each narrowly defined cause. And, since spiritual

factors remain utterly impossible to fully observe, measure and understand, they can never study literally all the

factors causing behaviors. So it is logically utterly impossible to honestly claim to study behaviors “scientifically.”

Even the physical brain, which is the easiest things to study scientifically, remains too complex to draw very many

accurate conclusions. But, clearly, behaviors are not entirely controlled by the way the brain physically functions,

nor by any other internal physical factors. For one thing, it is evident that environment shapes behaviors too. Yet the

very same environment will produce good results in one individual but evil results in another, even if both are

identical twins with the same biological brains. Many factors alter the way the brain processes information or makes

decisions, including a non-material mind and will inside each person, which we call a spirit. And surely other

factors, also outside the brain, deeply influence behaviors too. For we also observe effects of non-human good and

evil spirits pervading the world, causing changes in human behaviors as well. When it comes to studying how a brain

is shaped by its past and current environments, and why it chooses to make certain moral choices in given

circumstances, and why others with similar genetics and environments make radically different choices, behaviors

are a complete mystery which none can comprehend through science alone. And all who claim to understand human

behaviors through science are always proved wrong in the end, usually after very costly mistakes have been made.

Many errors and biases of worshiped scientists have been exposed, and many have invariably proven to be mere

arrogant fools. The fact remains, and always will remain, that no one can even begin to “scientifically” discover the

origins and meaning of life through the eyes and ears of the flesh alone. No one can ever observe, identify, qualify,

measure or control literally all the factors of life. At the most, one can blindly stumble upon a few principles that

may produce good effects. And some may be content with that. But we keep praying for greater wisdom, hoping that

the Creator will reveal some of His beneficial and effective principles to us, just as He has always done in the past.

We can still study of the physical brain and other creations scientifically, but now with humility, knowing that we

cannot attribute all behaviors to the brain alone, and knowing that God makes different people for a good reason.

Honest, humble souls, who practice the kind of love described in the Bible, have always been the most effective in

counseling, in helping others live abundant lives, and solving all kinds of behavioral problems. But an effective

counsellor can be in from any religion, even in the Satan’s most preferred religion of secular humanism. At the

present time, there is no religion which holds a monopoly on all real truth, since the days of Jesus’ true visible

church have not yet arrived. So, as long as an elect spirit learns from God, either consciously or unconsciously, to be

honest, humble and loving in a biblical way, that one will become effective in helping those who also long to be

loving in a just, God-like way. But those who reject any kind of just and God-like love can never become effective

counsellors. Nor can they be effectively counseled for an abundant life. Yet very few from any religion become truly

loving and effective, since almost all religions war against God and against His kind of love in some ways. All false

religions try to prevent souls from becoming truly loving, and only allow the ruthless to bear any significant level of

genuine power or influence. Nonetheless, God continues to teach the spirits of His elect children, even when they are

trapped in false religions. So there always will be a few wise, loving souls around. And only these loving ones, who

are the most biblical in their ways, will be truly effective. In the meantime, those who remain faithful to the doctrines

of their false religions, whatever they may be, will bear only the bitterest fruits of suffering, destruction and death.

In spite of all the evidence that only God’s ways are best, people still believe that loveless psychologists—those

most faithful to their religion of secular humanism—are qualified priests in terms of studying, teaching and treating

human behaviors. Even many of the elect believe this, which is fascinating and disturbing, because they are exactly

like the other blind dupes who trust in Satan’s most obedient servants named Hitler and Trump! Even though these

psychologists have the most dismal track record imaginable, and prove totally ineffective, they remain esteemed and

trusted. In spite of all that we have seen with our own eyes, many still think these priests of secular humanism are

the most qualified and authoritative counselors available, more than the truly loving, effective priests of other

religions. The propaganda from secular humanists is truly amazing. They brainwash people through their incessant

iteration of lies and fake evidence. And they do this so well that the people no longer see or acknowledge the blatant

realities standing in broad daylight before their own eyes. But times are about to radically change. Soon the loving

elect will be separated from the loveless non-elect throughout the world, and in only one generation. Then the elect

will engage in true science through a true worship of God, from their spirits and according to His created realities.

But the non-elect will continue to worship human gods, and justify their crimes through false science and fake logic.

For centuries, theistic and secular humanists have destroyed all that is of any real value in our lives, and have even Endnotes:

 

violently murdered hundreds of millions of souls. Yet people still trust them. Even the studies made by the humanists themselves have proven that their own priests are far less effective than loving priests from other religions, than those who practice at least some of the love and truths taught in God’s Word. Yet many still trust psychologists more because psychologists promise to refrain from condemnation. Of course, all truly loving biblical priests also refrain from condemning the sins and evil thoughts of those coming to them, and keep their conversations confidential, if they see any chance of repentance. The only time biblically loving priests or psychologists betray this confidentiality is when it is necessary to save another person from an unrepentant sinner. So the only real difference between the works of effectively loving priests and a psychologists are: Loving priests of true religion always try to teach and lead lost souls back into a joyful, blessed, productive life while psychologists often let those who come to them drift deeper into darkness and death, and sometimes actively lead souls further into darkness and death. Now, since most people do not want to be condemned, they prefer either a loving biblical kind of priest or a psychologist. But, since many want to continue in the sins that are destroying them and everyone around them, these prefer psychologists.

Next, we look at how humanists claim that they know the universe began 14 billion years ago, and how life formed accidentally, then evolved accidentally into many different forms. They try to “prove” these religious myths, which are based on ancient Greco-Roman myths, with evidence that is even less reliable than that found in supermarket tabloids. Yet, back in the world of reality and real science, we can begin with their dating systems. Through double-blind testing, it has been repeatedly proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that their dating systems have a huge margin of error in measuring the age of organic substances more than about 2,000 years old and an infinite margin of error in determining the age of all inorganic substances. But, even if their estimates of time were relatively close to being correct, we need to realize that all time is relative to our perceptions. All the past and future times already exist, as true science has proven beyond all doubt. So the flow of time we each perceive must be artificial and must be set by God, with Him controlling how fast each of us perceives the passing of earthly time, and within His limitation of the part of His already completed timeline He allows each of us to perceive within our earthly lifetimes.

Furthermore, most university science departments refuse to allow any debate regarding their religious myths of the “Big Bang” and evolution, because they have lost all such debates in the past. Likewise, most scientists refuse to admit that they actually know very little about civilizations existing before 1,000 BC, and have made countless major errors regarding their published findings. Yet few have bothered to retract the majority of their errors. Then scientists know virtually nothing about history before 2,000 or 3,000 BC. So almost everything they so confidently assert about the origins of humans, animals and the universe is pure fiction. They simply publish biased speculations entirely based on their imaginations. And we would have very thin books if scientists were actually honest about what they genuinely know about the distant past. Most of what they teach in our universities, whether they admit or not, is actually religious mythology, invented to promote their religion of secular humanism. And almost none of it can truly be called “scientific.” Yes, we have found fossils of ancient creatures and scraps of artifacts from ancient civilizations. However, no one has ever found any way of reliably dating any of that very scant evidence. And there is no way of accurately observing or recreating the events which produced this scant evidence. So science can never truly know what occurred in prehistoric times. And none know any spiritual aspects of true human history, from the day God gave the spirits of the first truly human man and woman a knowledge of good and evil. Since true humans, especially those with the ability to truly love in the way God loves, lived very simple physical lives, and did not force their siblings in the family of humankind to build stone monuments for them, very little remains from them after all these millenniums. And the few traces that are found cannot tell us much about what their spirits believed.

The media loves to portray brilliant forensic scientists recreating crime scenes in detail from a few fragments of evidence. But, in reality, the real scientists can only help a little, depending on how much uncorrupted evidence a criminal leaves behind. And there is always a wide margin of error. So detectives imagine what occurred, and they are often wrong. Likewise, when analyzing scant evidence from prehistoric times, only very few minor details can be guessed. And, since there is absolutely no truly reliable scientific method of dating events, it is literally impossible to scientifically categorize evidence into precise periods of time, as they say they do. Then look at the vast lack of intermediary fossils in all evolutionary periods of time, while the existence of more intermediary fossils than the established species is expected, if the evolutionary theory were actually true. If evolution were true, all species would be continuously evolving into new species, and very few of any one species would exist. Thus, the story they invented about evolution is not an acceptable hypothesis, since it cannot explain observed realities. And, if the mythology of evolution cannot even be called an acceptable hypothesis, it certainly cannot be called a “scientific theory.” In reality, what we actually see is that there are changes in many species, but always within the limits of the available genetic material, and where that genetic material is brilliantly coded by a truly genius level of intelligence.

In other words, it is literally impossible for scientists to know much. Even with all the truly scientific advancements

Endnotes:

 

of our day, humankind has merely discovered on particle of sand on a vast seashore, nothing more. One may become

skillful at guessing but, with the scant evidence possessed, the best one can offer is a wild guess, not anything that

even comes close to resembling the reality that actually exists. Most of what “scientists” teach about ancient history,

evolution and cosmology is no more believable than the mythologies of ancient Babylonian, Persian, Greek and

Roman humanists, since it is all based on those mythologies, never upon any real and reliable empirical evidence.

Humanists have convinced the media to suspend all forms of truly rational judgment. Now most reporters think no

one is qualified to comment on certain subjects, like science, except other Roman humanists of their own particular

political and religious affiliation, even if no real science, true logic or genuine evidence is involved in what those

other humanists are claiming. Of course, when it comes to true physical sciences, or many other subjects, experts are

the best sources of information, providing they honestly base their claims on valid data and relevant experiences. But

that is not what many aspects of subjects like cosmology, evolution and psychology are based on. And, just as the

Roman Catholic church once convinced everyone that their authorities alone were qualified to comment on all

matters of life and faith, falsely “scientific” priests of humanism have now convinced everyone that they alone are

qualified to comment on all matters of life and faith. But we must not believe them. There are actually very valid

alternative views. Of course, there has never been a time in history when humanists have been honest and humble

enough to admit that they know very little or nothing, or that their lies are not the truth. They become so blindly

loyal to their human gods that nothing can persuade them to believe that the words and deeds of their gods might be

wrong. Some also think scientists are innocent liars, who have never been exposed to the real truth. But they have

been exposed to the real truth! And many have rejected that real truth, lest it humble them, lest it might cause them a

loss of money or status. So they remain willfully ignorant, and intentionally lie for profit. They are not innocent.

If someone is even relatively rational and honest, that one will admit that most matters of life and faith, apart from

direct observations thoroughly established as realities such as through the purely physical sciences, are actually mere

opinions and speculations. And much of what is called “science” is actually religious doctrine or mythology, mere

propaganda supporting the biases of secular humanism. A child with an active imagination, even without much

education, could write equally valid “scientific theories” regarding the origins of the universe, or the origins of life