COGwriter 

The Living Church of God has announced several of its international sites for the Feast of Tabernacles in 2008:

The following are some of the international sites we will have in 2008 (this list is not all-inclusive):

 

Argentina (Sierra de la Ventana)
Australia (Albany and The Entrance)
Barbados (Christ Church)
France (Evian)
Guatemala (Antigua)
Guyana (Georgetown and Awarewaunau)
Indonesia (Malang)
Jamaica (Ocho Rios)
Kenya (Mombasa)
Malaysia (Melaka)
Mexico (Huatusco)
New Zealand (Taupo)
Papua New Guinea (Wewak)
Philippines (Baguio City)
South Africa (Glentana, George)
Sri Lanka (Colombo)
Thailand (Mae Sot)
Tobago (Crown Point)
United Kingdom (Llangollen, North Wales)
Vanuatu (Orap)

In 2007, LCG had 43 sites in 30 countries.  A listing of the sites last year is in the article  LCG 2007 Feast of Tabernacles’ Information. 

The Feast of Tabernacles (including the Last Great Day) runs from sunset on the 13th through October through sunset October 21st, 2008.

Updates for LCG’s Feast of Tabernacles’ sites for 2008 are intended to be included in the article LCG 2008 Feast of Tabernacles’ Information.

You can click here for a Holy Day Calendar through 2012.

Wheat: How Long Will There Be Enough of It?

COGwriter

Last night, the following news item came out:

The Growing Food Cost Crisis

Sharp price hikes are hurting the poor and sparking violence

US News & World Report – March 7, 2008

The troubles erupted early last year. First, there were the tortilla riots in Mexico City: 75,000 angry demonstrators, mostly poor, taking to the streets to protest the surging price of a food staple. Then in Italy, merchants from Milan began clamoring about the cost of pasta. By year’s end, protests had broken out in at least a dozen countries: in India over onions, in Indonesia over soybeans, and, last month, in the small African country of Burkina Faso, where hundreds of looters burned government buildings to protest soaring grain prices.

The United States, like most western countries, has been spared from riots, but the sharp hikes in food prices that have triggered violence abroad are also being felt here. According to the Department of Agriculture, grocery prices are rising at rates not seen since 1990. On the wholesale market, the country’s biggest commodity crops—corn, wheat, and soybeans—are selling at record highs; wheat prices are up nearly 50 percent since the first of the year.

To Americans, the combination of high food prices and social unrest is bound to stir up edgy memories of the early 1970s, when food prices were being pushed up by high energy costs and decreased supplies. The current wave of food troubles, analysts say, is the most significant since then—and arguably more troublesome. “The crisis of 1973 and 1974 was a blip; it went away after a year or two,” says Joachim von Braun, the director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute. “This one is actually quite different and much more serious.” Already, in fact, there are signs that higher prices have caused political instability in a number of countries important to U.S. security interests.

The main differences between the price hikes of the ’70s and those of today are the severity and persistence of their causes. In the 1970s, the increases resulted largely from short-term forces—the Arab oil embargo, which jacked up transportation costs, and regional droughts. In the quarter century that followed, global food prices tumbled dramatically; from 1974 to the early 2000s, real food prices, on average, fell 75 percent.

Soaring demand. By contrast, the current causes are more varied and stubborn—and, in many cases, growing. Overseas, an expanding middle class is fueling unprecedented demand. In China and India, hundreds of millions of people, earning larger incomes, are buying not only more food but more expensive food, such as grain-guzzling beef. By some estimates, developing countries, come 2016, will consume 25 percent more poultry and 50 percent more pork than they do today…

For Americans, the prognosis is somewhat murky. The USDA says it expects food prices to rise at abnormal rates for at least the next few years. It’s a disconcerting trend, but largely tolerable…

For now, however, the situation is grim. Relief programs, including USAID and the U.N. World Food Program, are predicting huge budget shortfalls because of soaring crop prices. usaid, predicting a $200 million gap this year, is considering making deep cuts to some of its emergency programs, such as those in Iraq and Sudan. Meanwhile, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as in Latin America and West Africa, millions are growing dissatisfied with their governments. “There is a reason why politicians for hundreds of years have been emphasizing a chicken in every pot,” said UNWFP Executive Director Josette Sheeran. “Food is the most basic requirement of society. When prices go up, the pressures come quicker.” http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/03/07/the-growing-food-cost-crisis.html

Jesus Himself warned:

And there will be earthquakes in various places, and there will be famines and troubles. These are the beginnings of sorrows (Mark 13:8).

Elsewhere, the Bible warns of escalating food prices:

“A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not harm the oil and the wine.” (Revelation 6:6).

In the past month or so, the Living Church of God has been warning of food shortages and rising food prices (please see News of the Living Church of God page). We may, as I have written before, be in the time that Jesus referred to as the “beginning of sorrows”.

Those interested in more details of events that precede the Great Tribulation may wish to read the article Who is the King of the North?

TRANSFORMED FROM TRUTH 

COGwriter

This morning I received an email from WCG that had links to two articles written by its leader, Joseph Tkach.  Here are some excerpts from both of them:

In Agoura Hills, about 180 elders, ministry leaders, and members gathered to learn how our connection with Christ translates into more meaningful ministry in our communities…

I gave the keynote address on Friday evening, titled “The Mystery of Godliness: Connected in Christ.”
In this presentation, I explain the key elements of a Trinitarian, Christ-centered theology…

Even though he is God, he is also human, one of us. 

Sadly, despite having some type of theological training, Joesph Tkach simply does not wish to teach the truth about the Godhead.  Jesus emptied Himself of His divinity while on earth, the Bible does not teach about a trinitarian God, and the early Christian Church was clearly binitarian.

Several articles of related interest would include:

Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning Is binitarianism the correct position? What about unitarianism or trinitarianism?
Is The Father God? What is the view of the Bible? What was the view of the early church?
Jesus is God, But Was Made Man Was Jesus fully human and fully God or what?
Did Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity? Or did they have a different view?
Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity? Most act like this is so, but is it?
Was Unitarianism the Teaching of the Bible or Early Church? Many, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, claim it was, but was it?

Martin Luther

COGwriter

Yesterday, I saw the following article:

From The Times March 6, 2008

That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope  

Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices.

Pope Benedict will issue his findings on Luther (1483-1546) in September after discussing him at his annual seminar of 40 fellow theologians — known as the Ratzinger Schülerkreis — at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, the head of the pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the move would help to promote ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants.  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3492299.ece

Interestingly, some of the Orthodox want to be closer to Rome as well.

Born as Dimitrios Arhondonis, he has been known as the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I since 1991  

This morning I saw the following article:

CNS News – March 6, 2008

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Pope Benedict XVI and Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople spent almost half an hour speaking privately March 6 before going into a small Vatican chapel to pray together…The patriarch was in Rome to help mark the 90th anniversary of the Jesuit-run Pontifical Oriental Institute, where he earned his doctoral degree.

The patriarch delivered a lecture on “theology, liturgy and silence,” focusing on how the spiritual experience of Eastern Christianity can promote Christian unity and respond to the needs of modern men and women.

Patriarch Bartholomew praised the Oriental Institute’s commitment to promoting the study of the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches and its contributions to Christian unity, particularly by highlighting the Eastern tradition in the heart of the Catholic Church…

He told students and professors of the Oriental Institute and several Vatican officials, “We must at all times be prepared to create new openings and to build bridges, ever deepening our relationship with God, with other people and with creation itself.”

The patriarch also said theologians and pastors would benefit by remembering that the early church fathers, recognized by both Orthodox and Catholics, “never perceived theology as a monopoly of the professional academic or the official hierarchy”…

Patriarch Bartholomew said it also is essential that as Catholics and Orthodox work toward restoring their unity neither should undertake “provocative initiatives” in ministry, apparently echoing the concerns of some Orthodox churches, particularly the Russian Orthodox Church, about the re-establishment of Catholic dioceses in traditionally Orthodox regions. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801277.htm

It is clear to me that the current Pope is determined to unify with the Orthodox and the Lutherans.  And while he may not get them all (like I believe that the Russian Orthodox will not be tied in as close as the rest of the Orthodox to the Vatican), it appears that ultimately most of the non-US Lutherans and non-Russian Orthodox will at least partially merge with the Vatican.

As I reported before, the Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew (I) Wants Unity with Rome.  However, I strongly believe that the Orthodox Must Reject Unity with the Roman Catholics.  This current movement, which sadly will probably include most of the Orthodox, will not be good. 

But not all the Orthodox or Lutherans have to go along with unity with the Romans. 

Individually, the Orthodox Must Reject Unity with the Roman Catholics.  And so should the Lutherans as the Bible warns about such a future confederation (Revelation 18:4).

But the truth is that the Eastern Orthodox and Lutheran leaders have rejected the concept of a millennial reign of Christ on the earth–as has the current pontiff  (please see the article Did The Early Church Teach Millenarianism and a 6000 Year Plan? which has quotes from the Pope, the Orthodox, and Lutherans). 

And thus in various ways, they sadly will see more common ground with the Vatican than bible believers like are in the Living Church of God.

(The Pope is also planning on meeting with the Muslims that has other prophetic ramifications–more information on that is at the GCG News page.)

Several articles of possibly related interest may include:

Hope of Salvation: How the Living Church of God differ from most Protestants How the Living Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants, is perhaps the question I am asked most by those without a Church of God background.
The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert W. Armstrong This article clearly shows some of the doctrinal differences between in the two. At this time of doctrinal variety and a tendency by many to accept certain aspects of Protestantism, the article should help clarify why the Living Church of God is NOT Protestant. Do you really know what the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther taught and should you follow his doctrinal example?
Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Living Church of God? Do you know that both groups shared a lot of the earliest teachings? Do you know which church changed? Do you know which group is most faithful to the teachings of the apostolic church? Which group best represents true Christianity? This documented article answers those questions.
Some Similarities and Differences Between the Orthodox Church and the Living Church of God Both groups have some amazing similarities and some major differences. Do you know what they are?

 
Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev

COGwriter

Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev is the new president of Russia.  He had the backing of former president Putin as well as the Russian Orthodox Church.

What is of interest to me, at least, is that he was baptized into the Orthodox Church at age 23 (he was born in 1965). 

The Orthodox endorse infant baptism, normally, but in Dmitry Medvedev’s case, he was not baptized until after the fall of communism in the old Soviet Union.

It remains to be seen how the Russian Orthodox Church will work with him.  But this is the second Russian President in a row that is publicly one of its members.  And the Bible does show that Russia will play a role in prophesied end-time events.

Two articles of possibly related interest may include:

Russia: Its Origins and Prophesied Future Where do the Russians come from? What is prophesied for Russia? What will it do to the Europeans that supported the Beast in the end?
Some Similarities and Differences Between the Orthodox Church and the Living Church of God Both groups have some amazing similarities and some major differences. Do you know what they are?

  Pope Benedict XVI  

COGwriter

The following news item  was of interest:

Pope: Leo the Great Defended the Primacy of Rome

Knew Its Role in Maintaining Church Unity

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 5, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Leo the Great promoted the primacy of Rome because he knew its necessary role in maintaining the unity of the Churches, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope said this today during the weekly general audience in Paul VI Hall, in which he dedicated his reflection to the figure of St. Leo the Great, whom Benedict XVI called “one of the greatest Pontiffs ever to have graced the See of Rome.”

“He is also the first pope of whom we have evidence of his preaching to the people who crowded around him during celebrations,” said the Holy Father.

Benedict XVI continued: “It is natural to think of him in the context of the general Wednesday audiences; an appointment that has become in the last decades, a normal and expected way of meeting with the faithful and with many other visitors from all over the world.”

St. Leo the Great was elected Pope in the year 440…

The Holy Father explained how during
Leo’s pontificate the Council of Chalcedon took place, “the most important assembly ever to be celebrated in the history of the Church,” which “affirmed the union in the one Person, without confusion and without separation, of the two natures, human and divine”.

“It is evident,” Benedict XVI went on, “that the Pope felt the urgent responsibility of Peter’s Successor, whose role is unique in the Church, because ‘only to one Apostle was entrusted what was communicated to all the apostles.'”

The Pontiff said Leo the Great “managed to exercise such responsibilities, in the West like in the East, by intervening in various circumstances with prudence, determination and lucidity through his texts and his bound manuscripts. In so doing he demonstrated the importance of the Roman primacy then, as much as today, in order to effectively serve the communion that is a feature of the one and only Church of Christ.

Notice that Pope Benedict is admitting that Leo of the fifth century was the first pope to have such audiences and that he took actions possibly towards some type of primacy.

But the truth, as even Vatican-based Cardinal W. Kasper admits is, that the Roman Church did not have individual “apostolic succession” and knows that it cannot be proven historically:

As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained…To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chainbut of collegial membership in a collegium…  (Kasper, Cardinal Walter. Keynote speech from the Conference of the Society for Ecumenical Studies, the St. Alban’s Christian Study Centre and the Hertfordshire Newman Association at St. Alban’s Abbey, Hertfordshire, England, on May 17, 2003).

There were no bishops of Rome prior to the mid-second century and they were not considered as “Pope” until the end of the fourth century.

Also the fact that it was Emperor Constantine, and NOT a pope, who convened the first church council (Nicea 325 AD) and made his impression of Greco-Roman shows that the early “popes” had little influence outside of Rome.  The fact that they sometimes tried to does NOT show that they had any Apostolic Succession as there is no proof that there ever was a “Bishop of Rome” until over a century after Christ’s death.

Furthermore, perhaps I should add here that Leo’s comments about Jesus were in biblical error (please see the article Jesus is God, But Was Made Man ).

The Roman Catholic Church simply does not have Apostolic Succession the way most of its followers seem to think.

Several articles of related interest may include:

The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?
What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?
Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Living Church of God? Do you know that both groups shared a lot of the earliest teachings? Do you know which church changed? Do you know which group is most faithful to the teachings of the apostolic church? Which group best represents true Christianity? This documented article answers those questions.
Apostolic Succession What really happened? Did structure and beliefs change? Are many of the widely-held current understandings of this even possible? Did you know that Catholic scholars really do not believe that several of the claimed “apostolic sees” of the Orthodox have apostolic succession–despite the fact that the current pontiff himself seems to wish to ignore this view?  Is there actually a true church that has ties to any of the apostles that is not part of the Catholic or Orthodox churches?  Read this article if you truly are interested in the truth on this matter!

COGwriter 

COGaIC’s David Hulme has a blog where he posts about Middle East matters.  Here is his latest post:

But David Hulme neglects to mention what may happen.  Thus, I would like to add a news item that he does not have at his blog:

Israel sees ties with EU as crucial 

Israel is increasingly “plugging into” EU institutions and, in turn, allowing European political and economic influence to play a greater part in its diplomatic and economic processes, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The thinking within the Foreign Ministry is that it is time to reassess the Jewish state’s traditional line that Israel’s survival rests on two pillars only: a strong IDF and an unbreakable alliance with America. What is becoming evident is the increasing understanding of the importance the European Union plays in world events and in the Middle East particularly, officials say (Israel sees ties with EU as crucial.  Jerusalem Post – Feb 22, 2008; http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203605149734&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).

Thus, it appears that Israel is hoping to make a deal with the European Union.  This could be the deal that is alluded to in Daniel 9:27.

More information on this is included in the following two articles:

End of Mayan Calendar 2012–Might 2012 Mean Something? There is a Mayan calendar prediction for change in 2012. 2012 changes were also centuries ago predicted by the Hopi Native Americans and the Hindu Indians (who were not even on the same continent). Do these Mayan/Hindu/Hopi prophecies have any value? Why might Satan have inspired this date? Can the great tribulation start before 2012?
Who is the King of the North? Is there one? Do biblical and Roman Catholic prophecies point to the same leader? Should he be followed? Who will be the King of the North discussed in Daniel 11? Is a nuclear attack prophesied to happen to the English-speaking peoples of the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand? When do the 1335 days, 1290 days, and 1260 days (the time, times, and half a time) of Daniel 12 begin?

LCG’s Dr. Meredith and I (January 2008) 

COGwriter 

While I normally do not post corrections here to what blog posters say about the Living Church of God or me, today I thought I would comment on two I noted yesterday from a particular “author” at a site that seems to bash the COGs (and no, not Gavin Rumney’s site this time).

Here is the first:

The Living Church of God (the original splinter that Weinland joined in 1995, which he subsequently broke away from) likes to take a prophecy-by-hindsight approach, claiming that “evangelist” Rod Meredith has “predicted” everything from 9/11 to I-don’t-know-what. Thus, in LCG’s eyes, RW’s a false prophet.

No, Ronald Weinland was never part of the Living Church of God.  He was, however, once part of the United Church of God.  But it is true that we in LCG have always considered Ronald Weinland to be a false prophet.  But it is not true that we take a prophecy in hindsight approach, etc. (the comment about RC Meredith is not quite right, but that will take a longer explanation than I care to do here) as the blogger indicated.  LCG has repeatedly explained what the Bible teaches must occur in the future, and still does that.

Here is the second:

Thiel is not a PhD; he got his “doctorate” from the unaccredited Ambassador College, and the education he received there (if reports from former students are any indication, especially Dennis Diehl’s articles) was minimal at best, and laughable at worst, and absolutely scarce on real “theology”.

Why the above writer who was supposedly providing clarifying information said that is a mystery to me–he is totally wrong about my education.

As anyone can find out if they click the COGwriter link (which is at the beginning of most of my articles), I do have a Ph.D. and it is from the Union Institute & University.  And Union is regionally accredited (the highest accepted accrediting standard in the United States for universities and colleges).

I also have a Master of Science degree from the University of Southern California (which, of course, is also regionally accredited).

I never was a student at Ambassador College.  So to post that my academic credentials are from there is false. (Perhaps, however, I should point out that Ambassador did get regionally accredited before it closed.  But again, I was never a student there.)

Of course, many will still misreport about me, LCG, and various COGs, but today I thought I would at least point out that those that do could do some simple research to check their facts.

In his March 1, 2008 post, CEM’s Ron Dart wrote:

Reflections on Psalm 1

     The law of God is not a yoke of bondage, nor is it shackles and chains. It is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. The law of God is a descriptor of what works in life. The man who internalizes it gains an edge. Men will study books day and night that they think will give them an edge in the stock market. They do it for money. The law of God gives a man an edge in everything.

      The law can be a painful study because we break it so often. It is not that we can’t keep the law in any one of its parts or on any given occasion. We can do that. But keeping it perfectly all the time is rather beyond most of us. Superficially, the law seems complicated, but that is only because the law is about life. It is life that is complicated. So when we study the law, and “meditate on it day and night,” we routinely come across mistakes we have made. There is no gain in agonizing over past mistakes. The gain is in recognizing them and correcting them. The grace of God is what allows us to use the law without being discouraged by it.

      The stock market makes a good analogy; we do not feel guilty when we make a mistake investing. We cut our losses and try not to make the same mistake again. When we study the law of God, we do feel guilty. Yet, what God is after is not guilt, but change. What he wants us to do is learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. It’s called repentance. 

And the above is essentially correct. 

The law of God is not some type of horrible burden that we should violate because we are not perfect.

Jesus taught:

Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48).

And even though Paul noted:

…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

He also wrote:

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries (Hebrews 10:26-27).

Thus, we are to avoid sin.  Much more than most Protestant theologians tend to teach.

Several articles of related interest may include:

Hope of Salvation: How the Living Church of God differ from most Protestants How the Living Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants, is perhaps the question I am asked most by those without a Church of God background.
The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert W. Armstrong This article clearly shows some of the doctrinal differences between in the two. At this time of doctrinal variety and a tendency by many to accept certain aspects of Protestantism, the article should help clarify why the Living Church of God is NOT Protestant. Do you really know what the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther taught and should you follow his doctrinal example?
Were the Pharisees Condemned for Keeping the Law or Reasoning Around it? Many believe that the Pharisees were condemned for keeping the law, but what does your Bible say? If they were not condemned for that, what were they condemned for?
The Ten Commandments Reflect Love, Breaking them is Evil Some feel that the ten commandments are a burden. Is that what Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, and John taught?
Was the Commandment to Love the Only Command? Some have stated that John’s writings teach this, but is that what the Bible really says?
The Ten Commandments and the Early Church Did Jesus and the Early Church keep the ten commandments? What order were they in? Here are quotes from the Bible and early writings.

Flag of the European Union

COGwriter

In his latest weekly update, LCG’s Douglas Winnail included the following news item (which was prepared by Joe Brown and Scott Winnail):

Coming: A New Trade Block. Fifty-five U.S. Senators and Congressmen currently serve as advisors to a “working group” for the Transatlantic Common Market between the U.S. and the European Union. “An economist from the World Bank has argued in print that the formation of the Transatlantic Common Market is designed to follow the blueprint of Jean Monet, a key intellectual architect of the European Union, recognizing that economic integration must inevitably lead to political integration.” The idea of this union came to light in April 2007, when President Bush, German Chancellor Merkel, and European Commission President Barroso launched the Transatlantic Economic Council. Efforts are already underway to create a North American Community, including the U.S., Mexico and Canada. This community is to be based on security and economic issues and is intended to be in place by 2010 (WorldNetDaily.com, July 20, 2005; September 25, 2006). The Transatlantic Common Market is intended to combine the North American Community with the EU, creating the world’s most formidable trade bloc—a trade bloc that would be so large that its trading policies would automatically become policies for the world. Plans for this new “common market” are proceeding and are intended to pass through in a “treaty” form, much like the most recent EU Treaty, in order to avoid the scrutiny and debate that often come with more “formal” agreements (January 16, 2008). Revelation 18 warns of a future Beast, known as Babylon the Great, through which “the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury” (v. 3).
—————————————————————–

Comments by COGwriter

I have been expecting such a development for some time.  And today, I would like to explain what I have believed for over 20 years will most likely happen with the above proposed trade block.

Negotiations will continue and some type of loose agreements will happen.  In the spirit of accommodation and personal interest, many of the “standards” of the European Union will be adopted by the USA, Canada and Mexico, as well as by nearly all of the countries of the world.  The Arab nations will most likely agree with many of the standards as they seem to be destined to form a brief end-time alliance with the Europeans (The Arab World In the Bible, History, and Prophecy).

However, over time, it will become increasingly clear that the British will be in more agreement with the Canadians and Americans and that the European Union in more agreement with the Mexicans than the EU will have with the English-speaking nations.

Trade wars and/or serious trade disputes will most likely arise.

The Brits will ultimately decide that they are more supportive of the Americans and Canadians.  They will be so much more supportive that they will end up in a trading agreement with them (with the Australians and New Zealanders probably also becoming part of that agreement).

The EU will decide that Mexico and the rest of Latin America are in more agreement with it and thus make some type of serious trading agreement with most (or all) of Latin America.  The Vatican will also have influence here as Latin America is highly Roman Catholic.

The Europeans and Americans, however, will continue to have military agreements, though many will be tense about them.

Eventually, the Europeans (possibly under the cover of pretending that they are involved in a “NATO-like” exercise in North America) will eventually launch a surprise attack against the United States in fulfillment of both biblical and Catholic prophecies.  The Mexicans will most likely be allied with the Europeans for this to happen.

That is a brief overview of where I believe that these agreements are heading.

Several articles of related interst may include:

Europa, the Beast, and Revelation Where did Europe get its name? What might Europe have to do with the Book of Revelation? What about “the Beast”?
Persecutions by Church and State This article documents some that have occurred against those associated with the COGs and some prophesied to occur.
Who is the King of the North? Is there one? Do biblical and Roman Catholic prophecies point to the same leader? Should he be followed? Who will be the King of the North discussed in Daniel 11? Is a nuclear attack prophesied to happen to the English-speaking peoples of the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand? When do the 1335 days, 1290 days, and 1260 days (the time, times, and half a time) of Daniel 12 begin?
Is There A Future King of the South? Some no longer believe there needs to be. Might Egypt, Islam, Iran, Arabs, or Ethiopia be involved? What does the Bible say?
The Arab World In the Bible, History, and Prophecy The Bible discusses the origins of the Arab world and discusses the Middle East in prophecy. What is ahead for the Middle East and those who follow Islam?