Church of God News

COGwriter

Did those who professed Christ in the period shortly after the Bible was completed teach that humans possessed immortality? Or did they teach that this was something that God would later give?

How did they understand passages in the Bible, such as the following, that the Apostle Paul wrote?

For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory” (1 Corinthians 15:52-54).

Historical records give us many clues.

After the apostles died (John being the last around 100 A.D.), there were early church writers who continued to teach at least parts of what the apostles taught, which is what is in the Old and New Testaments.

Here is something from what is believed to be “the oldest complete Christian sermon that has survived” (Holmes M.W. Ancient Christian Sermon. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 2nd ed. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 2004). This Ancient Christian Sermon contains these statements about it:

Now I do not think that I have given any mean council respecting continence, and whosoever performeth it will not repent thereof, but will save both himself and me his councilor. For it is no mean reward to convert a wondering and perishing soul, that it may be saved (15:1).

For if we have received commands, that we should make this our business, to tear men away from idols and to instruct them, how much more is it wrong that a soul which knoweth God already should perish! (17:1).

Souls that can perish cannot be immortal.

From the Letter to the Corinthians, often called 1 Clement:

On this account He shall inherit many, and shall divide the spoil of the strong; because His soul was delivered to death, and He was reckoned among the transgressors (Chapter 16).

Notice this from Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians:

For this end did the Lord suffer the ointment to be poured upon His head, that He might breathe immortality into His Church (Chapter 17).

Especially [will I do this] if the Lord make known to me that ye come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, so that ye obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ (Chapter 20).

Ignatius is essentially teaching that Christ suffered to give immortality to the Church and we in the Church when we properly partake of Passover can live forever in Christ–otherwise we would die.

Be sober as an athlete of God: the prize set before you is immortality and eternal life, of which you are also persuaded (Ignatius. Letter to Polycarp, Chapter 2).

Polycarp of Smyrna (mid-2nd century) taught that the body and soul were to be resurrected, hence he taught against the immortality of the soul doctrine:

I bless you for because you have considered me worthy of this day and hour, that I might receive a place among the number of martyrs in the cup of your Christ, to the resurrection to eternal life, both of soul and of body, in the incorruptibility of the Holy Spirit (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14:2. In Holmes M.W. The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts and English Translations. Baker Books, Grand Rapids (MI), 2004, p.239).

Though the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch now lists him in their succession list, around 170 A.D. Theophilus of Antioch wrote a position that seems to differ from current Eastern Orthodox doctrine on immortality:

When thou shalt have put off the mortal, and put on incorruption, then shall thou see God worthily. For God will raise thy flesh immortal with thy soul; and then, having become immortal, thou shalt see the Immortal, if now you believe on Him; and then you shall know that you have spoken unjustly against Him (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 1, Chapter VI. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God…so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God…For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter XXVII. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

But God at least, the Father and Creator of the universe did not abandon mankind, but gave a law, and sent holy prophets to declare and teach the race of men, that each one of us might awake and understand that there is one God. And they also taught us to refrain from unlawful idolatry, and adultery, and murder, fornication, theft, avarice, false swearing, wrath, and every incontinence and uncleanness; and that whatever a man would not wish to be done to himself, he should not do to another; and thus he who acts righteously shall escape the eternal punishments, and be thought worthy of the eternal life from God (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter XXXIV. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Probably prior to 180 A.D., Melito of Sardis, a famous church leader and writer, wrote:

He killed death which had put man to death (Melito. Homily On the Passover, Verse 66. Translation from Kerux: The Journal of Online Theology, http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV4N1A1.asp 09/14/05). .

And by this, Melito is teaching that Jesus could provide immortality, as humans did not possess it (he obviously is not referring to physical death, as Christians have died throughout history).

Even though he held some heretical views, Irenaeus is considered to have been an important early theologian by Catholics and Protestants (around 180 A.D.) wrote, that:

Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King…may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book 1, Chapter 10, Verse 1. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Thus Irenaeus did understand the idea that humans do not possess immortality and that it is a gift of God. And this gift is only given to those that have kept His commandments.

He also understood that the resurrection was physical:

We therefore have formed the belief that [our] bodies also do rise again. For although they go to corruption, yet they do not perish; for the earth, receiving the remains, preserves them, even like fertile seed mixed with more fertile ground. Again, as a bare grain is sown, and, germinating by the command of God its Creator, rises again, clothed upon and glorious, but not before it has died and suffered decomposition, and become mingled with the earth (Irenaeus. Fragments of Irenaeus, Fragment VII. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Excerpted from Volume I of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors); American Edition copyright © 1885. Electronic version copyright © 1997 by New Advent, Inc.).

And even though he was not part of the true Church of God, Justin wrote:

For let even necromancy, and the divinations you practise by immaculate children, and the evoking of departed human souls, and those who are called among the magi, Dream-senders and Assistant-spirits (Familiars), and all that is done by those who are skilled in such matters —let these persuade you that even after death souls are in a state of sensation; and those who are seized and cast about by the spirits of the dead, whom all call dæmoniacs or madmen (Justin. First Apology, Chapter 18).

The second century apologist Tatian and associate of Justin wrote:

The soul is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but mortal. Yet it is possible for it not to die. If, indeed, it knows not the truth, it dies, and is dissolved with the body, but rises again at last at the end of the world with the body, receiving death by punishment in immortality (Tatian. Translated by J.E. Ryland. Tatian’s Address to the Greeks, Chapter XIII . Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Polycrates of Ephesus in the late second century wrote and told the Roman Bishop Victor:

Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? (Eusebius. Church History, Book V, Chapter 24, Verse 5. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two, Volume 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Thus immortality was something to be obtained, not something inherent. And the idea of man’s destiny to become God was known in the second century.

Tertullian was a second century religious leader outside the Church of God. And although he held doctrines that we in the COGs would find to be heretical, he is considered to have been an important early theologian by Roman Catholics. Tertullian wrote:

The resurrection is first, and afterwards the kingdom. We say, therefore, that the flesh rises again, but that when changed it obtains the kingdom. “For the dead shall be raised incorruptible,” even those who had been corruptible when their bodies fell into decay; “and we shall be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. For this corruptible”–and as he spake, the apostle seemingly pointed to his own flesh–” must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” in order, indeed, that it may be rendered a fit substance for the kingdom of God. “For we shall be like the angels.” This will be the perfect change of our flesh–only after its resurrection. Now if, on the contrary, there is to be no flesh, how then shall it put on incorruption and immortality? Having then become something else by its change, it will obtain the kingdom of God, no longer the (old) flesh and blood, but the body which God shall have given it. Rightly then does the apostle declare, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;” for this (honour) does he ascribe to the changed condition which ensues on the resurrection (Tertullian. Against Marcion, Book V, Chapter 10. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

Thus, he is correctly teaching that we are not now immortal and not as we now are fit for the kingdom of God–this occurs after the resurrection.

Hippolytus was a third century religious leader outside the Church of God. And although he held doctrines that we in the COGs would find to be heretical, he is considered to have been one of the greatest early theologians by Roman Catholics.

Hippolytus wrote:

Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe on His name (Hippolytus. Against Noetus, Chapter 17. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1886. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

Notice that Hippolytus taught that Jesus needed to come in order to confer immortality on men. He would not have to do that if humans were immortal.

Hippolytus also wrote:

For concerning the general resurrection and the kingdom of the saints, Daniel says: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” And Isaiah says: “The dead shall rise, and those in the tombs shall awake, and those in the earth shall rejoice.” And our Lord says: “Many in that day shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live” (Hippolytus. On the End of the World, Chapter XXXVI. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1886. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

Notice that Hippolytus is showing that death is like sleep and the dead must be raised.

Victorinus (ca. late third century) wrote:

“To him that overcomes I will give the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone.” The hidden manna is immortality; the white gem is adoption to be the son of God; the new name written on the stone is “Christian.” (Victorinus. Commentary on the Apocalypse. Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm> viewed 12/27/08)

There would be no reason to give immortality if it was possessed upon birth.

Pertaining to peoples in the third century, Eusebius about wrote that some in Arabia:

They said that during the present time the human soul dies and perishes with the body, but that at the time of the resurrection they will be renewed together (Eusebius. Church History, Book VI, Chapter 37).

A spurious document apparently from the second or early third century may have been used to introduce the immortality heresy into the Alexandrian Orthodox:

Now, the proof that the soul is immortal will be put past doubt, not from what it says, or from what I hear, but from what I see: for seeing it with my eyes, I shall ever after hold the surest conviction of its immortality; and no fallacy of words or uncertainty of hearing shall ever be able to disturb the persuasion produced by sight. (The Recognitions of Clement, 1.5. In the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Vol. VIII. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprinted 1995. Note: This text is considered to have been spurious and probably not written by Clement of Alexandria. It seems to be a second century document and could have impacted the views of Gregory the Wonder Worker and others.)

Since it is believed that Origen referred to this work c. 231, he would have been familiar with it, though some believe passages may have been added to it in the fourth or even later centuries (Smith T. Introductory Notice to The Recognitions of Clement. ANTE-NICENE FATHERS VOLUME 8. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementina, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ages Edited by ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., and JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D. Revised and Chronologically Arranged, with Brief Prefaces and Occasional Notes by A. CLEVELAND COXE, D.D. T&T CLARK EDINBURGH, pp. 73-74).

But it should be noted that in the mid-late third century a mystic often now referred to as Gregory the Wonder Worker, who studied under Origen in Alexandria Egypt, may have been the first of the Greco-Roman bishops to teach that the soul was immortal:

We prove, then, that the soul is simple…that what is simple is immortal…If, therefore, the soul is not corrupted by the evil proper to itself, and the evil of the soul is cowardice, intemperance, envy, and the like, and all these things do not despoil it of its powers of life and action, it follows that it is immortal. (Gregory Thaumaturgus. On the Soul, Chapters 5, 6. Translated by S.D.F. Salmond. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 6. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0608.htm> viewed 06/05/11)

And while this was not commonly accepted for a while, his change did get accepted (though to a significant degree because of others, but also likely some he at least indirectly affected). But it never should have been accepted. in Ezekiel 18:4 the Douay-Rheims Bible (a well known Roman Catholic rendition of scripture into the English language) teaches ” the soul that sinneth, the same shall die” and “The soul that sinneth, the same shall die” in Ezekiel 18:20.

Yet, most who profess Christ in the 21st century do not agree as most believe that humans are immortal. But the Bible teaches otherwise.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

Did Early Christians Believe that Humans Possessed Immortality? What does John 3:16, and other writings, tell us? Did a doctrine kept adopted from paganism?
Born-Again originally meant being born at the resurrection, not at the time of conversion.
What Did Early Christians Understand About the Resurrection? Is there more than one future resurrection? Did early Christians teach a physical resurrection? Did early Christians teach three resurrections?
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?

COGwriter

A reader sent me a link to the following, which was written by Victor Stenger, titled How to Debate a Christian Apologist:

Recently there seems to have been a rash of debates between atheists and Christian apologists. Of course, we had the much-ballyhooed debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on creationism versus evolution…

During their opening statements and throughout the debate, apologists are likely to make arguments with which atheists may not be so well versed. So, when the time comes for rebuttals, atheists often cannot provide cogent responses, or any responses at all, and so lose debating points.

An experienced debater will make note of every point his or her opponent makes and try to provide at least a one sentence response. That will prevent the opponent from coming back and saying, “My atheist friend never replied to this point.” This takes experience. I never had enough to be good at it. In a debate, impressions are more important than the substance of an argument…

Dan Barker, who is probably the most experienced atheist debater, with over a hundred under his belt, offers this advice:

“Debating is tough…Few people will walk away remembering even 10% of what was said, so impressions are important. Humor helps…Sometimes an audience member will walk away with nothing more than an impression, a leaning toward or away from one of the debaters, which will influence their future learning.

. . . in addition to the facts.”

…

Science and religion are compatible as evidenced by the fact that many scientists are believers.

They are actually a relatively small minority. Only 7 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, the elite of American science, believe in a personal God. Believing scientists compartmentalize their brains, leaving their critical thinking skills at the lab when they go to church and leaving their Bibles at home when they go the lab. God is not a coherent part of the scientific model of any believing scientist.

Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible because of their contradictory views on the source of knowledge. Science assumes that only by observation can we learn about the world. Religion assumes that, in addition, we learn by revelations from God…

The obvious presence of design and complexity in the world, especially in life, proves there was a designer.

That was a good argument prior to Darwin when people had no idea how life came about. Darwin showed that complex organisms evolve from simpler ones by purely natural processes, without the need for a more complex designer…

Science still has not shown how life began.

That is true; but it does not follow that life had to be created by God…

The big bang proved the universe had a beginning. Everything that begins has a cause. Therefore the universe had a cause, which was God (Kalām cosmological argument).

Modern cosmology implies that our universe began in total chaos and so possesses no memory of a creation or creator. A number of models, fully worked out mathematically, show that no laws of physics were necessarily broken to produce the universe.  Quantum mechanics demonstrates that not everything that begins has a cause…

Atheists claim that the universe just “popped” into existence. I can’t believe this. It’s preposterous.

Just because you can’t believe it, doesn’t mean it could not have happened.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/how-to-debate-religion_b_4876997.html

I considered the Ham vs. Nye debate as a waste of time as Ken Ham did not properly understand creation nor did he have the scientific background to properly deal with key aspects of the issue.  According to many who watched that debate, Bill Nye came across more credible, but Ken Ham and his organization seemed to benefit more from the publicity.

That being said, I would like to deal with some of the arguments that Dr. Stenger raised, including his reference to Dan Barker.

First, notice that Dr. Stenger, who claims to be representing science, is indicating that the truth and facts are less important than impressions.  This, in my view, shows that he realizes that his side really does not have all the facts to support their position.  As a scientist, I have long known that proponents of evolution treat the subject more like a religious view than a scientific theory. This is somewhat also what the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed revealed (see Ben Stein’s Expelled).

Which was?

Scientists who challenge too many claims associated with evolution are shunned by many academic institutions, as there is a tremendous amount of pressure at most “leading” academic institutions to squelch research that is not in support of evolution because it will affect their beliefs. Thus many ‘accept’ evolution and act like it is a scientific fact, when instead it is an unproven model that can scientifically be rebutted at various stages.

There is no real scientific doubt that evolution as the origin of life is false. It violates too many known laws of biology. It has gotten so bad, that some so-called ‘scientists’ are now claiming that life on Earth probably came from Mars as the Earth did not have certain building blocks like Mars does (see BBC: Life may have come from Mars?). This is additional proof that some scientists who profess evolution as life’s origin realize that it does not hold up to true scientific scrutiny.

Various scientists know that the facts do not support that life could have spontaneously began on planet Earth, so they keep looking for other explanations that they hope are more plausible.

Last year, atheist Richard Dawkins, instead of having a real answer to life’s origin, basically referred to it as a mystery (see Richard Dawkins refers to ‘mysterious origin’ of the universe).

As it turns out, the one explanation that is plausible and fits with know laws of biology, etc. is that a Creator started life. But many evolutionists do not wish to accept the scientific inevitability that this is the only explanation that does not violate true science.

True science is compatible with the Bible–it is only that which is falsely called science that is not (cf. 1 Timothy 6:20-21, KJV).  Atheist scientists, according to the Bible, are fools:

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:20-22).

They have intentionally overlooked what should be obvious.

Evolution has led to the intentional ignorance of appropriate scientific methods. It became a religion for many in the 19th century, and remains one for many today. Shunning or insulting scientists who come out with the truth is one way that they hope to control public debate on the matter.

Dr. Stenger’s bringing up Charles Darwin the way he did was wrong.  Charles Darwin taught that if cells were more complicated than he thought that they were (and they are), that his theory was false.  Notice that Charles Darwin wrote the following in his book The Origin of the Species:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (Darwin C. The Origin of Species. In Chapter 6, Difficulties on Theory. Cricket House Books LLC, 2010, p. 124).

And although Charles Darwin did not believe that was demonstrated to his satisfaction when he wrote that, the truth is that cellular life was simply much more complex than he at that time realized.

Thus, even Charles Robert Darwin’s writings contain an admission that he understood that additional complexity would disprove his theory (perhaps it should be noted that the discovery of DNA would seem to qualify as sufficient complexity that he was unaware of). Of course, scientists know that random amino acids also do not come with DNA. And while this was not known at Darwin’s time, this is known now.

Darwin himself seemed to acknowledge that life could not have started on its own. He seemed to, some degree, rely on the biblical account in the Book of Genesis as he wrote:

There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one (The Origin Of Species By Charles Darwin, 2nd and subsequent editions).

Thus, apparently Darwin recognized the impossibility of life starting on its own without a Creator (God).  But Dr. Stenger neglected to bring that up.

Not only can science not truly explain how life began without a creator, as Dr. Stenger admits, it never will be able to.  The evolutionary claims about life starting violate too many known laws of biology.  Dr. Stenger probably realizes that, but probably hopes that there will be a discovery that gives his side a valid argument.  But the truth is that his view his wrong.

Furthermore, Dr. Stenger is also wrong about mathematics and the universe according to some recent scientists.  Mathematicians at Tufts University recently concluded that the physical universe must have had a beginning and that the ideas that it did not are mathematically flawed.  For more details, check out the article Is God’s Existence Logical?.

For Dr. Stenger to conclude that the universe could have popped out of nothing is perhaps the most unscientific thing he said.  Which is why I decided that was enough of his points to address.  But I will add that he also made many false statements related to Jesus existing, but Jesus did exist (some details are in the article Jesus: The Son of God and Saviour).

Dr. Stenger is trying to act like his side has science and truth on its side, where instead, it has a false religion that contradicts many known laws of science (and history in the case of Jesus).  So, he must push towards ‘impressions’ instead of the truth to obfuscate the reality of a creation by a Creator God.

The truth is still the truth, as “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), etc.  Atheists hope to cloud that by insulting true scientists and hoping that they can influence people who do not realize many of the facts that disprove the evolutionary model.  But they must violate science and common sense in order to do that.  They are not true scientists.

Some items of possibly related interest may include:

Is God’s Existence Logical? Some say it is not logical to believe in God. Is that true? Here is a link to a YouTube sermon titled Is it logical to believe in God?
Is Evolution Probable or Impossible or Is God’s Existence Logical? Part II This short article clearly answers what ‘pseudo-scientists’ refuse to acknowledge. Here is a link to a YouTube video titled Quickly Disprove Evolution as the Origin of Life.
How Old is the Earth and How Long Were the Days of Creation? Does the Bible allow for the creation of the universe and earth billions of years ago? Why do some believe they are no older than 6,000 years old? What is the gap theory? Where the days of creation in Genesis 1:3 through 2:3 24 hours long?
Jesus: The Son of God and Saviour Who was Jesus? Why did He come to earth? What message did He bring? Is there evidence outside the Bible that He existed? Here is a YouTube sermon titled Jesus: Son of God and Saviour.
Where Did God Come From? Any ideas? And how has God been able to exist? Who is God?
How is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient? Here is a biblical article which answers what many really wonder about it.
Has time been lost? It Saturday the seventh day of the week?
Why Were You Born? Why did God make you? Herbert W. Armstrong wrote this as a booklet on this important subject. You may also wish to read the article What is Your Destiny? or watch the video, also titled What is Your Destiny?
What is the Meaning of Life? Who does God say is happy? What is your ultimate destiny? Do you really know? Does God actually have a plan for YOU personally? There is also a video titled What is the meaning of your life?

Kiev, Capital of Ukraine

COGwriter

The Prime Minister in Kiev, appointed by supporters of the protesters there, says Russia has declared war on Ukraine.  That protester-backed government has also called up reserve troops:

March 2, 2014

SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine – Ukraine mobilized for war on Sunday, after Russian President Vladimir Putin declared he had the right to invade, creating the biggest confrontation between Moscow and the West since the Cold War.

“This is not a threat: this is actually the declaration of war to my country,” said Ukraine’s Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk, head of a pro-Western government that took power when Russian ally Viktor Yanukovich fled last week…

Russian forces have already bloodlessly seized Crimea – an isolated Black Sea peninsula where Moscow has a naval base. On Sunday they surrounded several small Ukrainian military outposts there and demanded the Ukrainian troops disarm. Some refused, although no shots were fired.

Ukraine’s security council ordered the general staff to immediately put all armed forces on highest alert, the council’s secretary Andriy Parubiy announced.

The Defense Ministry was ordered to conduct a call-up of reserves – theoretically all men up to 40 in a country with universal male conscription, though Ukraine would struggle to find extra guns or uniforms for significant numbers of them.

“If President Putin wants to be the president who started the war between two neighboring and friendly countries, between Ukraine and Russia, he has reached this target within a few inches. We are on the brink of disaster,” Yatsenyuk said in televised remarks in English, appealing for Western support…

But the U.S. and other Western governments have few options to counter Russia’s military moves.

Ukraine has appealed for help to NATO, and directly to Britain and the United States, as co-signatories with Moscow to a 1994 accord guaranteeing Ukraine’s security after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The White House is moving rapidly to put together a tangible aid package, valued in the billions, so the IMF team due to arrive in Kiev next week doesn’t just arrive by saying “Hello.”  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-prime-minister-russia-had-no-reason-to-invade/

March 2, 2014

Earlier today, Ukraine sais it is calling up its military reservists in response to the Russian parliament’s approval of the deployment of troops to Crimea.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk said Russian armed action “would be the beginning of war and the end of any relations between Ukraine and Russia.”

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Ramussen said NATO supports the right of the Ukrainian people to determine their future.  He said Sunday Ukraine is a “valued” NATO partner and  urged Russia to “de-escalate” the tension in the region…
.
Ukrainian Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev told the Security Council that 15,000 Russian troops are already in Crimea under the pretense of protecting Russian citizens.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin blamed the West for ratcheting up tensions in Ukraine and backing protests that ousted President Viktor Yanukovych last month.

The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Samantha Power, said Russian actions speak louder than words.  She said a Russian force in Ukraine could push the situation beyond the breaking point and again called for international mediation in Crimea.

Russia has said its troop movements in Crimea, where it leases a naval base in Sevastopol, conform to agreements with Ukraine.

Crimea is a Black Sea peninsula placed under Ukrainian control in 1954 by then-Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.  It became part of Ukraine when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.  Crimea has a tiny border with Russia on its far eastern point.  Most of the people living in Crimea are ethnic Russians, but the region also is home to ethnic Muslim Tartars who generally show disdain toward Russia.

Ukraine’s troubles began in November when ousted president Yanukovych backed out of a trade deal with the European Union in favor of closer ties and economic aid from Russia.  http://www.voanews.com/content/ukraine-calls-up-reservists/1862314.html

As far as the 1994 agreement, this was a deal to protect Ukraine for Ukraine’s agreement to get rid of all the nuclear weapons in its territory.  It is not clear that the agreement specifically protects Ukraine from Russia if Russia is backing the elected President of Ukraine, which is part of what Russia seems to be claiming.  Russia is currently claiming that it is defending its people and supporters from the new government (some information on that 1994 agreement, known as the Budapest Memorandum, is in the post Russian Parliament unanimously approves use of military force in Ukraine and action is taken!).

There are two regions and two clashing attitudes in Ukraine. As I have written for some time, there could be a split there.

NATO has concerns about what is happening:

March 2, 2014

NATO’s secretary-general warned Moscow on Sunday it was threatening peace in Europe with its seizure of Crimea and should “de-escalate tensions”, but diplomats said the alliance was unlikely to agree on major steps to rein Russia in.

Speaking moments before chairing an emergency meeting of NATO ambassadors, Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned that Russia’s actions in Ukraine could destabilize the continent.

“What Russia is doing now in Ukraine violates the principles of the United Nations charter,” Rasmussen told reporters before a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, made up of the permanent representatives to the 28-nation military alliance.

“It threatens peace and security in Europe. Russia must stop its military activities and its threats.”

Despite the strong words, diplomats said they did not expect NATO to agree on significant measures to pressure Russia, with the West struggling to come up with a forthright response that does not risk pushing the region closer to military conflict…

While Ukraine is associated to NATO, it is not a member and therefore cannot invoke the alliance’s most powerful diplomatic tool, known as Article 5, which states that an attack against one member is an attack against all.

Given those limitations, diplomats and military experts said the most that could be expected might be that the United States would move some warships into the Black Sea, an action it could undertake unilaterally, rather than under NATO’s auspices.   http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/nato-meets-on-ukraine-says-russia-risks-destabilizing-europe/article17185994/

In my view, the current crisis in Ukraine is showing the Europeans that Russia does not consider Europe a credible military threat without direct USA involvement and if the Europeans want to defend hoped for European Union countries like Ukraine, and even actual European Union countries, that Europe needs to have a stronger military.

The Washington Post ran the following:

President Obama faces the gravest challenge of his presidency in figuring out how to respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. How he responds will define his two terms in office, as well as determine the future of Ukraine, Russia and U.S. standing in the world. After all, if the authoritarian tyrant Vladimir Putin is allowed to get away with his unprovoked attack against his neighbor, a blatant violation of that country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, then U.S. credibility, already damaged by Obama’s poor handling of Syria, will be down to zero. Allies won’t believe in us, enemies won’t fear us and the world will be a much more dangerous place.

For years, Putin has shown zero respect for his U.S. counterpart and utter disdain for the West in general, and the United States in particular. Obama’s reset policy is partly to blame for what is unfolding in Ukraine, after giving Putin a pass on his human rights abuses, aggressive policies toward his neighbors and support for murderous regimes like the one in Syria. Putin never saw from the United States any deterrent or consequences for his outrageous behavior, such as trade sanctions against Russia’s neighbors in violation of its World Trade Organization commitments or the worst crackdown in human rights in Russia since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

All too often, Obama and his team looked the other way.  That neglect is coming home to roost in the worst way possible: a Russian invasion of Ukraine.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-foreign-comes-home-to-roost-with-russias-action-in-ukraine/2014/03/01/10be38bc-a18d-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html

Many realize that the Ukrainian crisis has wounded the pride of the power of the USA (cf. Leviticus 26:19).

Notice also something that BBC reported:

BBC – March 2, 2014

For President Putin, this is not just a geopolitical battle for influence over a country in Russia’s backyard. It is to protect land which for him is, historically and culturally, an essential part of the idea of Russia.

Kievan Rus was where, over 1,000 years ago, the Russian state and the Russian Orthodox faith began. That is why he will do his utmost not to let it go, whatever the cost.  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26407604

Both Russia and the European Union are truly interested in Ukraine.  Russians appear to approve what Vladimir Putin has done:

MOSCOW (AP) — Thousands are marching in a pro-invasion rally in downtown Moscow one day after Russia’s parliament gave President Vladimir Putin a green light to use military force in Ukraine.

At least 10,000 people bearing Russian flags marched freely through Moscow on Sunday, while dozens of people demonstrating on Red Square against an invasion of Ukraine were quickly detained by Russian riot police…protests in Ukraine forced its Russia-leaning President Viktor Yanukovych to flee Ukraine.  http://www.salon.com/2014/03/02/thousands_march_in_pro_invasion_rally_in_moscow/

Vladimir Putin has lived up to his image of being tough and decisive.  While that does not make him right or wrong, those were traits that helped him get elected.  But, of course, the Ukrainians did not elect him.  Instead they elected someone who supported Putin, yet those in Kiev forced the elected president out of office.  And while the somewhat deposed president Viktor Yanukovych probably would not get re-elected now, Russia can take the stance that Viktor Yanukovych is the currently elected president of Ukraine and may use statements from him as part of its justification for military actions in Ukraine.

But what about Europe?

As I have mentioned before, in the Book of Daniel, it is prophesied that a little horn would develop and would mainly expand South and East into what apparently is becoming a European entity (Daniel 8:9-12). Ukraine is south and mainly east of the nations that once were part of Benelux–the ‘entity’ that eventually grew into the European Union. So Ukraine, for a while at least, may end up supporting Europe–though that is not certain.

As far as Russian involvement, basically, Vladimir Putin will continue to weigh the costs.  But as history has shown that Ukraine and other nations succumbed to Russian military pressure against their will in the past, it may be that Vladimir Putin will consider that Ukraine would do so in the future–though it would be likely that the protests would continue, probably with terroristic acts, if Russia does decide to takeover Ukraine.  I suspect that Vladimir Putin is looking for a pretense to takeover more of Ukraine and the Kiev government will need to tread very lightly to not give him that pretense.

Ultimately, at least part of the destruction of the Babylonian European power will come from forces associated with Russia (Jeremiah 50:41-43) and will likely involve Ukraine. Most of the Ukrainians are Eastern or Russian Orthodox, which makes them closer (in professed religion at least) to the Russians than the Western Europeans–though many of the Eastern Europeans have some version of the Eastern Orthodox faith and many in western Ukraine are Catholic.

Pope Francis has called for dialogue (http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/pope-francis-calls-for-dialogue-in-ukraine-to-resolve-crisis-1.1710305).  He does not want to incense the pro-European Catholics nor the pro-Russian Russian Orthodox.  He also wants to balance his ecumenical agenda with Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill as well as Constantinople Patriarch Bartholomew (e.g. Moscow Patriarchate pleased Putin to meet Vatican, while Vatican works many sides for its ecumenical plans); plus Francis is on good terms with Vladmir Putin (see Russia’s Putin and Pope Francis both kiss Marian icon).

There still is a divide in Ukraine, religiously and culturally. Overall, unless it actually splits (which, depending on which peoples and how it could split may impact the destiny of the area known as Ukraine), I believe that ultimately Bible prophecy shows that Ukraine (or at least the descendants of the Medes which are in it) will side with Russia (see Russia and Ukraine: Origins and Prophesied Future).

Some items of possibly related interest may include:

Russia and Ukraine: Origins and Prophesied Future Where do the Russians come from? What about those in the Ukraine? What is prophesied for Russia and its allies? What will they do to the Europeans that supported the Beast in the end?
The Eurasian Union, the Kings of the East, and Bible Prophecy Is there a Eurasian union that will be formed? Is one being formed right now? Are any leaders working on that in the 21st century? Does the Bible teach that there will be a Eurasian union? If some type of Eurasian union is formed, who might it benefit and who will it destroy? A related video would be Is The Eurasian Union Rising?
Is Russia the King of the North? Some claim it is. But what does the Bible teach? Here is a link to a video, also titled Is Russia the King of the North?
Some Similarities and Differences Between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Continuing Church of God Both groups claim to be the original church, but both groups have differing ways to claim it. Both groups have some amazing similarities and some major differences. Do you know what they are?
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”? Is an emerging European power “the daughter of Babylon”? What is ahead for Europe? Here is a link to a video titled: Can You Prove that the Beast to Come is European?
Who is the King of the North? Is there one? Do biblical and Roman Catholic prophecies for the Great Monarch 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? When does the Bible show that economic collapse will affect the United States? In the Spanish language check out ¿Quién es el Rey del Norte? Here is a link to a video titled: The Future King of the North.
WTO/TTIP and the Babylonian Beast Will international trade agreements like WTO/TTIP/CETA lead to the fulfillment of end time prophecies concerning the Babylonian Beast power that the Book of Revelation warns against? What does the Bible teach? A related video would be WTO Trade Deal and the Rise of the European Beast Power.
Barack Obama, Prophecy, and the Destruction of the United States-Second Edition for Second Obama Term This is a 160 page book for people truly interested in prophecies related to Barack Obama and the United States, including learning about many that have already been fulfilled (which the book documents in detail) and those that will be fulfilled in the future. It also has a chapter about a Republican choice. This book is available to order at www.barackobamaprophecy.com. The physical book can also be purchased at Amazon from the following link: Barack Obama, Prophecy, and the Destruction of the United States: Is Barack Obama Fulfilling Biblical, Islamic Catholic, Kenyan, and other America-Related Prophecies? What About Republican Leaders? Second Edition for Second Obama Term.
Barack Obama, Prophecy, and the Destruction of the United States-Second Term-Amazon Kindle edition. This electronic version is available for only US$2.99. And you do not need an actual Kindle device to read it. Why? Amazon will allow you to download it to almost any device: Please click HERE to download one of Amazon s Free Reader Apps. After you go to for your free Kindle reader and then go to Barack Obama, Prophecy, and the Destruction of the United States-Second Term-Amazon Kindle edition.

COGwriter

The Continuing Church of God is pleased to announce our latest video on our Bible New Prophecy YouTube channel.

14:23

Charismatic Kenneth Copeland and Anglican Tony Palmer: Protestants Beware!

Kenneth Copeland Ministries featured as a speaker Anglican Episcopal Bishop Tony Palmer, who has long known Pope Francis.   Tony Palmer declared that the Protestant church was no more and that all should unify with the Church of Rome.  A message from Pope Francis encouraging this was also included, as well Kenneth Copeland’s endorsement of Pope Francis and his message.  Dr. Thiel quotes these leaders and, with scripture, denounces the objectives of the ecumenical movement.

Our latest BNP video is titled: Charismatic Kenneth Copeland and Anglican Tony Palmer: Protestants Beware!

Southern Portion of Crimea with Russian Port (Sergiy Klymenko)

COGwriter

The situation in Ukraine is more divided as Russia now seemingly controls Crimea:

March 1, 2014

MOSCOW — Stunned by Russia’s swift move into the autonomous province of Crimea and the Russian parliament’s endorsement of that brazen action, the United States called on Moscow to withdraw its forces from the region and “refrain from any interference elsewhere in Ukraine.”

Speaking by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin for the first time since this crisis escalated, President Obama expressed concern over “Russia’s clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity,” according to a White House statement.

“President Obama made clear that Russia’s continued violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would negatively impact Russia’s standing in the international community,” the statement said.

However, Putin remained defiant, telling Obama that not only can Russia send its troops to Crimea, but to all of predominantly Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine due to “the existence of real threats” to Russian citizens in Ukrainian territory, according to a statement on the Kremlin’s website…

Russia appeared to have gone ahead with a military takeover of the Crimea Peninsula in eastern Ukraine, where Russian troops from the Black Sea port of Stevasopol were seen moving through various parts of the region.

Andriy Ignatov, a Ukrainian in Crimea, told Kiev Post that the troops are facing no resistance by local residents but aren’t being feted either.  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/01/crimean-putin-russia-ukraine/5922731/

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk is warning Russia that military intervention would mean war between the two neighbors; acting Ukrainian President Oleksandr Turchynov said Saturday he has put the country’s armed forces on combat alert following Saturday’s vote in Russia, during which legislators also asked Putin to withdraw Russia’s ambassador to Washington.

Legislators said they were insulted by U.S. President Barack Obama’s statement on Ukraine Friday. Obama said the U.S. is “deeply concerned by reports of military movements taken by the Russian Federation inside of Ukraine.

He went on to say there would be “costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.”

On Saturday, Ukraine’s deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, and Sergei Aksenov, Crimea’s new prime minister, appealed for Russian troops to enter Ukraine’s Autonomous Republic of Crimea.  http://www.voanews.com/content/ukraine-refuses-to-act-against-russian-provocation/1861937.html

March 1, 2014

This is fast turning into the worst crisis between Russia and the West since the short conflict between Georgia and Russia back in 2008.

That war ended with Georgia humbled and the Russians firmly in control of two breakaway, largely Russian-speaking Georgian enclaves.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia were subsequently recognised by Moscow as separate states, though effectively protectorates of Russia.

The West for all its condemnation was left largely as a spectator on the sidelines.

The Crimea drama is of an altogether different significance.

If this turns into a full-scale battle of wills between Moscow and Kiev, the consequences could be unthinkable – at worst the provocation of a bitter civil war inside Ukraine; instability on Europe’s frontiers; and a bitter legacy between the Russian President Vladimir Putin and the West that could have serious ramifications across a range of international problems from Syria to the fate of Iran’s nuclear programme.  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26403297

(Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin told U.S. President Barack Obama by telephone that Moscow reserves the right to protect its interests and those of Russian speakers in Ukraine, the Kremlin said.

In a statement posted online, the Kremlin said Obama had expressed concern about the possibility of Russian military intervention in Ukraine.

“In response to the concern shown by Obama about the plans for the possible use of Russia’s armed forces on the territory of Ukraine, Putin drew attention to the provocative, criminal actions by ultra-nationalists, in essence encouraged by the current authorities in Kiev,” the statement said.

“The Russian President underlined that there are real threats to the life and health of Russian citizens and compatriots on Ukrainian territory. Vladimir Putin stressed that if violence spread further in the eastern regions of Ukraine and in Crimea, Russia reserves the right to protect its interests and those of Russian speakers living there.”  http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/01/urkaine-crisis-putin-obama-idUSL6N0LY0SZ20140301

The situation in Ukraine has major ramifications.

While I am not endorsing Vladimir Putin, he has shown he will take strong and swift actions to support his allies.  And he has done so more in the past several years than his USA counterpart(s).

Earlier today, a reader sent me the following:

Putin Acts, Obama Affirms

March 1, 2014…

One suspects that President Putin isn’t very worried about affirmations of future costs by the international community. He’s seen Bashar al-Assad survive similar affirmations. Putin, like Assad, understands actions, not affirmations.

So will Obama now move beyond affirmations to actions? Will Obama get Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and London to begin to isolate the Putin regime diplomatically, politically, and economically?  http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/putin-acts-obama-affirms_783647.html

Charles Krauthammer responded on Special Report tonight saying, “The Ukrainians, and I think everybody, is shocked by the weakness of Obama’s statement. I find it rather staggering.”  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372298/krauthammers-take-obama-tells-world-we-arent-going-do-anything-about-invasion-ukraine

Putin calls the West’s bluff on Ukraine and Cameron is silent http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2014/03/putin-calls-wests-bluff-ukraine-and-cameron-silent

I am not saying that the USA or UK should get involved militarily in Ukraine.  But the reality is that the USA’s threats are no longer seen as that important to Russia.  It is not that the USA does not have power (it does), but it is best not to ‘bluff,’ especially when you are losing “the pride of your power” (Leviticus 26:19). It seems that Barack Obama bluffed and Vladimir Putin decided to call that bluff.  It may not have been a bluff, but Barack Obama is losing credibility here. What Barack Obama does or does not do will have ramifications beyond the Ukrainian borders.

What is going on now also concerns the Japanese, Taiwanese, and the Europeans.  All of which have been trying to figure out in the past couple of years how to handle their military threats as they all are realizing that the USA may not the the type of ally they can rely on when they feel that they need help.

As far as Ukraine goes, it is in in a very strategic location. Ukraine borders Russia, Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Moldova. All but the first two and Moldova are currently in the European Union–and Moldova has applied (see Georgia and Moldova sign up to join European Union, Ukraine does not).

Currently, in the west of Ukraine is a self-appointed protester’s interim government which wants to be part of the European Union.  In the eastern portion of Ukraine, most are part of the Russian Orthodox faith and many lean towards the Eurasian Union.  So there are various divides in Ukraine.  Notice:

KIEV, Ukraine (RNS) Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov is neither Ukrainian Orthodox nor Eastern Rite Catholic…As the right-hand man of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, Turchynov doesn’t necessarily enjoy the trust of Maidan occupiers who are deeply skeptical of political insiders…

“Unlike Yulia Tymoshenko, Turchynov is not charming at all,” Fesenko said. “And he is a Baptist preacher. It works against him too. Baptism is not mainstream.”

Some analysts say many Ukrainians are suspicious of Protestants, likening them to warring religious sects.  http://www.religionnews.com/2014/02/26/oleksandr-turchynovs-baptist-faith-may-help-defuse-ukrainian-crisis/

Oleksandr Turchynov’s connections to politicians who have also reputations of corruption does not help him as well.  A question is will the coalition in western Ukraine stand united against Russia?  And if so, for how long?  Ukraine needs Russian fuel and Russian financial credit.  It is possible that the West will offer something, but it may be too little, too late.

Russia would like Ukraine to be a buffer against the West. A divided Ukraine would not be ideal for that, but Russia may decide that is better than an undivided Ukraine in the European Union.  The Europeans want Ukraine for many reasons, including being a buffer to Russia.  Losing Ukraine, even part of it, to Russia will cause the Europeans to rethink their own defense needs.  And what is happening now, most certainly is affecting European thoughts for their future military.

Some items of related interest 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”? Is an emerging European power “the daughter of Babylon”? What is ahead for Europe? Here is a link to a video titled: Can You Prove that the Beast to Come is European?
Who is the King of the North? Is there one? Do biblical and Roman Catholic prophecies for the Great Monarch 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? When does the Bible show that economic collapse will affect the United States? In the Spanish language check out ¿Quién es el Rey del Norte? Here is a link to a video titled: The Future King of the North.
WTO/TTIP and the Babylonian Beast Will international trade agreements like WTO/TTIP/CETA lead to the fulfillment of end time prophecies concerning the Babylonian Beast power that the Book of Revelation warns against? What does the Bible teach? A related video would be WTO Trade Deal and the Rise of the European Beast Power.
The Eurasian Union, the Kings of the East, and Bible Prophecy Is there a Eurasian union that will be formed? Is one being formed right now? Are any leaders working on that in the 21st century? Does the Bible teach that there will be a Eurasian union? If some type of Eurasian union is formed, who might it benefit and who will it destroy? A related video would be Is The Eurasian Union Rising?
Is Russia the King of the North? Some claim it is. But what does the Bible teach? Here is a link to a video, also titled Is Russia the King of the North?
Russia and Ukraine: Origins and Prophesied Future Where do the Russians come from? What about those in the Ukraine? What is prophesied for Russia and its allies? What will they do to the Europeans that supported the Beast in the end?
Some Similarities and Differences Between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Continuing Church of God Both groups claim to be the original church, but both groups have differing ways to claim it. Both groups have some amazing similarities and some major differences. Do you know what they are?
Barack Obama, Prophecy, and the Destruction of the United States-Second Edition for Second Obama Term This is a 160 page book for people truly interested in prophecies related to Barack Obama and the United States, including learning about many that have already been fulfilled (which the book documents in detail) and those that will be fulfilled in the future. It also has a chapter about a Republican choice. This book is available to order at www.barackobamaprophecy.com. The physical book can also be purchased at Amazon from the following link: Barack Obama, Prophecy, and the Destruction of the United States: Is Barack Obama Fulfilling Biblical, Islamic Catholic, Kenyan, and other America-Related Prophecies? What About Republican Leaders? Second Edition for Second Obama Term.
Barack Obama, Prophecy, and the Destruction of the United States-Second Term-Amazon Kindle edition. This electronic version is available for only US$2.99. And you do not need an actual Kindle device to read it. Why? Amazon will allow you to download it to almost any device: Please click HERE to download one of Amazon s Free Reader Apps. After you go to for your free Kindle reader and then go to Barack Obama, Prophecy, and the Destruction of the United States-Second Term-Amazon Kindle edition.

Vladimir Putin (www.kremlin.ru)

COGwriter

Russia has decided to take up it military rhetoric and apparently take more direct action in Ukraine while the “Kiev Prime Minister” (not elected by the majority of the Ukrainian people) seems to hope that doing nothing militarily is his group’s best option:

March 01, 2014

Ukraine says it refuses to act with force against Russia’s “provocation” in Crimea – a southern Ukrainian region with strong ties to Russia – calling on Russia to halt all military movement in the area.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arsenly Yatsenyuk said Saturday his country will not be drawn into a military conflict with Russia.

Putin proposes to send armed forces

Russian President Vladimir Putin has asked the upper house of parliament to approve sending armed forces to Ukraine’s Crimea region, the Kremlin said in a statement on Saturday.

“In connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine, the threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots, and the personnel of the armed forces of the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory [in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea]… I submit a proposal on using the armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine until the normalisation of the socio-political situation in the that country,” the statement said…

Meanwhile, the newly appointed prime minister of Crimea, Sergei Aksenov, has claimed control of all the region’s security forces and has asked Russia’s president for help in restoring “peace and calm.”

Putin is quoted as saying he will not ignore the Crimean leader’s appeal for help.

Aksenov was appointed by the Crimean parliament earlier this week as tensions soared over Crimea’s resistance to the new authorities in Kyiv, who took power last week.

Many of Crimea’s ethnic Russian majority view Ukraine’s new leadership as illegal, and have welcomed what they view as Russian support. http://www.voanews.com/content/ukraine-refuses-to-act-against-russian-provocation/1861937.html

March 1, 2014

(CNN) — Russia’s upper house of parliament voted Saturday to approve the use of military force in Ukraine. The vote was unanimous.  http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/ukraine-politics/

March 1, 2014

Ukraine says Russia has invaded, Obama appeals to Putin

March 1, 2014

SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine — As Russian-backed armed forces effectively seized control of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula on Saturday, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia requested —and received — authorization from the Russian Senate to use military force in Ukraine.

The actions signaled publicly for the first time the Kremlin’s readiness to intervene militarily in Ukraine, and it served as a blunt response to President Obama, who just hours earlier pointedly warned Russia to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Within hours after receiving Mr. Putin’srequest, Russia’s upper house of parliament, the Federation Council, voted to approve it, after a debate that warned of the apocalyptic consequences of failing to stop a fascist threat from spreading to Russia’s borders. The lawmakers direct considerable fury at President Obama and others in the West they accused of fomenting the upheaval in Ukraine.  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0

The situation in Ukraine is tense and since Russia already has a military presence in Ukraine, I did not expect it to give it up for nothing. Vladimir Putin has never wanted Ukraine to join the European Union, and the current crisis exists primarily because of that.

The position of Kiev’s Arsenly Yatsenyuk is an interesting one and reminds me a bit of Mahatma Ghandi’s approach.  Arsenly Yatsenyuk must know that his side has no chance against a military invasion from Russia, and presumably he hopes that not responding will reduce the tendency of the Russians to invade more.  Of course, this approach did not work well for Hungary or the old Czechoslovakia in the 1960s.  We will see if it will work now.  The Ukrainians need our prayers.

Now, there are some reasons why Russia might hesitate to invade, but also reasons why it may feel that it must.  Notice for example the following:

With tensions rising in Crimea and pro-Russian forces controlling the peninsula’s main airports, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has called on Russia to “not violate the Budapest Memorandum.” So what is the “Budapest Memorandum” and what does it have to do with Crimea?What exactly is the “Budapest Memorandum”?The “Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances” is a diplomatic memorandumthat was signed in December 1994 by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom.It is not a formal treaty, but rather, a diplomatic document under which signatories made promises to each other as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.Under the memorandum, Ukraine promised to remove all Soviet-era nuclear weapons from its territory, send them to disarmament facilities in Russia, and sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Ukraine kept these promises.In return, Russia and the Western signatory countries essentially consecrated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as an independent state. They did so by applying the principles of territorial integrity and nonintervention in 1975 Helsinki Final Act — a Cold War-era treaty signed by 35 states including the Soviet Union — to an independent post-Soviet Ukraine.Which principles in the Helsinki Final Act, reiterated in the “Budapest Memorandum,” are relevant to the current situation in the Crimea?

In the “Budapest Memorandum,” Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States promised that none of them would ever threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. They also pledged that none of them would ever use economic coercion to subordinate Ukraine to their own interest.

They specifically pledged they would refrain from making each other’s territory the object of military occupation or engage in other uses of force in violation of international law.

All sides agreed that no such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal and that the signatories would “consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.”

Is there anything legally binding about the “Budapest Memorandum” regarding Russia’s obligations to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity?

“That’s actually a much more complex question than it may sound. It is binding in international law, but that doesn’t mean it has any means of enforcement,” says Barry Kellman is a professor of law and director of the International Weapons Control Center at DePaul University’s College of Law.

“The ‘Budapest Memorandum’ follows the Helsinki Final Act and essentially reiterates its provisions. There are confidence building measures and then a host of other broader obligations – primarily negative obligations. Don’t interfere.”

Kellman concludes that there are a host of other sources of international law that oblige Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity — including the provisions of the CSCE treaty and the UN Charter.  http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-explainer-budapest-memorandum/25280502.html

Some have suggested that the above agreement means that Ukraine cannot be partitioned.  Yet, Russia may feel that it thus obligates it to take the WHOLE OF UKRAINE.  Russia’s position seems to be that the elected president of Ukraine was ousted by an illegal, anti-Russian coup, hence Russia needs to restore the nation whole.  Vladimir Putin has likely concluded that he has taken the proper legal steps in Russia, and perhaps internationally, to do what he is doing.  Others will likely strongly disagree, but I suspect that Vladimir Putin already figured that would be the case.

It may be that because of Russian actions, a new treaty will be negotiated that will possibly partition Ukraine.  Russia might accept that, but it really wants all of Ukraine.

Some have suggested that the Budapest Memorandum obligates the UK and USA and perhaps others to help Ukraine militarily related to an invasion by Russia.  While the USA and UK have made various statements, actually threatening to fight Russia in a war has not been directly stated.  Notice also the following:

Simferopol, Ukraine (CNN) — Tension dramatically mounted in Ukraine’s Crimea region Friday as its ambassador to the United Nations warned Russia against any further violation of its territorial borders, a warning that came as the United States urged Russia to pull back from the region or face possible consequences.

“We are now deeply concerned by reports of military movements taken by the Russian Federation inside Ukraine,” U.S. President Barack Obama said in televised comments from the White House.

“…It would be a clear violation of Russia’s commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty and borders of Ukraine and of international laws.”

Obama said any violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be “deeply destabilizing, and he warned “the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.”  http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/28/world/europe/ukraine-politics/

Even without Western support, some in support of Kiev will likely fight as the following suggests:

March 1, 2014

The Russian mobilization was cited by American military and intelligence analysts as the basis for Mr. Obama’s warning that “there will be costs” if Russia violated Ukrainian sovereignty.

On Saturday morning, there was no immediate response from the White House; officials had acknowledged on Friday that Washington’s options were limited.

There was also limited response from Europe. Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign minister, issued a statement saying that Russia’s actions in Crimea were “contrary to international law and the principles of European security.”

Mr. Yanukovych’s refusal, under Russian pressure, to sign new political and free trade agreements with the European Union last fall set off the civil unrest that last month led to the deaths of more than 80 people, and ultimately unraveled his presidency.

While Western leaders grappled for a response on Saturday, a Ukrainian military official in Crimea said Ukrainian soldiers had been told to “open fire” if they came under attack by Russia troops or others.  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/world/europe/ukraine.html

Vladimir Putin has tended to disrespect Barack Obama and likely has calculated that the cost for what he is doing is less than the long term costs of not taking the actions he has thus taken.  Barack Obama does not want to go to war against Russia for Ukraine.  The pride of the power of the USA is being broken (cf. Leviticus 26:19) and the events in the Ukraine are consistent with that.

The final time of the Gentiles is getting closer.

The propaganda war is also happening on both sides of this.  While the West has highlighted protests in Kiev for the new government there, Russia is reporting about protestors in favor of Russia and who are opposed to the Kiev government in eastern Ukraine:

Thousands of pro-Russian demonstrators across eastern Ukraine and Crimea are protesting against the new government, with administration buildings being seized in several cities. Gunshots have been reported as anti- and pro-Maidan protesters clash.

Protesters in Kharkov and Donetsk stormed local government offices and removed Ukrainian flags, replacing them with the Russian tricolor on Saturday.

Between 7,000 to 10,000 demonstrators gathered in the center of Donetsk, a large industrial city in eastern Ukraine. Reportedly, protesters seized the regional administration building. While a group of demonstrators were storming the building from the central entrance, a crowd in Lenin Square in front of it kept chanting “Russia!”

The participants of the rally are demanding to hold a referendum on the future of the region, and particularly, on the status of Russian language. http://rt.com/news/donetsk-kharkov-ukraine-protest-365/

Thus, there are various ones in the east of Ukraine that are not in agreement with those in the western part.  This has long been the case, but it seems now some in the east are getting more vocal.

The Bible does tell of something that will develop in the future that is a type of Eurasian Union. The late Herbert W. Armstrong even used that term.  And that has been a goal of Vladimir Putin.

As I have written before, Vladimir Putin will use military action, and not just the threat of it, if he feels this will further his agenda without excessive international cost.  It seems that this has started.

Some items of possibly related interest may include:

The Eurasian Union, the Kings of the East, and Bible Prophecy Is there a Eurasian union that will be formed? Is one being formed right now? Are any leaders working on that in the 21st century? Does the Bible teach that there will be a Eurasian union? If some type of Eurasian union is formed, who might it benefit and who will it destroy? A related video would be Is The Eurasian Union Rising?
Is Russia the King of the North? Some claim it is. But what does the Bible teach? Here is a link to a video, also titled Is Russia the King of the North?
Russia and Ukraine: Their Origins and Prophesied Future Where do the Russians come from? What about those in the Ukraine? What is prophesied for Russia and its allies? What will they do to the Europeans that supported the Beast in the end?
When Will the Great Tribulation Begin? 2014, 2015, or 2016? Can the Great Tribulation begin today? What happens before the Great Tribulation in the “beginning of sorrows”? What happens in the Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord? Is this the time of the Gentiles? When is the earliest that the Great Tribulation can begin? What is the Day of the Lord? Who are the 144,000? Here is a version of the article in the Spanish language: ¿Puede comenzar la Gran Tribulación en 2013 o 2014? ¿Es el Tiempo de los Gentiles? You can also see the English language video The Great Tribulation Will Not Begin Before 2017.
Blood Moons and Prophecy There are four ‘blood moons’ expected in 2014 and 2015. Do they signal the Day of the Lord or the return of Jesus Christ? A related YouTube video is also available: Blood Moons, Prophecy, 2014, and 2015.
Prophecies of Barack Obama? Reasons why Barack Obama is apocalyptic and reasons why Barack Obama is not the Antichrist. This article includes many biblical and non-biblical prophecies, from around the world, that seem to discuss Barack Obama. Did Nostradamus predict Barack Obama dealing with the Antichrist?  Might Barack Obama set the stage for the kings of the North and South as at least one Shiite prophecy suggests?  Read it and decide for yourself if President Obama seems to be fulfilling various prophecies. Watch also the YouTube Barack Obama and the State of the Apocalypse.

Israel Blessing Ephraim & Manasseh (Genesis 48)

COGwriter

The Continuing Church of God is pleased to announce its latest sermon: Where are the Ten Lost Tribes? Why does it matter?, which is at its ContinuingCOG channel.

1:21:08

British are the Covenant People

Some items of possibly related interest may include:

Anglo – America in Prophecy & the Lost Tribes of Israel Are the Americans, Canadians, English, Scottish, Welsh, Australians, Anglo-Saxon (non-Dutch) Southern Africans, and New Zealanders descendants of Joseph? Where are the lost ten-tribes of Israel? Who are the lost tribes of Israel? What will happen to Jerusalem and the Jews in Israel? Will God punish the U.S.A., Canada, United Kingdom, and other Anglo-Saxon nations? Why might God allow them to be punished first? Here is a link to the Spanish version of this article: Anglo-América & las Tribus Perdidas de Israel. Information on the ‘ten lost tribes’ is also in the YouTube sermon titled Where are the Ten Lost Tribes? Why does it matter? A short YouTube of prophetic interest may be Barack Obama and the State of the Apocalypse.
Will the Anglo-Saxon Nations be Divided and Have People Taken as Slaves? Will the lands of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand be divided? What about Jerusalem? What does Bible prophecy teach? Are there non-biblical prophecies that support this idea? Who will divide those lands? Who will end up with the lands and the people? Here is a link to a video titled Will the USA and other Anglo-nations be Divided and Their People Made Slaves? Here is a related item in the Spanish language ¿Serán divididas las naciones anglosajonas?
Can those in the USA/UK see the Handwriting on the Wall? Is everything fine in the USA/UK or is it like the days of Noah? Can we learn from the handwriting that appeared on a wall thousands of years ago? Here is a link to a related YouTube video Can you see the ‘Handwriting on the Wall’?
Will the UK Lose Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands? Spain wants Gibraltar and Argentina wants the Falklands (also known as the Malvinas). Does the Bible give clues as to what will happen with these ‘sea gates’? A related video would be Will the UK Lose Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands? A version in Spanish ¿Perderá el Reino Unido a Gibraltar y las Islas Falkland (Malvinas)? Here is a version in Mandarin Chinese 英国将失去直布罗陀和福克兰群岛.
Canada in Prophecy: What Does Bible Prophecy, Catholic Prophecy, and other Predictions Suggest About the Future of Canada? There are prophecies that suggest involvement with Canada. And many are not positive about its future.
Protestant and Church of God views of the United States in Bible Prophecy Is the USA mentioned in Bible prophecy? Some Protestants say yes, while others say no. What does the Bible really teach? Learn the truth about this. There is also a video available: Is The United States Mentioned In Bible Prophecy?
Who is the King of the West? Why is there no Final End-Time King of the West in Bible Prophecy? Is the United States the King of the West? Here is a version in the Spanish language: ¿Quién es el Rey del Occidente? ¿Por qué no hay un Rey del Occidente en la profecía del tiempo del fin?
ContinuingCOG channel. Dr. Thiel has produced YouTube video sermons for this channel. Note: Since these are sermon-length, they can take a little longer to load than other YouTube videos.