If I were the Devil

If I were the devil . . .

I would gain control of the most powerful nation in the world;

I would delude their minds into thinking that they had come from man’s effort, instead of God’s blessings;

I would promote an attitude of loving things and using people, instead of the other way around;

I would dupe entire states into relying on gambling for their state revenue;

I would convince people that character is not an issue when it comes to leadership;

I would make it legal to take the life of unborn babies;

I would make it socially acceptable to take one’s own life, and invent machines to make it convenient;

I would cheapen human life as much as possible so that the life of animals are valued more than human beings;

I would take God out of the schools, where even the mention of His name was grounds for a lawsuit;

I would come up with drugs that sedate the mind and target the young, and I would get sports heroes to advertise them;

I would get control of the media, so that every night I could pollute the mind of every family member for my agenda;

I would attack the family, the backbone of any nation.

I would make divorce acceptable and easy, even fashionable. If the family crumbles, so does the nation;

I would compel people to express their most depraved fantasies on canvas and movie screens, and I would call it art;

I would convince the world that people are born homosexuals, and that their lifestyles should be accepted and marveled;

I would convince the people that right and wrong are determined by a few who call themselves authorities and refer to their agenda as politically correct;

I would persuade people that the church is irrelevant and out of date, and the Bible is for the naive;

I would dull the minds of Christians, and make them believe that prayer is not important, and that faithfulness and obedience are optional;

I guess I would leave things pretty much the way they are.


Origins:   “If I Were the Devil” is a form of social criticism, an essay that postulates what steps the devil might take in order to corrupt human civilization (and the United States in particular) and lead it down the path of darkness — before delivering the catch that all the steps listed are phenomena that are already taking place in the world today. It was written and popularized by national radio commentator

and syndicated columnist Paul Harvey, who from the mid-1960s onwards featured it in both media many times over the course of his long career, periodically updating it to incorporate current trends.

In an odd twist, though (and the reason this item is rated as a “mixture”), one of the most widely Internet-circulated versions of “If I Were the Devil,” as reproduced in the “Example” block above, is not from Paul Harvey. Although it is clearly inspired by and in the spirit of Paul Harvey’s essay of the same name, it bears virtually no textual resemblance to the original — while it is similar in structure and theme, not one of its lines appears in any of various forms of the essay which Paul Harvey presented to his audiences over the years.

The oldest genuine Paul Harvey version of this piece we’ve found so far appeared in his newspaper column in 1964:

If I Were the Devil

If I were the Prince of Darkness I would want to engulf the whole earth in darkness.

I’d have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree.

So I should set about however necessary, to take over the United States.

I would begin with a campaign of whispers.

With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whispers to you as I whispered to Eve, “Do as you please.”

To the young I would whisper “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that “man created God,” instead of the other way around. I would confide that “what is bad is good and what is good is square.”

In the ears of the young married I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be “extreme” in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct.

And the old I would teach to pray — to say after me — “Our father which are in Washington.”

Then I’d get organized.

I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull, uninteresting.

I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies, and vice-versa.

I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing, less work. Idle hands usually work for me.

I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could, I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction, I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

If I were the Devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions; let those run wild.

I’d designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts and I’d get preachers to say, “She’s right.”

With flattery and promises of power I would get the courts to vote against God and in favor of pornography.

Thus I would evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, then from the Houses of Congress.

Then in his own churches I’d substitute psychology for religion and deify science.

If I were Satan I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg

And the symbol of Christmas a bottle.

If I were the Devil I’d take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work.

Then I would separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines and objectors in slave-labor camps.

If I were Satan I’d just keep doing what I’m doing and the whole world go to hell as sure as the Devil.


Contrasting that 1964 version of the essay with Paul Harvey’s 1996 newspaper version shows that, although the concept and structure of the essay remained the same across the decades, its content evolved quite a bit over the years:

If I were the prince of darkness, I would want to engulf the whole world in darkness.

I’d have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree — thee.

So, I would set about however necessary to take over the United States.

I’d subvert the churches first, and I would begin with a campaign of whispers.

With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.”

To the young, I would whisper that the Bible is a myth. I would convince the children that man created God instead of the other way around. I’d confide that what’s bad is good and what’s good is square.

And the old, I would teach to pray after me, “Our Father, which are in Washington …”

Then, I’d get organized, I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting.

I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

If I were the devil, I’d soon have families at war with themselves, churches at war with themselves and nations at war with themselves until each, in its turn, was consumed.

And with promises of higher ratings, I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames.

If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellect but neglect to discipline emotions. I’d tell teachers to let those students run wil. And before you knew it, you’d have drug-sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

With a decade, I’d have prisons overflowing and judges promoting pornography. Soon, I would evict God from the courthouse and the schoolhouse and them from the houses of Congress.

In his own churches, I would substitute psychology for religion and deify science. I’d lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls and church money.

If I were the devil, I’d take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.

What’ll you bet I couldn’t get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich?

I’d convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging is more fun and that what you see on television is the way to be.

And thus, I could undress you in public and lure you into bed with diseases for which there are no cures.

In other words, if I were the devil, I’d just keep right on doing what he’s doing.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/devil.asp#kcGZd6DDp3ThtWfj.99

Roman Catholic and Protestant Confessions about Sunday

Bible Sabbath  

Bible Sabbath

Roman Catholic and Protestant Confessions about Sunday

The vast majority of Christian churches today teach the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, as a time for rest and worship. Yet it is generally known and freely admitted that the early Christians observed the seventh day as the Sabbath. How did this change come about?

History reveals that it was decades after the death of the apostles that a politico-religious system repudiated the Sabbath of Scripture and substituted the observance of the first day of the week. The following quotations, all from Roman Catholic sources, freely acknowledge that there is no Biblical authority for the observance of Sunday, that it was the Roman Church that changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week.

In the second portion of this booklet are quotations from Protestants. Undoubtedly all of these noted clergymen, scholars, and writers kept Sunday, but they all frankly admit that there is no Biblical authority for a first-day sabbath.

Roman Catholic Confessions

James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89.

“But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.”

Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174.

“Question:  Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?

“Answer:  Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her-she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.”

John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies (1 936), vol. 1, P. 51.

“Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days.”

Daniel Ferres, ed., Manual of Christian Doctrine (1916), p.67.

“Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days?

“Answer. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of, and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.’

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in a signed letter.

“Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day -Saturday – for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes . Did Christ change the day’? I answer no!

“Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons”

The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.

“The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday.”

Catholic Virginian Oct. 3, 1947, p. 9, art. “To Tell You the Truth.”

“For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the[Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible.”

Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957), p. 50.

“Question: Which is the Sabbath day?

“Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.

“Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?

“Answer. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”

Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About (1927),p. 136.

“Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday …. Now the Church … instituted, by God’s authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday.”

Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Society (1975),Chicago, Illinois.

“Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:

“1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.

“2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws.

“It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible.”

T. Enright, C.S.S.R., in a lecture at Hartford, Kansas, Feb. 18,1884.

“I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says, ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.’ The Catholic Church says: ‘No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week.’ And lo! The entire civilized world bows down in a reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church.”

Protestant Confessions

Protestant theologians and preachers from a wide spectrum of denominations have been quite candid in admitting that there is no Biblical authority for observing Sunday as a sabbath.


Isaac Williams, Plain Sermons on the Catechism , vol. 1, pp.334, 336.

“And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day …. The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the church has enjoined it.”

Canon Eyton, The Ten Commandments , pp. 52, 63, 65.

“There is no word, no hint, in the New Testament about abstaining from work on Sunday …. into the rest of Sunday no divine law enters…. The observance of Ash Wednesday or Lent stands exactly on the same footing as the observance of Sunday.”

Bishop Seymour, Why We Keep Sunday .

We have made the change from the seventh day to the first day, from Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the one holy Catholic Church.”


Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, a paper read before a New York ministers’ conference, Nov. 13, 1893, reported in New York Examiner , Nov.16, 1893.

“There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week …. Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament absolutely not.

“To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years’ intercourse with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question . . . never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated.

“Of course, I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history . . . . But what a pity it comes branded with the mark of paganism, and christened with the name of the sun god, adopted and sanctioned by the papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism!”

William Owen Carver, The Lord’s Day in Our Day , p. 49.

“There was never any formal or authoritative change from the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath to the Christian first-day observance.”


Dr. R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments (New York: Eaton &Mains), p. 127-129.

” . . . it is quite clear that however rigidly or devotedly we may spend Sunday, we are not keeping the Sabbath – . . ‘Me Sabbath was founded on a specific Divine command. We can plead no such command for the obligation to observe Sunday …. There is not a single sentence in the New Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed sanctity of Sunday.”

Timothy Dwight, Theology: Explained and Defended (1823), Ser. 107, vol. 3, p. 258.

” . . . the Christian Sabbath [Sunday] is not in the Scriptures, and was not by the primitive Church called the Sabbath.”

Disciples of Christ

Alexander Campbell, The Christian Baptist, Feb. 2, 1824,vol. 1. no. 7, p. 164.

“‘But,’ say some, ‘it was changed from the seventh to the first day.’ Where? when? and by whom? No man can tell. No; it never was changed, nor could it be, unless creation was to be gone through again: for the reason assigned must be changed before the observance, or respect to the reason, can be changed! It is all old wives’ fables to talk of the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day. If it be changed, it was that august personage changed it who changes times and laws ex officio – I think his name is Doctor Antichrist.’

First Day Observance , pp. 17, 19.

“The first day of the week is commonly called the Sabbath. This is a mistake. The Sabbath of the Bible was the day just preceding the first day of the week. The first day of the week is never called the Sabbath anywhere in the entire Scriptures. It is also an error to talk about the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. There is not in any place in the Bible any intimation of such a change.”


The Sunday Problem , a study book of the United Lutheran Church (1923), p. 36.

“We have seen how gradually the impression of the Jewish sabbath faded from the mind of the Christian Church, and how completely the newer thought underlying the observance of the first day took possession of the church. We have seen that the Christians of the first three centuries never confused one with the other, but for a time celebrated both.”

Augsburg Confession of Faith art. 28; written by Melanchthon, approved by Martin Luther, 1530; as published in The Book of Concord of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Henry Jacobs, ed. (1 91 1), p. 63.

“They [Roman Catholics] refer to the Sabbath Day, a shaving been changed into the Lord’s Day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they make more than concerning the changing of the Sabbath Day. Great, say they, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments!”

Dr. Augustus Neander, The History of the Christian Religion and Church Henry John Rose, tr. (1843), p. 186.

“The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a Divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic Church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday.”

John Theodore Mueller, Sabbath or Sunday , pp. 15, 16.

“But they err in teaching that Sunday has taken the place of the Old Testament Sabbath and therefore must be kept as the seventh day had to be kept by the children of Israel …. These churches err in their teaching, for Scripture has in no way ordained the first day of the week in place of the Sabbath. There is simply no law in the New Testament to that effect.”


Harris Franklin Rall, Christian Advocate, July 2, 1942, p.26.

“Take the matter of Sunday. There are indications in the New Testament as to how the church came to keep the first day of the week as its day of worship, but there is no passage telling Christians to keep that day, or to transfer the Jewish Sabbath to that day.”

John Wesley, The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., John Emory, ed. (New York: Eaton & Mains), Sermon 25,vol. 1, p. 221.

“But, the moral law contained in the ten commandments, and enforced by the prophets, he [Christ] did not take away. It was not the design of his coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken …. Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind, and in all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each other.”

Dwight L. Moody

D. L. Moody, Weighed and Wanting (Fleming H. Revell Co.: New York), pp. 47, 48.

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word ‘remember,’ showing that the Sabbath already existed when God Wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?”


T. C. Blake, D.D., Theology Condensed, pp.474, 475.

“The Sabbath is a part of the decalogue – the Ten Commandments. This alone forever settles the question as to the perpetuity of the institution . . . . Until, therefore, it can be shown that the whole moral law has been repealed, the Sabbath will stand . . . . The teaching of Christ confirms the perpetuity of the Sabbath.”



I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads and sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all the other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspirations, purification’s, sanctification’s, and propitiation’s, and fasts and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants, and observances and synagogues. absolutely everything Jewish, every Law, rite and custom and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Cain and the leprosy of Gehazi cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable.
And may I be an anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down with Satan and the devils.” (Stefano Assemani, Acta Sanctorium Martyrum Orientalium at Occidentalium, Vol. 1, Rome 1748, page 105)
Furthermore, any follower of the “Jewish Messiah” (Yahshua HaMashiach) who wished to join this “holy community” was compelled to adopt a different set of rules and customs.
Subsequently special creeds were drafted, to which the Christian would have to swear such as:
“1 accept all customs, rites, legalism, and feasts of the Romans, sacrifices. Prayers, purification’s with water, sanctification’s by Pontificus Maxmus (high priests of Rome), propitiation’s, and feasts, and the New Sabbath “So! dei” (day of the Sun,), all new chants and observances, and all the foods and drinks of the Romans.
In other words, I absolutely accept everything Roman, every new law, rite and custom, of Rome, and the New Roman Religion.”
Additionally, in approximately 365 AD, the Imperial Church of ROME, Aka Catholic Council of Laodicea wrote, in one of their canons:
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day.
Rather, honoring the Lord’s Day.
But if any shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be anathema (against) from Christ”.
Constantine’s Christian Creed


The Economic Crash

Scientific Proof of the Exodus

The Pharmaceutical Greatest Deception.

The End Game

How to remove Chem trail Toxicity

Crucifixion Was Not on Friday (1968)

Did God Create a Devil (Prelim 1973)

Secret Vaccine Trials on Children

Do You Have an Immortal Soul?

Rome’s Challenge – Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday

If I were the Devil

Roman Catholic and Protestant Confessions about Sunday











                         DO YOU KNOW THE WAY?

                                 Audio Version

     by Jay Scher

Read The Study Below:


By Jay Scher
Do you know the way we should be called and the way we should be acting?
There are a few really popular terms out there that people like to call themselves and their Assemblies, Congregations or Churches.
Congregation of Yahweh,Yahuwah, Yahshua, Messiah, Assembly of the same or Church of¬¬¬¬¬¬¬_______. Synagogue or Synagogue of ____ You get the Idea.
This may be OK, but is it really what the Father is looking for in what we supposed to call ourselves?
When he addressed the Assemblies in Rev he called them by the city’s that they were in.
Rev 3:1 “And to the messenger of the assembly in Sardis write, ‘He who has the seven Spirits of Elohim and the seven stars, says this, “I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.
Rev 3:7 “And to the messenger of the assembly in Philadelphia write, ‘He who is set-apart, He who is true, He who has the key of Dawiḏ, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens, says this:
Rev 3:14 “And to the messenger of the assembly in Laodikeia write, ‘The Amĕn, the Trustworthy and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of Elohim,1 says this:

a. The act of assembling.
b. The state of being assembled.
2. A group of persons gathered together for a common reason, as for a legislative, religious, educational, or social purpose.
So this still is not really what they called themselves.
The Ecclesia or the Greek Ekklesia; Ecclesia and Synagoga, meaning “Church and Synagogue”, are a pair of figures personifying the Roman Catholic Church and the Jewish synagogue found in medieval Christian art. The coin phrase CHURCH is what they say it means. Is this really true?
It really means Assembly, Congregation or The called out ones. This is not bad, but again is this really the what defines us as followers of the true HaMashyach and one that guards all the commands of Father Yah? There are so many definitions for the name in so many languages.
Then we have the other two really popular terms that so many people like to use to define themselves as followers of the one true HaMashyach. They define themselves as Nazarene or Messianic.
Are these the terms that were used for Messiah and the 12?
The title “Nazarene” is first found in the Greek texts of the New Testament as an adjective, nazarenos, used as an adjectival form of the phrase apo Nazaret “from Nazareth.”[5]
Let us see where we find the term in scripture:Mat 2:19 And Herodes having died, see, a messenger of יהוה appeared in a dream to Yosĕph in Mitsrayim,
Mat 2:20 saying, “Arise, and take the Child and His mother, and go into the land of Yisra’ĕl, for those seeking the life of the Child are dead.”
Mat 2:21 And rising up, he took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Yisra’ĕl.
Mat 2:22 But hearing that Archelaos was reigning over Yehuḏah instead of his father Herodes, he was afraid to go there. And having been warned in a dream, he departed to the parts of Galil,
Mat 2:23 and came and dwelt in a city called Natsareth – thus to fill what was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Natsarene.”
The Sect of the Nazarenes (1st century)
Main articles: Book of Acts and Early Christianity
The name Nazaraios is the standard Greek spelling in the New Testament for a man from Nazareth, the plural Nazaraioi means “men from Nazareth” (see Nazarene (title)).[6] The title Nazarenes, “men from Nazareth,” is first applied to the Christians by Tertullus (Acts 24:5 ), though Herod Agrippa II (Acts 26:28 ) uses the term “Christians” which had first been used at Antioch (Acts 11:26 ). The name used by Tertullus survives into Rabbinical and modern Hebrew as notzrim (נוצרים) a standard Hebrew term for “Christian”, and also into the Quran and modern Arabic as nasara (plural of nasrani “Christians”). The Arabic word nasara (نَصارى) comes from the Arabic root “n s r” (ن ص ر).
However, since “Christian” was the name the Christians accepted themselves, and is in 1 Peter, the term “Nazarene” used by Tertullus appears to have never been adopted by Christians. Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220, Against Marcion, 4:8) records that the Jews called Christians “Nazarenes” from their false messiah being a man of Nazareth, though he also makes the connection with Nazarites in Lamentations 4:7 .[7] Jerome too records that “Nazarenes” was employed of Christians in the synagogues.[8] Eusebius, around 311 AD, records that the name “Nazarenes” had formerly been used of Christians.[9] The use relating to a specific “sect” of Christians does not occur until Epiphanius.[10] Epiphanius (see below) in discussing the 4th Century Nazarene sect claims pre-Christian origins for the sect, but there seems to be no evidence of the term prior to Tertullus, and no evidence for Epiphanius’ opinion. According to Ehrhardt, just as Antioch coined the term Christians, so Jerusalem coined the term Nazarenes, from Messiah of Nazareth.[11] The term ‘Christians’ is derogatory, and was created by the Greek Romans to deride the new Gentile believers of the Way in the Hebrew Messiah. There is a word in Greek, Christos, used in various other literatures referring to some ‘god” or leader of people, used before Sha’ul’s time — which was then applied in a negative way to the non-Hebrew believers of the Way.
The terms “sect of the Nazarenes” and ” HaMashayach of Nazareth” both employ the adjective nasraya (ܕܢܨܪܝܐ) in the Syrian Aramaic Peshitta, from Nasrat (ܢܨܪܬ) for Nazareth.[12][13][14]According to Epiphanius in his Panarion the 4th Century Nazarenes were originally Jewish converts of the Apostles[15] who fled Jerusalem because of Jesus’ prophecy on its coming siege (during the Great Jewish Revolt in 70 AD). They fled to Pella, Peraea (northeast of Jerusalem), and eventually spread outwards to Beroea and Bashanitis, where they permanently settled.[16]
The Nazarenes were an early Jewish Christian sect located in and about Jerusalem which proclaimed messiah of Nazareth was the promised Messiah and the Son of God. The deity of prosperity and money The Nazarenes were similar to the Ebionites, in that they considered themselves Jews, maintained an adherence to the Law of Moses, and used only the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, rejecting all the Canonical gospels. However, unlike half of the Ebionites, they accepted the Virgin Birth.[21][22]
Who are they really today?
About the Church of the Nazarene
GENERAL DESCRIPTION — The Church of the Nazarene is an international denomination of nearly one million members, about half of whom live in the United States. The largest of the churches that originated out of the American holiness revival of the 19th century, it was organized in 1908 through the merger of three regional holiness bodies. It is Wesleyan in doctrine and related theologically to the Free Methodists, the Wesleyans, the Salvation Army, and traditionalist sectors of the United Methodist Church. FOUNDERS — Key leaders in the 1908 merger were Phineas F. Bresee, co-founder in 1895 of a Pacific Coast-based church also known as the Church of the Nazarene; Hiram F. Reynolds, missionary secretary of the Northeastern-based Association of Pentecostal Churches of America (organized 1896 from antecedents dating from 1890 and 1895); and Charles B. Jernigan and Mary Lee Cagle of the Holiness Church of Christ, a Southern denomination (organized 1904 from antecedents dating from 1894 and 1901). All four were ordained ministers and had backgrounds in Methodism. Bresee and Reynolds were elected general superintendents of the new denomination. Bresee’s unique contribution was to shape the church’s frame of government, while Reynolds stamped it with a strong missionary emphasis.
Other key leaders include Roy T. Williams and James Blame Chapman, second generation leaders of the Board of General Superintendents. Benjamin F. Haynes was founding editor of the church paper Herald of Holiness. Aaron Merritt Hills (Fundamental Christian Theolog)’, 2 vols., 1931) and H. Orton Wiley (Christian Theology, 3 vols, 1941-43) were significant leaders in shaping early theological development.

DOCTRINES — The Church of the Nazarene is an orthodox Protestant body that adheres to the ecumenical creeds of the early Christian church. The theology of Methodist founder John Wesley (1703-91), who integrated the Protestant understanding of grace with the Catholic themes of holiness and love, is foundational for Nazarene doctrine. Nazarenes emphasize Christian conversion, sanctification or holiness, and the personal assurance of God’s grace – Wesleyan distinctives that point back to a deeper rootage in continental European pietism. Discipleship is a prominent concern. An emphasis on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit has generally prevented Nazarenes from slipping into the static Biblicism that sometimes affects other evangelical Protestants. The Church of the Nazarene recognizes two sacraments: Christian baptism and Holy Communion. Believers’ baptism and infant baptism are both allowed, though the former is most generally practiced.
So is this the term we really want to use to call ourselves, is this the label we are looking for? Is this how we are supposed to act, combining Protestantism with Catholicism? Is this how HaMashyach walked, blending religions and practicing things found nowhere in scripture?
We know the answer to this question, a big fat NO.
This is really not the label we want to be calling ourselves either it does not say who or what we stand for.
How about Messianic, should we be calling ourselves this? Is this what Messiah called himself or the 12, did they go around telling everyone this is what they were?
Messianic primarily means ‘of the Messiah’. A psychological state of mind is what you really are when you say you are Messianic. However so many groups call themselves Messianic, but they are so different from one group to the next. Their beliefs are so different. There is no consistency with them.
What Messiah are we talking about that they are of? There are so many false Messiahs, how do we know that we are talking about the true messiah that we are really supposed to be following? Mat 24:24 “For false messiahs and false prophets shall arise, and they shall show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the chosen ones.
Mat 24:25 “See, I have forewarned you.
Is this the messiah that tells us to keep all the man-made pagan holidays and birth days, are we or are you of this Messiah?
Is your messiah the one who tells you it is OK to go off of the Talmud, to still call each other Rabbi and has schools where you can become a Rabbi? Mat_23:8 “But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi,’ for One is your Teacher, the Messiah, and you are all brothers. Are you of this Messiah? Do you think this is the true HaMashyach we are to be following?
How about the Elohim of the pre-messiah time, that was the word that became flesh and tells us to keep Torah, teach Torah and all of scripture. Is this the Messiah we are talking about, who did not tell his 12 to call themselves messianic? So do see here, saying you are Messianic really does not tell me or anyone else that studies scripture, other messianic groups or history that much at all. I only mentioned a few types of Messianic for you to get the point of how important this is. There are so many more. For sake of time I am not going to mention all of them. It would fill up many pages if I was to do so.
Let us go and find the term in scripture:
1Pe 4:14 If you are reproached for the Name of Messiah, you are blessed, because the Spirit of esteem and of Elohim rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is praised.
1Pe 4:15 For do not let any of you suffer as a murderer, or thief, or doer of evil, or as a meddler.
1Pe 4:16 But if one suffers being Messianic, let him not be ashamed, but let him esteem Elohim in this matter.
1Pe 4:17 Because it is time for judgment to begin from the House of Elohim. And if firstly from us, what is the end of those who do not obey the Good News of Elohim?
1Pe 4:18 And if the righteous one is scarcely saved, where shall the wicked and the sinner appear?
1Pe 4:19 So then, those who suffer according to the desire of Elohim should commit their lives to a trustworthy Creator, in doing good.
The Term Messianic is not used throughout scripture. It is not used as the term to say who HaMashyach and the 12 apostles really were. Should we not be using the term they used if we really want to be like Messiah, to walk like he walked? Are we not told to walk as he walked?
1Jn 2:5 But whoever guards His Word, truly the love of Elohim has been perfected1 in him. By this we know that we are in Him.
1Jn 2:6 The one who says he stays in Him ought himself also to walk, even as He walked.
Did they use a term that was used before Messiah came into the picture that was not Messianic or Nazarene?
Gen 18:16 And the men rose up from there and looked toward Seḏom, and Aḇraham went with them to send them away.
Gen 18:17 And יהוה said, “Shall I hide from Aḇraham what I am doing,
Gen 18:18 since Aḇraham is certainly going to become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
Gen 18:19 “For I have known him, so that he commands his children and his household after him, to guard the Way of יהוה, to do righteousness and right-ruling, so that יהוה brings to Aḇraham what He has spoken to him.”
The W is capitalized in different scriptures, as to show us the difference between the Way and the other word the way. So now you should start to get the idea of what this is all about. Not all scriptures have been translated properly and have it in them so you can clearly see this has been there from Gen. I will share a few other examples of it so you can get a better idea of what the importance of this is.
Mal 2:5 “My covenant with him was life and peace, and I gave them to him, to fear. And he feared Me, and stood in awe of My Name.
Mal 2:6 “The Torah of truth1 was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found on his lips. He walked with Me in peace and straightness, and turned many away from crookedness.
Mal 2:7 “For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and they seek the Torah from his mouth, for he is the messenger of יהוה of hosts.
Mal 2:8 “But you, you have turned from the Way, you have caused many to stumble in the Torah. You have corrupted the covenant of Lĕwi,” said יהוה of hosts.
This is a really good example of it right here in Mal 2:8. Once you know about it you will start to see it in many places throughout scripture.
Mal 2:9 “And I also, I shall make you despised and low before all the people, because you are not guarding My ways, and are showing partiality in the Torah.”
Act 9:1 But Sha’ul, still breathing threats and murder against the taught ones of the Master, having come to the high priest,
Act 9:2 asked from him letters to the congregations of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, to bring them bound to Yerushalayim.
Now we start to get a really good description of what we should really be calling ourselves from what they were truly called.
Act 9:3 And it came to be, that as he journeyed, he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light flashed around him from the heaven.
Act 9:4 And he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Sha’ul, Sha’ul, why do you persecute Me?”
Act 9:5 And he said, “Who are You, Master?” And the Master said, “I am יהושע, whom you persecute. It is hard for you to kick against the prods.”
Act 9:6 Both trembling, and being astonished, he said, “Master, what do You wish me to do?” And the Master said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you shall be told what you have to do.”
Act 18:25 This one had been instructed in the way of the Master. And being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching the matters about the Master exactly, though he knew only the immersion of Yoḥanan.
Act 19:7 And all the men were about twelve.
Act 19:8 And having gone into the congregation he spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the reign of Elohim.
Act 19:9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, speaking evil of the Way before the crowd, he withdrew from them and
(Here we see evil was being spoken about “of the Way”, not Messianic or of the Nazarene. We don’t see those names or labels even used here. Why do you think that is?)
separated the taught ones, reasoning daily in the school of Turannos.
Act 19:10 And this took place for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Master יהושע, both Yehuḏim and Greeks.
Act 19:11 And Elohim worked unusual miracles through the hands of Sha’ul,
Act 19:12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the wicked spirits went out of them.
Act 19:23 And about that time there came to be a great commotion about the Way.
(We see it again here. Now the Way is more than just what they called themselves, it is also what they called their teaching. It is all encompassing, something that the shoes of the terms Messianic and Nazarene could never fill. We will talk more about this shortly)
Act 24:8 commanding his accusers to come to you. And by examining him yourself you shall be able to know all these matters of which we accuse him.”
Act 24:9 And the Yehuḏim also agreed, maintaining that these matters were so.
Act 24:10 And when the governor had motioned him to speak, Sha’ul answered, “Knowing that for many years you have been a judge of this nation, I gladly defend myself,
Act 24:11 seeing you are able to know that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to Yerushalayim to worship.
Act 24:12 “And they neither found me in the Set-apart Place disputing with anyone nor stirring up the crowd, either in the congregations or in the city.
Act 24:13 “Nor are they able to prove the charges of which they now accuse me.
Act 24:14 “And this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the Elohim of my fathers, believing all that has been written in the Torah and in the Prophets,
This is a great verse for all those Paul/Sha’ul haters that say he was against Torah and didn’t believe in it. Sha’ul defines what those in the Way believe here and says that in the way that those call a sect. He was trying to put it in their terms, so he used the term sect just as we try to do with people sometimes these days. People always want to know what and who we are. It can be hard to explain, because people always want a label that is easy to understand. Nondenominational just doesn’t cut it for them. You believe in messiah, but you keep the Sabbath and the other commands? Hebrew Roots still doesn’t mean much, because so many people lean so far to the left and want to try and be really Jewish, taking on many of their man made customs. People that come into this walk out of Christianity think they need to be really Jewish and that is not the case at all. We don’t need to be really Jewish at all. In fact we need to stay far away from the majority of what they do. I could go on and on with all the things they do that we shouldn’t do, but I am just going to focus on one really important one. We don’t observe the Feast days the way the Jewish people do. They do postponements when they keep the feast days. This means they will never have a Feast day and a Sabbath back to back, because they have added things to the Sabbath from Talmud that make the Sabbath a burden, when it should be a delight. No place in scripture have they been given the Authority to do this “add in postponements”. This is just as bad as changing the Sabbath, the 7th day of the week to the 1st day of the week. There is no difference. Moses warned the Israelites before he died about this.
Deu 8:11 “Be on guard, lest you forget יהוה your Elohim by not guarding His commands, and His right-rulings, and His laws which I command you today,
We know Jeremiah prophesied that people would the Fathers true name for that of Baal=L-rd and they also have forgotten it for the generic title g-d that has no meaning. There are thousands of g-d’s what one are they talking about. Just like what messiah are people taking about as we have already gone over.
Jer 23:25 “I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy falsehood in My Name, saying, ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed!’
Jer 23:26 “Till when shall it be in the heart of the prophets? – the prophets of falsehood and prophets of the deceit of their own heart, Jer 23:27 who try to make My people forget My Name by their dreams which everyone relates to his neighbour, as their fathers forgot My Name for Baʽal.
Getting back to Acts where we left off.
Act 24:15 having an expectation in Elohim, which they themselves also wait for, that there is to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the righteous and the unrighteous.
Act 24:16 “And in this I exercise myself to have a clear conscience toward Elohim and men always.
Act 24:17 “And after many years I came to bring kind deeds to my nation and offerings,
Act 24:18 at which time certain Yehuḏim from Asia found me cleansed in the Set-apart Place, neither with a crowd nor with disturbance,
Act 24:19 who ought to be present before you to bring charges if they have any matter against me.
Act 24:20 “Or else let these themselves say if they found any wrongdoing in me while I stood before the council,
Act 24:21 other than for this one declaration which I cried out, standing among them, ‘Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you today.’ ”
Act 24:22 And having heard this, having known more exactly about the Way, Felix put them off, saying, “When Lysias the commander comes down, I shall decide your case.”
Here we read that that Felix now knows more about the Way and does not want to decide the case against Sha’ul. He realizes how much there is to the Way and does not feel qualified to judge the case. We see here though that the Way is mentioned in such a manner that it has its own identity and is not just a saying, but what they were called.
Act 24:23 And he ordered the captain to keep Sha’ul and to have ease, and not to forbid any of his friends to attend to him.
Act 24:24 And after some days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a female Yehuḏite, he sent for Sha’ul and heard him concerning the belief in Messiah.
Joh_14:6 יהושע said to him, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
If we are of the way, then we are of the true Messiah because he is the Way. If we are of the true Mashyach, then we have the truth that the rest of the world does not have. Then we are part of the body of Mashayach also. If we have the truth then we can enter in through the narrow gate and we have the ability to stay on the narrow path. We have can have life, “eternal life”. If we are of him we are also of the Father. We can’t get to the Father except through HaMashach. By saying we are of the Way or in the Way, it means so much more than just those three words. It is all encompassing of what we really are and what we should really be calling ourselves as an Identity. Everyone wants to label us, but they don’t know what to call us. Now let us read that again.
Joh_14:6 יהושע said to him, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Can you see the deeper meaning in this?
Now we are told to walk as he walked are we not?
1Jn 2:5 But whoever guards His Word, truly the love of Elohim has been perfected1 in him. By this we know that we are in Him
1Jn 2:6 The one who says he stays in Him ought himself also to walk, even as He walked.
How did he walk? He kept the Torah, he taught the Torah, and he referred to himself as the Way, just as it is written throughout scripture. He walked in the Way. He was part of the Way. He was the word that became flesh. So how should we refer to ourselves? Are we of the Way or in the Way? What is the Way, do we know what the Way is?
Being of the Way is more than just getting baptized. You join covenant relationship with the Father and Messiah, to become a living sacrifice for them. You are no longer living for you. As part of the covenant you agree to keep the 7th Day Sabbath, all the other Feast days of Yah, the clean food laws, share the gospel, share the good news of the Kingdom to come, you bear the testimony of HaMashyach, that he lived, died, rose again, explain how he will return again, explain the resurrection of the dead to people, you are to have the spirit of prophecy and keep the rest of the commands in scripture that apply to you. Now this does not mean that you will not sin, but you are to repent right away and not live in sin or you fall out of the covenant relationship. You fall out of the Way. You keep this Way of life and prepare yourself to be the bride of HaMashyach, a first fruit. It is Faith, Grace and Works, not just Faith or grace. All three go together. It is not like most pastors or priests teach it. They do not teach what the scriptures really say.
This is how the true disciples or the 12 of the true Messiah were described as, those that were of the Way. Can you see it? So do we want people to know of us as true disciples of HaMashyach, those who guard the Way? Those who are truly in the body of Messiah and not in a pagan church or calling themselves a name that really has no meaning. Can you see the difference?
Do you want to walk as he walked? Do you want to be of the Way?
I hope we all do!
I hope this was a blessing to you!
With brotherly love from one of the Way, Brother Jay


Mass Extinction

Mass die-offs accelerate across the planet, by 2020 two-thirds of wild animals will be wiped out.

Thursday, April 27, 2017 by: Earl Garcia  
Tags: animal extinction, animals, birds, elephants, gorilla, Oceans, salamander, salmon, species, vultures

(Natural News) The planet’s animal population is rapidly dwindling, with about two-thirds expected to be wiped out by 2020, a recent analysis revealed. To carry out the study, researchers from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) compiled data on animal population and found that it Continue reading “Mass Extinction”