1

The Great Easter Controversy Cover-up

ontained in this article is evidence that the lunar Sabbath truth was proactively hidden from the Seventh-day Adventist membership as early as 1911. This cover-up was conducted by a small group of leaders who met in a private home for the

purpose of removing a trail of evidence contained in the Appendix of the 1888 version of Ellen White’s book, The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan (GC). For it was discovered that the General Appendix Notes 3 and 9 contained historical records relating to the Easter Controversy of the 2nd – 4th century A.D. Combined, these Appendix Notes reveal that the original Passover dating system and that of the true seventh-day Sabbath were counted from the New Moon after all, and furthermore should be consistently and obediently kept in like manner to the end of time.

Historical Overview of the Easter Controversy

The great dispute, known as the Easter Controversy began in the 2nd century A.D. as Roman Bishops and Emperors sought to unite their entire kingdom, the eastern Asiatics (Israel and surrounding areas) with the western Roman churches (Italy and surrounding areas) in celebrating the Crucifixion and Resurrection of the Messiah upon the same Roman calendar planetary week day.

Up to this time the obedient followers of the Messiah, who referred to themselves as the Natsarim (and never Christians), had celebrated this most marvelous and significant set of events according to the ancient astro-luni-solar calendar model contained in the Tanakh (OT) as was traditionally kept among the Jews. In the early days these obedient believers

C

2

were dubbed by the Roman Bishops as Quartodecimens (Fourteeners) as they celebrated Passover on the 14th day as counted from the New Moon in the lunar month of Aviv.

These same folks, including all the Apostles along with their disciples after them, such as Polycarp, and others, also remained consistent in celebrating the Resurrection and Feast of First Fruits on the 16th day of the New Moon every year, which had always been the first day of the 3rd lunar week since the time of Moses. Thus it is that the day between Passover on the 14th, and Feast of First Fruits on the 16th of the lunar month, is itself, every year the true and qadosh seventh-day Sabbath found always on the 15th day according to the count from the New Moon. This places all other seventh-day Sabbaths for the month and year on the lunar dates of the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th. (Leviticus 23; Isaiah 66:23; Ezekiel 46:1-3.) (Please note that within all quotes in this article the emphasis is mine unless otherwise stated.)

The question relating to the observance of Easter [Passover], which was agitated in the time of Anicetus and Polycarp, and afterwards in that of Victor, was still undecided. It was one of the principal reasons for convoking the council of Nice, being the most important subject to be considered after the Arian controversy. It appears that the churches of Syria and Mesopotamia continued to follow the custom of the Jews, and celebrated Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whether falling on Sunday or not. A Historical View of the Council of Nice, p. 22, translated by Isaac Boyle, D.D. New York: Thomas N. Staintford, 637 Broadway, 1856.

There was a considerable discussion raised about this time, in consequence of a difference of opinion respecting the observance of the paschal season. The churches of all Asia, guided by a remoter tradition, supposed that they ought to keep the fourteenth day of the moon for the festival of the Savior’s Passover, in which day the Jews were commanded to kill the paschal lamb; and it was incumbent on them, at all times, to make an end of the fast on this day, on whatever day of the [Roman] week it should happen to fall. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine, translated by Christian Frederick Cruse, D.D., Tenth Edition, Chapter 23, p. 207. 1850.

But notwithstanding the decision of the council [of Nicaea] there were some Quartodecimens, as they were termed; who remained pertinaciously attached to the celebration of Easter on the fourteenth of the moon, and among others the Audeans, schismatics of Mesopotamia. They found fault with the council, reproachfully remarking, that this was the first time that the ancient tradition [of properly locating Passover by the moon], through compliance for Constantine, had been departed from. A Historical View

3

of the Council of Nice, p. 23, translated by Isaac Boyle, D.D. New York: Thomas N. Staintford, 637 Broadway, 1856.

The edict was declared far and wide that Easter was to be consistently and unitedly celebrated upon the first Sunday after the full moon that follows the vernal equinox to place it in a general proximity to the Jewish Passover and yet remain separate. The decision of the Roman Catholic Church Bishops to choose a day other than that of the traditional Passover was borne out of their hatred for the Jews. Wanting no ties to the Jewish astro-luni-solar calendar they falsely presumed that their own belief in the resurrected “Christ” afforded themselves license to choose a day that suited their interests as a contrast to the Jews whom they maintained had killed the Messiah. So it was in changing the name of Passover, Unleavened Bread and First Fruits to the single term Easter, and celebrating it upon Saturday night and Sunday morning of the planetary week, the Roman Catholic Church had effectively separated themselves and all their adherent daughter churches from the worship rhythms of Scripture’s shamayim (heavens). Make no mistake, the total eradication of the Quartodecimens’ way of calculating New Moons, feast days, and Sabbaths, was designed to cause all to adopt the Roman Julian calendar. So it is that when the Easter Controversy is discussed it must be understood that it was not simply a conflict over a single day, but a unity pressure tank, effectively designed to force all believers to adopt the same calendar model of the Roman Empire.

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for me. Because you have forgotten the law of your Alahim, I also will forget your children. Hosea 4:6

The Cover-up: When it All Began

It all began in 1888, with the first published edition of the book The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, by Ellen White, which contained 13 General Notes suitably positioned in the Appendix. Yet, in 1911, a new edition, under the direction of Willy White and endorsed by Ellen White, was typeset and reprinted with additional images and an updated Appendix. Folks at the time were up in arms about why there was a need to create a new edition of the book, as this alluded to there being a flaw in the 1888 version written by their beloved prophet Ellen White. Surely, this first edition had been without error.

4

In response to the many inquiries, the claim was declared by Willy White that no significant changes had been made, but that only the General Notes had been replaced in the Appendix with newer and more favorable quotes. It is common knowledge that neither these General Notes, nor the historical quotes within the book were written by Ellen White for she was not a historian, but there is reasonable evidence that she was intimately involved in their replacement. Read on to discover why some notes had to be removed, which necessitated the cover-up that followed.

Letter by W. C. White

After mentioning that the new book runs page for page, and each chapter begins and ends on the same page, he introduced the principal features:

“The most noticeable change in the new edition is the improvement in the illustrations. Each of the forty-two chapters, together with the preface, introduction, contents, and list of illustrations, has a beautiful pictorial heading; and ten new full-page illustrations have been introduced, to take the place of those which were least attractive.

The thirteen [General] appendix notes of the old edition have been replaced by thirty-one notes occupying twelve pages. These are nearly all reference notes, intended to help the studious reader in finding historical proofs of the statements made in the book.

The biographical notes have been omitted, and the general index has been enlarged from twelve to twenty-two pages, thus greatly facilitating the finding of desired passages.

In the body of the book, the most noticeable improvement is the introduction of historical references. In the old edition, over 700 Biblical references were given, but in only a few instances were there any historical references to the authorities quoted or referred to. In the new edition the reader will find more than 400 references to eighty-eight authors and authorities.”—W. C. White Letter, July 24, 1911 (see also 3SM, p. 434). http://www.whiteestate.org/vault/GCCh24bio.html

5

So who was behind the removal of the 1888 General Notes 3 and 9?

Whose home did these Adventist Church leaders meet in?

Preparation and Endorsement of Appendix Notes

With this having been said, and the new printing of the Great Controversy now on the market, it was important to take particular note of exactly what was done, in preparing the copy for the resetting of the type for the 1911 edition. W. C. White was in charge of the work at Elmshaven; he was the principal spokesman during the period of work on the book, and quite naturally was the one to make explanations that might be called for. On July 24, 1911, a few days after receiving a copy of the new book, W.C. White wrote a letter addressed to Publishing House Managers, which he repeated the next day in a letter to Our General Missionary Agents (publishing department leaders). This he later included in a statement read to the General Conference Committee in its Autumn Council held in Washington, D.C. These W. C. White letters of explanation, quoted extensively in this chapter, carried Ellen White’s written approval. An affidavit to this effect reads:

Yesterday and again this morning, I have read the letter written by W. C. White to our General Missionary Agents and his letter to the members of our Publication Committee, regarding the new edition of Great Controversy. And now I wish to say to you that what he has written regarding my wishes, and decisions, and instruction relative to this work is a true and correct statement.

Ellen White St. Helena, California, July 27, 1911 --Letter 57, 1911. http://www.whiteestate.org/vault/GCCh24bio.html

6

Why were these particular General Notes removed?

While this indeed appears to be true, the real question is, what was it that prompted the removal of General Notes 3 and 9 from the Appendix? Is there any connection between the two? To accomplish this investigation and get to the root cause for the removal of these two General Notes, let’s begin by reading them in their chronological order, first Note 3 followed by Note 9. Subsequent to each will be a commentary and then a conclusion at the end.

Note 3 Omitted from the 1888 Version of The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan

when it was republished in 1911

GC 1888—Page 681.2

Note 3 Page 328.—That the reader may see the reasonableness of Mr. Miller’s position on the prophetic periods, we copy the following, which was published in the Advent Herald, Boston, in March, 1850, in answer to a correspondent:

“It is by the canon of Ptolemy that the great prophetical period of the seventy weeks is fixed. This canon places the seventh year of Artaxerxes in the year B.C. 457; and the accuracy of the canon is demonstrated by the concurrent agreement of more than twenty eclipses. The seventy weeks date from the going forth of a decree respecting the restoration of Jerusalem. There were no decrees between the seventh and the twentieth years of Artaxerxes. Four hundred and ninety years, beginning with the seventh, must commence in B.C. 457, and end in A.D. 34. Commencing in the twentieth, they must commence in B.C. 444, and end in A.D. 47. As no event occurred in A.D. 47 to mark their termination, we cannot reckon from the twentieth; we must therefore look to the seventh of Artaxerxes. This date we cannot change from B.C. 457 without first demonstrating the inaccuracy of Ptolemy’s Canon. To do this, it would be necessary to show that the large number of eclipses by which its accuracy has been repeatedly demonstrated, have not been correctly computed; and such a result would unsettle every chronological date, and leave the settlement of epochs and the

7

adjustment of eras entirely at the mercy of every dreamer, so that chronology would be of no more value than mere guess-work. As the seventy weeks must terminate in A.D. 34, unless the seventh of Artaxerxes is wrongly fixed, and as that cannot be changed without some evidence to that effect, we inquire, what evidence marked that termination? The time when the Apostles turned to the Gentiles harmonizes with that date better than any other which has been named. And the crucifixion, in A.D. 31, in the midst of the last week, is sustained by a mass of testimony which cannot be easily invalidated.

As the 70 weeks and the 2300 days have a common starting-point, the calculation of Mr. Miller is verified at a glance by subtracting the 457 years B.C. from the 2300. Thus, (2300 – 457 = 1843 A.D.)

The year 1843 was, however, regarded as extending to the spring of 1844. The reason for this, briefly stated, is as follows: Anciently the year did not commence in mid-winter, as now, but at the first New Moon after the Vernal Equinox. Therefore, as the period of 2300 days was begun in a year reckoned by the ancient method, it was considered necessary to conform to that method to its close. Hence, 1843 was counted as ending in the spring, and not in the winter.

But the 2300 days cannot be reckoned from the beginning of the year 457 B.C.; for the decree of Artaxerxes—which is the starting-point—did not go into effect until the autumn of that year. Consequently, the 2300 days, beginning in the autumn of 457 B.C., must extend to the autumn of 1844 A.D. (see small diagram on plate opposite page 328.)

This fact not being at first perceived by Mr. Miller and his associates, they looked for the coming of Christ in 1843, or in the spring of 1844; hence the first disappointment and the seeming delay. It was the discovery of the correct time, in connection with other Scripture testimony, that led to the movement known as the “Midnight Cry” of 1844. And to this day the computation of the prophetic periods placing the close of the 2300 days in the autumn of 1844 stands without impeachment.”

8

Commentary on General Note 3 General Note 3 was primarily intended to be a full disclosure and detailed explanation with regard to how William Miller arrived at the autumn of 1844 as the time of the Second Coming of the Messiah. And although Miller and his followers were again disappointed that their long anticipated Savior did not return to earth to deliver His awaiting saints, it continues to be taught as fact to this day by the Seventh-day Adventist Church that October 22, 1844 was the correct date, but for a different event. The actual event they believe to have commenced on that day was the anti-typical Day of Atonement, the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and beginning of the investigative judgment. For the very reason that the Adventists continue to firmly uphold this belief, this cannot be the reason for the removal of General Note 3. (It is not the intent of this article to discuss any aspect of this particular belief.) It is my conviction that the white elephant in the room was the paragraph (shown below) alluding to the ancient Scriptural and Hebrew calendar. It was this portion alone that conflicted with the narrative contained in the book and of necessity had to be removed.

Anciently the year did not commence in mid-winter, as now, but at the first New Moon after the Vernal Equinox. Therefore, as the period of 2300 days was begun in a year reckoned by the ancient method, it was considered necessary to conform to that method to its close. Hence, 1843 was counted as ending in the spring, and not in the winter.

This paragraph epitomizes the honest effort of William Miller and his associates to connect all the dots of the ancient Scriptural calendar, and by extension, that of the Hebrews at this pivotal hour and time of His expected return. But although their ideas were not realized, or provable with regard to the shift in events from the Second Coming of the Messiah to the Day of Atonement theory, they bore witness of the true calendar of the shamayim that is not made with human hands.

1. They recognized that the Creator’s years were to commence in the spring and not the winter.

2. They recognized that the New Moon was the marker for establishing and demarcating the dates of the Scriptural lunar months.

3. They profoundly recognized that if the ancient astro-luni-solar calendar was the one used at the commencement of this or any prophetic period extending to the end of time, the same calendar must be utilized at its close.

9

Wow! Wow! Wow! These are the predominant and sensational points made in General Note 3 that must have been recognized in hindsight as conflicting with the modern calendar and Sabbath promoted to a large degree in the very same book as written by Ellen White. Not a single word or quote referencing this subject in the original 1888 Appendix remains in the 1911 or later publications of the book (GC). This absence of replacements conflicts with the declaration of W. C. White that nothing was removed, but that only better or more accessible quotes were exchanged.

Note 9 Omitted from the 1888 Version of

The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan when it was republished in 1911

GC 1888—Page 685.3 Note 9. Page 447.—The Bishops of Rome began, very early, to demand obedience from all the churches. Of this, the dispute between the eastern and the western churches, respecting Easter is a striking illustration. This dispute arose in the second century. Says Mosheim: “The Christians of this century celebrated anniversary festivals in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Christ. . . The day which was observed as the anniversary of Christ’s death was called the Paschal Day, or Passover. Like the Jews, Christians celebrated a sacred feast, at which they distributed a Paschal lamb in memory of the holy supper.” The Christians of Asia Minor [East] kept this feast on the fourteenth day of the first Jewish month, when the Jews celebrated their Passover, and when Christ is said to have eaten the Paschal lamb with His disciples. Three days thereafter, a festival was observed in honor of the resurrection. The western churches on the other hand, celebrated the resurrection of Christ on the Sunday following the Jewish Passover, and observed the Paschal Feast on the night proceeding Sunday, thus connecting the commemoration of Christ’s death with that of his resurrection.

“Toward the conclusion of this [2nd] century, Victor, Bishop of Rome, endeavored to force the Asiatic Christians, by the pretended authority of His laws and decrees, to follow the rule which was observed by the western churches in this point. Accordingly…he

10

wrote an imperious letter to the Asiatic Prelates, commanding them to imitate the example of the western Christians with respect to the time of celebrating the festival of Easter. The Asiatics answered this lordly requisition . . . with great spirit and resolution, that they would by no means depart, in this manner, from the custom handed down to them by their ancestors. Upon this the thunder of excommunication began to roar. Victor, exasperated by this resolute answer of the Asiatic bishops [of the east], broke communion with them, pronounced them unworthy of the name of his brethren, and excluded them from all fellowship with the Church of Rome.” Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, Century 2, Part 2, Chap. 4., Para. 9, 11.

This, says Bower, was “the first essay of Papal Usurpation.”

For a time, however, Victor’s efforts availed little. No regard was paid to his letters, and the Asiatics continued to follow their ancient practice. But by enlisting the support of the imperial power, which the church for so many centuries controlled, to serve her purposes, Rome finally conquered. The Council of Nice, “out of compliance to Constantine the Great, ordered the solemnity of Easter to be kept everywhere on the same day, after the custom of Rome.” [Bower’s History of the Popes, Vol. 1, PP. 18 19] This decree, “backed by the authority of so great an emperor,” was decisive; “None but some scattered schismatics, now and then appearing, that durst oppose the resolution of that famous synod.” [Hevlyn, History of the Sabbath, Part 2, Chap. 2, Sec. 4, 5.]

Commentary on General Note 9 General Note 9 was primarily intended to illustrate the early emergence of Roman power in controlling the conscience of men and changing the laws and times of Yahuah to meet the dictates of their own hearts. But, inadvertently in documenting history, the proverbial Pandora’s Box was left ajar to be discovered at a later date. It is from the quotes of these secondary historians, written between the 17th and 19th centuries A.D. in General Note 9 that one can trace the events along their pathway back to

11

the 2nd – 4th century when the Great Easter Controversy was originally recorded in detail in the Ecclesiastical Histories by Eusebius. Let it not be lost upon the reader that the Encyclopedia Britannica, first published in 1768 was abreast of this history as well, making it available from library to library throughout the world. No theologian or denominational historian was left without excuse. If performing only a superficial reading of these quotes no questions or red flags regarding the original calendar or true Sabbath of Scripture would have been raised, as some key words and elements are absent. However, in researching any of these quotes to their source as originally recorded in the 4th century, it becomes conspicuously clear that there were more issues at stake than first met the eye, as these terms and phrases were prominent in the original ancient history record. For it is in those early pages of antiquity that one comes face to face with the Great Easter Controversy and the comprehensive meaning of the term Quartodecimens (Fourteeners) as it specifically related to the obedient followers of Messiah who refused to celebrate Passover, the true day of the His crucifixion on any day other than the 14th day as counted from the New Moon of Scripture’s astro-luni-solar calendar. These also refused to call Passover by the name Easter. Evidently, this conflict of interest over the true Sabbath contained between the covers of the 1888 (GC) book by Ellen White, was not discerned until after it had been published. However, if this had been discovered by the masses in that day, this would naturally have had disastrous consequences for the continued building up of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Once discovered, we can be sure there was no underestimating the relevance of these quotes to the Adventist’s current views. For after all, Adventism’s most prominent belief that the Roman Saturday is the true seventh-day Sabbath, was a primary focus contained within the pages of this very book. But following this discovery, instead of synchronizing the Sabbath with the astro-luni-solar time-keeping of Scripture, the Messiah, and all His first century followers who obediently celebrated Passover according to the count from the New Moon, Ellen White, the acclaimed Adventist prophetess endorsed W. C. White and staff to hide this new revelation from the people. Undoubtedly, this historical disclosure had slipped by Ellen White’s notice at the first printing of the book (GC) in 1888, but we can be certain it did not escape her notice by 1911. For the removal of these General Notes and all the work of preparation for the reprinting of the book was done both in Ellen White’s home and with her written endorsement. One can hardly fault another for believing Saturday is the Sabbath as found on the Roman planetary week for the sheer fact that this continuous weekly cycle has been principally proclaimed since the 4th century A.D. As such, ALL have long been conditioned to believe this revolutionary and earth-shattering lie (Revelation 13:3, Titus 1:14). The historical record stands in opposition of this fraudulent placebo, and the Scriptural authority defines

12

the elements of quite a different time-piece that our Creator ordained in the shamayim at the beginning (Isaiah 66:23, Ezekiel 46:1). So, what we are left with is a three-fold revelation that:

1. The true Sabbath of Scripture is only found according to the astro-luni-solar calendar model as was traditionally kept by Yahuah’s obedient followers— from Adam to Noah, Abraham to Moses, and from David to our Messiah, Yahusha. Thereafter, the obedient of Yahusha were dubbed Quartodecimen (Fourteeners) who refused to change their calendar to harmonize with the Roman Easter Sunday and its unbroken weekly cycle.

2. There is no way of knowing who first discovered that the quotes in General Note 9 contained material that led to the truth in opposition to the current teachings of the S.D.A. Church and its Saturday Sabbath. But we do know who removed them. All of the reworking of the Appendix Notes was under the supervision of Willy White, his mother Ellen White and their small staff at her Elmshaven home in St. Helena, California.

3. Shocking as it may be, the author, Ellen White is discovered to be a mere woman after all, who may have been caught up in her own desire to be something more— a prophet.

Is there any question that Ellen White had an intimate knowledge of the truth regarding the Easter Controversy, the Quartodecimens and the only official astro-luni-solar calendar the early followers of Messiah adhered to for all New Moons, all feast days, and all seventh-day Sabbaths? Here again, not a single word or quote referencing this subject in the original 1888 Appendix remains in the 1911 or later publications of the book (GC). This absence of replacements conflicts with the declaration of W. C. White that nothing was removed, but that only better or more accessible quotes were exchanged. Perhaps these concepts are still so new to you that you find yourself asking, “I don’t see how changing when the year or month begin would affect the Sabbath in any way.” The point here is that there are two opposing calendars represented, one in Scripture and one by Rome, each contain both a uniquely different stylized month and week of seven days. It should come as no surprise that the modern week has been proactively disconnected from its count from each full New Moon. But greater still, the month has been utterly removed from the moon, for which it gets its name. It has been reconfigured to commence according to the sun’s placement within the starry constellations on the opposite side of the universe during daylight, when the stars are not even visible. Thus, the visible stars

13

witnessed each night are never utilized for measuring time, nor the full moon recognized as marking the new month’s commencement. This rebellious system was first instituted in Babylon by Nimrod and Semiramis. It was the birth of the sun worship cult. A system that measures time 180 degrees in opposition to the Creator’s preordained plan. Years later this time measuring system was adopted by Egypt, and then Rome, beginning with Julius Caesar, when the first draft of the Julian calendar was drawn and later supported by Pope Sixtus, Victor, Bishop of Rome, and ultimately Constantine. Today the entire world marches to the beat of this rebellious time system. According to two witnesses (Psalms and Genesis) the Creator’s original calendar declares the moon is to rule with the stars by night. By extension, the Creator’s months are only truly defined as these two working in unison herald their commencement and termination, from one full New Moon to the next full New Moon.

14

15

For more information regarding astro-luni-solar calendar refer to, The Creator’s Calendar Units of Time. Below is an illustration designed to depict the inherent differences between how each week model works within its respective month.

16

Historical Lunar Week and Sabbath Quotes

The belief, that the week has come down uninterrupted since Creation, is not an assumption shared by modern Jewish scholars who know their history. Rather, it appears the 2nd – 4th century Jewish leaders, along with the Romans had a part to play in the change.

“In the years following Clement of Alexandria's time (A.D. 150-215), an ominous change started to take place that was to radically change the Christian concept of the Sabbath.” This intimate connection between the week and the month was soon dissolved. It is certain that the week soon followed a development of its own, and it became the custom -- without paying any regard to the days of the month (i.e. the luni-solar month) . . . so that the New Moon no longer coincided with the first day of the month. Then, on page 4179 of the same encyclopedia, we read: "The introduction . . . of the custom of celebrating the Sabbath every 7th day, irrespective of the relationship of the day to the moon’s phases, led to a complete separation from the ancient view of the Sabbath. . . Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1903 p. 5290. “Even after Constantine’s edict about Sunday [A.D. 321-324], it took another generation or two for the seven-day week to catch on throughout the empire. The 24-hour system took longer, having to wait until the invention of the mechanical clock in the Middle Ages by monks anxious to observe with precision their canonical hours. Before this, people marked the passage of time during the night by using the stars and during the day either by eyeballing the sun or by listening to public announcements of the time.” Calendar, David Ewing Duncan, p. 47, New York, Avon Books, 1998. “The invention of the continuous week was therefore one of the most significant breakthroughs in human beings’ attempts to break away from being prisoners of nature [time beaconed by the ordained sun, moon, and stars] and create a social world of their own.” The Seven Day Circle: The History and Meaning of the Week, Eviator Zerubavel, New York: The Free Press, 1985. p.11. “Most theologians and some scholars assume that mainstream Jewish society, at the time of Jesus...was practicing a fixed seven-day week

17

which was the same as the modern fixed [Roman planetary cycling] seven-day week. This is extremely doubtful. The change, from a lunar to a fixed week, was brought about by the power and influence of Rome. As long as the Nazarenes held power in Jerusalem, all Roman practices and customs, including that of the consecutive week, were held at bay.” Shawui Sabbath: Ancient Sabbath Observance “The [early] Hebrews employed lunar seven-day weeks, which ended with special observances on the seventh day, but none the less were tied to the moon's course.” Rest Days, Hutton Webster, p. 254-255 “He [Constantine] wished, almost the necessity, of so keeping Easter as to make the day of crucifixion Friday, and of the resurrection Sunday, caused differences of opinion that led to persecution and bloodshed.” Mazzaroth, The Constellations, Frances Rolleston, p. 133. Rivingtons, London, 1862. “The Jewish festivals being regulated solely by the moon, may fall on any day of the [modern Roman] week.” Oxford English Dictionary, 1971 Edition, Vol. 2, “Pentecost.” “The modern seven-day week came into use during the early imperial period, after the Julian calendar came into effect, apparently stimulated by immigration from the Roman East. For a while it coexisted alongside the old eight-day nundinal cycle, and fasti are known which show both cycles. It was finally given official status by Constantine in 321.” Roman Calendar Encyclopedia, Days of the Week. “The Sabbath depending, in Israel’s nomadic period, upon the observation of the phases of the moon, it could not, accordingly be a fixed day [planetary day of the modern Roman cycling week]. The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History. Edited by Isidore Singer, Cyrus Adler. Volume 10, p. 590. “It is certain that the Jews celebrated the sheaf-waving on Nisan 16 and Pentecost on the fiftieth day after . . . without regard in either case to the day of the [modern Roman] week.” Oxford English Dictionary, 1971 Edition, Vol. 2, “Pentecost.” “We shall be taken for Persians [Mithraists], perhaps . . . The reason for this, I suppose, is that it is known that we pray towards the east . . . Likewise, if we devote the day of the Sun to festivity (from a far

18

different reason from Sun worship), we are in a second place from those who devote the day of Saturn, themselves also deviating by way of a Jewish custom of which they are ignorant.” Tertullian, Apologia. The weeks do not continue in a regular cycle regardless of the moon. Each month has four weeks, their beginning with the New Moon. I have no doubt that this was the old Hebrew system. Babylonian Menologies and the Semitic Calendars, p. 89. “It should be noted that the oldest dated Christian inscription to employ a planetary designation [Sunday – Saturday, unbroken cycle of weeks] belongs to the year 269 A.D.” Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae, ed. De Rossi, 1861, i, No. 1. “The present Jewish calendar was fixed [to the Roman planetary weekly cycle] in the fourth century.” Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Letter by Louis Finkelstein to Dr. Leroy E. Froom, Feb. 20, 1939. “There was a distinct break between the Old Testament requirements . . . dealing with the Sabbath worship... They wanted to show that Christianity was distinct from Judaism... The other thing that we should remember, too, is that our calendar that we follow, including Seventh-day Adventists, is not only a calendar that was devised by the Catholic Church, but also it is a calendar that’s based upon the solar year, not the lunar year and the Jewish calendar that was observed in the time of Christ follows a lunar [lunisolar] calendar . . . So the great irony is that even the Seventh-day Adventists themselves are not worshipping on exactly the same Sabbath day as the Jews of the time of Christ.” Patrick Madrid, Catholic Priest and conservative made the startling comment on EWTN, Global Catholic Radio Network on Jan 5, 2006 when answering a question about the Catholic Church changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. “But to the seventh-day of the week He [Yahuah] has assigned the greatest festivals, those of the longest duration, at the periods of the equinox both vernal and autumnal in each year; appointing two festivals for these two epochs, each lasting seven days; the one which takes place in the spring being for the perfection of what is being sown, and the one which falls in autumn being a feast of thanksgiving for the bringing home of all the fruits which the trees have produced”… F.H. Colson’s translation of Philo’s THE DECALOGUE XXX (159)

19

Referring to the quote above— Let’s look carefully at what Philo is saying. “But to the seventh-day of the week He [Yahuah] has assigned the greatest festivals.” In other words the greatest (longest) festivals have been assigned to the seventh-day of the week [Sabbath the 15th], which begins the festival and lasts for seven days. We know both of these seven-day feasts begin on the 15th (Sabbath). Each of them lasts for seven days, and each one of these events were assigned to the seventh-day of the week (15th) or weekly Sabbath to begin the feast and it lasted seven days. Philo goes on to say that each month (1st and 7th) should receive a special honor of one sacred day of festival, for the purpose of refreshing and clearing the mind with its holiday. Notice he did not say they would receive two holydays of festivals, but one, the 15th. To prove the seventh-day of the week is the same as the 15th, elsewhere Philo states, "Again the beginning of this feast is appointed for the fifteenth day of the month (or seventh day of the week) on account of the reason which has already been mentioned respecting the Spring season might receive special honor of one sacred day of Festival.” In other words, Philo is saying the weekly Sabbath begins these feasts, and is on the 15th. This proves the Sabbaths are by the lunar calendar because there is no way the [modern] weekly Sabbath (15th) can begin these two festivals on the 15th in the 1st and 7th month each year, on a continuous seven day cycle by the calendar of today.” www.livingthetorah.webs.com/philoacrediblewitness.htm

“In the mid-1st century B.C. Julius Cæsar invited Sosigenes, an Alexandrian astronomer, to advise him about the reform of the calendar, and Sosigenes decided that the only practical step was to abandon the lunar calendar altogether. Months must be arranged on a seasonal basis, and a tropical (solar) year used, as in the Egyptian calendar.” Encyclopedia Britannica. “The Julian Calendar,”

“The connection of the Sabbath with lunar phases, however, was (later) discarded by the Israelites . . .” The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, p. 135-136.

20

Historical Confirmation Additional confirmation from another angle establishing the truth behind the Easter Controversy and the Quartodecimens may be found in the real story of what Constantine actually changed when He designated Sunday’s solemnity. Saturday Sabbatarians have often taught as fact that at the Council of Laodicea Constantine changed the sanctity of the Creator’s Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday as it is falsely construed to appear in the following English translation:

“Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s Day they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ.” Falsely translated from the Council of Laodicea, Canon 29

However, the above quote is in grave error and a cause for great misunderstanding. According to Karl J. von Hefele, a Catholic bishop, in his History of the Councils of the Church from the Original Documents, states that the word Saturday (dies Saturni) does not exist either in the Greek or Latin text. Rather, the word Saturday was supplied in the English translation in place of the word Sabbato, meaning [Hebrew lunar] Sabbath. The following is the original text as written in Latin:

“Quod non oportet Christianos Judaizere et otiare in Sabbato, sed operari in eodem die. Preferentes autem in veneratione Dominicum Diem si vacre voluerint, ut Christiani hoc faciat; quod si reperti fuerint Judaizere Anathema sint a Christo.” Council

of Laodicea, Canon 29

At the time the Julian calendar was being enforced upon Christians for religious purposes (2nd – 4th century A.D.), no one confused the word Sabbato with dies Saturni. Simply everyone at that time knew these were two designations for two different days on two distinctly opposing calendar models. It is only as the facts of history have been forgotten, that Saturday has been assumed to be the seventh-day Sabbath of Scripture. Therefore, this historic quote from the Council of Laodicea, Canon 29, referred strictly to the lunar Sabbath of the Hebrew calendar, and NOT to the Julian or Gregorian Saturday. Although in the 4th century the Roman week was changing

21

from its eight-day designation to that of seven, it continued to be disengaged from the lunar phases since its inception in 45 B.C

“In the mid-1st century B.C. Julius Cæsar invited Sosigenes, an Alexandrian astronomer, to advise him about the reform of the calendar, and Sosigenes decided that the only practical step was to abandon the lunar calendar altogether. Months must be arranged on a seasonal basis, and a tropical (solar) year used, as in the Egyptian calendar.” Encyclopedia Britannica. “The Julian Calendar,”

Originally at creation, and passed down through all the patriarchs and prophets, astro-luni-solar time-keeping was betrothed to mankind to synchronize the obedient of earth with the worship rhythm of the New Jerusalem. This was the only time-system consistently kept by the Hebrew people during their times of obedience.

“These . . . eventually led Jewish rabbis to call Saturn Shabbti, 'the star of the Sabbath.' It was not until the first century of our era, when the planetary week had become an established institution that the Jewish Sabbath seems always to have corresponded to Saturn's Day [Saturday].” Rest Days, Hutton Webster p.244. “Early historical records clearly confirm that very early Gentile Christians also kept the same Sabbath as the Nazarenes. This practice was first changed by [Pope] Sixtus in 126 AD, and later officially changed by a royal Roman decree from the Emperor Constantine. Observance of the [Hebrew lunar] Sabbath day was made illegal and observance of a "Sunday" of a fixed [cycling planetary designated] week was made mandatory for all except farmers. Previous to this time the Roman Saturday was the first day of the Roman week. The veneration of the Sun in the second century AD began to pressure Roman culture to change the first day of their week from Saturn Day to Sunday.” Shawui Sabbath: Ancient Sabbath Observance, Section 7: The Christian Sabbath Observance in History.

It is only by knowing the facts of the original events that the genuine truth may be comprehended. At the end of the day, it is the TRUTH that will set us free from the Roman yoke and its mixture of truth with error. Only the Messiah’s obedient will seek the truth at all cost, whether popular or not.

22

Additional Quotes on the Great Easter Controversy and the Quartodecimens

Eccliastical Histories by Eusebius

Tenth Edition Translated from the Original

By Christian Frederick Cruse, D. D. http://archive.org/stream/ecclesiasticalhi00euse/ecclesiasticalhi00euse_djvu.txt

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 207 CHAPTER XXIII. The question then agitated respecting the Passover.* There was a considerable discussion raised about this time, in consequence of a difference of opinion respecting the observance of the paschal season. The churches of all Asia, guided by a remoter tradition, supposed that they ought to keep the fourteenth day of the moon for the festival of the Savior’s Passover, in which day the Jews were commanded to kill the paschal lamb; and it was incumbent on them, at all times, to make an end of the fast on this day, on whatever day of the [Roman] week it should happen to fall. But as it was not the custom to celebrate it in this manner in the churches throughout the rest of the world, who observe the practice that has prevailed from apostolic tradition until the present time, so that it would not be proper to terminate our fast on any other but the day of the resurrection of our Savior. Hence there were synods and convocations of the bishops on this question; and all [Catholic leaders] unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which they communicated to all the churches in all places, that the mystery of our Lord's resurrection should be celebrated on no other day than the Lord's-day [Sunday]; and that on this day alone we should observe the close of the paschal fasts. There is an epistle extant even now, of those who were assembled at the time; among whom presided Theophilus, bishop of the church in Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem. There is also another epistle extant on the same question, bearing the name of Victor.

23

A Historical View of the Council of Nice Translated by Isaac Boyle. D. D.

http://archive.org/stream/ecclesiasticalhi00euse/ecclesiasticalhi00euse_djvu.txt

22 COUNCIL OF NICE. The question relating to the observance of Easter, which was agitated in the time of Anicetus and Polycarp, and afterwards in that of Victor, was still undecided. It was one of the principal reasons for convoking the council of Nice, being the most important subject to be considered after the Arian controversy. It appears that the churches of Syria and Mesopotamia continued to follow the custom of the Jews, and celebrated Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whether falling on Sunday or not. All the other churches observed that solemnity on Sunday only, viz. those of Rome, Italy, Africa, Libya, Egypt, Spain, Gaul and Britain; and all Greece, Asia, and Pontus. It was considered indecorous, and as affording occasion of scandal to unbelievers, that while some were engaged in fasting and penitence, others should be indulging in festivity and relaxation. This subject having been discussed, it was decreed to celebrate Easter on the same day, and the oriental prelates promised to conform to the practice of Rome, of Egypt, and of all the West. St. Athanasius remarks a difference of language, in pronouncing on this subject, from that which was used in reference to the faith. With respect to the latter it is said, "this is the catholic faith, we believe," but, in order to show that it was no new determination, it is an apostolic tradition. Accordingly, no date is given to this decision, neither the day nor the year being mentioned. But with regard to Easter, it is said, "we have resolved as follows, in order to show that all were expected to obey.* Easter day was fixed on the Sunday immediately following the new moon which was nearest after the vernal equinox, because it is certain that our Savior rose from the dead on the Sunday, which next succeeded the Passover of the Jews.” In order to find more readily the first day of the moon, and consequently the fourteenth, the council ordained that the cycle of nineteen years should be made use of, because at the end of this period, the new moons return very nearly to the same days of the solar year. This cycle, which is denominated, in Greek, had been discovered about seven hundred and fifty years before, by Meton, a mathematician of Athens, and it has

24

since been termed the golden number, because it was customary to mark in the calendar with letters of gold, the days of the new moon. It has been thought that the synod assigned the task of this calculation to Eusebius of Caesarea. It is certain, however, that he had composed a paschal canon of nineteen years, and that he had explained the nature and origin of this question in a treatise dedicated to the emperor Constantine, who gave him thanks for it in a letter. But notwithstanding the decision of the council there were some Quartodecimens, as they were termed, who remained pertinaciously attached to the celebration of Easter on the fourteenth of the moon, and among others the Audeans, schismatics of Mesopotamia. They found fault with the council, reproachfully remarking, that this was the first time that the ancient tradition, through complaisance for Constantine, had been departed from. 52 COUNCIL OF NICE. [EASTER CONTROVERSY]

Letter of Constantine Augustus to the [Roman] Churches Having experienced, in the flourishing state of public affairs, the greatness of the divine goodness, I thought it especially incumbent on me to endeavor that the happy multitudes of the Catholic Church should preserve one faith, be united in unfeigned love, and harmoniously join in their devotions to Almighty God. But this could not otherwise be affected in a firm and solid manner, than by an examination, for this purpose, of whatever pertains to our most holy religion, by all the bishops, or the greater part of them at least, assembled together. Having therefore convened as many as possible, I myself being present, and, as it were, one of you, (nor do I deny that I exceedingly rejoice in being your fellow-servant,) everything was examined, until a unanimous sentiment, pleasing to God, who sees all things, was brought to light; so that no pretense was left for dissension or controversy respecting the faith.

25

When the question arose concerning the most holy day of Easter, it was decreed by common consent to be expedient, that this festival should be celebrated on the same day by all, in every place. For what can be more beautiful, what more venerable and becoming, than that this festival, from which we receive the hope of immortality, should be suitably observed by all in one and the same order, and by a certain rule. And truly, in the first place, it seemed to everyone a most unworthy thing that we should follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this most holy solemnity, who, polluted having stained their hands with a nefarious crime, are justly blinded in their minds. It is fit, therefore, that, rejecting the practice of this people, we should perpetuate to all future ages the celebration of this rite, in a more legitimate order, which we have kept from the first day of our Lord's passion even to the present times. Let us then have nothing in common with the most hostile rabble of the Jews. We have received another method from the Savior. A more lawful and proper course is open to our most holy religion. In pursuing this course with a unanimous consent, let us withdraw ourselves, my much honored brethren, from that most odious fellowship. It is indeed in the highest degree preposterous, that they should superciliously vaunt themselves, that truly without their instruction, we cannot properly observe this rite. For what can they rightly understand who, after the tragic death of our Lord, being deluded and darkened in their minds, are carried away by an unrestrained impulse wherever their inborn madness may impel them. Hence therefore it is, that, even in this particular, they do not perceive the truth, so that continually wandering in the grossest error, instead of duly reforming their calculation, they commemorate the Passover twice in the same year. Why then should we follow those who are acknowledged to labor under a grievous error? For we will never tolerate the keeping of a double Passover in one year. But if what I have said should not be thought sufficient, it belongs to your ready discernment, both by diligence and prayer, to use every means, that the purity of your minds may not be affected by conformity in anything with the customs of the vilest of mankind. Besides, it should be considered that any dissension in a business of such importance, and in a religious institution of so great solemnity, would be highly criminal. For the Savior has bequeathed us one festal day of our liberation, that is, the day of his most holy passion; and it was his pleasure that his Church should be one; the members of which, although dispersed in many and various places, are yet nourished by the same spirit, that is, by the will of God. Let the sagacity of your holiness only consider, how painful and indecorous it

26

must be, for some to be experiencing the rigors of abstinence, and others to be unbending their minds in convivial enjoyment on the same day; and after Easter, for some to be indulging in feasting and relaxation, while others are occupied in the observance of the prescribed fasts. Wherefore, that a suitable reformation should take place in this respect, and that one rule should be followed, is the will of divine providence, as all, I think, must perceive. As it is necessary that this fault should be so amended that we may have nothing in common with the usage of these parricides and murderers of our Lord; and as that order is most convenient which is observed by all the churches of the west, as well as those of the southern and northern parts of the world, and also by some in the east, it was judged therefore to be most equitable and proper, and I pledged myself that this arrangement should meet your approbation, viz. that the custom which prevails . . . one consent in the city of Rome, and throughout all Italy, Africa and Egypt, in Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, the whole of Greece, the diocese of Asia, Pontus and Cilicia, would be gladly embraced by your prudence, considering that not only the greatest number of churches exist in the places which have been already mentioned, but also that it is most religious and equitable that all should wish what the strictest reason seems to require, and to have no fellowship with the perjury of the Jews. And, to sum up the whole in a few words, it was agreeable to the common judgment of all, that the most holy feast of Easter should be celebrated on one and the same day. Nor is it becoming, that in so sacred an observance there should be any diversity; and it is better to follow that decision, in which all participation in the sin and error of others is avoided. These being the case, receive with cheerfulness the heavenly and truly divine command. For whatever is transacted in the holy councils of the bishops, is to be referred to the divine will. Wherefore, having announced to our beloved brethren what has been already written, it is your duty to receive and establish the arguments already stated, and the observance of the most holy day; that when I shall come into your beloved presence, so long desired by me, I may be able to celebrate, with you, on one and the same day, the holy festival, and that in all things I may rejoice with you; seeing that the cruelty of the devil is taken away by divine power, through my instrumentality, and that your faith, your peace and concord is everywhere flourishing. May God preserve you, my beloved brethren.

27

[A.D. 321-324]

Conclusion

So what might be the connection between General Note 3 and 9?

It is from the General Note 9 that we discover the truth regarding the discrepancy in two calendar models, the Roman and the Scriptural. But the profound point brought to bear in General Note 3 explains the importance and necessity of utilizing the identical Scriptural calendar model that marks the inception of all prophetic events and time-lines to their very close at the end of time. As a result, these two General Notes bring to bear the foundational truths that the Creator’s Calendar has never changed, but only the people of earth are identified as having lost touch with the truth, illustrating that we have all fallen short and have not been worshiping according to the Creator’s plan.

Thus, a bridge of calendar truth leap-frogged over all the false calendar styles that stand as monuments to Satan and his emissaries in their attempt to thwart the progression and restoration of the worship rhythms of the shamayim.

When Willy and Ellen White discovered this ray of light, they hid it from the people, as it led down a damning trail of evidence against Ellen White’s endorsed Saturday Sabbath tradition and by extension, her reputation as a prophetess. The cover-up was initiated by Willy White, Ellen White, and their staff in Ellen’s home at Elmshaven, St. Helena, California. None the less, the Ecclesiastical Histories by Eusebius stands as authentication to the Great Easter Controversy extending from the 2nd – 4th century A.D, delineating the Quartodecimens and Constantine’s final decree, albeit Roman Catholic, remains the principle witness to the contrast between the two calendars and weekly models in question.

Does this really matter?

Before the Second Coming, the physical return of the Messiah, this critical issue is expected to arise a second time. A heated conflict will likely be stirred up by the Papacy to put an end, once and for all to the modern Quartodecimen schismatics that usurp the Roman Pontifical authority of ordained time-keeping.

28

These obedient alone will identify that indeed the shamayim declare the majesty of Yahuah and are profoundly connected to the Messiah’s prophetic fulfillment of His three part ministration in the shamayim Temple, not made with hands. This wonderful Temple system for restoring humanity commenced at the cross and will continue according to celestial time until He returns in the clouds.

Yahuah’s truth shall be triumphant! Time, the very signature of our Creator, like Himself, “changes not.” For it is His astro-luni-solar time-piece, as beaconed by the celestial sun, moon and stars, which bears witness to the Aleph and Tav, the Alpha and Omega of time from eternity past to eternity future.

All the righteous, who seek an eternal home with their Savior will march in time and rhythm of His footsteps, to the beat of His prophecies, as declared by His appointed Feast Days with the same precision as their Master, just as did the Quartodecimens.

These are they who follow the Lamb whithersoever He goes. Revelation 14:4

These are they who worship according to the monthly and weekly rhythm of the New Moons and lunar Sabbaths.

As from one New Moon to another and one Sabbath to another, all flesh shall worship before me says Yahuah. Isaiah 66:23.

Mastery of Deception

As the Pope of Rome establishes his official seat in Jerusalem, it matters not whether He recants of past errors of injustice or makes an Ecclesiastical Decree that all the world must unite upon the sacredness of Saturday, the current seventh-day Sabbath of the modern Jews. For many this would be the mastery of deception, unless they know and follow the truth as it is in Scripture. The willful disobedient will be deceived and caused to believe a lie. Indeed this may be the last great delusion that will come upon the world as an overwhelming surprise to all who do not take the time now to investigate. In one fell swoop the greatest Hegelian Dialectic model ever conceived, highlighting a worship choice between Saturday and Sunday, both equally fraudulent set-apart days, would sweep away if possible the very elect.

Thus it is that neither Saturday nor Sunday have ever been the ancient seventh-day Sabbath of the Creator, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel, the Apostles, or our Messiah and Savior.

29

And the times of this ignorance, Yahuah winked at; but now commands all men everywhere to repent: Acts 17:30 KJV

Recommended reading for testing the prophetic gift of Ellen White— Life of Ellen White.

Kerrie French Freelance Writer/Illustrator TheCreatorsCalendar@wildblue.net www.TheCreatorsCalendar.com

�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������