The Great Easter Controversy Cover-up
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 prior to A.D. 70. In the early days these obedient believers were dubbed by the Roman Bishops as Quartodecimen (Fourteeners) as they continued to celebrate Passover on the 14th day as counted from the New Moon in the spring, the first 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 kadosh (holy) seventh-day Sabbath. It always always occurs 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 Nicea, 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 [Passover] 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 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 in order 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 erroneously 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 that 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 3rd 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, the 1888 edition had been without error.
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:
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.
St. Helena, California, July 27, 1911
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
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. Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, 1888 version, Appendix Note 3, pg. 328.
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 the Messiah’s 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.
- They recognized that the Creator’s years were to commence in the spring and not the winter.
- They recognized that the New Moon was the marker for establishing and demarcating the dates of the Scriptural lunar months.
- 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.
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 written by Ellen White and her associates.
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). The 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
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 times and laws of our Eternal Father 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 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 historical 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 Quartodecimen (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 created a conflict of interest over the true Sabbath contained between the covers of the 1888 (GC) book by Ellen White, which had not been 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 conflicting 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, there was neither urgency nor interest by the Adventist leadership in synchronizing their Sabbath with the astro-luni-solar time-keeping of the 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 conflicting historical calendar disclosure had slipped by Ellen White’s notice at the first printing of the Great Controversy book 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 the elements of quite a different time-piece that our Creator ordained in the shamayim at the beginning of time (Isaiah 66:23, Ezekiel 46:1).
So, what we are left with is a three-fold revelation that:
- 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, or Rome’s removal of the New Moon from their calendar, or accept their institution of the continuous weekly cycle.
- 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 Adventist 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.
- 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 or that of her husband, James White, 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 Quartodecimen and the only official astro-luni-solar calendar the early followers of Messiah adhered to for all New Moons, all kadosh (sacred) 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 by the Jews in A.D. 358, as under duress from Rome they adopted Hillel II calculated calendar for New Moons and Rome’s weekly cycle. It this new regime it was 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 full moon together with the visible stars are no longer utilized for measuring time by 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 the torch was carried 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.
For more information regarding the 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.
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 and the immovable tenants of the Torah Scripture. Rather, it appears the 2nd – 4th century Jewish leaders, along with the Romans had a part to play in the egregious changes to our Creator’s Calendar.
Referring to the quote above— Let’s look carefully at what Philo is saying. “But to the seventh-day of the week He 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 consistently 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 and 15th of the month, and it lasted seven days.
There is evidence that shows the seventh-day of the week occurs on the 15th of the month where Philo states, “Again the beginning of this feast is appointed for the fifteenth day of the month 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 that these two Feast Days commence upon the weekly Sabbath, which is always on the 15th of the lunar month. This identifies that the Sabbaths of Scripture are found only on the lunar calendar, because there is no way the weekly Sabbath (15th) can begin these two festivals on the 15th of the first and seventh months consistently each year, on a continuous seven day cycle by the calendar of today.”
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, the Emperor changed the sanctity of the Creator’s Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday as it is falsely construed to appear in the following English translation:
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:
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 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.
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.
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.
Additional Quotes on the Great Easter Controversy
and the Quartodecimens
Eccliastical Histories by Eusebius
Tenth Edition, A.D. 325
Translated from the Original
By Christian Frederick Cruse, D. D.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 207
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.
A Historical View of the Council of Nice
Translated by Isaac Boyle. D. D.
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 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.
Letter of Constantine
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.
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 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.
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 as displayed in the heavens (shamayim) has never been abolished, but only the people of earth are identified as having lost touch with the truth and adopted a fraudulent substitute, 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 of the pagan nations over the millennia 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, instead of embracing it and facing their prophetic errors, they hid it from the people. For if it were embraced led the reader down a damning trail of evidence against Ellen White’s endorsed Saturday Sabbath tradition and by extension, her reputation as a prophetess of the end-time church. 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.
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 to 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 whither soever 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 day 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.
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.