The Great Easter Controversy
Cover-up

by Kerrie French

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).  It was all about celebrating the Crucifixion and Resurrection of the Messiah upon the same Roman calendar planetary weekdays.

Up to this time, the obedient followers of the Messiah, who referred to themselves as the Natsarim (not as Christians), had celebrated this most marvelous and significant set of events, as it highlighted the real-time ministry of their beloved Messiah.  But it was time-centric only to the ancient astro-luni-solar calendar model contained in the TORAH LAW (O.T.)  This time-measuring method alone was held in honor among the Jews and followers of the Messiah before 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 14^th day as counted from the New Moon in the spring in the first lunar month of Abib/Aviv.

These same folks, including all the apostles along with their disciples after them, such as Polycarp and others, consistently celebrated the Resurrection and Feast of First Fruits on the 16^th day counted from the New Moon every year. This 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 14^th and Feast of First Fruits on the 16^th of the lunar month is, every year, the Kadosh (holy) seventh-day Sabbath, falling on the 15th.  Not only that year, but every year as recorded in Scripture, the Sabbath between these two days always fell on the 15^th day, as dated from the New Moon. This places all other seventh-day Sabbaths for that month of all years on the lunar dates of the 8^th, 15^th, 22^nd, and 29^th. (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 Nicaea, 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 [Passover] 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 [Messiah’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 Quartodecimen, as they were termed; who remained pertinaciously attached to the celebration of [Passover] 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 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. Passover was to be eliminated, and Easter was to be consistently and unitedly celebrated in its place upon the first Sunday after the full moon that follows the vernal equinox.  This was done in order to place the Roman Easter in general proximity to the Jewish Passover and yet remain entirely opposed to it. 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 Yahudim (Jews), they were anxious to throw out their astro-luni-solar calendar and all things “Jewish.”

They erroneously presumed that their own belief in the resurrected Messiah afforded them license to choose an erroneous day on their new solar calendar model that more perfectly suited their interests as a replacement for the ordained and prescribed instructions of Yahuah Alahim given 2,000 years previously to Moses.  They continued to put all the blame for killing the Messiah upon the Yahudim (Jews) alone. Never again to share in the responsibility of that fateful event. 

So it was in changing the name of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and First Fruits to the single term Easter and celebrating it on Good Friday, Saturday night, and Sunday morning of the replacement Roman planetary week, it allowed them to effectively separate themselves and all their future adherent daughter protestant churches from the worship rhythms of the Old Testament TORAH Law ordained by their Creator. 

Make no mistake, the total eradication of the faithful Quartodeciman’s way of calculating New Moons, lunar seventh-day Sabbaths, and lunar appointed Feast Days was designed to cause all to adopt the Roman Julian calendar in addition to Easter Sunday. These fourteeners, who called themselves Natsarim, were the only faithful followers of the Hebrew Messiah.  The term “Christian” was reserved for the Roman-style believers who accepted the Romanized pagan interpretation of the New Testament, the calendar, and Sunday worship. The term Christianity had not yet been placed upon Hebrew Messiah followers.  Thus, 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 solar calendar model as Constantine and 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, which they presumed was entirely written by their beloved prophet. Surely, the 1888 edition had been without error, or so they believed.

In response to the many inquiries, Willy White claimed 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 a fact that Ellen White did not write either these General Notes or the historical quotes within the book, as she was not a historian; however, there is reasonable evidence that she was intimately involved in their composition. 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, W. C. White 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

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

Whose home did these Seventh-day 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

 

Why were these particular General Notes removed?

While this indeed appears to be true, the real question is, what 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 of the removal of these two General Notes, let’s begin by reading them in their chronological order: Note 3, followed by Note 9. Subsequent to each will be a commentary, followed by 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 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 2,300 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 2,300 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 2,300 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 2,300 days in the autumn of 1844 stands without impeachment.”

 

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 in the autumn of 1844, the time of the Second Coming of the Messiah. 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 now believe to have commenced on that day was the anti-typical Day of Atonement, the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, and the beginning of what they call 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. However, details may be found in the article, When Two Calendars Collide.)

It is my conviction that the white elephant in the room was the paragraph from William Miller, recorded by Ellen White in her book “Great Controversy,” 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, as documented below:

“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 2,300 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,  Ellen White, 1888 version,  Appendix Note 3, William Miller, 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. Although their ideas were not realized or provable regarding the shift in events from the Second Coming of the Messiah to the Day of Atonement theory, they bore testimony of the true calendar of the shamayim (heavens) 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 unto 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 Roman calendar and Saturday Sabbath, as promoted to a large degree in the very same book written under the pen name of Ellen White and her bevy of creative writers and editors.

Not a single word or quote referencing this subject in the original 1888 Appendix remains in the 1911 or later publications of the book (G.C.). Stunningly, 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 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 [followers of Messiah were not called Christians until after A.D. 325, but Natsarim or Quartodecimen] of this century celebrated anniversary festivals in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Christ [Messiah]…The day which was observed as the anniversary of Christ’s [Messiah’s] death was called Paschal Day, or Passover. Like the Jews, Christians [Natsarim or Quartodecimen] celebrated a sacred feast, at which they distributed a Paschal lamb in memory of the holy supper.” The Christians [Natsarim or Quartodecimen] 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 [Messiah] 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 [Roman Christians], on the other hand, celebrated the resurrection of “Christ” on the “Sunday” following the Jewish Passover and observed the Paschal Feast on the night preceding Sunday, thus connecting the commemoration of Christ’s death with that of his [perceived] 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 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 Nicaea (A.D. 325), ‘out of compliance to Constantine the Great, ordered the solemnity of Easter to be kept everywhere on the same day, after the [solar calendar] 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 men’s consciences and the changing of 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 17^th and 19^th centuries A.D., and recorded in General Note 9, that one can trace the events along their pathway back to the original historian’s writings of the 2^nd – 4^th 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 with an excuse. So, how did the early S.D.A. church leaders miss this important detail? Might it have been because the early prophecies of Ellen White declaring Saturday as the seventh-day Sabbath on the Roman crafted replacement calendar system were not prophecies at all but mere assumptions made by the uneducated, common folk, naive to the history of the modern Roman solar calendar and its Easter replacement of the Passover’s lunar appointed Day? 

If performing only a superficial reading of these secondary historical quotes from General Note 9, no questions or red flags regarding the original calendar or true Sabbath of Scripture would have been raised, as some keywords and elements are absent. However, in researching any of these quotes to their source as originally recorded in the 4^th 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.

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 14^th day as counted from the New Moon, which was always the 6th day of the second week of Scripture’s astro-luni-solar calendar. The very next day was always the seventh day Sabbath, dated the 15th. Like a two-pronged GPS unit, this Scriptural fact established that our Creator’s weeks and Sabbaths were always lunar and consistently measured and counted from one New Moon to another (Isaiah 66:23).

So, in being faithful to this knowledge, the Quartodecimen also refused to call Passover by the name Easter. In so doing, they only observed the years, months, weeks, and days as signaled or counted from the New Moons.  Why?  Because they fully recognized that the Roman calendar impostor was in willful and rebellious opposition to the TIME-STAMP of their Creator as provided in the TORAH LAW.  For it alone contained the promise and the identification of YAHUAH’S (YHUH) only begotten Son as the Messiah, preordained the prophetic PASSOVER LAMB. He had laid down His life for the redemption and restoration of all mankind on the 14th day counted from the full New Moon. This FACT was something neither Ellen White nor her son was willing to admit or share. 

No doubt, this evidence created a conflict over the Sabbath teaching contained between the covers of this 1888 (GC) book by Ellen White, which had not been discerned until after it had been published. However, if the masses had discovered this in those early days of the church’s development, this would naturally have had disastrous consequences for the continued growth of the Seventh-day Adventist Church organization. Once discovered, we can be sure there was no underestimating the conflicting relevance of these quotes to the Adventists’ current views. For, after all, Adventism’s most prominent belief, as taught by Ellen White, was that the Roman calendar’s planetary Saturn’s day, “Saturday,” coincides with the authentic seventh-day Sabbath of creation.  And after all, this was a primary focus contained within the pages of this very book.

Following their discovery, only apathy prevailed, as there was neither joy nor interest by this Adventist leadership (Ellen White and her son) in restoring or synchronizing their sacred Sabbath to that founded upon the sure word of truth in Scripture’s TORAH LAW. Yet, the weight of evidence favored the astro-luni-solar time-keeping model, as documented in those ancient scrolls, which were kept by all the patriarchs, prophets, the Messiah, and all His first-century followers, referred to as Natsarim or Quartodeciman. Many of whom died for this cause. In contrast to Ellen White and her son Willy, these had courageously stood for TRUTH in obedience, celebrating Passover according to the 14th-day count from the New Moon. 

Ellen White, the acclaimed Adventist prophetess, endorsed W. C. White and staff to not only extract this vital information from the Appendix Notes but also hide this new revelation from the people. Undoubtedly, this conflicting historical calendar disclosure had slipped by Ellen White’s notice at the 1888 printing of The Great Controversy, but we can be certain it did not escape her notice by 1911. 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 at Elmshaven 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 time of Emperor Constantine of the 4^th century A.D.  As a result, ALL THE WORLD has long been conditioned to believe this neo-revolutionary calendar replacement and earth-shattering lie (Revelation 13:3, Titus 1:14). Yet, with all its pomp and circumstance, the biblical and historical record stands in opposition to this fraudulent placebo. In monolithic superiority, the Scriptural authority defines the elements of a quite different timepiece that our Creator ordained in the shamayim (heavens) at the beginning of time (Isaiah 66:23, Ezekiel 46:1).

Three-fold Expose`

So, what we are left with is a three-fold exposé and revelation that:

1. The true Sabbath of Scripture is only found according to the astro-luni-solar calendar model with lunar years, lunar months, and lunar Sabbaths 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.
2. There is no way of knowing who first discovered that the quotes in General Note 9 contained material that led to the truth regarding the lunar Sabbath in opposition to the current teachings of Ellen White and the Adventist Church regarding 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 or that of her husband, James White, or son Willy White, to be something more— a prophet. But now her own actions illustrate that she was a fraud and a guardian of the lie. 

Truth Proactively Replaced with a Lie

Is there any question that Ellen White had an intimate knowledge of the truth regarding the Easter Controversy and the Quartodecimen, those who faithfully kept Passover on the 14th day of the lunar month, 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 lunar 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 (G.C.). This absence of replacements conflicts with W. C. White’s declaration 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 begins would affect the Sabbath in any way.” The point here is that there are two opposing calendars represented. The STANDARD presented in Scripture is based primarily upon the moon, while the fraudulent replacement legislated by Rome over 4,000 years later is primarily solar and was set up out of their intense hatred of all things Jewish. Thus, Rome’s replacement calendar system was proactively designed to oppose both Scripture and the calendar of the hated Jews. Its new continuous seven-day week was determined to NEVER coincide consistently with the worship and Sabbath rest outlined in the TORAH LAW and instituted at creation.

It should come as no surprise that the modern week has been proactively divorced from its count from the true and original full New Moon. But greater still, the moon has been utterly removed from the month from which the month gets its name. In addition, it was reconfigured by the Jews in A.D. 358, when under duress from their Roman captors. Hillel II adopted the ancient Babylonian dark/crescent New Moon calculated calendar and their continuous weekly cycle that harmonized with Rome. This new lunar regime was to commence according to the dark conjunction lunar phase and the sun’s disk arising and marking each ruling starry constellation on the opposite side of the universe during daylight, when the stars are not even visible. Thus, the original full moon as the New Moon, rising in the east together with the visible stars by night (Genesis 1:16), was completely undermined and no longer recognized or utilized by the Rabbinical Pharisee Jews for measuring time by marking each new month’s commencement.

“The last universally binding decision of the Great Sanhedrin appeared in 358 CE, when the Hebrew Calendar was abandoned.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin. Also: New International Encyclopaedia, Sanhedrin, 1905 Edition, Bibliography. Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the Times of Jesus Christ, vol. ii. (Edinburgh, 1886-90); Kuenen, “Ueber die Zusammensetzung des Sanhedrins,” in Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Freiburg, 1894); Hoffman, Der oberste Gerichtshof in der Stadt des Heiligthums (Berlin, 1878); Jelski, Die innere Einrichtung des grossen Synedrions zu Jerusalem, etc. (Breslau, 1894).

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. Refer to the article Uncovered: Secrets From Ancient Babylon.

In the following years, the sun cult torch was carried by Egypt and later by Rome. It was Julius Caesar in 45 B.C. who first drafted the Julian calendar with a continuous weekly cycle divorced from the lunar phases. But at that point, the week was made up of eight days to remove themselves from the Biblical Torah Law. This was celebrated and later supported by Pope Sixtus, Victor, Bishop of Rome. But during the Nicene Council of A.D. 325, Constantine changed Julius Caesar’s eight-day continuous weekly cycle to a seven-day continuous weekly cycle.  In this way, it would appear to be synchronized to that of the creation week, yet an illusion nonetheless. Today, ALL THE WORLD marches to the rhythm of this rebellious time system, ignorant of their missteps. Never are they able to REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY, except on occasion when their weekly cycle causes Saturday to fall on the authentic Holy Sabbath of Scripture’s lunar calendar. 

For more information about the lunar Sabbath calendar, see the article “The Sabbath’s Consistent Lunar Month Dates.”

The Tie Between Notes 3 and 9

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

It is from General Note 9 that we discover the truth regarding the discrepancy in two calendar models, the Roman solar and the Scriptural astro-luni-solar. However, the profound point brought to bear in General Note 3 by William Miller explains the importance and necessity of utilizing the identical Scriptural calendar model that marks the inception of all prophetic events and timelines, which continue in perpetuity to their culmination 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 to this day been abolished. Rather, 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 ordained plan. All have lost their way.

Thus, a bridge of calendar truth leap-frogged over all the false calendar styles of the pagan nations for the past nearly 2,000 years. This reality stands as an unconquerable fortress of TRUTH to all apparent attacks of Satan and his emissaries in their attempt to thwart the progressive restoration of the worship rhythms of the shamayim (heavens). TRUTH remains TRUTH whether believed or followed by the uneducated and infidel unbelievers. 

The Shameful Response to Discovering the Truth

When Willy and Ellen White discovered this ray of light, instead of embracing it and turning from their prophetic errors behind private and closed doors, they chose to hide it from the people. All this so that no one would discover their fateful error. This is a shameful act for anyone, but especially for those held in high esteem and who claim the gift of prophecy for a worldwide church organization. 

As a result of the united covert actions of Willy and Ellen White, they themselves have left a damning trail of evidence against the erroneous Saturday. And the modern Rabbinical Pharisee Sabbath is nothing more than a fictitious seventh day of the Roman continuous weekly cycle, an ancient Babylonian sun cult tradition.

The sun, moon, and stars stand as a permanent banner waving in the heavens, defining all those who are prophets of the Most High YHUH and those who are impostors.  At the very least, she shall be considered a false prophet, and at the most, she may be included with the well-intended reformers who carried elements of truth set within a false premise. The bottom line is that the entire cover-up was initiated by Willy White, Ellen White, and their staff and accomplished in Ellen’s own home at Elmshaven, St. Helena, California. 

Nonetheless, the Ecclesiastical Histories by Eusebius contain authenticated facts surrounding the Great Easter Controversy, which extended from the 2nd to the 4th century A.D. This principal historical event marks the strong resistance of the Quartodeciman (Fourteeners) to Constantine’s final decree to replace Passover, the 14th day counted from the full New Moon, with Easter, on his new solar calendar model.  While this narrative is predominantly retained in the annals of Roman history, the Great Easter Controversy remains a principal witness to the long-raging battle that ensued between Roman Emperors and Jewish rabbis alike, all to replace the TIMES and LAWS of Yahuah Alahim.  This was only achieved by way of an entire calendar swap, the divorcing of all time units from the lunar phases, and a tricky cycling week impostor fulfilling Daniel’s famous prophecy, declaring: 

“He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the [zadek – righteous] saints of the Most High, and shall intend to CHANGE TIMES and LAWS. . .” Daniel 7:25

But Does This Really Matter?

This critical issue is expected to arise again before the Second Coming, the physical return of the Messiah. The Papacy will likely stir up a heated conflict to put an end, once and for all, to the modern Quartodecimen schismatics, who seek to restore the ancient paths of our Creator’s Calendar in opposition to the Roman solar replacement.

The obedient alone will identify that, indeed, the shamayim (heavens) declare the majesty of Yahuah and are profoundly connected to the Messiah’s prophetic fulfillment of His seven-part ministration in the Temple above, not made with hands. By this method, salvation’s marvelous story is portrayed by His seven annual set-apart lunar-based Feast Days, His prescribed mechanism for restoring humanity back to the Father.  

YAHUAH’S TRUTH SHALL TRIUMPH! TIME, THE VERY SIGNATURE OF OUR CREATOR, LIKE HIMSELF, “CHANGES NOT.” For it is His trinity of LIGHTS, the sun, moon, and stars, that bear witness to the Aleph and Tav (the Alpha and Omega), the first and the last, the beginning and the end of time from eternity past to eternity future.

All the righteous who seek an eternal home with their Messiah/Redeemer will be willing to synchronize their soul temples to the rhythm of the LAMB’S footsteps, to the beat of His prophetic appointed lunar Feast Days. These alone are the REMEDY to restore mankind back to the FATHER YHUH and His STANDARD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS UNTO SALVATION.  All this is accomplished with the same precision as their Master Messiah and demonstrated by His faithful Quartodecimen of old.

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

These are they who worship according to the YEARLY, MONTHLY, and WEEKLY rhythm of the New Moons and lunar Sabbaths.

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

“Thus declares the Almighty YAHUAH, “the GATE of the courtyard interior facing the EAST shall be SHUT six days for work, and in the day of the SABBATH it shall be thrown open wide, and in the day of the NEW MOON it shall be thrown open wide.  But come unto the exalted one, by way of the porch of the temple gate without, and stand beside the doorpost of the gate and observe the Kohenim’s (Priest’s) symbolic first and last burnt offering and symbolic Aleph and Tav peace offering.  And you shall prostrate in worship upon the threshold of the open GATE, coming and going at any time, but the GATE shall not be shut until sunset.”  And so WORSHIPED the people of the land at the entrance way of the same GATE, in the SABBATHS and in the NEW MOON DAYS, before the face of YAHUAH.  Ezekiel 46:1-3

Mastery of Deception

As the Pope of Rome establishes his official seat in Yarushalom (Jerusalem), it matters not whether he recants past errors of injustice. It does not affect the truth if he makes an Ecclesiastical Decree that all the world must unite upon the sacredness of either Saturday or Sunday. Both days are twin sisters on the pagan Roman planetary week that cycles without end, regardless of sacred New Moon Days and other sacred days. If they choose Saturday, for many, this would be the mastery of deception unless they know and follow the truth as it is in Scripture.

By this, the willfully disobedient will be deceived and caused to believe a lie. Indeed, this may be the last test between TRUTH and the 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 only the choice of worship days between Saturday and Sunday, both equally fraudulent solar pagan units of time, would sweep away, if possible, the very elect. Refer to the article, The Luciferian Agenda.

Thus, neither Saturday nor Sunday has ever been the ancient seventh-day Sabbath of the Creator, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel, the Apostles, nor our Messiah and Redeemer. 

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 L. French
Freelance Writer and Illustrator
TheCreatorsCalendar.com