Sunday, March 1, 2009 - The Associated Press

13,000-YEAR-OLD-TOOLS FOUND IN FRONT YARD

(DENVER) - Landscapers were digging a hole for a fish pond in the front yard of a Boulder home last May when they heard a "clink" that didn't sound right.

          Just some lost tools.  Some 13,000-year-old last tools.

          They had stumbled onto a cache of more than 83 ancient tools buried by the Clovis people - ice age hunter-gatherers who remain a puzzle to anthropologists.  The home's owner, Patrick Mahaffy, thought they were only a century or two old before contacting researchers at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

          "My jaw just dropped," said CU anthropologist Douglas Bamforth, who is leading a study of the find.  "Boulder is a densely populated area.  And in the midst of all that to find this cache."

          The cache is one of only a handful of Clovis-age artifacts uncovered in North America, said Bamforth.

          The tools reveal an unexpected level of sophistication, Bamforth said, describing the design as "unnecessarily complicated," artistic and utilitarian at the same time.

          What researchers found on the tools also was significant.  Biochemical analysis of blood and other protein residue revealed the tools were used to butcher camels, horses, sheep and bears.  That proves that the Clovis people ate more than just woolly mammoth meat for dinner, something scientists were unable to confirm before.

          "A window opens up into this incredibly remote way of life that we normally can't see much of," Bamforth said.

          The cache was buried 18 inches deep and was packed into a hole the size of a large shoe box.  The tools were most likely wrapped in a skin that deteriorated over time, Mahaffy said.

          "The kind of stone that's present - the kind that flakes to a good sharp edge - isn't widely available in this part of Colorado.  It looks like they were storing material because they knew they would need it later," Bamforth said.  He believes the tools had been untouched since the owners stored them there.

          Mahaffy wants to donate most of the tools to a museum but plans to rebury a few of them in his yard.

          "These tools have been associated with these people and this land for 13,000 years," he said, "I would like some of thoese tools to stay were they belong."

NOTE:

          Did you notice in this article that there was blood and other protein residue on these tools that had survived for 13, 000 years.  Well, if evolutionists can call on some "supernatural process which knew don't know anything about" to allow blood and complete dinosaur cells to survive for more than 65 million years; it should be easy to believe it could survive for 13,000 years through this same "supernatural process which we know nothing about."  It would be a real stretch to have live material that could be analyzed in the laboratory that was more than 10,000 years old, and that too is quite a stretch.  More than likely these tools are less than 5,000 years old.

          Did you also notice in the article that the tools were described as "unnecsssarily complicated, artistic and utilitarian?"  Ancient humans were not animal-like.  They had intelligence and in some cases were able to accomplish fetes which we cannot duplicate today. 

* RESCUING OUR HISTORY FROM THE REVISIONISTS

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

By Ken Williams

          The Constitution was kept especially simple, so it could not easily be misinterpreted.  In it, the government had been set up in three equal, but separate branches, and the federal government was limited to function only in some dozen specifically outlined areas.  Everything else was left up to the individual states.  But still there was opposition.  Many people were suspicious of government.  They wanted as little as was necessary.

          Most of the former colonies flatly refused to ratify the new Constitution without more guarantees.  They wanted assurances that their inalienable, God given rights would not be violated by this new government as they had been by the British King.  Hence the promise was made that the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, would be presented to the states upon ratification of the Constitution.

          In the middle of the drafting of the Bill of Rights, a quarrel came to the forefront which is hard for us to imagine today.  The struggle was over which of the Protestant churches would become the nationally endorsed, state sponsored religion of the new nation.  The thought of a nation without a state church was unknown to our founders.  All nations had state sponsored religion.

          Finally, after much negotiation, it was decided that the five largest denominations would share the spot as the national church.  The Baptists had become the largest single denomination.  While they were to be one of the five denominations included in the state church, they had not participated in the negotiations.  When they heard of the compromise, they would have no part in it.  It was the Baptists who forced the addition to the first amendment which guaranteed that Congress would never, ever choose any church to be the state endorsed, nationally supported church.  So, after recognizing the inalienable human right of anyone to speak his or her conscience, the first amendment goes on to forbid Congress from choosing any church as the official denomination of the nation, and also prohibits Congress from interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion.

          How could our founding fathers ever have known that it would be the Judicial Branch, not Congress, which would eventually establish the religion of Humanism as the tax supported, official religion of the nation, and stip religious freedom from those who hold to the beliefs of the founding fathers.

          The amendment which prevented Congress from establishing a state church was not interpreted as having any domain over the individual states.  Nothing in the Constitution was deemed to affect the individual states in any way.  Almost all of the states had state churches, and that was not affected in any way by the prohibition on Congress from establishing a national church.  Not until 1948 did any court even suggest that the First Amendment meant anything else.

          The first amendment guarantees the right of every American to speak his or her conscience.  Then it goes on to say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  There were twelve different versions of this amendment submitted.  Each was aimed at the national government not treating one denomination higher than another, nor establishing a national church.  Congress finally narrowed the choices down to two.  Both said the same thing.  One was the wording chosen which we quoted above.  The other stated, "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion...and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing."

          Our founding fathers thought these two statements were the same.  They chose the form we have in our Constitution only because it was less wordy.  Did you know that the founding fathers considered the Christian religion as "the established religion" of this country?

          According to Joseph Story, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, appointed by President James Madison (Madison, incidentally, was the chief author of the Constitution), it was not the intent of Congress in the First Amendment to denigrate other religions such as "Judaism, Mohammedanism and infidelity," but since the Constitution and the new nation were "based on the principles of Christrianity, it was deemed that the new government should encourage Christianity."  In his commentary on the Constitution, Chief Justice Story wrote, "The real object of the First Amendment was...to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment in this country."

          The day after Congress passed the First Amendment, it passed the Northwest Ordinance, one of the four principle documents in the founding of our country.  It outlined how new states might be admitted to the Union.  The northwest in those days was not the same as our northwest today.  It included the areas west of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia.  And the Northwest Ordinance directed that schools be "encouraged and established" in the area to teach (can you believe this?), to teach "religion, morality and knowledge."  Each of these states when it came into statehood had similar statements in its constitution.  Congress did not see any inconsistency between that and the First Amendment, which they had adopted only one day earlier.

          The thirteen colonies had been ruled by governors appointed by the King of England.  By the time the Constitution was ratified, only ten had adopted state constitutions, but each had a religions qualification for holding public office which was not seen as violating the First Amendment.  For instance, in Pennsylvania's document, the statement read, "And that all persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, shall be capable, notwithstanding their other persuasions and practices, and points of conscience and religion, to serve this government in any capacity both legislatively and executively."  Or how about his from the Delaware Constitution: "Everyone appointed to public office must say, 'I do profess faith in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ, His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God and blessed forevermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration.'"

           The people who wrote these state constitutional statements were the same people who penned the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and they saw no conflict between them.  Perhaps our lawmakers and federal judges should go back and read the writings of our founding fathers.  If they were to do so, it just might influence the outcome of some of their decisions.

* SERMON OF THE QUARTER

IS THE CURRENT ECONOMIC DOWNTURN THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD-WIDE ECONOMIC COLAPSE REFERRED TO IN THE BIBLE THAT USHERS IN THE ANTI-CHRIST IN THE END TIMES?

          Last evening we answered three questions which were submitted earlier in the day during our sessions [This is the Sermon of the Quarter in the Spring 2009 Newsletter].  Tonight we will answer just one question.  It has become the most asked question in our seminars.  I want to rephrase the question a bit.  The question is: "Is the current economic downtorn the beginning of the world-wide economic colapse referred to in Revelation, which ushers in the return of Christ, and the catching up of the Bride of Christ?"

          Before delving into this question, let me state that over the past five to ten years the world has changed in such a way that this is now the very first time in all of the history of mankind that economic turmoil in one major economic power can seriously affect the economy of the entire world.  So we are currently living in the only time in history in which the predictions of global economic colapse in the Book of the Revelation could be fulfilled. 

          Perhaps you have been aware that our country has "out-sourced" jobs to many countries around the world.  Today when you call an 800 number, you are more likely to have your call anwered in another country as you are in this country.  I changed health insurance companies last fall.  While sitting in the insurance agent's office, we had to call the company to put the policy in action and to answer some questions.  The phone was answered by a gentleman in the Dominican Republic.  I recently called an 800 number concerning a cell phone.  It was answered in India.  I received a sales call from an American company, and discovered the caller was in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.  There has been a big pitch to cut and eliminate tariffs and push for free trade between nations, because we are now in a global economy.

          In order to understand what is going on in our economy, we must take a look at history.  To do that, I want to go back to Genesis 41.  It is the account of Joseph's rise to become Prime Minister of Egypt, second in command only to Pharaoh himself.  For seven years Joseph bought up all of the excess agricultural production of the country.  Then came seven years of famine.  During this time Joseph sold the food he has stored up to the people.  When they ran out of money, as the economy fell apart (chapter 47), they sold their cattle, horses and flocks to Joseph in exchange for food.  When they ran out of animals, they sold all their land.  This is what the Scriptures report: "And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh's" (Genesis 47:20).  This was the end of private property in the country, with all of the Egyptians being nothing more than share-croppers for Pharaoh.

          The tendency for government in all ages past has been to move toward more and more control.  Given enough time, free societies move toward controlling governments, until a revolution of one sort or another starts them afresh.  In the Middle Ages, the serfs worked the land around the castle for the barron.  When the Industrial Revolution broke on society, one of the early developments was government owned and operated central banks.  These banks manipulated the money supply, causing prosperity and bust cycles during which the governments ended up as owners of private lands and companies.  The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. 

          Knowing this, our founding fathers made it clear in the Constitution that the United States of America could never have a central bank.  Now, that did not mean that there were no economic up's and down's during those early days; but they were not initiated by central banks trying to take control for the government.

          The single most severe depression this nation has ever encountered took place in 1852.  Less than 75 years after the Revolutionary War, church attendance and spiritual fervor had waned.  By the early 1850's church attendance had dropped to about twenty percent - about what it is today.  Historians laid the blame for the rapid spiritual decline in the new nation to affluence.  That may seem strange to us, since they had few of the conveniences we have today.  But in less than 75 years, the United States had become the richest nation on earth.  There were basically two reasons for this.  First, the people of the United States were very industrious.  They were producing far more per man-hour than any other nation.  Second, they were a very thrifty people.  They had put large portions of their incomes into savings.  That, in turn, was used to build factories and purchase tools and machines.  They also had more disposable income and more free time than any earlier society.

          Suddenly, in 1852, they were brought back to reality by the greatest and worst depression ever to hit this country.  We are told that the Great Depression of the 1920's was like a Sunday School picnic compared to the depression of 1852.  In New York City (population was about 100,000), 30,000 men lost their jobs in one month.  Panic struck the country.  Suddenly the churches were full.  Laymen led prayer meetings broke out everywhere.  In New York City, one such daily noontime prayer meeting attracted nearly half of the city's population every weekday.

          God answered the prayer of the young nation.  Revival, such as had never been experienced before, spread across the country.  Stories were written of people falling to their knees while walking down the street.  They had come under such conviction from God they could not wait to repent of their sins.  The bars were empty as the nation returned to its roots.

          There are literally thousands of stories of the convicting power of God on siful people during that era, but let me share just one.  A merchant ship was coming into the harbor at what today is Newport News, Virginia.  As the ship entered the bay, more than half of the hardened seamen on board fell to their knees and began crying out to God to be merciful to them.  When the ship finally docked, the captain sent ashore for all the preachers that could be found to come of board and pray with his crew.

          While the depression of 1852 was the worst depression ever to hit this country, it was also the shortest as a repentant nation came back to God, and God healed the land.

          Now we move ahead to 1913.  For some years, liberal representatives in Congress had tried to get around the constitutional ban on a central bank.  They were opposed by Republicans who claimed that such a bank would give the government much more control over a free economy, and especially over business.  They reiterated the fears of the founding fathers pointing again to the European central banks which purposely created recessions and depressions so the government could take over businesses and property.  Now, however, there was a Democrat in the White House.  President Woodrow Wilson (whom my grandmother always insisted was a distant cousin of hers), and liberals in Congress pulled a fast one.  Congress recessed for the weekend.  While most members went home for the weekend, a group of liberals had secretly kept central bank supporters in Washington.  They reconvened Congress on Saturday and passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

          How did they get around the Constitutional ban on a central bank?  Very carefully!  They did not establish a government owned central bank.  They established a privately owned banking system with central bank powers.  A national out-cry followed when news of the action got out.  A nation-wide petition drive garnered the largest percentage of voters signatures of any petition ever circulated, but it was not enough.  Washington's ears were closed to the people. 

          Did you notice that the Federal Reserve System is not owned by the government?  It is individually owned by member banks.  How does the government maintain control?  The person we most often hear of in regard to the Federal Reserve System is the Chairman.  The Chairman is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a four year term.  So there is government control.  However, the Chairman of the Fed actually has more power over monetary affairs in the United States than does the President or Congress. 

          It took a number of years for the "Fed," as it is frequently called, to organize and begin to flex its muscle.  While the Fed was given monetary control over the country, it wasn't until the mid 1920's that it actually began to take major action in the money markets.  Its first major action was to insist that there was too much money in the market, and it began to withdraw cash from society.  Eventually, the continued drain of cash resulted in difficulty for businesses.  Short term borrowing was virtually shut down.  Next, there wasn't enough money to make payroll, or even for people to spend.  Borrowing dried up, businesses failed, spending stalled; and then the Stock Market crash of 1929.  And still the Fed continued to withdraw cash from the marketplace.  The Federal Reserve had done exactly what the European central banks had been doing for centuries.  It took World War II to get us out of the Great Depression.

          Now we skip ahead to the Social Security Act of 1935.  I'm not going to spend any time talking about how it was set up.  I'm sure all of us are aware that it was supposed to be a safety net for the American worker.  Workers paid in money withheld from their paychecks; and when they retired, there was to be a huge fund there from which they could be paid.  That was the intent.  But in the 1960's and 70's, again liberal, socialistic politicians saw huge amounts of money continuing to accumulate in the Social Security Trust Fund.  Liberals are always looking to find ways to "spread the wealth," or sometimes they call it "redistributing the wealth."  They passed legislation raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, by establishing a multitude of social programs to be paid out of the Social Security deductions being made by America's workers.  Many of these programs were set up as permanent "entitlements."  That means that they grow on themselves each year, and Congress has virtually no control over them.  Today there is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund.  If you are receiving Social Security retirement right now, you are being paid out of the workers' deductions from last month.  The problem, which politicians are trying to deal with, but refuse to explain the the American public, is that in less than 15 years there will only be two people working for every one on Social Security Retirement.  Do you think there is a ghost of a chance that those two workers will allow their Social Security deductions to be raised so high that it can pay your monthly Social Security benefit?  We talk about the liberals "raiding" Social Security.  That is not an adequate word.  While what they did legislatively was legal; morally they defrauded each and every one of us.

          As we came into the seventies and early eighties, you may remember that inflation hit double digit figures.  By the way, you do know that governmental deficits are paid for by inflation, don't you?  Inflation is the liberal spenders' tax.  It is a tax impressed upon the populous without their realizing it.  Do you remember the 10 to 12-percent inflation in the late 1970's, going in to the 1980's.  Banks were paying 15% and more interest.  But at that rate of inflation, prices would double in 7 or 8 years.

          Along came the Governor of California.  Ronald Reagan proposed huge tax cuts as a cure for the lagging economy and the double-digit inflation.  President Carter called it "Voo-doo Economics."  Liberals laughed him to scorn.  They predicted such tax cuts would drive the nation into bankruptsy and do nothing to fix the economy.  But when Reagan was elected president, and was able to get the largest tax cuts in history passed through Congress, he proved that he was right.  The influx to cash not taken in taxes grew the economy so fast that within just a few years the federal government was taking in more in total taxes than they had taken in under the much higher tax rate before the tax cuts.

          What is the logic behind that?  Economists estimate that money spent (whether from projects or consumer spending at the local level) turns over 7 to 9 times in the community, causing the local economy to grow over and over and over again.  Money spent on taxes, according to economists doesn't turn over at all (some say it turns over one and a half times).  Using the conservative side of those figures, that meant that every dollar the government didn't collect in taxes actually created 7-dollars.  If that money had been sent to Washington, it would have produced, at best, $1.50.  Now multiply that times billions and it doesn't take long to figure out what happened.  That tax cut initiated the longest prolonged continuous growth the American economy had ever seen.  It lasted through the Reagan Administration, the Bush Administration and well into the Clinton Administration.

          President Clinton, who while Governor of Arkansas was actually voted out of office for huge tax increases, then voted back in four years later after apologizing to the people of Arkansas, talked Congress into approving the largest tax increases in American history.  The American economy is a huge machine, and does not turn around, either up or down, quickly.  It takes several years for it to react to various decisions.  But by the end of the Clinton Administration, the Reagan growth had begun to slow and actually, by the time George Bush came to office, take a slight downturn.  That was blamed on President Bush by most Americans.  Bush was able to get the tax cuts reinstated, and over the next four years the economic dip leveled off and began once again to rise.

          Now we come to the present economic disaster, which also has been laid at the feet of President Bush.  But the seeds of it came long before George Bush even announced he was running for President.  It had nothing to do with tax policy -- liberal or conservative.  It had nothing to do with Social Security, although it had to do with Congress doing to same thing to another institution that it had done when it raided the Social Security Trust Fund.  It had nothing to do with the Federal Reserve System, although what President Clinton and Congress did resulted in the same thing the Fed did to create the Great Depression. 

          Fannie Mae was created in 1935 as a part of President Roosevelt's New Deal.  Banks were refusing to lend money.  The housing market had crashed.  Does this sound anything like what has happened now?  The government established Fannie Mae to lend money so people who qualified and who could afford it could get a mortgage to purchase a home.  It worked well, and was one of the things that helped dig the country out of the Great Depression.  In 1970, Congress established Freddie Mac, an agency just like Fannie Mae, after charges that Fannie Mae had a monopoly.  Now the two federally created, privately own, shareholder controlled institutions were competing with each other.  These two quazi-governmental privately owned companies actually controlled 90% of the nations second mortgate market.  Their total assets was 45% higher than the total combined assets of all of the nation's largest banks.

          Both of these huge companies crashed, because they had on their books literally millions of mortgages which could not be collected.  They were bad loans.  How could these two huge companies find themselves in this condition?  Go back to Roosevelt's New Deal?  Do you remember, or have you heard the slogan, "A chicken in every pot?"  After World War II that became, "A car in every garage."  In the 70's and 80's some politicians increased that to, "Two cars in every garage."  The Liberal philosophy is that people are entitled to this whether or not they have a job, or whether or not their income is sufficient to purchase the things they would like.  That's where the term "entitlements" came from.  During the Clinton Administration, these cries jumped a notch.  You may be aware of a Congressman from Massachusetts by the name of Barney Frank.  His cry was, "A house for everyone who wants one."  Barney Frank along with President Clinton and liberal members of Congress raided Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, just as Congress had raided Social Security 25 years earlier.  They established lending programs for people who could not afford "traditional mortgages."  In clear English, Congress provided through these two organizations, mortgages which the home purchasers could not pay back.  The lender knew they could not pay them back.  In most cases, the individuals buying the homes knew they could not pay them back.

          Let me give you just a few examples.  A California farm worker and his family were approved for a $700,000 home with no money down.  The total family income was $18,000 a year.  I don't have words to describe the stupidity of that.  In my own community, an entire subdivision of homes selling in the $300,000 price range, were sold to people with $1,999 down.  The monthly payments for the first five years were less than the interest.  That meant the the portion of the interest each month which was not being paid was being added to the principal.  At the end of five years, the monthly payment jumped to pay the interest only.  But since the principle had been increasing each month during the first five years, the interest was now much higher than it was at the beginning.  Then, another two years later (7 years from the beginning) the borrower had to start paying back on the principal.  Many of these borrowers told their agents they couldn't afford those higher payments.  However, they were told that by the time the payments went up, they would be making more and could afford it; or, by that time the value of the home would have gone up so much, they could sell it and make a killing.  However, when the rates went up, the housing market was starting down, and many of these homes were simply abandoned.   

          How did the major banks get into trouble?  In Congressional hearings, executives of those banks were lambasted as being greedy, and seeking quick profits.  The fact is that they were pressured into buying in to the "home for everone who wants one" philosophy.  Yet Congress, nor the privately owned, quasi-governmental mortgage companies, which kicked off the economic spiral is taking any responsibility for their actions.  By the way, I am told our current President also voted in favor of the gutting of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.   Former President Bush is not without some responsibility either.  Shortly after moving in to the White House, he was advised that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac had been raided.  He ignored the advice.  Several times during his administration he was warned that the two mortgage giants were on shaky ground, but took no action. 

          My Congressman, Representative John Boozman, said, here in Northwest Arkansas, that he believes Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac will survive, but with reduced programs, and with the "entitlements" stripped from it.  Did you catch that word?  What are entitlements doing in a federally created mortgage holding company?  Those are the same type programs that Congress wrote into Social Security which has resulted in the draining of all of the funds in the Social Security Trust Fund.  They are programs which grow upon themselves without any congressional action necessary.

          How are we going to get out of this mess?  Our president has gotten approval for a nearly 900-million dollar "stimulous" program.  As originally presented, it called for government spending to create jubs.  However, in order to get three Republicans to support it, he had to change it to include about one-third of the total in tax cuts.  Now let's analyze this.  Keeping the money at home allows it to turn over seven times.  So 300-million dollars would become a 2.1-trillion dollar shot to the economy.  The remaining 600-billion would only come back as 900-billion dollars.  Then on top of that remember, that any money that comes back to the local economy comes back after 28% administrative costs come out of our tax money.  With tax cuts no money goes to Washington, and there are no administrative costs in returning it.  By the way, if a non-profit organization were to burn up more than 10% of its contributions in administrative costs, it would run the risk of losing its non-profit status.

          Congressman Boozman commented on the stimulous program by saying, "The Congressional Budget Office says less than half of the money will be spent by the end of 2010.  So that is not a stimulous.  That's just long term spending.  I think there is real concern to whether the nation can afford that.  There is more money in there for STD and Aids prevention than there is for small business.  I thought it was not the appropriate thing to do."

          Congressman Boozman also wonders how we are going to pay for this.  We are not borrowing most of this money.  The government is simply printing more money.  That is a prescription for inflation and the devaluation of the dollar.  That in itself could create a depression.

          Now, with all of that being said, let's get back to our question, "Is the world-wide economic downturn the beginning of the global economic colapse that will usher in the return of our Lord?"  Jesus said that we would not know "the day nor the hour" (Matthew 24:36).  However, the Apostle Paul wrote that we should know "the times and the seasons" (I Thessalonians 5:1).  In our western culture we look at these terms and conclude that we have no way of knowing when the Lord will return.  But these terms were well known to the Jews to whom they were written.  These were very specific terms that had just one meaning to the people who heard them.  In our western culture we talk about "the signs of the times."  That term only appears once in the Bible, in the Gospel According to Matthew, where the term signs is speaking of miraculous wonders pointing to the end of the age. 

          During the Great Depression and into World War II, you could scarcely find anyone who believed that Israel would ever be resurrected as a nation.  Much theological thought was based on how to reinterpret references to Israel in the last days.  But in 1948 Israel (Ezekiel's Dry Bones) came to life.  It was miraculous.  The 1967 War in which Israel took Jerusalem was miraculous by any war strategy.  Israel was out numbered and out equiped beyond description.  But these terms: "the times and the seasons" and "the day nor the hour," have nothing to do with miraculous signs of the end time.  The Jews who heard these terms from the Apostle Paul and from Jesus knew exactly what they meant.  They used them on a regular basis with regard to their religious observances and in their calendar.

          Paul wrote, "But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.  For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night" (I Thessalonians 5:1-2).  What are the times and the seasons?  Paul says he didn't have to explain this term to his readers, because they were already perfectly aware of what the term was all about.  Then he goes on to say that his readers already know that it has to do with the "day of the Lord"--the time when Jesus returns as He promised.  We have totally lost touch with the meaning of this term in western society, because we do not calculate time by God's calendar, but by the Roman calendar, based upon the Sun.  God's calendar was based on the Moon, and on the seven Feasts of the Lord outlined in the Books of Moses. 

          The Jews understood to first word in that phrase, "times," to be a reference to the seven Feasts of the Lord.  The term "seasons" referred to the three spring feasts and the three fall feasts which occured within a fifteen day period.  Everything in Jewish culture revolved around these spring and fall feasts.  While each look back to commemorate something monumental in Israel's past, they also looked forward to be fulfilled by Messiah when He would arrive on the scene.  As we indicated in a previous study, the feasts were also rehearsals of "good things to come."

           Messiah (Jesus) fulfilled the spring feasts to the day, and even the hour.  As the High Priest and his entourage returned from Bethlehem with the Passover Lamb, Jesus and His disciples approached the same gate the High Priest would use.  As He rode in on the donkey, the chant was raised which was raised each year at that time, "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest" (Matthew 21:9)!  The crowds, 50,000 or more in Jerusalem for the Passover, were waiting for the High Priest bringing in the Passover Lamb (Paul said Jesus was offered as our Passover Lamb), were prepared with palm branches and spread their garments.  When Jesus passed by, they said, "Who is this?"  It was obviously not the High Priest returning from Bethlehem with the Passover Lamb.  Jesus spent four days in the Temple being inspected by the people and the Jewish leaders, just as was the Passover Lamb.  Then at 3:00 in the afternoon on the day before Passover, just as the Passover Lamb was being slain and offered in the Temple, Jesus "gave up the ghost" -- He died as our Passover Lamb.  Then on the Feast of First Fruits He rose from the grave as the First Fruits offering to God the Father.  He fulfilled the Feast of Passover (Pesach), the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Chag HaMatzot), and the Feast of Firstfruits (HaBikkurim) to the letter on the exact day and hour of each event which took place in Jewish life during the feast. 

          I believe that Paul was saying, and that the people to whom he wrote understood, that Jesus would come back during the fall feasts, and completely fulfill the fall feasts just as He had fulfilled the springs feasts during His first coming.  Now don't accuse me of setting dates, because we have no idea what year that will occur.  As a matter of fact, Jesus said we would not know "the day nor the hour."  That is the other term with which the Jew were very familiar.  That refers to one of the feasts.  All but one of the seven feasts begins on a full moon.  But there was one feast which began on a new moon.  That was the Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah).  This was the feast known to the Jews as to when it would begin, no man knew "the day nor the hour," only God in Heaven.  That was because on the day the new moon might appear, witnesses were sent out to the Mount of Olives to watch the sky for the first sliver of the new moon.  They usually waited one or two nights before the first sliver appeared.  When it appeared, word would be sent to the Temple, and the High Priest would declare it to be Rosh Hashanah (The Feast of Trumpets).  Today Jews observe Rosh Hashanah for two days, to be sure they get the right day, because they have lost their calendar and no longer have the system in tact because there is no Temple in Jerusalem.  I believe the Jews that heard Jesus understood that Jesus was saying that the "coming of the Son of man" would be at Rosh Hashanah.  That would have been the only meaning they understood concerning the term "no man knows the day nor the hour..."  What they didn't understand is that there would be some two thousand years between the first coming of Messiah (at which they found themselves) and the second coming to which Jesus was referring.

          Now go back with me to the Book of Exodus.  There is the record of God coming and talking directly to the people of Israel.  It was a frightening, terrifying experience for the people, who asked God to talk directly to Moses, but never to talk to them again.  You will see in Exocus 19 all of the preparations they had to go through to purify themselves.  After describing the smoke, fire, earthquakes, lightenings and thunderings, Exodus goes on the describe the voice of God this way: "...and the voice of the trumpet exceedingly loud, so that all the people that were in the camp trembled (v. 16) ...And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and became louder and louder..." (v. 19).  God spoke to them in a voice that sounded like a trumpet.  This description of God's voice is used several times in the Old Testament.  It is also used in the New Testament.  You will remember it in Paul writing about the catching away of His people at the end of the current age.  He wrote: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with THE TRUMP OF GOD; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air..." (I Thessalonians 4:16-17).  Notice this same description of the "Voice of God" as a trumpet.  By the way the Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah) involves the blowing of shofars (trumpets) in commemoration of this event we just read about in Exodus.  It also was a rehearsal for its future fulfillment which will be complete at Christ's return.

           Is our current world-wide turmoil a precurser to the return of the Lord.  The Bible does indicate that there will be world-wide economic distress just before the return of Jesus.  I cannot say that our current downturn is the beginning of that, because I cannot see into the future.  It is, however, just one more of the "signs of the times" which tell us that we are approaching that time.  For this is the first time in all of the history of the world that a global economic catastrophe could have happened.  Put all of the signs together, and you must conclude that we are approaching the time when Jesus will fulfill His promise to return.  When will that be: next month, next year, ten years from now?  No one knows.  But let me say that we certainly are living in exciting times with regard to Biblical prophecy.

          The times in which we live should not be frightening for the real Biblical Christian.  We have read the end of the book.  We know what is the ultimate resolution of all of God's plan for His creation.  Rather than being fearful, we ought to be comforted by what is going on because it shows that God is still on the Throne.  That is what Paul says in the next verse: "Wherefore, comfort one another with these words" (I Thessalonians 4:18).

IT IS IMPORTANT IN THE ABOVE ARTICLE THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT MAKES SOMEONE A LIBERAL AND WHAT MAKES ANOTHER A CONSERVATIVE.  THESE ARE VERY MUCH MISUNDERSTOOD TERMS.

          The fact is that there are no more conservatives.  There are just some people who are less liberal than others.  You will understand that in just a few more paragraphs.

          A conservative or liberal in politics is essentially the same as a liberal or conservative in Christianity.  In Christianity, a conservative is one who believes the founding doccument, the Bible, to be the infallible, Word of the Living God.  The conservative believes that it is to be understood literally, as the people to whom it was given understood it, unless the Bible itself indicates that the passage is given to illustrate a point.  The liberal, on the other hand will tell you that you can "make the Bible say anything you want it to say."  That is true if you don't believe what God has said in His Word.  You can interpret it just about any way you want to.

          In politics, the only difference between the liberal and conservative is the founding doccument -- the Constitution.  The conservative believes that the Constitution should be understood literally, as the founding fathers meant it when they wrote it.  The Liberal refers to the Constitution as a "growing, evolving doccument" which has served us well during this more than 200 years.  The fact is that the Constitution has been reinterpretted to mean things far removed from the concept of the founding fathers.  It has been estimated that between 80% to 90% of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional by any literal reading of the Constitution.  Now, I am not suggesting that many of those programs are not good and desirable.  However, they were created by reinterpretting the Constitution rather than amending it.