Ronald Weinland

Chapter 2 – Truth and Scriptural Proof

The previous chapter revealed that there are two vastly opposing teachings, both calling themselves Christian. This should obviously lead to the question of what is true. If God’s word is indeed truth, then who agrees with what God has preserved for us in scripture—in His word?

If one cannot believe what is written proof—written hundreds and even thousands of years ago, then one cannot realistically “see” the truth of present-day events becoming fulfilled that God has prophesied so very long ago. This book will show how very specific nations described in those prophecies are today doing exactly what God said they would be. Those present-day nations have already been acting out those things that are setting the stage for final end-time prophesied events to become fulfilled. The world stage is set for these events to begin at any time. These nations have now completed all that is necessary in order for the entire world to be thrust into its last war.

This chapter will cover proof that does reveal what is true. This question about what is true has everything to do with this specific time in human history in which we now find ourselves. This has everything to do with whether or not it is true that we are about to enter the worst times of all human history—a final worldwide war.

Before those matters about specific nations, events, and the overall outcome is covered, it is important to first see what God has actually shown to be true that the very large majority of the world has been in darkness to seeing—to which the world has been deceived.

Perhaps one of the greatest deceptions and distortions of scripture by the world of traditional Christianity has been over this subject of Passover versus Easter.

Most people are fully unaware that there ever was a controversy over these two observances. As it was already covered, that controversy came to a head in 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea. This was the council that the Roman Emperor Constantine called and presided over. As previously explained, it was here that the Passover, which was commanded by God in Old Testament scriptures to observe, became outlawed in the Roman Empire.

It was in this Council of Nicaea that the creation for the observance of Easter as the day of observance for Christ’s resurrection began. It was here that Easter was newly adopted as the focal point of a new state religion. It was here that Easter officially became the replacement of Passover within the Roman Empire and it was also here that Passover then became outlawed.

For hundreds of years, up to the time of Christ, the nation of Judah observed the annual commanded assembly of Passover in the springtime, which was on the 14th day of their first month (known as Abib, or Nissan) of a new year. Christ and his disciples kept this observance on the last day of his physical life on earth.

This observance first began when the children of Israel were enslaved in Egypt and God had chosen a very specific time in which to free them from that captivity. As chapters that follow will show, God fulfills prophetic events in a very meticulous, exacting, and precise manner. It states on this occasion that God was fulfilling this event in just such a manner.

“And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all these hosts of the Eternal went out from the land of Egypt” (Exodus 12:41).

Christ and his disciples kept the observance in the same manner as that first time in Egypt. A lamb was killed, roasted, and then eaten. The symbolism was about Christ himself who would come into the world to fulfill the first great phase of God’s plan for the salvation of mankind. Christ came as the Lamb of God to fulfill the role of Passover—to have his blood spilled upon the earth as he was killed to fulfill his role as the true Passover of all mankind.

It would be good at this juncture to point out some very basic truths that traditional Christianity have twisted and deceived people into believing. What is stated is actually very clear and revealing. After the original disciples had been chosen to be apostles sent to the Israelites, Christ chose another apostle whose primary work would be to take God’s truth to foreigners. Here is what this apostle, Paul, wrote:

“Thoroughly clean out the old leaven [yeast] so that you may be a new lump of dough, even as you are already unleavened [homes were unleavened—yeast and leavened breaded products removed]. For even Christ our Passover is killed for us. Therefore let us keep the Feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5:7-8).

Those in traditional Christianity have little grasp of what Paul is saying here because they have never been taught about it by their preachers and teachers. Instead, with verses like these, teachers use the false premise that God’s law was done away with through Christ, and that obedience to observe the 7th day Sabbath (that which follows the 6th day, Friday) was no longer required after the time of Christ’s death and resurrection.

These verses and those preceding and following them were written over 20 years after the death of Christ. These clearly reveal that the Church still observed the commandment to observe the Passover and that which immediately followed it, which is called the Feast of Unleavened Bread that lasted for seven days after the Passover day.

Paul even emphasized the importance of keeping the commanded annual Holy Days that immediately follow the Passover day. At that time, he also spoke of not only the importance of its observance, but also told of its spiritual intent and meaning. Again, he stated, “Therefore let us keep the Feast.”

These verses that were quoted help to show the meaning in the fulfillment of the observance of these days. God uses the symbolism of leaven (yeast used in bread) as a reflection of what sin does in a person’s life. Leaven is likened to sin that puffs one up in pride. The Days (or Feast) of Unleavened Bread is a time where God commanded that all leaven (yeast) and leavened products are to be put out of people’s homes, and that everyone is to eat unleavened bread during this period. This enforces the teaching that people are to get rid of the leaven (sin) in their lives, just as they also put leaven out of their homes and then eat only unleavened bread during those seven days.

Leavening is reflective of sin and pride, and being unleavened is symbolic of obedience. God’s people are to live in obedience to his laws (ways) in “sincerity and truth” as Paul wrote.

It also clearly states here that Christ fulfilled the purpose for which he came the first time in human life—to fulfill the roll of Passover in God’s plan. He was the Lamb of God who did not resist his perverse prosecution and subsequent death, but he submitted as a lamb to what was done to him. In doing so and dying in such a manner by having his blood spilled to the earth, resulting in his death, he became the Passover for all mankind.

Many believe that Christ died because of being nailed to the pole, but that isn’t why he died. He died because a soldier had run a spear into his side while he was hanging there, therefore spilling his blood to the earth. This becomes very important later when another matter concerning this account is brought to light.

The following account that will be quoted is about Christ’s death. But before this, it would be good to keep in mind the order of events. Throughout most of mankind’s history, a day would begin at sundown, starting with the night, followed by the next daytime portion once the sun would rise again. Then at sundown on that particular daytime portion, a new day would begin. So Passover began at sundown on the 14th of the first month (Nisan) as it continued into and through the nighttime. The daylight portion of Passover followed once the sun rose. Then at sundown on that day, the first annual Holy Day for that new year began. It was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread—which Paul wrote that we should keep.

Keeping this timing in mind, it is important to note that Christ observed the Passover with his disciples beginning with eating the roasted lamb during the nighttime portion of the Passover, which preceded the daytime portion of the Passover day when he was put to death.

Before reading these verses, one needs to understand that the Jewish people spoke of a “preparation day” as a time to make ready for a weekly Sabbath or an annual Sabbath (Holy Day) observance. A preparation day for a weekly Sabbath was the last day of the week in which one might make any necessary preparations for the observance of the Sabbath to follow. So the Jewish people have always recognized Friday (the 6th day of the week) as one of those preparation days because it is the preparation day for the 7th day weekly Sabbath.

The day before any annual Sabbath (Holy Day) is also recognized as a “preparation day.” Although the Passover, which is a commanded assembly, is not an annual Holy Day, it is a preparation day. The Passover is a preparation day because the following day is an annual Sabbath as recorded in Leviticus 23—the first Day of Unleavened Bread.

“Therefore, because it was the preparation [preparation day for an annual Sabbath] and the Jews did not want the bodies to remain on the cross pole (Gk. stauros) on the Sabbath, for that Sabbath was an high day [annual Sabbath], they asked Pilate that their legs might be broken [to speed up their death] so that their bodies could be carried away [so that they not remain there during the Sabbath]. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and then the other who had been nailed to poles with him. But when they came to Joshua they saw that he was already dead, so they did not break his legs. Because one of the soldiers had pierced [had earlier pierced] his side with a spear and immediately blood and water came out [it was then that he had died]” (John 19:31-34).

Christ was pierced with a spear because he had to fulfill the symbolism of the Passover lamb’s blood spilling out on the earth and then dying.

So Christ did not die in the late afternoon as the other two did. Instead, he died right after being pierced in the side with a spear, and that was in mid-afternoon.

“Now from the sixth hour [12 noon] until the ninth hour [3 pm] there was darkness over all the land. At about the ninth hour [3 pm] Joshua cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That is, ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?’ Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, ‘This man is calling for his God Yahweh [mistranslated as the name Elijah]’” (Matthew 27:45-47).

It needs to be explained in this part of the story that translators have interpreted words used in this account to be the name of the prophet Elijah, but that is sheer nonsense! Christ was not calling out to some prophet who lived and died several hundred years before, but instead he was calling out to his Father who was Yahweh Elohim—the Eternal God. The word “Elijah” means “my God is Yahweh,” and those are the words that Christ used as he was calling out to “his God Yahweh.”

“Immediately one of them [a soldier] ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to him to drink. The rest said, ‘Leave him alone and let us see if his God Yahweh will come to save him.’ Then Joshua cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit [he died]” (Matthew 27:48-50).

Indeed, Christ died mid-afternoon during the Passover day. After having the spear run through his side by a soldier (Jn. 19:34) and his blood spilling out on the earth, he cried out to God his Father and then yielded up his spirit in death. He fulfilled the role of the Passover Lamb who died for the sins of all mankind. The annual observance has very great meaning in God’s plan of salvation.

So why did that newly established Roman Church during the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD outlaw the observance of Passover and establish a new observance called Easter? Easter is found nowhere in scripture, although a few have taken Hebrew and Greek words which clearly mean Passover and have falsely translated them as Easter. For hundreds of years, many teachers and preachers who call themselves Christian have been trying to altogether erase any truth and understanding about Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

This question might seem absurd to many, but it needs to be asked because people have never been told the truth about this either. The Passover of all mankind did not die on a cross. There are two plain truths regarding this.

The first and simplest of all concerns the actual word that is quoted and then translated as “cross.” Although many so-called scholars like to argue and debate this since they have very much to protect, the truth is that they are not being honest with how the actual word that is mistranslated as cross is used throughout other historic literature and documents of that time.

As it was just shown in the previous quotation from John 19, the word that is translated as “cross” in scripture is not from a Greek or Aramaic word for “cross.” It is a word that means “a pole, stake, or beam of wood.” However, translators have taken the Greek word “stauros” and mistranslated it to mean a cross. But there is no such translation or usage of that word in ancient Greek literature that gives credibility to such a farcical interpretation.

There are words in ancient Greek that could have been used to identify or describe a cross, but this word stauros is most definitely not one of them! But once again, many will simply choose to believe what they want as being true.

The Purpose of Breaking Legs
There is irrefutable proof that goes far beyond any debate over the translation or mistranslation of words. The greatest proof as to whether Christ died on a cross or on a pole is in the very story just quoted about the account of the two who had been sentenced to death together with Christ.

One needs to understand this story for what is actually being told. Again, the teachers of Judaism of that time did not want the bodies of these three to remain on poles during the time of the High
Day, their first annual Sabbath of the year—the 1st Day of Unleavened Bread. It was now coming toward the late afternoon of that Passover day and they wanted the bodies taken down and carried away before sunset and the start of that Holy Day that was going to begin at sundown. They believed this was work that should not be done on their annual Sabbath.

However, when the soldiers went to break the legs of all three so that death would quickly follow, they found Christ was already dead because earlier a soldier had run a spear through his side. There is a question here that is begging to be asked. How would breaking the legs of anyone hanging on a cross suddenly result in death?

It is really quite simple and easy to understand. Grasping the truth of the clear answer to this reveals an undeniable truth.

There is one reason and one reason alone that soldiers were sent to break the legs of all three who were hanging there. If they had been on a cross, breaking their legs would not have resulted in the quick death that the Jewish leaders wanted. However, it does apply when nailed to a pole, and that is the truth of what actually happened.

When a person was sentenced to death and it was to be done on a pole, the practice was to nail both of the person’s hands (or wrists) overlapping each other just like the feet. The feet were overlapped with one over the other and a single nail driven through at the bottom part of a pole. The hands (or wrists) were also overlapped with one over the other and a single nail driven through them at the top, again, just as with the feet.

In such a position, as soon as the legs are broken, a person can no longer push themselves upward in order to breathe. The very reason for breaking legs is so that a person would then quickly suffocate, as they could no longer breathe.

Prophecy concerning the coming of the Messiah revealed that none of his bones would ever be broken. In addition, in order to fulfill the symbolism in the killing of a Passover lamb, his blood had to be spilled to the earth as the cause of his death. God was not going to allow His Son’s legs to be broken, nor allow him to suffocate as the cause of his death because such symbolisms would not match that of how the Passover lambs were killed.

If these three had been on a cross, there would have been no purpose in having their legs broken because they would still have been able to breathe. Breathing would become more strained, but they could still breathe for many more hours, and the Jews wanted them to die right away.

When arms are stretched straight above the body, the weight of the rest of the body pulling downward from such a position will begin to choke off a person’s ability to breathe. This is simply a physical reality.

Also, why would anyone go to far greater trouble to build a cross type structure to stretch out the arms when it is so easy to simply overlap the hands in the same manner as the feet were when nailed at the bottom of the pole?

Many historical accounts of such death sentences on a pole have gone through many transformations over the centuries. Even the practice itself took on various forms where the actual use of a cross type of structure in executions was at times performed. In such executions using a cross, people lingered for longer periods before they died. This was far more cruel than being executed upon a pole because people were left to die after a longer period of suffering with the addition of a greater hunger, thirst, and bare exposure to the elements. The very purpose for using a cross was to cause greater suffering, and this method often included various forms of torture that were used on the one affixed to a cross.

In the practice of using a pole and nailing a single spike through both wrists (or the palms) overlapping each other, the arms are stretched straight above the individual, and in such a position a person would have to push themselves up with their feet in order to keep breathing. Even without hastening death by breaking a person’s legs, this practice would naturally lead to a quicker death than being nailed to a cross.

So again, a person affixed to a cross would live longer and suffer much longer. A person affixed to a pole would die more quickly. Because of the additional effort it took to continue pushing oneself upward in order to breathe, a person would become weak more quickly, unable to continue pushing themselves up, and then die. Being nailed to a cross rather than a pole was far more sadistic and cruel as it prolonged one’s life because breathing was not encumbered in the same manner as being affixed on a pole. Regardless, both were cruel methods to be used in execution.

Yet even here, another question should be asked. If the technology had been around at the time and Christ had been killed with a rifle, would people be wearing the likeness of one around their neck in order to symbolize their Christian belief?

There are reasons the Church of Rome after 325 AD promoted the idea that their Christ had died on a cross rather than a pole. They are the ones who changed the narrative of the story. Much of their reason for doing so had to do with their customs connected with the belief in other deities and their use of crosses, and also because of a vision or dream that Constantine claimed he had.

Stories vary as to what exactly happened, whether Constantine had a vision or a dream or both, but the gist was that Constantine said he had a vision of a symbol or a sign in the sky. Then it is stated he had a dream the following night, before a great battle, where Christ told him he was to use the sign that he saw to conquer. The words he supposedly either heard or saw in the sky were, “In this sign, you will conquer” or in another translation, “By this, conquer!” Constantine then commanded his soldiers to use this symbol on their shields. The battle they fought the next day led to a great victory for his army, which led them to believe that God was on their side.

This story of Christ’s death being on a cross gained popularity over time, as this symbol from Constantine’s vision was later depicted in different ways in stories and in paintings. The “cross” became the norm for that which was used as the symbol for Christ’s death and eventually became the accepted narrative as the device on which Christ was nailed to and died upon.

However, what is recorded in history about what Constantine saw wasn’t a cross like Christ was to have died upon; it was more like that which formed the shape of an X over a P. It was called the Chi-Rho symbol because it consisted of the two Greek letters X and P. This was further popularized because these two Greek letters are the first two letters in the Greek word for Christos (Christ).

If you want to see this symbol that was used by Constantine, you can find it under its name — the Labarum of Constantine.

Even in this, the truth is that among the commandments God gave to Israel, one of those commandments states that there is to be no use of idols or any kind of image as symbols for religious worship. But people like to use all kinds of images for the symbols of their belief and worship. The cross, images of Christ and Christ on a cross, images of a mother with a child, and so many others are symbols used in traditional Christianity today.

So what is true in such matters and what is false? How is it possible that over centuries people have come to practice and believe things that are nearly opposite of what God clearly says in His word?

It is as if the clearest of statements made in scripture are just simply ignored or viewed as irrelevant to obedience concerning how we should live. It is like the simple example of what Christ said regarding teachers of religion. Christ clearly stated how they should never be addressed by others. The principle and instruction are not difficult to understand.

“But don’t be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your Father, for one is your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 23:8-9).

The principle should be clear. No one should use or be called by any religious title that belongs to Christ or God. Yet many religious leaders and teachers use the title of Rabbi, Reverend, Father, Holy Father, Pope, Pastor, Bishop, etc. The use of words like these and others as religious titles or greetings are clearly against the principle and instruction given by Christ.

Although, it should also be understood that some words used in a religious context concerning a religious leader’s job or duty should not be confused with religious titles. Such things should be simple and easy for anyone to understand, but so often they are not. Other scriptures show the balance and how it is perfectly acceptable to have job descriptions of a pastor, teacher, minister, elder, etc., but they are never to be used as a title.

One of the clearest and most incontrovertible proofs covered in this chapter concerning misconceptions, error, and falsehood concerning Christ is in the truth that Christ was not resurrected on a Sunday morning.

One True Sign
Christ made some very dogmatic statements about his identity. He also stated that there would be only one sign given as proof as to who the Messiah truly was.

“Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, ‘Master, we want to see a sign from you.’ But he answered and said to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth’” (Matthew 12:38-40).

Christ clearly stated that only one sign would be given to prove who he was—one sign that would identify the Messiah. That sign was that the Christ would be in the heart of the earth—the tomb—for exactly three days and three nights.

The manner in which this statement is made in Greek and even more so in Aramaic establishes there would be a total period in the heart of the earth of three full days and three full nights. The fact that it states this period of time would be the same as that of Jonah being in the belly of the great fish is even more specific. The Hebrew language in which this account was recorded makes it clear that the time for these three days and three nights is an exact measurement of time that is equivalent to 72 hours.

Traditional Christianity has a very hard time with this statement of Christ, and they try to excuse and support how they came up with their own timing. They work to change the very definitions of a day and a night, and even the actual year of Christ’s death. They do all this for great reason. They have much to protect in their narrative of a late Friday afternoon burial and a sunrise resurrection on Sunday morning.

Indeed, the teaching of traditional Christianity is that the Passover that year was on a Friday (which is wasn’t), and that their Jesus died in the late afternoon of that Friday. Then they go on to teach that he was resurrected on a Sunday morning. No one can squeeze three days and three nights out of this, although they do attempt to do just that. They actually claim this is what happened and that this is what fulfilled Christ’s own words about three days and three nights.

Looking at this, it would mean he died late afternoon on Friday and was placed in the tomb just before the weekly Sabbath began at sundown. In order to have a Sunday morning resurrection, that would mean he was in the tomb for only Friday night and Saturday night—two nights.

Then traditional Christianity gets very creative when they say he was in the tomb for three days (daylight periods of time). They explain that since he was placed in the tomb while there was still a little daylight remaining on Friday that this constituted the first day. He then would have been in the tomb all during the weekly Sabbath—day two. Since they claim he was resurrected early Sunday morning at sunrise, then that very small daylight portion on that Sunday morning constitutes day three.

When added all together, however, this timing is hardly three days and three nights. Even if they were right about those three daylight portions being able to be counted as three days, they still miss out on one complete night. Thus, by Christ’s own words, this would disprove that he was the actual Messiah. Yet it is this method of timing from late afternoon Friday to Sunday morning that traditional Christianity claims was fulfilled by “their” Jesus.

The truth about the actual timing of Christ’s resurrection is not difficult to understand, but it does require true knowledge of what actually happened in the timing of events that led to Christ’s death and then his resurrection. It is an incredible revelation and awesomely inspiring reality when one comes to see what actually happened.

The teaching about Jesus being the Christ is a story of him being in the heart of the earth for only half the time that Joshua the Christ is actually recorded as being there. When adding the actual time that scholars and teachers of traditional Christianity say that Jesus was in the heart of the earth, it is really only about half the time that is revealed in scripture as actually occurring.

Those who look to the one named Joshua as the Christ teach that after his death he was in the heart of the earth—in the tomb—for a complete period of time that was exactly three full days and three full nights.

In covering the actual timing of all this, remember that a new day always began at sundown. Each day was counted from sundown to sundown, not from midnight to midnight.

It is because of this method for telling time from one day to another that the Jews wanted all three who had been sentenced to die to have their legs broken. Then, after a quick death, the bodies could be removed and carried away before sundown on Passover. This is because at sundown on Passover their annual Sabbath observance would begin and no work was allowed during the time of the Sabbath.

But there is much more involved here and it takes a little time to have the exact timing explained and revealed in an orderly and clear manner.

The annual observance of Passover can fall on different days of the week from one year to another. In the year of Christ’s death of 31 AD, Passover fell on the 4th day of the week. By our recognition of time today, that means Passover began at a sundown on a Tuesday and lasted through that nighttime portion of Tuesday and on through the daylight portion of Wednesday. That full period of time was recognized as being the 4th day of the week, and in 31 AD that was the time of the annual Passover observance.

It was on that Tuesday evening that Christ kept what many refer to as his “last supper.” It was indeed a meal and it was his last one, but it was far more than simply a final supper. It was the Passover meal where a lamb had been killed, then roasted, and eaten by those who observed Passover at that time. This was the manner for observing the Passover that was first kept when the children of Israel were enslaved in Egypt.

After hundreds of years of observing it in this manner by killing, roasting, and then eating the Passover meal on the evening of Passover, Christ had come to now fulfill the greater meaning contained in that day. He came to die as the Passover Lamb for all mankind, through whom all sins could be forgiven.

This Passover observance with his disciples was the last to be observed in this manner. Christ and his disciples kept it as commanded, but after that Passover meal, he instituted the new manner in which it was to be observed. No longer was a lamb to be killed and eaten in that annual observance, but now God’s people were to keep it in the new way that Christ revealed on that final night of his life.

It was an observance that contained meaning in the drinking of a small portion of wine and eating a small portion of unleavened bread. Traditional Christianity has misapplied this annual observance and has changed it to have different meaning and timing of observance that they call Communion.

However, the taking of a small portion of wine and unleavened bread are about Christ’s death in our stead. The wine is symbolic of the blood he spilled for us as the true sacrifice for sin. Such a sacrifice could only be made by one who lived a life free of sin—one worthy of being the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. Taking the small portion of unleavened bread in such a ceremony is symbolic of Christ “being without sin—being unleavened” in his life.

One can easily see for themselves how a couple of decades later that the apostle, Paul, reminded the Church of how to keep this annual observance. He stated it was to be in the same manner Christ first revealed it should be observed.

“For I have received of the Lord that which I have also delivered to you, that the Lord Joshua on the same night [Passover night] in which he was betrayed took bread [unleavened bread], and after he had given thanks he broke it and said, ‘Take and eat of it [a broken piece] for this is my body which is broken for you. Do this for a remembrance of me [a remembrance at every annual Passover].’ After the same manner he also took a cup [of wine] after dinner [Luke 22:17-20] and said, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it [on every Passover], in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming [announcing] the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, whoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’” (1 Corinthians 11:23-27).

The Actual Timing of Christ’s Death
All recognize that Christ died on the Passover day, but all are not in agreement with when the Passover actually occurred in the year of Christ’s death. It takes a little while to go through all the scriptures that speak of this, but it is very worthwhile and awesomely revealing to go through a good part of that story flow.

Traditional Christianity teaches that Passover was on the 6th day of the week that year. The reason for this is that they failed to recognize that one of the Sabbath days being spoken of in the timing of Christ’s death was not a weekly Sabbath. They have misunderstood this for centuries because they do not know or understand the timing of Passover in relation to the annual Holy Days that followed. They have not understood the observances of the Holy Days of the Jewish people over hundreds of years, ever since the time of Moses. These are all listed in order in the Book of Leviticus, chapter 23.

As it has already been mentioned, the day that follows the annual observance of Passover is an annual Sabbath—and annual Holy Day (High Day), the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. In addition, they have not understood the Jewish tradition of recognizing days that precede a Sabbath as being a “preparation day” for getting ready for a Sabbath.

Those who began translating scripture from Greek and Aramaic into Latin in the 380s AD did not grasp these simple observances of the Jews, or they simply did not care. The Church of Rome determined to have scripture translated into a single work that would be for their use, so they commissioned that scripture be translated into Latin and this work became known as the Latin Vulgate.

Translations into other languages that followed many centuries later once the printing press was invented resulted in even greater confusion and mistranslation of scripture.

So when these early translators wrote about this story of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection they were confused and did not accurately interpret or understand what actually had occurred. They read about a preparation day and automatically believed that this was about the 6th day of the week—what we recognize as being Friday. But that was not the case. The complete story makes this very clear.

“Therefore, because it was the preparation [preparation day for a Sabbath] and the Jews did not want the bodies to remain on the pole (Gk. stauros) on the Sabbath, for that Sabbath was an high day [an annual Sabbath, an annual Holy Day], they asked Pilate that their legs might be broken so that their bodies could be carried away [so that they not remain there during the Sabbath]” (John 19:31).

Understanding this helps to reveal the exact day of the week that Passover fell upon and when Christ was actually resurrected. As it will come to be shown, this annual High Day, the annual observance of the 1st Day of Unleavened Bread, which always follows the Passover day, was on the 5th day of the week, and today what we would call Thursday.

So at sundown on the Passover day on the 4th day of the week (on Wednesday), the annual Sabbath—the annual High Day of the 1st Day of Unleavened Bread began. The Jews wanted all three to be taken down from the poles and carried away before that annual Sabbath was to begin. Then the story that follows is about how Christ’s body was taken away and placed in a tomb.

“Then notice the man named Joseph who was a council member. He was a decent and upright man, and although a member of the council, he had not consented with their decision and deed [of the others of the council]. He was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who himself also waited for the Kingdom of God. This man went to Pilate and pleaded for the body of Joshua. He took it down and wrapped it in linen and laid it in a sepulcher [tomb] that had been cut in stone, wherein no one had ever been laid. That was the preparation day, and the Sabbath was drawing near [about to begin]” (Luke 23:50-54).

Again, one needs to understand Old Testament law and the Jewish observance of a Sabbath. No work was to be done on any Sabbath day, so the day preceding every Sabbath was a preparation day in which to complete the normal work of the week and to make oneself ready for the proper observance of a Sabbath when no work was to be done. That is why the story that follows is so important to understand. The story continues.

“The women also, who came with him [Christ] from Galilee [to Jerusalem] followed after [after Joseph of Arimathaea to the tomb], and they saw the sepulcher [tomb] and how the body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment” (Luke 23:55-56).

This juncture of the story becomes important because of what these women did. In the verses just quoted it says that they went to prepare spices and ointments. Afterward, they would take these spices and ointments and place them with Christ’s body.

These women didn’t have the foreknowledge that Christ was going to be put to death and die in the afternoon of the Passover, so they obviously wouldn’t have these spices and ointments prepared in advance. Therefore, they had to wait until there was time to buy and prepare them.

By the time Christ died and was then taken to the tomb, the Passover day was at an end and they certainly had no time then to buy any spices, let alone prepare them. They couldn’t buy them after Passover because that next day was an annual Holy Day, and no spices could be purchased or prepared on a Sabbath.

It states that they rested on the Sabbath, and that should be easy to understand. They could not do that work on that Sabbath that followed the Passover. The body of Christ had been placed in the tomb just before sunset on that Passover day. Christ was barely in the tomb once that annual Sabbath began. So the women could not work on that annual Sabbath, and therefore, they rested as commanded.

When did they prepare the spices? It wasn’t on the annual Holy Day that followed the Passover, but they were able to prepare them on the following day. That following day was the 6th day of the week (Friday). They worked on that day, which was the weekly preparation day for the weekly Sabbath. Yet they also had to do something else first before they actually began to prepare those spices and ointments in the customary fashion for a burial. A single and simple scripture is recorded in Mark’s account that makes this clear.

“When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, went to purchase spices so that they might come and anoint him [Christ’s body]” (Mark 16:1).

What is being shown here is that the women had to first purchase the spices before they could prepare them. So they purchased and prepared them on the following day—the 6th day of the week. They could not buy or prepare these on a Sabbath day.

If traditional Christianity interpreted this account directly as it is stated, due to their not understanding the timing of the Jewish holy days, they would have looked upon this as being about the weekly Sabbath. However, in doing this they missed the obvious because if this were the case then the women would not have been able to buy the spices until Sunday. But that version doesn’t fit as it is clear they had these purchased and prepared by the time they came to the tomb on Sunday morning.

It took them all day to both buy these spices and ointments and then do the work of preparing them. The account that follows reveals that they did not have time to do all this (on Friday) and to also take it to the tomb that same day in order to complete the work of placing Christ’s body in a proper burial, as his body had been hastily placed in the tomb at the close of Passover. The next verse simply goes on to tell the rest of the sequence of events.

“And very early in the morning, on the first day of the week (Sunday), they came to the tomb when the sun had risen” (Mark 16:2).

These two verses in Mark simply tell a story of how the women had to wait until after the annual Sabbath to purchase and prepare spices for Christ’s burial. They did the work on the 6th day of the week (Friday). Then once the work on that preparation day ended, they rested again—this time on the weekly Sabbath. Since the weekly Sabbath isn’t over until sundown on that 7th day of the week, they did not take the spices to the tomb because darkness was now setting in. So then on the morning of the first day of the week, on that Sunday morning, they came to the tomb to anoint Christ’s body.

If one has a good understanding of observing the Sabbaths and preparation days, this story fits together quite clearly and simply. The women could not buy or prepare spices on a Sabbath, so they did so on the first day possible. That was on the 6th day of the week (Friday).

It took them a long time to do that work, but once the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) was drawing near they had run out of the time required to go to the tomb to finish the work of properly preparing Christ’s body in his burial. If they could have purchased and prepared the necessary spices and ointments, and then taken them to the tomb on that preparation day (Friday), they would have done so. Instead, they had to wait and rest through the time of the weekly Sabbath.

The weekly Sabbath would end after the daylight portion of the 7th day and then the 1st day of the week would begin at sundown, but nightfall would also quickly follow. So they had to wait until morning to take the spices and ointments to the tomb.

As a person reads all these stories that are written from the different vantage points of all four who recorded their witness of these events, this entire story becomes even clearer. It is so important to include and compare the witness of the disciples who knew and saw these events. That includes the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as they wrote much about the life and death of Christ.

The Sunday After Christ’s Resurrection
Another area of misunderstanding and misinterpretation regarding the annual Sabbath and weekly Sabbath that followed this Passover is in Matthew’s account.

In the end of [or “After” ] the Sabbath [Gk. plural—“Sabbaths” ], as it began to dawn toward [into] the first of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the sepulcher” (Matthew 28:1).

This account of Matthew actually states that there were “Sabbaths” that had come to an end before Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James came to the tomb on Sunday morning. Most have mistranslated this with the Sabbath being made singular, but in the Greek it is plural. There had been two Sabbaths directly following the Passover of Christ’s death and burial. It is simply stating here that there had been two Sabbaths that had passed before the two Marys came to the tomb at the dawning of the daytime portion of that first day of the week.

It is clear then that there were two Sabbaths contained in this period of time and we have also seen the period of time spoken of where they had purchased and prepared these spices. Clearly, traditional Christianity does not account for these two Sabbaths or even the preparation day between them.

The truth of such a matter can be exceedingly exciting, inspiring, and illuminating to finally come to see. But such a truth, when having believed for a lifetime in a Friday crucifixion and Sunday morning resurrection, is not so easy to face and then address in one’s life. That is not the fault nor condemnation of any who have been deceived by others. However, it is the fault of those who mistranslated scripture and of those who since then have come to know the truth but have refused to teach it.

This matter in the timing of Christ’s resurrection is also clouded in confusion and darkened by the teaching and tradition surrounding the observance of Easter. The idea of a sunrise service because Christ was purported to have risen at that moment in time is not at all factual.

“The first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and saw the stone taken away from the sepulcher” (John 20:1).

There were others following right behind them and it states the sun was just beginning to rise, but Mary Magdalene and Mary (the mother of James) arrived while it was still dark and the sun had not yet risen. Although much of this has been translated in very awkward ways, the story is consistent and clear: both Marys arrived first, while it was yet dark, and the rest then began arriving with the spices just as the sun was beginning to rise. The message is the same; Christ had risen. He had already been resurrected before they ever arrived. He wasn’t resurrected at that moment when the sun was about to rise, nor at the moment when it did rise. He already had been resurrected earlier!

“Now after the Sabbath, as the first of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb” (Matthew 28:1).

After the Sabbath, the first day of the week begins at sundown on the 7th day of the week. It then becomes dark, so the dawning of the first day of the week is in the morning when the rays of the sun begin to lighten the sky.

Next is the account of how the great stone had been rolled away from the opening of the sepulcher by an angel. It records that the women had concern of how they were going to get that stone moved so that they could properly anoint the body with their spices, but when they arrived it had already been removed and Christ was not there—he had already been resurrected earlier.

“Very early in the morning the first of the week, they came to the sepulcher at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves [had earlier stated their concerns], ‘Who will roll away the stone from the opening of the sepulcher?’ But when they looked, they saw that the stone was [was already] rolled away, for it was very great” (Mark 16:2-5).

The way the stone had been rolled away before they had arrived is described in that same account of Matthew 28. Starting with verse one again:

“Now after the Sabbath, as the first of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was [had earlier been] a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord [had] descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the opening, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. And the guards shook for fear of him, and became as dead. Now the angel answering said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Joshua who was nailed to the pole. He is not here, for he rose, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord was lying’” (Matthew 28:1-6).

This account of those who were first exposed to the truth that Christ had already been resurrected is stated in translations many different ways. No matter how it is written, the fact is that when they came to the tomb, he was not there, for indeed he had already been resurrected. No scripture says that he rose or had risen at the moment of sunrise or anywhere around that timing. But that is the narrative of Easter and its teaching.

There is no need to cover all the scriptures that surround this story, as they all speak of the same thing. Christ was no longer in the tomb. He had been resurrected earlier. But is there any way to know how much earlier? Yes!

It is good to be reminded what Luke had to say about this account.

“Now upon the first of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others [came] with them. Then they found the stone had been rolled away from the sepulcher, and they entered in, and did not find the body of the Lord Joshua. It came to pass, as they were very perplexed about all this, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments [two angels]. As they were afraid, and bowed their faces down to the earth, they [the angels] said to them, ‘Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he spoke to you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, “The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be hung on a pole, and the third day rise again.”’ And they remembered his words” (Luke 24:1-8).

Once again, we are brought back to this issue of what Christ had to say about the only sign that would be given of who the true Messiah was. He would be in the heart of the earth—in the tomb—for three days and three nights. Then on the third day he would be resurrected—at the exact end of that third day.

The timing is that just before sundown on Passover day, just before the annual Holy Day was to begin, Joseph of Arimathaea placed Christ in the tomb. That was right before sunset on that 4th day of the week, which was at the end of the Passover day. Then the annual Holy Day of the 1st Day of Unleavened Bread began—an annual Sabbath. This day was the 5th day of the week.

This means that the time from just before sunset on the 4th day of the week and up to sunset of the 5th day of the week (of which the vast majority of that day was that annual Sabbath) would constitute the first day of Christ being in the tomb.

Then just before that first day in the tomb was coming to an end, at the end of that annual Sabbath just before sunset, day two would begin and then end just before sunset of that 6th day of the week, which is known as the preparation day for the weekly Sabbath (a Friday as we would see it).

Then the third day of Christ being in the tomb was from just before sunset on that preparation day and the beginning of the weekly Sabbath. That third day in the tomb ran through that night of the weekly Sabbath and into its daytime portion of the Sabbath all the way up to just before sundown when that third day and that weekly Sabbath would come to an end.

To fulfill what Christ stated about the Messiah being in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights, he had to be resurrected toward the very end of that weekly Sabbath. It would have been just a little while before sunset on that Sabbath when a new day was about to begin. That new day after sunset on the weekly Sabbath was the first day of the week—Sunday. The first day of the week (Sunday) always began after sunset on the weekly seventh day Sabbath.

To fulfill the sign of who the Christ truly was, he had to be resurrected exactly three days and three nights later—three full days of time after being placed in the tomb. That period ended toward the end of the weekly Sabbath. The Christ—the true Messiah—had to be resurrected at the end of the weekly Sabbath day in order to prove who he was. He was not resurrected during any moment of the first day of the week. He was not resurrected on Sunday.


“Now the birth of Joshua the Christ was as follows: After his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the holy spirit. Then Joseph her husband desiring to do the right thing by not having her become a public example was mindful to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the holy spirit. She will bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Joshua [the Eternal’s Salvation], for he will save his people from their sins.’ So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel,’ [Isaiah 7:14] which is translated, ‘God with us.’ Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her until she had brought forth her firstborn son. And he called his name Joshua” (Matthew 1:18-25).

Before being born of Mary, God instructed that the name to be given to His Son was Joshua, not Jesus, as it is in English translations. As the Father of Christ, the name He gave His only begotten Son was far more important than any name He had ever given to anyone.

God named Adam, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Israel, and others, as well as inspiring the names of more. However, the name “Joshua” was to carry the greatest meaning of all names in His great plan of salvation for mankind.

There are many arguments and debates about how Christ’s name, Joshua, was changed into Jesus in English translations. The first credited English translation was from the work done by William Tyndale (1494-1536) and he used the spelling of Iesus for Christ’s name.

By the late 1500s, some had begun to use a new English spelling and pronunciation of Jesus. In 1604, a translation was sponsored by James I, which is called the King James Version (KJV). The name used by translators for Christ was Jesus, and that name became the standard for all English translations from that time forward.

Since Christ has been referred to by that name for several centuries, many do not see this as a problem. Yet the very reason this is being addressed is to illustrate how ingenuous the process has been to adopt the name of Jesus in English scripture instead of the name Joshua. It is also important to see how God’s word has been mishandled and improperly translated.

The arguments for how Christ’s name has been changed in sound and spelling over the centuries from one language to another, resulting in the name morphing into “Jesus” in English, have been very complex. Most begin with the story of how in the 3rd century BCE, Ptolemy II, the Greek king over Egypt, commissioned the translation of Hebrew scriptures into the Greek language (Koine Greek or ancient Greek) which became known as the Greek Septuagint.

It is because of this first translation of Hebrew into Greek that the argument generally begins with how the name Joshua was translated, which then progresses into how the name was later translated from Greek into Latin. The reasoning then leads to why such a change was made centuries later to the English name of Jesus. This is what today’s reference books state as the history of the etymology of the name Jesus. However, the different sounding names all trace back to the same name of Joshua in the Old Testament, the one who replaced Moses after his death and led the children of Israel out of the wilderness into the promised land.

When the name was first translated from Hebrew into Greek, there was no name or word in Greek that carried the same meaning as Joshua, so a transliteration of the name was given. A transliteration is the process of transferring a word from the alphabet of one language to another with the purpose of having a similar sounding word.

Scholars and teachers of different religions argue as to what is true or false in this early period of translations and transliterations from one language to another. However, such arguments are somewhat futile because there is really no way to give definitive proof one way or the other. Over the centuries there are constant transformations in languages as sounds, the use of letters, and spelling experience much change.

Such changes in any single language from one region to another are common. This should be obvious by the simple differences in English that have occurred between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Just in the timespan from when the Tyndale Bible was written in the 1500s to when the KJV was written in the early 1600s there were many changes in the English language. It would be good to give some examples of that from both versions.

Heb. 3:1 ++(Tyndale) Wherfore holy brethren partakers of the celestiall callinge cosyder the +++++++++embasseatour and hye prest of oure profession Christ Iesus

(KJV) Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus

Heb. 4:8-9 +(Tyndale) For if Iosue had geven them rest then wolde he not afterwarde have spoke +++++++++of another daye. There remayneth therfore yet a rest to ye people of God.

(KJV) For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

These examples speak for themselves. Such changes in words, spelling, and sounds over the centuries are common. These specific examples have been given to stress another issue that will be covered later that concerns a matter that goes beyond a simple mistake or ignorance.

In most translations of scripture, prejudice and/or doctrinal beliefs of individuals or groups has led to them inserting their own interpretations for different words in a language. There are many examples of this throughout translations from one language to another. To illustrate this, it would be good to consider a blatant and obvious example of this.

Acts 12:4 +(KJV) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to +++++++++four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to +++++++++the people.

(NKJV) So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.

There is nowhere in scripture where the holiday of Easter is mentioned in the original Hebrew or Greek scriptures. Although this word from Greek was translated in all other areas of the KJV correctly as “Passover” (from the Greek word “pascha”), here it wasn’t. The translators should have been consistent in order to produce a genuine and true translation. When the New King James Version (NKJV) was written, this obvious error had to be corrected because there had been too many published studies that had corrected this false translation.

When the KJV adopted the use of the name Jesus for the Son of God, they did so in great error. They did not adhere to what God had commanded His Son’s name should mean. The name was to carry the same meaning as that of Joshua in the Old Testament. This might not seem important to people, but it should be because it is important to God, who is his Father.

Throughout scripture it is clear that when God gives a name, that name carries great meaning. Often, the name also reveals some aspect of God’s plan and purpose for mankind. The name Joshua in Hebrew (Yehoshua) is a compound word. The first portion is from the name of Yahweh (the Eternal) which is “yah.” The last part is from the verb “yasha” that means “to deliver” or “salvation.” The name Joshua is clearly recognized by scholars and teachers to have the meaning of “the Eternal’s salvation.”

In his physical life, the Messiah first came as the Passover Lamb of God—indeed “the Eternal’s salvation” offered to mankind.

“The next day John saw Joshua coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

The name Jesus in itself carries no meaning! Yet after all the lengthy arguments that so many go through in order to justify the use of that name, scholars and religious teachers alike will acknowledge that the etymology of the name comes from the Hebrew name of Joshua. So why not use that name, especially when an English name was already in use that more clearly represented the Joshua of the Old Testament?

Joshua is the name that English translators should have used. The reasons why they do not, and will not, are steeped in religious corruption and lies that began to work their way into what has become traditional Christianity.

The choice to use a transliteration for words in any language does not generally present a problem. However, when this is done in Bible translations and is about the very word of God, then it can become a huge problem. In this case, if the transliteration is consistent, then it might be fine. But in the English language, translators were not consistent, nor truthful with handling the word of God.

If a specific name is used to identify Joshua in the Old Testament, then to use a different word for the same name in the New Testament should raise questions. What would be the purpose or motive? Why not be consistent? After all, scholars and teachers acknowledge that is the etymology of the name. They know it is from the Hebrew name Yehoshua.

If those who translated into English had adopted the same name in both the Old Testament and the New Testament that clearly had the meaning of “the Eternal’s salvation,” then that would have been a genuine attempt to truthfully handle the word of God. However, the opposite is true as they went to great lengths to keep them separate.

The vast majority of those in traditional Christianity today have no idea that the name Jesus in the New Testament goes back to the same name as Joshua. Again, we come back to asking why two different names are used. There obviously has been a lot of effort by many translators and teachers to keep these names different. Why?

The reason for using the previous bible quotes from the Tyndale and KJV bibles was not only to point out the evolution of a language with all its constant changes, but to also point out some very questionable practices here.

The Tyndale version of Hebrews 3:1 is quoted as, “Wherfore holy brethren partakers of the celestiall callinge cosyder the embasseatour and hye prest of oure profession Christ Iesus.”

But notice how he translated a scripture in the New Testament that is referring to the Joshua of the Old Testament who led the children of Israel into the promised land: “For if Iosue had geven them rest then wolde he not afterwarde have spoke of another daye” (Heb. 4:8).

In the New Testament, Tyndale uses Iesus or a form of it to refer to Christ. But when he is clearly quoting from the Old Testament that refers to Joshua, he uses Iosue, although in the Old Testament he uses Iosua. If he was translating from the Greek language this could be the result of a change in Greek writing from the time of Koine Greek to the use of more modern Greek that followed. That is not a problem, because it is clear he is speaking of the same name—the same person. All scholars agree that these versions are about the same name, so why did he use a different name to distinguish Iesus from Iosue?

This corruption of the scriptures is much worse in the KJV translation that followed a few decades later from the time of Tyndale.

“For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day” (Heb. 4:8).

The quote from the KJV is about Joshua (in the Old Testament) as Tyndale clearly recognized. For whatever reason or motive, the translators of the KJV refused to use the name Joshua in the New Testament. Although the KJV incorrectly used the name Jesus in scriptures in the New Testament when the scripture was actually about “Joshua from the Old Testament,” translations since that time have corrected this. Those versions that correctly use the name Joshua include the ASV, NIV, NLT, NKJV, and RSV.

If the scholars of these other more modern versions recognize that the name for Joshua should be the same in the Old Testament and the New Testament, why didn’t they use the same name for Christ? After all, they all recognize—or at least should recognize—that Christ’s name traces directly back to the Old Testament name of Joshua.

God’s Church believes that just as numerous Christian doctrines were changed after the formation of the Catholic religion began in 325 AD, that it also began to stress a different sound for the name of Joshua that has become even more corrupted over time. The Catholic Church in their translation for the Latin Vulgate, and all other translations from within traditional Christianity, could have made a valid translation or used a consistent transliteration into other languages that carried the same meaning as Joshua (Yehoshua) in Hebrew.

Indeed, after nearly 2,000 years, God is about to send His Son as the Messiah—the Christ—to first save mankind from self-annihilation, and then to establish the government of the Kingdom of God over all nations. The last great error to be removed from God’s Church in order that it be made fully ready for Christ’s coming is the correction of his very name. The name “Jesus” Christ represents all that began to be taught in error in a church calling itself Christian after AD 325. The name “Jesus” represents the teaching of that church in such doctrines as the Trinity, Easter, Sunday worship, Christmas, and much more that is in error and contrary to God’s Word.

The one whose feet will soon be standing once again upon the Mt. of Olives, after nearly 2,000 years, is Joshua the Christ—the true Messiah sent from God to save mankind.

There are other doctrines (teachings) that have been perpetuated by traditional Christianity that are untrue such as the trinity, hell, the immortality of the soul, etcetera, which will all be covered in chapter 8. But at this juncture in the book it is important to begin to understand how false teachings have kept people in darkness concerning catastrophic end-time events that are about to come on this earth, especially in that of a prophesied final world war—WWIII.