Okay. If you've got that ball-point that you keep beside the phone because it doesn't write, and a bit of scrap paper - let's go.

First: nowadays we follow Roman law and begin each new day at midnight. That's not God's way; that's not the Jewish way.

Each day should run sunset to sunset. "The evening and morning were the first day". Forget that and you've got problems.

Second: 'Sabbath' means 'rest'. Or 'day of rest'. Okay - hands up those who know how many Sabbaths there are in a year.

Not fifty-two. Quite a few more than that. Seven or eight more.

Sure, there's a rest-day once a week called a Sabbath. But add most of the feast days. (Go to Israel: try and get something done in a hurry.)

You shouldn't find that difficult to follow - it's like we have in NZ where a week can have a Bank Holiday and a Sunday close, but separate. Holidays, days off, rest days, whatever.

Look through Leviticus 23, where the feasts are explained. Sometimes it merely says that on a certain day you may do no servile work, in other verses it categorically states 'no manner of work' or 'it is a sabbath' - regardless of the fact that it didn't fall on the seventh day.

So no Jew reading Jesus was crucified the day before the Passover 'which was a Sabbath' would expect that rest day to be the seventh day. At least, not until the Vatican began insisting that the crucifixion was on Friday.

Actually it's not impossible to trace back and find when the Passover took place back then. The Israelis keep accurate records. So do astronomical societies, for dating new moons and things. And most computers have a little programme for finding the name of the day in any given year. Just remember that Pope Gregory 13th chopped eleven days off the calendar in 1582 (Britain obeyed in 1752).

So Jesus - as God's lamb - died while the heads of the Israeli families were killing their lambs late Wednesday afternoon - the end of the 14th day of the month Nisan.

He was buried just before sunset.

That evening (the start of the 15th Nisan) and the next daytime was the actual day of the Passover - a Sabbath. Jesus was one whole day in the tomb.

The next evening (the start of the 16th Nisan) and the next daytime was an ordinary working day. The women who'd followed Jesus used this opportunity to buy and prepare the necessary embalming spices - but they didn't use them then, because they would have made themselves unclean for the next day.

And this sequence is actually recorded in scripture. Mark 16. 1. says that when the Sabbath was past, they bought spices. Then (in Luke 23. 56) they prepared them and rested on the Sabbath. By then, Jesus had been two days in the tomb.

The next evening (the start of the 17th Nisan) and the next daytime was a usual weekly seventh-day Sabbath. By then, Jesus had been three days - the three days and three nights he'd laid claim to - in the heart of the earth.

The next evening, after sun had set (the start of the 18th Nisan), the High Priest went into a nearby field and cut a sheaf of the very first ripe grain to wave in anticipation of a massive harvest still to come. This was the wave offering performed on the first day of "the weeks" leading to Pentecost.

And as he acted out the symbolic ritual commanded by God centuries before, Jesus, who had completed his work in the heart of the earth, rose triumphantly from the dead ("...don't hold me; I haven't yet ascended...") on his way to appear briefly before his Dad as the fulfilment of that prophetic gesture.

He had made good his claim to the Pharisees. He had fulfilled the meaning of the Feasts.

So 'Good Friday' came in to undermine the validity of Christ's death and resurrection.

* * *

What about the actual date of Easter? And who sets the date.

It's surprising how many things happen in our lives - major events - which we take for granted. Unquestioningly.

Easter is one of them. Listen to the retailers and motel owners grumble about the way it shifts around from year to year. Then ask "why" and "who decides".

You get vague answers. "The government". "The church". "Isn't it something to do with the moon?" "It's in the Prayer Book".

To find out, we interviewed astronomers and researched through almanacs and encyclopaedias. The results were surprising. And significant.

First: working out the date of Easter is taken quite seriously by astronomers. (In fact, the whole business of calendar-making is more complex than we had first realised. Even leap years need an occasional re-vamping to avoid months drifting away from the seasons we link them with.)

Second: the government proclaims the Easter holidays - and gets its dates from the Anglican Prayer Book. Around p.LVII in our edition. Seven pages of fine print.

Which settled it. Until awkward types like us start to wonder who dreamed up the rigmarole of Golden Numbers and Dominical or Sunday Letters.

Surprise, surprise. A Jesuit astronomer and the Vatican librarian.

Christopher Clavius and Luigi Lilio (who liked to be called Aloysius Lilius; see the Encyclopaedia Britannica under "Calendar") devised the formula to wrench Easter away from the Passover. Let Britannica explain:

And the scheme devised by Clavius and Lilio was made law by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. And almost all the so-called western world has accepted it.

Funny, though. Why should we peg "Easter" to Sunday and not to the Passover? After all, we let Christmas fall on any day of the week.

The simple answer is that the calculation of Easter is designed to blur the link between the Messiah and Passover. And to stop ordinary folk realising that the Vatican has faked the day of the crucifixion in a spiteful attempt to keep the Jews out of the kingdom of God.

The point is that if Christians celebrate "Easter" instead of the Passover, they help to obscure the crucifixion from all its significance to Israel.

And prevent an understanding of the completeness of what the Messiah has done.

* * *

Finally, of course, there's Christmas Day. Sure, we know it's "nice" for the folk in the northern hemisphere to have a big holiday and time of overeating as winter really tightens its grip.

But is that enough reason to celebrate the birth of Jesus on the wrong date?

Some people have never considered that the 25th December might be the wrong date.

There are any number of ways to show it is wrong. The Companion Bible has a marvellously researched section working from the dates of the "Course of Abia" which kept Zachariah in Jerusalem, to Elizabeth's conception of John and the difference between John's and Jesus's ages. It's complex and lengthy. And it checks out. But one simple comment will be sufficient: "There were shepherds in the fields abiding, watching over their flocks by night."

Israel's a fantastic place, spring, summer and autumn. But winter sends even the brass monkeys scurrying for shelter. Shepherds and sheep don't sit shivering in the snow. Never did, never will.

December the 25th in Israel's calendar is the 'purification of the temple'. It might have been the date of the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit.

Work out the significance.

His birth could have been on Israel's "Day of Atonement" - the greatest day of the year. Where the entire nation can stand before God, accepted by him.

But all the meaning and timing had to be covered, hidden, distorted.

So that generations like ours would forget. So we would be content with slightly sanitized pagan festivals, mixed with Christian myth... Because truth is dangerous.

When Israel left Egypt, God told them to begin their year just before the Passover - around spring in the northern hemisphere. Towards the end of March.

Did you know that England and Ireland until fairly recently also began their year near the end of March? Only 'Gregorian' nations who had submitted to Pope Gregory's new calendar began their year under the Roman system of the 1st January.

And even now there is still a strongly clinging reminder that once we used to start our year when God told his people to start their year...

Who (or what) keeps this godly memory alive? None other than the Inland Revenue - aided and abetted by most other government departments, bless 'em.

We joke not. Government accounting is too cumbersome to shift. So the end of the tax year stays out of step with as an interesting reminder.

The idea that any so-called "man of sin" would ever have the cheek - or the cunning - or the colossal power - to change totally the appointed times and the laws associated with them, is too fantastic for words. Except that Daniel prophesied it. Daniel, who wrote a survey of world history - accurately - long before it happened.

If you've an afternoon to spare at a public library, check up for yourself and find that the appointed times and their associated laws have been changed. Systematically, since Rome became the hub of the Christian religious system.

Maybe, just maybe, it could be important.

* * *

There's been a lot of hard work done to lay the foundation for bringing Protestants back to Rome.

To bring them back uncomplaining. Unsuspecting. Eager, even.

Liberalism, f'rinstance.

It works on the 'divide and conquer' principle.

Let's explain.

Among Anglican clergy, and filtering down through Presy, Methodist and Congregational ministers - it's trendy to be trendy.

Pro-gay (or even actually gay), pro-abortion, pro-lib, bi-cultural (in the sense that Christian ritual and karakias to the spirit world are made to go hand in hand). Plus (and we're not commenting on the rights and wrongs of it) ordination of women.

(On second thoughts - we will comment on the ordination of women. A very thoughtful article in Challenge remarked that the question shouldn't be whether women can be ordained - but whether anyone should be. Good point. It's bad enough having male clergy. Why add to the chaos?)

Congregations have had broadmindedness thrust upon them. Immorality and innovation, whether you like it or not.

Despite the fact that the average bloke and blokess in the pew is basically conservative.

They want "old-fashioned" virtue and morality, even if it is a bit fuddy-duddy.

Oh, they may not be all that pure themselves. But when they sin, they call it sin.

They don't invent all sorts of intellectual arguments as to why it is healthy and progressive and tolerant towards minority groups.

The way the man-in-the-street has dropped the word "gay" in its original sense of happy and carefree shows an unwillingness to be tainted with anything outside of conventional behaviour.

So the protestant church leaders are a bit of a problem. For those who want straight, moral, uncompromising leaders.

So ordinary people will be almost relieved if there were a merger between protestants and Rome.

Because Catholic clergy have worked hard to create an image in the public's mind that they are straight. Moral to the point of being old-fashioned.

Clever, really.

Remember the scripture? "Satan is transformed into an angel of light".

Evil can come in all kinds of guises. There's the raving, slobbering, filthy, depraved kind. It exists, it achieves a certain amount. But is essentially repelling.

Decidedly unsubtle.

Then there's the gentlemanly (or ladylike) approach. Moral. Ethical. upright.

The kind that would deceive - if it were possible - even the elect.

And Rome, since the fiasco of selling pardons for past, present and future sins, has been re-vamping her image.

Rome's official stance on abortion, homosexuality, the integrity of the family and non-ordination of women has been crisp and unswerving.

This is why droves of serious-minded Anglican vicars have been quitting their system and becoming Catholic priests recently. (Taking their wives with them, all quite legally. It's a nice touch.)

So the morality of the Catholic church has a strong appeal to outsiders. And the hard-line "no contraception except via the rhythm method" has given way to a neat cop-out where one may use a condom if one fears one has AIDS. In one fell swoop it lets anyone off the hook if they need an excuse for birth control - and creates a two tier system where the truly spiritual will still only do it for procreation, not fun, while the rest will be made to feel somewhat inferior. Plus already there are unofficial concessions - would you believe there are R.C. bishops who allow teaching on the Pill in Catholic high schools. It's a fact...

And there's another aspect of liberalism that is annoying to the layman.

Total disbelief in the miraculous.

It's still fashionable for Anglican vicars (not all, but the with-it ones) to noisily disbelieve in the virgin birth, the resurrection, and all the signs that Jesus did.

Tedious, that.

Reflects an outdated, nineteenth century rationalism. Even though it still rejoices under the label of Modernism.

Goes hand-in-hand with the concept that dozens of blokes wrote the first five books of Moses. And untold numbers of fellows wrote Isaiah. Long after all the events prophesied had taken place.

These with-it clergy aren't even aware that sober, non-religious scientific discoveries of the nineteen-eighties have made miracles and even the existence of God himself to sit very comfortably in the framework of what can be known about the universe. And if you can get up-to-date guff on the Dead Sea Scrolls you'll find that the Old Testament hasn't been messed around with as much as some folk would wish.

That was a digression.

The fact is that the Catholic church has always been fundamentalist on such matters as the Virgin Birth and the resurrection.

Look - just as when we wrote "Beyond Murphy's Law", so now we're sitting by a lagoon in Rarotonga, Cook Islands writing this bit.

(It's great to have a son who lives there - you should see our grandchildren! It gives us a regular excuse to quit New Zealand's winter, and go and rough it - away from the tourist trail - in a little house somewhere in the heart of a banana and pawpaw plantation. Skite, skite.)

Anyhow, somebody's just sent us a cutting from the NZ Herald - and it looks like we've made the front page. There's a photo of what looks like one of the child-spankers we make in our craft business, with an article on child abuse alongside.

On second glance, it's not our spanker. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery - and somebody's copied our lettering and design, bless 'em. But used different techniques to shape the wood. But that's by the way.

The point is that the article implies that these "Winnie-the-whales" have been used in "child abuse" cases.

It could be true. There have always been people who fly into rages and take it out on the kids. And there's never any shortage of articles to use at such a time.

But there's a claim that "child abuse" is on the increase.

Which isn't totally true. Not totally.

What is true is that there is strong pressure to regard all physical punishment of kids as "child abuse". Children are questioned, even examined for bruises, by their teachers, to find what goes on at home.

Schools are being forbidden to strap or cane.

Look - we don't (that's right - don't) believe in smacking kids as a last resort. Smacking should be a quick, casual, no-big-deal way of getting a response. Really serious offences need a much more thoughtful approach.

Too many parents, though, feel guilty about spanking, so they bottle up their feelings for as long as they can - and then explode in a fury of temper.

Dumb

Anyway - it's trendy not to discipline.

But that's not the viewpoint of the Catholic church. Strong on corporal punishment - low-key and swift - in their schools, they are.

And most parents would endorse their views.

Again, another "old-fashioned" feature which will make uniting with Rome an easy - even desirable - matter.

There's the problem for believers in a nutshell. The sheer "goodness" of the final approach of Satan.

Look - let's re-emphasise the text we've already quoted. The one from 2 Cor 11. 13 - 14 that says don't get all surprised at phoney apostles and other workers - because even Satan changes himself into an angel of light.

Think about that one - because v. 15 adds that it's no big deal for Satan's servants to manifest as servants of righteousness.

Heavy-heavy.

Believers can be all-time twits and fall for someone who says the right things and looks good.

Now - at this very moment you may not buy the idea that the Catholic church is the harlot and the Pope is the antichrist. Okay. But your reasoning had better not be that her (or his) teaching is too godly for that. Something that looks like an angel of light is going to look amazingly good.

Not a bit grubby. Not pretty okay. But...

Godly.

So you're going to have big problems. It'll be no good taking a sly look at your little religious friends to see what they think (like you did during the charismatic move, remember: kept awfully quiet until most folk in your church were sympathetic and then fearlessly identified yourself with the majority).

This time there's only you. And God.

And it'll be a matter of gambling your life - and your soul - on your relationship with him.

* * *

But there's another aspect...

"Impossible," said this bloke we met. "You'd never get Anglicans to accept Rome's emphasis on Mary."

And we agreed. Only to discover that in N.Z. a new prayer book has been steam-rollered through the official channels. By the usual dirty-tricks-department method of getting some obscure committee authorised to "consider it". Then presenting the new set-up as a fait accompli (French for put up or shut up).

And making sure that the influential dissenters never got sight of it until the last moment.

Old dodges. They never fail.

What's wrong with the new prayer book.

For starters it claims to cut out sexist language.

Great!

Except that it calls God both Mother and Father. Which may sound beautifully fair and unbiassed to a society that is accustomed to pressure from a highly vocal women's lib lobby.

But who the hell gives the religious top brass the right to muck around with God's identity like that?

Oh, there's been a lot of pious waffle spoken in support of the Mother and Father business. Two things haven't - note: haven't - been said , though.

One is there already are names of God which have the feminine gender. The Holy Spirit. Wisdom. The Shekinah. In Greek, in Hebrew. If there must be a feminine element, there it is.

The other point is that no mystic has claimed that God has actually said he's Mother and Father.

So it's all just a Good Idea.

More than that.

It makes a perfect lead-in to the acceptance of Mary as the Mother of God. One of the biggest stumbling-blocks to so- called unity, swept away in the guise of removing sexist language.

I suppose it's a naive sort of question - but why did Jesus call God his Dad?

If the answer is that it was nothing more than a typical male-chauvinist-pig attitude of his day coming out in his teaching... Then all other attitudes in his teaching are nothing more than the fads and fashions around 30AD and may be ignored or manipulated to suit our fads and fashions as we please.

Just don't make out that he's king or lord or anything. Kings are to be obeyed, remember.

Oh - another gripe about the prayer book.

Would you believe that 'kingdom' has been changed to 'commonwealth'?

Mind-boggling, isn't it.

A commonwealth is essentially a voluntary, optional loose- knit association of self-governing states - self-governing on a democratic basis. Where any monarch at the head is a ceremonial figure as far as ordinary people are concerned. And only involved in the rarefied upper levels of international diplomacy in an advisory sense.

Whereas in a kingdom, the King rules. Directly. Over everyone. With no nonsense about 'voluntary', 'democratic' and 'advisory'.

What genius did this new prayer book?

Final gripe...

Zion and Israel have both been cut out of the prayer book.

Reason?

No kidding.

Makes you wonder why anyone would remain a member of the Anglican system if such nuttiness can be seriously said by bishops and stuff. Must be the fancy dress they wear, affects their thinking processes.

Of course Christian things and Jewish things offend Arabs.

So what?

Since when did Christians have to modify their attitude to please the opposition?

(Answer - all down through history, thanks to the Vatican. But it was never right to do so.)

* * *

Why, oh why, have all these facts been played down?

How could anyone overlook the clear teaching of scripture on the subject?

Answer: the futurist position.

No, that's nothing to do with the missionary position. We mention it elsewhere, but in simple terms it draws attention away from early protestant teaching that the Pope was the antichrist.

Essentially it teaches that all the upheavals in the book of "Revelation" lie somewhere in the future and we still haven't seen anyone who could possibly be the Man of Sin himself.

Futurism is nice.

But the Antichrist - according to the plain teaching of scripture - has been around for a very long time. His identity has always been known.

Look at 1 Jn. 2.18.

"Little children, it's the 'last time'. You've heard that antichrist shall come; even now there are many antichrists - so we know it's the 'last time'. They... went... out... from... us."

And the definition of Antichrist? John supplies it tersely:

A liar who denies the Father and the Son.

There are liars and liars.

Stupid, unsubtle liars - the "two and two make eight-and- a-half" variety. Fools, rather than liars. (The fools who say "there's no God" according to Proverbs.)

Clever, subtle liars. Who deny the Father and the Son by making them remote. Approachable only through an operating system that gets more and more complex. Finally making Father and Son nothing more than a blurred shadow. An idea, an ideal. While the Antichrist stands in the place of Father and Son, and gullible, earnest people accept him as such and are happy to call him Holy Father, vicar of Christ.

The twentieth century was an odd age. We killed our unborn babies and put adverts in the paper to tell people where they could go to have them killed.

We made a science out of warfare and vast industries grew rich on the spinoffs from overkill.

But we still don't like direct speech.

Plain words.

Like liar. Antichrist. Mother of harlots. The great whore.

If you don't like that sort of terminology, take the matter up with Dad. He, through the Holy Spirit, gave those words prophetically in scripture. They must apply somewhere.

Take 'em or leave 'em.

* * *

Ever wondered why Roman Catholicism is the great whore?

To find why Rome is the great whore you have to find what "playing the harlot" means in scripture. The phrase is scattered throughout the Old Testament.

It's an earthy, descriptive phrase for worshipping other gods. And goddesses.

There are only two attitudes allowable with regard to other gods.

Total disregard. Total opposition.

Courtesy, friendliness, flirtation or slam-bang-thank-you-ma'am harlotry is out.

Unfortunately it is also the besetting sin of any religious operating system.

And the Roman Catholic organisation has eagerly welcomed evil spirits and their practices, absorbing them into the rituals and beliefs of the church.

At the time of the crucifixion, the cross was unknown to the Romans as a means of execution. A simple stake was used, an upright lowered into a hole in the ground.

The Greek word is STAUROS. A stake. Its plural form means a palisade - nothing more than a solid row of stakes. Why do all versions of the Bible translate it as "cross". Why do translators put "crucify" for "STAUROS" - when "stake" is also a verb (...plants need to be staked...) in the English language.? Tradition is strong magic, and the father of lies is a professional magician.

You might as well ask yourself why IMMERSION is always translated "BAPTISM". Why OUTCALLED is always translated "CHURCH". Why THE FIRST DAY OF THE "SABBATHS" is always translated "THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK". And why PASSOVER is translated "EASTER" in Acts.

And why CHRISTOS is translated "CHRIST". You see, CHRISTOS is a simple Greek word that means "anointed" - and is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "MESSIAH". So why blur the truth that Jesus is the Messiah by calling him "Christ Jesus". Some folk out there are looking for him to arrive the first time. We need to say the Messiah is around.

But back to STAUROS - the 'cross'. The cross had been going - as a symbol - long before Roman times. It came from Egypt as the ankh, that T-shaped object with an elongated loop on top. Christians often wear it without asking questions.

The cross as we think of it didn't come into use as a means of execution until some years after Jesus died.

Scripture speaks either of a stake. Or a tree. (Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree. He bore our sins in his body on a tree.) In fact, if you get away from the concept of a tree, you miss the thread which runs through scripture of life and death being associated with trees. The garden of Eden with its tree of life... later, the curse of the Law for everyone hanging on a tree... the crucifixion... and the tree of life in the book of Revelation.

But symbols carry strong magic. And the few people who had their doubts about Constantine's vision (...he saw a cross- shaped sign and heard a voice telling him to "conquer in this sign") were put down by the 'direct method'. Death. Since then the sign of the cross has been a badge used by armies intent on pillage, rape, death. The crusades.

And the mark of the cross has been made on millions of foreheads at so-called baptism. The mark of the cross has been made over congregations at certain points in the ritual. Crosses have been carried, worn and used as ornaments.

The cross is a characteristic symbol of the Roman system. It is the symbol of death. But a believer should have no symbol. Simply because Christ lives in him or her. Funny, isn't it, how many Christians aren't happy about wearing a cross. Or a crucifix. Or having one in the house as an ornament. Without being able to put their reasons into words.

Please don't misunderstand us - we're not knocking what the cross stands for. We wouldn't dare. Later, we'll be mentioning people who get a revelation of the cross - and the way their lives are turned upside down. That's shorthand, though, for what the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus means to believers. What we're knocking is the representation.

Look: there's a Brethren cliché that used to annoy us intensely. It doesn't now. It goes: "Your life should show". Okay, we've heard it used as a cop-out from "witnessing". But in fact it's pretty profound. If the Messiah really lives in us... If we've really become sons and daughters of God... Really...

It ought to show. Without artificial signals. Like crosses. (And without sanctimonious behaviour, always-joyful behaviour or compulsive evangelism. After all, if God's there, someone ought to notice.)

Rome has always been fond of signs. Symbols. Marks. As part of the magic.

Steaming up for the big one, the one that everyone seems to know: The Mark of the Beast.

There's not room in this book to cover the subject, so we've gone into it more thoroughly in Beyond the Mark. Just a couple of points...

One is that when the Mark (...as per Revelation ch.12) comes, it's the Biggie. Taking it is an eyes-open no-excuses act of allegiance to a total package of religious and civil control, with a revealed Antichrist as the head. It will be that obvious - but when it comes it will be highly attractive.

The other point is that - historically - the Mark of the Beast hasn't happened yet.

Sure, Rome (the old empire, the church, and the new European Community) has made tentative moves towards it many times. But never, ever has there been a mark in or on forehead or hand, involving a number, without which rich and poor, small and great, slave and free could neither buy nor sell. Each and every condition must be fulfilled.

(Be aware that the technology exists at this moment. Developed by electronic security manufacturers - for people. We give names and addresses in Beyond the Mark.)

But historically, no. We've read much literature on events under Emperor Nero and others, and have had interesting letters from their authors. Never before in the world's history has there even been the possibility of a universal, physical mark to regulate buying and selling. Until now.

So - it mightn't be a bad idea to hold "the system" at arms' length. Decide - now - how far you will go. What Rome-inspired symbolism ...whether crosses or crucifixes or tiny microchips implanted as an ID under the skin... you will accept. Or refuse. A bit of practice now might just make things easier later when it becomes a matter of life or death.

* * *

Sadly, too, Rome is the mother of harlots.

Who are the daughters? None other than the protestant denominations.

When Luther gave the Beast its mortal wound, he set believers everywhere free from the authority of a false system.

Just as the Israelis found, though - it's one thing to leave Egypt. It's a whole different set of steak knives to get Egypt out of your mind and behaviour. So the Reformers tended to form little mini-systems that looked amazingly like a Vatican-type clone. Vestments, candles, bells, incense, robes. Paid clergy, buildings, pulpits.

And, recently, the charismatic move has been working hard at imitating the absolute authority-structure of Catholicism.

From South America's Juan Carlos Ortiz, via Bob Mumford and Co at Fort Lauderdale came the doctrine of submission and covering.

It's magic. Literally. Spell-binding. Literally.

It puts a man (oh, a godly, mature, sincere man, if you're lucky) between you and the King.

What he advises/orders/tells you is from God - even when he's wrong. Do it, and you're fireproof. Disobey - even in thought - and Satan'll getcha. Or your loving heavenly Father'll getcha.

It's a powerful weapon. In one neat, quasi-scriptural move it creates a strong magic tool that acts as a curse to all who accept it - producing condemnation for the least lapse (see "Beyond Murphy's Law" for a look at how it works) and setting a barrier between Dad and his bride.

And the effect is to make the authority of a thing called "the church" absolute. "The church" being those over you. You, personally, never share in that authority. It comes from the top, down. To stay lucky, you obey. Without question.

Save time, read the opening chapters of Revelation. "Oh, I can't understand that book. It doesn't make any sense." Yes you can; yes it does.

The writer, John, was told not to shut up the book. It's not closed to us. Just takes a little bit of thought, that's all. (Again, you might have to give up Sesame Street or Dallas to make time. But we all have to make the odd sacrifice, as Abraham said to Isaac as they went walkies one fine day.)

You see - Revelation was written in code. If you're expecting to see bona fide seven-headed, ten-horned beasties swanning along the highway, you've got a long wait ahead of you.

Revelation was written as a technicolor fantasy so the religious and political operating systems would not feel too threatened and destroy the book. Also so that those who chose to be deceived (...because you have to choose to be deceived...) can shrug and say they can't make head or tail of it.

Granted, it needs thought. Might even need a look at a history book to clear up a few points. Perhaps it'll be a matter of life and death, one day. That's always a bit of an incentive.

Anyhow - look at the 'letters to the seven churches'. In ch 2 vv 6 and 15, Jesus refers to the deeds and the doctrines of 'the Nicolaitanes' which he hates.

Ever seen a Nicolaitane? More to the point - are you one? After all, it'd be a risky business to be someone or something hated by Jesus.

Four letters in the middle of the word ought to give a bit of a clue. L-A-I-T.

Not 'milk' in French. Laity. The distinction between people and priests. Between the folk in the pew and the guys up front.

That is illegal. God hates it. But there's more.

Take the business of the Lord's hatred of the Nicolaitanes one step further. The word 'also' in Rev.2.15 links them with v14, and the 'doctrine of Balaam who taught the Israelis to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication.'

Let's get one thing straight. Contrary to popular labelling, Balaam wasn't a false prophet. That title gets tossed around far too glibly.

A false prophet he wasn't. A mercenary he was. Balaam was for hire. He could be bought. Rentaseer, Inc.

Not false? Read Numbers 22.1-25.3. It's quite a haul, but on the way you'll find the source of a rather nice Scripture in Song chorus "God is not a man that he should lie" and a prophecy concerning the Messiah. Not false.

He was a man capable of hearing God. Talking with God. Speaking the word of the Lord. And being hired by a king who hated God's people. And when he found he was powerless to curse them, he seduced them - literally - into eating what was dedicated to other gods, and into being joined with Baal. He knew both the power of God and the power of idolatry - especially in religions with an illicit female element. He was unable to use the power of God to achieve the purpose for which he was hired. But by idolatry and sensuousness he effectively caused the death of 24,000 people - including all their leaders.

Not a false prophet. But one who would use whatever means was within his power. And when the power of God would only function in blessing, he brought in the sacrificial food and the voluptuousness of other spirits.

So - why then the link with the 'Nicolaitans'?

To make a strong point. One which you can check in a good Greek lexicon. Balaam is a Hebrew word. One that means "a swallowing up of the people". Nicolaitan is a Greek word. One that means "destruction of the people". Notice the similarity. Same meaning, differ

So - who destroys God's people? A great man who combines the blessings of God and all that is alluring from heathen religions, illicit food and drink, illicit female relationship - all to please a king who is opposed to the Lord.

Recognise anything?

The Vatican has always emphasised the role of the Pope as head of the church. And the wisdom and grace in much that these leaders, especially the present one, have said has been remarkable. Then take the Mass and consider how it has been distorted from a simple meal of fellowship into a re- sacrifice and transformation into flesh and blood. If Jesus didn't command that - who did?

And then take the position of Mary in the Catholic church. Mother of God. Mother of the church. Queen of Heaven. Consider that last title - one that, in scripture, relates to a false goddess. Bear in mind that in the ministry of Jesus, Mary's role was a steadily diminishing one. From the resurrection she fades into the background. Compare this with the part played by Ashtarte, Venue, Semiramis and Isis - usually complete with child - and the veneration of the one that the Vatican dubs 'Mary' becomes more than respect. It is nothing less than the worship of a forbidden female deity.

For the destruction of the people.

* * *

Titles, distinctions are forbidden in the new covenant. Because we're all kings and priests to God.

Psst! What about the Ministry Gifts?

(That's what we say, too - what about 'em!)

Again, it might just take a weensy bit of effort on your part... Can you finish the quote, using Authorised Version language? "He who would be greatest among you, let him be your..."

Minister.

It means servant. Dogsbody. Skivvy. Drudge.

Forget awards and trade unions and wot abaht the workers. The word minister means servant in the good old-fashioned upstairs-downstairs sense.

And a 'ministry gift' (apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher, evangelist) isn't an aristocrat, a super-believer. He's got a job to do, like it or lump it, and he'd better not try pulling rank or putting on airs while he's at it. Popemobiles and private jumbo jets may be everyone's dream. Palaces and gorgeous robes may be a real turn-on.

Not here, though. Real servants have a job to do. That doesn't elevate them one millimetre above the rest.

Another thing. Sure, Ephesians lists the so-called "ministries". But it also makes it quite clear that these are temporary.

For one thing, they are supposed to "equip the saints for the work of the ministry". So an apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher or evangelist who doesn't achieve that - isn't doing his job. If these blokes merely build a following, they've failed. They're supposed to teach believers to shoot through. Get out there and be.

For another thing - all this is only until we come to "the unity of the faith; to the perfect man".

Okay, we're on thin ice here, because this phrase has as many interpretations as you've had hot hamburgers, but give it a think.

The "unity of the faith" isn't "unity of doctrine". Doesn't say so, no way. But there is a unity between believers that comes from learning to use faith in real life. A unity that permits disagreements, argument - but doesn't have to end in division.

And the "perfect man"...?

Jesus?

Again, believers are finding a unity in direct proportion to the reality of the King in their lives. And of course the need for the "five-fold ministries" drops dramatically as the Lord takes his rightful place in us.

Once we learn to accept his rule - we don't take kindly to being dominated by far-from-perfect men.

There is no laity from the viewpoint of anyone except Satan. Accept his viewpoint, you accept God's hatred.

We're sons and daughters of God. We have the righteousness of Christ. We're fantastic. Don't let anyone soft-talk or browbeat you out of that.

Submission? Look - there are times when a friend or foe - says something that comes direct from God.

Great. We check it out and - hopefully - act on it.

But never, ever, swallow it.

Relationship with our Dad is too special to let anyone take his place.

Yet the submission/covering thing gives a man (and, inevitably, the organisation behind him) a position of importance that switches on all kinds of temptations. Creating a whole host of passive carbon copies who aren't trained in living casually, continually in contact with Dad.

And as the megachurch emerges with all the emphasis on the authority of Rome - it'll be a simple enough matter to switch from submission to 'my pastor' to submission to 'my church'.

Right or wrong.

* * *

If you like spy stories...

Read the history of the Jesuits.

They are a strange, intensely powerful organisation deep within the structure of Roman Catholicism.

Their purpose: to push the supremacy of the Pope himself - and they must vow never to seek that position themselves.

Their cover: teaching.

Their creed: "the end justifies the means". Think about that phrase for a moment. Whatever you do, no matter how contrary to all concepts of honesty, decency, morality - it's okay if it helps a little towards the aim of making the Pope more powerful.

Can you wonder that it is an historical fact that at some time or other, the Jesuits have been banned from every country in Europe because of their persistent meddling in internal and international politics.

Events as diverse as Guy Fawke's Gunpowder Plot and the King of Spain's Armada were directly masterminded by Jesuits.

They have always been in the forefront of intrigue and manipulation. They have never had a twinge of conscience about planting "sleepers" or "moles" - undercover agents who live and work in seeming innocence, yet all the time are undermining the political or religious structure around them.

How many top protestant clergy would need to be planted by the Jesuits in order to work an ecumenical flanker?

How many liberal Anglican bishops are sponsored directly by Rome?

Earlier, we said that the cover used by Jesuits was that of teaching.

"Give me a child until he is seven..." Remember the phrase?

But Jesuit activity hasn't been merely on a school level.

We made the odd discovery that - of all things - the scientific area known as geophysics is almost totally sewn up by these Pope-promoting specialists.

Oh?

Why? What on earth (or in the heavens) has dedication to Papal supremacy to do with astronomy and geology and allied studies?

An awful lot.

If you are devoted to promoting the Pope, you must be sure that "God" is shadowy. Unreal. Only to be "felt" in the magic of ritual, ceremonial, church procedure.

The last thing you want is for creation (mother nature, they call it) to have the Creator's fingerprints everywhere for anyone to spot and recognise.

And creation has been got at.

Evolution is popular. Despite the fact that, scientifically, it can only occur within tiny, predictable limits. (And don't give us the business of "theistic evolution". If God is at the back of evolution - how come he didn't write it in his book? And would someone like to tell us how an eye evolves from a bit of light-sensitive skin; or how light-sensitive skin started in the first place.)

It's just the 'pop' viewpoint.

Because it'd be dangerous if ordinary folk were accustomed to acknowledging God among the birds and the bees.

More than that, though...

Disaster nearly struck, a while back.

In the shape of an ex-Russian Jew, name of Immanuel Velikovsky.

He wrote a book entitled "Worlds In Collision" which took historic documents - including the Old Testament - from around the world, accepted them at their face value, and came up with a well-balanced, strongly documented account of why the sun stood still. Why Egypt suffered plagues.

Why the pillar of fire by night and cloud by day could lead a whole nation in a "waste howling wilderness" for forty years. Feed them on manna...

Etcetera, etcetera. Things we negligently toss off as "miraculous".

If you haven't read his book then, before we go into details, try answering a question or two.

Pop outdoors tonight.

Most folk haven't the foggiest. Don't know that the moon shifts further around the sky in a month then the sun does in a year. Don't know when the next eclipse is due. Street- lighting and watching the box ("...for the News...") has done that.

Okay - even if you can find Mars. Venus. Jupiter...

They're not very impressive, eh. Do you feel any urge to worship them?

'Course not. Then - why did whole nations worship them? Why were they feared? Why were they thought of as major gods and goddesses? Why were they so much greater than Selene, the moon goddess?

Velikovsky supplied the answers.

Once, Venus was a comet which wandered into the inner solar system. Perhaps from outer space, perhaps ejected from the infamous 'red spot' on Jupiter.

The path of Venus led it across the orbit of Earth. The gravitational and magnetic pulls of both massive bodies interacted, causing vast disturbances to each. It was centuries before Venus settled into the stable orbit she now has, and centuries before Earth stabilised.

All over the world, men built - and re-built - gigantic sun- and moon-dials to re-calculate the upset seasons and the likelihood of further disasters. Stonehenge (and Woodhenge before it) was only one of countless thousands of these laborious, essential devices.

Nations which didn't know the Lord felt it was wise to worship Venus and sacrifice to her to appease her "anger".

Now - we're not barrow-pushing for Velikovsky. But we're making a point.

Even if his reasoning was totally shot, he wrote in a clear, concise manner. His data was fully supported by documentary, geological and astronomical evidence. And he resolved a significant number of anomalies and contradictions between different branches of science.

In other words: he might have been wrong, but he wasn't a nut.

And the net effect of his writings was to validate and bring into secular history almost every major event in the Old Testament. The Old Testament was all set to be an acceptable historical and scientific textbook.

His publishers, Macmillan, soon found they had a best seller on their hands.

That was nice, but no novelty. They were a big firm, accustomed to handling many thousands of titles annually. Titles from a broad spectrum of topics.

However, they were not prepared for what happened next.

On the 25th January 1950, a leading world astronomer - Harlow Shapley, the Director of Harvard College Observatory, himself a renowned author under contract to Macmillan - wrote an ultimatum to the publishers which, in words of polite menace, told them to choose between Velikovsky and him.

And to give added force to his words, his name headed a boycott of Macmillan's scientific and educational books by university staff throughout the world.

As part of the orchestrated campaign against Velikovsky's book, the late professor of astronomy, University of Michigan, Dean B. McLaughlin wrote the following amazing letter to the publishers:.

A strange, strange letter from such a man. What pressure was a scientific mind like his being subjected to, we wonder, that he would seek to curtail the freedom of the press - introduce censorship, in other words - with regard to a book he had not read.

Censorship is usually a dirty word among scientists. On the other hand, it is part of the stock-in-trade (as their index of forbidden books bears witness) of the Jesuit fraternity.

So Macmillan sold the rights of Velikovsky's books to Doubleday, a publishing firm with no scientific and educational list, who were thus not susceptible to such pressure.

Even today, Velikovsky's name and theories are referrred to sneeringly in scientific circles.

Which leaves a few queries dangling. Like...

Why should a top astronomer like Shapley get all upset over a book like "Worlds In Collision"?

Why should it be worth the effort to organise a world- boycott by scientists of all books published by Macmillan?

Whatever became of free speech and scientific open- mindedness?

It's probably highly significant that Shapley was later given, first, a Doctorate of Divinity and, second, the Pope Pius XI Prize. Unusual accolades for an astronomer - but not so unusual if in fact he had followed Jesuit instructions and effectively suppressed the popularising of a book that would have made the man-in-the-street aware that God has been startlingly active in history.

And that the Bible is a sober record of events in Earth's recent past.

Geophysicists love to talk telephone numbers. Chat glibly about 'millions of years'. Okay, we haven't the faintest idea how long a time-gap exists between the first two verses of Genesis, chapter one. And we can only guess how long it was between the day when Adam was created and the day when he fell.

But from the fall onwards it's pretty easy to sit down with paper and pencil and add up the dates. Try it sometime. It brings all those (literally) earth-shattering events a whole lot closer than is comfortable.

And you start to realise that maybe things have been unnaturally quiet over the last few centuries. Maybe we're due to see God at work again.

If so - there are a number of people with an awful lot to lose. People who have got a religious operating system sewn up tight and are doing well out of it.

With a leader who stands in the temple of God, making claim that - effectively - he is God.

* * *

C.S. Lewis makes the point in "That Hideous Strength" that our options are continually getting fewer.

We may have had a whole range of choices in the past - choices between many shades of gray. Nothing clear-cut.

Now, however (...whenever 'now' is...) those choices are being whittled down. Until, with a startling clarity, there's only black and white. Heaven and Hell. God and Satan.

Which is a problem if we like to be nice. Non- controversial. Compromising in a genteel kind of way.

Unfortunately, we can't get away with it. Not for long. The issues are too big; the stakes are too high.

As this century runs to its end... As this millenium runs to its end... As you see the megachurch emerge from the long quiescent Catholic organisation...

You must decide to get in or get out.

If the Pentecostal fellowship down the road decides to combine with some group in the High Street - it'll get a paragraph in the local paper. A bit of a mention in Challenge Weekly. All very nice. Essentially, though, a non-event.

Not something that everyone must take sides on.

Whereas, when the 'Anglican Communion' goes back to the Mother Church - and when all her other daughters begin to flock homeward...

Either it will be a glorious, sovereign work of God.

Or it will be the hand of Satan made visible.

Either we must join in; without reservation, without argument.

Or we must oppose, reject and denounce.

God's people are in there, all right. But there comes a time when they can no longer get away with it. Lot could live in Sodom ("...righteous Lot...", would you believe) and enjoy all the advantages of the system almost to the last moment, while his uncle was roughing it up in the hills - until the point when it was a case of get out or die.

Perhaps it's stating the obvious to say that it's dangerous to leave quitting to the last moment. A few attitudes have time to get ingrained. Mrs. Lot had a bit of a problem. So had the two Miss Lots.

England has always been called "Mary's Dowry" by the Roman Church. She wants it back. Ever since Queen Elizabeth II visited the Vatican in the garb of a penitent - in black, with a black veil, not as head of state and on equal footing with the Pope - there has been steady progress towards unification between Canterbury and Rome.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher dressed the same way in similar circumstances. President Reagan's wife wore charcoal grey in her own home to receive the Pope. Only Mrs Gorbachev has had the strength to wear a red dress and no hat in the pontiff's presence - and that on was a state visit, so nobody can say there were extenuating circumstances. Those who claim to be atheists sometimes show more initiative than those who profess religion. Doesn't that sound almost scriptural?

If Britain became Catholic, the Common Market would be as near as makes no difference totally dominated by the Pope. Now, it is a defect of the Common Market and the European Parliament that it lacks a leader. The ten-plus nations are so headstrong that each monarch or president carries little or no weight except in his or her own country.

But with the Common Market wholly Catholic, what would be more natural than to appoint the Pope as temporal, as well as spiritual, head - restoring his power over kings and rulers of the earth.

Then any system of banking (maybe world-wide, maybe confined to the Common Market) that involved physical identifications would be a direct acknowledgement of allegiance to the Beast.

And denial of God.

It's easier to make the choice now.

* * *