The place of safety

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.askelm.com/prophecy/p971116.htm

You should have warned us that the link takes you to a long, rambling, and intensely boring article written by a self-appointed Christian 'prophet' who has likely never set foot on a real church.

...and

its an article about how the world is about to come to its end...

and

its an article about the above topic written twenty one years ago!
The world shoulda kicked the bucket by now!

Okay...maybe the world is staggering around and hasn't keeled over yet.

But anyway

If you're gonna link to a book-length article can you at least give us your own brief summary of it as well?

Like.. "the world is gonna end, but here is how you can survive the coming tribulations by [and summarize how that guy says we can be 'safe']".

All this means is that you shouldn't trust date-setters. Since Jesus Himself said nobody knows the day or the hour, that doesn't prove the Bible wrong. That just means that date-setters are contradicting the Bible. Jesus did say that the end will come though, we just don't know when. And He did say that certain signs, such as the ones we are seeing now, means that it is "close, by the door". But since "nobody knows the day or the hour", the phrase "by the door" can mean several decades or even a couple of centuries -- which would still be a short time on the scale we are dealing with.

In any case, that particular article didn't set any specific dates, so the fact that it was written 21 years ago doesn't prove it wrong -- although I disagree with it for other reasons (see below).



As far as the place of safety goes, it said that place of safety in the middle east would be Petra mountains, while other parts of the world would have other places of safety -- probably also in the mountains. With that I agree: Jesus said "run to the mountains".

But the main reason I like the article -- which is actually an idea that I disagree with, yet find a nice wishful thinking -- is that they said that the mark of the beast would be adherence to Jewish law. I can't see how it can possibly condemn anyone to hell, since Jesus didn't say "eat at least that much pork per week", so if you happened not to eat any pork, so what.

Me personally, I think the mark of the beast would be a microchip. I am not entirely positive, but I won't take microchip regardless. I believe microchip *would* condemn you to hell -- even if the mark happens to be something else. But whatever mark happens to be, it has to be something *just as bad* as microchip, not something as benigh as Jewish law.

Which brings me to why I like that article. Wouldn't it be nice *if* the mark of the beast was Jewish law? Then everyone would avoid the dreaded microchip or anything else that we are afraid of. Looks appealing. Well, thats the exact reason why I don't think the prophecy of that article is correct. But hey, wouldn't it be nice if it was?

By the way, I am Messianic so I keep Jewish law anyway, LOL. Incidentally, the author of that article spent 20 years keeping Jewish law as well (he was part of united church of God that adheres to it) so that might be where his resentment comes from. Well, if the law was the mark of the beast, why isn't he saying he is going to hell for his past membership in that church? That plus also he mentioned at some point at that article how he "looks forward" to keeping the sabbath when antichrist comes, but not to some other things that he would be forced doing. Wait, I thought he said its the mark of the beast?

But anyway, like I said, I *wish* he was right, it would have made things so much easier.