Pro and Con 1122

Posted 5-6-04

City-Sized Asteroid to Pass Earth This Fall

By Robert Roy Britt, 3 May 2004

...On Sept. 29, 2004 an asteroid the size of a small city will make the closest known pass of such a very large space rock anytime this century.

While not dangerous for now, asteroid Toutatis is incredibly strange. And scientists are quite familiar with it, having bounced radar off the tumbling stone on previous flybys to generate computer renderings of its weird shape and movement.

Toutatis looks something like a dumbbell hurtling awkwardly through space. It has a crazy rotation that makes normal days impossible. Scientists can't explain the shape or the spin....

The orbit of Toutatis is pinned down with better precision than any other large asteroid known to cross Earth's orbit. Toutatis' 4-year trek around the Sun ranges from just inside the Earth's path out to the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. The asteroid visits us every four years.

This fall, it will zoom by our planet within a million miles, or about four times the distance to the Moon.

That's close by cosmic standards for an object that could cause global devastation. Toutatis hasn't been so near since the year 1353 and won't be that close again until 2562, NASA scientists have calculated. No other asteroid so large is known to have come so close in the past...

Toutatis is about 2.9 miles long and 1.5 miles wide (4.6 by 2.4 kilometers).

My reply

Thanks much. It is amazing how this asteroid Toutatis fits Zech. 4:1-5. The size is about 3 miles long and 1.5 miles wide, twice as long as wide. Wow! Is this a sign?

How does Toutatis compare with the asteroid in Zech. 5:1-4? It says, "I turned, and lifted up mine eyes (i.e., looked in the sky), and looked, and behold a flying roll (rolling thing). And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits (twice as long as wide). Then said he unto me, THIS IS THE CURSE that goeth forth (orbits) over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth (disobeying one of the commandments on one of the two stone tablets) shall be cut off as on this side (the mountain-sized piece will impact the Mediterranean Sea, Zeph. 2:2-5, Rev. 8:8) according to it; and every one that sweareth (disobeying a commandment on one of the two stone tablets) shall be cut off as on that side (the larger piece will obliterate Babylon, Rev. 8:10, 18:21) according to it. I will bring it forth, saith the LORD of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief (the False Prophet), and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name (the Tribulation Pope that claims infallibility): and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof." Agape

His reply

Marilyn: We both thought of the same thing!

Toutatis (also called Teutates) was an ancient Celtic god of war, fertility and wealth worshipped in Gaul. His name means "the god of the tribe" . http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~hudson/Research/Asteroids/4179/

On September 29, 2004, Toutatis will pass by Earth at a range of four times the distance between the Earth and the Moon, THE CLOSEST APPROACH OF ANY KNOWN ASTEROID OR COMET BETWEEN NOW AND 2060. One consequence of the asteroid's frequent close approaches to Earth is that its trajectory more than several centuries from now cannot be predicted accurately. In fact, of all the Earth-crossing asteroids, the orbit of Toutatis is thought to be one of the most chaotic
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/toutatis.htm

Seventeen days and counting...May our Garments be ready! Agape

My reply

Thanks much for sharing your research. Agape

PS: If Toutatis has already broken into two pieces, it sounds like Rev. 8:8 and 10.
---
City-sized asteroid to pass Earth this fall By Robert Roy Britt
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-05-03-giant-asteroid_x.htm

Computer model based on radar data of Toutatis. The neck my have been chipped away by impacts. Courtesy SPACE.com

Oil valued at $6 billion discovered east of Kfar Sava (Israel)

By Amiram Cohen, May 4 2004 http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/423495.html

There could be reservoirs of 980 million barrels of oil at the Meged-4 well east of Kfar Sava, exploration company Givot Olam said Tuesday in announcing the findings of geological studies....

EU grants $1.4 billion to boost 'stuttering' peace effort

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/423617.html

AP DUBLIN May 4, 04 - Hoping to boost the 'stuttering' Middle East peace process, the European Union on Tuesday pledged 1.2 billion euros ($1.43 billion) in assistance to Israel and Muslim Mediterranean states and said it will increase its aid in coordination with the World Bank....

Qurei: PA ready to begin negotiations immediately

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1083647026310

May. 4, 04 The Palestinian Authority is ready to go back to the negotiating table immediately, PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei said on Tuesday.

Haaretz 5-4-04 - Quartet calls for full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza Strip

http://www.watch.org/articles.html?mcat=1

Haaretz 5-4-04 - U.S. rejects Jordanian request for 'balancing letter' -on peace positon

http://www.watch.org/articles.html?mcat=1

May 4, 04 - Total eclipse to paint Moon red

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3681773.stm

Incoming email, Re: "Temple Mount", a misnomer?

Oh, I have been in a real quandary about whether Temple Mount is indeed the site of Herod the Great's Temple. Too, I wondered why any Jew would not fight to the death over this piece of consecrated ground (if indeed it is the original site of Herod the Great's temple). Is there something else going on here? If the actual temple site is located else where, why the confusion? … Or why the deception? (Perhaps there are those who still have a hard time accepting that the carpenter from Nazareth really is the "I AM" and that His prophecy was fulfilled?) For myself, I am inclined to think that "Temple Mount" is a misnomer and that it is not this site of Herod the Great's temple. Moreover, I believe that the temple was razed to the ground, and that the foundation stones were over-turned just as Jesus Christ said they would be.

No doubt you are well-versed with the temple site issue. I read a 'Rense.com' article, "Noted Biblical Scholar Says 'Temple Mount' is a myth!" (10-29-00), that a fellow by the name of Ernest L. Martin, PHD had written. It is interesting to consider that you have the prophecy of Jesus Christ that "…there shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down." (Matthew 24:1,2; Mark 13:1,2; Luke 19:43,44; 21:5,6.) and the historical record of Josephus and General Titus who testified to the complete destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. Still you find those who insist in these modern days, what is probably Fort Antonia, rather is the actual site of Herod the Great's temple. It is a very sad thing to see a Jew fervently praying to the G_d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob while standing at the wall of the structure where the troops of Rome were garrisoned; the home of the men who reduced the temple and Jerusalem to complete destruction; the men who slaughtered a million Jews. Imagine all those notes with fervent prayers tucked in to the rocky crevices of the fortress dedicated to the profane gods of the Roman Empire. It is only fitting that the Dome of the Rock and the "Al Aska" mosque is built there. Is it not? Was it not the site where Mars and other gods were praised at the destruction of the Jewish temple? Possibly it is quite fitting that the tribulation temple would be built there; a temple built to honor the god of the resurrected Rome? Oh the grief Jesus Christ must feel! The rejection by His people. I feel sadness for my Lord's broken heart. I must say, I feel that there is deception being perpetrated over this "Temple Mount" site. I believe that the prophecy of Jesus Christ was literally fulfilled and Josephus and General Titus were fully capable of correctly assessing the destruction. Does a Christian really have any other option than to believe that Herod the Great's temple was completely and totally destroyed? YBIC

My reply

I think the extensions Herod made to the temple mount identify it correctly. It is my understanding that he built massive walls and filled them up with soil to enlarge the temple mount. I don't think there is any other site that can compare with it. Josephus said that the Tower of Antonia was north of the temple. The outer wall of the temple had to overlook the Kidron Valley, because that is where James was killed after being pushed off of the corner of the wall above. Many of the massive stones Herod used in the wall are finished with an inscribed line near the outer edges of the face. They can be identified today. Exactly where the temple was located on the mount is a subject of argument.

> > I believe that the temple was razed to the ground, and that the foundation stones were over-turned just as Jesus Christ said they would be.

That's correct. The temple stones were disturbed because liquid gold ran down between the stones during the fire. However, those stones are not the same as the stones of the outer perimeter walls that still exist.

> > It is only fitting that the Dome of the Rock and the "Al Aska" mosque is built there. Is it not?

No. it's not fitting at all. It is the work of Satan.

> > Does a Christian really have any other option than to believe that Herod the Great's temple was completely and totally destroyed?

The temple ediface itself was destroyed, and the stones did not remain one upon another. That does not mean that the perimeter walls of the mount were brought down. Agape

His reply

Of course I agree with your comment to mine. I don't endorse the work of Satan, but it just seems that the construction of the "Al Aska" mosque and the Dome of the rock on this site is consistent with Satan's methods.

Also, one comment about the perimiter walls and the following comments. The conversation with the disciples took place outside of the Temple, so their view was of the whole structure including the perimeter walls?

> > > Does a Christian really have any other option than to believe that Herod the Great's temple was completely and totally destroyed? The temple ediface itself was destroyed, and the stones did not remain one upon another. That does not mean that the perimeter walls of the mount were brought down.

Again, Marilyn, thank you for your comments. YBIC

My reply

> > Also, one comment about the perimiter walls and the following comments. The conversation with the disciples took place outside of the Temple, so their view was of the whole structure including the perimeter walls?

Mt. 24:1,2 says, "Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." The outer buildings were on top of the temple mount.

According to Josephus, when the temple was burned, the fire was set in some of the outer buildings on Av 9. By Av 10, the inside of the temple proper was an inferno not to be put out. Of the first evening, Josephus said, "...the flame had not as yet reached to its inward parts, but was still consuming THE ROOMS THAT WERE ABOUT THE HOLY HOUSE." Then by the next day, he said, "...one of those that went into the place prevented Caesar, when he ran so hastily out to restrain the soldiers, and threw the fire upon the hinges of the gate, in the dark; whereby the flame burst out from within the holy house itself immediately" (Wars VI. IV. 7). Agape

Incoming email, Re: The two witnesses

I’ve enjoyed reading your website and believe that you may be correct in the end of days rapture timing. But how can you possibly believe that Moses will be one of the two witnesses of revelation? Hebrews 9:27 states plainly, ” that it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” In the old testament we are told that Moses died in Dueteronomy 34:5-7. Revelation 11:7-9 states that the two witnesses will die and will be resurrected after 3 ½ days. If Moses was one of the two witnesses he would have to violate scripture. That is not likely seeing that he would come as a witness for God. I submit to you however that the two witnesses will be the only two men who have not seen or tasted of death: Enoch and Elijah. Both of these men were caught up (translated) (Hebrews11:5 and 2Kings 2:11) to heaven where I believe they have remained alive to come back as the two witnesses of revelation. I would love to here your thoughts on this subject. In Christ

My reply

Thanks for your kind words.

> > how can you possibly believe that Moses will be one of the two witnesses of revelation?

Rev. 11:4 says of the two witnesses, "These are the TWO OLIVE TREES, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth."

This refers us back to Zech. 4:11-14. It says, "What are these TWO OLIVE TREES upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof? And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these TWO OLIVE BRANCHES which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil (i.e., oil of the Holy Spirit) out of themselves? And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord. Then said he, These are the TWO ANOINTED ONES, that stand by the LORD of the whole earth" (i.e., Christ).

Moses and Elijah stood by Christ at the Transfiguration. Luke 9:30,31 says, "behold, there talked with him (Christ) TWO MEN, WHICH WERE MOSES AND ELIAS. Who appeared in glory".

Acts 1:9-12 says, "when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, TWO MEN stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet." I think these TWO MEN were Moses and Elijah. In the same manner, they will come back to Earth and go into Jerusalem from Mt. Olivet when Christ comes for his Bride.

Jude 9 says, "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with THE DEVIL HE DISPUTED ABOUT THE BODY OF MOSES, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." We don't want to dispute about the body of Moses. We just want the Lord's will to be done.

Enoch, Moses and Elijah were already in Heaven before Jesus said, "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” Enoch was not an Israelite. Both Moses and Elijah were Israelites. Therefore, Enoch and Elijah being caught up shows us that both Gentiles and Israelites will be raptured. Most of those at the Pre-Trib Rapture will be Gentiles. Most of those at the Pre-Wrath Rapture will be Israelites.

The two witnesses "have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues" (Rev. 11:6). Elijah had the first power in the past. Moses had the second power in the past. These are to show us who the two witnesses really are. Agape

Incoming email

what do you make of what this guy has to say?...

My reply

I agree with you, and not with the one that was trying to back up the Catholic position. No amount of quoting what man has said about this issue sways me. No amount of wordiness sways me, either. I go by Scripture.

The disagreement is over the interpretation of Mt.16:13-18. Catholics are told that the church is built on Peter, that he was the first Pope, and therefore, the first Pontifex Maximus. You and I think that the church is built on Peter's statement, "THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD."

Somewhere on my Pro and Cons, I showed the 1st century coins that prove that the rulers of Imperial Rome were the ones that carried the title Pontifex Maximus in those days, not Peter. There is no way Peter could have been the first Pontifex Maximus; Nimrod was the first one called by that title. Nebuchadnezzar was the Pontifex Maximus too, as was Alexander the Great, etc. right down to the rulers of Rome. The Pontifex Maximus was the high priest in the Mystery Religion of Babylon.

Mt.16:13-18 says, "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, WHOM DO MEN SAY THAT I THE SON OF MAN AM? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, BUT WHOM SAY YE THAT I AM? And Simon Peter (petros, a small rock, pebble) answered and said, THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros, chip of rock, a small rock, a pebble), and upon this rock (petra, massive rock) I will build my church (ekklesia, called out ones); and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

In Mt. 22:41-46, Jesus asked the Pharisees, "WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST? WHOSE SON IS HE? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions." Peter gave the correct answer above, "THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD." By means of the Crucifixion, God took sin out of the way as an issue in salvation. Now, it is "WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST? WHOSE SON IS HE?" Those that answer as Peter did are members of the ekklesia, the called-out ones, the spiritual temple, the Church.

The defender of the Catholic position said,
> > Taking a different approach, some point to 1 Corinthians 3:11, Ephesians 2:20 and/or 1 Peter 2:7-8 and claim that the foundation of the church is clearly Christ. Then they go into Matthew 16:18 with this a priori bias and, missing what Jesus says, claim that Jesus is the foundation of the church and therefore the rock-foundation of the church. However, such an approach doesn't say anything about the rock of Matthew 16:18 but rather simply avoids honest exegesis. We must ask the question: what was Matthew trying to communicate to his readers?
> > Figures of speech need to be understood in their contexts, for the New Testament writers used similar figures of speech in different contexts and with different meanings. For instance, Jesus is the Firstborn , but so are Christians (Colossians 1:15,18, Hebrews 12:23). Jesus is the Light, and so are his disciples (John 8:12, Matthew 5:14). Jesus is the Son of God, but Christians are sons of God (Mark 1:1 Galatians 3:26). Jesus is an apostle, but so are Christians (Hebrews 3:1, Romans 1:5). Jesus is the Lamb of God, but his followers are sheep (John 1:29, John 10:8). Jesus is the builder of the church, but so was Paul (Matthew 16:18, 1 Corinthians 3:10).
> > What is the point? Does the Scripture contradict itself? No! But figures of speech must be understood in their context; apart from its context, a figure of speech means nothing. Just because the idea of the "foundation" of the church is spoken of in one passage, the details of the metaphor do not necessarily "transfer" to other passages. Plainly, the ideas taught by 1 Corinthians 3:11, Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Peter 2:7-8 don't have anything to do with the exegesis of Matthew 16:18.

Contrary to the above viewpoint, no single passage is to be interpreted by itself, but in the light of the entire Bible. The Bible interprets itself. 2Peter 1:20 says, "Knowing this FIRST, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private (ideos, separate) interpretation." Everything must be interpreted in the light of the whole Bible. God didn't put everything in one place for a good reason. Isa 28:13 says, "the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

As much as the writer would have it so by trying to keep us from considering other verses, PETER WAS NOT SINGLED OUT AS BEING THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. Rev. 21:14 says, "the wall of the city (heavenly New Jerusalem) had TWELVE FOUNDATIONS, and in them the names of the TWELVE APOSTLES of the Lamb." All the apostles are foundations of the spiritual temple of the Holy Spirit.

In Eph. 2:19-22, Paul said, "Now therefore ye (Ephesian believers) are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are BUILT UPON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF BEING THE CHIEF CORNER STONE; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

In Mt 16:15-18, Jesus said, "He saith unto them, But WHOM SAY YE THAT I AM? And Simon Peter answered and said, THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros, rock chip, small rock, pebble), and upon this rock (petra, massive rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

> > 1/ Peter answers who Christ is when he asks whose Son am I
> > 2/ Christ calls him Peter which means rock and says he will build his Church upon THIS ROCK

Christ is the rock (petra) upon which the church is built. I Cor. 10:4 says, "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock (petra, massive stone) was Christ."

In Mat 7:24,25, Jesus said, "whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock (petra, large rock): And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock (petra, large rock)." A house, or church, built upon a small rock, or a multitude of pebbles, would fall.

Let's look up the specific scriptures the letter writer did not want us to consider: I Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20 and I Peter 2:7,8.

I Cor. 3:11 says, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Eph. 2:20-22 says, "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

I Peter 2:7,8 says, "Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone (lithos, millstone, stumbling stone) which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone (lithos, millstone, stumbling stone) of stumbling, and a rock (petra, massive stone) of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." No wonder the writer didn't want us to consider these. They tell the truth of the matter. The cornerstone is Jesus Christ. Other foundation stones are the apostles and prophets, not just Peter. He does not stand alone as the foundation.

This reminds me that the massive stone the Temple Mount Faithful have been trying to lay on the temple mount is a good example of petra. It is a massive stone weighing several tons. Petros, a small stone, rock chip or pebble, would never do for a cornerstone.

Jesus, YHWH YAHshua, gave us the correct interpretation of Peter. In John 1:42, he said, "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas (Chaldean for rock), WHICH IS BY INTERPRETATION, A STONE (PETROS)." Peter is a small stone, not the petra., the massive stone. That rock is Christ. Agape

Corner-stone

http://www.mustardseed.net/html/tcornerstone.html

Some of the corner-stones in the ancient work of the Temple foundations are 17 or 19 feet long and 7 1/2 feet thick.

Incoming email, Re: Early Church and Imminency

Its been a while since I have written you. I hope you are doing well.

Many times when I speak with other Christians about the very soon return of Jesus and all the signs that support His coming in our time, I routinely am confronted with the statement that Christians have always been expecting Christ's return in their time. They say even Paul and the disciples believed the return of Jesus was imminent in their day.

Why do people put forth this idea, and can they support this notion with scripture? What scriptural references would they propose to support this idea?

They go on to say that if Paul and the disciples believed this and thought they were correct then why should we believe that our time is the time of the rapture. They say that every generation have had people that "cry wolf." Sincerely

My reply

It's good to hear from you again. We are basically ok. I am recovering from a sore throat and excessive sleepiness. Ed is hoping for healing of a cut on his big toe. With a diabetic, a little thing like that on the feet is more of a worry than with those that do not have Diabetes.

Because of viruses being written to exploit MS Internet Explorer and MS Outlook Express, I am trying to learn how to use Mozilla. The Mail has a good feature. Incoming e-mail can be marked as junk mail without opening them, then be deleted as junk mail. As one marks different e-mails, the program remembers the details. Next time, it will mark one similar to that automatically. The more you use it, the better it gets.

> > Why do people put forth this idea, and can they support this notion with scripture? What scriptural references would they propose to support this idea?

As far as I'm concerned, that's a cop-out by people who don't want to get involved in the search for clues to the end times. It was foretold in II Peter 3:4 that some would say, "Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." Those people are fulfilling this scripture.

However, Jesus commanded us to watch. In Rev. 3:3, He said, "Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee."

I figure that if I do watch, He will not come on me as a thief, and I will know what hour He will come upon me. I believe Jesus when he said, "But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things" (Mark 13:23). The clues are there, if we have eyes to see and ears to hear.

However, it is not mandatory that I know. The main thing is to be accounted worthy to escape all these things that are coming upon the world (Luke 21:36). If I can figure out when the Rapture will be, ok. If I can't figure it out ok.

Right now, I think it will be Sivan 3, 5764 (May 23, 2004). My reasons are on my Home Page. We will know soon.

> > What scriptural references would they propose to support this idea?

Mt. 24:36. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." They read it as if no man would ever know, but "knoweth" is present tense. At that moment, no man knew. We were to watch so we could figure it out when the time was right.

The first sign that we were entering the end times was when Israel became a nation in 1948. The Sign of the End of the Age was when Israel grew leaves (Gaza Strip, Sinai, Golan Heights and West Bank) in the Six-Day War of 1967 To me,those signs are unmistakable.

The longest we can count as a generation seems to be 48.33 years (according to Mt. 1:17). I firmly believe that all the end-of-the-age scriptures will be fullfilled by the end of the 48.33 years. I can't see how it could be otherwise. Agape

   Pro and Con 1123   Or Return   Home


Contact me for more information at: mjagee@pe.net


Send me e-mail now


8641 Sugar Gum Rd, Riverside, CA 92508, USA; (909) 653-4110


© 1996-2004, Marilyn J. Agee
Updated 5-6-04