In 1934 Worth Smith writes in Miracle of the Ages: The Great Pyramid of Gizeh that one can expect “the actual beginning of Christ’s Millenial Rule, ‘the Thousand Years of Peace’, by not later than September 17, 2001” (Smith 129) [italics original]. Now it is easy enough to at first dismiss Smith’s emphatic calculation and scoff at this eschatological prophecy inspired by Smith’s own mathematical interpretation of the Great Pyramid’s somewhat unique architecture based on the fact that by September 18, 2001 there seemed to exist nowhere on the planet evidence of Christ’s Millenial Rule or even One Day of Peace for that matter—let alone One Thousand Years. But that is precisely the point: there seemed to exist nowhere on the planet evidence of Christ’s Millenial Rule or even One Day of Peace! Considering the fact that September 11, 2001 occurs just one week prior to the date indicated by Smith, it is fair to state that on September 18, 2001 most people on the planet would probably agree that the Thousand Years of Peace described in Revelation Chapter Twenty were still a long way off. In fact, of all the specific dates Smith could have picked for the last possible Advent of the Millenial Rule, the week of September 11, 2001 (literally the week he selected!) is probably in the retrospect of history the worst conceivable date any prognosticator could have promulgated for the dawn of the Millenial Rule because due to the ubiquitous nature of the multimedia coverage of the terror attacks against the United States on the Tuesday morning of September 11, 2001 it could be argued that the entire world was not only enabled to see these events transpire in real time as they happened but also could not escape becoming caught up in the subsequent narrative of war and terror that ensued, regardless of which side you were on. This climate inevitably made the average citizen of the globe’s perspective of international human activities anything but peaceful. These are the facts: indisputable and undeniable. But there is just one problem with facts. Facts are not necessarily true. While in the United States children are taught from childhood that facts = truth, it is easy to prove that this is not necessarily the case. For instance, it is a fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968. It is also a fact that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday is January 15. It is also a fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. was 39 when he was killed. And so from these three simple facts one can arrive at a simple truth: that Martin Luther King, Jr. was born on January 15, 1929. But this is not the truth. The reality is that Martin Luther King, Jr. was in fact born “Michael” Luther King – like his father – and so became a Junior who was not born with the name “Martin” at all. In this way, if one were to say that it is true that a man named “Martin” delivered the “I Have a Dream” speech on August 28, 1963, one could easily counter that this is not a truth, but merely a fact. The truth is that the man who delivered the “I Have a Dream” speech on August 28, 1963 was, in reality, a man named “Michael”. In fact, the speech wasn’t even originally entitled “I Have a Dream”, but I will not quibble. The point is: the facts will suggest to those whom equate facts with truth that this man, MLK, Jr., came out of his mother’s womb and was immediately named by his parents “Martin” and that his birth certificate verifies this supposed truth. The reality, however, is much different and so the question remains: what is Dr. King’s true first name? Is it “Martin” or is it Michael Fifield”? - The Gospel of Melchizedek, Dr. Gregory Kahlil Kareem Allen
Posted on: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 01:59:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015