This is a "What If" scenario intended to generate discussion and alternative analysis.
First let's go through a few established known truths:
-
The apostle John wrote Revelations while exiled on Patmos
-
John was a beloved apostle and was an eyewitness to the teachings and miracles of Jesus
-
John was a faithful apostle and reliable
-
Revelations is particularly difficult to understand given the imagery and symbolism
-
Revelations basic message is that GOD is in control and his Victory is assured. All who believe and trust in Jesus Christ will be saved
-
Revelations closes human history in the same way Genesis opened it--- in Paradise
-
Genesis describes the introduction of evil to humans, Revelations describes the annihilation of evil for forever
-
We've been taught that Revelations describes the end of humanity
So what if Revelations is describing the end of the World as we know it... Not the end of Earth literally?
What if Revelations is a message to the cabal directly... telling them how their rule ends?
What if eradicating the luciferians is literally the eradication of evil forever?
What if when Q uses the word biblical -- it's a reference to the book of Revelations and the last epic battle between Good and evil?
What if the "panic" that Q describes is literally their hysteria and panic knowing that their world is coming to an end?
Call it intuition or a gut feeling.....but my entire life I've been taught that Revelations describes an end to humanity. One week ago it occurred to me that this could be just another misunderstood concept. When I dig in and apply the Q context to Revelations......it makes sense to me that we're witnessing it happen and it's not our destruction that John described. He described THEIR destruction.
Then again... I could be wrong.
You can infer anything you want-- however-- the fact is I didn't say anything about Trump.
My point is, this is bigger than him. Maybe he runs for office again, maybe he doesn't.
This is about something other than that.
In a rational discussion all points "stand". Even if they're insulting or in opposition.
What part of > This is intended to generate discussion
do you not understand?