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.
This person is one of the few in here that knows church history and eschatology and is being downvoted while being 1100% correct.
Believing that your interpretation is the only correct possibility is dangerous; Saul of Tarsus had a lot of knowledge and logic on his side as well, before taking the road to Damascus. There are other interpretations that can be backed by church history, human history and eschatology.
See my other comment.
And how is building, fighting, and spreading the gospel instead of rolling over for Satan dangerous exactly?
Uhh, what? Spreading the gospel is great! How'd you get the idea I'm against that? Or in favor of surrender to Satan? I'm just saying to be careful of assuming that your interpretation of the gospel is the only one possible. Peace, brother.
At no point did I suggest either one of those things. You must be looking at the wrong comment