Well let's remember that The book of Revelations is a very intentional prophecy being shown and dictated to John many years after the events you are suggesting satisfy his "prophecy".

Maybe he wasn't wasting papyrus to explain the obvious. 😁

Well this is why we love Jesus.

I'm just looking around like a Israelite slave, freed from bondage (thru Christ), excited for the promised land. But I know how they behaved in the wilderness back in the Exodus story. But if we prepare for the journey, maybe it won't take us 40 this time. (Actually we only have a few years to get straightened out this time).

This is a very interesting part of the gospels. But it's clearly not passing the test defined in the book of Revelations. Rev 20 defines the first resurrection. Whatever happened back then was not what Jesus calls the "First".

I'll trust Him.

No worries. And honestly I don't mind when debates get a little hot. I mean I'm out here telling people that rapture is false doctrine... I believe this message is important enough if I have to take some abuse, no big deal.

Getting a video not available message from YouTube. You wanna summarize?

Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I think you should read my reply to someone else. About how my compassion for my fellow Christians is what is going on here.

Beautifully said. Here is where my compassion is stirred up. Most of us have not been even aquatinted with the kind of suffering that almost all of humanity has already experienced.

If the days ahead are just like Jesus warned, so many of our fellow Christians having only prepared to be rescued, will be so tested and likely suffer the coming plagues the worst, even to death. By clinging to this false doctrine they are headed for spiritual warfare while being totally unprepared for the physical discomfort. Notice that verse about adding something doesn't say they will lose the Kingdom, but they will suffer the plagues. This coming from Jesus isn't just a warning, it's prophecy. And I can see how that prophecy will be fulfilled.

Count it as a compliment. I might peddle my thoughts at PDW too but I chose GAW because I find this crowd to be a little more engaging on esoteric topics.

It's not quite off topic though. I mean there's even a "scripture" flare. And I think there needs to be a great awakening within the church.

That's awesome. Truly, people are going to need to learn to live without the spoils of the world's tyranny. We're going to need people like you.

I love the King James. And the New King James is much more readable (with updated English, not all the 'goeth' and such.

I'll probably upset even more people if I say to stay away from any. So here goes. I don't really trust NIV, still can be interesting to have one around though.

Wow. I didn't know there was Q doctrine. Honestly I think there's a lot more to this community than Q. I never got into that stuff much. I'm pro-Q because of the meta impact of whatever Q was. It clearly inspired a great awakening. In that way, it's amazing.

Nobody is suggesting that believing a false doctrine is contingent for salvation.

Jesus did seem to have concerns about people being deceived though. So it appears your faith will be tested.

I posted the link to the post from yesterday if you want to read our debate. I'm not sure which side you're arguing with this quote. I love these verses since they clearly show that being caught up with the Lord happens after the dead in Christ are resurrected. So you cannot insert a pre-trib rapture into Revelations. Since Rev20 describes the "First resurrection" including those who refuse the beast.

not inclusive enough?

link to yesterday's debate:

https://greatawakening.win/p/15HImDfGQW/i-dont-know-who-this-is-for-but-/

ah. This warning is about specifically this book. the Revelation of Jesus given to John. I see no pre-trib rapture in this book and I think it is dangerous to add it.

Yeah DO NOT trust the Vatican. satanic is appropriate description

interesting book. not sure I understand your question though.

Thank you for putting in the time and effort here. I will get around to checking those things. Understand I've already searched not just for weeks but for years for justification of this doctrine. I cannot find anyone reconciling the problems of placing a resurrection before the first resurrection or inserting a return of Christ before the the second coming that He taught about.

This is Rev 22:18-19 (Something to think about soberly)

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

yes. This is why I think this doctrine is so dangerous. We know how the Israelites behaved after a little while in the wilderness. Imagine that, they walked through the sea, they were fed mana from heaven, followed a pillar of smoke and fire and still longed for the comforts of pharoah's tyranny.

The church needs to stop repeating 'fake news' and prepare for a time of walking in faith with plenty of discomfort.

I think they are smart bible scholars. But for some reason they can't figure out whether the "rapture" happens before or after the "first resurrection". So I have to question their authority to explain scripture. It's not hard to read.

Revelations 20 4-6 "4: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5: But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6: Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

They like to pretend there is a rapture before this mentioned in Thessalonians where Paul clearly says the dead in Christ are raised first.

So they end up with 2 "first" resurrections and for that matter 2 "second comings" of Jesus.

I guess my tone is flippant but I'm not trying to attack you. I am attacking a doctrine that I realize many have grown up believing or have been impressed by experts to believe. But there are so many plain and simple problems with the doctrine. I wanted to call your attention to the way Jesus is talking about how the tares will be removed BEFORE the gathering of the Wheat "to shine forth ... in the Kingdom".

You say this parable is not about rapture. Well I suppose I agree, but it is definitely about "the end of this age" when the "Son of Man will send out His angels". This matches his language in other places where he is clearly talking about the establishment of His Kingdom.

The bowls of wrath come after the woes of tribulations.

Maybe I'm a bit jaded by "experts" but I'm not impressed by an assumed consensus of the super smart expert bible-ologists. For some reason they can't wrap their collective heads around the simple words like "First", when they read of the "First resurrection" described in Rev 20:4-6. Here's another word that they get confused by, "After" like "immediately after the tribulations" When Jesus talks about his own second coming. Come to think of it... Why do they call it his "Second" coming and not his third?

Honestly, why doesn't someone just cut out all the parts that are for "the Jews" already and save us all the unnecessary reading? To try to be fair, I think sometimes there can be more meaning drawn from some scripture by acknowledging the immediate audience. But to suggest that the gospel writers were so narrowly minded (especially after the great commission) is just absurd.

Good job.

So you think there will be people who offend the Kingdom and practice lawlessness in the Kingdom?

That's pretty weird.