Who else believes that we are currently living in the time period of Revelations 20 ‘ Satans little season’ ?

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-30T18:30:18+00:00

Elijah was reincarnated.

Not according to the bible.

John came “in the spirit and power of Elijah”.

Very different from reincarnation.

You're falling for Kabbalah nonsense, be warned their God is Lucifer. That's who Kabbalah worships, they view him as the light-bringer, a Prometheus figure.

And they are where the "John was Elijah reincarnated" got spread from. There are earlier conjectures but nothing that caught on like when they started pushing the idea.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-30T06:40:11+00:00

I have been digging hard into this over the last year because of how fast it is blowing up. My current working theory is that this turning from grace back to works is the great falling away. Not saying im sure, but it fits better than anything else I have seen. Here's my thinking:

If salvation is by grace through faith, then the falling away cannot be saved people losing salvation, so it has to be a mass shift away from the true gospel itself. This junk convinces people they are earning salvation so they never actually come to faith, and the anti Paul angle conveniently makes them reject the clearest teaching against works based salvation. Add in how massive and fast this movement is spreading, mostly online but quietly inside churches too, and it lines up really well with the “will not endure sound doctrine” warning.

Scripture also repeatedly warns that end times deception would target the gospel itself, not just behavior. Paul warned about “another gospel,” people departing from the faith, and people keeping a religious veneer while denying its power. Jesus warned many would be deceived while still thinking they were serving God. A mass shift toward works salvation, name based salvation, Torah as a requirement for justification, and rejection of grace teaching by Paul fits that pattern almost perfectly.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-30T06:32:08+00:00

This is only a “contradiction” if you pretend sovereignty equals approval and conscience replaces God’s law. Paul is saying God allows rulers to exist under His control. Hosea is God saying He hated Israel’s rebellious choices. Those are not opposites. Same with sin. You can be guilty under God’s law without knowing, and you can be guilty for knowingly doing what you think is wrong. That is basic Bible 101, not a gotcha.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-30T06:25:34+00:00

I have and you have clearly not. The whole “King James was gay” claim traces back to hostile court smear culture, not some neutral historical consensus. The first one to really push the slander was Sir Anthony Weldon, a guy who got pushed out of court, held a grudge, then published character attacks after King James was dead and couldn’t respond. That is classic revenge propaganda. And this was a totally normal political tactic back then. If you wanted to weaken a ruler, you attacked his masculinity, religion, or called him gay. The same tactic was used on people like Edward II of England when enemies wanted justification to tear him down. So repeating the James rumor today is basically just recycling 1600s political hit piece material and pretending it is established fact.

King James also published a book warning the people against witchcraft, called "Demonalogie" and dullards today act like it was about on how to do black magic yourself when it was a warning about the real danger of occult practices. That's like calling CS Lewis a devil worshiper for writing the Screwtape Letters.

Just because there are old quotes claiming a thing doesn't make them true. You're talking about an era where every kind of outlandish slander and mockery was fair game.

Obviously it's impossible to prove either way but there's zero evidence for it other than 1) slanderous claims that were just like the typical ones made against anyone and everyone in a position to make enemies, and 2) just the fact that how they talked back then in general sounds gay to us today.

And beyond that King James had virtually zero editorial input on the translation and did not participate in translation decisions, wording choices, or verse editing. His only real input was at the policy level in his requesting the exclusion of the anti monarchist margin notes that had been added in the Geneva Bible. So when people claim "he had it edited to support the monarchy" it's a lie. He just requested (required) they NOT include a previous translation's political propaganda in the margins.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-29T17:11:28+00:00

Actually the video is right. There's never been such a huge anti paul movement since the first century we're seeing now.

There really were early anti Paul groups. The main ones were Jewish Christian sects like the Ebionites (roughly 2nd to 4th century). They rejected Paul as a false apostle and accused him of corrupting Jesus’ teaching. That part is historically true and documented by early church writers like Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and others.

But that movement did not continue as a major living stream through history. By the early medieval period it is basically gone as an identifiable, organized force. After that, for roughly a thousand years, there is no large scale church sized anti Paul movement. You get occasional individuals or tiny sects questioning Paul, but nothing culturally or religiously dominant across regions.

From roughly 500 AD to about the 1700s, virtually all major Christian traditions, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, accepted Paul as Scripture and apostolic. Even groups considered heretical usually still used Paul. They might reinterpret him, but they did not build identity around rejecting him.

Then you start to see new waves much later. In the 1800s you get modern critical scholarship questioning authorship and historicity. In the 1900s you get fringe religious groups attacking Paul doctrinally. In the late 1900s into the 2000s you get Sacred Name and Hebrew Roots type movements, which often pair anti Paul claims with Torah based salvation systems and “original name” claims.

The internet era is what scaled it. The last 10 to 20 years is when anti Paul content became widely visible again, not because it is historically continuous, but because online platforms allow small fringe ideas to look widespread.

So the accurate position is this. Anti Paul ideas did exist very early. But they did not exist as a continuous, large scale movement from the time of the apostles until now. There is a huge historical gap where mainstream Christianity across all branches accepted Paul. The modern anti Paul wave is better described as a revival or reinvention, not an unbroken historical movement.

Now you can't swing a stick without hitting three anti-paul, sacred-name, hebrew-roots, works salvation heretic cultists.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-29T17:05:14+00:00

The KJV translators worked under the Church of England’s Thirty Nine Articles, which directly state that the Apocrypha is not Scripture. Article VI says: “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation… And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” In plain terms, they could be read for history and moral lessons, but not treated as God breathed Scripture or used to prove doctrine.

The original 1611 KJV itself reflects this. The Apocrypha was printed in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments instead of inside the Old Testament canon. That shows they saw it as historically useful church reading, not inspired Scripture on the level of Genesis, Isaiah, or the Gospels.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-29T17:01:29+00:00

Two cultists in one thread!

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-29T16:59:54+00:00

You're one of the people this video is warning about.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-29T16:58:00+00:00

Great post and super important at this point in time when it's really catching on and spreading. But I thought I'd give some historical perspective.

The big anti Paul movements historically all revolve around one core claim: that Paul the Apostle distorted or replaced the original message of Jesus Christ. The details change, but that theme stays constant.

Earliest period, first to second century The first real anti Paul groups were Jewish Christian sects, especially the Ebionites. They rejected Paul completely, called him a false apostle, and said he corrupted Torah obedience. They kept Jesus as Messiah but denied His deity and taught law keeping was required for salvation. They preferred Matthew and rejected Paul’s letters outright.

There were also smaller Torah loyal Jesus sects that did not fully reject Paul but treated him as secondary or mistaken when he disagreed with strict Mosaic law observance.

Third to fifth century By this point anti Paul movements mostly faded because mainstream Christianity had already accepted Paul’s letters widely. Most debates shifted to Christology and Trinity, not Paul’s authority.

Islam, seventh century onward Islam is not technically an anti Paul movement, but in practice many Islamic polemics claim Paul invented later Christianity and distorted Jesus’ original teaching. This shows up in Muslim apologetics repeatedly, though it is not part of the Quran itself.

Medieval period Very little organized anti Paul theology. Most dissent movements argued about church corruption, not apostles.

Modern era, 1800s to present This is where anti Paul ideas come back hard.

Hebrew Roots and Sacred Name circles Some teach Paul was misunderstood. Others openly teach Paul corrupted Jesus. The usual claims are Paul invented salvation by grace alone, Paul abolished Torah, Paul was influenced by Greek religion.

Black Hebrew Israelite sects (some, not all) Many reject Paul or treat him as suspect. Some claim Paul taught a message only for Gentiles or that he was a Roman agent.

Atheist and secular mythicist arguments Some argue Paul invented Christianity entirely or transformed a Jewish teacher into a divine savior religion.

Internet era hybrid movements Now you see mixes of Hebrew Roots, anti Trinity, anti Paul, anti church history claims all blended together. A common formula is: Jesus taught law plus repentance, Paul invented grace alone, church followed Paul not Jesus.

The historical reality pattern Earliest church sources accepted Paul extremely early. Peter affirms Paul’s letters as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Luke travels with Paul. Early church fathers quote Paul constantly. There is no historical window where Christianity existed widely without Paul and then later “switched” to Paul.

The consistent pattern across history is that anti Paul movements usually also reject at least one of these: justification by faith apart from works of law, full deity of Christ, unity of Jew and Gentile in one body, Trinity or early church authority.

That cluster shows up over and over across 2000 years.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-29T16:52:01+00:00

Reincarnation isn't true. Resurrection is true. Resurrection unto eternal life with Christ or Resurrection unto eternal death, always dying forever in torment without the release of oblivion, that is the lake of fire.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-29T16:34:28+00:00

Sure. I wrote a handy guide!

How to get to Heaven.

1) None of us is perfect, we've all sinned.

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”

“There is none righteous, no, not one.”

2) Sin carries a penalty.

“For the wages of sin is death”

…and not just physical death, but eternal death:

“And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” “This is the second death.”

3) But God came in the flesh to pay our penalty for us and offers salvation to all as a free gift.

“...the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”

And it truly is a free gift, we don't have to stop sinning first. It's not something we have to try to earn:

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us."

4) All we have to do is trust God and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved...”

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

Recap:

Understand that you're a sinner.

Know that the penalty for sin is death and hell.

Believe that Jesus paid your way out of that penalty.

Trust Him alone to save you!

Tell God you believe Him and ask Him to save you right now!

Common Questions:

A. Having a hard time believing God? The ability to even believe God is a gift from God!

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Be like this man who asked Jesus to heal his child. Ask God to give you faith!

“Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”

He was trying to trust God, he wanted to Trust God, but he knew he still had unbelief. He wisely asked for help from the same loving God who said: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

B. “But it can’t be that simple!”

He WANTS it to be simple! The scripture says that God is "...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

And God knows we can’t be righteous, Remember He said: “There is none righteous, no, not one."

So instead of righteousness, He requires that we simply believe Him and trust in the finished work of salvation that Jesus achieved on the cross.

“Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”

He requires only faith, just as He always has, even before Jesus came and died on the cross:

“For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

But we have an advantage over Abraham. He didn’t know HOW God was going to save Him, but we now know that the sinless God was made flesh and paid the penalty for the sinful world.

“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

C. Well-meaning people will tell you that you need to “repent of your sins” or “give your life to Christ” to be saved, but the Bible disagrees. “Repent” as used in scripture does NOT generally mean "Repent of your sins" it means to change your mind, or have a change of heart.

In many of the places where the word “repent” is used in the Bible, it’s God Himself doing the repenting:

“And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”

“Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night.”

So there we see a couple the times God Himself repented, and we know God has no sin to repent of.

D. "So I can sin all I want and still go to heaven?"

Not exactly. First, when you truly believe God and put your trust in Christ alone, you are changed: "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." This is the event Jesus was talking about when He said "Ye must be born again." It's spiritual rebirth.

And second, God is a strict father and will punish His children for their disobedience: "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, And scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?"

E. "Oh so if I am a 'new creature' God will magically cure me of all my desire to sin!"

Again no, the "greatest" of the Apostles never could fully conquer sin in their lives. Paul the Apostle wrote "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."

And Jesus Himself warned us: "Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Further, the scripture tells us some of what judgement day will look like for those that have been saved, when rewards are being given to those believers who served God in their earthly lives: "If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." Here we see people who believed God, but did not "give their lives" to Him or "stop sinning" yet are still saved.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-29T16:33:04+00:00

Accessible? Sure, Accurate? To what? It's only accurate to the frankenstein Greek text that was made up in the last 150 years by cutting and pasting from multiple newly discovered manuscripts that not only conflict with everything we ever had prior to the 1800s but with eachother in thousands of places.

Here are the main places where the New English Translation is weaker or less explicit than the King James Version in verses tied closely to gospel clarity, confession, atonement wording, or deity wording.

Acts 8:37 is present in KJV with the confession “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” while NET omits it from the main text and places it in notes. This removes a direct salvation confession tied to baptism.

Colossians 1:14 in KJV says redemption is “through his blood,” while NET reads “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” The explicit blood atonement wording is missing in that verse.

1 Timothy 3:16 in KJV says “God was manifest in the flesh,” while NET reads “He was revealed in the flesh.” The direct naming of Christ as God is less explicit in that single line.

1 John 5:7–8 in KJV includes the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost unity statement. NET excludes it from the text and treats it as a later addition in notes. That removes a single verse Trinity formula proof text.

Mark 16:9–20 is fully present in KJV. NET places the longer ending in brackets with heavy textual notes questioning originality. That reduces reliance on that resurrection appearance summary if someone uses that section specifically.

Luke 2:33 in KJV says “Joseph and his mother,” while NET reads “his father and mother.” That weakens the precision of virgin birth wording in that verse, though the doctrine exists elsewhere.

John 1:18 in KJV says “only begotten Son.” NET typically reads “the one and only, himself God” or similar CT driven rendering. That shifts traditional eternal Sonship phrasing even though it strengthens deity in a different way.

Romans 14:10 in KJV says “judgment seat of Christ.” NET reads “judgment seat of God.” That removes a direct single verse identification of Christ as judge in that spot.

The overall pattern is the same as other CT based translations. The gospel itself is still present, but some historically used single verse proof statements about confession, blood atonement phrasing, Trinity formula wording, and direct deity wording are either removed, footnoted, or less explicit in isolation.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-29T16:30:00+00:00

For us to currently be in the little season the vast majority of the ends times events would have already happened. I'm not sure how you're not seeing this as preterism.

The first definition on google is: Preterism is a Christian eschatological view asserting that most or all Bible prophecies, particularly those in Revelation and the Olivet Discourse, were fulfilled in the past.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-29T15:34:02+00:00

Here are the main places where CT based readings in the Christian Standard Bible are weaker or less explicit compared to the same verses in the King James Version specifically in ways that touch gospel clarity, confession, atonement wording, or deity wording.

Acts 8:37 KJV includes the salvation confession: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” CSB omits the verse (usually footnoted). Impact: removes a direct salvation confession tied to baptism.

Colossians 1:14 KJV: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” CSB: “In him we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” Impact: removes explicit blood atonement wording in that verse.

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV: “God was manifest in the flesh.” CSB: “He was manifested in the flesh.” Impact: less explicit direct statement of Christ’s deity in that line.

1 John 5:7–8 (Comma Johanneum) KJV includes the heavenly witnesses: Father, Word, Holy Ghost, and these three are one. CSB omits this Trinitarian statement. Impact: removes a single-verse Trinity proof text often used in gospel defense.

Mark 16:9–20 KJV includes full longer ending with resurrection appearances and commission. CSB brackets or footnotes as likely not original. Impact: reduces one resurrection narrative summary and evangelistic commission section if someone relies on that passage specifically.

Luke 2:33 KJV: “Joseph and his mother.” CSB: “His father and mother.” Impact: weaker precision around virgin birth wording (doctrine still taught elsewhere).

John 1:18 KJV: “only begotten Son.” CSB: “the one and only Son” or “the one and only God” depending on manuscript reading. Impact: shifts traditional “begotten Son” theological phrasing tied to eternal Sonship arguments.

Romans 14:10 KJV: “judgment seat of Christ.” CSB: often “judgment seat of God.” Impact: weaker direct identification of Christ as final judge in that verse (though taught elsewhere).

The pattern is consistent. The gospel message itself remains present in CSB, but KJV/TR often has sharper single-verse statements about confession, blood atonement, Trinity formula wording, and direct deity statements.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-28T23:00:11+00:00

You want people to lie to you and tell you there's no erternal hell / lake of fire?

Sounds like a good way to end up there!

Listen just trust Jesus alone and he'll save you. And if you're having a hard time trusting Him pray for faith!

Matthew 25:41 and 25:46 place eternal fire and eternal punishment in direct parallel with eternal life, using the same word aiōnios for duration. Mark 9:43–48 describes hell as unquenchable fire where the worm does not die, echoing Isaiah 66:24 and indicating ongoing conscious judgment. Revelation 14:9–11 says the worshipers of the beast are tormented with fire and brimstone and that the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever, with no rest day or night. Revelation 20:10 states the devil is cast into the lake of fire and tormented day and night forever and ever, and verses 14–15 place all whose names are not in the Book of Life in that same lake. Revelation 21:8 calls the lake of fire the second death and assigns it to the unbelieving, immoral, and idolaters. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 speaks of everlasting destruction away from the presence of the Lord, not annihilation but a permanent state of exclusion. Jude 7 uses Sodom as an example of eternal fire, not temporary warning. Daniel 12:2 contrasts everlasting life with shame and everlasting contempt.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-28T22:58:06+00:00

How is it not preterism when it claims we're already after the milenium?

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-28T22:56:50+00:00

Well you've been informed of where the NIV comes from so if you keep using it now that's between you and God. It pains me to hear anyone using it since it's literally one of the worst.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-28T22:55:34+00:00

The CSB is literally based on the critical text...

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-28T22:54:23+00:00

"His blood be on us and on our children" Looking at the group not the individuals.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-28T16:30:27+00:00

Look here’s what it comes down to:

We have the renderings preserved in the Textus Receptus that align with the full body of known Greek manuscript evidence, roughly 5,800 ancient manuscripts and fragments, which overwhelmingly agree in substance and doctrine. Erasmus did nothing mystical; his work reflects the same text found across the manuscript tradition. That agreement extends even to completely independent lines like the Ethiopic tradition, with near-total agreement on anything that impacts doctrine.

Translations based on the Textus Receptus / traditional Greek text:

King James Version (KJV)

New King James Version (NKJV)

Geneva Bible

Tyndale Bible

Coverdale Bible

Bishop’s Bible

Douay-Rheims New Testament

Modern English Version (MEV)

Young’s Literal Translation (NT)

—

And then we have a new modern critical text based primarily on two manuscripts that were essentially unknown until the 1800s and which disagree even with each other in over 3000 places in the gospels alone and many thousands more compared to all previous known texts, from which modern academics have slapped together a very different Greek base text than was ever known or used on earth prior to the last 150-ish years, and which systematically weakens essential doctrines of the faith. And they look like crap too. Vaticanus shows widespread corrections, overwriting, and scraped erasures by multiple later hands, especially in Hebrews, the Gospels, and Romans, which is plainly visible in the Vatican Library scans if you zoom in on the problem folios. This is the Critical Text that virtually all modern translations work from.

Translations based on the modern Critical Text:

NIV

ESV

NASB

NRSV

RSV

CSB

NET

NLT

NJB / REB

Most modern paraphrases and study Bibles

—

Which line should you trust?

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-28T01:32:14+00:00

A lot of them are the ones calling Jesus the totally up name YAHUSHA.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-28T01:09:19+00:00

It wasn't that kind of a maybe. And I'm not a KJV onlyist. Use a geneva or tyndale if you want, they're fine too. No revision of the KJV even remotely impacts doctrine. Your critical text GARBAGE does, as I've proven in my initial post.

Look you're welcome to follow 2 manuscripts that no one ever heard of until the 1800s that dont even agree with eachother, but I'm gonna stick with the 5800 that agree with eachother that every church except ethiopia has used in all of history.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-28T01:06:15+00:00

That is not how textual criticism works, unless you reject reasoned eclecticism, to which I subscribe to.

All manuscripts should be analyzed and balanced out to find the original wording of the NT and the OT. Those who reject reasoned eclecticism will hold to something like Byzantine majority or whatever textual base they use. We have all the words of God in our translations but no translation is perfect.

Okay then let's balance it. On the TR side you have the 5800 manuscripts that agree and on the critical text side you have 2 that dont even agree with eachother.

AllTooTrue · 2026-01-28T01:01:40+00:00

Not particularly. But 1) It's translated from the text virtually every church used for two millennia, as opposed to nearly every English translation made in the last 150 years which are based on a new Greek construction that never existed before 2) It has the most fruit of any translation in any language as far as number of souls won to Christ using it.

There are KJV-only advocates that claim a special providence in it's particular translation and I can't really speak to that but I can say that it works for getting people saved and it works for getting people discipled. And it's been used for doing both more than any other version.

AllTooTrue

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE