The Apocalyptic Beheaders

quote:

---

There are numerous corroborating signs of fulfulled Biblical prophecy indicative of the last days of this age. We've covered a few of them.

---

To be more accurate there are many claims, and we've debunked a few of them here. Beheading's been around for a long time. And it appears that Thompson's situation has more to do with his intemperate attacks on Hinduism than simply being a Christian and an evangelist as such.So it really seems that even if Thompson were beheaded - and I have not heard that he has - it would not be significant in terms of increased persecution of Christianity or a significant increase in the use of beheading.n

Firstly Revelation 20:4 doesn't say when the people beheaded were killed. It could be read as implying that they were killed by the regime of the Beast - but if we take that reading then the modern beheadings have no special bearing on the matter - no mo re than ancient use of beheading. There is nothing that would require beheading to be common prior to the institution of that regime. If we assume that no particulsr time is meant then it could be talking about people beheaded hundreds of years earlier w hich would make modern beheadings even less significant.Even if beheading was rare in the last few decades - and I would suspect that it was more the beheading of Westerners that was rare - nothing in the Bible says that beheading would become rare then common again.So really there is nothing at all in this that could reasonably be considered a sign that the Apocalypse is coming. The more significant fact is that the argument is even made. The use of such a tenuous link is itself a clear indication that the claim made at the start of the OP is false. It is so obviusly clutching at straws that it would be ignored unless there were nothing better.

1) You claim that the Apocalypse has already begun but you can't find any signs of it. And even if it had begun it would not address my point.Since you bring up the Olivet Discourse, you will remember that it is only Luke that mentions a return to Israel and he does not mark that as the start of the Apocalypse as you do. The siege of Jerusalem and the exile are also part of his Apocalypse - as the siege is part of Mark's and Matthew's Apocalypse.2) According to the Olivet Discourse the Tribulation starts with or even before the siege of Jerusalem. If you want to claim that anything special is going on now, you have nearly 2000 years of history to compare it to.Your idea that beheading will become the major mode of execution is simply speculation on your part. It isn't supported by the evidence you've produced3) The French Revolution executed many Westerners. So why is this case significant when it hasn't even resulted in one beheading yet ?4) There is nothing relevant in your point 4. The regime you talk about doesn't exist yet, nor do you identify anythign about it that allows us to say that it might plausibly exist in the near future.So your arguments amount to saying:1) All accounts of the Olivet Discourse are incorrect. Only Luke mentions the crucial event and even he gets the order of events wrong.Can you explain why your ideas of what Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse are more reliable than the Gospel accounts ?2) The call for a single evangelist to be executed by beheading - because he has grossly offended Hindus - is strong evidence that beheading is going to become the major mode of execution in the near future.
You've offered nothing to explain how this makes any sense. Personally I very much doubt that the man will be executed in any fashion.e

I said that you can't find any signs of the Apocalypse bwing imminent because you can't. The Exile itself was just as much a "sign" and that was 0more than 1900 years ago. And there's more stuff that needs to happen first - like rebuilding the Temple - which has yet to even start.In fact the very existenc eof this thread proves me righht. If you really could see signs that the Apocalypse was imminent you wouldn't be wasting time with this argument at all.Likewise he reason I say that even if the Ap ocalypse had begun it would not address my point, is because it does not. My point is that these rumoured calls for a beheading are of no significance to your Apocalyptic ideas. The more so since your arguments indicate that the Apocalypse "began" prior to the Jewish Revolt and the particular incident that sparked this post certainly does not indicate "severe persecution".As for your "serious" "students" of the Bible, they appear to be "seriously" opposed to study and interested only in inveting excuses to axplain away the clear discrepencies. The differences are significant and ignore what genuine students of the Bible have discovered about the writing of the Gospels.Equally your "serious students" see, to think that if the Bible says something that they don't like they should pretend that it says something else. Mark and Matthew clearly link the destruction of the Temple to the Second Coming. I know you don't like it but it's you against the Bible.Moreover the reasons why I don't beleive th at Jesus expected an exile return have nothing to do with any prejudice against it. I am, for iastance, quite happy to accept that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple within a generation (and that happened). The reasons why I do not beleive th at Jesus did not make the prediction you refer to are due to the fact that Luke's account is very different from Matthew and Mark (who closely agree) - and there is no good explanation as to why both Matthew and Mark would omit major events like that, Wh ereas it is quite likely that someone would revise the prophecy after the fact And accordign to the wide consensus of Bible scholars, Luke was written after the fall of Jerusalem and therefore could easily include a revised "prophecy".With regard to th e Tribulation you are again in oppsoition to the Bible. The Tribulation is supposed to be a time so bad that if it continued for long humanity would be wiped out. Clearly it cannot go on for centuries. So either the Tribulation is long gone, or Luke is wrong.As for this:

quote:

---

The Olivet discourse begins with events of the period and ends with events close to the 2nd advent of Jesus. Note the apostle's three part question to Jesus in Matthew 24:3: A. When shall these things be?(Concernng temple, e t al) B. What shall be the sign of your coming? and C. What shall be at the end of the age? You folks demand science participants in science threads to debate science scientifially, yet are acting like anything goes here as to offering a credible argument. Serious students understand that the contextreveals which was to be near at hand and which would apply to end time events.

---

A SERIOUS student of the Bible would check the parallel versions in Mark and Luke. They would also read the answer. None of these sources back up your assertion that the answer is to be read as answering three different questions concerning widely seperated events.Mark 13:4 (NASB) And from the context it is clearly the destruction of the Temple that is meant - nothing else is mentioned.Worse for you, consider the answer. Where in Matthew does Jesus answer the question about the destruction of the Temple ? If he does not then you whole argument fails to even work with Matthew.Thus your accusation that I am not producing serious answers is absurd. I am paying more attention to the Bible than you are. I certainly do not agree that "anything goes" - your arguments are certainly far from adequate as I am demonstrating. Until you are prepared to take the text of the Bible at least as seriously as I do - unlike your so-called "serious students"- then you are not managing a serious discussion on the Bible.It is also false to say that I am not acceptign your evidence. The fact is that - as I am showing - your evidence is simply not adequate to back up your claims. There is no special reference to an increae in beheadings. Even if there is an increase in beheadings there is nothing to link it to the particular beheadigns you are talking about.And as I have already done my homework I know that the Beast's regiime does not yet exist, nor is there any plausible reason to suppose that it will exist in the near future. Thus your point 4 really was irrelevant.
s

And where does the Bible specifically say that beheadings will increase ?A