Question(s) for pre-Trib Rapture Theorists

[vooks]

I think that beheading will be something that occurs often in the Tribulation for two reasons: first, while I do not agree with those who take the view that the Antichrist will come out of Islam (though I admit it is a possibility), I do think, seeing that the countries Prophecy speaks of being participants in the end days are all primarily Muslim, that this usual method of execution will be employed by them.

Secondly, it is a cheap means of execution and involves no technology, which is really the second point: technology will, due to the calamity involved, fail greatly in this period. The collapse of civilization is not something incredible that would take a great deal maneuvering to come about. Failure of the Power Systems would be enough to throw the entire world into chaos. Societies have become over-dependent on technology, and something as simple as the ability to store food could be enough to change the entire face of the earth.

But to answer the question more directly and bring the Antichrist into view, I don't think he will personally do the killing, but, in the atmosphere which arises in that Period, and when he sets himself up as a god, I see Scripture teaching that he will demand allegiance, and those who rebel against him will certainly be put to death.

I view the mark as a simple sign of allegiance to Antichrist, because again, I think technology will fail in general. And the one that controls the food in that day will be in control. If one cannot buy or sell without having the mark, and the means of obtaining the mark allegiance (which will actually be worship) to the Beast, this places those who trust in Christ in the position of either denying Christ and living physically, or dying as a consequence of the Beast's control over food.

Then we have those who I think will be sought out and demanded to come into allegiance. I think there will be a program where those who resist the Beast will be sought out and put to death for refusing to take the Mark.


God bless.

Why in your opinion is First Resurrection associated with the beheaded saints?

 

[Darrell C]

Why in your opinion is First Resurrection associated with the beheaded saints?

Because of the fact that they did not take the Mark of the Beast, which while our A-mil, Preterist, Idealist, and Historicist brethren view as symbolic and representative of evil deed (hand) and action (forehead, mind), I view to be a literal mark in a literal Seven Year Period prophesied in both Old and New Testaments.


Revelation 20

King James Version (KJV)

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.


As I told an A-Mil brother here recently, I wish I could embrace a view that removes this period as a literal event, but, I cannot. IT would be easier to take a view that simply views all Prophecy here as representative of the great battle of good versus evil, and that the tribulation depicted here is being carried out throughout history. Here we see they did not take the mark, and they did not worship the Beast, and they were killed for that reason.

That can only happen when the Beast is present and demanding worship, right?


God bless.

 

[vooks]

Because of the fact that they did not take the Mark of the Beast, which while our A-mil, Preterist, Idealist, and Historicist brethren view as symbolic and representative of evil deed (hand) and action (forehead, mind), I view to be a literal mark in a literal Seven Year Period prophesied in both Old and New Testaments.


Revelation 20

King James Version (KJV)

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.


As I told an A-Mil brother here recently, I wish I could embrace a view that removes this period as a literal event, but, I cannot. IT would be easier to take a view that simply views all Prophecy here as representative of the great battle of good versus evil, and that the tribulation depicted here is being carried out throughout history. Here we see they did not take the mark, and they did not worship the Beast, and they were killed for that reason.

That can only happen when the Beast is present and demanding worship, right?


God bless.

I mean, this is a resurrection involving those who were never beheaded and those who were beheaded. Why would it be identified by those who were beheaded?

A-mills are proof that you can make comedy out of anything including eschatology

 

[Darrell C]

I mean, this is a resurrection involving those who were never beheaded and those who were beheaded. Why would it be identified by those who were beheaded?

A-mills are proof that you can make comedy out of anything including eschatology

Now where in anything I have said do you come up with this?


God bless.

 

[vooks]

Now where in anything I have said do you come up with this?


God bless.

Those who die naturally after you are raptured, I asked you when they resurrect and you said First Resurrection, but first resurrection is for those beheaded

 

[Darrell C]

Those who die naturally after you are raptured, I asked you when they resurrect and you said First Resurrection, but first resurrection is for those beheaded

Vooks, you need to place everything that has been said together.

You come up with this...

I mean, this is a resurrection involving those who were never beheaded and those who were beheaded. Why would it be identified by those who were beheaded?

A-mills are proof that you can make comedy out of anything including eschatology

...after I have already told you that I view "beheading" to refer to death in general, rather than specifically taking someone's head off. Regardless, all in view would be dead.

It's really a simple teaching, the First Resurrection consists only of Tribulation Martyrs. That someone dies naturally is an attempt to ignore that simple fact. Any believer that dies in the Tribulation will likely be raised at the First Resurrection, and even if they are not...

...what point do you think you derive, and...

...how does that change what is stated in Revelation 20:4, and...

...when will you acknowledge that the First Resurrection is not the First Resurrection in meaning of Sequence?

We have first the Resurrection of Christ, that is the "First" in meaning of sequence, and then we have the resurrection and Rapture of the Two Witnesses.

If for some reason those who die naturally as believers are not resurrected in the First Resurrection, then we know that their resurrection will occur one thousand years later. It doesn't really impact the Rapture, because the First Resurrection is not the Rapture.


God bless.

 

[Bob Hope]

Will there be natural deaths during the 7 years following your rapture?

Since the rapture doesn't happen until the end of the tribulation the answer is no.


Matthew 13:39
The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

 

[vooks]

Vooks, you need to place everything that has been said together.

You come up with this...



...after I have already told you that I view "beheading" to refer to death in general, rather than specifically taking someone's head off. Regardless, all in view would be dead.

It's really a simple teaching, the First Resurrection consists only of Tribulation Martyrs. That someone dies naturally is an attempt to ignore that simple fact. Any believer that dies in the Tribulation will likely be raised at the First Resurrection, and even if they are not...

...what point do you think you derive, and...

...how does that change what is stated in Revelation 20:4, and...

...when will you acknowledge that the First Resurrection is not the First Resurrection in meaning of Sequence?

We have first the Resurrection of Christ, that is the "First" in meaning of sequence, and then we have the resurrection and Rapture of the Two Witnesses.

If for some reason those who die naturally as believers are not resurrected in the First Resurrection, then we know that their resurrection will occur one thousand years later. It doesn't really impact the Rapture, because the First Resurrection is not the Rapture.


God bless.

Revelation 20:4 (KJV)
..... 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


The highlighted Are the participants in the First Resurrection @Darrell C.
I was wondering whether there are other participants omitted or subtly included in this event, and you said there were.

If your views are misrepresented, profuse apologies.
Is it possible that there is another class of resurrectees omitted in this expression but who participate in the event?

 

[vooks]

Since the rapture doesn't happen until the end of the tribulation the answer is no.


Matthew 13:39
The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

Thank you for passing by.

What do you think is being described in Rev 20:4?