HISTORY OF "THE RAPTURE"

" The specifications" are the individual inclusive features that define the "Rapture".

Well, considering that I have no idea about what Im talking about

or where derives the number who will be "RAptured", or even when it occurs, etc, I dont really feel commited to a "Belief system" that even includes the various features that the "Left behind" books and your quotes from Thess. include. But thats just me. Im looking at this more in a documentary evidence basis.

I wonder really, whether your Thesselonians and a little Revelations mixed in are even really valid from a Questioned document perspective.
1. You seem to state that THess describes a rapture, but later, John says nothing about it and describes the concept of tribulation as merelly giving comfort to those undergoing persecution at the time. So 2 core concepts of RApturing seem to conflict internally no?

2. Matt and MArk conflict with the concept (questioned documents again) because , like in MAtt, he describes the Second Coming "as a flood" and the way the CAtholics read it(or as the way I was taught to read it) , those who are "Taken" are actually those who are being punished , not sucked up to heaven.
(MAjor discrepency among Christian cults, so from questioned documents perspective, I feel that inconsistency and disagreements among the sects about something so apparently fundamental is not a sign of it being a valid concept)

How does the number of those raptured derive? from whence? how bout that Thess doesnt say anything about the "Non raptured" world and any period of tribulation.Tribulation itself is defined several different ways (in English Bibles of different sects)

Ive discussed this (usually at parties when I have to stand around with other non-drinkers) among Baptist leaders of specific sects who are non denominationalist and who argue for the rapture and then denominationalists who argue that its an evil thing derived from the mixing together of "Unfriendly" segments of the NT that dont counter support each other.

So far weve had Matt, (different non supportive), Thesselonians (seemingly the core of rapturist thinking,but no detail at all , but seems admixed with John, who presents a totally different meaning about "Tribulations").
Then neo has provided some interesting OT quotes that seem to conflict with the very concept of a Rapture.

The problem I see is that most of this concept, like much else in the bible, is subject to vast amounts of post author modification and assigned meaning. The strict interpretations of the various "letters" and Acts of the Apostles, need to be viewed in the time they were penned, not assigned some "Beam me Up SCotty' interpretation that, to me is inconsistent with what the books actually say.
Of course now you must remembre, Im a skeptic and agnostic , so when I see a concept that fully several million Evangelical Cjristians believe, I need to see from where their beliefs arise.
So far Darby and the SCofield annotations are in thelead.

OTOH, there is little disagreement among Bible believing Christians that there will be a 'rapture' . . .

real life wrote:

OTOH, there is little disagreement among Bible believing Christians that there will be a 'rapture' . . .

Which is to say, that anyone whose beliefs are not consonant with your theology is not a true christian, or is at least, not a "bible believing christian." Small wonder that people are so readily killed for their religious beliefs--it is so easy to turn them into "the other," to brand them as heretical, from which point it's but short step for a demagogue to label them less worthy, less human.

having had set steal my thunder. The very point of this thread was a more historical analysis of the concept of the "Rapture" and where the divergence in the various dogmae have taken Christians. SInce a rapture seems to be a minority view and other sects (of Christians) decry its validity, the response that it is a feature upon which "Bible Believers" attach themselves, says to me that almost everyones own revelation has been a non universal interpretation and/or a much later modification of scripture itself. (Im leaning on the second). EVen the JEws are guilty of this "denominational bias", except they merely put emphases on different portions of the Torah to define their own sects.

Christians apparently remold the entire texts to suit their developing views and claim Biblical or Traditional AUthority.

All the texts in which mention is made of the Parusia, or Second Coming, seem to imply clearly enough that the general judgment will take place on the earth. Some commentators infer from 1 Thessalonians 4:16, that the judgment will be held in the air, the newly risen being carried into the clouds to meet Christ; according to others the prophecy of Joel (3:1 sq.) places the last judgment in the Valley of Josaphat.

Catholic Christians have always believed that Jesus Christ would come back to close the current period of human history in earth. The time when Jesus will return is given many names: the Day of the Lord, the Parousia, the end time, and the Second Coming of Christ.

The Bible describes the events of Jesus' return in apocalyptic images.

Mk 13:26-27
And then they will see 'the Son of Man coming in the clouds' with great power and glory, and then he will send out the angels and gather (his) elect from the four winds, from the end of the earth to the end of the sky.
Mt 16:27
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.
Acts 1:11
They (two men dressed in white) said, "Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven."
1 Thess 4:16-18
For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore, console one another with these words.

In fact, for many people, this is not a minor point of theology. But i was not saying that people would be killed over such a matter. I was pointing out that the glib manner in which you dismissed anyone who does not agree with your interpretation is an example of how easily narrow-minded orthodoxy arises, which can lead easily to the rigid kind of thinking which a demagogue exploits.

This is typical of the way you attempt to twist the meanings of what someone has written. That, of course, if the stock in trade of exegetics.

Christians are really ill-bred, ill-mannered creeps when you get right down to it.

Setanta wrote:

Christians are really ill-bred, ill-mannered creeps when you get right down to it.

OUCH!!!

Setanta wrote:

In fact, for many people, this is not a minor point of theology. But i was not saying that people would be killed over such a matter. I was pointing out that the glib manner in which you dismissed anyone who does not agree with your interpretation is an example of how easily narrow-minded orthodoxy arises, which can lead easily to the rigid kind of thinking which a demagogue exploits.

This is typical of the way you attempt to twist the meanings of what someone has written. That, of course, if the stock in trade of exegetics.

My point is that there are churches and denominations which still term themselves Christian , but make no bones about the fact that they consider much of the Bible as unreliable and they do not draw their doctrine from it. They will tell you that.

It's not a matter of me 'dismissing' them. They would tell you that they don't believe it.

In contrast to the caricature in Setanta's rant about disallowing others as 'Bible believing', I would have no problem considering this source's approach as 'Bible believing', though we may ultimately differ in our interpretation of various details.

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

In fact, for many people, this is not a minor point of theology. But i was not saying that people would be killed over such a matter. I was pointing out that the glib manner in which you dismissed anyone who does not agree with your interpretation is an example of how easily narrow-minded orthodoxy arises, which can lead easily to the rigid kind of thinking which a demagogue exploits.

This is typical of the way you attempt to twist the meanings of what someone has written. That, of course, if the stock in trade of exegetics.

My point is that there are churches and denominations which still term themselves Christian , but make no bones about the fact that they consider much of the Bible as unreliable and they do not draw their doctrine from it. They will tell you that.

It's not a matter of me 'dismissing' them. They would tell you that they don't believe it.

In the first place, that is not your point at all.

In the second place, there are any number of sects of christianity which may not subscribe to your version of theology, but the members of which would loudly disagree with any claim on your part that they were not "bible-believing."

I would have no problem considering this source's approach as 'Bible believing', though we may ultimately differ in our interpretation of various details.

real life wrote:

In contrast to the caricature in Setanta's rant about disallowing others as 'Bible believing', I would have no problem considering this source's approach as 'Bible believing', though we may ultimately differ in our interpretation of various details.

It was no caricature, nor was it embodied in a rant. It was a direct inference from what you wrote, which you are now furiously backpeddling over, attempting to claim that what you wrote is not what you meant.

Subscribing to the rapture crapola is hardly a matter of "various details," it is a major eschatological divide in belief. And it is not a minor belief set, either--the Left Behind series has sold more than 70,000,000 copies, making the authors fabulously rich, and leaving just about all modern authors in the dust. Arguments to the effect that the question of the rapture is a minor theological distinction are beggared by attitudes such as that expressed by Jerry Falwell, who said in reference to the Left Behind books: "In terms of its impact on Christianity, it's probably greater than that of any other book in modern times, outside the Bible."

You busy tap dancing, but you're not coming up with convincing arguments.

. . .
The quotes that Neo provided are really not related to the concept of the rapture.
. . .

real life wrote:

. . .
The quotes that Neo provided are really not related to the concept of the rapture.
. . .

Other than to discredit it.

BTW, you speak of the "second coming" as if it were an arrival, rather than a presence. Not a small difference.

You could be waiting for something that is already here.

What I wrote IS what I meant.

What YOU wrote is NOT what I wrote, or meant.

Easy, eh?

There are major debates, to be sure.

But eschatological details are not an area that defines whether one adheres to historically foundational Christian doctrines or not.