The Rapture etc..

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

GuanYin

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

The irony of Christianity is that there are many branches, alot have very different messages and very varied degrees of tolerance towards other christians and beliefs.

By Catholics I assume you mean the official line of the Catholic church in which case not really, they acknowledge the book but reject the common interprutation as the book suggests the catholic church will support the anti-christ when he comes.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

JustHalf

I have to say that I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure they don't.

The rapture stuff isn't very well supported theologically. It involves taking an idea of what the Bible says, and trying to find support for this in the book itself. This involves fairly large and, in the view of most of the Christian community, unsupportable leaps of reasoning; certain key passages really must be distorted in order to fit them into this view.

Very interesting reading here:
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2003/10/left_behind_is_.html
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2003/10/lb_the_literal_.html
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2003/10/lb_recycling_sy.html
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2003/11/lb_theres_a_new.html

and importantly:
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2004/02/60_minutes_fall.html

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Excelsior

Scholars typically believe that Revelation was written in or around 96AD. An early and vital Christian text, Against Heresies, by Iraneus gives that date and archeology and textual criticism don't argue differently.

It was written by John, the beloved apostle, who wrote 4 other books. They are imaginitively entitled, the Gospel of John, John 1, John 2 and surprisingly, John 3. He is the philosopher amongst the apostles and his books are fascinating to read and they must be read because they are central to Christian theology.

That having been said, you gotta have balls to take on Revelation. Luther wrote an analysis of every book in the Bible except Revelation. He didn't think he had it in him.

Revelation was written while he was on the island of Patmos, now part of Greece and allegedly a lovely place to holiday. No, there aren't magic mushrooms everywhere.

Most Christians, like the vast majority, would never go in for any of that Rapture stuff. Its fundie nonsense. It popped out of nowhere in the late 1800s and it takes a verse or two from the New Testament and builds a whole theology around it.

One way to look at Revelation is not to think of it as the end of the world or as the Final Judgement, but instead read it from the perspective of the Cross. Its a useful technique for any theological question. Put Jesus in the centre and see if it makes sense. When Revelation gets messy, that is because most of the time John is trying to relay a vision he received of what happened on Golgotha- not as we see it, but as it happened in the spiritual realm.

It might make more sense then.

Manach

Offhand the Church does embrace the concept of states of Grace which however doe not seem to be the same thing as rapture.

syke wrote:

the book suggests the catholic church will support the anti-christ when he comes.

So does that mean all my time practising as the Space Marine in Doom 3 has gone to waste?