The Rapture

peakpilgrim

Hi

THE RAPTURE

Some Christians believe that, at the end of the world, the earth is consumed
by fire and the faithful go up to meet God.

Does anyone have an opinion on this Topic

Kind Regards,

Fanny Cradock

peakpilgrim, while I don't necessarily object to your multiple threads, it would be nice if you changed the format a bit and actually gave your own opinion.

peakpilgrim

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

peakpilgrim, while I don't necessarily object to your multiple threads, it would be nice if you changed the format a bit and actually gave your own opinion.

Hi Fanny Cradock,

This is, I believe, a Discussion Forum on Christianity; I am interested in generating a discussion on this topic. I am sure that there are Christians out there who hold this view and I am interested in what they have to say.

To some people this topic is controversial; we should be able to discuss such controversial topics in a Discussion Forum in a fair and mature manner.

I do not want, at the moment, to 'cloud' the discussion by giving my opinion; especially as I have posed the question.

Kind Regards

Kind Regards

BrianCalgary

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi

THE RAPTURE

Some Christians believe that, at the end of the world, the earth is consumed
by fire and the faithful go up to meet God.

Does anyone have an opinion on this Topic

Kind Regards,

different events.

The first is the rapture, followed by the events of Revelation then the 1,000 year reign of Christ then teh destruction of teh Earth and a new heaven and Earth, an eternal heaven and Earth.

PS, I agree with fanny though, add your thought son teh topic as well. It'd be nice to have your input.

Húrin

No, the earth will not be consumed by fire only for the saved to "go up" to heaven with God. The earth will be renewed and God will bring heaven "down" to here.

peakpilgrim

BrianCalgary wrote: »

different events.

The first is the rapture, followed by the events of Revelation then the 1,000 year reign of Christ then teh destruction of teh Earth and a new heaven and Earth, an eternal heaven and Earth.

PS, I agree with fanny though, add your thought son teh topic as well. It'd be nice to have your input.

Hi Fanny Cradock and Brian Calgary

RE: THE RAPTURE

My personal view, being R.C. is that I do not know; we do not take The Bible literally as in some Christian Faiths.

However I have posed this question as I am interested in Ecumenism among the various Christian churches.

My purpose is not to ridicule other Christian Faiths; but there is, I understand, a hard-line Christian element out there, particularly in America.

These Christians believe that the second coming of Christ will only come about when 'The Promised Land' is fully returned to the 'Chosen People' of Israel. Then the second coming of Christ will take place outside Jerusalem at Mount Armageddon. At this point the faithful will go up to God and the earth, including the Unfaithful, will be consumed by fire.

This is as I understand it; I could be wrong. I am interested in the full views of these Christians if they are reading this Discussion Forum.

Kind Regards,

branie

The Rapture is more of a protestant concept. We Catholics don't believe in it.

crotalus667

branie wrote: »

The Rapture is more of a protestant concept. We Catholics don't believe in it.

Actually it’s more of a made up thing , long story short it is not biblically based , it was envisioned by a 15 year old Scottish girl in 18 something , and it didn’t really take off until a drunken English preacher brought it to America (or it could have been a drunken American preacher it‘s been a while since I was familiar with the exact details)



It’s also worth noting that the girl is suspected of surfeiting from a relativity rare form of epilepsy that causes religious based hallucinations

BrianCalgary

The idea of a rapture comes from this verse:

1 Thessalonians 4:17
After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

this is not a 'second coming' as Christ does not come, but believers go.

crotalus667

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The idea of a rapture comes from this verse:

1 Thessalonians 4:17
After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

this is not a 'second coming' as Christ does not come, but believers go.

No you may be able to get the idea from that verse but it originates from Margaret Macdonald

BrianCalgary

crotalus667 wrote: »

No you may be able to get the idea from that verse but it originates from Margaret Macdonald

Doesn't matter, it is biblical as shown by the verse in question.

crotalus667

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Doesn't matter, it is biblical as shown by the verse in question.

The verse that you have shown is not go any where near what is commonly called the rapture , the rapture as it is portrayed by the mainstream rapturests (Wahoo I just maid up a word) is simply not biblically based ,

Joe1919

Guys, if I'm out of line here, tell me but I cant resist contributing John Donne's (Anglican Priest, 1572-1631) beautiful poem on this subject.
Perhaps we tend to neglect the aesthetic value of religion.(The beauty of God).


HOLY SONNETS. VII.

At the round earth's imagined corners blow
Your trumpets, angels, and arise, arise
From death, you numberless infinities
Of souls, and to your scattered bodies go ;
All whom the flood did, and fire shall o'erthrow,
All whom war, dea[r]th, age, agues, tyrannies,
Despair, law, chance hath slain, and you, whose eyes
Shall behold God, and never taste death's woe.
But let them sleep, Lord, and me mourn a space ;
For, if above all these my sins abound,
'Tis late to ask abundance of Thy grace,
When we are there. * Here on this lowly ground,
Teach me how to repent, for that's as good
As if Thou hadst seal'd my pardon with Thy blood.

PDN

crotalus667 wrote: »

The verse that you have shown is not go any where near what is commonly called the rapture , the rapture as it is portrayed by the mainstream rapturests (Wahoo I just maid up a word) is simply not biblically based ,

The word 'rapture' is derived from the Latin translation of the verse Brian cited (rapio = to be caught up).

Joseph Mede, who lived 2 centuries before Margaret MacDonald, wrote: "I will add this more, namely, what may be conceived to be the cause of this RAPTURE of the saints on high to meet the Lord in the clouds, rather than to wait his coming to earth....What if it be, that they may be PRESERVED during the Conflagration of the earth and the works thereof, 2 Pet.3:10, that as Noah and his family were preserved from the Deluge by being lift up above the waters in the Ark; so should the saints at the Conflagration be lift up in the clouds unto their Ark, Christ, to be preserved there from the deluge of fire, wherein the wicked shall be consumed?" ("The Works of Joseph Mede," 1672, London edition, Book IV, p.776)

crotalus667

PDN wrote: »

The word 'rapture' is derived from the Latin translation of the verse Brian cited (rapio = to be caught up).

Joseph Mede, who lived 2 centuries before Margaret MacDonald, wrote: "I will add this more, namely, what may be conceived to be the cause of this RAPTURE of the saints on high to meet the Lord in the clouds, rather than to wait his coming to earth....What if it be, that they may be PRESERVED during the Conflagration of the earth and the works thereof, 2 Pet.3:10, that as Noah and his family were preserved from the Deluge by being lift up above the waters in the Ark; so should the saints at the Conflagration be lift up in the clouds unto their Ark, Christ, to be preserved there from the deluge of fire, wherein the wicked shall be consumed?" ("The Works of Joseph Mede," 1672, London edition, Book IV, p.776)

I am not denying that what I am saying is as it is portrayed in the mainly us marketing phenomena known as the rapture (particularly the done to death by the left behind series) it is nothing to do with the bible

peakpilgrim

crotalus667 wrote: »

I am not denying that what I am saying is as it is portrayed in the mainly us marketing phenomena known as the rapture (particularly the done to death by the left behind series) it is nothing to do with the bible

Hi

I had not heard that about 'Margaret McDonald'

It is this hard-line Christian element that I am talking about; the 'Rapturists' in America; readers of the 'Left-Behind' series of books.

These Christians are so confident of their beliefs that they seek political power to carry them out.

I would be interested to hear from them.

PDN

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi

I had not heard that about 'Margaret McDonald'

It is this hard-line Christian element that I am talking about; the 'Rapturists' in America; readers of the 'Left-Behind' series of books.

These Christians are so confident of their beliefs that they seek political power to carry them out.

I would be interested to hear from them.

I doubt if you will hear from them as they are pretty much a figment of hysterical media misrepresentations.

Many evangelicals (not me) do indeed belong to denominations which believe in a pretribulation rapture. And some of these evangelicals, by the very law of averages, do indeed end up in positions of political power. Recent examples (all Democrats) would include Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore.

The whole 'rapture-ready Christians trying to blow the world up' media myth overlooks the fact that the most war-like US Presidents and officials actually belonged to denominations that fail to incude the Rapture as a core belief. This surprises those who lazily accept the stereotype of born-again right-wing Republicans trying to blow up the Middle East in order to fulfil Biblical prophecy etc.

Richard Nixon (Quaker), Ronald Reagan (Presbyterian), George H Bush (Anglican) and George W Bush (Methodist) all belonged to churches with raptureless belief systems.

peakpilgrim

PDN wrote: »

I doubt if you will hear from them as they are pretty much a figment of hysterical media misrepresentations.

Many evangelicals (not me) do indeed belong to denominations which believe in a pretribulation rapture. And some of these evangelicals, by the very law of averages, do indeed end up in positions of political power. Recent examples (all Democrats) would include Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore.

The whole 'rapture-ready Christians trying to blow the world up' media myth overlooks the fact that the most war-like US Presidents and officials actually belonged to denominations that fail to incude the Rapture as a core belief. This surprises those who lazily accept the stereotype of born-again right-wing Republicans trying to blow up the Middle East in order to fulfil Biblical prophecy etc.

Richard Nixon (Quaker), Ronald Reagan (Presbyterian), George H Bush (Anglican) and George W Bush (Methodist) all belonged to churches with raptureless belief systems.

Hi

I am simply posing a question; a question that you are, obviously, uncomfortable with; I am not 'lazily' accepting anything.

I did warn that this topic was controversial.

There is a hard-line Christian element in America that has been very succesful in influencing political opinion in that country. Among those in that Group are extremists who are not content with preaching but, also, want the political power to bring about their vision of society, or the end of it, for everyone.

I believe, and I am not alone, that this is a dangerous concept; to mix religion and politics. As can be seen with hard-line islamists; there is no possibility of discussion with people who 'Know' that they have God, or Allah, on their side.

However:to the Rapturists, from whom I would still like to hear, I would ask the following questions:

1. Whats so important about the end of the world; surely it is more important to live your life as a Good Christian; not to try to achieve something that is entirely God's business?

2. How can you be so sure about your interpretation of the end of the world being the right one; when so much is down to interpretation?

PS: the 'left-behind' series of books are best -sellers.

PDN

peakpilgrim wrote: »

I am simply posing a question; a question that you are, obviously, uncomfortable with; I am not 'lazily' accepting anything.

I am not in the sightest bit uncomfortable with your question. I just find media stereotypes concerning religion to be amusing.

I did warn that this topic was controversial.

People have different opinions on it, yes.

There is a hard-line Christian element in America that has been very succesful in influencing political opinion in that country. Among those in that Group are extremists who are not content with preaching but, also, want the political power to bring about their vision of society, or the end of it, for everyone.

I don't think so. There is a Christian right, Moral Majority and all that, but they are increasingly frustrated by their own powerlessness and ineffectiveness. Their main beef is over abortion, and they are beginning to realise that they have been played as patsies by successive Republican politicians who repeat enough mantras to win their votes and then effectively sideline them.

I personally know leaders and executives in most of the major evangelical movements and denominations in the US (including those who believe in the rapture) and they are certainly not seeking political power or wanting to end the world. There are a few crackpot tiny-minority groups who may want that - but they generallly don't have enough influence to get elected onto a parish council.

The main area of political/church overlap in the US is among African-Americans who overwhelmingly vote Democrat and support more liberal causes. Look at the last US Presidential election. The Republican candidates made much fewer campaign appearences in religious settings than the Democrats. Both Clinton and Obama courted the churchgoers more than Romney, McCain, Guliani or even the preacher-man Huckabee.

I believe, and I am not alone, that this is a dangerous concept; to mix religion and politics.

And I believe, and I am not alone, that is an absurd generalisation. Mixing religion with politics abolished slavery, helped give women the vote, raised the age of consent to stop childhood prostitution in Victorian London, helped found the trade union movement, and ended segregation in the southern states of the US.

I believe it is entirely legitimate for my religion to inform my position on political issues such as global warming, environmentalism, civil rights etc.

As can be seen with hard-line islamists; there is no possibility of discussion with people who 'Know' that they have God, or Allah, on their side.

Yes, there was no possibility of discussion with William Wilberforce or Martin Luther King. They 'knew' that slavery and segregation were wrong.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

Yes, there was no possibility of discussion with William Wilberforce or Martin Luther King. They 'knew' that slavery and segregation were wrong.

Are you comparing those 2 men to Islamic fundamentalists?

You also bring up a fascinating point about Natural law and things that are "morally" wrong but that is for another discussion.

BrianCalgary

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi

I am simply posing a question; a question that you are, obviously, uncomfortable with; I am not 'lazily' accepting anything.

I did warn that this topic was controversial.

There is a hard-line Christian element in America that has been very succesful in influencing political opinion in that country. Among those in that Group are extremists who are not content with preaching but, also, want the political power to bring about their vision of society, or the end of it, for everyone.

I believe, and I am not alone, that this is a dangerous concept; to mix religion and politics. As can be seen with hard-line islamists; there is no possibility of discussion with people who 'Know' that they have God, or Allah, on their side.

However:to the Rapturists, from whom I would still like to hear, I would ask the following questions:

1. Whats so important about the end of the world; surely it is more important to live your life as a Good Christian; not to try to achieve something that is entirely God's business?

2. How can you be so sure about your interpretation of the end of the world being the right one; when so much is down to interpretation?

PS: the 'left-behind' series of books are best -sellers.

My two cents here. There is no divisive controversy on this matter within the church. I have never heard it spoken of from any pulpit.

Jenkins/Lahaye wrote a very entertaining series of books called the Left Behind series which begins with a rapture and then goes through the book of Revelation.

They were best sellers due to their entertainment value, definitely not their literary value. I have every copy and looked forward to the next one.

And to PDN's point, the number of people that would like to push it along are a severe minority as any Christian knows that it is all in God's hands and in His timing.

As I preached to a High School group on end times and teh different views of Revelation, it boils down to one truth: no matter what happens are you serving Christ and will he say, "I know you, good and faithful servant.'

Fanny Cradock

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you comparing those 2 men to Islamic fundamentalists?

You also bring up a fascinating point about Natural law and things that are "morally" wrong but that is for another discussion.

I suspect not. The word "fundamental" didn't always have the negative connotations it seems to predominately carry nowadays.

peakpilgrim

PDN wrote: »

I am not in the sightest bit uncomfortable with your question. I just find media stereotypes concerning religion to be amusing.

People have different opinions on it, yes.


I don't think so. There is a Christian right, Moral Majority and all that, but they are increasingly frustrated by their own powerlessness and ineffectiveness. Their main beef is over abortion, and they are beginning to realise that they have been played as patsies by successive Republican politicians who repeat enough mantras to win their votes and then effectively sideline them.

I personally know leaders and executives in most of the major evangelical movements and denominations in the US (including those who believe in the rapture) and they are certainly not seeking political power or wanting to end the world. There are a few crackpot tiny-minority groups who may want that - but they generallly don't have enough influence to get elected onto a parish council.

The main area of political/church overlap in the US is among African-Americans who overwhelmingly vote Democrat and support more liberal causes. Look at the last US Presidential election. The Republican candidates made much fewer campaign appearences in religious settings than the Democrats. Both Clinton and Obama courted the churchgoers more than Romney, McCain, Guliani or even the preacher-man Huckabee.

And I believe, and I am not alone, that is an absurd generalisation. Mixing religion with politics abolished slavery, helped give women the vote, raised the age of consent to stop childhood prostitution in Victorian London, helped found the trade union movement, and ended segregation in the southern states of the US.

I believe it is entirely legitimate for my religion to inform my position on political issues such as global warming, environmentalism, civil rights etc.


Yes, there was no possibility of discussion with William Wilberforce or Martin Luther King. They 'knew' that slavery and segregation were wrong.

Hi

It is perfectly valid to have a political opinion that is influenced by your own religion; the problem is when certain people insist on inflicting their morality, in the political sphere, on others; that is 'Absurd': PDN.

The major changes in society that you have out-lined are all humanitarian issues which would be supported by just as many Jews, Islamists, Agnostics and Atheists as well as Christians.

homer911

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi

It is perfectly valid to have a political opinion that is influenced by your own religion; the problem is when certain people insist on inflicting their morality, in the political sphere, on others; that is 'Absurd': PDN.

The major changes in society that you have out-lined are all humanitarian issues which would be supported by just as many Jews, Islamists, Agnostics and Atheists as well as Christians.

The fact is that they weren't! What if my morality says its wrong to rape, kill etc. Is it not ok to inflict my morality on others then? I think you are confusing morality and faith. I would not want to impose my faith on anyone - neither does God want to impose himself on anyone - thats why he gave us free will!

peakpilgrim

homer911 wrote: »

The fact is that they weren't! What if my morality says its wrong to rape, kill etc. Is it not ok to inflict my morality on others then? I think you are confusing morality and faith. I would not want to impose my faith on anyone - neither does God want to impose himself on anyone - thats why he gave us free will!

Hi

OK: for 'morality' read 'religious beliefs'.

I am certainly not confused.

One ludicrous doctrine of the hard-line Christians in America, which has resulted in the way Biology is taught in Schools in some regions is the notion that 'Darwinism' is a scam; when all the scientific evidence slapping people across the face is that it is undoubted fact.

This is a classic example of this political element inflicting its 'crack-pot' ideas on other people.

postcynical

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi

OK: for 'morality' read 'religious beliefs'.

I am certainly not confused.

One ludicrous doctrine of the hard-line Christians in America, which has resulted in the way Biology is taught in Schools in some regions is the notion that 'Darwinism' is a scam; when all the scientific evidence slapping people across the face is that it is undoubted fact.

This is a classic example of this political element inflicting its 'crack-pot' ideas on other people.

Again, please see my comment on your other thread. You appear to be having a go at a caricature of religion rather than a faith position that has been articulated here.

Fanny Cradock

So, given that most people here seem to reject the Rapture, how is one to read Revelations? It has long been a book that confuses me.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So, given that most people here seem to reject the Rapture, how is one to read Revelations? It has long been a book that confuses me.

The Historicist approach sees Revelation as referring to events that have already taken place. The Futurist approach sees it as predicting future events. My own personal view is that it contains a mixture of both.

The Book of Revelation uses highly symbolic language for very good reasons - its anti-Imperial sentiments would, if stated in bald prose, have guaranteed Christians much more persecution and death even than what happened under Diocletian. Authoritarian regimes to this day recognise Revelation as a threat to their claims (preachers in the official State-run Three Self Church in China are forbidden to preach from Revelation).

I believe much of Revelation can be applied to church and society today, but that to try to use it to construct a timetable of future events is a recipe for tomfoolery and insanity.

BTW, I don't reject the idea of a Rapture per se - indeed I think such a concept is taught by Paul. What I reject is the whole packaged scenario of the 'Left Behind' books and predictions of TV preachers with their charts and graphs.

The Rapture itself might be something as simple as being caught up into the air to meet with Jesus as He returns and then straight back to earth as part of his accompanying crowd of saints. NT Wright compares it to the ancient practice where a group of citizens would travel several miles out of the city to meet a visiting dignitary, and then to accompany him in his stately entrance into the city.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

I believe much of Revelation can be applied to church and society today, but that to try to use it to construct a timetable of future events is a recipe for tomfoolery and insanity.

Thats the thing. I often said it on here, how much I love the book of Revelation. Actually wrote a song based loosely on its imagery It really is a book of hope. While reading it though, one must be aware that opinions on what means what are just that, opinions. I enjoy speculating, but one must be aware that you should not get carried away. Obviously so many do, and end up predicting when the end is coming etc etc.

BrianCalgary

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So, given that most people here seem to reject the Rapture, how is one to read Revelations? It has long been a book that confuses me.

I hold to a rapture, as I have no other way of interpreting the verse in Thessalonians.

The book of Revelation I see as having future and past events. After the instructional period of the letters to the seven churches (read them and do an inventory of your own curch) we get into the seals, bowls and trumpets. I read these as being prophecy.

After the sixth and before the seventh, there is a pause and in these pauses past events are spoken of. In one it speaks of the battle for Heaven where Satan is tossed out and sent to Earth and the heavenly host recognise the fate of teh Earth when they exclaim 'woe, to the Earth'.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

NT Wright compares it to the ancient practice where a group of citizens would travel several miles out of the city to meet a visiting dignitary, and then to accompany him in his stately entrance into the city.

Yes, I've heard Wright use this analogy before and it seems to fit nicely into the idea of an amalgam (if that's the correct word) between heaven and a new earth. Coming from a tradition that did, I believe, teach in a "Left Behind" reality the whole thing fascinating to me. Cheers, guys.