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.

wolfsbane

I'm sure all Christians believe in the Rapture. What they disagree on is whether it is pre, mid or post-Tribulation.

I go with post-tribulation, the interpretation historically called the General Resurrection. Christ returns and the dead saints are resurrected and they with the living saints meet Him in the air.

The wicked living and the resurrected wicked are called to the Judgement. The universe is rolled up, the earth consumed by fire, and a new heaven and new earth emerge. That is where God comes to dwell with us for eternity.

Sadly, many Christians have made it all a test of orthodoxy. Not to hold to a Pretribulation view is tantamount to heresy in many churches, especially in America - but also in Brethren circles in Ireland.

DTrotter

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sure all Christians believe in the Rapture. What they disagree on is whether it is pre, mid or post-Tribulation.

I go with post-tribulation, the interpretation historically called the General Resurrection. Christ returns and the dead saints are resurrected and they with the living saints meet Him in the air.

The wicked living and the resurrected wicked are called to the Judgement. The universe is rolled up, the earth consumed by fire, and a new heaven and new earth emerge. That is where God comes to dwell with us for eternity.

Sadly, many Christians have made it all a test of orthodoxy. Not to hold to a Pretribulation view is tantamount to heresy in many churches, especially in America - but also in Brethren circles in Ireland.

The whole thing?

wolfsbane

DTrotter said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm sure all Christians believe in the Rapture. What they disagree on is whether it is pre, mid or post-Tribulation.

I go with post-tribulation, the interpretation historically called the General Resurrection. Christ returns and the dead saints are resurrected and they with the living saints meet Him in the air.

The wicked living and the resurrected wicked are called to the Judgement. The universe is rolled up, the earth consumed by fire, and a new heaven and new earth emerge. That is where God comes to dwell with us for eternity.

Sadly, many Christians have made it all a test of orthodoxy. Not to hold to a Pretribulation view is tantamount to heresy in many churches, especially in America - but also in Brethren circles in Ireland.
The whole thing?

I take it you mean the extend of the dissolution. Yes, the whole universe.

ocianain

Silly and unchristian. Paul Thigpen wrote a great book on the errors of Rapture belief.

DTrotter

wolfsbane wrote: »

DTrotter said:

I take it you mean the extend of the dissolution. Yes, the whole universe.

And it says this where in the bible?

wolfsbane

DTrotter wrote: »

And it says this where in the bible?

2 Peter 3
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203;&version=50;

Highlights:
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Hebrews 12:25 See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, 26 whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.” 27 Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain.

Soul Winner

Why I believe in the Rapture of the saints and why I believe it will take place prior to The Tribulation The Great Tribulation.

"For sin comes death."

The wages of sin is death. Christ took this penalty on Himself so that we could escape it by faith in His work. This work was called Atonement and it was the fulfillment of the Old Testament feast (set time) of the Lord. It was one of many set times (or feasts) to be fulfilled in Christ. The following is a list of all the feasts

1. Sabbath
2. Passover
3. Unleavened Bread
4. First Fruits
5. Pentecost
6. Trumpets
7. Atonement
8. Tabernacles

Read Leviticus 23 to see the feasts or set times of the Lord.

Paul calls these feasts or set times of the Lord, ‘shadows of things to come’ but the substance which casts the shadows is Christ, Colossians 2:17. The Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ. When we rest from our works and enter into His rest, we rely solely on what He did instead of our own righteousness which to God is filthy rags. Sabbathing is resting from one’s works, and Christ provided that rest in Him thus fulfilling the Sabbath of which He was Lord.

Christ became our Passover Lamb that whosoever believes in Him shall have eternal life and not taste of death.

He also fulfilled the feast of Unleavened bread. This bread was hidden for three days before being unveiled, Christ fulfilled this Feast by being hidden three days in the earth.

Christ rose on the first day of the week and became the First Fruits of many brethren thus fulfilling the feast or set time or First Fruits.

When the day of Pentecost was fully come in Acts 2 the spirit descended on the disciples and the Pentecost which means 'fifty' (the number for Harvest) ensued and is still going on, Christ fulfilled and is fulfilling this feast also.

The last tree feasts to be fulfilled are Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles. But I thought Atonement was already fulfilled? Hold on I will get to that in a minute. Trumpets is next. The feast (or set time) of Trumpets falls in late September. In the Old Testament two silver trumpets were blown all day. Silver being the symbol for redemption and 2 being the number for adequate witness. The birth of Christ fulfilled one of these silver trumpets and the return of Christ to meet His saints in the air will be the fulfillment of the second trumpet.

After this we have Atonement. For those who accept the atoning work of Christ on the cross whether they be dead or alive at His coming in the air, will be caught up to meet Him. After this a 7 years of Atonement (which literally means affliction of soul) will ensue on this earth. 7 being the number of completion. Only after this 7 year affliction of soul on those who do not accept Christ’s atoning work will the Lord return to put down His enemies and set up His Kingdom on Earth which will last a thousand years.

During this thousand years the feast of Tabernacles will be fulfilled. According to Zechariah God will make sure that all the nations of the earth will observe the feast of Tabernacles in this time. In the Old Testament the feast of Tabernacles involved the tribes moving out of their houses and dwelling in temporary booths or tents or tabernacles, which were temporary dwelling places. They did this for 7 days. God made them remember their humble origins. This was the most loved feast in the Old Testament and they gave 203 offerings to God in those seven days. This is what God is going to make the nations of the earth do for a thousand years during the millennium.

Now getting back to the Rapture. The church is called the body of Christ. It is made up believers from all over the world and it is not denominational. As Christ bore God's wrath on the cross for us, those who reject Him will have to bare God's wrath on themselves. The world rejects Christ so the world is going to incur God's wrath. Those who are alive or dead in Christ will be taken out of this earth when God's set time for pouring out His wrath on the earth comes to pass, this is called atonement or affliction of soul. This is why I believe that the rapture will take place before the tribulation the great tribulation. There are two very important scriptures which allude to this. One of those has to do with Moses in the Old Testament. When God commanded Moses to speak to the Rock (Numbers 20:8) after the people murmured a second time, Moses got angry and struck the Rock again. He had already struck it once with his judgment rod but this time God just said speak to the rock. God would not allow Moses into the promised land because he did this. Which teaches that Christ is only stuck once and once only. Paul in the New Testament called this Rock 'Christ' 1 Corinthians 10:4 . Now if God pours out His wrath on the earth while the Church or the body of Christ is still here then that would be like Moses striking the Rock twice and God has revealed through the punishment of Moses that this is not part of His will. He will not strike the body of Christ a second time. Christ died once and once only therefore His body which is the Church must be taken out of the way first.

The second scripture which supports the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture is in the Book of Revelation itself. If you read what Christ says to the apostle in Revelation 1:19 you will notice that He tells him to write the things which he has seen, the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter. If you read from Chapter 1 verse 1 you will notice that John does write the things which he has seen. From chapter 2 through chapter 3 to the first verse in chapter 4 John writes down the things which are, namely the Churches. From Chapter 4 onwards he is writing about the things which shall be hereafter. Notice in John 4 verse 1 that he hears the voice as it were of a Trumpet talking to him which said “Come up hither”?

"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord." (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

"Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed - in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet." (1 Corinthians 15:51)


I believe John in this verse is a type of the Church and that this Trumpet is none other than the second silver trumpet to be fulfilled. After John is called up into heaven he sees what is to take place hereafter which is inline with what Christ told him in chapter 1. Notice that after this catching away of John to heaven you hear nothing more about the churches? Why? Because they are gone, the body of Christ is gone. God has left off dealing with the Church and is now concentrating on the last week of Daniel’s prophecy which is mainly concerned with the Jew. It is during this time that harvest of world comes full orbed. God’s Spirit is still at work and he seals 144,000 thousand from all the tribes except Dan to bring the gospel full orbed to all nations. But it is also a time of God awful tribulation, the likes of which the world has never known.

It also states in Thessalonians the following in relation to the lawless one or man of sin or anti Christ: "And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming." (2 Thessalonians 2:6-8)

What is this force that restrains the appearance of the lawless one? It is not God’s spirit because when he is revealed in Revelation 6 God’s spirit is still at work. I believe it is the church. Once the church is taken out of the way only then can he be revealed. Notice that the church is gone by Revelation 4 and after a short parenthesis in chapter 5 the first of the 7 seals to be broken reveals none other than the man on a white horse (imitation Christ in later chapters of Revelation) with a bow an no arrow symbolizing that he comes in with a peace plan and not with war as some think. This also gels with Daniels prophecy of the little horn as a peace maker to the nation of Israel and who break his peace deal with then three and half years in.

When you take the whole of God’s book together you get this picture of God in total control of history. When God pours out His wrath on the world the Church cannot be here. Once the seven years of tribulation (wrath) are completed the Church comes back with Christ adorned as bride and will rule and reign with Him a thousand years. This fulfills Daniel’s 70th week of years prophecy on his people the Jew. They will be brought back into proper relationship with God and will recognize Him whom they have pierced. When I hear a better mid or post tribulation argument for the rapture of the Church then I will go with that.

Hotspace

Jesus’ second coming or the rapture should have come by now.

There is only one way to explain the following discrepancies and that is if Jesus believed that he would return in the life time of his disciples.

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled

Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Matthew 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law

Jesus believed that everyone should stop their foolish earthly lives and prepare in haste for the second coming; we won’t have time for families.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2 Peter is written after the lifetime of all the disciples. The author of Peter is getting restless and wondering when the second coming is, indeed, coming. The only thing he can think to say is this convoluted explanation.

Soul Winner

Hotspace wrote: »

Jesus’ second coming or the rapture should have come by now.

There is only one way to explain the following discrepancies and that is if Jesus believed that he would return in the life time of his disciples.

Ok lets go...

Hotspace wrote: »

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled

You assume Jesus is referring to the generation He was addressing. Read the passage again and you will notice that Jesus is referring to the generation who sees the signs of the times - which are the subject of the verses in question - coming to pass. He said that generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.

Hotspace wrote: »

Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

The Kingdom He is referring to is the Church age. When Christ rose from the dead He became the Son of God in power as Paul describes in Romans. That Kingdom was born through the resurrection of Jesus and there was some to whom He addressed this who did not taste of death till they saw this Kingdom of God arrive on the scene. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is something that dwells within a man's heart. He inaugurated it by His resurrection from the dead. In any case, even if He was referring to the Kingdom which He will set up in His second coming, the promise to the believer is that they have eternal life through faith in Him, and once that faith is maintained even though the body dies the new man being built up in Him daily goes to eternal life anyway not death.

Hotspace wrote: »

Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Matthew 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law

Jesus believed that everyone should stop their foolish earthly lives and prepare in haste for the second coming; we won’t have time for families.

If He believed that nobody should procreate and have families then how the heck is He going to set them at variance?

Hotspace wrote: »

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2 Peter is written after the lifetime of all the disciples. The author of Peter is getting restless and wondering when the second coming is, indeed, coming. The only thing he can think to say is this convoluted explanation.

Ok then explain Psalm 90:4

“For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”

The Psalms were written centuries before 2 Peter was penned so not sure where you got the idea that Peter was becoming restless and that that’s why he wrote that particular sentence. I believe he was simply conveying an already long established Jewish belief that with God there is no time.

Hotspace

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ok then explain Psalm 90:4

“For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”

Is there really any need to explain similar sentences in a work spanning thousands of pages. We would expect similar poetry.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The Psalms were written centuries before 2 Peter was penned so not sure where you got the idea that Peter was becoming restless and that that’s why he wrote that particular sentence. I believe he was simply conveying an already long established Jewish belief that with God there is no time.

OK then, read the whole of 2 Peter 3. You can plainly see that the author is addressing the critics of the age who were asking, "Where is this Jesus of yours and His second coming?".

Soul Winner

Hotspace wrote: »

Is there really any need to explain similar sentences in a work spanning thousands of pages. We would expect similar poetry.

You're the one who said that Peter was getting restless so he made up this stuff about the a day with the Lord being as a thousand years in order to explain the Lord's tarrying. I showed you a proof text from the Old Testament to highlight the fact that Peter didn't make it up, it was a common Jewish belief long before the New Testament times.

Hotspace wrote: »

OK then, read the whole of 2 Peter 3. You can plainly see that the author is addressing the critics of the age who were asking, "Where is this Jesus of yours and His second coming?".

The key words in that chapter are "last days"

"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised?" II Peter 3:4-5

So he is talking about people in the last days. Does this clear things up a bit for you?

ocianain

The Rapture is lousy theology, for those unfamiliar with it, rapture theology assumes another coming of Christ. He sneaks back to save His favorites from suffering under the coming Tribulation. He then comes back some time later in His glory. I'm unfamiliar with any reference to Christ returning twice ad I'm offended with the idea the favored of God will not suffer. This theology means the Christians suffering in Sudan are not loved by God. Lousy theology started by a defrocked Jesuit

Soul Winner

ocianain wrote: »

The Rapture is lousy theology, for those unfamiliar with it, rapture theology assumes another coming of Christ. He sneaks back to save His favorites from suffering under the coming Tribulation. He then comes back some time later in His glory. I'm unfamiliar with any reference to Christ returning twice ad I'm offended with the idea the favored of God will not suffer. This theology means the Christians suffering in Sudan are not loved by God. Lousy theology started by a defrocked Jesuit

Jesus said: "in the world ye will have tribulation". John 16:33. The word in the Greek is "Thlipsis". It was the same word which they used for the rod that beat the wheat from the chaff. The Christian gets this kind of tribulation from the world, the flesh and the devil all the time. But the tribulation which comes from God is a wholly different kettle of fish. It is called “The Tribulation the Great Tribulation”, because it comes directly from God on sin. This is what was poured out on Christ on Calvary and is what will be poured out on the world who reject what Christ did. Those who accept the atoning work of Christ are spared this particular kind of Tribulation which is always differentiated from ordinary tribulation in scripture. And they will be taken off this earth when the time for that Tribulation comes to be poured out. So even though the suffering in the world, which is primarily caused by the evil of man and the minions of the devil, it will seem like a cake walk by the time God is through with pouring out His Tribulation. In short if you think Darfur is bad, that’s nothing compared to what’s to come.

Hotspace

Soul Winner wrote: »

{Matthew 24}

You assume Jesus is referring to the generation He was addressing. Read the passage again and you will notice that Jesus is referring to the generation who sees the signs of the times - which are the subject of the verses in question - coming to pass. He said that generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.

Mmm, I’ve never heard that one before. In fact, most Christians, and even a Jehovah Witness on my doorstep, said that generation in this sense refers to a genus i.e. the species of man or even Jew. In fact, most Christians like to point out that their bibles have footnotes illuminating the alternative translation of generation to get around this very difficulty.

This disagreement in biblical matters was one of the very things that led to my de-conversion from Christianity. During bible study we would all pray for understanding then go away into our little groups and all come back with totally different interpretations of biblical texts. This would, perhaps, be the norm if studying Macbeth but the bible is special and the Holy Spirit is meant to act as a guide to understanding and all it really meant was that the prayer before group study was never answered.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The key words in that chapter are "last days"

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised?"II Peter 3:4-5

So he is talking about people in the last days. Does this clear things up a bit for you?

Sorry to say it was already clear to me. Peter believed he was in the last days and so did the scoffers to which he is referring. Read the history of Christianity and you will discover that every age believes that they are in the last times. These things that we struggle with two thousand years later would have been clear to the people of that time. And it is clear they believed that they were in the last times.

By the way, I did toy with calling myself "Mind Winner" before joining the forum. It was a toss-up between that and Hotspace.

Fanny Cradock

Hotspace wrote: »

This disagreement in biblical matters was one of the very things that led to my de-conversion from Christianity. During bible study we would all pray for understanding then go away into our little groups and all come back with totally different interpretations of biblical texts. This would, perhaps, be the norm if studying Macbeth but the bible is special and the Holy Spirit is meant to act as a guide to understanding and all it really meant was that the prayer before group study was never answered.

So becuase people had different opions upon the exact meaning of a particular text it (presumably amongst other things) led you to de-convert? That seems about as wise as jacking in science or whatever because not everyone is in agreement.

I don't mean to be rude, but did you think your prayer group, unlike the rest of mankind, was somehow immune to arriving contrary interpretations in relation to the bible? And what if a number of you did arrive at something different? It doesn't then follow that one of you wasn't on to the truth.

Anywho, in relation to Matt 24:34, unless Jesus or the author of Matt were incredibly stupid and contradicted themselves within the same breath, then verse 36 seems like a concrete statement about his knowledge of the second coming. In other words, it categotrically states that Jesus didn't know when the second coming would happen. This suggests that verse 24 requires a more nuanced understanding, or a more accurate translation then you otherwise allow.

Hotspace

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So becuase people had different opions upon the exact meaning of a particular text it (presumably amongst other things) led you to de-convert? That seems about as wise as jacking in science or whatever because not everyone is in agreement.

I don't mean to be rude, but did you think your prayer group, unlike the rest of mankind, was somehow immune to arriving contrary interpretations in relation to the bible? And what if a number of you did arrive at something different? It doesn't then follow that one of you wasn't on to the truth.

I should, of course, have said, "One of the very many things that led me to de-convert". Did you even read my post about unanswered prayer and the Holy Spirit's role in Christian epistemology?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Anywho, in relation to Matt 24:34, unless Jesus or the author of Matt were incredibly stupid and contradicted themselves within the same breath, then verse 36 seems like a concrete statement about his knowledge of the second coming. In other words, it categotrically states that Jesus didn't know when the second coming would happen. This suggests that verse 24 requires a more nuanced understanding, or a more accurate translation then you otherwise allow.

Isn't it ridiculous that each part of the trinity (made from the same uncaused ether) doesn't talk to each other. Bart Ehrman found that it bothered the scribes that Jesus said, "Not even the son". And for this reason the scribes simply omitted it from many versions of the bible.

Soul Winner

Can we get back to discussing the Rapure now?

Fanny Cradock

Hotspace wrote: »

I should, of course, have said, "One of the very many things that led me to de-convert". Did you even read my post about unanswered prayer and the Holy Spirit's role in Christian epistemology?

Can't say I read it. But you should realise that I acknowledged that there were probably other factors involved in your de-conversion.

Hotspace wrote: »

Isn't it ridiculous that each part of the trinity (made from the same uncaused ether) doesn't talk to each other. Bart Ehrman found that it bothered the scribes that Jesus said, "Not even the son". And for this reason the scribes simply omitted it from many versions of the bible.

Ok, now we are definitely straying from the point. However, since you ask a (rhetorical) question. No, I don't find it ridiculous. Furthermore, I don't have any expectations on the finer points of a state of existence none of us have ever experienced.

wolfsbane

Soul Winner wrote: »

Jesus said: "in the world ye will have tribulation". John 16:33. The word in the Greek is "Thlipsis". It was the same word which they used for the rod that beat the wheat from the chaff. The Christian gets this kind of tribulation from the world, the flesh and the devil all the time. But the tribulation which comes from God is a wholly different kettle of fish. It is called “The Tribulation the Great Tribulation”, because it comes directly from God on sin. This is what was poured out on Christ on Calvary and is what will be poured out on the world who reject what Christ did. Those who accept the atoning work of Christ are spared this particular kind of Tribulation which is always differentiated from ordinary tribulation in scripture. And they will be taken off this earth when the time for that Tribulation comes to be poured out. So even though the suffering in the world, which is primarily caused by the evil of man and the minions of the devil, it will seem like a cake walk by the time God is through with pouring out His Tribulation. In short if you think Darfur is bad, that’s nothing compared to what’s to come.

The nature of the Tribulation is indeed crucial to the timing of Christ's coming. If it is the wrath of God, then His coming must be prior to it. If it is the wrath of Satan, then we can expect to go through it before being rescued by Christ.

Can to point to where the Tribulation is described as the wrath of God? It seems to me to be very much the wrath of Satan against God's people:
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.


Revelation 7:13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?”
14 And I said to him, “Sir, you know.”
So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

prinz

Personally I am not at all interested in 'the Rapture'. Seems a lot more like the fire and brimstone style of preaching which I wouldn't be all that familiar with.