[Akoue]

Adam7gur,

The bit from Revelation doesn't appear to me to have anything to say about rapture, as it is now typically understood. 1 Thess. 4 is certainly more to the point. But, again, I don't see the rapture here. The claim is that, when the parousia comes (which, note, Paul thought to be imminent), those who are still living will follow those who have died to union with Christ. That's it. We can take comfort in the knowledge that we too will be united to Christ. Nothing about any tribulation, or some people being zapped up and others being left behind, etc.

[classyT]

As to true Americans mostly thinking of themselfs

I'm thinking of myself because I wonder where America fits in in end time prophecy? I am an American. I love my country. I don't get your attitude.

[SarahMVA]

vexation,
What is wrong with wondering what is going on with the US during the tribulation time? This does not mean that we only think of ourselves just because of this one question. Nobody even said it would be a bad thing if we were not a superpower. We just said that we wouldn't be and that would be a drastic change being we have been for so many years and are such a prominent player in world events today. For us to be a prominent player in the world to not being heard of suddenly? That is what Revelations is saying will happen. It would take something big to suddenly make this happen.
It is wrong for you to get on here and display such a attitude.

[Fr_Chuck]

For those that may not realise it, a large group of Christian denominations do not preach the rapture, they feel it is a "new age" teaching of the newer churches. With Rev being so symbolic, one can read and find what they want there too often.

So for those that believe and teach it, great, but truly understand it is not by any means an accepted teaching in many of the christian churches

[450donn]

Chuck,
By your answer above are you referring to the Catholic Church? The term 'rapture" may be relatively new, but the teaching certainaly goes back to the time that the book of Revelations was written. It could also be argued that the entire bible is symbolic. Jesus himself taught in parables. So that in itself is no reason to discount the book of Revelations. Either the whole Bible is true or it is all false. Your choice!
The following is from the internet dictionary.
"The Rapture is a prophesied event in Christian eschatology, in which Christians are gathered together to participate in the Second Coming of Christ. Christians who have died are to be resurrected to participate in the coming of Christ along with those who are still living at the time of the event.

The primary passage describing the Rapture is 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, in which Paul cites "the word of the Lord" about the return of Jesus to gather his saints. Although all Christian denominations believe in Christ's return, there are two primary views regarding its nature:

1. Amillenialists (such as Roman Catholics, and others), Postmillenialists (such as Presbyterians, and others), and historic Premillenialists (such as Calvinistic Baptists, and others) hold that the return of Christ will be a single, public event. All passages regarding the return of Christ, such as Matthew 24:29-31, 1Thessalonians 4:15-17, Revelation 1:7, etc, describe the return of Jesus in the clouds amidst trumpets, angelic activity, heavenly signs, a resurrection, and a gathering of saints. Although some (such as some Amillenialists) take this event to be figurative, rather than literal, these three groups maintain that passages regarding the return of Christ describe a single event, and that the "word of the Lord" cited by Paul in 1Thessalonians 4:15-17 is the Olivet Discourse which Matthew separately describes in Matthew 24:29-31.
2. Dispensationalist Premillenialists (such as many Evangelicals, especially in the USA) hold the return of Christ to be in two stages. 1Thessalonians 4:15-17 is seen to be a preliminary event to the return described in Matthew 24:29-31. Although both describe a return of Jesus in the clouds with angelic activity, trumpets, heavenly signs, and a gathering of the saints, these are seen to be two separate events, the first unseen, and the second public. Dispensationalists are divided, however, on whether the first event comes before a period of Tribulation, or midway through it."

Based on this, I gather that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe in this subject, so my follow-up question has to be,
Since you don't believe it why participate in the discussion about it?

[classyT]

Chuck,

IT was the Apostle Paul that taught the rapture. I don't know how you can get around it. The first century church believed in it AND because this truth was disregarded and John Darby and a few others in the 1800's "revived it" doesn't mean it is new. It was a truth that was lost... I believe.

[adam7gur]

Adam7gur,

The bit from Revelation doesn't appear to me to have anything to say about rapture, as it is now typically understood. 1 Thess. 4 is certainly more to the point. But, again, I don't see the rapture here. The claim is that, when the parousia comes (which, note, Paul thought to be imminent), those who are still living will follow those who have died to union with Christ. That's it. We can take comfort in the knowledge that we too will be united to Christ. Nothing about any tribulation, or some people being zapped up and others being left behind, etc.

You have every right to believe anything you want to . By saying the parousia comes ,what exactly do you mean , because in Greek parousia means presence.

[450donn]

Classy,
Attached is a pretty good explanation of the "rapture" which seems to enlist a lot of arguments from certain sectors of this community. Enjoy:
Introduction to the Rapture

[Akoue]

And in the NT, "parousia" is used to talk about the coming of the Paraclete--which is to come.

[Akoue]

"Either the whole Bible is true or it is all false. Your choice!"

Well, Mk. 1.7 QUOTES John the Baptist as saying that he is not fit to "untie the thong" of Christ's sandals. Mt. 3.11 QUOTES John the Baptist as saying that he is not worthy to "carry" Christ's sandals. Which did he say? The inerrant word of God gives two, different, accounts. It's nit-picky, sure, but one is wrong. Does that make the whole Bible false? Why think that?

[450donn]

"Either the whole Bible is true or it is all false. Your choice!"

Well, Mk. 1.7 QUOTES John the Baptist as saying that he is not fit to "untie the thong" of Christ's sandals. Mt. 3.11 QUOTES John the Baptist as saying that he is not worthy to "carry" Christ's sandals. Which did he say? The inerrant word of God gives two, different, accounts. It's nit-picky, sure, but one is wrong. Does that make the whole Bible false? Why think that?

What difference does it make? Neither is making a theological statement, just relaying how John felt at the time. It is not like some people choosing to ignore large parts of the Bible is it?

[Akoue]

450donn,

Yeah, I don't bring this up because I really care which John said--my world isn't about to shatter either way (neither, I suspect will yours). I mention this only to bring out the following: If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, if everything in it is true, than there's a problem if it isn't univocal regarding a statement of fact. In each case we're being given a factual statement--this is what John the Baptist said--but according to Mt. he says "p" and according to Mk. He says "not-p". So they can't both be right; so one of them is wrong; so there is something in the Bible that is false.

Now I'm not about to chuck the Good Book over this, and neither should anyone else. But it might suggest that the Bible didn't just plop out of the heavens as God dictated it. It has a complex history of composition, redaction, transmission, etc. We should be careful how we use it. And so it's a bit reckless, I think, to say that either the whole Bible is true or the whole Bible is false. It's a complex thing, the word of God, and we should treat that way.

[classyT]

The gospels were written by Mathew, mark, luke and john. It is their accounts of what happened. They are all inspired of God and there is a reason for every single word that each of them used. It matters... oh yes it matters VERY much. There are no mistakes... none. But that is for another thread.

[450donn]

Mistakes? Nope. But just like the children's game where you line up a bunch of people and whisper something into the first ones ear. What comes out at the end is never like the original. This is an account from two peoples prospective. It is one of the ways we can use the Word of God to prove what was said is true.

Can't be reckless to say that you must believe the whole WORD OF GOD or not believe it. If you believe that the bible is the inspired word of GOD and was ordained by GOD as such then you MUST believe that everything in it is true. Otherwise you run the risk of falling into the same trap that so many others have. That is instead of believing in the bible, you start to believe something that someone wrote that the bible says. Just look at the Book of Mormon as a classic example. Or for a more conptemporary example how about the koran? There is a lot in there that mimmick's what is taught in the bible, but it is twisted by a man that thought himself a god. Nope, I stand by my statement. You MUST believe all of the bible or none of it. That is what faith is all about is it not? We as Christians read, learn, and talk to others in hopes of understanding what the Bible says. Every religion since it is man made has it's own versions of how to interpert any passage of scriptures. Your views are different then mine and I guess the bottom like is that if we seek the face of God at all times we will find out who was right and who was mislead when Jesus takes his church home.

[Galveston1]

Since we are talking end-time here, let's look at some questons.

What will start the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy? The rapture, or the signing of the 7 yr peace treaty? Something else?

Who do you view (not by name but by position) as possible candidate for Anti-Christ?

Could the rapture and the signing of the peace treaty be almost simultaneous?

[450donn]

Since we are talking end-time here, let's look at some questons.

What will start the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy? The rapture, or the signing of the 7 yr peace treaty? Something else?I am guessing the signing of the "peace" treaty

Who do you view (not by name but by position) as possible candidate for Anti-Christ?Again my guess at this point in time. either the president of the EU or the head of the UN.

Could the rapture and the signing of the peace treaty be almost simultaneous?

NO, My understanding is that the rapture will be the signal for the Antichrist to be let loose and his rise to power

[arcura]

adam7gur,
Believe it as you wish.
I told you what I believe.
And IT IS concerning the return of Jesus to rule.
That is in the future.
Fred

[classyT]

Since we are talking end-time here, let's look at some questons.

What will start the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy? The rapture, or the signing of the 7 yr peace treaty? Something else?

Who do you view (not by name but by position) as possible candidate for Anti-Christ?

Could the rapture and the signing of the peace treaty be almost simultaneous?

I think it is the peace treaty and the antichrist will be ushered in fairly quickly because of the rapture. Here is a thought and I am curious as to what you all think of it... when a Jewish male married his bride.. he took a whole year off to be with her. What do you think of that? I don't know that it means anything but I was thinking maybe... it could take up to a year before the antichrist comes on the scene. What say you?

I believe from what the Bible teaches that this Anti-Christ MUST come out of the revived Roman Empire. He isn't going to be some American. UGH. I get sick of people saying Obama is the antichrist.. it is silly. HE MUST come from the revived roman empire... that is what Scripture says.

The peace treaty could actually take place pretty darn quickly... we will see. I just thought the jewish marriage and the rapture of the church are totally cool things to study. The 70 th week remember is all about Israel, it has nothing to do with the church. I do not think the church will no who the anti-Christ is by name here on earth.

[Galveston1]

I am currently thinking that Anti-Christ might be a popular (in Islam) Imam. One who appears moderate enough to deal with Israel and with enough clout with Muslims to stop the constant attacks against Israel. Of course he will come from territory that both Greece and Rome held. Some think from Syria.

I too doubt the Church will be here to see his rise, but might see some early clues.

Something else. The times of the Gentiles has not ended as long as that mosque stands on the temple grounds, so the start of the 70th week might be when Israel gains full control of Jerusalem.

[arcura]

classyT and Galviston1
Interesting conversation between you two.
Of course you know by now that I do not believe in the rapture and the prophesies in the book of Daniel were fulfilled many years ago. The same with the book of Revelation.
I'm going to start worrying that the end of this age is near when the Jews gain control of temple mount and DO start building the third temple of Yahweh.
It will take from 10 years or more to complete that. Back in biblical days it took many times that to build it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred