Is the Rapture credible?

Xeno.of.athens said:

1 Thess 4:17 describes the one, public Parousia affirmed in the Creed, not a separate eschatological event.

Click to expand...

The Creed may state that, but the verse does not.

The Parousia of the Lord described in Matt. 24, 1 Cor.15, 1 Thes. 4, 2 Thes. 2 and other places has nothing to do, timewise, with the descent of the Lord described in Rev. 19. These are two entirely separate eschatological events.

In Hebrew and Greek the word ` Day, ` refers to a period of time and a specific day. Thus context is important to know which.

1. The Day of Christ. (Phil. 1: 6 - 10) 1 Cor. 1: 7 & 8)

This period of time is not only the first in chronological order of fulfilment, but is the greatest in importance in the Divine predestinations. Each reference relates entirely and exclusively to the Church, the Body of Christ, in the specific time-slot identified with the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. It signifies completion of the highest of God`s purposes, the supreme expression of Divine revelation.

All other expressions of His ordinations are dependent on its completion.

2. The Day of the LORD. (1 Thess. 5: 2 - 9, 2 Peter 3: 10)

This has to do with Israel and the nations and is invariably connected with the wrath of God poured out in judgment on an unbelieving world. It refers to that period of time from the termination of `The Day of Christ,` through the tribulation and millennium and terminating with the creation of the new heavens and earth which precludes `The Day of God. `

3. The Day of God. (2 Peter 3: 11 & 12)

The Day when God will purge and purify the heavens and the earth by fire. Peter is the only one who uses the phrase, `The Day of God.` (It concludes `The Day of the LORD.` )

To me, it only describes how humans will be handled at the point which marks the end of everything on earth. The dead will be resurrected to face the Judgment, while those still living will also be caught up "to sky" to face the same Judgment. I could be wrong though as the rapture stuff never interested me a single bit somehow.

When precisely is the "last day?"
What is it "the last day" of?

Dan Perez said:

AND there is no GREEK. WORD called RAPTURE in. the KJV !!
In 2. Thess 2:1 it is the word COMING. //. PAROUIA
And in 2 thess 2:3 is called DEPATURE //. APOSTASIA. ''
AND in 1 Thess 4:13-17 !!
dan p

Click to expand...

PAROUIA is an interesting word.
It carries a more specific meaning than merely "come" or "arrive."
In most contexts, it means "presence" and "continuing presence."
The meaning I think is seen most accurately in Phil 2:!2 where the opposite of PAROUIA is not going (which it should be if the meaning were merely "coming.) . Rather the opposite of PAROUIA is "absence," hence intimating that the correct understanding of PAROUIA is "presence" or the opposite of "absence."
Young's Literal Translation, I think, correctly has the correct meaning:

Mat 24:3 And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what is the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?'
Mat 24:27 for as the lightning doth come forth from the east, and doth appear unto the west, so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man;
Mat 24:37 and as the days of Noah--so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man;
Mat 24:39 and they did not know till the flood came and took all away; so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man.
1Co 15:23 and each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, afterwards those who are the Christ's, in his presence,
1Co 16:17 and I rejoice over the presence of Stephanas, and Fortunatus, and Achaicus, because the lack of you did these fill up;
2Co 7:6 but He who is comforting the cast-down--God--He did comfort us in the presence of Titus;
2Co 7:7 and not only in his presence, but also in the comfort with which he was comforted over you, declaring to us your longing desire, your lamentation, your zeal for me, so that the more I did rejoice,
2Co 10:10 `because the letters indeed--saith one-- are weighty and strong, and the bodily presence weak, and the speech despicable.'
Php 1:26 that your boasting may abound in Christ Jesus in me through my presence again to you.
Php 2:12 So that, my beloved, as ye always obey, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, with fear and trembling your own salvation work out,
1Th 2:19 for what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? are not even ye before our Lord Jesus Christ in his presence?
1Th 3:13 to the establishing your hearts blameless in sanctification before our God and Father, in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints.
1Th 4:15 for this to you we say in the word of the Lord, that we who are living--who do remain over to the presence of the Lord--may not precede those asleep,
1Th 5:23 and the God of the peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved unblameably in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ;
2Th 2:1 And we ask you, brethren, in regard to the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:8 and then shall be revealed the Lawless One, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the manifestation of his presence,
2Th 2:9 him, whose presence is according to the working of the Adversary, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, <<(antichrist)
Jas 5:7 Be patient, then, brethren, till the presence of the Lord; lo, the husbandman doth expect the precious fruit of the earth, being patient for it, till he may receive rain--early and latter;
Jas 5:8 Be patient, ye also; establish your hearts, because the presence of the Lord hath drawn nigh;
2Pe 1:16 For, skilfully devised fables not having followed out, we did make known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but eye-witnesses having become of his majesty--
2Pe 3:4 and saying, `Where is the promise of his presence? for since the fathers did fall asleep, all things so remain from the beginning of the creation;'
2Pe 3:12 waiting for and hasting to the presence of the day of God, by which the heavens, being on fire, shall be dissolved, and the elements with burning heat shall melt;
1Jn 2:28 And now, little children, remain in him, that when he may be manifested, we may have boldness, and may not be ashamed before him, in his presence;

WilliamLhk said:

Ancient church councils reflect the theological opinions of the participants. Their pronouncements do not hold the same weight as Scripture.

Click to expand...

The councils used Scripture to form their decisions, not private opinions, and insofar as these were accepted by the entire church, and insofar as the Council of Constantinople produced the current version of the Nicene Creed, which is the document that unites all of Christianity, it is authoritative as a means of Scriptural interpretation. Adherence to these councils is Scriptural based on 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:37, Matthew 16:18 and Galatians 1:8-9, in that these councils represent the continuity of the apostolic preaching.

We can also uphold the councils based on the merits of their actions, for Scripture says, by their fruits, ye shall know them. Specifically, the Council of Nicaea defended the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ and his consubstantiality with the Father and uncreated nature. The Council of Constantinople further upheld this doctrine against the attempts of semi-Arians to dilute it, and also upheld the doctrine of the Trinity against attacks by Macedonianists, also known as Pneumatomachs, who denied the deity and personhood of God the Holy Spirit. Additionally, the council upheld the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation and the full divinity andhumanity of Christ against Apollinarianism, which claimed Christ had a human body and a divine soul (the Apollinarians were also Chiliasts, as it happens, but the council decided to exclude Chiliasm specifically through the declaration “His Kingdom shall have no end.”

It is also worth noting that no ancient Christians at all disagreed with the Council of Constantinople; while the Church of the East, under Nestorian influence, rejected (and to this day does not entirely embrace) the Council of Ephesus, they fully accept Constantinople. The Roman Catholics also accept it, despite the fact that it explicitly affirms that the churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Cyprus had the same privileges of Rome and extends that status to Constantinople (thus establishing the basis for additional churches to receive autocephalous status). There were no Romans present at Constantinople; the council was convened as a local council by the Church of Constantinople and had only Greek Orthodox attendees, unlike Nicaea, however, it was adopted on an ecumenical basis by all churches after the fact.

Also, to be clear, the Council’s reasoning for rejecting Chiliasm was the idea of the Kingdom of Christ being of finite duration and other complexities caused through a literal interpretation of the number 1,000; Scripture frequently uses large numbers to represent values that are unbounded, for example, Christ our True God says we should forgive our brethren seventy times seven times, but it is obvious that he does not literally mean that forgiveness stops on the 491st offence.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Catholic tradition therefore reads Revelation’s imagery through the same lens as the Fathers—St Augustine, St Jerome, St Gregory the Great—who all treat Rev 19 as a symbolic depiction of Christ’s final triumph, not a chronologically distinct advent.

Click to expand...

And this is the problem with Catholic tradition: it sets itself up as superior to Scripture.

The RCC originally accepted and dogmatized the teaching of Augustine that the Millennium would be a literal 1000 years:

" In The City of God, Augustine ... taught that most of the Book of Revelation’s prophecies had already been fulfilled. This contradicted the view of most of the ante-Nicene scholars, who taught that the cataclysms and judgments of Revelation were yet future. According to Augustine, the millennial (1000-year) reign of the saints, described in Revelation 20 to follow those end-time cataclysms, had already come:

"' … [T]he devil is [already] bound for the thousand years, [and] the saints reign with Christ during the same thousand years; these are understood to be the same period, i.e., the time between Christ’s first and second comings. And so the Church even now is the kingdom of Christ, and the kingdom of heaven…

"' [John] then gives a summary of what the Church is to do in those thousand years, in the words, “And I saw thrones, and those that sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them.” [Rev. 20:4] … [T]his refers…to the seats of the rulers and rulers themselves by whom the church is now governed.' The City of God, XX:9 "

This is why there was a great expectation for the return of Christ around the time of 1000 AD in RCC Europe. Of course, when Christ didn't return, the RCC just came up with another infallible doctrine to replace the older infallible doctrine.

So why should anyone accept the later doctrine, the one you promote now? > "The Church infallibly professes one future Parousia..."

The Liturgist said:

the Council of Constantinople produced the current version of the Nicene Creed, which is the document that unites all of Christianity,

Click to expand...

This statement is false on its face.

" The Nicene Creed originated at the First Council of Nicaea (325) and was revised at the First Council of Constantinople (381) — the version commonly used in many churches is the Niceno‑Constantinopolitan Creed — but it is not the single document that "unites all of Christianity." Different Christian traditions use different creeds, formulations, and emphases (for example, some Eastern churches use the original Nicene form, Oriental Orthodox churches accept the 325 creed but rejected the 381 council, and many Protestant denominations adopt the Nicene or Apostles' Creed while others prioritize confessions). "

SavedByGrace3 said:

PAROUSIA is an interesting word.
It carries a more specific meaning than merely "come" or "arrive."
In most contexts, it means "presence" and "continuing presence."
The meaning I think is seen most accurately in Phil 2:!2 where the opposite of PAROUSIA is not going (which it should be if the meaning were merely "coming.) . Rather the opposite of PAROUSIA is "absence," hence intimating that the correct understanding of PAROUSIA is "presence" or the opposite of "absence."

Click to expand...

Exactly.

The events of Christ's Parousia were all foreshadowed in detail at Mount Sinai, when the LORD at that time descended in the clouds of heaven amidst fire and earthquake and trumpet/shofar. Likewise the descent of Christ.

At that former time, the Presence of the Holy One was not merely a come-and-go, but a come-and-remain: a "continuing presence." Likewise when the Lord returns: His Presence will once again become actively involved in the affairs of earth for an extended period of time. History will by no means end, as Revelation 7-20 and Ezekiel 38-39 make abundantly clear.

WilliamLhk said:

ginal Nicene form, Oriental Orthodox churches accept the 325 creed but rejected the 381 council,

Click to expand...

What document are you quoting? Because it’s completely inaccurate; whoever wrote it had no knowledge of the Oriental Orthodox church and appears to be confusing Constantinople with Chalcedon. All Oriental Orthodox churches use the Constantinopolitan version of the Nicene Creed of 381 (which is part of the CF statement of faith, otherwise, they wouldn’t be permitted on ChristianForums, but indeed there is an Oriental Orthodox forum, alas our one Coptic member @dzheremi is inactive at the moment although I think we have an Armenian, I will check)...

Indeed one of the most commonly used Oriental Orthodox liturgies, the Coptic Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. Basil contains the phrase “and from the mouths of the three hundred and eighteen assembled at Nicea, the one hundred and fifty at Constantinople, and the two hundred at Ephesus” and here’s a source: Liturgy

And here’s a YouTube video of the entire Coptic Orthodox liturgy in its profound splendor celebrated in English at one of the great Coptic Orthodox monasteries in Egypt:


There are also plenty of videos of it being celebrated in the US, for example at St. Mark’s in Los Angeles; they had a priest who was superb at chanting Tasbeha, or Coptic hymnody, who recently reposed, Fr. Raphael Hanna, who reposed around the same time as Fr. Abdullahad Shara of the nearby Syriac Orthodox Cathedral of St. Ephraim, another Oriental Orthodox cathedral, and another priest with a beautiful voice…may their memories be eternal. And if you look at the texts of the Syriac Orthodox liturgy you’ll also use use of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed of 381, and if you look up the Armenian and Ethiopian liturgies you will find they also use it.

At any rate i do hope you provide a link to wherever you read that, or the name of the book, because its statement about the Oriental Orthodox is stunningly inaccurate and someone needs to let whoever is responsible, if they are still alive, know about the extent of that inaccuracy (which is pretty staggering, since Oriental Orthodox acceptance of the first three ecumenical councils is extremely widely documented; I think even the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia which people love to quote as though it were an official Vatican document despite it being obsolete and in several cases inaccurate managed to get that detail right).

WilliamLhk said:

First, apologies for being late to this party.

Both of these statements are evidently false if Rev. 20 is true.


Where do you find anything about Christ's continued descent to earth in this passage??

That is to say, "that we may partake in Christ's descent from heaven." That is not so stated.

Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on how you read it. To me, it reads as a descent, ie an event in which Christ descends *from* heaven, which means he is descending *to the earth.*

1 Thes 4.16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 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.

RandyPNW said:

I suppose it depends on how you read it. To me, it reads as a descent, ie an event in which Christ descends *from* heaven, which means he is descending *to the earth.*

1 Thes 4.16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 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.

Click to expand...

If Christ's intent is to keep on descending to earth (Paul doesn't say or even hint that), then why bother with a very short-term rapture of saints into the clouds?? Makes no sense.

Particularly since Rev. 7:9-14 tells us of an innumerable number of saints, "having come out of the great tribulation," standing before God's heavenly throne. That is who, and where, these raptured saints will be.

WilliamLhk said:

This statement is false on its face.

" The Nicene Creed originated at the First Council of Nicaea (325) and was revised at the First Council of Constantinople (381) — the version commonly used in many churches is the Niceno‑Constantinopolitan Creed — but it is not the single document that "unites all of Christianity." Different Christian traditions use different creeds, formulations, and emphases (for example, some Eastern churches use the original Nicene form, Oriental Orthodox churches accept the 325 creed but rejected the 381 council, and many Protestant denominations adopt the Nicene or Apostles' Creed while others prioritize confessions). "

Click to expand...

Since I did prove the accuracy of my claim with Oriental Orthodox liturgical texts from the Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox churches and even a video of the Coptic Orthodox liturgy venerating the 150 holy fathers at the Council of Constantinople and using the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed in my previous post #295 please (a) retract the claim that my argument was “false on its face” and (b) provide the source you quoted that accuses OOs of rejecting the Council of Constantinople.

WilliamLhk said:

And this is the problem with Catholic tradition: it sets itself up as superior to Scripture.

The RCC originally accepted and dogmatized the teaching of Augustine that the Millennium would be a literal 1000 years:

" In The City of God, Augustine ... taught that most of the Book of Revelation’s prophecies had already been fulfilled. This contradicted the view of most of the ante-Nicene scholars, who taught that the cataclysms and judgments of Revelation were yet future. According to Augustine, the millennial (1000-year) reign of the saints, described in Revelation 20 to follow those end-time cataclysms, had already come:

"' … [T]he devil is [already] bound for the thousand years, [and] the saints reign with Christ during the same thousand years; these are understood to be the same period, i.e., the time between Christ’s first and second comings. And so the Church even now is the kingdom of Christ, and the kingdom of heaven…

"' [John] then gives a summary of what the Church is to do in those thousand years, in the words, “And I saw thrones, and those that sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them.” [Rev. 20:4] … [T]his refers…to the seats of the rulers and rulers themselves by whom the church is now governed.' The City of God, XX:9 "

This is why there was a great expectation for the return of Christ around the time of 1000 AD in RCC Europe. Of course, when Christ didn't return, the RCC just came up with another infallible doctrine to replace the older infallible doctrine.

So why should anyone accept the later doctrine, the one you promote now? > "The Church infallibly professes one future Parousia..."

Click to expand...

Where did Augustine claim it would be a "literal 1000 years"? His fullest treatment of it is City of God 20:7, and he asserts:

Now the thousand years may be understood in two ways, so far as occurs to me: either because these things happen in the sixth thousand of years or sixth millennium (the latter part of which is now passing), as if during the sixth day, which is to be followed by a Sabbath which has no evening, the endless rest of the saints, so that, speaking of a part under the name of the whole, he calls the last part of the millennium—the part, that is, which had yet to expire before the end of the world—a thousand years; or he used the thousand years as an equivalent for the whole duration of this world, employing the number of perfection to mark the fullness of time. For a thousand is the cube of ten. For ten times ten makes a hundred, that is; the square on a plane superficies. But to give this superficies height, and make it a cube, the hundred is again multiplied by ten, which gives a thousand. Besides, if a hundred is sometimes used for totality, as when the Lord said by way of promise to him that left all and followed Him “He shall receive in this world an hundredfold;” of which the apostle gives, as it were, an explanation when he says, “As having nothing, yet possessing all things,” —for even of old it had been said, The whole world is the wealth of a believer,—with how much greater reason is a thousand put for totality since it is the cube, while the other is only the square? And for the same reason we cannot better interpret the words of the psalm, “He hath been mindful of His covenant for ever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations,” than by understanding it to mean “to all generations.”

Augustine says there are two possible readings: One could take it as a literal thousand years, or one could take it (as bolded above) as not being a literal thousand years, but instead "the whole duration of this world." He does not appear to take a position on which one is correct. So Augustine did not have a "teaching" that the millennium would be a literal thousand years, but merely viewed that as a possibility.

But even if we were to suppose Augustine did teach a literal thousand years, you make the claim that the RCC "originally accepted and dogmatized the teaching of Augustine that the Millennium would be a literal 1000 years." Where did they ever dogmatize any such thing? You make this assertion, but do not say where they did so or offer any evidence. Please point to where this occurred.