Is the rapture a lie?

[Marvin Knox]

Nobody in the early church ever heard of a rapture separate from the Second Coming.

That simply isn't true.

Starting with Paul and going on through Tim LaHaye and Marvin Knox - there have been many who have believed that the rapture is immanent and does not follow the well articulated events associated with Daniel's 70th week and John's revelation (which was given to him to show the church what must take place sometime after the end of the first century A.D. when the vision was given to John).

Since you mention Billy Graham, try this. I have seen a pamphlet on the end times put out by the Billy Graham organization in 1950. What does it say about a rapture? NOTHING. Most Baptists had never heard of it then.

So what?

And - by the way - 1950 was long after the Scofield reference Bible was published and over a century since the hay day of Darby. Are we really to believe that evangelical Baptists in 1950 had never heard of the pre-trib rapture? That stretches simple credulity does it not?

I have seen some signs that Billy Graham & Co. have waffled since then, but whatever.

Again - so what. You and I have likely waffled on many things.

It has no more to do with the scriptural support for the pre-trib rapture than does any supposed lack of belief in it before the last couple of centuries.

Actually recent revelations by the Holy Spirit into the concept of the rapture should well be what we should have expected to happen.

After all, Daniel was told concerning end time events surrounding the tribulation and the second coming - "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."

 

[Marvin Knox]

The writings of Josephus can help you out with that, I believe.
Chronology of the War According to Josephus: Part 7, The Fall of Jerusalem

Thank you for the link.

I have the works of Josephus in my library over this desk and I have studied them.

Josephus did not witness or write about the second coming of the Lord which is mentioned in Matthew 24:30.

The many tribulations of the Jews in 70 A.D. can and often are stretched to supposedly fulfill the concept of a tribulation period. But they can hardly be stretched to include the second coming in glory as seen by all of the tribes of the earth as also taught in Matthew 24.

 

[mkgal1]

Josephus did not witness or write about the second coming of the Lord which is mentioned in Matthew 24:30.

The "coming of the Son of Man" isn't His second coming....it's the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God into this present world order:

If you do any amount of reading of N.T. Wright, you will quickly see that one of the biggest things he emphasizes about the original gospel proclamation of the early Church wasn’t simply to argue the fact that Jesus was resurrection—although they certainly did do that—but that what Jesus’ resurrection implied about all of reality itself.

The fundamental proclamation of the early Church was that the resurrection of Jesus signaled the beginning of the New Creation, and the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God into this present world order.~N.T. Wright’s “Surprised by Scripture” Ch. 5: Jesus is Coming—Plant a Tree!

 

[mkgal1]

Thank you for the link.

I have the works of Josephus in my library over this desk and I have studied them.

Josephus did not witness or write about the second coming of the Lord which is mentioned in Matthew 24:30.

The many tribulations of the Jews in 70 A.D. can and often are stretched to supposedly fulfill the concept of a tribulation period. But they can hardly be stretched to include the second coming in glory as seen by all of the tribes of the earth as also taught in Matthew 24.

Again...not "second coming"....."coming of the Son of Man"...which isn't Christ coming to earth....but the advent of HIs Kingdom on earth.

Josephus (A.D. 75) - Jewish Historian
"Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one- and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence" (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3).

“A supernatural apparition was seen, too amazing to be believed. What I am now to relate would, I imagine, be dismissed as imaginary, had this not been vouched for by eyewitnesses, then followed by subsequent disasters that deserved to be thus signalized. For before sunset chariots were seen in the air over the whole country, and armed battalions speeding through the clouds and encircling the cities.” (rendered in Chilton)

Tacitus (A.D. 115) - Roman historian
"13. Prodigies had occurred, but their expiation by the offering of victims or solemn vows is held to be unlawful by a nation which is the slave of superstition and the enemy of true beliefs. In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure. Few people placed a sinister interpretation upon this. The majority were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world." (Histories, Book 5, v. 13).

 

[Marvin Knox]

Again...not "second coming"....."coming of the Son of Man"...which isn't Christ coming to earth....but the advent of HIs Kingdom on earth.

Hank said nothing about "still future even now" . He wrote "during and immediately after".....meaning "immediately after" (nothing about the future).

I'm sorry - but all of the tribes of the earth simply have not seen the sign of the Son of Man in the sky and witnessed Him come in great glory during this church age.

They certainly didn't see it "immediately after" 70 A.D.

Actually - according to what you are trying to make it mean concerning the Kingdom - perhaps millions and certainly thousands saw it "before" 70 A.D.

Again - you can stretch things to fit anywhere you want if you have an eschatological agenda. But it's not the natural reading of things.

 

[seventysevens]

Nobody put down your opinion, we only asked you to back it up.

And as for the judicial system; isn't the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" what we use? Which could be equal to "false until proven true"- You claim your point is true, we are asking for evidence.

Sorry for having the "audacity" to not take your word ex cathedra

Entry level common sense the name of the thread is
"Is the rapture a lie "
Since you say it is - the you have the responsibility to support what you claim
You have been asked multiple times to do so but you refuse .

Since you refuse and cannot backup what you say , ,
You spend all your time asking me to do what you are unwilling to do
there is already enough info in this thread to prove our point , but you choose NOT to put any effort in ,

Since you are unwilling to utilize what has been provided , it is likely that you will not utilize anything else provided , just as you are unwilling to backup what you say with any evidence , if you are not aware of of the evidence then you should not be
telling people it is a lie -

 

[☦Marius☦]

Entry level common sense the name of the thread is
"Is the rapture a lie "
Since you say it is - the you have the responsibility to support what you claim
You have been asked multiple times to do so but you refuse .

Since you refuse and cannot backup what you say , ,
You spend all your time asking me to do what you are unwilling to do
there is already enough info in this thread to prove our point , but you choose NOT to put any effort in ,

Since you are unwilling to utilize what has been provided , it is likely that you will not utilize anything else provided , just as you are unwilling to backup what you say with any evidence , if you are not aware of of the evidence then you should not be
telling people it is a lie -

The problem is, that I wasn't responding to the OP. I was responding to your claim that the early Church believed in the Rapture. I have not made claims either way on the subject as a whole- I responded to your statement about the early church which I believe has no evidence to back it up.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Entry level common sense

Sorry. I'll go "get educated"

 

[Marvin Knox]

I started posting in this thread with the charge that if you reject the rapture as we are discussing it you will likely reject also a literal tribulation period at the end of this age as taught by Daniel and the Lord and a literal millennial reign of Christ for 1000 years after that with a rebellion of mankind afterward as taught by John.

Likewise, if you are of a "spiritual" persuasion concerning the tribulation and the millennium, you will likely (or almost assuredly) reject the "secret" rapture theory.

If, on the other hand, if you believe in a literal God wrath/tribulation and a literal 1000 year reign, you will almost assuredly believe in a secret pre-trib rapture. The "no brainer" reason for this is that if the rapture was the same as the second coming, and all of mankind were changed, there would be no believers left in their natural bodies to populate the millennium who's offspring would rebel against the Lord at the end of the 1000 years. Duhhhh!

I won't argue any more concerning why I believe in a literal tribulation, a literal millennium, and a pre-trib rapture. I have more than a half dozen books in front of me from as many different viewpoints and I have studied, taught and discussed the subject for a great many decades now (since coming to the Lord in the summer of 1959).

Better theologians than those here (including me) have hashed it out over the years and continue to do so until the Lord comes. I find the pre-trib, rapture in the air, package much more compelling than the others.

I will simply point out again what I said in my first post.

Reject one Biblical teaching (like the Millennial reign of Christ or the end times tribulation) and you will almost surely find yourself having to reject others (like the rapture) in order to hold your rejecting viewpoint . Similarly - if you won't believe in the rapture, you will not likely believe in the other doctrines (or at least twist them to meet your needs).

Since my first post that tendency among believers has been amply born out here in this thread for all to see.

This principle is also true concerning other doctrines - particularly so in the "soteriology" realm.

"Be careful how you listen. To him who does not have - even what he thinks he has will be taken away." Luke 8:18

 

[☦Marius☦]

I started posting in this thread with the charge that if you reject the rapture as we are discussing it you will likely reject also a literal tribulation period at the end of this age as taught by Daniel and the Lord and a literal millennial reign of Christ for 1000 years after that with a rebellion of mankind afterward as taught by John.

Likewise, if you are of a "spiritual" persuasion concerning the tribulation and the millennium, you will likely (or almost assuredly) reject the "secret" rapture theory.

If, on the other hand, if you believe in a literal God wrath/tribulation and a literal 1000 year reign, you will almost assuredly believe in a secret pre-trib rapture. The "no brainer" reason for this is that if the rapture was the same as the second coming, and all of mankind were changed, there would be no believers left in their natural bodies to populate the millennium who's offspring would rebel against the Lord at the end of the 1000 years. Duhhhh!

I won't argue any more concerning why I believe in a literal tribulation, a literal millennium, and a pre-trib rapture. I have a half dozen books in front of me from as many different viewpoints and I have studied and discussed the subject for a great many decades now.

Better theologians than those here including me have hashed it out and continue to do so.

I will simply point out again what I said in my first post.

Reject one Biblical teaching (like the Millennial reign of Christ or the end times tribulation) and you will almost surely find yourself having to reject others (like the rapture) in order to hold your rejecting viewpoint . Similarly - if you won't believe in the rapture, you will not likely believe in the other doctrines (or at least twist them to meet your needs).

Since my first post that tendency among believers has been amply born out here in this thread for all to see.

This principle is also true concerning other doctrines - particularly so in the "soteriology" realm.

"Be careful how you listen. To him who does not have - even what he thinks he has will be taken away." Luke 8:18

You should probably specify reject one "Biblical interpretation", instead of "teaching". You can argue your point but that doesn't make it necessary anything more than your sides interpretation, and not necessarily what the passages originally meant to convey.

 

[☦Marius☦]

if you are not aware of of the evidence then you should not be
telling people it is a lie -

Guess it's a good thing I never said that then did I? If I did please find where I did. Otherwise you are putting words in my mouth and bearing false witness.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That simply isn't true.

Starting with Paul and going on through Tim LaHaye and Marvin Knox - there have been many who have believed that the rapture is immanent and does not follow the well articulated events associated with Daniel's 70th week and John's revelation (which was given to him to show the church what must take place sometime after the end of the first century A.D. when the vision was given to John).

Let's see if we can unpack this.

Yes, it has been the consistent belief of the Church that Christ's glorious return--His Parousia--is immanent. What doesn't follow, however, is everything else, including the "rapture".

I believe the Lord's return can happen at any moment. I do not, however, believe in a rapture. And that's because I also don't agree with the Futurist and Dispensationalist interpretations of Daniel's 70th week and the Apocalypse of St. John. The immanence of Christ's Parousia is not the same thing as the Dispensationalist scheme of a series of specific events unfolding a la the Left Behind series. As such, finding someone in the history of the Church who believes the Lord can return at any time means nothing--of course we believe this; but the reason is entirely different than what you have provided.

Moreso, however, the doctrine of the rapture, and moreso the doctrine of the pre-tribulational rapture, does not have any historical merit. You will not find Christians teaching this anywhere in antiquity. St. Paul doesn't teach it, the ancient fathers of the Church did not teach it, the theologians and doctors of the middle ages (both East and West) did not teach it, the Protestant Reformers did not teach it, John Wesley and the other Protestant theologians of 18th century did not teach it.

Because this idea did not come into existence until the time of John Darby in the early 19th century.

And as would be par for the course, I'm fully prepared--and expecting--someone to attempt to demonstrate how early Christians in fact did believe it by copy-pasting from Rapturist websites, in particular I'm expecting a copy-paste from St. Irenaeus' Against Heresies, and the usual spurious quote from the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem (and likely, quoted as being as though it were actually from St. Ephraem). I say spurious because there actually is an Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem from the early Islamic period which is an apocalypse about the Muslim conquests of Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire), but the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem quoted on Rapturist websites is some completely unrelated text which from all my studies can't be traced further back than a German transcription of a Latin text from the late 1800's. I am unaware of where the Latin Apocalypse in the Caspari text comes from, as I've never been able to find a source beyond the Caspari text itself.

And dealing specifically with the quote-mining of St. Irenaeus, as I have dealt with this in the past, a simple contextual reading of the relevant passage from Against Heresies makes it abundantly clear that Ireneaus does not believe in some kind of "rapture" prior to a period of tribulation; but is explicit that the Church will endure the trials and troubles just preceding the Eschaton.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Marvin Knox]

You should probably specify reject one "Biblical interpretation", instead of "teaching". You can argue your point but that doesn't make it necessary anything more than your sides interpretation, and not necessarily what the passages originally meant to convey.

One who teaches from a certain viewpoint almost surely subscribes to the interpretation which makes up that viewpoint.

It's silly to mince words here.

By the way though - I find a literal tribulation in the end times and a literal millennial reign to be the "teaching" of the Holy Spirit of God which He gave to Daniel, the Lord Himself, Paul, the Apostle John, and (dare I say) to me as well - not an "interpretation".

The things spoken to Daniel are for the churches understanding in these end times and so are the things spoken to John.

Revelation is just that - it is a revealing. It is not an obscuring or secret word game. These things need no "interpretation". They are crystal clear IMO.

When the Lord tells us that there is coming a tribulation such as the world has never seen "after these things" - and that Word from the Lord is given some 20 years after 70 A.D. - it cannot and does not mean that they happened in 70 A.D.

Again - that really should be a no-brainer.

 

[Kenny'sID]

As I've always seen it, the return of Christ will happen right at the end of the 7 yr Tribulation. That is the one and only second coming.

No free tickets to fly away, and avoid the tribulation, that's just another scam to draw people into the Church of Tell Me What I Want to Hear.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Because this idea did not come into existence until the time of John Darby in the early 19th century.

That's a classic red herring.

Even if that is true - so what?

The scriptures which we both must use to decide the issue were compiled quite a few years before Darby and it to them we must appeal and their meaning may well not be revealed until long after written.

"But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase." Daniel 12:4

I believe the Lord's return can happen at any moment. I do not, however, believe in a rapture. And that's because I also don't agree with the Futurist and Dispensationalist interpretations of Daniel's 70th week and the Apocalypse of St. John.

"After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things." Revelation 4:1

Regarding the idea that the outright rejection or undue spiritualizing of one teaching from the scriptures invariably results in the rejection of others - again, I rest my case.

 

[Marvin Knox]

No free tickets to fly away, and avoid the tribulation, that's just another scam to draw people into the Church of Tell Me What I Want to Hear.

None huh?
Interesting.

"Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth." Revelation 3:10

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's a classic red herring.

How is it a red herring?

Even if that is true - so what?

The scriptures which we both must use to decide the issue were compiled quite a few years before Darby and it to them we must appeal and their meaning may well not be revealed until long after written.

I don't think you realize just how absolutely dangerous your line of thinking is here--based on this logic literally anything can be believed on the basis that the true meaning of the text is not revealed until Prophet Joe Schmoe comes along.

"But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase." Daniel 12:4

Well then, in five hundred or a thousand years, other people can come along claiming it is now "the end of time" and assert new doctrines which the Church has never believed on the basis of secret knowledge hidden in Scripture revealed to the new elect few.

If you cannot understand why this line of thinking is overwhelmingly dangerous, and why it is important to adhere to the historic teaching of the Christian Church, and not chasing after every wind of doctrine by false teachers offering things to tickle the ears of the unaware--I honestly don't know what to tell you.

But as for me, I have no intention of chasing after novel and innovative doctrines of men, but will remain firm in the word which has been received since the beginning.

"After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things." Revelation 4:1

You put "must take place after these things" in bold, so I assume you think this must indicate that the Apocalypse is about the "end times"--except it doesn't. You are reading what you want into the text if that's what you think it says--because it doesn't say that.

Regarding the idea that the outright rejection or undue spiritualizing of one teaching from the scriptures invariably results in the rejection of others - again, I rest my case.

I find it both amusing and ironic that someone who rejects that the Eucharist is the real body and blood of Jesus would take issue with Christians taking the apocalyptic language of the Apocalypse non-literally. I don't want to throw this thread off topic, so let's just leave it at that.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Marvin Knox]

But as for me, I have no intention of chasing after novel and innovative doctrines of men, but will remain firm in the word which has been received since the beginning.

Then reject the teachings of Luther and the reformers and return to the Roman Catholicism of yesteryear.

You put "must take place after these things" in bold, so I assume you think this must indicate that the Apocalypse is about the "end times"--except it doesn't.

Show what must take place after the things which John was shown in around 90 A.D. cannot possibly have meant what happened in 70 A.D. some 20 years before - as those here have been saying.

I find it both amusing and ironic that someone who rejects that the Eucharist is the real body and blood of Jesus would take issue with Christians taking the apocalyptic language of the Apocalypse non-literally.

Yours is the far fetched doctrine. It is IMO so far more far fetched than the rapture that it can't even be compared to it as a stretch of what the scriptures really teach.

Nor is it in the slightest bit an "amusing" heresy as most of us see it. It is heresy in the highest degree.

It is those who believe in the literal body and blood in the Eucharist who are rejecting what was logically and literally true about the elements given to the Apostles at the last supper.

It is people like you who are saying that the bread and wine the Lord handed to the disciples (with His own hands) when He said "this is my body and blood - do this in remembrance of me" etc. was Him handing to them bread and wine that had been changed into His liver, heart, hair, toes, legs, and blood.

People who believe that He was just giving them symbols to do in "remembrance" of Him are the ones thinking logically and literally about what He was doing at the last supper and what we are in turn doing at the communion table.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Marvin asked: When did this happen.


Not hardly. I'm talking about this:

"And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory." Matthew 24:30

Again - when did this happen?

Again - Is it natural to say that these things (still future even now) will be "immediately following" the tribulation - when they are at least 1948 years after the events which happened in 70 A.D.?

well, thanks for making your position so clear

How about this -- the OT is full of bombastic descriptions of Divine Wrath... and all acknowledge many days of Wrath have occurred on earth already... and nobody demands that they literally fulfilled every fantastic detail...

For wont of worthier words, there appears to be some sort of "bark is worse than bite" effect... Divine Wrath would strike down all the stars in earth's skies, yet not all of that "firepower" makes it "all the way to earth"... same net effect, sinful 1st temple Jerusalem fell, sinful historic Babylon fell... lots of Wrath voiced in many powerful Apocalyptic Prophesies... fulfilled in general spirit, if not in every specific detail

 

[Marvin Knox]

well, thanks for making your position so clear

How about this -- the OT is full of bombastic descriptions of Divine Wrath... and all acknowledge many days of Wrath have occurred on earth already... and nobody demands that they literally fulfilled every fantastic detail...

For wont of worthier words, there appears to be some sort of "bark is worse than bite" effect... Divine Wrath would strike down all the stars in earth's skies, yet not all of that "firepower" makes it "all the way to earth"... same net effect, sinful 1st temple Jerusalem fell, sinful historic Babylon fell... lots of Wrath voiced in many powerful Apocalyptic Prophesies... fulfilled in general spirit, if not in every specific detail

Fair enough.
Point well taken.

But then - this seems a bit of a different thing IMO and hard to mistake for anything else as it were.

"and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other". etc.