• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

truth of the "rapture"

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
I

IneedChrist

Newbie
Dec 30, 2012
24
3
✟22,660.00
Faith
Non-Denom
And yet Paul didn't want us to be ignorant of what would happen, and Jesus said blessed are those who read and understand Revelations.. why, there isn't a bigger debate on this figurative/literal meaning of Revelations except for maybe OSAS. Why does that have to be? Somewhere in the bible it talks of virgins going from point to point on earth to find the truth, and they couldn't find it. This reminds me of that. I don't know.
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟57,855.00
Faith
Catholic

That doesn't mean you can understand it properly by reading a translation.

Translations loose something in the translation. Just because it's scripture doesn't mean the translation is going to be clear or carry the full sense of what the original language it was given does.

Do not rely ona translation to give you everything God inteded in the original language. Translations do not work that way. And wishing or wanting it to be otherwise isn't going to make it so.

God does not ask us to suspend right use of our reason.
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟57,855.00
Faith
Catholic

Paul didn't write Revelation and Revelation is not a book of prophetic events. You can't change the fact that the genre existed and what that genre is or that this is part of that genre. To ignore these facts will mean you interpret the book of Revelation wrongly.

God expects us to be intellectually honest when approaching His word, not to handle it any way we see fit.
 
Upvote 0
S

seeking Christ

Guest
Koakku said:
I mean, just because one word doesn't fit with the scripture doesn't mean you have to look up the original greek or hebrew meaning of the word for it to make the whole passage true.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that the original meaning is drastically different from what any method of translation results in. This is true of a great many languages being translated from one to another, but especially so if they are from areas that are widely separated by geography, time, and culture; as is the case with modern day US from Jerusalem of Jesus' time. the saying "something got lost in the translation" exists for a good reason


Don't misunderstand, no one is saying to use extra-Biblical sources to determine if the Bible might be true or not. What we're saying is that if we look at a newspaper headline that reads "Seahawks beat Lions," we know that its talking about the NFL while someone 2,000 years from now might take that to mean something completely different. It is folly to think we are exempt from any such cultural misunderstanding but even more basic is the language itself; especially Hebrew can express thoughts that just have no English counterpart. (Or are awkward and difficult to grasp at best)
 
Upvote 0
S

seeking Christ

Guest
IneedChrist said:
And yet Paul didn't want us to be ignorant of what would happen, and Jesus said blessed are those who read and understand Revelations..
Click to expand...

Correction: the Blessing is upon those who "read and keep" the sayings

Although personally I do find great Blessing in just the reading, that's not the intent of the text; it's "read and keep." Also, the name of the book is THE (singular) Revelation OF Jesus Christ TO St John the Divine. Keeping that in mind we can't possibly make the common mistake of calling it "revelations," because its all one (very big and awesome) Revelation


This does not ring a bell with me and I'm usually good with things like that, but there was a time when there was famine of the word of God in the land. The real thing is to trust in the Lord and you HAVE that!

If you can add to that being rooted and grounded in the word and use that to keep your focus on Jesus rather than on the storms of life, you will be doing very well A lot of these disagreements you see people have on here, I really think those in the early Church would've thought it all quite silly. It's good to keep a priority: Jesus is our Savior, and everything else is FAR less important. We can seek and find truth sure, but no need to rush into hasty conclusions and then get defensive about where we may have been mistaken. There is a LOT to be said for the ability to reserve judgment, while we gather more information and evaluate. (Some of the dietary laws of Moses speak of this very thing, eating animals that are sure footed splitting the hoof and chewing the cud, not too quick to swallow whatever they encounter)
 
Reactions: Fireinfolding
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by IneedChrist
Click to expand...
I remember this site from years back I looked at and forgot I had it in a study folder.

This guy tries to show it was Paul that wrote Revelation.

Kind of far fetched, but did make for interesting reading

http://www.godshew.org/index.htm

Revelations of Revelation 3: Author of Revelation is Paul - GodShew

Revelation is NOT written by John, as many ass u me;
It is Pauline-authored, sign-ified, and sent unto John.
Paul thrice reveals his authorship in Pauline Epistles.


It seems "many", in fact all theories of Revelation I've ever encountered, erroneously begin by ass-uming John is author of Revelation.
But in the very first verse it can be plainly seen John is neither the author of Revelation nor the sender, but the childish recipient unto whom it's sent, notably to a servant.


Revelation 1:1 clarifies sender, author, receiver
"and he(JC) sent and signified [it] by his angel
(his angel: Paul: no servant) unto his servant John".
Sender: JC; Via Author: Paul; Recipient: John​






.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by IneedChrist
I'm the original poster. I'm thoroughly confused. I'm just going to make sure I keep faith in Jesus in whatever happens.
Click to expand...
thereselittleflower said:
That's a good stance to take
Click to expand...
The futurist rapture doctrine is enuf to confuse any sensible Christian...



.
 
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
Alrighty then.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine, eh?

Click to expand...
thereselittleflower said:
sure you are I would never deny you that.

But don't you want truth more than an opinion?
Click to expand...
I know I would!

Bruce Lee: "If I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you"

 
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,254
52,666
Guam
✟5,157,409.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,254
52,666
Guam
✟5,157,409.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
LittleLambofJesus said:
The futurist rapture doctrine is enuf to confuse any sensible Christian...
Click to expand...
Actually, it's called our blessed hope ...

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

... and we are admonished to ...

1 Thessalonians 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

The Rapture is indeed 'comforting words.'
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
AV1611VET said:
Actually Chuck Norris said that in Code of Silence, 1985.
Click to expand...
Yes I know that...great movie!..I just thought it went better with that particular B. L. gif




.
 
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Site Supporter
Mar 27, 2007
36,073
4,641
On the bus to Heaven
✟116,415.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Several other points to strengthen your argument.

1. The early church through the 3rd century was chiliast (pre-mil). All believed in the 1000 years reign of Christ. This makes the amil position one that was not taught by the apostles.

2. All agree that there will be a rapture meaning all believers alive at the time of the rapture will be caught up in the clouds with Jesus. Those that do not believe in a rapture are not reading their bibles. The argument is between a pre, mid, or post tribulation rapture.

3. The concept of the rapture is ancient and was not developed by Darby as some like to claim. There is extant mss evidence from the 4th century.

4. Those that deny a tribulation are also not reading their bibles since Matthew, Mark, Paul, and John explain ti quite well.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,254
52,666
Guam
✟5,157,409.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hentenza said:
Those that do not believe in a rapture are not reading their bibles.
Click to expand...
Correct!

As I understand it, 1 Thessalonians was written because the believers thought that those who died before Christ's return would miss the Rapture; thus Paul assures them that, not only will they not miss it, but the dead in Christ will be the first to go!

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Then, 2 Thessalonians was written because some were quitting their jobs to await the Rapture; thus Paul admonishes them with these strong words ...

2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Again though, this is as I understand it.
 
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,860
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟65,348.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private

Those verses look more like the resurrection than they look like a 'rapture'.
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟57,855.00
Faith
Catholic

Those who do not believe in the dispensationalist doctrine of the rapture simply do not believe Darby's distorted interpretations of scripture.

Being caught up at the return of Christ is not the same thing as leaving behind the rest of humanity to suffer through a tribulation God's words does not teach.
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟57,855.00
Faith
Catholic
Now to correct some misinformation.

The Early Church was NOT chiliast. Some were. That does not make the Church as a whole chiliast.
Pre-millenialsim was not the prevailing escatalogical view in the first few centuries at all . . the only places I know where it is generally accepted to be are among dispensationalists, who make up a very small minority within those groups who name the name of Christ. The number of its adherents is a subject of debate, and in most circles is considered quite limited.

Chilaism (the name for pre-millenialism in the Early Church) had its roots in pre-christian Jewish beliefs. What has been popularized among dispensationalists today is the idea that it was indeed an apostolic belief. However, we find its roots in non-christian Jewish apocryphal writing, not apostolic, such as 2 Baruch,rejected when the books of the Old Testament were cannonized in the 4th century.


According to the Jewish Encyclopedia the reign of peace, lasting a thousand years, which will precede the last judgment and the future life. This concept has achieved a special importance in the Christian church, where it has been termed Chilliasm, designating the dominion of Jesus with the glorified and risen saints, will rule for a thousand years. Chilliasm, or the idea of the thousand years is never the less, older than the Christian church. For the belief of a thousand years, at the end of time, as a preliminary to the resurrection of the dead, was held in Phariseeism. This concept is expressed in Jewish literature in Enoch, etc. From Neander's History of Christian Dogmas, Vol. 1, Page 248
The idea of a Millennial reign proceeded from Judaism; for among the Jews the representation was current that the Messiah would reign a thousand years upon earth.
​
Chilaism also found itself to be at odds with the deeply and strongly cherished hope of Christians of union and fellowship with our Lord upon death. Chiliasts taught that instead we go to some holding place, hades to await the ressurection and millenial reign.

Chilaism found some support in the 2nd century due to its postion in opposition to the gnostic belief of the evil of matter and the physical world .. it gave support to the goodness of the material world, that it would be renewed and thus opposed the gnostic beliefs in this manner. But it failed to support the Christian hope of union with Christ after death.

It also used the same approach used by the Jews to justify the crucifixtion. The literal approach used by the Jews to understand the Old Testament prophecies is the same used by the Chilaists . . and as the Jews used it to justify the crucifixtion, as they did not see the literal fulfillment of prophecies such as the lion lying down with the lamb. its use by the Chilaists was seen something to be rejected.

Chilaism was not the only escatological view of the Early Church, let alone even the prevailing view, and because of its Jewish roots and its failure to support the Christian hope of going to be with Christ, it was seen as sub-Christian, not fully Christian, dangerously like the non-Christian Jewish approach to scripture used to reject Jesus as the Messiah and justify the crucifixtion.

There had always existed a more fully Christian escatology from the beginning, one which fully embraced the great Christian hope of being with the Lord upon death and did not ally itself with interpretative methods used to reject Christ; one which we see in the New Testament writings themselves . .that instead of some future reign, Jesus' present reign over all thngs from heaven is proclaimed, where the saints are with Him now, which culminates in the arrival of the fullness of the perfect kingdom of God and the replacement of the present heaven and earth, not a temporary kingdom even if for 1000 years.

I know that among dispensationalists the claim is made that chilaism was the belief of the Early Church starting with the time of the Apostle John . . .however, we have interesting documentation of those contempory with John:


Caius, who lived around the close of the 2nd century, commented on the idea that Christ would have an earthly kingdom of 1000 years. In Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 28 fragment is preserved of his writings:
But Cerinthus, too, through revelations written, as he would have us believe, by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things, which he pretends were shown him by angels; alleging that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ is to be on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem is again to be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to the scriptures of God, wishing to deceive men, he says that there is to be space of a thousand years for marriage festivities.


One of the doctrines he taught was, that Christ would have an earthly kingdom."
​
Now here is what is interesting. Cerinthus was a contemporary of St. John. Irenaeus, who is a contemporary of Polycarp, disciple of John tells us (recorded in Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., III. 28) that John while in Ephesus entered a bath house to bathe, and upon seeing Cerinthus was there, refused to bathe in the same bath house, left and exhorted those wth him to do likewise saying:
"Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, is within."
​
Cerinthus promoted that also during this millenial reign of Christ, we would enjoy almost hedonistic pleasures. However, even that aside, it is obvious that Caius held a very different view point than Cerinthus and held Cerinthus' to be heretical. We also see that St. John also held him to be heretical. Cerinthus founded a sect which combined the Chirstology of the Ebonites with Gnosticism, his teachings were heretical and he claimed angelic interpretation/revelation. What is significant here is that in the fragment we see above from Caius, it is clear that the idea of Christ having a earthly kingdom and that this was to be for the space of 1000 years was considered one of his heresies . . in addition to the obivous heresies regarding what would occur during the 1000 years as well as many of the other heresies he embraced and promoted.

Here is more:
"Cerinthus required his followers to worship the supreme God.... He promised them a resurrection of their bodies, which would be succeeded by exquisite delights in the Millenary reign of Christ.... For Cerinthus supposed that Christ would hereafter return . . . and would reign with his followers a thousand years in Palestine." (Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., Page 50)

"Cerinthus required his followers to retain part of the Mosaical law, but to regulate their lives by the example of Christ: and taught that after the resurrection Christ would reign upon earth, with his faithful disciples, a thousand years, which would be spent in the highest sensual indulgences. This mixture of Judaism and Oriental philosophy was calculated to make many converts, and this sect soon became very numerous. They admitted a part of St. Matthew's Gospel but rejected the rest, and held the epistles of St. Paul in great abhorrence." (Gregory and Ruter's Church History., Page 30)

"Even though the floods of the nations and the vain superstitions of heretics should revolt against their true faith, they are overcome, and shall be dissolved as the foam, because Christ is the rock by which, and on which, the church is founded. And thus it is overcome by no [16] traces of maddened men. Therefore they are not to be heard who assure themselves that there is to be an earthly reign of a thousand years; who think, that is to say, with the heretic Cerinthus. For the kingdom of Christ is now eternal in his saints." (From a commentary on the Apocalypse, by Victorinus, Ante-Nicene Fathers)

​
Regarding how well received and believed this idea of an earthly millenial reign of Christ and the pre-millenial ressurection actually was, contrary to the assertion above, it was not generally believed. And, contrary to the assertions made about Origen by some, his position was not influenced by gnostic belief. His attacks were not based on a "wish" to have literal interpretations discarded, etc. He was a brilliant apologist and theologian, the finest of the Early Church.
The first distinguished opponent of this doctrine was Origen, who attacked it with great earnestness and ingenuity, and seems, in spite of some opposition to have thrown it into general discredit." (Wadington's History, Page 56).

"This obscure doctrine was probably known to but very few except the Fathers of the church, and is very sparingly mentioned by them during the first two centuries; and there is reason to believe that it scarcely attained much notoriety even among the learned Christians, until it was made a matter of controversy by Origen, and then rejected by the great majority. In fact we find Origen himself asserting that it was confined to those of the simpler sort.
(Wadington's History, Page 56).
​
Schaff has this to say regarding Millenialism and a particular proponent of it, Nepos :
He taught that the promises given to holy men in the scriptures should be understood more as the Jews understood them, and supposed that there would be a certain Millennium of sensual luxury on this earth: thinking, therefore, that he could establish his own opinion by the Revelation of John . . . He (Nepos) asserts that there will be an earthly reign of Christ.

Though Millennialism had been suppressed by the early church, it was nevertheless from time to time revived by heretical sects.
(Dr. Schaff's History, Page 299).
​
The assertions that have been made about chilaism in defense of dispensationalism simply do not hold up to an honest look at history, but are the result of revisionist tendencies employed by those who have promoted this theology.

Chilaism, pre-millenialism, is absent as a teaching of the Church. It does not resurface again as a teaching in any significant way until the birth of Dispensationalism in the 1800's by Darby and promoted heavily by Scofield at the turn of the century . .
​
As I have been stating, this is not a prophetic book, it is an apocalyptic book

It is, of the APOCALYPTIC genre of books in the bible . . the strongest of them all.
"a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world." 3

3 J. J. Collins, "Apocalyptic Literature," Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds, eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley Porter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000): 41.

http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/phd/d.../1defined.html
​
Notice, it is not described as prophetic.
Perhaps it would be helpful to add one further note on the subject of genre. Genre, as such, is not a static form of writing. A study of a particular style of writing over a period of time evidences development and change, much like music does, for example. As such, it is very much a part of the sociological matrix of that time period. Again, Aune states it well:
Literary genres and forms are not simply neutral containers used as convenient ways to package various types of written communication. They are social conventions that provide contextual meaning for the smaller units of language and text they enclose. The original significance that a literary text had for both author and reader is tied to the genre of that text, so that the meaning of the part is dependent upon the meaning of the whole.3 [emphasis added]
​
This insight is significant for the study of apocalyptic genre during the Second Temple period. An investigation of such genre can be helpful for uncovering some of the social nuances of that day, thereby providing a clearer picture of the mental posture of the people contemporary to that time and how they grappled with the issues confronting them. Equipped with these observations, one is able to glean how these literary conventions made an impact upon the literature of the NT by comparing and contrasting them to the only genre of the NT usually classified as apocalyptic (viz. Revelation4 ), and to smaller subunits within the NT5.

APOCALYPTIC AS GENRE
​
 
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Site Supporter
Mar 27, 2007
36,073
4,641
On the bus to Heaven
✟116,415.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hentenza said:
Cite a single ECF prior to the third century that was not chiliast.
Click to expand...

You know brother, its funny that scripture already shows that at lest three times there were people who have been "raptured".
  1. Enoch
  2. Elijah
  3. The resurrected saints of Mt. 27:52
Oh well, what the (insert adjective) do I know.

I'm just a dumb Protestant heretic.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Comparing Israel and the Church
Replies
7
Views
587
General Theology
Ivan Hlavanda
Sept 23rd Rapture
Replies
68
Views
3K
Current News & Events (Articles Required)
ViaCrucis
The will of the father in Matthew 7:21-23.
Replies
7
Views
544
General Theology
Aaron112
People to avoid.
Replies
9
Views
505
General Theology
Studyman
S
This Is The Last Hour
Replies
0
Views
194
Deeper Fellowship
Christsfreeservant
Menu
Log in
Register