vanilla, I respect you enough not to counter your rolleyes with my own, but the book of Revelation has about as much predictive ability as Nostradamus’s quatrains.
The entire modern belief in a Rapture is a 19th-20th Century contrivance.
thank you.
Have you read any books which interpret Revelation?
I’ve read lots and it does make sense.
After all, what John saw was not comprehensible to his non technological eyes.
We spent a fair amount of time in my high school religion class (Catholic) on Revelation, and were taught the interpretation I posted earlier in this thread, that it was an exhortation to late first-century Christians in the face of persecution.
Do you reject scholarly interpretation of the books of the Bible outright? It was a major influence on our religion classes in high school, not denying the deeper truth of the Bible, but not ascribing literality to it, either (except for the Gospels…those were to be read as four different individuals’ takes on a factually correct life of Christ).
vanilla, I’d like to ask a question to expand on something someone else mentioned above.
If Christ is to come as a thief in the night, how can there be all this fairly spectacular rigmarole that’s in Revelation before his appearance? I’d hardly call swarms of locusts with human faces and celestial trumpet calls and great beasts with unlikely amounts of heads and disproportionate amounts of horns on those heads as subtle, let alone stealthy.
The “rapture” happens before all that. He does come as a theif then.
At the end of the 7 years, He comes obviously and everyone will see Him and try to kill him (armageddon).
Like I said before, vanilla, I respect you personally. You’re one of the good ones. But I can’t believe something like that. It’s just impossible. It’s like me trying to become straight or Nordic or something. I don’t believe it, and every “explanation” I read for it sounds like people grasping desperately for some sort of correspondence to things that have happened or are happening.
Those folks aren’t convincing in the least to me.
Now, I was raised Catholic. But I’m currently pretty much an agnostic. I couldn’t even cleave to the non-literal Biblical exegesis that the Church holds as truth. And the more fantastic interpretations that the fundamentalist Protestant churches hold read to me like the screeds of conspiracy theorists, convinced that everything they see relates to their special obsession. Occam never shaved in their world.
I do want to make it clear that I’m pretty good at not respecting a belief while still respecting the person who holds it. It’s not YOU that I’m debunking here, but the idea of a literal Rapture.
Who said the “war on terror” was a jihad?
You didn’t specify whether you included the invasion of Iraq in your “jihad,” but neither that, nor the so-called “War on terror” is a religious conflict. The US is not “Christian” and the enemies ar not Muslim. This might come as a shock to you but many of the US soldiers on both fronts are…wait for it…Muslims, not to mention Jews, Buddhists, atheists, Pagans, Hindus, Sikhs and Satanists.
The occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with the “War on Terror” and was begun ostensibly as preemptive defensive strike aginst an imminent threat. That threat has proved to be non-existent so other justifications were concocted retroactively but none of those justifications have anything to do with either Christianity or Islam.
The rest of the WOT has to do with political extremist factions who are hostile to the US but this conflict still does not amount to any sort of “Christians vs Muslims” scenario and even GWB has repeated said that we are not at war with Islam. We’re not “Christian” either. We are a secular state. The majority of citizens are Christian but that is incidental to current hostilities.
“Given” by who?
JayJay pretty much nailed the book of Revelation. It was written for a specific historical audience and has nothing to with any current or future events relative to us.
(Vanilla…Revelation is a highly stylized and allegorical book. I don’t want to hijack this thread but take my word for it that the “Rapture,” and a number of other interpretations regarding futuristic predictions are recent developments. I can start another thread on it if you wish. We can go back and forth all day on this topic, I know.
“For or against” what? What are you talking about with this "polarization? I haven’t seen it, certainly not on a global scale. No we are not being “tested.” Don’t be absurd. If there is a God, I’m sure he has a much better standard of judgement than how people react to a Mel Gibson movie.
I’m trying to parse this paragraph for its semantic menaing and I can’t quite grasp what you’re trying to ask. Has Christ returned? I haven’t seen him and don’t expect to. What do you mean about the Passion “equaling in number those saved by his death?” What “test?”
You seem to have devised some elaborate fantasy of the east and West being polarized into a “holy war” of Christians VS. Muslims and for some reason you have worked the passion into this scenario.
I’ll just make it short. No. There isn’t going to be any “Holy War.” Chill out.
Vanilla, the expectation of a pre-trib rapture is not in the Bible. There was no such expectation for the first 1800 years of Christianity. Like I said. I’d be amenable to starting a separate thread about this stuff but we really shouldn’t bog down this one with such a dense and loaded debate topic.
I hadn’t meant to hijack it; sorry.
Its just my beliefs, after what I’ve read.
No harm done if I’m wrong.
But I’ll be really happy if I am right.
Cite? Is this prophecy in Revelation, or what?
“The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread, and he will be a sanctuary; but for both houses of Israel he will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall. And for the people of Jerusalem he will be a trap and a snare. Many of them will stumble; they will fall and be broken, they will be snared and captured.” (Isaiah 8:13-15)
“I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah [the West Bank] will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves.” (Zechariah 12:2,3)
I’m sorry, but I just can’t read these as End Times prophecies. There are no End Times prophecies in the Old Testament. Eschatology is a purely Christian innovation. Well, not an innovation, exactly – it drew upon Zoroastrian eschatology – but the point is, there is no eschatology in pre-Christian Judaism, nothing about how the world ends, only particular prophecies of destruction being brought down on Israel and/or Judah for doing evil in the sight of the Lord.
It’s not “Muslims” vs. anything. We are not at war with Islam.
Neither Daniel nor Revelation were intended to be predictive prophesies for our time. Both books represent a litereray genre called “apocalypic” whic uses code allegory to deliver an esoteric message to a specific audience.
Daniel was written during the 2nd century BCE Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid king Antiochos. The book is set during the Baylonian captivity and uses that setting and symbolic images to convey a message of encouragement to the faithful during a war. Daniel basiccaly says that Antiochos will be defeated, that Israel would be defeated and that the Messiah would come. Daniel was wrong about the Messiah (he didn’t come) as well as some other details as yto how the revolt would work out. Most of Daniel talks about events which had already past relative to the time it was written. In fact, the only passages which represent genuine attempts at predictive prophesy were all misses.
Revelation was written during the reign of the Emperor Domitian, and while it uses Daniel as a literary model, nothing in Daniel has anything to do with Revelation. Revelation was written during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian and everything in it is about the Domitian’s persecution of Christians in the 90’s CE. The “Beast” is the Emperor, the “Whore” is Rome and so on. There is no “antichrist” in Revelation, nor is there a “rapture.” The intent of the book was to comfort persecuted Christians in a specific time and place. It used symbolic images so that it would not be understood by the Romans. Except for some abstract promises of the parousia and judgement, Revelation males no predictive prophesies relative to the present time.
[quote]
4. No, Christ will return after the rapture. I can’t quite understand the rest of the question but everyone will be judged according to their faith and good works, regardless of location. My truth be told, Israel has an infinitely more important position in the prophecies. And if you’re curious, Israel is supposed to be hated by the world. check mark
There is no “rapture” in the Bible and the significance of Israel in Biblical prophesy is hardly surprising since that is the people who wrote the Bible. You are mistaken, however, if you think that there is any “endtime” scenario which speaks to our time. The passages you quoted about Israel are not endtimes predictions and have their own specific historical and theological contextual meanings.
no rapture in the Bible?
What of the verses
The dead in Christ shall rise first, then we who are alive shall meet Him in the air.
Or
one will be taken the other left?
There are more, I don’t have time to look them up right now.
I can see it clearly in the Bible; others may not.
Spoiler: Skip to last paragraph for the point of this posting, if you don’t care about Biblical support of the Rapture doctrine.
In re the above postings, the Rapture is not a Biblical doctrine. It was inspired by a feverbed vision of one Margarget MacDonald in 1830.
Various scriptures have been invoked to support the doctrine, but the interpretation of these is hotly debated.
Revelation 3:10 is very often cited, but does not appear to support this notion, since Rev 2-3 is addressed very specifically to the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodecia, concerning their particular and varying dispensations, and so should not be interpreted as applicable to the modern Church (i.e., Body of Christ in the broadest sense).
There are arguments from omission, such as Hal Lindsey’s assertion that the absence of references to the Church between chapters 4 and 19 of Revelation indicates a process of taking up (he prefered the unfortunate term “the Great Snatch” to “the Rapture”), but that seems a stretch and there are numerous counterarguments.
Passages concerning the Judgment (e.g., Matthew 13:30 and 25:31-46, John 5:28-29 and 6:39-40) are often cited, but these do not speak of a Rapture, only of a final Judgment.
Many other citations, such as Jeremiah 30:7 (“it is a time of distress for Jacob; yet he shall be saved out of it”), can only be seen to support the Rapture theory when taken out of context.
Many of the writings of Paul are central to support of a Rapture doctrine, esp. the letters to Corinth and Thessaly, but again, these must be pieced together.
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 was mentioned above: “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive, and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” But this refers to a single day of return, in which the quick and the dead (or, more correctly here, the dead and the quick) will be taken up. It doesn’t in itself support the full Rapture doctrine. Usually it is combined with other passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 and passages from Revelation and Luke to create a scenario which supports the doctrine.
Vanilla referred to a very common 2-part rapture theory – coming first as a thief in the night (the secret coming) and then with shouting and trumpets. The notion of a “pre-trib” rapture is itself hotly debated, in fine Swiftian fashion, among adherents of the Rapture doctrine.
Why bother to go into all this? B/c issues such as 1,2, and 4 of the OP – what precisely does jihad mean, what is the purpose of Revelation, has Christ returned – cannot seriously be answered on their own (scriptural/religious) terms without getting into such arcana in great detail. It’s a tar baby.
You’re right, and perhaps I should have clarified. But in regards to the OP, we are at war with some Islamic extremists. Better?
Diogenes the Cynic and BrainGlutton
Noted. I know my beliefs regarding scripture are evangilically Christian, and most won’t agree with them.
Why would you be happy about the prospect of millions, if not billions of people suffering? I am afraid I intensely dislike all I know of Rapture theology, much as I do like vanilla. In addition to it’s being a peculiarly American, recent variation of theology, it seems to relish the idea of the world suffering agony and torment. I’ve yet to encounter someone who believes in the Rapture who doesn’t believe that they will be assumed into heaven. To me, it glories in the worst of humanity and Christianity while dismissing the best, a form of religion more suited to legalistic, Pharisaical types, rather than one suited to my take on Christ’s message which is one of going beyond and transforming the rules, looking at their root and spirit of the Law, rather than the letter of it.
If vanilla is right and I am wrong, and I am so fortunate as to be in a position to be Raptured, I’ll state it here before the world, or at least the denizens of Straight Dope. I’m not going. With all my strength, all my will, and all my soul, I’m not going. You see, it seems to me there’s going to be one hell of a mess to clean up (possibly in more ways that one!;)) and someone’s going to have to stick around to see it. I won’t abandon my brothers and sisters, be they Christians or not.
CJ
Erm . . . see it cleaned up, that is. I’m not into voyeurism. Come on! My stomach’s too weak for me to even see The Passion!
CJ
Yeah, and The Wizard of Oz has been interpreted as a turn-of-the-century parable of the working class’s objection to the gold standard, and it makes quite a bit of sense. Unfortunately, that meaning was assigned after the fact, and it’s clear this was not its original intent. It sounds like modern interpretations of Revelation are similar.