Here’s what I don’t get, in the Bible, it specifically states that some of the people standing around listening to Jesus will not taste death before Jesus returns.
So either:
The Bible was wrong in this instance.
or
There are some pretty old people in this world.
What is the literalist’s interpretation of those verses?
(I think it is Mark 8:39, and I know there are a few other ones…)
Will they be American?
What about a nice black family this time?
This doesn’t make sense. It sounds like you’re admitting that there is no pre-trib rapture in the Bible but that it’s Biblical anyway. If it’s not in the Bible, it’s not biblical.
Oh…and the Trinity is not Biblical either. It’s not in the Bible, hence it’s not Biblical. Quo errat demonstratum.
No, it clearly speaks of the second coming, it can’t “clearly speak”* of something which existed nowhere in any previous tradition or scripture. There was no rapture theology in Christianity until the 19th century.
They were already suffering. The faithful were being reassured that the Church would survive the Roman persecution, just as others previous to them had suffered other tribulations. The “tribulation” was an ongoing, contemporary event, not some prediction of the distant future.
No. it’s exactly the same as the second coming. It’s just different takes by differebt authors. You do realize they were pretty much making this stuff up as they went along, don’t you? It wasn’t like they all had a handbook for exactly how the parousia would go down. There is nothing in the NT which says anything about a pre-trib ascension. The concept would not have even made sense at the time since the “tribulations” had already started, meaning that any concept of “pre-trib” time would have to have been in the past tense, not the future tense.
The word in Greek is orge, which basically means “passion” but has a range of nuances, including, but not limited to “anger,” “wrath” and “punishment.” In the disputed passage, I was contending that it referred to the final judgement, hence my translation as “justice” (although 'judgement" would probably be better). In any case, the sense of the passage was that Jesus was saving us sinners from our just deserts in an eternal sense, not in a temporal one.
That’s fine, but there is no scriptural basis for your “dual fulfillment” only a (recent) traditional one.
As to Domitian’s persecution of the “world,” well, the Roman empire was the world as far as anyone in it was concerned. Luke says that Augustus took a census of the world. Do you think Luke was trying to indicate that Augustus took a census of South American natives or Australian aborigines? The Roman empire was routinely referred to as “the world” and the emperor as the “ruler of the world.” Don’t read too much into that word.
This is a purely poetic image, obviously. It just means that the Church is “in Heaven” and “with Jesus” in a symbolic sense.
Daniel is all about the Maccabean revolt against Antochus in the second century BCE. It has nothing to do with Revelation. Daniel’s prophesy ends about 165 BCE and is not a prediction of the future in any event, but a coded summary of events previous to that date. Breaking down Daniel is way too much of a hijack in this thread but here is an anlaysis of Daniel 9 and his alleged “69 weeks” which explains that prophesy in its proper context and debunks evangelical interpretations which attempt to tie it in with a Christian endtimes scenario.
With all due respect, I don’t think you’ve manged to poke any holes in anything I’ve said. What this exchange really boils down to is whether a anything like a Darbyite rapture scenario is mentioned in the Bible. It is not. All you’ve done is argue for highly subjective and a priori interpretations of verses which you feel fit your predetermined beliefs. I would strongly contend that those passages could not posibly lend themselves to such an interpretation unless one was specifically looking for it.
The Roman Emperors WERE persecuting through all the oikemenia, just like they “taxed”/censued (is that a word?) all the “oikemenia” in Luke 2. The world/oikemenia was the so-called “civilized” world aka the Roman Empire.
A future final Anti-Christ need not have authority over the remotest wilderness
settlements or even every major society to fulfill the Revelation prophecies.
If indeed there is a future final Tribulation (I believe the Great Tribulation of the Synoptic Gospels’ Olivet Discourse & the Revelation may well have been the first century persecution of Christians & the Roman siege of Jerusalem, which lasted 2 1/2 years), then I think the Rapture occurs in Rev 14, the Harvesting of the Earth by the Son of Man, after the Seventh Trumpet & before the outpouring of the Seven Chalices of God’s Wrath. The Seven Chalices could well be poured out in a day, starting with the Rapture, then the Chalices, then the Descent of Christ with the Raptured Saints.
That would be consistent with the historic teaching of the Church, the major distinction between the Rapture & the Return of Christ never being taught until the mid-1700s by a Welsh-American pastor Morgan Edwards, and the doctrine not being developed until the 1830s by the visions of Margaret Macdonald, Edward Irving’s church, and Anglican priest rurned Plymouth Brethren theologian John Nelson Darby. Btw, the historic teaching of the Church was also that the 70th week of Daniel may well have been fulfilled by Christ & the early Apostolic ministry (“the prince who shall come” in Daniel 9 being the previously referenced “Messiah
-Anointed Prince” who confirmed the Covenant at the beginning of His ministry,
made the Temple sacrifices obsolete by His Sacrifice 3 1/2 years later, and opened Spiritual Israel to the Gentiles another 3 1/2 years later by the Apostles.)
I just noticed Diogenes addressed my point about the “world”/Empire. I will contest his limitation of the term “Biblical” to mean “that which is obviously taught in the Bible”. I believe pre-Trib Rapture is a reasonable interpretation of the relevant Bible passages, but I believe late/post-Trib Rapture is an even more reasonable interpretation. In the same way, I believe the Trinity doctrine is the most reasonable of the varied ways to interpret the Biblical passages about the relationship of the Son & the Spirit to Deity. Thus, these interpretations can be called “Biblical” as they are developed out of Scriptures, tho not explicitly detailed in Scripture. Heck, the terms Original Sin, Immortal Soul, and Vicarious Atonement aren’t used in the New Testament, tho there are definite Scriptures which can be used to support those teachings (though there are also other ways to interpret those Scriptures- I definite believe in the VA, not as sure about OS & IS).
Well, there are several ideas-
The extreme minority position- Some of Christ’s original followers are indeed still alive (legends cite John & Lazarus as possibilities, the Mormons add three Nephite disciples- the excellent End-Times novel THE CHRIST CLONE TRILOGY has John as one of Revelation 11’s Two Witnesses).
What Jesus actually said (my Bible has Mark 9:1) is- they would not die until they see God’s Kingdom coming in power, then six days later, they see Jesus transfigured in Divine Glory accompanied by Moses & Elijah- that was their glimpse of the Kingdom.
The disciples did see God’s Kingdom come in power when they were anointed with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to carry on Jesus’s ministry, spread His message & miracles to the world, &/or witness God’s Judgement on Jerusalem via the Roman Siege in 70 AD.
John in fact did see the whole of the End Times, through Christ’s return & Kingly Reign into Eternity, in The Revelation.
I think 2, 3, & 4 together fit Jesus’s words, esp 3. But 1 would be pretty cool! L
Here’s the problem I have with rapture mythology. Let’s assume that it’s all real, and it happens tomorrow. From what I understand, all of the people left behind simply shrug their shoulders and go on about their sinning. I am a hard core Theist, but if millions of people abruptly assended into heaven, I am pretty sure I’d rethink that belief and become a hard core Xan. Pscho Pirate and others, what is your explination for why I wouldn’t? After all, it would be irrefutable PROOF that Xanity is the right way to go, I think most folks would adopt it. Acording to the mythology, we won’t. What is your explanition for that?
Woah, so some people actually believe that? I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised, but…
Interesting, although perhaps I missed it, but they didn’t see the Kingdom of God come to power. Perhaps this is just an interpretation issue, but I don’t consider them seeing Moses and company as a ‘coming to power issue’. Also, I fail to see why it would have even been mentioned if they only had to wait 6 days.
Could be, I suppose. Seems a little weak to me, but it’s possible. I’ll have to check with the other passages before I comment further.
Fair enough for John, but it does mention sum, not one.
If I have to believe any of them, I’d be rooting for 1. 
I can not believe I spelled ‘some’ as ‘sum’. I suppose I shouldn’t be doing my accounting work whilst trying to post… :smack:
And right off the bat, that’s where you’re in error. Nothing in Rapture theology dictates that all the people left being with “simply shrug their shoulders and go on about their sinning.” So you’re arguing from a faulty premise.
Now let’s face it, a good number of people are likely to go on their merry way. That’s human nature. But there are others who are likely to be converted after the fact. In fa ct, Rapture theology does mention 14,400 evangelists who will be sent out to preach the word after the Rapture occurs, so obviously, there will be a good number of people who will come to believe during that time.
This belief is also evident in the Left Behind books, which features a bunch of individuals who came to believe after the Rapture event takes place. Mind you, I’m not a devotee of that series, but based on what I have read (and seen in the movie), it’s clear that this is one of their overarching themes.
In Revelation 7, there are the 144000 sealed Israelites & the great multitude from all nations who do get saved throught the Great Tribulation. II Thessalonians 2:10-12 also states that during the time of the Man of Sin, many will fall prey to strong delusion as Divine punishment for previously having the rejected the Truth of the Gospel. Some Rapturists do believe that if someone had an opportunity to trust Christ before the Rapture & rejects Him, then after the Rapture, God will not give them another chance, and that the Israelite & Gentile Tribulation converts
will be those who never had a prior opportunity. (LaHaye & Jenkins do not hold that view, however.)
That’s not the impression I got from There’s a New World Coming, but it’s been years since I read it (like25) so I may be wrong. However, I think your own post proves me right. Why would 14,400 evangelists be needed? If half the world suddenly raptured and I still deny God, nothing Billy Grahm is going to say to me is going to change my mind.
Dude, you’re completely missing the point. These 144,000 evangelists (not 14,400, as I mistakenly typed earlier) demonstrate that some people will be converted after the Rapture. After all, where did these evangelists come from? Since they were not raptured away, they must have experienced a religious conversion after the event took place.
And second, you specifically claimed that, according to Rapture theology, nobody would be converted after the Rapture. In fact, your exact words were:
My point is that some people clearly would be converted, and so your understanding was incorrect.
You say that there would be no need for evangelists, since if the Rapture occurred and if you were not yet converted, then absolutely nothing would change your mind. Maybe so, but with all due respect, you do not speak for the entirety of humanity. Humanity does, after all, reflect a wide range of convictions and attitudes toward faith. Some people would perhaps be confused, and uncertain of what occurred. Others would perhaps be ignorant of Rapture teachings, and what they truly mean. Still others would perhaps be struggling with the last vestiges of unbelief.
No offense, but the problem is that you’re thinking solely in terms of extremes. There exists a wide range of possibilities between “Yes, I do wholeheartedly believe!” and “No, I won’t believe, and nothing that you say will change my mind.” So the presence of these evangelists does not, by any means, demonstrate a weakness in Rapture theology.
I agree with Pirate, of course, but I don’t know why he or she is wasting their time, theres hardly any christians here.
So if a lot of people on the straight dope disagree with someone points, they lose by default?
Dumb.
We don’t expect most to believe, but when it happens you may mail your “gee, you were right” messages up to Heaven, though I don’t know the zip code.
The rapture teology was discovered way long ago, and its there, but nonbelievers aren’t going to believe it anyway.
Do you have any evidence to back up this statement, such as a document from the middle ages that unambiguousy describes the rapture?
JThunder, you say that not all people will be converted after the rapture. How many people do you think would not convert? It seems to me like virtually everyone would convert if all Christians were to suddenly disappear, since it would be a pretty much undeniable proof of God.
It also says God will send a delusion so they will believe the lie, but since no verse has anything to do with the rapture, guess it means something else entirely.
Even after all the judgments, it mentions in chapter 9, people STILL will refuse to repent.
Some just won’t accept God no matter what.
I wouldn’t care to guess, as this would be pure speculation. The Bible doesn’t offer any figures, nor do any of the Rapture theologians whose works I’ve read. In other words, this is anyone’s guess, and the exact number has no bearing on the teaching itself.
With all due respect then, I think you’re adopting a rather naive view of human nature. Heck, I’ve encountered a great many individuals who say that they will not believe in God unless he personally steps down from heaven and speaks to them, face to face. The Rapture is unlikely to satisfy such folks.
Moreover, there are doubtlessly many who will offer alternate explanations, such as UFO abductions or a grand conspiracy. Others may propose that God miraculously took these people away so that His work on earth could be unimpaired. You also have people like philosopher David Hume, who is famous for stating that any naturalistic explanation of a supposed miracle is preferable to any supernaturalistic explanation. Then you have atheist debater Greg Cavin, who acknowledged the fundamental historical reliability of the resurrection accounts, but instead proposes that Jesus had a hitherto unknown twin brother that nobody had heard of, and who journeyed back to Jerusalem to impersonate Jesus. With such attitudes in place, I think it’s terribly naive to think that the Rapture would be sufficient to convince everyone (or even virtually everyone).
I think the only reason that you think there will be so many who don’t convert is because your mythology requires you to believe that, as it says 144,000 evangelists will have work to do after. Sure, I’ll give you some, but if suddenly all the Christians float up to heaven on their own, it’s pretty darn convincing. Is there anyone here who doesn’t currently believe in God or the rapture who wouldn’t take that as concrete proof that God exists and he wants you to be Christian?
No, I already gave several reasons why not everyone would choose to convert after such an event. Human nature is simply not as clear cut as you seem to believe, and with all due respect, it seems to me that you’re striving awfully hard to find a contradiction where none necessarily applies.
Well, that only makes sense doesn’t it? You have to eliminate what’s possible before you consider the impossible. What’s unreasonable about that?
That in itself is a mistake. There is no reliability at all in the resurrection accounts, particularly as they relate to the empty tomb narratives.
While I don’t agree with this, it’s not as off the wall as it sounds. Thomas is specifically called the “twin brother of Jesus” in the Gospel of Thomas. “Thomas” actually means “twin” in Aramaic, so Judas Thomas is “Judas the twin.” I think it’s most likely a symbolic appellation than a literal one, but it at least shows that there was a tradition of a twin brother of Jesus as early as the first century.
And the notion of Jesus having a double who died on the cross in his place is exactly what is believed in Islamic tradition.
Again, I don’t believe that myself, I’m just showing that there is some precedent for those ideas.
Your argument assumes that miracles are indeed impossible, which I contest. Moreover, you cannot gauge the veracity of a miracle in an intellectually honest manner by first assuming that miracles cannot possibly occur. That would be an example of circular reasoning of the highest caliber.
So you claim, but that’s missing the point, and irrelevant to the topic at hand. Greg Cavin happens to believe that the resurrection accounts are fundamentally reliable, but chooses to dismiss this by asserting that Jesus must have had a twin brother that nobody – not even Mary herself – knew about. This shows the great stretches to which people will resort in order to deny the miraculous.
Nonsense. It is entirely off-the-wall. It requires assuming that Jesus had a twin that nobody – not even his own mother – knew about. It requires believing that this twin somehow, through means unknown, managed to steal Christ’s body from out of a guarded tomb. It requires asserting that he was willing to come back and impersonate a man who was convicted of high crimes and sentenced to death. (Again, remember that Greg Cavin is willing to concede the reliability of the gospel accounts, but chooses to deny the resurrection itself.) Such wild and implausible speculation is the very essence of off-the-wall reasoning.
And if the contention was merely that Jesus had a twin, then you might have a point. Cavin’s theory, however, requires assuming far, FAR more than that, as you know full well.
Which does not make it any more plausible. Moreover, the Islamic tradition is quite a bit different, as discussed in the cite that I provided. According to that explanation, God made someone else look like Jesus and this person was crucified in his place. This is at least marginally more plausible than Cavin’s explanation, but it is still wild speculation at best.