In a recent post on the Coriolis board, several members began discussing the basics of the "rapture" doctrine. I just wanted to redirect the discussion here, to avoid cluttering that topic...


The rapture doctrine that most of us were taught is based on 1 Corinthians 15:52, "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

Many people believe that in this moment, every living Christian will disappear, and thus be spared from the coming harsh conditions of the Tribulation, (the period of turmoil and judgment that eventually culminates in the battle of Armageddon, and the return of Jesus.

However, I personally agree with Death Over Life. I just can't see how "the last trumpet" shall sound, resulting in the rapture, sparing us all from the terrors of the...other trumpets...

http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/rev7t.html

I mean, how can there be 7 trumpets of judgment after the last trumpet has sounded? (It's either "the last" one, or it's not.)

That being said, I also don't care. It doesn't matter to me when it happens. I don't think it's a very important doctrine, but still an interesting one to speculate on.

The common day idea behind The Rapture Concept hinges upon one text taken out of context.
Countless Christians know it by heart, and it is cited in the massively popular 'Left Behind' series. Paul wrote that believers in Jesus Christ will one day be "caught up...in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

So far the scripture I've seen in support of the rapture hasn't really been very explicit in its interpretation. 1 Corinthians 15:52 could mean what you said, but it is merely an assumption based of what the text might mean.

Ah, so we agree heavily Coriolis! At first I was thinking you meant what oldschooldoom was saying. In reality, it seems you are speaking of rapture meaning as more of a gathering for the last judgement, than the popular views.

In addition, I do wish to add this verse that Jesus said (praying to God the Father btw) that supports what you and I are saying:

John 17:14-16 (King James Version)

14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

well considering most of revelations has happened, apparently no one is going to be "raptured" from the tribulation, the rapture dcomes from several misenterpreted verse, which have come to pass long long ago.

Quote :

the rapture comes from several misenterpreted verse, which have come to pass long long ago.

Such as?

matthew 24 for one example, many people seem to forget that jesus said it would all happen in their lifetime and it did all happen before 70A.D.

Quote :

matthew 24 for one example, many people seem to forget that jesus said it would all happen in their lifetime and it did all happen before 70A.D.

Hmm, I think I have to disagree with you on that one. Matthew 24:34, read ALONE certainly seems to say that, but read the whole section in context...

* The entire first part of the chapter is describing a series of cataclysmic events.

* Jesus then tells a parable, telling us that if we watch world events, and see the events that He described taking place, we can recognize the end-times for what they are, (just as we can tell the seasons are changing by watching the leaves on a tree change color.)

* In context of the chapter, 24:34 is much more likely telling us that "the generation that begins to notice these world-events taking place will not pass away before all of them have come to pass."


But just to back it up a little, let me list some of the events described in that chapter...

1. "the Good News about the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, so that all nations will hear it"

(No one had ever even BEEN around the entire world until Ferdinand Magellan. So how was this fullfilled by the Apostles in their lifetime?

2. "For that will be a time of greater horror than anything the world has ever seen or will ever see again. In fact, unless that time of calamity is shortened, the entire human race will be destroyed. But it will be shortened for the sake of God's chosen ones."

(What happened between 1-70 AD that was so horrible it dwarfed the great flood, Holocaust, and every other period of horror that the world has sen before or since, at the same time threatening the ENTIRE human race?)

3. "Immediately after those horrible days end, the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give light, the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of heaven will be shaken."

(When did this happen, as described by the Apostles in their lifetime?)

4. "And then at last, the sign of the coming of the Son of Man will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the nations of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man arrive on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

(Now, I think we REALLY would have heard about this one!)


So in other words, I think Jesus was saying, "There will come a time when my people start to notice these prophecies coming to pass. THIS generation will not pass away until they've all been fulfilled."


Not trying to "prove you wrong," or anything. Just food for thought.

Coriolis, not really related to just this topic, but rather your interpretation of biblical matters at large:

Are you biblically literalistic?

Quote :

Are you biblically literalistic?

Yes and no. I think a balance is necessary. There are parts of the Bible that I believe are far-fetched, but literal, (such as Jonah being swallowed by the fish.)

But I also acknowledge the symbolic nature of visions. For example, when John's vision describes the antichrist, I don't necessarily believe that the antichrist will be a single man or ruler, (though it may be.) I think the figure described as the antichrist could just as easily represend some organization, government, or even popular ideology. We may not know until more signs come to pass, (and thus, it doesn't matter right now.)

But in the case of John, he was describing a vision he had.

In the case of Matthew 24, Jesus was not having a vision. He was answering a direct question posed to Him by His disciples: "what sign will there be of your coming, and of the end of the age?"

I think if you hold too closely to literalism, you miss the nature of prophecy, and if you hold too closely to symbolism, you miss the nature of "future events."

Balance is important.

Coriolis wrote:

Quote :

Are you biblically literalistic?

Yes and no. I think a balance is necessary. There are parts of the Bible that I believe are far-fetched, but literal, (such as Jonah being swallowed by the fish.)

But I also acknowledge the symbolic nature of visions. For example, when John's vision describes the antichrist, I don't necessarily believe that the antichrist will be a single man or ruler, (though it may be.) I think the figure described as the antichrist could just as easily represend some organization, government, or even popular ideology. We may not know until more signs come to pass, (and thus, it doesn't matter right now.)

But in the case of John, he was describing a vision he had.

In the case of Matthew 24, Jesus was not having a vision. He was answering a direct question posed to Him by His disciples: "what sign will there be of your coming, and of the end of the age?"

I think if you hold too closely to literalism, you miss the nature of prophecy, and if you hold too closely to symbolism, you miss the nature of "future events."

Balance is important.

That similar to my view, though I probably lean more towards a symbolic interpretation. Though I recognize the historocity of bible passages that are clearly meant as historic records.

the world refer to the world at that time.

Quote :

the world refer to the world at that time.

I have to warn you man, Coriolis is all about expanding people's minds, especially Christians.

This means that in discussions, I'm not going to take it easy on anyone. If you make a claim, give your reasons. Otherwise, you'll quickly find your claims being ripped to shreds.

It's not that I want to tear anyone down, it's just that the only way to get people to do their OWN research, and form their OWN opinions is to put them, (in this case, you,) in a position where they have to give the reasons behind their claims.

No one in this world cares how strongly you believe something, they care WHY you believe it. That's not to say you don't have every right to hold on tightly to your opinion no matter what new information is presented, but that IS to say that if you do so, you won't be comfortable in this section of the forum for very long.

So that being said...

* Why do you say that "the world" refers to "the world at that time," despite having not addressed a single one of the examples I gave before?