RAPTURE

[Jakob]

Then why, in the First chapter of Revelation, does it say specifically,

Rev 1:7

Look! He is coming in the clouds.

Every eye will see him,

even those who pierced him.

Every tribe on earth will mourn because of him.

This is true Amen.

Since this is in the very first chapter, you would assume it happens first because the rest of Revelation is in order concerning the seven seals, seven angels with seven trumpets, and the many other events that will play out in the Tribulation.

Also in Rev. Chapter 19:8

"She was given the privilage of wearing dazziling,pure linen. This linen represents the things Gods holy people do that have his approval."

Rev. 19:11-14

"I saw the heavens standing open. There was a white horse, and irs rider was called faithful and true. With integrity he judges and wages war. His eyes are flames of fire. On his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him, but only he knows what it is. He wears clothes dripped in blood, and his name is the word of God.

The armies of the Lord follow behind him in white linen."

Rev. 19:8 says that Gods holy people will wear white linens, then in 19:11-14 says that when Christ returns to earth for his 1000 year reign, the holy people in white linens appear with him. How are we suppost to come down from heaven, if we are still on the earth. And it cannot be the dead people because you said you believed in the rapture that it would just happen at the last trumpet. And according to the bible in the rapture the dead will rise up and then we will follow them, so the dead are still on earth too, awaiting the last trumpet. (says you)

So according to scripture, The rapture is pre- tribulation.[/b]

You are making extreme hermeneutical assumptions, which I personally disagree with.

I never once said Jesus isn't coming back. I fully believe He is coming back just like Revelation says. This is not doubted. But I do not believe that we're vanishing, and then He's coming back. I fully in 100% confidence deny the rapture.

I don't honestly understand what you're trying to say, because you're jumping from chapter to chapter, failing to exegete the text in a consistent manner, which damages credibility. To understand something like Revelation we go through it one verse at a time understanding the allegorical language.

You're just assuming there's to be a seven year tribulation. If the tribulation was to never happen, then your argument, obviously, does not function.

This also hinges upon if one wants to assert that all OT Biblical Prophesy was fulfilled at, or by the time of Christ's arrival and ascension.

You didn't even provide valid reasoning for pre-tribulationalism. You posted three verses from Revelation, disregarding context and prior events. I don't mean to be rude, but the whole argument holds almost no ground, and almost every major respected theologian denies a rapture. The only ones who don't are extremely charismatic, but I can't say I know of a respected charismaniac theologian.

[Jarrax Volk]

""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 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. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." (1 Thess, 4:16-18)."

that = metaphor.

""Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 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. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality" (1 Cor. 15:51-53)."

meeetaaaaaphhhoooooor.

"When Jesus returns (Rev. 19:18), an army follows Him. The army's members are riding on white horses, and they are clothed in fine linen that is white and clean. In Revelation 19:8, we are told that the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints. If the saints of God are returning with Christ to wage war on the Antichrist, then it is not possible to have a post-trib rapture without us running into ourselves as we are coming and going."

metaphor

"Before the Antichrist can be revealed, Paul said a certain "He" must be taken out of the way. According to 2 Thessalonians 2:7, the "He" that must be removed is widely thought to be the Holy Spirit. It has been promised that the Holy Spirit would never leave the Church, and without the working of the Holy Spirit remaining on earth, no one could be saved during the tribulation. The removal of the Church, which is indwelt by the Holy Ghost, would seem the best explanation for this dilemma. The working of the Holy Spirit could go on during the tribulation, but His influence would be diminished because of the missing Church"

metaphor

"The wedding story that Jesus gave in Matthew 25:2-13, I believe, is a parable of the rapture of the Church. It explains how some will not be ready. Jesus clearly states that a group of people will miss out on an event, and will cry out to God to let them into the place where He resides, heaven. Although some try to put this parable in a post-trib context, it doesn't fit very well. The ones left behind in a post-trib rapture will not need to seek the Lord because they'll immediately be confronted by Him and His army of angels."

wow the Bible is FULL of metaphors![/b]

Explain WHY you believe they are metaphors--in detail. It'll take more than the above to convince ANYONE, I should hope.

In the meantime, I still believe in a Pre-Trib Rapture, and I am a Premillennialist.

[mpok1519]

Why is it metaphor?

Why would it not be?

It's that simple. Why complicate something so simple with uneeded details?

Revelation as a whole is quite the metaphor; for what? That's open to interpretation.

[Jarrax Volk]

Why is it metaphor?

Why would it not be?

It's that simple. Why complicate something so simple with uneeded details?

Revelation as a whole is quite the metaphor; for what? That's open to interpretation.[/b]

Just as I thought. You never answered the question.

[mpok1519]

Really? Now you're just being dishonest.

--------

It's metaphor bc God wouldn't create fictional reality. Entire populations disappearing en masse doesn't seem plausible. Thats why it's a metaphor. A huge lord of the rings battle on earth with angels and demons fighting each other with swords of fire or other fantastical ideas are more suited for the videogame realm or Hollywood. That's why it's metaphor.

[DDOG059]

OK, I guess I'll cast in my two cents here. I haven't been keeping up too well, so if I'm restating what has already been posted I'm sorry. :/

I hope that the rapture is going to happen, but it's true that there isn't much scripture on the subject, the scripture that I know is: (Rev 14:14-16)

14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, “Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.†16 So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped.[/b]

Yeah, I know that's not very clear, that the one my church said it was. But here's one that's more clear: (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18)

13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.[/b]

That's pretty good too, ok, so I stand with the hope that the rapture is going to happen, I do not have faith, but I have hope. Yes I know that God considers it a blessing to endure persecution, which would definitely be the tribulation, but all the same I do not want to endure it, However if I must I do know that the Lord will guide me through it.

consider Jesus when He was about to pay the ultimate penalty for us, when He prayed to God did He say: "Lord I know this is a great blessing, so just help me through it"

No, here's what He said: "saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done."" (Luke 22:42)

So I'm going to say in the Lord's presence: "Lord, if there is anyway for you to take this cup of the tribulation away from me, take it! Nevertheless not my will but your's be done" Amen.

[mpok1519]

It's a blessing to be persecuted?

[sierra-smith]

""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 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. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." (1 Thess, 4:16-18)."

that = metaphor.

""Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 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. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality" (1 Cor. 15:51-53)."

meeetaaaaaphhhoooooor.

"When Jesus returns (Rev. 19:18), an army follows Him. The army's members are riding on white horses, and they are clothed in fine linen that is white and clean. In Revelation 19:8, we are told that the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints. If the saints of God are returning with Christ to wage war on the Antichrist, then it is not possible to have a post-trib rapture without us running into ourselves as we are coming and going."

If you pass all this off a a metaphor then who is to say that GOD saying he sent his only son to die for us isn't a metaphor.

You cant just pass everything that points towards a rapture as a metaphor!

metaphor

"Before the Antichrist can be revealed, Paul said a certain "He" must be taken out of the way. According to 2 Thessalonians 2:7, the "He" that must be removed is widely thought to be the Holy Spirit. It has been promised that the Holy Spirit would never leave the Church, and without the working of the Holy Spirit remaining on earth, no one could be saved during the tribulation. The removal of the Church, which is indwelt by the Holy Ghost, would seem the best explanation for this dilemma. The working of the Holy Spirit could go on during the tribulation, but His influence would be diminished because of the missing Church"

metaphor

"The wedding story that Jesus gave in Matthew 25:2-13, I believe, is a parable of the rapture of the Church. It explains how some will not be ready. Jesus clearly states that a group of people will miss out on an event, and will cry out to God to let them into the place where He resides, heaven. Although some try to put this parable in a post-trib context, it doesn't fit very well. The ones left behind in a post-trib rapture will not need to seek the Lord because they'll immediately be confronted by Him and His army of angels."

wow the Bible is FULL of metaphors![/b]

[Jarrax Volk]

Really? Now you're just being dishonest.

--------

It's metaphor bc God wouldn't create fictional reality. Entire populations disappearing en masse doesn't seem plausible. Thats why it's a metaphor. A huge lord of the rings battle on earth with angels and demons fighting each other with swords of fire or other fantastical ideas are more suited for the videogame realm or Hollywood. That's why it's metaphor.[/b]

I never asked why Revelation would or would not be metaphor. I asked why you believed it was metaphor. What other Scripture backs up that point of view?

And, I might add, since God is omnipotent, a literal reading of Revelation is very much possible. I don't hold to an absolutely literal interpretation, since I believe it's more likely Revelation is allegory: specific imagery consistently referring to their real-life counterparts.

(i.e. the Dragon = Satan; the Rider on the White Horse = Jesus; the woman on the scarlet beast = the resurrected Babylonian empire, resurrected either physically or spiritually; the beast from the sea = a man who will be Antichrist; etc.)

We should not be so quick to label Revelation as metaphor simply because we don't understand all of it, because we may very well miss what God is trying to say. Instead, the meaning of Scripture must be methodically, systematically, and honestly searched out.

[Jakob]

It's a blessing to be persecuted?[/b]

We're markeerios (Gr. Word) when we're persecuted.

We will be blessed, and we will be happy when we are persecuted. At least, a genuine regenerate would be.

[Jarrax Volk]

OK, I guess I'll cast in my two cents here. I haven't been keeping up too well, so if I'm restating what has already been posted I'm sorry. :/

I hope that the rapture is going to happen, but it's true that there isn't much scripture on the subject, the scripture that I know is: (Rev 14:14-16)

Yeah, I know that's not very clear, that the one my church said it was. But here's one that's more clear: (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18)

That's pretty good too, ok, so I stand with the hope that the rapture is going to happen, I do not have faith, but I have hope. Yes I know that God considers it a blessing to endure persecution, which would definitely be the tribulation, but all the same I do not want to endure it, However if I must I do know that the Lord will guide me through it.

consider Jesus when He was about to pay the ultimate penalty for us, when He prayed to God did He say: "Lord I know this is a great blessing, so just help me through it"

No, here's what He said: "saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done."" (Luke 22:42)

So I'm going to say in the Lord's presence: "Lord, if there is anyway for you to take this cup of the tribulation away from me, take it! Nevertheless not my will but your's be done" Amen.[/b]

I believe in the Rapture as well, but your first reference, the one from Revelation, refers to the Second-Coming, not the Rapture.

1 Thess. 4 is the primary passage for the Rapture, and Matthew 24 may have some input as well.

As for blessing to be persecuted: no, it is not a blessed to be persecuted simply for the fact of persecution, but in this case, when unbelievers persecute Christians, it means Christians are doing the right thing, because unbelievers then will absolutely hate anything having to do with God. So yes, in that specific context, we should consider it a blessing to be persecuted, because it means we are following so closely in the footsteps of Christ, that the world would see fit to punish us. In addition, if any are persecuted for that reason, they will be given additional rewards in heaven--that's not a bad thing.

[sierra-smith]

You are making extreme hermeneutical assumptions, which I personally disagree with.

I never once said Jesus isn't coming back. I fully believe He is coming back just like Revelation says. This is not doubted. But I do not believe that we're vanishing, and then He's coming back. I fully in 100% confidence deny the rapture.

I don't honestly understand what you're trying to say, because you're jumping from chapter to chapter, failing to exegete the text in a consistent manner, which damages credibility. To understand something like Revelation we go through it one verse at a time understanding the allegorical language.

You're just assuming there's to be a seven year tribulation. If the tribulation was to never happen, then your argument, obviously, does not function.

This also hinges upon if one wants to assert that all OT Biblical Prophesy was fulfilled at, or by the time of Christ's arrival and ascension.

You didn't even provide valid reasoning for pre-tribulationalism. You posted three verses from Revelation, disregarding context and prior events. I don't mean to be rude, but the whole argument holds almost no ground, and almost every major respected theologian denies a rapture. The only ones who don't are extremely charismatic, but I can't say I know of a respected charismaniac theologian.[/b]

If there is no tribulation, then when are the 144,000 witnesses from the tribes of israel to be sealed??

It wouldn't make sense for a rapture at the last trumpet because then we wouldn't need to be sealed would we?

And what about the seven seals and seven bowls that are to be opened and poured out. The bible says that one fourth of all living things will be killed. How can we be killed if he took us to heaven?

[mpok1519]

"I never asked why Revelation would or would not be metaphor. I asked why you believed it was metaphor."

and the fact here's no reason for it not go be metaphor is why I believe it to be metaphorical.

What other Scripture backs up that point of view?"

science and fact backs up this point of view; physics, possibility, etc.

"And, I might add, since God is omnipotent, a literal reading of Revelation is very much possible. I don't hold to an absolutely literal interpretation, since I believe it's more likely Revelation is allegory: specific imagery consistently referring to their real-life counterparts. "

and those real life counterparts are more than likely in no way accurately resembles reality; I say a metaphorical readin is possible bc God is omnipotent in the same manner.

"We should not be so quick to label Revelation as metaphor simply because we don't understand all of it, because we may very well miss what God is trying to say. Instead, the meaning of Scripture must be methodically, systematically, and honestly searched out."

but we should be quick to label it as literal even though we have absolutely no understanding of it? Everyone has systematically turned it into fiction that zombie is real. this is what we should avoid.

Edit; for it not go be= for it not to be

Everyone has turned it into fiction that tries go be real. Zombie. Lol dagnabbed spellcheck.

Goodness my iPhone automatically mispells things for me. Lol

[JesusRocks4Me]

You are making extreme hermeneutical assumptions, which I personally disagree with.

I never once said Jesus isn't coming back. I fully believe He is coming back just like Revelation says. This is not doubted. But I do not believe that we're vanishing, and then He's coming back. I fully in 100% confidence deny the rapture.

I don't honestly understand what you're trying to say, because you're jumping from chapter to chapter, failing to exegete the text in a consistent manner, which damages credibility. To understand something like Revelation we go through it one verse at a time understanding the allegorical language.

You're just assuming there's to be a seven year tribulation. If the tribulation was to never happen, then your argument, obviously, does not function.

This also hinges upon if one wants to assert that all OT Biblical Prophesy was fulfilled at, or by the time of Christ's arrival and ascension.

You didn't even provide valid reasoning for pre-tribulationalism. You posted three verses from Revelation, disregarding context and prior events. I don't mean to be rude, but the whole argument holds almost no ground, and almost every major respected theologian denies a rapture. The only ones who don't are extremely charismatic, but I can't say I know of a respected charismaniac theologian.[/b]

You leave out some very important considerations, Jake. I don't have time to get deep now, but in Daniel, God prophesied 70 weeks of judgement on Israel, each week is actually 7 years. Sixty-nine weeks are fulfilled. One is left. If the others were literal, why won't this one be?

[Jakob]

You leave out some very important considerations, Jake. I don't have time to get deep now, but in Daniel, God prophesied 70 weeks of judgement on Israel, each week is actually 7 years. Sixty-nine weeks are fulfilled. One is left. If the others were literal, why won't this one be?[/b]

While I am not a Eschatology expert (if you couldn't tell), I don't have a reason not to believe that the last week wasn't fulfilled. I lean towards that every prophesy of Old Testament was fulfilled by Christ's coming.

[proud_orthodox_guy]

Christ will return. That's all I care about.

There are much better things Christians can be doing then trying to predict how the "end times" will come about.

In the end, it's all speculation and for all we know, Christ will, very likely actually, come back in a way no one can predict and will come back when we all least expect it (meaning we cannot and will not predict the "end of the world").

I've never gotten the whole obsession with the end times. It's all so pointless and the time we spend trying to predict events could be better spent in other ways.

[JoshuaPopper]

It's part of everyday reality to know how metaphor functions. The Apocalypse functions as metaphor, that's how the narrative works. No biblical scholar would say anything differently however most biblical scholars have a different understanding of what the hermeneutical key is of the Apocalypse. I personally take Crispin Fletcher-Louis understanding that apocalyptic literature is mixed in with the "Day of the Lord" symbolism of ancient Israelite scripture, which is mixed in with destruction of the temple symbolism. The temple itself represented a microcosm of the cosmos/universe so any ritual performed in the temple would effect the cosmos/universe as a whole and any threat upon the temple would be a threat on the stability of the cosmos as a whole. This, I think, is the real background behind Mark 13 and Jesus' attitude to the temple as well. So when it comes to a point like this behind apocalyptic literature it generally looses importance to ask whether it was taken literally or figuratively, and then when we place the entire context of the passage in light of the destruction of the Jewish temple it becomes less and less of an issue as to whether the late second temple Jews (of which the Christians were apart of) considered that it was a "literal" destruction of the cosmos or not.

Now the parousia. The earliest statements we have about the parousia are, I would argue, best understood of as exaltations of Christ. I don't think that Christ is about to show up floating down to earth - I'm just not inclined to believe that. What I do believe is that Christ really returns, is truly presence and efficaciously real in the Christian Eucharist. And I believe that the practice thereof will reminisce of the ancient Israelite temple mythologies, so I find that there's a very ancient myth that I can participate in with the ritual and liturgy.

Josh

[HaleyGirl16]

1 Thess. 4:16-18

For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and the trump 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. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

This says that the believers shall be taken. Yet we know that at the final judgment all will be judged. This scripture describes the rapture. This says that it is going to happen.

Jesus himself describes what happens next before he returns at Armageddon.

Matthew 24:21

For then shall there be a great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Matthew 24:25

Behold I have told you before.

He is telling us all that he is warning us in advanced. It is coming.

Revelation 19:11-20:15 describes the 2nd coming, the thousand years, and the final judgment.

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I dont know what other proof u need, but the Bible doesnt lie. This tells us how, what, everything except when and no one knows when but God.

[JoshuaPopper]

Well, how do you respond to my broad outline of what the bible means when it uses those archaic terms then? Why do you think that it means something that no one has ever suggested until about the 19th century when I'm giving everyone an interpretation that takes into account the entire context of apocalyptic literature and the religious culture and temple patterns of ancient Middle Eastern life? Or does it just make things a whole lot easier to ignore what Josh posts and pretend that he doesn't read as many scholars as your Evangelical pastor does?

Josh

[HaleyGirl16]

Well, how do you respond to my broad outline of what the bible means when it uses those archaic terms then? Why do you think that it means something that no one has ever suggested until about the 19th century when I'm giving everyone an interpretation that takes into account the entire context of apocalyptic literature and the religious culture and temple patterns of ancient Middle Eastern life? Or does it just make things a whole lot easier to ignore what Josh posts and pretend that he doesn't read as many scholars as your Evangelical pastor does?

Josh[/b]

I read your post and dont agree with it. Jesus describes returning, what conditions will be like, and its not about archaic terms. It clearly states that believers will be taken, the tribulation will occur, and the final judgment. Its there in black, white, and red. Stop tryin 2 disprove scripture. Its all there.

[JesusRocks4Me]

Christ will return. That's all I care about.

There are much better things Christians can be doing then trying to predict how the "end times" will come about.

In the end, it's all speculation and for all we know, Christ will, very likely actually, come back in a way no one can predict and will come back when we all least expect it (meaning we cannot and will not predict the "end of the world").

I've never gotten the whole obsession with the end times. It's all so pointless and the time we spend trying to predict events could be better spent in other ways.[/b]

AMEN! I may be a Pre-tribulational Rapture, Pre-millenial believer, but I totally agree! I know people absolutely obssessed with this stuff, and it isn't healthy.

[JoshuaPopper]

I read your post and dont agree with it. Jesus describes returning, what conditions will be like, and its not about archaic terms. It clearly states that believers will be taken, the tribulation will occur, and the final judgment. Its there in black, white, and red. Stop tryin 2 disprove scripture. Its all there.[/b]

No, it depends on how the terms are used in other first century literature. It depends on what people mean by "parousia" or by "eis apantesin". If you permit me to give some historical context to these two terms which are used in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. They are both ordinary, everyday terms but also, in certain contexts, technical epressions for a speciific event. In its special technical usage, "parousia" means the arrival at a city of a conquering general, an important official, an imperial emissary, or above all, the emperor himself. The proper response - especially under the Pax Romana - would have been for the leading citizens to go outside their opened city gates, make the appropriate welcome, and escort the arriving dignitary back inside with them "eis apantesin".

So what exactly is Paul saying in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17? He's saying that Christ shall "parousia", he shall come as an emissary to Thessalonica, the dead in Christ will die first (because those who suffered under the persecution were burried just outside the city walls of Thessalonica) and then we would go out together with them to meet Jesus and take him with us to the city as lord. This interpretation makes quite a bit of sense considering the time and places of Paul's writing. It was a pastoral concern for those who had suffered persecution and had been executed and it was a Christological concern for the exaltation of Christ as the bringer of a new and different "kingdom" which stands in opposition to the empire of Rome.

I would posit that my explanation makes much more sense than does yours because you have not taken any account of how these texts would have been recieved in their earliest contexts. You simply have understood them relative to an interpretation which only existed since the 19th century in America.

Josh

[JesusRocks4Me]

You simply have understood them relative to an interpretation which only existed since the 19th century in America.

Josh[/b]

You do realize that evolution wasn't around as a theory until the 19th century either? And yet you embrace it whole-heartedly.

[HaleyGirl16]

You do realize that evolution wasn't around as a theory until the 19th century either? And yet you embrace it whole-heartedly.[/b]

Thank You! It doesnt matter how long its been a theory its either rite or wrong. The Bible describes the rapture, stating that it will happen, not might. It doesnt matter what u use to say its only archaic language. Its Bible, it says its going to happen believe it or not. There are people who didnt believe in Jesus and Hell that are in Hell. Not believing it dont mean that its not real. The Bible warns us about the rapture. It is going to happen reguardless of what u believe. Its all there in black white and red and I used scripture to prove it. When you can disprove it with scripture let me know.

I would post that my explanation makes much more sense than does yours because you have not taken any account of how these texts would have been recieved in their earliest contexts. You simply have understood them relative to an interpretation which only existed since the 19th century in America.

Josh[/b]

All your post does is say that u can disprove scripture with supposed logic which cant happen and be true. people do that with evolution too but that doesnt change the fact that creation took place. All of your theory and stuff doesnt prove that the rapture will not happen. You can disprove the rapture with scripture about as good as you can prove evolution.

[JoshuaPopper]

You do realize that evolution wasn't around as a theory until the 19th century either? And yet you embrace it whole-heartedly.[/b]

The scientific method works very differently to the religious method. In religion tradition and ancient sacred text are given primacy for the governance of faith. In the scientific method, experimentation and evidentiary support is given primacy for developing a theory on how a particular phenomenon happens or happened. Of course, the theory of evolution is an historical science, so it will change all the time given new hypotheses and new evidences and new facts behind it, and it is also an inter-disciplinary science for which one can look at paleontology, geology, anthropology, biology etc etc - independant lines of inquirey which all lead towards the same conclusions. So if anyone is interested in following a scientific method (at all) then there's no way to escape the magnitude of evidence for this particular theory.

What this has to do with interpreting scripture though is a bit strange. But I do believe that I can bring the discussion back that way towards a relevant exposition of Genesis. The entire point of Genesis 1 is that the temple is the microcosm of the universe, this point is developed further in the Torah and in the architecture of the Solomonic temple, however it's all there in Gen 1, God is invisaged as an architect designing an abode out of chaos; the Temple, in ancient Middle Eastern mythology, was the centre of the universe, located on a high mountain, it was the sacrificial and commercial centre of life and administration, it was the governing centre of the local populace, it was the place were the gods reside on earth, incarnationally, to use an anachronistic term. So the Jewish temple at Jerusalem (and the one in Egypt - if we want to be more precise), was the point of Creation, it was the Eschaton, it was the embodiment of Yahweh and served as the sacrificial loci which purified the entire cosmos from chaos.

When the temple gets destroyed we find that Creation undoes itself. If you please, find where exactly we get the statement of "tohu wabohu" in the Old Testament? It's in the Creation myth and it's in the context of the destruction of the Temple and everything returning to a primeval chaos (Jeremiah 4:23). The link is so inextricably evident that any interpretation of the creation narratives must deal with the temple mythologies. To link this further into discussion though, I would suggest that any reading of any apocalyptic literature must give due weight to this notion of the temple and creation as inextricably linked - so much so that when the cosmos is indangered, it does not make sense to read it outside of the ancient Jewish understanding of the temple. That is my hermeneutical key to apocalyptic literature, to "Day of the Lord" symbolism, to the book of Revelation, to the book of Daniel, to the Apocalypse of Peter, to Mark 13 and it links into my intepretation of the Eschaton, as well. Christ is in the process of re-creating this world, that is what the Church is around for, the liturgies and rituals of the Church call the world to purification and the cosmos to cleansing. This stands behind the notion of the Parousia, the Return, which is the exaltation of Christ over and above the Emperor as the Priest-King of all the Earth after the order of Melchizedek. Christ's presence is full in the Eucharist, which remembers his death and resurrection and stands in direct continuity with the ancient Middle Eastern Temple-as-microcosm symbolism which has run all the way through. The Christian Eschaton is not simply an answer about "How things will end" but rather it permeates throughout all other Christian theology. In fact, I would suggest that a better way to understand "Eschaton" is to replace the entire concept with the words "Sacred Space/Time", entering into Sacred Space/Time is outside of all notion of linear time and thus takes the entire vision towards something else as a sacramental or incarnational reality.

Also: I never said that I could disprove Scripture with logic. I'm not even thinking about disproving Scripture, I'm thinking about offering a better way to understand Scripture in its historical context (outside of 19th century American fundamentalism). "Black-white-red" is no issue here, I'm not saying that writing does not exist, I'm saying that the meaning behind the text is not always what you suppose it is. That's what I'm challenging here, not the validity of sacred text, nor its "truth", but rather the meaning that you bring towards it versus the meaning that I bring towards it. As such I think that mine is much more valid because it takes a much more historical approach and I think that yours is not valid at all because I find it to be completely contingent upon 19th century American conservative politics and how they developed further into contemporary times, especially post-Cold War American fundamentalism. I don't think that's a valid context for sacred scripture at all.

Josh