The End Is Nigh - Are You Prepared for 'The Rapture'?

In a nutshell:-

The Rapture is an event in certain systems of Christian eschatology (the study of the end times) in which it is believed that all born again Christians will be taken from Earth by Jesus Christ into Heaven. Although almost all forms of Christianity believe that those who are "saved" will enter Heaven, the term "rapture" is usually applied specifically to the belief that Christians will be "taken" into heaven.

The timing of "when" the rapture will take place is the key point often discussed and debated between denominations. One belief ("dispensationalist" or "futurist" interpretations) is that the rapture will take place at an unknown period of time prior to the beginning of the seven year tribulation, and that at that time only non-Christians will be left on the earth. However, according to the dispensationalist view, many will come to know Christ during the time of the tribulation, before he returns to set up His Kingdom of God/earthly kingdom. Others believe that the rapture will be a very audible and visible event which takes place after the events of the tribulation, right at the Second Coming of Christ in which the righteous will be taken up in the clouds to meet Christ upon his return.

A more detailed description of the above is available from the excellent Wikipedia.

John.

I'm a little surprised that the rapture-ready website shoots Creationism full of holes - refreshing! That's been my main bug with "Born Again" Christianity: the denial of science, or more precisely, trying to bend science to fit the Bible.

Having said that, I remain unprepared.

quote:

Having said that, I remain unprepared.

Don't worry ? There are plenty of BACs out there preparing to make the end time happen. So that you can suffer for 7 years.They of course will already be at the right hand of xxx. You MAY make it of course as well.

I am not going to get into this, except to say that views such as those expressed in the website highlighted by JN do not represent the teachings of mainstream Christianity, which can trace itself back in continuous historic line to the Apostles, and thus the origins of the Christian faith.

James

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:
I am not going to get into this, except to say that views such as those expressed in the website highlighted by JN do not represent the teachings of mainstream Christianity, which can trace itself back in continuous historic line to the Apostles, and thus the origins of the Christian faith.

Actually the teachings of mainstreanm Christianity owe as much to Saint Paul as they do to Jesus, which is quite a neat trick given that Saint Paul's views were often at odds with Christ's teachings.

quote:

Originally posted by JoeH:
Actually the teachings of mainstreanm Christianity owe as much to Saint Paul as they do to Jesus, which is quite a neat trick given that Saint Paul's views were often at odds with Christ's teachings.

I am not sure about this...

As you will probably know, as documents, the Letters of St Paul are actually older than the Gospels. And only one of the three Gospels has a Pauline reflection, Luke's - the hallmark of which is healing, reconciliation and the bring-in of outsiders, beginning with the shepherds.

Also, the canon of Scripture took rather more than a century even to become settled. And this was decided by a group rather wider than 'Pauline' Christians. So the New testament contains Pauline writings, but also Marcan, Matthean, Johannine and others besides.

In his Letters, Paul is grappling with the meaning of Christ. He is not - as the 'old' view of Paul used to have it - writing a systematic theology, but rather particular pastoral letters to particular communities to address particular situations. They are written over quite a long period, perhaps 20 years, and yes his views do develop in that period. And some of them were written by somebody else under Paul's name, as was quite usual practice in the ancient world (i.e. that doesn't make it a 'forgery').

Also the body of Pauline writing is not complete - some of his things, in fact quite a lot of things, were left out of the New Testament.

For example there were at least four letters to the Corinthians (plus, interestingly, later letters from St Clement, a Bishop of Rome) not just the two contained in the NT. Perhaps those Pauline Letters that are contained in the NT are there because the Church - which is rather more than Paul, and in fact centred around Peter very quickly - recognised in them, rather than in some of his other writings, the universality rather than particularity, and that unique divine spark which makes them Scripture rather than just writings.

Anyway, as I said, I am not going to get into this.

James

Hmmm, I wonder if all the people killed in the name of christianity will be raised up too? Victims of the pogroms, the RC/Protestant wars, the victims of the Crusaders and so on?

Now that would be poetic justice.

It all seems very odd to me. So the clouds will part and a percentage of the planets inhabitants will be "beamed up"?
I think if some people would get a better grip on reality, they might find that a belief system that allows room for others to do their thing in a different (not opposing) way might be a good thing and not a cause for conflict.* I honestly believe that there is still a chance that mankind can live in love and harmony and still retain our different flavours. One day it will happen. Maybe that is one of the lessons of this life. I don't believe God practices segregation.

* I am aware that the sentence is a contadiction, but it seems impossible to discuss religion without doing that

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:
Also the body of Pauline writing is not complete - some of his things, in fact quite a lot of things, were left out of the New Testament.

For example there were at least four letters to the Corinthians (plus, interestingly, later letters from St Clement, a Bishop of Rome) not just the two contained in the NT. Perhaps those Pauline Letters that are contained in the NT are there because the Church - which is rather more than Paul, and in fact centred around Peter very quickly - recognised in them, rather than in some of his other writings, the universality rather than particularity, and that unique divine spark which makes them Scripture rather than just writings.

The Church - like all other man-made organisations - very quickly became to be about power and control more than 'beliefs'; once it became clear the second coming wasn't going to happen any time soon, the literal understanding of Christ's words had to be replaced by an interpretation that was symbolic and thus subjective (ie it was one only group's interpretation)and rival interpretations became heretical and punishable by death.

As the decision of what writings should be included in the NT was in the hands of the controlling orthodoxy, the criteria had much to do with that group retaining control as 'universality' or 'the divine spark'.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
It all seems very odd to me. So the clouds will part and a percentage of the planets inhabitants will be "beamed up"?
I think if some people would get a better grip on reality, they might find that a belief system that allows room for others to do their thing in a different (not opposing) way might be a good thing and not a cause for conflict.*

The trouble is that 'belief' implies conviction: 'I believe X, if you believe Y you are wrong, and should be punished for believing it'

Looking at the site in question, it's so full of nonsense one hardly knows whether to laugh or cry, but seeing their 'debunking' of prophets whose ideas are wacky in a slightly different way is actually funy in a laugh-out-loud sort of way.

Thus: 'The Prophecy Club hosted by Stan Johnson is one of the most error prone prophetic ministries in history. Johnson is very much a promoter of pop-apologetics. This where you have sensationalism and speculation replacing Biblical truth. There is simply no teaching that is too nutty or outlandish for Stan to believe.'

is a bt rich from people whose own beliefs include:

'The humanists are determined to circumvent language and cultural barriers, as well as erase national borders in their drive to go back to the tower of Babel (Genesis 11). Ten kingdoms are prophesied to be formed, with powerful heads of each, who will give their power and authority to the beast --Antichrist (Rev. 17:11-12). One world is Satan’s goal, over which he intends to establish his demonic rule. He has his minions –both supernatural and natural—hard at work to bring his supreme tyrant to that throne.'

quote:

Originally posted by JoeH:
The Church - like all other man-made organisations...

...controlling orthodoxy...

I guess, Joe, one man's "controlling orthodoxy" is another's "apostolic succession".

But such criticism of the early Church as power hungry and centralising, is inherently to look through very much C20th/21st spectacles.

The infant Church was a very fragile thing. Communications in the ancient world took a very long time indeed. For the kind of centralising, controlling tendency you suggest would require a very strong and well-established organisation (which the infant church wasn't) and even within that, rapid communication (which there wasn't).

The prime reasons for the canon of Scripture ending up as it did was not through some centralising body imposing it on the church, but through the considerations of antiquity of documents and how widespread they were - i.e. what was mainstream - the message spread by directly by the apostles themselves (the direct companions of Christ), and then those who directly knew the apostles.

If the apostles disseminated particular writings around the church, and not others, this was because the documents they did disseminate represented the authentic view they had from the person of Jesus.

The pseudo-epigraphy ('Gospel of Thomas' and all that) were not 'one amongst equal' documents, 'competing' for a place but cynically excluded by Ming the merciless. Such writings were isolated, frequently one-off documents, and not those of a known provenance and widespread from an early period.

James

Favorite bumper stickers around here:

(for the Believers): "In case of Rapture, this car will be unmanned."

(and the non-Believers' reply): "In case of Rapture, I get your car!"

Nothing to do with Blondie, then?

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by JoeH:

The Church - like all other man-made organisations - very quickly became to be about power and control more than 'beliefs'; once it became clear the second coming wasn't going to happen any time soon, the literal understanding of Christ's words had to be replaced by an interpretation that was symbolic and thus subjective (ie it was one only group's interpretation)and rival interpretations became heretical and punishable by death.

As the decision of what writings should be included in the NT was in the hands of the controlling orthodoxy, the criteria had much to do with that group retaining control as 'universality' or 'the divine spark'.

Of course it all "...very quickly became about power and control more than 'beliefs'...". Christianity inherited the struggles for power and control between the Pharisees, the Saducees and the Essenes.

If I have to make a moral judgement about any particualr thing then I ought to give consideration to that thing's effect on humanity. Thus my moral judgement of toothbrushes will be different from my moral judgements about gunpowder. As for me, I reject Christianity mainly because it has not shown itself over time as being different from any other ideology in terms of it's effect on the human race and that effect has been, overwhelmingly, a harmful effect.

quote:

As for me, I reject Christianity mainly because it has not shown itself over time as being different from any other ideology in terms of it's effect on the human race and that effect has been, overwhelmingly, a harmful effect.

I presume this means that you reject all the other ideologies eg Islam, Judeism, Hindu, Animal Rights etc etc

I think that Christianity (and many other ideologies) is a bit like nuclear knowledge. Use it carefully for generating electricity and in general it is a good thing. Use it carelessly, or for nuclear warfare, and in general its a bad thing.

In other words, its how we (mankind) use (or abuse) the teachings of Christ that is important. I am appaled at the way this has been abused over that past 2,000 years, but it doesn't change my belief in a "God" or the intrinsic goodness of Christ's teachings.

Cheers

Don

So in the event Christians will be 'beamed up' leaving non believers behind.

Surely everyone wins?

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

As for me, I reject Christianity mainly because it has not shown itself over time as being different from any other ideology in terms of it's effect on the human race and that effect has been, overwhelmingly, a harmful effect.

I presume this means that you reject all the other ideologies eg Islam, Judeism, Hindu, Animal Rights etc etc

I think that Christianity (and many other ideologies) is a bit like nuclear knowledge. Use it carefully for generating electricity and in general it is a good thing. Use it carelessly, or for nuclear warfare, and in general its a bad thing.

In other words, its how we (mankind) use (or abuse) the teachings of Christ that is important. I am appaled at the way this has been abused over that past 2,000 years, but it doesn't change my belief in a "God" or the intrinsic goodness of Christ's teachings.

Cheers

Don

Yes, I reject all ideologies. I prefer to think rather than interpret the world in terms of a shared belief system.

If the teachings of Christ have led to abuses over the years then what is so special about those teachings?

People change their own hearts. The real mettle of a person is revealed by their deeds; not their beliefs.

Ye shall know them by their fruits...

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

Yes, I reject all ideologies.

But I do believe in God.

quote:

I think that Christianity...is a bit like nuclear knowledge. Use it carefully.. and in general it is a good thing. Use it..for nuclear warfare, and in general its a bad thing.

In other words.....I am appaled at the way (the teachings of Christ have) been abused over (the) past 2,000 years, but it doesn't change my belief in...the intrinsic goodness of Christ's teachings.

The fact that a (relatively small) number of people have abused Christianity to their own ends doesn't, in my view, reduce the validity of Christ's teaching. The obvious abusers include monarchs, polititians and businessmen (not all monarchs, polititians and businessmen). However, I accept that when some of the church leaders abuse the system it does complicate matters.

For the largest part of the past 2,000 years, torture, murder, deprivation etc etc would have been carried out with/without Christianity (or other faiths). Mankind simply isn't "civilised".

Generally, I think that the last couple of decades has seen a useful improvement in the alignment of Christianity with the teachings of Christ.

Whether you believe that Christ was the "Son of God" is a separate issue in my book.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

I think that Christianity...is a bit like nuclear knowledge. Use it carefully.. and in general it is a good thing. Use it..for nuclear warfare, and in general its a bad thing.

In other words.....I am appaled at the way (the teachings of Christ have) been abused over (the) past 2,000 years, but it doesn't change my belief in...the intrinsic goodness of Christ's teachings.

The fact that a (relatively small) number of people have abused Christianity to their own ends doesn't, in my view, reduce the validity of Christ's teaching. The obvious abusers include monarchs, polititians and businessmen (not all monarchs, polititians and businessmen). However, I accept that when some of the church leaders abuse the system it does complicate matters.

For the largest part of the past 2,000 years, torture, murder, deprivation etc etc would have been carried out with/without Christianity (or other faiths). Mankind simply isn't "civilised".

Generally, I think that the last couple of decades has seen a useful improvement in the alignment of Christianity with the teachings of Christ.

Whether you believe that Christ was the "Son of God" is a separate issue in my book.

Cheers

Don

The Spanish Inquisition was not relatively small. The Crusades were not relatively small.

Those in power (monarchs, politicians, businessmen) owe a special duty of care to those over whom they exercise power. If such a person says they are applying the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (and his apostles); if they can show a doctrinal justification for their actions; if their actions are savage, brutal and genocidal (for genocide look up the pogroms against the Jews in Russia); then as a non-christian I cannot make a judgement that excuses Christianity or the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth from some level of responsibility for these crimes.

To admit that monarchs, politicians and businessmen have abused Christianity to their own ends while qualifying that matters are complicated when some church leaders abuse the system appears to assume a separation between church and state that has not occurred until relatively recently.

quote:

For the largest part of the past 2,000 years, torture, murder, deprivation etc etc would have been carried out with/without Christianity (or other faiths). Mankind simply isn't "civilised".

Might I deduce then, that if this "Christ" was a man then he was part of mankind and was therefore not civilised?

That the history of the Church (the "Bride of Christ") is so bloody would seem to indicate that his teachings had no civilising influence. Seems like a good argument against following his teachings or even ascribing "validity" to them.

Deane

As proved by the peace in Northern Ireland, the only way to progress for the greater good is to accept what's done is done, leave history in the past, learn the lessons, and focus on the future. That applies to all faiths. You can't condemn people of a certain religion for the actions of those hundreds of years ago any more than I can blame the 7 year old German child who lived next door to me for the second world war.

quote:

Whether you believe that Christ was the "Son of God" is a separate issue in my book.

Cheers

Don

Although a separate issue, I would suggest it's the crucial one.

In my opinion, whether you like a particular ideology is secondary to whether or not it's true. If you conclude that it's true, then we don't set the rules.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
As proved by the peace in Northern Ireland, the only way to progress for the greater good is to accept what's done is done, leave history in the past, learn the lessons, and focus on the future. That applies to all faiths. You can't condemn people of a certain religion for the actions of those hundreds of years ago any more than I can blame the 7 year old German child who lived next door to me for the second world war.

I'm not condemning anybody.

History isn't in the past - particularly when it is so riddled with injustice. We cannot escape consequence by ignoring it.

Who will speak for the murdered and oppressed? Will this Jesus speak for them? Will any christians speak for them? Even just to admit that the history of their religion is shameful? My experience with christians suggests not.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
I'm not condemning anybody.

Really?

quote:

History isn't in the past - particularly when it is so riddled with injustice. We cannot escape consequence by ignoring it.

Reconciliation is not about corporate amnesia. It is, however, about recognising and admitting past mistakes, forgiveness and moving on.

It suits the narrow purposes of some people to saddle the Church / Christians permanently with past mistakes; usually the same people who also choose to be totally blind to the good.

Do you live permanently in your past mistakes? Or, should I say, do you wish other people to live permanently in your past mistakes? Would you consider it fair and just if they did so?

quote:

Who will speak for the murdered and oppressed? Will this Jesus speak for them? Will any christians speak for them?

Yes. You ought to find out more about Christians and Christianity, particularly of the C20th.

quote:

Even just to admit that the history of their religion is shameful?

There are, of course, many examples. But, as one, I would have thought that news would get even as far as NZ about the late Pope JPII's very public acknowledgment of, and apology for (as far as it is possible to apologise for something done by someone else a long time ago) so many of the past wrongs done by the Catholic Church for example, such as the Inquisition, anti-Semitism, Slavery, Crusades, paedophilia, the split with the Eastern Orthodox and subsequent violence, etc, etc.

quote:

My experience with christians suggests not.

YOUR experience. Thereby hangs a tail.

JWM

I'm almost loathe to lob this in after your extremely interesting (and clearly informed) contributions to this thread.

I accept your comments about condeming an institution for past mistakes, yet I see the Catholic Church failing to adapt to modern times and the needs of its flock by continuing to ban barrier contraception. This is a current mistake.

I accept (as a non-believer) that adherence and interpretation of scripture is a crucial part of the identity (and power) of the Church. Surely it must be flexible when needed? A modern plague such as HIV has not elicited a response that would (in my opinion) have saved many, many lives. Why?

An example of the Church losing sight of what is important, and failing in its duty of care. An example that looks, to an outsider, almost like stubborn petulance.

Bruce