Talk:Rapture/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

intro

Rapture is a dispensationalism only POV, please prevent skywriter from altering to rapture-only POV. rapture and the second-coming are different events, rapture is dispensationalism only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osprey9713 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Plea to remover of 1992 poster

It seems that the 1992 poster image has been removed. One thing I personally count on (perhaps foolishly) is that Wikipedia has IMAGE, if not content, stability. PLEASE, PLEASE, remover, restore this image.

Dstlascaux (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rapture is a PROTESTANT teaching

The idea that there will be mass disappearances of believers is a protestan.. in fact AMERICAN protestant belief, a innovation of the 19th century...[ [User:GuelphGryphon98|GuelphGryphon98]]

Correct -- but that's only one view of the rapture, which is more broadly defined as the gathering of living and resurrected saints at the second coming of Christ. All Christian denominations throughout history have believed that Jesus will return and gather his saints together. It is only the secret rapture in a two stage coming that is a more recent Dispensationalist view. If we more narrowly define the belief to only the Dispensationalist view, then it isn't merely a protestant belief, but more specifically an EVANGELICAL belief. In any case, I appreciate the catch. I think we've broadened the definition to its more universal meaning now. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is not wored very well. It says things such as "There is disagreement about when the rapture will happen" which insinuates that the rapture is proven fact. The article should be worded "..disagreement as to when the rapture is allaged to occur" etc. --121.219.116.46 05:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

June 1, 2008. I deleted 1844 (now the second time, please do not add it again) from the date list of rapture predictions. William Miller did not believe in a secret rapture, but believed in the visible, audible return of Christ. His prediction therefore falls under date-setting of the second coming of Christ, but not of the secret rapture, since he did not hold such a belief at all. Some of his followers became the Jehovah Witnesses, and they predicted that Christ would come again in 1874, then in 1914. When these predictions failed, they said that Christ indeed had come, but the return had been invisible. Yet at no time have Jehovah Witnesses believed in the secret rapture of believers. Other Millerites became the Adventists, who still wait, like Miller did, for the visible, audible return of Christ, and do not believe in the secret rapture. J. H. Stefansson, Iceland.

I found this article very helpful as written. I do see NPOV. I am not making a correction but I think the attribution of acceptance of this theology to such a broad group is erroneous, however. My sense is that it is generally accepted in Pentecostal or "full gospel" circles, but not 100% embraced by more traditional conservative voices that tend to be fundamental or evangelical (again, two different directions that sometimes overlap) and outright rejected by most mainstream denominations. Keep in mind that Baptists should not be lumped together. The American Baptist Convention is often thought of as very liberal group. At least by Christian Conservatives. The opening paragraph needs some revision due to these considerations.

I did find the discussion of how this theology came to be accepted by many and what it actually says very informative.

Thanks to all contributors 70.90.220.214 14:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Rapture/Archive 1

The Rapture is simply the gathering of Christians to participate in the coming of Christ. Only Pretrib interpretation holds to a secret rapture. All others, including Roman Catholics, believe that the second coming will be quite public. Miller should be restored to the article. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rapture debate

I moved the sections on criticism and rebuttals to a new page, called "rapture debate". Jason Hommel 21:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It oughtta be outlined more clearly that this concept is no older than 200 years and was an AMERICAN PROTESTANT INVENTION. It has NEVER been part of CATHOLIC, Anglican/Episcopal, Orthodox or Lutheran Theology.

(I heard on NPR that it was invented by american protestants, because they deemed it unfair, that all the righteous believers should have to suffer thru Armaggedon. Another hilarious fabrication of religious scam artists, but never mind.)--85.180.249.138 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find any "rapture debate" page, and there are no links to any wikipedia page outlining evidence against it, am I incorrect to think there should be? --75.21.106.42 (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

NPR isn't the best source for theology. All Christians of all centuries have believed that they would be gathered together to participate in the coming of Christ. It's embedded in the first New Testament writing (1 Thessalonians) as well as each of the synoptic gospels. It is only the secret two stage coming that has attracted debate. The problem with this article is that it keeps limiting the rapture to a recent dispensationalist view, which opens up the argument. We should include all views in the article and the lead and call it a day.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Rapture

Regarding this diff, I removed the reference to the original source documents as it's self-evident that the English word "rapture" doesn't appear in the Greek or Hebrew texts! However, do we have a reliable source stating that no word which could translate as "rapture" appears anywhere in those texts - not even in the Song of Solomon, for example? The strongest claim I've ever seen is that no English translation uses the term "rapture". Vashti 07:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are many scholars out there who say this. The question is, do you have a source which finds the word "rapture" in the original text? The term rapture came about during the time of the birth of the Jesuit Monks and there is no talk, reference, written word of a rapture or secret rapture before that period. Since it is a fact, no source is needed. I could say the sun will come out today. That is a fact, I don't need a source to cite that. Also the english translations, not to be confused with a paraphrase, do not use the term "rapture." Maniwar 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

The Latin information is provided for etymological reasons. There's simply no need to state that English words don't appear in texts not written in English. It's like saying the original texts don't include the word "God": it's pointless and irrelevant and useless information, while observing that the term isn't used in English translations is very relevant.

However, since "many scholars" have made the claim, you should have no trouble at all quoting a couple of them. Vashti 19:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wording of this whole section is absurd. Rapture is a noun. There is no word in 1 Thess. (e.g.) which corresponds to it directly because the Grk. NT and the Vulgate translation into Latin use verbs when describing what's supposed to happen here. Raeptius, moreover, is not in the Vulgate because it's not a Latin word at all. This is presumably a butchering of raptus (either an adjective: "snatched" or the much rarer noun "a snatching"), but again, that ain't in the Vulgate either, where rapiemur appears (we will be snatched). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.131.202 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed challenged information on Stan Johnson

I've removed the statement that Stan Johnson of the Prophecy Club predicted a 1997 tribulation. We received an email in OTRS saying that the statement was false and requesting that it be removed. I looked up the source given in this article and emailed the author of that web page, who said that his source for the claim was that it was made in his hearing, and also on a radio show that he heard. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any way of verifying this, so for all practical purposes it's one person's word against another. silsor 02:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Update - I received another email that gives a source, so I re-added the line with a link. silsor 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Latter Rain

I would like to put forward the understanding from the latter rain perspective. Just as the passover was said to be fully come when Christ died on the cross. The day of penticost was said to be fully come with the outpouring of the spirit. Each of these days relate to the feasts of Israel. However there were three not two and the day of atonement associated with the feast of Tabernacles has never been said to be fullfilled.

The Latter Rain understanding is that the woman in Revelation 12 is those who have taken on the very nature of Christ and are taken to a place prepared for them. Just as there is a difference between the lost and the evangelical and the evangelical and the believer who is baptised in the spirit, there is also a difference between the believer who is baptised in the spirit and those who go on to maturity.

The example commonly used is Moses Tabernacle, the outer court representing the evangelical experience because here we have the blood of the lamb shed on the alter then the brazen laver made from the egyptian mirrors representing baptism as we look at our selves and consider the "old man" worthy only of burying. The with the pushing aside of the curtain to the holy place there was new furnture, new light, new food. Everything here was silver and much different to the outer court.

But rather than saying I've made it, there was yet another curtain another source of light and another source of food. Note although it was called the hidden manna, it was available for all after the cross. It is not a secret gnostic knowledge but represents a third growth experience.

Just as a charismatic may hopefully gently show another experience in relationship with God is available throught the holy spirit, the Tabernacelist would gently draw the penticostal forward and say, the journey has only just begun. The type here could be the walk of the children of Israel from Egypt, the world, the red sea being baptism with baptism in the cloud as well, according to Hebrews yet it has been stated that Sinai was the type of baptism in the spirit with yet 40 years to get to the promised land with the generation that had to die first representing those who would die to self to take on his nature.

The symbolism for rapture using this type is the when the smoke of the alter of incence enters the most holy place. More information on this understanding is availble at Latter-rain.com where George Warnocks book can be read or copies of Richard Hollands book titled the Bible and end times. Kevin Connor also has information on the third feast and the rapture being associated with the bride of Chirst which is only those who willing decide to pay the price to mature whilst the dragon in Revalation 12 then turns on the rest of the Christians Evangelical and Penticostal alike. 61.68.114.207 08:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Happiness", the word's normal meaning

As far as I can see, there's no reference either here or on the disambiguation page to the ordinary meaning of the word "rapture", namely overwhelming happiness. I know Wikipedia is not a dictionary but the complete lack of any mention of this seems to imply that the eschatological sense of the word is the principal one, which is not the case. What would be the best way of dealing with this without compromising the article's (or disambiguation page's) quality? Ou tis 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge Post Tribulation Rapture

Post Tribulation Rapture should be merged to this article and pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, and post-tribulation should also redirect to this article.Pbarnes 23:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

'Born-Again"

I've deleted the 'born-again' in the '...all born-again Christians...', as it seems to violate NPOV

I've put it back. This is a statement of what "Rapture believers" believe. ^rossnixon 01:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as Jesus Christ is concerned, "Born Again Christians" are the only Christians there are.

"Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
John 3:3 (NKJV)

Since all Christians are "born again" by requisite, I have also deleted the term, as it is essentially redundant. WikiMasterCreator 09:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

More NPOV criticism

I'm not going to edit the page, as it's obviously being maintained by a person or people with very strong opinions who will just edit it back, but this page is a joke when it comes to NPOV. The introductory sentence makes a declaration from a particular point of view, instead of making a factual (NPOV) statement about a particular set of beliefs. At the very least, it should say something like "The Rapture, according to..." or "The Rapture is an event that, according to...". NoJoy 22:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Followup: intro has been improved. Thanks. Didn't take time to check the rest of the article. NoJoy 22:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the intro sentence, trying to keep to NPOV. Jason Hommel 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not read the entire article, but the section about "rebuttals to criticism" sounds more like a sermon than an encyclopedia article. If may be best to have an adminstrator step in on this one.Squad51 03:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the criticisms and rebuttals to a new page, "rapture debate", as they were the least NPOV parts of the article, and can potentially grow to hundreds of arguments. Jason Hommel 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research not for Wikipedia

The sections below all look like original reseach. Wikipedia can include notable verifiable material that has been published by reputable sources. Each such source used must be cited in the article. Your beliefs, my beliefs, her beliefs and his beliefs only get included if they have been published as per above. If you want this material in Wikipedia then cite your sources (someones published beliefs). I can see a lot of time and work has gone into this. If you need things made clearer contact me on my talk page. I promise nothing but would like to see a well referenced article here.

What would make source material itself "notable", anyway? 74.38.35.171 07:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out [1]. The other 2 things needed are Verifiability and a reputable publisher. Hope you keep discussing here - I will help a bit if you want to work on this article. SmithBlue 08:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

flawed sections

Three major views on the timing of the rapture/Pre-tribulation, Three major views on the timing of the rapture/Post-tribulation, End Times Prerequisites, Scriptural basis and the ongoing debate, Criticisms, Rebuttal to criticisms SmithBlue 15:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"End Times Prerequisites" is especially flawed, as it conflicts with the majority opinion - which is that there are no prerequisites. This article is already long enough without specifying the differing views in detail. We should just say briefly what each of the three major groups (pre, mid and post) expect to happen. ^rossnixon 09:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi RossNixon - I know next to nothing about Rapture - and reading the flawed sections I get no idea whether I am reading someones private opinion or just uncited notable material. For me the problem it not the relative size of sections or the weight given to different points but the fact that I can't check on the source and correctness of, say, 60% of the facts stated in this article. Which, with it being an encyclopedia, is below standard. Do you understand what I am talking about? Verifiability, Cite_sources, No_original_research all suggest that Rapture could look very different. SmithBlue 10:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I will echo the criticisms. There seems to be a great deal of original, flawed research. The inclusion of the comparison image between Christian eschatological views is, for one, unrelated to the concept of a rapture, as most of the views don't even believe in the rapture. They believe in the Second Coming of Christ, but not the rapture. Secondly, there are not four views. There are many different views that aren't even addressed by the image - preterism for one.5minutes 12:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's the part about The Rapture and The Jews?

Please don't delete my comments again, Smith

I can see that the edit history links me to the deletion of your post. It was never my intention to delete your post and I took no action, that I know of, that would have had that result. I wouldnt have deleted your posts knowingly as you have included references which are very needed for this article.SmithBlue 14:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

from ReligiousTolerance

Many Fundamentalists and some Evangelical Christians hold to the traditional " 'supercessionist idea' that Christianity replaced Judaism and that God no longer has a covenant with the Jewish people." 1 This is sometimes called the "theology of displacement." It relegates Judaism to an inferior position and "regards the Christian Church as the 'true' or 'spiritual' Israel." This concept was first developed by Justin Martyr (circa 100 to 165 CE) and Irenaeus of Lyon (circa 130 to 200 CE). It was largely accepted within the church by the 4th century....

Many believe that anyone following the Jewish faith is doomed to spend eternity in Hell, just as will Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and others who have not repented of their sins and trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior. This motivates many conservative Christians to attempt to lead Jews (and others) to a "saving knowledge" of Jesus. They feel that to ignore the Jews would be discriminatory. "If Jewish people are denied the opportunity to hear about Jesus because of Christian self-censorship, then Christians truly will be guilty of anti-Semitism." 3 Christian Conflicts Regarding Jewish Conversion

from RaptureReady

The 144,000 Jewish Witnesses

Shortly after the rapture, God will call His army of 144,000 Jewish believers into service to provide a voice of hope for Jews throughout the world. The best friends and most staunch supporters of Jews have always been true, believing Christians. It was this element of the world's population that provided help and support for Israel and Jewish people. The rapture removed the Christian people from the earth and awakened the 144,000 to their purpose. These 144,000 preach to Jews worldwide that Jesus is the Messiah. These 144,000 will be spread out worldwide and more than likely go about in pairs, two by two, as Jesus instructed His disciples to do. It will be these 144,000 who will oppose Israel signing a peace treaty for protection; it will be the 144,000 who will identify the anti-christ for who he is; it will be the 144,000 who will warn Israel of the treachery of the anti-christ, and it will be the 144,000 who will lead the Jews worldwide to the hiding place prepared for them by God in the Judean desert. These 144,000 Jews are going to be strange people by normal standards: they will be celibate, very bold, fearless, spiritually strong and probably very much like John the Baptist. You can read more about the 144,000 witnesses in Revelation 14. Rapture Survival Guide

WHY ISN'T THIS IMPORTANT INFO INCLUDED? Thanks - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The world waits breathless for you to include it. Go ahead, edit boldly. PiCo 07:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To make the material in the 144,00 Jewish Witnesses paragraph (144JW) suitable it needs to be stated which group believes this and then the barebones on the info added. i.e. The repitition of "it will be the 144,000 who will" is great in a sermon but not an encyclopedia article which is not about a sermon. Perhaps "So and so believe that after the rapture God will call an army of 144JW to provide hope for Jews worldwide.This group will;

• preach to jews that Jesus is the Messiah
• etc,etc SmithBlue 08:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The 144,000 - who they are and what they do is not directly linked to the concept or timing of the "Rapture". I would imagine it to belong in the Tribulation article. ^rossnixon 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

# of comings of Christ

This page states (erroneously, far as I know) that Christ comes 3 times in pre-/mid-Rapture theology. That's not the case - the Rapture isn't Christ's 2nd coming; the believers are caught up - he doesn't come down to earth. Edit: see also: Tribulation events 132.162.240.52 04:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet this is a common criticism made by supporters of a post-tribulation rapture -- they argue that in pre-trib theology, while he doesn't touch ground, he comes to Earth in the sky, and then, 7 years later, for a third time. This is the basis for their claim that pre-trib rapture theory is un-scriptural. PStrait 17:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Early Church Fathers Support of Rapture

Source #2 seems dubious, and the author of the source says his claims may be speculation. Will someone please check the validity of it. I don't want to delete the reference, because I might be biased.Trevor 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I reworked this section, bypassing the dubious source (http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/timeline/jeffrey.html) while referencing others that discuss the early church. - JethroElfman 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wording

The timing of when the rapture will take place is a key point often discussed and debated between denominations and individuals who accept the notion.

Connecting the idea of the "Rapture" to saying that it is a "notion", is this bias? NOPV? Just askin... Personally, I find the idea of the Rapture silly, but saying it's a "notion" in a Wiki article seems bias to me. I plan on changing it, but of course want "discussion" first. 131.30.121.23 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! I have changed notion to concept. Or the whole phrase could be changed to "those who believe this teaching". ^rossnixon 02:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Word Placement

Moved "Protestant" because of it's erroneous placement, which misleads researchers; in that due to it's misplacement, it dictates a "blanket" statement that essentially places this theology and all other denominations noted afterward as being under a Protestant umbrella, which is both inaccurate and misleading. WikiMasterCreator 08:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro rewording is a bit much

Some recent edits turned the intro into something that reads like a transcript of a sermon. Wikipedia shouldn't read like that. Also, the emphasis on "shout/voice/trump" is apparently unique to some branch of rapture proponents, although I'm not quite sure of the factions here. We had a dispute over that issue last year. --John Nagle 16:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it accurate now, strictly speaking? My understanding was that people who believe in the rapture believe that the resurrection of the body occurs simultaneously, so that it isnt just the Christians alive, but also the deceased who are resurrected, that are raptured. PStrait 16:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Both Nagle's and the previous (shout/voice/trump) version are accurate. They do not express unique views AFAIK. It is debatable whether too much detail was added or not. ^rossnixon 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking for references, shoutvoicetrump.com says the Rapture has started because Wikipedia says so in the Rapture article. We need to be careful to avoid circular citation problems. --John Nagle 05:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, thank you all for your feedback on this. While my additions were accurate in their representation of the doctrine, I agree that they were a bit much for the intended purpose. I have cleaned it up significantly, and made it as concise and accurate as possible, without gutting out essential information not found elsewhere in the article. Your feedback and assistance is always appreciated! WikiMasterCreator 07:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on what the article ought to include, but note that per Wikipedia:Lead section, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". If these points are essential, they should be covered in the main body of the article and summarised in the lead. EALacey 08:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. This article is clearly in need of some attention as a whole. It is a bit light on, and in a few areas altogether missing some fundamental and essential content required for a good understanding of what this doctrine actually represents at it's very core.

As you have noted, for the Wikipedia:Lead section of this article, as basic and concise as it now is, to outweigh any other section in some core and essential content, is a clear indication of a serious information deficiency in the main content area.

I'll be happy to contribute as much as I can to help give this article an increased level of balance, and more properly distributed content. I sincerely hope that others who are knowledgeable and familiar with this doctrine will do the same. Aside from a few fundamental problems, the article does have a lot going for it. It has a good overall structure, some good essential information, and some very good "peripheral" content in most sections. It just needs more depth, focus, and attention to detail; then it will be great! WikiMasterCreator 10:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

History of doctrine

I find the current discussion in the article on the Christian sects that do not teach the Rapture particularly confusing, especially the substitution of "Reformed" for what used to be (sometime in the last two months, when I last read this article) specific Protestant denominations. I would like to see a return to the listing of the Protestant denominations that do not support the idea of Rapture. As I am neither a Christian Protestant nor a Religous Historian, I do not feel up to the task. Thanks! M. McD.

I'm not aware of, nor do I see in the "history" logs, any listing of Protestant denominations for this section. In any case, "Reformed" is the more appropriate theological camp to be included among the others listed. WikiMasterCreator 07:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Date Setting

I tagged "Generally, believers in the rapture of the church do not make predictions regarding the exact timing of the event itself." with a {{fact}} tag. That has a WP:WEASEL problem. It's also factually wrong. During the 1980s and 1990s, believers in the rapture were date-setting with enthusiasm, or at least claiming it was Real Soon Now; notice how many specific date citations we have for that period. It may be true today that date-setting is somewhat out of fashion. RaptureReady.com hit date-setting burnout: "I've been actively involved in prophecy for 20 years now, and I must have heard of, or received, 100 different formulations each year for the timing of the rapture or second coming. Having already witnessed around 2,000 predictions come to nothing doesn't leave me with any great hope for new ones that come along."[2] --John Nagle 16:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So, are you saying that most of the approx 100 million believers in the Rapture have made date predictions then? I think it is safe to say "generally", as 99.998% of them have NOT made predictions. ^rossnixon 02:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We made it through September 2007, the last definite date on the "date setting" list. The "date setting" era (fad?) seems to have run out. --John Nagle 15:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A cited statement showing the historical sitation in the 1980s and 1990s would be better than a generalisation. SmithBlue (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes in this section (and possibly other sections) are incorrect. For example, the footnote for the 2011 date put forth by Harold Camping is 24, which is really for the movie "Gone"; the correct footnote number is 21, which points to Camping's article. - Bruce Hempel

Future

Is {{future}} really an appropriate tag for this article? To say categorically that this is an expected event in this way places Wikipedia at risk of supporting a particular point of view, that Christians were right all along and this will definitely happen one day. -- Roleplayer 22:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything concerning the future is beyond scientific verification until it has either happened or failed to happen. So future is per definition about opinions and points of view, not about facts. Logically, no description of an expected event can refer to anything objective, therefore its subjectivity doesn't need to be explicitly pointed out. --91.152.142.100 (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

2012

Is there any sources that can be used to support the Mayan Calendar theory for 2012? If not, it needs to taken out of the article. 71.28.99.175 (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it until sources can be found to prove the theory. If it can't be sourced, then do not revert the removal of 2012. 71.31.92.77 (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

While the Mayans may or may not have expected the end of the world in 2012, they were most certainly NOT predicting Christ's rapture of His Church. That would be kinda like George Washington writing a letter about Windows Vista - it's not something the Mayans would have had any concept of. --B (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007

Is that stuff about 2007 really true? There are no sources. ScottAHudson (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why was the info about 2008 removed. I found it in 2008 article in this site.75.89.236.41 (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1992 Rapture.jpg

Image:1992 Rapture.jpg is being used on this article. ... BetacommandBot (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot problem dealt with. --John Nagle (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1992 Rapture.jpg

Image:1992 Rapture.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusing definition

I find the first paragraph of the lead extremely confusing. I think it would be better to say something like "when the bodies of the living and the dead believers meet Christ in the sky" (if you get the idea)... It's confusing to talk about bodies of the dead rising to meet the spirits of the dead which are descending from heaven with Christ, etc, etc. Besides being confusing it is not necessarily true to all Christian belief on the subject. Definitely needs to be simplified. Kristamaranatha (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Page titile

Virtually every g-hit for "rapture" is referring to the Christian concept.[3] This is the overwhelmingly predominant use of the term and so there is no logical reason for it not to be at Rapture. Even if there were a reason for it, Rapture (Protestant belief) is a horrible page title. Catholic believers, for example, believe in the rapture but just don't use that term. [4] --B (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Then how about "The Rapture (Christian Eschatology)"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.182.139 (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Rapture is a belief that when Jesus returns, Christians will be resurrected and both resurrected and currently living Christians will be gathered to meet Jesus. Although the pretrib rapture idea is a Protestant belief, virtually all Christian denominations, including Roman Catholics, believe that Jesus will return to his saints. Limiting this to Protestantism only makes sense if one is confined to a pretrib construction of the belief. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

End Date

It says believers no longer set a date for Armageddon, but the web, news, Church's are full of loony theists claiming various dates, some of them helping to speed it up. This needs to be re-written with relavent information included. Methememe (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Line 2: "...in which it is believed that.."

The Rapture is the name given to the future event in which it is believed that Jesus Christ will descend from Heaven

The Rapture is a BELIEF nevertheless , no matter how strongly you feel about it. This is to ensure a fair and unbiased article as per the Wikipedia guidelines! look them up! (and stop changing it back)

Stopbias (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I cut out some pointless trivia from the pop culture section. 67.160.174.24 (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Too much popular culture

We could trim back the popular culture/trivia section quite a bit. Any objections? --John Nagle (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support: The list does little to add to the quality of the article. As these sections tend to be limited in other Wikipedia articles, I don't see why it has to be so expansive here. Besides, this section has been flagged since July 2008 as simply being a list of miscellaneous information. Mkubica (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I added in a very short description of the Rapture, as taken from a literal reading of the Scriptures. Please remove if inappropriate. I was hoping that a brief article on the Pre-Tribulation position would be helpful to the readers of this Page Grovebaptist (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)grovebaptistGrovebaptist (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Needed Improvements

In the Timing section, the "pan-trib" position is fun and humorous, but "pan" is just not a serious view. It needs to be removed.

Date-Setting is really a separate subject (its a form of historicism). Events are listed of those who did not hold to a rapture (i.e., Shakers and William Miller). So that section either needs to be trimmed or setup as a separate article.

The doctrinal history section is confusing and contradictory. It starts off with a negation of those who don't believe in it. That is confusing: history is supposed to be about the origins of the concept rapture. It states that amillennialists and postmillennialists don't hold to the rapture. That is contradictory: Harold Camping is an amillennialist, yet he holds to a rapture (and sets dates as well). So this whole section needs to be revised. Lamorak (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Edited the initial part of the doctrinal history section, and at least it traces the initial American and British history of the concept of the rapture. Still needs improvement, though.Lamorak (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

by bk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.166.96 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a serious question about one of the veiws

I know not a forum so don't bring that up: but Honestly I just have ot know, what does the rapture do if it happens after the tribulation? Why bother taking up the true christians then? From my knowedge the rapture is to spare the true faithful from suffering god's wrath so what good does it do if it happens just before the second coming?--Ssteiner209 (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the views of people who describe themselves as Christians are prone to be very varied. Even if something doesn't make sense to you it doesn't mean that no-one sincerely believes it. 86.130.57.233 (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the rapture in a post-tribulational view is the gather all the saints, both living and dead, to be with Jesus. It's the same as it is in pre or mid tribulational views, if you keep in mind that "all who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer tribulation". Though the vast majority of Christians in history will not be in the "great" tribulation, they will still suffer some kind of tribulation. The rapture ultimately isn't about what you are being raptured from, but rather what you are being raptured to. The focus isn't tribulation (since all experience it). The focus is on Jesus. Keeping the focus in this light should make it easy to appreciate all the views -- even those you don't personally hold.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the Lead Image

The lead image has an erroneous impression of the post-tribulation view. In the post tribulation view the saints are gathered to meet Jesus in the air as he is returning to earth. Their destination is not heaven (as the image implies) but Israel. Also, the image shows the Second Coming to be with the church for only pre and mid tribulation views. That is most specifically a post tribulation view. According to the image Jesus comes to an earth completely depopulated of anyone who believes in him. We need a better image. I'll leave it for now as a place holder, but I very strongly urge we get an accurate image.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you pointing these out. The arrows can be altered and added on the diagrams to better reflect the views. Also the phrase "with the church" can be added to "second coming" on the post-tribulation timeline. Perhaps mention of the tribulation saints could be added in the description. But then the 3rd diagram - post-tribulation - was meant to include both dispensational and non-dispensational views, and I'm also concerned the chart might become too cluttered. Its also possible to create additional charts with further details. Lamorak (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lamorak, thanks for the note! I agree that these are all premilennial, and they aren't all necessarily dispensational if the changes you mentioned were made. I'd have to change my own note to conform to the new image. Would be cool to show the post-mil view on another chart perhaps -- but then we really would get cluttered!SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The picture in question does not appear to be loading. Any thoughts?Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure its an issue on the wikimedia end, I'm looking into it...Lamorak (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, my bad, its a learning process. The picture is now displaying.Lamorak (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Lede Wars

We need to keep the lede in a form that expresses all the views equally and fairly. For some reason very well intentioned editors keep leaning the lede to exclude 85% of all Christian views (only about 15% are Dispensationalists). Although Dispensationslists should be fully represented, it shouldn't be to the exclusion of mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians. That being said, the information that I took out of the lede really needs to be in the article somewhere. It was good footnoting, but I'm not sure of the best spot in the article to put it. I'd appreciate any help someone can offer!SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to bump this -- I'm offering to discuss the lede. I think the information you are trying to present is well researched, good information, that needs to be in the article. It just needs to be in the Dispensational section of the article. All Christians believe Jesus will come again, that the dead in Christ will rise, and that we will all be gathered together to be with him forever. All Christians have 1 Thessalonians 4 in their Bibles. This isn't a Dispensationalist only belief -- the Dispensationalists really need to be fairly (but not exclusively) represented.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please inform/educate me. What writings from mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, discuss the Rapture as an event distinct from (or even coinciding with) the Second Coming of Christ? Thanks. ^rossnixon 03:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back, and thanks for your post. I think the issue here is that you are defining the "rapture" in a dispensationalist-only way and then asking if anyone but dispensationalists have that belief. The belief itself has a range of meaning as indicated in the body of this and other similar articles, and I am merely trying to keep the lede in agreement with the entire article, instead of only the dispensationalist section. To answer your question, a good percentage of Reformed Baptists are "historic premillenialists", meaning that they are more in line with the kind of premillenialism that preceded Darby. Historic Premillenialists certainly do believe in a rapture, but they believe in a Post-Tribulational one. Charles Haddon Spurgeon was a Post-Tribulational Historic Premillenialist. Many of the members of the Southern Baptist Founders Conference are as well. George Eldon Ladd, a prominent evangelical who wrote a popular commentary on Revelation, is also a historic Pre-Millenialist (and a Post-Tribulationist). I'm not sure if F.F. Bruce is a Post-Millenialist or a Historic Pre-Millenialist from his commentary. What is evident, however, is that he is a non-Dispensationalist and a Port-Tribulationist. He clearly links the rapture to the Parousia, cites linking passages such as 1 Corinthians 15 and Matthew 24:30, and even uses the word "rapture": "From the Latin equivalent of harpadzein (rapere) this incident in the Parousia is sometimes called the 'Rapture' (snatching away) of believers" (page 102). Louis Berkhof, on the other hand, rejects the concept of a secret rapture in his textbook of Systematic Theology, on the grounds that he rejects a Premillenial reign. Nevertheless, he firmly insists that the coming of Christ will involve the resurrection and ingathering of the saints: "The second coming of Christ, though personal, physical, and visible, will yet be very different from His first coming. He will not return in the body of His humiliation, but in a glorified body and in royal apparel, Heb. 9:28. The clouds of heaven will be His chariot, Matt. 24:30, the angels His bodyguard, II Thess. 1:7, the archangels His heralds, I Thess. 4:16, and the saints of God His glorious retinue, I Thess. 3:13; II Thess. 1:10. He will come as King of kings and Lord of lords, triumphant over all the forces of evil, having put all His enemies under His feet, I Cor. 15:25; Rev. 19:11-16" (page 706). I hope this helps. The Rapture is an important doctrine with a range of beliefs. It isn't limited to Dispensationalists and isn't even limited to Pre-Millenialists. Post-Millenialists will sometimes claim it by that very name. A-Millenialists are not in complete consensus about a physical second coming and are somewhat agnostic about many specifics regarding the end -- but even they would link all these events (even if they are figurative) in the concept and passages of the second coming. Again, my goal is not to keep your information out. In fact it is very good information, with good citations, that should be in the article. I'm only asking that you move it to a better place than the lede. The form of the lede that keeps popping in there is both contradictory to the non-Dispensationalist paragraph, and to the body of this and other similar articles. Post-Tribulationalists really do exist, and they actually (believe it or not) outnumber Pre and Mid Tribulationalists. Nevertheless, all viewpoints need to be fairly represented in a balanced NPOV way. Let's please work together on this because I really like your information and want it to be in the best place possible for the article.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The article should be mainly about the Rapture, rather than the Second Coming of Christ in general. There are two paragraphs that begin "1. Amillenialists..." and "2. Dispensationalists...". I think paragraph "1." should be removed, as this is a view on the Second Coming, rather than a view on a Rapture. If a doctrine does not define or distinguish the two terms, then that group does not believe in a distinct Rapture. The majority of the literature that uses the term Rapture is from the pre-millennial camp. Following these views in the article, we could have a section that describes how other groups believe that the Rapture is merely an aspect of the Second Coming of Christ to the earth. ^rossnixon 02:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraphs. I agree, they are inaccurate. Osprey9713 (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the rapture -- which Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Mainline Protestants, and a good number of Evangelicals believe to be simultaneous with the Second Coming, as I have documented here. The change you are making removes the NPOV status of this article in favor of a POV shared by only 15% of the modern Christian church, and 99% of the historical Christian church. It is completely biased, non-historical, unencyclopedic, and a violation of Wikipedia's notability, balance, and NPOV standards. I have been very generous attempting to discuss this with you, and you have not addressed my points, or my references. I suggest you do so.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that it is disengenuous to tell me to discuss on this talk page when you do not respond directly to any points I've made. I've encouraged full representation of your view, but I cannot do so to the exclusion of all other views. That would violate NPOV (as I have just reported on the noticeboard). All points of view must be represented, especially those that represent the vast majority of the Christian church.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This issue has now been brought to the NPOV Noticeboard. You are welcome to participate. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This article must represent the consensus view of the majority of Christianity and what has been the mainline belief of Christianity over the past 2,000 year. The rapture was invented by Darby to allow a return to mosaic law and israel rule, and is a separate event than the second coming of Jesus, even dispensationals agree. If you would actually read the sources I posted, you'd see that. I'd like to see some scholarly material that shows otherwise, but you will not find it. Osprey9713 (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already presented some -- as well as pointed you to George E. Ladd, a non-dispensationalist premillenial post-tribulation rapturist. The secret separate rapture is indeed limited to dispensationalists and pre- and mid- tribulationists (so-called pre-wrath notwithstanding). But that is not the only view of the rapture. Most Christians for the past 2000 years and even most Christians today believe in a noisy visible rapture that is simultaneous with the Second Coming, rather than a preliminary aspect of it. I've given you sources. They do not contradict yours, but rather supplement them. I approve of your sources and your understanding of a secret rapture. But that's not the only kind of rapture, and in fact did not exist before Darby invented it. Rather than create diversions and edit wars, we need to have the article contain the majority Christian view as well as the minority Dispensationalist view in an NPOV manner. I continue to encourage this and am still ready to work with you. At least look George Eldon Ladd up on a google search! SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see the article of Historic premillennialism. Also another article on George Eldon Ladd. I can find more articles. Post-Tribulation rapturists really do exist, and most of them are not Dispensationalists.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we have another issue which is congruency of the lede with the rest of the article. The lede advocated by osprey/rossnixon is not compatible with the rest of the existing article. The whole article presents the various different viewpoints concerning the rapture which is congruent with the lede proposed by skywriter. On the other hand, the lede advocated by osprey/rossnixon only describes one viewpoint in contrast to the many viewpoints presented in the article. To use the lede advocated by osprey/rossnixon, the entire article would have to be rewritten and several sections would have to be eliminated. So either osprey/rossnixon and their advocates rewrite the entire article and the lede to match each other or we use the skywriter lede which matches the current article. ONE OF THE FIRST RULES OF WRITING IS THAT YOUR THESIS STATEMENT (LEDE) MUST MATCH THE REST OF YOUR ARTICLE! The problem with putting the lede advocated by osprey/rossnixon is that the thesis statement doesn't match the rest of the article which is poor writing. As for the concept of the rapture as advocated by osprey/rossnixon, the concept of the rapture did not stop with Darby as Skywriter deftly explained above. There are now several different viewpoints concerning the rapture that have their origins in Darby but have unique chronological connections to the Judgement. This is not an article on only Darby's view of the rapture. If osprey/rossnixon want an entry for only Darby's viewpoint of the rapture, I suggest they start another article.Deadtotruth (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that the current revision of the lead (drafted by Tim, tweaked and restored by Deadtotruth) rings true to me, and renders the specific quibble I mention below redundant. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the article and its references shows that the rapture is not exclusive to dispensationalism. The word "rapture" came into the English language in the 1600s, well before Darby. Also the concept of the rapture is found in the writings of multiple authors in the 1700s, well before dispensationalism. In present day usage, I don't think there is any question that certain non-dispensationalists also hold to a rapture. So I agree that both dispensational and non-dispensational views should be represented in this article. At the same time its equally clear that a number of Christians who hold to a 2nd Coming consciously reject the rapture. They typically equate "rapture" with dispensationalism. Eastern Orthodox writers for example, associate rapture with dispensationalism, refer to it as heretical and state that their tradition doesn't ever refer to the "rapture." They would not agree that the rapture and the 2nd Coming are one and the same. Lamorak (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that many Christians would regard "the rapture" as heretical, and yet insist at the same time that at the second coming we will all be gathered together, both living and dead Christians, to meet Christ in the clouds. I cited Berkhof above as an example and gave quotes to show that he holds that specific doctrine and yet says he rejects "the rapture." This is a case in which many non-dispensationalists will equate the name with the dispensationalist interpretation -- as the alternate side of this discussion has done. Perhaps we need to clarify this in the article: that (virtually) all Christians believe we will meet Christ when he returns, but many non-dispensationalists will reject the use of the term "rapture." It's kind of like the idea of prevenient grace in Arminian and Calvinist arguments. Although all Calvinists believe in prevenient grace, they won't use the term because they believe in more than just that. And, conversely, Arminians do believe in predestination, but with a different causal relationship from Calvinists, and so will often refuse to use the term. In those instances we need to clarify the cause of confusion, rather than reproduce it with an edit war.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I made the addition to the lede regarding Amillenialists, Postmillenialists, and Historic Premillenialists: "Although the doctrinal relationship of the rapture and the Second Coming are the same in these three groups, Historic Premillenialists are more likely to use the term "rapture" to clarify their position in distinction from Dispensationalists." That should make note of the possible confusion.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The majority of Christians, looking in their theology textbooks, will not even find the term 'Rapture' in the index. The 'Rapture' is pretty much exclusively a concept unique to conservative protestants. Therefore this should be the dominant content of the article. A website that aims to cover many religious views accurately has an article on the Rapture here [5] - you should find it of interest and perhaps useful as a guide as what Wikipedia could cover. ^rossnixon 02:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"The Rapture: Hoax or Hype?" That's about as big a violation of NPOV as one can get. That is certainly a useful guide... of what to avoid. We've covered all the POVs here, including the fact that Amillenialists and Post-Millenialists are less likely to use the term than Historic Premillenialists, even though their formulation of the doctrine with the Second Coming is virtually identical. That's about as good as we can do here. But "hoax or hype" writing isn't something Wikipedia is meant to do.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I'm seeing that avoiding POV regarding Christianity related articles benefits greatly from a rather broad familiarity with sources. Most people who believe the New Testament teaches a distinctive, specific Rapture are both Protestant and conservative. However, most people who are both Protestand and conservative do not believe the NT teaches this distinctive, specific Rapture.

Of course, by definition, almost any reading of the NT that is not part of authorised Roman Catholic teaching will be held either by Protestants or by heretics. Technically, "conservative" Protestant does not exclude the possibility of heresy (from a NT POV); and heresy (from a Roman Catholic point of view) includes all Protestants.

Mercifully, theology is not political, it is academic. The conceptual connection with the theological movement "dispensationalism" is far more infomative than any association with denominational politics. Major denominations are vastly more numerous than major theological issues, and denominations define themselves by doctrines rather than vice versa.

At some point, Wikipedia will need to learn that all Protestants are Catholic, they are just not Roman Catholic. Vast numbers of Protestants affirm "We believe in one Catholic, apostolic church", many of these affirm it weekly. For hundreds of years the Church of England Book of Common Prayer ensured this. (Of course, many Dissenters to the CoE and BCP emigrated from England to the US.)

I'm not directing this post at anyone in particular, just musing on a reliably sourced, important high level Wiki policy that should probably be written for Christianity related articles. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good points to ponder, Alastair. I think that at present none of the people in this discussion appear to be dispensationalist. And I think that we all agree that the concepts of a separate secret rapture are generally limited to that group. I'm only aware of a single denomination (Assemblies of God) that has pre-tribulationism as part of its statement of faith. I'd also agree with your analysis that all Protestants are Catholic. When I was a Baptist pastor I would make a point occasionally of calling myself a Baptist Catholic, and often refer to the Roman Catholic church as simply the Roman church. Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches all adhere to similar formulations of the Nicene Creed, which specifies one holy catholic and apostolic church.

As for the separate secret rapture -- dispensationalists will refer to the first-second-coming by the name "rapture" because of the need to distinguish it from the second-second-coming. Similarly, Historic Premillenialists (George E. Ladd, Millard Erickson, etc.) will also refer to the "rapture" as part of the only-second-coming in order to distinguish themselves from dispensationalists. Amillenialists and Postmillenialists do not need to distinguish themselves from dispensationalists, and so are less likely to commonly use the name, although they will use it in commentaries and systematic theologies (F.F. Bruce, Louis Berkhof, etc.). Although the conception of the millenium is different for Amil, Historic Premil, and Postmil, the conception of the second coming is the same, and the conception of the events of that second coming are the same -- which include the rapture/gathering as a single doctrine shared by the group under shifting terms. Thus, the need for this article to designate the Rapture as the gathering of the saints and show all views pertinent to the doctrine regardless of the specific term.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

G.E. Ladd wrote extensively against dispensationalism and the rapture. he's a link to his book the Blessed Hope, demonstrating that the Rapture is different than the second coming of Christ. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osprey9713 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, outside of dispensationalists, what other group uses the term rapture. None, I beleive. Rapture is a unique term used almsot exclusively by dispensationalists. Non-Dispensationalists do not use the term because they had no need for it - they can role up all the events under the label "Second Coming", wheras dispensationalists need to use the term to convey the seperateness of the "Catching Away" from the actual "Return of Christ". (The reasoning for this does not require any great exlpanation. They beleive they must be seperate because in scene 1, the saints are resurrected, while in scene 2 they are decending from the clouds with christ. Dispensationalist therfore beleive the events must be different since they cannot possible occur at the same time given the two different placements of the same saints.)

Is there a source showing a non-dispensationalist using the term rapture except in reference to or response to dispensationalist views? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the rapture, is to remove the church, who is saved by grace, so the millennial kingdom can begin, where people will be saved by a restored mosaic law. So unless you are trying to prove that jews can be saved by the law in the future, then there's no justification for the rapture. So no other group wishes to maintain two ways of salvation, so no one believes in the rapture besides those groups stemming from Darby and old dispensationalism. Osprey9713 (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by that? Your first part is true, but what dispensationalism is not singularly mosaic law related. Scofield, for example, uses the first chapters of reveletion, and pentecolism uses the parables of matthew as their primary support for dispensationalism. The millenial teaching are not inherently jewish, nor is the beleif that they affect only jews. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispensationalists divide up the bible into law and grace verses. Based on 2 Timothy 2:15 "rightly divide the word of god" in the same way as the higher critics. So they take the sermon on the mount, and all of revelation after ch 3 and distinguish them as law passages that only apply to the future Millennial Reign, when the zaddok priests of ezekiel, etc will establish a works of the law salvation process. This will revolve around establishing a new temple in jerusalem, when sacrifices, etc will occur in the same fashioni as the Mosaic Law. It will be different, but its basically the same as before the church. The church is considered the Great Parenthesis, where men are saved by grace, and they point to daniel 9, and say that grace will end, and then people will be saved by work. etc. So there's a lot of hype around the establishment of Israel as a nation, because Israel is supposed to rule the world. It's based on a ridged "literal whenever possible" hermeneutic. Osprey9713 (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So there will be a rapture of church, to allow the end of the dispensation of grace, to allow the millennial kingdom dispensation to begin. This is all straight from darby and scofield. It's your fault that you don't know what rapture means, not mine. Just look and see what walvoord, ryrie, and all those guys believe. its messed up. Osprey9713 (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith. My question about what you meant was not what you were saying - it is what does that have to do with this topic? It read as if you are trying to discredit "rapture" rather than write and article to describe it. And if that is what you mean, then you are not accurately conveying the meaning of scofield and darby's teachings... While they do teach that the rapture will occur prior to the start of the millennium, they also teach that those who are part of the rapture return during the millennium and art are part of the rulership of earth - except for the period between those two events, there is no "time spent in heaven". As you are referring to above. The teaching is that when the millennium occurs, it is literally heaven on earth, the places become synonymous. This is off topic somewhat. My assertion here is that: Outside of dispensationalism, the term "rapture" is seldom if ever used. It is almost exclusively a dispensationalist teaching, and as such this article should focus predominantly on dispensationalist beliefs. What precisely is your point, and why are you removing useful content from the article? And what are goal are you working towards? I can support what I am saying with sources. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

rapture is a distinction of dispenstationalism, and the article incorrectly implies that it is the same as the second coming of jesus. it is not a dogma of any other non-dispensational group. those people raptured, are taken away from the earth until the second coming, and return with jesus at the second coming. Osprey9713 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Introduction

The Rapture is a doctrine introduced by Dispensationalism in the last 150years, and is not the consensus of the worldwide Christian church either. Orthodox, Anglican and Roman Catholics do not believe in a rapture, but do believe in the second coming of the church. Their views are not being supported by this article. Most seminaries do not endorse the rapture teachings either, besides DTS. This article needs a new lead paragraph with verifiable sources.

The introduction needs to make a distinction between the Second Coming, and the multiple raptures. Osprey9713 (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

From RAPTURE READY:

Definition of the Rapture: 'At an unknown hour and day the Lord Jesus will descend from heaven, while remaining in the air, he will snatch his Bride, the Church, out from among this sinful world. Christ then takes the Church to heaven for the 7 year wedding feast. The earthly reason for the removal of the Church is to make way for the rise of Antichrist and to fulfill Daniel's final 70th week. (Mat 25:13), (1 Thes 4:16-18), (1 Cor 15:51-54) '

Notice how this is different than the second coming:

Definition of the Second Coming: 'This is the time when Jesus Christ will return, defeat the Antichrist, and set up his 1000 year kingdom on earth. The second coming is not the rapture. The rapture takes place approximately 7 years prior to the second coming. Another important difference between the two is that the rapture will occur at an unknown time while the second coming will take place 42 months after the Antichrist declares himself to be God. (Rev 13:5), (Mat 25:13)' Osprey9713 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can people please teach me

Hello everyone!

Tim invited me to join discussion here, and I'm very keen to do so because of my vast ignorance in this area of theology (not to mention my high regard for Tim). I'm slowly working through the article, impressed by the quantity of references (though we all know there are thousands more out there) and the responsible way these are generally brought together to be as concise and neutral as possible.

Although I'm a long-standing student of theology, I'm a Sydney evangelical student, where amillenialism rather puts analysis of a rapture out of the picture somewhat. An exciting spin-off of Wikipedia is the opportunity for Christians to document their scholastic debates regarding readings of the Bible, such as matters like the topic of this article.

However, there's an element of culture shock for me to read a sentence like the following.

"A second propose rapture will occur at the end of the tribulation for the Jews who have converted to Christianity during the tribulation."

This is an extremely detailed analysis of what the New Testament predicts, by the sources cited. It refers to several things as established fact that have escaped my attention in reading the NT and various commentators. I presume it is supposed to read "a second proposeD rapture", but perhaps it means "a second group propose", or is there a typo "a second purpose"?

You can see how ignorant I am to be unable to resolve even this tiny ambiguity. However, I'm sure it will be understood it really matters to a non-US Christian, somewhat unfamiliar with details of the debate, that no specific POV is assumed by the article. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought all Christians throughout history have anticipated being gathered to Jesus at his return. Isn't it the sequencing (or conflation) of this with other related eschatological events that is the principle controversy within this topic? Alastair Haines (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The rapture is an additional coming of Jesus apart from his final and permanent coming. "proposed" is probalby the right word. Some suggest there could be up to 7 raptures, before Jesus comes. The most common view is a pretribulation Rapture of the gentile church, followed by a post tribulation rapture of jewish Christians, and then the second coming at the end of a millennial kingdom. Osprey9713 (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That is the Dispensationalist view. That is NOT the Historic Premillenialist view.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Historic means, pre-dispensationalism. There was no rapture talk for the first 1800years of the church. Osprey9713 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That is because the historic English term is "Catching away", not rapture. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ingathering possibly is another term. The early church expected christ to return to establish an earthly kingdom. the rapture is a platonic idea of a heavenly existence, or possibly a gnostic idea that the carnal world is bad. The example of rapture in acts 8:39, the same word for rapture is used for philip's getting transported (ἁρπάζω harpazō) which is similar to the way jesus moved around after the resurrection, through doors, etc. (Acts 8:39 ὅτε δὲ ἀνέβησαν ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος πνεῦμα κυρίου ἥρπασεν τὸν Φίλιππον καὶ οὐκ εἶδεν αὐτὸν οὐκέτι ὁ εὐνοῦχος ἐπορεύετο γὰρ τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ χαίρων) Osprey9713 (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(ἁρπάζω harpazō) notice that philip was transported to Azotus, and not to heaven. See Acts 8:38-40 Osprey9713 (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

I think it might be helpful to point out that we all seem to have a consensus of a lot of fundamentals, but not necessarily the right approach for expressing those fundamentals.

1. We agree that the rapture was not generally separated from the Second Coming prior to Darby and the Brethren movement.
2. We agree that the primary rapture passage is 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17.
3. We agree that nearly all Christians throughout history, and the vast majority today, place 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 as part of the Second Coming, and not prior to it.
4. We agree that Amillenialists and Postmillenialists do not generally have a need to call their understanding of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 by the term "rapture."
5. Nevertheless, we do agree that the formulation of the events accompanying the Second Coming are generally the same for Amillenialists, Postmillenialists, and Historic Premillenialists -- in that it contains the same gathering of the saints described in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17.
6. You do not agree that the position of Historic Premillenialists and their terminology (including the use of the term "rapture") is valid.
7. You do not agree that there are exceptions to point number 4.

I'd like to focus on that. F. F. Bruce, in his commentary on 1 Thessalonians (Word Biblical Commentary, volume 45, page 102) writes "this incident in the Parousia is sometimes called the 'Rapture'". I've italicized "in the Parousia" to make the point that while non-Dispensationalists do not always have a need to use the term, they are fully aware of the term and consciously place this event within the Parousia (whether they are Amillenialists, Postmillenialists, or Historic Premillenialists). F. F. Bruce is not a Dispensationalist or a Pretribulationist. Therefore his use of the term rapture serves as further evidence that non-Dispensationalist writers do consciously use the term as part of the Parousia. George Eldon Ladd is a second. Millard Erickson is a third. Robert Gundry is a fourth. J. Barton Payne is a fifth, listing a Posttribulational rapture as part of the Parousia in his Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy (page 600). My list could go on and on, but I've loaned out some of my books on the subject to another Wikipedia editor. There are also famous preachers, such as Charles Haddon Spurgeon who held this view, all the way down to Pat Robertson.

This quote demonstrates that the parousia and the rapture are not the same thing. Those who 'sometimes' refer to it as the rapture are dispentionals. F.F. Bruce was part of the Plymouth Brethren (the same group as darby) too. Osprey9713 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a well stated view. It deliberately uses the word "rapture," and it does so as part of the Parousia in a deliberate non-Dispensational formulation. There are whole articles even on this site regarding Historic premillennialism and Post Tribulation Rapture. Most all commentaries since the arise of dispensationalism mention the rapture, so this source doesn't demonstrate your point. Same for Ladd, and so on. Osprey9713 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Because of these writers, alone (not to mention more recent ones such as Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung), we must use the term in a broader context than Dispensationalists. I know you object to Dispensationalism. I disagree with it as well. But our role on Wikipedia is to report terms and meanings as they are used in notable and reliable sources. These notable and reliable sources require the version of the lede I proposed. As you can see, I approve of all the information you have tried to add, and have placed it in the Dispensationalist section of the article.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

parousia is the greek word used in the NT for the second coming of Jesus. ἁρπάζω harpazō is the word used for twice as basis for rapture that occurs before the parousia. harpazo implies christians will go to heaven before the parousia, and parousia is the second coming of jesus, not the rapture of christians. Different concepts, which is my point.

Before Darby, there was no concept of a rapture apart from the second coming, and there was no concept of christians going to heaven. see NT Wright's resurrection of the son of god. Darby introduced the idea that christians would leave the earth, go to heaven and stay there for part/all of the tribulation, and then would return with christ at the parousia after the tribulation. The rapture is not the parousia, the rapture is before the parousia.

historic christianity believes that christ returns to earth, and there is no rapture of anyone into heaven. jesus is the only one who ascends or descends.

1. dispensationals do believe that this return of christ is the parousia, and that christ does not actually return in 1 thess, that the trumpet is not the final trumpet.

2 refers to the return of christ, but dispensationalists do not believe this is the return of christ but a collection of christians and dispensationalists believe the return of christ is either later, or occurs many times, which christians traditionally have only believed in oen return of christ.

3 agreed

4 views of the millennium are totally different than the rapture. you can believe in no rapture and be any of those three views (except dispensational)

5 yes, the traditional view, see #4

6 rapture doesn't apply to historic premillenium. christ may either gather christians into his earthly kingdom or establish it over the whole earth, neither require a catching up of christians into heaven, but establishing of the davidic throne on earth.

7 rapture implies christians go to heaven, christians do not go to heaven in any other system besides dispessationalism.

many of those authors including ladd have modified views of dispenstaionlism. for instance, ladd is post trib and pre mil

rapture implies christians go to heaven, for some period of time during the tribulation before the parousia/second coming, and then return with christ at the end of parousia. [User:Osprey9713|Osprey9713]] (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And here, at last, you have gotten to the thorn of the issue: does the rapture imply that Christians go to heaven? In the dispensational view, yes. In the other views, no. The rapture passage only says that we will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Historic Premillenialists understand our destination to be Israel. Post- and A- mils believe this is the end of time, and no ultimate destination is implied. As I listed for you, there are many writers who do use the term "rapture" affirmatively and do not give it the limited meaning you do. I've given you names and sources. Please respect the fact that Historic Premillenialists really do exist.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally admitting that the rapture and the second coming are different events.Osprey9713 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If you believe in Historic Premillenialism, you do not also believe in the rapture. The rapture is part of dispensationalism, and is bound up with it's law/grace distinctions, and division of Church/Israel. Rapture is the ending of the church/grace, great parenthesis, and the restoration of israel/law. It's totally different than an ingathering at christs return. Jeremiah 31:8 Osprey9713 (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Now you're just being unresponsive and edit warring. Historic Premillenialism believes in a Post-Tribulational rapture that is part of the Second Coming. They deliberately use the term "rapture" in their writings, and I've listed for you names and books, and given you direct quotes and links to other Wikipedia articles (replete with more sources). Dispensationalists are not the only people who believe we will be gathered together at the return of Christ. Please observe Wikipedia standards here, and stop edit warring against consensus.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to everything. rapture is part of dispensationalism, not part of historic postmilleniumism. I'm sorry that you don't like it. wiki is not the place for original research Osprey9713 (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've given you links to entire articles on the subject, books, authors, and quotes. The only original research going on here is yours. Please stop.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

None of your sources support your position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osprey9713 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter is correct: the concept of the rapture is not limited to dispensationalism. The sources in the doctrinal history section itself show that the use of the term "rapture" preceeded dispensationalism. So the lede is contrary to the article itself. In addition to the sources provided, here is an obvious non-dispensationalist - Oswald Allis - who also holds to the concept of rapture:

"When the Lord comes from heaven He will be accompanied by the angels and the disembodied spirits (the souls) of all the holy dead. While He is in the air, the bodies of the holy dead will be raised and these dead will be ‘clothed upon’ with their resurrected and glorified bodies. Then the living, ‘we that are alive that are left,’ will be ‘gathered together’ (Matt. xxiv.31 ), will be ‘changed’ (1 Cor. xv.52 ) and ‘caught up’ to meet the Lord ‘in the air’ and to come with Him and all His saints to the earth (Acts i.11 ). Whether this coming to the earth will follow the coming into the air immediately or after an interval of time may be regarded as uncertain…. It will be both a coming for and a coming with…this coming with and for the saints into the air will be followed by a coming with the saints to the earth."

With all the obvious sources, there really shouldn't be any question that the term and concept of the "rapture" are referenced outside of dispensational beliefs.Lamorak (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank all of the above for your input. As a dispensationalist, I was unaware of other groups using the term, until now. Now in Wikipedia, articles should reflect usage. That means for example, if a minority of sources do not mention the Rapture, then this does not dominate the article. And if a very small 'fringe' group says that the Rapture is a rescue by extra-terrestrials, then we don't mention it at all.

The majority of websites, books and movies that mention the Rapture, do so from a dispensational viewpoint. This should be reflected in the article. Mention can then be made of the fact that other groups have used the word Rapture in some contexts, along with an explanation of what they understood it to mean. P.S. Please stop the edit wars. The intro should be set back to whatever the most recent stable version was until we gain some sort of consensus. ^rossnixon 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we need to follow WP:DUE. I don't mind if there's a small section, but there's about a million versions of Dispensationalism, we don't need to list everyone.Osprey9713 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The stable version of the lede is the one that reflects the body of the article. And that's all a lede is supposed to be.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice post Ross.

Just looking into Osprey's source. Indeed, Allias' 1945, Prophecy and the Church: An examination of the claim of dispensationalists that the Christian church is a mystery parenthesis which interrupts the fulfilment ... the kingdom prophecies of the Old Testament appears to suggest he looked at dispensationalism from the outside.

If all Osprey is seeking to alert us to is that we might be oversimplifying to connect Rapture and Dispensationalism, I think he has adequately demonstrated a point.

But is there much disagreement here? No-one seems to be trying to insist the Rapture is the classic majority Christian view, and no-one seems to be suggesting it must be classed as sub-Christian in any sense.

Is the main issue more that what gets said in the lead needs to be concise, summarised and simplified. Three perfectly compatible good points are being made: 1. Osprey (and others) seem to want inclusion of a little more detail about what Rapture theologians actually propose, 2. they don't want blanket association with dispensationalism; and 3. Tim (and others) don't want the lead to give the impression that Rapture theology is the consensus Christian position.

I'm probably missing heaps. Hope this helps. Correcting my errors will help further clarification I trust. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ross, your proposed version directly contradicts the existence of Post-tribulationism. ALL views must be presented.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I mostly want to demonstrate that the rapture is not the same thing as the second coming, and that the majority of christians today and over all time have not believed in the rapture, so this article should focus on what the rapture means, and how it is different from the traditional views on the second coming. Dispensational Premillennialism is a new belief that is different from amillenialism, premillenialism and postmillenialism, which this article should be focused on the rapture, and its connection to dispensational premillennialism. I'm not aware of groups that believe in the rapture outside of dispensationalism. It seems that the term rapture is missunderstood, as demonstrated by this article, and if groups outside of dispenstionailsm use that term, it should be clarified in the article how it is used and what it is meant by it. for instance, many people do not believe in a rapture but all groups believe in a second coming of jesus which involve many of the same elements. I don't think this is the place to discuss the different views of millennialism, but that's not too important to me.Osprey9713 (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You cannot possibly be unaware of those other groups, because I've given you names, books, page numbers, quotations, and links to other articles.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is my rewrite. We should use the sources. I think it's fine if we modify the text. Let's propose some rewrites?Osprey9713 (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Rapture is a 'mid' or pretribulation secret coming of Jesus Christ distinct to Dispensationalism, not to be confused with the subsequent Second Coming of Jesus Christ, to collect both the dead and alive members of the Christian Church and relocate them in heaven, to allow the Millennial Kingdom to begin on earth and marks the end of the Great Parenthesis. The Rapture was first proposed in 1827 by John Nelson Darby as a solution to the expectancy that Jesus could return at any moment, and prophecies that would take a long duration.. A second proposed rapture will occur at the end of the tribulation for the Jews who have converted to Christianity during the tribulation.

That is a Dispensationalist-only view. There are non-Dispensationalists who affirmatively use the term "rapture" in a Post-tribulational format. I've given you names, books, page numbers, quotations, and links to other articles to demonstrate this to you. Your version of the lede isn't only wrong, it disagrees with the body of the article itself. You cannot contradict the article in the lede.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see. WP:DUE Osprey9713 (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If Due excluded any view, it would be the Dispensationalist one, not the majority Christian position that the rapture is part of the Second Coming, and not precendent to it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The majority view is that there is no rapture. The majority view is that the rapture is part of dispensationalism and is different than the second coming. The minority view are those random scholars who have a priori views on the rapture that are not represented by any large group of people, and do not need to be represented here because their views are not notable. Osprey9713 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ross, I don't know where you came up with this idea, but you've misrepresented both Dispensationalism and non-Dispensationalism here. You're making each too monolithic. I've shown you non-Dispensationalist writers, books, pages, and quotations that affirmatively use the word "rapture" to represent their Post-Tribulational belief, and even cited those examples of people who reject the term but describe the same events. ALL of these are representative of the use of the word rapture among Christian groups. I've even noted who uses what terms, and why. My edits were NPOV. I don't know where you are coming from, or why you are fighting so hard. But your dispensationalist view doesn't even represent them either. You have them believing the church will be gone for 1007 years, instead of 7. You are misrepresenting both groups, and it's such an unusual misrepresentation that it represents Original Research here, regardless of which screen name you use.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This article should be primarily about the Rapture as defined by Dispensationalism. According to WP:DUE wikipedia's due weight rules. We can have a subsection that describes groups that have believe in events similar to the rapture, and groups that believe in modified views of the rapture within the document. Osprey9713 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Last 'stable' version restored

While discussion continues, I have restored what I think is the last stable version of the intro before SkyWalker and myself started on a very slow 'edit war'. This appears to be George Dodd's version of October 7th, 2008. ^rossnixon 02:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That version contradicts the entire article and the existence of Post-tribulationism. It is not a stable version and cannot be one, without rewriting this entire article and all related ones.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

“ Everyone else on earth will be left wondering where the raptured people have disappeared to. According to this interpretation of prophecy, it takes place when Jesus descends from heaven accompanied by the spirits of the aforementioned deceased. The bodies of these saints are joined with their returning spirits in the First Resurrection. The living participants are transformed into immortal bodies, referred to as the resurrection body, like that of Jesus. ”

I think this is the text Ross restored. I expect all parties (including Ross) consider it less than ideal. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Less than ideal is a very polite way of putting it. It looks more like a joke than an encyclopedia entry.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Less than ideal but closer to the truth. I would prefer if my sources were included in the new paragraph, where skywriter's modification did not have sources. Osprey9713 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources you are talking about were put in the Dispensationalism section of the article where they belonged. They do not belong in the lede. There are non-Dispensationalists who deliberately use the term to describe their belief in a Post-Tribulations rapture, as I have repeatedly cited for you.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for minority opinions. Wikipedia has a WP:DUE policy that must be followed. Please provide a list of notable sources that reflect these view points. You have not listed any verifiable sources, or clear examples. Osprey9713 (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The belief of 85% of all Christians is not a minority opinion. And the list of notable sources I gave you was extensive, verifiable, and many of them had their own Wikipedia articles. Their works are often considered to be standard references, including F. F. Bruce's commentary on 1 Thess.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

>85% of christians do not believe in a rapture. What is your point? Osprey9713 (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have eliminated OR and POV that is not referenced in the lead. Warning: reinserting OR or POV is not nice. If you want it then cite a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadtotruth (talk • contribs) 19:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the elimination of the first paragraph actually leaves the lede standing intact, with all the relevant information in place, but without either interpretive thrust -- either mine or RossOsprey's. I'd be willing to discuss this as a possible compromise. And it does appear to be the only part of the lede not in previous contention (that is... both sides seem to have previously regarded it as stable).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

the word of the lord

I'm not sure this is a scholarly phrase and needs to be modified Osprey9713 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a quote of 1 Thess 4. That's why it's in quotation marks.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1 thess 4:17 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. KJV - this verse does not contain that phrase the word of the lord.Osprey9713 (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Look two verses up.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

the versions that i looked up said a word of the lord and had the word of the lord in the foot notes. Seems that the confusion is that the phrase the word of the lord is a dogmatic way to refer to the bible in general, but a word of the lord may be a private vision, which is more likely. Osprey9713 (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the context of the correct lede demonstrates that this is a possible reference to a teaching of Jesus, as similarly recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 parallels. Dispensationalists regard these as two events, and non-Dispensationalists regard them as one. That's the point of the correct lede. You're trying to pretend that no non-Dispensationalists have an opinion on the matter. They most certainly do. Some use the word rapture and some do not. Some claim belief in the rapture and some do not. I've specified this in the correct lede that you keep changing. Further, I've not deleted your sources, but moved them to the Dispensationalist section.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The word of the lord is an ambiguous statement that doesn't help explain what the rapture is at all Osprey9713 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

etymology

We should include a comparison to acts 8:38, this is used by the assemblies of god to prove that the rapture is a translation. I added it because my edits keep getting deleted by skywriter, please assume good faith:

ἁρπάζω harpazō is used only in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and Acts 8:38. In Acts 8:38, ἁρπάζω harpazō describes the transporting of Philip suddenly from Gaza to Azotus. Jesus Christ also transported through doors and to distant locations after his resurrection.

• 1 Thess 4:17 ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα καὶ οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα
• Acts 8:39 ὅτε δὲ ἀνέβησαν ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος πνεῦμα κυρίου ἥρπασεν τὸν Φίλιππον καὶ οὐκ εἶδεν αὐτὸν οὐκέτι ὁ εὐνοῦχος ἐπορεύετο γὰρ τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ χαίρων

ἁρπάζω harpazō ἁρπάζω is root of strongs G726 and has the following meanings:

1. to seize, carry off by force
2. to seize on, claim for one's self eagerly
3. to snatch out or away

Osprey9713 (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the previous material from the etymology section, since it must have been placed there by mistake, ἁρπάζω rather clearly having no etymological connection to rapture. Could be useful somewhere else of course. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we move it to another section? Discussion of the rapture inevitably goes to a debate over this word, although it is not the root word of rapture... Osprey9713 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Could be useful somewhere else of course." Indeed, the Greek text of the New Testament is always relevant to any theology claimed to be derived from it. It is not always relevant to the derivation of English words used to name such theology, however. "Atonement" is in no way derived from hilasterion. Resurrection is not etymologically connected to anastasis etc. etc. etc. Wherever it belongs, though, untransliterated Greek sentences do not belong right after the lead.

Hmmm, my talk page posts are being moved around and other stuff seems to be going on. Bit crowded atm, lucky I'm in Australia, belated bed-time for me. Cheers all. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Pan-Tribulation

There is no such thing as a pan-tribulation. This is just a joke that it will "all pan out" and is not held by any respectable scholar. This doesn't belong in this article, or any article. please debate in the millennial kingdom article. Osprey9713 (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's a joke, but it is a pervasive one, and therefore notable. I'm seeing that the edit warring is turning into a series of scorched earth moves on all sides. We should consider collecting the deleted material for sourcing and return to the article when and where appropriate.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if this source could be helpful.

Douglas J. Moo, "The case for the post-tribulation rapture position", pages 87–102 in Gleason L. Archer (ed.), Three Views on the rapture, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996).

Alastair Haines (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's one of many.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks by SkyWriter

Just a general warning, skywriter has been making false accusations of anyone who disagrees with his edits on this page to the admins. He has done so to me and to others. If you revert any of his edits, or disagree, expect him to retaliate by reporting you to the socketpuppet page or whatever random admin pages. I've notified the admins but have been unable to get anyone to respond. Osprey9713 (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, OK, conflict. SkyWriter thinks Osprey is wrong, Osprey thinks SkyWriter is wrong. I think coming back to the content issues may spare both parties and overworked admins a fair bit of time and heartache.

If I recall the content issue, Osprey wants some text in the article that SkyWriter thinks doesn't fit with the rest of the article.

The natural question seems to be, is there reliable sourcing for the disputed text? If there is, SkyWriter needs to accomodate it, if there isn't Osprey needs to find some.

What am I missing? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alastair -- I actually don't object to the text and have repeatedly praised it. I even placed it in its proper location (in the Rapture#Dispensationalist section). Osprey, however, wants to duplicate it in the lede in such a way that it negates the existence of non-Dispensational views. This isn't a content dispute but a placement dispute. In the lede, it contradicts a good portion of the article by making the rapture appear to be only held by Dispensationalists. Regardless of its history, it is currently held by both Dispensationalists and non-Dispensationalists.

Had this been the only issue, it would have gone no further. The other issue is the puppet issue. The position that Ross/Osprey has is that no non-Dispensationalist rapture position exists, and he has ignored numerous citations to contradict him. I've given him authors names, book citations, page numbers, direct quotes, and links to other Wikipedia articles to demonstrate that there is such a thing as a Historic Premillenialist. All to no avail. While it is remotely possible for one person to ignore something staring him in the face, for this to occur with two separate individuals simultaneously would be highly improbable.

Regardless, the information he wants in the lede is already in the article, word for word. It belongs in the Dispensationalist section to describe the Dispensationalist POV. It should not be duplicated in the lede because it negates the existence of all other POVs. The lede must address all and be neutral. So, then, there is reliable sourcing. But only for a Dispensationalist POV.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that makes me (and I expect others watching) feel happier about this.

All I'd offer is that if I was a good faith editor being accused of using a sock-puppet I'd feel a bit dim about it.

I hope it helps to note that I, for one, consider Osprey and Ross innocent until proven guilty.

I don't find it hard to believe people may comment here without having the encyclopedic knowledge of Christian doctrine I know you to have, Skywriter. Indeed, I've done so myself.

If there's any fault in anyone, I'd suggest it lies in edits turning over faster than talk page posts.

I just hope the bottom line can be it "all pans out in the end" and no one is "raptured" away from editing. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alastair -- nice to see some mediation from your corner. Hopefully Osprey will be satisfied with his complete text being in the article.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Alastair maybe this article should be raptured :) Osprey9713 (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter please stop the personal attacks and please list your sources. So far none of them have supported your original view of the rapture. The references you've listed are not used by the primary rapture advocates either and do not support your statements. All the material I've added has had reliable sources, from well known references. Osprey9713 (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"maybe this article should be raptured"

LoL, nice bit of humour Osprey. Thanks for lightening the tone. :)

Alastair Haines (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-Dispenstational Rapture

The term rapture is by consensus associated with dispenationalism, and the purpose of the rapture is to allow the restoration of the state of Israel and their former laws. Several people over the church history have speculated about events similar to a rapture before darby but they were not referred to as the rapture. That is an anachronism. Only Dispensationals or people in the dispensational tradition will refer to the second coming as a 'rapture'. If they are non-dispensational, then they have borrowed from dispenstationism. If you go into a reformed church like presbyterians, dutched reformed, anglican or catholic and start talking about the rapture they will laugh. However, it is true that currently many people, including people on this talk page are using rapture in an anachronistic fashion, and are using it to describe the second coming. This is a new way to refer to the second coming that is erroneously used by several churches that have departed from dispensationalism, or non-denominational churches or non-confessional christians in america. Osprey9713 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This has already been addressed elsewhere on this talk page and in the article itself. The term rapture was already used well before Darby.Lamorak (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Osprey -- both George Eldon Ladd and F. F. Bruce are Historic premillenialists who believe in a Post Tribulation Rapture. They are well known scholars in their field and they are not Dispensationalists. It is not anachronistic to use well known modern scholars as representative of their own views. I agree with Lamorak that the term was used before Darby. But even more to the point is that the term is used now, and used proudly, by non-Dispensationalists to describe an event they regard to be "part of the Parousia" (as I've previously quoted from Bruce). You have a great addition to the article, but only in its proper location. Please work with the rest of the editors here and not against them. This isn't some kind of war. If you'll note, Deadtotruth has deleted both your first paragraph and my first paragraph -- and the article was better without either one of them cluttering up the lede. Please let it go. Your information is in the article already, and doesn't need to be moved to the lede.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Osprey, if any F.F. Bruce cite is valid (I haven't had time recently to check any of the references), then I accept SkyWriter's use of it, as Bruce is a reputable source (to me anyway). ^rossnixon 02:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ross -- and for what it's worth, I apologize for thinking you were Osprey.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations to Ross and Osprey for enduring a mistaken suspicion regarding them so well.

Congratulations also to Tim for offering an appropriate apology for his temporary loss of trust in good faith.

Thanks to all who helped by spending time to clear up the uncertainty in quick time. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, folks. As a completely neutral editor stumbling through this article, I have to comment that despite the srtong debate you all have remarkable politeness. I don't have special knowledge of the topic beyond Sunday school, so I'm going to take a stab at it simply from a policy standpoint here. I suggest that as an outside viewer, there appear to be ownership issues here. Everyone clearly has good intentions from what I can tell, and that helps quite a bit. It does seem that SkyWriter (Tim)'s edits are being marginalized somewhat. The argument that his sources aren't good enough does seem to be a bit of promotion of the opposite point of view to the detriment of his. I'd ask that you all take what I'm saying under thoughtful consideration. My advice: slow down the pace and extent of the edits and use the talk page to propose large changes, work them out here before bringing them to the article. Good luck, folks! --Caernarvon (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Caernarvon -- I appreciate your popping in. This actually isn't about sourcing vs. non-sourcing, but rather proper placement of information so as not to have the lede negate part of the article it is supposed to represent. I'm relatively satisfied with the lede as it is, and I did my best to make sure that 100% of the sourced information from Osprey was included in the article -- in its proper location. Hopefully things will be smooth from here.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose my comments were more directed to the long running debate, rather than the present issue. Source, style and point of view have all been issues at one point or another. They seem to happen everywhere, though you all seem to have a decent handle on the situation. --Caernarvon (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

doctrinal history

Increase and Cotton Mather did not believe in a rapture. They were congregationalists and their contemporaries were either Anglican, Catholic or Presbyterian. The doctrinal section is original research and the links provided do not support the edits. Osprey9713 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the source supports the statements. Paul Boyer is a reputable author.Lamorak (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I read this book, and it only references premillennialism opposed to postmillennialism, and that later strengthed beliefs in the rapture, but does not attribute rapture beliefs to Increase or Cotton Mather.Osprey9713 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

problems with Latin-Greek-English addition to etymology

It is too long, it distracts from the flow of the article. Greek is older than Latin. Rapture is not derived from Greek. We would need a source to establish the unlikely hypothesis that the theological term comes from the Vulgate. Rapture is not invented, coined or a neologism: Middle English rapt took a standard morphological suffix -ure to become rapture, and was simply applied in its perfectly literal sense to an interpretation of the New Testament text. The etymology of theological use of this word is simple, it comes from English. No need to complicate what is simple. The theological word is identical in etymology to ordinary usages like:

• I was enraptured by that new song.
• That music sent me into raptures of delight.

People do not argue about the meaning of the word rapture, they argue for or against it being an appropriate interpretation of the sense of the New Testament. The question is not "what are people meaning when they say rapture", it is "is the New Testament describing a rapture, and when". Alastair Haines (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Alastair, I've reverted to your last version of the etymology. It's my understanding, though, that the term "rapture" is derived from the Vulgate. As you noted, that doesn't make it more an invented term than any other theological one. I'm not sure that the etymology in the English is applicable to the theological use. Yes, it is an English word that certainly contains the range of meaning implied in the passage, but that only allows its theological use rather than causes it. The Vulgate term would be more causal to me.

I admit, though, that my appreciation for Tolkien has not led me into proper philological studies. I even thought that Greek had some role in the name "Operation Barbarosa"!!! Hey, made sense to me! But I was quickly corrected by... a software Engineer!SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm being a bit tough regarding the Vulgate. My thinking is that authors writing about the Rapture were Protestants, hence post Reformation and widespread introduction of native language or original language Bibles. Why would people be reading Latin? How many of these theologians even could read Latin?

On the other hand, the words rapt and rapture were already well known words in English, and used to describe Enoch, Elijah and Paul of Tarsus.

Isn't it circular to observe that theological use of the English word rapture derives from Latin, then go to the Vulgate and find that it contains the Latin original of the word in passages related to the doctrine?

Suppose an English word with theological usage derives from Gothic—like "God" (!) for instance—can we argue that modern theological usage is derived from the Gothic Bible? In that case, certainly not, of course: it comes into theology via English from the Gothic. English, not theology, borrowed the word. Mutatis mutandis I need coroborative evidence before accepting that raptus in the Vulgate influenced the (18th and) 19th century eschatological writers. That it should influence Calvin, Luther or Thomas Cranmer would not surprise me, but Americans 300 years later! Yes, that does surprise me. Possible? Yes. Plausible? Hmmm, yes. But reliable? Gimme source please.

Is it a big deal if rapture comes into theology via English from the Latin?

Barbarossa had not only a red beard, but was indeed a barbarian, unlike software engineers. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to find the source that said the Vulgate influenced the term 'rapture.' However Protestant ministers in the 1600s plus were well educated in Latin. They also consulted a variety of different sources, including the early church fathers. The American Puritans themselves were highly literate and the ministers well-educated (and included Latin). The educational system produced Jonathan Edwards, so it wasn't backwoods or barbaric. End-time beliefs flourished in America more than England because many saw America as part of the eschatological picture. Lamorak (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And yes, I acknowledge both that classical scholarship among theologians generally, and American ones in particular, has very often been of a standard I can only admire at a distance. American interest in eschatology would be well explained by the historical timing of its European settlement. A very interesting thought I'd like to read more about at some point. I do hope you can find one (or even many) sources that prove my scepticism to be misplaced. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Alastair, I think on this one we're both at a disadvantage. I've read most of the rapture books out there and then gave them away. Although I'm very sympathetic to your point, you'll have a problem with sources, because they will predominantly lean toward the "we got it from the Latin" idea. It's not an important point for me, or I'd locate some of the usual rapture suspects to source that. That said, the fact that most of the books say so doesn't make it so. It could just be a case of authors repeating what they saw in other authors, establishing nothing. So, I like your point enough to not be the one to source it down -- but if someone chooses to, they'll be able to (unfortunately).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I trust you, Tim. I expect a source (or more) will eventually be found. That certainly justifies placing the Latin derivation material higher than the English language usage quotes. I think the fact that rapt was used in English with the same sense as modern theological use 500 years ago is still a useful datum for a reader though: the theologs appear to have taken a prompt from the Vulgate text steering their choice of English lexical selection. I'll modify the text so the sense of the cognate word rape is not so prominent, but that's about all I can contribute on this for the forseeable future. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

theological usage

Saving notes here. To be continued.

• 1738: Philip Doddridge, Commentary on the New Testament [can't find online text, maybe here?]
• 1748: "xxx rapture xxx" — John Gill, Commentary on the New Testament, [?=An exposition of the New Testament, 2 vols, (Collingridge, 1852–1853). at MTC Library] (Gill clearly comfortable with Latin)
• 1788: "xxx rapture xxx" — Morgan Edwards, X
• 1763: "xxx rapture xxx" — James Macknight, X
• 1792: "xxx rapture xxx" — Thomas Scott, X

Alastair Haines (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)