P
pnewton
Guest
Lot wasn’t mentioned in the passage. In the one I quoted, it says, “and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away.” I do not see what is hard to follow who “them” was.
Do most Protestants know that the rapture was made in the 18th century?
- Status
M
mcq72
Guest
Correct, that they knew nothing, but i read the Greek word used for " left" is send forth/ away and “taken” is received.
Noah was “received”/ taken into the safety of the Ark
Lot was “received”/ taken into safety of the angels.
People the Ark left behind were taken “sent away” as were Sodom…one by water one by fire
Lot i think is in Luke 17 where both Noah and Lot are used as examples.
So if Greek is right as I read and posted here, makes sense…the saints are taken to safety and others are left to destruction.
Also makes sense of apostles question “where” to be applied to those left (sent away). They knew saints were headed for His kingdom coming being led by angels, so the curiosity is what would happen to the “Romans” not led by angels, but left to destroying angels
So indeed saints are transported, the wicked stay still but yet taken away by physical death, only to await the soon coming second death, their bodies given to vultures…their souls gathered awaiting resurection and final" burning" as the tares.
Last edited:
M
mtolympus
Guest
It seems to me that when Christ returns and the elect are caught up to meet Him, that the elect will greet Christ and then come back to earth, since Christ will reign on earth at His second coming.
M
mcq72
Guest
Absolutely.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
This will be at the very end when there is a new heaven and a new Earth.It seems to me that when Christ returns and the elect are caught up to meet Him, that the elect will greet Christ and then come back to earth, since Christ will reign on earth at His second coming.
mcq72:
The rapture of Jesus coming and some being taken away and some left to bear God’s wrath with all the end time tribulation and then Jesus coming again is not Biblical.
Last edited:
S
Sirach2
Guest
Very true. For those following along in this thread, here’s a good article.
- Rapture doctrine is one of the most recent “new doctrines” in the history of the Church. The only doctrine more recent is the invention of the sinner’s prayer for salvation by Billy Sunday in 1930, which was made popular by Billy Graham in 1935.
- The fact that John Nelson Darby invented the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine around 1830 AD is unquestionably true. All attempts to find evidence of this wild doctrine before 1830 have failed, with a single exception: Morgan Edwards wrote a short essay as a college paper for Bristol Baptist College in Bristol England in 1744 where he confused the second coming with the first resurrection of Revelation 20 and described a “pre-tribulation” rapture. However Edwards ideas, which he admitted were brand new and never before taught, had no influence in the modern population of the false doctrine. That prize to goes to Darby.
http://www.bible.ca/rapture-origin-john-nelson-darby-1830ad.htm
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Interesting. Another personal misinterpretation of Scripture.
Also part of the reason the rapture theology got so much promotion recently is due to the Left Behind books and movies written by Timothy LaHaye. I think a lot of people do not realize that he believed that the rapture was going to be happening soon and had predicted that those who had been alive from 1914 on would see the rapture. His purpose for the books was to guide those left behind after the rapture.
Also part of the reason the rapture theology got so much promotion recently is due to the Left Behind books and movies written by Timothy LaHaye. I think a lot of people do not realize that he believed that the rapture was going to be happening soon and had predicted that those who had been alive from 1914 on would see the rapture. His purpose for the books was to guide those left behind after the rapture.
Last edited:
M
mtolympus
Guest
Yes, we are told this will be, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days” Matt. 24:29-31
T
The_Old_Maid
Guest
Yes and no. Tim LaHaye was not a 1914-believer. (That’s the Adventist wing of Rapture believers.)
LaHaye was a 1948-believer. They interpret the Parable of the Budding Fig Tree as a “prophetic super-sign” of the End Times. So when national Israel was re-established in 1948, they believed that a Rapture would take place before a natural generation had passed away through natural death.
(Some of these updated their teachings to claim that 1967 was the actual fig. That was the year that national Israel captured Jerusalem. As people started dying of old age, they needed to move their last “generation.” )
I’m still seeing some posters confusing the Rapture (capitalized) with the harpagethsometha-and-apantesis on Judgment Day.
If you believe in that the Four Final Things apply to all souls, you believe in h-and-a.
But if you believe in the Rapture (capitalized), then you believe that you will bypass three of the Four Final Things and go to Heaven, go directly to Heaven, and everyone else will not pass Go or collect 200 dollars. They’re getting judged. For the lost, more than once!
In the Left Behind series, the Rapture happens 7 years before “The Judgment of Sheep and Goats,” which judges anyone who bodily lived through the Great Tribulation.
This same one-and-only Rapture also happens to have happened 1007 years before the Great White Throne Judgment, which judges all non-raptured persons living and dead.
Anyone who was Raptured skips those Judgments and simply watches.
Big difference. Big, big difference.
But you’re correct that the Left Behind series was intended to guide/warn people who might be left behind. Some critics have been less than charitable in their observations that the books made a lot of money that no Raptured person could take to Heaven with them.
There is, however, a letter from the authors on the last pages of the last book. They admit that they do believe this is approximately what will happen. They add that many fans have written to thank them, saying, “your books changed my life.” They conclude, “there is no greater joy for a writer” than to hear this.
LaHaye was a 1948-believer. They interpret the Parable of the Budding Fig Tree as a “prophetic super-sign” of the End Times. So when national Israel was re-established in 1948, they believed that a Rapture would take place before a natural generation had passed away through natural death.
(Some of these updated their teachings to claim that 1967 was the actual fig. That was the year that national Israel captured Jerusalem. As people started dying of old age, they needed to move their last “generation.” )
I’m still seeing some posters confusing the Rapture (capitalized) with the harpagethsometha-and-apantesis on Judgment Day.
If you believe in that the Four Final Things apply to all souls, you believe in h-and-a.
But if you believe in the Rapture (capitalized), then you believe that you will bypass three of the Four Final Things and go to Heaven, go directly to Heaven, and everyone else will not pass Go or collect 200 dollars. They’re getting judged. For the lost, more than once!
In the Left Behind series, the Rapture happens 7 years before “The Judgment of Sheep and Goats,” which judges anyone who bodily lived through the Great Tribulation.
This same one-and-only Rapture also happens to have happened 1007 years before the Great White Throne Judgment, which judges all non-raptured persons living and dead.
Anyone who was Raptured skips those Judgments and simply watches.
Big difference. Big, big difference.
But you’re correct that the Left Behind series was intended to guide/warn people who might be left behind. Some critics have been less than charitable in their observations that the books made a lot of money that no Raptured person could take to Heaven with them.
There is, however, a letter from the authors on the last pages of the last book. They admit that they do believe this is approximately what will happen. They add that many fans have written to thank them, saying, “your books changed my life.” They conclude, “there is no greater joy for a writer” than to hear this.
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Yes, but apparently in his first book that did not do very well, The Beginning of the End he predicted that people who had been alive since 1914 would experience the Rapture. He was predicting that the rapture would come sometime within the last century.
I’m just saying it’s not wise to follow those who predict when the end will come. I have in the past and feel foolish about it now.
Yes, there are many different theologies when it comes to the rapture, though none are biblical except what the Church teaches and that is that we will be with the Lord at the very end when He returns.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
Four final things? I thought there were three:
- gospel must be preached to all nations
- Jews must make final decision
- the great tribulation of the church.
T
Tommy999
Guest
I believe the Rapture teaching as put forth by Darby and his followers is erroneous because it is unbiblical and a misrepresentation of scripture, as Catholics like @MagdalenaRita have already pointed out. However, the Rapture should not be discounted solely based on when the teaching became widely known to the public – @1830.
If the main basis for discrediting a belief is the date it became an official teaching, then the Catholic dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption of Mary (1950) would be equally suspect because they were made official Church dogma even later than the Rapture. I don’t think that many faithful Catholics would dispute the veracity of those Catholic dogmas even though they didn’t become official until more recent times.
Disclaimer: Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
Apples to oranges comparison. The Assumption has been universally believed since the 1st century. The believe in the immaculate conception also has a long, long history. Neither were doctrines that originated recently. The Rapture is a belief that originated in the last 200 years.
Your logic is flawed. Certainly the fact that it did not exist as a belief by anyone until recently is one reason it should be discredited among Christians.
T
The_Old_Maid
Guest
T
Tommy999
Guest
Please help me understand where my logic is flawed. To a Non-Catholic on the outside looking in, the dates of 1854 and 1950 look like the official dates for those beliefs. Perhaps people believed those things previously, but apparently it wasn’t official teaching or else they wouldn’t have had to make it official later on.
I’ve heard the Catholic argument before that dogmas aren’t made official until they are challenged, like with the Trinity by Arianism in early times. In that case, what was the big heresy or challenge to Catholic teaching on Mary in 1854 and 1950 that threatened those doctrines to the point the they had to become official dogmas at those points in history? It couldn’t have been Protestantism, because Protestants have existed since at least 1517 and they would’ve been challenging those beliefs much sooner than 1854 and 1950.
Since my logic is flawed (in your view), please enlighten me. Otherwise, it just looks like you are using revisionist history to try to justify the lateness of the creation of those dogmas on the Virgin Mary.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
Very simple, the dates the two dogmas were defined did not reflect when origin of the beliefs (off by almost 2 millennia). The early 19th century is the origin of the idea of the Rapture. You are comparing apples to oranges.
M
Minks
Guest
Do you—or, does anyone—know when and who coined the terms “Four Last Things” and “harpagethsometha and apantesis”?
I ask because I don’t recall having heard those terms, say, 60 years ago, and because most terms Catholics use are more accurately descriptive. If an individual’s soul winds up in hell, then his last three things were death, judgment, and eternal hell. If it winds up in heaven, then his last three things were death, judgment, and eternal heaven—-or have I missed that a soul in heaven first goes to hell, thereby making “Four Last Things” accurate, and “eternal” inaccurate?
In other words, “Three Last Things” (meaning death, judgment, and destination of either hell or heaven) makes sense; “Four Last Things” doesn’t.
I ask because I don’t recall having heard those terms, say, 60 years ago, and because most terms Catholics use are more accurately descriptive. If an individual’s soul winds up in hell, then his last three things were death, judgment, and eternal hell. If it winds up in heaven, then his last three things were death, judgment, and eternal heaven—-or have I missed that a soul in heaven first goes to hell, thereby making “Four Last Things” accurate, and “eternal” inaccurate?
In other words, “Three Last Things” (meaning death, judgment, and destination of either hell or heaven) makes sense; “Four Last Things” doesn’t.
T
The_Old_Maid
Guest
Actually, I never heard the specific expression “Four last things” until CAF. I’d believed in those things, just had never heard it expressed in those terms. (Probably no more than you would have heard of salvation described as a “transaction.”)
According to the L.B. critics and reviewers I started with way-back-when, harpagethsometha and apantesis are the original Greek. You’d be scrolling down to:
According to the L.B. critics and reviewers I started with way-back-when, harpagethsometha and apantesis are the original Greek. You’d be scrolling down to:
Translating the words of 1 Thess. 4:13-17
M
Minks
Guest
@The_Old_Maid
Thank you! I’ve done a lot of reading over my lifetime, but didn’t recall ever even having seen those words—harpagethsometha and apantesis—in print. At the very least, I should have realized they were Greek words, though. Duh. Somehow, my brain was stuck on academics in some college, stymied by the “publish or perish” mantra, inventing the term, especially since “Four Last Things” doesn’t sound right to me. Can anyone tell me the origin of “Four Last Things”?
Thank you! I’ve done a lot of reading over my lifetime, but didn’t recall ever even having seen those words—harpagethsometha and apantesis—in print. At the very least, I should have realized they were Greek words, though. Duh. Somehow, my brain was stuck on academics in some college, stymied by the “publish or perish” mantra, inventing the term, especially since “Four Last Things” doesn’t sound right to me. Can anyone tell me the origin of “Four Last Things”?
N
nearlycatholic
Guest
Seriously, most Protestants I know (and I was one for 50+ years) act as if the Bible came out about the same time as whatever sect they belong to appeared and interpret it against Fox news, CNN headlines, or NYTimes!
- Status