If the Rapture actually happened, what would you do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lokabrenna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I’d be completely and utterly stuffed then…

I’d likely run to the masjid, make wudu and pray du’aa for God to show His mercy towards me (and everyone else for that matter).
 
Gailgirl,

Scott Hahn says the day of the Lord has come and passed when I believe Jerusalem was destroyed…the temple destroyed…that is as I recall Scott Hahn’s suggestion of the day of the Lord as recorded in Josephus.
I’ve heard that theory.

It begs a FEW questions, though.

Who was the Beast? Who was Gog and Magog? When/where/how were they punished/destroyed?

Perhaps most pertinent to the Church, when/where/how was the Church (the lady of Rev. Ch. 12) rescued from the dragon and taken into the wilderness?
 
Tim: The ‘catching away of believers’ is very much a biblical doctrine. 1 Thess 4:13-18 tells of this event occurring when the Day of the Lord occurs. Paul clarifies his remarks in 2 Thess 2. Why be cautious about an event that Holy Scripture say will occur? Granted, because it is a future event, one cannot be dogmatic about when/what the Day of the Lord entails, but some views are more credible than others.
The idea of the “Catching away of believers” is not a proper understanding of what Paul was referring to as he wrote to people living in the city of Thessalonica almost two thousand years ago.

We have to always remember that the authors of scripture were writing to specific audiences, and the words and phrases they used had specific meaning to those audiences. We don’t always understand the context because we don’t live in their times and in their culture. When we interperet any scripture, the first thing we have to do is to understand the meaning of the words as the author intended it and as his audience would have understood it.

Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord. (1 thessalonians 4:16)

This was a reference to the practice of a population “going out to meet” a visiting dignitary or member of the royal court who was coming to visit their city. They would leave the relative safety of the city and “go out to meet” the visiting party to escort them back to the city as honored guests. One always “Went out to meet” a beloved relative who was coming to visit, or an honored guest. Often the visitor would send a messenger ahead to announce that he was soon to arive, to give his host an opportunity to “Come out to meet” him. To not do so was a sign of disrespect. It was also a phrase which meant that two enemies were to do battle.

The phrase “out to meet” appears twenty nine times in the Bible.

*After his [Abraham’s] return from the defeat of Ched-or-lao’mer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). (Genesis 14:17)

Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and did obeisance and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare, and went into the tent. (Exodus 18:7)

Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. (Judges 11:34)

And Asa went out to meet him, and they drew up their lines of battle in the valley of Zeph’athah at Mare’shah. (2 Chronicles 14:10)

And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their neighborhood. (Matthew 8:34)

So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!” (John 12:13)*

That’s how the audience to whom Paul was writing would have understood his words, in the context of the very common practice of “Going out to meet” en enemy in battle or, as was the case with Jesus’ trimphant entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, to escort him back to the city as an honored guest - the King of Israel!

Remember that Paul was a great scholor of the Hebrew Scriptures. He drew heavily on the Hebrew Scriptures as he wrote to the Christians in his letters, and he was making direct reference to the practice of “Going out to meet” a king and escorting him back to the city.

The city they would escort Jesus to was the “Heavenly Jerusalem” or the “New Jerusalem.”

No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering. (Hebrews 12:22)

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The former heaven and the former earth had passed away and the sea was no more. I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. (Revelation 21:1-2)


Jewish belief at the time of Jesus was that when the Messiah came, he would physically transform the earth. The earth would be physically changed, Heaven would exist on earth and God would dwell with man. The Heavenly Jerusalem, the new Heaven and new earth is where those who go out to meet Jesus would have escorted their King.

The one who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” (Revelation 21:5)

It’s not about literally flying up to Heaven with Jesus for 1000 years. It’s about “Going out to meet” our King who is returning the same way he came, and escorting him back to a creation which will be radically transformed at the end of time - a new creation where we will get our glorified bodies and where God will dwell with man.

I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people and God himself will always be with them. (Revelation 21:3)

The “Catching up” of believers is simply not a correct undersanding of scripture based the intended meaning of the authors and how their audience would have understood it. If you told the people in Thessalonica that Paul was talking about them literally flying up to meet Jesus, that there would be a catching up of all believers into the sky, they would have looked at you like you had three heads!

-Tim-
 
I’ve heard that theory.

It begs a FEW questions, though.

Who was the Beast? Who was Gog and Magog? When/where/how were they punished/destroyed?

Perhaps most pertinent to the Church, when/where/how was the Church (the lady of Rev. Ch. 12) rescued from the dragon and taken into the wilderness?
The lady of Revelation 12 is Mary.

Mary wears a crown and has a male child who rules nations. This is consistent with the practice of a king appointing his mother to the position of queen. All the queen-mother’s of the Old Testament are listed - 29 of them - mostly in the 1 and 2 Chronicals. Bathsheba was a Queen-Mother - the Mother of King Solomon. Solomon brought a throne for Bathsheba. Nobody but kings and queens sat on thrones. Nobody but kings and queens wore crowns. The woman in Revelation 12 wears a crown because she is a queen. The is the Queen-Mother of Jesus the King.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt for the same amount of time that the Queen and her Son in Revelation 12 spend in the wilderness, and they returned after Herod’s death.

The lady in Revelation 12 is the Church, because Mary is a type of the Church, but the literal meaning of the scripture is a woman with a crown, who gives birth to a son who rules nations and is caught up to God. That’s Jesus the King and his Queen-Mother Mary.

-Tim-
 
The lady of Revelation 12 is Mary.

Mary wears a crown and has a male child who rules nations. This is consistent with the practice of a king appointing his mother to the position of queen. All the queen-mother’s of the Old Testament are listed - 29 of them - mostly in the 1 and 2 Chronicals. Bathsheba was a Queen-Mother - the Mother of King Solomon. Solomon brought a throne for Bathsheba. Nobody but kings and queens sat on thrones. Nobody but kings and queens wore crowns. The woman in Revelation 12 wears a crown because she is a queen. The is the Queen-Mother of Jesus the King.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt for the same amount of time that the Queen and her Son in Revelation 12 spend in the wilderness, and they returned after Herod’s death.

The lady in Revelation 12 is the Church, because Mary is a type of the Church, but the literal meaning of the scripture is a woman with a crown, who gives birth to a son who rules nations and is caught up to God. That’s Jesus the King and his Queen-Mother Mary.

-Tim-
I’ve heard this interpretation before. But the discontinuity between verses 6 and 7 goes against it. The war in heaven (v. 7), if we take it literally, was an event that happened long before the flight of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph to Egypt—before even Adam and Eve and the whole story of Eden.

Why then would it occur AFTER the flight to the wilderness of the Holy Family? Such a narrative would have no sequential logic. The much more logical interpretation is that the “war in heaven” is a metaphor for the struggle within the Church for its soul—in our future.

The child is a future pope; the use of the future tense in the Vulgate translation obviates any interpretation of this referring to a past event.

In His past appearance, Christ did not “rule with a rod of iron.” That is a symbol of judgment. His past appearance on earth was to save, not to judge. Judgment lies in the future, not the past.
 
I am a dinner too. Let’s hope my plate is clear enough for the lord when the time comes for a face to face.
 
Spend a lot of time praying, fasting, and now that my relationship with God would be strengthened, I’d be ready to finish converting to Orthodoxy. After that, live more or less like a monk (as much as I can, anyway). Go to church, read the Bible, pray, fast, help others in whatever way I can.
 
Look down from heaven at the democrats…
As far as this thread is concerned, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

And for the record, I don’t believe people go to hell for how they voted. I think your assertion is so much horse hockey.
 
I’ve heard that theory.

It begs a FEW questions, though.

Who was the Beast? Who was Gog and Magog? When/where/how were they punished/destroyed?

Perhaps most pertinent to the Church, when/where/how was the Church (the lady of Rev. Ch. 12) rescued from the dragon and taken into the wilderness?
Col,

Now you are mixing Thessolonians with Revalation…
 
I think a lot of people are missing the point of the OP.

He said, for the sake of argument, assume that the rapture occurred, and Catholics stayed behind.

The above would assume that Catholicism is not a Christian religion, and that Evangelicalism is theologically correct (and apparently, the more fundamentalist branch).

Somehow I’m unconvinced that given the above, people would continue being Catholic and pretend nothing happened, as some of the responses seem to suggest.
I guess what he wants to hear is that all the left-behind Catholics would all repent of having been Catholic and resist taking the mark of the Beast and brace themselves to be thrown to the lions or whatever that century’s equivalent was.
 
I guess what he wants to hear is that all the left-behind Catholics would all repent of having been Catholic and resist taking the mark of the Beast and brace themselves to be thrown to the lions or whatever that century’s equivalent was.
Col,

I believe that the most cogent statement in this whole thread was made by Izdaari in post #98…You may have heard the Evangelicals in their attempt to include others as “fellow believers” say “some Catholics are Christian”…when considering this inclusive language Izdaari says this…
But I expect if that happened, at least some Catholics and Orthodox would go, because they are Christians, and at least some would be “right” with God. I have never heard that believing specifically in the pre-trib rapture was a requirement for being chosen to participate in it.
There are some Christians everywhere and some may be gone meaning that if left behind, we will all have to get hold of the Left Behind series to figure out what to do…👍
 
Col,

Now you are mixing Thessolonians with Revalation…
It was said in response to what you said about Scott Hahn, the day of the Lord, and Josephus. Just saying, while the end of Jerusalem could well be a type of the future apocalypse, it was not THE apocalypse.
 
I’ve heard this interpretation before. But the discontinuity between verses 6 and 7 goes against it. The war in heaven (v. 7), if we take it literally, was an event that happened long before the flight of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph to Egypt—before even Adam and Eve and the whole story of Eden.

Why then would it occur AFTER the flight to the wilderness of the Holy Family? Such a narrative would have no sequential logic. The much more logical interpretation is that the “war in heaven” is a metaphor for the struggle within the Church for its soul—in our future.

The child is a future pope; the use of the future tense in the Vulgate translation obviates any interpretation of this referring to a past event.

In His past appearance, Christ did not “rule with a rod of iron.” That is a symbol of judgment. His past appearance on earth was to save, not to judge. Judgment lies in the future, not the past.
It is important not to read apocalyptic or prophetic writings as a modern reader in the western world reads things, in a linear fashion where everything is strictly chronological and literal. Revelation speaks about future events, but also draws on the past to show how Christ and his Holy Church are the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Revelation draws heavily from the writings of the prophets, especially Jerimiah, Daniel, Ezekiel and Isaiah.

but with righteousness he shall judge the poor,
and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth
,
and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.
(Isaiah 11:4)


The rod of iron is the word of God, the words of Christ. The rod of iron are the unchanging teachings of the Church - they can never be bent into a different teching. Christ is ruling with a rod of iron today through the unbendable and unchaning teachings of the Church. People who die now, today, are judged according to how they conformed to Christ’s commands as communicated to us through his mouthpiece, the Church. There is judgement for all of us at the moment of our death.

I don’t know anything about the vulgate, but I know that we can’t read revelation as if it is a series of literal events in chronological order. Some of it might be, but we can’t read it that way.

-Tim-
 
It is important not to read apocalyptic or prophetic writings as a modern reader in the western world reads things, in a linear fashion where everything is strictly chronological and literal.

I don’t know anything about the vulgate, but I know that we can’t read revelation as if it is a series of literal events in chronological order. Some of it might be, but we can’t read it that way. -Tim-
I’d say that’s debatable, Timothy. The beginning of the book of Revelation is in John’s time, when he speaks to the churches of Asia Minor, a group of churches that exhibit the whole gamut of basic problems churches have had from that day to this.

The book ends with the final judgment and the establishment of the new Jerusalem on earth. Clearly, that is at the end of time.

With these two chronological points standing like book ends in this writing of John’s, it’s hard NOT to draw the conclusion that the in-between part speaks to the chronologically in-between part of history.

So, I lean toward the historicist interpretation. Of course, I’m not a biblical scholar or a great savant, so what do I know?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top