L
losh14
Guest
We’re starting to degenerate here into name-calling, so let’s get back to topic, please, and we’re discussing the doctrine popularly known as the Rapture. It would probably help to define what we are arguing for or against, specifically.
I see two Rapture arguments put forward in this thread:
(1) Pointed out (though not agreed to) by ellammcg that consists of 1 Th 4:13-18, 2 Th 2:8, Rev 20:4-6
(2) From BOMC that seems to relate to eschatology more generally:
Addressing BOMC: thank you for your contributions here.
Regarding your questions, God does punish wicked and save the righteous. Does this uniquely point to a specific eschatology to the exclusion of others, and what is that eschatology (end-times scenario)? In other words, for Daniel 12, as a whole, to be fulfilled, does the Lord have to appear in secret to remove all believers before everyone else suffers under God’s wrath? Or would it also be fulfilled if all suffered through a time of wrath with the rewards and punishments coming at a Judgment that occurs after the time of tribulation?
The prophecy in Daniel refers to the sealing of words of the scroll, but do we have indication as to which words were meant?
Also, you refer to straw men - arguments that attack a shadow of something real. Let me clarify the point about “no one has discussed this until the 19th century.” When you call it a ‘straw man’ I take it that you mean that evidence of ancient teaching does not justify the acceptance of doctrine, nor does newness of doctrine constitute a challenge to its authority. I refute by insisting that evidence of a doctrine being espoused by the Apostles or successors of the Apostles are sufficient to demonstrate the doctrine’s authenticity.
In the Catholic Church there is a long record of the teachings of its leadership, preserved in epistles, sermons and exegetical commentaries. Those written by the Apostles comprise the New Testament. Those written by their successors, no matter how worthwhile in explaining the faith, were excluded when the Canon of Scripture was compiled as the Bible because only writings attributable to Apostles were considered admissible. However, these extra-biblical writings provide valuable insight into the teachings that were passed down by the Apostles.
The earliest writings by Christian leadership on Daniel are by Hippolytus (ca 230 a.d.) who took Daniel’s prophecies to regard the Persian wars, and by Jerome (d. 420 a.d.) who took them to be eschatological but maintained that the Second Coming and Judgment would take place after the tribulation. This interpretation of Daniel, and the related eschatology that Christians would not be spared from the tribulation, were echoed in other commentaries, Catholic and otherwise, until we get to American Protestantism in the 18th century. Certainly Darby and perhaps even the Puritans were the first to take passages noted above in terms of “Jesus will come for us and rescue us before the tribulation starts”. Because we see in these groups a rejection of the earliest teachings (ie, the Eucharist, with John 6 interpreted as such by Clement I of Rome in the late 1st century a.d.) and the introduction of a novel teaching (a return of Christ prior to the tribulation), we consider such novelity to be a mitigation of a teaching’s authority.
The second ‘straw man’ you indicate is a more straight-forward one. The Rapture as espoused by modern evangelicals is a secret event. Thigpen, in “The Rapture Trap” makes pains to point out that all eschatological prophecies in Scripture are very public - the blowing of trumpets, the falling of stars, cataclysmic events on earth. There should be nothing secret about Jesus’ Second Coming. Of course, if this is not the Rapture that you espouse, then this would be a straw man argument.
Carry on.
I see two Rapture arguments put forward in this thread:
(1) Pointed out (though not agreed to) by ellammcg that consists of 1 Th 4:13-18, 2 Th 2:8, Rev 20:4-6
(2) From BOMC that seems to relate to eschatology more generally:
- God punishes the wicked
- God saves the righteous
- It fulfills the prophecy in Daniel 12:4, 9
Addressing BOMC: thank you for your contributions here.
Regarding your questions, God does punish wicked and save the righteous. Does this uniquely point to a specific eschatology to the exclusion of others, and what is that eschatology (end-times scenario)? In other words, for Daniel 12, as a whole, to be fulfilled, does the Lord have to appear in secret to remove all believers before everyone else suffers under God’s wrath? Or would it also be fulfilled if all suffered through a time of wrath with the rewards and punishments coming at a Judgment that occurs after the time of tribulation?
The prophecy in Daniel refers to the sealing of words of the scroll, but do we have indication as to which words were meant?
Also, you refer to straw men - arguments that attack a shadow of something real. Let me clarify the point about “no one has discussed this until the 19th century.” When you call it a ‘straw man’ I take it that you mean that evidence of ancient teaching does not justify the acceptance of doctrine, nor does newness of doctrine constitute a challenge to its authority. I refute by insisting that evidence of a doctrine being espoused by the Apostles or successors of the Apostles are sufficient to demonstrate the doctrine’s authenticity.
In the Catholic Church there is a long record of the teachings of its leadership, preserved in epistles, sermons and exegetical commentaries. Those written by the Apostles comprise the New Testament. Those written by their successors, no matter how worthwhile in explaining the faith, were excluded when the Canon of Scripture was compiled as the Bible because only writings attributable to Apostles were considered admissible. However, these extra-biblical writings provide valuable insight into the teachings that were passed down by the Apostles.
The earliest writings by Christian leadership on Daniel are by Hippolytus (ca 230 a.d.) who took Daniel’s prophecies to regard the Persian wars, and by Jerome (d. 420 a.d.) who took them to be eschatological but maintained that the Second Coming and Judgment would take place after the tribulation. This interpretation of Daniel, and the related eschatology that Christians would not be spared from the tribulation, were echoed in other commentaries, Catholic and otherwise, until we get to American Protestantism in the 18th century. Certainly Darby and perhaps even the Puritans were the first to take passages noted above in terms of “Jesus will come for us and rescue us before the tribulation starts”. Because we see in these groups a rejection of the earliest teachings (ie, the Eucharist, with John 6 interpreted as such by Clement I of Rome in the late 1st century a.d.) and the introduction of a novel teaching (a return of Christ prior to the tribulation), we consider such novelity to be a mitigation of a teaching’s authority.
The second ‘straw man’ you indicate is a more straight-forward one. The Rapture as espoused by modern evangelicals is a secret event. Thigpen, in “The Rapture Trap” makes pains to point out that all eschatological prophecies in Scripture are very public - the blowing of trumpets, the falling of stars, cataclysmic events on earth. There should be nothing secret about Jesus’ Second Coming. Of course, if this is not the Rapture that you espouse, then this would be a straw man argument.
Carry on.
