Rapture - The End Times Error that Leaves the Bible Behind

[JohnPaul0]

philipmarus:

Maggie, My Mother follows Dr. McGee. Dr.Mcgee comes from The University of Dallas which is a hub for dispensationalism in America…

Small point to set the record straight: you must be talking about Dallas Theological Seminary, which its attendees commonly call “Dallas Seminary.” It is indeed a hub of dispensationalism. I’m sad to report that it’s housed in a former Catholic seminary.

The University of Dallas is a good Catholic university.

 

[MaggieOH]

philipmarus:

Maggie, My Mother follows Dr. McGee. Dr.Mcgee comes from The University of Dallas which is a hub for dispensationalism in America. From what I gather, He believes that :

1. The Antichrist will appear and there will be Great Apostasy
2. The “Church” will be raptured away
3. The Tribulation will occur and during this period the Jews will
   rebuild the Temple to commence resacrificing animals
4. At the end of tribulation, Chirst will return in glory with his saints to commence the Great white throne Judgment
5. Somehow at the end, the Jews will accept Christ but yet will be using the temple to offer animal sacrifices.

• This guy believes that there will be a literal 1000 year reign on Earth. This brand of dispensation from my conversations with my mother is little bit cleverer than the typical “Left Behind” variety to refute. For example, consider: Mathew 24:37-44 which talks about the coming of Son of Man compared to the days of Noah where one will be taken, one will be left. Some Catholic apologists use this to refute the rapture since those left behind were the ones in the Noah’s ark. However, this passage according to Dr. Mcgee does not refer to rapture. Dr. Mcgee uses 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 about the people of the church being “caught up”. This brand of thought also strongly emphasizes “literal interpretation”. Dr Mcgee founded an organization called Thru the Bible Radio and publishes a version of KJV bible. In the preface, he advises the Bible reader to follow the rule of interpretation of “interpret the Bible literally unless its impossible to do otherwise”. I once heard a sermon by Mcgee on Sunday while I was driving home from Mass while flipping channels on radio. In the sermon, Dr Mcgee criticized what he called the “spiritualizing of the Kingdom” which he claimed had its beginning with St. Augustine. By this I assume he means he does not like the idea that the Catholic Church is the New Israel. Rather I think he means the passages in the O.T that point to the Kingdom should apply to Israel and not be interpreted to be fulfilled in the Church in the N.T. I hope I have explained what I have been able to gather but I’m a long way from you guys. I hope you all can help me out.

From what I have heard, and has already been confirmed this is typical of what is taught at the Dallas Theological Seminary. Sadly there are a lot of Catholics who have been buying into this same explanation. So the next question has to be: how is it refuted?

I think a good starting point is reading the books written by Paul Thigpen “The Rapture Trap” and David Currie’s “Rapture” because both books give an excellent background to the flaws within dispensationalism.

The whole of the methodology that is used in that kind of thinking is totally flawed. It is flawed because they have taken the Scripture to literal extremes. It is also flawed because they have not understood the nature of what has already been revealed through the Scriptures. They cannot connect Matthew’s Gospel to that of the Books of the Maccabees or to the Book of Daniel. In fact it is downright convenient that they keep the masses away from those seven books that they took out of the canon of Scripture because if the masses did read those books they would abandon all of this nonsense and become Catholic (that is my opinion of course).

They base their teaching upon the following flawed assumptions (and these are relevant so long as we do not stray into the murmurings of modern prophets):

1. That Jesus will literally return and reign for 1000 years (this is the same flawed assumption of Miller)
2. That Jesus will literally come back on a cloud;
3. That believers will be taken up to heaven without having to go through a tribulation - “caught up” = Rapture

Most of these flawed assumptions and interpretations of the Scripture have been around for a long time. They were for example behind the cult of Montanus, who claimed to be a prophet of God and who declared that the Second Coming was immanent and that the new Jerusalem would appear in North Africa.

It is all bad theology.

Maggie

 

[JohnPaul0]

First, I need to correct my clarification. I know that Dallas Seminary is on the sight of a former Catholic institution, but I think that it was a convent, not a seminary (was confused by the Scott Hahn/Gordon Conwell thing).

Anyway, you’re right, Maggie. So many believe this stuff very firmly. The poetic, apocalyptic style of the Bible verses lend themselves to all sorts of misinterpretations.
I believe that damage is done not only to the sake of truth, but to the souls of those who spend so much time immersed in “End Times” stuff.

I heard somewhere that Jesus will come in our lifetime. That’s exactly true, except it’ll be at the end of each person’s lifetime when we face our judgement. That’s a better thing to contemplate!

 

[MaggieOH]

JohnPaul0:

First, I need to correct my clarification. I know that Dallas Seminary is on the sight of a former Catholic institution, but I think that it was a convent, not a seminary (was confused by the Scott Hahn/Gordon Conwell thing).

Anyway, you’re right, Maggie. So many believe this stuff very firmly. The poetic, apocalyptic style of the Bible verses lend themselves to all sorts of misinterpretations.
I believe that damage is done not only to the sake of truth, but to the souls of those who spend so much time immersed in “End Times” stuff.

I heard somewhere that Jesus will come in our lifetime. That’s exactly true, except it’ll be at the end of each person’s lifetime when we face our judgement. That’s a better thing to contemplate!

He comes to me everyday during the Mass and at the Eucharist, when I also come to Him and commune with Him in a very intimate manner.

 

[oriel36]

MaggieOH:

This post has nothing to do with the subject. Please start your own thread.

Such writings, when in the hands of the “ignorant” are easily misinterpreted and over the centuries the Church has seen the results of such misinterpretation.

One of the most fascinating things about Scripture is that the authors were writing for their own times,

Maggie

If you determine that the Book of Revelation author was writing for his own time you should indeed count yourself as among those who misinterpret.

The author clearly states in chapter 13 and 17 that wisdom is needed to comprehend the imagery and sets about giving mathematical clues to the mathematical facet within his text.

There is a very good reason why the Book Of Revelation symbolism has remained dormant for two millenia and why to understand it is a gift of God.Again, it is a pure living miracle however like the great Christian builders of the middle ages who built gargoyles into the exterior of the Cathedrals to ward off the ignorant ,you manage to present the dull and dour apocalyptic avenue or what amounts to the same thing,you are lazy.

 

[philipmarus]

JohnPaul0:

Small point to set the record straight: you must be talking about Dallas Theological Seminary, which its attendees commonly call “Dallas Seminary.” It is indeed a hub of dispensationalism. I’m sad to report that it’s housed in a former Catholic seminary.

The University of Dallas is a good Catholic university.

You are quite correct. I should have wrote Dallas Theological Seminary.

 

[philipmarus]

My Family will say that 1 Thess says we will be “caught up” in the clouds and their minds that ends any debate about the rapture.

He comes to me everyday during the Mass and at the Eucharist, when I also come to Him and commune with Him in a very intimate manner.

I just remembered Dr. Scott Hahn in The Lamb’s Supper
saying something about the original primary meaning of Parousia
is “a real, personal living, lasting, and active presence” (P. 116) which has become overshadowed by Parousia as second coming.

 

[oriel36]

MaggieOH:

BR

I think that you need to do some further research on the historical period that encompasses the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans. There are several reasons why I think that Jesus was referring to the sacking of Jerusalem:

1. The Jews had Jesus condemned to death by the Romans; The Romans were used to condemn the Jews in 70 A.D.
2. Jesus had predicted that the Temple will be destroyed.
3. In Scripture, the Jews see wars, and how they fare in wars as a sign of God’s wrath or benevolence depending upon how they have behaved. During Isaiah’s time they fell into apostasy and were punished. In the period prior to 70 A.D. the Jews had failed to open their hearts to God, had persecuted the Christians and killed James the Just. God’s judgement was awaiting them.
4. It is a common practice for the New Testament writers to recall something that had previously occurred as a remembrance or a reminder of those times in exile or facing persecution. The Jews faced severe persecution at the hands of the Hellenes when the statue of Zeus was set up in the Temple. Jesus is recalling this episode when he refers to the “abomination”

Maggie

Sin is missing the point and to rework the destruction of the temple into a prediction of Jesus is certainly bordering on it.

bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=2&version=31

Do you know why the apostles remembered the words of Jesus while the Jews misinterpreted it as a stone structure ?.

Do you know how far off the mark you are with the Johannine Book Of Revelation ?.

 

[serendipity]

Definitely think the fall fo Jerusalem was the promise to that generation, though so many times in the Bible, concluded events have the potential to foreshadow developments in the future. I think it was necessary as a sgin to demonstrate the truth of Jesus as Christ, because the resurrection alone may not have convinced people, since to this day, many claim that it is possible that Jesus really didn’t die or that his body may have been smuggled out by his followers.

Also, the sign helped sow the seeds of faith for the early Christians, that if that part fo the prophecy was fulfilled, then the final judgement prophecy too must be valid and lives must be amend in preparation for it. Many Christians of the time interpreted the signs that Jesus predicted as indicating that the fulfillment of the Olivet discourse was about to occur, which is why they were able to flee to the hills in Jordan, and not be killed in Jerusalem. If they did not do so, one has to wonder if we woudl be Christians today.

 

[MaggieOH]

serendipity:

Definitely think the fall fo Jerusalem was the promise to that generation, though so many times in the Bible, concluded events have the potential to foreshadow developments in the future. I think it was necessary as a sgin to demonstrate the truth of Jesus as Christ, because the resurrection alone may not have convinced people, since to this day, many claim that it is possible that Jesus really didn’t die or that his body may have been smuggled out by his followers.

Also, the sign helped sow the seeds of faith for the early Christians, that if that part fo the prophecy was fulfilled, then the final judgement prophecy too must be valid and lives must be amend in preparation for it. Many Christians of the time interpreted the signs that Jesus predicted as indicating that the fulfillment of the Olivet discourse was about to occur, which is why they were able to flee to the hills in Jordan, and not be killed in Jerusalem. If they did not do so, one has to wonder if we woudl be Christians today.

Serendipity this is a brilliant answer and it echoes my own thoughts on the subject. The majority of orthodox Catholic and Protestant theologians agree on this interpretation.

I follow closely the theological writings of Dr. Scott Hahn, but there is another Protestant theologian who wrote an excellent Biblical Study Guide on the Book of Revelation that reflects the same thoughts as Dr. Hahn. He is the late William Barclay. I have his study guide on the Book of Revelation and even if I do not agree with some of his points, I do like the amount of historical information that he provides such that one cannot escape the fact that Jesus was pointing to the fall of Jerusalem.

Maggie

 

[oriel36]

MaggieOH:

Serendipity this is a brilliant answer and it echoes my own thoughts on the subject. The majority of orthodox Catholic and Protestant theologians agree on this interpretation.

I follow closely the theological writings of Dr. Scott Hahn, but there is another Protestant theologian who wrote an excellent Biblical Study Guide on the Book of Revelation that reflects the same thoughts as Dr. Hahn. He is the late William Barclay. I have his study guide on the Book of Revelation and even if I do not agree with some of his points, I do like the amount of historical information that he provides such that one cannot escape the fact that Jesus was pointing to the fall of Jerusalem.

Maggie

I could almost swear that you just swerved around the theological point that Jesus was talking of the temple of his body while the Jews misinterpreted it as the stone temple in Jerusalem therefore he most certainly was not predicting the fall of the temple nor would it make any theological sense in the context of John 2.

What you did was graft in a convenient historical fact to bridge the gap between Johannine theology and the Book Of Revelation.No doubt many would be pleased to see the Book Of Revelation diluted into historical context while robbing the words of Jesus of their true Spiritual content but I assure you it ain’t Christianity .

You know Maggie,perhaps you are having a bad theological hair day but Protestants here are being more open about the genuine contradictions that are not so easily explained away.Turns out that Protestants and Catholics contain half the solution to each others difficulties.

I have learned,
said Nicolas of Cusa,
that the place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictories.
The Vision of God. Cap, 9.]

newadvent.org/cathen/11060b.htm

 

[serendipity]

oriel36:

I could almost swear that you just swerved around the theological point that Jesus was talking of the temple of his body while the Jews misinterpreted it as the stone temple in Jerusalem therefore he most certainly was not predicting the fall of the temple nor would it make any theological sense in the context of John 2.

What you did was graft in a convenient historical fact to bridge the gap between Johannine theology and the Book Of Revelation.

I’m not sure that I understand your argument. Passages in scripture need not refer to only one situation. Many of the passages that are applied by Catholic apologetics to explain how Jesus saved the peopel also applied to people who came before Jesus to help those who suffered under the Bablyonian captivity.

Yes, he was talking about his body too, and it did rise from the dead and people did see it within that generation. The destruction of the Temple is not only a “convenient historical fact.” Jesus warned his followers of the many factors that proceeded it. Was it only coincidence and convenience of history that these warning signs occurred, and people heeded them and Christianity survived?

 

[MaggieOH]

oriel36:

I could almost swear that you just swerved around the theological point that Jesus was talking of the temple of his body while the Jews misinterpreted it as the stone temple in Jerusalem therefore he most certainly was not predicting the fall of the temple nor would it make any theological sense in the context of John 2.

That is interesting but I was not referring to John chapter 2. I was referring to the Olivet discourse, so in fact you are out of line by referencing John Chapter 2. In the verse that you are referring to Jesus was indeed referring to Himself, that He will be crushed and that He will rise again in three days.

My reference is the following:

"Jesus left the Temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the building of the Temple. But he answered them: You see all these, do you not? Truly I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down." (Matt 24:1-2)

Without a doubt Jesus was predicting that the Temple would be destroyed, and that is exactly what happened when the Romans sacked Jerusalem.

What you did was graft in a convenient historical fact to bridge the gap between Johannine theology and the Book Of Revelation.No doubt many would be pleased to see the Book Of Revelation diluted into historical context while robbing the words of Jesus of their true Spiritual content but I assure you it ain’t Christianity .

Since you have decided to twist my words and make an untrue statement, I will remind you that you are once again attempting to hijack this thread . You are wrong to presume to know anything about my own thoughts about the Book of Revelation, since I have not made mention of any of the passages in that book to date in this thread.

You know Maggie,perhaps you are having a bad theological hair day but Protestants here are being more open about the genuine contradictions that are not so easily explained away.Turns out that Protestants and Catholics contain half the solution to each others difficulties.

this is an ad hominem attack and I am reporting it to the moderators.

I have learned,
said Nicolas of Cusa,
that the place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictories.
The Vision of God. Cap, 9.]

newadvent.org/cathen/11060b.htm

 

[Church_Militant]

oriel36:

Do you know why the apostles remembered the words of Jesus while the Jews misinterpreted it as a stone structure ?.

Do you know how far off the mark you are with the Johannine Book Of Revelation ?.

Do you know how far off topic you are by pursuing this?
Open your own thread for this discussion…don’t hijack this one. :nope: :tsktsk: :banghead:

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey all,
I USED to believe in the Rapture, but as I looked at it more carefully in the context of the NT I discovered that there are many holes in it and that it just doesn’t ring true.

I now believe that these passages apply to the ressurection of the dead at the 2nd coming of Christ and that the Rapture is nothing more than a warm fuzzy doctrine that was concocted by the dispensationalists that wrote the Schofield Reference Bible to make weak believers feel like we are going to get bailed out of the end times suffering. The fact is that Jesus promised us suffering for the faith in the last days and that is exactly what He meant. Why else would He have said, (in Matthew 10) “22 And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.” and Matthew 24:13 “But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.”.
If there was nothing to persevere through (in the context of these passages) then why would He have made such a serious and scarey statement?

I believe that we need to be prepared to endure to the end and be faithful. It’s not that bad here…now: but I believe that it’ll get that way someday…maybe pretty soon.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[MaggieOH]

oriel36:

Sin is missing the point and to rework the destruction of the temple into a prediction of Jesus is certainly bordering on it.

bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=2&version=31

Do you know why the apostles remembered the words of Jesus while the Jews misinterpreted it as a stone structure ?.

Do you know how far off the mark you are with the Johannine Book Of Revelation ?.

Oriel I hate to break this to you, but I was not discussing the Gospel of John. My reference is in the Gospel of Matthew. If you had bothered to read my introduction to the thread you will see that I am not discussing at the present time the works of St. John the Apostle.

If you had bothered to read through Matthew Chapter 24 then you might be able to see that you have misunderstood what I am talking about.

Otherwise this post is nothing more than an attempt to hijack the thread. If you want to discuss what you are saying then please start your own thread.

 

[Salmon]

Church Militant:

the Rapture is nothing more than a warm fuzzy doctrine that was concocted by the dispensationalists that wrote the Schofield Reference Bible to make weak believers feel like we are going to get bailed out of the end times suffering.

Thank you, Church Militant. You have hit the nail on the head.

Just as Christ was tempted in the desert to gain the kingdom without undergoing the cross, and again as He triumphantly entered Jerusalem after raising Lazarus, so too the temptation exists to this very day.

and so many people embrace that temptation despite the words of Our Lord in :

Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mark 8:34
And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mark 10:21
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Luke 9:23
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

It’s a privelege to associate with those who lovingly acknowledge the task of taking up their own cross daily, persevering until the end.

Peace in Christ…Salmon

 

[MaggieOH]

oriel36:

If you determine that the Book of Revelation author was writing for his own time you should indeed count yourself as among those who misinterpret.

The author clearly states in chapter 13 and 17 that wisdom is needed to comprehend the imagery and sets about giving mathematical clues to the mathematical facet within his text.

There is a very good reason why the Book Of Revelation symbolism has remained dormant for two millenia and why to understand it is a gift of God.Again, it is a pure living miracle however like the great Christian builders of the middle ages who built gargoyles into the exterior of the Cathedrals to ward off the ignorant ,you manage to present the dull and dour apocalyptic avenue or what amounts to the same thing,you are lazy.

Oriel,

the one gift that Jesus Christ gave to the Apostles is that of the right to discern the Truth. That gift, through the Holy Spirit has been passed on via Apostolic Succession. We have the benefit of the thousands of theologians, early Christian, Catholic and Protestant, who have passed down to us, their own views on the interpretation of the Scripture. Sadly, some of those theologians have believed that they have the right to interpret scripture in such a way that only what they proclaim is the right way, even if it goes against the teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

As a Catholic, I discern and accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. At the same time, I feel that I can learn from others, such as the late William Barclay, professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at University of Glasgow. He belonged to the Kirk in Scotland (Presbyterian). Even if William Barclay has made some theological errors, he remained orthodox in his study guides on the New Testament. Barclay’s study of the Book of Revelation is methodical and quite detailed. He considered as many aspects as necessary of this book to give the widest possible explanations, including Catholic understandings that were dismissed by him.

The greatest of Protestant and Catholic theological minds do not teach the dispensationalist rapture interpretation of the Scripture. As serious scholars they have studied the texts in detail and they have studied the history of the times in which the documents were written. Amongst these theologians we have the work of Dr. Scott Hahn, and he has also done a lot of study on this subject.

Apocryphl literature is very hard to understand because of the way that it is worded. There is a cosmology that is difficult to grasp unless one has an understanding of the Jewish mind responsible for the writing. This is the category in which the Book of Revelation fits. Before looking into the future aspects of the writing you need to have a thorough understanding of the history of the times, the suffering of the Christians at the time, as well as an understanding of the minds of the writer and the readers.

This kind of literature is not meant to be taken literally. There is just too much hidden meaning that surfaces. I know how I have struggled understanding much of the Book of Ezekiel because it did not make a lot of sense. Only now that I have a more mature understanding of the Scripture have I been able to grasp at what the writer was saying. I am surprised how much that book has opened up to me as I have begun to be able to put the Scripture in the whole of its context, rather than one verse here and there that supports what is truly false doctrine.

It is nothing more than an ad hominem attack to say to someone “you are lazy” just because that person does not believe in a doctrine that is so utterly flawed where logic and reason is concerned.

Maggie

 

[Anne_Carmel]

General Reminder:

This discussion has strayed from its original topic. Please return to the original topic under discussion. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[MaggieOH]

What then are the major features of the Rapture as taught by Dispensationalists?

In order to fulfill prophecy within the Scripture, according to the Rapturists, there are certain conditions that are a sign of the times:

1. The coming of the Anti-Christ - the man of lawlessness
2. The Tribulation
3. The Second Coming
4. The Mark of the Beast
5. The claim that those who are saved will be raptured from this earth so that they will not undergo tribulation.

Rapturists fail to recognize that the Scripture writers first and foremost wrote to people in their own time, and that anything else that is meant for the future is either coincidental or is being evaluated with the gift of hindsight. These people are not interested in the historical context of the Scriptures. They are only interested in dragging into their clutches ignorant people who are easily frightened into believing that they will face torment in hell if they do not go along with the doctrines of that particular denomination.

We shall try to deal with each of these elements of Rapture theory, exposing at the same time the errors of interpretation that are made when the historical aspects of the Scripture are neglected.

To begin with let us look at the prophecy and times of Daniel to see how the prophecy was initially fulfilled during the Maccabean wars and then again when the Romans sacked Jerusalem. We will not be touching the Book of Revelation at this point because it is irrelevant at this point of time in coming to understand the teaching of the Rapture and the inherent errors in that teaching.