Rapture to a 5th grader

[RomanRyan1088]

Shalom everyone!!!

Ok, so here is what happened. I teach 5TH grade CCD at my parish. I mentioned how we would be watching a movie next week, and one of my students said, “Can we watch left Behind’, it’s a good movie”. I simply said “We as Catholics do not believe in what the Left behind books teach”. You see, this student of mine has gone to a Methodist church camp for the past 3 years, and he says they taught him about the rapture there. Now my question to you guys is, how would you explain why the rapture is false to a 5th grader? Any help would be appreciated…

Love ya!!

-Ryan

 

[SemperJase]

You may first want to start with how the books view catholicism. They pretty much say the pope is only a christian when he stops being catholic. As I recall, the first time they mention a pope, he is corrupt. You’ll need to do a bit more research on that.

 

[kleary]

You can tell him what my mother told me.

“You heard that from a non-Catholic and it is not true”.

If he starts asking you questions concerning it you can find answers here: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109fea3.asp

Ken

 

[1ke]

RomanRyan1088:

Shalom everyone!!!

Ok, so here is what happened. I teach 5TH grade CCD at my parish. I mentioned how we would be watching a movie next week, and one of my students said, “Can we watch left Behind’, it’s a good movie”. I simply said “We as Catholics do not believe in what the Left behind books teach”. You see, this student of mine has gone to a Methodist church camp for the past 3 years, and he says they taught him about the rapture there. Now my question to you guys is, how would you explain why the rapture is false to a 5th grader? Any help would be appreciated…

Love ya!!

-Ryan

Here’s what I would say:

Left Behind is a fictional story. In CCE we learn about the faith by studying the teachings of the church, not fictional movies.

Now, the story in the Left Behind is based on an idea that God will “snatch up” believers and then there will be a period of time when those left will be tested, and then Jesus will come back. That might make for an interesting book and movie, but it’s not what will happen when Jesus comes back.

Let’s look at what the bible and the church really says about the Second Coming: insert actual teaching here.

 

[kage_ar]

1ke:

Here’s what I would say:

Left Behind is a fictional story. In CCE we learn about the faith by studying the teachings of the church, not fictional movies.

Now, the story in the Left Behind is based on an idea that God will “snatch up” believers and then there will be a period of time when those left will be tested, and then Jesus will come back. That might make for an interesting book and movie, but it’s not what will happen when Jesus comes back.

Let’s look at what the bible and the church really says about the Second Coming: insert actual teaching here.

PERFECT! (From another 5th grade CCD teacher).

 

[1ke]

kage_ar:

PERFECT! (From another 5th grade CCD teacher).

I teach 5th grade CCE too.

 

[franksv]

So what is the Catholic teaching on when Jesus comes back?

 

[Reepicheep]

Watch and pray, for you know not the day nor the hour.

 

[mumof5]

Apparently 11% of Left Behind readership is Catholic. In the second book ‘Tribulation Force’ it is mentioned that the new Pope, who was considered a controversial Pope, is raptured. This is a Pope that caused controversy in the church by adopting some of the teachings of Martin Luther (what these are is never spelled out). Those Catholics who agreed with the Pope are also raptured. The rest are Left Behind. I’m just finishing Glorious Appearing

I think the Biblical evidence for rapture is sketchy, at best.

Mat 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:41 Two [women shall be] grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

Other than that, and the fact the head of the new one world religion is the sucessor to the raptured Pope, Catholicism, or any other denomination, doesn’t get a mention.

 

[Pryority7]

You can tell that 5th grader that the Rapture was made up in the early 1800’s by this guy who wasn’t Catholic. John Nelson Darby.
Do a little research on this guy and explain to this kid that it’s better to trust what the Church has been teaching for the last 2,000 years than some guy from the U.K. who came up with this Rapture thing about 100+ years ago.

P7

 

[gelsbern]

mumof5:

Apparently 11% of Left Behind readership is Catholic. In the second book ‘Tribulation Force’ it is mentioned that the new Pope, who was considered a controversial Pope, is raptured. This is a Pope that caused controversy in the church by adopting some of the teachings of Martin Luther (what these are is never spelled out). Those Catholics who agreed with the Pope are also raptured. The rest are Left Behind. I’m just finishing Glorious Appearing

I think the Biblical evidence for rapture is sketchy, at best.

Mat 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:41 Two [women shall be] grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

Other than that, and the fact the head of the new one world religion is the sucessor to the raptured Pope, Catholicism, or any other denomination, doesn’t get a mention.

Hehe, I like to really confuse the rapturists by telling them that I hope to be left behind and then throwing out Mark 24:39

39 They did not know until the flood came and carried them all away. So will it be (also) at the coming of the Son of Man.

I then ask, “Who was taken away at the flood of Noah?” Of course the answer is “The sinners and unbelievers” I then ask “Who was left behind?”

It gets them every time.

 

[kage_ar]

franksv:

So what is the Catholic teaching on when Jesus comes back?

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom shall have no end.

 

[mumof5]

gelsbern:

Hehe, I like to really confuse the rapturists by telling them that I hope to be left behind and then throwing out Mark 24:39

I then ask, “Who was taken away at the flood of Noah?” Of course the answer is “The sinners and unbelievers” I then ask “Who was left behind?”

It gets them every time.

One thing that the Left Behind books do well, certainly at the beginning, is distinguish between those who really, truly have a heart felt belief and those who pay lip service or merely attend church, even if they appear to be good Christians on the surface. I think it is a good thing to draw attention to, such as the Pastor who was left behind having gone to church, done all the right things but never actually taken the message on board. If nothing else, it might get some people to do a good self-examination!

People do need to remember that these books are fiction and there are plenty of places in the series that you stop and think, “What?!” I’d hope people didn’t take for granted that the books are letter for letter to the Bible. It’s a good read though 3/4 of Glorious Appearing and I’m done with the series - yeah!

I don’t think the scripture you quoted refutes the rapture. I can’t see why it would confuse a rapturist as it easily fits.

As for the question of the original poster. The Bible says that when Jesus comes, he is coming with the clouds, with the cry of the archangel, presumably Michael.

 

[gelsbern]

mumof5:

One thing that the Left Behind books do well, certainly at the beginning, is distinguish between those who really, truly have a heart felt belief and those who pay lip service or merely attend church, even if they appear to be good Christians on the surface. I think it is a good thing to draw attention to, such as the Pastor who was left behind having gone to church, done all the right things but never actually taken the message on board. If nothing else, it might get some people to do a good self-examination!

People do need to remember that these books are fiction and there are plenty of places in the series that you stop and think, “What?!” I’d hope people didn’t take for granted that the books are letter for letter to the Bible. It’s a good read though 3/4 of Glorious Appearing and I’m done with the series - yeah!

I don’t think the scripture you quoted refutes the rapture. I can’t see why it would confuse a rapturist as it easily fits.

As for the question of the original poster. The Bible says that when Jesus comes, he is coming with the clouds, with the cry of the archangel, presumably Michael.

It says the second coming of our Lord will be like the flood. Those who were unaware, swept (taken) away by the flood, those who were righteous, (Noah and his family) were the ones left behind.

If the 2nd coming is like the flood, as the Bible says (remember you have to take it literaly as they do) then what part of the following verses makes them think that it’s the believers who are taken away?

Mat 24:39 They did not know until the flood came and carried them all away. (Noah the righteous one knew about the flood, so this must be talking about the sinners being swept or ‘taken’ away) So will it be (also) at the coming of the Son of Man. (Here it states plainly coming of the Son of Man will be just like what happened at the flood.)
Mat 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.(The flood took the non-believer, that means the one left must be the believer who is left behind in the field.)
Mat 24:41 Two [women shall be] grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.(And again the flood took the non-believer, that means the one left must be the believer who is left behind at the mill…)
Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

 

[mumof5]

gelsbern:

It says the second coming of our Lord will be like the flood. Those who were unaware, swept (taken) away by the flood, those who were righteous, (Noah and his family) were the ones left behind.

If the 2nd coming is like the flood, as the Bible says (remember you have to take it literaly as they do) then what part of the following verses makes them think that it’s the believers who are taken away?

Mat 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:41 Two [women shall be] grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

That’s the problem with taking one verse out of context. Put it back in line with other verses in the Bible, and it makes more sense. 30% of the Bible is prophecy, makes one verse seem rather paltry We know there will not be another flood.

The scriptures in Matthew are often inter-related to one in Thessalonians where it is clear that it is believers who are taken in the twinkling of an eye. I’m not saying I agree with rapturists, just trying to look at the issue from their perspective. I’m not convinced either way. Others might disagree but I don’t see it as a major theological issue whether you believe in rapture or not. I’ve just got hold of a small book about the rapture, from a rapturist perspective, just because I’m curious to see where the idea comes from. Either way, we know for sure he is coming back!

 

[mumof5]

gelsbern:

It says the second coming of our Lord will be like the flood. Those who were unaware, swept (taken) away by the flood, those who were righteous, (Noah and his family) were the ones left behind.

If the 2nd coming is like the flood, as the Bible says (remember you have to take it literaly as they do) then what part of the following verses makes them think that it’s the believers who are taken away?

Mat 24:39 They did not know until the flood came and carried them all away. (Noah the righteous one knew about the flood, so this must be talking about the sinners being swept or ‘taken’ away) So will it be (also) at the coming of the Son of Man. (Here it states plainly coming of the Son of Man will be just like what happened at the flood.)
Mat 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.(The flood took the non-believer, that means the one left must be the believer who is left behind in the field.)
Mat 24:41 Two [women shall be] grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.(And again the flood took the non-believer, that means the one left must be the believer who is left behind at the mill…)
Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

Just a bit extra since you’ve edited your post

When comparing the coming of the Son of Man with the flood, it is just using that to illustrate how unexpected it was for those who did not believe. They were surprised by the flood and so they will be surprised by the second coming. Anyone stumped by that has poor comprehension skills or only a surface knowledge of the rest of the Bible.

 

[gelsbern]

Hehe, just try it and see what he says. And remember, most times fundamentalists or rapturists take the Bible literaly, so you got to fight fire with fire, and at least pretend you are doing the same thing. If he continues to argue, simply ask how his interpretation is any more valid than yours, and where his authority for his interpretation comes from.

But before you do, read this.

catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp

 

[mumof5]

gelsbern:

Hehe, just try it and see what he says. And remember, most times fundamentalists or rapturists take the Bible literaly, so you got to fight fire with fire, and at least pretend you are doing the same thing. If he continues to argue, simply ask how his interpretation is any more valid than yours, and where his authority for his interpretation comes from.

But before you do, read this.

catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp

Only problem with that approach is that if you come up against someone who really knows the Bible, you aren’t going to last long because you interpretation of that verse doesn’t stand up.

 

[gelsbern]

mumof5:

Only problem with that approach is that if you come up against someone who really knows the Bible, you aren’t going to last long because you interpretation of that verse doesn’t stand up.

According to whom? See, one of the flaws of protestantism, is they don’t rely on the authority and teachings of the church (or Church) so by their tenets, their translation of the Bible (and they will claim that the Holy Spirit was what lead them to that) cannot possibly be any more authoritative than what the Holy Spirit spoke to you when you read it (Even though we are still just play acting because we know the true meanings of the scripture through the teachings of the church). Without the teaching authority of the church, their theology breaks down, even if you can’t spout of a bunch of verses, it doesn’t make any difference, they cannot possibly have any more authority than you according to their tenets.

I have used this approach a few times, and through the grace of God, have seen the conversion of a few to Catholicism (yes, Catholicism in Union with Rome). Once they realize that their own authority is no greater than someone else’s authority, the usually start looking for where they can find the true authority and that is only within the church that Christ established.

One that note I will say that perhaps we could start another thread as I feel we are bordering on hijacking this one, of which I most profusely apologize to the Original Poster for.

 

[mumof5]

gelsbern:

According to whom? See, one of the flaws of protestantism, is they don’t rely on the authority and teachings of the church (or Church) so by their tenets, their translation of the Bible (and they will claim that the Holy Spirit was what lead them to that) cannot possibly be any more authoritative than what the Holy Spirit spoke to you when you read it (Even though we are still just play acting because we know the true meanings of the scripture through the teachings of the church). Without the teaching authority of the church, their theology breaks down, even if you can’t spout of a bunch of verses, it doesn’t make any difference, they cannot possibly have any more authority than you according to their tenets.

I have used this approach a few times, and through the grace of God, have seen the conversion of a few to Catholicism (yes, Catholicism in Union with Rome). Once they realize that their own authority is no greater than someone else’s authority, the usually start looking for where they can find the true authority and that is only within the church that Christ established.

One that note I will say that perhaps we could start another thread as I feel we are bordering on hijacking this one, of which I most profusely apologize to the Original Poster for.

Your interpretation doesn’t say anything about authority. Even to a non-believer with a good academic knowledge of the Bible, it is clear in context how that scripture should be interpreted. All it says to me is that you only have a narrow knowledge of the Bible. If so, you should either seek to gain that knowledge or yes, defer to someone who can show you the wider context.