aubiefifty 16,823 Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 18 hours ago, SaltyTiger said: Well I am not “bitching” now. Just asked a simple question and made a statement. Truth is I don’t like football articles this time year. Of the mindset that no news is good news. Also in a state of frustration and border line depression about our baseball team. i hope you get to feeling better. i could cheer ya up............grins 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,823 Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 3 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said: Very interesting and usually a part the more lengthy discussions here. Pointing out perceived hypocrisy in claimed spiritual beliefs makes for an easy target. We have a few posters that take advantage of the opportunities. are you saying christians should not be held accountable if they stray from the message of jesus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,823 Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 they have been claiming the rapture is coming that I know of since the early eighties................how many times do you have to be wrong to figure out you might be wrong? i remember when christians were telling me there were no Dinosaurs as well. and i have even heard christians to ignore climate change because according to the bible we will be gone first so no need to worry. it has been years but i did see it................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnatl1 4,980 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 (edited) 2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said: Very interesting and usually a part the more lengthy discussions here. Pointing out perceived hypocrisy in claimed spiritual beliefs makes for an easy target. We have a few posters that take advantage of the opportunities. I’m just a boring Lutheran and don’t know many evangelicals - especially pure literalists. I can appreciate the debates get exhausting but, again, it’s interesting. Edited April 24 by auburnatl1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,823 Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 5 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said: I’m just a boring Lutheran and don’t know many evangelicals - especially pure literalists. I can appreciate the debates get exhausting but, again, it’s interesting. intelligence is not boring to me. and i personally think you bring a lot to the site even thos we do not agree on a couplw of issues. the fact you are ok with discussing your views is awesome unlike the hardcore trumpers who denie everything they look like bod face liars. not being mean to THEM it is just fact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,463 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 What brought Jesus the first time will likely bring Jesus again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PUB78 1,361 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 I do believe in the Rapture. Question is , will it be pre-trib or post-trib? All eyes will see him and only God knows the day and hour of his return. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey 16,643 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 I probably shouldn't post in this thread but here goes: I find the concept of a rational, benevolent, all-knowing, all-powerful being that loves us to be absurd. That concept simply doesn't reconcile with what humanity has had to endure through the millennia. So no, I don't believe in a Rapture. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son of A Tiger 561 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 2 hours ago, Mikey said: I probably shouldn't post in this thread but here goes: I find the concept of a rational, benevolent, all-knowing, all-powerful being that loves us to be absurd. That concept simply doesn't reconcile with what humanity has had to endure through the millennia. So no, I don't believe in a Rapture. I wish that wasn't the case my friend since we seem to agree almost 95% of the time. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnatl1 4,980 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 Btw Some denominations believe there can be no second coming until everyone on the planet has had an opportunity to hear the Bible. Ie “the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world” (Matthew 24:14). Mormons are even more resolved on this, which is why almost all go out and witness for 1-2 years in their early 20s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,823 Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 Even Jesus wouldn’t buy ‘the rapture’ Jay Parini 7–8 minutes Hollywood's religious revival 1 of 9 Editor’s Note: Jay Parini, a poet and novelist, teaches at Middlebury College in Vermont. He has just published “Jesus: The Human Face of God,” a biography of Jesus. Follow him on Twitter@JayParini. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. Story highlights Jay Parini: New HBO series takes off on novel based on Christian idea of 'the rapture' He says it's a fun TV idea, but the rapture concept is rubbish made up by theologian in 1800s The idea is that Jesus will come back, collect "saved" people before tribulation time begins Parini: Bible doesn't mention rapture. It's proponents distort apostles' metaphors to cook it up CNN — HBO has just launched a new TV series based on a novel by Tom Perrotta called “The Leftovers,” which in turn is based on the fundamentalist Christian idea of the rapture. Apart from the title, which suggests a refrigerator full of stale food, the series looks promising. It’s a terrific premise: Jesus returns and calls to heaven 140 million people, leaving behind billions of stupefied, confused, and grief-stricken others. In the show, a mother loses her baby, who disappears. A boy’s father seems to have vanished as he pushes a shopping cart. Cars collide as drivers go missing. Chaos strikes in the fictional Mapleton, New York – and throughout the world. How to cope? The famous “Left Behind” series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins was already out there. It consisted of 16 best-selling novels on the same premise, and it’s about to come to the big screen again, in a film starring Nicholas Cage. The original film adaptation (of three) appeared in 2000. And then there is the Christian real-time strategy video game called “Left Behind: Eternal Forces.” If anyone hasn’t noticed, the rapture has become a commercial juggernaut, endlessly shape-shifting, finding new and highly entertaining outlets. But what about the theology behind this industry? The rapture notion goes like this: Jesus is coming back, and when he does, he will first return before a time of so-called tribulation begins, calling up into the clouds with him those who are “saved.” Horrible suffering will then occur on the miserable Earth for seven years. Then Jesus will come yet again, for a final judging. There are many different versions of this scenario, so it’s difficult to summarize. It’s fair to say, however, that only fundamentalist Protestant churches bother to think about the rapture at all. (Catholics discount the idea completely.) The rapture concept is relatively new. It started with an Anglo-Irish theologian, who in the 1830s invented the concept. This may come as a shocker to many, but it’s a fact: Before John Nelson Darby imagined this scenario in the clouds, no Christian had ever heard of the rapture. The idea was popularized by Cyrus I. Scofield, an American minister who published a famous reference Bible in 1908, one that developed the idea of an elaborate series of final periods in history known as dispensations. Scofield, like Darby, read the Book of Revelation as a vision of the future, not a fiery dream of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. The latter view remains, in fact, the most common interpretation of the Book of Revelation by mainstream theologians and was described recently by Princeton scholar Elaine Pagels in “Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation.” It’s a problem, however, for rapture-minded Christians that the word “rapture” doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bible, unless you’re willing to think in broadly metaphorical terms. Rapture thinking is most often traced back to the Apostle Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, where he writes: “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of an archangel and the trumpet of God. The dead in Christ will rise first; then we, who are left alive, will be snatched up with them on clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) First, it’s important to note that Jesus himself never talked about the rapture, ever. We read in Mark about the “Son of Man coming in the clouds,” but this is a reference back to the Old Testament Book of Daniel, where we get the image of a “son of Man” who is actually going the other way, up to meet the Ancient of Days. It’s all broadly metaphorical, a kind of dream. In Mark, the oldest gospel, this passage is about the vindication of Jesus as he comes to heaven and is recognized as a true son of the father. In Luke 19, we read about a returning king, but close study of this passage suggests that Luke is talking about God coming back to Jerusalem, not about Jesus returning to Earth. It’s clear from looking carefully at everything Paul says about the future, as in I Corinthians 15:51-54 or Philippians 3:20-21, that he believes only that some day Christians will experience a kind of physical and spiritual change. They will be resurrected, but this is a complex term that suggests not necessarily resuscitation but evolution, a thorough transformation. In Thessalonians, Paul is writing like the poet he is, creating a spectacular vision of a returning lord who will be given a great reception in the air. The crucial word in the relevant verse is “meet”: Those who are left alive will be caught up on clouds to meet the Lord in the air. The word “meet” in Greek is “apentesis,” and it means to gather for a reception for visiting dignitaries. Even the idea of being “snatched up” is thoroughly inadequate for the Greek word “harpazo,” which is better translated as “gathered” – a point made by many biblical scholars over the years. In any case, Paul is being dramatic, imagining a holy reception committee that will greet the returning Christ. And why not? Yet it’s amazing how scriptures get misused, and relatively new theological ideas – such as the rapture – get deeply embedded in certain circles. The rapture is really a plot device for popular entertainment and a bizarre theological teaching in fundamentalist circles, where it functions in a variety of ways. But it’s bad theology, and Jesus himself would have been astonished to learn that thousands of years after him there were such notions afloat. At least he won’t have to watch “The Leftovers” on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,823 Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 stjameswh.org The Bible: Misused and Misunderstood 6–7 minutes Here is a very helpful and hope-full post from Jason Chestnut's blog "Faith Interrupted - Looking for God in the gaps." Jason signs off on his post with what I think to be a great phrase; "Stay cool. Don't make Jesus sad". Monday, November 18, 2013 Top Seven Things People Think Are In the Bible (That Totally Aren't) Quick preface: If I had to choose one phrase to sum up my deep connection to the Jesus movement, it would probably be the ancient Christian proclamation, Jesus is Lord. (These three words are way more substantial and traditional than the current phrases Christians often point to: God bless America; One nation under God; etc...) Jesus is Lord, for me, means that there are many things that are not - money, nations, football...and, yes, the Bible. I don't worship the Bible. It's the word of God, but it's not the only thing God ever said (in the words of my fantastic mentor and godmother, Lori). Okay, on to the list! #7 - The so-called "Rapture." The Left-Behind series is a fictional tale (an overwhelmingly best-selling fictional tale, but complete fiction nonetheless). It comes from a particular theology that was created around 100 years ago - an admittedly interesting concoction, composed of random pieces from Daniel, Revelation, and Paul's letter to the Christian community in Thessalonica - and has been snatched up by plenty of theologians who act as though this was handed down by God before the creation itself. A brilliant assessment of this harmful, dangerous, and totally non-biblical theology can be found in Barbara Rossing's The Rapture Exposed. Check it. #6 - God Hates _____ (Fill In the Blank). Sorry, Westboro Baptist. I'm not talking about Levitical codes or even judgment and damnation. Show me the verse that has those words. #5 - Everything happens for a reason. This is often coupled with other horrific theological statements said during times of tragedy - e.g. "God must have needed another angel/flower-in-the-garden/whatever" - that simply have no biblical basis. There is, you might say, a trajectory of God and God's people, heading towards a final future of God's commonwealth on earth - but the idea of things happening for a reason is often much more simplistic and harmful, and is often said because we don't know what else to say. Luckily, it's not in the Bible we're fond of quoting at people. #4 - God is in control. Nope. If anything, story after biblical story shows a God whose mind is changed (Genesis 18:16-33; Exodus 32:1-14; the story of Jonah). There are also stories that go off the deep end (i.e. the entire account of the Judges), where God is seemingly nowhere in sight. This is a difficult concept, I know. If God isn't all-powerful the way we've been taught, then what can we believe in? This is where we have to remind ourselves that our very concept of power is routinely subverted in the biblical story - most alarmingly in the story of Jesus, and his seemingly weak, powerless, and outright shameful death on the Roman version of the electric chair, the cross. #3 - We must accept Jesus into our hearts as our personal Lord and Savior. Nowhere does Jesus ask for this particular act to be done (much less say that it's necessary for salvation) - he says a lot about inviting people to follow him, but doesn't seem concerned about the act of "accepting" him into one's heart. Plus, the idea of a "personal" Lord and Savior (as opposed to the Savior of the world, and a bringer of the community of God) is a relatively recent emphasis that coincides (in part) with the modern focus on the individual - what the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, called "the great Western heresy." Or, as the story goes, when someone asked a Catholic monk if Jesus was his personal Lord and Savior, he responded, "Nope. I prefer to share him." #2 - Jesus died for our sins. Whoa, don't freak out. Walk with me for a second. At least, this particular idea doesn't come from the mouth of Jesus himself. It's nowhere in the Gospel accounts of his life (Mark, Luke, Matthew, or John). The closest we get are in the words of Paul (which, it's important to remember, do not encompass all that Jesus the Christ was/is/will be). In his letter to the Christian community in Rome (3:25) and his first letter to the one in Corinth (15:4), Paul wrestles with this idea (especially in the latter, where the words "Christ died for our sins" is right there, although it's followed with "in accordance with the scriptures," which begs the question - which scriptures? The Hebrew scriptures? The Gospel stories?). There's no doubt that Jesus' death and resurrection mean so very much to those who are connected with his movement. But, this is part of a longer conversation. And worry not - we'll do our own wrestling with this idea of "atonement" in a later post. #1 - God helps those who help themselves. No. Stop saying this. The quote is William Shakespeare's to claim. But, even more than that, the biblical witness points to theopposite of this particular phrase. Again and again, God calls people who can't seem to pull themselves up by their bootstraps - Mary, David, and Moses, to name a few. Okay, fine, I'll name some more: Jonah, Ruth, Paul, Peter, the unnamed woman at Bethany (Mark 14:3-9). Oh, and us. The Rev. Bob Hooper is the rector of St. James’s Episcopal Church. He blogs for St. James’s most Tuesday, reflecting on the community, parish life and (being Rector) anything else he likes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,823 Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 chieftain.com Rapture hype is disrespectful of prophecies 4–5 minutes When I received a flier last year foretelling the apocalypse on May 21, 2011, I thought it was a gag. As the date of doom drew nearer, I grew perplexed by how many gullible, lonely people appeared to be taking the timeline seriously. I shouldn't have been surprised. Few of Christianity's ancient tenets have been more abused and manipulated than the fervent expectation of Christ's second coming. In spite of his warning that none would know the day or hour, many have claimed to predict it. So far, none has been correct. The tragedy of this misguided impulse to draw lines between biblical prophecies and contemporary world events is that it makes the Parousia (the ancient name for the second coming) an object of ridicule and humor, when nothing should be taken more seriously. Orthodox Christians have anticipated Christ's return ever since our church was founded on Pentecost. This fervent hope is expressed literally by the stand we take in prayer — on our feet, facing east, since Christ (among whose titles was "Orient”) foretold that his return would resemble lightning flashing from the east. To take this stance is to shout with one's body, "Maranatha" (Come, Lord). This same hope influences how we bury our dead. In traditional Orthodox cemeteries, the departed are placed with feet pointing east so that when Christ returns, we'll rise from our tombs to face him. None can accuse the apostolic, Eastern church of being wishy-washy about the apocalypse. Yet sobriety is called for. One New Testament book is never read from at Orthodox services — Revelations. When our ancient lectionary (cycle of daily Scripture readings for the year) was assembled, Revelations wasn't yet firmly included in the canon. The reason for this ambiguity remains valid: Many church fathers considered Revelations too arcane and vulnerable to misinterpretation for the novice reader. It ultimately was included in the Bible, but treated with extreme humility and care. The fact that Revelations became the most popular book of Scripture isn't surprising, but I lament that its mistreatment causes the general public to view its message with as much seriousness as the tabloids lining grocery store checkouts. The tragedy of this abuse is that some may not take the Parousia seriously, and conclude that the world as we know it will continue forever (or until some man-made ecological catastrophe wipes us out). I believe as the Council of Nicea did, that Christ will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. The real question is what to do in the meantime, and here's where end-times mania misses the mark. Reactions to impending doom tend to take the forms of apathy, militancy or presumption. Some quit their jobs and dropped out of society in advance of May 21, calculating expenditures to deplete their savings on that day. Have they lined up for welfare yet? Other prophets of doom have led their misguided followers to fiery, bullet-ridden deaths. Perhaps the most tragic are those who appear to savor the end of days as the ultimate destruction of sinners, by which they conveniently mean anyone but themselves. They salivate over Jesus' return to punish the "queers," the Catholics and all the other damnable kindling of eternal fire. This is the ultimate spiritual hubris and delusion. I take nothing for granted about my salvation, an ongoing process and not a once-for-all event. As the ancient Syrian ascetic St. Isaac of Nineveh writes, "This life is given to you for repentance. Do not waste it in idle pursuits." Come, Lord, but give me more time to repent first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,823 Posted April 24 Author Share Posted April 24 faithmeetsworld.com The rapture riddle - Faith Meets World 11–13 minutes I became a Christian in the mid-1980s and, together with my parents and sister, joined an old-fashioned Pentecostal church. Looking back, there was a rich culture of traditions into which I was initiated. We sang praise choruses and prayed in a certain way, people gave messages in tongues and waited for their interpretation, you were only a Christian if you openly confessed to having been born again, and the idea of spending money on the Sabbath was anathema. And there was one thing that everyone believed without question: that we were living at the very end of the “end times”, that a great tribulation was coming, and that all true Christians would be stolen away in the blink of an eye before it began. If you’ve been anywhere near this kind of Pentecostal/charismatic culture, you’ll know what I’m talking about: the doctrine of the rapture. Belief in the rapture was so deeply ingrained in Pentecostal circles that I never questioned it for years. All Pentecostal preachers taught it with such authority that to question its accuracy was to doubt the very truth of the Bible. Its hold was further reinforced by a string of popular films and books (well, popular in the Pentecostal world, anyway) exemplified by the 1972 film A Thief In The Night and Hal Lindsey’s 1970 bestseller The Late, Great Planet Earth. Even today, the rapture pop culture train has not slowed down: Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins’ 16-book Left Behind series, the first instalment of which was published in 1995, is estimated to have sold more than 63 million copies worldwide. A film adaptation is forthcoming in 2014, starring Nicholas Cage. Whatever else you might say about rapture theology, there’s plenty of money in it. But where does this idea of all Christians being miraculously snatched away from the world before a final great tribulation come from? Rapture theology is based on a particular interpretation of one short passage of scripture: According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) If you ignore the context (i.e. who the original text was written for and why), it’s easy to see how this text could be taken to refer to a rapture-type event. But what’s really interesting is that, when you take time to look into the history of rapture theology, it quickly becomes apparent that the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture is a relatively new one – in fact, it was developed as recently as the 1830s by an Anglo-Irish evangelist named John Nelson Darby. Its subsequent dramatic spread owes much to the advent of the Schofield Reference Bible, an American study Bible first published in the early 20th century that emphasised the dispensationalist view (a framework under which God is thought to have related to people in different ways – or dispensations – throughout history, with a heavy emphasis on end times prophecy). Any responsible reader of the Apostle Paul’s writings must conclude that Paul believed in a second coming of Jesus. I have no argument with that. My argument is with the particular interpretation of how Jesus’ return will take place. In his seminal work Surprised by Hope, Former Bishop of Durham Tom Wright, arguably the pre-eminent New Testament theologian alive today, argues that the above passage in 1 Thessalonians in fact refers to something quite different from the invasion-of-the-body-snatchers type rapture doctrine that has become so prevalent (emphasis added): When Paul speaks of ‘meeting’ the Lord ‘in the air’, the point is precisely not — as in the popular rapture theology — that the saved believers would then stay up in the air somewhere, away from earth. The point is that, having gone out to meet their returning Lord, they will escort him royally into his domain, that is, back to the place they have come from. Even when we realize that this is highly charged metaphor, not literal description, the meaning is the same as in the parallel in Philippians 3:20. Being citizens of heaven, as the Philippians would know, doesn’t mean that one is expecting to go back to the mother city, but rather that one is expecting the emperor to come from the mother city to give the colony its full dignity, to rescue it if need be, to subdue local enemies and put everything to rights. (For completeness, here is the text from Philippians 3:20 referred to in the above excerpt: “But we are citizens of heaven, where the Lord Jesus Christ lives. And we are eagerly waiting for him to return as our Saviour.”) According to Wright, the particular metaphor Paul is using in the 1 Thessalonians passage is that of the citizens of a colony or province going out to meet a visiting emperor some distance from the city before escorting him royally back into the city. To understand why this makes so much more sense of Paul’s writings and the rest of the New Testament than dispensationalist teaching, you’ll have to read Wright’s book for yourself. While it’s a substantial read, it’s also very accessible; it would without doubt be in my top ten recommended theological books, and I don’t say that lightly. However, the main purpose of this post is not to provide an in-depth survey of biblical interpretation as it pertains to end times teaching. Rather, it is to show how one narrow interpretation that is taken as sacrosanct by a large segment of evangelical believers is, in fact, of recent invention and, at best, highly questionable. “Very interesting”, you may think, “but what does it matter?” I contend that what we believe about the end times matters greatly, for a number of reasons. In particular, I am convinced that the continuing widespread belief in a pre-tribulation rapture is damaging to Christian theology and Kingdom living, for the following reasons: 1. Rapture theology perpetuates the thoroughly unbiblical belief that heaven is the place where we go to spend eternity after we die. A single blog post is no place to expound in detail on the theology of death, resurrection and the eternal future; suffice it to say that the New Testament speaks of a new heaven and a new earth, strongly suggesting that all of creation will be restored to its original intended state, and that this is where God’s people will dwell with Him for all eternity. While most Christians recognise the silliness of seeing heaven as a place where people and angels sit around on clouds playing harps, many have yet to realise that it is just such a fantastic and unbiblical view of life after death that is fuelled and perpetuated by rapture theology. 2. Rapture theology encourages Christians to detach from the world rather than to engage with it. Again, Tom Wright puts it better than I could in Surprised by Hope: Note, though, something else of great significance about the whole Christian theology of resurrection, ascension, second coming and hope. This theology was born out of confrontation with the political authorities, out of the conviction that Jesus was already the true Lord of the world who would one day be manifested as such. The ‘rapture’ theology avoids this confrontation, because it suggests that Christians will miraculously be removed from this wicked world. Perhaps that is why such theology is often gnostic in its tendency towards a private dualistic spirituality, and towards a political laissez-faire quietism. And perhaps that is partly why such theology, with its dreams of Armageddon, has quietly supported the political status quo in a way that Paul would never have done. Put simply, if you believe that earth is nothing more than a temporary holding pen that will ultimately be burned up and thrown in the cosmic trash can, you have little incentive to engage with and care for the world and its occupants. 3. Rapture theology encourages Christians to use the Bible as a kind of divine fortune telling manual. Yes, the Bible contains prophecy about the future, but this must always be interpreted with great care, for various reasons. For one thing, we do great damage to scripture when we automatically assume that all prophetic writing is addressed to us in our twenty-first century western world; in many cases, it is far more reasonable to assume that the primary prophetic time frame being addressed is that of the original audience (that is, in the case of the New Testament, first century Christians living in the Middle East). For another thing, biblical prophecy is rarely literal and clear-cut. To quote one final time from Tom Wright: We must remind ourselves yet once more that all Christian language about the future is a set of signposts pointing into a mist. Signposts don’t normally provide you with advance photographs of what you’ll find at the end of the road, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t pointing in the right direction. They are telling you the truth, the particular sort of truth that can be told about the future. I’ve met so many Christians who use the Bible, and the apocalyptic literature of Daniel, Matthew 24 and Revelation in particular (which requires even greater care than “standard” prophetic texts), as a kind of end times checklist against which to spot and check off current and future world events. In fact, I used to do it myself. I now see that this is a fundamental misuse of these texts, and that it encourages Christians to look for conspiracy theories and antichrists all over the place. I’m tired of looking at my Facebook news feed and seeing so-called prophets confidently claim that such-and-such an event is a clear fulfilment of such-and-such a verse in Revelation. To my mind, all this kind of scriptural literalism does is foster a “Christians against the world” mentality that is extremely off-putting to non-Christians. If you’ve unquestioningly believed in the rapture for years, as I did, then I hope this post has at least given you some food for thought. Letting go of long-held convictions is rarely easy or comfortable, but I believe God wants us to use our brains and to think critically about what we believe, why we believe it and what implications this has for our understanding of Kingdom living. And ultimately, I believe rapture theology is antithetical to the vision of the present and future Kingdom that Jesus came to paint and to inaugurate. (For further reading on rapture theology, in additional to Tom Wright’s Surprised by Hope excerpted above, I recommend Hank Hanegraaff’s The Apocalypse Code. It’s not a scholarly work like Wright’s, and is far less extensive in its scope, but nonetheless sets out the main arguments against dispensationalism. Finally, US blogger David D. Flowers has posted a number of helpful articles on rapture theology: this article is a useful starting point and contains links to a number of other posts.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,823 Posted April 25 Author Share Posted April 25 truthandtidings.com The Rapture: Dangers of Date-Setting 6–8 minutes I still remember the billboards plastered along the highways here in the United States. We were warned that “Judgment Day” was coming and urged to “cry mightily unto God.” Apparently, the wise men had correctly figured the exact time of Jesus’ first arrival, and therefore we could know the time of His second arrival because “wise men” were again involved in the calculations. And so the mystery was finally unlocked, and the date of Christ’s coming was determined and printed in bold font for the many passersby, along with the audacious claim that “The Bible Guarantees It.” But the date has long passed, as have the predicted dates for countless eschatological scams, each usually involving confusing charts, hidden codes in Hebrew texts, rumors of wars in Middle Eastern nations, the “rare” appearances of blood moons on the calendar, or frustratingly complicated mathematical models. Ironically, the math is always flawed in one very obvious way – the prognosticators have been right 0% of the time. But the predictions by such prophetic panhandlers never seem to die down. Each new world development, whether a terrorist attack, an economic downturn, or a frightening pandemic, presents a new opportunity to perpetuate (and profit from) a new “prophecy” that the world must hear. All such predictions are as worthless as copies of 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988, and nearly as plentiful as meteorological forecasts for summer afternoon thunderstorms. The work of such spurious soothsaying has been with us since the very century in which Christ first told us about His return and will likely remain with us until He comes. As each prediction fails, some are content to shrug their shoulders and move on or merely laugh it off as if no harm were done. But the dangers of setting dates for Christ’s return are no laughing matter nor as harmless as some may seem to imagine. Date-Setting Contradicts Christ’s Teaching Although the Bible does guarantee Christ’s return, Christ Himself guaranteed no one could know the time: “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows” (Mar 13:32).[1] It’s hard to imagine intentionally avoiding Jesus’ words here (which are also recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke), but I surmise that a desire to sell books or gain followers is more valuable to present-day “prophets” than truth itself. We should reject any teaching that contradicts the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, even if Bible verses are copiously used (or more likely, abused) to propagate it. Anyone who proposes a date for Christ’s return is directly opposing Christ Himself. We must honor and obey all of our Lord’s teaching, whether it pertains to the past, present or future. Date-Setting Claims More Knowledge Than Christ Repeating the quotation from Mark, Jesus said, “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Putting aside the difficulties of the text itself and how Christ (who is fully God) did not know something, anyone who alleges to have accurately determined the date of Christ’s return is doing something not even Christ Himself did. Whether you interpret His words here in relation to the Rapture or in relation to His return to earth to establish His kingdom, Christ did not claim to know the date,[2] and it is the height of arrogance to allege more knowledge than Christ. Date-Setting Opposes Imminency Once a date for Christ’s return is set and announced, the implication is that Christ could not return before that date, thus contradicting the New Testament’s teaching of imminency. A dangerous change in our focus occurs as we no longer look for Christ but for signs or events preceding His return. Signs are not for the Church. We are not to be looking for the Antichrist, but for Christ. Paul’s instructions were to “wait for his [God’s] Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath” (1Th 1:10 NET). We are to look for “Christ … [who] will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him” (Heb 9:28). Let us not lose our focus or the thrill of our blessed hope (Titus 2:13) by embracing the fallacy of date-setting. Christ’s return could happen at any moment, perhaps today. Date-Setting Disparages Pre-tribulationism Predictions about Christ’s coming are largely proposed by pre-tribulationists, because we believe the next event on God’s calendar is the return of Christ. As these reckless predictions continue to prove false, pre-tribulationism itself is unfortunately maligned by some as an erroneous theological position. This is truly regrettable, and unfair. Predictions of the rise of the Antichrist or the beginning date of the tribulation are not in short supply by those who embrace mid-tribulationism or post-tribulationism. Pre-tribulationism should be assessed in relation to Scripture, not the pre-tribulationists who set dates. As COVID-19 continues its sweep across our world, the fear of end-time pestilence is gripping many hearts. Already, the “wise men” and “wise women” of our day are lending their voices to how it’s all going to end. It won’t be long and yet another New York Times Bestseller filled with dates and frightful predictions will hit the shelves. Ironically, the one thing that is easier to predict than anything else is this – more predictions of Christ’s return are yet to come. Yet before any more books (which should properly be shelved as fiction) are written and the first copies sold, the moment could arrive. Christ could come, and He could come today. His return is imminent, and we would be truly wise men and wise women to remember His words and prepare accordingly; “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows.” Let us be among those who are waiting for His return rather than the release of yet another fraudulent book on the subject. [1] All Scripture quotations in this article are from the ESV unless otherwise noted. [2] For a handling of this difficult text, see the Q&A section of the July 2019 issue by Shawn St. Clair. © Truth & Tidings - https://truthandtidings.com/2020/08/the-rapture-dangers-of-date-setting/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,823 Posted April 25 Author Share Posted April 25 (edited) Here YA go JJ................ Anyone who proposes a date for Christ’s return is directly opposing Christ Himself. We must honor and obey all of our Lord’s teaching, whether it pertains to the past, present or future. Edited April 25 by aubiefifty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,823 Posted April 25 Author Share Posted April 25 equip.org 88 Reasons: What Went Wrong? - Christian Research Institute Christian Research Institute 24–30 minutes This article first appeared in Christian Research Journal, volume 11, number 2 (Fall 1988). The full text of the article can be obtained by clicking here. For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org/christian-research-journal/ To many, “Edgar Whisenant” has recently become a household name. Whisenant, a former NASA rocket engineer turned prophecy teacher, became famous through a booklet that included two of his works: 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could be in 1988 and On Borrowed Time.1 In this booklet, Whisenant predicted that Jesus would return to rapture His church sometime during the Jewish holiday of Rosh-Hashanah in 1988, which was from sunset, September 11, to sunset, September 13. Before those dates, The World Bible Society, which published the booklet, printed 3.2 million copies2 and distributed 200,000 of them to pastors throughout the United States.3 When the September prediction failed, Whisenant updated the time to October 3. Now that date, too, has fallen through. Whisenant nevertheless remains undaunted: “The evidence is all over the place that it is going to be in a few weeks anyway.”4 What has been the response to Whisenant’s predictions? Thousands took the booklet seriously, some even quitting their jobs to prepare for the rapture. Attendance increased in some churches.5 Many Christians shrugged the booklet off as being part of a fanatic fringe. Many others, though, while not accepting the specific predictions, praised the booklet for reminding them of the imminence of the Rapture. Norvell Olive, Executive Director of the World Bible Society, used just such a reason to justify publishing the booklet: “One cannot deny the complacency of so many, and nothing brings about the purification of His people more than the expectation of His eminent [sic] return.”6 Olive further makes the incredible estimate that 100,000 people have been converted as a result of the booklet.7 (We might also estimate that a great majority of these supposed converts will lose their faith if 1988 fails to bring the Rapture.) However they responded, it sadly appeared that most Christians were unable to discern why Whisenant’s reasoning was biblically unsound. In the following pages we will see that Whisenant misinterprets several key verses that have bearing on whether or not we can predict the date of Jesus’ second coming, wrests biblical phrases out of their contexts, and builds his predictions on shaky assumptions about symbols and dates. Whisenant is not alone in attempting to predict the dates of the end-time. Others have attempted it in the past,8 and more, no doubt, will attempt it in the future. While one purpose of this article is to evaluate Whisenant’s reasoning, another is to draw out some principles of biblical interpretation by which to discern such date-setting literature. MISCONSTRUES MATTHEW 24:36, “NO ONE KNOWS….” When the reader first heard of Whisenant’s 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988, is not unlikely that one of the first thoughts that came to mind was, “But didn’t Jesus say, ‘No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father?’” (Matt. 24:36).9 What does Whisenant do with that verse? First he agrees that one cannot know the “day or hour,” but he then says that this “does not preclude or prevent the faithful from knowing the year, the month, and week of the Lord’s return.”10 Secondly, Whisenant says that Jesus’ use of the Greek word oida is significant. Whisenant makes a lot out of the difference in Greek between the meaning of oida and ginosko. He says that ginosko connotes an objective knowledge; “In essence, the information or knowledge [gained through ginosko] is either available and understandable, or it is not.”11 Whisenant continues to say that oida, on the other hand, when used in its positive sense connotes a subjective knowledge, a knowledge gained through intuition or instinct. In Matthew 24:36, though, oida is used in its negative sense. Whisenant comments: “The negative use of ‘oida — cannot know’ means that the information or knowledge is unknowable or unattainable; it does mean that it takes an effort, investigation, or study in order to uncover and understand it. In other words, it is there to obtain….the…verses where Jesus used ‘oida,’ He was indicating that the knowledge would not come instinctively, but would require some effort to perceive and understand it.”12 Whisenant is saying, in a confusing way, that since Jesus used the word oida instead of ginosko, He denies only the possibility of knowing intuitively the time of the Rapture; Jesus does not deny the possibility of gaining objective knowledge about the Rapture through research. Three things can be said in response to Whisenant’s interpretation of Matthew 24:36. First, concerning the connotation of oida, the meanings of ginosko and oida are not as distinct as Whisenant claims. Merrill Tenney, for example, makes a distinction between the two words, but he also cautions that one should not draw too sharp a line. Moreover, the connotations that Tenney sees in ginosko and oida are completely opposite to those of Whisenant. Tenney writes that oida “implies knowledge of facts or knowledge by intellectual process.”13 It should also be noted that, while Whisenant has gleaned the meanings of ginosko and oida from Strong’s Concordance and The Companion Bible, he goes far beyond these two sources when he talks about the meaning of oida in its negative sense. By manipulating the connotation of oida in Matthew 24:36, Whisenant has turned the meaning of the verse on its head. Whereas Jesus is clearly saying that we cannot predict the time of His second coming, Whisenant has Him instead saying that with enough research we can predict the time, down to the very week. In his commentary on Matthew, William Hendriksen uses rather strong language to describe those who attempt to predict the Second Coming. He says that Jesus in Matthew 24:36 “proves the futility and sinfulness of every attempt on man’s part to predict the date when Jesus will return.”14 Secondly, in order to understand what Jesus meant when He said, “No one knows about that day or hour” (v. 36), it is helpful to look at the two analogies that He uses to illustrate His statement: the flood of Noah’s day (Matt. 24:37-41) and the coming of a thief (24:42-44). The point of both analogies is that the coming of the End will be both unexpected and unpredictable. Concerning the unexpectedness of the flood, Whisenant counters that Noah was not surprised by the coming of the flood because God had told him exactly when it would come seven days ahead of time (Gen. 7:4). While that may be true, Whisenant is mistaken in assuming this fact is relevant to the interpretation of the flood analogy in Matthew 24:37-41. In other words, Whisenant is guilty of attempting to do too much with Jesus’ analogy. Just as it is a mistake to think there is a literal interpretation for every object in a parable, so is it a mistake to make Noah’s knowledge of the time of the flood an issue in Jesus’ analogy here. The subject of Jesus’ analogy is not Noah and how much he knew, but the spiritual blindness of the people of Noah’s day and how they went about their everyday routines until the very day of the flood, which did indeed come upon them unexpectedly. Whisenant might respond by saying that Jesus’ analogy proves only that the End will come unexpectedly on those who are spiritually blind, but the spiritually alert (i.e., the Christians) will be able to know the time of His coming. If Jesus had used just the analogy of the flood to explain what He had meant when He said, “No one knows about the day or hour,” an argument such as Whisenant’s would not be without merit. It is wrong, however, because Jesus further explains what he had meant by the analogy of the thief. If Jesus’ point in the first analogy were to say that with enough research we could predict the coming of the Son of Man, then it would have been counterproductive for Him to add the analogy of the coming of the thief. No one is able to predict the coming of a thief. Jesus, moreover, concludes this analogy with inclusive wording: “So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”15 In Reason #19 Whisenant again tries to make the point that the Lord will let His people know of His return shortly before He comes. Whisenant does this, though, by misplacing the emphasis of the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13). Whisenant writes: I ask this question: would the shout that “The bridegroom cometh” by someone in the wedding party [be] in order to let the bride know a few minutes early so she can get ready — would his book or some similar event just before the end [be to] let the faithful church know or at least know the week, the month and the year a short time in advance to allow the bride to get ready to meet the bridegroom?16 When one interprets the parable correctly, though, one sees that Jesus was saying that the time to prepare is before the cry “The bridegroom cometh” rings out. The foolish virgins had no time to prepare after the cry. The purpose of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:36 and in the illustrating stories is to exhort everyone to always be prepared because “the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him” (Matt. 24:44). If God is going to forewarn the church concerning the year, month, and week of Jesus’ return, then it would not be a true statement to say that Jesus will come at an hour when we do not expect Him. A third problem with Whisenant’s treatment of Matthew 24:36 is his inadequate interpretation of a verse that is critically related to it — Acts 1:7. We find this in his companion work, On Borrowed Time. Because Acts 1:7 expands the time period beyond that of “day or hour” to “times or seasons,” Whisenant is compelled to reconcile his interpretation of Matthew 24:36 with it. When discussing Acts 1:7, he immediately focuses on the meaning of the phrase “times (chronous) or seasons (kairous)” and attempts to limit its extent. He writes, The NAB [New American Bible]…puts these scriptures in a different light. Acts 1:7 in this version reads “the exact time is not yours to know.”… The times and the seasons were not limitations in the original Greek manuscripts.17 (emphasis his) In a footnote to the above statement Whisenant adds, There is a Greek phrase used in Acts 1:7 which means specific. The phrase “the times and the seasons” in this passage contains the “specific” mark of the original manuscripts which was left out of the King James translation. The New American Bible translation has retained this mark and the passage reads “the exact time is not yours to know.” This implies that there are only two limitations to our knowing when Jesus will return for the church: the day and the hour. We will, therefore, know the times and the seasons.18 Whisenant, therefore, approaches the interpretation of Acts 1:7 in the same way as he does Matthew 24:36: Jesus only denied the possibility of knowing the specific day and hour of His return, Jesus did not, says Whisenant, deny that we can know the time frame down to within a week and even to within a particular three-day period. The biblical evidence, however, contradicts Whisenant. The supposed Greek “phrase” in Acts 1:7 which means “specific” (which Whisenant conveniently fails to identify) is nonexistent. Perhaps Whisenant is referring in an imprecise way to the fact that the Greek kairous (“seasons”) is at times used in Scripture for a point in time (while at other times it means a period of time). In any case, this does not reconcile Acts 1:7 with Matthew 24:36, for Jesus also makes reference in Acts l:7 to the Greek chronous (“times”). Chronous is consistently used in Scripture for a period of time, usually of long duration. We see then that in Acts 1:7 Jesus is excluding from our knowledge both specific dates and indefinite periods. Thus, Acts 1:7 further confirms that when Jesus says in Matthew 24:36 that we can’t know the day or the hour of His return, He also means that we can’t know the month or the year of His return. Acts 1:7 is significant also because of the word that Jesus uses for “to know.” When discussing Matthew 24:36, Whisenant himself said, “Had Jesus used [ginosko], there would have been no doubt that no one could know of that time, not even the angels, or Jesus.”20 The point is that Jesus does use ginosko in Acts 1:7, and He uses it concerning an even more expansive time period than a day or an hour. Whisenant makes a further effort to dodge the implications of Acts 1:7, arguing that the apostles’ question, “Will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?,” “had nothing to do with the Rapture.”20 Perhaps not, but Jesus’ answer does. He expands the topic to “the times or dates the Father has set by His own authority” (v. 7), which includes the end-times. Acts 1:7, then, deals a major blow to Whisenant’s assumption that we can predict the dates of the end-times. DISREGARDS THE CONTEXT We have already seen how Whisenant disregards the context when interpreting Matthew 24:36, but he does this again when interpreting phrases that he claims have eschatological (end-time) significance. The following example comes from Reason #9, which serves as the foundation for Reasons #10 and #11 — the cornerstones for his predictions: “If you need only one reason, then either reason #10 or #11 is it.”21 In Reason #9 Whisenant delineates his peculiar interpretations of two phrases found in John 4:35: “Four more months and then the harvest” and “For the fields are already white to harvest.” Whisenant writes: Jesus’ comment, “White unto harvest,” could only apply to the time of Rosh-Hash-Ana and the latter harvest (the white linen of the bride’s wedding gown being made of white cotton, and the color white representing the righteousness of the saints) while Jesus’ comments, “Four more months and then the harvest,” could only apply to the Day of Atonement and the beginning of the 70th week of Daniel.22 In other words, Whisenant claims that the phrase “white unto harvest” refers to the Rapture, and the phrase “Four more months and then the harvest” refers to the beginning of the period of the Tribulation, which is “the start of the harvest of the wicked at the end of this age.”23 The biblical context of these phrases, however, does not support Whisenant’s interpretation. The context of John 4:35 is the incident where Jesus has struck up a conversation with a Samaritan woman after the disciples had gone into town to buy food. In that conversation, Jesus explains to the woman that He gives “living water” and that He is the Messiah. When the disciples return, they are surprised to see Jesus talking with the woman, but they decide against saying anything about it. Instead, they encourage Jesus to eat some of the food they had bought while in town. Jesus replies, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. Do you not say, ‘Four months more and then the harvest?’ I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe [Greek: leukai; literally “white”] for harvest. Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together” (vv. 34-36). The intent, then, of the two phrases, “white unto harvest” and “four more months and then the harvest,” has nothing to do with people being ripe for judgment at the end of the age, but it has everything to do with people being ripe for evangelism. The phrase “four more months and then the harvest” was a common saying in Jesus’ day that connoted the feeling that there was no hurry in getting to a particular task because one could not rush the growth of the crops.24 Jesus, however, with the statement “They are ripe for harvest,” spurs the disciples on to proclaiming the good news of eternal life now, for people are spiritually hungry enough to receive it. To apply these phrases to a future eschatology, as does Whisenant, is to wrench them from their original context and to misconstrue altogether the meaning that Jesus intended for them. MISTAKENLY INTERPRETS A SYMBOL In at least one instance Whisenant incorrectly interprets a biblical symbol, and then proceeds to build his predictions upon the shaky foundation of that faulty interpretation. The instance occurs in Reason #7 where Whisenant quotes Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:32-33 as follows, “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: as soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things,…I [Jesus] tell you the truth, this wicked generation (1948-1988) will certainly not pass until all these things have happened” (ellipses and emphasis in original).25 Whisenant interprets the above verse in the following way: “This last generation spoken of above started on 14 May 1948, the day Israel became a nation. Israel is the time clock of God throughout history. Israel is the blooming fig tree, and the last generation will end 40 wicked gentile years later on 14 May 1988.”26 Contrary to Whisenant’s interpretation, the context of Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:32-33 gives no warrant to the idea that Jesus was using the figure of the fig tree as anything more than an illustration of how the Jews were able to tell when summer was near. Just as the blooming of the fig tree indicates that summer is approaching, so the previous signs that Jesus had mentioned (e.g., nations rising against nations, famines, earthquakes, and the preaching of the gospel to the entire world) are indications that the end is near. In fact, Luke 21:29-30, a parallel passage, supports the idea that Jesus was not using the analogy of the fig tree for anything more than a way to illustrate how people can know when a particular time is near. Luke writes: “He told them this parable: ‘Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near’” (Luke 21:29-30). In Luke, then, Jesus refers not just to the fig tree, but to all trees. This parallel verse is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the fig-tree-equals-the-rebirth-of-Israel interpretation of Matthew 24:32-33. Whisenant charges ahead, though, and makes specific predictions about the date of the Rapture, apparently oblivious to the fact that his interpretation of the symbol of the fig tree lacks contextual support. RELIES HEAVILY ON QUESTIONABLE DATES Not only does Whisenant build his predictions on the questionable interpretation of biblical symbols, he also builds them on historical dates for which there is little consensus among either biblical scholars or archaeologists. For example, in Reason #14 he states that The New Scofield Reference Bible gives 602 B.C. as the date when Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the idol with the bead of gold.27 Whisenant then makes the following extrapolation: “Therefore, 602 B.C. less [sic] the 70 years of the Babylonian captivity equals 532 B.C.; and 532 B.C. less 2,520 years equals 1988 as the end of the times of the gentiles. So here we have shown that Rosh-Hash-Ana 1988 is the exact end of the church age.”28 The NIV Study Bible, however, places Nebuchadnezzar’s second year of reign during 604 B.C.;29 and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary says it was between April 603 and March 602 B.C.30 It is possible, therefore, that 602 B.C. is an incorrect date from which to count. If it is indeed an incorrect date, then it would throw off Whisenant’s calculations not only in Reason #14 but also in several other Reasons (#‘s 19, 28, 35, 38, and 60). In Reason #16 Whisenant makes a prediction based on the date of Adam’s creation! The Chronological Bible gives Adam’s creation by God as Friday, 3975 B.C., and states that Adam was created at approximately 30 years of age. So 3975 B.C. less 30 years equals 4005 B.C. as the year that Adam would have been born, had Adam been born of a woman. And from 4005 B.C. to 1995 A.D., is 6,000 years or six days with God, and the year that the seventh day (called the millennium [sic]) would be expected to start. So if the millennium [sic] would start in 1995, then the 70th week of Daniel would have to start seven years earlier in 1988 in order to be completed on time.31 Passing over the question of the validity of Whisenant’s arguments here, can we in fact be so certain that Adam was created on a Friday in the year 3975 B.C. and that he was created at the age of 30? Even Edward Reese, the man who compiled and prepared The Chronological Bible, offers a disclaimer concerning the accuracy of its dates: No two Bible scholars would be likely to arrange a Bible in exactly the same chronological order. There is not common agreement on the length of the judges, or the exact dates of the 483 years of Daniel 9:25. After consulting numerous works on Bible history and chronology, after careful analysis of every time frame in the Bible, and after many revisions, placement decisions were made in the best judgment of the arranger, some necessarily arbitrary.32 (emphasis added) Good men’s opinions will vary on most things, and certainly do in the field of Bible Chronology….May the dates and titles be kept in proper perspective. They are only aids.33 Therefore, Edward Reese, the man behind The Chronological Bible, does not recommend using its dates as the basis for making exact predictions. Nevertheless, in almost half (41 times, according to my count) of his 88 Reasons, Whisenant assumes the exactitude of these dates as the starting point for calculating the date of the Rapture. (It is interesting to note that similar schemes of chronological reasoning led the Jehovah’s Witnesses to their false predictions concerning the years 1914 and 1975.) SEEKS KNOWLEDGE RESERVED FOR GOD ALONE As we have seen, in order to make the Bible fit his particular prophetic scheme, Whisenant has misconstrued Matthew 24:36, pulled biblical phrases out of their original context, and taken for granted the interpretation of a biblical symbol and the identification of dates that are anything but certain. Whisenant has in essence misinterpreted and misused the Bible, and it is on that foundation alone that his predictions of the church’s rapture are based. Some may defend Whisenant by saying that he has made them more mindful of the imminency of Christ’s return. Such a mindfulness certainly has merit. It is one thing, though, to be reminded that the end might come soon, it is quite another thing to make specific predictions about the date of the Rapture. Jesus Himself warned against speculating about the dates of the end-times (Matt. 24:36; Acts 1:7), and He stressed that only God knows exactly when the events of the future will transpire. The practice of speculating about the date of the Rapture is akin in spirit to that of the diviners and astrologers (Deut. 18:9-14; Isa. 47:12-14). It is akin in that they all seek after a knowledge that is reserved for God alone. In that respect it is interesting to note that Whisenant bases two of his Reasons (#’s 64 and 65) on the words of “America’s famous psychic”34 and another on the occultic practice of numerology (#61). Concerning Whisenant’s 88 Reasons and other prophetic schemes in the same vein, the reader would be well advised to view them with a “healthy dose” of skepticism. As Jesus said, “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But…[to] be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:7-8). Our task is not to dwell at length on the particulars of the end-times, but to make ourselves ready at all times, and to help others become ready for Christ’s return, which will happen in His time. Dean C. Halverson, formerly a researcher with the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, is presently working with International Students, Inc., as their world religions specialist. NOTES Edgar Whisenant, 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988/On Borrowed Time, (Nashville, TN: World Bible Society, 1988). “Rapture Seer Hedges on Last Guess,” Christianity Today, 21 October 1988, 43. “Still Around,” Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, 14 Sept. 1988, Part D. “Rapture Seer,” 43. “Book Predicts End of World: Some Quit Jobs,” Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, 31 Sept. 1988, Part A. Quote appeared in a letter printed as the introduction to On Borrowed Time. “Rapture Seer,” 43. See, for example, Kenneth R. Samples, “From Controversy to Crisis: An Updated Assessment of Seventh-day Adventism.” Christian Research Journal, Summer 1988. Unless otherwise noted, all biblical quotations are taken from the New International Version. Reasons, 3. Ibid, 4. Ibid, 4-5. Merrill Tenney, “The Gospel of John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 9:58. William Hendriksen, Matthew (New Testament Commentary Ser.) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1973). 869. Reasons, 44. Ibid., 24. Borrowed, 1. Ibid., 2. Ibid., 4. Borrowed, 2. Reasons, 19. Ibid., 17. Ibid., 21. Leon Morris, The Gospel of John, the New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F.F. Bruce (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), 279. Reasons, 10. Ibid. Ibid., 21. Ibid. 29 Kenneth Baker, ed., The NIV Study Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985), 1301. 30 Gleason L. Archer, Jr., “Daniel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 7:39. 31 Reasons, 22. 32 Edward Reese, The Reese Chronological Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1977), from the page entitled “The Reese Chronological Bible.” 33 Ibid, from the page entitled “A Final Word About the Dating.” 34 Reasons, 37. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,823 Posted April 25 Author Share Posted April 25 How many examples do you folks need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,823 Posted April 25 Author Share Posted April 25 bethmelekh.com Rapture? What Rapture? Deconstructing the Rapture Construct bhud 18–22 minutes Introduction: I have been asked to share my views regarding the so called “Rapture” of the saints (believers). This article is by no means exhaustive; however, it does seek to address the common misconceptions and Biblical misinterpretations offered by Rapture proponents. For many followers of Messiah (Christ) the theological construct known as “The Rapture” is presumed rather than considered. In fact, in speaking to most Messiah followers I find that few if any contest the idea of the Rapture. For the most part the only issue that arises from discussing the Rapture with other believers is whether or not they are pre-tribulation or post-tribulation believers. When I’m asked my thoughts on the so called “Rapture” I often respond, “Rapture? What Rapture?” This is because as both a Jew and a follower of Messiah, I am unable to find evidence for the so-called Rapture in either the Tanakh (OT) or the Brit Ha-Chadashah (NT). However, before I address the concept (conceived, not self-evident) itself by testing it against Scripture, I will give a brief history of this relatively recent theological phenomenon. A Brief History of the Rapture Construct: Proponents of the theological construct called “The Rapture” often sight the writings of early Church fathers as evidence that the Rapture Theology dates back to the earliest days of Gentile Christianity. They interpret the writings of these early fathers of the Gentile Church in a revisionist fashion in order to read into them their preconceived view. In this respect their interpretation of the early Church fathers’ writings is no different from their interpretation of Scripture. From the writings of Ephraim the Syrian (306 CE – 373 CE) they read “gathered” as “raptured” or “taken up”, and thus conclude a rapturing of believers. In the writings of Cyprian (200 CE-258CE) they read “delivered” as “raptured”. In the writings of Irenaeus (130 CE – 202 CE) they read “tribulation” and presume a “rapture”. In every case they are not quoting explicit evidence for the Rapture but instead are misinterpreting the writings of the Church fathers in the same way they have misinterpreted the Scriptures that they misuse to support the concept of a rapture. The truth is that there is no explicit evidence of the teaching of a rapture in any of the writings of the early Church fathers (1st to 3rd Centuries CE). Even more importantly, a rapture of believers was not taught by Yeshua (Jesus) or the apostles, and further, has never been a theological concept within ancient Biblical Judaism. While there is evidence that rapture theology was present in the Church for some time prior to the 19th century (Though not as early as the 3rd Century), Pre-tribulation Rapture theology became popular in the late eighteenth century, with the Puritan preachers, and was popularised extensively in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby. Darby’s assertions were picked up by Scofield and distributed further in the United States in the annotations of the Scofield Reference Bible in the early 20th century. Thus, the popular presumptions regarding the Rapture are largely premised on its recent revival in modern Anglo-American Church history. Regardless of how early one sees evidence of a rapture theology within Church writings, the deciding of this issue must rest on the inspired Word of God and what is written in it. Therefore, what follows will be an examination of the Scriptures that are supposed to prove the Rapture construct (teaching of men). Scriptures that Prove the Rapture? 1. The most famous of the Rapture passages is found in 1 Thessalonians 4.15-17 and reads: “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left until the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the shofar of God: and the dead in Messiah will rise first; then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up (gathered, taken away) in the clouds (of the presence: nephele Ex. 13:21), to meet the Lord in the (open) air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” I have placed in brackets the full meaning of the Greek words used, for the purpose of exposing some of the primary misunderstandings that are concluded from the text. First, the Greek word harpazo translated “caught up” in many English versions, rarely means “caught up”. In fact, out of its eighteen uses in the Brit Ha-Chadashah (NT), there are only three that explicitly mean “caught up” (2 Co. 12:2, 12:4; Rev. 12:5). In all other cases (15) harpazo means “to gather, take away, catch, pluck, seize”, none of which explicitly refer to being lifted into the sky. Further, harpazo is related to the word aihreomai meaning to take for oneself, that is, to prefer, and is used exclusively in the Brit Ha-Chadashah (NT) to refer to the act of choosing and or those who are chosen (Php. 1:22; Heb. 11:25; 2 Th 2:13). Neither does the mention of nephele “clouds” denote the sky. In fact, unless otherwise qualified i.e. “the clouds of the sky” (Matt. 26:64), the word nephele (clouds) can refer to clouds or a cloud appearing on earth, like the cloud of the presence that lead Israel through the desert (Exodus 13:21). In fact this same Greek word nephele is used by the Septuagint (Greek OT) to translate the Hebrew anan (cloudy mass, covering) in Exodus 13:21 and refers not to the clouds of the sky but to the cloud of the presence in which the Malakh HaShem (Messenger of the Lord) manifest Himself (Many understand this to be a manifestation of the Messiah Himself). This bears much greater continuity within the context of the present passage. Nor does the use of the Greek word aer “air” denote the sky. In fact this Greek word refers specifically to the breathable air of the lower atmosphere. The more accurate translation would be “open air” i.e. “I’m going outside into the open air”. In common 1st century Greek speech this would not have been confused with the upper atmosphere of the sky. Thus, the Greek recipient of this first century letter to the Church would not have understood this to be describing a rapture (lifting up into the sky, levitation). Therefore, a correct reading of the Greek text, even out of context (which is how proponents of the Rapture have taken this text) would be: “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left until the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the shofar of God: and the dead in Messiah will rise first; then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be gathered in the clouds of the presence, to meet the Lord in the open air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” This is in keeping with the fact that God will make His dwelling with us on the new earth and not aloft in the heavens (Rev. 21:3). Rapture proponents must ask themselves, “Why would God rapture up believers only to drop them down again so that they can dwell with Him?” These things aside, proponents of the Rapture take the 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 Scripture entirely out of context. In the context of 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, Rav Shaul (Paul the Apostle) answers questions that believers in Thessalonica had concerning death. What has happened to our loved ones who have died before the return of the Messiah to earth? In the end, what will happen to us? What will happen to them? Rav Shaul’s (Paul’s) answer explains the bodily resurrection at the return of Messiah to earth, and not an escape into the sky (Rapture, mass levitation). In 1 Thessalonians chapter 4:15-17, Shaul (Paul) is making a drash (comparative teaching) using two specific images from the Tanakh (OT) that were familiar to Jewish believers and Gentile converts who were familiarising themselves with the Hebrew tradition. The first has to do with Moses coming down from Mount Sinai, from out of the cloud of the Lord’s presence, carrying the Torah accompanied by the great blast of the shofar (Exodus 24). The second image is taken from Daniel chapter 7 where the “one like the son of man” (or “human being” or “The Human One”) and the community He represents is vindicated over the enemies of the people of God. Clouds here symbolise the power and authoritative judgement of God in rescuing, delivering, protecting His people Israel (Ethnic, religious). Shaul (Paul) now applies this idea to Gentile Christians as well as to Jewish believers, who were facing various forms of persecution in the first century CE. Rapture, as it is popularly understood, is nowhere to be found in this “Rapture” passage. Scripture clearly teaches that the Messiah will return to resurrect, to cleanse, to heal, restore and to establish the eternal kingdom of God on this earth. Heaven and earth will be united forever as a result of the sacrificial death and resurrection of the King Messiah Yeshua. Concerning the Messiah’s return, the Bible teaches, “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and He will dwell with them. They will be His people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away’” (Revelation 21:3-4). The renewed world will be our eternal home with God and His King Messiah Yeshua, and we have the opportunity in the present world to reflect that hope. Rapture on the other hand invites us to escape this world: which is the opposite of the truth seen in the life and ministry of Yeshua (Jesus). We pray “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” according to His instruction, and not “in heaven away from the earth!” 2. Some claim that Matthew 24 proves the Rapture. “And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man. Then shall two men be in the field; one is taken, and one is left: two women shall be grinding at the mill; one is taken, and one is left. Watch therefore: for ye know not on what day your Lord comes. But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken through.” -Matthew 24:37-43 When reading this teaching of Yeshua we should understand it according to its proper context. The flood destroyed the earth, taking away the wicked and leaving behind God's people (Noah's family). Thus, It was the wicked who were taken and Noah and his family who were left behind. Therefore, these verses cannot and do not support a rapture of believers. It is the wicked who will be taken away in the last days and the righteous that will remain. 3. There are those who claim that Luke 17:20-37 proves the Rapture. “Two women shall be grinding wheat together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. And they answered and said to Him, Where, Lord? And He said unto them, where ever the body is, there will the eagles (Vultures) be gathered together.” - Luke 17:35-37 (context v.20-37) As in the case of the previous Scripture, the context is relative to the days of Noah and those taken are the wicked while those left are the righteous. In the text of Luke 17:35-37 the disciples ask for clarification saying, “Where Lord?” They were not wondering where the one left behind would be? That one had gone nowhere. The disciples were asking “Where will the one who was taken be?” Yeshua (Jesus) answers, "Where ever the body is, there will the birds of prey be gathered together." The Greek aetos translated eagle is also used to translate carrion, thus “birds of prey” is perhaps a better rendering. Carrion (Vultures) gather over dead bodies, therefore, we read “carcass”. Even if we read “eagle” the result is the same, the dead body is the subject. “Does the eagle mount up at thy command, and make her nest on high? She dwells and abides in the rock, upon the crag of the rock, and the strong place. From thence she seeks the prey, and her eyes behold afar off. Her young ones also suck up blood: and where the slain are, there she is.” - Job 39:27-30 In the Matthew 24 account, Yeshua (Jesus) makes it clearer by saying that the body is a “carcass”. Thus, those taken away cannot have been raptured, rather, they are the wicked dead. 4. There are many Christians who use the phrase "coming as a thief" as proof of a rapture. By separating it from the context and believing that Yeshua (Jesus) is coming as a thief for the body of believers, they establish a false theology on a flawed premise. Here’s what the Shaliach (Apostle) Shaul (Paul) says regarding the phrase “comes as a thief”: “But of the times and the seasons, brothers and sisters, you have no need that I write to you. For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, ‘peace and safety’; then sudden destruction will come upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they will not escape. But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. You are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.” -1 Thessalonians 5:1-5 First, followers of Messiah understand that there are times and seasons in the outworking of God’s redemptive plan, and Shaul sees no reason to write to them regarding the certainty of their hope in Messiah’s return (v.1). Second, Shaul clarifies what the believers already know, that “the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night”. Note that it is the day of the Lord and not the Messiah that is referred to. Third, “they” (not believers but unbelievers), “shall say, ‘peace and safety’; then sudden destruction will come upon them…” This cannot refer to believers because v2 already clarifies that believers know that the day of the Lord will come like a thief upon those who are unprepared. Fourth, Shaul reaffirms that the believers will not be taken or surprised by the day of the Lord (v.4) because they are not in darkness (night). Therefore, the day of the Lord will come “as a thief” for the world. It will “come suddenly”, on those who are unaware of Messiah? Shaul (Paul) reminds the community of believers that followers of Messiah Yeshua are not overtaken “as by a thief”, because we will be watching and waiting for the Lord, expecting His return (v.4). “The thief comes for no other reason, than to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: ‘I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.'” - John 10:10 The Messiah is not a thief, nor should we understand Him figuratively as one who steals. What does a thief come to do? To steal and destroy! Yeshua (Jesus) is not coming to steal and destroy His bride (Body of believers)? Rather, the day of the Lord will bring about the destruction of the wicked. The day of the Lord will not come like a thief for the body of faith. Rather, the day of the lord will come as a great surprise to the wicked, just as a sleeping man is surprised by a thief at night. Therefore, this scripture is also devoid of any evidence supporting a rapture. 5. “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.” -John 14:3 Where will Yeshua be? He will be with the Father in the New Jerusalem on the New earth (Rev. 21). Therefore, what need is there for Him to rapture those who He will gather to Himself? There is no need, nor does this Scripture support this false idea. 6. “However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” -Luke 10:20 Yes, our names are written in the book of life which is presently held in the heavens. However, Revelation clearly teaches that the New Jerusalem will come down from heaven and that God will dwell with us on the New earth (Rev. 21). Therefore, our names being presently written in heaven does not qualify the Rapture construct. In fact, this verse is identifying believers as Ben Elohiym (Sons of God: God fearers), as set apart from Ben Adam (Sons of humanity: idolaters). 7. “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a loud shofar call, and they will gather His elect (Jews) from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” -Matthew 24:30-31 (Mark 13:24-27) Notice that it is Yeshua Who will come “in the clouds of heaven”, and not the elect (Jews). Notice also that He will gather the elect (Jews) from the four points of the compass. He does not lift up the elect, He gathers them. The phrase “From one end of the heavens to the other” is an ancient Hebrew idiom meaning “all of the earth”. Therefore, this verse does not support the Rapture construct. 8. “But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Saviour from there, the Lord Yeshua the Messiah, who, by the power that enables Him to bring everything under His control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like His glorious body.” -Philippians 3:20-21 As alluded to previously, our names and subsequently our citizenship are presently recorded in the heavens. However, as also stated previously, the New Jerusalem will come down out of heaven and our residence will be on the new earth in the presence of God the Father and the King Messiah Yeshua. Conclusion: Not one of the Scriptures proposed, when read in context using the original languages, support the Rapture construct. In fact, to the contrary, they refute it and in addition, when coupled with the text of Revelation and the wider body of Scripture, they instead properly illuminate the truth that God intends to come down and dwell with us rather than steal us away up into the heavens. With this in mind, and the fact that neither the books of Daniel or Revelation (the ultimate prophetic descriptions of the latter days) mention a rapture, not once, nor do they imply any kind of rapture, not once; we must conclude that there is no Rapture. Scripture demands it. The reality is that the Rapture theological construct has more in common with the levitation of false esoteric eastern religions than it does with Biblical Judeo-Christianity. In short, the Rapture is a foolish exercise in spiritual escapism. So when I’m asked, “Yaakov, what’s your take on the Rapture?”, I will continue to respond, “Rapture? What Rapture?” Copyright Yaakov Brown 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyTiger 7,820 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 9 hours ago, aubiefifty said: are you saying christians should not be held accountable if they stray from the message of jesus? No I didn’t but if you feel worthy and informed enough to hold Christians accountable go ahead with the game. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,823 Posted April 25 Author Share Posted April 25 7 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said: No I didn’t but if you feel worthy and informed enough to hold Christians accountable go ahead with the game. i like the truth in all things. i get banged all the time and you never say a word. am i right? at least i posted facts. i love the one part where one group thinks jesus is coming down to kill all the gays...........telling the truth is all i am doing. especially when some claim i have no idea what i am talking about. but not one person on here will admit they are wrong so why not ask them questions salty? this is a discussion sire if i am not mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyTiger 7,820 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 4 minutes ago, aubiefifty said: love the one part where one group thinks jesus is coming down to kill all the gays... Have no clue what you are yapping about and no one “bangs” you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyTiger 7,820 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 8 hours ago, auburnatl1 said: I’m just a boring Lutheran and don’t know many evangelicals - especially pure literalists. I can appreciate the debates get exhausting but, again, it’s interesting. I have had a hard time trying to decide exactly who is labeled evangelical. A pretty loose term these days. Suppose we need to alphabetically designate Christians. I know literalist and non literalist. Not a big difference in life style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnatl1 4,980 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 3 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said: I have had a hard time trying to decide exactly who is labeled evangelical. A pretty loose term these days. Suppose we need to alphabetically designate Christians. I know literalist and non literalist. Not a big difference in life style. Dont spoil my current visualization darn it😇 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyTiger 7,820 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 3 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said: Dont spoil my current visualization darn it😇 Genuine believers use rattlesnakes….obviously a rat snake here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now