Posted on 05/21/2016 8:38:01 AM PDT by Salvation
Q. Many of our Protestant brethren say that, before Jesus comes, there will be a rapture wherein all the faithful will be taken up, I guess, to meet Him in the sky. When I tell them that the Bible says we will “see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven” (Mt 24:30) and “he will send his angels ... and they will gather his elect from the four winds” (Mt 24:31), and then ask them who will be left to “gather” if everyone has previously been “raptured,” they say it will be the Jews. What is the Church’s teaching on this? Will there even be such a thing as the rapture? I’m confused! Any light you can shed on the subject will be greatly appreciated!
Rich Willette, Springfield, Vt.
A. The notion of rapture (a Latin word that means to be snatched away) is a very novel concept among certain (not all) evangelicals. It is a notion less than 150 years old and finds no real support in the biblical text as you point out. Fundamentally, the theory asserts that before the final tribulations of the last times, faithful Christians will be snatched away. Rapture theorists disagree about the exact moment of the snatching. Some say it will be pre-tribulation, others midway through the tribulations, and some even say post-tribulation.
The root text for evangelicals who hold rapture theory is a text from the First Letter to the Thessalonians: “Indeed. we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore, console one another with these words” (4:15-18).
The context is the second coming of Christ. There are not two second comings taught in Scripture, but rapture theory posits two — the one described in First Thessalonians and another one, some 1,000 years later. Note, too, that in First Thessalonians there is no mention of some people being left behind. There is no mention of a 1,000-year reign. Nor does St. Paul indicate that what he is describing here is a different coming of Christ, distinct from other texts in the Gospel wherein Christ describes His own second coming.
Thus we are left with a text that simply does not support what rapture theorists say. They further strive to unnaturally stitch this account with other texts in the Book of Revelation. The result is a highly debatable account of the last days that even rapture theorists hotly debate in terms of the details. The whole enterprise amounts to an attempt to shoehorn biblical passages into rapture theory that more clearly call it into question. To say the “elect” are merely the Jews is speculative at best and fanciful and contrived at worst.
As for Catholic teaching on these matters, the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes it as follows: “Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers [see Lk 18:8; Mt 24:12]. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. [see 2 Thes 2:4-12; 1 Thes 5:2-3; 2 Jn 7; 1 Jn 2:18-22]” (No. 675).
ealgeone did up thread.
I don't want to hijack the thread so ping me when he makes one of "those" comments again.
As an agnostic / Metatheist I have to ask. In the dark ages before Skype I would tell my daughters picture that I missed her when I was out of town and would give her and my wife's picture a kiss goodnight, was that worship?
You admitted it up thread.
Thales, this is the guy I told you about off list. When you get a chance tell him about textual context versus historical definition shift. It might help him with some of his issues.
Below is from 329 posted on 5/23/2016, 8:26:10 PM by ealgeone
verga: When I lived up north I saw Oral Roberts in person hold a Bible up and tell the crowd they would find God in there.
ealgeone:I'm not a fan of Oral Roberts in any way but to his point....where else will you find out about God if not in His Word??
13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 John 5:13 NASB
30Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31 NASB
I also corrected you in my post 362, 340, 339 on this issue.
Now, as I told you previously...if you're going to quote someone get it right.
You want to have a discussion on the topic....fine. I have no problem with that.
But as you've been corrected and shown to be in error on the statement you aledge I made about "equating the Bible with God", I have a problem with that.
FYI....I've never made one of "those" comments to begin with. Your source is in error as he has been shown on more than one occasion.
Which is simply a fallacious assertion, which cannot be shown, and doubling down on your refuted assertion rather than admitting it is further marginalizes you as a desperate defender of the indefensible.
ealgeone did up thread.
He did no such thing. Where else will you find out about God if not in His Word is simply not saying the Bible is literally God. I dare you find another RC here that will agree with your utter fabrication, or delusion, and take up your argument as you have been reduced to spitballs and rendered yourself as one unworthy of meaningful debate. Doubling down on your assertions further adds absurdity to your record in the name of Rome, and is an argument against being an RC.
Why not join the crowd?
As an agnostic / Metatheist I have to ask. In the dark ages before Skype I would tell my daughters picture that I missed her when I was out of town and would give her and my wife's picture a kiss goodnight, was that worship?
No, and the argument was not kissing a picture of someone is worship, nor that that simply kneeling before something other than God constitutes worship, but that one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them
Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship. Or at least what would be blasphemous in Scripture.
In response a RC charged that preaching that one finds God in the Bible, even as finding out about God, constitutes worship as the Bible literally being God, and praying before a Bible or while clutching it in hand means that one is praying to it, and is analogous to what Caths do toward Mary, as described. And the poster insists on maintaining such absurdity despite patiently being shown his error
And now it seems he has invoked you for support. Perhaps if you say you find someone in your school yearbook then this means that the yearbook literally is that person, while speaking with it in hand means you are praying to it in worship of it.
Such is hardly helpful to an agnostic
The thread is about the rapture, ealgeone did a great job of hijacking it to push his agenda about Mary. It might be nice if everyone tried to stay on topic.
How can it be millenial if 3 verses before it says God makes a new heaven and a new earth, just as it says in the first verse of Revelation 21, which you place AFTER the millenium?
And we know this how? Through the Word n
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
VERGA:The thread is about the rapture, ealgeone did a great job of hijacking it to push his agenda about Mary. It might be nice if everyone tried to stay on topic.
To: Mom MD
But not Mary, eh?
30 posted on 5/21/2016, 12:59:25 PM by Mrs. Don-o (Jesus, my Lord, my God, my All.)
To Mom MD:Rapture is also present in the OT the first instance is actually in Genesis Enoch and Elijah were raptured ASSUMED into heaven quite a bt before the mid 1800s. Fixed it for you!
Wait isn't this a typological precursor for what Catholics claim happened to the Blessed Mother? Could this b e biblical evidence that the Catholics are on the right track?
46 posted on 5/21/2016, 1:43:39 PM by verga (In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.)
You really need to pay attention to your tagline.
You switched it to the immaculate conception, Nice try.
You interjected Mary first. Nice try.
You are asking me to take your word about a non-Catholic practice, but refuse to take the Catholics word about our beliefs. That is the very definition of Hypocrisy.
I’m showing you what catholics do with verifiable sources. You only offer hearsay evidence.
.
It has to be millennial if there is mortality.
We go to the NHNE when the physical/temporal universe is extinguished. If that has not happened, then the millennial period is not completed yet.
Reading The Revelation requires steady attention, since it jumps back and forth constantly, showing what is happening in two very different places at once. These are customarily called “parentheticals.”
.
Like I said, you expect us to take your word.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.