LaHaye's "Rapture" Ideology Was Not Even Considered Until 1830

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
The word, "rapture", is old, but the theological meaning ... is a fairly new one that started within the last 200 years, after the rise of Protestantism.


It was started in the mid 1800s by Nelson Darby. He was a failed Anglican Priest who started a rapture cult. NO ONE even considered it before he preached this 'free ticket out of tribulation'. Even now, very few Christians buy into it.




posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Byrd,your post is very true. Thank you.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Even now, very few Christians buy into it.



Au Contraire. There are many,as a matter of fact,I'd say that most "christians" buy into the whole pre-tribulational "rapture" fallacy. They think it's owed to them or something.They fail to see that God loves all people and does not favor one over the other.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Terral
What kind of question is that?? Your hypothesis is that “LaHaye's "Rapture" Ideology Was Not Even Considered Until 1830”


Just to settle the argument, the statement is correct.

The early Christian church had no such theological position.

They were "reform Jews" (at first) and Judaism (circa 30 AD) had no "rapture" theology (the interpretation that the Old Testament supports rapture theology is not correct -- remember, these were originally Jewish books and the Jews didn't believe in an afterlife OR in a rapture.)

When the Christians became organized, there was no organized belief in a rapture (they were all Catholic. They believed in an afterlife and that people could be prayed out of hell or out of limbo.)

When the Council of Nicea determined what books would be in the Bible, Revelation was a real sticking point. Many didn't want it in there.

Christianity was Catholic until Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation (so the La Haye theology was never a part of church history until thTat point.)

Early Protestants were more like Lutherans (basically the same Catholic theology and ceremonies with some small theological differences.) Rapture was not one of those differences -- Martin Luther, who founded Protestantism, argued that Revelation had no place in the Protestant Bible. He also threw other books out of the Bible (the apocrypha.)

The word, "rapture", is old, but the theological meaning as "period of tribulation/antichrist/people vanishing (in whichever order you prefer)" is a fairly new one that started within the last 200 years, after the rise of Protestantism.


Oh my gawd...this is so untrue I don't even know where to start. The "Catholic church" (big C) didn't start forming for almost 300 years. The "catholic" church (little c) denoted "universal" church. Look-the-word-up. No wait - I implore you to look it up before you say anything else, because you didn't look it up the first time! They did NOT believe they could pray people out of hell or limbo. At least they never uttered a word of that belief if they did. The DID believe in being raptured (little r as a verb) and their founding fathers wrote of it (the rapture of Paul, the rapture of John the Seer, the rapture of Enoch) but they did NOT believe in "the Rapture" (big R)...or at least they didn't bother writing about it if they did.

Please, let's not make this whole thing worse by typing false information that less than 15 minutes of research can prove wrong.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I'd say that most "christians" buy into the whole pre-tribulational "rapture" fallacy.


There are 2 billion Christians on this planet.

There are one billion Catholics. Catholics do not believe in any rapture.
Greek and Russian Orthodox do not believe in any rapture.
Episcopalians do not believe in any rapture.
Lutherans do not believe in any rapture.
Methodists do not believe in any rapture.

Those are most of Christians. They do not believe in any rapture at all.

Some Presbyterians do. Baptists, Church of Christ, and the independant bible churches mostly do.

Not many at all.

But hey .. I agree with ya ... rapture = fallicy. It's a complete fraud.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
They did NOT believe they could pray people out of hell or limbo.


You are absolutely correct Valhall.

Catholics do not believe that you can pray people out of hell. Limbo either.
Once you are in hell ..you are there forever.

Catholics DO believe you can pray for people in purgatory and that your prayers help them speed through the process so they can 'move on'.

My personal 'purgatory' belief (which is shared by some of the priests that I've talked to about this) .... some ghosts people encounter or 'feel' around them are actually souls going through the purgatorive process. They are stuck here .... attached to something or someone ... and they are going through the letting go and moving on process. It's purgatorive ... purging of worldly things and worldly desires so that the soul may move on.

That's my personal belief ... for what it's worth (probably not worth anytihing) ...



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
The "Catholic church" (big C) didn't start forming for almost 300 years. The "catholic" church (little c) denoted "universal" church.

Hmm. I thought I made that clear -- that the first version of the church was more similar to Messianic Judaism than to any organized religion fo the day.

Let me go back and make that clear, then:
The Official Catholic religion was off to a rocky start before 100 AD. There were a number of brawls and the whole thing didn't get (somewhat) settled until around 200 AD. By the time they got around to putting together the Bible, a whole complex structure had formed (the Catholic church.)


They did NOT believe they could pray people out of hell or limbo.

Paid indulgences and masses for the dead are a very old tradition of the Catholic church, as I indicated. It wasn't a tradition of the first Christians. And it was one of the reasons that the Protestants broke from the Catholics, though there'd been many scandals about this over the centuries.


At least they never uttered a word of that belief if they did. The DID believe in being raptured (little r as a verb) and their founding fathers wrote of it (the rapture of Paul, the rapture of John the Seer, the rapture of Enoch) but they did NOT believe in "the Rapture" (big R)...or at least they didn't bother writing about it if they did.


Apparently an issue of semantics, here. I did mean the Big R... had I meant the other, I'd have said "religous ecstacy." Most folks aren't familiar with the use of 'rapture' (little r) in terms of a personal religious experience. I didn't want to confuse them with semantics.


I hope that's clearer. Sorry if I confused you.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Catholics do not believe that you can pray people out of hell. Limbo either.
Once you are in hell ..you are there forever.


In fact, they did to some extent (Official Catholic Website, here).
www.newadvent.org...

Catholic theologians reject it NOW... but it was one of many Middle Ages theologies: www.opinionjournal.com...

There were a lot of odd theologies in the Dark Ages and Middle Ages and the church handled divisions of these sects by "reforming" the ones who protested and burning and killing the hardcore "fanatics."



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Let me go back and make that clear, then:
The Official Catholic religion was off to a rocky start before 100 AD. There were a number of brawls and the whole thing didn't get (somewhat) settled until around 200 AD. By the time they got around to putting together the Bible, a whole complex structure had formed (the Catholic church.)



I'm sorry the Catholic Church did not form until Constantine backed the bishops of Rome and formed the church. (In this sign conquer). They could not kill the Christian movement so they merely took it over.

Also, the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the books chosen in the Bible.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
I'm sorry the Catholic Church did not form until Constantine backed the bishops of Rome and formed the church. (In this sign conquer). They could not kill the Christian movement so they merely took it over.


Hmm. My sources show that it started organizing about 50 AD and was pretty much set in place as a religion shortly after that. That the name was used about 100 AD or so and they had popes as heads of the churck before 200 AD.
en.wikipedia.org...

So it was well established (not just bishops, but popes and a formal structure) before Constantine (I used wikipedia as sort of a "summary" of many other sources.)


Also, the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the books chosen in the Bible.

What's your source on this? Every source that I have shows that it was put together by the Catholics, who formalized the creed and books starting with the Council of Laodocia -- though it wasn't a terribly peaceful process (I thought the squabble continued for 100 years or so but I see I'm wrong on this.)
agards-bible-timeline.com...

So all the info I have says that it was put together (old and new testament) by the Catholics.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Hi Byrd:


Terral Original >> What kind of question is that?? Your hypothesis is that “LaHaye's "Rapture" Ideology Was Not Even Considered Until 1830”

Byrd >> Just to settle the argument, the statement is correct.


No sir. This is Byrd’s opinion of the situation without any connection to the Biblical facts in this case. Please offer your evidence ahead of your preconceived notions and conclusions.


Byrd >> The early Christian church had no such theological position.


The Epistles of the Apostle Paul tell a completely different story, since we are both speaking to the “Rapture” Topic he writes about in 1Thes. 4:13-17 and 1Cor. 15:51-53. Your statement is generic with application to “The early Christian church,” as if there is only ‘one’ of them. Paul’s Epistles are addressed to churches in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, etc., with the mention of ‘factions / sects.’


“For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there MUST also be factions [sects] among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.” 1Corinthians 11:18+19.


Members of these ‘factions / sects’ within the church offered their interpretations of Paul’s Epistles to the assembly, then the church itself had to decide which sect had aligned their explanations with what ‘is’ written. To sit there under the pretense of even knowing every doctrine invented by these sects is making assumptions you can in no way begin to prove. How many ways are there to interpret these words to the Thessalonians?


“For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God [1Cor. 15:52], and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are ALIVE AND REMAIN will be ”CAUGHT UP” [Harpazo #736] with them IN THE CLOUDS to meet the Lord IN THE AIR, and so WE shall always be with the Lord.” 1Thessalonians 4:16+17.


Your position is that the early church to whom this Epistle was written had “No [Rapture] Theological Position.” Okay then, how do you believe they interpreted these words by Paul? Good Luck!


Byrd >> They were "reform Jews" (at first) and Judaism (circa 30 AD) had no "rapture" theology (the interpretation that the Old Testament supports rapture theology is not correct -- remember, these were originally Jewish books and the Jews didn't believe in an afterlife OR in a rapture.)


Please forgive, but your entire post does not contain a single reference to God’s Living Word. To claim these Thessalonians are “reformed Jews” is ridiculous, as Paul never quotes any OT prophets and does not even mention “The Law” once. He addresses the Ephesians as “you Gentiles” (Eph. 3:1+2) and himself as the “apostle of Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13). He teaches the Colossians that even keeping the “Sabbath” is a mere “shadow” (Col. 2:16+17) of things to come.

We can agree that Judaism has no rapture theology, as they anticipate being raised up and led into the Land of Israel (Eze. 37:11+12). However, Paul teaches the Philippians that our “citizenship is in heaven” (Phi. 3:20). Your sketchy view of the NT Mystery (Eph. 5:32) “His body” Church (Col. 1:24) of our NT appears not to be based upon anything written in Scripture at all. Paul’s “my gospel” (Rom. 2:16, 16:25) was sent to the Gentiles to make Israel “jealous” (Rom. 10:19, 11:11, etc.). Does James testify at the meeting in Jerusalem that God is gathering a people from Judaism first? No!


"Simeon has related how God FIRST concerned Himself about taking from AMONG THE GENTILES a people for His name.” Acts 15:14.


Paul addresses Israel in the third person, saying,


“For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery -- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation -- that a partial hardening has happened TO ISRAEL until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written . . . ". Romans 11:25+26.


Your “reformed Jews (first)” lingo is based upon mere fantasy, if you want to connect that to Paul’s “dispensation of God’s grace” (Eph. 3:2) still in the world today. We can agree that Peter’s kingdom (Matt. 16:16-19) church (Matt. 18:17+18) is indeed a ‘reformed’ version of Judaism. However, that kingdom ‘bride’ (John 3:29) was “cut off” (Rev. 20:4) 2000 years ago with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. How do we know for certain that Paul’s ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) church is “Gentile” dominant? What does Paul say about his early ministry concerning his “gospel” given through ‘revelation of Jesus Christ’ (Gal. 1:11+12)?


“But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace [Acts 9:15], was pleased to reveal His Son in me [Col. 1:27] so that I might preach Him among THE GENTILES, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.” Galatians 1:15-17.


Note very carefully that Paul is going to the Gentiles, even before submitting the “gospel I preach among the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:2) to the Kingdom Church based in Jerusalem (Acts 15:4) years down the road. Believers were not first called “Christians” in Jerusalem, but in “Antioch” under the teaching of the Apostle Paul and Barnabas (Acts 11:26), which includes the “Greeks” of Acts 11:20. Note the “church at Jerusalem” (Acts 11:22) is mentioned in the third person and not inclusive to the church in Antioch. Therefore, are you trying to offer your opinions on what the church in Jerusalem believed about the Rapture, or those in Antioch learning under Paul?


Byrd >> When the Christians became organized, there was no organized belief in a rapture (they were all Catholic. They believed in an afterlife and that people could be prayed out of hell or out of limbo.)


Heh . . . They were all what??!! There is no such thing as any “Catholic, Greek Orthodox or Protestant” even born in the time the events of Acts and Paul’s Epistles were committed to parchment.

[Continued]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
You are making reference to the “Denominations” called into existence through the “mystery of iniquity” (2Thes. 2:7) who have distorted the two gospels of the NT ( www.abovetopsecret.com... ) by merging them into one. The true “His Body” Church (Col. 1:24) contains the Roman, Corinthian, Galatian, etc. assemblies all “baptized into Christ” (Gal. 3:27) and seated with Him in the heavenly places “IN” Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6) with lives hidden with Christ “IN” God (Col. 3:1-3). Your suppositions hold the ‘false’ church gathered through the “mystery of iniquity” as the “His body” Church of the Pauline Epistles.


Byrd >> When the Council of Nicea determined what books would be in the Bible, Revelation was a real sticking point. Many didn't want it in there.


Revelation has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘our’ mystery (1Cor. 15:51) Rapture (2Thes. 4:17) described by the Apostle Paul. The early churches under Paul had God’s Word through the original Epistles without any assistance from the RC Church coming into existence later down the road. Your bold statements about what “the early church” believed have no connection at all to the “churches” of our New Testament.


Byrd >> Christianity was Catholic until Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation (so the La Haye theology was never a part of church history until thTat point.)


Heh . . . No sir. Christianity is defined by God’s Word through the Book of Acts and the New Testament writers themselves. The RC Denominations created BY MEN have blended the ‘water and blood’ (1Jn 5:6) aspects of Christ’s ministry into one mishmash of doctrine that God sent to NOBODY. Peter is the head of the “Kingdom” Church (Matt. 16:16-19) “cut off” (Rev. 20:4) 2000 years ago, while Paul’s “dispensation of God’s grace” (Eph. 3:2) continues to be active straight through to our present day. The Catholics picked the WRONG APOSTLE to be their first pope, as Paul is the “apostle of Gentiles” writing the Epistle To The Romans. Paul’s “Rapture” is taught by him to the Thessalonians in about 47 AD (1Thes. 4:13-17), which predates anything drummed up by the Catholics.


Byrd >> Early Protestants were more like Lutherans . . .”.


Please forgive, but in light of the evidence from God’s Word, your “Protestant” and “Lutherans” lingo quite frankly does not mean anything. The early His body ‘church’ (Col. 1:24) is already established way back between 30 AD and 50 AD, and centuries before anyone though of being a Catholic under the guise of Denominationalism.


Byrd >> The word, "rapture", is old, but the theological meaning as "period of tribulation/antichrist/people vanishing (in whichever order you prefer)" is a fairly new one that started within the last 200 years, after the rise of Protestantism.


Please forgive, but this statement ranks right up there among the most preposterous things I have seen yet on this Board. Did you get that definition from a Greek Dictionary on how the word Harpazo (#736) was used 2000 years ago by the Greeks? I think not! There is NOTHING whatsoever contained in the word “Rapture” linking that to ANYTHING related to any ‘tribulation’ or ‘antichrist.’ The term means www.blueletterbible.org... :
======
1) to seize, carry off by force
2) to seize on, claim for one's self eagerly
3) to snatch out or away
--------

It is no wonder you hold that nobody in Paul’s NT ‘churches’ believed in ‘your’ version of “Rapture,” because your definition has nothing at all to do with reality. Philip is said to be “snatched away” from the presence of the Eunuch:


“When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched [Harpazo #736] Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.” Acts 8:39.


Should we also attach your "period of tribulation/antichrist/people vanishing (in whichever order you prefer)" definition to ‘harpazo’ here for Philip? No. Your preconceived notions have corrupted the true meaning of what God’s Word is teaching and a myriad of related and also corrupt conclusions spring up from the acceptance of those false notions. Please allow me to suggest you begin defining our “church” (Col. 1:24) according to what Scripture teaches us through Paul AND begin defining your terms from the Greek Dictionaries like everybody else. GL,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
in an earlier post i suggested that the current & popularized version of 'Rapture'
was either schemed, devised, elaborately embellished BY people, forces, principalities...for a reason

type into search engine:
Edward Irving (of Scotland), Presbyterian revivalist

(John) Nelson Darby, (renegade) Anglican Priest, futurist premillennialist

Cyrus Scofield, (a Texas Baptist preacher)charismatics


that/those are the principal persons/forces/principalities

It seems that the Anglican Priest J Nelson Darby, a former lawyer was a bit
unsatisified with his confining religion, right around 1828-1830 he had occasion
to go to the wowza! revival services of the growing fame Edward Irving.


read this enlightning post by Deacon Tim, 5 May 2005 is 14 paragraphs long.....
sacramentswholesale.blogspot.com...

then there's this long web entry about the lead-up about the Preacher Edward Irving, and then a bit about the contemporary pressures & forces that affected his ministry (including a good reason for how the !poof! 'Rapture" ie modernized rapture came into being, the popularized by both Darby then Scofield way over in Texas USA.

[the whole first page is background....i'd really start absorbing at the last paragraph on page one (1) all the way to page four (4)...]
www.rtjournal.org...

yep, Edward Irving, Presbyterian preacher, revivalist, warrents a entry in the
Journal of Religion & Theatre, because that's how the modern day
theory/theology on 'Rapture' got its start & inception/conception.
Irving's packed house services/ revivals were often interrupted by someone
in the throes of enlightment, rapture, religious experience, speaking-in-tongues,

that, along with the religious 'channeling' of one Mary Campbell, a youthful 15 y.o.
got the man's mind to conjecturing & connecting the dots, the many diverse dots.

Britian was long regarded by fervent religious layity as 'the new israel' and there was a growing undercurrent to get support by the population & government to support a strictly Jewish settlement in Palestine, in order to fulfill biblical prophecy.

the industrial revolution was beginning, the empire was maxxed & waining, the charismatics & evangelicals were aroused, the zionists & christian zionists were gaining stature, the old guard 'historic premillenialists' were taking a back seat to the 'futurist premillennialism'
...so the ""!poof! Rapture"" was born, as a need of the times !

i've taken liberties with this post, it's more of an OP/ED than a discussion post in the thread, thanks for bearing with it folks



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Byrd will KICK YOUR BUTT on facts and all things of a true scholarly nature.




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
Byrd will KICK YOUR BUTT on facts and all things of a true scholarly nature.



In this particular case, and at this point, I don't think that's a warranted position to take. Not this time.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
This being the case it is our duty as students of God's prophetic Word to examine this doctrine of the Secret Rapture, and ask ourselves -'Is it Scriptural?'



The above statement is very true. The Bible is where a person needs to turn for the answers to questions. So since that is the case, and that is what should be done to answer the question is there a rapture, then lets look at the Bible. There are many verses which tell of the removal of christians before the tribulation period.

Here are some of them that need to be looked at and studied.(once again I will say that after the rapture there will still be millions of people saved through faith in Christ).

Luke 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

escape can mean vanish which is what people will do at the rapture

1 Thessalonians 5:[9] For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ


Acts 15:[13] And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
[14] Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
[15] And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
[16] After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
[17] That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

a people are "taken out" for Christ name then there is a "residue" left, residue means left down or left behind, and this residue will seek the Lord.

Matthew 16:[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.(this verse is not talking about peter being the first pope and/or the catholic church authority, it's talking about a distinct group of people)

Now these next 2 verses

Revelation 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them

Daniel 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

Matthew 16:18 says the church will not be prevailed against. Rev. 13:7 and Daniel 7:21 says that they will be prevailed against. So are they overcome or not. Do we have another one of those "contradictions" found in the Bible? No, there is an answer.

I(and not only me alone) say it is because the Church is one group of believers in Christ and there are other groups of believers in Christ.

Go to Revelation 1:[6] And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. This is written to believers.

Now in Revelation Chapters 2&3 he is talking about the church/churches.

Now in Revelation Chapter 4:[1] After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

A door is opened and a trumpet sound says Come up hither(rapture).

Then in the same chapter we are introduced to the 24 elders, Rev 4:[10] The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying...,

In chapter 5 we find out more about the 24 elders, Revlation 5:[8] And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
[9] And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
[10] And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

The 24 elders have been redeemed and been made by God to be priests and kings. Angels aren't redeemed, people are, so the 24 elders are people. 24 is a specific number and represents the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles. In other words the people of the Old covenant and the New covenant who placed their faith in the Messiah, Jesus. All the people who placed their faith in Christ. 24 elders is symbolic for believers.

Look what else they are made to be, kings and priests. Go back to Revelation 1:6 and the book of Revelation is written to believers who we are told are kings and priests unto God. Now we find the 24 elders who are kings and priests unto God. These same people are now in heaven. They have been raptured, before the tribulation events begin.

Now continue on in Revelation. Revelation 6:[17] For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? The wrath of God has come, but we already know from 1 Thessalonians 5:9 this(For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ), believers have not been appointed to God's wrath. Another evidence of the rapture.

Now continue on in Revelation. In Rev. ch. 7 we hear about the 144,00, a specific number of people. Then in the same chapter we find out about this,
Revelation 7:[9] After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
[10] And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
[11] And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,
[12] Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.
[13] And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
[14] And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

We know this 2nd group from Rev. ch. 7 is not the 144,000 because this is a group no man could number. So in Ch. 7 we learn about 2 different groups of people. This 2nd group, that was so large that no one could number them, COME OUT OF GREAT TRIBULATION.

So we have 3 different groups of people so far who are believers in Christ, the 24 elders and the 144,000, and the uncountable number of people.

So now we know how the church(believers) cannot be prevailed against according to Matthew 16:18 but we now also know how believers can be prevailed against according to Rev. 13:7 and Daniel 7:21.

The church is a distinct group of believers taken(raptured) to heaven before the tribulation(wrath of God) takes place. Then there will be another group of people during the tribulation that will turn to Christ for salvation and be saved(the uncountable number from Rev. ch.7).

After ch. 3 of Rev. we no longer here about the churches, but we run into the 24 elders several times and every time they are in heaven.

The 24 elders is the raptured church/churches,

then there is 144,000 , who it appears are raptured to heaven in Rev. ch.14,

then we have the uncountable number who come out of great tribualtion,

then it appers there is another group of believers in Rev.20:[4] And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

There are other verses detailing the rapture, but this should be enough to study on for now.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terral
Hi Byrd:


Terral Original >> What kind of question is that?? Your hypothesis is that “LaHaye's "Rapture" Ideology Was Not Even Considered Until 1830”

Byrd >> Just to settle the argument, the statement is correct.


No sir. This is Byrd’s opinion of the situation without any connection to the Biblical facts in this case. Please offer your evidence ahead of your preconceived notions and conclusions.


Let's be sure we're talking apples to apples!

I'm talking about LaHaye's beliefs and the general "rapture theology."

A theology is an interpretation of Christianity/the Bible. People interpret the Bible in many different ways (which is why we have sects like the 7th Day Adventists.) In matters of theology and doctrine, the "connection to the Biblical facts" is the way the person interprets the doctrine (and not the way I interpret it.)

Sooooooooo.........

To review: LaHaye's theology is this (from his own website):
www.leftbehind.com...

• Second Coming of Christ—the literal return of Christ to earth
• Church Age—depending on the particular view, this can be the same as the Millennium or a separate period of time before the Millennium
• Rapture—the resurrection of believers at some point before Christ's second coming.
• Tribulation—a seven year period of severe judgment and persecution
• Armageddon—the last great battle at the end of time.
• Millennium—the earthly kingdom of Christ. It can mean a literal 1,000 years or simply suggest a very long time. It can also mean a literal or spiritual reign of Christ during this time.
• Final Rebellion—the last global unleashing of Satan and unbelievers against God, in which Satan will be finally defeated.
• Resurrection—the final end of earthly existence with the raising up of people to face judgment.
• Judgment—the final accountability of people before God.
• Eternity— spent in God's presence (Heaven) or separated from him (Hell).

That's the theology that he presents.

Except for John, none of the other books of the Bible talks about this sequence of events. None of the other writers speaks of a final battle.



The Epistles of the Apostle Paul tell a completely different story, since we are both speaking to the “Rapture” Topic he writes about in 1Thes. 4:13-17 and 1Cor. 15:51-53. Your statement is generic with application to “The early Christian church,” as if there is only ‘one’ of them.


Quite true, and deliberately so. Nobody wants to read a 6,000 word essay on the individual churches and their squabbles!! I could have elaborated, of course, but Paul was the head of the churches and in order for them to exist under his blessing they had share certain beliefs that he held. Important beliefs.

Right?



Members of these ‘factions / sects’ within the church offered their interpretations of Paul’s Epistles to the assembly, then the church itself had to decide which sect had aligned their explanations with what ‘is’ written.


Do you have a source for this (or did you suddenly hop in your argument from the time when Paul was alive to 100 years later)? When Paul was alive, he visited all the churches and wrote them and would certainly have straightened out any alteration in what he wanted taught!


Your position is that the early church to whom this Epistle was written had “No [Rapture] Theological Position.” Okay then, how do you believe they interpreted these words by Paul? Good Luck!


But Paul doesn't talk about the:
• Church Age
• Resurrection of believers at some point before Christ's second coming (that verse talks about him coming and grabbing up everyone and taking them all away to heaven. Period.)
• Tribulation
• Armageddon
• Millennium kingdom of Christ.
• Final Rebellion
• Resurrection of everyone (not just Christians).
• Judgment

Remember, those are the points that are defined as "Rapture theology."



Please forgive, but your entire post does not contain a single reference to God’s Living Word. To claim these Thessalonians are “reformed Jews” is ridiculous, as Paul never quotes any OT prophets and does not even mention “The Law” once.


They had been Jewish, and they had the Jewish culture and tradition and were originally considered a Jewish sect:
en.wikipedia.org...

The Epistle of Barnabas and other early church documents show that some of the Christian groups were still holding to Jewish practices as late as 150 AD:
www.carm.org...

(for those of you who don't know the importance of Barnabus (and others) to the early Church, a nice and readable essay is here: www.probe.org... )

So, yes, Christianity was a Jewish sect (and held Jewish beliefs and practices) before branching into a new religion.




Byrd >> When the Christians became organized, there was no organized belief in a rapture (they were all Catholic. They believed in an afterlife and that people could be prayed out of hell or out of limbo.)


Heh . . . They were all what??!! There is no such thing as any “Catholic, Greek Orthodox or Protestant” even born in the time the events of Acts and Paul’s Epistles were committed to parchment.


Badly written on my part... I meant that the church, as organized, became what we now call the Catholic church. The beliefs of the early fathers became the doctrine of the Catholic Church (sects broke off from them, but the religious views of Rapture Theology never sprouted from them.)



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terral

Byrd >> Christianity was Catholic until Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation (so the La Haye theology was never a part of church history until that point.)

Heh . . . No sir. Christianity is defined by God’s Word through the Book of Acts and the New Testament writers themselves.


Actually, EARLY Christianity was defined by an agreed-upon set of rules and canons. In these times, there's no doctrine that everyone adheres to and everyone's welcome to make their own interpetation.


The RC Denominations created BY MEN have blended the ‘water and blood’ (1Jn 5:6) aspects of Christ’s ministry into one mishmash of doctrine that God sent to NOBODY.


So, in your view, all versions of Christianity before modern Christianity are wrong? This would, then, include the doctrine of the trinity which wasn't an original point of early Christianity and many other theological points. I think it's interesting that so many reject the words and ideas and doctrine established by the earliest church fathers (who were taught directly by the original apostles) in favor of their own personal beliefs. My personal belief is that these old theologians have a lot to say about the subject and their views and doctrines are a lot more authentic and true to the original teachings than a modern preacher's view.

Of course, this is only my view. I'm a great fan of "go to the original sources and original commentaries."


Paul’s “Rapture” is taught by him to the Thessalonians in about 47 AD (1Thes. 4:13-17), which predates anything drummed up by the Catholics.


And it's nothing like theology (above) taught by LaHaye.





Byrd >> The word, "rapture", is old, but the theological meaning as "period of tribulation/antichrist/people vanishing (in whichever order you prefer)" is a fairly new one that started within the last 200 years, after the rise of Protestantism.


Please forgive, but this statement ranks right up there among the most preposterous things I have seen yet on this Board. Did you get that definition from a Greek Dictionary on how the word Harpazo (#736) was used 2000 years ago by the Greeks?

No, i got it from the Summa Theologica and other old writings.

Paul himself was caught up in a rapture and raptures were written about by early Christian writers. In these cases, they were swept up into the presence of God and came back with visions and revelations.

The apocalypse-beast-watchers-millenial rule-etc wasn't part of their theology.

But, I gather that we both concur on both these points -- that it means a "sweeping away" of one or more persons to the presence of God but does NOT mean the Beast/Apocalypse/etc as promoted by LaHaye.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Hmm. My sources show that it started organizing about 50 AD and was pretty much set in place as a religion shortly after that. That the name was used about 100 AD or so and they had popes as heads of the churck before 200 AD.
en.wikipedia.org... So it was well established (not just bishops, but popes and a formal structure) before Constantine (I used wikipedia as sort of a "summary" of many other sources.)


The catholic church may have started then, but not the Catholic Church. The Roman Empire was the victor. They can write any history they want. The Catholic Church was formed when Constantine backed the bishops of Rome and formed the church. Prior to that a Christian would be hunted down and killed. Look at all the things that Constantine the Pontifus Maximus and high priest of sun worship instituted. The changing of the day of worshipping God from the Sabbath to SUNday. The changing of the Jewish Pentecost to Easter for the worship of Ishtar who is Semiramis(who is the Catholic MaDonna). The making of the birthday of Jesus Dec 25 to celebrate the sun gods birthday.

The victor controls the writing of history. You might check the fruit of the tree to determine what type of tree it is...........Don't take the victors word for it.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt

A: The 24 elders is the raptured church/churches,

B: then there is 144,000 , who it appears are raptured to heaven in Rev. ch.14,

C: then we have the uncountable number who come out of great tribualtion,

D: then it appers there is another group of believers in Rev.20:[4] And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


There are other verses detailing the rapture, but this should be enough to study on for now.


consider these points in another light...

A: concur, this could represent the old Torah & new Testaments

B: the 144,000 are the product of the fact that the antichrist has been revealed, their mission only happens because the 70th week of Daniel is in full swing

C: "the uncountable number who come out of great tribulation..." ,

one might suppose 'great tribulation' in this verse means the final 70th week (AKA 'The Great Tribulation'), however there is a distinction between this uncountable multitude 'C' in great tribulation
and the group 'D' which are positively identified as dieing at the whim of the antichrist/beast, during the final 7 year "The Great Tribulation"

the other consideration is that this 'the uncountable number....' are the souls from those who 'died in Christ' during the intervening weeks of Daniel. recall that it was in the 62nd week when the Christ was cut off, all the way until the 70th (Final) week, there is the promise that there would be (great tribulations in the form of) wars and all manner of stress & turmoil, and there will be increases of disease, war, famines, pestilences, even moreso as the 70th week approached, recall sermon on the mount, the parable of the 'eary birth pangs, etc'
~that interval of time is presently in the neighborhood of 1,974 years of persons who have 'died in Christ', all enduring some degree of tribulation/persecutions etc~


D: this group, is positively identified as having been in the end-time, immediate to the '2nd coming', and were not the benefactors of any sort of 'snatching away' or 'Rapture'-esque teleporting...the scripture clearly says they were be-headed.
so this D group is only a sub group, along with the church peoples in the great tribulation that continued thru the Daniel timeline of week 62-thru-& including week 70..... ~ 1,974 years so far, and still counting}





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join