The Real Rapture?

First of all I am not Christian or religious in any way and therefore do not personally believe in the rapture, although I do believe in the possibility of a phenomenon that would appear similar to the rapture. But if the rapture was to happen just as the Christian faith depicts it then it would appear that it would be happening soon. I feel this way because it is said in the bible that after the rapture, the Antichrist will form a one world government, we are already close to the formation of a one world government. It also appears that after the rapture there will be a third world war and we also seem to be closing in on that.

Whether the rapture happens or not I think there could be an event similar to the rapture that could effect our whole galaxy. Imagine a galactic or universal event that could relieve us of a lot or all of our physical attributes.

OR. Imagine an event that would change our levels of perception dramatically, unlocking new powers and activating some of our junk DNA. Allowing some to pass on to a new level of existence 'Within' our current level of existence. Possibly a dimension shift whilst others may stay on this level.

If some people managed to 'Pass on' somewhere and others were left here then there would obviously be chaos on earth. People would be looking for answers and the Christian faiths answer for this event would be the rapture. Millions of people would turn to Christianity, which we know has been hugely tainted for the use of control, meaning they would gain a lot of new members. Christians left behind would devote themselves more to the faith and would try and recruit as many people as possible.

What I am saying is..

Do you think someone could have put the rapture in the bible, knowing in foresight of an event like this, in order to regain control of the population after such an event?

Wild speculation I know but hey, thats not a crime.

You're talking about a false flag rapture, I take it. I've wondered this myself.
How do you think they'd go about it;
Super Bug (eugenics based attack )
Faux Alien Invasion (project blue beam)
via WWIII (a la our constant pushing against China, N.Korea, and the Middle East)
or through weather/earthquake manipulation?

reply to post by TechUnique


First off, the idea of a rapture is really not biblical. It is a twisted and 'happy thought' mindset that all Christians will be spared from the time of tribulation. Without going into a long diatribe about the pro and con list of pre-trib rapture, mid trib rapture, or post trib rapture let me say this: I agree with you. As a Christian, I personally believe there will be no pre trib rapture..many scriptures support this idea. A false flag type of rapture would throw the world into chaos. I completely expect such an event to occur at some point. Thousands if not millions disappear and the world goes nuts. At this point, nothing would surprise me and I mean nothing. UFO abduction, shift in reality, who knows. Its just guaranteed to happen...and soon.

Originally posted by Mactire
You're talking about a false flag rapture, I take it. I've wondered this myself.
How do you think they'd go about it;
Super Bug (eugenics based attack )
Faux Alien Invasion (project blue beam)
via WWIII (a la our constant pushing against China, N.Korea, and the Middle East)
or through weather/earthquake manipulation?

a simple answer would be all of the above. but I am still on the fence of beliving the rapture will actually happen. it's like we need to be saved from what? ourselves. if the rapture does happen who chooses who stays and who goes? now I do believe an event will happen between now and 2012 thats ET related due to the mayan's claiming there gods would return at the end of there calendar. and all the so called, possibly man made tragedies are leading up to something. but I guess time will tell

Seeing as how the Christians who believe in the Rapture don't expect to be left behind, there doesn't seem to be the slightest justification for a profit motive. Besides, the manuscripts go back to very close to the time of the originals. In fact, I'd say there's better profit in a non-rapture position because people will (as many do) try to set up a theocracy here and now for Jesus to come down to.

There are and always have been greedy control freaks in the name of Christianity, but again I see more profit in non-Rapture than supporting it.

reply to post by TechUnique


You wrote:

["we are already close to the formation of a one world government."]

'Close to' is a relative term. Christians have, with or without justification from the bible, awaited the end of days for some 2.000 years now.

So we're all going to be chinese now, as they seem to be the only ones strong and stable enough to run a world. Or do you have any candidates from conspiracy theories.

Quote: ["Whether the rapture happens or not I think there could be an event similar to the rapture that could effect our whole galaxy. Imagine a galactic or universal event that could relieve us of a lot or all of our physical attributes."]

The whole thing could unexpectedly blow up or collide with another galaxy or be sucked into a black hole. And while this definitely would relieve us of physical existence, it wouldn't be rapture (but I'm no rapture expert. A bible-thumber could enlarge on that).

Quote: ["OR. Imagine an event that would change our levels of perception dramatically, unlocking new powers and activating some of our junk DNA. Allowing some to pass on to a new level of existence 'Within' our current level of existence. Possibly a dimension shift whilst others may stay on this level."]

I am already trying to do that on my own, not waiting for anything external to do it for me.

Quote: ["People would be looking for answers and the Christian faiths answer for this event would be the rapture"]

But then christians always have answers for everything, because they invent them along the way.

Quote: ["Millions of people would turn to Christianity, which we know has been hugely tainted for the use of control, meaning they would gain a lot of new members."]

Why not islam or buddhism?

Quote: ["Christians left behind would devote themselves more to the faith and would try and recruit as many people as possible."]

They already do that.

Quote: [" Do you think someone could have put the rapture in the bible, knowing in foresight of an event like this, in order to regain control of the population after such an event?"]

Nope. The constant 'interpretations' of the bible leading to end-of-days are something like 2 major 'official' ones every century since square one. As PR this isn't getting many customers.

Well even Christians are fairly divided on whether there is a Rapture, and then is it post or pre tribulation? I dunno.

End-Time events, now that's another matter entirely. And funny you--a non-believer--should mention it, but if you do see a one-world government/currency coming, then it should be taken into account that it was predicted first--and 2,000 + years ago--in the bible. Let that sink in.

I'm not saying false flag events won't happen, but there is someone--an entity--that knows his game is at a weak point in it's strategy: Prophecy and world events are reaaallly matching up: Politically, environmentally, etc. This…guy…has a stake in you or I NOT seeing thru the "plan."

The mid-east remains a hot spot--as predicted in the word--and just about everyone knows that something momentous & worldwide is in the making.

So, as bad as it may irk some, the bible's version of world-events seems to be not only pretty tight & right on but preternaturally prescient as well.

Throw in the prediction that Israel would one day be a nation again (looooong shot that) and just the above thoughts alone, and I think the bible deserves another look see from some.

But, who knows? We shall see said the blind man. Peace.

As far as a Christian Rapture?

It could never happen. Even if Christ literally came down to gather up all of those who followed what he preached, who exactly would qualify in this day and age?

Originally posted by Mactire
As far as a Christian Rapture?

It could never happen. Even if Christ literally came down to gather up all of those who followed what he preached, who exactly would qualify in this day and age?

It's not about qualification but who is saved. After all, there have always been Christians in some part of the world paying for their faith with their lives, or living on very strict moral standards, yet they were not spared suffering. (Check the 11th chapter of Hebrews and note that half the people of faith were miraculously delivered but the rest were not.)

The Rapture is strictly because God must end the church age before resuming the final 7 years of prophetic fulfillment for Israel and the world. Since this will be a time of God's wrath the "Body of Christ" cannot be here. So all real Christians will be taken, regardless of the quality of their lives or level of spiritual maturity.

Also consider a rhetorical question Jesus asked: "When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith on the earth?"

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by TechUnique

 

...I am already trying to do that on my own, not waiting for anything external to do it for me.

Quote: ["People would be looking for answers and the Christian faiths answer for this event would be the rapture"]

But then christians always have answers for everything, because they invent them along the way.

Well, bogomil, your seemingly egotistical guesserology is definitely in question--if after all your posts on ATS--you still haven't learned to properly quote a post.

I mean, that's A LOT easier than you trying to figure out world events. See what I'm sayin?

Peace, though, Bro!

reply to post by SaberTruth


Modern Christians or the Neo-Jews (which is what Christianity began as)?

Saying you're saved in one thing, but altering God's design on religion is something else entirely. The changing of the sabbath, the abandonment of the Jewish High Holy Days to adopt pagan rituals (purely for PR reasons), creating an idol out of Christ, which was not his or God's intention, and attaching a slew of idols to said idol, which only exacerbates things.
Jesus wasn't sent to earth to create Christianity. He came here to straighten the "chosen people" who'd been led astray by greed and power. The reason "Christianity" came about was because these Neo-Jews wanted to establish themselves as proper Jews, following Christ's teachings. The original Christians were Jews. It wasn't until they began to spread into Europe did these perfected Jews evolve into what we now think of as Christians.
Nowing that now, do you think accepting the Christ saves you automatically? That's like hugging someone with one hand, while stabbing them in the back with the other.

Originally posted by Mactire
Modern Christians or the Neo-Jews (which is what Christianity began as)?

The first Christians were all Jews, not neo-Jews. Since the Messiah is an exclusively Jewish entity then those who accepted him as Jews were still Jews but who accepted the promised Messiah. Of course, nobody was to keep practicing the old Law when saved, as Paul made so abundantly clear, as also did the writer of Hebrews (which I am convinced was not Paul). "With a change of priesthood comes a change of law", and since Jesus fulfilled that old law, it was satisfied. So all who are in Christ automatically are credited with having kept the law perfectly and are no longer in need of animal sacrifices.

Saying you're saved in one thing, but altering God's design on religion is something else entirely. The changing of the sabbath, the abandonment of the Jewish High Holy Days to adopt pagan rituals (purely for PR reasons), creating an idol out of Christ, which was not his or God's intention, and attaching a slew of idols to said idol, which only exacerbates things.

All of those things are of the old Levitical priesthood. Jesus is the only priest in the new order of Melchizedek and there are no such laws attached to it. Nothing in Judaism was changed because those still in it, who have rejected the Messiah, still must obey it perfectly (and have not been able to since Herod's temple was destroyed in AD 70). Jesus fulfilled the law for us and now we are under a new priesthood.

No one disputes that the Body of Christ (the ekklesia) was scattered as soon as the apostles died, and replaced by the pagan models you mentioned. But the faith of the follower of Jesus is neither Judaism nor paganism.

Jesus wasn't sent to earth to create Christianity. He came here to straighten the "chosen people" who'd been led astray by greed and power. The reason "Christianity" came about was because these Neo-Jews wanted to establish themselves as proper Jews, following Christ's teachings. The original Christians were Jews. It wasn't until they began to spread into Europe did these perfected Jews evolve into what we now think of as Christians.

Yes, he came first to his own people the Jews, as their promised Messiah. But he also said, "I will build my ekklesia". As he told the Samaritan woman, the time had come when people would no longer worship in this place or that, but in spirit and truth. So I dispute your version of history on this. And even after the ekklesia was scattered and ruined, there was always a "remnant", the history of which can be read here.

Nowing that now, do you think accepting the Christ saves you automatically? That's like hugging someone with one hand, while stabbing them in the back with the other.

edit on 24-5-2011 by Mactire because: (no reason given)

What I know is quite different from what you know, and because of that I can confidently state what the NT says about how to be saved: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ", in his substitutionary death and resurrection, for the purpose of being reconciled to God. That's it, and it is as far removed from your back-stab analogy as anything can be.

The NT is a blasphemy in that the work is incomplete, purposefully skewed to hide the truth about the story of Christ, its also a poor translation of the original work with a definite bias toward men and the male agenda. The Christians who decided to censor the "controversial" writing, even excluding entire books makes any NT knowledge nearly void as anything you say is learned out of context;
The misinfo about Judas and his "agenda", the mistranslation of the word "almah", which means Young Woman of Marrital Age, when a virgin would have been written as "bethulah" which specifically means virgin.
As for Christ's ekklesia. This was meant to describe the Jews who would continue on with the teachings of Christ, or conform to join this new more perfected order of Judaism, not include those of the northern tribes who lived their lives in contrary to the Jewish faith, and who continued to do so even after joining Christianity centuries later. Christ didn't alter his message to bring these peoples into Christianity, this was a result of future generations who, wanting to spread the Roman Empire, decided to adopt pagan beliefs into Christianity for reasons of wealth and power. It had nothing to do with religion or the word of Christ, and everything to do with public relations with the natives.
The entire Jewish faith is built on a foundation of stone (literally). The ten commandments, and Christianity doesn't uphold these laws very well at all.
'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
To break one of these rules is just as bad as breaking another. Going to church on Sunday instead of temple on Saturday, is the same as having an adulterous affair with your neighbor's boy servant.
This is about Christ and the legacy he left behind, which is not open to interpretation.
Look, I can tell we're not going to agree on this issue, so I'll just agree to disagree and move on.

ps> "Neo Jew" is a term I use to describe the New Christ Recognizing Sect of Jews (40s c.e.) as to not confuse them with normal Jews who don't recognize the Christ.
As for "no one qualifying"? I was wrong. Jews for Jesus may qualify

Originally posted by Mactire
The NT is a blasphemy in that the work is incomplete, purposefully skewed to hide the truth about the story of Christ,

Can you prove that the writers purposefully skewed something? Or at least supply a motive that the writers would have? How did they benefit, and if they were in collusion, why didn't they get their story straight on a lot of details? And what ancient texts can you cite that have better documentary support, more scholarly scrutiny, and a greater number of witnesses? You might find this site interesting: Tektonics.

its also a poor translation of the original work with a definite bias toward men and the male agenda.

The culture definitely was, but the NT is not; I wrote a whole book explaining my reasons for this claim: link. (It's about hierarchy in general but gives detailed arguments against misogyny which I would classify as a subset of that.)

The Christians who decided to censor the "controversial" writing, even excluding entire books makes any NT knowledge nearly void as anything you say is learned out of context;

I've been in many debates on this issue and have heard this claim before, but to date no one has assembled convincing evidence that this claim is true. So if you deem it reasonable to dismiss and void whatever arguments I make from the Bible text, then I also deem it reasonable to dismiss and void whatever arguments you make from other texts. And yes, I've read other texts.

the mistranslation of the word "almah", which means Young Woman of Marrital Age, when a virgin would have been written as "bethulah" which specifically means virgin.

This, I agree with. The Masoretic text post-dates the NT and was done by those who had a vested interest in blurring clear prophecies of the Messiah. The LXX is often trashed by critics who favor the later Hebrew texts, but it's the translation Jesus and the NT writers quoted, which is why so many NT quotes of the OT don't quite match. If this were not true then Jesus would not have been able to use the OT to convince the two walking to Emmaus after his resurrection to teach them about all that had to happen to him.

But as anything I may argue from the NT has been dismissed out of hand already, there is little incentive for me to continue analyzing the remainder of your comment.

Going to church on Sunday instead of temple on Saturday, is the same as having an adulterous affair with your neighbor's boy servant.

Wow. That sounds like something the very filthy-minded Talmud would say.

reply to post by SaberTruth


Hahaha... I would agree. I didn't write the Commandments, nor do I live by them. To each their own, right? Someone felt it necessary to chisel it into stone. I'm guessing this particular bit of knowledge stemmed from the negative influence of the Macedonians during that time.
One of those rules you'd think you wouldn't need a commandment for, but whatever.

As I said before, we can agree to disagree. I've read extensively on the subject of Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, as well as the other polytheistic religions of the day, and the evidence is... for lack of a better word, damning. I can understand your point of view, and no one wants to hear their religion isn't what they thought it was, and don't get the wrong impression about me; I'm actually very spiritual, and likely have a closer relationship with God than anyone, but that's because I understand what God is.
The thing is; I can't even describe to you what God is. The truth is unfathomable for nearly everyone I've spoken to on this subject. The truth, and it is the truth, you can't see it as anything other than the truth once you know it, is both painful and beautiful for most. Once you know this truth you'll know that it has nothing to do with religion or rules. Nothing to do with being bad or good. Judaism and Christianity are farces, played against the superstitions and fears of ignorant people, yet based on truth... a half truth, but still a truth.
Oh and Yeshua wasn't "the Christ", but he was very close to her.
But as I said; agree to disagree. I'm done with the subject, and that being said; I bow out.

Originally posted by Mactire I can understand your point of view, and no one wants to hear their religion isn't what they thought it was,

So you think I disagree with you because I just don't want to hear contrary arguments and to find out I've believed a lie. This infers that I am gullible, uninformed, and unwilling to examine my own beliefs. But as the saying goes, that door swings both ways, and I have every bit as much justification for turning these inferences back toward you. But rest assured that your inference is highly inaccurate.

and don't get the wrong impression about me; I'm actually very spiritual, and likely have a closer relationship with God than anyone, but that's because I understand what God is.

Your boasting is not impressing me. Neither is your condescension, as you infer that I do not understand what God is. You present yourself as my teacher and guide, but you have yet to establish your right and qualification to do so.

The thing is; I can't even describe to you what God is.

That's okay, I already know, so I'm not in need of you to teach me. ;-)

Once you know this truth you'll know that it has nothing to do with religion or rules.

I already know this too. As I've said often here at ATS, salvation is all about a restored relationship with God, reconciliation through faith in the risen Jesus. This Jesus said that the time had come for true worship to be done in spirit and truth, not buildings or special places. It is not he, not the NT writers, but the power-hungry wolves that came later who turned it into just another religion. I know this and have written much about it.

But as I said; agree to disagree. I'm done with the subject, and that being said; I bow out.

I can agree to disagree on interpretations and minor differences, but truth is truth and eternal souls hang in the balance. I can't agree with falsehood and rewritten history.

History has already been rewritten. Its just it happened so long ago that everyone buys the lie.
As people have begun to wake they've already begun setting the record straight on their own...
-Columbus did not discover America.
-The Egyptians did not build the Sphinx.
-The ancient people of the world did not believe the world was flat,
-and like it or not... Christianity is not what it claims to be. In fact it may be the biggest lie in theological history.

Like I said; no one wants the truth unless it fits into their particular mold of needs.

But fear not; no one's soul is in the balance. If you know what God is, you'd know this.


Alright. Officially finished with this thread.

Originally posted by MactireBut fear not; no one's soul is in the balance. If you know what God is, you'd know this.

Which, being interpreted means, "If you know what God is, you'd agree with me." Sorry, but your opinion is not the measure of truth; I'll stick with established scholarship and decide on the basis of whose arguments stand up better. No text has been as tightly and relentlessly attacked as the Bible, but as someone once said, "It is an anvil that has worn out many hammers."

reply to post by SaberTruth


Your "established scholarship" is based on two thousand years of uncorrected mistranslations, and the instant you decide to let the bible play witness to its own truth then your entire argument is worthless. There's a reason a defendant can't play alibi for themselves in a court of law. Your analogy about the hammer & the anvil is a bit off as well. The anvil should represent humanity and the strive for moral common sense, while the hammer serves as a symbol of the stubbornness of blind faith, constantly pounding humanity with judgemental eyes as the purveyors of guilt and fear, and for no other reason than push a male led agenda, and there really is no reason for this. Referring to God as Him is one of these programming words.
What I know isn't opinion. There are books you should read on the subject, and don't cast out that bs line that "well, I've read books on the subject", because short of being invited to the Vatican by [the late] Pope, John Paul II, (aka Karol Józef Wojtyła), its safe to say you haven't seen these books.
As I've said; no one wants to hear the truth. The archives in the Vatican have a library of undocumented writings about, and between, Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή and her relationship with Yeshu (actually not Yeshua), showing "the Christ" receiving counsil and advice on what to do and how to teach from Μαρία. The Vatican actually acknowledges Μαρία being the reason for Easter, and not Yeshu, as her role matched with Paganistic beliefs so there was no need to alter the truth of her importance. People have the wrong image of the Christian faith, and Wojtyła wanted to disclose some of the truths about the religion. While he wasn't allowed to proceed with this plan, his legacy for truth did gain new footing with Joe Ratzinger who finally decided to disclose knowledge about extraterrestrials and stem cells, knowing that there would be no disruption to the faith and no blasphemy to God to say that we were not made in his image, but from it. The Vatican has works on yoga, Hinduism, paganism, as well as the Qur'an, because they recognize their source material was flawed and incomplete and inaccurate. Pope Benedict is also very interested in the discovery of the god particle, and with this discovery, the truth of what God is will be an infallible one, and I won't have to have these debates anymore. Personally; I wish they'd [the Vatican] would release the rest of the books so that everyone could read what so few have read. Faith is strength, but it doesn't hold a candle to knowledge.
I won't even get into the story of Adam and Eve, and the science that proves that story is bas akwards.

As I've said several times now; agree to disagree. Beating a dead horse is one thing, but trying to beat a dead horse to lead him to water is another.

Originally posted by Mactire
Your "established scholarship" is based on two thousand years of uncorrected mistranslations,

No.

and the instant you decide to let the bible play witness to its own truth then your entire argument is worthless.

... but of course, any documents you cite are trustworthy and unbiased. o.O

blah, blah... blind faith... blah, blah... judgemental... blah, blah... guilt and fear... heard it all before and it's still baseless assertions.

There are books you should read on the subject, and don't cast out that bs line that "well, I've read books on the subject", because short of being invited to the Vatican by [the late] Pope, John Paul II, (aka Karol Józef Wojtyła), its safe to say you haven't seen these books.

Then why the bleep do you bother? You have decreed, and that's that. I won't waste any more effort on you.