Talk:Rapture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Rapture debate
I moved the sections on criticism and rebuttals to a new page, called "rapture debate". Jason Hommel 21:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rapture
Regarding this diff, I removed the reference to the original source documents as it's self-evident that the English word "rapture" doesn't appear in the Greek or Hebrew texts! However, do we have a reliable source stating that no word which could translate as "rapture" appears anywhere in those texts - not even in the Song of Solomon, for example? The strongest claim I've ever seen is that no English translation uses the term "rapture". Vashti 07:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually there are many scholars out there who say this. The question is, do you have a source which finds the word "rapture" in the original text? The term rapture came about during the time of the birth of the Jesuit Monks and there is no talk, reference, written word of a rapture or secret rapture before that period. Since it is a fact, no source is needed. I could say the sun will come out today. That is a fact, I don't need a source to cite that. Also the english translations, not to be confused with a paraphrase, do not use the term "rapture." Maniwar 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- WP:CITE: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."
- The Latin information is provided for etymological reasons. There's simply no need to state that English words don't appear in texts not written in English. It's like saying the original texts don't include the word "God": it's pointless and irrelevant and useless information, while observing that the term isn't used in English translations is very relevant.
- However, since "many scholars" have made the claim, you should have no trouble at all quoting a couple of them. Vashti 19:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed challenged information on Stan Johnson
I've removed the statement that Stan Johnson of the Prophecy Club predicted a 1997 tribulation. We received an email in OTRS saying that the statement was false and requesting that it be removed. I looked up the source given in this article and emailed the author of that web page, who said that his source for the claim was that it was made in his hearing, and also on a radio show that he heard. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any way of verifying this, so for all practical purposes it's one person's word against another. silsor 02:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Update - I received another email that gives a source, so I re-added the line with a link. silsor 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Latter Rain
I would like to put forward the understanding from the latter rain perspective. Just as the passover was said to be fully come when Christ died on the cross. The day of penticost was said to be fully come with the outpouring of the spirit. Each of these days relate to the feasts of Israel. However there were three not two and the day of atonement associated with the feast of Tabernacles has never been said to be fullfilled.
The Latter Rain understanding is that the woman in Revelation 12 is those who have taken on the very nature of Christ and are taken to a place prepared for them. Just as there is a difference between the lost and the evangelical and the evangelical and the believer who is baptised in the spirit, there is also a difference between the believer who is baptised in the spirit and those who go on to maturity.
The example commonly used is Moses Tabernacle, the outer court representing the evangelical experience because here we have the blood of the lamb shed on the alter then the brazen laver made from the egyptian mirrors representing baptism as we look at our selves and consider the "old man" worthy only of burying. The with the pushing aside of the curtain to the holy place there was new furnture, new light, new food. Everything here was silver and much different to the outer court.
But rather than saying I've made it, there was yet another curtain another source of light and another source of food. Note although it was called the hidden manna, it was available for all after the cross. It is not a secret gnostic knowledge but represents a third growth experience.
Just as a charismatic may hopefully gently show another experience in relationship with God is available throught the holy spirit, the Tabernacelist would gently draw the penticostal forward and say, the journey has only just begun. The type here could be the walk of the children of Israel from Egypt, the world, the red sea being baptism with baptism in the cloud as well, according to Hebrews yet it has been stated that Sinai was the type of baptism in the spirit with yet 40 years to get to the promised land with the generation that had to die first representing those who would die to self to take on his nature.
The symbolism for rapture using this type is the when the smoke of the alter of incence enters the most holy place. More information on this understanding is availble at Latter-rain.com where George Warnocks book can be read or copies of Richard Hollands book titled the Bible and end times. Kevin Connor also has information on the third feast and the rapture being associated with the bride of Chirst which is only those who willing decide to pay the price to mature whilst the dragon in Revalation 12 then turns on the rest of the Christians Evangelical and Penticostal alike. 61.68.114.207 08:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Happiness", the word's normal meaning
As far as I can see, there's no reference either here or on the disambiguation page to the ordinary meaning of the word "rapture", namely overwhelming happiness. I know Wikipedia is not a dictionary but the complete lack of any mention of this seems to imply that the eschatological sense of the word is the principal one, which is not the case. What would be the best way of dealing with this without compromising the article's (or disambiguation page's) quality? Ou tis 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Post Tribulation Rapture
Post Tribulation Rapture should be merged to this article and pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, and post-tribulation should also redirect to this article.Pbarnes 23:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Born-Again"
I've deleted the 'born-again' in the '...all born-again Christians...', as it seems to violate NPOV
- I've put it back. This is a statement of what "Rapture believers" believe. rossnixon 01:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More NPOV criticism
I'm not going to edit the page, as it's obviously being maintained by a person or people with very strong opinions who will just edit it back, but this page is a joke when it comes to NPOV. The introductory sentence makes a declaration from a particular point of view, instead of making a factual (NPOV) statement about a particular set of beliefs. At the very least, it should say something like "The Rapture, according to..." or "The Rapture is an event that, according to...". NoJoy 22:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Followup: intro has been improved. Thanks. Didn't take time to check the rest of the article. NoJoy 22:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've edited the intro sentence, trying to keep to NPOV. Jason Hommel 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have not read the entire article, but the section about "rebuttals to criticism" sounds more like a sermon than an encyclopedia article. If may be best to have an adminstrator step in on this one.Squad51 03:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed the criticisms and rebuttals to a new page, "rapture debate", as they were the least NPOV parts of the article, and can potentially grow to hundreds of arguments. Jason Hommel 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Original research not for Wikipedia
The sections below all look like original reseach. Wikipedia can include notable verifiable material that has been published by reputable sources. Each such source used must be cited in the article. Your beliefs, my beliefs, her beliefs and his beliefs only get included if they have been published as per above. If you want this material in Wikipedia then cite your sources (someones published beliefs). I can see a lot of time and work has gone into this. If you need things made clearer contact me on my talk page. I promise nothing but would like to see a well referenced article here.
- What would make source material itself "notable", anyway? 74.38.35.171 07:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Check out [1]. The other 2 things needed are Verifiability and a reputable publisher. Hope you keep discussing here - I will help a bit if you want to work on this article. SmithBlue 08:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] flawed sections
Three major views on the timing of the rapture/Pre-tribulation, Three major views on the timing of the rapture/Post-tribulation, End Times Prerequisites, Scriptural basis and the ongoing debate, Criticisms, Rebuttal to criticisms SmithBlue 15:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- "End Times Prerequisites" is especially flawed, as it conflicts with the majority opinion - which is that there are no prerequisites. This article is already long enough without specifying the differing views in detail. We should just say briefly what each of the three major groups (pre, mid and post) expect to happen. rossnixon 09:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi RossNixon - I know next to nothing about Rapture - and reading the flawed sections I get no idea whether I am reading someones private opinion or just uncited notable material. For me the problem it not the relative size of sections or the weight given to different points but the fact that I can't check on the source and correctness of, say, 60% of the facts stated in this article. Which, with it being an encyclopedia, is below standard. Do you understand what I am talking about? Verifiability, Cite_sources, No_original_research all suggest that Rapture could look very different. SmithBlue 10:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Where's the part about The Rapture and The Jews?
- Please don't delete my comments again, Smith
- I can see that the edit history links me to the deletion of your post. It was never my intention to delete your post and I took no action, that I know of, that would have had that result. I wouldnt have deleted your posts knowingly as you have included references which are very needed for this article.SmithBlue 14:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- from ReligiousTolerance
Many Fundamentalists and some Evangelical Christians hold to the traditional " 'supercessionist idea' that Christianity replaced Judaism and that God no longer has a covenant with the Jewish people." 1 This is sometimes called the "theology of displacement." It relegates Judaism to an inferior position and "regards the Christian Church as the 'true' or 'spiritual' Israel." This concept was first developed by Justin Martyr (circa 100 to 165 CE) and Irenaeus of Lyon (circa 130 to 200 CE). It was largely accepted within the church by the 4th century....
Many believe that anyone following the Jewish faith is doomed to spend eternity in Hell, just as will Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and others who have not repented of their sins and trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior. This motivates many conservative Christians to attempt to lead Jews (and others) to a "saving knowledge" of Jesus. They feel that to ignore the Jews would be discriminatory. "If Jewish people are denied the opportunity to hear about Jesus because of Christian self-censorship, then Christians truly will be guilty of anti-Semitism." 3 Christian Conflicts Regarding Jewish Conversion
- from RaptureReady
The 144,000 Jewish Witnesses
Shortly after the rapture, God will call His army of 144,000 Jewish believers into service to provide a voice of hope for Jews throughout the world. The best friends and most staunch supporters of Jews have always been true, believing Christians. It was this element of the world's population that provided help and support for Israel and Jewish people. The rapture removed the Christian people from the earth and awakened the 144,000 to their purpose. These 144,000 preach to Jews worldwide that Jesus is the Messiah. These 144,000 will be spread out worldwide and more than likely go about in pairs, two by two, as Jesus instructed His disciples to do. It will be these 144,000 who will oppose Israel signing a peace treaty for protection; it will be the 144,000 who will identify the anti-christ for who he is; it will be the 144,000 who will warn Israel of the treachery of the anti-christ, and it will be the 144,000 who will lead the Jews worldwide to the hiding place prepared for them by God in the Judean desert. These 144,000 Jews are going to be strange people by normal standards: they will be celibate, very bold, fearless, spiritually strong and probably very much like John the Baptist. You can read more about the 144,000 witnesses in Revelation 14. Rapture Survival Guide
WHY ISN'T THIS IMPORTANT INFO INCLUDED? Thanks - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- The world waits breathless for you to include it. Go ahead, edit boldly. PiCo 07:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
To make the material in the 144,00 Jewish Witnesses paragraph (144JW) suitable it needs to be stated which group believes this and then the barebones on the info added. i.e. The repitition of "it will be the 144,000 who will" is great in a sermon but not an encyclopedia article which is not about a sermon. Perhaps "So and so believe that after the rapture God will call an army of 144JW to provide hope for Jews worldwide.This group will;
- preach to jews that Jesus is the Messiah
- etc,etc SmithBlue 08:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- The 144,000 - who they are and what they do is not directly linked to the concept or timing of the "Rapture". I would imagine it to belong in the Tribulation article. rossnixon 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] # of comings of Christ
This page states (erroneously, far as I know) that Christ comes 3 times in pre-/mid-Rapture theology. That's not the case - the Rapture isn't Christ's 2nd coming; the believers are caught up - he doesn't come down to earth. Edit: see also: Tribulation events 132.162.240.52 04:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Early Church Fathers Support of Rapture
Source #2 seems dubious, and the author of the source says his claims may be speculation. Will someone please check the validity of it. I don't want to delete the reference, because I might be biased.Trevor 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
