Talk:Rapture/Archive 1

message: I've made about 45 edits to the page today on August 21.  I eliminated a few redundant points, and added a few points, leaving the overall organization in tact.  My overall suggestion from here is to shorten two of the criticsms that stretch to three paragraphs each.  That is just too long for an encyclopedia article.  I didn't want to edit their arguments, since I'm a supporter of the pre tribulation rapture doctrine, and I didn't feel right taking apart and censoring the criticisms.  But I did refute/rebut a few of the criticisms that were left unanswered.  I look forward to seeing changes to this article in the future. Jason Hommel 07:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jason Hommel's edits

message: On this page the author states, "The Rapture was invented in 1830 when a Scottish lass, Margaret MacDonald, had a feverish vision."  I couldn't find an entry about Margaret MacDonald in Wikipedia, but looking around the web, apparently some other critics site her as the origin of the rapture, but many defenders of the concept dismiss her entirely.  Does anyone have any more information?
:I've heard that it was revived by Darby (Dec 1826 or Jan 1827). See www.biblicist.org/bible/pretrib.shtml
:The whole Margaret MacDonald/Darby issue is a manifestation of folks like Gary Demar and was nothing but his attempt to discredit the position (i.e. Ad Hominem attack against a dead guy).  In reality there are others who pre-date Darby that hold the pre-trib position yet Darby is credited as giving the notoriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.R.Lawendowski (talk • contribs) 
It is claimed that some early church fathers support the rapture theory. 1 These quotes are taken completely out of context. In the cited passage, Clement is using Enoch as an example to follow (note the chapter heading), not as a proof text for the rapture 2. The other examples are just as obviously misused. These are moral examples of men who have done wrong and been punished and men who have acted righteously and were not abandoned by God. In no place does he speak about believers being "caught up" prior to unbelievers. He talks about the Resurrection of the Dead in Chapters XXIV-XXVII, but in this section he does NOT mention the rapture.
Therefore, I have deleted the section regarding patristic support of the rapture.--legolasegb 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins

message: "This article is pretty bad, honestly. Is there a policy for re-writes?"
:Have no fear. I will correct it.
:I agree.  The article is not well structured, mainly due to its controversy.  I have tried to rename and add some sections to help organize the flow a bit better. Beanbatch 17:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: This section is pretty weak, and does not appear to answer the issues raised under Criticism very well.  Anybody want to try and make their case here?  Beanbatch 20:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, anyone care to mention the physical laws of the Universe??? mhunter 08:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A rebuttal section does not belong in an encyclopedic article. The main article should cover the points of the subject matter thoroughly, and the criticism section should touch upon the major criticisms associated with the subject matter. Adding a rebuttal turns the article into a debate, as someone already tagged. --Kameronmf 21:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Is this section even appropriate? Since when does wikipedia have criticism rebuttals. It's not a debate, it's merely an article that present both viewpoints. Both viewpoints are presented without the rebuttal section, which is poorly written anyway (seriously, I can't stand sentence fragments). So what does it contribute? It seems to make the article seem actually more biased towards those who believe in the rapture, in my opinion. I just noticed someone already said exactly this, so I'm going to go ahead and delete the section. --Marshaul 04:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebuttal section

message: I agree, the rebuttal section is nearly incomprehensible.  It is also out of place.  An encyclopedia may legitimately report what different groups believe about a religious topic but a debate over which is correct is out of place.
I do not believe the criticism section maintains NPOV.  Parts of work well, (EG explaining Roman Catholic teaching) but many of the arguments are put out without identifying sources.  The result is the impression that the author of the section is trying to discredit the idea.  A format that ran along the lines of:
Roman Catholic teaching does not believe in the rapture because...
Most Mainline Protestants do not believe in the rapture because...
Some Fundamentalist Protestants do not believe in the rapture...
and so on.
If this is done I believe the rebuttal section can be done away with entirely.
When Jesus said he would come again he didn't mean that he would come two times, one for his church and one for all those that are saved during the great tribulation. When he speaks of his coming it is all inconclusive. He very plainly said that he was coming after the tribulation of those days and gather his elect from the four winds in Matthew 24. The saints are here during this time, mentioned in Daniel 7 and also again in Revelation 13. No need to insert tribulation saints here as the pre-trib rapture believers do. Also the day of the lord is only one day, not a seven year period as some would teach trying to stretch their doctrine so 1 Thessalonians 5 with fit with 1 Thessalonians 4. Also Revelation 20 says that those who didn't take the mark of the beast will participate in the first resurrection. How can the rapture be a resurrection when Revelation 20 is the first? The marriage of the lamb takes place at Christ second coming in Revelation 19 while they are all rejoicing because God has judged the great whore not before the tribulation begins as the people who teach rapture will teach you. In Revelation 4:1 only John is taken up into heaven not a church, or the church, this is added by people trying to twist the meaning. It says I meaning John. I hope this will give you something to think about when people begin to add to God's word to make things fit and not what the word in it's simplicity actually says. The word coming is the greek word parousia. 1 Thessalonians 4:15 talks about the coming of the Lord. In 2 Thessalonians 2:9
it says that His coming is after the working of Satan, the same word parousia. 2 Thessalonians 2:1 says that we do not gather back to Christ until after the son of perdition is revealed. There is no pretribulation rapture of the church. Those words just aren't documented anywhere in scripure. To say Jesus just comes partially to the earth is only adding to the scriptures. If someone new learning the Bible had never heard this doctrine before then they would not be able to put it together that Jesus would be coming for a church and then for Israel. This doctrine is just not written in the text. They would only see that Jesus is coming again which is the simplicity of the scriptures. No where in Matthew 24 does it say that he is talkin about Israel. This has to be added. Christ said he would come after the tribulation and gather his elect which is eklekos in the greek. This is the same greek word used in Romans 8:33 which is never spoken of as being Israel but taught many times as being believers in Christ.
:*I must disagree here; the above commentator obviously doesn't understand the pre-trib view. I'm not trying to debate the issue; I only wish to clarify what the pre-trib camp actually believes. For starters, we don't believe the Lord will come two different times, as the author claims. We believe that there is only one future prophesied coming of Christ to the earth, preceded by a non-prophesied coming of Christ in the air for His saints (1 Thessalonians 4:17). This non-prophesied event is what we refer to as the Rapture. At that time, the Lord will never come to the earth (according to 1 Thess. 4:17, He comes in the air), so His second coming - which will be to the earth - will still be future. As far as Matthew chapter 24 is concerned, there are quite a few dispensationlists out here who don't believe this gathering of the elect "from the four winds, from one end of heaven" (verse 31) is referring to the Rapture. Instead, many of us believe this refers to Israel's future return back into the land (see, for example, Deuteronomy 30:1-5, where the Lord stated that He would possibly scatter Israel "unto the outmost parts of heaven"; compare Nehemiah 1:9, where Nehemiah referred to this scattering of Israel "unto the uttermost part of the heaven"; see also Jeremiah 29:14, Ezekiel 20:34-43, and Isaiah 11:11-16; compare Ezekiel 11:17, Jeremiah 30:10-24 and 31:7-11, Ezekiel 28:25-26 and 36:24-28, where the Lord promised to one day gather Israel back into the land). Nor does the day of the Lord have to be limited to one 24-hour day (for example, see 2 Cor.6:2, where the day of salvation is not limited in such a manner). As for the "first resurrection" into the Millennial kingdom (Revelaton 20:4-5), again, many of us do not believe that either the pre-trib resurrection or the Rapture was prophesied. This belief is based on passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:51, where Paul stated that he was showing them a "mystery" (we believe he was showing them something that had never before been mentioned in scripture). If this is the case, then the resurrection of Rev. 20:4-5 would still be the first resurrection, if the Lord never prophesied about the events surrounding the "rapture". So please, don't accuse us of adding to God's word in order to make things fit, instead of believing "what the word in it's simplicity actually says". And finally, as far as the Criticism and Rebuttal quandry, how about two separate sections, one for Biblical arguments in favor of a pre-trib Rapture, and one for Biblical arguments in opposition to a pre-trib Rapture? Similar to the divisions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism ? Brwebb 03:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism and Rebuttal

message: It would probably be useful to identify the premillenial, postmillenial and amillenial positions of Christian groups.
:*Christian groups such as Catholicism (that are considered "amillenial" by other groups that believe in the literal 1000 year millenium) do not find that label to be useful or applicable, and perhaps even bordering on a perjorative. --Her girlfriend  05:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Different Eschatological Stances

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I (for one), earlier this year found the mentioned site, read the article on the Rapture and found it to be comprehensive and reasonably accurate. I vote that the reference stays. And yes, I did check the above Wiki pages RossNixon 06:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: The criticism section needs some organization. The first three paragraphs seem to be one viewpoint, then we have an introductory paragraph after a line break. The rebuttal part of the criticism section looks fine. Thoughts? --Jason Gastrich 22:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: First of all, plural is a number, not a tense... secondly, the subject is "set" - singular.  The other (plural) nouns are objects of prepositions, not subjects. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is not are

message: The following was added to the article by User:66.226.32.35 :  FreplySpang (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from article 

message: I have split the links up into four categories as a prelude to a discussion of what links would be useful.  Does anyone have any objection to wiping everything under the "Other Rapture Websites and Articles" and "Rapture Fiction" headings?  I'm not sure that anything in either of these adds any value to the page.  They all are products of individual people (as opposed to authoritative sources) and they all look like the websites were designed by junior high school students. BigDT 00:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Hi.... I am quite sure in my mind that , this is the time. We are to gain great knowledge... For 2 years, Its happening to me..... Then after the 2 year perion there will pass 5 years..... The 10th planet of Pisces will be had but a glimmer of it, in the the greatest of distances...
Till we chat chow.... Ronald  
tacpans@msn.com
: If you are being serious and not just trying to mock the idea of the rapture, what in the world are you talking about? BigDT 22:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time 

message: www.manchildministry.com 
Readers can get the real biblical perspective on the rapture, or at least an objective one.
Thank you 
Chris Giaimo
jesusmanifestedinus@hotmail.com
:Hi Chris. Thanks for asking (and I really mean this; most people don't) but Wikipedia doesn't generally link to individual opinion sites. If you have unique material not found in this article which is not your original ideas, and for which you can provide citations to "reputable sources", please add it to the article. — JEREMY 01:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Along that line, I've gone ahead and removed most of the links that were going to "one guy's myspace" type sites as discussed above.  (Nobody has objected since I raised the issue May 2, so I'll take that as agreement.)  It would be great if we could find more/better denominational rapture viewpoint pages.  The Lutheran one is nice from the standpoint that it exists, but it is a single pastor's opinion, not one of the denomination as a whole.  BigDT 22:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you please link my site to your rapture page 

message: If true, I think this would be a good addition to the article. The trailer for The God Who Wasn't There says that 22% of Americans think that the rapture will occur within the next fifty years and another 22% think that it probably will. If someone can find the original source for this, it would be interesting to add. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on the rapture 

message: Well, we're at 6-6-06, and not much happened, except that the remake of The Omen (2006 film) opened.  --John Nagle 22:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the number 666 does appear in prophecy, I'm not aware that anything in particular was prophesied to happen on a calendar date of 6-6-6; and even if there were, I've never heard that the Gregorian calendar is the one used in Heaven!  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The date setters are busy today.  Editorial in the Palm Beach Post. Mention in Dvorak's column. Pastor Harry Walther on "Satan's Rapture". --John Nagle 00:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  6-6-06, and no rapture. 

message: In the media section a reference to James Beauseigneur's trilogy "The Christ Clone" should be added. In the first book of the trilogy "In his Image", the rapture is pictured as the simultaneous dead of millions of people around the earth. About 20% of earth's population die simultaneously with no logical explanation. It is called "The Disaster" and is so referenced in all the books. In book three "Acts of God" a KDP member (one of the 144.000) explains to the protagonist that The Disaster was in fact The Rapture.
It is a different point of view from the other books and movies.
>> Hlasso 16:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media References 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Rapture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720022803/http://laist.com/2011/05/24/apocalypse_not_quite_now_camping_pi.php to http://laist.com/2011/05/24/apocalypse_not_quite_now_camping_pi.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101209094535/http://bibleprophesy.org/jesuitrapture.htm to http://bibleprophesy.org/jesuitrapture.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111161411/http://www.raptureready.com//rr-margaret-mcdonald.html to http://www.raptureready.com/rr-margaret-mcdonald.html
*Added  tag to http://www.bibleprophesy.org/vision.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205202124/http://www.raptureready.com/who/Hal_Lindsey.html to http://www.raptureready.com/who/Hal_Lindsey.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion