| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| If the rapture really happens tomorrow . . .; AKA . . . the Good Bye Thread | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 20 2011, 01:21 PM (12,130 Views) | |
| kenny | May 20 2011, 10:11 PM Post #51 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Blah Blah Blah. Religions are made up and agreed with...not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just not my thing. I'm okay with unanswered questions and a 78-year life. People vary. I don't care for ketchup, iPods or wearing the latest fashions either. But you enjoy yourself if I don't hear from you after tomorrow.
|
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 20 2011, 10:15 PM Post #52 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Enjoy your blinders, Kenny.....
|
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | May 20 2011, 10:16 PM Post #53 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
You enjoy yours too. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 21 2011, 12:11 AM Post #54 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Larry: Rapture is used today (and in these days esp) to describe some sort of pre-trib event. That is essentially a 19th cent innovation of Dispensationalism. Of course the fundamentalists used scripture to justify this, but it is a silly argument to try to claim that the Catholics used this term and supposedly meant the same thing by it. For one thing, I think you are wrong about the use of the term "rapturo" in the Bible. The text in Thess is "deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus". "Rapiemur" is the first-person plural future passive indicative -- "we shall be carried", or something to that effect. The word "rapturo" is not used in that passage. That rapturo word is a form of the future passive participle "rapturus" -- masculine/neuter singular (both dative and ablative) to indicate one thing that will be carried either toward (dative) or away from (ablative). That term (as far as I can tell) is not scriptural -- perhaps you can show me where it is found in the Latin Vulgate. Both these words have the root rapere generally meaning seize, plunder, carry away, rape, etc. The same root gives us "rapture" "rape" "rapine" "rapt" and "rapacious". Another form (raptum) is used scripturally to talk about "ecstasy" -- 2 Cor 12:2 where Paul talks (of himself) as "being caught up in the third heaven". scit raptum eiusmodi usque ad tertium caelum. It is true that some Catholic theologians have discussed "rapture" -- but nothing like the pre-trib dispensationalists do. Rather, for instance, Thomas Aquinas uses the term "rapture" to discuss contemplation of God in prayer (rapt) and what St Paul experienced. . There are some interesting passages -- some of which you note -- but the passages you cite generally speak to the fact that Christians will again meet the Lord, that this will be a sudden event, and that they will be transformed in Christ (theosis or deification). None of that is disputed by any orthodox Christian -- that is the very hope Christ presents -- but the common use today of "rapture" is precisely a fundamentalist pre-trib event. That is a 19th cent innovation. The heresy part is in the definitive claim of knowing when and how this will happen (Darby and his ages of dispensation, Scofield and his annotated bible, Hal Lindsey and his profiteering on scripture) -- the Catholic and Orthodox apostolic view is that all the interesting language (Matt 24-37-42; Luke 17:31-37) must be framed in the overarching context that "But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32). Dispensationalism is also heretical since it posits breaks and rupture in salvation history between the ages of "dispensation", which is key to the point of a pre tribulation rapture. So while in the most general terms possible, "rapture" is some sort of Scriptural language of the consummation of all things in Christ, the use bandied about today is a 19th cent innovation. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| AndyD | May 21 2011, 12:19 AM Post #55 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
All of them and all of the 'non Christians' too. Don't ask me where or how though. Just so long as isn't from behind |
|
Every morning the soul is once again as good as new, and again one offers it to one's brothers & sisters in life. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 21 2011, 12:42 AM Post #56 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I disagree with that interpretation of it.
That's not what you said the first time, but if that is now what you're arguing, you're again incorrect - there is not a single Protestant denomination that claims to know the when or how this will happen. The scripture I quoted is not vague. It requires no "in general terms" and there is no such thing as "some sort of scriptural language". It says exactly what it says, and it means exactly what it says. It describes an event where Christ returns, in an instant, calls up the dead in Christ to be with him, then brings those still alive to join them. That is not a 19th century invention. As for "rapturo" vs. "rapiemur", you're splitting hairs. One refers to an individual, one refers to a group, both describe the same thing - "caught up". There won't be any deification however, unles you want to argue that the Catholic view is that all Christians will become deity. In the context of these scriptures one can pretty much rule out certain definitions such as "rape", and stick with the definition that fits the context - "caught up". We can also dispense with the Vulgate since the scripture was written in Greek, and that is where you will find the true intention of the writer, not in a Catholic translation. The original Greek is "epeita hemeis oi zontes hoi perileipomenoi ama sun autois arpagesometha en nephelais eis apantesin tou kuriou eis aera; kai houtos pantote sun kurio esometha." This translates into English as "Then we, the living ones who remain [on the earth], shall simultaneously be caught up along with [the resurrected dead] in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so always (through the eternity of the eternities) we shall be with the Lord" Now you can claim that is a 19th century invention if you wish, but you would be mistaken. Thessalonians wasn't written in the 19th century. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 21 2011, 01:46 AM Post #57 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Of course it's not what I said the first time-- all I said was that it was a 19th cent innovation. So what do you think all the fuss is about? Some protestant is claiming it will happen tomorrow. This is a fairly regularly recurring event among fundamentalists. Many have claimed it will happen at date X, and so far they have all been wrong. And dispensationalists have argued for 200 years about how it will happen. Pre Trib/ Post trib/ the whole millenarianist movement is about folks claiming to know how it will happen. How can I be incorrect when if some group of protestant/ fundamentalists wasn't claiming when and how it would happen, we wouldn't be having this discussion? ![]()
I never said it was vague -- dispensationalism is making a claim far beyond what can be substantiated from the texts. And the pre trib use of "rapture" is grounded in dispensationalism. And dispensationalism is a 19th cent innovation - read up on Darby. Of course "something" like what you describe is at the heart of the Christian message -- I already said that. You can only make a definitive claim about these things in general terms -- which you already basically outlined. And this is a general sense of scriptural language -- that is not pejorative. It simply means that one is not entitled to make strong statements about exactly what will happen and what the sequence of events will be or when it will happen either chronologically or in some dispensationalist framework as the fundamentalist do. Scripture uses a lot of different imagery to describe the consummation of the world in Christ. They are word-pictures, images to help us understand something quite extraordingary-- not a movie script. But now you have me confused to your position: Either you know what will happen or you don't. You've already stated that "there is not a single Protestant denomination that claims to know the when or how this will happen." So they don't know. But now you seem to be saying that you do know. Which is it?
I am not splitting hairs. They are different words. Like "am" and "be" and "was" and "is" and "are" and "will be" and "could be" and "maybe" and "were" are different words indicating different cases and tenses. You claimed that the term "rapturo" was found in the Latin bible used by Catholics. You even seemed to imply that since the Catholics supposedly used the term "rapturo" in the bible, it therefore had some credible usage to mean what the Dispensationalists intend by that term. (I believe that was you Catholics who did that, eh? ) "Harpazo" is translated into "rapturo", .... translated by the Catholic Church into "rapturo" certainly DOES appear in the Bible,. Show me where "rapturo" occurs in the bible.
You are the one who claimed that the term has some validity because it was supposedly found in the Latin version. I have shown you that it wasn't, and now you want to dispense with that? OK, but the verb form is a precise parallel to "arpagesometha" so I am not sure what your point really is. Comparing the Gk 1Th4:15-17 use of "arpagesometha" to similar scene in Matt 24:40 (paralambanetai) and Lk 17:34 (paralephthesetai) yields nothing. And as you already noted in the other passages in Acts and 2 Cor 12:2, the same root word means very different things -- generally being caught or snatched to "whisked away" to enraptured in contemplation. You are claiming a particular literalist meaning of "caught up" as definitive when it could describe a number of different scenarios -- which you already acknowledge that no one knows how it will happen. Are you able to appreciate the difference between "Thessalonians was not written in the 19th century" and "an interpretation of a passage in Thessalonians was innovated in the 19th century"??? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | May 21 2011, 03:08 AM Post #58 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The debate is not whether scripture states that Christ will ultimately return and establish God's kingdom on earth; or that there will be times of great difficulty and upheaval before he returns; or whether we will be transformed into some different kind of spiritual/physical being (actually, like that of the risen Christ); or that the dead will rise at that time; or that when it all happens it will be quick, that the whole world will know it, or even that the living will be "caught up" in the air to meet Christ and usher him to earth (imagine the crowds going out in front of him as he rode the donkey into Jerusalem before his crucifixion) when he does return. All of that is completely scriptural, and completely consistent with the original languages. What is at question is whether Christ is going to come back in some sort of preliminary appearance and take the believers out of the world and away to some other place before that time of great difficulty and upheaval, only to return at some later time - typically surmised at 3 1/2 years - to really finish the job of establishing God's kingdom and enacting the final judgment; and whether the timing of any of this can be pinpointed by reading and analyzing scripture. I believe everything in the first paragraph. I don't believe any of the second paragraph, which is what people mean within several variations when they discuss the "Rapture." It's my opinion - and the opinion of the vast majority of Christianity, over the entire history of the faith - that the interpretation of a coming "rapture" is based on erroneous interpretation of scripture, and in some instances flatly ignoring what scripture says. That's all I'm going to say about it. Many very devout and sincere Christians believe firmly in the coming of a rapture, whether it is going to happen today or at some other point. I respect their right to believe it, even while I disagree with it. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| apple | May 21 2011, 04:26 AM Post #59 |
|
one of the angels
|
Kenny - I asked you to take me off your groupism list. You have no idea what my beliefs are. I don't know why this pisses me off but it does. I still love you and thank you for the darling little piano tho. |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 21 2011, 05:38 AM Post #60 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
To the three pious stooges:![]() Lighten up let this remain a fun thread. And the BTW Larry, IT is right you are wrong. |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | May 21 2011, 05:53 AM Post #61 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Plagiarism detection alert! |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 21 2011, 06:23 AM Post #62 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Klaus, I appreciate you pointing out the fact that I have kept up with the teachings of the Christian Church, but that doesn't mean I plagiarized it. It just means that I'm obviously not the only one who believes the things I wrote. Since 90% of what you quoted is scripture, I didn't see a need to cite my source - but if you want to nit pick I will admit that I copied that part from a book we call the Bible..... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 21 2011, 06:30 AM Post #63 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
|
![]() |
|
| Klaus | May 21 2011, 06:33 AM Post #64 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Well, I guess you consulted the source I quoted as well. But I'm just teasing you a little When your posts begin to look like ITs posts, they start to look less authentic and I get suspicious
|
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 21 2011, 06:38 AM Post #65 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
But since we're talking about plagiarism........ ![]() I'll give IT a link to where he probably got some of *his* argument, and call his attention to the post explaining that "rapiemur" and "rapturo" are, quote "two forms of the same verb", with "rapiermur" being "the first person, plural, future, indicative, passive. Rapturo is the future active participle." Since the coming of Jesus Christ is "future active" and not "future passive", I contend that "rapturo" is the more correct form, but the fact remains that IT is splitting hairs here, or as the poster in my link aptly puts it, "It is like asking if "caught" is a form of "catch" or if "catching" is a form of "catch"? -- They are both forms of "catch"." http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1844825 Please note that it is a Catholic discussion group, and also note that the thrust of their conversation shows they are agreeing with me. And no Renauda, IT is *not* correct. Scripture is quite clear on the subject. I'll put my confidence in the writers of scripture instead of the Catholic Church. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 21 2011, 06:41 AM Post #66 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
![]() Since it should be obvious that I don't speak Latin or Greek and neither does IT, it's pretty obvious that *both* of us are relying on information we gather as we defend our views, but the source you quoted wasn't one of them.. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| LadyElton | May 21 2011, 06:42 AM Post #67 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
|
| Hilary aka LadyElton | |
![]() |
|
| George K | May 21 2011, 06:45 AM Post #68 |
|
Finally
|
|
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | May 21 2011, 06:48 AM Post #69 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
What, you mean we get raptured out naked? Count me out. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 21 2011, 06:49 AM Post #70 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
See the injun? They put that there because injuns can pass the test...... ![]()
|
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 21 2011, 06:50 AM Post #71 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Hey there, Hilary!!! Where ya been, girl? **smooch** |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| dolmansaxlil | May 21 2011, 06:54 AM Post #72 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
George, obviously you don't know me very well, because there is no way I would ever be taken in a group of the godly. This hand basket is exceptionally roomy if anyone would like to join me... |
|
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson My Flickr Photostream | |
![]() |
|
| George K | May 21 2011, 07:00 AM Post #73 |
|
Finally
|
That's not me in that post: http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_New_Coffee_Room/single/?p=8789958&t=7339667 That's Kenny. See? http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_New_Coffee_Room/single/?p=8790278&t=7339694 |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 21 2011, 07:00 AM Post #74 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Be on your way Larry. IT is correct and it gives me no pleasure to concede that either. That some modern day protestants - dispensationalists and other literalists- who adhere to wild millenialist superstitions can't read those scriptural mythologies and fables the way the ancients intended is another matter. |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | May 21 2011, 07:03 AM Post #75 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
Speaking as a "fundamentalist", the argument over whether there's a rapture or not, and when it occurs in relation to the tribulations isn't really very important. If you pay attention to all of the stuff prior, then all the other stuff really doesn't really matter. Also, fundamentalists by their very nature agree with the Catholics about the whole "No man may know the timing" thing. The very fact that these misguided people believe that they know the timing proves the fact that they are not fundamentalist. Oh, they may try to apply the term to themselves, but it doesn't make it so. The other members of my fundamentalist Baptist church are kind of chuckling at the whole thing. I'm not sure that's entirely appropriate, myself, as I feel bad that these poor people are being led astray by bad theology and doctrine. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |







) "Harpazo" is translated into "rapturo", again meaning "caught up" - to "snatch, or take away". Other places in scripture where the word "harpazo" is used is in Acts where Phillip is "harpazo" (caught up) and taken to Caesarea, and in 2 Corinthians where Paul describes being "caught up" to the 3rd heaven. There is no question that the verse in Thessalonians is saying that humans will be "snatched" - "caught up" - an actual removal of humans from earth.











11:28 AM Jul 11