Jump to content

Talk:Rapture/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

I added a link to Answers in Revelation.org, which is, arguably, the most scholarly presentation of the post-tribulation rapture view on the web. In addition to articles concerning the rapture, the site also contains audio material, charts, and debates on various eschatological viewpoints, all of which make it a strong resource for anyone investigating Christian eschatology. "Answers" is not my site. It is owned and authored by Tim Warner of Oasis Christian Church in Tampa, FL.Phoenix1861 (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

2012

User:Rossnixon keeps reverting an entry to the Etymology section (which contains a list of predictions) for the year 2012, stating that it has relevance to the End Times article, but not this one. The entry being removed very clearly states that Christians have associated this prediction with the "Final judgement" and "second coming of Christ", which is obviously related to this article. I do see some problems with weasel wording, but the appropriate course of action for that is cleanup, not outright removal. Ross, as I clearly asked you in edit summaries, could you please summarize your objections to this content here? Thank you. Jesstalk|edits 03:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In case my edit summary needs expanding, here are my further comments. I am very familiar with the history of 'the Rapture' and it's interpretations. The so-called prophecies of 2012 have not come from a Christian source; and I a unaware of any reputable of high-profile Christians endorsing an association between the 'Rapture' and these prophecies. If there are any, they have not been cited. Any such claim in the article can be summarily removed by editors, if not backed up by *any* citation. rossnixon 02:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Obviously you haven't done a cursory search on the topic, since "2012 Christ" returns over 2.5 million hits. This result seems fine to use. Since your only objection here is that it is uncited, I'll add the content back in. As a note, the policy for BLPs is to remove any uncited info immediately, but for regular articles it is customary to use citation needed tags and remove the content only if no source arrives. Jesstalk|edits 02:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but the word 'Christian' doesn't appear once on Judyth Piazza's bio page on that site; and the site is little more than an advert for her book. I don't think it therefore can be described as either a reliable source [WP:RS], or even as a Christian prediction. rossnixon 02:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Jack van Impe is widely recognized as a long-standing Christian commentator on issues like this; so thank you to the editor who added this. rossnixon 03:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I added both refs. Judyth's is perfectly appropriate, considering it discusses her feelings that the "Second Coming" will occur in 2012, which precisely backs up the statement being cited. The first paragraph is:

Christ taught 2012 in the Bible. In Matthew 13:39-40, Christ says he will come for the Harvest at the end of the age. The Harvest is the separation of the wheat from the tares or the good people from the bad people and the end of the age is Dec. 21, 2012.

This, in and of itself, is sufficient. Blogs and self published content (including advertising materials and the like) are sufficient for citing the author's thoughts on a subject, per WP:RS. In any case, it might be best to quote the book itself, so rather than replace the citation as it was, I'm including it as the book instead. Jesstalk|edits 04:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
No. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". They cannot be used to support statements about other subjects.
Looking at the publisher for the England book I see AuthorCentric Self Publishing "AuthorHouse™ exists to help authors achieve success -- by their definition. We provide a broad array of tools and services to allow authors to make their own choices throughout the publishing process. Authors retain all rights, maintain editorial control and choose the exact selection of services that best suits their goals. Our self publishing company allows every author to control his or her own publishing destiny." See again the quote above about self-published sources. Please look further for a reliable reference to replace this. (I have also looked briefly, not found anything yet.) Mirokado (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, self-published sources can be used for information about themselves. That's precisely what we're doing. The sentence being cited is that some Christians have claimed a link between 2012 and the second coming of Christ. An appropriate citation for such a claim is a Christian drawing such a connection, which she does in her book. What we're referencing is her thoughts on the matter, published in her book. We're not using it as reliable information about anyone else's opinion, or any actual state of affairs besides her thoughts. That's precisely what WP:RS means. It would be fantastic if we could find a secondary source to talk about some "phenomena of Christians thinking the rapture will come in 2012", but I'm not familiar with any such sources, so the best we can do is the authors themselves, such as Jack van Impe and Mary England. Jesstalk|edits 10:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I must disagree again. WP:SELFPUB refers (see quote above) to information about the publisher, particularly in an article about the publisher. This article is about "an event in the futurist interpretation of Christian eschatology", not about Mary England, so this self-published information is not applicable. You could probably use her book to support an article entitled "Mary England", but that would fail WP:NOTABILITY in the absence of good secondary references. You have made it clear above that the book is also a primary source (her own work) of original research (her thoughts) which means that the citation fails two other Wikipedia guidelines, WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR, and indicated that you can find no relevant secondary sources. For all these reasons it is entirely clear that the citation will not be accepted in this article, so I have removed it.
The Van Impe video, although also self-published, originates from a notable person in the general field (own Wikipage for example) and can probably be used to support the example of him as one of "some Christians" (I have expanded the citation to include all the information I was able to find about the DVD.) However, this is by no means good enough to support the claim that this entry in the list of "notable predictions" is in fact notable. I have thus moved the ref adjacent to the information it can support.
This leaves the entry as a whole unsupported by a suitable reference so I have added citation needed. Please continue to look for a good secondary reference to support the notability of this prediction. Note that the wikilink to 2012 is largely a red herring as this wiki page demonstrates that the associated predictions have hardly anything to do with Christianity or the Rapture, as rossnixon has already pointed out (nevertheless I suggest you read through it in case any of its references help you here.) Mirokado (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
No reference establishing notability after one month. I have removed this and other entries in that list with Citation needed tags older than one month (see the template documentation.) Mirokado (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

undue weight in intro?

The intro describes two "primary views among Christian denominations."

1. Dispensationalist Premillennialists , and 2. Everybody else

Lumping all other Christian groups together -- groups as diverse as Catholics and Presbyterians -- simply by virtue of being non-dispensational-premillenialists seems to give undue weight to category 1, as if it made up about half the Christians in the world, and as if the various denominations subsumed in the second group were all basically the same.

Distingué Traces (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the distinction is between those who believe in one second coming and those who believe in two second comings (or a two-part second coming). This isn't a weighing factor of how many are in each view, but rather simply a factor of there being only two general views.
There are other views of the millenium, but that's a different topic. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

daftity

I can't make sense of this paragraph:

Over the last few centuries, believers in the rapture of the church have made predictions regarding the date of the event. The primary scripture reference cited for this position is Matthew 24:36, where Jesus is quoted saying; "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only"

It seems to say something completely daft: "The Holy Scrolls say that nobody knows when The Event will occur, therefore on March 21, 1844 [or whenever] we should all climb a mountain and sing 'Now is the end, perish the world'." Is this deliberate satire? 71.248.115.187 (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It used to read that believers avoid making predictions regarding the date. It needs fixed. JethroElfman (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

2 views or 3?

Skywriter, re your edit "concatenation" here, the way you have moved that final line + refs gives the impression that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believe 1Thess 4:17 refers to an aerial gathering to Jerusalem. Surely this is incorrect?

QUOTE John Trigilio, Kenneth Brighenti The Catholicism Answer Book: The 300 Most Frequently Asked Questions 2007 p77 states "No English Bible uses the word “rapture,” and it was not taught as Christian doctrine by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or even Protestant Reformed churches. The notion comes from the nineteenth-century Evangelicals," UNQUOTE

It seems to me that there is a substantial difference between Anglican interpretation of 1Thess4:17 per N. T. Wright (ref in article) and Roman Catholic interpretation of 1Thess4:17. Your thoughts? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, while all Christians have believed in a gathering of the saints to meet Jesus at his return, most don't really care about the specific destination in a geographic sense. Jesus is himself that destination, and the only one that matters. I really don't see any historical concern other than meeting him "in the air." If Jesus is returning to earth, then meeting him in the air and always staying with him would presumably mean that they ended up wherever he was, but it makes little difference in historic Christianity whether that is Jerusalem, the Bahamas, or Neptune. The actual speculation is mostly absent, with only a few fringe mentions before modern-historic premillenialists felt a need to answer dispensational speculation. In my own edit, I limited the speculation of a destination to historic premillenialists for that reason. Why would a-millinialists or even post-millenialists really care about an earthly destination, since both groups concatenate the return of Jesus with the final judgment, with no intermediate millenium? What's the point of going to Jerusalem if it's just immediately destroyed with everything else? And in those eschatologies, pretty much EVERYONE is gathered to Jesus -- some to judgment and some to reward. The gathering (or rapture) is only a happy aspect of those favorably judged. While I don't see a huge problem with your edit, it's beginning to turn the lede into a format more appropriate for the body of the article.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Skywriter, well I'm not exactly an expert on this subject, but as a general reader judging from the refs as given: the environmentalist Christian writer and the former Bishop of Durham seem to think exactly the opposite of what you've said - i.e. that they care more about the destination than the timing (which in either case would be "after you're dead" by the look of it?). In any case whether someone cares or not isn't a particular criteria - and yes I would say both of these questions belong in the body not lead of the article. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

References

The references in this article need some maintenance, for completion and consistency. There are lots of tags (not all added by me) which will require further refs unless content is removed. I have started normalising the refs to use the cite * templates already in use, particularly those which need completion anyway. One advantage of more consistent, completed refs is that subsequent additions to the article will have a better example to follow.

In addition, the density of refs, for example in Rapture#Doctrinal history, make it quite difficult to read the content itself in the edit window. This problem will increase as refs are added or completed. I therefore propose to start introducing list-defined refs in which a shortish named ref tag appears in the article source and the full reference definition appears in the references list itself. This does not in itself involve a change in the reference style. The differences between versions will be easier to inspect if from now on I move the references to the reference list before making further changes to them.

List-defined refs coexist nicely with inline definitions, so anyone used to creating refs inline can continue to do so if that helps them create high quality content. I would from time to time tidy up any section which predominantly used list-defined refs.

If someone else wants to tidy the refs up in a different way, I am quite happy with that, as long as they get tidied up (in that case I could easily help by changing already-updated refs to another consistent format.) --Mirokado (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Date Setting

The Jehovah's Witnesses have a history of setting rapture dates, does anybody know of an RS list for these? Uberhill 01:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Scriptural Basis Section

Should be edited to include only things at least vaguely related to the issue, not search results on terms with multiple, unrelated uses and contexts.

Example: "Taken away [by the Flood]" is not relevant, as being killed by the Flood has no logical, thematic, or scriptural relation to being taken bodily into heaven.

That Rapture theology uses "taken away" in another sense, based on other passages, doesn't make references to the Flood relevant to Rapture theology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.1.218 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole section should be redone or removed. As it stands it is clearly making an argument and an unclear one at that. For example:

"The King James Bible uses the terms 'taken' and 'taken away' as an undesirable thing. Such as when Babylon and Assyria and Rome invaded Israel, taking away the residents taken captive, or taken and destroyed, while leaving behind a remnant, as gleaning grapes (the poor which inherited the kingdom.)"

is entirely unclear. What is "cleaning grapes" supposed to mean? Either someone is just throwing Christian-esque words senselessly, or this is "in" lingo. Either way, it's unclear. Furthermore, if "taken away" is a bad thing, doesn't that count against the rapture? The author seems to think not, but why is unclear. Unfortunately the whole section is written like this, with liberal use of bold and bullet points that don't seem to follow any pattern.141.218.226.151 (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Removed as "badly written, rambling, irrelevant, original research tagged since November, synthesis, unsourced" (edit summary) --Mirokado (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Was it a bad thing when Paul was "taken up" to Heaven for visions? "The King James Bible uses the terms..." The issue is not what the KJV says, written over 1000 years after 1 Thes. The issue is: What does the original Greek say & mean. Get out your Greek lexicon. The dictionary form is harpazo. (EnochBethany (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

Issues in the lead: Futurism

The futurism references in the lead have been deleted twice, along with a number of other classification links that provide useful academic context to this article. The Rapture is an important aspect of Christian Eschatology, or the study of the end of the end of history as we know it. It is the oldest form of futurism, clearly.

The most recent revert substituted the independent, academic references with a series of scriptural citations. The citations themselves are appropriate, and in fact were already present in the second paragraph. Please don't think I am suggesting the Bible is irrelevant to this subject, merely that it is not the the only source. (See WP:Religion)

Changes of this scale do not qualify as minor edits, as they change the information in the article. (WP:Minor) Uberhill 05:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The term "futurism" suggests a futuristic interpretation of Revelation (as opposed to a preterite or historical interpretation). There may be many theologians who take a futuristic interpretation of Revelation and also consider the Rapture to happen at the end of the "tribulation," thus deeming the Rapture immediately part of the 2nd Coming, even possibly disliking the term "Rapture." It is also quite possible to believe both in a future Rapture and in the preterist interpretation of Revelation, thus rejecting the futurist interpretation of Revelation. Thus it seems to confound the issue to tie "Rapture" to futurism. Also, while I have read quite a bit of theology in favor of a Rapture, I have never read in any such work the category of futurism as applicable to the Rapture. However, such works may take a futurist view of Revelation, a book which has no explicit reference to the Rapture (catching up), even thought John at the start of Rev 4 may be seen as a type of the Rapture. (EnochBethany (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC))
Futurism merely refers to the study of events expected in the future. As the preponderance of theories about the rapture presume it to be an event yet to come, the term still applies. It is not a theological term at all. The theologies surrounding the rapture impact several other disciplines, including sociology, psychology and even in some cases politics. As such, the term belongs in the article. I'm going to put it back again, and ask that it not be removed a third time without consensus here.
Now, your points taken, as the Rapture is generally looked at in the context of eschatology, that term perhaps belongs here as well.
Anybody else have thoughts on this? Uberhill 04:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:
"Futurism was an artistic and social movement that originated in Italy in the early 20th century. It was largely an Italian phenomenon, though there were parallel movements in Russia, England and elsewhere."
Also Wikpedia:
"Futurism, in general terms, is an interpretation of the Bible in Christian eschatology placing the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Book of Revelation, the Book of Daniel, the Olivet discourse and The Sheep and the Goats generally in the future as literal, physical, apocalyptic and global. Other views place the fulfillment of such prophecies in the past as literal, physical and local (Preterism; Historicism), or in the present as non-literal and spiritual (Idealism)"
I am removing the misleading term. Please do not put it back. Also the opening statement said:
"The Rapture is a futurist interpretation of Christian eschatology, in which it is posited that Christians will be gathered together in the air to meet Christ at, or up to seven years prior to, his return."
The Rapture is just what 1 Thes 4:17 says; it is not "posited." People may interpret it as they like, but the Rapture is simply a way of refering to something in the Bible. Its relation to "seven years" is irrelevant. "Up to" is an error. Many persons believe that after the Rapture there is an unknown period of time before Daniel's 70th week (popularly styled "the tribulation"). Thus it may be common for persons to postulate more than seven years prior to Christ's return to take over the earth. The point is that defining the Rapture does not require ennumeration in the opening sentence of variation in theology related to the Rapture. Inclusion of unnecessary baggage tends to confound the issue. (EnochBethany (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC))
I think the term 'posited' is an excellent way to indicate that the event being discussed is one from biblical prophecy. It is an attempt to walk the line between calling it "mythology" as in say, the Ragnarok article, and calling it anticipated event like the 2012 Olympics. Moreover, your edit assumes that the reader knows what "Thessalonians" is, and what "catching up" is. It's much too esoteric for the first sentence. Remember that a lot of readers are coming here from what they might have read on the back cover of a "Left Behind" DVD, and know nothing about it. Try to start slowly with the basics:
  • It is an event
  • It comes from the Bible
  • It is a prophecy, and therefore has some uncertainty
  • It involves Christians going to meet Christ
JethroElfman (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly my point is that it starts with too much, particulary with polemics. I am thinking that this article needs the NPOV label. The Rapture is not tied to "futurism" nor a position. It is simply a part of the Bible & of Christian eschatology. Indeed there are many interpretations, generally variations on how to relate the Rapture to other issues. But the article should start with a basic description of what it is. Indeed readers may come here and not understand what "futurism" is. It needs deletion. As to readers not knowing what "Thessalonians" is, one could insert "1 Thessalonians is the book of the Bible by that name; "book of the Bible" is what each of 66 parts of the Bible is called, starting with "The Book of Genesis." But I don't recommend such a change. I mean how dumb-downed should an article on theology be? If someone doesn't know what 1 Thess means, let'em google it. Or even Wickedpedia it. LOL (EnochBethany (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

Possible addition to "date setting" section?

Should we mention 21 December 2012 as a possible date because of the speculation of the date? I'm sure there are some sources out there. Shark96z (talk · contribs) 21:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Traditional

The following removed from article: (because this church not identified and no references or citations given to back it up). The church which came from the Apostle Paul while teaching in Rome, to the USA through Wales VIA Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (Acts 18:2) who studied under Paul, believes that there is no "rapture" in the commonly taught way that John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882) or his Darbiest followers believe beginning in the 1800s, but that we are "changed" at the resurrection, when we are "born again" into the "spiritual body", which is "incorruptible", as the Apostle Paul taught.

This doesn't even really make sense and it's entirely uncited. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


- This is obviously fake as today was supposed to be "rapture" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.140.138 (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.52.114.110, 22 May 2011

he used the rapture to save his radio sations and "make money" for his workers, he needs to face the music, he took advantage of figurative blind people. people ruined their live and "some will probably kill themselves". he is wanting to ride this wave. we need to string him up. he wants us to laugh. the joke cant be on us. ___this guy needs to pay.____

174.52.114.110 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a request--Jac16888 Talk 02:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

POV

Was this written by a student in seminary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.37.128 (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


I agree with the "C" quality rating

This one of the poorest WP articles I've seen on a topic of current interest.24.69.174.26 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

....I think someone should take a pic of the traffic statistics and post that in the article almost half a million viewed this article yesterday. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
That'd be original research. A better use of someone's time would be to write a coherent introduction, instead of the mess that's there now. Good point about missing your delivery date for the article, though.24.69.174.26 (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Lest I appear to be totally negative, could someone please remove the blocks entitled "One Event or Two" and "Destination", for two reasons:
  • The editor has clearly confused the concept of Rapture (held by some evangelical groups) with the concepts of the Last Judgement, Second Coming, and other end-times concepts, which are generally accepted by traditional Christians. In particular, he or she cites Roman Catholic and Anglican sources as if Rapture were part of Catholic and Anglican belief. Of course it is not. Both firmly reject it as a fanciful interpretation of scripture. N.T. Wright, who's cited here as if he accepted Rapture, is well known for ridiculing the idea.
  • Secondly, even if this was legitimate content, it wouldn't belong in the introduction.
I'm not interested in reviving my Wikipedia account to make these changes myself, but I'd say it's pretty obvious these changes should be made.24.69.174.26 (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
My statement is a reflection on how the quality of the article doesnt matter towards how many view or use the article and the lack of participation to fix this article due to the page block-Im aware its original research. Too bad new editors are forbidden on contributing to this article just because of one or two bad seeds. ....Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For real?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Proposal is inherently a major violation of WP:NPOV

Like articles about Pokemon creatures where the opening line says the article is about a fictional creature, shouldn't the opening line of this article say it is about the fictional gathering? I am actually not kidding. Christians may feel hurt about the word "fictional" being added to this article but it should somehow be made clear that this is not necessarily reality. There is the word "idea" but it feels a bit too "hidden". Maybe "theory" would be appropriate, I'm not entirely sure about the right (non-hurting) choice of words.W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one day the article will begin like the one on Ragnarok and call it Christian mythology. We aren't there yet. The compromise is to label it as prophecy, with the understanding that it is both conjecture and subject to personal interpretation. JethroElfman (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I also tried to avoid the word "doctrine", since I don't think a lot of churches put these prophetic details down as specific articles of faith, other than the essential one that Christ will come again. JethroElfman (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It is normal convention to speak of existing religious views as "beliefs" and extinct religious views as "myths". Since Wikipedia has a NPOV policy, it can neither promote nor ignore any notable POV. So, calling the rapture a "fact" or a "fiction" is a judgment call we cannot make. It is, instead, a "belief." While it may or may not be objectively true that Jesus is coming back, it is objectively true that many people believe it. We are not really reporting Jesus' wherabouts or business schedule here, but instead we are reporting on Christians and their beliefs.EGMichaels (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


How about we just give it until Sunday morning, by that time nobody will have a problem denigrating this as a myth. Larryisgood (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, we are almost there. After Sunday, let us update this page with the "calculation mistake" explanation that they come up with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.7.190 (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Stating or implying that it is fiction would be an extreme violation of WP:NPOV. Pokemon is fictional. This is religion. Stating that it is fictional would be a direct contradiction of the entire purpose of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Please pay attention to what may be the most important policy on Wikipedia before posting a stupid request like this. If you want to advertise Atheism, do it on your own private website. Wikipedia is not the place for this. --Nat682 (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ernest Angley's "Raptured"

I disagree that it focuses on a man whose mother is raptured. That'd be Jim Collins and while he was a main character, I believe the character named Hester Bell Wilson was even more so. She was a teen-aged girl who was left behind, saved during the tribulation and burned to death. 108.93.144.242 (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Cultural references

I just can't believe that all of these could be notable or worthy of inclusion. Who wants to help me trim it? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 11:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Terms for religious doctrine should be in lower case

According to the Manual of Style, section "Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents",

"Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth (as a common noun), original sin or transubstantiation."

I interpret that as meaning "rapture", "tribulation", resurrection", "second coming", etc. are all written with lower case in Wikipedia. Jojalozzo 14:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Profiting from the Rapture

Some people are making money off "rapture" predictions. There's a book out, "How You Can Profit from the Coming Rapture"[1], which answers questions like "I’m about to buy a home. Should I opt for an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), on the assumption that it will only go up a little, because Jesus will come within seven years and pay it off for me?". I think this is a joke, but some of the stuff out of that community is so weird that I'm not sure. --John Nagle (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty sure this is a joke. The other books for sale are How to raise a Jewish dog and Yiddish for Dick and Jane. It is an expensive and elaborate hoax. And, after the novelty wears off, not even that funny.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Please review policy on external links, especially What not to link. IMO, all of the external links are for sites whose content is either commercial, unreliable (self-published) or could be worked into the article. While there are comments in the external links section requesting new links be reviewed on the talk page, I see only one such mention here (and one in the archive 2009). I have removed all the links because I could not find one that was not linking to self-published articles, humor pages, sites that are selling stuff, or sites that would be better used as sources in the article (e.g. Vatican catechism). Likewise I have removed the subheadings which categorized the links making the section into a directory. Please discuss restoring any of that content here. Jojalozzo 19:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Right now all of the biblical verses are linked off-site. Surely there's an English version of the Bible somewhere at WikiCommons we could be linking to instead. 211.144.127.241 (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Serious bias problem

There seems to be no attempt to present arguments against the acceptance of the doctrine from an internally Christian perspective. Readers could be left with the impression that most people describing themselves as Christian actually believe in a literal Rapture. I feel unable to correct this but do feel it needs to be addressed. Nineteenthly (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nineteenthly. There is absolutely no representation in this article from dissenting points of view. Shadowmane (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of Rapture & 2nd Coming

As written the article states: "Dispensationalist Premillennialists (such as many Evangelicals) hold the return of Christ to be in two stages. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 is seen to be a preliminary event to the return described in Matthew 24:29-31. Although both describe a return of Jesus in the clouds with angelic activity, trumpets, heavenly signs, and a gathering, these are seen to be two separate events."

1) Are you sure that all dispensational premills like the terminology "two stages"? More accurate would be to say: "Disp Premills commonly hold that the Rapture is an event separated in time from Christ's coming to take over the earth. Incidentally, it is possible to be disp premill & NOT separate in time the two events. In fact one could say that most persons who take these passages literally think that the rapture is separated from Christ's taking over the earth, though some may have one come right after the other. Obviously a catching up of persons is not the same thing as Christ coming down to earth. How does one know that an hour or two of rejoicing in the air would not take place before the final descent? Thus the word "some" would better be inserted in front of "dispensationalist Premillennialists."

2) a) angelic activity? Are you sure that " with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God" implies angelic activity? Does it mean with a voice like that of an archangel? Probably it would be more accurate to say that "While the 2nd coming has angelic activity, the rapture only mentions the voice of the archangel."

2) b) trumpets? 1 Th 4 has trumpet, not trumpets.

2) c) heavenly signs? What heavenly sign is with the Rapture? 1 Th 4 speaks of clouds; it doesn't say supernatural clouds.

2) d) gathering: So far as I know only the Rapture has a gathering in the air.

IMHO, that entire "Although" clause should be omitted as not NPOV and argumentative against the POV that the Rapture is not the same thing as Christ's coming to take over the earth. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

Another statement in the article says, "All passages regarding the return of Christ, such as Matthew 24:29-31, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, Revelation 1:7, etc., describe the return of Jesus in the clouds amidst trumpets, angelic activity, heavenly signs, a resurrection, and a gathering." Now that is not exactly true. Immediately one can check 1 Thes 4:15-17, where "trumpets" (plural) is not mentioned. "Angelic activity" is questionable. There is the voice of an archangel. Nowhere in the Bible is there ever any sign for the Rapture, let alone "signs." 1 Thes does not say that Christ returns "in the clouds." The catching up is in the clouds, not the return of Christ.
'For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; 17 then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be raptured in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.' (ASV).
John 14:1-3 "14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also."
James 5:8 "Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand. 9 Murmur not, brethren, one against another, that ye be not judged: behold, the judge standeth before the doors."
There are no trumpets, angels, or signs in John 14 or James 5, also no gathering in James 5. So pardon me for removing the inaccurate sentence. I am thinking that if one wishes to present the arguments for the Rapture happening at the same time as the 2nd Coming to take over the earth, one could say something like:
Those who deny a distinction between Rapture and Second-Coming-To-Earth, emphasize certain mutual similarities including: references to clouds, angel or archangel, and resurrection.

(EnochBethany (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

I am thinking that if certain persons keep insisting on keeping polemical statements & violating NPOV, this article will need the NPOV. (EnochBethany (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

Historic Premillennialists

As the article stands it says,

"Historic Premillennialists are more likely to use the term "rapture" to clarify their position in distinction from Dispensationalists."

I am at a loss to know what the author meant by that. Did the author mean to say "Second Coming"? Did the author mean "Historic"? While I have read this POV, I haven't read say 10 works by Historic Premills to know what they are more likely to use to clarify their position. What seems obvious to me is that those who use "Historic Premill" do it with polemical intent to try to claim in their very name that their position is historical, while Dispensationalism is Johnny-Come-Lately. My guess is that the Amils claim that their position is the only historical position, aside from fringe groups. Who knows how historical a position is? I mean didn't the papists dominate literature in the West, while the rest were persecuted & trivialized, leaving scant record of their views? (EnochBethany (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

"historic premillennialists" is an accepted and distinct view with many adherents. it predates darby's flavor of dispensationalism. just because popular culture doesn't sell many books on the subject, doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a separate system: if so, amillennialism would be in trouble. Newtonsghost (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newtonsghost (talk • contribs) 21:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and 1942

The date 1942 is not an accurate and true rapture prediction, and therefor does not belong in the wiki list.

The reference given to back this claim is The Watchtower, September 15, 1941, p. 288. I've provided a link below to view/download the 1941 Watchtower. The subject being spoken of on page 288 (if you flip two pages back) is: "Sunday. August 10, Children's Day". The article says absolutely nothing on the cited page about "the rapture", and the year 1942 is not mentioned. It's simply not the topic being discussed.

http://ia600304.us.archive.org/27/items/WatchtowerLibrary/magazines/w/w1941_E.pdf

--James Devlin 1 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense

The Rapture is of course nonsense. How about portraying it as a delusion and not something real or miraculous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.15.213 (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

How about you stop writing bigoted comments? SChaos1701 (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
How about a helpful refresher glance at WP:NPOV? 211.144.127.241 (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

21 May 2011

FAIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.11.27 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparintly. Its hard to see why though. Appeared fool proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.240.3 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it's never going to happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.11.27 (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's going to happen.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Jesus probably didn't come because you guys don't know how to sign your comments. --HolyandClean (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)HolyandClean

Dates

May I add some dates?--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Here is a general answer. The Predictions section is a list of dates widely accepted as significant predictions. Any dates you add should have a reliable third party source confirming that the date is (or was at some stage) widely accepted as significant. This should not turn into a list of any date ever published somewhere and should certainly not include modern authors sourced only to their own work. --Mirokado (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Help find sources: Click here.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Can the living be raised (resurrected)?

It is said in the article:

"Rapture is a term in Christian eschatology to refer to the belief that upon the return of Jesus Christ to earth, the living believers WILL BE RAISED and rescued from Great Tribulation."

Bible says:

"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ WILL RISE first. Then we who are ALIVE and remain shall be CAUGHT UP together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord." - 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

Will the living be raised or the dead? The living will be caught up, not raised. Only the dead will rise (be resurrected).--Rafaelosornio (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Lack of contrary views

Though the article mentions that this "rapture" idea first came into being en masse in the popular psyche in the 17th century, it ignores the many counter arguments made against the rapture idea. The article needs a "criticism" section, detailing criticisms of this policy (of which there are many). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashmed (talk • contribs) 16:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. You'd never know from this article that Martin Luther was tempted to leave Revelation out of the Bible altogether, thus depriving the whole "Rapture" thing of its scriptural underpinning. He was quoted as saying "A Revelation should be more revealing" and "if I was told that the world was coming to an end soon, I would plant a tree".

73.137.170.88 (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Stale refimprove tag

There was a banner tag {{refimprove}} dated March 2015. I'm not seeing any discussion nor any issues or {{cn}} which warrant a general tag. If there's something that needs more references then please indicate this specifically. Andrew D. (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Pretribulation rapture

Why does this article redirect here? These seem to be dinstinct concepts and Pretribulation rapture has no mention on this page. Walkersam (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Facts?

Would "Tenets" be a fitting word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.125.7 (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The article doesn't contain the word "fact" at any point. This talk page doesn't contain the word "fact" in a usage that can be swapped out for "tenet" (e.g. "tenet or fiction" doesn't work because tenets could be fact or fiction). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see you've changed some unnoticed POV-pushing by Rafaelosornio. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

False Association with NT Wright

Content under the heading Views/Destination references NT Wright's view of the second coming, implying that Wright believes in the rapture. However, Wright practices Anglican doctrine and specifically teaches against the concept. See this example: Farewell to the Rapture (N.T. Wright, Bible Review, August 2001). This section of the page needs attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.104.150 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Mainstream views on Thessalonians passage

I think the article could benefit from having a section on mainstream views on the passage from Thessalonians - the views of Presbyterians / Anglicans / Church of Scotland / Eastern Orthodox / Catholics etc - or at least - if that would overwhelm this article, a link to another article about them. It says the idea of the rapture started in 1590 and goes on to talk about the many ways of interpreting that passage based on that doctrine, but the reader naturally asks - how else is it interpreted and how was it understood before?

I did a search and found various blog posts but some of you will know better sources. I understand it's mainly understood as a passage of consolation and encouragement to the persecuted, it introduces the idea of resurrection of the dead, and that both the living and dead would be saved and it has a warning against laziness - seems some of them had given up work and were lazing around waiting for the world to end. That's according to the IVP Bible background and some blog posts [2] but I'm not sure where to go to find e.g. the Catholic / Eastern Orthodox / etc views on this passage. The article here on the passage First Epistle to the Thessalonians has hardly anything - doesn't mention rapture either - one possibility might be to expand on that which is rather a stub article? But not to just expand on it as a rapture passage as that is a minority and recent (well post 1590) view. Robert Walker (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I made a few edits to make it more clear that Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, etc. do not subscribe to the millennialist/dispensationalist views associated with the term "rapture". I removed some POV language as well. However, I heartily agree that there still needs to be greater explication of their theological positions on the issue. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay - that's a start but there is more of a difference than that in views. They don't interpret the events in 1 Thessalonians in the same way either. It's not just about sequencing of events. They don't think the living are snatched into heaven at all. Again I'm not sure where to go to find the main theological works on such things, but for instance here is a Catholic blog post about it:

“When most Christians think of the Rapture today, they imagine the redeemed being snatched up to heaven by Christ as if they have a one-way ticket. But when Paul spoke of being carried off to meet Christ in the clouds, it was not for the purpose of flying away to heaven but to welcome the Lord and return with him in glory. This moment represents the culmination of God’s plan, the great Eschaton, for which all Christians pray when they cry out, “Thy kingdom come.” Our very baptism reminded us of this day: “When the Lord comes, may you go out to meet him with all the saints of the heavenly kingdom.””

From: Do Catholics believe in the Rapture?
Then on top of that you have the range of views on all those passages about whether they are to be understood entirely historical as all in the past, whether nearly all is in the past but Jesus returning is in the future, whether they are to be understood spiritually and about the present (for instance that's how George Fox understood them), or if they are prophetic in the future and partly or totally unfulfilled to date.
I hope someone can step in who has a good background in all that to write something up about mainstream views somewhere in Wikipedia. There are bits here and there but not about the Thessalonians passage for some reason as far as I can tell. Robert Walker (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I think your queries are right on track. I could look at some more sources... I think that the Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox view heaven in terms of spiritual disposition in relation to God (and others) rather than exclusively in temporal space. They would be more apt to interpret passages of the Bible describing celestial space (i.e. "up in the clouds") as figurative, not necessarily literal——not just after this life, but already present in it to a certain extent. I just looked up some things online and I noticed that in cannon 1024 in the Catholic catechism, it describes heaven as: "This perfect life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed——is called 'heaven'."[3] So, it would be most likely that they would view the conjoining with Jesus after the second coming in this kind of way, rather than as being "snatched up into the sky". I would imagine that they would view the Last Supper and the Eucharist (Sunday Communion) as a part of the process, already present (in spite of whatever imperfections in this life). Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
For the record, Methodists don't believe in this rapture stuff either. 21:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.86.169 (talk)

Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Mormons, United Church of Christ and other Denominations do NOT Believe in Rapture

I tweaked the following... Catholics, as well as Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Mormons, Methodists, United Church of Christ and most Reformed Christians, do not generally use 'rapture' as a specific theological term, nor do any of these bodies subscribe to the premillennialist dispensationalist theological views associated with its use, but do believe in the phenomenon — primarily in the sense of the elect gathering with Christ in Heaven after his Second Coming. 73.85.202.151 (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, but make sure you add a relevant citation to back it up. — Confession0791 talk 06:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV; I removed polemical material labeling persons heretics

This article needs a lot of work to ensure it has NPOV. There is no reasonable debate about the fact of a Rapture of the Church being taught in the NT. The reasonable debate is about its timing, not its fact, as 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is quite clear as to the fact. I deleted a polemical section. It is obvious that proponents who want to do polemics here can slap up a huge number of citations supporting their POV; but that is what it is here, POV.

The article is entitled "Rapture", not "The Rapture". Thus to cover this topic all 9 possible raptures should be included: of Enoch, Elijah, Christ, Philip, Paul, John, the Church, and the 2 witnesses of Rev. 11.

Also the possible evidence for pre-tribulation Rapture POV should be added from Shepherd of Hermas and (Pseudo-)Ephraem. The rapture in the Dormition of Mary should be included as in that document, a rather short hop rapture (like that of Philip) is referred to using the term apostasia, which use supports the claim that the rapture is found in 2 Thessalonians 2 in the term apostasia, though this Departure is commonly taken to be a figurative departure from sound doctrine (apostasy) there.

Care should be taken not to attribute to John Darby the origin of a theory what existed before he was born and also not to bad-mouth John Darby in a Wikipedia article. The term "cult" has no place in this article. This article should be objective & peaceful, not polemical (PeacePeace (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC))

More Careful Research in Secondary Sources is Needed for support

The article as a whole appears to have a polemical purpose, violation of NPOV to attack persons who believe in the Rapture & pre-tribulationists. Thus it requires much revision for NPOV. For example, the article says:

"Catholics, as well as Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Mormons,[4] the United Methodist Church[5], United Church of Christ and most Reformed Christians, do not generally use "rapture"."

A statement like that needs a lot of research and is probably cannot be supported from reliable, non-polemical, secondary sources. Who took a poll and when of these groups? Presbyterians have certainly believed in the Rapture and had pre-tribulationists among them. Lewis Sperry Chafer is probably the most famous of them, who wrote a Systematic Theology and founded Dallas Theological Seminary. Another would be Barnhouse of 10th Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. Chafer in his S.T. cites The Theocratic Kingdom written by a Lutheran. Carl McIntire and JO Buswell were prominent presbyterians who advocated Rapture. https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/44/44-4/44-4-PP697-717_JETS.pdf. At any rate, these denominational claims require a basis in research probably beyond the ability of Wikipedia editors to conduct by finding it done by some secondary source objectively. The list of denominations above appears to be a polemical attempt to label believers is Rapture as heretics, an unworthy effort on Wikipedia. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC))

Rapture Means Resurrection??? NPOV?

I note the claim that Rapture meant resurrection first. But 1 Thes clearly distinguishes rapture from resurrection as the catching up that follows the resurrection. I looked at the 3 footnotes, but did not see any claim that the word itself, "Rapture" from the root in rapiemur, means "resurrection." I believe that claim is false. Harpagēsometha does not mean "we shall be resurrected," brough up from the grave, but "caught up." There are about 9 such events in the Bible, including the ascension of Christ which was not His resurrection. This looks like a dishonest attempt to validate a POV with a false definition. One needs to come up with a Greek lexicon to support it. Yes, it is quite correct that some think of a general resurrection with a rapture associated. There are many POVs on this topic. But this nonsense about the word meaning resurrection, should be deleted. (EnochBethany (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC))

your interpretation of the bible is pretty much irrelevant . Do you have any reliably published sources from experts that verify such a claim? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The claim made above seems to be that the article does not provide sufficient reliable sources for its claims. It is up to the person making the claims to support them, not to somebody else to disprove them. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC))

Post-Tribulation Viewpoint...

[Everything that i'm about to type can be verified and read for yourself. This is not a rant. I'm a merely pointing out things that support the Post-tribulation viewpoint.]

I would like to point out that Jesus said in Matthew 24, that we are all going to be on this planet during the great tribulations. Cause he said, and you can go read this for yourself. Everything in Matthew 24:4-28 has to happen before he can come back. Jesus said HIS ELECT will be on this planet during that time.

A rapture will happen, but after the great tribulations is over, AT THE LAST TRUMPET. The saints will meet Jesus in the air, they will come back down to this earth, where Jesus's foot will touch down upon the MT of Olives. [Zechariah]

Also, check out what Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10. Paul also said let NO MAN DECEIVE YOU, for that day shall not come except their come a falling away first, and then that man of sin revealed, or the antichrist. If you keep reading, Paul goes on to describe that at Jesus's 2nd coming, Jesus will consume him, the antichrist, with the spirit of His mouth, and destroy him with the brightness of His coming. Why would Jesus destroy the antichrist if the antichrist hasn't had his reign yet? Makes no sense.

Jesus's 2nd coming will NOT BE SECRET. Every eye shall see him coming in the clouds of heaven with GREAT POWER AND GLORY. And everyone shall mourn because of it. --HolyandClean (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)HolyandClean

How should the article be edited based on the above? —C.Fred (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The article shouldn't even exist IMO, but hey, I really have no say. I'm just trying to make people understand why I believe the post tribulation viewpoint. HolyandClean (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)HolyandClean
"the great tribulations"??? (PeacePeace (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC))

I've found a book on Prewrath by a Robert Parker

Here.[4]. It's clearly self-published and says "Robert Parker has a Bachelor of Science in Engineering and has retired from a career as a military simulation training engineer. He is active in a local church and has a heart for construction mission trips. You can follow Robert at www.RobertsTrumpet.com." Besides the self-promotion, we don't use self-published books except in extraordinary circumstances. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Church Fathers & Historicity

Where's the part about the Church Fathers talking about this? And where's also a chronology or historicity about this matter?

Instead, I have to search a bunch of different things to try and get something on this, just because wikipedia does not say a thing, which is very weird... since this would be second nature in other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.48.105 (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, @StargazerAW: I removed the material because it was based on your interpretation of primary sources. As the concept of the rapture as described in this article originated in the 18th century, any claims regarding the Early Church Fathers would require require professionally-published mainstream academic sources to prove that they really accepted that idea and that it's not just eisegesis. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Ian, by what authority or reference are you using to make the claim that a Rapture event is not Biblical and has its origins in the 18th Century? You've requested "professionally-published mainstream academic sources" as proof. However, it appears you ironically (in this case) define "mainstream" sources to that which are contemporaneous. But, how can you dictate or debate theological doctrines without including publications in antiquity? In fact, I would argue that any publication on the Rapture subject dated prior to the 18th century shatters the myth you eagerly perpetuate. So I ask, will you accept the 2nd century, professionally published writings of Irenaeus, specifically his writings called, "Against Heresies," and in particular, Book V, Chapter 28?
Wikepedia notes Irenaeus as, "recognized as a saint in the Catholic Church, which celebrates his feast on 28 June, and in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which celebrates the feast on 23 August. Irenaeus is remembered in the Church of England with a Lesser Festival on 28 June. Pope Francis declared Irenaeus the 37th Doctor of the Church on 21 January 2022."
Irenaeus studied under Polycarp. Polycarp studied under John the apostle (author of Revelation) for forty years.
So, if Irenaeus' 2nd century writings reference apocalyptic events which he believed had yet to transpire, can we agree the Preterist doctrine was not yet chartered by early Christians? And if Irenaeus makes references to the "catching away" (Harpazo in Greek) of the Saints which he directly compares to Enoch and Elijah, which he correlates with, or prior to, apocalyptic events, can we also agree that Amillennialism was also not established by early Christians? And as such, can we then agree that this notion of an 18th Century rapture origin is nothing more than gnostic fake news?
I implore you to change the Wikipedia page to erase that sentence stating the rapture to be an 18th century fabrication and rebuke anyone perpetuating this lie. Mikestreng (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
"So I ask, will you accept the 2nd century, professionally published writings of Irenaeus" Absolutely not. If you are a Wikipedia editor, familiarize yourself with policies on Reliable sources. : "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. " Irenaeus was not an academic, never wrote anything peer-reviewed, and he is far less reliable than your average 21st-century college-educated scholar. Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect data regarding Rapture

To Whom It Concerns,

I have made two edits to the topic of the Biblical event known as the Rapture which were both quickly undone (too quickly in fact to have read my provided references). Currently, the page incorrectly states, "The idea of a rapture as it is currently defined is not found in historic Christianity, but is a relatively recent doctrine of Evangelical Protestantism"

I studied Christian Theology at Seattle Pacific University, a Christian University, and I have thoroughly studied this particular subject for over twenty years. And as such, I can unequivocally affirm that this statement is a mythical notion, a lie, and not historical fact which anyone can verify by reading the references which I provided with my changes.

Those editors who chose to ignore those references and still erase/undo my corrections are either too lazy to read them, or have their own theological agendas that motivate them to perpetuate this lie which is meant to undermine a particular religious doctrine and debase those with which they disagree.

At the very least, if we can not all agree to make those changes which I referenced to the 2nd century writings of Irenaeus that clearly speak of a pre-tribulation rapture, then at the very least you must agree to delete the one particular sentence I have referenced above which states the rapture is not found in historical Christianity. Because it is categorically a matter of fact that it is.

As you have likely surmised by my tone, I'm quite offended and as such will continue to fight this because that statement perpetuates a great deal of strife, bitterness and anger amongst the Christian community and keeping that statement as if it were factual on Wikipedia serves to create bickering and conflict as well as bolster an agenda for one particular religious dogma.

I even tried deleting just that one sentence, but it was quickly reinstated (too quickly... why?).

How can we find common ground on the matter so that Wikipedia is not so divisive, biased and religiously bigoted?

Thank you, Mike

Quick reference (summary of specific reference): chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.oru.edu%2Fcurrent_students%2Fclass_pages%2Fgrtheo%2Fmmankins%2FDrHebert%2FM.A.%2520Thesis%2FMA(Th)%2520Thesis.CH-3d%2520Direct%2520Ref%2520to%2520Rapture%2520by%2520Fathers.pdf&clen=112487&chunk=true

Long Reference (entire book 5): chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prudencetrue.com%2Fimages%2FIrenaeus_Against_Heresies_Book_V.pdf&clen=272708&chunk=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikestreng (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

(Note: My setup couldn't resolve the URL above, but I found what I believe to be the intended resource at [5]) signed, Willondon (talk)
Mikestreng, we can not use your original research on a primary text to reach a novel conclusion. All material has to be cited to "reliable, published sources" on the matter. Do you have a modern, published source which has reached the same conclusions? By the way, our article on the Seattle Pacific University is not that great, but it suggests that the university is still affiliated to the Free Methodist Church. May I ask whether the sources which you have studied are simply repeating evangelical theological positions on the rapture? Dimadick (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

A Literal Rapture Is Illogical And Unscientific

This article should also voice the rational reaction to the concept of a literal rapture - it's completely illogical and unscientific. Heaven and hell are frames-of-mind that we experience here-and-now. All our eternal souls pass through the centuries by reincarnation - Jesus taught it and science has now proven it - google that. The Revelation refers to the Second Coming of Christ who ushers in "1,000 years of peace". God created this world so we could 'experience heaven on Earth'. 73.85.202.187 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of the views in Apocalypticism are "illogical and unscientific", neither caring about science, nor based on data. Do you have sources to support the changes to the article which you suggest? Dimadick (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rapture/Archive_4&oldid=1167172573"