|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Post-tribulation rapture article.|
|WikiProject Christianity||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
There should definitely also be a pre-trib rapture page if there is a post-trib rapture page. I'm not qualified to write it, but it just seems fair to represent both sides, especially when the Left Behind series has become so crazy-popular in the U.S. Also, it's disingenuous at best to have a link titled "Pre-Tribulation Rapture" that takes you to the Dispensationalism page (not redirects, just plain directs you to it). Therefore, I've removed it and put in a link saying that more info about the root theology of pre-trib rapture may be found at the dispensationalism article. However, I'm not sure that the pre-trib rapture and dispensationalism are as closely tied as the article(s) make out. I'm of the pre-trib rapture school, but I wouldn't call myself a dispensationalist by any stretch of the imagination. --NoLightofMyOwn 23:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC) NoLightOfMyOwn
The last paragraph of Opposing Views... is quite POV. It is an evaluation of the "opposing views," not an explanation of their beliefs. It belongs with the body of the article, or in a separate Rebuttal section.
Alfarero 02:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I took a stab at fixing it. My edits were hopefully non-judgmental to either side. I am post-Trib, personally. Text that was confusing, repeating arguments from other sections, or simply out of place in this section I took the liberty of removing. I feel that a rebuttal of opposing views has absolutely no place in a Wiki under a heading that supposedly presents those views in an unbiased, gentlemanly manner.
Alfarero 00:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Attempt at NPOV
Added a heading section to the list of objections to pre-Tribulationism. Intent was to identify that list as arguments against pre-Trib rather than information about the subject of the article, post-Trib. Tried to summarize the Scriptural support for the idea that the Bible authors meant to explicitly teach post-Trib, so we could be staying on topic, for clarity, and frankly, because I'm post-Trib and want people to understand the idea well.
I am probably not going to do any more edits at this time, but some major work needs to be done on the whole Rapture topic, especially this article.
The fundamental Wiki policy of citation, not argument, is being flaunted to the extreme. I have a couple of citations but am rushed for time. We do our audience a disservice by not clearly explaining views by explaining who held them, when, and why. The main Rapture article is pretty good for giving history and citing sources in a fairly NPOV, easy-to-follow manner.
The logic of this article is about as clear as mud. Is there a K-12 English teacher out there willing to clear it up?
Alfarero 03:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Request for citations
If original editors are watching this page, I've put in citation requests where Wiki protocol calls for them. We need to abide by the rules of this medium. I would also be interested to know who came up with some of these ideas, so I could read further.
I think most of the best modern authors on this subject have been left off the list.
Alfarero 22:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Explanation of Additions-Revised
An attempt was made to properly cite authors and their ideas where I was the original writer of the material and I ended up with 30 citations and a bibliography of 20 or so. I avoided citing where I wasn't the original author and do agree that there is much in this article that does argue against another idea rather than its own facts and ideas standing on their own. I hope to get to adjust that in the future. Perhaps it is also true that someone went a little too far in demanding citations. Before I added mine in there seemed to be one after every other sentence, if not sooner. The citations end up being longer than the actual body of the discussion. There are commonly held ideas about this topic that do not need citing. The fact that the rapture is after the Tribulation is itself seen in the title, "Post-tribulation Rapture."
20, July 2007
Argument for Post Trib
It is important to note, that Paul the Apostle quotes prophet Hosea: and then shall the saying be brought to pass: O dead where is thy sting, O hell where is thy victory". We need to see, when shall this come to pass. Hosea in his prophesy saw only the Second Advent of Messiah. So in pinning the time of this event, we need to go by the vision of the Old Testament. It is clear, that Hosea had no view of dispensationalism and never supported a separate individual Coming of the Lord for his bride. Prophets saw one day of the Second Advent for all, both church (Israel) and the World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinchak (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Terms for religious doctrine should be in lower case
- "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."
Good Article So Far
I am an ordained minister and former Bible College professor with a pre-trib denomination. I, however, am post-trib. I think your brief article does get to the heart of most issues and I disagree with the editor below who said the logic was "as clear as mud." Furthermore, I see no reason for the box at the top of the article calling for neutral, third party sources. Just where are the editors of this article going to find such sources since all theologians and Bible scholars who speak to the issue have some point of view? One issue you may consider discussing is the hijacking of the term "imminent" by pre-tribbers. It is not a biblical term so we must turn to English dictionaries for the meaning. The dictionaries all give a definition to the word (such as "soon" or "impending") which is consistent with post-trib teachings. Additionally, the use of the term "imminent" to describe the rapture can probably be traced to the Niagra Bible conferences. Article three of the of the 1878 resolutions which uses the term "imminent" was drafted by Willis Lord, a posttribulationist (see the book "The Rapture: Pre-Mid-or Post- Tribulational" by Archer, Feinberg, Moo, and Reiter). Furthermore, many contemporary post-trib scholars use the term "imminent" when referring to the rapture. Pre-tribbers should not be allowed exclusive use of this term. I do agree with one of the editors below who suggested that the article could be improved by more references to specific books and articles which could provide the readers with information for further research. I know this is a touchy subject that often stirs subjectively biased emotional responses. You have shown strength and maturity in putting together such a good article so far. Keep up the good work!Will3935 (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Steven Anderson post-tribulationist view
or then anti-pre-tribulationist critique. Can be seen in this video: https://archive.org/details/AfterTheTribulationPreTribulationRaptureFraudExposed --188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)