Talk:Rapture/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jason Hommel's edits

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

DATE SETTING

The list of dates for the rapture isincomplete, as there was significant expectation of the event at the year 1000 and other times. Obviously, none of these predictions have come to pass.

Also, the last line should be removed as it is biased:

"Obviously, none of these predictions have come to pass."

How does the author know for sure. Maybe it did happen and only one was taken, now listed as a missing person.

NPOV

The 5OLth paragraph of this article seems to violate NPOV. The last sentence, specifically, seems to imply that people who hold this view are less intelligent than the author.

"Generally, an elaborate set of predictions about the end times are constructed from these sets of verses, together with various interpretations of the Book of Revelation and the predictions of Christ's return in Matthew 24:30-36. In general, believers in the rapture consider the present to be the end times, and offer interpretations of the various symbolisms in the book of Revelation in terms of contemporary world events. They believe that, because of the presumed imminence of the end of the world, they have a unique ability to correctly understand these symbols, which had seemed so cryptic to Christians in earlier times."

user:jwinters 2 Aug 2004, 2300 PDT

This article is pretty bad, honestly. Is there a policy for re-writes?

I suggest;

"Generally, an elaborate set of predictions about the end times are constructed from these sets of verses, together with various interpretations of the Book of Revelation and the predictions of Christ's return in Matthew 24:30-36. In general, believers in the rapture consider the present to be the end times, and offer interpretations of the various symbolisms in the book of Revelation in terms of contemporary world events."

The last part was certainly biased and you had already addressed the idea of "rapturism" to be a new one in Christian thought.

This article is a disaster from many points of view, whether or not you happen to believe in the Rapture. Poorly written, poorly organized, filled with NPOV and reference problems. It should be tagged for a complete revision.

Origins

On this page the author states, "The Rapture was invented in 1830 when a Scottish lass, Margaret MacDonald, had a feverish vision." I couldn't find an entry about Margaret MacDonald in Wikipedia, but looking around the web, apparently some other critics site her as the origin of the rapture, but many defenders of the concept dismiss her entirely. Does anyone have any more information?

I've heard that it was revived by Darby (Dec 1826 or Jan 1827). See www.biblicist.org/bible/pretrib.shtml
The whole Margaret MacDonald/Darby issue is a manifestation of folks like Gary Demar and was nothing but his attempt to discredit the position (i.e. Ad Hominem attack against a dead guy). In reality there are others who pre-date Darby that hold the pre-trib position yet Darby is credited as giving the notoriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.R.Lawendowski (talk • contribs)

It is claimed that some early church fathers support the rapture theory. 1 These quotes are taken completely out of context. In the cited passage, Clement is using Enoch as an example to follow (note the chapter heading), not as a proof text for the rapture 2. The other examples are just as obviously misused. These are moral examples of men who have done wrong and been punished and men who have acted righteously and were not abandoned by God. In no place does he speak about believers being "caught up" prior to unbelievers. He talks about the Resurrection of the Dead in Chapters XXIV-XXVII, but in this section he does NOT mention the rapture. Therefore, I have deleted the section regarding patristic support of the rapture.--legolasegb 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Germany

what is meant by the diplomatic corps ""of a complete rupture" with Germany." in 1916 ? here it sound enslavish ...

Rewrite

"This article is pretty bad, honestly. Is there a policy for re-writes?"

Have no fear. I will correct it.
I agree. The article is not well structured, mainly due to its controversy. I have tried to rename and add some sections to help organize the flow a bit better. Beanbatch 17:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The term "rapture" comes from a letter written by the apostle Paul (Saul Paulos) to the Thessalonians who were in ancient Roman Greece,(I believe): "Behold: I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep. But we shall be changed, in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye; first the dead in Christ shall rise [those that are faithful to the Lord unto death,- see Revelation,"overcomers"] and then we [the rest of the faithful believers/saints who were alive at the time of Paul's writings, and those saints who were to come after him and read his letters for the next two millenia] shall be 'raptured' [caught up, raped or carried off, enrapt in death by the Lord Jesus, according to the theme of the returning Bride-groom and Shepherd of His martyred sheep] and so [thusly] shall we be together forever with the Lord [Jesus]. Comfort one another with these words."

This theme is further related to the concept of the Lord Jesus as the Good Shepherd:

"I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd is the One who lays down His life for His sheep." [see Matthew] The Lord Jesus suffered and died according to the Hebrew scriptures, the price of purchasing His flock, the "sheep" (believing Jews and gentile Christians)-see Isaiah chap. 53.

And to King David's famous Psalm 23:

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death [when righteous Jews or gentile Christians, (His "other sheep") or Christian Jews, (for that matter), die, the Jewish Messiah, Y'Shua (Jesus), 'the almighty salvation of Yah', who is Yah incarnate, shall shepherd them (the faithful believers) at the time of their deaths through the "valley" of death], I shall fear no evil; [for or because] Thy rod and Thy staff [the Master's weapons and symbols of authority, as well as the means by which He disciplines the unruly sheep], they comfort me..." [although the Patriarch David would die, he had no lasting fear of death; David knew that he would be resurrected unto everlasting life to be with the Lord forever. This resurrection to eternal life reestablishes the fellowship of redeemed humanity back into the holy presence of God, a privilege which had been lost by Adam and Eve in Eden. Perhaps David, a prophet-king and shepherd himself in his boy-hood, understood this concept as well as or better than anyone.]

Scripture

"They believe that, because of the presumed imminence of the end of the world, they have a unique ability to correctly understand these symbols, which had seemed so cryptic to Christians in earlier times."

This is documented in Daniel 12.

Dan 12:9 And he said, "Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Dan 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

See also Matthew, Revelation, Thessalonians, as well as Psalm 23 and Isaiah chap. 53, among others.

Rebuttal section

This section is pretty weak, and does not appear to answer the issues raised under Criticism very well. Anybody want to try and make their case here? Beanbatch 20:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, anyone care to mention the physical laws of the Universe??? mhunter 08:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
A rebuttal section does not belong in an encyclopedic article. The main article should cover the points of the subject matter thoroughly, and the criticism section should touch upon the major criticisms associated with the subject matter. Adding a rebuttal turns the article into a debate, as someone already tagged. --Kameronmf 21:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this section even appropriate? Since when does wikipedia have criticism rebuttals. It's not a debate, it's merely an article that present both viewpoints. Both viewpoints are presented without the rebuttal section, which is poorly written anyway (seriously, I can't stand sentence fragments). So what does it contribute? It seems to make the article seem actually more biased towards those who believe in the rapture, in my opinion. I just noticed someone already said exactly this, so I'm going to go ahead and delete the section. --Marshaul 04:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and Rebuttal

I agree, the rebuttal section is nearly incomprehensible. It is also out of place. An encyclopedia may legitimately report what different groups believe about a religious topic but a debate over which is correct is out of place.

I do not believe the criticism section maintains NPOV. Parts of work well, (EG explaining Roman Catholic teaching) but many of the arguments are put out without identifying sources. The result is the impression that the author of the section is trying to discredit the idea. A format that ran along the lines of: Roman Catholic teaching does not believe in the rapture because... Most Mainline Protestants do not believe in the rapture because... Some Fundamentalist Protestants do not believe in the rapture... and so on.

If this is done I believe the rebuttal section can be done away with entirely.

When Jesus said he would come again he didn't mean that he would come two times, one for his church and one for all those that are saved during the great tribulation. When he speaks of his coming it is all inconclusive. He very plainly said that he was coming after the tribulation of those days and gather his elect from the four winds in Matthew 24. The saints are here during this time, mentioned in Daniel 7 and also again in Revelation 13. No need to insert tribulation saints here as the pre-trib rapture believers do. Also the day of the lord is only one day, not a seven year period as some would teach trying to stretch their doctrine so 1 Thessalonians 5 with fit with 1 Thessalonians 4. Also Revelation 20 says that those who didn't take the mark of the beast will participate in the first resurrection. How can the rapture be a resurrection when Revelation 20 is the first? The marriage of the lamb takes place at Christ second coming in Revelation 19 while they are all rejoicing because God has judged the great whore not before the tribulation begins as the people who teach rapture will teach you. In Revelation 4:1 only John is taken up into heaven not a church, or the church, this is added by people trying to twist the meaning. It says I meaning John. I hope this will give you something to think about when people begin to add to God's word to make things fit and not what the word in it's simplicity actually says. The word coming is the greek word parousia. 1 Thessalonians 4:15 talks about the coming of the Lord. In 2 Thessalonians 2:9 it says that His coming is after the working of Satan, the same word parousia. 2 Thessalonians 2:1 says that we do not gather back to Christ until after the son of perdition is revealed. There is no pretribulation rapture of the church. Those words just aren't documented anywhere in scripure. To say Jesus just comes partially to the earth is only adding to the scriptures. If someone new learning the Bible had never heard this doctrine before then they would not be able to put it together that Jesus would be coming for a church and then for Israel. This doctrine is just not written in the text. They would only see that Jesus is coming again which is the simplicity of the scriptures. No where in Matthew 24 does it say that he is talkin about Israel. This has to be added. Christ said he would come after the tribulation and gather his elect which is eklekos in the greek. This is the same greek word used in Romans 8:33 which is never spoken of as being Israel but taught many times as being believers in Christ.

  • I must disagree here; the above commentator obviously doesn't understand the pre-trib view. I'm not trying to debate the issue; I only wish to clarify what the pre-trib camp actually believes. For starters, we don't believe the Lord will come two different times, as the author claims. We believe that there is only one future prophesied coming of Christ to the earth, preceded by a non-prophesied coming of Christ in the air for His saints (1 Thessalonians 4:17). This non-prophesied event is what we refer to as the Rapture. At that time, the Lord will never come to the earth (according to 1 Thess. 4:17, He comes in the air), so His second coming - which will be to the earth - will still be future. As far as Matthew chapter 24 is concerned, there are quite a few dispensationlists out here who don't believe this gathering of the elect "from the four winds, from one end of heaven" (verse 31) is referring to the Rapture. Instead, many of us believe this refers to Israel's future return back into the land (see, for example, Deuteronomy 30:1-5, where the Lord stated that He would possibly scatter Israel "unto the outmost parts of heaven"; compare Nehemiah 1:9, where Nehemiah referred to this scattering of Israel "unto the uttermost part of the heaven"; see also Jeremiah 29:14, Ezekiel 20:34-43, and Isaiah 11:11-16; compare Ezekiel 11:17, Jeremiah 30:10-24 and 31:7-11, Ezekiel 28:25-26 and 36:24-28, where the Lord promised to one day gather Israel back into the land). Nor does the day of the Lord have to be limited to one 24-hour day (for example, see 2 Cor.6:2, where the day of salvation is not limited in such a manner). As for the "first resurrection" into the Millennial kingdom (Revelaton 20:4-5), again, many of us do not believe that either the pre-trib resurrection or the Rapture was prophesied. This belief is based on passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:51, where Paul stated that he was showing them a "mystery" (we believe he was showing them something that had never before been mentioned in scripture). If this is the case, then the resurrection of Rev. 20:4-5 would still be the first resurrection, if the Lord never prophesied about the events surrounding the "rapture". So please, don't accuse us of adding to God's word in order to make things fit, instead of believing "what the word in it's simplicity actually says". And finally, as far as the Criticism and Rebuttal quandry, how about two separate sections, one for Biblical arguments in favor of a pre-trib Rapture, and one for Biblical arguments in opposition to a pre-trib Rapture? Similar to the divisions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism ? Brwebb 03:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


This is to Mr. or Ms 66.226.32.35 - You may not edit my above comments the way you did, because your editing makes it appear that I wrote the words you added. I have reverted the above paragraph back to my original comments, and will address each of your additions on my Talk page. If you wish to add your own comments to this Discussion page, you may do so in a separate paragraph. Or, feel free to make separate comments on my Talk page. Brwebb 02:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


The comment that inferences and phrases are used to create this doctrine could apply to most/many of the teachings of the churches - Catholic, et al. With about 1000 pages of text, if these teachings were true, or important, they would have been given at least a few complete sentences, maybe even a paragraph.

Different Eschatological Stances

It would probably be useful to identify the premillenial, postmillenial and amillenial positions of Christian groups.

  • Christian groups such as Catholicism (that are considered "amillenial" by other groups that believe in the literal 1000 year millenium) do not find that label to be useful or applicable, and perhaps even bordering on a perjorative. --Her girlfriend 05:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"Unscriptural" references

The title and content of the section "Unscriptural 'Secret Rapture'" are inappropriate because they represent editorializing and normative judgements about issues of scriptural interpretation that are in dispute between supporters and opponents of the rapture concept.


There is no dispute about the lack of definitive references. The intrepretation of the lack of references has filled up libraries.

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I (for one), earlier this year found the mentioned site, read the article on the Rapture and found it to be comprehensive and reasonably accurate. I vote that the reference stays. And yes, I did check the above Wiki pages RossNixon 06:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the bias!

God's 40 Day Warning of the Rapture

In the Apostle Paul's first letter to the Church at Thessalonica, he told them that before the Rapture would occur an event would take place that would leave no doubt of the impending Rapture. He told them to watch for "the dead in Christ to rise first"!

Paul is explaining that this is the same sequence of events that will take place at the time of the Rapture of the Church. He is demonstrating that the Ascension of Jesus into heaven is indisputably linked as a foreshadow to the Rapture of the Church. And, because the Church is called the Body of Christ this is said to be the 'Body of Christ' going up into heaven in both instances.

Paul is also saying -- -- - etc etc

NPOV, anyone?


Read Paul's entire chapter - I didn't see the word rapture anywhere, maybe I missed it. 40 days seems to be missing too.

Criticism section

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

Is not are

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

  • I think the whole clause, "an elaborate set of predictions about the end times," is a dependent clause and the subject; not just the word "set". Am I wrong? --Jason Gastrich 23:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes. "of predictions" is a prepositional phrase; "about the end times" is a prepositional phrase; "set" is the only word that governs the verb, and at any rate, the same element cannot be both a subject and a dependent clause... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

moved from article

The following was added to the article by User:66.226.32.35 : [1] FreplySpang (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Most people I believe don't understand what the tribulation is at all. The tribulation is the time when God's saints will not worship the antichrist. They are persecuted by him because they will not bow down to him. It is called the hour of temptation which shall come upon all the world. It is the time when the devil will cast them into prison for ten days. It is the time that is shortened for the elects sake or no flesh will be saved. This why it is called the Great Tribulation because they are persecuted by Saten himself and will not take the mark of the beast.


Devil prison - ten days, darn I missed that too. Any source for this? Answer: Haven't you read? Revelation 2:10 The message to the churches is for the churches who are here during the time of the tribulation. Revelation 3:10 talks about the hour of temptation which takes place during the time of the antichrist. Revelation 2:22 talks about him casting her into a bed into great tribulation. To fully understand the message to the churches you have to bring yourself to the time of the great tribulation and the day of the Lord. John said he was in the spirit on the Lord's Day. I know this is not what the mainstream teaches because they teach traditions such as seven church ages and other things but I ask you to bring yourself forward as John said, these are the things which shall be hereafter in Rev.1:19 and Rev.4:1.

What the heck is the 40 day warning?

Does any mainline denomination believe this?

I'm reading it and scratching my head trying to figure out what in the world the author is talking about.

4:16 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:

4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.


How anyone gets from this that the "dead in Christ" will be hanging around for forty days is beyond me ... but nevertheless ...

Maybe another section should be created called "Other Views of the Rapture" and it could have things like this 40-day theory, secret rapture, etc.

Perhaps the article could be reorganized a bit to make it somewhat more useful:

1. Etymology
2. Mainstream Views (pre, mid, post, amil, preterist)
3. Scripture references (about the rapture itself, when to expect the rapture)
4. History (Darby, etc., Miller and other false rapture predictions)
5. Criticism of Rapture doctrine
6. Non-mainstream views (40 day warning, secret rapture, plenty of others I'm sure)
7-9. Media, see also, links

BigDT 17:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody said anything, so I went ahead and removed this section. It was written almost completely with a very slanted POV.

"This is an event that will mimic" ... "Known dead people will be brought back to life" ... "And all that comes together to say that the warning sign for the Rapture of the Church is the 'dead in Christ' rising on First Fruits, a springtime feast."

This is all POV and it's just a plain weird interpretation that very few, if any, hold. I Googled and there were only 108 references to this doctrine, many of which were just references to this page.

Maybe at some point, a shorter version could be added back as a part of a larger section on "other rapture philosophies", but as it was, it really wasn't adding any value to the article.

BigDT 04:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Every opinion in this article is a POV since the Rapture has not happened yet. And even then some believe it has already happened. All POV of view are welcome here including yours. Or do you believe that the only opinions that matter are those that you are familiar with ? that would not be fair to others. You see by reading other opinions you learn something. You may not agree with it, but you learned something that could end up being true. To suggest that the only valid opinion on this subject is that of "main stream religion" is insulting to those of us who have the ability to think for ourselves. Please do not remove relevant information that’s not what wikipedia is about.whatif

You can't just put your own theories into Wikipedia articles, see WP:NOR. Verifiable beliefs of various groups can be included of course, and we make no attempt to determine which are "true". Friday (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How about discussing it rather than just adding the section back?

Problem 1: Most of the article was copied verbatim from | http://truthroom.com/farticle/3#24

Go to [2] and look at footnote 24. This segment of the article was copied verbatim from truthroom. If truthroom is your own site, then you are posting original research on Wikipedia. If it is not your site, then you have stolen their content and it's a copyright violation.

Either way, this segment needs to be removed.

Problem 2: NPOV

This is not NPOV: "This is an event that will mimic ...". When you say something like that, you are advocating your particular scriptural view. A similar NPOV statement would be, "Proponents of the 40-day warning believe that it will be an event that will mimic ...".

This article takes the point of view that the 40-day warning is inextricably linked to the rapture. That is a point of view. That is your opinion.

Someone who has little exposure to Christianity or the doctrine of the rapture would read this article and would get the impression that most or all Christians who believe in the rapture expect there to be dead people walking around for 40 days. That is undeniably false. If you Google this doctrine, there are only a very small number of hits.

Problem 3: Original Research and Factual Errors

Consider this paragraph:

And lastly, Paul sets the timing for both the 'dead in Christ to rise' as well as the Rapture when he says that Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the Jewish Feast of First Fruits and ascended forty days later. That interpolates into the 'dead in Christ' will rise this time on the Jewish Feast of First Fruits and the Rapture of the Church will happen forty days later. And all that comes together to say that the warning sign for the Rapture of the Church is the 'dead in Christ' rising on First Fruits, a springtime feast.

No citation whatsoever is given for any of this. You have made several bold doctrinal statements that are completely and totally unverifiable, non-NPOV, and uncited. Yet, they have been stated as fact in this "article".

For example:

1. How does Paul imply that because Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the Jewish Feast of First Fruits, the "dead in Christ" will also rise from the dead on that same date? I have quoted the passage from 1 Corinthians 15 below. Nowhere in here do I see any defense for this claim.

"20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."

2. "That interpolates into the 'dead in Christ' will rise this time on the Jewish Feast of First Fruits and the Rapture of the Church will happen forty days later." How? According to whom?

3. "And all that comes together to say that the warning sign for the Rapture of the Church is the 'dead in Christ' rising on First Fruits, a springtime feast." How? According to whom?

Or consider this:

"Paul is also saying that from the time the 'dead in Christ' raise from the dead this time, they will stay on earth for forty days (just like their predecessors did in Matthew 27: 52,53) and then they will be Raptured along with those that are alive and waiting for the fortieth day to arrive. "

Where does Paul say this?


I have a pretyy good memory - have also read the Bible from cover to cover. I doubt I missed this little goody - this is an interesting enough point that at least one sermon I have heard would have mentioned at least one point of this fantasy. Paul made tents, he wasn't a wino.

Discussion

The bottom line ...

None of what you claim Paul said or implied is actually anywhere in the Bible. Just saying it doesn't make it true. At best, it's "original research". At worst, it's an outright lie.

I am going to remove your segment from the article. If you think it belongs there, please respond to these three points.

BigDT 16:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you willing to look past tradition ? Here is a link that if you read it you should see the point. http://chn-net.com/watcher/teachings/bible_school/rapture_series.html Key verse is Col 2:17. The feasts of the Jews are shadows of things to come for the church. I have permission from www.truthroom.com to reprint this information. This is becoming a very popular view and it deserves a place in the article. It was here for a long time before you came along. Further removal will result in mediation, then arbitration. If you become familiar with the information and would like to suggest ways to improve the content that would be fine. Continual removal of relevant information is vandalism. I will say it again, just because it is not a doctrine you are familar with does not give you the right to remove it. Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. whatif

  • It is not vandalism to remove a segment that violates Wikipedia policies. This segment does. I have added an RFC -Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy - linking to this section. I will not remove the segment again pending comment(s) received. I would ask you one question - can you find any sites other than chn-net.com and truthroom (which are obviously related) that teach this viewpoint? It seems to me that all you are doing is trying to use Wikipedia to promote your own theory with a non-NPOV article. BigDT 20:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your are not primarily concerned with seeking out truth from scripture, but rather "public opinion". As you stated you found 108 articles on the subject. That is quite a few. But that is not what is important. What is important is that you test the idea against the scripture. Our have you given up already and you were just being used as a censor after all ? It makes no difference how many people you can hustle up against the article, your motivation to remove relevant information will never be acceptable, sharing relevant information is always acceptable. whatif

Take a look at the search results yourself. Just about every single one of them is either truthroom/chn-net itself, this site, a message board poking fun at one of the two, or a in some other fasion a quote of one of the two. 108 hits is hardly overwhelming. Contrast that with the 17 million hits you get for "rapture" by itself. Your "article" is NOT relevant information and censoring it is NOT removing relevant information. The "article" is a weird theory that someone has come up with. There are plenty of weird theories that people have come up with that have to do with the rapture. BigDT 20:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

To many the topic of the rapture is a NPOV, POV, ect... Folowing BigDT's logic the whole article should be scraped. And so we "throw the baby out with the bath water" once again. As Christians we run from that which is unfamiliar, we have become our own worst enemy. Study show yourself approved. That means study using your own brain. Test everything you hear and read. And whatever you do, do not blindly follow tradition. Tradition makes void the word of God. whatif

Hmm, funny, Haile Selassie who was a great Christian king said the exact opposite about tradition; he said that true freedom of conscience could only be achieved by following ancient tradition from within oneself. It seems the ones who militate against "tradition" like its a bad word, are generally, the same ones who want to turn everything (yes, everything!) upside down... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this Haile Selassie you are refering to... The prime basic belief of the Rastafarians is that Haile Selassie is the living God for the black race. Selassie, whose previous name was Ras Tafari, was the black Emperor of Ethiopia. Rastafarians say scriptures prophesised him as the one with "the hair of whose head was like wool (the matted hair of I black man), whose feet were like unto burning brass (I black skin)".

Haile Selassie also controlled the flow of information by withholding news, manipulating reports, or distorting the truth. By so doing, he could easily respond to the barrage of competition caused by his behavior, here choosing one side, there the other, creating and dissolving a series of shifting coalitions. Throughout, Haile Sellassie maintained himself as the country's sole fount of authority, effective enough, so the Italians often observed, to lead his backward empire to modernity and international legitimacy. http://www.oneworldmagazine.org/focus/etiopia/musso.html

I am sure if Haile Selassie would be very proud of your efforts to censor information...whatif

I'm sure he would be very dismayed at your giving credence to Mussolini's propaganda in here... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The article you reference is written by Harold G. Marcus not Mussolini ???? whatif

The scripture I am referencing is Matt 15:3 When we choose the traditions of men over the word of God we go in the wrong direction. I was not refering to the tradition of eating turkey on thanks giving. whatif

You are quite correct in that case, that was the criticism he had of the Pharisees, because they were taking the Word of God, twisting it, and concocting new, unheard of things out of it that God did not reveal, like washing just the hands instead of the whole body... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you the Pharisees led the Jewish people away from Jesus as Messiah and towards the mindless tradition that Jesus and later Paul hoped to break. whatif

Honestly, I'm not overly interested in debating scripture with you - at least not here. If you would like to have a scriptural discussion over the merits of this "theory", feel free to post on my talk page and I will reply. The only question that matters here is whether this segment of the article belongs on Wikipedia in the "rapture" article. I feel that it does not. Looking at your history, you have been warned before - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Whatif&oldid=33926126 - about using material from truthroom. This isn't about supressing information. It's about Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia policies must be verifiable and neutral. That doesn't mean that we have to prove the rapture will occur. What it does mean is that in an unbiased article about the rapture, we must present an unbiased view of what different groups believe about the rapture. Wikipedia is not a sounding board for new theories. Quite honestly, if a non-Christian or someone who is not familiar with the rapture looks at this article, they would come away with the idea that most Christians expect dead people to be walking around for 40 days. That just isn't the case. BigDT 20:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


You are not the authority as to what should stay or what should go. This opinion is believed by many many people but only after they study. Who are you to decide what information should be censored from this article. The reference you make about me is from another article not this one. And the poster of that message did not state it as a warning, but as his opinion. Sure, I will resist anyone who acts as a censor.

The whole subject is a POV why do you go after this one in particlar ?

Most religions do not believe in a rapture at all. Why are you so concerned about people who have not heard of the rapture ? And if you are truly concerned shouldn’t you look into all the possibilities, they are valid. After you have carefully considered that which you are attempting to censor your opinion will be credible. Break free of the tyranny that "religion" has on your mind, then you will be able to think clearly. Always ask yourself… whatif

Yes, you are correct, a lot of the article needs to be corrected. I would like to assist with some of that. But that isn't the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether this one particular section should be in the article. I have laid out the problems with that section - it's not notable, it's POV, it's a copyright violation, it's original research. All four of those are Wikipedia policy violations. This isn't a judgment on the truth of the doctrine - it's not supposed to be. What it is is a judgment that an encyclopedic article about the rapture should not have a segment like this for the aforementioned reasons.
I have removed that section again. It is up to the poster to show that this is not a copyright violation before this material came be posted here. Alternatively it can be rewritten in a balanced and NPOV manner in his own words. But an obvious copyright violation cannot remain in the article while we debate the subject of the section. Rmhermen 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for stepping in on this issue. I would like to resolve it in a reasonable fashion and over the coming weeks try to improve this article - as it is, it needs a lot of help. BigDT 00:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have in my possession written permission to post the article from http://www.truthroom.com Would you kindly repost the material or shall I revert the article ? whatif

Permission is not relevant as copyright violation is not the major problem here; notability and (reputable) source-citing is. — JEREMY 16:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added the alernative view of the rapture section. This should be agreeable to everyone. If you have a problem with it take it up with wikipedia. Their rules allow for alternate points of view. I have posted this to the request for assistance board so you can rest assure an official answer is forth comming. whatif

Verifiability, not truth

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.

The problem is, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, which includes "Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc." This is a "new theory". If you google 40-day warning and rapture, the ONLY references are from truthroom/chn-net or something that is a copy/paste of the truthroom/chn-net article. WP:NOR makes it clear that until something has been published by a reputable publication, it has no place here.
This isn't a judgment on the theological accuracty of your beliefs. If Wikipedia had been around 2000 years ago and Paul had asked to stick a few letters he had written to Corinth on the site, the answer would be no. Wikipedia is not the place for new theories. This is a new theory. It is the work of one person. It is not a mainstream or well-known theory and so it doesn't belong here. BigDT 02:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This research is published in a book and available through 25,000 book stores. The research has been presented on tv and radio for over ten years. You are just finding about it now. whatif

What book? (By the way, searching for rapture books at amazon returns 671 results. So a view published in only one book isn't necessarilly notable ... but that aside ...) Is this book written by the creator of this website? Can you provide a link to ANYWHERE on the web that mentions this theory that isn't derived from truthroom/chn-net? BigDT 13:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Links

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

Time

Hi.... I am quite sure in my mind that , this is the time. We are to gain great knowledge... For 2 years, Its happening to me..... Then after the 2 year perion there will pass 5 years..... The 10th planet of Pisces will be had but a glimmer of it, in the the greatest of distances... Till we chat chow.... Ronald tacpans@msn.com

If you are being serious and not just trying to mock the idea of the rapture, what in the world are you talking about? BigDT 22:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


How can anyone be serious about something that isn't serious. This rapture sounds like a sermon given just before you launch into the tithing tirade.

Shout/Voice/Trump

I see where User:Nagle tagged it with cleanup, so this is probably worth talking about as well.

I looked around and found this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shout_voice_trump. Apparantly, there used to be a whole article on the theory. The user who created that section pretty much admitted that it was original research. Googling on "shout voice trump" gives you plenty of results, but that's a little deceptive - there is a verse in the Bible that says there will be a shout, a voice, and a trumpet. The thing is, this site means something different by it than others do.

Can anyone find a reference to this theory - that the rapture is already in progress - other than from shoutvoicetrump.com itself? If not, then it too is original research and needs to be removed.

If this article is going to be a good article, we need to get rid of or trim down the unsourced POV statements and add references. BigDT 13:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I just tagged it for stylistic problems. I have no idea about that area of theology, so I didn't try to fix it. Related problems include that, further up, the article says "there are two main viewpoints", after which there are three ("pre", "post", and "mid"), followed by this fourth "alternative view". --John Nagle 17:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, there are a kazillion different views. 99% of Christians who believe in a rapture are pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib. But then, much as with any other area of theology, there are 1000 different positions held by the other 1%. With the internet enabling anyone with a theory and time on their hands to put together a website, there are countless theories out there that that range from new to weird to just plain loony. I don't know that every pet theory that is held by nobody except the creator of one website needs to be listed. If googling a particular theory reveals no references other than a single website + wikipedia + somewhere quoting either or both, it can't possibly be a particularly notable theory.
In terms of alternate theories, I don't see any problem with a one-liner about them if it can be shown that they are more than just the product of one person's imagination. In fact, there are two alternate theories that are conspicuous by their absence - "partial rapture" theory (which basically says that only the super-saints will get raptured) is fairly popular and there are a lot of people who believe because of the dates of certain Jewish festivals that the rapture will occur on Rosh Hashanah. I don't hold either of these views - I mention them only because they are far more prominent than any other particular minor theory I've ever heard of and they would probably be appropriate for mention in an "alternative theories" section. BigDT 18:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, I just tagged it for cleanup based on style and grammar problems, not theological ones. That small section has incomplete sentences, missing commas, a loose right bracket, extra blank lines, and is missing descriptions of the "voice" and "trump". I hesitate to revise it because I don't know enough about the issue, but it needs some repair. --John Nagle 16:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please link my site to your rapture page

www.manchildministry.com Readers can get the real biblical perspective on the rapture, or at least an objective one. Thank you Chris Giaimo jesusmanifestedinus@hotmail.com

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

Views on the rapture

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

  • I seriously doubt that 44% of the American population even knows what the rapture is. The only way I see those numbers is if they are actually talking about American adult Protestants who regularly attend church. BigDT 03:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Harpazo

Harpazo is translated as "I am caught up" in the legend of one of the images. This is incorrect. Harpázo (and not harpazó) means "to catch" or "I catch", "I grasp".

6-6-06, and no rapture.

Well, we're at 6-6-06, and not much happened, except that the remake of The Omen (2006 film) opened. --John Nagle 22:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

While the number 666 does appear in prophecy, I'm not aware that anything in particular was prophesied to happen on a calendar date of 6-6-6; and even if there were, I've never heard that the Gregorian calendar is the one used in Heaven! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The date setters are busy today. Editorial in the Palm Beach Post. Mention in Dvorak's column. Pastor Harry Walther on "Satan's Rapture". --John Nagle 00:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why Pre-Trib

I've seen much rhetoric, many assertions and even more dogma held by those who dispute the pre-trib rapture position. Rarely are their arguments logical nor backed up considering all of Scripture in context. Why a pre-Trib rapture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.R.Lawendowski (talk • contribs)

Media References

In the media section a reference to James Beauseigneur's trilogy "The Christ Clone" should be added. In the first book of the trilogy "In his Image", the rapture is pictured as the simultaneous dead of millions of people around the earth. About 20% of earth's population die simultaneously with no logical explanation. It is called "The Disaster" and is so referenced in all the books. In book three "Acts of God" a KDP member (one of the 144.000) explains to the protagonist that The Disaster was in fact The Rapture.

It is a different point of view from the other books and movies. >> Hlasso 16:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rapture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rapture/Archive_1&oldid=1028607598"