Rapture Logistics

I thought it already came a few years ago with a spaceship behind a comit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Feb 21 2007, 10:44 PM) [snapback]394344[/snapback]</div>

Ahem.
No one living in New Jersey or New York pronounces it "Joisey".
You may now return to your rapture.

 

I didn't think any of this rapture/left behind stuff was in the bible, but rather was made up in the 1800s etc. Anyone know for sure?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Feb 21 2007, 07:44 PM) [snapback]394344[/snapback]</div>

If you see a bunch of flaming liberals, run toward the light . . . of course, if you are a flamin' liberal, run the other way. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Feb 22 2007, 04:47 AM) [snapback]394428[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Feb 21 2007, 11:40 PM) [snapback]394373[/snapback]</div>

It was. I can't remember the guy's name, but he was an evangelical preacher that apparently changed the face of fundies for the worst.

As to Mark, I think, if I remember correctly, that the "souls" who'll be going with Jesus will be automatically taken (hence those ridiculous bumper stickers that say "In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned") up to heaven. The rest of the world (about 99% of it, to my estimation) will be left on the ravaged earth, forced to examine themselves while living a tortured existence. It's from there that I've heard various reports: 1--those "left behind" will be given another chance to redeem themselves after suffering for several years; 2--those left behind will hook up with the antichrist and live a life of torture; 3--they stay in a purgatory, I guess, till eternity.

Needless to say, I don't buy any of it. Even though I do think there may be some allegory there...the world becoming unhabitable, and turning into a wasteland. I'm afraid that's exactly what's happening, but not because of the second coming. I think it's because humans are wasteful creatures.

 

I don't think mainstream Christians believe any of it. Just the lunatic fringe.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Feb 21 2007, 11:40 PM) [snapback]394373[/snapback]</div>

The whole bible was made up...NT in the 2nd century and added/subtracted to and from over the next few centuries.

 

According to Wikipedia, the Book of Revelation was written late in the first century.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Feb 22 2007, 10:12 AM) [snapback]394479[/snapback]</div>

While the emoticon may have been there to bring levity to the assertion, that is a fairly ridiculous claim. The gospels were recorded by eyewitnesses, whether you believe them inspired by God or not. While it did take a couple of centuries to settle on the canon that Christians agree on today, it is something out of Dan Brown's fiction (rather than reality) to deny the integrity of the source material.

To answer the question another poster asked about whether the "rapture" is biblical: sort of. There are different end-time views which can be supported from Scripture, but certainly one (pre-tribulation) does define an epoch of tribulation that Christians are evacuated from somewhat suddenly and unexpectedly. I'm not so much pre-trib myself, and I won't even pretend to be conclusive about how I think the Bible teaches, but a couple of portions of the Bible that suggest something like a rapture are 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15.

But I was ROFL over the original poster's description of a hypothetical Times Square. That's quite an imagination! And very funny stuff.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gjertsen @ Feb 22 2007, 10:42 AM) [snapback]394500[/snapback]</div>

Show me proof of your eyewitness claim. The bible was written in the 2nd century in greek. There were dozens of forms. The church decided to go with the four. The rest were burned. There is no proof of any eyewitness accounts. There is not even any proof that Jesus even was a real person outside of the bible. The early Catholic Church did a pretty good job of forming everything to their liking after they got government sponsorship.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Feb 21 2007, 08:40 PM) [snapback]394373[/snapback]</div>

Airport Kid's description of the rapture theology is off; generally, Christians who believe in a rapture believe that Jesus "snatches away" the faithful before the start of the promised "Great Tribulation", which will last 7 years. There is nothing but the missing people as evidence that anything has happened; there is no fire and brimstone, just a bunch of people missing, and no one knows where they went. At the end of the Great Tribulation period is the battle of Armageddon. Some Christians believe the rapture happens in the middle of the Great Tribulation, and some believe its at the end of the Great Tribulation.

The rapture grew out of the dispensationalism of certain theologians, and has its first expression in the 1800's. As Christian theology, then, it is very new, and likely to wane out of style soon. Already, many of us reject it as wrong (I only use the word "heresy" for it among people who know what that word really means, so here I would just say "wrong").

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Feb 23 2007, 09:54 PM) [snapback]395684[/snapback]</div>

Hmmmmmm, I don't think it's just his description that's off. . . :blink:

 

Too serious subject; count me out until my next indigestion attack :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gjertsen @ Feb 22 2007, 07:42 AM) [snapback]394500[/snapback]</div>

None of the four Gospel writers was alive at the time of Jesus. Only Paul was contemporaneous, and he converted after Jesus died. He claims to have been touched by the holy ghost, but does not claim to have witnessed any of the events related in the (much later) Gospels.

The Gospel writers relied on earlier (but now lost) written sources, and to some extent on each other (the last drawing from the first three, that is).

I don't believe we have a single document written by a person who claims to have actually seen Jesus when he was alive. Therefore we actually have no eyewitness accounts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Feb 23 2007, 11:29 PM) [snapback]395731[/snapback]</div>

No, I got the joke, and overall thought it was funny. You just missed making it good satire by mixing up the Rapture with the more-traditional theology associated with the Second Coming. The really good satirists know the subject inside and out, and don't make what are obvious and clumsy errors to the people you are trying to insult.

If you changed the beginning to refer to the Second Coming, when "every eye shall see his return", you'll actually be able to satirize more Christians, as a larger part of Christianity believes in the physical second coming of Jesus, and the scene you describe would fit. As it is, you only show that you do not know the subject well enough to satirize it, although you do have the obvious talent to do so.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 24 2007, 07:36 AM) [snapback]395788[/snapback]</div>

Daniel, have you done any research on this? The reason I ask is that there is at least one error in your summation above that is problematic.

First, there are three synoptic gospels which are considered earlier than the fourth, the Gospel of John. I have head some say the Gospel of Mark (the second Gospel) is considered to be either sourced from the Gospel of Matthew or vice-versa. The fourth gospel, the Gospel of John, is entirely different in tone and structure, and is obviously not drawing on the first three. It is considered the latest of the three. You may have confused Mark, the second of the Gospels, with John, the fourth.

Mark D. Roberts has a pretty good treatment of the dating of the Gospels at his Website ; I won't do a point/counterpoint here, as that kind of detailed discussion doesn't fit with the rough and tumble atmosphere here. But it is good reading for those following along.

Suffice it to say that an assertion is not proof. It doesn't matter if the person making the assertion is religious or not; the careful reader will seek out other sources and not simply accept an argument.