Religion...

Remove all ads!

The Mormon belief is almost the opposite of the rapture dialog above.

According to the Mormons: Christ will return to the earth in his second-coming (beginning his 1000 year reign). The anti-christ (or Lucifer) will be banished to 'outer darkness' along with his followers. The earth will become heaven for the most faithful. This is a simplification of the beliefs, but the basics are there.

 

Respectfully...

http://www.catholic.com/library/rapture.asp
The Rapture

Premillennialists often give much attention to the doctrine of the rapture. According to this doctrine, when Christ returns, all of the elect who have died will be raised and transformed into a glorious state, along with the living elect, and then be caught up to be with Christ. The key text referring to the rapture is 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17, which states, "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord."

Premillennialists hold, as do virtually all Christians (except certain postmillennialists), that the Second Coming will be preceded by a time of great trouble and persecution of God’s people (2 Thess. 2:1–4). This period is often called the tribulation. Until the nineteenth century, all Christians agreed that the rapture—though it was not called that at the time—would occur immediately before the Second Coming, at the close of the period of persecution. This position is today called the "post-tribulational" view because it says the rapture will come after the tribulation.

But in the 1800s, some began to claim that the rapture would occur before the period of persecution. This position, now known as the "pre-tribulational" view, also was embraced by John Nelson Darby, an early leader of a Fundamentalist movement that became known as Dispensationalism. Darby’s pre-tribulational view of the rapture was then picked up by a man named C.I. Scofield, who taught the view in the footnotes of his Scofield Reference Bible, which was widely distributed in England and America. Many Protestants who read the Scofield Reference Bible uncritically accepted what its footnotes said and adopted the pre-tribulational view, even though no Christian had heard of it in the previous 1800 years of Church history.

Eventually, a third position developed, known as the "mid-tribulational" view, which claims that the rapture will occur during the middle of the tribulation. Finally, a fourth view developed that claims that there will not be a single rapture where all believers are gathered to Christ, but that there will be a series of mini-raptures that occur at different times with respect to the tribulation.

This confusion has caused the movement to split into bitterly opposed camps.

The problem with all of the positions (except the historic, post-tribulational view, which was accepted by all Christians, including non-premillennialists) is that they split the Second Coming into different events. In the case of the pre-trib view, Christ is thought to have three comings—one when he was born in Bethlehem, one when he returns for the rapture at the tribulation’s beginning, and one at tribulation’s end, when he establishes the millennium. This three-comings view is foreign to Scripture.

Problems with the pre-tribulational view are highlighted by Baptist (and premillennial) theologian Dale Moody, who wrote: "Belief in a pre-tribulational rapture . . . contradicts all three chapters in the New Testament that mention the tribulation and the rapture together (Mark 13:24–27; Matt. 24:26–31; 2 Thess. 2:1–12). . . . The theory is so biblically bankrupt that the usual defense is made using three passages that do not even mention a tribulation (John 14:3; 1 Thess. 4:17; 1 Cor. 15:52). These are important passages, but they have not had one word to say about a pre-tribulational rapture. The score is 3 to 0, three passages for a post-tribulational rapture and three that say nothing on the subject.
. . . Pre-tribulationism is biblically bankrupt and does not know it" (The Word of Truth, 556–7).


What’s the Catholic Position?


As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been "amillennial" (as has been the majority Christian position in general, including that of the Protestant Reformers), though Catholics do not typically use this term. The Church has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called "millenarianism" (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676). In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism "cannot safely be taught," though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue.

With respect to the rapture, Catholics certainly believe that the event of our gathering together to be with Christ will take place, though they do not generally use the word "rapture" to refer to this event (somewhat ironically, since the term "rapture" is derived from the text of the Latin Vulgate of 1 Thess. 4:17—"we will be caught up," [Latin: rapiemur]).

 

Well that makes some sense then. First of all, Rapture was coined by Darby in the 1800s. I didn't remember his name, but I remember the time period. Importantly, Darby is Protestant, not Catholic. That fact alone is sufficient explanation for why Catholics don't use the term. Why would we use a Protestant coined term?

Secondly:

This also makes sense. If the Rapture is simply a term for the Second Coming of Christ, yes, Catholics do believe in this. At the end of an important prayer said at masses, the specific wording is, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." However, absent is the belief of an antichrist walking the earth, and this occuring in some time of great suffering. Also, because Catholics "do not generally use the word 'rapture' to refer to this event" explains why I've never heard a priest talk about this.

If the rapture is limited to a second coming of Christ, that is most definitely tied to Catholic doctrine, however the use of the term is not common. The specific situation described by NOG is not present in Catholicism at all.

Furthermore, from the same site halfogremagi posted:

Catholics don't even know how to answer the question because it isn't a term we use.

[ March 07, 2006, 20:11: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Precisely... it's a lingo issue... by Protestant standards Catholics are post tribulation in their view of "rapture".

By Catholic stardards... "say what...?"

Not bad for a Southern Baptist eh?

 

Well this Anglican can only "say what?" Me I have no idea about the post, pre, mid, later tribulation.

We do use the expression given by Aldeth:

"Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again."

But then I've been refered to a a 'back-door Catholic'.

 

Aldeth,

I see. Thanks for the explanation. I am half aware of these evangelists, and I don't like them a bit. I will stick to my own, which is the true one.

------------------------------------------------------

So you both know thoroughly basically all religions? Thats nice to know, that we have some experts on religion among us. It is even better to know the non religious types, seem to know a great deal more of our own religions than ourselves.

 

I don't suggest mocking non-religious people for their apparent lack of knowledge in religious matter. Perhaps he has studied multiple religions. I know plenty of religious people who do not know very much about their own religion, and for that reason, it is quite possible that someone with an interest in knowledge about all things is more knowledgable than people in their own religion.

Plus, it is better to know your opposition going into an argument.

 

Sure Saber, I can agree with that, but I hope you can see my point that they did not present much to back up their claims, no?
It seemed to me typical "all religions suck and I know it".
Plus, I have seen their posts before, and they don't seem much interested in religious issues - read, don't know much about it.
In the other hand, let's consider I am wrong on all accounts, and they do know a thing or two about their religious heritage, and a little bit about religions in general. Don't you think their commentaries were quite far fetched and broad? I mean, "It should be noted however, that allthe religions that have a long history today have at a time been at the exact same point as the kooky new age crap now." and "If you look at the "classic" religions through the same glasses you use to view "wacky" religions like Scientologists or Moonies you will notice they are allequally weird and implausable."
I doubt they even know BASIC Russian Orthodox Church History, so yeah, I pretty much think their posts were full of pretense and devoid of substance.

 

"It should be noted however, that allthe religions that have a long history today have at a time been at the exact same point as the kooky new age crap now." and "If you look at the "classic" religions through the same glasses you use to view "wacky" religions like Scientologists or Moonies you will notice they are allequally weird and implausable."

This is a badly worded argument. A better one (and more true to the point that was trying to be made, IMO) would be to say that, at some point in history, currently long-established religions, with their wealth of new perspectives, may have seemed as crazy as the new religions today, so the newer religions should be given some time to develop before they are simply written off as insane.

 

The first one is about as far-fetched as saying that everyone on this board was a baby at some time. Every religion goes through an initial "cult" stage as it acquires followers. The only way a religion would not have gone through the cult stage is if it spontaneously sprang up with a full culture of followers, which is about as plausible as a human springing forth from the womb at the age of...let's say 25.

The second one is a bit off, though. Weird is a judgement, and while implausible applies to every religion in at least some area, equally implausible renders another judgement by comparing implausibilities, which are not quantifiable AFAIK.

 

Deepfae,

No. I won't speak about others, but I can assure you the ROC has never had anything in common with the likes of these evangelists branches. I will say it again, the fact some of you view all religions as the same insane and un-rational set of dogmas and teachings, does not make it to be true. If you view them from that perspective, I am not surprised about your conclusions. However, that's not the case. What I am appaled, is that people who know nothing about ROC history are making such generalising comments. I could post some sources and material on the baptism of Rus and it's development, but I am afraid you - or anyone else - can't speak Russian. Botton line is, don't compare ROC with these new "religions" if you don't know what the ROC is all about.

Felinoid,

No it is not. Once again, what do you know about the status of Orthodoxy in late X century, early XI in Russia? You can't compare both, because you lack knowledge of one of the parts.
Plus, you are all avoiding some serious historical moments and circunstances. At one side we have a Church built upon the very foundations of the early and closest teachings of Jesus. At the other we have opportunists jumping in the bandwagon, claiming to have finally found the true way after millenium. It is not a surprise before there was only one Church - which split later that's true - and today we have what, how many thousand branches? How is it comparable. It isn't.

 

Svyatoslav, you misunderstand me. I'm not likening the ideas of the Russian Orthodox Christian church to the ideas of the newer branches of Christianity, I'm only trying to say that when ROC was still a young religion, its ideas may have seemed as crazy the ideas of the newer Christian churches seem today. I'm sure that back then many people of various religions said the same thing you are saying: "we have opportunists jumping in the bandwagon, claiming to have finally found the true way after millenium". Just because someone establishes a church with a new perspective on religion does not not mean that religion cannot be valid (though neither does it mean it is automatically valid).
Now, the fact that there are so many new branches of christianity, many simultanously preaching that their way is the one true way, calls into question the validity of all these new branches. However, the point I'm trying to make is that the fact that they are new does not automatically disqualify them, and that even old established religions such as ROC must have had a stage where still older religions of the time thought that the newer religions (like ROC) were crazy and invalid.

 

Not a thing. But I'm talking pure numbers here. At one point, there was 0 members, and later there would be 1, then 2, then...etc. Whether the time in between those states was small or not, every religion goes through that period of accumulation. Added to that you have a delay between the actual joinings and when the general populace realized that people were joining in droves, and there must have been at least one day when it was considered nothing but a few nuts getting together, which wouldn't amount to anything. Everything goes through this period, whether it's a week or a decade. Nothing simply exists, fully-formed, in an instant. (Even God took His time with the world. )

 

Actually there are many historical documents calling Christianity a crazy cult during the Roman Empire. Sure the cult eventually took over but people thought they were so crazy they actually had them killed for being part of it when the Romans were happy to accept pretty much EVERY OTHER RELIGION THEY ENCOUNTERED! From the ancient Celtic pagan gods to Egypt's.

So obviously Christianity had it's 'cooky cult' stage, it just managed to grow out of it.

 

Svyatoslav,

What I think Fel and deepfae are expressing, and I'm sure that they'll correct me if I'm wrong is that ALL the major religions of today were at some point new religions. I don't think they are talking specifically about the ROC. In fact, Christianity as a whole was at one point considered a "new" religion. Relavent to the discussion at hand, Christianity in general and the ROC specifically went through a period where belonging to that church represented a break from the mainstream in society. It is fair to assume that just as you and I disagree with some of these new age religions, that many people at that time who followed some religion other than Christianity, thought that it was ludicrous that these Christians found some sort of enlightenment that they had failed to figure out for themselves in the previous millenia.

@Nakia - I'm not surprised that people refer to you as a "back door Catholic". That's because Anglican, while Protestant, is probably the most similar to Catholicism of all Protestant followings. As I'm sure you're aware, Henry VIII founded the Anglican church, and the main reason for doing so was so he could be divorced from his wife. I don't think Henry VIII opposed the Catholic Church per se - he likely would have remained Catholic if the Pope had granted him a divorce. He basically was upset that he couldn't get his own way.

[ March 08, 2006, 17:22: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Deepfae,

Ok, at one point the ROC was new. There is no doubt about that. However, if you read my post to Aldeth concerning tradition, you will see my point is not based solely upon time frame. Of course, tradition deals with time as well, but it goes much beyond that. I don't take these new religions seriously not because they are "new", solely, but because I am very skeptical about someone coming up with the idea of having seen something we did not for centuries. Sure, you might claim my - yours? - pagan ancestors thought the same way in regards to the "new" Christian religion. However, the whole point about being a Christian, is to believe you are following the right and true path of God. So it is only natural that the "old belief" was regarded as false and misleading. It is different in our day and age, these people coming up with new branches of Christianity are already Christian, meaning they are already set into the righteous and only path - at least that's what you are supposed to believe if you are a Christian - so what's the point of making up a new cult, other than pretending to have found something no one else could in millenium? In other words, it is not as much a problem of being a new religion, but rather the claim of being the real Christian faith, with new interpretations and half assed answers, to questions being thought for centuries and centuries by Church philosophers.
I am not sure if I am being clear enough, so let me give you an example. Nowadays there are these "neo-pagans". I don't know how much they are around you, but I know they are somewhat numerous in Nationalist and nazi circles. They basically claim Christianity is a false and foreign zhid religion, not in accordance to the real faith of our ancestors. You see, obviously I can't comply with their reasoning - or lack thereof - but I "respect" them a lot more than I do these Evangelists. Why? Because they are not claiming to have found a new and real interpretation to the Christian faith, that no one could in 2000 years - which is an absurd in itself - but rather they are renouncing Christianity and saying "This is BS, Paganism is the religion of our forefathers, and that's what we are supposed to follow". They follow something else instead - which is their right - other than twisting Christianity into a new thing they came up with.
I don't know if that is a good analogy, and I just came up with it, but it would be something like someone claiming that red is not really red - that would be these new evangelists - and then ensuing a heated and nonsensical debate and what is really red. Then someone else comes and say, "screw red, we like it blue". That would be these neo-pagans.
I hope you see my point.
--------------------------------------------------

Fellinoid,

Ok, but numbers are not a part of my argument. Who was it who said there are over 30 millions of these evangelists in the US? That's pretty much a lot of people.
--------------------------------------------------

Aldeth,

See what I have wrote to Deepfae.

 

But Syv, shouldn't you respect all religions? Even the ones that "have found a new and real interpretation to the Christian faith?" If you believe in something, why can't they? Because it is similar, but slightly different than yours? I would think you would be more accepting of someone who is at least similar in some ways with you than the neo-pagans...

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you?

 

Svyatoslav: Ok, good point taken. Now, when you say neo-pagans, are you refering to the people who follow sort of eclectic spiritual paths, basing them upon the turning of the seasons (also known as the wheel of the year), but not following any particular organized religion or spiritual path as established by ancient religions or modern updated ancient religions? Or are you talking about people like Wiccans and Druids who follow an actual religion that just lacks the organization and (often) the community of more "traditional" religions such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam? There is a difference between the two, and I am sure that the latter (Wiccans, Druids, ect.) do not fall into Nationalist and Nazi circles, and my impression of the former (what I I would call neo pagans) is that they fall more into hippi and new-age circles than Nationalist and Nazi ones. Though all this is the impression of American Pagans, mabye its different in Europe.

 

Yes, and they're not considered a cult, they're a religion (though an overly acquisitive one IMNSHO). The cult/religion cutoff is purely numerical, though some debate where the number lies. Being a cult has nothing to do with being crazy, and everything to do with being a minority (among religions). There is some correlation since the craziest "faiths" usually don't attract a lot of people, but that's all the connection there really is.
.
.
.
I went to look up the definitions of cult and religion to demonstrate, but they're actually nearly identical. Make of that what you will.

 

Saber,

Well, if I said I respect all religions I would be lying, and I don't like to be a hipocrite or liar. As to the last part of your post, I see where you are coming from, about me accepting them more than neo-pagans, but I am afraid you misunderstood my post. Re read it, and if you still can't understand, let me know and I will try to explain it again.
----------------------------------------------------

Deepfae,

Those new age Wiccans are just hippie teenagers mostly. I don't take them seriously.
The pagans I am reffering myself to- who hate Wiccan type of pagans by the way - call themselves Heathens and worship both nature and ancient pagan deities. In the case of Slavs, that would be Dazhbog, Perun, Sventovit, Veles etc. But I guess those are the ones they like the most.
They are pretty common amongst nazis and Nationalists, and they love quotes like "Wotan Mit Uns"; "Victory or Valhala" and etc.
They are also into the passing of time/nature of course, equinox - festivals like Maslenitsa, which is the passing of Winter, although that's a Christian celebration in Russia nowadays. But I suppose their favourite symbol is the Kolovrat, swastyka, different names, essencially the same thing = sunwheel.
Obviously they worship their ancestors as well. They focus on the more belligerent and violent aspect of paganism as well.
So I suppose they fit into none of these two groups you mention.