The Rapture - WTF?
 

Right today I was watching the CBC covering the phenomenon of "The Rapture" in the US... basically trying to understand:
1) what it is exactly
2) why US Christian Fundamentalists are so enraptured with it (sorry I had to make the pun)
3) what the niche "Rapture" entertainment industry is pumping out ("Left Behind").

What I was wondering is how many of y'all believe in the rapture? and why?

Why is it more of a American phenomenon, than say in other "Christian" countries (or ones with significant Christian populations).


PS> The program even had a link to a "Rapture watch/news site"
http://www.raptureready.com/

Reading the Book of Revelation will answer all of your questions. Plus, it's the only book of the Bible which has a blessing attached to it (Chapter 1).

Honeychile pretty much covered it.

I wouldn't use the website you posted a resource, but go straight to the source itself -the bible. (www.biblegateway.com) The link in my signature also has a little information about it as well.

You probably don't hear much of it in other places simply because their media just isn't interested in it. But rest assure that the return of Jesus Christ isn't some new idea or phenomenon. Its always been there. :)

Re: The Rapture - WTF?
 

When I visited Abbottsford, BC, I was watching that same CBC programme. In the Untied States, we do not get similar broadcasts unless we pay for it through satellite and cable services... We mostly watch CNN or Fox News Channel... (;))

Anyhoo, from that programme, I did find it disturbing that many other countries are wondering WTH is going on in the US with this "Left Behind" stuff...

I think the BBC did similar programming awhile ago, as well as the French...

What do I believe? That's a good question.

I have always been enamored with the book of Revelations. What I don't like is the profiteering I am seeing off of freaking folks out to come to Jesus Christ by that mechanism...

The way I understand it, folks are to come to Christ freely--to freely serve God. Not be forced or scared to come to God--not to be honnery or conceited to come before God--but pentitent purity with free will before God. Basically--everybody wants to go to Heaven but no one wants to die for it...

Apparently, folks will be pulled up in the hours of the Rapture. But it comes like a "thief" in the night.

Well, unfortunately I see it like this, if God wants the Rapture to come, then hey, put me in the "Amen corner" with the rest of the angelic choirs when the seals are being opened...

I am not worried about it, because my life is in God's hands now...

These folks that are all up into this "Left Behind" series stuff--not the writers--but the LEGIONS of followers--most of them have not read the "Divine Comedy" by Dante that follows Revelations more closely... If they had, they would be more leery about strong interpretations with Revelations made by others...

Besides, Revelations was written with a strong Hebrew context, so it takes understanding the entire Christian Bible to its entirety with all translations--practically being a seminary student to completely understand what the Revelations is talking about...

Which makes it fun for me because I like complexities and paradoxes such as what the Book of the Revelations is saying...

I've read Revelations many times... in fact had to as part of my OAC (the now defunct "grade 13" up here) Religion class.

However I can't say any of the 'fervor' or "left behind" mentality that has been linked with the fundamentalist/evengelical/revival movements within American Chirstianity was imparted or adequately explained.

As AKA Monet said I am (along with others) just trying to understand it or figure out WTH is going on... or more accurately why the "Rapture" movement/phenomenon is currently and historically so strong in the US, and seemingly nowhere else (other than groups founded by American missionaries).

I've read almost the whole left behind series, not necessarily because I believe in it, but because I was curious. I would definitely read the Bible first ,then I do suggest the series, it puts it into a kind of real life perspective of these characters who believe this is going to happen. There's also a movie with Kirk Cameron.

It probably seem so prevalent lately within the US because of a few things. For example, Sept.11 (caused many people to reflect on their life and the afterlife) and the war and its effects defintiely cause people to wonder about life after this one. Add on numerous naturals disasters, constant unrest in the Middle east, publishing of The DaVinci Code, current battle concerning legislation that deals with many morality issues (gay marriage, the removal of any christian reference from anything that isn't privately funded), etc., its no surprise that people are focusing on the Christianity and the fundamentals of it. Many, if not all of these events can be inferred in the book of Revelations (which is why honeychile referenced it).

I don't think anyone can say "well, this influx of the Rapture in the US is caused by reason A,B,C,D,...." because there really isn't one or two solid reasons.

Personally, I do believe that we are living in the last days and the Christ's return will be soon, but I (as well as other believers I'm sure) don't look to hollywood books or movies to tell me that nor to explain it.

As with anything that makes money, once businesses find something profitable, they latch EVERYTHING on to it - the sincere and the insincere. I say that because everything dealing with the Rapture that is out today IS NOT written/supported/funded by evangelical Christians. Some people are just latching on to a belief that is currently "in style" with the mainstream.

Although I disagree with you on whether or not that this time are the "Last Days" before the coming of Christ due to reasons that are waaay off this topic, I do think those who profiteer off the scaring folks into Christ is shady and very Legion...

I take the coming of Christ extremely seriously as a reflection of how I have contributed to the goodness here on Earth in my life, regardless of negative external outcomes from wars and rumors of wars, from pestilence and tragedy...

I do agree that there are folks that are finding what's "in style" about the scare tactics of Christianity and are mooching money off the least of those available to afford it to buy into an idea that does more harm to the one's spirit that uplifting it.

But I think pop culture has totally missed the mark with all these "prophetic" and "novel" ideas coming from an ancient text that takes several years in divinity school with 3 language translations to begin to understand its utterances...

Revelation also does not come to those who have closed minds... It comes to those "walking their walk on the road to Damascus"... It will change the course of one's life...

That is why I love the Book of the Revelation because of its ending beauty of it... It is almost Seraph...

However, Dante's "Divine Comedy" along with John Milton's "Paradise Lost" and "Paradise Regained" books trump the "Left Behind" series--and these books were written during the Renaissance...

I'll have to disagree with that suggestion -- seeing as how the Catholic, Orthodox and Classical Protestant churches had all been reading the Book of Revelation for 18 centuries before the idea of the rapture -- as commonly used today -- was ever suggested.

Terms:

The Millennium: the thousand-year reign of Christ described in Revelation, Chapter 20, in which some believe that the world will be totally Christianized.

Postmillennialism: the teaching that the Kingdom of God is currently being extended throughout the world (i.e., we are currently in the millennium, which is not necessarily to be understood as a literal 1000 years), and that Christ will return at the end of that "millennium."

Premillennialism: the belief that the second coming of Christ will occure before the millennium (and the Final Judgment will occur after the millennium), and that the Second Coming will be accompanied by the Rapture -- the immediate taking up into heaven of all the living who are saved (and the immediate resurrection and taking into heaven of the dead saved). Part of this teaching involves the idea of the Tribulation -- a time of great persecution -- before the Rapture. Pretribulationists believe that the Rapture will occur befor the Tribulation, Post-tribulationists believe that it will occur after it.

While Christianity has always taught something akin to the Rapture -- that at the Second Coming, all the faithful will be gathered into the presence of Christ -- the term itself, as well as its association with a premillennial viewpoint, dates only from the 1800s and is used almost exclusively by Evangelicals.

Amillennialism: the belief that interprets Revelation Chapter 20 symbolically and sees the millennium not as an eartly reign of Christ in which the world will be totally Christianized, but rather as the present period of Christ's rule in heaven and on earth through his presence in the Church. Although they probably would not use the term "amillennialism," this is more or less the view of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Classical Protestantism, and of historical Christianity in general.

The idea of a Pre-Trib Rapture and of Premillennialism only really took root a century or two ago, and it took root largely in the US, which may explain its popularity here among more Fundamentalist and Evangelical groups. It was first taught by John Nelson Darby in the early-mid 1880s and was made popular by the Scofield Reference Bible in the mid-1800s, where it appealed to a "looking for the End Times" mentality that has long been a part of Christianity in the US and of our periodic "Great Awakenings." It has been made more popular still in recent years by Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth and by the Left Behind series.

To answer your question, RACooper, (in case you can't tell already), I do not believe that the idea of the Rapture, as commonly taught in some circles today, is either Biblical, apostolic, or otherwise in harmony with "the faith once delivered to the saints." If it were, it seems to me that someone would have clued into it long before the 1800s.

MysticCat: fabulous explanation. Before I proceed, I will say that this is my explanation of what (SOME) fundamental Christians believe and why.

1. The rapture is, as previously mentioned what (some) Christians believe to be the second coming of Christ. In this istance, they believe that the "dead in Christ shall rise first" and the "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." (1 Thess 4:16 and 17)
It is also believed that Jesus will come from East....(Matthew 24:27) Ever wonder why most graves face east?

At this point, the "saved" will be caught up and taken to Heaven and the lost will be "Left Behind" (thus the name of the book). That book, BTW is a fictional account of what SOME believe will happen.

Following this event, the 7 year period of tribulation will follow (in which the Anti-Christ will be revealed and brought to power), and then the battle of Armageddon. Most of this in Revelation

2. Christians are "so enraptured by this idea" because a) if it comes in their lifetime, they will not see death, nor coruption. b) if it comes in their life, they will be taken from, what they believe, is a corrupt and wretched world to Heaven

3. As far as the series goes, I think it is an attempt to evangelize those who are "lost." For those who consider themselves saved Christians, I believe it's more entertainment than anything.

To reply to other posts:
Most of the truly "fundamental" churches do not do this, there are many who do use these ridiculous tactics in the name of Jesus to try to get money and fame. RIDICULOUS.

I truly believe that the bible is easy to understand for those who WANT to understand it. As I have quoted before "God is not the author of confusion." Why would HE make it so hard to understand what he wants us to know? There are many different authors of the bible, all with a different audiences. The original audience of all the disciples, even Jesus himself were the Jews. In Matthew 15 Jesus said, " I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." It was not until later (after the Jews rejected him and then killed him) that the apostles/disciples were sent to the Gentiles. Anyway, point is that the bible is not as confusing as it seems if you know who is being talked to and seek understanding.

Cooper, I hope that is some what of a decent explanation, I don't expect everyone to "buy into" these beliefs, or to evangelize you in any way (unless you want me to of course ;) ). I am just trying to answer from the view point of a Fundamental Christian. :D

Well other than, you know, the Apostles and the other followers of Jesus' teachings... and by the by it was the ROMANS who killed Jesus (since capital punishment was the purview of the Roman government) - which is one of the many charges against the Roman Catholic Church leveled by the European Institue for Protestant Stuidies (one of the few fundamentalist movements in Europe - headed by Ian Paisley, trained and ordained in the US).

Actually there was quite a few "Rapture" movements in Europe during the end of the 1st millenium - all more or less saying the end of days was nigh... so give up your world possessions and turn yourself completely over the Christ. The Church took a very dim view of these movements back then, mainly because some where convinced they had already been left behind - and hence damned... so some people felt they had nothing to lose and went on a rampage.

Another crop of "Rapture fever" also engulfed Europe during the time of the Black Plague - again with many interpreting the death and collapse of social order as the "end of days"... some within the RCC credit the various persuasions of Rapture or Fundamentalist philosophy that sprung-up at this time as giving birth and strength to "Protest" movements against the RCC a hundred years later.

Finally there was some talk of the "Rapture" in Britain during WWI - with accounts of angels appearing on the battlefield... and an arguement that death and violence on such a massive scale was a sign again of the "end of days".


The whole book of Revelations is very complex - in that the symbolism is so heavy and convuluted when taken into the contemporaneous context of Jewish/Semetic/Middle Eastern philosophy and folklore - something that I feel many past and present "Rapture" adherants have failed to take into account (as they have much of the Bible - a prime example being the whole "Eye of the Needle" confusion... hint it was a gate in Jerusleum; not an actual 'pin').

I have that same issue with these present "Rapture adherants"...

I really think it takes a "complete" study of the Bible is all its forms as well as Jewish/Semetic and Islamic texts to gain a full understanding of what the book of the Revelations is really trying to transcend...

But as mere humans, we are unable to fathom space-time continuum type of thought pattern--mainly because we do not live that long...

So we are relegated to have an "ending up on top" ideal praying that God will be with us in our own ending...

There is only one way out of this world's dimension and I personally have not met someone physically who has died to live to tell about it...

So, Some one read a certain Book of Something?

Pardone Me, but The so called writings have been written, translated to infinitame'?

Just who was there when They supposedly were Written? Not a fuckin Sole!

We as some convoluted semi want to be start describing what scholars have been trying to do for years.:rolleyes:

Give it a break! Time to eat a so I can live!:rolleyes:

True, the Romans technically killed him, but the Jews handed him over and insisted that he be killed, rather than Barabbas, neither Pilate nor Herrod found any fault in him.

Matthew 27
[[17] Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
[18] For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
[19] When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
[20] But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
[21] The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
[22] Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
[23] And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
[24] When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
[25] Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

While the Jewish authorities (such as it was) or people may have wanted Jesus dead, ultimately it was the Roman government and military that judged him, signed the writ of execution, determined the form of execution, tortured Jesus, inflicted punishment on the way to the execution, performed the execution, and completed the execution (well in the thieves cases).

Interestingly enough the early Church really didn't care to much about the whole "the Jews killed Jesus" crap - that line never really gained power until well after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West... after 900AD or so - right around the time religious conflicts morphed from a Christian vs Christian (some of the accounts of Monestaries or Bishoprics going to war against each other are rather brutal) to a Christian vs other; I guess the anti-Semitic thrust behind placing blame the Jews for the death of Jesus was politically and economically motivated by secualr and religious authorities.

Oh if your ever interested in other accounts of Jesus' final days and hours I'd recommend looking into the Agnostic Gospels or the Dead Sea Scrolls - some interesting, and slightly divergent accounts of the political power plays going on within the Jewish and Roman administrations - such as politically trapping Pilate, and strong-arming him into executing Jesus.

If you do some research, I believe you will want to reconsider that statement. What you're saying could be twisted into arguments that have caused anti-semitism and wholesale persecution of Jews for hundreds of years.

Here is an excerpt of one article I found refuting this, and many biblical scholars and historians agree:

In the Book of Matthew (27: 25-26) the Jews accept responsibility for the execution. When the Roman governor Pontius Pilate hesitates over deciding Jesus' fate, the Jews assembled before Pilate demand that Jesus be crucified, proclaiming "His blood be on us, and on our children."

But are the Gospels accurate? Recent biblical scholarship has challenged them in light of the context in which they were composed. Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written some 40 to 70 years after the crucifixion (which occurred around 30 C.E.). At that time, the nascent Christian sect was trying to distinguish itself from its Jewish roots for two reasons. First, the Christians wanted to attract gentile converts. Second, because the Jews were rebelling against the Romans, a repudiation of Christian kinship with the Jews could be politically advantageous. It is for these reasons, the scholars argue, that the Gospels 1) assign primary blame to the Jews, not the Romans; and 2) sympathetically portray Pilate, who is described in other ancient texts as a cruel despot. Additionally, many scholars have stressed Jesus' identity as a political subversive, which would explain why the Romans chose a means of execution, crucifixion, usually reserved for insurrectionists.

The small clique of Jewish authorities who were in league with the Romans does share responsibility for killing Jesus. But these authorities were distinct from the majority of the Jewish people, who had rallied around the charismatic figure.

I refuse to vilify an entire race of people for the actions of a very few. As a Christian woman, I look to those of the Jewish faith as our older brothers and sisters. They have something important and relevant to teach all of us.

I wonder if all of us Christians can agree that Jesus died for all of our sins...


Back to your regularly scheduled thread ;)

Ahhhh.... someone has been using their brains to look deeper :cool:

You have touched on another important point - the politcal climate in which the Gospels where written down... a climate where the Chirstians would have been eager to seperate themselves from the Jewish faith because of the then recent rebellion of the Jews in Palestine (Destruction of the Temple) - and after the Great Fire that destroyed Rome... so some might argue that the Gospels "may" have been framed in a language meant to demonstrate that Jesus was killed by Jews perverting "good" Roman law.

I refuse to vilify an entire race of people for the actions of a very few. As a Christian woman, I look to those of the Jewish faith as our older brothers and sisters. They have something important and relevant to teach all of us.

Please don't misinterpret me here, I do not vilify the Jewish race because of the crucifixtion. They are still "God's chosen people" and I am thankful that the Gentiles were eventually sought after and evangelized.

I am sure that you don't, and I thank you for clarifying. :)

Quite true, although these are probably not properly called "rapture" movements -- certainly not as that idea presently understood.

The idea of the Rapture is not a "sell all your posessions and wait with me on the mountaintop" teaching. Rather, it is the idea that, when the Rapture occurs, the elect will simply suddenly be gone, leaving everyone else to face the Great Tribulation. (Perhaps you've seen the bumbersticker -- "In the Event of the Rapture, This Car Will be Driverless"?)

Those who teach a Pre-Trib, Pre-Millennial Rapture (and that teaching -- not just waiting for the end of the world -- on anything approaching a large or accepted scale is what I was saying really dates back only a few centuries) usually do not advocate selling everything to wait for the end of the world. On the contrary, they usually advocate continuing to "labor in the fields," because the Rapture could occur at any moment.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I do get so tired of the "who killed Jesus" debates.

The words of the old chorale put it quite well:

Who was the guilty?
Who brought this upon thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone thee.
I was the guilty,
I it was denied thee.
I crucified thee.

I dont' know if all Christians truly believe this. I think it's easy for people to say "Christ died for our sins" but it's hard for many to make that personal.

Good point. It's personal for me though.

The first thing that came to mind with what blue GBI said was this...

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans 5:8

To me, that makes it personal to everyone really - from believers to non-believers. Now whether some truly accept the meaning of that scripture, well.........

But anyway, I won't get technical, because I really do hope this discussion turns into something fruitful. :)

What I mean by "making it personal" is like if you ever talk to someone about Christ and they say, "Yea I know that he died for the sins of the world." But then you ask them, "But did you know that He died for YOU?" and some people are truly blown away by that fact. Like the entire world doesn't include them. :)

Before I start, I am not trying being a jerk at all, so don't read into this, I'm trying to respond but I do feel strongly. I am not attacking you personally, so please no personal hard feelings!! But no I will not want to reconsider this and NO there are not discrepencies in the gospels. They are four accounts by four different men of the same story. The bible is not put in chronological order, so when you read in James that "faith without works is dead" that looks like a contradiction until you realize that he died in Acts 12. He wrote his episitle way before Paul wrote his epistles, and before Paul had his revelations about faith only. (As in Romans 5:8-9 which Honeykiss quoted). I do not trust "BIBLE SCHOLARS" who are trying to disprove the bible, or find error. Honestly, I don't care what "biblical scholars" say because I don't believe you have to have had 6 years of seminary training and understand 3 languages to read the bible. I think those people have been persuaded by what man has told them, and not by what they have read in the scriptures. The order is to "rightly divide the word of truth" and to "study to show THYSELF approved" not to "Go see what a bunch of men have to say about what they have been told to think by a bunch of other men." Anyway, true there was the majority who had rallied around Jesus, but bottom line is, they turned on him. Not one of those people, not even his own disciples, were willing to stand up for him! And totally agreeing with what you said, those of the Jewish faith, are in a way our brothers and sisters. Judaism is the forerunner to Christianity and Christian tradition should be recognized that way. Also, about Pilate and the other Roman rulers.... if you study out the lineage of Herod, he was a Pagan, from the Edomite tribe. I in no way try to sympathize with what they did because I think they were a bunch of pansies if they had the power to stop the crucifixtion and didn't because they were scared of the masses. Anyway, fortunately for us, he did die and we got in on the greatest gift of all time.
Breathing now, and I'm done!

There actually are discrepancies in the gospels, particularly between John and the three synoptic gospels. There are also differences, some minute, some not, between the synoptic gospels.

This is a really great book that shows the parallels that I used in my New Testament class junior year.

You don't have to reconsider, and I respect the fact that you read the Bible literally as the divine word of God. But we have a honest difference of opinion.

First of all, there are many biblical scholars out there who are Christians. They're not trying to disprove or find error in the Bible: they're trying to shed light and get a better understanding on the events in them.

Again, I am a devout Christian woman. I've read the New Testament in New Testament Greek and in several English versions. I've studied early Christian movements and history for years because it interests me. God gave me a brain to THINK with, and I don't think that studying the Bible objectively or critically interferes with my faith. If anything, its given me a deeper appreciation of my religion.

I'm not offended that you don't want to reconsider, but I am offended if you think that your opinion is the only opinion. And I'm sorry, but again, I refuse to vilify an entire race for the actions of a few--which is what you're implying.

My opinion is certainly not the only opinion and as mentioned before I AM NOT vilifying the entire race for the actions of a few. I still believe that the Jews are God's chosen people. I certainly respect your opinion and your right to voice it. I like differences in opinion, it helps me, believe it or not, strengthen my own faith. I didn't say you were stupid for doing something different from me, and I'm glad you are a Christian. You sound like a very intelligent woman and I highly respect your opinons.
I have answered all questions from a Fundamentalist Christian viewpoint, as RACooper was asking.

GeekyPenguin, as far as the discrepencies, I, again, do not believe that. My preacher regularly points out what many view to be discrpencies and shows us how they are not. But, I fall into the category of people who believe that there is one right translation of the bible, if that sheds more light on my strong opinions.

I know I really shouldn't be jumping into this discussion, but here goes....

I have studied the Bible, more the Old Testament, than the New Testament admittedly

I have a deep respect for all religions and faiths (not the same to me).

Please do not take this as an attack, it is not, but as hard questions
But I have to ask this, if there is only 1 correct interpretation of the Bible...which is it? Are you or your pastor fluent in Aramaic? Because that is the original version of the Bible. The most “popular” bible, is I believe the King James version, which was translated from Latin version, which was translated from the Greek version, which was translated from the Aramaic, if my memory serves me correctly. Which logically leads to different interpretations of the words, because not all words in Aramaic translate to Greek and they have to use the closest substitute, etc, etc.

Of course there are going to be discrepancies because, if we view the same event happen, I can pretty much say that we are not going to see the same thing, because of our perspective.

These stories, scriptures, whatever you chose to believe were written during a time of great upheaval and political unrest and that will be reflected in the writings. All you would really have to do is do some research on your own of the social and political climate of the times and re-read the gospels and you would most likely come away with a better understanding AND a deeper faith.

ok off of my soapbox now

I really don’t care which religious doctrine you proscribe to, that is a deep and personal decision and it is really none of my business.

But to follow blindly, that is what I have a problem with (from ANYONE and I don’t me you, in general). Blind faith is what gets a lot of people in trouble. To question (anything, any matter, in this case religion), will ALWAYS lead a person to a greater understanding and deeper faith.

I will now go back to lurking on this thread.

I agree with you also ADPiZXalum. I'm happy to see so many Christians, but I am also alarmed to see how many people are not being led by faith, but instead being led by the world.

Proverbs 30:5 says "Every word of God is tested; He is a sheild to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words or he will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

I totally do not mean to offend anyone, so please don't get offended, this is just my opinion, but if you accept the idea that the bible has discrepancies then you are calling God a liar. The bible is his word....the Word of God...it doesn't matter the language, who wrote it, or what year it was written, God handed it down to us, as his Word...something every Christian should follow.

A discrepancy according to my dictionary is "a lack of agreement." If you are lacking to agree completely with something, then you are usually saying its a "lie" or it is "false" (as in true and false questions...if there is a discrepancy in a question...you usually put false right?) If you say that a part of the bible is "false" how can you really say you have Faith? Again, I dont mean it to sound rude, or harsh...it is just a fact.

One of my closest friends growing up said she believed in God, but she didn't like the bible, that is too full of contradictions. Well, have you all heard of C.S. Lewis? I think it was J.R.R. Tolkien who challened Lewis (then a non-believer) to find proof of the discrepancies in the bible, and he couldn't. Lewis found soo much proof of things stated in the bible that he became a christian himself.

There is NO discrepancies in the Word, the discrepancies come when people add on to the Word and make it seem as though it is saying something it is not. As in the discussion with the crucifixion. It is STATED that the people living there chose Jesus to die, rather than the other criminal (Barabbas). It is truth, but the bible doesn't EXPLICITLY state that the Jews are to blame. You can put blame on EVERYBODY (except Jesus). The discrepancy comes when people say "the jews are to blame" or "The romans are to blame because the bible says so." That is not necessarily true.


If a "Christian" cannot believe that Jesus Christ died for them, then again, how can someone have faith?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, so that whoever believes shall not perish but have eternal life"

If somone doesn't believe that Jesus died for THEM, it kinda leads to the question..."do they even believe in Jesus." Because some people think that if they believe in God that is FINE...but scripture says

"He who has the Son, has the father; but whoever does not acknowledge having the Son, does not have the father"
(My mom's bible says it a little differently : 1 John 5:12 "He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Sonf of God does not have the life.")

Ok...this is long, so i'll quit. Again, I dont mean to offend anyone, i just feel like stating my opinion.

Great post Epchick!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On another note, I think some of you are confusing religion and the bible to be the same thing. And as an FYI....

Believing the Bible to be the infalluable word of God is not the same as religion. Religion were the laws that man created, believing that it would help people to follow and understand the Bible.

Believing the bible isn't "blind faith" - it's simply faith - for you must have faith in order to even become a believer (accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, etc.). Its the foundation.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:1-3

From jump, there is no expectation that the Word of God will automatically fit into the nice and neat molds that our worldly mind understands.

But again, I say simply this. Don't listen to anyone - their post (mine included :p), their books on the bible, their lecture, etc. Just start out by reading the bible to see what it says (front to back) :) Even if you read it in a class, read it again, this time without the purpose of looking for this or that - just read it for understanding and go from there.

I am going to try to PM you a link that will hopefully explain some of my stance better. There is SOO much background and my view of the one translation is based on what I have been shown but it would be impossible for me to regurgitate all of it. Anyway, I understand what you mean about blind faith and I tried Cathoicism, Methodist, Church of Christ, and Episcopalian before I felt like I found something substantial, and what I feel like is the truth. I have peace for once in my life with my faith. I understand what people mean about not being close minded or just going with one thing, but if we chase after EVERY thing that comes our way or sounds kinda cool, or scholarly about the bible, what kind of faith is that? Faith is the subtance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1) So, COMPLETELY no offense taken, but I dont' feel like my faith is blind. (ANd I know you wern't talking to me per se, but I"m just saying. :) )

Read a book like the one I suggested, which is used as a text in theology classes at most of the religious schools in Wisconsin of all sorts of flavors, and see if you still don't think there's any discrepancies. For example, where Mark has one, Matthew will have two or three.

And to whoever said that believing there can't be discrepancies in the Bible because that is akin to calling God a liar: Have you ever played telephone? What God told Christ who told Matthew who wrote it down 30 years later but also had it written down by Paul after that is not necessarily going to be the exact same thing. It's not calling God a liar - it's knowing that the human vessels of God are not perfect.

You are right about a discrepancy being “a lack of agreement”, and in the case of the Bible it may refer to either a lack of agreement between Gospels, or in my particular case a lack of agreement in the actual language itself – problems with translation. Now stating that there are discrepancies in translations or versions of the Bible isn’t as you seem to think “calling God a liar” it is saying that a man made a human err; after all God didn’t personally write the Bible – it was recorded by humans directly inspired by God. As for calling parts of the Bible false – I have no problem doing that because they are; fables and parables technically aren’t true, but instead ‘fiction’ designed to impart a message – the message can be true even if the medium isn’t.

Now getting back to problems with translation… I’m sure most of you have (well in this thread) know some of the more memorable quotes from the Bible – and most likely the King James version is the one most on here use/know. So shall we look at Luke 2:14?

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men

Now the old/original Latin version (Vulgate) of this same line is this:
Gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis
This translates as “Glory to God in[on] the highest and in[on] Earth peace to men[humans] of goodwill”

Now as you can see there is only a very minor variation between the KJV and the translation – but that very same minor variation alters the meaning or message. To me this is a discrepancy (in this case caused by a translation err – improper understanding/translation of the declensions) as the two verses have a “lack of agreement”.

So not only can a mistake in the translation be due to grammatical problems, it can also arise from contextual problems – either what role the word played originally, or what the various meanings of the word could be. A perfect example of this would be Romans 8:14:
For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
-or- in Latin:
quicumque enim Spiritu Dei aguntur hii filii sunt Dei

Yes “filii” means roughly “sons”, but it’s context within Roman culture and the Latin language is a little more complex – “filii” refers to mature sons (there is a different word for children or boy) and in Roman culture (and Greek for that matter) “filii” would refer to all of the grown children, male and female – female children would only be mentioned if it was important to emphasize them, otherwise it’s just understood, in the same way as “Man” can represent and include more than just males. So technically Romans 8:14 could also say “children of God” in translation, it is up to the translators to try and interpret the context that the author meant to convey.

The original topic of this thread (remember that  ) was basically me trying to understand the seemingly American fascination with “The Rapture”, as touched on in Revelations – I was trying to in all honesty try and understand the particulars of the Evangelical, Revival, Fundamentalist interpretation of Revelations, and how that related to “The Rapture”, and how that as a whole related to the actual language and context of the early versions of the Bible… I’m still looking for a scholar/scholars that have a firm understanding of the languages of the early scriptures, as well as a firm understanding of the history, culture, and symbolism of the people/period. I'am one of those people that firmly believes that blind faith is just that - blind; you miss out on the complexities and beauty of your faith if you do not fully look at it... or as the motto in the PIMS (Pontifical Institute for Medieval Studies) Library states here at UofT "To Scorn Enlightment Is To Embrace Ignorance".

bumper sticker one:
WARNING: in the event of rapture, vehicle will be not be operated

bumper sticker two:
WARNING: in the event of rapture, I'm stealing your car

I wish the rapture would happen, so all the tolerant people I know will feel more comfortable without all those whackos around. killing for religion=/=buddhalicious. I've entered the blogosphere.

Its apparent that we're not operating on the same definition of the word faith....To question someone's "faith" (in a biblical sense) is not the same as "enlightenment" - which is word of itself that is subjective and very debateble. You deem questioning the word as enlightment - others deem it as calling God a liar - so it depends upon the sense we're talking (worldly vs. biblcally).

Faith, in the biblical sense, is needed in order to EVEN believe the scriptures and what it says is true (hence an acceptance of Christ as your personal savior). You're basically asking me to explain a bibleical concept without using the bible which is not possible (or even wise), especially if you take away its definition of faith.

Well anyway, I answered the original question a while ago (or at least before it became a discussion on translation, etc.), so I'll let this thread be. :)

Epchick--

Beloved, although your point is well taken and understood by me, I think there is more to it than just mere words of men, then the WORD of God...

I am of the thought process that humans do not have the aural or logical capacity for the actual WORD and voice of God but through faith...

Does it not say that God is not interested in the World's logic?

So when God wants to reach one human being, He does so by means of words we are incapable of describing... But we "FEEL" the "righteousness" by it. That is the structure of the Holy Spirit...

If anything, God use to constantly speak to man, then during the last prophets times, He stopped.

Only twice in the New Testament aside from the Revelations, did God speak, but to Jesus Christ--and the folks around him somehow were "capable" of interpreting it--although they were unable as humans to hear it...

Which sends a powerful message to Christians, that when God wants to reach you, He will...

Believe me, I can be a witness to that testimony because I have had His communcations--or have been rocked by the Spirit on several occasions.

Although I did not actually hear God's voice, I listened and understood it for a direction and path He wanted me to go...

Then there are the gifts that many people have... The gift of knowledge, tongues, prophecy, etc...

I am in no way an expert of those gifts and even though I have some of them, I choose to suppress them because of my strong belief in the 1st Corinthians 13. My gifts to be a part of the body of Christ will be better served elsewhere as directed by the Holy Spirit... That is why, I strongly have faith in Roman 8:31-39. That is why I am unconcerned about the Rapture because if God wants me to be pulled up, guess what??? If I have to go "jump into the lake"--then guess what??? I have turned my life over to Christ awhile ago and that is why I don't dictate and demand folks to yield to my way... But respond in lovingkindness to ALL of His creations...

Most folks are not there with you on that. Most folks will deny it. Some folks are demons... Either way, it is our strength, TOGETHER that brings us to the WORD and voice of God...