Doomsday: Today’s is religious; tomorrow, back to science fiction

Mung: You think the book of Revelation itself can be parsed to speak of three or four different cities, I don’t. Setting aside Babylon, and the cities of the seven churches, Revelation refers to earthly Jerusalem, and New Jerusalem. Here, I'll do the math for you: that would be two (2) different cities. My hermeneutic is, if nothing else, consistent. Consistently wrong, yes. Note again that you interpret "Jerusalem above" of Galations as a "present reality" (your post 23) and you later (post 39) cite Barnes who says it is a "spiritual reality". Yet you ignore the previous 3 references to Jerusalem in Galations as a city where Paul went to meet with the apostles (clearly not a spiritual city) so it is different from "Jerusalem above", isn't it, Paul didn't physically travel to "Jerusalem above", did he. So the Jerusalem to which Paul actually travelled is an earthly reality, while the "Jersualem above" is a spiritual reality. Not the same city, are they. Whereas in Revelation 11:2, 8, 13 and 14:20, Jerusalem is a physical, earthly reality constructed of mud and stone in which the temple is trod under by the nations for 42 months, the two witness prophesy and lie dead in the streets, and there are earthquakes and thousands of people die; but the new Jerusalem is not made of mud and stone but gold and jewels and there is no death, not to mention it descends from "above". And yet, in spite of those stark differences, you presume the earthly Jerusalem and New Jerusalem of Revelation to be the same, present spiritual realities. The same, no matter they are constructed of different materials; and spiritual no matter the physical death and destruction within Jerusalem contrasted with the eternal life of New Jerusalem. Your "hermeneutic" is "consistent" only because you ignore all its inconsistencies: Paul's meetings in the earthly Jerusalem, construction materials, death, destruction, and whether it's on the ground or from above. If you can explain your hermeneutic I’m listening. Every point has been made repeatedly. You didn't listen before and you're not listening now. Charles

And are there, in fact, any other contexts in Revelation wherein Jerusalem is not the “New Jerusalem”?

Does it even matter to you? You think the book of Revelation was written apart from the rest of the New Testament, I don't. You think the book of Revelation itself can be parsed to speak of three or four different cities, I don't. My hermeneutic is, if nothing else, consistent. Yours is utterly arbitrary. If you can explain your hermeneutic I'm listening. Mung

Mung: If I find “Jerusalem” but I don’t find “New Jerusalem” I’m mistaken, regardless of any other context provided by the text? And are there, in fact, any other contexts in Revelation wherein Jerusalem is not the “New Jerusalem”? Otherwise, what hermeneutic says the context of Galations is the same as Revelation? Conversely, if in Galations you find 4 uses of "Jerusalem" and also find one of "Jerusalem above", would you be mistaken to equate them all? What sort of Scriptural hermeneutic or exegesis encourages us to interpret these statements [Rev 22: "the time is near", "I am coming soon"] as anything other than that which they plainly state? That would be a scriptural hermeneutic that acknowledges the different interpretive contexts: Literal, figurative, allegorical, symbolic, spiritual, physical, historical, prophetic, and even different timeframes. The phrases "I'll be home soon" or "we will run out of oil soon" or "Alpha Pegasi (Markab) will be a red-giant soon", all have contextual timeframes which differ by several orders of magnitude, and yet they all correctly use the same word "soon", don't they. So when Jesus, the "I AM" from eternity past and for eternity future, tells his followers, truthfully, he will return for them to bring them into eternity with him "soon" (quickly), must his hermeneutic be constrained to mean within hours, days, or years? Could it mean centuries, millennia, or eons? When Jesus said "But of that day and hour no one knows", did he intend that "soon" would narrow down the day and hour? Given that it has been over 1900 years now, has Jesus lost track of time or do we still not know the day and hour? Taking note of your obdurate confusion, I've little doubt you'll pursue the least applicable hermeneutic in your search for irreconcilablity. Charles

Rev 22:10

And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

Rev 22:12

"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.

rev 22:20

He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

What sort of Scriptural hermeneutic or exegesis encourages us to interpret these statements as anything other than that which they plainly state? Mung

O my gosh! It was right here in front of me all the time. I must have thought it was RUBBISH and didn't give it the priority it deserved. Tonight, on my book shelves, I re-discovered my copy of Time Has An End Who is the greater idiot? 1. Camping's followers, to fund this book. 2. Camping, for not just pocketing the cash rather than publishing it. 3. Me, for ignoring it's contents. I'm guessing that Camping was just off by a year, and an updated version of the book will soon be available! All of these sorts of books have one fatal flaw, and it's not that we cannot know the time of Christ's return. It's that Scripture makes abundantly clear the time of Christ's return, and we ignore it. Mung

Which part of “New” do you not understand and fail to find naming Jerusalem anywhere except Rev 3:12, 21:2? Good grief Mung, buy a clue!

Your idea of biblical hermeneutics is finding exact word/phrase matches? If I find "Jerusalem" but I don't find "New Jerusalem" I'm mistaken, regardless of any other context provided by the text? Let the reader take note. Also:

The angel said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place."

I say they took place soon after John received his visions and wrote his letters to the seven churches. What do you say, Charles? Were "these words" not trustworthy and true? Did the angel lie? Mung

You are arguing about the New Jerusalem (Rev 3:12, 21:2) but you cite Gal 4:26 which plainly is not referencing the “New” Jerusalem.

What sort of twisted hermeneutic arrives at the conclusion that these are two or even possibly three different cities?

In Christianity, New Jerusalem, also known as The Tabernacle of God, Holy City, City of God, Celestial City and Heavenly Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation, as well as Jerusalem Above, Zion and shining city on a hill in other books of the Bible, is a city that is or will be the dwelling place of the Saints, interpreted as a physical reconstruction, spiritual restoration, or divine recreation of the city of Jerusalem. It is also interpreted by many Christian groups as referring to the Church. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem

You'll be hard pressed to show how your view on "the New Jerusalem" is either the historical view or the orthodox view. Your own position isn't even coherent:

And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,

http://bible.cc/revelation/21-10.htm Not the new Jerusalem because it doesn't explicitly say it's the new Jerusalem? That's where your logic leads. So what is this Jerusalem?

Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, "Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."

So, a literal, physical, material city is the wife of the lamb? Are you serious? Or is this passage speaking of yet another Jerusalem? How many Jerusalem's are there, Charles? So let's examine Rev. 3:12

'He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.

http://bible.cc/revelation/3-12.htm Going to make him a literal physical material pillar in a literal physical material temple? Quote some commentators, Charles. Please. Mung

Mung: But here’s what he reader should understand. You cannot, or will not, address them. I will not. To repeat myself:

Your posts display little understanding of what scripture actually says or what I’ve already answered. They are filled with so many conflated false premises that (to paraphrase Pauli) they’re not right, they’re not even wrong. Perhaps you think yourself clever, but I believe them to be largely disingenuous.

As an example:

Likewise passages on the New Jerusalem are equally as clear. Galatians 4:26: But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.

You are arguing about the New Jerusalem (Rev 3:12, 21:2) but you cite Gal 4:26 which plainly is not referencing the "New" Jerusalem. Which part of "New" do you not understand and fail to find naming Jerusalem anywhere except Rev 3:12, 21:2? Good grief Mung, buy a clue! I will not take the time to likewise unravel every confusion underlying your arguments and questions. I'm not your bible study. You've obviously put little thought into your questions and less into the answers I've already given on this thread, and there seems no prospect of that changing. Charles

Charles, How many resurrections do you believe in, when do they take place, and how is it that your view is the orthodox one? Depending on how many resurrections you believe in, when does the binding of Satan take place? Revelation 20:2-3

And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

Do you think Satan is a literal dragon? Do you think Satan is a literal serpent? Do you think Satan will be bound with literal chains? Do you think he'll be cast into a literal pit? Do you think Satan will be bound for a literal 1000 years? Do you think perhaps your demand for literalism is dangerous and misguided? Mung

You needn’t. They were socratic.

My questions to you were not Socratic. Take from that what you will. But here's what he reader should understand. You cannot, or will not, address them. In the passage you quote Paul clearly places "the resurrection" prior to "the rapture." Likewise passages on the New Jerusalem are equally as clear.

Galatians 4:26: But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.

Barnes' Notes:

But Jerusalem which is above - The spiritual Jerusalem...

http://bible.cc/galatians/4-26.htm

Hebrews 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,

Barne's Notes:

And unto the city of the living God - The city where the living God dwells - the heavenly Jerusalem ... The heavenly Jerusalem - Heaven is not unfrequently represented as a magnificent city where God and angels dwelt...

Vincent's Word Studies:

The spiritual mountain and city where God dwells and reigns.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible:

The heavenly Jerusalem - This phrase means the Church of the New Testament, as Schoettgen has amply proved in his dissertation on this subject.

http://bible.cc/hebrews/12-22.htm Present realities to those to whom Paul and the author of Hebrews wrote. No less present realities today. Perhaps you should ponder your own questions. Do you really think the Socratic method means you have all the answers? Mung

Mung: What do they have to do with my original quesiton to you, which you never answered? They don't. They're socratic questions designed to make you think about what scripture is telling you versus your opinion that the New Heaven, Earth, and Jerusalem are not physical realities. I have no idea what [Satan being bound for 1000 years] has to do with the [New Heaven, Earth, and Jerusalem]. Timing. It was another socratic question. If Satan hasn't been bound yet, then the New Heaven, New Earth, and New Jerusalem are yet future realities. Not exactly an exact quote. A heretical claim? Really? It is an exact word-for-word quote of the heretical portion. So why should I answer any of yours? You needn't. They were socratic. Charles

Charles:

I cited 1Th 4:16-17 to Mung, pointing out the precise application of scripture to his heretical claim that “as an event in which people fly off into the sky to meet Jesus, not going to happen. Ever.”

Not exactly an exact quote. A heretical claim? Really? Mung

Some review: I wrote @13:

This will probably come as no surprise to many of you, but “the rapture,” as popularly conceived among today’s evangelicals as an event in which people fly off into the sky to meet Jesus, not going to happen. Ever.

Charles offered a rebuttal in @14:

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will 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.

Clearly, the resurrection happens before the rapture.

...and the dead in Christ will rise first

Now apparently Charles disagrees with Paul, but wants to couch it as a disagreement with me. Oh well. I also wrote:

The New Heaven and New Earth are spiritual realities, as is the New Jerusalem. They are present realities, not future.

To which Charles responded:

And so Satan has been bound for the past 1000 years?

I have no idea what the one has to do with the other. I will say, I don't believe Satan is bound with literal/physical/material chains any more than the New Jerusalem is a literal/physical/material city that is going to descend out of the sky and hover over the earth. So much for the binding of Satan proving the material nature of the New Jerusalem. Mung

Charles, I may get to some of your questions, I may not. What do they have to do with my original quesiton to you, which you never answered? How many resurrections do you believe in, when do they take place, and how is it that your view is the orthodox one? In fact, I don't see how you've answered ANY of my questions. So why should I answer any of yours? Mung

Mung: Your posts display little understanding of what scripture actually says or what I've already answered. They are filled with so many conflated false premises that (to paraphrase Pauli) they're not right, they're not even wrong. Perhaps you think yourself clever, but I believe them to be largely disingenuous. However, I will address this one issue. If you are intellectually honest, accurate in use of terminology, and demonstrate scriptural support of your reply, I may respond further. Otherwise, I'm content to let your questions stand as-is for all to marvel at. @13:The New Heaven and New Earth are spiritual realities, as is the New Jerusalem. They are present realities, not future. @23:If these were present realities to the first century believers, are they not present realities to us? ... The new heaven and new earth and the new jerusalem of scripture are not physical entities. What is the point of a spiritual Jerusalem having units of physical dimension (Rev 21:15-17)? How is it that angelic measurements are also human measurements if they are not likewise physical? How can heaven be only a spiritual reality since it is described as a place where (Mat 6:20) "neither moth nor rust destroys," and (Rev 22:3) nor is there "any curse [of death]", since only physical bodies can die and physical materials can rust? When the resurrected Jesus asked Thomas to poke the wounds in his body (Joh 20:27), were those spiritual wounds? When the resurrected Jesus ate fish (Luk 24:43) did he do that with a spiritual mouth and stomach or did the fish become spiritual as well? When the resurrected Jesus explicitly said (Luk 24:39) "touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have", was he lying or mistaken? Was Jesus physically, bodily resurrected to merely a spiritual reality? When Paul said (Php 3:21) "[the Lord Jesus Christ] will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory," will the transformation of our bodies conform to merely spiritual bodies without flesh and bones? If our souls can only be killed by God in hell (Mat 10:28) then what is resurrected if not a physical body? What is the point of resurrecting a soul that has not died? Resurrection (Greek anastasis) means a rising from the dead, but if the soul is not dead, then it must mean a rising of the physical body. What scripture do you cite to reconcile physically resurrected flesh and bone bodies that never die yet only exist in a spiritual realm where neither moth nor rust destroys? What scripture do you cite to reconcile the resurrected Jesus having a body of flesh and bone and our resurrected (transformed) bodies being likewise flesh and bone in conformity with Jesus' resurrected body, existing in merely a spiritual New Heaven and New Earth? Charles

Recall the church has been in disagreement for 2000 years on the rapture timing. That is why “pre-trib”, “mid-trib” “pre-wrath” “post-trib” viewpoints exist, but all of them place the rapture prior to or coincident with Jesus 2nd coming in Rev 19

How many of those who were in disagreement were heretics? You've acknowledged at least four different "orthodox" positions: 1. pre trib 2. mid trib 3. pre wrath 4. post trib Does that mean there are at least four different "orthodox" positions on when the resurrection takes place? I disavow the pre-trib, mid-trib and pre-wrath "rapture." And for this you call my view heretical? On what basis have you judged my position to be heretical? How is it that four different contradictory positions can be orthodox? Your recognition that "the church" lacks a coherent "orthodox" position is hereby noted. Mung

So The New Heaven, New Earth, and New Jerusalem are in fact future realities, not present.

Unfortunately, for your position, Scripture disagrees with you. Please explicate how each of those should be understood as a future physical reality. Mung

The Church Fathers were almost entirely premillennialists, but as to the timing of the “catching up” (harpazo, rapiemur, rapture) they were a mix of pre-trib and post-trib. So it follows that, whichever position you take, pre-trib or post-trib, you're a heretic. Which position did Paul take in the text you cite? 1 Thess 4? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Paul believed in a pre-trib rapture? Didn't Paul write to his readers as if they were in "the tribulation"? Didn't Paul write to his readers as if he was in "the tribulation"? Mung

Charles:

And so Satan has been bound for the past 1000 years?

No. You think the 1000 years are literal years? Does the rapture and resurrection which you cite from Paul's letter to the Thessalonians occur before or after the 1000 years? Was Paul was lying or mistaken, and you’re in a position to correct him? Mung

Charles, Great to hear you believe there is but one rapture and one resurrection at the end of time. Mung

Sorry Mung, the song was for Barb and Charles. I should have made that clear.

Even better, you could have made it clear why that song has any relevance at all to the current discussion. Why are we waiting for someone who has already come? What did God not accomplish through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth? Are you claiming that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth were insufficient to accomplish the purposes of God? There is something more that God intends to accomplish which was not accomplished through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus? Honestly, I invite you to think about these questions. Mung

Barb:

Paul wasn’t lying or mistaken; however, the Bible explicitly states that as far as doomsday (Armageddon or whatever you want to call it) goes, only God knows the day and the hour.

I agree completely, Paul was neither lying nor mistaken. Paul said his message was received from Jesus. So more explicitly, it was Jesus himself who said this:

But of that day and hour...

So my question is, where did Jesus say this (as recorded in the Gospels) and what is the context within which the words were uttered? For example:

"However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows. - Matthew 42:36

What are the "these things" to which Jesus is referring? Do they have anything at all to do with the question the disciples posed:

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?”

Mung

Sorry Mung, the song was for Barb and Charles. I should have made that clear. bornagain77

I cited 1Th 4:16-17 to Mung, pointing out the precise application of scripture to his heretical claim that “as an event in which people fly off into the sky to meet Jesus, not going to happen. Ever.”

I do so love being labelled a heretic so early in the debate. If you're hauling out the "heretic" card so soon you've already lost. You, sir, call Jesus and Paul and John liars, so who is the real heretic? How many resurrections are there? Mung

This is a fitting song; Why is that a fitting song?

Christy Nockels – Waiting Here For You

Why are we waiting for someone who has already come? What did God not accomplish through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth? Mung

Hi Barb, Thank you for your posts. Galatians 4:26, present reality? http://bible.cc/galatians/4-26.htm Hebrews 21:22, present reality? http://bible.cc/hebrews/12-22.htm If these were present realities to the first century believers, are they not present realities to us? I think in many respects we agree. Just seeking to stimulate thought towards where you already seem to be inclined to go. The new heaven and new earth and the new jerusalem of scripture are not physical entities. Mung

This is a fitting song; Christy Nockels – Waiting Here For You - Music Videos http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=9CFF01NU bornagain77

Barb: It might have a Latin etymology, but the concept of rapture as believed by Camping and others is a misapplication of scripture. I cited 1Th 4:16-17 to Mung, pointing out the precise application of scripture to his heretical claim that "as an event in which people fly off into the sky to meet Jesus, not going to happen. Ever." To which you replied to me:

Paul wasn’t lying or mistaken; however, the Bible explicitly states that as far as doomsday (Armageddon or whatever you want to call it) goes, only God knows the day and the hour.

It is you who have misapplied the scripture of the rapture 1Th 4:17 (and 1Co 15:51-52) with doomsday or Armageddon of Rev 19, not I. Neither did I claim that Camping was correct. My precise correction of Mung was on the issue of the rapture being an event that will happen. You didn't even know the scriptural basis for the word rapture. Your exact words were:

The word “rapture” is understood by Camping and a few other fundamentalist groups to refer to 1 Thessalonians 4:17, although that word does not appear in the Bible anywhere.

Well, not in the English bible, but in the Latin bible which translation preceeded the English, it obviously does appear, now doesn't it. And it doesn't maybe simply have a Latin etymology, "rapture" is not simply a word derived from the Latin dictionary, no, rather "rapture" is derived from a Latin word used in the Latin bible. It is the anglicanized form of the Latin noun "raptum" (4th declension, accusative case) from the Latin verb "rapiemur" as found in 1Th 4:17. The Latin noun "raptum" is transliterated in English as "rapture" (also a noun). Using the word "rapture" is every bit as biblical (when referring to 1Th 4:17) as using the words "catching up". You have misapplied scripture. Paul further elaborated that:

1Co 15:51-52 NASB Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

So when you earlier argued:

Those faithful ones must die before they can ascend to heaven. This is clearly noted at 1 Corinthians 15:35, 36, 44, and 50.

You overlooked 1Co 15:51-52 wherein Paul contradicts you as he plainly states "not all will sleep", and further states in 1Th 4:17 that those in Christ and not asleep will be "caught up" (i.e. the "rapture") to meet the Lord in the air, albeit at a day and hour known only to God (contra Camping). And no, it is not only recent "fundamentalists" who teach this. Not only was it first taught by Paul, it was also taught verbatim by early Church fathers many of them directly quoting 1Th 4:17. Here for example is Tertullian (Adversus Marcionem, book 5 chapter 15):

He [Paul] says that those who remain until the coming of Christ, will, along with those who are dead in Christ and are to be the first to rise again, be caught up in the clouds into the air to meet the Lord. I [Tertullian] tell myself it was even so long ago with all this in prospect that the celestial existences held in admiration that Jerusalem which is above, and cried in the words of Isaiah, Who are they that fly hither as the clouds, and as doves with their nestlings towards me?a If this is the ascent Christ has in store for us, Christ will be he of whom Amos speaks: Who buildeth up his ascent into the heavens, surely for himself and his own.

And Hippolytus (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, para 66 & 67):

66. Concerning the resurrection of the righteous, Paul also speaks thus in writing to the Thessalonians: "We would not have you to be ignorant concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive (and) remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice and trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 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." 67. These things, then, I have set shortly before thee, O Theophilus, drawing them from Scripture itself, in order that, maintaining in faith what is written, and anticipating the things that are to be, thou mayest keep thyself void of offence both toward God and toward men, "looking for that blessed hope and appearing of our God and Saviour," when, having raised the saints among us, He will rejoice with them, glorifying the Father. To Him be the glory unto the endless ages of the ages. Amen.

And Origen (de Principiis book 2 ch.11.5):

Then, if that atmosphere which is between heaven and earth is not devoid of inhabitants, and those of a rational kind, as the apostle says, "Wherein in times past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the children of disobedience." And again he says, "We shall be caught up in the clouds to meet Christ in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

And Gregory of Nyssa (On the Making of Man, ch.22.6):

so that it will no more be possible for one who reaches the verge of time (which is the last and extreme point, from the fact that nothing is lacking to the attainment of its extremity) to obtain by death this change which takes place at a fixed period, but only when the trumpet of the resurrection sounds, which awakens the dead, and transforms those who are left in life, after the likeness of those who have undergone the resurrection change, at once to incorruptibility; so that the weight of the flesh is no longer heavy, nor does its burden hold them down to earth, but they rise aloft through the air— for, "we shall be caught up," he tells us, "in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord 1 Thessalonians 4:17 ."

And Augustine (The City of God, book 20 ch.20 ):

But the apostle has said nothing here regarding the resurrection of the dead; but in his first Epistle to the Thessalonians he says, "We would not have you to be ignorant brethren, concerning them which are asleep," 1 Thessalonians 4:13-16 etc. These words of the apostle most distinctly proclaim the future resurrection of the dead, when the Lord Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead. But it is commonly asked whether those whom our Lord shall find alive upon earth, personated in this passage by the apostle and those who were alive with him, shall never die at all, or shall pass with incomprehensible swiftness through death to immortality in the very moment during which they shall be caught up along with those who rise again to meet the Lord in the air? For we cannot say that it is impossible that they should both die and revive again while they are carried aloft through the air. For the words, "And so shall we ever be with the Lord," are not to be understood as if he meant that we shall always remain in the air with the Lord; for He Himself shall not remain there, but shall only pass through it as He comes. For we shall go to meet Him as He comes, not where He remains; but "so shall we be with the Lord," that is, we shall be with Him possessed of immortal bodies wherever we shall be with Him. We seem compelled to take the words in this sense, and to suppose that those whom the Lord shall find alive upon earth shall in that brief space both suffer death and receive immortality: for this same apostle says, "In Christ shall all be made alive;"

The Church Fathers were almost entirely premillennialists, but as to the timing of the "catching up" (harpazo, rapiemur, rapture) they were a mix of pre-trib and post-trib. This [only God knowing the day and hour] is referring to the “day” of God, or Armageddon, not the rapture. Recall the church has been in disagreement for 2000 years on the rapture timing. That is why "pre-trib", "mid-trib" "pre-wrath" "post-trib" viewpoints exist, but all of them place the rapture prior to or coincident with Jesus 2nd coming in Rev 19. And if the day and hour of Jesus' 2nd coming are known only to the Father, then by extension the day and hour of the earlier or coincident rapture is known only to the Father, isn't it. Further, this is one of the points of the parable of the Ten Virgins wherein Jesus explicitly states (Mat 25:13) that we "do not know the day nor the hour" when the bridegroom will return for his bride. Or will you now argue Jesus is not the bridegroom and the prudent virgins with oil in their flasks are not his bride, or in 1Th 4:17 that those asleep or alive in Christ are not his bride, or that he isn't returning for them. Charles

Hi Charles, Paul was lying or mistaken, and you’re in a position to correct him? I am absolutely in a position to correct. You must think you are, as well, else why would you respond as you did? Who was it that wrote "hold fast to the good"? The apostle Paul, in that same letter? What was it that wrote "test the spirits?" The apostle John?

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will 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.

There are a number of different (and therefore contradictory) "rapture" schools. They can all be wrong, but can they all be right? One school holds that the rapture and the resurrection occur together at the end of time. That appears to me to be the school that Paul adhered to. Clearly, in the passage you cite, the resurrection and rapture occur together. Which school are you in? Do you reject the "one rapture, one resurrection" view? How many raptures do your believe in? How many resurrections? Mung

I have repented in dust and ashes (and sackcloth, though that was a bit more difficult to find). The rapture is real, and Camping is right! Has no one noticed that I have been absent for the past 24 hours? (For to absent with the body is to be present with the Lord.) Have you not wondered what happened to me? Did it not at least cross your mind once that I had been raptured? So I found myself being carried of into the sky to meet Jesus. (Cool guy btw, but NO sense of humor.) So why am I back, you ask? Well, I learned a number of things. 1. The rapture is real. It happened exactly when Camping said it would. (Minus the huge earthquake, but heck , which of us has not been tempted to embellish on occasion?) 2. Purgatory is real. (That's why am back here at UD. My own personal purgatory. 3. A day with the Lord really is like a thousand years. (And a day without the Lord is like -1000 years.) Which explains why only 24 earthling hours has passed. But why 24 hours you ask. Glad you asked. And nice to see you're paying attention. Which brings us to the fourth thing I learned. 4. The "day" of judgment really is "a day." Literally. One day. 24 hours. No more, no less. The amazing thing is, it was exaclty 24 hours not matter who was being judged. I mean, there was this huge long line, and it sure felt like a thousand years (see above) but every single individual had their individual judgment and each individual judgment lasted exactly one day. (I almost fell asleep a few times during mine, but that's not allowed.) Anyways, I'm back. Camping was right. I was wrong. But don't feel too happy. For the end of the world is now just a few months away. It's true! Mung

“Agreed. So if only God knows the day and hour, there is a day and an hour when the event will in fact happen.” This is referring to the “day” of God, or Armageddon, not the rapture. “Agreed again. So The New Heaven, New Earth, and New Jerusalem are in fact future realities, not present.” The ‘new heaven’ refers to God’s Kingdom, which has been established in heaven. The ‘new earth’ is the society of people who will be subjects of that kingdom and inherit the earth, as Jesus noted. (see also Psalms 37:20, 21) “Rapture” comes from the Latin. The Greek word harpázo? translated in English as “caught up” in 1Th 4:17 when translated in Latin is “rapiemur” which is anglicanized to “rapture”: Here is 1TH 4:17 from the Latin Vulgate: I Thessalonicenses 4:17 (Biblia Sacra Vulgata) 17deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus. It might have a Latin etymology, but the concept of rapture as believed by Camping and others is a misapplication of scripture. Barb

MedsRX at 6: "it begins at 6pm PST with an earthquake starting at the Equator (i believe) and spreading across the entire world." Well it's now 7:05 PST and no earthquake. I'm very disappointed. :( CannuckianYankee

Barb: however, the Bible explicitly states that as far as doomsday (Armageddon or whatever you want to call it) goes, only God knows the day and the hour. Agreed. So if only God knows the day and hour, there is a day and an hour when the event will in fact happen. No. That [Satan hasn't been bound for the past 1000 years] would be obvious to anyone who’s ever read the Bible. Agreed again. So The New Heaven, New Earth, and New Jerusalem are in fact future realities, not present. Those are two points you might then care to exegete for Mung. The word “rapture” is understood by Camping and a few other fundamentalist groups to refer to 1 Thessalonians 4:17, although that word does not appear in the Bible anywhere. "Rapture" comes from the Latin. The Greek word harpázo? translated in English as "caught up" in 1Th 4:17 when translated in Latin is "rapiemur" which is anglicanized to "rapture": Here is 1TH 4:17 from the Latin Vulgate: I Thessalonicenses 4:17 (Biblia Sacra Vulgata)

17deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus

Charles

“So when Paul wrote 1Th 4:16-17 NASB: For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will 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. Paul was lying or mistaken, and you’re in a position to correct him?” Paul wasn’t lying or mistaken; however, the Bible explicitly states that as far as doomsday (Armageddon or whatever you want to call it) goes, only God knows the day and the hour. Let’s examine the verses that you’ve quoted above, since I note that you’re not offering any exegesis here, either. The word “rapture” is understood by Camping and a few other fundamentalist groups to refer to 1 Thessalonians 4:17, although that word does not appear in the Bible anywhere. Note that Paul was referring to those who sleep (“those who sleep in death”) in verses 13-15, and evidently some of the faithful Christians in Thessalonica had died. Paul encouraged the survivors to comfort one another with the resurrection hope. He reminded them that Jesus was resurrected after his death; so, too, at the coming of the Lord, those faithful Christians among them who had died would be raised to be with Christ. Who are the ones (“The dead in Christ” of verse 17) who will rise first? They are faithful Christians who are still alive at the time of Christ’s coming. Compare this with Romans 6:3-5, which reads: RS: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? . . . For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” (Revised Standard version) What occurred in the case of Jesus set the pattern. His disciples as well as others knew he had died. He was not restored to heavenly life until after his death and resurrection. Those faithful ones must die before they can ascend to heaven. This is clearly noted at 1 Corinthians 15:35, 36, 44, and 50. The faithful ones will not escape from the tribulation as noted at Matthew 24:21, 22: “Then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short.” This does not say that “the chosen ones” will all have been taken to heaven before the great tribulation, does it? Rather, it holds out the prospect to them, along with associates in the flesh, of surviving that great tribulation on earth. This harmonizes with what is stated at Revelation 7:9,10. “And so Satan has been bound for the past 1000 years?” No. That would be obvious to anyone who’s ever read the Bible. Barb

Mung: This will probably come as no surprise to many of you, but “the rapture,” as popularly conceived among today’s evangelicals as an event in which people fly off into the sky to meet Jesus, not going to happen. Ever. So when Paul wrote 1Th 4:16-17 NASB:

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will 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.

Paul was lying or mistaken, and you're in a position to correct him? The New Heaven and New Earth are spiritual realities, as is the New Jerusalem. They are present realities, not future. And so Satan has been bound for the past 1000 years? Charles

This will probably come as no surprise to many of you, but "the rapture," as popularly conceived among today's evangelicals as an event in which people fly off into the sky to meet Jesus, not going to happen. Ever. And the New Jerusalem is not some huge city that's going to come down out of the sky and hover over the earth. It's not a physical entity. And the end of the world? Again. Not going to happen. Not in my life time, not in yours. The New Heaven and New Earth are spiritual realities, as is the New Jerusalem. They are present realities, not future. Mung

Mung: Social networking not quite your thing eh? :-) Well it's almost 11:30pm in Ye Olde England and I've yet to see any heavenly hosts or unoccupied cars bashing into lamp posts. In fact . . . things seem boringly normal. But the UK is pretty secular so perhaps the almighty just skipped over us. Sorry about your cat though. Compassion is a hard road to define and follow. Anyway, it is late here and I've been told I've got to help shop for a new television set tomorrow. And I always need my beauty sleep. ellazimm

lol. Maybe I was supposed to say follow me on twitter. (I don't think I have a twitter account. I think I do have a facebook account, but I use it like next to never.) I took my cat in yesterday and had him euthanized. Do you think I went too far? I'm really going to feel bad if this rapture thing doesn't happen. But if it does happen, I'm really going to be laughing at all you suckers that got "left behind." Mung

Mung: If you really do have a facebook page let me know what it is. Otherwise . . . have a nice trip. Be sure and write. Do you need me to look after your dog? My rates are very reasonable. ellazimm

goodbye everyone! p.s. check my facebook page for updates to my location as I fly off in the rapture. Mung

mung, An atheist organization is offering to to take people's post-rapture pets off their hands...for 165 bucks. Lol MedsRex

Wait! Stop! I Believe! Jesus, don't snatch me away, who would take care of my cat!? Mung

Mung & EA, Btw there is a time frame for the beginning of the unbeliever's judgement according to Camping. it begins at 6pm PST with an earthquake starting at the Equator (i believe) and spreading across the entire world. I love the man's attention to scheduling specifics. Lol. MedsRex

lol log2 lol Mung

MedxRex, LOL! Eric Anderson

Mung, There is a countdown clock on alphaomega ministries..it is called "hours left until harold camping back pedals." MedsRex

Does anyone have a more exact time for this event tomorrow? I don't want to be caught doing something I shouldn't be doing at an inopportune moment. Mung

Got to love how she managed to lump in Camping with Aum Shinrikyo. I can't wait to hear what Camping's explanation will be this time.

"Problems have become so big, with no solutions in sight, that we no longer see ourselves able as human beings to solve these problems," DiTommaso said. "From a biblical point of view, God is going to solve them. From other points of view, there has to be some sort of catastrophe." The apocalyptic worldview springs from a desire to reconcile two conflicting beliefs. "The first is that there is something dreadfully wrong with the world of human existence today," he said. "On the other hand, there is a sense that there is a higher good or some purpose for existence, a hope for a better future." Viewing the world as a flawed place headed toward some sort of cosmic correction reconciles these two beliefs, DiTommaso said.

From a Christian point of view, God did exactly this, but not through destroying the world (physically) but through Jesus Christ. Jesus is God's solution. Jesus is that "cosmic correction." So we should not be surprised to find it portrayed in terms of cosmic language.

Historically, those who have predicted doomsday, including the early Christians, have been persecuted and oppressed, so the prospect of a final judgment is comforting, DiTomasso said.

The early Christians did not predict "doomsday" in the modern sense of that term. They predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the old order and the victory of Jesus Christ. Those predicitons came to pass, asd and when prophecied. People like Camping smear the witness of Jesus and those early Christians by, in effect, claiming that they were wrong. Mung