The Rapture

[zak89]

Can you say "yo-yo"?

[Rocksoup]

Matt, just read your article in the provided link. I'm taking a very early retirement, starting tomorrow. I have a small "bucket list" of things to do before May of this year. Thanks for the heads up.

[Rocksoup]

It really is too bad that we won't get to hear all of John's latest projects, or Classic Petra vol 3, maybe even vol 2!

I didn't even think of that. Thanks for ruining it for me.

[CatNamedManny]

We'd hear 'em, just in a better venue with perfect acoustics.

[RockOn]

Great! Since that website is run by Harold Camping and Family Radio you KNOW its a credible source.

Too bad 2012!

[brent]

I got to thinking about this thought that the early church did not believe in rapture to come of all saints, inspite of some seeing and the church believing the raptures of the past.

Bible book names, chapters and verses did not come unti almost 2000 years after the scriptures were given. We don't think anything about that. The original church did not have John 3:16 to know believe. The early church had no idea of the Holy Spirit. Yet, we know the HS existed and operated. There are lots of things that I could mention. The church has not always had all scripture and understood fully what all scripture meant. We have biblical truth to support this. The meaning of Revelation is withheld BY GOD'S ORDER. Since John came much later than the first church, Israel, and since the revelation given to John came long after Jesus Christ established his church while on earth, and since God said to bind up the mysteries until a later time, then it only stands to reason that people before and after could not have full knowledge of scriptures and events to come.

[zak89]

If you think about, the same idea holds for most prophecy. I mean, with some exceptions, most prophecy (Biblical or otherwise) is rather vague. Who would have interpreted "pierced my hands and feet" as Roman crucifiction? Until the practice was established, such an inference would have been nearly impossible, and it seems that no one at the time put two and two together either.

[CatNamedManny]

At our Bible class this Sunday the teacher noted 2 Peter 3:14-16, and the author (who may or may not have been Peter) in that verse refers to people misinterpreting Paul's letters for their own reasons to their own "destruction." The verses call Paul's letters difficult to understand and easy to misinterpret.

Our Bible teacher said this passage should be used to provide a "space of grace" for discussions such as this. Interpreting the Bible is hard to do. It's not always crystal clear. It wasn't clear to the Christians of the first century. Why should we expect it to be clear to us? Or, more germane to this conversation, why should we expect every truth of the Bible to be revealed in the decades immediately after its books' respective authorships when the author of one of those books himself indicated there already was confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the Scriptures?