Jump to content

Talk:Post-tribulation rapture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

?:-|

[edit]

There should definitely also be a pre-trib rapture page if there is a post-trib rapture page. I'm not qualified to write it, but it just seems fair to represent both sides, especially when the Left Behind series has become so crazy-popular in the U.S. Also, it's disingenuous at best to have a link titled "Pre-Tribulation Rapture" that takes you to the Dispensationalism page (not redirects, just plain directs you to it). Therefore, I've removed it and put in a link saying that more info about the root theology of pre-trib rapture may be found at the dispensationalism article. However, I'm not sure that the pre-trib rapture and dispensationalism are as closely tied as the article(s) make out. I'm of the pre-trib rapture school, but I wouldn't call myself a dispensationalist by any stretch of the imagination. --NoLightofMyOwn 23:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC) NoLightOfMyOwn[reply]

It was the dispensationalists like J. N. Darby who came up with this heterodox idea, as well as a lot of other good ideas. Alfarero 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)-[reply]

I have first hand knowledge of the phenomenon and this has happened recently 23Sep17, new times require a new you, GOD wills it to be so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.184.226 (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing Views

[edit]

The last paragraph of Opposing Views... is quite POV. It is an evaluation of the "opposing views," not an explanation of their beliefs. It belongs with the body of the article, or in a separate Rebuttal section.

Alfarero 02:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at fixing it. My edits were hopefully non-judgmental to either side. I am post-Trib, personally. Text that was confusing, repeating arguments from other sections, or simply out of place in this section I took the liberty of removing. I feel that a rebuttal of opposing views has absolutely no place in a Wiki under a heading that supposedly presents those views in an unbiased, gentlemanly manner.

Alfarero 00:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at NPOV

[edit]

Added a heading section to the list of objections to pre-Tribulationism. Intent was to identify that list as arguments against pre-Trib rather than information about the subject of the article, post-Trib. Tried to summarize the Scriptural support for the idea that the Bible authors meant to explicitly teach post-Trib, so we could be staying on topic, for clarity, and frankly, because I'm post-Trib and want people to understand the idea well.

I am probably not going to do any more edits at this time, but some major work needs to be done on the whole Rapture topic, especially this article.

The fundamental Wiki policy of citation, not argument, is being flaunted to the extreme. I have a couple of citations but am rushed for time. We do our audience a disservice by not clearly explaining views by explaining who held them, when, and why. The main Rapture article is pretty good for giving history and citing sources in a fairly NPOV, easy-to-follow manner.

The logic of this article is about as clear as mud. Is there a K-12 English teacher out there willing to clear it up?

Thanks,

Alfarero 03:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for citations

[edit]

If original editors are watching this page, I've put in citation requests where Wiki protocol calls for them. We need to abide by the rules of this medium. I would also be interested to know who came up with some of these ideas, so I could read further.

I think most of the best modern authors on this subject have been left off the list.

Thanks,

Alfarero 22:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for citations is needed. Yes. Also, all premillennial proponents use several of these sources for proof texts for their own positions. Not only they but also preterists and amilleinialists. So in truth, several of those sources can be used as an attempt to defend every position. That said, any of those persons used as proofs for each of the positions should used on each of the Christian theological end times pages. Furthermore, it would seem these individuals were included on the page to further an agenda rather than sharing information that is not absolute in it support of one specific to this page's topic. If the persons used in a list to support the position is debated upon in the eschatological debates, there is no consensus. Again, this page with the use of quotes is defending one section of the debate. A person or persons placed those individuals there to support their own agenda(s). A support of an agenda over definitive proof is the issue. Examples: Augustine was Amillenial and not post-trib. And so, the page contradicts this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Eschatology The closest thing Ephraem every wrote about eschatology is what is referred to as Apocalypse of Pseudo=Ephraem. The Latin translation is direct support of pretrib rapture. However, the Syrian and Latin texts greatly differ as the Syriac mentions no eschatology. So, he cannot truly be used as any proof texts for any end times position. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Pseudo-Ephraem Again, this is the only Ephraem text that can be found that mentions any eschatological stance. So, he too should be removed from this post-trib page. Irenaeus should be removed as proof as well because each camp claims him. If one were to scour the internet, each of the camps mentioned use him and other for support. My request is that Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, Ephraem the Syrian, Tertullian, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, and Augustine be removed or placed in a disputed category on the page, placed there due to the overwhelming evidences Augustine of Hippo was Amillenial and the fact every camp claims the other names mentioned. Other than the Latin Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem, there is no definitive proof the names mentioned support pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, or post-trib rapture. However, those mentioned could be claimed overall by premillennialism which is a broader name for the culmination of those 4 positions. Though, I would hazard to use them because the same individuals from amillenial and preterist camps claim them. We need a section entitled disputed support for these persons on each of the Christian eschatological pages. If you want proof texts from each, I can spend a weekend locating them all and posting here. But again, they can be used by each camp. Let's venture past supporting an agenda over definitive evidences. 6-7-18 user: DexLoxley — Preceding unsigned comment added by DexLoxley (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of Additions-Revised

[edit]

An attempt was made to properly cite authors and their ideas where I was the original writer of the material and I ended up with 30 citations and a bibliography of 20 or so. I avoided citing where I wasn't the original author and do agree that there is much in this article that does argue against another idea rather than its own facts and ideas standing on their own. I hope to get to adjust that in the future. Perhaps it is also true that someone went a little too far in demanding citations. Before I added mine in there seemed to be one after every other sentence, if not sooner. The citations end up being longer than the actual body of the discussion. There are commonly held ideas about this topic that do not need citing. The fact that the rapture is after the Tribulation is itself seen in the title, "Post-tribulation Rapture."

20, July 2007

We can assume the ideas are common but citation is needed. 6-7-18 DexLoxley

Argument for Post Trib

[edit]

It is important to note, that Paul the Apostle quotes prophet Hosea: and then shall the saying be brought to pass: O dead where is thy sting, O hell where is thy victory". We need to see, when shall this come to pass. Hosea in his prophesy saw only the Second Advent of Messiah. So in pinning the time of this event, we need to go by the vision of the Old Testament. It is clear, that Hosea had no view of dispensationalism and never supported a separate individual Coming of the Lord for his bride. Prophets saw one day of the Second Advent for all, both church (Israel) and the World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinchak (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection-Rapture ?

[edit]

How can there be a resurrection of "living" believers? Editor2020 (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

???? 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 ? 75.15.202.130 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terms for religious doctrine should be in lower case

[edit]

According to the Manual of Style, section "Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents",

"Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth (as a common noun), original sin or transubstantiation."

I interpret that as meaning "rapture", "tribulation", resurrection", "second coming", etc. are all written with lower case in Wikipedia. Jojalozzo 14:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article So Far

[edit]

I am an ordained minister and former Bible College professor with a pre-trib denomination. I, however, am post-trib. I think your brief article does get to the heart of most issues and I disagree with the editor below who said the logic was "as clear as mud." Furthermore, I see no reason for the box at the top of the article calling for neutral, third party sources. Just where are the editors of this article going to find such sources since all theologians and Bible scholars who speak to the issue have some point of view? One issue you may consider discussing is the hijacking of the term "imminent" by pre-tribbers. It is not a biblical term so we must turn to English dictionaries for the meaning. The dictionaries all give a definition to the word (such as "soon" or "impending") which is consistent with post-trib teachings. Additionally, the use of the term "imminent" to describe the rapture can probably be traced to the Niagra Bible conferences. Article three of the of the 1878 resolutions which uses the term "imminent" was drafted by Willis Lord, a posttribulationist (see the book "The Rapture: Pre-Mid-or Post- Tribulational" by Archer, Feinberg, Moo, and Reiter). Furthermore, many contemporary post-trib scholars use the term "imminent" when referring to the rapture. Pre-tribbers should not be allowed exclusive use of this term. I do agree with one of the editors below who suggested that the article could be improved by more references to specific books and articles which could provide the readers with information for further research. I know this is a touchy subject that often stirs subjectively biased emotional responses. You have shown strength and maturity in putting together such a good article so far. Keep up the good work!Will3935 (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Anderson post-tribulationist view

[edit]

or then anti-pre-tribulationist critique. Can be seen in this video: https://archive.org/details/AfterTheTribulationPreTribulationRaptureFraudExposed --41.150.233.113 (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post Tribulation rapture is impossible

[edit]

Rev 19:7-9 the marriage of the Lamb and His bride. The church is the bride of Christ the Lamb. The marriage will take place in the present heaven before the second coming listed in Rev 19:11. The church is already in the present heaven at the time of the marriage, therefore the rapture of the church will occur prior to the marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C5:C200:ABE3:A07B:BB1D:8C3E:D21D (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Post-tribulation rapture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will be post tribulation also trump 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:782:300:81D0:5CF7:CE2B:4B7C:3FC3 (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tribulation saints are part of the church and will receive glorified bodies

[edit]

In Revelation 20:4, it is clear that the believers who went through the great tribulation were beheaded for the witness of Jesus. They did not worship the beast, nor his image, nor his mark and became part of the first resurrection. In all of the New Testament the "saints" are believers:(1 Cor. 1:2; Acts 9:13; Acts 26:10; Ro. 8:27, etc.) In the pre-trib model, these saints are not part of the church and will not receive glorified bodies going into the millennial kingdom. They also maintain that these believers offspring come against Christ at the end of the 1000 years (see note 1, Prophecy explored). Royandy (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Post-tribulation_rapture&oldid=1243984746"