Questions About the Rapture

[pocaracas]

the Catholic Church was the first

Excuse me for nitpicking... but are you sure about that?

[Randy Carson]

I grew up in Catholicism which rejects both the Millennium reign of Christ and the Catching Away of believers.
An ideal deception is to use Christian words while redefining them.
The more steeped In tradition they are- the more unbiblical they are.
When I went to churches which taught the bible, they also (whenever it would be) taught the Rapture.

The Catholic Church has no problem with 1 Thessalonians 4:17, Prof. We will all be caught up at the second coming, but not before.

If you missed that point of doctrine when you were a Catholic, then you might pause to consider what other important doctrinal truths you missed when you were younger and to re-evaluate whether leaving the Barque of Peter was such a smart move, after all.

The reason some Churches are more steeped in tradition than others is because they have held fast to what was handed down from the Apostles just as Paul taught in his SECOND Letter to the Thessalonians:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

None of the apostles nor any of the ECF's taught the pre-trib rapture. It is a theological novelty foisted upon you by men who have nothing more than their own notions to guide them concerning the meaning of God's Word.

[Randy Carson]

the Catholic Church was the first

Excuse me for nitpicking... but are you sure about that?

Absolutely 100%. This is a historical fact that is beyond dispute.

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term "Catholic Church"; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and has continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

[Randy Carson]

You still don't get that you're firing away at a thread zombie? Raised by some newb?

In light of recent Rapture predictions in another current thread, Jenny's questions seem relevant to the forum.

[pocaracas]

Excuse me for nitpicking... but are you sure about that?

Absolutely 100%. This is a historical fact that is beyond dispute.

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term "Catholic Church"; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and has continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

You know what?.. I think that doesn't mean as much as you want it to mean.
You see, the word "evolution" already existed well before Darwin... and yet, it has come to mean more than it did... sure, it comes with the extra qualifier "by natural selection", or something similar... Just like "catholic", meaning "universal", comes before the qualifier "church".
Put the two together and people could understand the meaning even upon first hearing it.


Which brings us to the bishop reference... the catholics were not the only ones with a priestly hierarchy...
Guess who? guess where? guess when?

High-ranking priestly roles were usually held by men. Women were generally relegated to lower positions in the temple hierarchy, although some held specialized and influential positions, especially that of the God's Wife of Amun, whose religious importance overshadowed the High Priests of Amun in the Late Period.

But what does "bishop" mean?
According to the wiki

bishop (English derivation[a][1][2][3] from the New Testament Greek ἐπίσκοπος, epískopos, "overseer", "guardian").
[...]
The term epískopos, meaning "overseer" in Greek, the early language of the Christian Church, was not from the earliest times clearly distinguished from the term presbýteros (literally: "elder" or "senior", origin of the modern English word priest), but the term was already clearly used in the sense of the order or office of bishop, distinct from that of presbyter in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch [4] (died c. 108)

So, it seems both terms were already well known to the people, as they were a part of their vocabulary... only some time later did these terms become somewhat specific to those seats within the church.


Also, have you considered Docetism?

Docetism's origin within Christianity is obscure. Ernst Käsemann controversially defined the Christology of St John’s Gospel as "naïve docetism" in 1968.[16] The ensuing debate reached an impasse as awareness grew that the very term "docetism", like "gnosticism", was difficult to define within the religio-historical framework of the debate.[17] It has occasionally been argued that its origins were in heterodox Judaism or Oriental and Grecian philosophies.[18] The alleged connection with Jewish Christianity would have reflected Jewish Christian concerns with the inviolability of (Jewish) monotheism.[19][20] Docetic opinions seem to have circulated from very early times, 1 John 4:2 appearing explicitly to reject them.[21] Some 1st century Christian groups developed docetic interpretations partly as a way to make Christian teachings more acceptable to pagan ways of thinking about divinity.[18]

Curious verse, that 1 John 4:2...

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God

If this guy is the same guy that used to hang around J.C., why be so vague? "every spirit"? meaning every person...
"J.C. has come in the flesh", this one is obvious anti-docetic... "is from God", is in the right. The others are wrong, and, according to the next verse, are the antichrist... Damn, there was already an antichrist?!
Oh... if only the John that wrote this was the same John that was with the christ... if only... why would he say something like this?!

[Randy Carson]

Absolutely 100%. This is a historical fact that is beyond dispute.

You know what?.. I think that doesn't mean as much as you want it to mean.
You see, the word "evolution" already existed well before Darwin... and yet, it has come to mean more than it did... sure, it comes with the extra qualifier "by natural selection", or something similar... Just like "catholic", meaning "universal", comes before the qualifier "church".
Put the two together and people could understand the meaning even upon first hearing it.

Not this time, poca. Even the great Protestant scholar and historian, J.N.D. Kelly, admits as much. Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, but he acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”. He wrote:

"As regards ‘Catholic,' its original meaning was ‘universal' or ‘general' ... As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

Which brings us to the bishop reference... the catholics were not the only ones with a priestly hierarchy...
Guess who? guess where? guess when?

High-ranking priestly roles were usually held by men. Women were generally relegated to lower positions in the temple hierarchy, although some held specialized and influential positions, especially that of the God's Wife of Amun, whose religious importance overshadowed the High Priests of Amun in the Late Period.

Well of course not, poca. The hierarchy of the Catholic priesthood - bishop, priest, and deacon - was modeled after the priesthood of the Jews. But there is an even bigger picture. In the OT, the structure of the priesthood looked like this:

1. Aaron, high priest
2. Levites, ministerial priests
3. Israel, a nation of priests

We see a similar structure in the NT.

The New Testament Priesthood Proved from Scripture

Jesus, Our Eternal High Priest

"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession." (Hebrews 4:14)

The Ministerial Priesthood

"But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit." (Romans 15:15-16)

The Universal Priesthood of All Believers

"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (1 Peter 2:9)

But what does "bishop" mean?
According to the wiki

bishop (English derivation[a][1][2][3] from the New Testament Greek ἐπίσκοπος, epískopos, "overseer", "guardian").
[...]
The term epískopos, meaning "overseer" in Greek, the early language of the Christian Church, was not from the earliest times clearly distinguished from the term presbýteros (literally: "elder" or "senior", origin of the modern English word priest), but the term was already clearly used in the sense of the order or office of bishop, distinct from that of presbyter in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch [4] (died c. 108)

So, it seems both terms were already well known to the people, as they were a part of their vocabulary... only some time later did these terms become somewhat specific to those seats within the church.

This is correct. The use of the terms was somewhat fluid in the early Church but became more consistent relatively quickly.

[quote]Also, have you considered Docetism?

Docetism's origin within Christianity is obscure. Ernst Käsemann controversially defined the Christology of St John’s Gospel as "naïve docetism" in 1968.[16] The ensuing debate reached an impasse as awareness grew that the very term "docetism", like "gnosticism", was difficult to define within the religio-historical framework of the debate.[17] It has occasionally been argued that its origins were in heterodox Judaism or Oriental and Grecian philosophies.[18] The alleged connection with Jewish Christianity would have reflected Jewish Christian concerns with the inviolability of (Jewish) monotheism.[19][20] Docetic opinions seem to have circulated from very early times, 1 John 4:2 appearing explicitly to reject them.[21] Some 1st century Christian groups developed docetic interpretations partly as a way to make Christian teachings more acceptable to pagan ways of thinking about divinity.[18]

As you know, Docetism was considered by a Church council and ultimately rejected as a heresy. I suspect you (following Ehrman) like to consider all forms of early Christianity to be equal heirs to the apostles, but that's simply not how history has unfolded. This isn't so much about one side "winning" and another side "losing" so much as it is a case of a majority of believers rejecting a minority position judged to be erroneous.

Curious verse, that 1 John 4:2...

"This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God"

If this guy is the same guy that used to hang around J.C., why be so vague? "every spirit"? meaning every person...
"J.C. has come in the flesh", this one is obvious anti-docetic... "is from God", is in the right. The others are wrong, and, according to the next verse, are the antichrist... Damn, there was already an antichrist?!

Oh... if only the John that wrote this was the same John that was with the christ... if only... why would he say something like this?!

As Wiki says, "Broadly [Docetism] is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion."

But John did not teach that Jesus "only seemed to be human" - John taught that Jesus was God in the flesh, and the verse you gave is confirmed by this one from the gospel:

John 1:14
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

[pocaracas]

You know what?.. I think that doesn't mean as much as you want it to mean.
You see, the word "evolution" already existed well before Darwin... and yet, it has come to mean more than it did... sure, it comes with the extra qualifier "by natural selection", or something similar... Just like "catholic", meaning "universal", comes before the qualifier "church".
Put the two together and people could understand the meaning even upon first hearing it.

Not this time, poca. Even the great Protestant scholar and historian, J.N.D. Kelly, admits as much. Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, but he acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”.  He wrote:

"As regards ‘Catholic,' its original meaning was ‘universal' or ‘general' ... As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

It didn't take too long for "evolution" to change meaning, either...
Why should it be relevant that people understood the concept conveyed by that joining of two well known words?

How many groups which later became "heretical" considered themselves to belong to the "catholic church", in the first century?

High-ranking priestly roles were usually held by men. Women were generally relegated to lower positions in the temple hierarchy, although some held specialized and influential positions, especially that of the God's Wife of Amun, whose religious importance overshadowed the High Priests of Amun in the Late Period.

Well of course not, poca. The hierarchy of the Catholic priesthood - bishop, priest, and deacon - was modeled after the priesthood of the Jews. But there is an even bigger picture. In the OT, the structure of the priesthood looked like this:

1. Aaron, high priest
2. Levites, ministerial priests
3. Israel, a nation of priests

We see a similar structure in the NT.

The New Testament Priesthood Proved from Scripture

Jesus, Our Eternal High Priest

"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession." (Hebrews 4:14)

The Ministerial Priesthood

"But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit." (Romans 15:15-16)

The Universal Priesthood of All Believers

"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (1 Peter 2:9)

Meaning that such bishops were already in place... were already imbued in the local culture and religion - judaism? Or some other canaanite cult?

But what does "bishop" mean?
According to the wiki

This is correct. The use of the terms was somewhat fluid in the early Church but became more consistent relatively quickly.

The bishop, the priest, is not a novel christian concept.
So why should it be relevant?

Docetism's origin within Christianity is obscure. Ernst Käsemann controversially defined the Christology of St John’s Gospel as "naïve docetism" in 1968.[16] The ensuing debate reached an impasse as awareness grew that the very term "docetism", like "gnosticism", was difficult to define within the religio-historical framework of the debate.[17] It has occasionally been argued that its origins were in heterodox Judaism or Oriental and Grecian philosophies.[18] The alleged connection with Jewish Christianity would have reflected Jewish Christian concerns with the inviolability of (Jewish) monotheism.[19][20] Docetic opinions seem to have circulated from very early times, 1 John 4:2 appearing explicitly to reject them.[21] Some 1st century Christian groups developed docetic interpretations partly as a way to make Christian teachings more acceptable to pagan ways of thinking about divinity.[18]

As you know, Docetism was considered by a Church council and ultimately rejected as a heresy. I suspect you (following Ehrman) like to consider all forms of early Christianity to be equal heirs to the apostles, but that's simply not how history has unfolded. This isn't so much about one side "winning" and another side "losing" so much as it is a case of a majority of believers rejecting a minority position judged to be erroneous.

I wouldn't say all forms were equal heirs of the apostles... unless no apostles had ever existed... which we'll assume they did.
I'd say that some forms of early christianity may have been more correct than the one emanating from Rome.
Indeed, history unfolded in a specific way... when you get the debate rhetoric already present in the roman context and apply it to the provinces, there's no contest. Those equipped with all the tools will convince the most ignorant folk, so it's obvious that these will be in the majority... doesn't mean they're right.

For example, the docetic view could more easily fit with Paul's vision and the post-crucification appearance, thus enhancing the case for the resurrection... at the cost of a lack of sacrifice.
Human sacrifice was still something well seen by the people, huh?

Curious verse, that 1 John 4:2...

"This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God"

If this guy is the same guy that used to hang around J.C., why be so vague? "every spirit"? meaning every person...
"J.C. has come in the flesh", this one is obvious anti-docetic... "is from God", is in the right. The others are wrong, and, according to the next verse, are the antichrist... Damn, there was already an antichrist?!

Oh... if only the John that wrote this was the same John that was with the christ... if only... why would he say something like this?!

As Wiki says, "Broadly [Docetism] is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion."

But John did not teach that Jesus "only seemed to be human" - John taught that Jesus was God in the flesh, and the verse you gave is confirmed by this one from the gospel:

John 1:14
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Yes, John did say that.
I was merely hinting that the "flesh" detail in that verse seems to be purposefully put there to counter the docetic view. Meaning that this particular view was somewhat widespread, while John, the alleged companion of J.C., was still alive! Amazing!! Unbelievable!
And yet, it would take decades until someone wrote something actually denigrating the docetic view.

[Randy Carson]

Not this time, poca. Even the great Protestant scholar and historian, J.N.D. Kelly, admits as much. Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, but he acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”.  He wrote:

"As regards ‘Catholic,' its original meaning was ‘universal' or ‘general' ... As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

It didn't take too long for "evolution" to change meaning, either...
Why should it be relevant that people understood the concept conveyed by that joining of two well known words?

Primarily because that Church still exists. And it still has the God-given authority given to it by Jesus.

How many groups which later became "heretical" considered themselves to belong to the "catholic church", in the first century?

Probably quite a few. Unfortunately, they began to teach doctrines which were not handed down from the apostles and, consequently, they were deemed heretical. Pretty straightforward.

The bishop, the priest, is not a novel christian concept.
So why should it be relevant?

Because of the God-given authority passed on to the Bishops as the successors of the Apostles.

As you know, Docetism was considered by a Church council and ultimately rejected as a heresy. I suspect you (following Ehrman) like to consider all forms of early Christianity to be equal heirs to the apostles, but that's simply not how history has unfolded. This isn't so much about one side "winning" and another side "losing" so much as it is a case of a majority of believers rejecting a minority position judged to be erroneous.

I wouldn't say all forms were equal heirs of the apostles... unless no apostles had ever existed... which we'll assume they did. I'd say that some forms of early christianity may have been more correct than the one emanating from Rome.

Such as? (And you do realize that virtually all Christians (the Orthodox included) would probably disagree with your naming of any heretical group prior to about the middle of the 13th century.)

Indeed, history unfolded in a specific way... when you get the debate rhetoric already present in the roman context and apply it to the provinces, there's no contest. Those equipped with all the tools will convince the most ignorant folk, so it's obvious that these will be in the majority... doesn't mean they're right.

For example, the docetic view could more easily fit with Paul's vision and the post-crucification appearance, thus enhancing the case for the resurrection... at the cost of a lack of sacrifice.
Human sacrifice was still something well seen by the people, huh?

Still hung up on docetism, huh? Docetists taught that Jesus was not fully man...that he only had the appearance of being human. Now, poca, are YOU a Docetist? Because if Jesus was not human, this means he was fully God.

And that is an odd position for an atheist to take.

[pocaracas]

It didn't take too long for "evolution" to change meaning, either...
Why should it be relevant that people understood the concept conveyed by that joining of two well known words?

Primarily because that Church still exists. And it still has the God-given authority given to it by Jesus.

How many groups which later became "heretical" considered themselves to belong to the "catholic church", in the first century?

Probably quite a few. Unfortunately, they began to teach doctrines which were not handed down from the apostles and, consequently, they were deemed heretical. Pretty straightforward.

No, Randy...
All such groups claimed to be preaching what the apostles handed down.
One group became more prevalent, perhaps because it possessed the might of roman instruction behind its propaganda engine... The group that became prevalent need not be the one following the exact teachings of the apostles.

The bishop, the priest, is not a novel christian concept.
So why should it be relevant?

Because of the God-given authority passed on to the Bishops as the successors of the Apostles.

Or so people believed...

I wouldn't say all forms were equal heirs of the apostles... unless no apostles had ever existed... which we'll assume they did. I'd say that some forms of early christianity may have been more correct than the one emanating from Rome.

Such as? (And you do realize that virtually all Christians (the Orthodox included) would probably disagree with your naming of any heretical group prior to about the middle of the 13th century.)

Why? Did they not exist prior to the 13th century?
Bart would disagree...

Indeed, history unfolded in a specific way... when you get the debate rhetoric already present in the roman context and apply it to the provinces, there's no contest. Those equipped with all the tools will convince the most ignorant folk, so it's obvious that these will be in the majority... doesn't mean they're right.

For example, the docetic view could more easily fit with Paul's vision and the post-crucification appearance, thus enhancing the case for the resurrection... at the cost of a lack of sacrifice.
Human sacrifice was still something well seen by the people, huh?

Still hung up on docetism, huh? Docetists taught that Jesus was not fully man...that he only had the appearance of being human. Now, poca, are YOU a Docetist? Because if Jesus was not human, this means he was fully God.

And that is an odd position for an atheist to take.

Just because I don't believe these things to have happened, doesn't mean I can't speculate on which position may have been more likely to be accepted by the people.
Can you grasp the difference between belief and reality?

[Whateverist]

4) Why is it primarily a U.S. Christian doctrine only?

Our nut jobs have illusions of grandeur.