Questions About the Rapture

[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?!