Talk:Rapture/Archive 3

Archive

Talk page has been Archive, length exceeded: Talk:Rapture/Archive_1

POV

Since I'm trying to have a sabbatical from Wikipedia, I thought I'd make a quick comment here. Osprey is trying to add good, well written, information to the article -- but wiping out essential NPOV information in the process. I'll try to help him place his edits in the proper context, but since he's rather prone to edit warring I'd appreciate some help. We can probably keep 95% of what he's wanting to add and put it in the proper locations of the article, but with his edit warring it's a little difficult for me to help him by myself.

If he were a bit more cooperative we could get his material into the article faster. And, conversely, if he had bad material we could just ignore it. But I tend to like his material and want to help it find its proper "home" in the subsections most appropriate for it.

If anyone has some extra time to help him, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Old introduction does not describe the consensus view on this topic of Christians, and reflexs a minority view of the Rapture that is not held by any large denomination. The Assemblies of God is the largest organization to believe in a Rapture, this article is significantly different from those organizations. A few editors, who misquote sources should not control this page to spread inaccurate information. Osprey9713 (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

SkyWriter sounds eager to include your material - looks like a great opportunity for collaboration. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

SkyWriter is primarily concerned with the introduction, which I do not like, but I have also edited parts of all the other sections as well. The article is misleading, because it implies all Christians believe in the rapture, where it is limited to dispensationalists, or people who have a modified form of dispensationalism, and it is not held by any other group of people. Several theologians such as Ladd and FF Bruce have been listed as counter examples, but they have not put forth a clear system that is unified or distinctly different from dispensationalism. Historic Premillennialism does not believe in a rapture, because there was no concept of a rapture before dispensationalism, so to say they believe in a rapture is an anachronism and wrong, because historic implies non-dispensational. So if you are historic premillennial and you believe in a rapture, then you are not really historic. its a contradiction. Anyway, i provided many edits to the other sections outside of the header as well. Additionally, the introduction cites "the word of the lord" which is not meaningful, and does not clearly state what the rapture doctrine is, that is distinct from all other views. I don't get a clear idea of what the rapture means by that introduction, and there's no reason to keep it other than skywriter wrote it. We should not have one person's opinion reflected when there are so many large denominations with clearly defined rapture definitions. Osprey9713 (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should not have one person's opinion reflected in the article. POV edits should not be forced, especially when they run counter to the references already provided in the article. For example Paul Boyer's When Time Shall be no More p.75 states:

"Increase wrote of the earth's coming destruction by fire, and cited Scriptures proving that saints would "be caught up into the Air" beforehand, thereby escaping the final conflagration - an early formulation of the Rapture doctrine more fully elaborated in the nineteenth century."

Its obvious that Boyer - a nondispensationalist - understood Increase - also a nondispensationalist - to have written of a Rapture that precedes the "final conflagration" or tribulation. It should be clear that Boyer's reference - and the other references provided - show that the concept of the Rapture was expressed in the writings of a number of nondispensationalists, and that these all predate Darby and dispensationalism. These references should NOT be obscured by POV edits, all the more since they run counter to the assertion that "there was no concept of a rapture before dispensationalism."

Sources have already been provided in this discussion page and article that show nondispensationalists do hold to a rapture. Its common knowledge that many historical premillennialists such as George Ladd hold to a rapture - a posttribulation rapture. George Ladd was certainly aware of dispensationalism, and he was not a dispensationalist. Harold Camping also holds to a rapture, but Camping isn't a dispensationalist. Therefore the burden of proof is on anyone who attempts to assert that all those holding to a rapture are also dispensationalists. Lamorak (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lamorak's assessment. What I think Osprey is doing is defining "rapture" in a dispensationalist-only way and then saying that only dispensationalists believe in it. Well, that's a bit circular. There are people who use the term "rapture" to describe their own beliefs, even when those beliefs are not dispensational. And there are people who share the basic aspects of those same beliefs who do not even use the term. It is what it is -- and not what "it should be" (whatever that is).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Boyer's book only indicated that Cotton and Increase Mather held to a premillennial tribulation opposed to post-millennialism. He used the word 'rapture' but its' not clear that they believed in a Darbian Rapture. I read the books listed in the reference section and in the talk, and they really didn't explain how the rapture originated. I really doubt that Darby invented the rapture alone, and I'm frustrated that wiki doesn't give a good history of the rapture before darby, esp since darby believed the church fathers believed in a rapture. boyer's book has good info about pre-mil but not about a rapture that indicates two coming of Christ. Boyer's used of the word 'rapture' is anachronistic, so its hard to know if he even realized that rapture was so tied into dispensationalism. George Ladd is fully aware of what dispensationalism means, so regardless of what he believes, it doesn't affect this article. Everyone has their own opinion, including Ladd, just because Ladd is famous doesnt explain where the idea of Rapture originated. Don't you too want to know the truth? I want to know where the idea of rapture came from, and I highly doubt it was cotton and increase matther as this article suggests. its not true. this article favors a version of historic premillennialism that also believes in a rapture, but that's a contradiction! Don't you agree? Osprey9713 (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

@Laorak, Tim, Aliaster. I'm not your enemies. I just want some credible agencies, books, churches, etc that show what you believe is true, because I feel that you guys have a bubble rapture doctrine, that doesnt' represent what people believe about the rapture.Rapture ready, assemblies of god and dallas theological institute are the most well know rapture endorsing agencies that I know of, and I know that they would not approve of your version of the rapture doctrine. I want to see some material that represents those large agencies and some explanation of where that idea came from, because it didn't exist 200yrs ago, and darby didn't even everything, as you agree. Osprey9713 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Using www.raptureready.com as a reference in your edits is not credible. They are biased and have a particular agenda to push. We need independent research/reviews that can give a balanced perspective. Barrylb (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Osprey, above you write: Boyer's book only indicated that Cotton and Increase Mather held to a premillennial tribulation opposed to post-millennialism. He used the word 'rapture' but its' not clear that they believed in a Darbian Rapture. Your statement goes to the heart of the problem here. Wikipedia cannot limit itself to only a "Darbian rapture" in an article about the "Rapture." It can include Darby, and can even give more weight to Darby if warranted, but it cannot exclude everyone else's views unless those views are so utterly fringe as to not be notable at all. The very existence of a "Rapture debate" makes the other views of that debate worthy of note, and many notable writers have participated in that debate to discuss their various views. Even mainstream theological textbooks (such as Erickson's) have discussed the various views with an author's preference for a non-Darbian rapture.

My only request is that you limit your dispensationalist-only points to the dispensationalist section, rather than trying to obliterate or bury all other sections.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

On a personal aside to Osprey, I'd like to add that it's difficult to know how to help you here. You obviously have a lot of zeal and time for this subject, and certainly do have the potential to make valuable additions to the article. But this agenda to eliminate all neutrality for the sake of a particular POV isn't helpful, and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to help you incorporate your desired information in the subsections to which it belongs. Even trying to talk with you on your talk page isn't easy since you keep blanking your page. And you keep referring people back to talk on your reverts as if there is a consensus for your edits. You have some good will from us here. We've incorporated a good number of your edits in the dispensationalist section. I don't know about the others, but I'm still looking forward to seeing your contributions to the dispensationalist section of this article. Can you at least try to add information without wiping out other information in the process? You'd get a lot more into the article that way with a lot less effort.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide an example of someone who believed in a rapture before darby, or someone who believes in a rapture that is not a modified form of darby's concept of a rapture. Boyer did not give an example of a rapture, which was your prooftext before. Osprey9713 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

All Christians believe in the gathering of the saints at the return of Christ, and all Christians have always believed that. Please show me an example of a Christian group that has NOT believed in the rapture. The only thing Darby did was invent a secret rapture. Now, can we get back to collaboration or are we going to keep dancing around this?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Presbyterians, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican Communion, and Roman Catholics do not believe in a rapture. That represents the majority of Christianity. Osprey9713 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

They don't believe in a SECRET rapture -- but they DO believe in the gathering of the saints at the return of Christ, and they always have.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a strange definition of the rapture that no formal group adhere's too, and wikipedia is against original research.

That's not my definition. Please read up on historic premillennialism.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

None of those groups will use the word 'rapture' to describe the second coming. N.T. Wright on the rapture. He is the bishop of durham. [1] Osprey9713 (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's only because some groups think the term only means a secret rapture. The existence of historic premillenialists makes your point moot. Please, stop this speciousness. There are people who use the word to mean the gathering of the saints and those who do not -- but the doctrine of that gathering remains uniform through all Christian history and denominations. It is only the secret aspect of Darby's idea that is contentious.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please name these 'groups' because they do not existOsprey9713 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Give an example of a historic premillennialist group that also believes in a rapture that is not a modified form of dispensationalism Osprey9713 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide someone who believed in the rapture before Darby. historic premillennialism, means belief that christ returns before a millennial kingdom. says nothing about a rapture. Osprey9713 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have consistently provided good sources, and they have been replaced by original research. please provide academic examples of a definition of the rapture, and groups that actually believe this, the majority of this is original research. Osprey9713 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's another specious point. Wikipedia articles include both history and CURRENT ideas. If you want to debate the history, go ahead, but it does not affect the parameters of the article, only the structure of its outline. Further, I've given you names, books, citations, and page numbers that you have consistently PRETENDED don't exist. I am two attempts away from not wasting time with you any more. STOP this pointlessness.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have demonstrated that all the names listed by you have not supported your argument, especially Paul Boyer. Osprey9713 (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WHO is Paul Boyer? I've named Spurgeon, Ladd, Erickson, Bruce, etc. I have no idea who Boyer is. Now -- your edit warring is wasting everyone's time, including mine. You forget that I was the one who found a way for almost all of your previous information to get into the article. I don't have time to keep shoe-horning your information into its proper place when you won't even cooperate. If you want to edit war, then I can't help you.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Authors who believe in a premillennial return does not prove your view of the rapture. None of these authors have a similar rapture view than you have espoused. Please provide a reference. No groups or individuals hold to this article's version of the rapture. Osprey9713 (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

List of authors and organizational views of the rapture

Following theologians do not endorse a 'rapture' but have been claimed as doing so by editors.

GE Ladd's NT theology: http://books.google.com/books?id=eIdkM00EdlAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ladd Ladd define's rapture as two comings of christ, one before the end of the tribulation and dismisses it as not true. As usually, I have provided good sources, and they are ignored for original research. Osprey9713 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

FF Bruce here is a quotation that says that Bruce believes Darby invented the Rapture

F. F. Bruce, who was part of the Brethren movement his entire life, but one who did not agree with the pre-trib rapture said the following when commenting on the validity of MacPherson's thesis: "Where did he [Darby] get it? The reviewer's answer would be that it was in the air in the 1820s and 1830s among eager students of unfulfilled prophecy, . . . direct dependence by Darby on Margaret Macdonald is unlikely.29"

Spurgeon held no rapture view, but only post-trib return. see [2]

Organizations that do not endorse use of the term rapture

Church of England, bishop of durham N.T. Wright, one of the head guys in the church of england 13.5million members says that the rapture is a recent invention and only part of dispensationalism. http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Farewell_Rapture.htm Osprey9713 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic http://www.catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp is officially a-mil and says its incorrect to use the term 'rapture'. over a billion members Osprey9713 (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Presbyterian incorrect to use term rapture and does not believe in rapture, originated at the time of the plymouth brethern http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99798.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/iiim Osprey9713 (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ladd is not a dispensationalist, so of course he denied the pretribulation rapture. However contrary to what Osprey9713 claimed, Ladd did hold to the post tribulation rapture (same referenced book), p. 565:

"Paul is referring to the rapture, i.e., the transformation of the living saints, when he says, "We shall not all sleep [in death], but we shall all be changed" (1 Cor 15:51)."

FF Bruce was also not a dispensationalist, and the provided quote has nothing in it about Bruce denying a posttribulation rapture. Contrary to what Osprey9713 claimed, Bruce did not say Darby "invented" the pretrib rapture. Instead FF Bruce is actually saying the pretrib rapture was "in the air" in the 1820s and 1830s.

In the Spurgeon link, the writer clearly stated that Spurgeon was a historic premillennialist. The writer also made a comment on the difference between historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism:

"The essential chronology between the Dispensational and Historic schools is the same (with the exception of the timing of the rapture, which in the historical scheme is post-tribulational)."

None of these "examples" prove Osprey9713's statement that these theologians deny a posttribulation rapture. Instead its clear that Ladd affirms a posttribulation rapture, and that the writer of the Spurgeon link attributes Spurgeon with holding a posttribulation rapture.

The fact of the matter is that there are 2 major (pretrib, posttrib) and 3 minor views of the rapture that are held today. Its common knowledge that there exist nondispensational premillennialists who hold to the postrib view. And among the circle of nondispensational posttribulation premillennialists, there exist at least 3 discernable views. These things are easily verified, some of which are found in the archive of this talk page...Lamorak (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This Ladd quote is on page 610-611 of the revised edition, where ladd says that the "so-called rapture" refers only to the word 'rapiemur' used in the latin (see footnote) and only refers to "the sudden change of the body" from perishable to imperishable. There is no period of time where Christians are absent from the earth. Regardless, Ladd is specifically writing against dispensationalists. Osprey9713 (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Osprey -- we've all made it clear that Ladd, Bruce, Spurgeon, Erickson, et al are not Dispensationalists and that three of them (Spurgeon excluded) are sometimes writing against Dispensationalist views when they present their views of a post-tribulation rapture. Post-tribulationists have the saints meeting Jesus in the air on their way to Jerusalem (talk to jetblue; the air is the fastest way to go). Are they absent from the earth in that view? No. Is it a rapture? Yes. It is a post-tribulation rapture. You keep acting as if there is no such thing as a post-tribulation rapture view, but there is. There is also a post-tribulation gathering-of-the-saints-in-the-air-per-1Thess4-that-the-writer-doesn't-use-the-word-"rapture"-to-describe. Does that constitute a view of the rapture? Sure. There are writers like Berkhof (which I quoted) who present post-millennial second coming views indistinguishable from post-tribulational "rapture" views -- who will adamantly refuse to use the word "rapture." That's fine too. It's noted in the article. Some people are dispensational rapturists. Some are not who will use the word "rapture" for their views. And some are not who won't use the term. That's all covered. That's what NPOV means -- you cover all the major areas and give added weight where it is due. Please, just work with the consensus here. I've had consensus go against me even though I was sure I was right. It happens. It's the way things are done here.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Osprey has been reported for edit warring

I've reported Osprey for edit warring. Because of the overhead, I am recanting my earlier willingness to help him get his information into the article in the proper context. It's not possible to do so with his current penchant for edit warring and specious arguments.

If he stops edit warring, I may be convinced to help him. But it is taking way too much time right now that could be better spent elsewhere, and there is no current hope of cooperation on his part.

Also, rather than clutter the talk page with further argument, I'll have to ignore him for now.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Report me all you like, but you are still providing unsourced material, which I have just listed above examples that disprove your statments. Osprey9713 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lamorak that we need to clean up the references. Osprey is stating here [3] and here [4] that he intends to keep the edit war up here. It will certainly be a problem trying to clean up the page with all the disruption going on. I'm going on a trip this week and won't be able to do much, and I'll have to get back some of the books I've given away and loaned out as well. It may take a bit of time before I can research the fake references that Lamorak was talking about.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick third opinion

Osprey asked me to take a look at this article. To be honest, I am not an expert in this subject and do not have the time or interest to read the entire background of this argument or even to read the entire article from start to finish, but based on my skim of this version I have to say I find Osprey's writing more or less incomprehensible (for example, "an eschatalogical doctrine primarily held by Dispenationalists", and mention of "premillenialism" without any context explaining what it is) and some claims questionable (for example, the suggestion that The Rapture is a "doctrine" rather than a concept, idea, or hypothetical event—that does not match with what I learned during my several-year stint as a churchgoer when I was young and having an identity crisis). Anyway, the poor writing is a serious concern, as Wikipedia articles that confuse or scare away their readers are not very useful. If it were just up to me, I too would have to oppose Osprey's additions.

If you guys want more input, I recommend one of you leave a message at WP:3O or seek WP:mediation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have request help from the 3O page, i think that would be helpful. the edits have been going fast, and I agree that some of the comments are arcane. Osprey9713 (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

3Os are given for pages where two editors are having a dispute. For this, I'd say maybe leave a message on the talk page of the Christianity Wikiproject to try to get more people involved, or maybe an WP:RFC, if only to generate some kind of consensus. Failing that, though, seek higher forms of mediation, like maybe WP:MEDCAB. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

While it technically says it's for disputes between two editors, I've often used 3O for disputes between two sides, if all the editors in the dispute fall onto one side or the other. 3O is pretty informal and no one there has yelled at me yet for not following the exact rules :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for popping in. I'm game for whatever makes the least overhead. More and more editors keep popping in to preserve some kind of stable article, and Osprey is single handedly wearing us all out.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

G.E. Ladd's position on the Rapture

George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, pages 610-611 (revised version),

"The resurrection will occur instantaneously at the coming of Christ (1 thes 4:16; 1 cor 15:52). The change that will occur for teh dead in Christ will also overtake teh living in Christ. Those "who are left until the coming of the Lord" will have no advantage over those who have fallen asleep (1 Thess 4:15). The same transformation will overtake both the living and the dead (1 Cor 15:51). The living will, as it were, put the new resurrection body on over the mortal body (ependysasthai, 2 Cor 5:4) without the dissolution of the latter. This is what Paul means by the so-called "rapture" 51 of the church. The "catching up" of the living believers, immediately after the resurrection, to meet the Lord in the air is Paul's vivid way of expressing the sudden transformation of the living from the weak, corruptible bodies of the physical order to the powerful, incorruptible bodies that belong to the new order of the Age to Come. It is the sign of passing from the level of mortal existence to immortality. The important words are "so shall we always be with the Lord" (v.17).

Paul is referring to the rapture, i.e., the transformation of the living saints, when he says, "We shall not all sleep [in death], but we shall all be changed" (1 Cor 15:51). He has just asserted that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" (v.50). In these words he is probably referring to the saints who are living at the parousia, who will put on their resurrection bodies without experiencing death. He calls this a "mystery" (v.51) -- the revelation of a new truth, namely, that the change of the living as well as of the dead will take place immediately at the parousia. 52

51 "Rapture" comes from the Latin raptus. "We ... shall be caught up" in 1 thes 4:17 is rapiemur in the Latin

Ladd:

• denies a gathering in the sky
• rapture refers only the physical transformation of the body from immortal to mortal
• occurs as one event, post-trib
• is the exact same event as the second-coming (parousia)
• denies a transportation
• believes a millennium will happen after the return of christ (not quoted above but elsewherein TNT
• denies a "so-called rapture" exists, but affirms only a second coming

This is sufficient to prove that G.E. Ladd does not believe in a 'rapture' ever occurs. Osprey9713 (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the quoted paragraphs provide more evidence that Ladd DOES hold to a rapture. In addition to the quote in a section above (ignored by Osprey9713), Ladd also wrote "The "catching up" of the living believers, immediately after the resurrection, to meet the Lord in the air is Paul's vivid way of expressing the sudden transformation..."

Certainly Ladd is not denying the rapture - Ladd is affirming it, as he believe that is what Paul is saying. Again, its common knowledge that a number of nondispensationalists hold to a rapture. George Ladd is simply one such example. Ladd holds to a Post Tribulation Rapture position, a view which Osprey9713 denies even exists. Osprey9713 has failed to justify any of the massive changes he insists on making to the article. Lamorak (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Lamorak, which change have a made is unjustified? Surely changes aren't dismissed simply because there are many. The Post-tribulation Rapture is an anachronism, and I have asked edits to please provide a source indicating that the second coming was referred to as the 'rapture' before Darby. Many people use the term 'rapture' today to refer to the second coming, but so far, this has only been demonstrated to be a result of Dispensationalism's definition of a rapture. Wayne Grudem's systematic theology describes the public second coming of Christ as a 'rapture' but a large portion refuses to use the term 'rapture' because its such a loaded phrase. For example the churches I listed above like the Cathlic Church will not describe the second coming as the rapture. I am open to correction, but I want to see some sources, not just opinion. Osprey9713 (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Osprey, what is unjustified is your position that groups of people cannot have a view of a doctrine unless they have specifically invented the term -- regardless of whether or not they use it. Christians did not INVENT the concept of "God" but they certainly do have well defined views of God. Darwin did not INVENT the word "evolution", but he certainly had views about it. Regardless of WHO coined the term "rapture" there are many different views about it, some of which are in disagreement with whatever the first view was. If you think Darby invented the term -- fantastic! -- put it in the "history" section of the article. But don't eliminate every other view as if it doesn't exist. Whether such views came before or after Darby, they certainly exist now, and therefore belong in the article.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Osprey -- your position is incoherent. Ladd can't say what he thinks the rapture is going to do, when it will occur, and what passages support it, without having a view of the rapture. He believes in a "so-called" rapture, just as Metzger believed in some kind of "so-called Western text". It's only the moniker that's "so-called", not the event itself.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Tim, This is not my position, I am just summarizing Ladd's position, since he is quoted so often. There is another text in his TNT that suggests that he may believe in a gathering of the elect to Christ, but according to this paragraph, he demonstrates that the 'post-tribulation rapture' is merely the transformations of the bodies, and it is not evident that anyone is transported anywhere on heaven or earth, but rather the whole earth becomes Jesus' kingdom. Osprey9713 (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And your piont is? You can't say what Ladd's view of the rapture IS and then say he has NO view of the rapture in the same breath. That's just incoherent.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

agree with SkyWriter. Osprey's argument is incoherent.TKempis (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ladd says the "so-called rapture" because he doesn't believe in any rapturing/transporting of humans anywhere, but actually believes that body will be transformed without any teleporting christians or flying christians on clouds or going to heaven or jerusalem any kind of absense at all, but quite the opposite. It's more of a rapturing up of the dead flesh into the redeemed body of christ. N.T. Wright also holds this position. So Ladd's opinion of the rapture is that there is no gathering/rapturing at all, but only the redemption of the body. Why is this incoherent? This text has continually be cited as proof that Ladd believes that there will be a gathering-to-somewhere-else rapture, which is not the case. Additionally, Ladd said that the gathering of the elect by angels event cannot be visualized indicating that he believes that is not a magical transported anywhere, as this wiki article suggests. See page 205. http://books.google.com/books?id=eIdkM00EdlAC&dq=ladd+new+testament&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=lf_N6XY0i8&sig=RRJIbir8URRKad-0cc35JZh8ADg&hl=en&ei=94NWSpq1B4OGtge1zJXeAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3 Otherwise pg205 and pg610-611 contradict each other. Additionally, regardless of Ladd's views, he is one person, and this article is not about ladd. Osprey9713 (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ladd rejects this: http://www.raptureready.com/wallpaper/vwp9b.jpg

I do apologize for making edits too quickly, and not taking the time form complete sentences. :) Osprey9713 (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your quote regards Ladd's view of the rapture: "Paul is referring to the rapture, i.e., the transformation of the living saints". Whether Ladd believes the rapture is a transfer or a transformation, he still believes in some kind of a post-tribulation rapture. Again, you can't say that Ladd believes the rapture will do thus and so and then say that he doesn't believe in his own view! You're being incoherent, not by writing in incomplete sentences, but by writing in complete ones. You are so dead set that a rapture can only be a pre-tribulation Darby rapture that you ignore any other view and try to deny its existence -- all the while claiming that no one has supplied any evidence. Just, please, leave this alone. There are better things to do with Wikipedia time.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Random References

Under the section Timing, "Dispensationalist," first paragraph:

I checked the cited references, even looking at different editions where applicable. Even giving leeway to the fact that references can at times be off some on page numbers, I found that virtually all of these references were random. They simply do not correspond to what they supposedly cite. For example: a citation for Walvoord's The Millennial Kingdom page 22, is in the middle of a postmillennial discussion. There is no reference to any "long duration" in that whole section. A citation for Ryrie's Basic Theology pages 112-144, starts in the middle of a chapter on hermeneutics, and spans chapters on angels and Satan. There is nothing about a supposed "2nd rapture" in this cited section - or in the entire book. I could list the rest of these random citations if anyone thinks its necessary.

Also I need to add that a minority of dispensationalists do hold to a posttribulation rapture (Robert Gundry being the most prominent). The vast majority of dispensationalists do hold to the pretribulation rapture, and small minorities hold to either a midtrib view or a posttrib view. Over the next week I will rework the paragraph and section to more accurately reflect dispensational views - and provide better citations.Lamorak (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Rosenthal with the "Pre-Wrath Rapture" (Post-Trib) is also dispensationalist.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

@Lamorak I've been trying to fix those references for some time, but sky writer keeps reverting my changes. If you are able to repair the false references that will help get past some of skywriter's noise. There should be some good info on the rapture in those dispensational books, and if this article would stick to legitimate sources, then it would be much better. Osprey9713 (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Osprey -- I've told you countless times that I want most of your changes in -- I just don't want you wiping out everyone else's work in the process. Work WITH everyone else instead of against them. You'll be surprised at the good will here. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening line

"The Rapture is a future event in Christianity relating to the return of Jesus." Whoa there cowboy! That's not an accepted POV. Preterists & Idealists don't buy that at all. Can we get some balance in there?--LanceHaverkamp 00:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance W. Haverkamp (talk • contribs)

Useless article

This article is utterly useless to the layman, from reading it I have no idea of the core belief common to all interpretations, only the differences between them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.118.104 (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. It is written in a self-referencing manner that does little to actually explain anything. By quoting chapter and verse from the Bible - without explaining what those quotes mean - does not clarify the situation. LOL is it the gourd or is the sandal? Please tell...