Talk:Rapture

Added external link under the 'Support' heading

I added a link to Answers in Revelation.org, which is, arguably, the most scholarly presentation of the post-tribulation rapture view on the web. In addition to articles concerning the rapture, the site also contains audio material, charts, and debates on various eschatological viewpoints, all of which make it a strong resource for anyone investigating Christian eschatology. "Answers" is not my site. It is owned and authored by Tim Warner of Oasis Christian Church in Tampa, FL.Phoenix1861 (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For real?

Like articles about Pokemon creatures where the opening line says the article is about a fictional creature, shouldn't the opening line of this article say it is about the fictional gathering? I am actually not kidding. Christians may feel hurt about the word "fictional" being added to this article but it should somehow be made clear that this is not necessarily reality. There is the word "idea" but it feels a bit too "hidden". Maybe "theory" would be appropriate, I'm not entirely sure about the right (non-hurting) choice of words.W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one day the article will begin like the one on Ragnarok and call it Christian mythology. We aren't there yet. The compromise is to label it as prophecy, with the understanding that it is both conjecture and subject to personal interpretation. JethroElfman (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I also tried to avoid the word "doctrine", since I don't think a lot of churches put these prophetic details down as specific articles of faith, other than the essential one that Christ will come again. JethroElfman (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is normal convention to speak of existing religious views as "beliefs" and extinct religious views as "myths". Since Wikipedia has a NPOV policy, it can neither promote nor ignore any notable POV. So, calling the rapture a "fact" or a "fiction" is a judgment call we cannot make. It is, instead, a "belief." While it may or may not be objectively true that Jesus is coming back, it is objectively true that many people believe it. We are not really reporting Jesus' wherabouts or business schedule here, but instead we are reporting on Christians and their beliefs.EGMichaels (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How about we just give it until Sunday morning, by that time nobody will have a problem denigrating this as a myth. Larryisgood (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, we are almost there. After Sunday, let us update this page with the "calculation mistake" explanation that they come up with.

2012

User:Rossnixon keeps reverting an entry to the Etymology section (which contains a list of predictions) for the year 2012, stating that it has relevance to the End Times article, but not this one. The entry being removed very clearly states that Christians have associated this prediction with the "Final judgement" and "second coming of Christ", which is obviously related to this article. I do see some problems with weasel wording, but the appropriate course of action for that is cleanup, not outright removal. Ross, as I clearly asked you in edit summaries, could you please summarize your objections to this content here? Thank you. Jess_talk|_edits 03:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In case my edit summary needs expanding, here are my further comments. I am very familiar with the history of 'the Rapture' and it's interpretations. The so-called prophecies of 2012 have not come from a Christian source; and I a unaware of any reputable of high-profile Christians endorsing an association between the 'Rapture' and these prophecies. If there are any, they have not been cited. Any such claim in the article can be summarily removed by editors, if not backed up by *any* citation. ^rossnixon 02:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you haven't done a cursory search on the topic, since "2012 Christ" returns over 2.5 million hits. This result seems fine to use. Since your only objection here is that it is uncited, I'll add the content back in. As a note, the policy for BLPs is to remove any uncited info immediately, but for regular articles it is customary to use citation needed tags and remove the content only if no source arrives. Jess_talk|_edits 02:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but the word 'Christian' doesn't appear once on Judyth Piazza's bio page on that site; and the site is little more than an advert for her book. I don't think it therefore can be described as either a reliable source [WP:RS], or even as a Christian prediction. ^rossnixon 02:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Jack van Impe is widely recognized as a long-standing Christian commentator on issues like this; so thank you to the editor who added this. ^rossnixon 03:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I added both refs. Judyth's is perfectly appropriate, considering it discusses her feelings that the "Second Coming" will occur in 2012, which precisely backs up the statement being cited. The first paragraph is:

Christ taught 2012 in the Bible. In Matthew 13:39-40, Christ says he will come for the Harvest at the end of the age. The Harvest is the separation of the wheat from the tares or the good people from the bad people and the end of the age is Dec. 21, 2012.

This, in and of itself, is sufficient. Blogs and self published content (including advertising materials and the like) are sufficient for citing the author's thoughts on a subject, per WP:RS. In any case, it might be best to quote the book itself, so rather than replace the citation as it was, I'm including it as the book instead. Jess_talk|_edits 04:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". They cannot be used to support statements about other subjects.

Looking at the publisher for the England book I see AuthorCentric Self Publishing "AuthorHouse™ exists to help authors achieve success -- by their definition. We provide a broad array of tools and services to allow authors to make their own choices throughout the publishing process. Authors retain all rights, maintain editorial control and choose the exact selection of services that best suits their goals. Our self publishing company allows every author to control his or her own publishing destiny." See again the quote above about self-published sources. Please look further for a reliable reference to replace this. (I have also looked briefly, not found anything yet.) Mirokado (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, self-published sources can be used for information about themselves. That's precisely what we're doing. The sentence being cited is that some Christians have claimed a link between 2012 and the second coming of Christ. An appropriate citation for such a claim is a Christian drawing such a connection, which she does in her book. What we're referencing is her thoughts on the matter, published in her book. We're not using it as reliable information about anyone else's opinion, or any actual state of affairs besides her thoughts. That's precisely what WP:RS means. It would be fantastic if we could find a secondary source to talk about some "phenomena of Christians thinking the rapture will come in 2012", but I'm not familiar with any such sources, so the best we can do is the authors themselves, such as Jack van Impe and Mary England. Jess_talk|_edits 10:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I must disagree again. WP:SELFPUB refers (see quote above) to information about the publisher, particularly in an article about the publisher. This article is about "an event in the futurist interpretation of Christian eschatology", not about Mary England, so this self-published information is not applicable. You could probably use her book to support an article entitled "Mary England", but that would fail WP:NOTABILITY in the absence of good secondary references. You have made it clear above that the book is also a primary source (her own work) of original research (her thoughts) which means that the citation fails two other Wikipedia guidelines, WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR, and indicated that you can find no relevant secondary sources. For all these reasons it is entirely clear that the citation will not be accepted in this article, so I have removed it.

The Van Impe video, although also self-published, originates from a notable person in the general field (own Wikipage for example) and can probably be used to support the example of him as one of "some Christians" (I have expanded the citation to include all the information I was able to find about the DVD.) However, this is by no means good enough to support the claim that this entry in the list of "notable predictions" is in fact notable. I have thus moved the ref adjacent to the information it can support.

This leaves the entry as a whole unsupported by a suitable reference so I have added citation needed. Please continue to look for a good secondary reference to support the notability of this prediction. Note that the wikilink to 2012 is largely a red herring as this wiki page demonstrates that the associated predictions have hardly anything to do with Christianity or the Rapture, as rossnixon has already pointed out (nevertheless I suggest you read through it in case any of its references help you here.) Mirokado (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No reference establishing notability after one month. I have removed this and other entries in that list with Citation needed tags older than one month (see the template documentation.) Mirokado (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Traditional

The following removed from article: (because this church not identified and no references or citations given to back it up). The church which came from the Apostle Paul while teaching in Rome, to the USA through Wales VIA Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (Acts 18:2) who studied under Paul, believes that there is no "rapture" in the commonly taught way that John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882) or his Darbiest followers believe beginning in the 1800s, but that we are "changed" at the resurrection, when we are "born again" into the "spiritual body", which is "incorruptible", as the Apostle Paul taught.

This doesn't even really make sense and it's entirely uncited. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that it is an absurd notion and entirely without evidence, of even a speculative nature... Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

daftity

I can't make sense of this paragraph:

Over the last few centuries, believers in the rapture of the church have made predictions regarding the date of the event. The primary scripture reference cited for this position is Matthew 24:36, where Jesus is quoted saying; "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only"

It seems to say something completely daft: "The Holy Scrolls say that nobody knows when The Event will occur, therefore on March 21, 1844 [or whenever] we should all climb a mountain and sing 'Now is the end, perish the world'." Is this deliberate satire? 71.248.115.187 (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It used to read that believers avoid making predictions regarding the date. It needs fixed. JethroElfman (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

undue weight in intro?

The intro describes two "primary views among Christian denominations."

1. Dispensationalist Premillennialists , and 2. Everybody else

Lumping all other Christian groups together -- groups as diverse as Catholics and Presbyterians -- simply by virtue of being non-dispensational-premillenialists seems to give undue weight to category 1, as if it made up about half the Christians in the world, and as if the various denominations subsumed in the second group were all basically the same.

Distingué Traces (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the distinction is between those who believe in one second coming and those who believe in two second comings (or a two-part second coming). This isn't a weighing factor of how many are in each view, but rather simply a factor of there being only two general views.

There are other views of the millenium, but that's a different topic. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

2 views or 3?

Skywriter, re your edit "concatenation" here, the way you have moved that final line + refs gives the impression that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believe 1Thess 4:17 refers to an aerial gathering to Jerusalem. Surely this is incorrect?

QUOTE John Trigilio, Kenneth Brighenti The Catholicism Answer Book: The 300 Most Frequently Asked Questions 2007 p77 states "No English Bible uses the word “rapture,” and it was not taught as Christian doctrine by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or even Protestant Reformed churches. The notion comes from the nineteenth-century Evangelicals," UNQUOTE

It seems to me that there is a substantial difference between Anglican interpretation of 1Thess4:17 per N. T. Wright (ref in article) and Roman Catholic interpretation of 1Thess4:17. Your thoughts? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, while all Christians have believed in a gathering of the saints to meet Jesus at his return, most don't really care about the specific destination in a geographic sense. Jesus is himself that destination, and the only one that matters. I really don't see any historical concern other than meeting him "in the air." If Jesus is returning to earth, then meeting him in the air and always staying with him would presumably mean that they ended up wherever he was, but it makes little difference in historic Christianity whether that is Jerusalem, the Bahamas, or Neptune. The actual speculation is mostly absent, with only a few fringe mentions before modern-historic premillenialists felt a need to answer dispensational speculation. In my own edit, I limited the speculation of a destination to historic premillenialists for that reason. Why would a-millinialists or even post-millenialists really care about an earthly destination, since both groups concatenate the return of Jesus with the final judgment, with no intermediate millenium? What's the point of going to Jerusalem if it's just immediately destroyed with everything else? And in those eschatologies, pretty much EVERYONE is gathered to Jesus -- some to judgment and some to reward. The gathering (or rapture) is only a happy aspect of those favorably judged. While I don't see a huge problem with your edit, it's beginning to turn the lede into a format more appropriate for the body of the article.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Skywriter, well I'm not exactly an expert on this subject, but as a general reader judging from the refs as given: the environmentalist Christian writer and the former Bishop of Durham seem to think exactly the opposite of what you've said - i.e. that they care more about the destination than the timing (which in either case would be "after you're dead" by the look of it?). In any case whether someone cares or not isn't a particular criteria - and yes I would say both of these questions belong in the body not lead of the article. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Profiting from the Rapture

Some people are making money off "rapture" predictions. There's a book out, "How You Can Profit from the Coming Rapture"[1], which answers questions like "I’m about to buy a home. Should I opt for an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), on the assumption that it will only go up a little, because Jesus will come within seven years and pay it off for me?". I think this is a joke, but some of the stuff out of that community is so weird that I'm not sure. --John Nagle (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Scriptural Basis Section

Should be edited to include only things at least vaguely related to the issue, not search results on terms with multiple, unrelated uses and contexts.

Example: "Taken away [by the Flood]" is not relevant, as being killed by the Flood has no logical, thematic, or scriptural relation to being taken bodily into heaven.

That Rapture theology uses "taken away" in another sense, based on other passages, doesn't make references to the Flood relevant to Rapture theology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.1.218 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole section should be redone or removed. As it stands it is clearly making an argument and an unclear one at that. For example:

"The King James Bible uses the terms 'taken' and 'taken away' as an undesirable thing. Such as when Babylon and Assyria and Rome invaded Israel, taking away the residents taken captive, or taken and destroyed, while leaving behind a remnant, as gleaning grapes (the poor which inherited the kingdom.)"

is entirely unclear. What is "cleaning grapes" supposed to mean? Either someone is just throwing Christian-esque words senselessly, or this is "in" lingo. Either way, it's unclear. Furthermore, if "taken away" is a bad thing, doesn't that count against the rapture? The author seems to think not, but why is unclear. Unfortunately the whole section is written like this, with liberal use of bold and bullet points that don't seem to follow any pattern.141.218.226.151 (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Removed as "badly written, rambling, irrelevant, original research tagged since November, synthesis, unsourced" (edit summary) --Mirokado (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Was it a bad thing when Paul was "taken up" to Heaven for visions? "The King James Bible uses the terms..." The issue is not what the KJV says, written over 1000 years after 1 Thes. The issue is: What does the original Greek say & mean. Get out your Greek lexicon. The dictionary form is harpazo. (EnochBethany (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

Serious bias problem

There seems to be no attempt to present arguments against the acceptance of the doctrine from an internally Christian perspective. Readers could be left with the impression that most people describing themselves as Christian actually believe in a literal Rapture. I feel unable to correct this but do feel it needs to be addressed. Nineteenthly (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

References

The references in this article need some maintenance, for completion and consistency. There are lots of tags (not all added by me) which will require further refs unless content is removed. I have started normalising the refs to use the cite * templates already in use, particularly those which need completion anyway. One advantage of more consistent, completed refs is that subsequent additions to the article will have a better example to follow.

In addition, the density of refs, for example in Rapture#Doctrinal history, make it quite difficult to read the content itself in the edit window. This problem will increase as refs are added or completed. I therefore propose to start introducing list-defined refs in which a shortish named ref tag appears in the article source and the full reference definition appears in the references list itself. This does not in itself involve a change in the reference style. The differences between versions will be easier to inspect if from now on I move the references to the reference list before making further changes to them.

List-defined refs coexist nicely with inline definitions, so anyone used to creating refs inline can continue to do so if that helps them create high quality content. I would from time to time tidy up any section which predominantly used list-defined refs.

If someone else wants to tidy the refs up in a different way, I am quite happy with that, as long as they get tidied up (in that case I could easily help by changing already-updated refs to another consistent format.) --Mirokado (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Date Setting

The Jehovah's Witnesses have a history of setting rapture dates, does anybody know of an RS list for these? Uberhill 01:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Issues in the lead: Futurism

The futurism references in the lead have been deleted twice, along with a number of other classification links that provide useful academic context to this article. The Rapture is an important aspect of Christian Eschatology, or the study of the end of the end of history as we know it. It is the oldest form of futurism, clearly.

The most recent revert substituted the independent, academic references with a series of scriptural citations. The citations themselves are appropriate, and in fact were already present in the second paragraph. Please don't think I am suggesting the Bible is irrelevant to this subject, merely that it is not the the only source. (See WP:Religion)

Changes of this scale do not qualify as minor edits, as they change the information in the article. (WP:Minor) Uberhill 05:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The term "futurism" suggests a futuristic interpretation of Revelation (as opposed to a preterite or historical interpretation). There may be many theologians who take a futuristic interpretation of Revelation and also consider the Rapture to happen at the end of the "tribulation," thus deeming the Rapture immediately part of the 2nd Coming, even possibly disliking the term "Rapture." It is also quite possible to believe both in a future Rapture and in the preterist interpretation of Revelation, thus rejecting the futurist interpretation of Revelation. Thus it seems to confound the issue to tie "Rapture" to futurism. Also, while I have read quite a bit of theology in favor of a Rapture, I have never read in any such work the category of futurism as applicable to the Rapture. However, such works may take a futurist view of Revelation, a book which has no explicit reference to the Rapture (catching up), even thought John at the start of Rev 4 may be seen as a type of the Rapture. (EnochBethany (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC))

Futurism merely refers to the study of events expected in the future. As the preponderance of theories about the rapture presume it to be an event yet to come, the term still applies. It is not a theological term at all. The theologies surrounding the rapture impact several other disciplines, including sociology, psychology and even in some cases politics. As such, the term belongs in the article. I'm going to put it back again, and ask that it not be removed a third time without consensus here.

Now, your points taken, as the Rapture is generally looked at in the context of eschatology, that term perhaps belongs here as well.

Anybody else have thoughts on this? Uberhill 04:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:

"Futurism was an artistic and social movement that originated in Italy in the early 20th century. It was largely an Italian phenomenon, though there were parallel movements in Russia, England and elsewhere."

Also Wikpedia:

"Futurism, in general terms, is an interpretation of the Bible in Christian eschatology placing the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Book of Revelation, the Book of Daniel, the Olivet discourse and The Sheep and the Goats generally in the future as literal, physical, apocalyptic and global. Other views place the fulfillment of such prophecies in the past as literal, physical and local (Preterism; Historicism), or in the present as non-literal and spiritual (Idealism)"

I am removing the misleading term. Please do not put it back. Also the opening statement said:

"The Rapture is a futurist interpretation of Christian eschatology, in which it is posited that Christians will be gathered together in the air to meet Christ at, or up to seven years prior to, his return."

The Rapture is just what 1 Thes 4:17 says; it is not "posited." People may interpret it as they like, but the Rapture is simply a way of refering to something in the Bible. Its relation to "seven years" is irrelevant. "Up to" is an error. Many persons believe that after the Rapture there is an unknown period of time before Daniel's 70th week (popularly styled "the tribulation"). Thus it may be common for persons to postulate more than seven years prior to Christ's return to take over the earth. The point is that defining the Rapture does not require ennumeration in the opening sentence of variation in theology related to the Rapture. Inclusion of unnecessary baggage tends to confound the issue. (EnochBethany (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

I think the term 'posited' is an excellent way to indicate that the event being discussed is one from biblical prophecy. It is an attempt to walk the line between calling it "mythology" as in say, the Ragnarok article, and calling it anticipated event like the 2012 Olympics. Moreover, your edit assumes that the reader knows what "Thessalonians" is, and what "catching up" is. It's much too esoteric for the first sentence. Remember that a lot of readers are coming here from what they might have read on the back cover of a "Left Behind" DVD, and know nothing about it. Try to start slowly with the basics:

• It is an event
• It comes from the Bible
• It is a prophecy, and therefore has some uncertainty
• It involves Christians going to meet Christ

JethroElfman (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point is that it starts with too much, particulary with polemics. I am thinking that this article needs the NPOV label. The Rapture is not tied to "futurism" nor a position. It is simply a part of the Bible & of Christian eschatology. Indeed there are many interpretations, generally variations on how to relate the Rapture to other issues. But the article should start with a basic description of what it is. Indeed readers may come here and not understand what "futurism" is. It needs deletion. As to readers not knowing what "Thessalonians" is, one could insert "1 Thessalonians is the book of the Bible by that name; "book of the Bible" is what each of 66 parts of the Bible is called, starting with "The Book of Genesis." But I don't recommend such a change. I mean how dumb-downed should an article on theology be? If someone doesn't know what 1 Thess means, let'em google it. Or even Wickedpedia it. LOL (EnochBethany (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

Comparison of Rapture & 2nd Coming

As written the article states: "Dispensationalist Premillennialists (such as many Evangelicals) hold the return of Christ to be in two stages. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 is seen to be a preliminary event to the return described in Matthew 24:29-31. Although both describe a return of Jesus in the clouds with angelic activity, trumpets, heavenly signs, and a gathering, these are seen to be two separate events."

1) Are you sure that all dispensational premills like the terminology "two stages"? More accurate would be to say: "Disp Premills commonly hold that the Rapture is an event separated in time from Christ's coming to take over the earth. Incidentally, it is possible to be disp premill & NOT separate in time the two events. In fact one could say that most persons who take these passages literally think that the rapture is separated from Christ's taking over the earth, though some may have one come right after the other. Obviously a catching up of persons is not the same thing as Christ coming down to earth. How does one know that an hour or two of rejoicing in the air would not take place before the final descent? Thus the word "some" would better be inserted in front of "dispensationalist Premillennialists."

2) a) angelic activity? Are you sure that " with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God" implies angelic activity? Does it mean with a voice like that of an archangel? Probably it would be more accurate to say that "While the 2nd coming has angelic activity, the rapture only mentions the voice of the archangel."

2) b) trumpets? 1 Th 4 has trumpet, not trumpets.

2) c) heavenly signs? What heavenly sign is with the Rapture? 1 Th 4 speaks of clouds; it doesn't say supernatural clouds.

2) d) gathering: So far as I know only the Rapture has a gathering in the air.

IMHO, that entire "Although" clause should be omitted as not NPOV and argumentative against the POV that the Rapture is not the same thing as Christ's coming to take over the earth. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

Another statement in the article says, "All passages regarding the return of Christ, such as Matthew 24:29-31, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, Revelation 1:7, etc., describe the return of Jesus in the clouds amidst trumpets, angelic activity, heavenly signs, a resurrection, and a gathering." Now that is not exactly true. Immediately one can check 1 Thes 4:15-17, where "trumpets" (plural) is not mentioned. "Angelic activity" is questionable. There is the voice of an archangel. Nowhere in the Bible is there ever any sign for the Rapture, let alone "signs." 1 Thes does not say that Christ returns "in the clouds." The catching up is in the clouds, not the return of Christ.

'For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; 17 then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be raptured in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.' (ASV).

John 14:1-3 "14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also."

James 5:8 "Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand. 9 Murmur not, brethren, one against another, that ye be not judged: behold, the judge standeth before the doors."

There are no trumpets, angels, or signs in John 14 or James 5, also no gathering in James 5. So pardon me for removing the inaccurate sentence. I am thinking that if one wishes to present the arguments for the Rapture happening at the same time as the 2nd Coming to take over the earth, one could say something like:

Those who deny a distinction between Rapture and Second-Coming-To-Earth, emphasize certain mutual similarities including: references to clouds, angel or archangel, and resurrection.

(EnochBethany (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

I am thinking that if certain persons keep insisting on keeping polemical statements & violating NPOV, this article will need the NPOV. (EnochBethany (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

Historic Premillennialists

As the article stands it says,

"Historic Premillennialists are more likely to use the term "rapture" to clarify their position in distinction from Dispensationalists."

I am at a loss to know what the author meant by that. Did the author mean to say "Second Coming"? Did the author mean "Historic"? While I have read this POV, I haven't read say 10 works by Historic Premills to know what they are more likely to use to clarify their position. What seems obvious to me is that those who use "Historic Premill" do it with polemical intent to try to claim in their very name that their position is historical, while Dispensationalism is Johnny-Come-Lately. My guess is that the Amils claim that their position is the only historical position, aside from fringe groups. Who knows how historical a position is? I mean didn't the papists dominate literature in the West, while the rest were persecuted & trivialized, leaving scant record of their views? (EnochBethany (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

I agree with the "C" quality rating

This one of the poorest WP articles I've seen on a topic of current interest.24.69.174.26 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rapture is bullshit

Come on, it is so obvious. WTF is with Wikipedia and their big ego small men admins? Use some common sense, if you have any.