"Christianity" in America

The futuristic view came out of the tent revivals of the 1930s and the writings of Cyrus Scofield.

No, not true.

Understanding the Book of Revelation

Introduction Revelation is a confusing book to most people despite the many commentaries written. The reason most commentaries fail to enlighten the book’s contents is because they violate one or more of the three basic principles of sound biblical interpretation. These are the following: 1) acceptance of the Scriptures as God-breathed (θεόπνευστος), 2) correct placement of the text within the framework of God’s progressive revelation, and 3) sound and consistent hermeneutic or interpretative method.The first word of the book is “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψις)–hence its title. The word means to “unveil,” or “reveal.” The first phrase of the book is (Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) “Revelation of Jesus Christ.” The “revelation of Jesus Christ” should be interpreted as both a subjective and an objective genitive. The book reveals Jesus Christ, the God of the Bible, in His role during the Tribulation and as King of Kings (subjective genitive) and is the revelation from Jesus about the events that will transpire during the Tribulation and afterwards (objective genitive).God wishes us to understand His Word (cf. Revelation 1.3). The goal of this study is to reveal to whom the book was written and the purpose of the book.
 
No, not true.

Understanding the Book of Revelation

Introduction Revelation is a confusing book to most people despite the many commentaries written. The reason most commentaries fail to enlighten the book’s contents is because they violate one or more of the three basic principles of sound biblical interpretation. These are the following: 1) acceptance of the Scriptures as God-breathed (θεόπνευστος), 2) correct placement of the text within the framework of God’s progressive revelation, and 3) sound and consistent hermeneutic or interpretative method.The first word of the book is “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψις)–hence its title. The word means to “unveil,” or “reveal.” The first phrase of the book is (Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) “Revelation of Jesus Christ.” The “revelation of Jesus Christ” should be interpreted as both a subjective and an objective genitive. The book reveals Jesus Christ, the God of the Bible, in His role during the Tribulation and as King of Kings (subjective genitive) and is the revelation from Jesus about the events that will transpire during the Tribulation and afterwards (objective genitive).God wishes us to understand His Word (cf. Revelation 1.3). The goal of this study is to reveal to whom the book was written and the purpose of the book.

The tribulation ended with the fall of Masada.
 
The tribulation ended with the fall of Masada.

No, it didn’t.

I can provide hermeneutics that are centuries old, written by theologians. In their writings you can see that the most widely held position of the Church, was one that held to the teaching regarding the book of Revelations, that
“some have been fulfilled, some are now being fulfilled, and some will be fulfilled in the future”.
 
No, it didn’t.

I can provide hermeneutics that are centuries old, written by theologians. In their writings you can see that the most widely held position of the Church, was one that held to the teaching regarding the book of Revelations, that
“some have been fulfilled, some are now being fulfilled, and some will be fulfilled in the future”.

The symbolism in Revelation was perfectly understood by people of the 1st century.. and the message was one of encouragement to them. Jesus would not have neglected them to write gobble de gook for people 2000 years in the future.
 
The symbolism in Revelation was perfectly understood by people of the 1st century.. and the message was one of encouragement to them. Jesus would not have neglected them to write gobble de gook for people 2000 years in the future.

Its not “gobble de gook”. The entirety of the Scriptures are revelations of things to come. But I digress, you claimed that the view of the amillennialist (have been, is being, will be fulfilled) didn’t come about until the 1930’s. How is it you came to believe that is a true fact? Who told you that?
 
Its not “gobble de gook”. The entirety of the Scriptures are revelations of things to come. But I digress, you claimed that the view of the amillennialist (have been, is being, will be fulfilled) didn’t come about until the 1930’s. How is it you came to believe that is a true fact? Who told you that?


It comes from the Darbyites and the Brethern.. written up by Cyrus Scofield, paid for and published by Samuel Untermyer... and caught on during the Dust Bowl and the Depression.. Got another boost in the 1970s from Late Great Planet earth.
 
It comes from the Darbyites and the Brethern.. written up by Cyrus Scofield, paid for and published by Samuel Untermyer... and caught on during the Dust Bowl and the Depression.. Got another boost in the 1970s from Late Great Planet earth.

Is Revelation where the concept of the Rapture came from? Never heard of that till I was an adult and briefly attended a non-denominational fundie church. It sure wasn't featured in mainstream Protestant churches.
 
Is Revelation where the concept of the Rapture came from? Never heard of that till I was an adult and briefly attended a non-denominational fundie church. It sure wasn't featured in mainstream Protestant churches.

There is no rapture in the Bible.. It comes out of the Scofield heresy and bad theology.

Actually in first Thessalonians it talks about people being "caught up".

Two problems with the Protestant rapture and"Left Behind” interpretation: First, in the passages from Luke and Matthew, Jesus’ coming is compared to the days of Noah and the days of Lot.

Think about that.... After the flood, who was left? Noah and his family — the good guys. The bad guys were taken and the good guys were left behind.

After Sodom and Gomorrah went up in smoke, who was left? Lot and his daughters — the good guys. The bad guys were taken and the good guys were left behind.
 
Last edited:
That's what I thought, but the preacher at that church referred to some passages where the believers are sucked up into the clouds or something. Here's some quotes about it:

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_rapture.htm

The rapture of the Church (or catching away) is in Scripture. It will be at some point just prior to the 2nd coming of Christ. It takes a good long study of Thessalonians and Revelation, way too much to get into here.
 
There is no rapture in the Bible.. It comes out of the Scofield heresy and bad theology.

Actually in first Thessalonians it talks about people being "caught up".

Two problems with the Protestant rapture and"Left Behind” interpretation: First, in the passages from Luke and Matthew, Jesus’ coming is compared to the days of Noah and the days of Lot.

Think about that.... After the flood, who was left? Noah and his family — the good guys. The bad guys were taken and the good guys were left behind.

After Sodom and Gomorrah went up in smoke, who was left? Lot and his daughters — the good guys. The bad guys were taken and the good guys were left behind.

Ok, yes Rapture (an addition to premillennial teachings) are 20th century, and I agree wrong.

However, premillennial, amillennial, and postmillennial views date back to the very early Church.

Few early Christians wrote about this aspect of eschatology during the first century of Christianity, but most of the available writings from the period reflect a millenarianist perspective (sometimes referred to as chiliasm). Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (A.D. 70–155) speaks in favor of a pre-millennial position in volume three of his five volume work and Aristion[when?] and the elder John echoed his sentiments, as did other first-hand disciples and secondary followers.[3] Though most writings of the time tend to favor a millennial perspective, the amillennial position may have also been present in this early period, as suggested in the Epistle of Barnabas, and it would become the ascendant view during the next two centuries.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Church fathers of the third century who rejected the millennium included Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215), Origen (184/185 – 253/254), and Cyprian (c. 200 – 258). Justin Martyr (died 165), who had chiliastic tendencies in his theology,[10] mentions differing views in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chapter 80:
 
The rapture of the Church (or catching away) is in Scripture. It will be at some point just prior to the 2nd coming of Christ. It takes a good long study of Thessalonians and Revelation, way too much to get into here.

The concept seems to belong to the non-mainstream Protestant churches. I saw that Kudzu expanded on his discussion about it, above.
 
Back
Top