The thing that gets me is that the Idea of the Apocalypse is so obviously written about John's exile by the roman empire and his interest in toppling it and it doesnt even say anything about the rapture. That was pieced together 1500 years later from several mysterious passages in the gospel of Mathew. I just dont think it should be interpreted the way that it is. More so, the bible should have remained in that era
Even though I don't believe in a rapture, the evidence they use for it is mainly from Pauline episitles and pseudo-Pauline sources and other epistles. You also have to specify pre-Trib rapture and post-Trib rapture. There are a number of schools when it comes to apocalyptic theology. I think, just like the epistles which are written for a specific audience at a specific time (arguabely so are the Gospels), that is how Revelation should be approached. What does John write about his time. What does it say about God. Well it says that whilst things may suck now, and things will most undoubtedly get worse, God in the end is in it till the end. PS- We may not "know" John of Revelation like we know who Obama is, but we can surely separate him from other John's of the NT. He is not John the Evangelist, and most likely not John of the Epistles.
Revelations doesn't mention the Rapture because the Rapture is a non Biblical concept that has no Biblical basis whatsoever.
A few of my favorite discrepancies in the old and new testament. "...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (Exodus 21:23-25) versus "...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39) and When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said. (Numbers 30:2) versus "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." (Matthew 5:33-37) http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/bible/discrepancies/
Rudenoodle, ^ that has not a thing to do with the apocolypse or the rapture. But I really was glad to read it because with those few verses and the "discrepancies" (lol), you gave a perfect example of what worship was like Before Jesus' entry into the world (Old Testament), and how worship changed completely After Jesus' entry (New Testament). I really don't consider it a "discrepancy" since Jesus, being part of the God-head, and His arrival was supposed to change everything! Therefore, the "rules", in turn, were amended.
If god was perfect why couldn't he get it right in the Old testament why execute an eccentric preacher in a primitive part of the world? Hmmm... People who are happily waiting for the rapture to kill them and take them to heaven value death over life. If that's not a negative way to live I don't know what is. Whats so funny about the word discrepancies?
It was the way in which it was used that I found amusing... Discrepancy would be defined as "being at variance or disagreeing", yes? On the surface, if you Take the verses Out of Context, (Are you familiar with this concept?)then yes they are at variance. However, if you view the entire bible as a history and read it consecutively and Follow the Story, then those particular verses do the Opposite of show "discrepancy" in the bible. Those particular verses, as I have already stated, are actually quite apt at showing main differences - which would be expected - that Jesus's arrival made in worship, in how we should be, how we should think and view life. I have given some thought to how the antichrist might arrive - but the rapture and the apocolypse are not my particular "areas of interest" - though I do have some thoughts, I can honestly say the only time I really have Thought of the rapture in a looong time has been reading posts here at HF. I was just not able to not respond to your unique post(s).
If you are part of a religion that values death over life (i.e heaven) you are a proud member of a death cult. If you are part of a religion that claims you will be punished after you die (i.e hell) you are being controlled to further an agenda. And if you are a member of a cult that promotes both of these world views you are certainly fooled. It's wrong to lie to children and tell them they will be punished in hell if they don't believe in the biblical apocalypse. Those who molest the minds of children with lies such as that and the many other superstitious, idiotic, racist lies promoted by religions the world over should be labeled as pedophiles. Religion in all its embarrassing forms is used only to proliferate war, racism,bigotry, and superstion. It gives false comfort for those to cowardly to accept death means goodbye and slows the entirety of humanity. There are no ghosts, grow up.
