Talk:Rapture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This page is not wored very well. It says things such as "There is disagreement about when the rapture will happen" which insinuates that the rapture is proven fact. The article should be worded "..disagreement as to when the rapture is allaged to occur" etc. --121.219.116.46 05:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


June 1, 2008. I deleted 1844 (now the second time, please do not add it again) from the date list of rapture predictions. William Miller did not believe in a secret rapture, but believed in the visible, audible return of Christ. His prediction therefore falls under date-setting of the second coming of Christ, but not of the secret rapture, since he did not hold such a belief at all. Some of his followers became the Jehovah Witnesses, and they predicted that Christ would come again in 1874, then in 1914. When these predictions failed, they said that Christ indeed had come, but the return had been invisible. Yet at no time have Jehovah Witnesses believed in the secret rapture of believers. Other Millerites became the Adventists, who still wait, like Miller did, for the visible, audible return of Christ, and do not believe in the secret rapture. J. H. Stefansson, Iceland.

I found this article very helpful as written. I do see NPOV. I am not making a correction but I think the attribution of acceptance of this theology to such a broad group is erroneous, however. My sense is that it is generally accepted in Pentecostal or "full gospel" circles, but not 100% embraced by more traditional conservative voices that tend to be fundamental or evangelical (again, two different directions that sometimes overlap) and outright rejected by most mainstream denominations. Keep in mind that Baptists should not be lumped together. The American Baptist Convention is often thought of as very liberal group. At least by Christian Conservatives. The opening paragraph needs some revision due to these considerations.

I did find the discussion of how this theology came to be accepted by many and what it actually says very informative.

Thanks to all contributors 70.90.220.214 14:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Rapture debate

I moved the sections on criticism and rebuttals to a new page, called "rapture debate". Jason Hommel 21:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It oughtta be outlined more clearly that this concept is no older than 200 years and was an AMERICAN PROTESTANT INVENTION. It has NEVER been part of CATHOLIC, Anglican/Episcopal, Orthodox or Lutheran Theology.

(I heard on NPR that it was invented by american protestants, because they deemed it unfair, that all the righteous believers should have to suffer thru Armaggedon. Another hilarious fabrication of religious scam artists, but never mind.)--85.180.249.138 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rapture

Regarding this diff, I removed the reference to the original source documents as it's self-evident that the English word "rapture" doesn't appear in the Greek or Hebrew texts! However, do we have a reliable source stating that no word which could translate as "rapture" appears anywhere in those texts - not even in the Song of Solomon, for example? The strongest claim I've ever seen is that no English translation uses the term "rapture". Vashti 07:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are many scholars out there who say this. The question is, do you have a source which finds the word "rapture" in the original text? The term rapture came about during the time of the birth of the Jesuit Monks and there is no talk, reference, written word of a rapture or secret rapture before that period. Since it is a fact, no source is needed. I could say the sun will come out today. That is a fact, I don't need a source to cite that. Also the english translations, not to be confused with a paraphrase, do not use the term "rapture." Maniwar 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:CITE: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."
The Latin information is provided for etymological reasons. There's simply no need to state that English words don't appear in texts not written in English. It's like saying the original texts don't include the word "God": it's pointless and irrelevant and useless information, while observing that the term isn't used in English translations is very relevant.
However, since "many scholars" have made the claim, you should have no trouble at all quoting a couple of them. Vashti 19:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Wording of this whole section is absurd. Rapture is a noun. There is no word in 1 Thess. (e.g.) which corresponds to it directly because the Grk. NT and the Vulgate translation into Latin use verbs when describing what's supposed to happen here. Raeptius, moreover, is not in the Vulgate because it's not a Latin word at all. This is presumably a butchering of raptus (either an adjective: "snatched" or the much rarer noun "a snatching"), but again, that ain't in the Vulgate either, where rapiemur appears (we will be snatched). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.131.202 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed challenged information on Stan Johnson

I've removed the statement that Stan Johnson of the Prophecy Club predicted a 1997 tribulation. We received an email in OTRS saying that the statement was false and requesting that it be removed. I looked up the source given in this article and emailed the author of that web page, who said that his source for the claim was that it was made in his hearing, and also on a radio show that he heard. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any way of verifying this, so for all practical purposes it's one person's word against another. silsor 02:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Update - I received another email that gives a source, so I re-added the line with a link. silsor 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latter Rain

I would like to put forward the understanding from the latter rain perspective. Just as the passover was said to be fully come when Christ died on the cross. The day of penticost was said to be fully come with the outpouring of the spirit. Each of these days relate to the feasts of Israel. However there were three not two and the day of atonement associated with the feast of Tabernacles has never been said to be fullfilled.

The Latter Rain understanding is that the woman in Revelation 12 is those who have taken on the very nature of Christ and are taken to a place prepared for them. Just as there is a difference between the lost and the evangelical and the evangelical and the believer who is baptised in the spirit, there is also a difference between the believer who is baptised in the spirit and those who go on to maturity.

The example commonly used is Moses Tabernacle, the outer court representing the evangelical experience because here we have the blood of the lamb shed on the alter then the brazen laver made from the egyptian mirrors representing baptism as we look at our selves and consider the "old man" worthy only of burying. The with the pushing aside of the curtain to the holy place there was new furnture, new light, new food. Everything here was silver and much different to the outer court.

But rather than saying I've made it, there was yet another curtain another source of light and another source of food. Note although it was called the hidden manna, it was available for all after the cross. It is not a secret gnostic knowledge but represents a third growth experience.

Just as a charismatic may hopefully gently show another experience in relationship with God is available throught the holy spirit, the Tabernacelist would gently draw the penticostal forward and say, the journey has only just begun. The type here could be the walk of the children of Israel from Egypt, the world, the red sea being baptism with baptism in the cloud as well, according to Hebrews yet it has been stated that Sinai was the type of baptism in the spirit with yet 40 years to get to the promised land with the generation that had to die first representing those who would die to self to take on his nature.

The symbolism for rapture using this type is the when the smoke of the alter of incence enters the most holy place. More information on this understanding is availble at Latter-rain.com where George Warnocks book can be read or copies of Richard Hollands book titled the Bible and end times. Kevin Connor also has information on the third feast and the rapture being associated with the bride of Chirst which is only those who willing decide to pay the price to mature whilst the dragon in Revalation 12 then turns on the rest of the Christians Evangelical and Penticostal alike. 61.68.114.207 08:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Happiness", the word's normal meaning

As far as I can see, there's no reference either here or on the disambiguation page to the ordinary meaning of the word "rapture", namely overwhelming happiness. I know Wikipedia is not a dictionary but the complete lack of any mention of this seems to imply that the eschatological sense of the word is the principal one, which is not the case. What would be the best way of dealing with this without compromising the article's (or disambiguation page's) quality? Ou tis 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Post Tribulation Rapture

Post Tribulation Rapture should be merged to this article and pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, and post-tribulation should also redirect to this article.Pbarnes 23:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Born-Again"

I've deleted the 'born-again' in the '...all born-again Christians...', as it seems to violate NPOV

I've put it back. This is a statement of what "Rapture believers" believe. rossnixon 01:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as Jesus Christ is concerned, "Born Again Christians" are the only Christians there are.
"Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
John 3:3 (NKJV)

Since all Christians are "born again" by requisite, I have also deleted the term, as it is essentially redundant. WikiMasterCreator 09:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More NPOV criticism

I'm not going to edit the page, as it's obviously being maintained by a person or people with very strong opinions who will just edit it back, but this page is a joke when it comes to NPOV. The introductory sentence makes a declaration from a particular point of view, instead of making a factual (NPOV) statement about a particular set of beliefs. At the very least, it should say something like "The Rapture, according to..." or "The Rapture is an event that, according to...". NoJoy 22:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Followup: intro has been improved. Thanks. Didn't take time to check the rest of the article. NoJoy 22:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the intro sentence, trying to keep to NPOV. Jason Hommel 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not read the entire article, but the section about "rebuttals to criticism" sounds more like a sermon than an encyclopedia article. If may be best to have an adminstrator step in on this one.Squad51 03:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the criticisms and rebuttals to a new page, "rapture debate", as they were the least NPOV parts of the article, and can potentially grow to hundreds of arguments. Jason Hommel 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research not for Wikipedia

The sections below all look like original reseach. Wikipedia can include notable verifiable material that has been published by reputable sources. Each such source used must be cited in the article. Your beliefs, my beliefs, her beliefs and his beliefs only get included if they have been published as per above. If you want this material in Wikipedia then cite your sources (someones published beliefs). I can see a lot of time and work has gone into this. If you need things made clearer contact me on my talk page. I promise nothing but would like to see a well referenced article here.

What would make source material itself "notable", anyway? 74.38.35.171 07:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out [1]. The other 2 things needed are Verifiability and a reputable publisher. Hope you keep discussing here - I will help a bit if you want to work on this article. SmithBlue 08:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] flawed sections

Three major views on the timing of the rapture/Pre-tribulation, Three major views on the timing of the rapture/Post-tribulation, End Times Prerequisites, Scriptural basis and the ongoing debate, Criticisms, Rebuttal to criticisms SmithBlue 15:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"End Times Prerequisites" is especially flawed, as it conflicts with the majority opinion - which is that there are no prerequisites. This article is already long enough without specifying the differing views in detail. We should just say briefly what each of the three major groups (pre, mid and post) expect to happen. rossnixon 09:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi RossNixon - I know next to nothing about Rapture - and reading the flawed sections I get no idea whether I am reading someones private opinion or just uncited notable material. For me the problem it not the relative size of sections or the weight given to different points but the fact that I can't check on the source and correctness of, say, 60% of the facts stated in this article. Which, with it being an encyclopedia, is below standard. Do you understand what I am talking about? Verifiability, Cite_sources, No_original_research all suggest that Rapture could look very different. SmithBlue 10:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I will echo the criticisms. There seems to be a great deal of original, flawed research. The inclusion of the comparison image between Christian eschatological views is, for one, unrelated to the concept of a rapture, as most of the views don't even believe in the rapture. They believe in the Second Coming of Christ, but not the rapture. Secondly, there are not four views. There are many different views that aren't even addressed by the image - preterism for one.5minutes 12:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the part about The Rapture and The Jews?

Please don't delete my comments again, Smith
I can see that the edit history links me to the deletion of your post. It was never my intention to delete your post and I took no action, that I know of, that would have had that result. I wouldnt have deleted your posts knowingly as you have included references which are very needed for this article.SmithBlue 14:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
from ReligiousTolerance

Many Fundamentalists and some Evangelical Christians hold to the traditional " 'supercessionist idea' that Christianity replaced Judaism and that God no longer has a covenant with the Jewish people." 1 This is sometimes called the "theology of displacement." It relegates Judaism to an inferior position and "regards the Christian Church as the 'true' or 'spiritual' Israel." This concept was first developed by Justin Martyr (circa 100 to 165 CE) and Irenaeus of Lyon (circa 130 to 200 CE). It was largely accepted within the church by the 4th century....

Many believe that anyone following the Jewish faith is doomed to spend eternity in Hell, just as will Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and others who have not repented of their sins and trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior. This motivates many conservative Christians to attempt to lead Jews (and others) to a "saving knowledge" of Jesus. They feel that to ignore the Jews would be discriminatory. "If Jewish people are denied the opportunity to hear about Jesus because of Christian self-censorship, then Christians truly will be guilty of anti-Semitism." 3 Christian Conflicts Regarding Jewish Conversion

from RaptureReady

The 144,000 Jewish Witnesses

Shortly after the rapture, God will call His army of 144,000 Jewish believers into service to provide a voice of hope for Jews throughout the world. The best friends and most staunch supporters of Jews have always been true, believing Christians. It was this element of the world's population that provided help and support for Israel and Jewish people. The rapture removed the Christian people from the earth and awakened the 144,000 to their purpose. These 144,000 preach to Jews worldwide that Jesus is the Messiah. These 144,000 will be spread out worldwide and more than likely go about in pairs, two by two, as Jesus instructed His disciples to do. It will be these 144,000 who will oppose Israel signing a peace treaty for protection; it will be the 144,000 who will identify the anti-christ for who he is; it will be the 144,000 who will warn Israel of the treachery of the anti-christ, and it will be the 144,000 who will lead the Jews worldwide to the hiding place prepared for them by God in the Judean desert. These 144,000 Jews are going to be strange people by normal standards: they will be celibate, very bold, fearless, spiritually strong and probably very much like John the Baptist. You can read more about the 144,000 witnesses in Revelation 14. Rapture Survival Guide

WHY ISN'T THIS IMPORTANT INFO INCLUDED? Thanks - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The world waits breathless for you to include it. Go ahead, edit boldly. PiCo 07:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To make the material in the 144,00 Jewish Witnesses paragraph (144JW) suitable it needs to be stated which group believes this and then the barebones on the info added. i.e. The repitition of "it will be the 144,000 who will" is great in a sermon but not an encyclopedia article which is not about a sermon. Perhaps "So and so believe that after the rapture God will call an army of 144JW to provide hope for Jews worldwide.This group will;

  • preach to jews that Jesus is the Messiah
  • etc,etc SmithBlue 08:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The 144,000 - who they are and what they do is not directly linked to the concept or timing of the "Rapture". I would imagine it to belong in the Tribulation article. rossnixon 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] # of comings of Christ

This page states (erroneously, far as I know) that Christ comes 3 times in pre-/mid-Rapture theology. That's not the case - the Rapture isn't Christ's 2nd coming; the believers are caught up - he doesn't come down to earth. Edit: see also: Tribulation events 132.162.240.52 04:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet this is a common criticism made by supporters of a post-tribulation rapture -- they argue that in pre-trib theology, while he doesn't touch ground, he comes to Earth in the sky, and then, 7 years later, for a third time. This is the basis for their claim that pre-trib rapture theory is un-scriptural. PStrait 17:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Church Fathers Support of Rapture

Source #2 seems dubious, and the author of the source says his claims may be speculation. Will someone please check the validity of it. I don't want to delete the reference, because I might be biased.Trevor 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I reworked this section, bypassing the dubious source (http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/timeline/jeffrey.html) while referencing others that discuss the early church. - JethroElfman 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

The timing of when the rapture will take place is a key point often discussed and debated between denominations and individuals who accept the notion.

Connecting the idea of the "Rapture" to saying that it is a "notion", is this bias? NOPV? Just askin... Personally, I find the idea of the Rapture silly, but saying it's a "notion" in a Wiki article seems bias to me. I plan on changing it, but of course want "discussion" first. 131.30.121.23 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! I have changed notion to concept. Or the whole phrase could be changed to "those who believe this teaching". rossnixon 02:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word Placement

Moved "Protestant" because of it's erroneous placement, which misleads researchers; in that due to it's misplacement, it dictates a "blanket" statement that essentially places this theology and all other denominations noted afterward as being under a Protestant umbrella, which is both inaccurate and misleading. WikiMasterCreator 08:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro rewording is a bit much

Some recent edits turned the intro into something that reads like a transcript of a sermon. Wikipedia shouldn't read like that. Also, the emphasis on "shout/voice/trump" is apparently unique to some branch of rapture proponents, although I'm not quite sure of the factions here. We had a dispute over that issue last year. --John Nagle 16:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it accurate now, strictly speaking? My understanding was that people who believe in the rapture believe that the resurrection of the body occurs simultaneously, so that it isnt just the Christians alive, but also the deceased who are resurrected, that are raptured. PStrait 16:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Both Nagle's and the previous (shout/voice/trump) version are accurate. They do not express unique views AFAIK. It is debatable whether too much detail was added or not. rossnixon 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking for references, shoutvoicetrump.com says the Rapture has started because Wikipedia says so in the Rapture article. We need to be careful to avoid circular citation problems. --John Nagle 05:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, thank you all for your feedback on this. While my additions were accurate in their representation of the doctrine, I agree that they were a bit much for the intended purpose. I have cleaned it up significantly, and made it as concise and accurate as possible, without gutting out essential information not found elsewhere in the article. Your feedback and assistance is always appreciated! WikiMasterCreator 07:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on what the article ought to include, but note that per Wikipedia:Lead section, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". If these points are essential, they should be covered in the main body of the article and summarised in the lead. EALacey 08:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point. This article is clearly in need of some attention as a whole. It is a bit light on, and in a few areas altogether missing some fundamental and essential content required for a good understanding of what this doctrine actually represents at it's very core.
As you have noted, for the Wikipedia:Lead section of this article, as basic and concise as it now is, to outweigh any other section in some core and essential content, is a clear indication of a serious information deficiency in the main content area.
I'll be happy to contribute as much as I can to help give this article an increased level of balance, and more properly distributed content. I sincerely hope that others who are knowledgeable and familiar with this doctrine will do the same. Aside from a few fundamental problems, the article does have a lot going for it. It has a good overall structure, some good essential information, and some very good "peripheral" content in most sections. It just needs more depth, focus, and attention to detail; then it will be great! WikiMasterCreator 10:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of doctrine

I find the current discussion in the article on the Christian sects that do not teach the Rapture particularly confusing, especially the substitution of "Reformed" for what used to be (sometime in the last two months, when I last read this article) specific Protestant denominations. I would like to see a return to the listing of the Protestant denominations that do not support the idea of Rapture. As I am neither a Christian Protestant nor a Religous Historian, I do not feel up to the task. Thanks! M. McD.

I'm not aware of, nor do I see in the "history" logs, any listing of Protestant denominations for this section. In any case, "Reformed" is the more appropriate theological camp to be included among the others listed. WikiMasterCreator 07:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date Setting

I tagged "Generally, believers in the rapture of the church do not make predictions regarding the exact timing of the event itself." with a {{fact}} tag. That has a WP:WEASEL problem. It's also factually wrong. During the 1980s and 1990s, believers in the rapture were date-setting with enthusiasm, or at least claiming it was Real Soon Now; notice how many specific date citations we have for that period. It may be true today that date-setting is somewhat out of fashion. RaptureReady.com hit date-setting burnout: "I've been actively involved in prophecy for 20 years now, and I must have heard of, or received, 100 different formulations each year for the timing of the rapture or second coming. Having already witnessed around 2,000 predictions come to nothing doesn't leave me with any great hope for new ones that come along."[2] --John Nagle 16:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So, are you saying that most of the approx 100 million believers in the Rapture have made date predictions then? I think it is safe to say "generally", as 99.998% of them have NOT made predictions. rossnixon 02:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
We made it through September 2007, the last definite date on the "date setting" list. The "date setting" era (fad?) seems to have run out. --John Nagle 15:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A cited statement showing the historical sitation in the 1980s and 1990s would be better than a generalisation. SmithBlue (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future

Is {{future}} really an appropriate tag for this article? To say categorically that this is an expected event in this way places Wikipedia at risk of supporting a particular point of view, that Christians were right all along and this will definitely happen one day. -- Roleplayer 22:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2012

Is there any sources that can be used to support the Mayan Calendar theory for 2012? If not, it needs to taken out of the article. 71.28.99.175 (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it until sources can be found to prove the theory. If it can't be sourced, then do not revert the removal of 2012. 71.31.92.77 (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

While the Mayans may or may not have expected the end of the world in 2012, they were most certainly NOT predicting Christ's rapture of His Church. That would be kinda like George Washington writing a letter about Windows Vista - it's not something the Mayans would have had any concept of. --B (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007

Is that stuff about 2007 really true? There are no sources. ScottAHudson (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Why was the info about 2008 removed. I found it in 2008 article in this site.75.89.236.41 (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:1992 Rapture.jpg

Image:1992 Rapture.jpg is being used on this article. ... BetacommandBot (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot problem dealt with. --John Nagle (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:1992 Rapture.jpg

Image:1992 Rapture.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing definition

I find the first paragraph of the lead extremely confusing. I think it would be better to say something like "when the bodies of the living and the dead believers meet Christ in the sky" (if you get the idea)... It's confusing to talk about bodies of the dead rising to meet the spirits of the dead which are descending from heaven with Christ, etc, etc. Besides being confusing it is not necessarily true to all Christian belief on the subject. Definitely needs to be simplified. Kristamaranatha (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page titile

Virtually every g-hit for "rapture" is referring to the Christian concept.[3] This is the overwhelmingly predominant use of the term and so there is no logical reason for it not to be at Rapture. Even if there were a reason for it, Rapture (Protestant belief) is a horrible page title. Catholic believers, for example, believe in the rapture but just don't use that term. [4] --B (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Then how about "The Rapture (Christian Eschatology)"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.182.139 (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] End Date

It says believers no longer set a date for Armageddon, but the web, news, Church's are full of loony theists claiming various dates, some of them helping to speed it up. This needs to be re-written with relavent information included. Methememe (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)