Talk:Rapture

Revelations

I have no idea what sect of Xianity focuses only on Thess. in discussing the Rapture, but the calling of the tribes of Israel in Revelation should at least be mentioned (and – if it is dealt with separately at Wikipedia – linked) and that in the lede, not omitted. 211.144.127.241 (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Revelations"? What is that? Why do you say "sect"? Rapture theory cuts across many denominations. It basically is not a denominational distinctive. The focus on 1 Thes 4:17 is because that is the only verse which must be accepted as referring to a Rapture, a catching up of the Church, though there are many others on the Coming of Christ which may refer to the same event, but without the catching up specified. Another candidate is 2 Thes 2 with apostasia, but that passage is commonly taken to mean a doctrinal departure instead of a departure from earth. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC))

Wrong. "Most Christian denominations do not subscribe to rapture theology and have a different interpretation of the aerial gathering described in 1 Thessalonians 4. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, the United Church of Christ, most Methodist and Reformed Christians, Unity Church, Mormons, etc." 2603:3020:BE7:A000:A908:B54C:7B80:9204 (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Most Christian denominations do not subscribe to Rapture theology

I tweaked in the Intro... Most Christian denominations do not subscribe to rapture theology and have a different interpretation of the aerial gathering described in 1 Thessalonians 4. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, the United Church of Christ, most Methodist and Reformed Christians, Unity Church, Mormons, etc. 2603:3020:BE7:A000:A908:B54C:7B80:9204 (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Your tweak is not altogether accurate with regards to American evangelicalism. Your wording makes it sound as if it is monolithic within evangelicalism, which is not the case. Evangelicalism is not a "denomination"; it's a movement. Evangelicalism crosses denominations, and thus intersects with those that do not subscribe to Rapture theology, so it cannot be worded to imply that Evangelicalism is a monolith with regards to eschatological positions. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The 'gathering of the elect', when Christ returns is scriptural and hence has a longer tradition. The pretribulation separate rapture view is a different matter. It came up with Darby and others and is about 200 years old. So it's a recent development that became popular rather recently with named denominations picking this up during the 1980s. It's also popular with the Christian Zionists that have also a dualism with regards to salvation. Many do however also reject it as preposterous and unscriptural, since it can not be harmonized with scripture that easily. 105.4.0.130 (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Not found in historic Christianity

Over time, there have been several attempts to add text that suggests that rapture theology existed in Orthodox Christianity earlier than the 1800s. However, every time someone puts this in, they are citing those actual texts, which of course do not explicitly state what is being said. Please, before trying to do this, make sure you understand the difference between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources, specifically as it applies to WP:SYNTH, because what you're doing is synthesizing a conclusion on your own. That's original research, which we do not do. Also, keep in mind that sources that are considered WP:FRINGE will not suffice. You need a mainstream, academic source - period. Even then, it's a theory that's at the margins of the mainstream, so it needs to be presented as WP:ATTRIBUTION. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The statement that the rapture as it is currently defined is not found in historic Christianity, and is a relatively recent doctrine originating from the 1830s actually is not technically supported within the article itself as presently written. The Premillenialist section has content that would dispute this as a blanket statement, as does the Pre-tribulational premillennialism section. The lead is intended to summarize what's in the article and this particular sentence doesn't fit that criteria. Since it's not directly supported in the article (at present), nor overtly mentioned later in the article, nor specifically sourced, I've removed it ([1]) until at some point there is more direct discussion of origins of the doctrine. I'll point out that I do agree with the statement, as Darby is truly where this theology originated in its present form, but that needs to be fleshed out in the article before being in the lead. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Article's order or title needs to be rearranged

This article aptly includes (too briefly, as almost a parenthesis) a historic understanding of the word "rapture", namely the mystic experience, as understood thus in the centuries before us.

Merriam-Webster even has 3 variations of that meaning:

1 : an expression or manifestation of ecstasy or passion

2a : a state or experience of being carried away by overwhelming emotion

2b : a mystical experience in which the spirit is exalted to a knowledge of divine things

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rapture

This original meaning is alluded to in a similar article related to Buddhism, which is a misnomer, as Buddhism is not the only spiritual tradition claiming to experience it. In Islam it is promoted by Sufism, Christian monks have had intense meditative lives where they describe a form of "rapture", etc.

Bottomline: THIS original / traditional definition should be the primary one.

The more recent theological meaning of Rapture, should be secondary.

When I have the time, I plan to work on this distinction.

67.71.40.230 (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See: WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The Merriam-Webster definition has no bearing on this article's title nor content. If you want to create a new article (or articles) covering other related topics (such as you have proposed), Wikipedia has a formal process for handling disambiguation: Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic. See WP:DISAMBIG.

To address your other comment (When I have the time, I plan to work on this distinction): I would recommend that you do that under the noted suggestions in presented above and below rather than changing the scope of this particular article as that would be taking it off-topic. This article is on the theological position, so edits to this article should be within that scope. If your edits are outside of that scope, then they belong in a separate article (as noted).ButlerBlog (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Title of this article should be changed

This article should be renamed "The Rapture".

Then, a new separate article entitled "Rapture" should be created for the primary definition, referring to an ecstatic state, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary (see other talk note). This new article should then refer to the existing Wikipedia article entitled: "Rapture (Buddhism)" on the Buddhist rapture concept. (See previous Talk note)

67.71.40.230 (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to formally propose a page move ("renaming" an article is technically a "move"). However, a move is (IMO) unnecessary. You can certainly start a new article and use disambiguation in the title such as "Rapture (ecstatic state)". ButlerBlog (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Supposing you want to request a move, you can do so here: WP:RM#C. Before doing so, I would strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with WP:MOVE, as well as WP:DISAMBIG and WP:TITLECHANGES. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)