Talk:Rapture

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 () 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)

You may also want to check the citations on Doddridge and Gill. The former doesn't use 'rapture' in the 'gathered up' sense (you can search for it through Google Books to see that it is used in an expressive manner/meaning), and the latter does but not in the exposition of Revelation rather in his exposition of 1 Thessalonians (https://biblenotes.online/resources/johngill/pdfsbk/1thessalonians.pdf) — which makes logical sense since 1 Thessalonians is the primary scriptural source of the (assumptive) Rapture theology. 666-93-666 (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

i quite agree 2600:1702:50B0:12D0:A5B9:7661:165C:88E2 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

New Discover Deleted

Hi @Remsense

Please advice why have you undo my update on new findings on Rapture which backed The reputable American Journal of Biblical Theology (AJBT) which is review by many Christian professor, and the books are also published by Christian Publishing House. Those are all reliable resources. Spanizh fly (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Precisely the same reason as given on Salvation in Christianity—there's no indication the Christian Publishing House in Cambridge, Ohio is a reputable publisher of reliable sources for these or any claims. They say as such on their website:

Christian Publishing House began in July 2005 with the aim of assisting Christians worldwide who lack a foundational grasp of biblical teachings. This deficiency hinders them from experiencing the complete joy of united worship with God. Our mission is to enable all Christians to deepen and broaden their comprehension of God’s Word, equipping them to apply it more effectively in their daily lives.

So, they're a devotional publisher of apologetics, not one of critical, peer-reviewed scholarship. Their open submissions page is further evidence, which should suffice for anyone on earth that getting an ISBN from them means precisely nothing for reliability. Remsense 🌈 论 13:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and the Journal of Biblical Theology likewise requires any articles submitted the Bible as [their] primary source of authority. Non-starter on self-attestation alone, never mind looking into any reputation among the scholarly community. Remsense 🌈 论 13:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The Journal of Biblical Theology is peer reviewed scholarship (academic) where the original research quoted is found and the book publisher reveals more of the author's work in that area. Christian religion itself is based on multiple views where one view contradicts the other doesn't matter. Spanizh fly (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Also your denial of a journal solely based on Bible as authority but claiming your own opinion against church fathers quotes as "peer reviewed research in journals" is absolutely what is wrong with progressive Christianity. Spanizh fly (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

In your “scholarship” claims, aren’t you just quoting a “pagan”, an “unbeliever”, a “non-Bible source” or even just “yourself”? Prove me wrong.” Spanizh fly (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Not really. As I made pretty plain above, the difference is that one mode of scholarship explicitly defers to confessional dogma as its a priori assumptions, while the other mode does not. That doesn't make the latter mode unbiased, but it does theoretically allow for the possibility that biases aren't completely baked into the scholarship by design. Remsense 🌈 论 14:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected the page for the next three days, due to a frenzy of editing regarding the latest Rapture meme. Whether or not the Rapture occurs tonight, I'm sure the remaining autoconfirmed editors will be more than capable of updating the article in the meantime. — The Anome (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Babysharkb☩ss2 ^(DEADMAU5) 15:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2025

I’d like to report a request because no one knows the time, hour, or day this will occur, biblically. WIKIMasterKias (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

It is unclear what you are asking for in your request.

Slomo666 (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

it didn't happen ofc

everyone knew it 2601:245:C87F:83B0:541D:A2FF:FE4E:E843 (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

This has been noted in the article. — The Anome (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality and sourcing in Greek etymology section

The Greek section has a passage that relies primarily on Douglas Hamp to argue that harpagēsometha should be understood as "plunder" rather than the standard "caught up/taken away." A few issues worth raising:

The passage describes Hamp as a "linguist," but he's better characterized as a fringe theologian — he doesn't represent mainstream biblical scholarship or Greek lexicography on this point. Per WP:RS, he's a weak foundation for a claim given this much real estate in the article.

There's also a WP:UNDUE problem. The "plunder" interpretation doesn't appear in mainstream scholarly treatments of 1 Thessalonians 4:17, yet it's presented here with the same weight as established readings.

And the reasoning itself — threading harpazō → "plunder" → Romans 8:19-21 → Isaiah 24:3 — reads as argument-building rather than a summary of what reliable sources say. That's WP:OR territory. I'd suggest either removing the passage or trimming it to a brief mention that some interpret the Greek differently, backed by a stronger source. Thoughts? Keumkang (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I have never encountered the term harpagēsometha, and I am a native Greek speeker. The typical meanings of the Greek term "αρπαγή" (harpage) is (depending on context) adduction, kidnapping, theft, taking something by force. See the English-Greek dictionary definition here. Dimadick (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2026 (UTC)