What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

    Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

    Read The Gospel Online.

Why I want to be left behind

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00
Donate View
K

Kathi

Member
http://www.christianpost.com/news/why-i-want-to-be-left-behind-126835/
Why I want to be left behind

  • left-behind-movie-poster.jpg

    (Photo: Stoney Lake Entertainment)
    The official movie poster for "Left Behind" starring Nicolas Cage.
enlarge4.png

"Left Behind" comes out this week, an apocalyptic thriller starring Nicolas Cage. Based on the best-selling book series, the movie revolves around "the rapture": a belief that one day all Christians will suddenly vanish, disappearing from the earth to go be with God, while the world they "left behind" plunges into apocalyptic destruction.
Americans may find "Left Behind" to be best-selling entertainment, but is it biblical? I say no. In fact, as a follower of Jesus I find the rapture to be not just a little bit off, but actually upside-down and backwards.
When Jesus comes, here are a few reasons why I want to be left behind.
A Recent Invention
The rapture is new to the Christian scene. It arose in the late 1800's, when Margaret MacDonald, a fifteen-year-old Scottish girl, claimed to have it revealed to her in a vision. Her vision was then picked up and popularized by the famous British preacher J.N. Darby, during his extensive travels in America.
All love to the high school prom queen and traveling street preacher, but this is a suspiciously short track record for nearly 2000 years of Christian theology.
Okay, so it's new. But does it have any biblical support? Let's take a look at the two passages most frequently cited and see if they hold any weight.
Don't Get Taken
The name "Left Behind" comes from the words of Jesus, when he says:
"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man . . . Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left." (Matthew 24:37-41)
Pretty straightforward, right? Son of Man shows up. Some are taken. Some are left behind.
The problem is this: taken means killed.
If you lived "in the days of Noah," getting taken by the flood wasn't a good thing. It didn't mean being rescued, it meant getting taken out. Dead. Gone. Killed. Knocked over by the judgment of God. Wiped out by the flood.
Jesus confirms this when he says, smack-dab in the heart of this passage, that before the flood came people were partying it up in the empire: eating sushi and drinking wine, throwing glitzy wedding bashes, rockin' out and living high off the hog.
"They knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away."
If you lived in Noah's day, you didn't want to get taken. You wanted to be left behind.
So when rapture enthusiasts say they can't wait to get "taken," I can't help but think of Inigo Montoya's penetrating slogan from "The Princess Bride": "You keep on using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
Jesus tells us that taken means judged; left behind means salvation.
I, for one, want to be left behind.
The King's Arrival
The second passage most often used to support the rapture comes when Paul comforts people who've lost loved ones with the hope of resurrection. When Jesus returns, we're told, the trumpet will sound and:
The dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)
At first glance, this <em>could</em> look like "the rapture." But if the rapture is such a recent theological invention, how was this passage historically understood?
N. T. Wright gives some helpful context. In the ancient Roman Empire, when the emperor came to visit a city, upon word of his arrival those loyal to the emperor would leave the city to go out and meet him, in order to join the triumphant procession back in.1
So the picture here is similar: the earth is under siege, under the corrupt power of sin, destruction and death. But Jesus, the "good emperor," is returning to "liberate his city," to deliver God's world from the dark and disastrous powers that now hold sway.
When Jesus comes "down from heaven" in verse 16, his loyal followers go out to meet him "in the air" – not to stay floating in some ethereal sky-space like mutant birds, but to join his victorious procession to liberate the world.
Jesus comes not to whisk us out of earth and into heaven, but to establish God's just and righteous kingdom on earth as in heaven.
Once again, "Left Behind" gets it upside-down: our redemptive hope is oriented not "away from" this world, but "towards" it.
Conclusion
Don't get "taken" by rapture theology; you want to be "left behind." The irony is that "Left Behind" is not just a little bit off, it is completely backwards. Our hope is not "in the air," it is in Jesus' redemptive kingdom "for the world."
The danger of "Left Behind's" impact is this: it uses fear to set up an "us vs. them," "save yourself," escapist hope of "beam me up Scotty and get me out of this world." But as I show in my new book, The Skeletons in God's Closet (shameless plug ), God's mission is not to get us out of earth and into heaven or hell, but rather to redeem earth from the destructive power of sin, death and hell.
Our hope is not escapist or fear-based for our own self-preservation. It is courageously loving, sacrificially suffering, redemptively hopeful for the world
When Jesus comes to establish God's kingdom, I for one want to be here.
I want to be left behind.
 
Kathi said:
Don't Get Taken
The name "Left Behind" comes from the words of Jesus, when he says:
"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man . . . Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left." (Matthew 24:37-41)
Pretty straightforward, right? Son of Man shows up. Some are taken. Some are left behind.
The problem is this: taken means killed.
If you lived "in the days of Noah," getting taken by the flood wasn't a good thing. It didn't mean being rescued, it meant getting taken out. Dead. Gone. Killed. Knocked over by the judgment of God. Wiped out by the flood.
Jesus confirms this when he says, smack-dab in the heart of this passage, that before the flood came people were partying it up in the empire: eating sushi and drinking wine, throwing glitzy wedding bashes, rockin' out and living high off the hog.
"They knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away."
If you lived in Noah's day, you didn't want to get taken. You wanted to be left behind.
So when rapture enthusiasts say they can't wait to get "taken," I can't help but think of Inigo Montoya's penetrating slogan from "The Princess Bride": "You keep on using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
Jesus tells us that taken means judged; left behind means salvation.
I, for one, want to be left behind.
Click to expand...
I understand the shaky ground that the rapture idea is based on, but this is a very poor interpretation of this scripture. When studied in the original language, it does NOT say what this article is claiming it says! The words translated to taken or took, etc are not even the same words in Greek, and none of them mean to be killed unless the context gives them that meaning. This is much like saying since the English phrase "death took him" means someone died, therefore also saying "my friend took me" can't mean my friend took me to the store (or whatever) but must mean my friend killed me. This doesn't make sense.
 
Obadiah said:
I understand the shaky ground that the rapture idea is based on, but this is a very poor interpretation of this scripture. When studied in the original language, it does NOT say what this article is claiming it says! The words translated to taken or took, etc are not even the same words in Greek, and none of them mean to be killed unless the context gives them that meaning. This is much like saying since the English phrase "death took him" means someone died, therefore also saying "my friend took me" can't mean my friend took me to the store (or whatever) but must mean my friend killed me. This doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
I can understand what you are saying.I of course do not support the article because I am pretrib but I thought many on CF could relate.
 
nt wright is post mil and in short Im not but while any position of the end is always going to have issues. this is close to what I believe
 
Obadiah said:
I understand the shaky ground that the rapture idea is based on, but this is a very poor interpretation of this scripture. When studied in the original language, it does NOT say what this article is claiming it says! The words translated to taken or took, etc are not even the same words in Greek, and none of them mean to be killed unless the context gives them that meaning. This is much like saying since the English phrase "death took him" means someone died, therefore also saying "my friend took me" can't mean my friend took me to the store (or whatever) but must mean my friend killed me. This doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Luk 17:36 two men shall be in the field, the one shall be taken, and the other left.'
Luk 17:37 And they answering say to him, `Where, sir?' and he said to them, `Where the body is , there will the eagles be gathered together.'

An eagle is a bird of prey, so that doesn't sound to good to me.


 
kiwidan said:
The limited few. I guess Noahs family could have just come to the conclusion he had gone insane building some mammoth boat on bare land, i mean, that is weird, but they decided to trust Noah.
Click to expand...
Noah and his family were ridiculed terribly for building that arc.The people of their day thought they were crazy.
 
yup me too...... many believe there was no rain on earth yet.. Mist or fog yes but no rain.. :shrug
 
Last edited:
Matthew 24
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


When the flood waters came, all nonbelievers were destroyed. The only ones who survived the flood were God's chosen.

At the coming of Christ, spiritual conditions will be identical to those of the days of Noah. When the flood waters came, the wicked were destroyed. At the coming of Christ, the wicked will also be destroyed. There will be no "left behind" because as in the days of Noah, all who were not on the Ark were destroyed. Nobody got a second chance.

Here is why I believe as I do.

2 Thessalonians 2
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,


Being destroyed by the flood waters and being destroyed by the brightness of His coming are the same thing. The only survivors of the coming of Christ are the ones caught up just prior to His appearing.

Many believe there will be a 7 year period after the catching up in which the beast will persecute the saints. But scripture says the beast will be destroyed at His coming.

As in the days of Noah......nobody gets a second chance.
.
 
Take a moment or 5 and ask yourself..who would have the most to gain by propagating the rapture doctrine..... why would they create it.. as a diversion perhaps.. then why would someone find it necessary to create such a diversion?

tob
 
kiwidan said:
They create it i guess because that is how they read scipture in a certain context. I have lost count the amount of times i have changed my mind the more i study and learn. Just a bit lesser of a fool than before.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup

One the few beliefs I still hold since becoming a Christian is: "Jesus is Lord". I've had to make a few adjustments in my thinking over the years.
 
turnorburn said:
Take a moment or 5 and ask yourself..who would have the most to gain by propagating the rapture doctrine..... why would they create it.. as a diversion perhaps.. then why would someone find it necessary to create such a diversion?

tob
Click to expand...
Who do you think would get the most gain out of a diversion of the rapture doctrine?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top