Raptures In The Movies

[Adziílií]

.
I've watched a number of films pertaining to the rapture and every one of them left
out the part where the remains of 2,000 years of deceased believers from all over
the globe will be restored to life.

The films also left out the part where folks unified with Christ rise into the air to
meet him. Instead the films showed them here one second and gone the next, but I
rather suspect the event should be easily observed all 'round the world if it
proceeds as described because 2,000 years of believers added to the world's
current number of believers, will likely construct a flash mob resembling a mini Oort
Cloud when they levitate together all at one time to rendezvous with Christ up in
the sky.

The mob is likely to get pretty noisy too what with all the cheering, laughing, and
shouting that's sure to take place when Jesus' followers receive their new bodies;
which of course will be immune to death and the aging process. (1Cor 15:51-53)

* The blink component of the rapture pertains to the quickness of the miraculous
transformation that Jesus' followers will undergo during the event. (1Cor 15:51-52)

The films also showed tiny children being taken while their parents are left behind.
That's highly doubtful because minors have often been collateral damage in the
Bible when God slammed their parents, e.g. zero children survived the Flood, and
120,00 would've been lost had God found it necessary to follow thru with His threat
to annihilate Nineveh. (Jonah 4:11)

NOTE: People left behind shouldn't let the rapture cause them panic because it isn't
the end of the world. They can still get themselves spared retribution and perdition,
i.e. it's not like all hope is lost. In point of fact, vast numbers of folks from all over
the globe will be spared during the interlude between the rapture and Christ's feet
touching down on the ground to set up the kingdom conditions predicted by the
prophets in the old testament. (Rev 7:9-14)
_

 

[Tall Timbers]

* The blink component of the rapture pertains to the quickness of the miraculous
transformation that Jesus' followers will undergo during the event. (1Cor 15:51-52)

That's an interesting observation. In my mind's eye I always imagined "here one moment, gone the next". I like the idea of the sounds of joy on the way up. If we could have seen the Rapture of those who were fortunate to go that way before us it might give us an idea of how things will go when the Church is taken.

The films also showed tiny children being taken while their parents are left behind.
That's highly doubtful because minors have often been collateral damage in the
Bible when God slammed their parents, e.g. zero children survived the Flood, and
120,00 would've been lost had God found it necessary to follow thru with His threat
to annihilate Nineveh. (Jonah 4:11)

Most speculate that children below some age of accountability will be included in the Rapture. Like you, I've noticed the plight of children in events in the Old Testament so can not lay my hat on the idea that children won't be left behind. A good argument can be made for either case. @mattfivefour has presented the best argument I've ever read/heard for children being included. It's posted somewhere on this site among the many thousands of posts. I still wasn't convinced and am content to wait and see how things play out. I'm able to trust God with those questions. He knows best.

 

[Baby Yoda]

Most speculate that children below some age of accountability will be included in the Rapture. Like you, I've noticed the plight of children in events in the Old Testament so can not lay my hat on the idea that children won't be left behind. A good argument can be made for either case.

Agree it could be either way, but when you think about tiny children, they would most likely be killed in the Trib before having a chance to grow up and accept Jesus.

 

[Kem]

f we could have seen the Rapture of those who were fortunate to go that way before us it might give us an idea of how things will go when the Church is taken.

Well the disciples watched Jesus go up and Elisha watched Elijah to up in a chariot of fire. I have always understood the transformation to be instant but have always imagined that people will watch us go up also. Always thought I was the only one who thought this but glad to see that Adz thinks so too. Sorry Adz, I can't do the special characters that are in your name. I hope I'm not being offensive.

 

[Adziílií]

Sorry Adz, I can't do the special characters that are in your name. I hope I'm not being offensive.

Adz is close enough.

BTW: Adziílií is the name of one of my eight Navajo nieces. It means power in
English. I call her Zee for short. She's very active. I think she might actually be a
fourth PowerPuff Girl.
_

 

[TCC]

Great considerations @Adziílií I could understand children in both context. Like the Old Testiment age in which the law pointed to Christ to make a point needed. And in the NT age, we are under the New Covenant by contrast. So in that respect it would make sense that the Old Testiment era children would be part of the "repsonsibility owned by mankind" age -- meaning a time where humanity is shown why Christ to come would be needed. The accountability man has toward God. In this way, children under the care of the adult responsibility would make most sense. Whereas under the New Covenant, the focus is on His righteousness needed. Which transcends responsibility of both parent and child (in the sense that, yes, the responsibility to respond to the gospel is present...but the focus is in the "Who," His Son by contrast in general).

In any event the whole of scripture testifies of Christ. But OT/NT ages seem to operate differently in orientation to a pre and post cross era. I guess the way I would see it is that it would make sense for children to be understood under the care of parents in the Old Testiment era because that was during a time when mankind needed to understand our responsibility toward the law of God and that we fall short. Whereas the NT era focus in mirror reflection upon children would be (not that they are not under parental raising and responsibility) considerable under Christ making a big deal about being like a child. Not hindering the coming of them to Him. Likely more than just a teaching tool about humility. And possibly overture to doctrine revealed in how a soberminded sound God would see humanity.

In that respect, death of a village or city or people under OT judgement would fall upon the responsibility of parents. And consequetially even the death of their children. A statement of absolute grave notice of our condition in general. Whereas post cross era does have the added insights of Christ toward children (accenting God's notice of age of consent). So it would appear that the age of consent be something later disclosed doctrinally more clear. Since the foundation principles of mankind's accountability before God in OT era was the rubric, the age of consent as a parenthetical would seem to tend to dilute the grave intent that points out the overall need of Christ for all people of all ages. It would seem a statement belonging to "accountability" would be less clear if parenthesis of "age of accountability" were to be factored in that a long side the law (in the old testament era).

So like a total and compete picture of the devistation of sin in the OT era would seem to be the reason why age of accountability not be so much the focus (at least in the OT era and what God was highlighting as a focus for those days). But once completely canonized, the parenthetical could provide import upon the deeper heart of God (something further revealed later in the NT era). Similar I reckon to only knowing so much about God as the OT books were disclosing Him to the Israeli world for 1500 years. And then Israel's devastating lack of orientation toward the visitation timing of their own Messiah. Because that much by then had been revealed. And ironically so too all of the OT canon too by then. In that sense they (the Jews of the 1st century) had a complete picture for the purpose of their first century age to understand God's Son coming (or in their THEN understanding, their Messiah). In like fashion, we have Christ revealing the Father in His presence on earth and the NT documentation of that. We now know more about Him. Much more than before Christ came physically to show the Father.

In some ways this might be seen to add even more responsibility to parents over their children (because by then more had been revelaed). And perhaps in ways it does, amen. But the NT age reburic we are in and under now seems to have more weight than the operating principles existing on either side of the cross (because we have had 500 more years than Israal did with their 1500 years in grappling with the very word of God). Like a Galatians 4:1-7 kind of thing. Not necessarily trying to do some inverse of Gal 4 (that Gal 4 means that children are to our age now direct heirs even as Israel was before God under an OT tutor). But merely just barrowing the principle of import God Hismelf places on the before and after the cross eras. How, as a spiritual rubric, there are differences. The theme of needing to overly state the responsibility of parents is not so needed after such full revelation (that would further come in the NT) that children need to be extensions of bad parental stewardship. So in that sense, if God runs more these days with age of accountability in respect to such an inagmatic unprecidented theme such as an age of tribulation, it could be understood He might. Will He though? We have no comparison though. The tribulation will be a new age for the world to experience. So I don't believe it can be tested in scipture. Like mentioned, I think a case can be made for both.

An interesting thought from Matt 24:19 -- 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!

Interesting it does not say, "And young children." This of course is an argument out of silence. And therefore can only be so weighty. But if you have a 3 or 4 year old, it would be difficult at the midpoint for them too. My guess is the emphasis Mat 24 gives is for an echo reminder back to the destruction of the temple (to future come at the time of preaching) and the historically embedded drama/horror highlighted in respect to pregnancy in Jews under temple seizure/destruction (as well as perhaps underscoring the horrific themes captured in Lamentations regarding newborns and Israel's THEN famine). I guess my overall point on that would be that we don't see mention of young children in Matt 24 (when there might have been an opportunity to do so). Could that imply young children are not around? An argument from silence is not very strong. But kind of an interesting point though to consider.

I would say what has been revealed to us of God's heart in canon, it would likely be that children will be raptured...sparing them from an age designed for punishment and refinement. So on that note I would go with children rapturing because of the character of God. However, the rapture rubric is for those who died in the Lord and for those alive in the Lord). And theme of the rapture is centric toward those in Christ -- with a highlight on new creations in Christ. So if God goes with the overarching themes of the rapture pointing to Christ, as in: those in Him, then it would make sense in that thematic message that those in Christ be the more pronounced one. For on that note, and in that sense, it would seem that children not known to be in Christ being raptured could cloud the prestine emphasis of the rapture testimony being "those in Christ." And then of course, to the glory of Christ it might be that children (in Christ's empathy toward humanity in general) do rapture because of His empathy for mankind...Christ considering that those who are prior to the age of consent are protected under Christ as being in Christ. An impossible thing for us to know clearly. But helpful spiritual fodder to consider about our Great God and how He distinguishes. Thanks for the consideration on this matter. Blessings.