Mary Cole said:
http://www.raptureready.com/soap/baker15.html (Part 1) http://www.raptureready.com/soap/baker16.html (Part 2) http://www.raptureready.com/soap/baker17.html (Part 3) http://www.raptureready.com/soap/baker18.html (Part 4)
Mary, these articles are based on misinterpretations of Scriptures as well as unfounded speculations.
Habib Khoury said:
Mary Ann Hartzler said:
Gentlemen: It matters not how many times I and others show you the plain truth from Scripture, truth that shows your doctrine and teaching to be in error. You cling to the same, dissociative verses each time you try to prove your theories (theory, not truth). You deliberately misread, misinterpret, and misguide others by your erroneous teaching. Since God holds you to a higher standard of accountability, you should make doubly sure your teaching fits within the confines of God's Divinely "God-Breathed" Word.
You will never convince me that your tortured readings of Scripture are correct. I can see with my spiritual eyes, my physical eyes, and with the Holy Spirit bearing witness with my spirit that what you say does not track with the scripture verses you mangle to make them fit your theory. We can agree to disagree. However, so long as you keep posting untruth where I see it, I will continue to challenge this untruth with every fibre of my being.
MY RESPONSE: Mary Ann, you have convinced me that you are not interested in what the Bible actually says about the Abrahamic Covenant. You are quite insecure about rejecting your erroneous and heretical views. Therefore, you have developed antibiblical attitudes, as I repeatedly pointed that out to you during the course of our debate. You prefer your preconceived ideas over the Apostle Paul's interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant. It appears that you have a poloitical agenda in mind, which you are unwilling to part with for the sake of the Word of God. I must therefore warn the brethren against your heretical teachings: "Reject a factious man [or woman] after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man [or woman] is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned." (Tit. 3:10-11).
I am very sick right now - so I am only going to say this one thing and I am going back to bed.. Dr. Khoury, that last scripture you just said to Mary Ann... could actually apply to you as well. She has pointed out scripturally her case. I am not trying to be disrespectful to anybody. But Mary Ann is just fighting for what she believes in.. I thnk debate is a good thing --because it puts all the cards out on the table. I shouldn't have been so rude to her -because now I see where her heart is. And I have apologized to her.
But the real truth is -- you can't read the bible like a novel --and you can study it until your blue in the face --but at the end of the day --the Holy Spirit is they guy who has to teach it to you. It is Rhema... And as for me, just in case.... I am going to stick by Israel.. Just on the off chance that you are wrong --and that I would end up being in disobedience to God.
I'm not answering to God for turning my back and not praying for them. They are all alone in the world --and the bible does say that you don't stand idly by. Besides, I have a mad political crush on Netanyahu... He is one of the greatest leaders in the whole universe. That man has a heart of gold and shoulders of steel.. and I am right there beside him! But that's me.........
Linda - Please excuse me, as all I saw in the posting [by Lesli] was, what I quoted. This is what all, there was:
"Mary Ann - why don't you just grab and torch and pitchfork?? Maybe you can take Dr. Khoury out back and grill him for Sunday super...
I don't believe for one second that Dr. Khoury has a preconceived agenda! Damn! Step off the gas with that crap! He cares enough to answer each and every response with his knowledge of the bible.. And even if he were wrong - do you have to be so mean about it? Cant you just see what a beautiful heart this man has? You are hateful and judgmental.. and people like you are exactly why I do not go to church..."
I read the aforementioned comment by Lesli on page 7. You can check for yourself:
February 16, 2011 1:17:57 AM EST -- presently, on page 7 of this forum discussion.
Now, I will say that later on, after I posted this note to Lesli, I saw an apology of hers to Mary Ann. But, that reality does not negate my comment to Lesli, as my concern [and thrust of the comment] was for Lesli not to be discouraged from fellowshipping with other Christians. I believe that Lesli understands my comment intent, and, well meaning -- especially now that she responded.
Linda - Thank you for your concern. However, I feel that no apology is necessary, or, in order, as I was zeroing in on Lesli's one comment -- and the thrust of that comment, was my concern that her frustration not get the upper hand in preventing her from necessary Christian fellowship.
Habib -- Excellent summation! And, upon first reading of your 2 part posting
-- and, without, reading the proof passages, (following), I would have to say that I think your expose makes an excellent case why it is a dangerous [and, "damnable"] practice of Christians to give a "free pass" to the Jews of Modern Day Israel.
I will grant that [sadly so] the Jewish people have suffered greatly throughout history, but that one lone significant reality cannot be a legitimate reason [criterion] for allowing a "2 avenue approach" into Christ's heavenly Kingdom.
I will also, grant that modern day Israel is, basically, a "lone wolf," in the Middle East region and vulnerable to all her hateful Arab neighboring nations. [All the more reason for our USA to remain steadfast by our ally] But, just because Israel is so physically and militarily vulnerable -- that is no excuse for evangelizing Christians not to bring the Gospel to the modern day Jew, as they would be, as eager, to bring, that same, Gospel, to the Gentile world. The same focus must be, faith in Christ -- the only, way, truth and life. [John 14:6]
But, be that, as it may, having stated the aforementioned, I do find the following part of your expose, very interesting. It is, as if, you have no answer. [And, I'm not suggesting that you must have an answer, as Scripture states that there are some "secret things" of the Lord, that He does not disclose to His children and overall, creation - Duet. 29:29]
"........So, when will the Lord fulfill His promise of the Land? Certainly not in the current dispensation, because the Scriptures clearly state that for our dispensation the Kingdom of God is in the hearts of His believers and will be manifested in their daily lifestyles. Our Lord clearly declared that His Kingdom is not of this world. Therefore, the promise of the Land must have a future fulfillment in the Millennial Kingdom; because the Lord God cannot lie........"
Habib -- Perhaps, without realizing it -- you are so close to becoming an "Amillennialist." [Please don't take, offense] I can agree to what you say, here -- even the one paragraph, I quote from you, on the basis of Scripture. Does not Scripture say that when "all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll" [Isaiah 34:4] that the Lord God, will "create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind?" [Isaiah 65:17f]
How many times have you and I in our ministries comforted the dying with telling them that the suffering woes of this present troublesome world will not be recalled or remembered in the incomparable heaven where the Lord shall wipe away all tears?
[Note - My last paragraph is predicated upon heaven's spiritual realities [faith concluded, without our present, sight] -- the same kingdom of which Christ referenced, in his response to Pontius Pilate. [John 18:37]
To Mary Coles' last post with references to a page heading on the Rapture:
One thing that hinders me from giving concise responses is that I've been homeless for over a hear and don't have access to all of my studies on various topics we discuss; plus, one of my disks which had some very important studies I have done was destroyed. So I do the best I can with what I have.
Having said that, let me just say that the word "rapture" is no where found in the Bible, so our interpretation of what this rapture is would be suspect. Here is a little of what I have:
To begin this study, one must realize the origin and the purpose for the construction of the theological view concerning this concept of the rapture. The word rapture is to be found nowhere in the Bible. Therefore, any foundational teaching on it must be scrutinized.
During the Anti-bellum period, white preachers used the scriptures in the Bible as a means of control. For instance, it is even believed, today, that Ham was cursed as a black man (Gen 9:25). To be a black person was, and to some degree is, considered to be a curse from God, even though this is not true (see Fred K.C. Price’s documentary Race, Religion and Racism).
In his book, Dark Symbols, Obscure Signs: God, Self, and Community in the Slave Mind, Dr. Riggins R. Earl Jr., states:
The slave’s visionary account of his or her conversion has been viewed by scholars traditionally as being escapist in function and nature, the product of a childish imagination. Admittedly, there is the element of what scholars have preferred to call escapism, otherworldliness, in these stories. I have chosen to call it the element of radical dissociation. We are more capable of seeing the dialectical nature of the conversion story, perhaps, when that which has traditionally been understood as escapism is reassessed as radical dissociationalism. Radical dissociationalism requires that the convert has to be radically disengaged from the everyday world by the power of God in order to be commissioned for a radically new kind of moral engagement of it. It is the ethical imperative that grows out of this theory of radical dissociationalism that makes it dialectical in nature.
Historians of slave sources have failed to address critically the following question: Why did slaves, if they were only interested in the other world, believe that they had been commissioned as God’s moral agents to return to this immoral world? Has this question been avoided because of its profound theological implications? I would contend that the ethical imperative to be directly engaged, in the everyday world, is the climatic element of the conversion stories. It is the true sign, perhaps, of their authenticity. Had the slaves been merely indulging their childish imaginations, it would have made more sense for them to end their conversion stories with having been taken to heaven in a vision. This would have been understandable since there is a side in all of us that can be seduced by the “and they lived happily ever after” temptation.
Contrary to any such temptation, as real as it might have been, slaves claimed to have encountered the God who empowers the morally impotent of the world to be radically engaged in its moral transformation. This radical element, in my estimation, has been too long overlooked by the students of slave literature.
Riggins Earl explains that converts “could be certain about in their relationship with Jesus: that physical death could do no harm; since Jesus had taken the sting out of death. Despite the fact of the fear of death, slaves who had found Jesus were confident that he was Lord over death itself. The truly converted could joyfully say: ‘I am not afraid to die.’ ”
Slaves were also taught that the color white was associated with God (Revelation 2:14; 3:5; 6:2) and black was associated with evil or death. One requirement of the slave was for them to change their name from their original African name to a Christian name. “The slave was expected to be Christlike in deportment toward all superiors and other slaves. This was the genuine sign that God had truly converted the slave from the old African nature.”
What is happening here is that the slaves old identity is being taken away while a new identity is being formed and shaped. This new identity is one that would fit and benefit the slave owners.
Slaves were thought to be a by-product of God’s judgment of humankind to work by the sweat of their brows.
In a letter written from Lynn, Mass., dated April 28, 1845, Frederick Douglass wrote in part:
What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of “stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.” I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members...The man who robs me of my earnings at the end of the week meets me as a class-leader on Sunday morning, to show me the way of life, and the path of salvation. He who sells my sister, for purposes of prostitution, stands forth as the pious advocate of purity. He who proclaims it a religious duty to read the Bible denies me the right of learning to read the name of the God who made me. He who is the religious advocate of marriage robs whole millions of its sacred influence, and leaves them to the ravage of wholesale pollution. The warm defender of the sacredness of the family relation is the same that scatters whole families,—sundering husbands and wives, parents and children, sisters and brothers,—leaving the hut vacant, and the hearth desolate. We see the thief preaching against theft, and the adulterer against adultery. We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles for the poor heathen! All for the glory of God and the good of souls!
In a footnote in the book, Stony The Road We Trod, Cain Hope Felder writes that womanist ethicist and scholar Katie, G. Cannon,
argues that three ideological notions undergirded the exegetical strategies of the slaveholding apologists: (a) the charge that African Americans were not human; (b) the claim that God had foreordained black people to a life of subjugation and servitude to white people; and (c) the assumption that because the Bible does not expressly prohibit the bartering of human flesh, slavery, therefore, was not a violation of divine law.
It is common knowledge that American slaves were, in most places in America, forbidden to read or write as a method of control. As Cain Hope Felder states, “This black experience in American has certainly conditioned black interpretation of the Bible.”
When whites preached to blacks, the white preacher and the black congregation tended to interpret biblical events differently—the white preachers generally interpreted the biblical events figuratively while the black congregation interpreted the events more literally. Blacks tended to view the biblical events more from a experiential historical perspective, relating these events to their own lives and their own situations.
The black preacher would tell the stories of the Exodus and the liberation from bondage out of Egypt, or of the three Hebrew “boys” in the fiery furnace, of the dry bones coming back to life, or of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. These stories gave them hope both in the current situation they were in, and in the hope of an expected end.
The “rapture” motif is an attempt at an eschatological interpretation of the Bible vs. the usual creation or liberation motif most black slaves embraced. During the 18th century, many blacks began to embrace Christianity. Blacks began to interpret the Bible in their own way according to their own circumstances. As James Weldon Johnson states, “...the religion which implied the hope that in the next world there would be a reversal of conditions...”
James Cone recognizes this fact. In his book A Black Theology Of Liberation, he points out the emphasis of the hope of the death of the body to be present with the Lord—the hope of living in “the sweet bye-and-bye; the hope of an eschatological spiritual life vrs. the present life in this black sinful body, preached by black preachers and pastors, was actually due to this teaching by the white masters as an attempt to keep the slaves servile in their present condition. Cone writes further:
Heaven cannot mean accepting injustice of the present because we know we have a home over yonder. Home is where we have been placed now, and to believe in heaven is to refuse to accept hell on earth. This is one dimension of the future that cannot be sacrificed.
This is really the origin and the intent of the concept of the “rapture.” It was intended as a means to keep the slaves in bondage, while focusing their hope on a future expectation instead of an immediate one.
According to the definition of the word “rapture,” found on the Wikipedia web site, it is the name “given to the future event in which it is believed that Jesus Christ will descend from Heaven, accompanied by the spirits of all the saints of God, both from the pre-incarnation period and after, who have passed on prior to the rapture, and then the bodies of the saints are joined with their spirits in a resurrection- the First Resurrection- to meet the Lord. Immediately after this, all true Christians alive on the earth are simultaneously transported to meet the Lord and those who have preceded them in the air as well, all, having been transformed into immortal bodies like Jesus’ body, often referred to as the “resurrection of the body.”
Many refer to this as the “second resurrection,” or the “second coming” of the Lord Jesus Christ. Question: if one is to believe in the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and think that it is a future event, there is a problem with that: namely, if one believes that the “second coming” it yet to come, than they are either saying 1) that Jesus Christ never came as God-in-the-flesh; or 2) they are saying that they have never received Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.