Nathan, I certainly wouldn't base any of my doctrinal beliefs on the Apostles' Creed, since it is not the Word of God.
Nathan and Habib, you are handling the text of Romans 9:8 incorrectly. Please read that verse IN CONTEXT (NASB):
3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,
5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
9 For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON."
Notice that Paul is grieved for his kinsmen, "Israelites to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen."
This seems pretty clear to me...Paul believed that his kinsmen, who rejected the Messiah, were still children of promise, that Christ descended from those children of promise, that those same Christ-rejecting Jews are "God blessed forever." Paul said this, I didn't. Upon the heels of Rom. 9:8 comes 9:9 where Paul spells out exactly what the promise is, that Sarah shall have a son. Clearly Paul is talking about the son of promise, Isaac. How can you dismiss the clear meaning of this text? To do so is "HERESY," to quote Habib. It is obvious that the children of the flesh refer to Abraham's other offspring, not those children through the line of promise--through Isaac and through Jacob.
Habib misunderstands the difference between the children of promise and things sacred. Just because Israelites are sons of promise does not automatically make them sacred or automatically make them believers. Certainly, one day the unbelieving children will be believers (Ezek. 36; Zech. 12), but that is God's concern, not ours.
You two are acting like the brother of the prodigal son, jealous that the Father killed the fatted calf when the prodigal returned (Luke 15:11-32).
Lesli K said:
I am not trying to be disrespectful or anything, but I completely disagree with you on that Dr. Khoury.. I have a lot of respect for you.. but I think we have to support Israel.. I think it is Key in the end times and Revelations.. My father raised me from birth to support them.. and to pray for them. It even says in Revelations that there will be a great revival --and that 188 thousand of them will evangelize the world. I will have to find that one.. but I know it says it because I have read it. I am not a bible scholar - but I know what I feel in my heart and from what I have been taught my whole life. Not only that, even if it wasn't something that God wanted from me, I would still do it. I feel for them.. And I love Netanyahu so much. Even if what you are saying is true and I had no God-given obligation -- I have a moral obligation to support them. A Lesli-given obligation to support them. Anyway, that is how I feel about it..MY RESPONSE: Lesli, you are a fine woman (better with more discipline), and it never occured to me that you are being disrespectful by asking a question or by disagreeing with me. However, make sure that your disagreement with me is not also a disagreement with the Word of God. Now you have much material from me on this subject, both here and in my blog. Take the time to look up these passages in the Bible and see FOR YOURSELF whether the Bible actually says so.
Let the teaching of the New Testament on the subject prevail over your feelings and correct all error. Many modern pastors were taught in college and/or seminary the view that Mary Ann is advocationg here. I, too, was taught this erroneous viewpoint in college, not seminary. I embraced it and preached it for several years. However, certain statements in the New Testament caused me to question what I was preaching and to revisit the subject. You have here the benefit of that labor of love.
I welcome any further questions you might have.
Roy Hartzler said:
"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: May they prosper who love you." Psalm 122:6
MY RESPONSE: The verse you quoted here is in reference to Ancient Israel, not modern Israel. However, I pray for modern Israel as I pray for Arab and Muslim nations, simply because the New Testament commands us to do so.
Mary Ann Hartzler said:
Nathan, I certainly wouldn't base any of my doctrinal beliefs on the Apostles' Creed, since it is not the Word of God.
Nathan and Habib, you are handling the text of Romans 9:8 incorrectly. Please read that verse IN CONTEXT (NASB):
3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,
5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
9 For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON."
Notice that Paul is grieved for his kinsmen, "Israelites to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen."
This seems pretty clear to me...Paul believed that his kinsmen, who rejected the Messiah, were still children of promise, that Christ descended from those children of promise, that those same Christ-rejecting Jews are "God blessed forever." Paul said this, I didn't. Upon the heels of Rom. 9:8 comes 9:9 where Paul spells out exactly what the promise is, that Sarah shall have a son. Clearly Paul is talking about the son of promise, Isaac. How can you dismiss the clear meaning of this text? To do so is "HERESY," to quote Habib. It is obvious that the children of the flesh refer to Abraham's other offspring, not those children through the line of promise--through Isaac and through Jacob.
Habib misunderstands the difference between the children of promise and things sacred. Just because Israelites are sons of promise does not automatically make them sacred or automatically make them believers. Certainly, one day the unbelieving children will be believers (Ezek. 36; Zech. 12), but that is God's concern, not ours.
You two are acting like the brother of the prodigal son, jealous that the Father killed the fatted calf when the prodigal returned (Luke 15:11-32).MY RESPONSE: I agree that doctrine must be extracted fully and exclusively from the Bible. Other sources are merely informative, not didactic.
With all due respect, Mary Ann, you are misunderstanding the passage by twisting and ignoring some of what it says, which erroneous method leads to your false conclusions. Let me explain:
1. Bible: they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants
You disagree: This seems pretty clear to me...Paul believed that his kinsmen, who rejected the Messiah, were still children of promise,
I am confident that the Father would welcome every Jew that would come to Him through Jesus Christ. However, until the Jew comes to Christ, he is under God's judgment (John 3:36); he is not an heir of the Abrahamic Covenant. I have already elaborated on this at length. In Ancient Israel, only those who had the faith of Abraham were like Isaac the children of promise. Isaac is an Old Testament type of Christ: “And you brethren, like Isaac [not like the 12 tribes of Israel], are children of promise.” (Galatians 4:28).
Habib Khoury said:
Roy Hartzler said:
"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: May they prosper who love you." Psalm 122:6MY RESPONSE: The verse you quoted here is in reference to Ancient Israel, not modern Israel. However, I pray for modern Israel as I pray for Arab and Muslim nations, simply because the New Testament commands us to do so.
MY RESPONSE : How dare you say that this verse is only for Ancient Israel, not modern Israel. In which part of the New Testament does the Word of God specifically tell us that ? I try to hold my peace and not be judgemental, but I cannot be quiet on such twisted logic and doctrine, not to say you are misleading and 'teaching' the wrong stuff.
Habib Khoury, you have just earned my discredit for anything you have to say about the Scripture.
*This will be my last and final post on this thread.
Ok, everybody, take a deep breath and relax. Obviously, there are some who are putting their "feelings," "emotions," and ideas which they believe which they formed from what they were taught and exrepssing them with sincerity. One of the problems, as Dr. Khoury stated, is that even in Seminary, we are taught according to tradition and not what is actually being stated in the scripture. Too often, professor's miss the context in which the scriptures are informing the reader. There are so many different Theological Criticism's-(historical, literary, scientific, hermeneutical, teleological, eschatalogical,) just to name a few- that sometimes our ability to correctly interpret scripture becomes difficult.
So at this point, since there doesn't seem to be an agreement on whether Israel is currently considered to be the "children of the promise," let's just agree to disagree on that subject and move on. I'm sure Dr. Khoury (and myself included) don't have enough time to gather our resources and teach on the topic; and even if we did, we would be discussing (because, thank-God nobody so far in this forum is arguing or getting upset and in a tissy), this subject ad nauseum.
Crystal Jades said:
Habib Khoury said:
Roy Hartzler said:
"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: May they prosper who love you." Psalm 122:6MY RESPONSE: The verse you quoted here is in reference to Ancient Israel, not modern Israel. However, I pray for modern Israel as I pray for Arab and Muslim nations, simply because the New Testament commands us to do so.
MY RESPONSE : How dare you say that this verse is only for Ancient Israel, not modern Israel. In which part of the New Testament does the Word of God specifically tell us that ? I try to hold my peace and not be judgemental, but I cannot be quiet on such twisted logic and doctrine, not to say you are misleading and 'teaching' the wrong stuff.
Habib Khoury, you have just earned my discredit for anything you have to say about the Scripture.
*This will be my last and final post on this thread.
Crystal, thank you for responding to one of my posts. In my latest post addressed to Jonathan I showed the distinction between Ancient Israel and Modern Israel. There is no evidence that Modern Israel is one and the same as Ancient Israel. Would you please show me how these statements are illogical and misleading? Thank you for doing so.
Greg - Thanks for your most recent posting on this subject.
I hold an amellenial view of the end times. I'm convinced that it is the only interpretation that is in harmony with all the Scriptures on the subject of the "end." The amillenial view is directed by sound [and logical] principles of Biblical interpretation. It's priority is to consider the clear passages about the end, and allow that Scripture to interpret the more obscure passages, rather then the other way around, bending [whether intentional or intentional] the difficult and obscure passages to cram into a fanciful woven theory, to fit with an earthly reign of Christ. [Please note - Christ's answer to Pontius Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world."]
Furthermore, I suspect that many who have contributed to this forum hold some type of millennial view. Millennial views are many and varied, ranging from allowing 2 avenues of salvation and bringing back animal sacrifice. I remember switching through the TV channels and pausing, as the Rev. John Hagee was pointing to his charts. [Bible on the podium]
So for me to further contribute to this forum subject, (holding to an amilleniel view), would be fruitless. As the old adage states: "A person convinced against his own will, is of the same opinion, still."
Mary Ann - My apologies for mentioning the wrong creed to my reference of Christ, coming to judge the living and the dead. I, rather, intended to say, the "Nicene Creed."
And, finally, contrary to you thinking that I draw my doctrinal beliefs from the two creeds -- that, is not so. However, having stated that, I do believe the Creeds briefly summarize and correctly reflect the Bible's major teachings.
When Jehovah Witnesses rap on my house's front door, I greet them and cut them off "at the pass," by asking them: "Do you subscribe to the two major creeds of the Christian Faith [Religion] -- The Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed?" When they pause and attempt to evade the question, I let them know that I fully subscribe to the 2 creeds and that I have nothing in common with what they are attempting to peddle. I then, kindly, wish them a "Good day!"
"Remember your covenant with your servants—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You swore by your own self, ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven. Yes, I will give them all of this land that I have promised to your descendants, and they will possess it forever.’”
I'm having trouble seeing why we shouldn't support Israel in the land that God has given it forever.
And Genesis 12:3 "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. All the families of the earth will be blessed through you.”
Jonathan -- you only quote one verse, to make your point, having disregarded the context of Genesis 17. Check out the "condition" of the Promise:
Gen 17:9: "And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations."
Gen 17:10: "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised." [KJV]
Jonathan - One key to understanding Gen. 12:3 is that part which says: "........and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." The words, 'in thee," refers to the promise of Christ, the Messiah, Jesus Christ - Acts 3. 25-26; and, Gal. 3:16. Granted, that God promised Abraham, that he would materially bless him and his descendants, but many people ignore the most important part -- that, namely, the spiritual blessings that would be theirs by faith in the Jewish Messiah.
Years ago, I was privileged to hear the late Rev. Ern Baxter preach a series of messages on Israel, just before they clamored for a king, like all the other nations. The sermon series also included the kingship of Saul and the arrival of King David. Rev. Baxter's series highlighted Israel continually breaking God's covenant. I wrote the stages of their action in the front part of my RSV Bible. The various stages which Israel would go through, and then return, again, are as follows:
Visitation / Violation / Declension / Judgment / Repentance
The above stages could also be labeled God's Dealings with people and their response.
Finally, I'll revert back to the aforementioned, very first sentence, and the Scripture that supports the reality that God's Promise to Israel was, with "condition," of which, the Israelites continued to break the whole of their history. And, as a consequence, the Lord God allowed them to be carried into the captivity of Babylon; later to be oppressed by the Romans.
By the time of the Roman captivity, the Lord God ushered in John the Baptist and Christ. A new "dispensation" occurred. St. Paul (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit), in his writings, explains about the spiritual promise of faith -- the same faith that Abraham, had, in order to receive the Promise [of the Savior / Messiah] Christ. But, for the most part, the Jews, continued in their sin of rejection, looking for a global (physical) savior. And, then, they did the utmost nasty, along with the Romans, nailing the Messiah to the Cross. [This is not to say that all humanity did not play their part in doing the same, because of our sin, of which Christ suffered and died for. Therefore, all people, Jews and Gentiles, are guilty of putting Christ, on the cross]
I'm convinced that many Gentiles, have adopted [at least, in part and to a certain degree] a vision of the future for the Messiah. That's one of the major reasons for the various millennial theories.........
Finally, according to 1 Timothy 2:1-4 -- every Christian is commanded and obligated to pray for all people -- especially those, in authority. As a US citizen, I respect the State of Israel and especially its leader Benjamin Netanyahu. And, because Israel is a precious ally of the United States, I am all for, its financial and moral -- even military support. But to ascribe to the modern state of Israel, a special status, that, I believe is not Biblical, and gives Israel a special status before the Lord, that was lost, is simply misguided. The Jewish nation [people] lost their unique privilege because of their repeated sins against the covenant that had been established.
Jonathan Cousar said:
"Remember your covenant with your servants—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You swore by your own self, ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven. Yes, I will give them all of this land that I have promised to your descendants, and they will possess it forever.’”
I'm having trouble seeing why we shouldn't support Israel in the land that God has given it forever.
And Genesis 12:3 "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. All the families of the earth will be blessed through you.”
MY RESPONSE: The promise of the Land was not given to a Jewish State. It was given to Abraham the believer and to all who have the faith of Abraham. The claim that it was promised to a Jewish State has no Biblical grounds. It also makes the Lord God look like He has broken His promise to Abraham. This, because the Jewish State, not even Ancient Israel, NEVER occupied all the Land promised to Abraham and the believers. For example, Lebanon NEVER was part of a Jewish State, although a beautiful part of the Land promised to Abraham.
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 must have a future fulfillment; because the Lord God cannot lie. Here is an excerpt from my article THE FULFILLMENT OF THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT:
7. ABRAHAM POSSESSES
ALL THE LAND OF CANAAN
Father Abraham believed God’s promise, though he did not receive it during his life span. He was one of the giants of the faith who “having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us [believers in Christ], so that apart from us [believers in Christ] they would not be made perfect.” (Hebrews 11:39, 40). The promise requires the completion of the salvation of all who would receive the Savior, and will be fulfilled in the future Millennial Kingdom of Christ. The Lord Jesus, the Seed of Abraham, is the Prince who will acquire the land and will give it to His believers, the true children of Abraham, for an everlasting possession.
8. THE LAND OF CANAAN: AN EVERLASTING
POSSESSION OF ABRAHAM’S DESCENDANTS
Neither Abraham nor his physical descendants ever possessed all the land of Canaan. While Lebanon is part of the geographical land of Canaan promised by the Lord God to Father Abraham and his descendants, Ancient Israel NEVER included Lebanon. Thus, the popular claim (misinterpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant) that this promise to Father Abraham calls unconditionally for a Jewish State, cannot free itself from the heretical stigma of attributing failure to the Lord God. Likewise is the case with those who deny the future one-thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. On the other side, the New Testament interpretation asserting that this promise will be fulfilled in a Christian Theocratic State, in the upcoming Millennium, asserts God’s promise to Father Abraham as precious and unfailing.
9. I WILL BE THE GOD OF
YOUR DESCENDANTS
Those who have the faith of Father Abraham are the true descendants of Father Abraham; the God of Abraham is their God. Those who do not have the faith of Father Abraham, in God’s sight, are not Abraham’s descendants, regardless of physical descent. They follow after strange gods. The God of Abraham is not their God.
In addition, much like their Father Abraham, all the believers in Christ are called upon to separate themselves from all ungodliness, to consecrate themselves onto the Lord their God, and to demonstrate to the world, through godly lifestyles and relationships, that they indeed are the chosen children of God: “ ‘Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,’ says the Lord. ‘AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; and I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me,’ says the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:17, 18)
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.
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.I have to agree with you Mary Ann... I agree with everything you just said.. and well said might I add. We are all going to have to agree to disagree I guess. But like you - I am standing with Israel.
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).
Really, Habib, I'm not interested in what the Bible really says? I'm the one with anti-Biblical attitudes? No, Sir, YOU are the one who prefers your preconceived ideas over what Scripture teaches about the Abrahamic Covenant. You are obsessed with the Abrahamic Covenant as if by it you receive salvation. SALVATION COMES THROUGH CHRIST AND ONLY CHRIST!
Your petty covenant arguments are nothing more than an attempt to unseat Israel from her place as God's chosen people. You cannot change God's mind in that matter. And no matter how hard you try, you cannot twist the Apostle Paul's words to make him say what you want. You camp on Gal. 3:16 as if that proves everything you say, but you ignore verse 15 where Paul tells you he is speaking in terms of human relations--that's physical, not spiritual.
I agree with you that Titus 3:10-11 says to avoid a factious man--and you, sir, are such a man!!!!! YOU are the one with a political agenda. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you are interpreting Scripture with an Islamic flair, because of the obsessive need to up-end Israel (Moslems do not want peace with Israel, they want peace without Israel). You can call me any name you can think up, and I don't care. I know in my heart that what you are teaching is wrong. YOU are the heretic, not me.
In the interest of not casting any more of my pearls before swine, this is the last I will say on this subject in this thread.
I agree with Nathan. Mary Ann, if you disagree with a comment, that's one thing. Show why you disagree without name-calling. Liberals name-call whenever they disagree, yet can't defend their point with logic or facts.
Remember, this is a Theology forum, so if you do disagree, give scripture and context as to why. And, no, Dr. Khoury is not Anti-Semitic. I could go a lot further than he has on the history of the Jews, yet I have refrained from doing so; because I know it would open up a bad can of worms.
That is one subject (among a lot) which I have been studying for many years and I have some professors at my Seminary (including a Rabbi) who disagrees with me on some points and agrees on other points; yet, we can at least have a dialogue.
Please, if you have a disagreement, refrain from name-calling or casting false accusations against any member of any blog on Freedomtorch.
Greg, I can tell by what you say that you haven't read all the previous posts in this thread. I have provided multiple scripture references all along the way. So have many others. However, I am the lead hawk so I get most of the abuse.
To both Nathan and Greg, I can see the handwriting on the wall here...it is fine for Khoury to call me a heretic, but it isn't okay for me return the favor, is that right? The heresy comment fell from Khoury's lips, and on more than one occasion. I've ignored it up to now.
Nathan, do you believe that Barack Obama is a Christian? Do you take him at his word on that? I don't. Why? Because the fruit BO produces doesn't match the tree (Matt. 7:15-23; Luke 6:43-45). Only God knows the condition of a person's heart. I cannot judge that he is or isn't a Christian, I can only judge the fruit displayed. Thus far what I have seen is someone intent on helping people feel better about leaving God's chosen people high and dry, while attempting to co-opt the promised blessings for himself.
Am I saying that unbelievers will be allowed in Heaven? No. But scripture is quite clear that there are prophecies yet to be fulfilled for Israel. No amount of tortured reading of scripture will change that fact. Are gentile believers grafted/adopted into the family? Yes, and this gentile is quite grateful for the crumbs that fell from the table of the Sons of Promise (the word "promise" is not equal to "salvation"). However, like Paul the Apostle, I mourn Israel's lack of acceptance of their Messiah.
That said, I do not believe they have been cut out of Dad's will--yet. Those who die in their unbelief--only Dad knows the final resting place of their soul. Last time I checked, it was Dad's job to determine who is in or out of the blessings He has to give. Last time I checked Dad was free to chose any people He wants to comprise the "family of God." It isn't Khoury's place, or anyone else, to decide that a misread verse (out of thousands) in the New Testament rewrites the whole Bible. In order to reach Khoury's conclusion, you must believe the Bible contradicts itself. One of the greatest wonders of our canon of scripture has been the continuity of the message. By assigning such an interpretation to Gal. 3:16, Khoury turns scripture on end, and makes the whole Bible contradictory. To teach such as verifiable fact is heresy, the very thing he accused me of earlier. What Khoury has done is no small error.
You should be ashamed of the double standard both of you have applied to me. To Wit: it is okay for Khoury to call me a heretic, but not okay for me to call Khoury a heretic. Is that because I am merely a woman?
