Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘palestine’

George Kazoura: The Angry Oppressed Palestinian Arab Who Was Found By Jesus Christ

Posted by Job on February 10, 2011

The power of forgiveness By ESTERA WIEJA

After losing his childhood home in Haifa to a Jewish family, George Kazoura turns to the bible and prayer to help him forgive.

George Kazoura has as much reason as any Arab to hate Israelis. After all, he lost his childhood home in Haifa to a Jewish family. Yet he assures with no hesitation that the land he lives in belongs to and should always belong to Israel.

“You cannot deny the truth of the Bible,” says Kazouza. “You cannot argue with God.”

“You cannot deny the truth of the Bible,” says Kazouza. “You cannot argue with God.”

George Kazoura was born in Haifa during the British Mandate times to Catholic Arab parents. As a young boy, he witnessed thousands of Jewish immigrants arriving from Europe at the port of Haifa. But nothing prepared him for the turmoil which developed between the two peoples, which erupted into full-scale war in 1948. He and his family escaped the fighting and stayed with relatives in Nazareth.

A month later, when it seemed safe, they returned to Haifa, only to find a Jewish family squatting in their home.

Since all their personal and household belongings had been previously burned, they had no way to prove this used to be their family residence. Homeless and bitter, Kazoura wanted the destruction of the Jewish people. Back in Nazareth, the whole family of eight had to squeeze into a single room their relatives had built for them. Those 25 square meters served as their living room, bedroom, dining room and bathroom all in one.

This left such a tragic impact in his life, Kazoura grew up rebellious and headstrong and even rejected the faith of his parents.

“I wanted nothing to do with neither Jews nor Christians,” he recently recalled for The Christian Edition, though with a sense of regret.

Along with several peers, he joined a communist youth group in Nazareth.

The gang enjoyed causing trouble throughout the city. Meanwhile, his parents kept him in prayer. They had become genuine, God-fearing Christians and never gave up on their son. They tried relentlessly to bring him to church, not getting discouraged by his aggressive and violent behavior.

Finally in 1961, Kazoura gave in and decided to come to a Christian revival meeting in Nazareth. Little did his parents know that he agreed to attend because he planned to disrupt the service. Yet instead, he found it deeply moving and was greatly affected by what he had heard and seen.

That night, Kazoura gave his life to Jesus, and started praying and reading the Bible. Yet after having read the entire Bible in 10 months, he found himself frustrated that he, in fact, did not understand most of it. For years he had fed his mind with the tenets of atheism and communism, and it was hard for him to see the Bible as more than just an antiquated historical book.

Yet one evening, a light shone through in a most unusual way.

Kazoura then heard a voice inside telling him: “I forgave you all your sins and I don’t remember them. Now you have to forgive your Jewish brothers as I forgave you.”

This was not something Kazoura would have ever expected. His heart was still hard from all the pain he and his family had suffered at the hands of the Jews. He tried to ignore this voice in his heart and move on, but his life soon became empty. Kazoura knew he could not go any further if he did not do something about what was revealed to him.

What happened next turned this young Arab man’s life around completely. Kazoura returned to his old family house in Haifa, stood along the street outside and prayed a blessing for the Jewish people who had lived there since he had been made homeless. He made a decision to forgive them and to bless them from that day on. He gave up all the bitterness and hatred, and – amazingly – his anger was turned into compassion.

As a result of this sudden transformation, Kazoura was able to start a whole new life. From that moment on, the Jews were no longer his enemies but a beloved people. To forgive and to forget was the hardest yet most rewarding thing he had ever done.

“Ever since that year, in 1961, I have not experienced any hardships from the Jews… I have not experienced anything bad,” Kazoura now insists with a smile.

Still, there are new hardships he has to endure as a result. Sadly, they now come from fellow Arabs, and not only the Muslims. Today, Kazoura is an Evangelical pastor, and the fact that he blesses Israel is not well received among some Christians in the Galilee. It is treason, his detractors say, expecting him to be a true Arab by standing up against Israel.

For almost 20 years, Kazoura has run an orphanage called the House of Love and Peace in the village of Rama, in northern Galilee. Muslim children who had previously been taught to hate and kill infidels have been taught to love their Jewish neighbors and have received a better chance to succeed in life. Yet today the home has fallen into disuse as many in the Arab community have shunned the Arab Christian family which dares to be different.

Posted in Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

New World Order Alert: Is The Vatican Going To Team Up With Israel Over Jerusalem?

Posted by Job on May 12, 2009

For those who are not familiar with Caroline Glick, she is very neoconservative and very Zionist. Here, she is stating that Israel should cease working with America and start pursuing a mutually beneficial relationship with Egypt (over Iran) and the Vatican (over Jerusalem). First Egypt: Iran sponsors the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a threat to Egypt’s fragile regime, which will become even more so once Egypt’s aging ruler leaves power. Egypt wishes to reduce Iran’s influence in order to make sure that the nation does not fall into the hands of jihadists. Second the Vatican: Glick asserts that the Vatican could be convinced that the only way to protect “Christian holy sites” in Israel and specifically in Jerusalem is to ensure that they remain in Jewish control and out of Muslim hands.

Now Glick has come out and stated that she opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state for at least two generations, and that during this time Israel should impose heavy measures to keep the Palestinian population subdued, and also take control of Palestinian schools and brainwash – excuse me educate – Palestinian children into hating everything Muslim and Arabic and turn them into pro – western Zionists. After this point, the Palestinians would either willingly desire to be ruled by Israel under terms that benefit Israel and stop demanding a state, or would accept a state that would be Israel’s puppet. In other words, Glick is willing to come out and publicly state what Israel’s neoconservative secular Zionists are usually unwilling to. (This is as opposed to Israel’s paleoconservative and/or religious Zionists, who openly or covertly simply wish to drive the Palestinians out of Israel.)

However, Glick is signaling that she – and the faction that she represents – may be willing to change their tune and give the Palestinians a state much sooner if the Vatican throws its considerable political muscle behind keeping all of Jerusalem in Israeli hands, and speaking out against Palestinian terrorism (which groups ranging from the secular and religious left to conservative Catholics to some Reformed Protestants are willing to pretend does not exist).

Now the majority of Palestinians and Israelis have long favored a two state solution. A dirty little secret is that elements in both the Palestinian and Israeli leadership claim to want a two state solution publicly while working to undermine it behind the scenes. If the Vatican is able to pick off the neoconservative secular Zionists like Glick, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Avidgor Lieberman, that would create a coalition with the moderate and liberal Israelis that would be big and powerful enough on the Israeli side to get it done. The only barrier, however, would be the Palestinians’ putting together a viable government that supports a two state solution and peace. We know that this isn’t Fatah/PLO, and it certainly isn’t Hamas. But it is something that bears watching.

The Vatican joining hands with neconservative Zionist Israelis is just about the last thing that I could have ever imagined happening, but it suits the interests of both sides. By supporting Israel, the Roman Catholic Church helps get past its role in the Holocaust, which badly hurts its image and ability to recruit and retain members in Europe. This will become a particular issue in the next few years when the Vatican elevates Pius XII, the pope who was in charge during the Holocaust to “sainthood.” And the Obama administration’s turning America’s interests in the Middle East away from Israel and towards Iran and Syria – and many believe that this could be a permanent change of policy that will persist no matter which party controls Washington – gives Israel no choice but to seek a new powerful ally. As the EU and Russia have been overtly anti-Israel for some time, it is basically the Vatican or nobody. 

Now as to the Christian Zionist element … I suppose that they will fall in line over this. Ever since the time of Billy Graham and particularly the rise of the religious right, evangelicals, especially dispensationalists, have not only become very friendly with the Vatican, but have actually followed its lead, sometimes knowing it but often not. Dispensationalists have taken school vouchers, faith – based programs, and other initiatives to funnel tax dollars into Roman Catholic dioceses as if it is their own agenda, and also got involved in the Terri Schiavo incident (one completely driven by the Roman Catholic governor of Florida Jeb Bush) and in the process of doing so advocated for the extrabiblical Roman Catholic traditional teachings on end of life issues. And how many Protestant evangelicals love having Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts on the Supreme Court (Kennedy not so much)? And let us be honest: the neoconservative publicity machine, whether it is magazines like the Weekly Standard and the National Review and talk radio … they aren’t dominated by evangelicals. They are dominated by Roman Catholics and neoconservative Jews. Conservative Christian Zionists such as the ones who support torture patronize that media and allow their political AND RELIGIOUS views to be shaped by them. So, if the Vatican and the secular neoconservative Jews (the religious Jews by and large won’t have anything to do with Christians) begin the full court press on talk radio and on the conservative websites that keeping Jerusalem and making Israel secure so the construction of the third temple can take place is all that REALLY MATTERS, then the John Hagee/Pat Robertson contingent (and the many far more respectable and mainstream fellow travelers of this doctrine i.e. those who supported the war in Iraq) will quickly fall in line.

But again, the major shoe that needs to drop for this to actually take place is a viable and (by all appearances) pro – peace Palestinian government led by a (and this would really really help) a charismatic leader to come about. Now that may be Obama’s job: to identify and train such a leader and put him in power (as our government has been known to do in the past … America trained both Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and put them in place, and did similar with the group that is now running Iran). 

Please see link to article where this gets discussed below:

Our World: Opportunity is knocking at Israel’s door

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Roosevelt’s Refusal To Save Auschwitz Jews During World War II

Posted by Job on January 18, 2009

Please note the part about how Britain refused to allow Jewish refugees into Palestine during this time as well.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292897063&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted in Christian Zionism, Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 21 Comments »

Whither The Promise of God That Israel Would Always Be A Nation?

Posted by Job on January 5, 2009

To the post Do Evangelical Christians Consider The Plight Of The Palestinians? I received an excellent reply which asked to justify my comments in light of Jeremiah 31:35-36:

I don’t have time to write a long comment, but one bit struck me:

Even if we accept the Old Testament version of events as history (which of course the Palestinians, being neither Jews or Christians, are not obliged to), that version tells us that the nation of Israel ceased to exist in 586 BC.

Contrast this to Jeremiah 31:35-36:

This is what the Lord says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar– the Lord Almighty is his name: “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,” declares the Lord, “will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me.”

Are these two statement compatible?

My reply: the modern definition of “nation” and what the Bible means when it uses the term are not always one and the same. Further, there seems to be a common occurrence of merging the related but not identical promises to Abraham given in Genesis 12:1-3 and Genesis 15:18-21. Jeremiah 31:35-36 references one but not the other.

So here is my response to the very legitimate question of the promise of Israel’s always being a nation made by God, and I would appreciate responses. When making them, please note two things:

1. I do not oppose the existence of the modern nation – state Israel and I am fully aware of modern Israel’s obligation to defend itself from many enemies (including but certainly not limited to Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc.) that are committed to its destruction.
2. Though I reject premillennial dispensationalism, I acknowledge the historical legitimacy of other forms of premillennialism, and I do not subscribe  to amillennialism, preterism, covenant theology, nor do I subscribe to replacement theology in its classic sense..

Well, statement two is incompatible with history. Israel lost control of their land in 586 BC, not long after its writer Jeremiah urged the southern kingdom to submit to Babylon. And about 700 years later Jerusalem was burned to the ground and the Jews were scattered into a diaspora. So, statement two would have to be “never except for a huge gap between 586 BC and 1948 AD, and especially between 132 AD and 1948 AD.”

So the only way to reconcile Jeremiah 31:35-36 with the rest of Biblical revelation and of history is to conclude that it did not refer to the physical nation or land of Israel, but the people of Israel. And to confirm that, go to Exodus. The Exodus account is clear: Israel became a nation when God brought them out of Egypt. Yet they did not possess the land of Israel until after 40 years in the wilderness. Again, they were a nation, but wandering in the wilderness and not in Israel.

So Jeremiah 31:35-36 was a promise that the natural seed of Abraham would always exist as a people. That promise is true, and evidence of that is the discovery of Jews who can trace their bloodline in such exotic places as Ethiopia and India. But making the claim that it refers to Jews always living in and controlling the land of Israel would be hard to reconcile with the facts of history.

This is more so when you consider the nature of the Sinai covenant, especially as spelled out in Deuteronomy. The Sinai covenant was not unconditional as was the covenant that God made with Abraham or the Davidic Messianic covenant. The Sinai covenant was conditional. Which meant that for the nation of Israel to remain in the land of Israel (for the people of Shem to dwell in the tents of Canaan, remember Noah’s famous curse against the son of Ham, as the land of Israel is actually the land of Canaan, the Jebusites built Jerusalem if I am correct) and to continue to control Israel, it had to keep the Sinai covenant.

We know that Israel did not keep the terms of the covenant, and that is why 586 BC happened. Make no mistake, and the Old Testament prophets declared, that the falling of the northern kingdom to the Assyrians and the southern kingdom to the Babylonians was the result of Israel’s breaking of the old covenant. And this same Jeremiah that you quote spoke of a new covenant.

Israel’s living in and controlling the land of Israel was tied to the Sinai covenant. Again, the book that best spells this out is Deuteronomy, written by the leader of the nation of Israel at the time, Moses, who himself never set foot in the land of Israel.

Premillennial dispensationalism tries to get around the fact that Israel broke the terms of the conditionial Sinai covenant by claiming that it was the unconditional covenant with Abraham that gave Abraham’s descendants eternal control of the land of Israel. However, http://www.gotquestions.org/Abrahamic-covenant.html does an outstanding job of exposing this false belief. It is based on inappropriately joining Genesis 15:18-21 and Genesis 12:1-3 together. Genesis 15:18-21 simply promises land to Abraham and his descendants. We know that this promise was fulfilled, as Abraham’s descendants were given the land of Israel. That was not what Jeremiah 31:35-36 was referencing.

Genesis 12:1-3 is the unconditional covenant that makes promises to make Israel into a nation. That was what Jeremiah 31:35-36 was speaking of. And why did Jeremiah write Jeremiah 31:35-36? To address people who claimed that the fall of Judah to Babylon meant that God was breaking the Abrahamic covenant. Jeremiah was reminding Israel that the Abrahamic covenant meant that the natural children of Israel through Isaac would always exist as a people, not that they would always live in and have control of the nation of Israel. Again, continued living in and controlling the nation of Israel was conditioned on keeping the Sinai covenant.

Now interpreting scripture with scripture is a legitimate way to interpret the Bible, so adding Genesis 15:18-21 to Genesis 12:1-3 or even using one to interpret the other would appear, in isoloation, to be valid. The problem is that Genesis 12:1-3 and Genesis 15:18-21 do not appear in isolation. We have to consider those two statements in the context of the rest of the Bible. The issue with modern premillennialism (which, yes, does differ from historic premillennialism) is not so much that people add those two promises to Abraham together, but rather that in doing so they reinterpret or outright ignore/reject other parts of the Bible, especially the Sinai covenant, its conditional nature, and basically everything that happened after 721 BC when the northern kingdom destroyed Assyria. Interesting thing about the northern kingdom’s tribe of Dan … they never at any time kept the Sinai covenant. The book of Judges reveals that the tribe of Dan fell into apostasy immediately after Israel possessed the land. Do you know the result of that? The tribe of Dan is not listed among the 144,400 in Revelation. They are replaced by elevating the half tribes of Joseph to two full tribes. If that doesn’t prove that God was serious about the Sinai covenant, I do not know what does.

But dispensational premillennialism teaches that 721 BC was the start of Israel merely being punished for breaking the Sinai covenant, and in 1948 the punishment was over. As a matter of fact, Paul Meier, who wrote “The Millennium” series of books that – among other things – promotes Bible codes, claimed that the punishment for breaking the Sinai covenant was only the 60 year captivity in Babylon, and what happened to Israel thereafter was actually Israel being punished because most of them refused to return to Israel but stayed in Babylon. Well, Meier’s argument breaks down when you consider that A) not all of Israel was sent to Babylon, but that the poor was left behind and B) it completely ignores the northern kingdom.

And that is yet another problem. Dispensationalism starts by referring to all of Israel, then it shrinks to just the two tribes that made up Judah, then it enlarges to include all of Israel again. Why? Because if you don’t shrink it to include Judah, then you will have to deal with the fact that the 10 northern tribes were not restored to all of Israel, only the two southern tribes were. The land formerly occupied by the 10 northern tribes basically went to the SAMARITANS. (Of course, the later books of the Old Testament reveal that the Samaritans included natural descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that is why they figured so prominently in the gospels and Acts, to the point of Jesus Christ making the special effort to reveal Himself to the Samaritan woman at the well. But they were not Jews or considered to be part of the nation of Israel in any sense.) But now, it has to be expanded to all of Israel so that the descendants of those who returned from Babylon can stake a modern claim to the land given to all 12 tribes.

So we have to points of contention that are critical to premillennial dispensationalism. First is the combination of Genesis 12:1-3 and Genesis 15:18-21 when later Biblical revelation (not to mention historical events) doesn’t support it. Second is willfully misusing the term “nation” in Genesis 12:1-3 and in other relevant places to be the modern meaning of “nation – state”, a combination of a land and a government. Genesis 12:1-3, Jeremiah 31:35-36, Exodus, etc. do not use that definition, which is western. When the relevant Bible passages say “nation”, they are referring to a PEOPLE, such as a tribe (or confederation of tribes) or ethnic group, people united by common lineage. Now the epitome of the modern definition of “nation” is America, which is not defined by a single ethnic group, people group, or lineage but is an amalgamation, and indeed the people who are actually indigenous to our nation – state are a tiny part of the population and have very little – if any – power in it. So, the “nation” of America (out of many, one, e pluribus unum, tons of different races, nationalities, ethnic groups etc. combining to make one entity that is defined by a political entity and a land mass) and the “nation” of Israel (which literally means the natural genetic descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel and exists no matter which political entity they reside under or where they live whether it be in Egypt/Alexandria, Canaan, Babylon, the Greek Empire, New York City/Miami, Mumbai) are direct contrasts with each other. It is one of the classic divergences between what the Bible meant to its original hearers when it was written and what it means to contemporary audiences (especially those in the west, who are completely influenced by the western – Roman! – notions of nation – state and city – state and empire – state that often contain many races and ethnic groups as opposed to the east and other parts of the world where tribes and such still very much exist and influence thinking, even in the cases of tribes that are in the same basic ethnic or racial group … if you doubt that do an Internet search on “Rwanda genocide”).

Now I should point out that I disagree with some of the older fashioned amillennialist sorts, the line of thinking in a lot of conservative Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant circles that opposes the existence of the state of Israel. I have no problem with Israel’s existence, especially when you consider that Jews do in fact need a place of last resort that they can flee to because of persecution and other crises, and no other country on the world want that place to be their own country. (I personally wouldn’t mind that country being America, but I am not a democratic majority.) And if you look at current events in Europe, its allowing itself to be Islamized and assent to sharia law, it does appear that many Jews may have to leave that continent for Israel in the near future. So yes, I can say in a very real way that I do support Israel and the Jews. I am merely pointing out that the existence of Israel is a very bad deal for the Palestinians, who are in a tough spot that cannot be resolved with either politics or military force. People who use questionable premillennial dispensational assumptions to support Israel’s simply crushing the Palestinians beyond doing what is necessary to defend themselves (and I do agree by the way that Israel’s bombing and invading Gaza is a legitimate and perhaps necessary measure to stop being pelted with rockets) are ignoring that fact.

Bottom line: it was the Sinai covenant that allowed Israel to live in Canaan under God’s protection, not the Abrahamic or Davidic covenants. And the Sinai covenant was broken by Israel. If it hadn’t been, then Israel wouldn’t have fallen to Assyria and Judah wouldn’t have fallen to Babylon. That was precisely what the Old Testament prophets and the Chronicler addressed … people who were claiming that God had forsaken His promise to Israel. They replied “God didn’t forsake us, but we forsook God” and then took them right back to Exodus, Leviticus, and especially Deuteronomy (which is precisely why liberal scholarship denies that Deuteronomy was written by Moses, but was instead written during the exile, and the rest of the Old Testament edited to reflect it as a way of Judaism’s “covering its bases” to account for its defeat by Babylon).

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Mumbai Attacks: Terrorism Or Warfare?

Posted by Job on December 1, 2008

Now when dealing with the war on terror with respect to the United States, I always try to bring up the inconvenient issue of America’s dealings in the region, starting with our overthrow of the Iranian government because of a dispute over oil profits and continuing onto such issues as our recruitment and training of such people as Usama bin Laden to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, our training, recruiting and arming Saddam Hussein to fight Soviet – aligned Iran, two wars in Iraq, various machinations with Afghanistan to protect a vital oil pipeline that runs through that nation, our military base in Saudi Arabia, and our abject failures in and subsequent withdrawals from Lebanon and Somalia. With that type of record plus our support for Israel, I really cannot blame any Muslim, Arab, or North African for thinking that we are out to get them, or at the very least will not hesitate to pursue our own agenda at their expense. Seriously, what basis do these people have for feeling otherwise? Do not claim that we had the interests of the Iraqi people in mind when we put Saddam Hussein in power and armed him to the teeth for the purposes of starting a proxy war with an Iranian regime that we put in power (because the prior regime wanted to use its own oil profits for economic development!) to fight a horrible war that dragged on for eight years. And as for freeing the Afghanis from Soviet domination: did any of us know or care about how the Afghanis were living BEFORE the Soviets invaded? Nope. It was all about the Soviets, never the Afghanis, which was why we not only had no problem with the Taliban regime that took over Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven out, but we actually had dealings with the Taliban. I have no problem with pointing out that a great many of our issues in that region are the direct result of first our Cold War actions, and then our attempts to be “the world superpower/leader/police” afterwards. Seriously, how many Americans honestly care whether or how people in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. live or die so long as we retain our own high and comfortable standard of living? We all know the answer to that question. You can call it liberal anti – Americanism, I call it admitting things like the fact that conservative pro – American types honestly did not care how evil Saddam was or how brutally he was treating his own people until he invaded Kuwait over his desire to increase oil prices. (Again, he wanted an increase in oil prices because his regime was broke because of the war with Iran that we put him in power and armed and funded him to fight. After the Soviet Union collapsed, we had no reason to continue funding Saddam, so he had to look after his own affairs. So, who out there is surprised that a guy that we trained and put in power to start a war reacted to his own economic and political crisis by, well, STARTING A WAR?) It is our prerogative to seek our own interests and use violence in doing so? Well fine, but if you take that belief, then you have no standing for refusing the Muslims/Arabs/North Africans that same prerogative.

However, my “contextualization” does not apply to India. India has in fact strongly allied itself with America, Israel, and China … three nations that are involved in violent struggles against Muslims to one extent or another. (China’s problems with Islamic separatists is a spectacularly underreported story.) Of course, imperalistic Islam has taken notice of this and does not like it. However, India has no history of pursuing economic and military aggression against Muslim states. Quite the contrary, India actually treats its Muslim population comparatively well, allowing them not only religious and economic freedom but to politically organize. While London’s socialist Guardian newspaper predictably claims that India’s terror problems are due to India’s discrimination and oppression of Muslims, especially in Kashmir, the truth is that Muslims get far better treatment in India than non – Muslims can expect in any Muslim country, including moderate pro – western regimes like Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan.

This is not to say that India is perfect: after all consider the murderous persecution against Christians in the Orissa region. However, the issue is that the discrimination, marginalization and oppression of Muslims in India is not state – sponsored or supported. Quite the contrary, conservatives such as those who opine for the Wall Street Journal have charged the Indian government with being TOO NICE to its Muslim minority!

It is well known that Muslims in India are but one of many groups all over the world that face discrimination, marginalization and oppression. Yet how many of these put – upon groups respond to their maltreatment with sustained organized acts of violence designed to murder as many innocent defenseless civilians as possible plus to inflict widespread panic, economic collapse, and political instability? Muslims would appear to be unique in this respect. And since as stated earlier the Muslims that attack India can hardly claim themselves to be targeting a regime that has waged economic, diplomatic and military aggression against severely overmatched Muslim and Arab states, then the “self – defense” angle is not nearly plausible as it is with the United States, Britain, and Israel.

So that leads to this conclusion: the bombings in Mumbai are not acts of terror designed to cause the India government to change their policies, as India has no policies that can be construed to be opposing Islam or Arab regimes beyond maintaining financial and diplomatic ties with nations who allegedly do, which incidentally Muslim regimes such as Syria and Iran do the same by having relations with Russia, who is subjugating Islamic Chechnya, and China who has their own aforementioned problems. In other words, there are no anti – Islamic actions on the part of India for any terror acts to change. (Please, do not raise the Kashmir canard, as the Kashmir extremists will settle nothing less for India giving up control of the region, so Muslims and liberal apologists ought to call the Kashmir dispute what it is … Muslims attempting to start a civil war and to grab land that is internationally recognized as belonging to India. In other words, what ultimately happened in Kosovo, except in that instance the Muslims had our help in their land grab scheme!)

No, make no mistake, this is war. The Muslim world is at war with India. It is no less than an imperialistic war of aggression, because as stated before India has done nothing to Muslims either outside of or within its borders to provoke such a war. The Muslim world is trying to exert violent and economic pressure from without and within in order to bring about the collapse of the secular Indian government and replace it with an Islamic one. Of course, when that happens, such a government will go about forcing its Hindu population (as well as its other religions, including but not limited to Christianity) to either convert or leave. (That is assuming that they even allow anyone to leave, as they certainly did not give the Christians in Sudan that option, it was either convert or be killed or made a slave.) So, the Muslim world is waging an imperialistic war with India in order to make it into a Muslim land, just as Islam set about doing shortly after the religion was founded, just as the Koran commands Muslims to do.

Again, I am not convinced by the notion that all of these are internal problems with internal Muslims. First, even though everyone including the Indian government is falling backwards over themselves to implicate first the Kashmir situation and then Pakistan, and that a local obscure group has claimed responsibility, and that Al Qaeda has distanced themselves from the attack, we cannot ignore that this attack has Al Qaeda’s fingerprints all over it. There was the nature of the attack, a spectacular coordinated event. There was also the goal of attacking economic centers to cause financial turmoil (please note Al Qaeda’s recent claims that our current financial problems were caused by 9/11). It fits the methods, goals and ideologies of bin Laden. Also, what evidence is there that the obscure India militant group had the resources and expertise to carry out such an attack?

So, you might ask, why would Al Qaeda deny involvement and allow a local front group to take credit? For P.R. purposes. Al Qaeda’s support is based on the notion that they are defending Muslim victims of aggression. As India does nothing to harm Muslims within its borders or without, for Al Qaeda to target India turns them from freedom fighters to aggressors in the eyes of Muslims and other people in the region. Add that to the huge number of innocent Muslims that Al Qaeda has killed in Iraq, it is something that their image could ill afford right now. But rest assured (according to my theory anyway) let the Indian government take violent action, a military or police crackdown against these murderous criminals, against this army attempting to overthrow its government, and we will very shortly see a tape from Al Qaeda declaring jihad against India for its crimes of aggression against Islam.

And as for the Kashmir situation … that is even more evidence that this is an international Islamic war on India. After all, who denies that Muslims from other countries haven’t been smuggling arms and fighters into the Kashmir region that ultimately filter down into other parts of India for years? Kashmir merely serves as a front, an opening, an excuse just as “Palestine” serves the same purpose to funnel arms and extremists in through the Syrian, Egyptian, Lebanese etc. borders. Kashmir is merely what the Muslim world is using as the entry point, their home base for their war with India, and were India ever to grant “independence” to Kashmir, a) Muslims would then merely claim for themselves other places in northern India and B) Kashmir would be the launchingpad for military and terror campaigns in India. For Muslims do not merely want Kashmir. They do not merely want northern India. They want the whole country.

So, if the Muslim world is attempting to conquer India for Islam, what makes you think that they will stop there? And if they succeed in conquering India, who’s next? That is the first question that must be asked. However, the second and most important question that must be asked: what should the proper Christian response be to Muslim designs for global domination? Christian imperialism in turn? Globalism? The new world order? Mandatory religious pluralism, where all religions are forced to deny that their religion is the only way to salvation? I dare say that none of those are solutions that the New Testament would endorse.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Muslims Intimidated Church Into Holding Arafat Memorial

Posted by Job on November 15, 2007

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58681

JERUSALEM – Intimidation by members of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party forced a Catholic church in Gaza to hold a memorial service yesterday for the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat, according to sources in Gaza’s Christian leadership.

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear for their safety, said Catholics now fears retaliation from Hamas, Fatah’s rival, after holding yesterday’s ceremony commemorating the third anniversary of Arafat’s death.

“The church was obliged to hold the event for Arafat after Christian leaders participated in a Hamas event 10 days ago,” said a Christian source close to the church. “Now we fear Christians may be casualties of the escalating violence. We may be caught in the crosshairs, and we’re afraid of retaliation.”

The Arafat memorial was held at Gaza City’s Holy Family Church. Manuel Musallam, the parish’s priest was quoted by participants calling Arafat’s death “a great loss for the Palestinian people.”

“Arafat was a great and very courageous leader,” stated Musallam, according to memorial participants speaking to WND. “We miss this great person who was the first to bring hopes of freedom and independence to the Palestinians. We call on the Palestinian leadership to follow Arafat’s road to end the suffering of Palestinian people.”

The church event was part of larger, three-day memorial services held throughout the Gaza Strip and West Bank, with events in Gaza setting off the worst factional clashes between Fatah and Hamas in months.

Hamas gunmen Monday reportedly opened fire at a massive Fatah rally in Gaza that had over 250,000 participants in the largest show of Fatah strength in Gaza since Hamas took over the territory in June. Seven Palestinians – all reportedly Fatah supporters – were killed in the clashes, according to news reports. Some 85 more were wounded in the violence, three of whom are said to be in serious condition.

The church memorial was the second time in recent days Christian leaders in the Gaza Strip said they were intimidated into showing support for the Palestinian leadership.

Earlier this month, WND reported Christian leaders in the Gaza Strip were intimidated into attending and expressing support for a speech in which the territory’s Hamas leader urged the worldwide spread of Islam, according to sources in Gaza’s Christian community.

Artinious Alexious, priest of Gaza’s Greek Orthodox Church, and Emanuel Salum, a Catholic leader in Gaza, were at a major speech 10 days ago by Ismail Haniyeh, leader of the Hamas government in Gaza and deposed prime minister of the previously Hamas-run Palestinian Authority.

Also present were hundreds of gunmen, including members of a group, Jihadia Salafiya, suspected of carrying out anti-Christian attacks in Gaza such as the lobbing of grenades last September at Alexious’ church.

Hamas banned most international media from covering the event, only allowing entry to journalists accredited by the terror group.

A major theme of Haniyeh’s speech was the spread of Islamic values throughout the world, according to reporters in attendance.

The reporters present said at one point during his speech, Haniyeh spoke about the “excellent” situation for Christians living under Hamas rule in Gaza.

He pointed to the two Christian leaders in attendance, at which point to two raised their hands and nodded in agreement, witnesses told WND.

According to sources in Gaza’s Christian community speaking on condition of anonymity, Alexious and Salum were intimidated into attending the Hamas speech. The sources said in the weeks prior to the event, Haniyeh’s office repeatedly called the Christian leaders to request they free their schedules to assist the Hamas rally.

“The priests thought it was a diplomatic way to threaten them and put pressure on them,” said one source.

“After discussions within the Christian community leadership it was decided it would be dangerous not to assist in the meeting even though it would be very strange to see priests assisting in a meeting about the spread of Islam,” the source said.

Hamas in June seized complete control of the Gaza Strip from Fatah amid widespread fears it would impose hard-line Islamic rule in the territory and that life for Christians might deteriorate.

About 3,000 Christians live in the Gaza Strip, which has a population of over 1 million.

There have been a slew of recent alleged anti-Christian attacks in Gaza, including the murder last month of a Christian bookstore owner whose beaten, bullet-ridden body was found after his shop repeatedly had been targeted by Islamists. Rami Ayyad, who managed the only Christian bookstore in Gaza, also had been threatened a number of times by local Islamist groups.

Posted in Christian Persecution, Christianity, Islam, Israel, Muslim, Palestinian Christian persecution, Palestinian persecution, persecution Palestinian | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

More On John Hagee Jesus Did Not Come To Be The Messiah Apostasy Book

Posted by Job on November 14, 2007

I give much credit to Soli Deo Gloria, who was willing to endure the incredible agony of actually reading the new John Hagee book for the benefit of the rest of us. It turns out that the book is not as bad as previously thought: it is worse! Please read his post to find out how.

Finally Read the Entire Book…

Some excerpts: Soli Deo Gloria gives a link containing a more comprehensive analysis of the book at Bible Wheel.

Further, Soli Deo Gloria says “No where in this 207 page book did I see where Christ was lifted up; instead John Hagee lifts up in all 12 chapters a people and a land. Along with this idol worship, he points out time after time, in chapter after chapter, that we better wake up and realize the debt we owe, not to Christ, but to the Jewish people–he even has one chapter devoted entirely to this, chapter 8: Our Debt to the Jewish People“. This is a man ate up with zeal, not of/for God, but for a cause.”

Please recall: Hagee’s thesis is to “acquit” the Jewish people in two areas.

1) The notion that Jews living today are actually guilty of killing Jesus Christ. I agree with Hagee on this point. That is the problem. Virtually no fundamentalist or evangelical Christians hold those beliefs because they contradict scripture. Hagee’s preaching as if this is still a problem among Bible – adhering Christians helps further the lie that Christians who take the Bible seriously are inherently anti – Semitic along with their resulting beliefs.

2) Even worse, Hagee is trying to “acquit” the Jewish people of what the Bible actually does convict them of – rejecting Jesus Christ. Of course, the only way to do this is to claim that the Bible is wrong, the way that the Bible has been traditionally interpreted is wrong, and that being faithful to the Bible and its historic interpretations is anti – Semitism, which goes back to 1).

Realize that you can ask any non – Messianic Jew if he rejects the notion that Jesus Christ was the Messiah and he will answer affirmatively. Still, please know that most rank and file Jews could care less what Christians choose to believe, and what is more many of them see our reading their scriptures and praying to their God as a good thing. Rather, while all Jews (and by this I mean non – Messianic) believe that Jews were right to reject Jesus Christ then and have been correct in doing so since, it is only the religious, political, and intellectual leaders of their community that promote the notion that Christians should adopt their position by – among other means – reinterpreting the Bible (and where it cannot be reinterpreted then simply ignored as the likely product of self – hating apostate Jews and/or church revisionism and editing).

I repeat, most Jews, to the extent that they are even mindful of Christians, do not feel this way; most Jews are not trying to get us to abandon our beliefs. Many of them do wish that Christians would take the Old Testament more seriously and become better educated as to the Jewish roots of Christianity, which is my position as well. But alas, it is not the rank and file Jews that Hagee has chosen to seek out and affiliate himself with, but rather those that have the status and power that he wants for himself. Please recall that the very same Jesus Christ that Hagee is now denying did precisely the opposite in seeking out the low, meek, and humble.

That is the point of Hagee’s continual invoking of Martin Luther as an example of Christian anti – Semitism that led to the Holocaust. It is true that Luther wrote some exceptionally awful things about Jews that are unjustifiable in any context. But Hagee always leaves out a key contextualizing fact: when Luther split from the then institutionally and virulently anti – Semitic Roman Catholic Church, he was certain that he would convert large numbers of Jews, thinking that the main hindrance had been the hatefulness of the former. Luther had grand visions of Jew and Gentile joining together again to recreate the New Testament church, and when they rejected his entreaties he was baffled, crushed, and reacted as any MAN (as Luther WAS just a MAN) that had been raised his entire life in grotesque anti – Semitism could be expected to.

Hagee of course knows this. (Hagee also knows that the Jewish holy books, the Talmud and similar, contain things said about Gentiles – including Christians – that are also not particularly nice.) So why does he demand that the Bible and extrabiblical history be interpreted in a manner that justifies the Jewish rejection of Jesus Christ while refusing to provide a similar context for Luther’s anti – Semitic rantings? I am not defending the wrong of Luther. Instead, I say that both Luther’s anti – Semitism and the Jewish rejection of Jesus Christ were wrong. Hagee, on the other hand, uses the Luther wrong to justify the Jewish wrong then and now, which has the effect of making the witness of the Bible and the people who wrote it concerning the deity of Jesus Christ and accepting such being the only way to heaven wrong according to Hagee’s doctrine.

I wonder what effect – if any – this book has on the “Christians United For Israel” movement. I am thinking that the increasing pressure by the Bush administration to force Israel to create a Palestinian state (and the administration that will follow his that will exert more pressure still) may just force a lot of Christians to put aside whatever doctrinal issues that they have with John Hagee and continue to work with him, and in the process endorse and ultimately internalize more and more of his doctrine. Which, of course, is precisely what Hagee is counting on.

Posted in apostasy, Christianity, dual covenant theology, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, Jesus Christ, John Hagee, Judaism, Moshiach, Y'shua Hamashiach, Y'shua Hamashiach Moshiach, Yeshua Hamashiach | Tagged: , , , , , | 55 Comments »

Christian Pastor flees Palestinian Town Amid Death Threats

Posted by Job on November 12, 2007

A Palestinian-American Evangelical Christian pastor has fled the de facto Palestinian capital of Ramallah for the safety of nearby Jerusalem following increasingly hostile threats by officials within Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority.

This news was revealed in a story carried on www.israeltoday.co.il.

Born in the US, Isa Bajalia returned to his parents’ hometown of
Isa Bajalia (Photo from http://www.israeltoday.co.il)

Ramallah more than 16 years ago to bring humanitarian aid and comfort to the Palestinian Arabs, as well as spread the Gospel.

“But his increasingly bold missionary activity and his refusal to allow Muslim elements to encroach on his family’s property – a common abuse suffered by Palestinian Christians – resulted in a Ramallah municipal official who moonlights as a member of the Tanzim terrorist wing of Abbas’ Fatah movement threatening to cripple and murder Bajalia,” said the story.

“Bajalia told Cybercast News Service that following last month’s brutal murder of a fellow Christian in the Gaza Strip for his sharing of the Gospel, he is taking the threats very seriously.”

The story continued, “The worried pastor first turned to the Palestinian Authority for protection, but was told by Palestinian security officials that they would only help him if he first paid $30,000.

“Bajalia then relocated to Jerusalem, where he filed a complaint with the American consulate in an effort to put pressure on the Palestinian Authority to do its job and provide security to all its citizens. After a week of waiting, Bajalia had received no response from the Americans.”

Posted in Christian Persecution, Christianity | Tagged: , | 4 Comments »

Palestinian Officials Conspired In Bethlehem Nativity Siege

Posted by Job on October 1, 2007

Honestly, who is surprised by this?  wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57914

Posted in Christian Persecution, Christianity, Islam, Israel, Muslim | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: