| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Daniel Pipes at FrontPage has an update on the plight of Christians in Iraq -- a story we have been following here for months.
Pipes doesn't ask why this is happening. I am in regular daily contact with Christians from the Middle East, and it seems clear that they are unwilling to accept the discrimination and precariousness of dhimmi life. Forty years ago, when secularism was much more vital in many important Middle Eastern countries, dhimmitude was largely a receding historical memory. Now Muslims are reasserting many of its features even in secular countries, to their own detriment: I have spoken with a large number of Syrians (ironically, since Syria is the Iraqi Christians' refuge) who left because they knew they would never be able to get decent jobs as Christians, or even, in some cases, a decent education. Consequently Syria faces a brain drain that could have enormous implications for the country's future.
“What are the Muslims doing?” asked Brother Louis, a deacon at the Our Lady of Salvation, an Assyrian Catholic church in Baghdad minutes after it had been bombed. “Does this mean that they want us [Christians] out?”Well, yes, it does. Our Lady of Salvation was just one of five churches attacked in a series of coordinated explosions in Baghdad and Mosul on Aug. 1, a Sunday, between 6 and 7 o’clock in the evening. In total, these car bombings killed 11 persons and injured 55. In addition, the police defused another two bombs.
The timing of the assault guaranteed a maximum number of casualties. August 1 is a holy day for some Iraqi Christian denominations and because Sunday is an ordinary workday in mostly Muslim Iraq, Sunday services take place in the evening....
These assaults have prompted Iraqi Christians, one of the oldest Christian bodies in the world, to leave their country in record numbers. An Iraqi deacon observed some months ago that "On a recent night the church had to spend more time on filling out baptismal forms needed for leaving the country than they did on the [worship] service. ... Our community is being decimated." Iraq’s minister for displacement and migration, Pascale Icho Warda, estimates that 40,000 Christians left Iraq in the two weeks following the Aug. 1 bombings.
Whereas Christians make up just 3 percent of the country’s population, their proportion of the refugee flow into Syria is estimated anywhere between 20 and 95 percent. Looking at the larger picture, one estimate finds that about 40 percent of the community has left since 1987, when the census found 1.4 million Iraqi Christians.
Although Muslim leaders uniformly condemned the attacks (Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani termed them “criminal actions,” while the interim Iraqi government bravely declared that “This blow is going to unite Iraqis”), they almost certainly mark a milestone in the decline and possible disappearance of Iraqi Christianity.
This seems all the more likely because Christians, due mainly to Islamist persecution and lower birth rates, are disappearing from the Middle East as a whole.
· Bethlehem and Nazareth, the most identifiably Christian towns on earth, enjoyed a Christian majority for nearly two millennia, but no more. In Jerusalem, the decline has been particularly steep: in 1922, Christians slightly outnumbered Muslims and today they make up less than 2 percent of the city’s population.
· In Turkey, Christians numbered 2 million in 1920 but now only a few thousand remain.
And just a few years before that, they were substantially more than two million.
· In Syria, they represented about one-third of the population early last century; now they account for less than 10 percent.· In Lebanon, they made up 55 percent of the population in 1932 and now under 30 percent.
· In Egypt, for the first time ever Copts have been emigrating in significant numbers since the 1950s.
At present rates, the Middle East’s 11 million Christians will in a decade or two have lost their cultural vitality and political significance.
It bears noting that Christians are recapitulating the Jewish exodus of a few decades earlier. Jews in the Middle East numbered about a million in 1948 and today total (outside Israel) a mere 60,000.
In combination, these ethnic cleansings of two ancient religious minorities mark the end of an era. The multiplicity of Middle Eastern life, most memorably celebrated in Lawrence Durrell’s Alexandria Quartet (1957-60), is being reduced to the flat monotony of a single religion and a handful of approved languages. The entire region, not just the affected minorities, is impoverished by this narrowing.
Posted by Robert at August 24, 2004 5:53 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
What, Reza? No harrangues about poor muslims having to put up with all that Christian harrasment all these years?
Harrasment as in: They Exist.
Posted by: Gary![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 24, 2004 8:41 AM
The direction the world is heading to leaves me depressed.
Posted by: alex221166 at August 24, 2004 8:50 AM
what kind of a liberating/invading "CHRISTIAN COUNTRY" would allow this to happen?
makes you wonder what some people think
"CHRISTIAN" means.
Posted by: forrest shalom at August 24, 2004 10:28 AM
Well, It´sad watching the truth, but this people must leave Middle East and coming to the Western, this countries don´t deserve their work, their blood and their faith.
Forrest Shalom: What are trying to say with your writting, respect the religion of others,please. Greetings
at August 24, 2004 10:36 AM
forrest shalom,
What is with the anti-Christian statements again.
If there were anti-semitic comments posted here you would be the first to complain.
Posted by: Son of Infidel
at August 24, 2004 11:00 AM
As water seeks its own level, the tenets of Islam keep coming bac and reasserting themselves among the Believers. Ataturk's Kemalism is in danger of coming undone, and will certainly come undone if vigilant measures are not taken, and the army preserves its role as the defender of the Kemalist restraints on Islam. Developments in Turkey may surprise some, including those who have spent their lives working in Ottoman studies and confused what was achieved in the past 80 years with the real history of the Ottoman treatment of its minorities (the devshirme was NOT a welcome method of preferment, though reading some pages by celebrated historians, where the envy of Muslims for what the Christian children taken in the forced levy (the devshirme) might lead an unsuspecting reader to think so.
Outside of Turkey, the years of European power permitted the development, in a few urban centers of a cosmopolitan class that contained many Levantines (permanent non-Muslim residents, citizens often of European countries, resident in the Muslim East for generations). They were protected because the Muslims themselves were weak. Farouk was easygoing and fat, and the inheritance of Lord Cromer's administration, and Robert Cecil (see "The Memoirs of an Egyptian Offical"--once almost required reading) allowed those Italians, Greeks, Jews, Armenians, who made Alexandria far more varied, cosmopolitan, and interesting than it has been since Nasser, in the 1950s, nationalized much of these peoples' property, and essentially kicked them out. This was presented as an example of nationalism. But was it that, or did what underlay that represent the far deeper, and inextinguishable impulses of Islam, which sees the non-Muslim not to be "tolerated" as an equal, or still worse, a superior (which is why the situation of all those well-off Greeks, Jews, Italians, Armenians, etc. was so enraging).
The Iraqi Christians today of course are simply those who have managed to stay alive, and though a number of Iraqis, both Muslim and non-Muslim, as they deplored the bombing of the churches, were notably vocal, and misleading, in telling the world that "the Muslims and the Christians had always gotten along in Iraq without any trouble." What nonsense is this? Are we expected to forget about the tens of thousands of Assyrian Christains massacred in the early 1930s? When Iraqi Jews were hung to the delight of a half-million delirious Iraqis, in the late 1960s, a Christian was thrown into the bunch just to remind the Iraqi Christians that they should mind their dhimmi manners.
Arab Christians are used, whenever possible, as the facade to hide the relentless nature of, for example, the Jihad against Israel. In the same way, Saddam Hussein found the Christian or islamochristian Tariq Aziz (not his real name)useful in dealing with the outside world. In Egypt, while the Copts have always been under pressure, but increasingly so, the tame Boutros Boutros Ghali has always had to worry about doing the bidding of his Muslim masters in Egypt. His grandfather, who did not have such inhibitions in 1910 or thereabouts, for his pains was assassinated. Some Copts, like some Iraqi Christians, will internalize dhimmitude and parrot the party line of the circumambient and threatening Muslims. The most obvious case of this are such "Palestinian" Christians as Hanan Ashrawi, Naim Ateek (very busy in the world council of churches circut, busy, busy, busy), the gun-running Cappucci, and the rest of them. They put a Christian and a "nationalist" face for what has always been a Jihad against Israel -- a refusal, in the end, to contemplate the permanent existence of an Infidel sovereign state in the midst of the dar al-Islam. From the Muslim point of view, and especially the Arab Muslim point of view, this cannot be allowed to stand. It is intolerable, unacceptable. Those who suggest otherwise, including such people as Dennis Ross and company, really have to explain to us, and to themselves, what is it about the central tenets of Islam that makes you think Muslims don't really believe them, or will not, when they can, act on them? Are you privy to some special rulings by the Rector of Al-Azhar? Do you have some inside dope about Islam that escaped Arthur Jeffery, Majid Khadduri, Joseph Schacht, David Margoliouth, Snouck Hurgronje, A. K. S. Lambston, J. B. Kelly, Armand Abel, Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq, K. S. Lal, and another hundred serious scholars, who did not spend their time on "shuttle diplomacy," smiles, handshakes, appearances on the Charlie Rose Show (there's glory for you)? The depth of the ignorance, and thus the limitless depth of the arrogance, in these people prescribing a
"solution" for a situation that has no solution, only the possibility -- if one wishes Israel to survive (yes, many would be delighted to see it thrown to the wolves, even if to get to that point they have to do it by degrees, all the while pretending it is the "only viable" way to handle things) -- of a long-term standoff. It worked for America in its dealings with Soviet Russia. That was what the Cold War was, a recognition of hopelessness, followed by a stern resolve on the part, if not of the West, than of the United States. It can work against all those who feel the Jihadist impulse, or who might at some point, or whose children might at some point -- which is to say, a very great number of Muslim Believers, not some "tiny handful of extremists."
at August 24, 2004 11:12 AM
all i'm trying to do is try and figure out what's happening in light of biblical prophecy.
now that the unavoidable and dangerous issue of islam is upon us, its time to take a fresh study of the bible and see if and where islam fits in.
in light of the fact that the jewish dispersion
of 2000 years has ended and the world is focused on events in the middle east, i think its wise to study the words of the jewish prophets (including the Lord Jesus and the apostles). is the answer here?
i have a major concern about the involvement
of the usa/western europe with islam/islamic nations.
every thing that comes out in the news supports my belief that the usa/europe is evolving as an ally of islam/ islamic nations (especially the chief islamic nation: saudi arabia). the usa
is doing nothing in stopping the growth and spread of islam in the non-islamic world.
i see a geniune 'doomsday' scenario unfolding with the western nations/islamic nations uniting in war against israel and the jews (plus their friends).
i am pessimistic about a human solution to this problem.
its obvious that for the problem of islamic war and 'terrorism' to be stopped, islam the religion/ideology must be totally destroyed/eliminated.
how do you do that?
would 'nuking' or otherwise destroying
the moslem shrines in mecca medina work?
and what if it doesn't? even if a govenment with the power, finally driven to desperation (besides the usa) decided to do it, would it even be doable with a missle strike? does the usa already have a missle defense system protecting mecca/medina? it wouldn't surprise me.
if the above can't/won't work,then
do we attempt to 'outlaw' islam and ban the koran as anti-human literature?
pretty tough to enforce.
now if the problem has no human solution,
then could we be witnessing the drama of
end time prophetic scenarios developing
and culminating in the return of Jesus Christ
to rescue mankind from destroying itself?
at August 24, 2004 11:35 AM
in answer to the repeated charge of my making anti-'christian' remarks:
let me say:
if we simply look in the bible for the theological
definitions of terms, we can have a common basis for undertanding.
a label does not define the object.
there is no such thing as a "christian" nation
in the bible with the exception of israel.
so if this is true, this leaves out so-called 'christian' nations such as usa, and others.
IF (repeat: IF), there was such an entity as a true
christian nation submitted to Jesus Christ and the scriptures, then it would not allow moslems to drive non-moslems out of iraq.
though nationally israel is currently in a state of unbelief, yet one day the nation 'en toto' will accept Him without individual exception.
Yeshua (Jesus) is the true and only 'HA TIKVAH' (hope) of israel.
Posted by: forrest shalom at August 24, 2004 11:50 AM
furthermore,
we can be encouraged that God is on the side of humanity and will NOT allow the moslems to win.
the most important issue for today is not even this serious moslem problem.
the most important issue is not a national issue.
the most important issue is:
have YOU as an individual made peace with God?
your decision will determine your place in the coming Kingdom of God when Yeshua (Jesus) returns to reign as King of Israel and over the whole earth as well.
if you're not careful about this you will have plenty of moslem neighbors in hell to share an eternity with with allah thrown in as well.
(what a terrible prospect!)
check out Isaiah 9.5,6:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
now I hope that this encourages you as it does me.
so we can look to God for comfort in the midst of this demonic islamic holocaust that is developing on the earth.
i hope that you are 'on the Lord's side'.
email me at forrestshalom@swbell.net
if you wish.
God's offer of salvation for jew or gentile, moslem or non-moslem is still extended.
shalom and God bless and comfort you.
Posted by: forrest shalom at August 24, 2004 12:07 PM
Shalom, Forrest Shalom. Ma shlomeh?
Those guys having suspected you of anti-Christian sentiment appear to have completely missed your point.
I get it, the latest Western 'invasion' (that of Iraq) was supposed to topple an evil regime and replace it with equality, human rights, etc. Moreover, I doubt if there weren't many a ME Christian or Jew to think it would bring relief from the kindly dhimmi treatment.
Where did it all get us and get them?
The answer is as painful as it is categorical: on the highroad to a Shi'a theocracy, in the long term, another Iran in its drive to wage Jihad (oh, is it the long term?) and seek to distroy Israel.
I'm prepared to clap hands to George W. and the team.
Christian would mean a different approach, take the Crusades, for instance, when the destiny was the liberation of the Holy Land, a secondary objective - aid to fellow Christians in the East, and the background - the biblical prophesies of infidels infesting the Kingdom with Muhammad 'sitting in the Temple of God shewing himself that he is God' (2 Thessalonians, II:4).
Is that what you've been trying to get across?
Posted by: Nikoz at August 24, 2004 12:26 PM
forrestshalom pontificated "Yeshua (Jesus) is the true and only 'HA TIKVAH' (hope) of israel."
Now I know why I never trusted you.
What, in all your unholy arrogance, makes you think this is a more appealing option for Jews than Reza's Convert or Die threats?
Posted by: Whistling Dixie at August 24, 2004 1:51 PM
yes nikoz,
you make some wise observations.
what kind of benevolent nation (especially with the
reputation of being 'christian' would allow moslem law to be established such as is the case recently in afghanistan and now in iraq?
developements between the usa in particular (which i believe is mystery babylon of revelation chapter 18, and literal babylon: iraq warrants close watching because another designation for the anti-christ is the King of Babylon.
in the bible, babylon is a major enemy of israel.
if you read revelation chapter 18 it is hard to find another entity that fits the description other than
the 'land of lady liberty': ishtar: goddess of ancient babylon.
at August 24, 2004 1:55 PM
i think we should take the conservative approach to interpreting biblical
prophecy, and that means the literal/grammatial contextual method of
biblical
interpretation/application.
lets face the truth: we are afraid of islam/moslems and rightfully so.
their theology has no regard for humans life (including their own). they
want to destroy the world along with themselves.
thankfully there is an ANSWER to all this, and the answer is a Person Jesus
Christ. he knows full well what is going on and will intervene at the time
of His choosing.
meanwhile the jews are returning to israel and many are accepting Yeshua
(Jesus). there is a growing world-wide community of jewish christians (or
messianics if you prefer the term). this phenomena has not existed since
biblical times: jews accepting Jesus and maintaining a jewish culture and
loyalty to israel. this is mostly evident in israel where 'being jewish'
comes naturally and without fear, by the way.
according to daniel chapter 2.41-45 a final gentile empire represented
symbolically as iron pieces and clay would come together against israel.
the only thing of value the moslems contribute to the world is oil. the
word for 'clay' in hebrew is "arav" meaning arab.
hello?
am in the only one who sees this: the remnant roman empire nations and
their offspring (nations of western hemisphere) uniting with the arab
empire (islam) against israel. the moslems would be powerless if it were
not for the 'iron' they get from the west. the iron is the weaponry and
technology: its the tools the moslems need to attack israel.
daniel chapters 7 and 9 detail the activities of the ant-messiah. he will
be a gentile coming out of the empire that destroyed the second temple.
this was the roman(iron) empire. he will succeed in implementing a truce
between israel and the moslems and will be hailed as a saviour of mankind.
i suspect that he will be an american, because america is the only nation
'trusted' by both israel and the moslems. the perfect deception scenario is
rapidly developing.
although many individuals can see the threat posed by islam, their
governments(including israel) cannot.
the nations of the world are being thurst into a vortex in which millions
and perhapes billions will die as a result.
our only hope is in the return of the One that was 'despised and rejected
of men, acquainted with sorrow and grief'
isaiah chapter 53.
at August 24, 2004 1:57 PM
dear whisling dixie,
i simply believe what the bible says. i'm just a messenger boy: the sad fact is that most of humanity (including jews) will reject Jesus Christ. it will take the near destruction of israel (nearly 2/3 perish) before the remaining jews accept him:they will actually come to the desperate point of pleading for Him to return and rescue them from the combinded western/islamic
armies.
say, i'm a woefully inadequate and error prone human.
if you can correct me using the bible, then i will apologize and stand corrected.
and by the way thank you for not trusting me!
Jesus is the only one that merits total trust and
commitment.
at August 24, 2004 2:08 PM
Ok, let's take another look at this thing. First, there is no "Christian" nation in terms of a nation being the recipient of God's covenant. I don't know if anyone even thinks of the US as being a Christian nation in that manner, and I don't see the point of doing so. Yes, we as individuals are responsible for doing the right thing and this means voting, as well. Yes, our leaders (and we ourselves) will be held accountable. But the whole nation-convenant thing ended with the Old Testament.
Second, I've never been a big study on prophecy. Paul summed it up for me when he said that we prophecy in part and that love is the best way. That's all I need to know.
Third, when Jesus returns, it's not going to be anything that man controls or instruments. Then perfect judgement will occur and those who have rejected Christ will have to face him. There's no threat of murder, no convert or I'm gonna kill you stuff from Christians, in the meantime. We are to compel others to enter the kingdom of heaven, but that's never included murdering someone or dhimmitude. Three things to bear in mind: it's awful hard for oppressed peoples to have a legitimate change of mind; corpses don't change their minds, and people of all faiths or lack thereof have propspered in a nation built upon the Judeo-Christian precepts (i.e. America).
Best,
NMJ
at August 24, 2004 2:50 PM
Iraqi's Christian population is about to leave, this is a detriment to Iraq, as these people are in the main the best educated people.
Oil as revenue is not the answer to Iraq's problems and fanatical religion is living in the past.
http://213.92.16.98/ESW_articolo/0,2393,42219,00.html
at August 24, 2004 4:39 PM
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
Posted by: Rottweiller at August 24, 2004 5:24 PM
i simply believe what the bible says. i'm just a messenger boy
Yea yea yea, I've heard all this before. The bible says this and that bible says that.
In actual fact the bible, well the original version in Hebrew, doesnt exactly say what you think or claim it says.
There are many things that have been mistranslated or are said out of context. However even when these are pointed out very factually and precisely, most Christians will repeat what they want to believe.
So how about prefacing your statements like this:
"MY bible says", instead of THE bible says.
Or "MY religion tells me", not THE bible says.
In this way its a lot more accurate....
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 24, 2004 5:44 PM
Son of Infidel:
People have the right to make anti-christian statements. Being anti-christian is NOT the same as being anti-semitic. Don't ever try to shut up anyone on this forum.
I'm wondering too, just why a christian occupation force would refuse to protect Iraqi christians. Or don't you want us asking questions like that?
Posted by: Voltaire
at August 24, 2004 6:15 PM
Voltaire,
That's because the so-called 'christian occupation force' is probably more American rather than Christian. In other words, it's Christian by default, as is the country that sent it.
They had a mission to accompish - the overthrow of a cruel and corrupt dictator allegedly linked to terror groups. That's sheer politics and state defense, it has nothing to do with the welfare of Christianity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, the American presidents (this one and his predecessor) are hypocritically Christian.
Posted by: Nikoz at August 24, 2004 6:34 PM
I'm getting the impression that the US are whores for Saudi Arabia.
Iraqi christians are leaving Iraq. Doesn't that benefit muslims all over the world, especially Saudi Arabi? When muslims get to vote for their elections, won't they just vote in some-one like Al-Sadr?
And why does the US and Britain say that Iraq is an Islamic state when they know that there are christians living in those countries.
George Bush and Tony Blair talk about being christians when in reality they are refusing to protect the actual christians who live in Iraq. They are no more christian than what I am.
Posted by: Voltaire at August 24, 2004 6:34 PM
Oh yeah, we post the same simultaneously.
at August 24, 2004 6:36 PM
Was Saddam linked to muslim terror groups? I thought that he and Osama Bin Laden had a mutual hatred of each other.
Yes, Nikoz, I know that American troops are not christian in any real way, but I still don't understand why they are not protecting Iraqi christians from muslim persecution. I thought that their mission was to protect all Iraqis?
Posted by: Voltaire at August 24, 2004 6:41 PM
I thought so too.
I recall (not a distant past though) Saddam would cooperate with anyone against Israel. Plus the innumberable 9/11 commissions' reports made one think he was behind some atrocious conspiracy. I only meant this when wrote 'allegedly linked to terror groups'.
The truth is, he really had little truck w/ the islamofascists, and that should have gone to his credit.
at August 24, 2004 6:49 PM
son of moses,
in reference to daniel 2.41-45
i DID look into the hebrew bible.
that is how i discovered the HINT that the Lord leaves identifying the 'clay' as arabs: one half of the last gentile empire:
ARAV = ARAB
actually it looks to me like more than a mere
hint: its there in black and white, but yes you
do need to look at it in ivrit (hebrew).
shalom
Posted by: forrest shalom at August 24, 2004 6:58 PM
nikoz said: "Correct me if I'm wrong, the American presidents (this one and his predecessor) are hypocritically Christian."
i think this is a true statement, again if the biblical definitions apply bush flunks the test.
--------------------
voltaire said: "I'm getting the impression that the US are whores for Saudi Arabia."
i believe that current events support the above statement. what saudi wants from the usa it gets, they are calling the shots.
one day they will probably make an ultimatum to the usa and it will comply like a miserable lap dog.
incidentally i read recently that the usa navy asked the question to prospective officer candidates for promotion in the sixth fleet:
if you were ordered to fire nuclear weapons at tel aviv what would you do?
this was found at victor mordecai's site:
vicmord.org
Posted by: forrest shalom at August 24, 2004 7:09 PM
Poor Christians of Iraq. No where to go except Syria. And if the US invades Syria, then even that escape hatch will be closed.
The same has happened in Bosnia and Kosovo. With each American intervention, it is the Jihad that has won and native Christians driven out. Atleast that is how it must appear to Christians. They could have been forgiven in believing that US/UK forces would give them some respite from persecution. They could never have imagined that the situation for them would be worse then under Saddam.
Hugh:
I can understand your critique that Ashrawi and others such as her (Edward Said), are dhimmis. But the fact is that they have no realistic choices. If they do not support the Muslims, Arab Christians are doomed. In fact most of their difficulties arise from the US insistence of a state for the Palestinians. I'm afraid that US policy in the ME and elsewhere, has been consistently to the detriment of local Christians. In many instances, to their expulsion or murder.
at August 24, 2004 7:31 PM
Mankind is at a crossroads.....
Is religion going to be archaic baggage which we will shed to free ourselves for an enlightened future or will it be an anchor that forever binds us to an evolutionary past of human limitations?
Because the question will always remain, whose religion?
We must make progress toward an existential truth and shed our superstitious past. No one can ever fully know the truth, you say? Isn't the act of seeking knowledge preferable to blind faith?
at August 24, 2004 7:45 PM
degenerate artist:
Jesus of Nazereth was a real person who
came to teach us the truth about who we are
where we came from and where we are going.
faith in Him is not blind but based on the prophetic passages in the hebrew bible which spoke of the Messiah's identity and coming:
here are a few.
psalm 2
psalm 22
isaiah 9.6
micah 5.2
isaiah 53
another point:
without faith in God man degenerates (excuse the pun) into an ideology like islam.
i fear that this is the trend in america and the west as it rejects biblical theology/morals and
eventually fills the void with islam
at August 24, 2004 8:08 PM
Degenerate artist, I couldn't agree with you more.
Forrest shalom: the Japanese don't believe in god, they worship nature. How come they are not muslims?
Posted by: Voltaire at August 24, 2004 9:03 PM
forrest shalom: Isaiah 53 refers to Israel being the suffering servant, not Jesus. I know Christians keep claiming it proves Jesus was the Messiah but it doesnt.
Jews WANT the messiah to come. If Jesus was the Messiah there would be no reason for Jews to reject him. Jesus and other Messiah wannabees were rejected BECAUSE they didnt fulfill the prophecies, not BECAUSE they did.
There is NO reference to a Messiah coming once, then getting killed and coming for a second time in any scripture. If you believe Jesus was described in the texts, then you have to expect the whole story to be there, not just part of the story.
In addition Jews do not believe in the immaculate conception. There is no reference to this in Isaiah, its a mistranslation of a single word.
We know our history and our traditions better than Christians do. Its the Christians who got it wrong, not the Jews ;)
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 24, 2004 9:18 PM
forrest shalom: Isaiah 53 refers to Israel being the suffering servant, not Jesus. I know Christians keep claiming it proves Jesus was the Messiah but it doesnt.
Jews WANT the messiah to come. If Jesus was the Messiah there would be no reason for Jews to reject him. Jesus and other Messiah wannabees were rejected BECAUSE they didnt fulfill the prophecies, not BECAUSE they did.
There is NO reference to a Messiah coming once, then getting killed and coming for a second time in any scripture. If you believe Jesus was described in the texts, then you have to expect the whole story to be there, not just part of the story.
In addition Jews do not believe in the immaculate conception. There is no reference to this in Isaiah, its a mistranslation of a single word.
We know our history and our traditions better than Christians do. Its the Christians who got it wrong, not the Jews ;)
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 24, 2004 9:18 PM
There is truth in many words, but all words are not truthful. You the individual reader must decide.
The evil of Islam is that it denies the individal a choice. It denies the individal his right of self-determination, to become himself through his personal choices. Are you not a good person when you make the right choice? Can you not be a better person having made the wrong choice and learned otherwise?
I want no State, no Government, and certainly no Religion making MY choices.
at August 24, 2004 10:14 PM
Voltaire stated:
Son of Infidel:
"People have the right to make anti-christian statements. Being anti-christian is NOT the same as being anti-semitic. Don't ever try to shut up anyone on this forum".
I do not try to shut up any one on this forum, except for the Islamo-sand-maggots.
In the event I read a comment that I object to, I shall take issue with it!
Please try and explain your ignorant comment:
"anti-christian is NOT the same as being anti-semitic".
I suspect your hostility towards me is based on my well known anti-homosexual views,don't take them personally, although I realize it is not easy for you "girlfriend".
Posted by: Son of Infidel
at August 24, 2004 10:51 PM
voltaire:
i just have my viewpoint on trends happening paricularly in the usa and the west as regards to moslem incursions.
the orient is another subject which i won't get into here, however nature worship and shinto have similarities with the pagan origins of islam.
son of moses: the notion that israel is the suffering servant and not an INDIVIDUAL does not fit the context of the isaiah 53 passage.
jesus was crucified not the nation of israel. another good passage describing the messiah's suffering is psalm 22.
there is also the biblical concept of the remnant that has always been in operation in regards to israel.
briefly put it means that not all jews at a given time in history accept revelation from the Lord.
this was true during the time of moses,during the monarchial period,during the time of Yeshua and it is true NOW. but there has always been a jewish remnant (however small) that is faithful to the Lord. the jewish christian living today under the New Covenant are that faithful remanant that according to the scriptures is even keeping national israel alive: isaiah 1.9
the remnant principle ceases at Yeshua's second advent when ALL israel will be saved. (romans 11.26)
daniel 9.24-26 is a passage that gives us the actual timing of the messiah's
first coming. according to this passage, it had to be before the destruction of the second temple.
for a detailed study of messianic prophecy that only Jeus could have fulfilled please read
"Messianic Christology" by dr. arnold fruchetnbaum
of ariel.org ministries.
shalom shalom
Posted by: forrest shalom at August 24, 2004 11:07 PM
forrest shalom,
What explaination to you give as to why the majority of Jews reject Christ as the "Son of God" and the Messiah?
Posted by: Son of Infidel at August 24, 2004 11:21 PM
whoops a typo:
should of course read Jesus and not "Jeus"
Posted by: forrest shalom at August 24, 2004 11:23 PM
Typo:What explaination "do" you
Posted by: Son of Infidel at August 24, 2004 11:24 PM
son of infidel,
well we should all be able to at least agree that the belief of the 'majority' on any topic does not prove its truthfulness.
mankind is just a hardened bunch of sinners and its not many percentage wise that accept the truth.
israel as God's chosen people, have also had problems in this area.
nothing is ever God's 'fault'. the problem is always with mankind.
it is a mystery as to why the vast majority of mankind reject God. it is no different with israel.
God's promises to israel never failed and are not failing now just because national israel is in unbelief. rabbinic judaism
has greatly erred in teaching that because one was born a Jew that it automatically entitled him to a place in the kingdom of God.
Yeshua dispells this idea when has a conversation with a leading pharisee
named nicodemus in john chapter 3. Yeshua explains that it is not enough to be born into a religion
or people group.
salvation consists in personal acceptance of the Lord.
by reviewing the history of israel we can see how it was always the majority who reject the Lord and a small minority actually accept.
Yeshua said:
matthew 29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
national israel is under the misguided leadership
of rabbinic judaism. hebrew christians or messianic jews are the ones faithful to God's revelation at the current time. yes percentage wise its very small, but the percentage of gentiles who are true christians is much smaller.
i'm afraid the the moslems are going to change alot of people's minds about Jesus.
so this is a good thing to come out of the islamic scourge.
Posted by: forrest shalom at August 24, 2004 11:49 PM
jesus was crucified not the nation of israel. another good passage describing the messiah's suffering is psalm 22.
Forrest shalom: Like I said before. Mistranslations...
3) MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS
Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.
A. VIRGIN BIRTH
The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.
B. CRUCIFIXION
The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."
C. SUFFERING SERVANT
Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the “suffering servant.”
In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.
Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.
http://www.aish.com/rabbi/ATR_browse.asp?s=jesus&f=tqak&offset=1
at August 24, 2004 11:58 PM
Forrest Shalom. With regards to Isaiah and the suffering servant.
I find it almost comical that someone would even compare Jesus suffering on the cross, which only lasted a few days, with the suffering the Jews collectively experienced over the generations.
The suffering experienced by Jews during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the nazi death camps etc, exceeded the suffering Christ experienced for those few days on the cross by such an order of magnitude, its incomprehensible to me and even insulting, that someone would think Isaiah refers to Jesus and not to all those Jews who suffered for YEARS and YEARS, not just a few days.
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 25, 2004 12:12 AM
Complained to BBC about their Article that' painted a rosy picture of Christians and Muslims
living harmoniously together in Iraq for hundreds of years'.Was sent an E Mail to say they were looking into my complaint about wrong and misleading facts... Never heard any more but article was withdrawn a couple of days later.
at August 25, 2004 2:50 AM
Son of Infidel:
Jews are not just a religion, they are a race as well. Christianity is just a religion, just like any other religion. That is why Jews are protected by anti-hate legislation and christians are not.
I don't hate you. And you have no idea what my real gender is also.
Posted by: Voltaire at August 25, 2004 4:23 AM
Son of Infidel:
Jews are not just a religion, they are a race as well. Christianity is just a religion, just like any other religion. That is why Jews are protected by anti-hate legislation and christians are not.
I don't hate you. And you have no idea what my real gender is also.
Posted by: Voltaire at August 25, 2004 4:23 AM
Son of Moses:
Jesus only suffered for SIX HOURS, not even one day.
You're right, the Jews have suffered for much longer than Jesus ever did.
Posted by: Voltaire at August 25, 2004 4:26 AM
Son of Moses:
Jesus only suffered for SIX HOURS, not even one day.
You're right, the Jews have suffered for much longer than Jesus ever did.
Posted by: Voltaire at August 25, 2004 4:26 AM
Voltaire: I stand corrected, then its even more obvious than ever that I was not Jesus.
This item is hot off the press. Notice the irony here. This is the town Mel Gibson used to portray the Jews in the most despicable way. Seems like someone is sending a message...
Locusts invade "Passion of Christ" town
Tue Aug 24, 1:37 PM ET
ROME (Reuters) - It seemed like an invasion of Biblical proportions in the Italian town of Matera, the outdoor setting for Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of The Christ".
Millions of locusts swarmed into the ancient stone city, scaring tourists off outdoor patios, and evoking some playful comparisons to Old Testament plagues.
The town Gibson used to depict Christ's final hours was still shuddering about the bugs on Tuesday, even though the worst seemed to be over.
"I'd never seen anything like it," said Rosalia Guira Longo, who runs the Albergo Italia, where Gibson stayed while shooting the controversial film.
"At night, the ground was carpeted by locusts ... they were huge," she told Reuters.
Matera, in the southern Basilicata region, is a designated UNESCO (news - web sites) World Heritage Site for its preserved ancient cave and stone dwellings.
Locusts are not uncommon in southern Italy.
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 25, 2004 4:43 AM
Voltaire,
Get your facts straight,the Jews are not a race.
race - people who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock; "some biologists doubt that there are important genetic differences between races of human beings"
group, grouping - any number of entities (members) considered as a unit
people of color, people of colour, colour, color - a race with skin pigmentation different from the white race (especially Blacks)
Black race, Negro race, Negroid race - a dark-skinned race
Caucasian race, Caucasoid race, White people, White race - a light-skinned race
Mongolian race, Mongoloid race, Yellow race - an Asian race
Amerindian race, Indian race - usually included in the Mongoloid race
Indian race - sometimes included in the Caucasian race; native to the subcontinent of India
"Jesus only suffered for SIX HOURS, not even one day"
To diminish the suffering of Christ as you have is very disturbing and ignorant of you.
Christ the "Lamb of God" suffered for the sins of man.
"And you have no idea what my real gender is also".
I am not particularly interested in what gender you are, although I recall you once stated that you are a male homosexual.
Posted by: Son of Infidel
at August 25, 2004 5:21 AM
son of moses,
The historical facts are that the religious leaders of the Jewish community in the 1st century delivered Christ into the hands of the Romans.
This is not anti-semitism, it is fact.
Judaism and Christianity both have much to offer,although the Jews reject Christ as the "Son of God".
Remember Christ was a Jew and so were the early Christians who also suffered great persecution at the hands of the Romans not to mention the persecution of Christians in the Islamic world today.
It serves no purpose to compare who has suffered more.
Jews and Christians need to unite to defeat their common enemy,Islam.
Posted by: Son of Infidel at August 25, 2004 5:39 AM
son of moses:
i am willing to respond to your objections
concerning Yeshua being the messiah one at a time: time permitting.
for now i want to concentrate on isaiah 52.13-53.12
as an introduction before we get to the text
i would like to state as a background:
according to dr. arnold fruchtenbaum,
emminent jewish messianic scholar:
"all of the ancient jewish writings- the mishnah, the gemara(the talmud), the midrashim, and many others all regard this portion of scripture as referring to the messianic person". 'messianic christology'
p.54.
it was rashi who was the first rabbi to suggest otherwise in about the year 1050 ad.
even maimonides contradicted rashi and stated that he was COMPLETELY wrong in going agains the traditional jewish viewpoint
that the passage is speaking of the messianic
person.
at August 25, 2004 10:22 AM
Son of Infidel:
These are the facts of the story: The Jews lived under Roman occupation, ie the Romans were in charge, not the Jews. Jesus was seen as a radical who could potentially cause problems for the Jews. His actions of rebellion against the Roman authorities could have made life even more difficult for Jews, so thats probably why he was turned over.
Point #1 - He wasnt turned over because he was seen as God and the evil Jews wanted him (God) dead.
Point #2 - The Romans were looking for him because of what he was doing, he wasnt some innocent guy minding his own business, he was a radical political figure.
Point #3 - It was the Romans who decided he must die and crucifiction was a Roman pubishment. Even if he was turned over to the Romans, it was the Romans who ultimately decided his fate, not the Jews. If the Romans were under the control of the Jews or cared about their feelings, they would not have destroyed the Jewish temple.
Point #4 - Jesus himself knew his life was in danger, but went right back into a dangerous situation he was well aware of. So he is just as much to blame for his death. In fact the law of the Torah forbids a person from flaunting with danger by putting his life at risk. Jesus was not without sin, he chose to put his life at risk because he was trying to prove he was the messiah by trying to fulfill the messianic prophecy.
Point #5 - The entire story of Jesus was about Jews, however the only time Jews are mentioned as Jews, is when they are presented in a negative light.
If an arab made this statement: "The Americans hated Martin Luther King Jnr so much they wanted him dead and killed him" Technically this statment is true, an American did kill Martin Luther King Jnr, but nobody refers to him as an American simply because everyone involved was American.
That's why making a simplistic statement like you did is considered anti-semitic as it gives a slanted side to the story to make the Jews, collectively, the blame for what happened to Jesus.
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 25, 2004 1:53 PM
forrest shalom: "according to dr. arnold fruchtenbaum,emminent jewish messianic scholar:"
This title of "jewish messianic scholar" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a Messianic Jew. This is a term invented by Christian evangelists to recruit and convert Jews under the guise that they can believe in Jesus and still be a Jew. These people are very mislead and consequently they have no authority or recognition in Jewish circles regardless of how eminent they believe themselves to be.
Not to mention that he is just plain wrong. The entire book of Isaiah deals with the Jews, the Jews are called the suffering servant many times and if the entire book of Isaiah is read in context, which is how it was written, it becomes clear who Isaiah was referring to. Breaking Isaiah into parts are reading them out of context from the whole story is not how the text was ever meant to be read.
Here is a very good explanation with supporting texts. Read the verses that precede this and you will be surprised to see how obvious it is who Isaiah was referring to.
http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa53intro.html
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 25, 2004 2:15 PM
Son of Moses,
"simplistic statement like you did is considered anti-semitic as it gives a slanted side to the story to make the Jews, collectively, the blame for what happened to Jesus".
First my previous comments, were not as you stated "simplistic", that is only your misinterpertation.
Futhermore,I have stated the "facts" if you misconstrue them to be anti-semtic that is your error.
Finally, to collectively hold all Jews responsible for the death of Christ is inaccurate and wrong and I do not nor have I ever held this opinion.
The "facts" are that Christ was hated by the Jewish religious leaders of that time do to his exposing and disrupting their immoral and corrupt ways.
Christs concern was for the glory of God and true expressions of faith in him.That which God intended to be a house of prayer and a place of worship had been transformed into a "den of thieves".
Christ went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold there.
This was the cleasing of the temple.
Matthew 21:12
12 ¶ And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
Matthew 26
47 ¶ And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.
56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
57 ¶ And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.
58 But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.
59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,
61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
68 Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?
at August 25, 2004 3:13 PM
Typo: This was the "cleansing" of the temple.
Posted by: Son of Infidel at August 25, 2004 3:15 PM
The "facts" are that Christ was hated by the Jewish religious leaders of that time do to his exposing and disrupting their immoral and corrupt ways.
I dont dispute this, but many other people didnt like Jesus too. His own family thought he was insane.
In addition. How many church sanctioned death have occured because of corrupt Church officials??
This is what happened to Jews during the middle ages under the authority of the Church
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/jews-sietepart.html
Would you be comfortable if Jews were taught this as part of their religion? If facts are your concern then its appropriate to ALSO point out how many Jews and other people were killed because they didnt agree with or follow church doctrine. Remember, this is the same church that was founded using the teachings of brotherly love preached by Jesus.
I think that puts the death of one man, Jesus, into perspective. Thats all my point is, yes it was bad for Jesus, but it was insignificant compared with what the church did to thousands of people under the banner of Christianity and Jesus.
Quite frankly I'm sick of hearing how bad it was for Jesus when all these other people suffered a far worse fate and dont get anywhere near the sympathy.
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 25, 2004 4:16 PM
Son of Moses,
We are in agreement that there were many atrocities perpetrated aganist the Jewish people throught history in the name of Chistianity, especially the by the Catholic church.
The Crusades were a dark period for the Christian church and many innocent people were slaughtered in the name of Christ.
"Man" over the centuries has distorted and missused the "true" teachings of Christ for personal gain.
Christ Jesus suffered and died on the cross for the sins of man,to compare this with the suffering the of Jews or any other group of people is not inappropriate.
I am sure that you are wll aware of the horrific treatment of Christians by the Muslims now and throughout history.
The Armenian massacre of April 24th,1915 ,where 600,000-800,000 Armenian Christians were slaughtered at the hands of the Muslim Turks is was one of the worst atrocities commented aganist Christians.
Moses your commentary here at Jihad Watch is intelligent, informative and offten humorous.
Chritians and Jews need to stay united and persevere to defeat the scourge of Islam.
Sincerely,
Son of Infidel
Posted by: Son of Infidel at August 25, 2004 5:37 PM
son of moses:
you say: -This title of "jewish messianic scholar" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a Messianic Jew-
according to ANY bible the definition of a jew
is anyone descended from yaakov regardless of what they believe. this being the case, this would include jews who choose to believe in Yeshua.
i don't know if this is the proper forum for extended discussion of this issue.
but i am willing to dialogue with you via e-mail.
if you would like to respond my e mail address is: forrestshalom@swbell.net
shalom
Posted by: forrest shalom at August 25, 2004 7:00 PM
Moses your commentary here at Jihad Watch is intelligent, informative and offten humorous.
Chritians and Jews need to stay united and persevere to defeat the scourge of Islam.
Thanks Infidel, I agree.
Peace.
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 25, 2004 7:19 PM
according to ANY bible the definition of a jew
is anyone descended from yaakov regardless of what they believe. this being the case, this would include jews who choose to believe in Yeshua.
He may be a Jew by birth, but he is not a Jew by religion. Therefore his comments on scripture carry no weight, nor have any merit, as he is not knowledgable or a recognized authority on his own religion.
I would sooner accept the word of a Christian convert to Judaism who knew what he was talking about, than a born Jew who did not.
Thanks for the offer of email, but I have no desire or reason to pursue this beyond my comments made here.
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 25, 2004 7:24 PM
Also, if you want to learn about "Messianic Jews" its best to learn from people who once believed they were one, and now no longer do.
Here's a good one, and there are more on that same site.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/personalstories/julius.html
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 25, 2004 7:45 PM
i recommend:
jewsforjesus.org
here is also a list of prominent jews who
recognized their Messiah Yeshua:
http://www.MessianicAssociation.org/profiles.htm
Posted by: forrest shalom at August 26, 2004 11:03 PM
I recommend this link to learn the truth about the Jews for Jesus.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/mainpages/missionary_cult_challenge.html
I also recommend that if you truly believe Jesus is the messiah, you stop trying to mislead Jews into becomes Christians. This will only prevent the Messiah from coming.
I also want to thank you for something. I have just started writing a book to warn Jews about the deception utilized by people like you to turn them away from their real faith. I know when people have real information, and not false propaganda, they will be able to make the right choices.
As far as "famous messianic jews" goes, what relevance does this have to me? If I provide you with a list of famous drug addicts, does this make you want to become one too??
The nazis could not exterminate our religion, and neither will some misguided people like you....
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 27, 2004 12:17 AM
I also want to let you know that your behaviour gives Christians a bad name. Muslims are allowed to use deception to get people to become muslims. As far as I was aware, mainstream Christianity does not endorse this practice.
I dont know what branch of Christianity you follow, maybe its Southern Baptist, but I do know you give Christians a bad name by using the same deceptive practices that muslims use.
If you are ok with then thats on your soul. But make no mistake, you will be called to answer for this at some point in your life.
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 27, 2004 12:31 AM
Yeshua said:
"i am the way the truth and the life, no man
comes to the father but by me". john 14.6
---------
i put my trust and confidence in Him who loved me and give His life for me.
where is the blood sacrifice required in the old covenant?
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
if you have no blood atonement for your sins
then unfortunately you have no forgiveness from a holy God. you remain in your sins as Yeshua said to the pharisees of his day.
the fact is that the old covenant has been
rendered inoperative. Yeshua brought in the New covenant sealed in His precious blood.
it is no coincidence that Yeshua said:
Lu 13:35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
rabbinic judaism will one day be history.
it is the likes of you who deceive your people
and turn them away from believing in Yeshua.
but
the future belongs to Messiah Yeshua and his followers jewish and gentile.
and i rejoice to see the day when all israel will be saved.
Ro 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
hallelujah
at August 27, 2004 8:17 PM
by the way, WHO OR WHAT do you expect
to save israel from the islamic enemy?
the scriptures give the anwer:
zechariah 12
9 ¶ And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
-----------
son of moses, i sincerely hope that you will
be one of the accepting ones.
shalom
Posted by: forrest shalom at August 27, 2004 8:23 PM
Forrest shalom: You continue to demonstrate your complete ignorance on Jewish law.
where is the blood sacrifice required in the old covenant?
Blood sacrifice is not mandated in the Old Testament. In addition, Jesus could never be a replacement for it and here is why.
1. He was a human, God forbade the use of humans for sacrifice.
2. Only a perfect unblemished animal could be used for a sacrifice, Jesus was battered and bruised at the time of his death.
3. Most important is this point. A sacrifice was made by man to God, so that God would forgive man for his sins. However you Christians say that Jesus was part of God himself. That means you are saying that God sacrificed himself, to himself, so that man could receive atonement for his sins. How can God sacrifice himself, to himself, so that he can receive forgiveness for mans sins from himself???
Why don't you answer this question.
And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
And as long as you attempt to come against Jerusalem, i.e. the Jews, with your false perversion of God's law, you too will be the enemy of God.
Remember that I tried to warn you....
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 27, 2004 9:50 PM
Here are some more reasons why Jesus death could not be considered a sacrifice under Jewish law.
http://www.jewishpassion.com/documents/pt_leviticus_17_11.html
"There are actually several other factors which would render the crucifixion of Jesus an unacceptable sacrifice. According to the Biblical rules in Leviticus, all sacrifices had to be offered by a Priest who descends from Aaron. This was not the case in the death of Jesus, who was crucified by Roman soldiers. Additionally, Biblical law prohibited any sacrifice which was blemished or maimed (Leviticus 22:19-21). However, prior to his crucifixion, Jesus was whipped and beaten (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:19, John 19:3) which would render him unfit. Furthermore, Jesus was circumcised in the flesh, which according to Philippians 3:2 and Galatians 5:12 is considered mutilation."
AND
"One wonders why the Greek Testament chose to type Jesus as a Paschal lamb rather than the sacrifice for the Day of Atonement. We know from Exodus 12 that the Passover sacrifice did not serve as an atonement for sins, it commemorates the exodus from Egypt. (Even when the lamb was slaughtered in Egypt and its blood smeared on the doorposts, it did not serve to atone for the sins of anyone. It was a sign for the angel of death to pass over Jewish homes during the plague of the first born."
Do you see that Mr Forrest? Jesus was seen as the sacrifical lamb, but the lamb sacrificed during Passover was not for the atonement of ones sins.
Yom Kippur is the day of atonement, if Jesus was to atone for man's sins for all eternity, it would make sense for him to be sacrificed on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), not over Passover.
See how you get it wrong all the time? First learn Judaism from the correct sources, and then make your statements if you still beleive them as you are completely clueless when it comes to Jewish law and should not be trying to quote it. It makes you look very foolish...
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 27, 2004 10:16 PM
son of moses says:
3. Most important is this point. A sacrifice was made by man to God, so that God would forgive man for his sins. However you Christians say that Jesus was part of God himself. That means you are saying that God sacrificed himself, to himself, so that man could receive atonement for his sins. How can God sacrifice himself, to himself, so that he can receive forgiveness for mans sins from himself???
Why don't you answer this question.
--------
the Lord is a tri-une being of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
God is not an absolute unitarian being of One.
but He has revealed himself as the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit.
for example david said in psalm 2:
the Lord said to my Lord sit thou at my right
hand until i make thine enemies thy footstool.
here we have a Lord speaking to another Lord. since the God of Israel is a unified being
we can only conclude that there are at least
2 Persons in the Godhead from this verse.
here's a beautiful verse that has the three persons mentioned in one verse!
Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
i know this is astounding but its just what the bible teaches.
its not polytheism or pagan. Yeshua has the nature of divinity but he is distinct from the father and the holy spirit.
hope this helps
at August 28, 2004 8:26 PM
Forrest Shalom: Evangelists like you are very good at asking ignorant people questions, and when they can't answer, you love to spout off with your nicely packaged little quotes.
However, when faced with someone who is not ignorant who asks YOU questions, you are stuck for words and attempt to respond by asking me even more questions.
Lets recap.
I asked you this question and I am expecting an answer. I am not looking for more quotes taken out of context to try and justify your tri-une. In fact I am using the very belief of your tri-une to pose this question to you. I am testing your tri-une belief to see if it makes sense.
So once again... for the sake of argument, lets accept that Jesus was part of God. Using this belief kindly answer this question And I mean answer it in a religious theosophical sense, with a rational explanation, do not simply refer me to quotes that do not resolve this issue like you just have.
Here is the question again....
How can God sacrifice himself, to himself, so that he can receive forgiveness for man's sins from himself???
In other words. How can God simultaneously be BOTH the entity making the sacrifice AND the entity accepting the sacrifice??
A sacrifice is made BY a man TO a God. It is not made by a God to a God, who just so happens to be part of the same entity.
Please explain...
at August 28, 2004 9:41 PM
Yeshua has the nature of divinity but he is distinct from the father and the holy spirit.
hope this helps
It doesnt help at all. In fact this is what I call "the convenience of Christianity" When its convenient and necessary to portray Jesus as God to make Jews believe that Jesus was God on earth, then Jesus is portrayed as being interchangeable with God, like he is just another side of God and you must believe in him.
However, when contractory aspects like I just brought up come along, you then stress the separation of the 3 parts. So even though Jesus is part of God, he is really the son and basically is a separate part of God, like an independent part.
Why would it be necessary to accept Jesus as our savior if we already believe in God? If Jesus as you claim wasnt the same as God and still needed to perform the action of sacrifice to get God to forgive man, then how can it be valid to accept his word over God's word as only God could forgive man, not Jesus?
Using this idea of yours that he is not the same as God you are then contradicting yourself. If God is the superior and Jesus is the inferior, which we can assume since Jesus was not simply able to ask God to forgive man of his sins, he had to actually sacrifice himself before God would do it. Then why is is not enough just accepting God as we already do and as he commanded us to? Jesus showed us that God is the one who forgives sin, which is what God told us. And we know God's word takes priority over Jesus as Jesus wasnt able to simply ask God for man's forgiveness, he had to sacrifice himself to do so. If Jesus now says we must accept him to get to God, that isnt the binding truth for us because Jesus has demonstrated to us that its God who has the final and binding word, not him. Therefore until God himself tells us to follow Jesus, we cannot do it, because we recognize Gods authority over Jesus, just as Jesus himself did.
Whatever Jesus said or did cannot supercede what God said and did. Which is why we Jews are true to God's word as he has told us before Jesus appeared that his word cannot be altered.
Deuteronomy, 4:2: "Do not add on to the matter which I command you, and do not detract from it, to observe the commandments of Hashem your G-d, which I command you."
If God himself says we must accept Jesus, then we must accept Jesus, but if Jesus says we must accept Jesus, we must listen to God before we listen to Jesus. God's word SUPERCEDES Jesus word. That is what he commanded us to do and that is what Jesus himself did both in his actions and in his teachings.
Posted by: SonofMoses at August 28, 2004 10:50 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)