www.facebook.com/preterism

1. So, why don’t we all discuss the second coming?  For old time’s sake.
2. I don’t have a lot of hobbies, but I do enjoy studying the last days as a past time.
3. I’m completely dedicated to preterism.  Even though there’s really no future in it.
4. Personally, I find the preterist reformation to be quite timely.
5. When I’m through with those futurists, their view will be history.
6. I’m really not opposed to dispensationalists getting raptured.
7. The archangel totally blew it.
8. When it comes to eschatology, hindsight is 20/20.
9. I like to call them the last days of yore.
10. Preterism is the only view of eschatology that will stand the test of time.
11. I had three Americanos this morning.  So, I was kind of a hyper preterist.
12. When I said, “time will tell which view of eschatology is correct”, I didn’t mean we’d have to wait and see.
13. I’m taking futurists to the woodshed.  And I’m bringing a timing belt.
14. Let’s make preterism the eschatology of the future!  Er, you know what I mean.
15. I went over 70 in the car with my family last night.  Of course, I go over it with them at home too.
16. Whenever you get discouraged in your efforts to convert people to preterism, just remember… in less than a hundred years, everyone you know will agree with you.
17. Living past 70 is a blessing.
18. I believed the Gospel, I just didn’t know what to think about the rest of the story.  Then I discovered preterism.  And the rest is history.
19. If you’re waiting for Revelation 19 to be fulfilled, I’ve got news for you… that horse has left the barn.
20. Whenever someone asks me how much of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled, I just say, “Olivet”.
21. Preterism kicked my left behind all the way to kingdom came.
22. In 70 AD, Christ married His Bride.  That makes me a legitimate son of the resurrection.  Despite what they call me.
23. I prefer to call it the yesterday of the Lord.
24. The Jewish rebellion against Rome may not have been the greatest uprising in history, but it did coincide with it.
25. I’m sorry if I’ve irritated you by speaking about eschatology in the past.  I promise not to speak of the coming of Christ in the future.

Read more at: www.facebook.com/preterism

‘Why is everything so difficult here . . . ?’

VIEWS FROM A BRIT
MIKE WOOTTON

IMET a fairly new expatriate arrival to the Philippines the other day.

After five minutes introductory conversation, the lady came out with the question, “why is everything so difficult here?” That just about sums things up; everything is so difficult. It didn’t use to be like this.

The Philippines used to be a fairly easy place to live, albeit doing business for foreigners, has always been difficult.

There are to my mind two main factors in answer to the question above, and they both might be the same thing but from different directions: corruption and red tape. Red tape is to a point intended to restrict opportunities for corruption but in fact it has the opposite effect of encouraging it. The current administration is against corruption, and rightly so. But will this breed more red tape?

One of the main problems is perception, as highlighted in the Corruption Perception Index of Transparency International in which the Philippines now sits at number 141 out of 180. Whether or not an action, a process or a requirement does in fact have some corrupt “angle” to it becomes less important than the perception that in a corrupt business environment such as the Philippines, corruption is the first conclusion. “Ah, they must be doing this because they want a bribe,” just means that in the end nobody can trust anybody and yet more red tape is made to act as a surrogate for trust. But it doesn’t work. It spawns an active and highly professional forging business, and hones skills in lying. Even those who are trustworthy are assumed not to be, and if you are continually assumed not to be trustworthy then why bother being trustworthy when it’s easier not to be?

So what I conclude from this is that red tape is a negative influence on economic development. It exists mainly because the Philippines is at least seen as an environment of untrustworthiness and that some ways have to be found of changing that perception. For without changing that perception the Philippines stands little chance of moving fast forward, or even slow forward! The Philippines can’t get by in isolation from the rest of the world and without foreign involvement in its business.

So, how to get away from the view that everything is so difficult and that most transactions are difficult because they have some corrupt angle or other sitting behind them? To pay is undoubtedly not the way to do it. To continue to pay bribes etc. sustains the practice, like air hijackers or Somali pirates. We need to ensure that not paying is a better option than paying and to do that means that the red tape has to disappear and be replaced by trust, “innocent until proven guilty” rather than just always assumed guilty without a second thought, and often on the scantest of evidence. Sanctions in the case of proven breaches of trust should be high, in order to encourage trustworthiness and morally correct behavior.

Transparency is another related issue. Procedures put in place to encourage transparency frequently have the opposite effect.

Competitive bidding for example – who would think that an evaluation would be fair in the Philippines?

It’s easy not to tell the truth and avoid the confrontation – the avoidance of confrontation being so dear the Filipino heart. It’s also, in a Filipino context, better not to give people bad news, which may run the risk of embarrassing them, and which restricts the ability to give proper explanations. Due to these cultural characteristics it’s very difficult to get full transparency in the Philippines even if there is in fact nothing to hide, so people draw all the wrong sorts of conclusions – building yet more poor perceptions.

Better to explain frankly, openly and honestly regardless of the risk of causing people embarrassment.
And despite the fact that this way may take more effort . . .

I could not complete this particular piece of opinion without mentioning the level of salaries and wages paid around here particularly in the government sector. Obviously if people don’t earn enough to live on they will resort to other tactics and if you have a position of power devolved from the government then that is a good position from which to exercise informal public-private partnerships!!

In order to make everything less difficult, a bit of sorting out is needed and it’s a very big job indeed . . . I really hope that for the sake of the Philippines and it’s people and it’s future, that there is some determination out there to get things resolved and in a way that actually works effectively.

Mike can be contacted at mawootton@
gmail.com.

Short URL: http://www.manilatimes.net/?p=4163

Paul his missionary journeys completed, writes from his imprisonment in Rome to the saints in Colosse…the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister. (Colossians 1:23) …The year is 64 A.D.

Christ‟s command to preach the gospel to“every creature.” Paul writes:“…the gospel, which you have heard which was preached to every creature under heaven. Jesus said to preach the gospel to every creature; Paul said it was done. To the Church of Rome Paul writes…. So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed; “Their sounds has gone out to all the earth. And their world to the ends of the world. (Romans 10:17:18) Jesus command to preach the gospel in all the world. Paul said it was done.

Paul, thirty one years later, proclaimed the conditions of the gospel were fulfilled (remember, this is not Paul’s opinion, this inspired writ, ie., God’s opinion). So how do we biblically explain this? How could the apostles have reached the whole world in a little over 30 years from the time they were commissioned? They did not have radio or television, they usually walked, rode donkeys, or perhaps horses at best. Have we also been traditionally taught wrong on this issue as well?

The answer is simple: We cannot apply our modern assumptions to scripture. The key to understanding any passages of Scripture has always been a good grasp of the culture, language, and historical setting in which it was originally written. We have traditionally misunderstood the Greek word oikoumene which has been translated “world” in many English versions of the Bible. Because of our modern culture when most Christians see the word world, used in scripture they assume it means the whole planet earth. However Jesus, Paul and others in the first century meant something much less.

If they were referring to the globe, then Paul‟s claims are outrageous and ridiculous. However Jesus and Paul’s use of the word world was not the globe we call planet earth, it was the Roman Empire. When Jesus command to preach the gospel to the whole world, he was not speaking about a global perspective of people living over 2,000 years into the future. He was talking about the Roman Empire.

Is there any scripture to back up such a claim? Yes indeed. The primary rule of hermeneutics is to let (Scripture interpret Scripture). This manner of speaking and language was not new in the first century. Notice the accusation that is brought against Paul and Silas when they preached in Thessalonica: “These men who have (upset the world) have come here also” (Acts 17:6). They upset their know world, not the whole planet earth Paul was accused again before Felix:“…we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among (all the Jew throughout the world)…” (Acts 24:5). It might be suggested that such accusations were exaggerated; however, they are consistent with Paul‟s own claims in his letters. He freely admitted that he had preached “throughout the whole world.”

Lest look at more evidence in scripture. Elsewhere, the apostle Paul stated that the faith of the Christians in Rome was being “(proclaimed throughout the whole world)” (Romans 1:8).

In Act 19:27 we read, “So not only is this trade of ours in danger of falling into disrepute, but also the temple of the great goddess Diana may be despised and her magnificence destroyed, whom all Asia (and the world worship).” Diana of the Ephesians (Acts 19:24-37), as known from many statues of her image and as depicted on coins. However no one thought she was worshiped by the whole world.

.And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great (dearth throughout all the world): which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. (Acts 11:28, KJV) (This was fulfilled during the reign of Claudius Caesar the word is the Roman empire)

The New International Version reads, One of them named Agabus stood up in one of the meetings and predicted by the Spirit that a great famine was coming upon the entire Roman world.(Acts 11:28, NLT) Are you starting to get the culture, language, and historical picture?

Extra-biblical sources reflect the same limited world view. And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that (all the world should be taxed) (Luke 2:1, KJV) The NASB renders “all the world” “the inhabited earth.” Luke, considered the Roman Empire to be“the world” as well. Again we cannot apply our modern assumptions about the world to scripture.

Is there any evidence of this manner of speaking in the Old Testament ? Yes indeed there is. The Old Testament continually used the word world to refer to something much less than the entire globe. Five centuries earlier, Daniel predicted the appearance of the Greco-Macedonian Empire saying it would “rule over all the earth” (Dan. 2:39). Nobody had the idea the Greeks would ruled the whole planet. Back in Genesis we read of a famine that covered “all the earth” (Gen. 41:57). This did not include the whole planet either, only the known world of that time.

It is imperative that we understand what Jesus and his apostles really meant when they used the term world if we expect to understand what they were predicting. The preaching of the gospel“throughout the whole world” was supposed to be fulfilled within one generation of Christ‟s earthly ministry (Matt. 24:14, 34), and we should not be surprised to discover that it was. There is no need to require a modern fulfillment.

Paul, thirty one years later, proclaimed the conditions were fulfilled. What happened a few short years after Paul said those words? The end came! The spring of A.D. 67 marked the beginning of a 3½-year period of tribulation unlike anything the Jews had ever known. Roman armies invaded Palestine from the north and began burning town after town, either killing the inhabitants or selling them into slavery. Finally, in the summer of A.D. 70, Jewish animal sacrifices ceased and the Temple was completely destroyed. The “last days of the Old Covenant”came to an end. That was“the end” Jesus was talking about in (Matthew 24:14).

No matter what our old traditions assume about “the word world.” Their world was the Roman Empire, and as far as Paul was concerned, the gospel had been preached to that world by 64 A.D.

Since the gospel was preached in all the world the end of the Old Covenant world or age followed soon after. This kind of language in scripture should not come as a surprise because older people who come to America use this kind of language all the time. Older people who come to America from other countries after spending some time here sometimes say I miss the old word. They are not talking about the whole world or global. They are talking about their world in the since of their old country.

– Source of Article –

TNT = Teaching Newspaper Theology

by Grace Halsell

At the time I began my research for my book Prophecy and Politics, I discovered the average American I met in Washington, DC, and New York was not interested in TV evangelists and their link to Israel. Neither were book editors. I went to 25 top editors in New York with my book idea on religion and politics. Michael Korda of Simon and Schuster was typical. “Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? Who is interested in those crazies?”

By the time my book came out those “crazies” were on the front page of every American newspaper and on every news channel. Of course, I didn’t give them this instant fame, which extended throughout the world. Two of them earned it themselves by being in the middle of scandals.

The press told us that Jim Bakker had committed adultery and that Jimmy Swaggart regularly visited a prostitute. A fellow marine said Pat Robertson never had to dodge bullets in Korea because he had used his father’s influence as a senator to escape front line duty. But almost everyone ignored the biggest scandal of all: the peculiar mixture of prophecy and politics professed by these and other Christian Zionists.

The Christian Zionists Message

What is the message of the Christian Zionist? Simply stated it is this: Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.

“Never mind what Israel does,” say the Christian Zionists. “God wants this to happen.” This includes the invasion of Lebanon, which killed or injured an estimated 100,000 Lebanese and Palestinians, most of them civilians; the bombing of sovereign nations such as Iraq; the deliberate, methodical brutalizing of the Palestinians-breaking bones, shooting children, and demolishing homes; and the expulsion of Palestinian Christians and Muslims from a land they have occupied for over 2,000 years.

My premise in Prophecy and Politics is that Christian Zionism is a dangerous and growing segment of Christianity, which was popularized by the 19th-century American Cyrus Scofield when he wrote into a Bible his interpretation of events in history. These events all centered around Israel-past, present, and future. His Scofield Bible is today the most popular of the reference Bibles.

Scofield said that Christ cannot return to earth until certain events occur: The Jews must return to Palestine, gain control of Jerusalem and rebuild a temple, and then we all must engage in the final, great battle called Armageddon. Estimates vary, but most students of Armageddon theology agree that as a result of these relatively recent interpretations of Biblical scripture, 10 to 40 million Americans believe Palestine is God’s chosen land for the Jews.

Has the power of the Christian Zionists diminished?

I do not think so. Rather, we are seeing how the Christian Zionists, motivated by religious beliefs, are working hand in glove with politically motivated, militant Jewish Zionists around the world. It is the Christian support of Zionism that emboldens Zionists to believe they can dictate to relatively weak and dependent countries such as Austria, whom they may choose as their president.

It is the Christian support of Zionism that allows Manuel Noriega to remain the strongman in Panama, misusing his power, regardless of what harm he causes to the United States, his neighbors, and his people.

It is the Christian support of Zionism that enables the militant Israelis to take over Palestinian homes surrounding the Al-Aqsa mosque in pursuit of their well-documented plan to destroy Jerusalem’s most holy Islamic site, sacred to a billion Muslims around the world-one-fifth of humanity.

Christian Zionists and the Iran-Contra Scandal

Remarkably,it was this Christian cult of Israel that brought us the Iran contra scandal, perhaps the most self-destructive act in the history of the United States. Marine Col. Oliver North, the perpetrator of this misguided series of actions, is a Christian Zionist. A born-again charismatic figure, he endeared himself to the militant Israeli Zionists who plotted Iran-contra. “He is more Israeli,” said one Jewish general, “than we Israelis.” This is often the case. In his zealotry, the Christian Zionist can become more Zionist, more militant, than the Jewish Zionist.

In the Iran-contra hearings, Sen. James McClure (R-ID) explained to North that the US had a stated policy of neutrality in the Iran-Iraq war. That policy differed radically from Israel’s policy of selling arms to Iran. Yes, agreed North, the two policies were not the same. The question, to which McClure’s efforts yielded no response, then becomes: Why would the US forego its American policy to pursue Israeli policy?

The answer, unfortunately, lies in the belief system of Christian Zionists: They believe that what Israel wants is what God wants. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to give the green light to whatever it is Israel wants and then conceal this from the American people. Anything, including lies, theft, even murder, is justified as long as Israel wants it.

Another perfect example of a Christian Zionist is Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI). Throughout the hearings on the Iran-contra scandal, the Hawaiian kept the focus on the contras and steered determinedly clear of any criticism of Israel. If, in answer to questions, witnesses sought to explain the seminal and continuing role of Israel, Inouye abruptly broke off the line of questioning that had led the hearings to this unwanted destination.

Despite the political problems created by its lay practitioners and the scandals that rocked some of its TV ministries, this belief system-this cult of Israel-has not been diminished.

Indeed, I hold that Christian Zionism threatens not just the lives of Palestinians and other Arabs, but the very existence of the United States. Because of the cult of Israel, we have become a nation that does not have its own Middle East policy, but the policy the government of Israel tells us to have.

Despite the terrifying aspects of the alliance of militant Christians with militant Jewish Zionists, I find some encouraging developments. In my visits to colleges, clubs, and churches around the country, I have found strong support for the message and warning in Prophecy and Politics. It has come not only from liberal congregations, but from across the whole spectrum of Christianity, including those Christians who call themselves fundamentalists. These supporters see Christ as the bearer to humanity of God’s message of peace, brotherhood, love, and reconciliation. These Christians do not endorse either the cult of Israel or its killIngs and beatings of Palestinians.

I have found many such Christians in my frequent visits to my home state of Texas. There and all over this slowly-awakening land of ours, I have found a small but increasing number of ministers and lay people who are deeply alarmed by the cult of Israel and willing to stand up and speak out about it.

Grace Halsell is a Washington, DC-based writer and author ofJourney to Jerusalem and Prophecy and Politics.

________________________________________________

Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs

Special Report

What Christians Don’t Know About Israel

By Grace Halsell

May/June 1998, pages 112, 126

American Jews sympathetic to Israel dominate key positions in all areas of our government where decisions are made regarding the Middle East. This being the case, is there any hope of ever changing U.S. policy? President Bill Clinton as well as most members of Congress support Israel — and they know why. U.S. Jews sympathetic to Israel donate lavishly to their campaign coffers. .

The answer to achieving an even-handed Middle East policy might lie elsewhere — among those who support Israel but don’t really know why. This group is the vast majority of Americans. They are well-meaning, fair-minded Christians who feel bonded to Israel — and Zionism — often from atavistic feelings, in some cases dating from childhood.

I am one of those. I grew up listening to stories of a mystical, allegorical, spiritual Israel. This was before a modern political entity with the same name appeared on our maps. I attended Sunday School and watched an instructor draw down window-type shades to show maps of the Holy Land. I imbibed stories of a Good and Chosen people who fought against their Bad “unChosen” enemies.

In my early 20s, I began traveling the world, earning my living as a writer. I came to the subject of the Middle East rather late in my career. I was sadly lacking in knowledge regarding the area. About all I knew was what I had learned in Sunday School.

And typical of many U.S. Christians, I somehow considered a modern state created in 1948 as a homeland for Jews persecuted under the Nazis as a replica of the spiritual, mystical Israel I heard about as a child. When in 1979 I initially went to Jerusalem, I planned to write about the three great monotheistic religions and leave out politics. “Not write about politics?” scoffed one Palestinian, smoking a waterpipe in the Old Walled City. “We eat politics, morning, noon and night!”

As I would learn, the politics is about land, and the co-claimants to that land: the indigenous Palestinians who have lived there for 2,000 years and the Jews who started arriving in large numbers after the Second World War. By living among Israeli Jews as well as Palestinian Christians and Muslims, I saw, heard, smelled, experienced the police state tactics Israelis use against Palestinians.

My research led to a book entitled Journey to Jerusalem. My journey not only was enlightening to me as regards Israel, but also I came to a deeper, and sadder, understanding of my own country. I say sadder understanding because I began to see that, in Middle East politics, we the people are not making the decisions, but rather that supporters of Israel are doing so. And typical of most Americans, I tended to think the U.S. media was “free” to print news impartially.

“It shouldn’t be published. It’s anti-Israel.”

In the late 1970s, when I first went to Jerusalem, I was unaware that editors could and would classify “news” depending on who was doing what to whom. On my initial visit to Israel-Palestine, I had interviewed dozens of young Palestinian men. About one in four related stories of torture.

Israeli police had come in the night, dragged them from their beds and placed hoods over their heads. Then in jails the Israelis had kept them in isolation, besieged them with loud, incessant noises, hung them upside down and had sadistically mutilated their genitals. I had not read such stories in the U.S. media. Wasn’t it news? Obviously, I naively thought, U.S. editors simply didn’t know it was happening.

On a trip to Washington, DC, I hand-delivered a letter to Frank Mankiewicz, then head of the public radio station WETA. I explained I had taped interviews with Palestinians who had been brutally tortured. And I’d make them available to him. I got no reply. I made several phone calls. Eventually I was put through to a public relations person, a Ms. Cohen, who said my letter had been lost. I wrote again. In time I began to realize what I hadn’t known: had it been Jews who were strung up and tortured, it would be news. But interviews with tortured Arabs were “lost” at WETA.

The process of getting my book Journey to Jerusalem published also was a learning experience. Bill Griffin, who signed a contract with me on behalf of MacMillan Publishing Company, was a former Roman Catholic priest. He assured me that no one other than himself would edit the book. As I researched the book, making several trips to Israel and Palestine, I met frequently with Griffin, showing him sample chapters. “Terrific,” he said of my material.

The day the book was scheduled to be published, I went to visit MacMillan’s. Checking in at a reception desk, I spotted Griffin across a room, cleaning out his desk. His secretary Margie came to greet me. In tears, she whispered for me to meet her in the ladies room. When we were alone, she confided, “He’s been fired.” She indicated it was because he had signed a contract for a book that was sympathetic to Palestinians. Griffin, she said, had no time to see me.

Later, I met with another MacMillan official, William Curry. “I was told to take your manuscript to the Israeli Embassy, to let them read it for mistakes,” he told me. “They were not pleased. They asked me, ‘You are not going to publish this book, are you?’ I asked, ‘Were there mistakes?’ ‘Not mistakes as such. But it shouldn’t be published. It’s anti-Israel.’”

Somehow, despite obstacles to prevent it, the presses had started rolling. After its publication in 1980, I was invited to speak in a number of churches. Christians generally reacted with disbelief. Back then, there was little or no coverage of Israeli land confiscation, demolition of Palestinian homes, wanton arrests and torture of Palestinian civilians.

The Same Question

Speaking of these injustices, I invariably heard the same question, “How come I didn’t know this?” Or someone might ask, “But I haven’t read about that in my newspaper.” To these church audiences, I related my own learning experience, that of seeing hordes of U.S. correspondents covering a relatively tiny state. I pointed out that I had not seen so many reporters in world capitals such as Beijing, Moscow, London, Tokyo, Paris. Why, I asked, did a small state with a 1980 population of only four million warrant more reporters than China, with a billion people?

I also linked this query with my findings that The New York Times , The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post — and most of our nation’s print media — are owned and/or controlled by Jews supportive of Israel. It was for this reason, I deduced, that they sent so many reporters to cover Israe l— and to do so largely from the Israeli point of view.

My learning experiences also included coming to realize how easily I could lose a Jewish friend if I criticized the Jewish state. I could with impunity criticize France, England, Russia, even the United States. And any aspect of life in America. But not the Jewish state. I lost more Jewish friends than one after the publication of Journey to Jerusalem — all sad losses for me and one, perhaps, saddest of all.

In the 1960s and 1970s, before going to the Middle East, I had written about the plight of blacks in a book entitled Soul Sister, and the plight of American Indians in a book entitled Bessie Yellowhair, and the problems endured by undocumented workers crossing from Mexico in The Illegals. These books had come to the attention of the “mother” of The New York Times, Mrs. Arthur Hays Sulzberger.

Her father had started the newspaper, then her husband ran it, and in the years that I knew her, her son was the publisher. She invited me to her fashionable apartment on Fifth Avenue for lunches and dinner parties. And, on many occasions, I was a weekend guest at her Greenwich, Conn. home.

She was liberal-minded and praised my efforts to speak for the underdog, even going so far in one letter to say, “You are the most remarkable woman I ever knew.” I had little concept that from being buoyed so high I could be dropped so suddenly when I discovered — from her point of view — the “wrong” underdog.

As it happened, I was a weekend guest in her spacious Connecticut home when she read bound galleys of Journey to Jerusalem. As I was leaving, she handed the galleys back with a saddened look: “My dear, have you forgotten the Holocaust?” She felt that what happened in Nazi Germany to Jews several decades earlier should silence any criticism of the Jewish state. She could focus on a holocaust of Jews while negating a modern day holocaust of Palestinians.

I realized, quite painfully, that our friendship was ending. Iphigene Sulzberger had not only invited me to her home to meet her famous friends but, also at her suggestion, The Times had requested articles. I wrote op-ed articles on various subjects including American blacks, American Indians as well as undocumented workers. Since Mrs. Sulzberger and other Jewish officials at the Times highly praised my efforts to help these groups of oppressed peoples, the dichotomy became apparent: most “liberal” U.S. Jews stand on the side of all poor and oppressed peoples save one — the Palestinians.

How handily these liberal Jewish opinion-molders tend to diminish the Palestinians, to make them invisible, or to categorize them all as “terrorists.”

Interestingly, Iphigene Sulzberger had talked to me a great deal about her father, Adolph S. Ochs. She told me that he was not one of the early Zionists. He had not favored the creation of a Jewish state.

Yet, increasingly, American Jews have fallen victim to Zionism, a nationalistic movement that passes for many as a religion. While the ethical instructions of all great religions — including the teachings of Moses, Muhammad and Christ — stress that all human beings are equal, militant Zionists take the position that the killing of a non-Jew does not count.

Over five decades now, Zionists have killed Palestinians with impunity. And in the 1996 shelling of a U.N. base in Qana, Lebanon, the Israelis killed more than 100 civilians sheltered there. As an Israeli journalist, Arieh Shavit, explains of the massacre,

“We believe with absolute certitude that right now, with the White House in our hands, the Senate in our hands and The New York Times in our hands, the lives of others do not count the same way as our own.”

Israelis today, explains the anti-Zionist Jew Israel Shahak,

“are not basing their religion on the ethics of justice. They do not accept the Old Testament as it is written. Rather, religious Jews turn to the Talmud. For them, the Talmudic Jewish laws become ‘the Bible.’ And the Talmud teaches that a Jew can kill a non-Jew with impunity.”

In the teachings of Christ, there was a break from such Talmudic teachings. He sought to heal the wounded, to comfort the downtrodden.

The danger, of course, for U.S. Christians is that having made an icon of Israel, we fall into a trap of condoning whatever Israel does — even wanton murder—as orchestrated by God.

Yet, I am not alone in suggesting that the churches in the United States represent the last major organized support for Palestinian rights. This imperative is due in part to our historic links to the Land of Christ and in part to the moral issues involved with having our tax dollars fund Israeli-government-approved violations of human rights.

While Israel and its dedicated U.S. Jewish supporters know they have the president and most of Congress in their hands, they worry about grassroots America — the well-meaning Christians who care for justice. Thus far, most Christians were unaware of what it was they didn’t know about Israel. They were indoctrinated by U.S. supporters of Israel in their own country and when they traveled to the Land of Christ most all did so under Israeli sponsorship. That being the case, it was unlikely a Christian ever met a Palestinian or learned what caused the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This is gradually changing, however. And this change disturbs the Israelis. As an example, delegates attending a Christian Sabeel conference in Bethlehem earlier this year said they were harassed by Israeli security at the Tel Aviv airport.

“They asked us,” said one delegate, “‘Why did you use a Palestinian travel agency? Why didn’t you use an Israeli agency?’”

The interrogation was so extensive and hostile that Sabeel leaders called a special session to brief the delegates on how to handle the harassment. Obviously, said one delegate,

“The Israelis have a policy to discourage us from visiting the Holy Land except under their sponsorship. They don’t want Christians to start learning all they have never known about Israel.”

——————————————————————————–

Washington, DC-based writer Grace Halsell is the author of 14 books, including Journey to Jerusalem and Prophecy and Politics.

Posted on October 1, 2008 by Cathy