O Come O Come Emmanuel - Merry Christmas

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
Matthew 1:23 (KJV)

JERUSALEM AT CENTER STAGE

By Todd Strandberg

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last week that he has no intention of sharing the holy city of Jerusalem with the Palestinians. This statement did not generate too many headlines, but I believe it is very significant in showing us where we are in Bible prophecy.

“And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it” (Zechariah 12:3).
The Palestinians' claim to Jerusalem is based on a massive sham. Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital for three thousand years. There never was a Palestinian people, nation, language, culture, or religion. The archeological record points endlessly to a Jewish heritage for Jerusalem. If the Palestinians had any common sense, they would go pick some other city as their capital.

Since Netanyahu came to power nearly two years ago, he has accepted the principle of a Palestinian state next to Israel. There is growing indication that Netanyahu is beating the Arabs at their old game of repeatedly agreeing to something but never getting around to actually accomplishing the task.

The international pressure on Israel has been relentless. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has been pushing hard to get Israel to give on the core issues of Jerusalem's status. In one recent speech, she urged both sides to reach a final agreement "without delay and with real specificity." She pointedly called for compromise on the contested holy city, observing that "there will surely be no peace without an agreement" on Jerusalem — "the most sensitive of all the issues."

Bible prophecy promises calamity for any nation that seeks to divide Jerusalem. I believe a key reason America's economy has stumbled in recent years is the pressure we’ve been placing on Israel. Now that the Obama administration has decided to increase the pressure, I would expect to see greater trembling in the land.

Israelis have a good reason to stick with the status quo. A decade ago, the public lived in terror of being killed in a suicide bomber attack. After trying everything to combat the problem, the Israeli government was finally driven to the point of walling itself off from the Palestinians. Since the borders were sealed, there has not been a single terrorist attack in the past several years.

Another reason for Netanyahu to play coy with the Arabs is that it doesn't have any land to give away that will not jeopardize Israel's security. In the past, the Jews made the Arabs happy by giving them the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, a southern zone of Lebanon, and partial control of the West Bank. The Arabs always come back asking for more land.

The situation reminds me of story about a woman who was once chased by a grizzly bear. A human can only run half as fast as a bear, but the woman saved herself by taking off several items of clothing. Every time she dropped an item to the ground, the bear would momentarily pause before resuming the pursuit. At this point in the Middle East chase, Israel is down to its underwear, and instead of one bear there are about two dozen pursuing the Jewish state.

One of Satan’s key goals is to gain control of the city of Jerusalem. The devil certainly knows that his only chance of delaying events that will lead to his destruction is to capture Jerusalem and destroy the Jewish state. So far, Satan has edged closer to this goal by using peaceful means. Now that it looks like the Jews are not going to give up any more land, his next move will likely be war.

Prophecy teachers have long said that we are in the last days because our generation witnessed the rebirth of Israel. Perhaps it is time to say the Lord’s return is near because Jerusalem has now become the focal point of world attention.

"Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man" (Luke 21:36).


Isaiah 62:6-7, 10-11
"I have set watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they shall never hold their peace day or night. You who make mention of the Lord, do not keep silent, and give Him no rest till He establishes and till He makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth."

SIMPLE SONG FOR ISRAEL

DONNA SUMMER - "THE LAMB OF GOD"

THE LAMB OF GOD

Lord we have traveled far
Torn and weary guided by your star
There before us the living King
Hallelujah His Praises sing

Herod with a evil plan
Kill the babies
Came his bold command
He tried to alter God's Holy Plan
God has saved Him
The Son of Man

Behold the Lamb of God
The Mighty King of God
The Chosen One of God
Behold the Lamb of God
The Mighty King of love
The Chosen One of God

Three Kings from a distance came
Bearing gifts for the only One
Shout to heaven sound the drum
Tell the nations
The Lord has come

Behold the Lamb of God
The Mighty King of God
The Chosen One of God
Behold the Lamb of God
The Mighty King of Love
The Chosen One of God

He came to bring us His peace
He came to bring us his joy
To bring us love

Behold the Lamb of God
the mighty King of God
the chosen One of God

Behold the Lamb of God
the mighty King of God
the precious Lamb of God

Behold the Lamb of God
The mighty King of God
The chosen One of God

Spoken:
And so the wise men the shepherds
the ox and the lamb
the angels above
all rejoiced at God's command
as a star shine from heaven
this new King to adorn
on that very first Christmas
when Jesus Christ was born

Do You Hear What I Hear by Carrie Underwood

YouTube - itsycat's Channel

ISRAEL FIRE TRAGEDY CARMEL 2010

I AM ISRAEL , TRUE VERSION

JERUSALEM – TOO HEAVY TO LIFT - The Jerusalem Connection Blog

Jerusalem–Too heavy to lift » the Jerusalem Connection Blog -

by Jan Willem van der Hoeven, ICZC

Why not make Jerusalem the first issue to be dealt with, and not the last?

And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it. (Zechariah 12:3)

First Palestinian Arab study groups, backed by their political and religious leaders, declared that there was no evidence that a Jewish Temple ever stood on the Temple Mount. Now, in a just-published study, the Palestinian Authority is insisting that the Western Wall, too, has no historical connection to the Jewish people.

With these outrageous lies, the Palestinian leadership is preparing to stake its claim to “East Jerusalem:” International pressure must be brought to bear on Israel to hand over these parts of the city, which “have no connection to the Jewish people,” so they can be made into the exclusive capital of their Palestinian state.

As this Arab demand and condition for any peace agreement with Israel is a non-negotiable, Israel would be wise and do well to make Jerusalem the first item for discussion and not the last. Indeed, if it becomes clear there is no give and take on “East” Jerusalem, as certainly will become clear, then this city, as the Bible has already remarkably foretold, will become a stone too heavy for all the nations of the world to lift. After years of praying diligently to return to that place where their God made His dwelling between the cherubim in the Holy of Holies, the vast majority of Jews will refuse a peace that will see that place excluded from their territory.

For who can fathom a situation arising where indeed, for peace sake, a majority of Israelis will be willing to forfeit their ancient city and Temple Mount? Certainly the Muslim Palestinians will never, not even for peace sake, be willing to lay aside their claim – and this not withstanding the fact that Jerusalem is not mentioned even one single time in their Quran!!

Even if – God forbid – the unthinkable would happen, that Israel’s will would crumble under the incessant demands of the Arabs, and the Jews would withdraw not only from all of the “territories” but also from the eastern side of their ancient capital – even this would not bring peace. Instead it would be readily used by the now radicalized Muslim world as a stepping-stone to further dismantle Israel.

Let us not forget that the PLO was formed in 1964 – three years before the outbreak of the Six Day War – not to liberate the then already Arab-controlled ‘West Bank’ but to “liberate” all of Israel!

Well, was it said, therefore, by the eminent military historian Dr. Uri Milstein, as quoted in Arutz Sheva on November 5, 2010:

The problem, Milstein says, is the left. “In the leftist bastions of Ramat Aviv and Kfar Shmaryahu, they are still convinced that peace will come if we give up Judea and Samaria and the Golan. They probably won’t change their minds even if missiles rain down on Tel Aviv. The only way they will change their mind is if we do surrender these areas, and they find that the Arabs still make war against us.”

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

Prager University: The Middle East Problem

AFI Responds to Archbishop’s Statements Regarding Gaza

AFI Responds to Archbishop’s Statements Regarding Gaza
Written by Anglican Friends of Israel


Speaking to the Governing Body of Church of Wales on 22 September 2010, the Most Rev Dr Barry Morgan offered commentary about Israeli policies in the Gaza Strip that portrays the state of Israel in an unduly harsh light and downplays the threat posed by extremists in that territory. Anglican Friends of Israel is compelled to respond to these statements and provide some badly needed context.

“Now is not the time for one-sided polemic,” said Simon McIlwaine, co-director of Anglican Friends of Israel. “As negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank proceed we need measured and responsible commentary from our leaders.”

Anti-Semitism

At the beginning of his commentary on the Gaza Strip, the Archbishop attempts to inoculate himself from charges of anti-Israel bias by warning his audience “Now I realise, that whenever I say anything about this matter, I will be accused of being anti-Semitic, but our own Prime Minister has described Gaza as a prison camp.”

Here, the Archbishop raises a central issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict – anti-Semitism – in a very offhand way. While Most Rev Dr Morgan does affirm Israel’s right to defend itself against rocket attacks from Hamas, he fails to acknowledge that that Hamas is an explicitly anti-Semitic organization that at the very least seeks to exercise a veto over the Jewish right to self-determination.

Hamas’ anti-Semitic ideology pre-existed the blockade, which has been lessened in recent weeks by the Israeli government. Hamas’ attacks against Israel are not merely motivated by a desire to end the blockade, but to deprive the Jewish people of their ability to enjoy a national life of their own.
Clearly, anti-Semitism plays a significant role in fomenting violence against Israel in the Middle East. Israel’s adversaries throughout the Middle East speak about Israel and Jews as a cancer on the body politic in the Middle East.

Anyone intent on offering a word of peace must acknowledge and lament – if not condemn – this reality. Sadly, the Archbishop does not, but instead deals with the issue of anti-Semitism in a flip manner.

Palestinian Responsibility

The suffering of the people living in the Gaza Strip is genuine and indeed, Israel does bear some measure of responsibility for this suffering. Israeli journalists have long documented the suffering of the Palestinians .

The Archbishop’s commentary about the Gaza Strip, however, portrays Palestinian misdeeds as rooted entirely in Israeli policies. He states “the longer things continue as they are then moderate, ordinary Palestinians become more resentful and are in danger of being radicalised.”

The process of radicalisation began long before the blockade he condemns. Palestinian textbooks and newspapers have been portraying Jews as monsters for years. Anti-Jewish blood libels appeared on state-run television in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip before, during and after the negotiations at Camp David which ended in violence at the start of the Second Intifada in 2000.

The Archbishop describes the devastation in the Gaza Strip without acknowledging the role Hamas played in bringing the destruction about. Hamas has used schools, mosques and even hospitals for military purposes which under international law renders them legitimate military targets.

History has shown that isolating tyrannical regimes such as Hamas results in civilian suffering. The Church of Wales has laudably attempted to minimize this suffering, but so has the State of Israel allowing an increased flow of goods into the Gaza Strip in the weeks prior to Archbishop Morgan’s statements.

Ultimately, the responsibility for the disruption of daily life in the Gaza Strip lies with Hamas. By way of comparison, daily life in the West Bank, which has not been the source of rocket attacks, is improving – with Israel’s cooperation.

Life in the Gaza Strip under Hamas control has proven to be violent and unpredictable. Hamas has murdered its political opponents, threatened its critics and stolen humanitarian aid shipped in from outside. It has even stolen fuel intended for hospitals. The Archbishop mentions none of this, but instead blames the suffering in the Gaza Strip entirely on Israel. The Archbishop also inaccurately asserted that “no building supplies are allowed into Gaza.” In fact, a shipment of building supplies as allowed into the territory just days before the Archbishop offered his commentary. These supplies are intended for the repair of a waste treatment plant in Gaza City.

“The Archbishop is right to be outraged at the suffering and privation endured by the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip,” McIlwaine said. “He is wrong, however, to place the blame for this suffering entirely on Israel.”

Despite the difficulties, the situation is clearly improving. The increased flow of goods into the Gaza Strip from Israel has made smuggling goods from Egypt unprofitable. In fact, goods are now flowing from Gaza into Egypt through the tunnels. Reuters states that 'A United Nations report in August said the volume of supplies to Gaza now averaged 1,006 truckloads a week, up 80 percent since June.' Clearly, conditions in the Gaza Strip had improved dramatically weeks before the Archbishop leveled his criticism.

Ignores Israeli Experience

The Archbishop also endorses the Kairos Palestine Document issued on 11 December 2009 and a resolution recently enacted by the Methodist Church in England which state “that the key hindrance to security and a lasting peace for all in the region is the occupation of Palestinian territory by the State of Israel.”

Israeli experience indicates otherwise. Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 was met the following year with the kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit (who is still being held) and by thousands of rocket attacks. Moreover, during the Second Intifada, many of the suicide bombers that killed Israeli civilians originated from those areas of the West Bank from which Israel had withdrawn its soldiers in the 1990s.

By endorsing the Kairos Palestine Document, the Archbishop is affirming a text that speaks of Palestinian terrorism as “legal resistance.”

The Archbishop also ignored the attacks that led to the construction of the security barrier. The barrier does indeed cause great problems for Palestinians in the West Bank, but it also stopped the suicide attacks originating from this territory.

“In his statement, the Archbishop asserted no one denies Israel’s right to defend itself,” McIlwaine said, “but that’s what the International Court of Justice did when it called on Israel to dismantle the barrier.”

Troubling Theology

Possibly the most troubling aspect of the Archbishop’s statement is his demand that Israel must behave in a morally pure manner because of its status as a Jewish state. The Archbishop asserts that if the modern state of Israel “claims to be the homeland for the ancient Jewish people of God [it] must take seriously this vocation as the paradigm nation where justice and wisdom are seen to be done.”

To buttress his claim, the Most Rev Dr Morgan invokes a essay by Archbishop Rowan Williams titled “Holy Land and Holy People.” Unlike Archbishop Morgan’s testimony, Archbishop Williams acknowledges that the ability of modern Israel to serve as a paradigm nation is hindered when it is subject to relentless hostility. The 2004 essay states “Without stable and agreed borders, neither internal stability nor the universal service of external witness to justice can be sustained. The land becomes a prison, not a gift. The state of Israel has had to sustain its existence against enemies who would not grant its right to exist.”

Archbishop Morgan insists that Israel’s legitimacy is contingent on how well it adheres to the demands of being a “paradigm nation.” This is patently discriminatory. Such demands are targeted at no other nation in the world, especially not the Palestinians.

“The landscape of the Anglican Communion is littered with activists and commentators who have allowed their legitimate concern for the Palestinian people drive them into making some very one-sided and discriminatory remarks about Israel,” McIlwaine said. “We can do better.”

The Vanishing Christians of the Middle East

The Vanishing Christians of the Middle East


The Synod of Bishops for the Middle East is meant to address the decline of Christians in the Muslim world. The reason for the decline is obvious. It is the willingness to discuss that reason which is at issue.

Christians in the Middle East are a minority in a Muslim region. Even the more moderate Muslim countries, such as Egypt, marginalize Christians and routinely deprive them of basic civil rights. Egypt is an American ally and nearly 10 percent of the country is Christian, yet that 10 percent live as second-class citizens, discriminated against and constantly subject to violence.

The rising tide of Islamization has made it more dangerous than ever to be a non-Muslim in a Muslim country, in ways that range from everyday discrimination to terrorist attacks. But the West is suffused by a narrative which insists that Islam is tolerant and promotes tolerance. Such a false narrative makes it extremely difficult to address or recognize the problem.

Meanwhile growing Muslim migration into Europe raises questions about the future of Christianity even in the West. If Christians are denied basic civil rights even in moderate Muslim countries, what will their fate be if France and Germany go the way of Byzantium? The fact that Christians do not generally enjoy equal rights in the Muslim world, suggests that they would also not enjoy such rights in Eurabia. The root of the problem lies in Sharia, Islamic law, which treats non-Muslims and women as second-class citizens.

Protecting Christians in the Muslim world requires working to replace laws based on Islamic jurisprudence, with laws based on objective secular standards that treat all religions equally. But this is likely to prove impossible. The governments of countries like Egypt are already under pressure by Islamists, who gain popular support by accusing them of being puppets of the West and disloyal to Islam. Applying pressure to the governments themselves cannot significantly shift the balance. Especially since the reign of those like Mubarak is endangered by the rise of the Islamists determined to overthrow the government and replace it with an Islamic state.

The real problem underlying it all is Islam. The question is what can be done about it.

Perhaps a first necessary step would be triage. The Catholic Church should consider the impact of importing the conditions already prevalent in the Muslim world into Europe, and take a firm stand against Muslim immigration in the name of Christian civil rights. This is not mere talk as some European countries are already projected to have a Muslim minority within a generation. If Muslim immigration countries, then the fate of Christians in Europe, will likely be that of Christians in the Middle East.

Such an action would empower marginalized European parties battling against the erosion of Europe's traditional character. It would also provide the Catholic Church with some leverage that it could employ with the Muslim world, demonstrating that it is capable of affecting the conditions of Muslims in the West, just as they are capable of affecting the conditions of Christians in the East.

But so far the Vatican has made no move in this direction. The Synod acknowledges that the problem exists, but its clergy are often part of the problem. The addresses still focus heavily on Israel, despite the fact that Israel is a tiny strip of land in the region. Turkey's steep Christian decline, going "from 20 percent Christian in the early 20th century to 0.2 percent now", could not even be remotely traced to anything involving Israel, as the two countries have been allies until recently. Instead it comes down to the Turkish persecution of Christians. An issue that has to be addressed, particularly in the era of Erdogan and his radical Islamist AKP party.

Michel Sabbah, the Archbishop of Jerusalem, will be arriving to promote which calls for a boycott of Israel in support of creating a Muslim Palestinian state. This will not serve the cause of Christian civil rights, as the Palestinian Authority has overseen a dramatic decline in the Christian presence, notably in Bethlehem. It would put Christians under Muslim authority, which would undermine one of the few places in the Middle East where indigenous Christians are not being repressed. Kairos Palestine does not promote Christian civil rights, it promotes Arab Nationalism.

The very fact that Kairos Palestine demands "an independent Palestinian state with Al-Quds as its capital", telegraphs that this is a document driven by a Muslim agenda, not a Christian one. Al Quds is the Islamic name for Jerusalem, not the Christian one. The Biblical Latin name for Jerusalem was Hierosolyma, the Biblical Greek name for it was Hierousalēm. The Pre-Islamic Arabic name for it was Ūršalaym. When a supposed Christian document replaces the traditional name for Jerusalem, with the Islamic Al Quds, it demonstrates that its worldview is Islamic, not Christian.

Unsurprisingly Kairos Palestine actually defends Islamic terrorism, and even promotes the cause of Hamas. The document repeatedly describes terrorism as "resistance". It blames the international community for the separation of Gaza and the civil war between Hamas and Fatah, "since it refused to deal positively with the will of the Palestinian people expressed in the outcome of democratic and legal elections in 2006" (1.5.1). Those would be the elections which Hamas won. Quite disturbingly, Kairos Palestine actually appears to endorse an Islamist Hamas government-- despite the persecution of Christians by Hamas.

And the collaboration continues. In Lebanon, Michel Aoun, who returned from exile to side with Hezbollah terrorists, claimed that Islamic extremism had nothing to do with the dwindling presence of Christians in the Middle East. Instead he blamed everything from economics to WW1 to Israel. Aoun demanded that the Catholic Church, "halt attempts to demonize Islam, the religion of more than one billion... And to call for examining the essence and religious text of Islam only, away from the acts of terrorist groups which Muslims consider themselves victims of just like the rest of the world."

This last is particularly laughable, as Aoun betrayed Lebanese Christians by signing a deal with Hezbollah, a Shiite terrorist organization backed by Iran. Hezbollah's goal is to create an Islamic state. In Hezbollah's 1985 message to Christians, it stated, "We call upon you to embrace Islam so that you can be happy in this world and the next. If you refuse to adhere to Islam, maintain your ties with the Muslims and don't take part in any activity against them." Which is a roundabout way of saying, "Submit or we'll destroy you."

Nor is Aoun misled about what he's doing. In a 2002 interview, he described Hezbollah as a terrorist group under Syrian control and said that Christians had been turned into second-class citizens. A few years later, he cut a deal with that same organization, and now promotes the Islamist agenda. If Aoun helps Hezbollah take over, the Christian presence in Lebanon will be destroyed.

In the fact of those like Sabbah or Aoun, there are Middle Eastern Christian clergy who continue to fight for civil rights. But they have to walk a fine line, because what they can say is governed by the laws of the Muslim world. Speaking out can have legal consequences for them and deadly consequences for their followers. The statements they do make are careful and couched in ambiguous terminology. A necessity in a region where Muslim outrage quickly translates into church burnings and murders. And this gives Islamist apologists like Aoun and Sabbah a free hand to tell the one-sided Islamist tale.

The Synod so far includes the usual calls for dialogue with Muslims and Jews, the usual comments about the importance of the Peace Process, which would only accelerate the decline of Christians in the Middle East, and limited mentions of the dangers of Islamism. But if the Catholic Church hopes to preserve Christianity in the Middle East, it will have to take a far more active role than that. For the moment its policies are aimed at trying to preserve Christians as a minority in a Muslim Middle East. That is understandable, for the reasons laid out above, but also unsustainable.


Middle Eastern Christians are taking any chance they can get to leave for Europe and America where they will be able to enjoy freedom of religion, without persecution. The Vatican is concerned over this exodus, yet it is inevitable. The Jews fled the Muslim world in the same way. Few people will remain persecuted, if they can find another way out. The only way to reverse that exodus is to forcefully work against persecution and discrimination. Most Middle Eastern Christians have deep ties to the region, they do not want to leave. But creating a safe space for them will require more than just dialogue, but a demonstration that the Muslim world must respect the rights of Christians. Not that it should, because it's the right thing to do.

The Catholic Church has demonstrated before that it has the power to impact politics in the West. In the United States alone, it has had its impact in the debate on amnesty for illegal aliens and nationalized health care. It may be time for it to begin telling the real story of Christians in the Middle East, and countering the Islamist narrative that Sharia promotes tolerance. And to take a strong position against Muslim migration to Europe, until the Muslim demonstrates a willingness to grant full legal equality to Christians under their rule.

Standing up for oppressed Christians around the world, would be a meaningful and moral act, that could actually make a difference and prevent the fall of Europe. It would not be without its risks. Such a move would alienate American and European liberals and increase attacks on Christians in the short term. However it is the only step that has any chance of checking both the Islamization of Europe and the DeChristianization of the Middle East.

Israel Defense Force - Official Movie

Humble Thyself In The Sight Of The Lord

The subject of humility is punctuated throughout Scripture. It is of paramount significance that we understand what the Lord says, for there are many blessings associated with humility.

1. Grace is given to all those who humble themselves (James 4:6).
Grace is essential to living out the Christian life. The Apostle Paul clearly states that grace was bestowed upon him in order to carry out what God had called him to do (I Cor. 15:10).

2. Exaltation is the next gift granted to the humble.
Exaltation is not to be confused with being rich and famous. That would contradict what Scripture deems important. To be exalted is to be lifted up but not for the sake of glory. We are to be lifted up above the fallen ways of man and protected by the power of God. How desperately we need this (Daniel 4:34-37).

3. Honor is another blessing associated with humility.
To honor someone is to admire and respect them. Have you ever wished to honor a proud, arrogant individual? We are repulsed by the thought. Robert E. Lee was a humble God-fearing man, who was deeply respected by his friends as well as his enemies. To this day he is honored and highly respected (Prov 15:33).

4. God hears the cry of the humble.
A humble person sees God as his all in all. He realizes that without Christ he can do nothing. God will not listen to the proud, after all they don't need Him, for their strength is fully in control and God's help is a crutch for the weak. God does mighty works through humble people because He is their only source of strength, and when His strength is active, we will surely see what He and only He is capable of (Psalm 9:12).

5. The Lord speaks to the humble.
It is of great significance that the Apostle John in his own gospel never mentions himself. Guess who wrote the book of Revelation? John as a humble self-effacing man was entrusted with the final revelation. All 160 verses in Psalm 119 is a humble cry to hear from God (Psalm 119:145).

The world has yet to see what the Lord would do through a humble church. His power would be displayed in ways that are unimaginable. A humble church is made up of humble individuals. Could we collectively admit to any pride and ask the Lord to take inventory of our hearts and reveal to us that which is not pleasing to Him? I joyfully anticipate having His glory displayed. That's the way I see things.

Least in the Kingdom by Henry Morris, Ph.D. | Sep. 29, 2010

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19)

The Lord Jesus was evidently speaking here not of the differences between saved and unsaved people, but rather of degrees of reward in His future kingdom. The criterion for achieving "greatness" in the future life is simply to believe, teach, and obey the complete Word of God in this life, not just the major doctrines and general principles. Those who undermine any part of God's Word, either in teaching or practice, will be relegated to "least in the kingdom of heaven." In the words of the apostle Paul, such a person "shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire" (1 Corinthians 3:15).
Thus no Scripture is unimportant, for "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable" (2 Timothy 3:16). In fact, the verse just previous to our text, providing the basis for the Lord's warning about breaking even the least commandment, is His remarkable assertion about the verbal inerrancy of Scripture: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18).

There are many Christians (especially among intellectuals) who say they believe the Bible, but are nevertheless quick to adapt their interpretations of Scripture to the latest speculations of scientists or to current fads of world living. This is insulting to God who surely can say what He means! "Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).

If we aspire to greatness in the coming kingdom, then clearly we must believe and teach "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27), according to His revealed Word. HMM

The Fellowship of the Mystery
"And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ." (Ephesians 3:9) More...

The Discerner
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12) More...

Be Patient
"Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." (James 5:8) More...

His Truth
"And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way, the Lord led me to the house of my master's brethren." (Genesis 24:27) More...

More Articles

The First Christian
Many Called, Few Chosen
The Comfortable Church
Revival through the Word
God's Foundation
Adam and the Animals
Redeemed!
Bounty from the Word
The Writing of God
Thou Shalt Be Saved!
The Imperatives of Redemption
The Way of Man
Understanding the Times
To Be or Not to Be



Institute for Creation Research

The Danger Of Public Schools

Unfortunately, public schools, even in the “best” neighborhoods, can harm our kids in many ways. Here’s a list of 15 ways public schools can hurt children (and parents):

1. Public schools cripple millions of children’s ability to read by using the “whole-language” instruction method (now called “balanced reading instruction” by many public schools).

2. Many public schools spend almost 50 percent of the school day on non-academic subjects that waste children’s precious time. The rest of their time is spent on classes such as sex-education, personal safety, consumer affairs, AIDS education, save-the-environment, family life, study halls, multiculturalism, homeroom, electives, counseling, or sports activities.

3. Public schools teach “new” or “fuzzy” math (sometimes called by different names). These instruction methods can cripple children’s ability to learn basic arithmetic. Students who fear math are less likely to pursue good careers like computer science and engineering that depend on a love of and competence with math.

4. These schools force children to read dumbed-down textbooks in English, History, and many other subjects. The textbooks are often geared to the slowest learners in the class and water-down the subject matter. Dumbed-down classes based on dumbed-down public-school textbooks therefore waste children’s precious time. This is especially true for children who are quick learners, who must endure 12 years of excruciating boredom in public school classes.

5. Public schools force children to study subjects they might hate, can’t learn, will never use in their lives, or which bore them. For example, many public schools force students to study a foreign language. Children learn better when they study subjects that interest them.

6. Author John Gatto, in his book “Dumbing Us Down” said that a child eager to learn can learn to read, write, and do basic arithmetic in about 100 hours. Yet our public schools keep children locked up for 12 years, yet can barely teach millions of kids to read.

7. Public schools force parents to pay heavy school taxes for an inferior, often mind-numbing education for their children.

8. Public schools are a government-controlled near-monopoly. Bad schools don’t close down because compulsory taxes prop them up. Incompetent or mediocre teachers aren’t fired because tenure laws protect them. That’s why public schools will never improve and will always waste children’s precious time.

9. Many public schools subject children to drugs, bullies, violence, and values many parents disapprove of.

10. Public schools pressure many parents who have bright, normal children to give their kids potentially dangerous mind-altering drugs to make the bored kids “behave” in class. Over four million allegedly “unruly” kids line up for Ritalin every day in public schools across America. Methylphenidate (sold as Ritalin) and cocaine are both listed in “Schedule II” of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

11. Public schools are compulsory. They therefore violate parents’ natural and constitutional right to control the education of their children. Public school authorities, whose salaries we pay with our taxes, force parents to hand over their children to government employees called teachers and to schools that give an inferior education.

12. Public schools can destroy children’s love of learning and self-confidence as learners. This can cripple children’s ambitions and desire to go to college. This in turn, can force these children to end up with low-paying jobs for the rest of their lives if and when they graduate high school.

13. Public schools force millions of Christian parents to hand over their children to public schools which are decidedly anti-Christian. For example, many social studies textbooks used in public schools have censored out references to such words as ‘family,’ ‘marriage,’ ‘religion,’ ‘fidelity,’ etc. Many textbooks today refer to a family simply as people choosing to live together.

14. Public schools force children to witness sometimes shocking or obnoxious sexual material in sex-education classes, without parents’ knowledge or consent.

15. The public-school near monopoly and compulsory-attendance laws cripple parents right and ability to choose a quality, low-cost school in an education free-market that has been squashed by the public-school monopoly.

Parents should consider taking their kids out of public school permanently. Parents can take advantage of quality, low-cost education alternatives available to them right now, such as the new Internet private schools that have low tuition costs.

US Textbooks: Muslims Discovered America - Another Brick in the Wall

Senators Line Up To Tell U.N. To Leave Kids Alone

LAW OF THE LAND
31 already committed to oppose treaty giving world body oversight of parents
Posted: August 22, 2010
12:45 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Michael Farris
Thirty-one Republican senators have agreed to oppose the United Nations' "Convention on the Rights of the Child" treaty, and critics of the international plan to vest children with a long list of rights – such as a right to seek government review of parental decisions – are looking for three more names.

The campaign by supporters of ParentalRights.org opposes an effort to put the U.N. advocacy plan into operation in the United States.

So far, the senators who have joined to oppose what critics have described as a usurpation of parents' rights by international bureaucrats are: Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain of Arizona, Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Sens. Mike Crapo and James Risch of Idaho, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts of Kansas, Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, Sens. Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri, Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Sens. Tom Coburn and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Sens. Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Sens. Robert Bennett and Orrin Hatch of Utah and Sens. John Barrasso and Michael Enzi of Wyoming.

Learn what goes on beyond the playground, in "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools"

The resolution states the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child should not even be presented to the Senate for a vote, which would require two-thirds approval for ratification, because it "is contrary to the principles of self-government and federalism, and ... because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child undermines traditional principles of law in the United States regarding parents and children."

Michael Farris, a key force behind the move to deny the U.N. plan authority in the U.S., told WND only 34 names are needed because of the two-thirds requirement in the Senate for treaty adoption.

More and more opposition is rising up to challenge the idea because of the recent intrusion by government into citizens' personal lives, he said.

"The whole notion that government wants to invade our lives in every sphere has awakened the American public, and frankly has aroused a sleeping giant," he said.

Already, with 31 names on the list, the understanding is "this is not a good thing for America," Farris told WND.

The 1990s-era plan was pushed through the U.N. and ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the U.S. or Somalia. In Somalia, there was no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's been opposition to its power.

When ratified, nations then are bound to follow the international document as law.

It would create specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." While the treaty states that parents or legal guardians "have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child," Farris said government ultimately would decide if parents' decisions are good, and, therefore, to be followed.

Among the provisions of the treaty, according to the Parental Rights website:
Parents no longer would be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime no longer could be sentenced to life in prison. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
During the presidential campaign season of 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama promised that the CRC was an issue he would pursue.

"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said at the time. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."

Among other opponents, several states have adopted resolutions criticizing the treaty, including Louisiana where lawmakers voted unanimously against it.

ParentalRights.org also advocates for an addition to the U.S. Constitution.

The amendment would state: "The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right."

It would add that, "Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served."

Lastly, it specifies, "No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article."

Along with its support in the Senate, it has more than 140 sponsors in the House. Under the Constitution's amendment process, a plan approved by Congress would need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Besides Louisiana, lawmakers in South Dakota, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Hawaii, Michigan, California, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, North Carolina, New York and Utah have reviewed the issue.

Farris, in a previous commentary, warned of the ramifications.

"If we really believe in children's rights – in a form that is recognized by the Bill of Rights – then we need to do everything we possibly can do to defeat the U.N. Convention on the 'Rights' of the Child," he said. "And we need to pass the Parental Rights Amendment … to see that it stays defeated for good."

In the United Kingdom, the CRC already has been used to assert that authorities have complete access to the homes – at any time – of students who are homeschooled.

The Home School Legal Defense Association, founded by Farris, has been warning of the CRC's impact.

"In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me: But whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:1-6

Freedom is Colorblind (Open Up Your Eyes)

He Will Carry You - Scott Wesley Brown (With Lyrics) (No problem too big...

Stop Sharia Law Now

Native American YHWH

WHY ISLAM WILL NEVER ACCEPT THE STATE OF ISRAEL

by Steven Simpson - American Thinker


It is a common belief that the “Arab-Israeli conflict” is a conflict of two peoples fighting over the same piece of land and is therefore one of nationalism. Rarely, if ever, do we hear or read of the religious component to this conflict.

However, if anything, the conflict is more of a “Muslim-Jewish” one than an “Arab-Israeli” one. In other words, the conflict is based on religion — Islam vs. Judaism — cloaked in Arab nationalism vs. Zionism. The fact of the matter is that in every Arab-Israeli war, from 1948 to the present, cries of “jihad,” “Allahu Akbar,” and the bloodcurdling scream of “Idbah al- Yahud” (slaughter the Jews) have resonated amongst even the most secular of Arab leaders, be it Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s or the supposedly “secular” PLO of the 1960s to the present. Indeed, the question must be asked: If this is really a conflict of different nationalisms and not Islamic supremacism, then why is it that virtually no non-Arab Muslim states have full (if any) relations with Israel?

There is a common Arabic slogan that is chanted in the Middle East: “Khaybar, Khaybar! Oh Jews, remember. The armies of Muhammad are returning!” It would be most interesting to know how many people have ever heard what — or more precisely, where — Khaybar is, and what the Arabs mean by such a slogan. A short history of the Jews of Arabia is needed in order to explain this, and why Islam remains so inflexible in its hostile attitude towards Jews and Israel.

Until the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, proclaimed himself “Messenger of Allah” in the 7th century, Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully in the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Jews — and Judaism — were respected to such an extent that an Arab king converted to Judaism in the 5th century. His name was Dhu Nuwas, and he ruled over the Himyar (present day Yemen) area of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, it is most likely that the city of Medina (the second-holiest city in Islam) — then called Yathrib — was originally founded by Jews. In any event, at the time of Muhammad's “calling,” three important Jewish tribes existed in Arabia: Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa.

Muhammad was very keen on having the Jews accept him as a prophet to the extent that he charged his followers not to eat pig and to pray in the direction of Jerusalem. However, the Jews apparently were not very keen on Muhammad, his proclamation of himself as a prophet, or his poor knowledge of the Torah (Hebrew Bible). Numerous verbal altercations are recorded in the Qur'an and various Hadiths about these conflicts between the Jewish tribes and Muhammad.

Eventually, the verbal conflicts turned into physical conflicts, and when the Jews outwardly rejected Muhammad as the “final seal of the prophets,” he turned on them with a vengeance. The atrocities that were committed against these tribes are too numerous to cite in a single article, but two tribes, the Qaynuqa and Nadir, were expelled from their villages by Muhammad. It appears that the Qaynuqa left Arabia around 624 A.D. The refugees of the Nadir settled in the village of Khaybar.

In 628 A.D., Muhammad turned on the last Jewish tribe, the Qurayza, claiming that they were in league with Muhammad's Arab pagan enemies and had “betrayed” him. Muhammad and his army besieged the Qurayza, and after a siege of over three weeks, the Qurayza surrendered. While many Arabs pleaded with Muhammad to let the Qurayza leave unmolested, Muhammad had other plans. Unlike expelling the Qaynuqa and Nadir, Muhammad exterminated the Qurayza, with an estimated 600 to 900 Jewish men being beheaded in one day. The women and children were sold into slavery, and Muhammad took one of the widows, Rayhana, as a “concubine.”

In 629 A.D., Muhammad led a campaign against the surviving Jews of Nadir, now living in Khaybar. The battle was again bloody and barbaric, and the survivors of the massacre were either expelled or allowed to remain as “second-class citizens.” Eventually, upon the ascension of Omar as caliph, most Jews were expelled from Arabia around the year 640 A.D.

This brings us, then, to the question of why modern-day Muslims still boast of the slaughter of the Jewish tribes and the Battle of Khaybar. The answer lies in what the Qur'an — and later on, the various Hadiths — says about the Jews. The Qur'an is replete with verses that can be described only as virulently anti-Semitic. The amount of Surahs is too numerous to cite, but a few will suffice: Surah 2:75 (Jews distorted the Torah); 2:91 (Jews are prophet-killers), 4:47 (Jews have distorted the Bible and have incurred condemnation from Allah for breaking the Sabbath), 5:60 (Jews are cursed, and turned into monkeys and pigs), and 5:82 (Jews and pagans are the strongest in enmity to the Muslims and Allah). And of course, there is the genocidal Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:177, which would make Adolph Hitler proud. “The Day of Judgment will not have come until you fight with the Jews, and the stones and the trees behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!”' Thus, the Arab Muslims had their own “final solution” in store for the Jews already in the 7th century.

The fact that Muslims still point to these (and many other) hateful verses in the Qur'an and Hadith should give Jews — not just Israelis — pause to consider if there can ever be true peace between Muslims and Jews, let alone between Muslims and Israel. When the armies of Islam occupied the area of Byzantine “Palestine” in the 7th century, the land became part of “Dar al-Islam” (House of Islam). Until that area is returned to Islam, (i.e., Israel's extermination), she remains part of “Dar al harb” (House of War). It now becomes clear that this is a conflict of religious ideology and not a conflict over a piece of “real estate.”

Finally, one must ask the question: Aside from non-Arab Turkey, whose relations with Israel are presently teetering on the verge of collapse, why is it that no other non-Arab Muslim country in the Middle East has ever had full relations (if any at all) with Israel, such as faraway countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Indeed, why would Persian Iran — conquered by the Arabs — have such a deep hatred for Jews and Israel, whereas a non-Muslim country such as India does not feel such enmity? The answer is painfully clear: The contempt in which the Qur'an and other Islamic writings hold Jews does not exist in the scriptures of the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other Eastern religions. Therefore, people that come from non-Muslim states do not have this inherent hatred towards Jews, and by extension, towards Israel. But when a people — or peoples — is raised with a scripture that regards another people and religion as immoral and less than human, then it is axiomatic why such hatred and disdain exists on the part of Muslims for Jews and Israel.

Islam — as currently interpreted and practiced — cannot accept a Jewish state of any size in its midst. Unless Muslims come to terms with their holy writings vis-à-vis Jews, Judaism, and Israel and go through some sort of “reformation,” it will be unlikely that true peace will ever come to the Middle East. In the meantime, unless Islam reforms, Israel should accept the fact that the Muslims will never accept Israel as a permanent fact in the Middle East.

PM Netanyahu's July 4th Greetings - July 4, 2010

Ragged Old Flag by Johnny Cash

CHILDREN OF THE TALIBAN

Pakistan - Children of The Taliban (Part 1 of 4) - Click here for funny video clips

Pakistan - Children of The Taliban (Part 2 of 4) - These bloopers are hilarious

Pakistan - Children of The Taliban (Part 3 of 4) - A funny movie is a click away

Pakistan - Children of The Taliban (Part 4 of 4) - More amazing videos are a click away

Allahu Akbar!’ Shouted As Christians Cuffed In Michigan, USA

Smooth Stone » Smooth Stone Archive » Video: ‘Allahu Akbar!’ shouted as Christians cuffed – in Michigan, USA

Rally Against the Islamic Supremacist Mega-Mosque at Ground Zero

Open Doors World Watch List 2010

Suicide Activists on the Gaza Flotilla

911 Mosque Founder wants to Establish Shariah in USA

REVEALED IN ARABIC -  GROUND ZERO MOSQUE FOUNDER RAUF WANTS TO ESTABLISH SHARIAH

by Walid Shoebat



Is Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf - founder of the hugely controversial Ground Zero Mosque - lying to the American public?

We have uncovered extraordinary contradictions between what he says in English and what he says in Arabic that raise serious questions about his true intentions in the construction of the mosque.

On May 25, 2010 Abdul Rauf wrote in an article for the New York Daily News: “My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America's Muslim population into the mainstream society.”

Oh really?

Only two months before, on March 24, 2010, Abdul Rauf is quoted in an article in Arabic for Rights4All entitled (from one of his responses) “I Do Not Believe in Religious Dialogue”.

Yes, you read that correctly and, yes, that is an accurate translation. And Right4All is not an obscure blog, but the website of the media department of Cairo University, the leading educational institution of the Arabic-speaking world.

In the article, the Imam said the following of the “religious dialogue” and “interweaving into the mainstream society” that he so solemnly seems to advocate in the Daily News and elsewhere: “This phrase is inaccurate. Religious dialogue as customarily understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing. Religions do not dialogue and dialogue is not present in the attitudes of the followers, regardless of being Muslim or Christian. The image of Muslims in the West is complex which needs to be remedied.”

But that’s only the beginning of what we learn from the Rights4All piece. When asked his view regarding an Islamic state, Abdul Rauf responded that “Throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more then just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Shariah that are required to govern. It is known that there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to organize the relationships between government and the governed.”

When questioned about this, Abdul Rauf continued “Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws.” He added “New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad…so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Shariah.” [emphasis in translation]

In yet plainer English, Abdul Rauf’s goal is the imposition of Shariah law - in every country, including the U. S.

He made that even clearer in an interview with Sa’da Abdul Maksoud that appeared on the popular Islamic website Hadiyul-Islam on May 26, 2010 - one day after his article for the New York Daily News.

In the Hadiyul-Islam article, Abdul Rauf reiterates that an Islamic state under Shariah law with no separation of church and state can be established even when  the government is a kingdom or a democracy.

But these attitudes are nothing new for the (alas, few) people who have been paying attention.  Way back on September 30, 2001, Faisal Abdul Rauf was interviewed on 60 Minutes by host Ed Bradley.  Their verbatim  dialogue from this CBS News transcript concluded:

BRADLEY: Are--are--are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.

BRADLEY: OK. You say that we're an accessory?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes.

BRADLEY: How?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of--of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it--in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.

This is the “anti-terrorist” of the Daily News article?

The Faisal Abdul Rauf who spoke to 60 Minutes in 2001 is the same Abdul Rauf who, in the last couple of months, espoused the spread of Shariah law on Arabic websites and said the opposite in the pages of the Daily News.  He is the man New York City authorities are about to allow to build a mosque on Ground Zero.

Caveat emptor.

----


shoebat.com

LEST WE FORGET (WHO OWNS) JERUSALEM

By Stan Goodenough
Jerusalem Watchman

It is not all that unusual for an Israeli politician to garnish his or her speeches with a verse or even two from the Bible (the Tanach or “Old Testament.”) Religious and non-religious Jew alike will dip into the most famous and cherished Hebrew-language original to underscore a message to their people.

Prime ministers have also used the Bible to encourage Christian visitors to Israel to continue and increase their support of the Jewish state.

Somewhat less common is the practice of using the scriptures in the Knesset (Israeli parliament) to buttress one side of a political debate.

When, on Jerusalem Day last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dared reference the Holy Book in defense of the Jews’ claim to the city, the response was predictably harsh.

According to Reuters, Netanyahu told a parliamentary session commemorating the 1967 return of Jerusalem to Jewish control that “Jerusalem” and its alternative Hebrew name “Zion” appear 850 times in the Tanach.

“As to how many times Jerusalem is mentioned in the holy scriptures of other faiths, I recommend you check,” he said.

But when an Arab Knesset member challenged him, the news wire reported:

Netanyahu “offered a lesson in comparative religion from the lectern.”

“Because you asked: Jerusalem is mentioned 142 times in the New Testament, and none of the 16 various Arabic names for Jerusalem is mentioned in the Koran. But in an expanded interpretation of the Koran from the 12th century, one passage is said to refer to Jerusalem,” he said.

The indisputable fact was too much for PLO chief negotiator Sa’eb Erekat, who fired off this sanctimonious response:

“I find it very distasteful, this use of religion to incite hatred and fear,” said the man whose organization has a long and unbroken record of stirring hatred, and perpetrating and “justifying” acts of terrorism with references from the Quran.

“East Jerusalem is an occupied Palestinian town, and East Jerusalem cannot continue to be occupied if there is to be peace,” he added, unblushingly warning that “Palestinians” will continue to kill Jews as long as Jews insist that all Jerusalem is their capital.

No surprises there.

Netanyahu was quite correct in saying that there is not a single mention of Jerusalem in the Quran, whereas the Bible mentions the city nearly 1000 times.

Using an online Bible with a search engine, I sought to determine not just how many times this city is mentioned, but what is actually said about Jerusalem on some of these pages. This is what I learned:

That in 1004 BC(E), the Israelite king, David, overthrew a Jebusite stronghold located in the southern mountainous region of the land of Canaan, and relocated his throne from Hebron to the conquered city, Jerusalem, which he called the City of David. (2 Samuel 5)

David reigned over the entire nation of Israel from Jerusalem for 33 years. His son Solomon did likewise for another 40 years.

Because of Solomon’s sin, God tore away most the kingdom from his son. Nonetheless, Jerusalem remained the capital of the southern kingdom of Judah (thus of the Jewish people), and a son of David sat on the throne in that city until a total of 418 years had passed from David’s conquest.

The LORD God of Israel had told David and Solomon that “in this house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put My name forever…” (2 Kings 21:7)

God had promised that, “for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen,” He would keep the tribe of His servant David and give the city to a son of his. (1 Kings 11:13)

For: “Nevertheless for David’s sake the LORD his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, by setting up his son after him and by establishing Jerusalem…” (1 Kings 15:4)

During this period, no fewer than 19 kings in David’s bloodline would rule from Jerusalem. (2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles and the Psalms)

So we have it that, from David’s establishment of the city until its destruction by the Babylonians in 586 BC(E), Jerusalem was the capital of the Jews.

Their captivity in Babylon lasted 70 years, during which they mourned for their destroyed capital and temple and prayed fervently to return. They also vowed there, in exile, that they would never forget Jerusalem. (Psalm 137)

While in captivity the prophet Daniel prayed concerning Jerusalem:

“O Lord, according to all Your righteousness, I pray, let Your anger and Your fury be turned away from Your city Jerusalem, Your holy mountain; because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Your people are a reproach to all those around us…” (Daniel 9)

Beginning in 538 BC(E), during the reign of the Persian King Cyrus, the first exiles made their way back under Zerubbabel, and began to rebuild Jerusalem. Between 520 and 516 they rebuilt the temple, restoring the city to the center of Jewish worship and service to God. Circa 458 BC(E), during the reign of King Artaxerxes, another wave of Jews was permitted to return to Jerusalem under the leadership of Ezra. (Ezra 1-7)

“And they issued a proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem to all the descendants of the captivity, that they must gather at Jerusalem…” (Ezra 10:7)

Later, when Nehemiah was overseeing the rebuilding of the city wall, representatives of other nations – Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite and Geshem the Arab tried to stop them. Nehemiah’s answer to them was unequivocal:

“The God of heaven Himself will prosper us; therefore we His servants will arise and build, but you have no heritage or right or memorial in Jerusalem.” (Nehemiah 2:18)

Lots were then cast to decide which one out of every 10 men who returned from exile would make Jerusalem their home. (Nehemiah 11)

While it is true that the Davidic Dynasty was not continued upon their return, and in fact that the ensuing centuries saw hardly a single Jewish king ruling from Jerusalem – the Jews’ political leaders continued to use the city as the seat of government, and Jews flocked to Jerusalem from around the country and the known world to celebrate the three appointed biblical feasts. For the Jews, Jerusalem remained the capital from 538 BCE to AD 70 – even under Roman occupation.

In the year AD 135, Jerusalem was flattened, and every last Jew finally driven from it. The Jews were also banned from entering the pagan city of Aelio Capitolina which the Emperor Hadrian built in Jerusalem’s stead.

By that time Jerusalem had been this nation’s capital for a total of 1091 years.

It was Rome’s avowed aim to eradicate every last Jewish link to, and interest in, Jerusalem. But what was achieved was the opposite. For the next 1832 years, wherever they were scattered on the face of the planet, and in the face of often-extreme persecution and suffering, the Jews clung to the belief in their return.

According to the Jewish prophets, a son of David would one day be restored to David’s Throne in the city of that great king. (Jeremiah 30; Amos 9)

Ezekiel too saw in a vision the glory of God, which had departed prior to the destruction of the Temple, returning to Jerusalem and entering the again-rebuilt Temple of God. (Ezekiel 43 and 44) There the Almighty again declared Jerusalem to be the place of His throne and of His footstool.

The Psalmist prophesied that there was a “set time” in the future when God would have mercy on Zion, favor Jerusalem, build up the city and then appear in His glory. When He does this, the nations of the world will fear and serve Him. (Psalm 102:12-22)

Isaiah declares that in the “latter days” the temple will be established anew in Jerusalem, from where God’s word would go out to all the nations of the world. (Isaiah 2)

It is in Jerusalem and on Mount Zion (the Temple Mount) that the Lord will reign in glory. (Isaiah 24)

Who is this LORD? Is it the Muslim god Allah? Emphatically not! He calls Himself the LORD God of ISRAEL. In Hebrew it is Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh (YHWH). It is a name and a title that He does not change.

We read on in Isaiah how this God will defend Jerusalem from all the nations that come against her. (Isaiah 31)

Later the prophet tells us that God has set watchmen on the walls of Jerusalem; they are commissioned to petition the Almighty on behalf of the city until it is established as a praise in all the earth. (Isaiah 62)

God plans to rejoice in Jerusalem and joy in His people Israel. (Isaiah 65)

“At that time Jerusalem shall be called The Throne of the LORD, and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem. No more shall they follow the dictates of their evil hearts. In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given as an inheritance to your fathers…” (Jeremiah 3:17-18)

The Jewish people and their land will be saved, and Jerusalem will live safely. (Jeremiah 33)

Joel – another Jewish prophet, foretells that God will make Jerusalem a place of safety and deliverance (Joel 2). And through him God says that, “at that time, when I bring back the captives of Judah and Jerusalem” He will also gather together the nations and enter into judgment against them for the way they have treated His people and the land which He gave to them. It is at Jerusalem that this judgment will take place. (Joel 3)

Through Zechariah God describes that He is “zealous for Jerusalem with great zeal.” Therefore, He continues, “I am returning to Jerusalem with mercy; My house shall be built in it. … The LORD will again comfort Zion, and will again choose Jerusalem.”’” (Zechariah 1)

Again, this is “the LORD of hosts,” the God of Israel. It is not Allah, the god of the Muslim.

“Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” says the LORD. “Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you. And the LORD will take possession of Judah as His inheritance in the Holy Land, and will again choose Jerusalem. Be silent, all flesh, before the LORD, for He is aroused from His holy habitation!” (Zechariah 2)

And in Zechariah 8:

“Thus says the LORD: ‘I will return to Zion, and dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. Jerusalem shall be called the City of Truth, the Mountain of the LORD of hosts, the Holy Mountain.’

“Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘Old men and old women shall again sit in the streets of Jerusalem, each one with his staff in his hand because of great age. The streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in its streets.’ …

“Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘Behold, I will save My people from the land of the east and from the land of the west; I will bring them back, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. They shall be My people and I will be their God, in truth and righteousness.’

“For thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘Just as I determined to punish you when your fathers provoked Me to wrath,’ says the LORD of hosts, and I would not relent, so again in these days I am determined to do good to Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. Do not fear. Yes, many peoples and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the LORD.’

“Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘In those days ten men from every language of the nations shall grasp the sleeve of a Jewish man, saying, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”’”

Which nation was God determined to punish when their fathers provoked Him to wrath? Israel.

Which nation did God promise to return to the Land of Israel from all the lands to which He scattered them? Israel.

Which nation does He restore to Jerusalem, before judging the rest of the nations concerning their treatment of this nation and its land? Israel.

I could carry on and on. SO FULL is the Bible of references to Jerusalem, to its rightful people and to their God.

Sa’eb Erakat may find this distasteful, but as a Muslim, and as a spokesman for millions of Muslims who hate Israel and wish to appropriate Jerusalem for themselves, he worships the wrong god, one who has no power to take Jerusalem from the Jews.

Hey, his god doesn’t even care about Jerusalem! Allah’s total lack of reference to this city in their “holy” book makes this clear.

Jerusalem belongs to Israel – exclusively and for always.

Now, if only its leaders would reference the Bible when it comes to the other critical issues they have to deal with – like the right to the Land of Israel – all of it.

I Am Israel

'Fight For Jerusalem - Fight For Truth'

PM defends Jews' connection to capital on eve of J'lem Day.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175356

The fight for Jerusalem is the fight for truth, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared on Tuesday evening at the capital’s prestigious Mercaz Harav Yeshiva.

Speaking on the eve of Jerusalem Day, the prime minister highlighted of the interaction between truth and justice, stressing that any distortion of justice concerning the Jewish people and Jerusalem was also a distortion of truth.
“The truth is that Jerusalem is our lifeblood,” he said. “We have an indissoluble connection to it. Thousands of years, three thousands years. We have never relinquished this connection. We didn’t relinquish it when the temple was destroyed the first time, we didn’t relinquish it when the temple was destroyed a second time.”

'The Jewish people are unjustly portrayed as invaders'

In an apparent allusion to oft-voiced Palestinian claims that Israel was trying to ‘Judaize’ Jerusalem, the prime minister said that Israel was “not banishing anyone,” but rather reasserting the connection of the Jewish people to the capital, “a connection no other nation possesses.” Israel, he added, grants unprecedented freedom of religion and freedom of movement to those belonging to faiths other than Judaism.

“I say this because there is an attempt to portray us as foreign invaders, as conquerors, as a people who have no connection to this place, and I say: No other nation has such a connection to its capital.”

Netanyahu then spoke of the term ‘Diaspora,’ stressing that the Jewish people continued to be present in Israel and Jerusalem throughout the 2,000-year time-span between the destruction of the Second Temple and the creation of the State of Israel. “We continued to be present here,” he said. “Where did Rabban Gamaliel live and work? In Sweden? Where were these wonderful things written? In this country," he stated. "The Jews were the majority in Israel until the 9th century, and lost that majority 200 years after Arab rule [began] – and even then they did not give up.”

The wish to return to Jerusalem, he said, went part and parcel with Jewish daily life in the Diaspora for thousands of years. “Not a year went by in the Diaspora that we did not say, ‘Next year in Jerusalem,’ be it in the 10th century, the 11th century or the 12th century," he said.

During his speech, Netanyahu honored leading American attorney and stalwart defender of Israel Alan Dershowitz, commending him for his “sharp-minded” defense and promulgation of “the truth about the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”

Benjamin Netanyahu

HAPPY BIRTHDAY ISRAEL

The Exodus Song (This Land Is Mine) by Andy Williams

FITNA, The Movie Geert Wilders

Wafa Sultan Destroying Sharia

Holocaust Memorial Day 2010

The Bramford Times • AN EASTER MESSAGE FOR OUR NATION: From a Christian Vantage Point

By W. Edward Griffith

As we approach this Easter holiday we do so with a nation in disarray. The political divisions, the social unrest, the frustrations among Americans due to the economic crisis of the country, all give us reason to pause and reflect.

On this Good Friday, we observe the crucifixion of our Lord. For many it is a distant and ancient event. However, the impact of this weekend for Christians is monumental. We recognize in our faith the hope of things that seem impossible. We observe the execution of Jesus with the subsequent faith in his resurrection and the light that faith has provided throughout the ages.

If there is any element we should take with us, long after the Easter holiday has passed, it is that Christianity represents a culture of life and hope. Islamic radicals celebrate their religious faith by embracing a culture of death and violence. There is a clear and very present difference between the two. And we are compelled to look closer and evaluate our purpose amid the chaos of our world.

The politics of religion often cloud the enormous miracle of faith. Believing in a God who has a purpose for all of us and knowing full well that through our faith mountains can be moved, the blind can see, the deaf can hear and nations can thrive and prosper, breathes life into our responsibilities and our opportunities to make things happen.

The disenchantment in our society over socio-political debates, corruption and war, all reinforce our firm belief that society, without faith, is an abyss without the hope of something better.

We spend so much time debating the politics of left and right, tearing apart those who disagree with us and somehow forgetting that politics is not intended to be the focus of our existence. People, rather than politics is what we should be focused on. Once you shed political, religious and philosophical disagreements, you’ll find that people are pretty much the same. Regardless of race, religion, politics or our stations in life, we all breathe the same air. We all walk the same earth. We are all capable of pain and disappointment. We all desire to love and be loved and we are a miracle of God’s creation in that we can have enormous empathy and compassion for someone we have never met.

The realities of our age are grave. The dangers facing our national security and the terrorist threats from within and without our borders give us all cause for concern. The political conditions of the present, may well determine the kind of nation our children inherit when the final chapter of our time at the wheel of the ship of state is over.

While I believe that all government should remain secular and simply charged with representing and defending the Constitution of the United States, against ALL enemies foreign and domestic, I also believe what history has proven to be the case. The best form of government is one that is secular, while the population it represents is rooted in the core principles of faith, family and love of their country.

While Washington battles over economics and health care reform remains a constant fixture on the evening news, let us take a breath and reflect. As Islamic fundamentalist extremists plot to commit acts of terror on our country and regimes threaten our national security, let us take a breath. Let us take a breath and soak in the meaning of this Easter. Let us inventory our faith, knowing full well that we, as Christians, have the opportunity to engage others and to bring to the forefront of all we do daily, a message of hope and life.

We enter this Easter holiday sensible that our own human frailty, our errors and mistakes in life, our short-comings and our sin and transgressions were the elements that made the miracle of this holiday what it is. God knew, full well, that it would require something greater to save us from ourselves. He knew that it would take the ultimate sacrifice to redeem humanity. The way we conduct our daily lives must always be better than we did it the day before. For some of us it is a long journey. For others it will take a lifetime of struggle until they breathe their final breath. But still we strive. We struggle to do better, be better and to bring light and hope and encouragement to those with which we come into contact.

I have never had a burning bush or a voice from heaven to communicate with God. I found God through people. Once we take a breath and open our eyes and liberate our souls from the daily struggles of life, God becomes real to us. The struggles are no less challenging, but they can be overcome with greater resolve and in a state of happiness.

As a nation, we too can take a breath and reaffirm our commitment to people, rather than politics. We can replace rhetoric with compassion, and complacency with action. We can do, as citizens, what we have for far too long expected government to do. We can make a difference once we search ourselves, determine our priorities and reach the conclusion that our faith can move mountains and help shape history. We must never forget our responsibility to represent our faith through compassion for those who disagree with us. We must stand by our principles and recognize that those who oppose us are just as committed to that which they believe.

Take the issues of our national landscape and shed the politics Look at how that issue impacts people. Do not allow the media pundits or the politicians to tell you on what side of an issue you belong, but rather look at the issue through the eyes of humanity. Once you do so, the way to resolve these issues becomes clearer and while government debates them on Capitol Hill and in The White House, WE THE PEOPLE CAN take action on our own, helping to resolve our national strife from our homes all the way to the halls of congress.

Take advantage of this Easter to renew your faith, search your soul and commit a random act of kindness that will leave the touch of your faith evident on the heart of another.

From OUR family to Your Own, Have A Very Happy Easter.



W. Edward Griffith, known to his friends and associates as “Will”, is Director of Griffith Colson Intelligence Service. He is a member of the International Counter-Terrorism Officers Association, British Bodyguard Association, and the National Military Intelligence Association. He also held membership in the International Bar Association, where he was a member of the IBA War Crimes Committee from 2009-2010. Mr. Griffith also served as Chairman of The Griffith Corporation from 2007 to 2010, where he founded Griffith Corporation Security Service and the Homeland TV Network.