Has anyone read this?

Question

http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/08/65247_comment.php?l=ar

Answer 1

THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM IN THE MID EAST
by Tom • Friday August 09, 2002 at 07:47 PM


WHY MOST CHRISTIAN EVANGELICALS FAVOR WAR C. E. Carlson

The French author, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote Democracy in America

when he traveled here in the first third of the 20th Century. In

ringing tones he sang the praises of America's invulnerable strength

and spirit. He attributed its greatness to its citizens' sense of

morality... even with the abundant church attendances he observed in

the churches of America. De Tocqueville wrote in French and is

credited with this familiar quote: AMERICA IS GREAT BECAUSE SHE IS

GOOD, AND IF AMERICA EVER CEASES TO BE GOOD, SHE WILL CEASE TO BE

GREAT.


De Tocqueville could see the power of America, but he could not have

known in 1830 that she was soon to be under an attack aimed at its

churches and the very sense of morality that he extolled.


First, there was a War Between the States, which scarred the powerful

young nation in its strapping youth. A worse attack on America was

to commence near the turn of the 20th century. This was an attack on

American Christianity still in progress, and one from which survival

of most churches is in doubt. The attack began with a small very

wealthy and determined European contingent. They had a dream, and

the American churches stood in their way.


The Zionists, as these Jewish founders called themselves, had plans

to acquire a homeland for themselves, even though they were far from

homeless. Not any land would do. They wanted a specific property

that American Christians called "the Holy Land." If these Zionists

read "Democracy in America" or any of the journals of any of

America's churches, which no doubt they did, they could not help but

know that Jerusalem was not theirs to have. As self-proclaimed Jews,

they were, according to the Christian New Testament, the persecutors

of Christ and most of his early followers, and the engineers of his

crucifixion. America's churches in the 19th Century would never stand

for a Jewish occupation of Jesus's homeland.


World Zionist leaders initiated a program to change America and its

religious orientation. One of the tools used to accomplish this goal

was an obscure and malleable Civil War veteran named Cyrus I.

Schofield. A much larger tool was a venerable, world respected

European book publisher--The Oxford University Press.


The scheme was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and

promoting a pro-Zionist subculture of Christianity. Scofield's role

was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting

Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters,

and on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used

Scofield, a pastor by then, as the Editor, probably because it needed

such as man for a front. The revised bible was called the Scofield

Reference Bible, and with limitless advertising and promotion, it

became the best-selling "bible" in America and has remained so for 90

years.


The Scofield Reference Bible, currently in its 5th Edition, was not

to be just any Bible, but a revolutionary book that radically changed

the context of the King James Version. It was to create a subculture

around a new worship icon, the modern State of Israel, a state that

did not yet exist, but which was already on the drawing boards of the

committed, well-funded authors of World Zionism.


Scofield's moral support came from a new and growing evangelical

Christian movement in America, some of whom were listed on his

editorial committee. Scofield imitated a chain of past heretics and

rapturists, most of whom fizzled over their faulty prophesies. His

mentor was one John Nelson Darby from Scotland, who though

unsuccessful in Scotland, was mysteriously able to afford six or more

trips to America.


The Oxford University Press owned "The Scofield Reference Bible" from

the beginning, and Scofield received handsome royalties. Oxford's

advertisers and promoters succeeded in making it a standard for

interpreting scripture in evangelical churches, seminaries, and Bible

study groups. It has been published in at least four editions since

its introduction in 1908, and is one of the largest selling Bibles

ever.


The Scofield Reference Bible and its several clones is all but

worshiped in the ranks of celebrity Christians, beginning with the

first media icon, evangelist Billy Graham. Of particular importance

to the Zionist penetration of evangelical Christian churches has been

the fast growth of national bible study organizations, such as Bible

Study Fellowship and Precept Ministries. These draw millions of

students from not only evangelical churches, but also from Catholic

and mainline Protestant churches. These organized Bible studies

usually teach forms of "dispensationalism," which draw their theory,

to various degrees, from the notes in the Oxford Bible.


Among more traditional churches that encourage, and in some cases

recommend, the use of the Scofield Reference Bible, is the huge

Southern Baptist Convention of America, whose capture is World

Zionism's crowning achievement. Our report on Southern Baptist

Zionism, entitled The Cause of the Conflict: Fixing Blame, can be

seen at http://www.whtt.org/articles/020707.htm.


Scofield, whose work is largely believed to be the product of Darby

and others, wisely chose not to change the text of the King James

Edition. Instead, he added hundreds of easy-to-read footnotes at the

bottom of about half of the pages, and as the Old English grammar of

the KJE becomes increasingly difficult for progressive generations of

readers, they become increasingly dependent on the modern language

footnotes.


Scofield's notes weave parts of the Old and New Testaments together

as though they were written at the same time by the same people.

This is a favorite device of modern dispensationalists who

essentially weigh all scripture against the unspoken and preposterous

theory that the older they are, the more authoritative they are. In

many cases the Oxford references prove to be rabbit trails leading

nowhere, simply diversions. Scofield's borrowed ideas were later

popularized under the labels and definitions that have evolved into

common usage today--"pre-millennialism," "dispensationalism," "Judeo-

Christianity," and most recently "Christian Zionism."


Thanks to the work of a few dedicated researchers, much of the

questionable personal history of Cyrus I. Scofield is available. It

reveals he was not a Bible scholar as one might expect, but a

political person with the charm and talent for self-promotion of a

Bill Clinton. Scofield's history reveals a criminal history, a

wrecked family, and a penchant for self-serving lies. He was exactly

the sort of man the Zionists might hire to carry out their agenda--a

controllable man and, one capable of carrying the secret to his

grave. (See The Incredible Scofield and His Book by Joseph Canfield).


Other researchers have examined Scofield's eschatology and exposed

his original work as heretical of traditional Christian views. Among

these is a massive work by Stephen Sizer entitled Christian Zionism,

Its History, Theology and Politics.

(http://virginiawater.org.uk/christchurch)


We Hold These Truths' examination of the Oxford Bible has gone in

another direction, focusing not on what Scofield wrote, we will

examine some of the many the additions and deletions The Oxford

University Press has continued to make to Scofield's bible since his

death in 1921. These alterations have further radicalized the

Scofield Bible into a manual for the Christian worship of the State

of Israel. This un-Christian anti-Arab theology has permitted the

theft of Palestine and 54 years of death and destruction against the

Palestinians, with hardly a complaint from the evangelical churches.


It is no exaggeration to say that the 1967, Oxford 4th Edition,

deifies the State of Israel, which did not even exist when Scofield

wrote the original footnotes in 1908. This writer believes that, had

it not been for the support of misguided anti-Arab race hatred

promoted by evangelical leaders everywhere, neither the Gulf War nor

the Israeli war against the Palestinians would have occurred, and a

million or more people who have perished would be alive today.


What proof does WHTT have in support of this accusation? For proof

we offer the words themselves that were planted in the 1967 Edition,

18 years after the State of Israel was created in 1948, and 46 years

after Scofield's death. Those who control the Oxford Press recreated

a bible to misguide Christians and sell flaming Zionism in the

churches of America.


There is little reason to believe that Scofield knew or cared much

about the Zionist movement, but at some point, he became involved in

a close and secret relationship with Samuel Untermeyer, a New York

lawyer whose firm still exists today and one of the wealthiest and

most powerful Zionists in America. Untermeyer controlled the

unbreakable thread that connected him with Scofield. They shared a

password and a common watering hole--and it appears Untermeyer may

have been the one who filled Scofield's enormous income gap. His

lavish living in Europe for four years as a bible editor without

portfolio could only have been accomplished with financial aid and

international influence.


This connection might have remained hidden, were it not for the work

of William Canfield, the researcher who discovered clues to the

thread in some family papers. But even had the threads connecting

Scofield to Untermeyer and Zionism never been exposed, it would still

be obvious that that connection was there. It is significant that

Oxford, not Scofield, owned the book, and that after Scofield's

death, Oxford continued making changes to it. Since the death of its

original author and namesake, The Scofield Reference Bible has gone

through several editions. Massive pro-Zionist notes were added to

the 1967 edition, and some of Scofield's most significant notes from

the original editions were removed where they apparently failed to

further Zionist aims. Yet this edition retains the title, "The New

Scofield Reference Bible, Holy Bible, Editor C.I. Scofield." It's

anti-Arab, Christian subculture theology has made an enormous

contribution to war, turning Christians into participants in genocide

against Arabs in the latter half of the 20th century.


But the most convincing evidence of the unseen Zionist hand is the

content of the notes themselves, for only Zionists could have written

them. These notes are the subject of this paper.


Oxford edited the 1967 edition at the time of the Six Day War when

Israel occupied Palestine. Oxford created new footnotes granting the

State of Israel the rights to the Palestinians' land and specifically

denying the Arab Palestinians any such rights. One of the most

brazen and outrageous of these NEWLY INSERTED footnotes states this:


"(2) FOR A NATION TO COMMIT THE SIN OF ANTI-SEMITISM BRINGS

INEVITABLE JUDGMENT." (page 19, footnote (3) Genesis 15:1-7.) (our

emphasis added)


This statement sounds like something from Ariel Sharon, or the Chief

Rabbi in Tel Aviv, or Theodore Herzl, the founder of Modern Zionism.

But these exact words are found between the covers of an Oxford Bible

edition that is followed by millions of American evangelicals and

used by their leaders as the source of their preaching.


There is no word for "anti-Semitism" in the New Testament, nor is it

found among the Ten Commandments. "Sin," this writer was taught, is

a personal concept. It is something done by individuals in conflict

with God's words, not by "nations." Even Sodom did not sin--its

people did. The word "judgment" in the Bible always refers to God's

action. In the Christian New Testament, Jesus promises both judgment

and salvation for believing individuals, not for "nations."


There was no "State of Israel" when Scofield wrote his original notes

in his concocted Scofield Reference Bible in 1908. All references to

Israel as a state were added AFTER 1947, when Israel was granted

statehood by edict of the United Nations. The Oxford University

Press simply rewrote its version of the Christian Bible to make

antipathy toward the "State of Israel" a "sin" - Israel is made a god

to be worshiped, not merely a "state". David Ben-Gurion could not

have written it better. Perhaps he did write it!


The Oxford 1967 Edition continues on page 19:


"(3) GOD MADE AN UNCONDITIONAL PROMISE OF BLESSINGS TO ABVRAM'S SEED

TO THE NATION OF ISRAEL TO INHERIT A SPECIFIC TERRITORY FOREVER"

(footnote (2) Genesis 12:1),


This bequeath is joined to an Oxford prophesy that never occurs in

the Bible itself:


"IT HAS INVARIABLY FARED ILL WITH THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PERSECUTED THE

JEW, WELL WITH THOSE WHO HAVE PROTECTED HIM. THE FUTURE WILL STILL

MORE REMARKABLY PROVE THIS PRINCIPLE." (footnote (2) Genesis 12:1)


None of these notes appeared in the original Scofield Reference Bible

or in the 1917 or 1945 editions. The state of Israel DID NOT EXIST

in 1945, and according to the best dictionaries of the time, the

word "Israel" only referred to a particular man and an ancient tribe.

(See "Israel," Webster's New International Dictionary 2nd (1950)

Edition.


All of this language, including the prophecy about the future being

really bad for those who "persecute the Jews," reflects and furthers

the goals of the Anti-Defamation League, which has a stated goal of

creating an environment where opposing the State of Israel is

considered "anti-Semitism," and "anti-Semitism" is a "hate crime"

punishable by law. Their dream has become a reality in the Christian

Zionist churches of America. Only someone with these goals could

have written this footnote.


The State of Israel's legal claims to Arab lands are based on the

United Nations Partitioning Agreement of 1947, which gave the Jews

only a fraction of the land they have since occupied by force. But

when this author went to Israel and asked various Israelis where they

got the right to occupy Palestine, each invariably said words to the

effect that "God gave it to us." This interpretation of Hebrew

scripture is primarily found in the book of Genesis and is called

the "Abrahamic Covenant". It begins with God's promise to a man

called Abraham who was eventually to become the grandfather of a man

called "Israel:"


"[2] AND I WILL MAKE OF THEE A GREAT NATION, AND I WILL BLESS THEE,

AND MAKE THY NAME GREAT; AND THOU SHALL BE A BLESSING:"


"[3] AND I WILL BLESS THEM THAT BLESS THEE, AND CURSE HIM THAT

CURSETH THEE: AND IN THEE SHALL ALL FAMILIES OF THE EARTH BE

BLESSED." Genesis 12:3, King James Edition.


It is on this promise to a single person that Israelis base their

claims to what amounts to the entire Mid-East. Its logic is roughly

the equivalent of someone claiming to be the heir to the John Paul

Getty estate because the great man had once sent a letter to

someone's cousin seven times removed containing the

salutation "wishing you my very best." In "Sherry's War," We Hold

These Truths provided a common sense discussion of the Abrahamic

Covenant and how it is misunderstood by evangelical Christians. This

paper is available at our website.


It is tempting to engage in academic arguments to show readers the

lack of logic in Scofield's theology which led believers so far

astray. It seems all too easy to refute the various Bible references

given in support of Scofield's strange writings. But we will resist

the temptation to do this, because others have already done it quite

well, and more importantly because it leads us off our course.


It is also inviting to dig into Scofield's sordid past as Canfield

has done, revealing him to be a convicted felon and probable

pathological liar, but we leave that to Canfield and others, because

our interest is not in Scofield's life, but in saving the lives of

millions of innocent people who are threatened by the continuing

Zionist push for perpetual war.


Instead, we will examine the words on their face. The words in these

1967 footnotes are Zionist propaganda that has been tacked onto the

text of a Christian Bible. Most of them make no sense, except to

support the Zionist State of Israel in its war against the

Palestinians and any other wars it may enter into. In this purpose,

Zionism has completely succeeded. American Judeo-Christians, or

Christian Zionists, have remained mute during wars upon Israel's

enemies in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and elsewhere. It is

past time to stop the spilling of more blood, some of it Christian

blood.


Now let us examine some Scofield's notes that have been altered or

removed by Oxford after his death. In 1908 Scofield wrote in:


"THE CONTRAST, 'I KNOW THAT YE ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED' - 'IF YE WERE

ABRAHAM'S CHILDREN' IS THAT BETWEEN THE NATURAL AND THE SPIRITUAL

POSTERITY OF ABRAHAM. THE ISRAELITISH PEOPLE AND ISHMAELITISH PEOPLE

ARE THE FORMER; ALL WHO ARE 'OF THE PRECIOUS FAITH WITH ABRAHAM,'

WHETHER JEWS OR GENTILES, ARE THE LATTER (ROM 9, 6-8; GAL, 4-14.

SEE 'ABRAHAMIC COVENANT' GEN 15, 18, NOTE)." ( Scofield's note to

John 8:39 from 1945 SSB3, Cf. V 39.)


Compare that with the Oxford note substituted in the 1967 Edition:


"ALL JEWS ARE NATURAL DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM, BUT ARE NOT NECESSARILY

HIS SPIRITUAL POSTERITY, CP Rom 9-6-8, Gal 3: 16-18. (Note SSB3,

P1136, Jn 8:37.)"


How, pray tell, can "all Jews" be "natural descendants of Abraham," a

Chaldean who lived some 3000 years ago? Persons of all races are

Jews and new Jews are being converted every day from every race. One

might as well say all Lutherans are the natural descendants of Martin

Luther; or that all Baptists come from the loins of John the

Baptist. This note could only have been written by an Israeli

patriot. No one else would care!


The original Scofield note was far out of line with traditional

Christianity in 1908 and should have been treated as heresy then.

Yet Scofield had failed to go far enough for the Zionists. Scofield

clearly recognized what the book of Genesis states, that the sons of

Ishmael are co-heirs to Abraham's ancient promise. Did not Scofield

say said "THE ISRAELITISH PEOPLE AND ISHMAELITISH PEOPLE ARE...THE

NATURAL POSTERITY OF ABRAHAM" The Oxford Press simply waited for

Scofield to die and changed it as they wished. And what did Scofield

say that did not satisfy the Zionists who rewrote the Oxford 1967

Edition?


The answer is an easy one. Most Arab scholars and all of Islam

consider Arabs in general and the Prophet Mohamed in particular to be

direct descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's grandson, and half-brother

of Jacob, who was later to become known as "Israel." Arabs believe

themselves to be sons of Ishmael, of Abraham's seed, and co-heirs of

to Abraham's promise, and they believe that present-day Israelis

have no biblical right to steal their land. Jewish Talmudic folklore

also confirms this, so the Zionist had to change it to keep the

Christians from siding with the Arabs over the land theft.


The Zionists solved this dilemma by giving the willing Christians a

silly, senseless footnote in their Scofield Reference Bible, which

substitutes the word "Jews" for the words "The Israelitish people and

Ishmaelitish people." The Israelitish and Ishmaelitish people lived

3000 years ago, but the Zionists want to claim other people's

birthright right now! Read it again; who would believe this? "All

Jews are natural descendants of Abraham, but are not necessarily his

spiritual posterity."


And there is more of such boondogglry in the Oxford bible. On the

same page 1136 we find yet another brand new Zionist-friendly note

referring to the New Testament Book of John 8:37. First we look at

the verse Oxford is trying to soften, wherein Jesus said speaking

directly to the Pharisees, who were the Jewish leaders of his day,

and to no one else:


"YE ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND THE LUST OF YOUR FATHER YE WILL

DO. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND ABODE NOT IN THE

TRUTH, BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM. WHEN HE SPEAKEST A LIE, HE

SPEAKEST OF HIS OWN; FOR HE IS A LIAR, AND THE FATHER OF IT." John

8:44 SSB4


Those are plain words. No wonder the Zionists wanted to dilute what

Jesus said. Not only did Oxford add a new footnote in 1967, but they

inserted no less than four reference cues into the King James sacred

text directing readers to their specious heretical footnotes. This

can only be a Zionist interpretation that flagrantly misrepresents

the Bible text. Read the note that Oxford wrote to soften the above

quote from John 8:44:


"(2) 8:44 THAT THIS SATANIC FATHERHOOD CANNOT BE LIMITED TO THE

PHARISEES IS MADE CLEAR IN 1jn3:8-10" (note SSB3, P1136, Jn 8:37)


It seems the Zionists cannot deny what Jesus said about them, but

they do not want to bear the burden of being "sons of Satan" all by

themselves. Now here's the text of the verse to which they refer in

order to try to solve this problem:


"HE THAT COMMITETH SIN IS OF THE DEVIL, FOR THE DEVIL SINNETH FROM

THE BEGINNING; FOR THIS PURPOSE THE SON OF GOD WAS MANIFESTED, THAT

HE MIGHT DESTROY THE WORK OF THE DEVIL." (1jn3:8.)


This verse in no way supports the argument that Jesus was not talking

directly to and about the Pharisee leaders, the Jews of his day, when

he called them "Sons of Satan."


To find out to whom Jesus is talking you must read the rest of John

8, not something from another book. Furthermore, John 8:44 is only

one of some 77 verses where Jesus confronted the Pharisees by name,

and in many cases he addressed them as "satanic" and as "vipers."

Oxford simply ignores most of these denunciations by Jesus, and the

Judeo-Christians, the Christian Zionists, go along with it without

question.


These are a few examples of Zionist perversions of scripture that

have shaped the doctrine of America's most politically powerful

religious subculture, the "Christian Zionists" as Ariel Sharon calls

them, or the dispensationalists as intellectual followers call

themselves, or the Judeo-Christians as our politically-correct

politicians describe themselves. Today's Mid-East wars are not

caused by the history of the Mid-East peoples, but by the pandering

to Jewish and Zionist interests carried out by this subculture, the

most vocal being the celebrity Christian evangelists.


Reverend Stephen Sizer of Christ Church, England (http://www.christ-

church.info) is perhaps the most dedicated new scholar writing about

the Scofield Bible craze, popularly known as Christian Zionism. He

has quipped, "Judging Christianity by looking at the American

Evangelists is kind of like judging the British by watching Benny

Hill."


Reverend Sizer's remark brings to mind another Benny; his name is

Benny Hinn, not a British comic, but an American evangelist spouting

inflammatory hate-filled words aimed at Muslims everywhere. Hinn was

speaking to the applause of an aroused crowd of thousands in the

American Airline Center in Dallas when he shocked two Ft. Worth Star

Telegram religious reporters covering the July 3d event by

announcing, "We are on God's side," speaking of Palestine. He

shouted, "This is not a war between Jews and Arabs. It is a war

between God and the Devil." Lest there be any doubt about it, Hinn

was talking about a blood war in which the Israelis are "God" and the

Palestinians are "the Devil."


Benny Hinn is one of hundreds of acknowledged Christian Zionists who

have no problem spouting outright race hatred and who join in

unconditional support for Israel without regard for which or how many

of Israel's enemies are killed or crippled. His boldness stems from

his knowledge that the vast majority of Evangelicals from whom he

seeks his lavish support, do not shrink at his words, because they

have been conditioned to accept them, just as Roman citizens learned

to accept Christian persecution, even burning alive, under Nero.

Several evangelists in attendance affirmed their agreement with Hinn -

"the line between Christians and Muslims is the difference between

good and evil."


An amazing number of evangelicals are in agreement with the fanatical

likes of Hinn, including Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, James Dobson and

hundreds more. But Hinn's profit-seeking fanaticism is not as

shocking as that of men like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist

Convention who occupy the highest positions in the area of

conservative religious thought. Land may have stopped short of

branding all Muslims as devils, but he attacked their leader and

Prophet and stated that according to Baptist Bible interpretation,

the Palestinian people have no legal rights to property in

Palestine. (See our discussion of Southern Baptists entitled "The

Cause of the Conflict: Fixing Blame" at

http://www.whtt.org/articles/020707.htm.)


The more politically conservative and libertarian the speaker

expressing hatred for Islam, the more shocking the statement sounds.

One example is Samuel Blumenfeld, a veteran textbook author and

advocate of home education. His attack on Islam in a story

entitled "Religion and Satanism" in the April 2002 politically

conservative Calvinist, Chalcedon Report, leaves little room for

civil liberties and freedom of thought. He writes, "Islam is a

religion ruled by Satan," and asks, "Can anyone under the influence

of Satan be trusted? Blumenfeld shows poor judgment and a lack of

morality when he uses phrases such as "willing agents of

Satan".. "another manifestation of Satanism," and "the willingness of

Muslims to believe blatant lies," to spill from his pen.


How can anyone interpret these words by Land, Hinn, Blumenfeld, and

yes, our own President, as anything less than race hatred? Who would

make such generalized and transparently false statements against any

other minority except Muslims?


About 100 million American Christians need to recover their true

faith in Christ Jesus, who never denounced any individual on account

of his group. Jesus even tried to save the Pharisees, and only

denounced them when they showed themselves to be deceivers. There is

not a word in the New Testament that urges any follower of Jesus to

murder one child in Iraq or condemn Palestine to death. Race hatred

is a Zionist, not a Christian, strategy.


Christian Zionism may be the most shameful apostasy in the entire

history of Christianity or any other religion. Shame on its leaders,

who are bringing the blood of millions of innocent people down upon

the spires and prayer benches of America's churches.


WHTT asks every Christian to share this article with pastors and

church leaders, especially lay leaders. We ask every Muslim and Jew

who reads it to do the same. You might wish to suspend giving money

to any organizations that preach Zionist race hatred in any form.

And lastly, We Hold These Truths invites your informed comments and

questions.


Listen right now to: "Kulture Klash II, how Oxford University Press

and CI Scofield stole the Christian Bible," WHTT Internet Talk Radio

( http://www.whtt.org )- select "Internet Talk Radio"



Read "The Final Apostasy" - by Gordon Ginn Ph.D. Is your church

apostate, would you know it if it were? A book that reveals the

untold historical and documented ex-post facto changes made in the

Hebrew text of the Old Testament…after Christ. These changes have

effected what all of us believe, from the Reformation to Day911.

Ginn shed light on the turmoil in the Middle East and reveal the

results of the some Christians’ tragic errors in accepting the “Final

Apostasy”.


Copyright 2000, WHTT, may be reproduced in full with permission.


We Hold These Truths

P.O. Box 14491

Scottsdale, AZ 85267

(http://www.whtt.org)

480-947-3329


add your comments



Very intresting.
by Tom • Friday August 09, 2002 at 07:54 PM



I cant imagine what names may be used to desribe the author of this piece.

Then again its my experiance that postings on this site which contain more than 100 words are not commented on.

Let us see?


add your comments



ZIONISM & THE POLICY OF THE ADMINISTRATION
by HERBERT SAMUEL • Friday August 09, 2002 at 08:11 PM



AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.

Abridged version.

II.--POLICY OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

Zionism takes many forms, and its individual adherents, like the adherents of any other political creed, hold various views as to its proper aims. There are those among them who sometimes forget or ignore the present inhabitants of Palestine. Inspired by the greatness of their ideal, feeling behind them the pressure of two thousand years of Jewish history, intent upon the practical measures that are requisite to carry their purpose into effect, they learn with surprise, and often with incredulity, that there are half-a-million people in Palestine, many of whom hold, and hold strongly, very different views.

Some among this school of Zionists, when they realise that there is opposition, would wish to ride over it rough-shod, and are ready to condemn any other policy as a surrender by weakness to violence.

At the other end of the scale there are Zionists who believe that the establishment of a further number of Jewish agricultural colonies, with some industrial enterprises, and perhaps a University, is all that can, or should, be done. Between these two views there is every gradation.

The policy of His Majesty's Government contemplates the satisfaction of the legitimate aspirations of the Jewish race throughout the world in relation to Palestine, combined with a full protection of the rights of the existing population. For my own part, I am convinced that the means can be found to effect this combination. The Zionism that is practicable is the Zionism that fulfils this essential condition.

It is the clear duty of the Mandatory Power to promote the well-being of the Arab population, in the same way as a British Administration would regard it as its duty to promote the welfare of the local population in any part of our Empire. The measures to foster the well-being of the Arabs should be precisely those which we should adopt in Palestine if there were no Zionist question and if there had been no Balfour Declaration.

There is in this policy nothing incompatible with reasonable Zionist aspirations. On the contrary, if the growth of Jewish influence were accompanied by Arab degradation, or even by a neglect to promote Arab advancement, it would fail in one of its essential purposes. The grievance of the Arab would be a discredit to the Jew, and in the result the moral influence of Zionism would be gravely impaired.

Simultaneously, there must be satisfaction of that sentiment regarding Palestine--a worthy and ennobling sentiment--which, in increasing degree, animates the Jewries of the world. The aspirations of these fourteen millions of people also have a right to be considered. They ask for the opportunity to establish a "home" in the land which was the political, and has always been the religious, centre of their race. They ask that this home should possess national characteristics--in language and customs, in intellectual interests, in religious and political institutions.

This is not to say that Jewish immigration is to involve Arab emigration, that the greater prosperity of the country, through the development of Jewish enterprises, is to be at the expense, and not to the benefit of the Arabs, that the use of Hebrew is to imply the disappearance of Arabic, that the establishment of elected Councils in the Jewish Community for the control of its affairs is to be followed by the subjection of the Arabs to the rule of those Councils. In a word, the degree to which Jewish national aspirations can be fulfilled in Palestine is conditioned by the rights of the present inhabitants.

These have been the principles which have guided the policy of the Administration. The year under review has not been, however, a period favourable to their application. The long delay in the formal settlement of the international status of Palestine has tended to disturb the minds of the people.

Even more serious has been the consequence that it has not been possible to issue a Government loan. Without a loan, many public works that would be directly or indirectly remunerative, cannot be executed. The financial conditions of Eastern and Central Europe, and internal difficulties within the Zionist Organisation in the United States, have prevented the Zionist Movement from providing as yet any large sums for enterprises of development or colonization--although, indeed, several land purchases have been completed and many preparations made for the future.

As a consequence, while there has been much pressure to admit Jewish immigrants there has been comparatively little expansion in the opportunities for employment. Between September, 1920, and May, 1921, about 10,000 immigrants arrived.

HERBERT SAMUEL
High Commissioner
and Commander-in-Chief.
30th July, 1921.

jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/08/65141.php

add your comments



Christian Zionism
by Luke • Friday August 09, 2002 at 08:18 PM



Christian Zionism is a disease which has been infecting the Catholic Church since the Secon Vatican Council, too. Everything the the Catholic Church since those times has been twisted and changed to suit and please the Jews. As of now, Jewish powers are almost fully dominating the Catholic Church... to the point where CATHOLICS are saying "WE ARE ALL JEWS" (no joke!).

Christians HAVE to wake up to the fact that JUDAISM's aim seems to be still the destruction of Chistianity just as the religious leaders of yore had asked for the destruction of Jesus. Christians who do not see this are either blind or living in a fantasy wolrd.


add your comments



Land of the Greed & Home to the Depraved
by red, white and jew • Saturday August 10, 2002 at 07:12 AM



Land of the Greed & Home to the Depraved

"Poor man's Zionism." That is what I label the abhorrent sense of entitlement that I see in so many Americans.

They have adopted the contemptible world-view of their executioners, while stupidly believing that they themselves are to be spared the kosher knife.

They pledge support to those who live to see their children defiled and/or slaughtered in this repulsive "culture" of "freedom?!?" and "plurality".

What kind of person is it that could see in this race-destroying and culture-raping monstrosity, anything warranting a "defense"?

Let us take a brief look at what we, are being asked to "support" and what kind of filth we are being encouraged to "rally behind".

We are told that it is in our "best interests" to help strengthen the position of our murderers in the global arena. This is called "defending freedom and civilization". If you haven't already, I suggest you read "1984".

We are supposed to accept that those (Bush,Ashcroft, etc.) who have sworn to uphold the "right" of Jewish fiends to commit 1 million+ acts of infanticide (abortion)annually, are suddenly "horrified" by the loss of "innocent" life. If what the Jews do domestically isn't enough to convince you of just how worthy of destruction it truly is, go ask some Serbs or Iraqis about how "squeamish" the Corporate Regime really is.

The feces-on-legs that currently serves as CEO, George W. Bush has openly proclaimed his support of genocide so many times that it is inexcusable that so many people see him as anything other than a criminal of the lowest order. Is it really necessary to say "I hate you and want you dead" if I hate you and want you dead?

.Jews are the cowards that they label their opponents. A Jew or a judeophilic "honorary Pharisee" NEVER tells the truth. They are congenital deceivers. The lie is their weapon...

The "old money" people and the Jews who they emulate have been working towards their "global plantation" for longer than any of us have been alive. If they remain ensconced in power, we are doomed.

What a display of yiddish "chutzpah", when a genocidal madman like "dubya" asks us to "join the fight" against so-called "terrorism" (aka. Acts of War), so as to ensure the "future of our grandchildren"?!?

May he and his know eternal life in a boiling cess-pool of rotting jew-flesh!

In closing, the United States government was our deadly enemy BEFORE September the Eleventh and a deadly enemy it shall remain. All the "Holocaust"-styled propaganda in the world will never get those of sound mind to join the swine for a "weep".

We long ago "disowned" Big Daddy and as men/women "without a country", we look forward to a future, which by definition, presupposes the fall of the "red, white and jew" forces of disintegration and death.


add your comments



Feel better now?
by qb • Saturday August 10, 2002 at 09:14 PM



Got it all off your chest? Are you ready to return to the realm of the reasonable now?

Oh -- not yet? More to come, more bottled up stuff you need to get out before it starts to poison your bloodstream? Don't let me rush you, better go on and get it all out and you'll feel better. Isn't the Internet wonderful?

I know this is a little earlier than you feel like dealing with rational reality etc. -- but Adam Shapiro is sitting in the slam right now; Lenni Brenner is getting ready to endure September Eleven In New York ("Autumn in New York, ...") Brian Atinsky is nominated for the annual Most Hated Man In Eretz Yisrael award...

I know, I know, but these anomalous individuals had no choice in the matter, and should be praised for what they contribute rather than lumped in with the likes of Sharon/Dubya & Co.

I know you agree so I'll just wait till you get around to it.

in the meantime, take it easy, okay?see you round the campus?


add your comments



"red, white, and jew"
by X1Harad • Sunday August 11, 2002 at 02:24 AM



******* pathetic Nazi trash.


add your comments



red, white and kikey
by red, white and kikey • Sunday August 11, 2002 at 11:54 AM



Kikes are the cowards that they label their opponents. A kike or a judeophilic "honorary Pharisee" NEVER tells the truth. They are congenital deceivers.


add your comments



The skinhead rhetoric...
by timzan • Monday August 12, 2002 at 12:04 PM



Does nothing for the Palestinians cause..Convert the anger to a concise argument without the "Kikes or Yids" banter please..It makes you seem so...vanilla..This site isn't here to champion the destruction of Israel or Jews, its to expose the plight of Palestine..I"ll get off my soapbox now..


add your comments



No kosher jews = kikes
by no kosher • Monday August 12, 2002 at 01:58 PM



No kosher jews = kikes according to jewish defense organisation
Do tell them, Elie.


add your comments



The Roots of Christian Zionism within Evangelicalism
by Tom • Friday August 16, 2002 at 08:57 PM



Christian Zionism has, in general terms, arisen from within Evangelicalism, and Fundamentalism in particular. Within that narrower circle, Christian Zionism is invariably associated with, although not exclusively, a dispensational reading of Biblical history and a premillennial eschatology. It would be useful therefore to amplify the meaning of these four theological terms.

1.1 Evangelicalism

The term 'Evangelicalism' denotes a broad spectrum of theological opinion arising out of the Reformation, Puritanism and Revivalism. Tertullian was one of the first to use the term around AD 200 in his defence of biblical truth against Marcion. Martin Luther used the term to describe John Hus, but it was Thomas More who introduced the word to the English language. In a 'vitriolic attack' on William Tyndale in 1532, More referred to those 'evangelicalles'.1 The distinctive doctrines of Evangelicalism include a belief in the supreme authority of scripture over tradition (sola Scriptura); in the literal interpretation of scripture; adherence to the historic creeds; the need for a personal faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and holiness; and a belief in the imminent, visible and personal return of Jesus Christ. Differences exist between 'open' and 'conservative' evangelicals as to the relative importance of such doctrines as infallibility and inerrancy. Evangelicalism is represented, and generally accepted, within all the main Protestant denominations and in Britain an increasing number of senior ecclesiastical posts are now held by evangelicals including Archbishop George Carey.2

Evangelicalism has become a popular subject for analysis, not least among proponents. 'The overwhelming majority of them present the picture of a Christian movement which is sweeping all before it, triumphing over both liberalism and ritualism.'3 Footnote key authors and books defining/tracing history of evangelicalism. See Marsden (p.4)

1.2 Fundamentalism

Within Western evangelicalism there are many strands defined by adherents as much as by opponents. These include those of fundamentalist, conservative, open and liberal. This spectrum has sometimes been simplified into the three categories of right, centre and left.4 The fastest growing and most influential of these is fundamentalism, also known in the United States as the 'Evangelical Right'. Fundamentalism draws its support primarily from the Baptist, Pentecostal and Independent Bible churches associated with individuals such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey and Mike Evans.5 The term 'fundamentalist' derives from a series of tracts entitled 'The Fundamentals' published from 1910 onwards in an attempt by American conservative evangelicals to defend the basis of historic Christianity and repudiate what they saw as 'modernism' and theological liberalism. The term 'fundamentalism' was first used by Curtis Lee Laws, the editor of the Baptist Watchman Examiner, in 1918 to describe the movement within Baptist circles dedicated to such a position.6 Much valuable research has already been undertaken into the nature of Christian fundamentalism7 and Protestant fundamentalism in particular,8 including the correlation between evangelical fundamentalism and anti-Semitism.9

(Need to draw upon Marty & Marsden (p. 77 and footnotes) neo-evangelicals. Note the formidable coalition in the 1920's (p. 57) - conservative Protestants - anti modernists and pessimistic about the future. (p. 41). In footnotes draw upon Marty, Marsden and other authors who trace the origins and history of fundamentalism. Marty for example describes a fundamentalist as an angry evangelical p.1)

Contemporary Christian Fundamentalism is the most active, exclusive, intolerant, and conservative wing of Evangelicalism, both theologically and politically. Its popularity is, in part, due to its near monopoly of television and radio evangelism; its espousal, especially in its 'Faith Movement' version, of a success oriented 'health and wealth' theology; its sacralising of the 'American Way'; its anti-Communist, xenophobic and anti-Moslem phobia; and its propensity to provide simplistic, infallible, biblical proof text panaceas for the world's problems.10 In the words of Gerald Butt, fundamentalism essentially, 'offers an outlet for frustrated ambitions.'11 Similarly, Michael Saward, an evangelical has compared some aspects of fundamentalism in its style to the culture of facism.12

Fundamentalist Christian Zionists are often outspoken and tend to advocate the annexation of the entire West Bank by Israel; support the lobby for other nations to return their embassies to Jerusalem as the undivided and eternal capital of the Jews; are committed to the building of the Third Jewish Temple and the re-institution of the priesthood and temple sacrifices as a precursor to the return of the Messiah.13 They have also helped facilitate the return or 'restoration' of Jews from around the world to Israel, especially those living in Russia and Eastern Europe, and deliberately encouraged their re-settlement in the Occupied Territories.14

There is a large and growing number of books written by evangelical and fundamentalist Christian Zionists presenting a largely pro-Israel yet apocalyptic scenario.15 Within contemporary Christian fundamentalism the most influential theological interpretation of history is known as premillennial dispensationalism.

1.3 Premillennialism

Traditionally there have been three mutually exclusive interpretations of the references to a millennial reign of Christ in Revelation 20 depending on whether it is understood literally or figuratively. These are amillennial, postmillennial, and premillennial.16 Premillennialists hold to the belief that Christ will return prior to the millennium. Premillennialists are themselves divided on the question as to when the so called 'rapture' will occur.17 Four distinct, mutually exclusive, positions have and continue to be held, the cause of some rather acrimonious disagreement within premillennialist circles.

1.3.1 Pre-Tribulationists

J. N. Darby18 influenced by Edward Irving19 and followed by C. I. Scofield20 and the early dispensationalists such as Lewis S. Chafer21 and Charles Ryrie22 held to this position. Ryrie describes pre-tribulationism as 'normative dispensational eschatology' and 'a regular feature of classic dispensational premillennialism'.23 Pre-tribulationist premillennialists believe that Jesus Christ will return in the air to 'rapture' the Church before the Tribulation begins on earth. After seven years of tribulation, Christ will return with His saints to overcome the Antichrist and his forces and establish God's millennial kingdom on earth. One popular exponent of this position is Tim LaHaye.

Are you ready for Christ's return? Do you believe that at any instant you could find youself hurtling through the skies to meet your Lord face to face? Are you confident that God will spare you and your loved ones the horrifying judgment of the Tribulation...Are you living your life as if each moment could be your last on earth?24

At the late 19th Century Niagara Prophetic Conferences attended by men like D. L. Moody and C. I. Scofield, alternative views of the chronology of the rapture, already present in the increasingly sectarian Brethren circles, emerged here also and caused considerable internal division within dispensational circles. This came to be known as the 'Rapture-Rupture' 25

1.3.2 Mid-Tribulationists

Mid-tribulationists assert instead that Christians will experience the first half of the Tribulation, that is three and a half years of persecution, and then at the mid-point of the Tribulation they will be raptured. Those who argue for such a position do so on the basis of Daniel 7:25 and Revelation 12:4 which include the phrase "time, times and half a time." This is taken to mean a period of three and a half years of tribulation, before the rapture.26

1.3.3 Post-Tribulationists

Authors such as J. Barton Payne, George Ladd and R. H. Gundry believe the Church will experience seven years of tribulation before Christ returns.27 Unlike Pretribulationists, they regard the references to the suffering of the 'saints' in Revelation as referring to Christians and not Jewish converts left on earth after the Church has been raptured.28

1.3.4 Pre-Wrath Tribulational

Marvin J. Rosenthal has literally incurred the 'wrath' of some pre-tribulationists29 for his controversial book, 'The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church'30 which he claims is a new understanding of the Rapture, the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Christ, to be distinguished from that of pre-, mid- and post-tribulationist views. Rosenthal insists, based on his ultra-literalist hermeneutic that the seven year period during which the Antichrist will supposedly arise, also known as the seventieth week of Daniel 9:24-27, must be separated into three not two.

The Bible teaches that there are three major sections to the seventieth week: the beginning of sorrows (Matt. 24:8), the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21), and the Day of the Lord (Matt. 24:30-31)31

Rosenthal therefore argues the Church will endure the Tribulation, but escape the wrath of the Day of the Lord immediately prior to Christ's return. Like most other premillennial dispensationalists however, he insists,

The Bible teaches that at Christ's return, a surviving remnant of Jews will be regathered to Israel and saved. God's covenant promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be literally fulfilled (Matt. 24:31; Rom. 11:25-26).32

Rosenthal's views are influential in so far as he has been the executive director of The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, and editor of Israel, My Glory, for sixteen years. He is now the executive director of Zion's Hope, an international mission agency and editor of Zion's Fire, an evangelical magazine.33

1.4 Dispensationalism

John Nelson Darby is regarded as the father of modern dispensationalism34, although William Kelly Edward Irving played no small part in the restoration of premillennial speculations out of which Darby's dispensationalism arose.35 Ryrie insists that it is 'glib' to claim dispensationalism 'originated with Darby' and that it is historically inaccurate to claim that these views were taken over by Scofield.36 He does, however, concede that the 'system' of dipensationalism is recent in origin.37

The publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 by the Oxford University Press was something of a innovative literary coup for the movement, since for the first time, overtly dispensationalist notes were added to the pages of the biblical text. What distinguishes Darby's scheme and subsequent dispensationalists is the conviction that the dispensations are irreversible and progressive.38 While such a dispensational chronology of events was largely unknown prior to the teaching of Darby and Scofield39, the Scofield Reference Bible became the leading bible used by American Evangelicals and Fundamentalists for the next sixty years.40

Dispensationalists claim to find in Scripture evidence of seven distinct dispensations during which mankind has been tested in respect of specific revelation as to the will of God. In each, mankind, including in the sixth dispensation, the visible Church, has failed the test according to the distinct way in which God responded to humankind. These dispensations began with Creation and will end, it is claimed, in the Millennial kingdom.41 What distinguishes Darby's scheme and subsequent dispensationalists from earlier attempts to describe phases in biblical history is the conviction that God's way of dealing with humanity in previous dispensations were and remain, irreversible and progressive.42

These dispensations are seen by proponents as 'providing us with a chronological map to guide us.'43 Dispensationalism claims that God has two separate but parallel means of working, one through the Church, the other through Israel, the former being a parenthesis to the later.44 Thus there remains a distinction, 'between Israel, the gentiles and the church.'45 Chafer elaborates this dichotomy,

The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.46

Dispensationalism therefore refutes the supposition inherent in covenant theology that God has one purpose for all people and that in Jesus Christ the earthly is transformed into the heavenly.

This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does will.47

Dispensationalism is based on a hermeneutic in which all Scripture, and especially the prophetic, must always be interpreted literally. Scofield, who popularised and synthesised Darby's theology, taught,

Not one instance exists of a 'spiritual' or figurative fulfilment of prophecy...Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion is always Zion...Prophecies may never be spiritualised, but are always literal.48

Chafer likewise criticises non-dispensational theology for giving a spiritual interpretation to earthly realities.49 Ryrie insists that dispensationalism and, in particular, 'this distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation.' 50 One is left in no doubt that such an interpretation is the only consistent one for evangelicals who claim to hold to a literal as opposed to liberal allegorical hermeneutic. Ryrie asserts,

To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not the sole possession or practice of dispensationalists, but the consistent use of it in all areas of biblical interpretation is.51

Based on such an interpretative principle, dispensationalists hold that the promises made to Abraham and Israel must await future fulfilment since they were never completely fulfilled in the past. So, for example, it is an article of normative dispensational belief that all Israel will be literally saved; that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants will be literally instituted; that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic kingdom centred on Jerusalem in the State of Israel.

In the light of this principle, it is legitimate to ask whether dispensationalism is not orientated more from the Abrahamic Covenant than from the Cross. Is not its focus centred more on the Jewish kingdom than on the Body of Christ? Does it not interpret the New Testament in the light of Old Testament prophecies, instead of interpreting those prophecies in the light of the more complete revelation of the New Testament?52

For normative dispensationalists then, the church is relegated to the status of a parenthesis53 in God's future and literal kingdom rule. This will be centred on Jerusalem during the millennium in which the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices restored. Often this kind of dogma, based on forced exegesis, is also asserted by those who are uncomfortable with or disillusioned by Jewish resistance to proselytism and who rest in the belief that 'all Israel will be saved' when or after Christ returns.54 Bass insists that,

No part of historic Christian doctrine supports this radical distinction between church and kingdom. To be sure they are not identical; but dispensationalism has added the idea that the kingdom was to be a restoration of Israel, not a consummation of the church.55

Premillennial Dispensationalism has come to dominate American Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism especially through the influence of Dallas Theological Seminary and the Moody Bible Institute, to the point where the two (Evangelicalism and Dispensationalism) are virtually synonymous. Leading exponents include Charles Ryrie56, Lewis Sperry Chafer57, Dwight Pentecost58, John Walvoord59, Eric Sauer60 and Hal Lindsey.61 The movement has grown in popularity within evangelical circles, particularly in America and especially since 1967, coinciding with the Arab-Israel Six Day War and a few years later in 1970 with the publication of Hal Lindsey's 'The Late Great Planet Earth'62 Tracing the development of Christian Zionism from the mid 19th and early 20th Century, the premillennial dispensationalist preoccupation with a distinctly Jewish millennium preceded by a pre-tribulation rapture of the Church and an end-time gathering of the remnant of Israel, came to replace the simpler form of historic premillennialism.63

...the dispensationalists had won the day so completely that for the next fifty years friend and foe alike largely identified dispensationalism with premillennialism.64

There has also been some constructive dialogue between contemporary Dispensationalists and Reformed theologians on the relationship of the Church to Israel, although primarily still as a theoretical and academic, theological question.65 A new generation of younger dispensationalists among the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary have attempted to redefine their movement as 'progressive dispensationalism'.66 They distance themselves from what they regard as the the 'naïveté' of the founder's vision, 67distinguishing the traditional dispensationalism of Lewis Chafer and Charles Ryrie68 from 'Scofieldism',69 as well as from 'the popular 'apocalyptism' of Lindseyism'.70 They regard themselves as 'less land centred' and less 'future centred'.71 Ryrie is sceptical, unwilling to concede to such revisionism. He prefers to describe the position of theologians such as Blaising and Bock as 'neo-dispensationalist' or 'covenant dispensationalist', for holding for instance to a 'slippery' hermeneutic.72

Ryrie similarly insists on distinguishing normative dispensationalism from 'Ultradispensationalism'. This is rooted in the teaching of Ethelbert W. Bullinger (1837-1913) and his successor Charles H. Welch, who, according to Ryrie, have merely carried dispensationalism to its 'logical extremes'. Ultradispensationalists hold for instance, that the Church did not begin at Pentecost but in Acts 28 when Israel was set aside; the Great Commission of Matthew and Mark is Jewish and therefore not for the Church; the Gospels and Acts describe the dispensation of the Law; only the Pauline prison epistles, that is Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, relate to the Church Age; water baptism is not for the Church Age; and Israel, not the Church, is the Bride of Christ.73 Their teachings are perpetutated today by the Berean Bible Society, Berean Expositor, Berean Publishing Trust74 and Grace Mission.

Despite these attempts to redefine and reshape the dispensationalism of Darby and Scofield, some remain unconvinced.75 As an outsider, James Barr insists in all its variations, 'Dispensationalism is a totally fundamentalist scheme.'76

Following Scofield's literalistic hermeneutic, most contemporary premillennial dispensationalists of what ever type, equate the State of Israel with biblical Israel; the Jews are still regarded as God's 'chosen people'; and consequently people of Jewish descent have a divine right to the land in perpetuity.

Crucial to the premillennial dispensationalist reading of biblical prophecy, drawn principally from Daniel and Revelation, is the assertion that the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt on the Temple Mount as a precursor to the Lord returning to restore the Kingdom of Israel centred on Jerusalem. This pivotal event is also seen as the trigger for the start of the war of Armageddon.77

Clearly such views, whether promulgated by respectable Christian theological institutions like Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute, Jewish fanatics such as Baruch Ben-Yosef and the Temple Mount Yeshiva,78 or simply by naive members of pilgrimage parties, are anathema to the majority of Jews, Christians and Moslems living in Israel and the Occupied Territories. Even more tragic, these beliefs sour relations between Moslem Arabs and Christian Arabs perpetuating fears of a revived Western military adventurism dating back to the Crusades. According to Armstrong, who traces the pervading legacy of the Crusades on the contemporary Middle East, fundamentalists, 'have returned to a classical and extreme religious crusading.'79

Ominously, Charles Colson, the former senior aide to president Richard Nixon, claims that the United States Government has contingency plans for just such a scenario, and would use force to disarm Jewish fanatics from destroying the Dome of the Rock if Israeli forces were unwilling to do so.80

Kenneth Leech offers this critical assessment of Christian fundamentalism and also some grounds for its evaluation.

Biblical fundamentalism has normally been accompanied by manifestations of bigotry, intolerance and violence...Fundamentalism of this kind is a serious danger to Christian spirituality as well as to the health of any community in which it is present. It is a pathological growth upon the Christian movement and calls for very serious and thoughtful responses.81

The Palestinian Christian community has, especially since 1948, suffered isolation, discrimination and persecution in a way that some describe as a form of apartheid or 'ethnic cleansing'. They are presently caught between three forms of religious fundamentalism, a Moslem fundamentalism which regards them as traitors to the Arab cause; a Jewish fundamentalism which perceives them as a 'fifth column' and impediment to the realisation of a 'Greater Israel'; and a Christian fundamentalism which is infatuated with Zionism and is, in the words of Don Wagner, 'Anxious for Armageddon,'82 unable to comprehend why Christian Palestinians do not support the State of Israel against the perceived threat of Islam. They have experienced as a people, how, "Fundamentalism represents a narrowing of vision, a closing of doors, a diminishing of human beings, and a backward force in human history..."83

The plight of the Palestinian Church is made worse by the fact that they are ignored by the majority of Christian pilgrims and tourists, of all traditions, who visit the Holy Land primarily to see the sites associated with the Bible. My previous research has shown that their itineraries tend to follow a predictable pattern determined more by the strategies of the Israeli Government Ministry of Tourism than the needs of the indigenous Christian communities for contact and fellowship.

As a consequence, a significant numbers of Palestinians continue to leave their homeland out of desperation, fear and intimidation. The very real danger is the creation of what Archbishop George Carey once described as 'an empty Christian Disney World.'

While Evangelicalism and Christian Fundamentalism, in particular, have attracted a considerable amount of attention in academic circles,85 their influence upon the rise of Christian Zionism appears to have escaped serious consideration apart from a few notable exceptions.86 Indeed Marsden concedes that,

Even most of those neo-evangelicals who abandoned the details of dispensationalism still retained a firm belief in Israel's God-ordained role. This belief is immensely popular in America, though rarely mentioned in proportion to its influence.87

In the light of an extensive survey of published literature as well as through dialogue with Christians in Britain, Israel and the Occupied Territories there appears to have been little research so far into the theological origins and variations within the Christian Zionist community, nor an assessment of its influence on Christian pilgrims and the Palestinian Christian community.88 It is for these reasons that this research into the origins, nature and impact of Evangelical Christian Zionism was initiated. It is often only when Christians visit the Holy Land on a pilgrimage and by chance meet Palestinian Christians that they begin to realise the devastating consequences of such theological views on the indigenous church. The second chapter will appraise the main historical influences upon the rise of contemporary Christian Zionism.



add your comments



Apocalypse Now!
by Sojourner • Friday August 16, 2002 at 09:14 PM



The political marriage of the Christian fundamentalists and Judeo-Nazis
April 26, 2002

The Author’s note:
*Apocalypse is from Greek, meaning an unveiling of thing which is hidden, and apocalyptic is referring to the final world cataclysm in Christian theology that will destroy the powers of evil and usher in the kingdom of God.

*Dispensationalism is a relatively new belief system, less than 200 years old, of the Christian fundamentalists which holds that the signs of the Second Coming of Christ are clearly spelled out in Scripture and can be identified with current international events as in the Middle East Conflicts. This theology was developed by John Darby of England and popularized by Cyrus Scofield of America, whose Scofield Reference Bible explained that God has special interest in only people: born-again Christians.

*Judeo-Nazis is referring to the Israeli Jews whose tactics to suppress and persecute the Palestinians are analogous to the Nazis atrocities against the Jews, Gypsies, and other ethnic group during WWII and the epithet was first coined by the late Jewish Israeli professor, Israel Shahak, who survived at the Nazi concentration camp.

In the Middle East conflicts, people generally are confused and mostly misled about the history, fact, and reality by the media pundits, Hollywood moguls, right-wing politicians, and religious fundamentalists who are engaged in mendacious propaganda war in order to achieve their particular objectives.
Among these detractors, the Christian fundamentalists are, the first and foremost, embracing and peddling deadly misinformation and theological falsity in the name of words of God at the church pulpits, from thousands of the mainline Southern Baptist Convention to Pentecostal, Bible and Mega Churches that boast over 50 million congregants in the United States.

One of the clearest remarks what these Christian rights are adopting was manifested by Rev. Jerry Falwell, Rev. Pat Robertson, and US Senator James Inhofe, after the Kamikaze assault on the World Trade Center…Jerry raved and Pat concurred that God was pissed off because Americans are degrading His words on abortion, homosexuality, and tribulation, in which Americans deserve to be harmed.
The Republican Senator from Oklahoma piped in a speech at the Senate: the September 11 attacks were retribution from God in response to US policy toward Israel that restrains Jews from their all-out war against the Palestinian terrorists, and he insisted that Israel is entitled to the West Bank because the Bible said so: Genesis 13: 14-17 made it clear that Israel is the covenant land promised to Jews by God.

In other words, they take the Middle East conflict as a war between the words of God and the powers of evil, the belief system of the Christian Zionism that Jews must live in a re-created Israel in the promised land before Christ can fulfill his Second Coming in Jerusalem.
For them, Israel is the center stage of the Tribulation and the Armageddon that must be secured in preparation for the Second Coming, and the establishment of Israel in 1948 was a clear fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
In reading and accepting the Bible literally, they believe in dispensationalism in which the Rapture is a key factor in understanding this relatively new dogma…born-again Christians are to be wafted up into Heaven just before Armageddon without suffering one moment through the instant Rapture.

Up until 1600s when the Bible was translated into the vernacular, the Catholic Church traditionally had no concept of a Chosen People or the return of Jews to Palestine.
After the Reformation when the Old Testament became a historical reference to the Christians, many Christian ministers turned to messianism and millennialism that provide a theological scenario, like a movie script, that will be manifested by the tribal God in a series of time sequences or “dispensation” for the chosen few born-agains to be saved through the Rapture and against the multitude to be perished by “Big Bang”.
Therefore, these evangelical fundamentalists believe that Israeli Jews have to establish a state as a precursor of End Game scenario and they become the active supporters of Judeo-Nazis who entertain the dream of “Eretz Yisrael” (the land of a Greater Israel) that stretches from Sinai peninsular to Lebanon, and part of Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

For the militant Jews, like Jabotinsky, Begin, Shamir, Netanyahu, and Ariel Sharon, who enjoy an idea that the way to stop killing is to kill, Jerry and Pat are a godsend to them, though there are tensions between them over the fundamentalist insistence that Jews should be proselytized if they were saved before the Second Coming: most Jewish leaders are willing to forgive anything as far as they hear a good word about Israel, and it is natural for Zionist Revisionists to accept the Christian rights. (Please vide Sojourner’s articles on the Middle East for further references)
As far as the Holy Land is concerned, they are nationalistic, chauvinistic, and militaristic bedfellows that are jealously happy to exclude other multitude of Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Atheists, and even Christians who are not born again from their theological shellgame, the Armageddon.

For the evangelical fundamentalists, the militant Judeo-Nazis are doing a God’s business that builds a Jewish Temple on top of Al Aqsa Mosque before He sends Christ back to earth…when Ariel Sharon marched to the Dome of Rock in Haram al-Sharif and started up the second Intifada with no apparent reason except provoking Islamic anger, he was playing a key role, hastening and promoting the wishes of the Christian fundamentalists who are anxiously and eagerly awaiting the Armageddon.
Effi Eitam, a repentant Jew (the same as a born-again Christian) and former IDF General, who recently joined the Sharon Government, minced no words on the Israeli willingness to extend their fight against Iran and Iraq unless these two wicked nations are neutralized by the West sooner or later.

Arabs are as much the malignant cancer in the body of the Israeli state for the Zionist revisionists, as Muslims are to be burned at the Armageddon in their End Game for the Christian fundamentalists.
Therefore, it is not surprising to see them to be hand in glove for securing the “Eretz Yisrael”: although they are not on the same boat over the issue of the End Game, the Jews want the secure and expanded land while the Christian fundamentalists want to place all Jews gathering at one place for the salvation of Christianity through the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
The Jews take the Armageddon a bull because there is no mention of it in the Old Testament, and who wants to believe that the final cataclysm occurs in their own backyard resulting in their own massacre?
For both of two crazies, religion and politics are two sides of a single coin that can spill over each other and coexist in a symbiotic habitat: the Christian crazies need the Jews as a logistical element for their eschatological time-table and the Judeo-Nazis take advantage of the Christian cult on the Holy Land for the establishment of the Jew-only nation.
Each would be impoverished without the other, and both crazies are in a full court press in the destruction of planet earth.


by Sojourner



add your comments



An interesting parallel...
by Courage • Friday August 16, 2002 at 09:36 PM



"Jerry raved and Pat concurred that God was pissed off because Americans are degrading His words on abortion, homosexuality, and tribulation, in which Americans deserve to be harmed."

Maybe it's too much Torah that does this to a man's brain - as this particular psychology is to be found amongst many Jews and Zionists as an explaination for the Jewish extermination now know as 'The Holocaust'. It is on this premise (that God is personally interested in one group's affairs' that much of Holocaust dogma rests. Read any of the nonsense published by Elie the Weasal over the years to see the proof. The Holocaust is, by their reckoning, to be somehow out of time; metaphysic; an entrance of a deus ex machina into Nature to provide a message to God's chosen......

i do

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

2

Answer 4

Have you read this:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769

Hope it gives you enlightenment.

Answer 5

Man! itz too loooong i din read it

Answer 6

I dint have the honer

Answer 7

no.