Amillennialist Contra Mundum

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

It seems an easy judgment to make

Monday, July 17, 2006

Arguing for the Analogy of Scripture

Sometimes it is tempting to think one has discovered in Scripture some new, secret meaning previously hidden to the Church. Unless one is humble enough to let Scripture interpret Scripture, error easily comes from such "creativity.

More from here:

In response to Mark Call:
Hear me, all of you, and understand:

There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.

And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? Thus He declared all foods clean.)

And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.

All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person (Mark 7).

In the same way, brothers and sisters, you have died to the laws in Moses' Teachings through Christ's body. You belong to someone else, the one who was brought back to life. As a result, we can do what God wants (Romans 7).

If your spiritual nature is your guide, you are not subject to Moses' laws (Galatians 5).

But now we have died to those laws that bound us. God has broken their effect on us so that we are serving in a new spiritual way, not in an old way dictated by written words (Romans 7).

Christ is the fulfillment of Moses' Teachings, so that everyone who has faith may receive God's approval (Romans 10).

Before Christ came, Moses' laws served as our guardian. Christ came so that we could receive God's approval by faith. But now that this faith has come, we are no longer under the control of a guardian (Galatians 3).

He brought an end to the commandments and demands found in Moses' Teachings so that he could take Jewish and non-Jewish people and create one new humanity in himself. So he made peace (Ephesians 2).

Stand fast therefore in the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and do not again be held with the yoke of bondage.

Behold, I, Paul, say to you that if you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do all the Law...(Galatians 5).

...Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me (1 Timothy 1).

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned (Titus 3).
A Christian will obey Christ--as a result of saving faith.

Since Christ removed from His people the requirement of keeping the Mosaic law, to which commands was He referring?

The commands we will obey are found throughout the New Testament (not the Mosaic regulations).

Rather than put your confidence in your observing rules God says are no longer in effect over us, put your faith in Christ's work alone.

And if you want to refrain from pork and shellfish, go for it. But do not add to God's Word by saying that if we love Him, we too will do so. That is heresy.
When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep." In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

...The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.

Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, O God.'"

First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Hebrews 9 and 10).
***

I had hoped you would be persuaded by the clear testimony of the Word of God.

If not, at least others will be able to judge for themselves.

Mark 7:18:
And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
Galatians 5 (How can Paul forbid any command of Christ, if--as you contend--Jesus wants us to obey all the Mosaic Covenant's regulations?):
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.

...For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
Colossians 2:
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
Hebrews 4:
So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.
Hebrews 7:
On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever.'"

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.
Hebrews 8:
For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.

Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain."

But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more."

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 9:
For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
Hebrews 12:
...Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant....
Luke 22:
And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
Peace be with you.

***

If the Covenant "was there from the beginning," then it wasn't new.

The New Covenant replaced the Old, as noted above.

You're conflating the contract with the One Who made it.

***

Mark Call wrote:
THOSE things alone are why I reject the misinterpretation that implies God was wrong.
That is your inference.

I have only stated what YHWH said about His Old and New Covenants.
...that His covenants were flawed and had to be 'done away with', when the Truth is that He DID "know the end from the beginning" and have "all things" worked out.
God's replacing the Old Covenant with the New does not in any way imply a lack of omniscience.

Obeying His commands cannot possibly mean the Mosaic regulations since He established the "new covenant." He declared all food "clean." He said that no one is to judge with regard to Sabbaths or food.

If you are a Christian, you will listen to Christ. His Word on this topic is sufficiently noted above.

Regards,

Amillennialist

By the way, I don't disagree that something (not essential meaning) can be lost in a translation from one language to another, but just so you know, in this thread I've used the following:
-God's Word to the Nations

-The New International Version

-The Authorized King James Version, 1611

-The English Standard Version

***

Mark Call says:
"God's REPLACING the Old Covenant with the New..." is a lie.

But God says (quoted more fully above in this thread):
“...He declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:18).

"Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience...If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience...For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?" (1 Corinthians 10).

“...neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything” (Galatians 5).

“Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come...” (Colossians 2).

The Old Covenant "...was being brought to an end...," "...once had glory...,” “...has come to have no glory at all...," and “...was being brought to an end...” (2 Corinthians 3).

“...a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced...Jesus [is] the guarantor of a better covenant (Hebrews 7).

Christ's new ministry is “...much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better....”

“...if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second....”

“I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers....”

“...In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete...” (Hebrews 8).

“...how much more will the blood of Christ...purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God....”

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire...with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased....”

“He sets aside the first to establish the second” (Hebrews 9, 10).

***

Mark Call says:
Does God revoke His Word - even when men fail to keep Covenant? Has He not done all that He promised - always - and then more? He's kept EVERY Covenant He made -- from Adam on.
But God says:
“...In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete...” (Hebrews 8).
Of course God keeps His Word; that you acknowledge this makes your contradicting of it all the more inexplicable.

He has given us a New Covenant so much greater than the Old, but you want to obligate His people to what He has made "obsolete."
“He sets aside the first to establish the second” (Hebrews 9, 10).
***

Mark Call continued:
You refuse to acknowledge that there could be a difference between the "curse" of the Law, and the teaching and instruction.
That is patently false; where have I written that? I've only stated what the Scriptures do.

Of course there is a distinction between the Law and its curse; that does not make the Holy Spirit silent on God's replacing the Old Covenant with the New.
You deny His whole message on idolatry and the "mixing of the clean and unclean"
You're lying again. Where have I written anything like that? You cannot produce any of my writings that deny His Word.
You've utterly IGNORED every example that the Ruach HaKodesh has led me to suggest to you - from the 'aleph-tov' to rainbows, and insist on REPEATING - over and over, ad nauseum...(hasn't it even occurred to you that if the "Holy Spirit" was guiding you at ALL that you could find another witness SOMEWHERE?)
Jeremiah doesn't count? Hebrews doesn't count? Jesus, Peter, and Paul matter not at all? You have to discard a number of Scriptures to claim that I have only one “witness.” It seems imprudent to blame the Holy Spirit for your misusing, misinterpreting, and denying His revelation.

Besides that, how many times must God say something for you to believe it? Obviously, more than a handful, since you deny all the “witnesses” provided in this thread.
If Moshe's covenant is 'done away with' then "How much MORE so" (to use Paul's persistent illustration) the REALLLY olde stuff from that Noach guy? And why does God still bother making rainbows now that all the "old stuff" is so obsolete?
That's misusing Paul's illustration.

Where does God say "all the old stuff is obsolete"? Where does God say that He has done away with His promise to Noah? Where does God say that He has done away with any of His promises? This is another example of your false reasoning.

Just as with Romans 13 (which does not say “Caesar is never wrong” as you falsely claim), you add to the Word of God instead of letting Scripture interpret Scripture.

God does say...
“...He declared all foods clean.”

"Eat whatever is sold...If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner...eat whatever is set before you...why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?"

“...neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything.”

“Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come....”

The Old Covenant "...was being brought to an end...," "...once had glory...,” “...has come to have no glory at all...," and “...was being brought to an end....”

“...a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced...Jesus [is] the guarantor of a better covenant.

Christ's new ministry is “...much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better....”

“...if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second....”

“I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers....”

“...In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete...”

“...how much more will the blood of Christ...purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God....”

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire...with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased....”

and “He sets aside the first to establish the second.”
You deny God's clear Word to serve your false teaching.

That seems unwise.

***

Mark Call continued:
[nowhere, obviously - which has been my stunningly clear point all along]
Clear?

You have been conflating quite sloppily the Mosaic Covenant with God's promises of grace to His people.

God's promises of blessing to Israel under the Mosaic Covenant were only if they kept all His commands, which neither they nor their descendants could do (as noted by Peter). Under the Mosaic Covenant, that left only one promise to keep: death and destruction.
Did the same guy write both of these lines?
You're confused because you will not say only (and all of) what God says.

The Mosaic Covenant is what God says He has "set aside" in favor of His New Covenant in Christ's blood.

The promises made to Adam, Noah, and Abraham are distinct from the Mosaic Covenant.

God is clear when He speaks. You should allow Him to speak for Himself.

***

Mark Call conflated the Two Kingdoms, trying to justify the Declaration of Independence at the expense of Scripture.

Mark Call wrongly stated that Romans 13 teaches, “Caesar is never wrong.”

Mark Call touts his iron grasp of the Mosaic Covenant, but failed to note properly that only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and that only once a year (until Christ came and entered the true Most Holy Place by His own blood, fulfilling a “shadow” of the Mosaic Covenant and one that Mark Call does not keep).

Mark Call argued that if a Christian “loves Jesus” he will keep all the regulations of the Mosaic Covenant, even though YHWH set aside the Old Covenant for the New, Better One, having fulfilled the requirements of the former in His Son.

Mark Call argued that the commands Jesus would have His people obey are those He says He has made “obsolete,” “set aside,” and “fulfilled.” Ironically, just as the Pharisees were rebuked for following externally the letter of the Law but breaking it inwardly, and just as the Judaizers were rightly excoriated for requiring Christ's people to obey the regulations of the “obsolete” Mosaic Covenant that had been “set aside” and “fulfilled,” so also Mark Call breaks the Law but makes obligatory that which God no longer requires.

Now, despite multiple Biblical passages stating the setting aside of the Mosaic Covenant for a New and Better One, Mark Call wants to make Scripture contradict Scripture by arguing that Christ's statement “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done” (Matthew 5:18) actually means:
-when Jesus says all foods are “clean,” they are not really clean “if we love Him.”

-when YHWH says that no one should judge His people with regard to Sabbath days, we will observe them “if we love Him.”

-when Christ says that He set aside the Mosaic Covenant for the New, Better One, it wasn't really set aside, since we will obey all those regulations “if we love Him.”

-when YHWH says the Mosaic regulations were only shadows of better things to come fulfilled by His Son, we will obey those shadows anyway “if we love Him.”
Let's see how Mark Call holds up under his own (false) teaching:

How does he obey this command: “You must not sacrifice the Passover in any town the LORD your God gives you except in the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name” (Deuteronomy 16)?

I hope he was circumcised as a baby since, “An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD's Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it” (Exodus 12:48).

Does Mark Call keep his wife away from worship? He must, since no priest lives to make the required offering in the way YHWH commanded:
Speak to the children of Yisra’ĕl, saying, “When a woman has conceived, and has given birth...she shall be unclean seven days, as in the days of her monthly separation she is unclean....And she remains in the blood of her cleansing...She does not touch whatever is set-apart [holy], and she does not come into the set-apart [holy] place until the days of her cleansing are completed.

...And when the days of her cleansing are completed...she brings to the priest a lamb a year old, as a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin offering, to the door of the Tent of Meeting. And he shall bring it before יהוה, and make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the Torah for her who has given birth to a male or a female. ‘And if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean’” (Leviticus 12).
And I fervently hope that any children he has don't curse him.

A look at the context of Matthew 5:18 might help here:
Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete. For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done.

Whoever...breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.

For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall by no means enter into the reign of the heavens.

You heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder...'.
Christ here makes clear that we are completely unable to fulfill the Law ourselves.--we need Him. He also states that those commands will not pass away until they are fulfilled.

Who fulfilled them? Who “does and teaches them”? Who possesses a righteousness that “exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees”?

Not Mark Call.

Christ.

He fulfilled the Torah in several ways. First, He explained (and demonstrated) the Commandments truest, fullest meaning. Second, He actually obeyed those commands. Third, He was and did that to which the shadows pointed: the true High Priest sacrificed the true Lamb without blemish (Himself), establishing the New and Better Covenant in His own blood. And in Him, we are declared righteous. The requirements of the Law are fully met in us (Romans 8). Fourth, He fulfilled all of which the Law and Prophets foretold.

Mark Call wrote:
When Yeshua...says He did NOT do something....
What did Jesus say? He said that He did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. He said all foods are clean. He said that He set aside the “obsolete” Old Covenant for a New and Better One.

He said, “It is finished!”

Mark Call continued:
Is the Saviour lying? Or Paul? Or is it just PERHAPS possible that what you've been told (Yeshua said "you have HEARD it said...but I TELL you..." Paul said was wrong.
It seems instead that you misrepresent Scripture by ignoring those passages that contradict your erroneous teachings.

Rather than take one verse, misinterpret its message, and ignore the rest of Scripture correcting that misinterpretation, why not actually let Scripture interpret Scripture? Why pick and choose only that which allows an idiosyncratic and heretical doctrine? Why reject the words of God that clearly show the Mosaic Covenant has been “set aside” for a New and Better One?

How can Jesus mean for us to obey what He has made “obsolete,” “set aside,” and “fulfilled”? When He said, “If you love Me, then keep my commandments,” was He not referring to what He actually taught?
Peter warned you that the ignorant and untaught would twist Paul, to their own destruction. God, through Hosea (4:6) likewise warned you. All I've done is warn you likewise - word for Word.
“Warning” is not synonymous with “heresy.”

In two millennia, the only well-known heretics teaching anything like Mark Call's doctrine have been the Judaizers. You know what Paul said about them.
But "thou has rejected knowledge"...
Actually, I've pointed out from Scripture that those commands Mark Call says we would obey “if we love Jesus” are called by YHWH “obsolete,” “set aside,” “passing away,” and “fulfilled by Christ.”

It seems Mark Call does not really understand the depth of his sin, the purpose of the Law, or the work of Christ for us.

On the work of God, from John 6:
So they said to Him, “What should we do to work the works of Elohim?

יהושע answered and said to them, “This is the work of Elohim, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
From 1 John 3:
...whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we guard His commands and do what is pleasing in His sight.

And this is His command, that we should believe in the Name of His Son יהושע Messiah and love one another, as He gave us command.
From 1 John 5:
For this is the love for Elohim, that we guard His commands, and His commands are not heavy, because everyone having been born of Elohim overcomes the world. And this is the overcoming that has overcome the world: our belief.

Who is the one who overcomes the world but he who believes that יהושע is the Son of Elohim?

...Elohim has given us everlasting life, and this life is in His Son. He who possesses the Son possesses life, he who does not possess the Son of Elohim does not possess life.
On the setting aside of the Mosaic Covenant with the New and Better One, from Hebrews 9:
Now the first covenant indeed had regulations of worship and the earthly set-apart [holy] place. For a Tent was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, and the table...

...into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for sins of ignorance of the people, the Set-apart Spirit signifying this, that the way into the Most Set-apart Place was not yet made manifest while the first Tent has a standing, which was a parable for the present time in which both gifts and slaughters are offered which are unable to perfect the one serving, as to his conscience, only as to foods and drinks, and different washings, and fleshly regulations imposed until a time of setting matters straight.

But Messiah, having become a High Priest of the coming good matters, through the greater and more perfect Tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, entered into the Most Set-apart Place once for all, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood, having obtained everlasting redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the defiled, sets apart for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of the Messiah, who through the everlasting Spirit offered Himself unblemished to Elohim, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living Elohim?

...because of this He is the Mediator of a renewed covenant, so that, death having taken place for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance....

It was necessary, then, that the copies of the heavenly ones should be cleansed with these, but the heavenly ones themselves with better slaughter offerings than these. For Messiah has not entered into a Set-apart Place made by hand – figures of the true – but into the heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of Elohim on our behalf, not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters into the Set-apart Place year by year with blood not his own. For if so, He would have had to suffer often, since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the offering of Himself.
The regulations of the Mosaic Covenant were put into place to teach us of, and lead us to, Christ. They were all fulfilled in, and by, Him.

The commands Christ would have His people obey are not those He fulfilled, set aside, and made obsolete, but those He actually taught us to obey.

Two ambassadors, a journalist enabler, and a craven outsider

On The News Hour tonight, ambassadors from Israel and Syria (I thought Syria had nothing to do with the current situation) were interviewed for their perspectives (propaganda in the case of the Syrian) on the latest phase of the ancient conflict.

Israel's ambassador summarized the situation clearly, coherently, and accurately. Israel is fighting for its life, and the world must decide whether it will allow Iran to continue its propagation of Imperialist Islam (that means, traditional, Qur'anic Islam) or not.

The Syrian did nothing but repeat the standard series of lies against Israel including: Israel is occupying our land unjustly, Israel is massacring Lebanese, and Israel doesn't want peace even though we keep trying.

More shameful and disheartening than the Syrian's lies was his being allowed air time on an American, publicly-funded program to promote those lies. Even worse, Gwen Ifill--whose job as journalist and interviewer I thought was to challenge falsehood and promote truth--did nothing to expose the ambassador's treachery.

The next panel of guests began with the Washington Post's David Ignatius, who courageously began expressing his belief that it is not for an outsider to take sides on who is right.

Coward.

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Moral equivalence endangers Life and Liberty

...and is a base form of cowardice.

Following is a comment in response to the "I Stand..." post below. Such "reasoning" only aids evil.

Anonymous said...

how in the world can you and your...analysis justify so much death and abuse. You can only be lacking a very basic sense of humanity to justify the bombing of civilians in the name of two SOLDIERS. please look in your heart..it is not human. this is not about who's god..but about human life. look inside cause the fire against palestines in your heart is fire against your own humanity.

Anonymous,

While I appreciate your visiting and commenting, I ask that you avoid profanity, moral equivalence, and inanity.

Unlike the animals you defend, Israel is not targeting civilians, but the monsters who do.

Your blindness to the decades (actually, centuries) of lust for Jewish blood says little for your sense of humanity, and it does quite a bit to "justify so much death and abuse."

I have no hatred for "Palestinians." I am forever set against those who maim and kill in the name of Allah, just as I am against those who justify or excuse such barbarism against innocents and then, when they defend themselves, condemn them for it.

Israel's response is not over "two soldiers." Those two are just one of the latest in a long line of crimes against humanity carried out against innocent people in the name of Allah. Israel has long suffered such malevolence without a proportionate response.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you would defend such evil.

Saturday, July 15, 2006

I stand with Israel because it stands against evil

So should all stand who would resist evil and preserve their Liberty, for Islam will not rest from slaughter until "all religion is for Allah."

I Stand with Israel: I Stand with the Jews by Oriana Fallaci (by way of Michelle Malkin):

I find it shameful that in Italy there should be a procession of individuals dressed as suicide bombers who spew vile abuse at Israel, hold up photographs of Israeli leaders on whose foreheads they have drawn the swastika, incite people to hate the Jews. And who, in order to see Jews once again in the extermination camps, in the gas chambers, in the ovens of Dachau and Mauthausen and Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen et cetera, would sell their own mother to a harem.

I find it shameful that the Catholic Church should permit a bishop, one with lodgings in the Vatican no less, a saintly man who was found in Jerusalem with an arsenal of arms and explosives hidden in the secret compartments of his sacred Mercedes, to participate in that procession and plant himself in front of a microphone to thank in the name of God the suicide bombers who massacre the Jews in pizzerias and supermarkets. To call them "martyrs who go to their deaths as to a party."

I find it shameful that in France, the France of Liberty-Equality-Fraternity, they burn synagogues, terrorize Jews, profane their cemeteries. I find it shameful that the youth of Holland and Germany and Denmark flaunt the kaffiah just as Mussolini's avant garde used to flaunt the club and the fascist badge.

I find it shameful that in nearly all the universities of Europe Palestinian students sponsor and nurture anti-Semitism. That in Sweden they asked that the Nobel Peace Prize given to Shimon Peres in 1994 be taken back and conferred on the dove with the olive branch in his mouth, that is on Arafat. I find it shameful that the distinguished members of the Committee, a Committee that (it would appear) rewards political color rather than merit, should take this request into consideration and even respond to it. In hell the Nobel Prize honors he who does not receive it.

I find it shameful (we're back in Italy) that state-run television stations contribute to the resurgent anti-Semitism, crying only over Palestinian deaths while playing down Israeli deaths, glossing over them in unwilling tones. I find it shameful that in their debates they host with much deference the scoundrels with turban or kaffiah who yesterday sang hymns to the slaughter at New York and today sing hymns to the slaughters at Jerusalem, at Haifa, at Netanya, at Tel Aviv.

I find it shameful that the press does the same, that it is indignant because Israeli tanks surround the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, that it is not indignant because inside that same church two hundred Palestinian terrorists well armed with machine guns and munitions and explosives (among them are various leaders of Hamas and Al-Aqsa) are not unwelcome guests of the monks (who then accept bottles of mineral water and jars of honey from the soldiers of those tanks).

I find it shameful that, in giving the number of Israelis killed since the beginning of the Second Intifada (four hundred twelve), a noted daily newspaper found it appropriate to underline in capital letters that more people are killed in their traffic accidents. (Six hundred a year).

I find it shameful that the Roman Observer, the newspaper of the Pope--a Pope who not long ago left in the Wailing Wall a letter of apology for the Jews--accuses of extermination a people who were exterminated in the millions by Christians. By Europeans. I find it shameful that this newspaper denies to the survivors of that people (survivors who still have numbers tattooed on their arms) the right to react, to defend themselves, to not be exterminated again.

I find it shameful that in the name of Jesus Christ (a Jew without whom they would all be unemployed), the priests of our parishes or Social Centers or whatever they are flirt with the assassins of those in Jerusalem who cannot go to eat a pizza or buy some eggs without being blown up.

I find it shameful that they are on the side of the very ones who inaugurated terrorism, killing us on airplanes, in airports, at the Olympics, and who today entertain themselves by killing western journalists. By shooting them, abducting them, cutting their throats, decapitating them. (There's someone in Italy who, since the appearance of Anger and Pride, would like to do the same to me. Citing verses of the Koran he exorts his "brothers" in the mosques and the Islamic Community to chastise me in the name of Allah. To kill me. Or rather to die with me. Since he's someone who speaks English well, I'll respond to him in English: "F*** you.")

I find it shameful that almost all of the left, the left that twenty years ago permitted one of its union processionals to deposit a coffin (as a mafioso warning) in front of the synagogue of Rome, forgets the contribution made by the Jews to the fight against fascism. Made by Carlo and Nello Rossini, for example, by Leone Ginzburg, by Umberto Terracini, by Leo Valiani, by Emilio Sereni, by women like my friend Anna Maria Enriques Agnoletti who was shot at Florence on June 12, 1944, by seventy-five of the three-hundred-thirty-five people killed at the Fosse Ardeatine, by the infinite others killed under torture or in combat or before firing squads. (The companions, the teachers, of my infancy and my youth.)

I find it shameful that in part through the fault of the left--or rather, primarily through the fault of the left (think of the left that inaugurates its congresses applauding the representative of the PLO, leader in Italy of the Palestinians who want the destruction of Israel)--Jews in Italian cities are once again afraid. And in French cities and Dutch cities and Danish cities and German cities, it is the same. I find it shameful that Jews tremble at the passage of the scoundrels dressed like suicide bombers just as they trembled during Krystallnacht, the night in which Hitler gave free rein to the Hunt of the Jews.

I find it shameful that in obedience to the stupid, vile, dishonest, and for them extremely advantageous fashion of Political Correctness the usual opportunists--or better the usual parasites--exploit the word Peace. That in the name of the word Peace, by now more debauched than the words Love and Humanity, they absolve one side alone of its hate and bestiality. That in the name of a pacifism (read conformism) delegated to the singing crickets and buffoons who used to lick Pol Pot's feet they incite people who are confused or ingenuous or intimidated. Trick them, corrupt them, carry them back a half century to the time of the yellow star on the coat. These charlatans who care about the Palestinians as much as I care about the charlatans. That is not at all.

I find it shameful that many Italians and many Europeans have chosen as their standard-bearer the gentleman (or so it is polite to say) Arafat. This nonentity who thanks to the money of the Saudi Royal Family plays the Mussolini ad perpetuum and in his megalomania believes he will pass into History as the George Washington of Palestine. This ungrammatical wretch who when I interviewed him was unable even to put together a complete sentence, to make articulate conversation. So that to put it all together, write it, publish it, cost me a tremendous effort and I concluded that compared to him even Ghaddafi sounds like Leonardo da Vinci. This false warrior who always goes around in uniform like Pinochet, never putting on civilian garb, and yet despite this has never participated in a battle. War is something he sends, has always sent, others to do for him. That is, the poor souls who believe in him. This pompous incompetent who playing the part of Head of State caused the failure of the Camp David negotiations, Clinton's mediation. No-no-I-want-Jerusalem-all-to-myself. This eternal liar who has a flash of sincerity only when (in private) he denies Israel's right to exist, and who as I say in my book contradicts himself every five minutes. He always plays the double-cross, lies even if you ask him what time it is, so that you can never trust him. Never! With him you will always wind up systematically betrayed. This eternal terrorist who knows only how to be a terrorist (while keeping himself safe) and who during the Seventies, that is when I interviewed him, even trained the terrorists of Baader-Meinhof. With them, children ten years of age. Poor children. (Now he trains them to become suicide bombers. A hundred baby suicide bombers are in the works: a hundred!). This weathercock who keeps his wife at Paris, served and revered like a queen, and keeps his people down in the s***. He takes them out of the s*** only to send them to die, to kill and to die, like the eighteen year old girls who in order to earn equality with the fate of their victims. And yet many Italians love him, yes. Just like they loved Mussolini. And many other Europeans do the same.

I find it shameful and see in all this the rise of a new fascism, a new nazism. A fascism, a nazism, that much more grim and revolting because it is conducted and nourished by those who hypocritically pose as do-gooders, progressives, communists, pacifists, Catholics or rather Christians, and who have the gall to label a warmonger anyone like me who screams the truth. I see it, yes, and I say the following. I have never been tender with the tragic and Shakespearean figure Sharon. ("I know you've come to add another scalp to your necklace," he murmured almost with sadness when I went to interview him in 1982.) I have often had disagreements with the Israelis, ugly ones, and in the past I have defended the Palestinians a great deal. Maybe more than they deserved. But I stand with Israel, I stand with the Jews. I stand just as I stood as a young girl during the time when I fought with them, and when the Anna Marias were shot. I defend their right to exist, to defend themselves, to not let themselves be exterminated a second time. And disgusted by the anti-Semitism of many Italians, of many Europeans, I am ashamed of this shame that dishonors my Country and Europe. At best, it is not a community of States, but a pit of Pontius Pilates. And even if all the inhabitants of this planet were to think otherwise, I would continue to think so.

Friday, July 14, 2006

Middle Easterners in America

Just a quick, but interesting note: nearly seven of ten people of Middle Eastern background in America are Christian; of these, nearly half are Catholic (this article has numbers close to those above, which comes recently from off-line sources).

American Christians should recognize their brothers and sisters in the faith, and Americans in general should not allow Muslim propaganda groups like CAIR to intimidate them with inflated numbers.

What will those who appeal to Iran's large mass of moderation do now?

Polls can be misleading, and Zogby's results have been questionable before, so the results below probably paint a picture of Iran that is prettier than the truth would warrant. Still, it is a stunning admission: One in three want Iran to become more conservative and religious. Two in three agree that Israel should not exist.

Even those who do not want the country more devoutly Muslim want Israel destroyed. Why? When was the last time Israel attacked Iran? Apparently, Ahmadinejad is a man of the people.

So much for the large mass of moderate Iranians. From Iranians Say Israel Shouldn't Exist:

Iranians said they believe their country should lead the region 'diplomatically and militarily' — 56 percent supported this view, and only 12 percent said their country should not be the dominant regional power. Nearly equal percentages of respondents want Iran to become more secular and liberal (31 percent) as want the country to become more religious and conservative (36 percent).

On one question, Iranians showed almost total agreement, regardless of age or gender. When asked if the state of Israel is illegitimate and should not exist, 67 percent agreed and only 9 percent disagreed.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Hugh Hewitt's obfuscating aids Islam's War Against Mankind

While taking callers on yesterday's show, one suggested flattening Mecca. Hugh called it crazy, referring to Muslims who live peacefully in our country and to those who serve honorably in our military.

He then made the abominably foolish (because it is demonstrably false) contrast between "Islam" and "Extremist Islamism."

(Isn't that redundant? Such doublespeak comes from gullible, fearful, multiculturalists twisting, turning and bending over backwards to define away that which is obviously true. How many other qualifiers can one add to make it clear that, "No, No! NO!!! We would never ever blaspheme--I mean, insult--Islam, the Religion of Peace"?)

Today on his broadcast, Hugh again used the term "Islamism," the implication being that the religion of the jihadists is distinct from, and contrary to, "true" Islam.

What he seems unwilling or unable to acknowledge is that those who kill non-Muslims in the name of Allah are the true Muslims, as their words and actions are completely consistent with the commands and examples found in Islam's "sacred" texts and history.

There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. (And no, Turkey is not an example of a moderate Muslim nation; the only reason it appeared modern or secular at all is because Ataturk abolished the Caliphate and suppressed the religious element in the country. Crushing force is all that man can do to hold Islam in check.)

Those truly peaceful Muslims--truly peaceful in that they reject unconditionally violent jihad against non-Muslims--are the apostates, the radicals, the extremists. They are the perverters of the "great world religion," since the source and sustenance of Islam's violence against non-Muslims are the commands of Allah and the words and deeds of his false prophet, as found in Qur'an and Sunnah.

Misdefining our enemy does nothing to enable or invigorate our defense against it; it keeps us blind to, and impotent in the face of, a relentless, deceptive enemy invading, reproducing, and recruiting in every Western nation. Neither does it aid those Muslims of good will who would redefine and reform Islam away from its historical, traditional zeal for fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

We are not at war with Islam, Islam is at war with us. Allah commanded it, Mohammed declared it, and he and his followers practiced it. To this very day, everywhere Islam has any sort of numerical significance, non-Muslims find themselves more and more intimidated, threatened, and dead.

And anyone familiar with the history of Jihad knows it can only get worse.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Another front in Islam's War Against Humanity

This demonstrates the paucity of judgment (or honesty) of those who want to blame the West for Muslim terrorism. India has been bleeding at the hands of Allah's minions for centuries.

Free nations ought to use every weapon at their disposal to crush Jihad and the font of hell that inspires it, but when you see terms like "sectarian violence" used to describe Muslim Mass Murder, it makes one wonder how successful our efforts can be.

8 Bombs on India Commuter Trains Kill 147 (by way of Jihad Watch):

BOMBAY, India (AP) - Eight bombs hit Bombay's commuter rail network during rush hour Tuesday evening, killing at least 147 people and wounding more than 400 in what authorities called a well-coordinated terrorist attack.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility in the bombings, which came in quick succession - a common tactic employed by Kashmiri militants. The blasts came hours after a series of grenade attacks by Islamic extremists killed eight people in the main city of India's part of Kashmir.
India's major cities were put on high alert. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called an emergency Cabinet meeting and said that ``terrorists'' were behind the attacks.
Pakistan, India's rival over the disputed territory of Kashmir, quickly condemned the bombings.
Chaos engulfed the crowded rail network in India's financial capital following the blasts that ripped apart densely packed carriages on trains that police said had either pulled into stations or were traveling between them. Doors and windows were blown off the train cars, and witnesses said body parts were strewn on the ground.
After meeting with his Cabinet, Maharashtra state Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh said Tuesday night that the death toll was 147, with another 439 wounded.
Deshmukh, the state's top elected official, also corrected initial reports of seven blasts, saying there had actually been eight, including two at one station.
Authorities struggled to treat survivors and recover the dead in the wreckage amid heavy monsoon downpours, and the effort continued into the night. Survivors clutched bandages to their heads and faces, and some frantically dialed their cell phones. Luggage and debris were spattered with blood.
There was no immediate indication if suicide bombers were involved. Police inspector Ramesh Sawant said most of the victims suffered head and chest injuries, leading authorities to believe the bombs were placed in overhead luggage racks.
``I can't hear anything,'' said Shailesh Mhate, a man in his 20s, sitting on the floor of Veena Desai Hospital surrounded by bloody cotton swabs. ``People around me didn't survive. I don't know how I did.''
Another man, bloody bandages over his eyes, held out a phone to a nurse, begging her to call his wife and tell her he was OK.
In Washington, the State Department said it had no information about whether there were any American casualties.
Commuter transit systems have been tempting targets for terrorists in recent years, with bombers killing 191 in Madrid, Spain, in 2004, and 52 in London last year.
A senior Bombay police official, P.S. Pasricha, said the Bombay explosions were part of a well-coordinated attack. Vilasrao Deshmukh, the chief minister of Maharashtra state, where Bombay is located, said bombs had caused all the explosions.
Police reportedly carried out raids across the country following the Bombay blasts. One TV station said a suspect was in custody.
Indian Home Minister Shivraj Patil told reporters that authorities had had some information that an attack was coming, ``but place and time was not known.''
The bombings occurred after the stock markets ended. The commercial capital suffered similar serial blasts in 1993 that included the Bombay Stock Exchange, killing more than 250 people.
Tuesday evening's first explosion hit a train at a railway station in the northwestern suburb of Khar, said a police officer who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.
Other blasts followed down the line of the western railway at the Mahim, Bandra, Matunga, Borivili, Mira Road and Jogeshwari stations. Some passengers reportedly jumped from speeding trains in panic.
India's CNN-IBN television news, which had a reporter aboard one train, said a blast struck a first-class compartment as the train was moving, ripping through the compartment and killing more than a dozen people.
The Press Trust of India, citing railway officials, said all the blasts had hit first-class cars.
Pranay Prabhakar, the spokesman for the Western Railway, said all train service had been suspended and appealed to the public to stay away from stations in the city of 16 million people - India's principal port on the Arabian Sea.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars since the subcontinent was partitioned upon independence from Britain in 1947, two over Kashmir.
Dozens of militant groups have been fighting Indian rule in Kashmir, demanding the mostly Muslim region's independence, or its merger with Pakistan.
The Pakistani Foreign Ministry late Tuesday strongly condemned the Bombay attacks.
Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf offered condolences over the loss of life, the Foreign Ministry said, adding: ``Terrorism is a bane of our times and it must be condemned, rejected and countered effectively and comprehensively.''
New Delhi has accused Pakistan of training, arming and funding the militants. Islamabad insists it only offers the rebels diplomatic and moral support.
Accusations of Pakistani involvement in a 2001 attack on India's parliament put the nuclear-armed rivals on the brink of a fourth war. But since then, Pakistan and India embarked on a peace process aimed at resolving their differences, including their conflicting claims to all of Jammu-Kashmir.
In Washington, two U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the events were still unfolding said it was too early to know for certain what group was behind the attacks. But both officials said they were likely part of the sectarian violence over Kashmir.
One of the officials said the attacks' coordinated nature and their targeting of trains at peak travel times match the modus operandi of two Islamic extremist groups that have been active in India during the last several years: Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, or Army of the Righteous, and Jaish-e-Mohammad, or Army of Mohammed.
The U.S. government has designated both groups as terrorist organizations and considers them affiliates of al-Qaida.

Monday, July 10, 2006

+ Word of the Day +

From Life Of The World:

John 8:3-11

Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?' This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, 'He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.' And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, 'Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?'

She said, 'No one, Lord.'

And Jesus said to her, 'Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.'

Colossians 3:12-17

Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful.

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.

Saturday, July 8, 2006

BBC blind to the facts in their own reporting

According to a BBC World News report this past week:

-400,000 UK muslims sympathize with jihad

-1200 are activists actually involved with jihad.

-A Muslim apologist interviewed for the broadcast claimed 99% of muslims are peace-loving.

Either he can't do the math, or "peace" doesn't mean to him what I think it means.

The BBC finds one UK muslim who says he is working to stop recruitment to jihad. Is this to soothe the anxiety of Infidel Brits rightly concerned about the invading forces of Allah?

No wonder the growing number of UK Muslims supporting jihad has become what may be an irreversible tide. Those who claim to be the eyes, ears, and conscience of the nation dutifully play the dhimmi rather than raising a call to action--and that includes also the political elites.

Considering all that has transpired since 9/11 (yes, the attack was against America, but it was also an attack against the entire non-Muslim West), that the leadership of both the United States and Britain are still suicidally promoting the "Islam is peace" nonsense is indefensible. Instead of taking actual steps to rid the West of Islam's clear and present danger, they apologize for it.

Good faith efforts to free Muslims from tyranny have proven ineffective (because Islam is tyranny). President Bush and Prime Minister Blair would be completely justified in saying we made a noble effort and did everything we could, but the Muslim world is not worthy of Liberty.

Their (no doubt unintentional) obfuscation and impotence in the face of Islam and its liberal/multiculturalist allies in the West now help make possible every drop of innocent civilian and military blood spilled in the name of Allah.

Friday, July 7, 2006

Muslims doing what they do best

The only problem is, they're not "extremists," they're faithful. From Compass Direct:

July 6 (Compass Direct) – Church leaders here said Muslim extremists overwhelmed police officers providing refuge for an unidentified Christian woman in this town in Niger state on June 28 and stoned and clubbed her to death for doing street evangelism.

David Atabo of the Roman Catholic Church in Izom said he witnessed the killing of the woman. He told Compass that she had met a group of Muslim youths, shared the gospel with them and gave them some tracts to read.

“As soon as the woman left, some Muslim elders standing by sought to know from the youths what the woman told them,” Atabo said. “When they learned that the woman had preached to the youths, they claimed she insulted the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, and directed that the woman must be killed.”

Atabo said the Muslim leaders’ allegations inspired hundreds of Muslims to pour into the streets to track down the woman. They caught up with her around the River Gurara area and started beating her, he said, but police rescued her.

Officers took the woman into protective custody at the Izom police station. But the restive mob stormed the premises, demanding that the woman be released to be stoned to death in accordance with sharia (Islamic) law or else they would burn down the police station.

“The police, realizing that the Muslim crowd was overwhelming, smuggled the woman through a back door to escape with her, but the Muslims blocked all escape routes, and at this point the police abandoned the woman to save their lives,” Atabo said. “She was clubbed to death.”

Police later moved the woman’s corpse to the mortuary at the Suleja Government Hospital. Atabo added that three policemen were injured in the fracas.

Mystery Identity
Christian leaders in Izom said they were disturbed that police have not identified the woman.

“This woman was killed before the police could identify her or even question her,” Atabo said. “We have also tried to find out which church she comes from, but without success.”

The area Christian leaders suspect the murdered woman might have come from neighboring Suleja town.

Atabo, chairman of the local chapter of the Christian Association of Nigeria in Izom town, said the Muslims claimed that the Christian woman dropped a document containing derogatory remarks about Muhammad.

When he asked the police to allow him see the alleged document, though, “there was nothing like that,” he said.

Daniel Mazuri, pastor of the Evangelical Church of West Africa (ECWA) Good News Church in Izom, said those at the scene of the incident told him Muslims accosted the woman and accused her of insulting Muhammad. The Muslims claimed she dropped a letter in a mosque insulting Muhammad, he said, but friends of his in the police force told him this was false.

“I believe the Muslims just wanted to ignite a religious crisis in this town,” Muzari told Compass. “This is a very unhealthy development, and it has now opened the door for unending religious conflicts.”

Mazuri said his inquiries led to the conclusion that Muslims doctored a document in order to create a religious crisis in this town.

“They are known for this attitude, and we are not surprised at the occurrence of this incident,” he said.

The Rev. Tanko Madaki of the ECWA, Hausa section, also concluded that Muslims planned the attack with the aim of igniting a religious crisis in the town.

“We are aware of the antics of the Muslims,” he said. “They are always good in fabricating falsehood and then anchoring their actions on such falsehood.”

Another First
It is common in Nigeria to find Christians engaged in street evangelism – preaching the gospel in marketplaces, buses and trains. Muslims are believed to constitute about half of the residents of Izom town, in the Gurara local government area.

The death of the unknown Christian woman marks the first fatality of Niger state’s Islamic legal system, introduced in 2000. Niger is one of the 12 states that has implemented sharia in northern Nigeria.

“We are hoping that the police will be able to unravel the identity of this woman eventually, or that any of her relations may contact us soon,” Atabo said.

There are nine churches in Izom town, including the Roman Catholic Church, the ECWA, All Christian Fellowship Mission, Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), The Apostolic Church, the Baptist Church, and the Deeper Life Bible Church.

Beware of the ideological company you keep

Some comments in response to a twenty-first century Judaizer here:

Mark Call wants to cite as authoritative one of three non-Canonical texts allegedly written by Matthew, but calls Romans “bogus.”

Mark Call wants to argue that if Christians love Jesus, then they will obey the regulations of the Mosaic Covenant, even though His Word clearly states that the Old Covenant has been replaced by a New and better one.

Mark Call rejects God's commands for obedience to the governing authorities, yet makes himself a slave to regulations that are “weak and useless” “shadows.”

Mark Call will not allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Instead he picks and chooses whatever suits his false doctrine, making the Word of God nonsensical.

According to Mark Call, when Jesus said, “If you love Me, obey My commands,” Jesus really meant, “If you love Me, obey the obsolete and aging commands of the Mosaic Covenant, which I am about to replace with a New and better one.”

Whom shall we believe? Mark Call, or the Son of God?

Mark Call says, "...one bogus verse...."

But God says:
Sanctifie them through thy trueth: thy word is trueth (John 17:17).

If any man shal adde vnto these things, God shall adde vnto him the plagues, that are written in this booke. And if any man shall take away from the wordes of the booke of this prophesie, God shal take away his part out of the booke of life, and out of the holy citie, and from the things which are written in this booke (Revelation 22:18, 19).
Mark Call says, “Tell Him how His Word was just so inconsistent, that He couldn't make up His mind whether "forever" meant forever, or until you thought He changed His mind again.”

But God says:
Behold, the dayes come, saith the Lord, that I will make a newe couenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Iudah. Not according to the couenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I tooke them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my couenant they brake, although I was an husband vnto them, saith the Lord.

But this shall be the couenant, that I will make with the house of Israel, After those dayes, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and wil be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more euery man his neighbour, and euery man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know mee, from the least of them vnto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgiue their iniquitie, and I will remember their sinne no more (Jeremiah 31).

A new commandement I giue vnto you, That yee loue one another, as I haue loued you, that yee also loue one another (John 13:34).

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you (Luke 22:20).

Who also hath made vs able ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giueth life. But if the ministration of death written, and ingrauen in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly beholde the face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance, which glorie was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit, be rather glorious?

For if the ministration of condemnation bee glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousnesse exceed in glorie. For euen that which was made glorious, had no glorie in this respect by reason of the glorie that excelleth. For if that which is done away, was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

Seeing then that wee haue such hope, we vse great plainnesse of speech. And not as Moses, which put a vaile ouer his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly looke to the end of that which is abolished; But their mindes were blinded: for vntill this day remaineth the same vaile vntaken away, in the reading of the old testament: which vaile is done away in Christ.

But euen vnto this day, when Moses is read, the vaile is vpon their heart. Neuerthelesse, when it shall turne to the Lord, the vaile shall be taken away.

Now the Lord is that spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is libertie (2 Corinthians 3).

For there is verily a disanulling of the commandement going before, for the weakenesse and vnprofitablenesse thereof. For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did: by the which wee draw nigh vnto God....By so much was Iesus made a suertie of a better Testament (Hebrews 7).

Who serue vnto the example and shadow of heauenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle. For see (saith he) that thou make all things according to the paterne shewed to thee in the mount.

But now hath he [Jesus] obtained a more excellent ministerie,, by how much also he is the Mediatour of a better Couenant, which was established vpon better promises.

For if that first Couenant had bene faultles, then should no place haue bene sought for the second.

For finding fault with them, hee saith, Behold, the dayes come (saith the Lord) when I will make a new couenant with the house of Israel, and the house of Iudah. Not according to the Couenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I tooke them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they continued not in my Couenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

For this is the Couenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those dayes, saith the Lord: I wil put my Lawes into their minde, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shalbe to me a people. And they shall not teach euery man his neighbour, and euery man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: For all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be mercifull to their vnrighteousnes, and their sins & their iniquities will I remember no more.
In that he saith, A new Couenant, he hath made the first olde. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is readie to vanish away.

...Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offred both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the seruice perfect, as pertayning to the conscience, Which stood onely in meates and drinkes, and diuers washings, and carnall ordinances imposed on them vntill the time of reformation.

...For if the blood of Bulls, and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the vncleane, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered himselfe without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead workes [also translated, “useless rituals”], to serue the liuing God?

And for this cause hee is the Mediatour of the New Testament, that by meanes of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were vnder the first Testament, they which are called, might receiue the promise of eternall inheritance (Hebrews 8 and 9).

And to Iesus the mediatour of the new Couenant... (Hebrews 12:24).
Mark Call says: “YOU deign to celebrate His Sabbath...”

But God says:
Let no man therefore iudge you in meat, or in drinke, or in respect of an Holy day, or of the New moone, or of the Sabbath dayes: Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ (Colossians 2:16, 17).

There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entred into his rest, hee also hath ceased from his owne works, as God did from his (Hebrews 4:9, 10).
Mark Call says, “How does Peter's dream square with Acts 15 and the things even the new believers had to abstain from?” implying that somehow Acts 15 supports his false contention that if Christians love Christ they will observe all the Mosaic Covenant.

But God says:
And there came a voyce to him, Rise, Peter: kill, and eate. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I haue neuer eaten any thing that is common or vncleane. And the voice spake vnto him againe the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common (Acts 10).
Would God command His apostle to sin to make a larger point, as Mark Call's logic requires? Would Peter find himself in a vision in a room full of prostitutes and hear a voice telling him to indulge his marital impulse in order to demonstrate that unfaithful (adulterous) Israel should repent?

Neither would God tell Peter to sin by eating unclean animals, especially since Christ already “declared all food clean.”

The Church offered a recommendation to new Gentile believers. What is notable is what they did not recommend: the false doctrine Mark Call is peddling here--that if a Christian loves Jesus he will obey all the Mosaic regulations (against such a burden Paul vehemently argued when confronting the heresy of the Judaizers).

And YHWH calls the Mosaic Covenant “obsolete,” “aging,” and replaced by a “new and better Covenant.”
For it seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to vs, to lay vpon you no greater burden then these necessarie things; That ye abstaine from meates offered to idoles, and from blood, & from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keepe your selues, yee shall doe well....
Hardly a new command here, and definitely not a command to obey all the regulations of the Mosaic Covenant. In fact, the suggestion to “abstain from meats sacrificed to idols” is not a requirement for Christians, as evidenced by Paul's stating that for a Christian, food is just food:
But if any man say vnto you, This is offered in sacrifice vnto idoles, eate not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake. The earth is the Lords, and the fulnesse thereof. Conscience I say, not thine owne, but of the others: for why is my libertie iudged of another mans conscience? For, if I by grace be a partaker, why am I euill spoken of, for that for which I giue thankes (1 Corinthians 10)?
Mark Call says, “I was going to end with that, hoping you'd actually "search it out for yourself.”

I have offered quite a few passages from God's Word showing that He has removed from us the regulations of the Mosaic Covenant by giving us a new and better one.

If a Christian wants to celebrate a particular day, or feast, or whatever, he is free to do so in Christ. But to mislead others by claiming that if they love Christ they will obey commands that He has made obsolete is heresy.

Such a teacher should carefully examine his doctrine and what motivates it.

Thursday, July 6, 2006

Chasing shadows

Though there may be health benefits to following Moses' dietary regulations and a Christian's faith can be strengthened and his understanding of God's power and grace can be enhanced by studying and participating in several of the ancient festivals, to argue that if a Christian loves Christ he will keep Moses' ceremonial, sacrificial, dietary, and civil regulations is false teaching, as testified to by Scripture.

More from here:

It is un-Christian (and therefore, unwise) to try to produce good works by the force of the Law or for human, self-centered motives. A Christian lives by faith, and their good works are produced by God (He causes us to will and to do) as a natural result of saving faith.

It is heartening to see you state that a Christian is not required to obey the Mosaic Law, but you undo that by saying a Christian would obey them if they love Christ.
Yeshua DID make all food clean. What is "food"? Do you know what that word meant to God, to Yeshua, and to everyone (like Paul) who knew Torah?
You're trying to make Christ's statement redundant to fit your (mis)interpretation.

Either “all food” is “clean” as the Gospel states, or it is not.
Either God told Peter to eat from that which was formerly unclean, or He did not.
Either all foods are clean if received with thanksgiving as the Scriptures state, or they are not.

In effect, you're implying that instead of making all food “clean,” Jesus made all food “food.”
[Another obvious aside - and I wonder why I bother sometimes: If I said to you, in colloquial English, during a backyard picnic, "all this food here is great", would you pick up a bit of dog...
That is an obviously false analogy. God was not telling Peter to eat fecal matter, he was telling him to eat what was formerly “unclean” or “common” food.
I don't argue that the "dietary laws MUST be obeyed"
In speaking of the entire Mosaic Law, you stated that the commands are eternal, i.e., still in effect.

“Command” means that which must be obeyed. You cannot argue that the commands are still in effect without that meaning that we must follow them. They are “commands,” not “suggestions,” “recommendations” or “really, really good ideas.”
They SHOULD be. Because He knows what's best for you, and wrote it down for you.
I do not doubt this is true with respect to at least some of the dietary restrictions.
...Deut 28-30 points out blessings and curses. They did not expire. They are True.
That is false. The blessings and curses are for obeying or breaking God's laws under the Old Covenant. Did Israel keep these commands? No, as Peter admits. Do you? No.

A Christian is under Christ's New Convenant, the Old Covenant is gone. God blesses us through faith in Christ, not by works. If you reject that, then you are not a Christian.
But you still get to pick for yourself.
If they are God's commands and are still in effect, and the blessings and curses He connected to them have “not expired,” then we do not have a choice, except to disobey and be destroyed, as He said.
that there were VERY good reasons to avoid shellfish and pork.
This is very different from saying that God's dietary restrictions (and the rest of the ceremonial, sacrificial, and civil law) are still applicable under the New Covenant and that obedience to these will bring either life or death.
Let's take the scoffer out the easy way. If you KNEW the Law, you'd know the answer was about 9 AM and 3 PM. Where? The temple? OH... Maybe if there was a way even a sinner like I could enter the Holy of Holies....
Only the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies and that once a year.
...Romans 13, as routinely mis-translated....
You misstated my (and God's) position as “Caesar is never wrong.” He says He has established all authorities and that we must obey them.
As for "burdens", read Matt. 23 (find a good translation from the ORIGINAL HEBREW!!! It's not easy, but WELL worth the effort). "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers."
Peter was not referring to the man-made regulations taught by the religious authorities of Christ's day, He was referring to the Law.

On a secondary note, you have ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew that pre-date the Greek manuscripts?
...He DID say (again, Deut 30) that keeping His Torah "is not too hard for you...."
If you look at the context of the passage, you'll see that the “not too hard for you” is referring to the fact that the Law is given to them and not beyond their reach; several translations (including King James) renders that phrase as “hidden from you.”

If you are seriously arguing that you've kept all God's Laws then you're guilty of breaking one for sure—lying.
...and He repeats the point when He tells you that His yoke is easy and His burder light, and offers to take our burdens from us.
What is the burden He's taken from us? The requirement to fulfill the Law. He fulfilled it for us.
As for my calling Paul a "heretic" - how about calling Yeshua a liar?
You've done that too. He made all food clean, but you won't allow it.
Here's a quip you might appreciate, Am: "What time will you be offering the next cute colored egg died in the blood of a child sacrifice?"
That's absurd. Eggs have nothing to do with my Easter. Santa has nothing to do with my Christmas.
Gravity still in effect? Reaping what we sow, still in effect? Honest weights and measures?...Love your neighbor? Don't bear false witness? Sodomy? Adultery? Just what are you so anxious to go out and DO that He says not to?
As I have noted here previously, The Mosaic laws (ceremonial, dietary, sacrificial, civil) are no longer required of believers, since they were meant to foreshadow and teach us about Christ, He fulfilled them, and He says they are no longer in effect over us.

What does God say of the Law?

From Matthew 5:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished[“It is finished!”]....unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

...I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

...You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart....

...Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.....Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
We see that God's Law is perfect. He expects us not to fulfill just its letter, but also its spirit.

Most importantly for us sinners, Christ came to fulfill the Law.

Here we see that the Old Covenant (meant to prepare us for Christ) has been replaced by a new and better one (a concept that will be stated more explicitly soon):
...the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1).
More evidence that we cannot keep the Law:
Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law (John 7).
Here we see that the Law condemns us:
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God (Romans 3).
Here again, the Law shows us our utter sinfulness:
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin (Romans 3).
Here we see that for one who has been baptized into Christ (that is, a Christian), he is “dead to the Law,” “released from the Law,” and not in the “old way of the written code”:
So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code (Romans 7).
Here is Christ's fulfilling the Law for us:
...through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit (Romans 8).
Here again, Christ's freeing us from the burden of the Law and giving us His righteousness:
Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10).
Here again the purpose of the Law and the futility of the Christian trying to observe it:
Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

...All who rely on observing the law are under a curse,, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

...What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come,....

...Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law (Galatians 3).
And here we see that Christ has abolished “in His flesh the law with its commandments and regulations”:
in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility (Ephesians 2).
And here Paul--who was faultless in observing the laws you say we will observe if we love Jesus-- considers that observance rubbish compared to having Christ:
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith (Philippians 3).
Here again God's teaching that the Mosaic regulations only foreshadowed the Messiah; the reality is in Christ. Why would you teach as a command that which Jesus has fulfilled? Why do you worry about shadows?:
When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep." In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself

...The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.

Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, O God.'"

First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Hebrews 9 and 10).
Here again Christ's fulfilling the Law and replacing the Old Covenant with a new and better one:
If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

...For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. For it is declared:

"You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

"The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.'" Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever (Hebrews 7).
A warning:
...Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me (1 Timothy 1).
Another warning against teaching false doctrine:
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned (Titus 3).
And here's the deal breaker:
I'm not trying to tell you what YOU "must do". He already told you what you WOULD do, if you love Him.
Jesus says in His Gospel and Epistles that all food is now clean for His people. You are arguing that if I love Him, I won't eat pork.

Since Christ removed from His people the requirement of keeping the Mosaic law, to which commands was He referring? His commands as recorded by the Apostles, not the Mosaic regulations.

And keeping those commands is a fruit of saving faith.

A quick summary:
In the same way, brothers and sisters, you have died to the laws in Moses' Teachings through Christ's body. You belong to someone else, the one who was brought back to life. As a result, we can do what God wants (Romans 7).

If your spiritual nature is your guide, you are not subject to Moses' laws (Galatians 5).

But now we have died to those laws that bound us. God has broken their effect on us so that we are serving in a new spiritual way, not in an old way dictated by written words (Romans 7).

Christ is the fulfillment of Moses' Teachings, so that everyone who has faith may receive God's approval (Romans 10).

Before Christ came, Moses' laws served as our guardian. Christ came so that we could receive God's approval by faith. But now that this faith has come, we are no longer under the control of a guardian (Galatians 3).

He brought an end to the commandments and demands found in Moses' Teachings so that he could take Jewish and non-Jewish people and create one new humanity in himself. So he made peace (Ephesians 2).
If we have “died to the laws in Moses' Teachings,” if “we are not subject to Moses' laws,” if we have “died to those laws,” if “God has broken their effect on us,” if Christ is “the fulfillment of Moses' Teachings,” if we are “no longer under the control of” “Moses' laws,” if “He brought an end to the commandments and demands found in Moses' Teachings,” why do you make yourself a slave to it again, and why do you teach others to do the same?

A Christian will obey Christ--as a result of saving faith. The commands we will obey are found throughout the New Testament; they are not the Mosaic regulations.

Rather than put your confidence in your observing rules God says are no longer in effect over us, put your faith in Christ's work alone.

And if you want to refrain from pork and shellfish, go for it. But do not add to God's Word by saying that if we love Him, we too will do so. That is heresy.

On the fall of Constantinople

"[...] the great church of Hagia Sophia was filled to capacity. Thousands of people were moving towards the church. Inside, Orthodox and Catholic priests were holding liturgy, the last Christian service after almost 1,000 years. People were singing hymns, others were openly crying, others were asking each other for forgiveness [...].

"Bands of Ottoman soldiers began now looting. Doors were broken, private homes were looted, their tenants were massacred. Shops in the city markets were looted. Monasteries and Convents were broken in. Their tenants were killed, nuns were raped; many, to avoid dishonor, killed themselves. Killing, raping, looting, burning, enslaving, went on and on [...].

"The great doors of Hagia Sophia were forced open, and crowds of angry soldiers came in and fell upon the unfortunate worshippers. Pillaging and killing in the holy place went on for hours. Similar was the fate of worshippers in most churches in the city [...].

"Thousands of civilians were enslaved, soldiers fought over young boys and young women [...] the invaders broke the heads of those women who resisted on the floor of the churches and they raped them dead. The famous icon of Apostole Loukas was totally destroyed.

"The sultan asked for the young sons of Duke Loukas Notaras. Their father refused and Mehmed was ready to take their heads. Notaras asked him to kill him after his sons so that he was sure that they were dead and not disgraced from the pervert sultan.

"And this is what happened."

Black Tuesday, The Last Day of the World, the twenty-ninth of May, anno Domini MCDLIII

On American Liberty

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, 1776

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson Washington, Mar. 23, 1801

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800

The truth about Mahomet

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property -- either as a child, a wife, or a concubine -- must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -- the science against which it had vainly struggled -- the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Winston Churchill, Churchill, Winston S. (1899), The River War, First edition, Vol. II, pp. 248-250

A war of twelve hundred years

"And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that, which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in the highest [...] The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over the unsocial passions of his disciples. It elevated the standard of the human character in the scale of existence. [...] On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE.

[...]

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE

[...]

"Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant. [...] While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”

John Quincy Adams, Blunt, Joseph (1830),The American Annual Register for the Years 1827-8-9, pp. 268-269

Impossible Islamophobia

Nearly one and one-half millennia of slavery, rape, and slaughter in Allah's name ...

80% of American -- not Pakistani, not Saudi Arabian, not Iranian, but American -- mosques teach jihad/Islamic supremacism ...

Nearly twenty-seven thousand documented jihad attacks since 9/11 alone, and ...

Islam's "Ideal Man" Muhammad -- Allah's "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please it -- preached and practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, anti-Semitism, theft, extortion, arson, wife-beating, polygyny, religious and gender apartheid, sedition, treason, deceit, and blasphemy and warned his devotees that "Allah made me do it, and you will too, or else!"

"Islamophobia" is impossible. Merely pointing out simple facts regarding a genocidal, malevolent, and totalitarian ideology is neither phobic nor intolerant. It is highly rational and moral.

We are in only the latest phase of an ancient and existential struggle, Allah's war against humanity.

Speaking the truth in love

Never surrender

"we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone [...].

"we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end [...] we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender [...]."

Winston Churchill to the House of Commons, June 4, 1940

Featured Post

In Defense of the West