February Newsletter

Leprosy at the Time of Christ

It is often said that the lepers Christ healed were not suffering from the disease known as leprosy but were rather suffering from a variety of skin conditions such as eczema and boils. However, a new archeological discovery has proved that leprosy was an affliction in the Holy Land at the time of Christ. Shimon Gibson excavated a tomb in the Valley of Hennom in Jerusalem. He found a tomb that was sealed during the time of Chris (dated at approximately 1-50 A.D.). The body was found under a shroud in a sealed tomb. Usually, in the first century after the body decayed the remains were put into ossuaries or "bone boxes." Obviously, the tomb was sealed to contain the contagion. This is reported in "Science Illustrated" January/February 2011 on pages38-39).

Jewish origins for the Son of God?

Certain people attempt to argue that the idea of Jesus being the "Son of God" was part of the "paganizing" process of the early church. Perseus and Hercules were sons of gods therefore to attract converts, the early Christians began teaching that Jesus is similarly the son of God. However, it seems that this is not the case. Actually, the idea of Jesus being the Son of God arose in a Jewish context. This is proven in the new book "King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and related Literature" by Adela Yarbo Collins and John J. Collins.

Jesus, the Middle Eastern Storyteller by Gary M. Burge

This book says on page 32, "Prayer was likely spoken in Hebrew, the language of the Torah, which in Jesus' day was not a language spoken by the common person. The language of the street was Aramaic, another Semitic language related to Hebrew and acquired by Israel during its Babylonian exile. Therefore regular prayer would have been highly stylized, following a language that was awkward to the average person. Jesus likely stood out in two respects: he prayed in Aramaic and he prayed casually, even conversationally. His prayers do not reflect any of the set forms of his day (no blessing of the nation, land, or temple); they are instead expressions of personal concern. For example, in Matthew 6:7 he is critical of prayers that are filled with "babbling" and instead urges that prayer be heartfelt, private and sincere because God will particularly hear all secret prayers uttered with honesty. This is the moment when Jesus gives his followers a sample of how prayer ought to sound-what we know as the Lord's Prayer (Matth. 6:9-13). In Luke 11"2-4 we find a shortened version of this prayer. The Lord's Prayer is a model prayer that reflects the concerns that need to appear in prayers, and most scholars agree that Jesus no doubt taught it in Aramaic. The opening word "Father" (11:2) reflects the Aramaic word "Abba," and this was so well known as Jesus' habit in prayer that it became a liturgical form used in Greek speaking churches in Paul's day (Rom 8:15, Gal. 4:6).

I do not agree with all the interpretations in Mr. Burge's book. For example, he criticizes western "Individualism" which he believes originated in the "Enlightenment" and believes we should think as a community. I don't agree with this. Community is important but "group think" is dangerous. We are all part of a community, however, we have to approach God individually. We also have to seek out truth and think it through for ourselves. There was a Samaritan that belonged to a group of lepers but when he was healed he left the group and went to Christ as an individual to thank and praise Christ for what he did for him. Jesus said, "I have come not to bring peace but division." People who followed Jesus faced ostracism and rejection by their families. During the Roman persecutions, it was even more of a radical choice. Sometimes things sound good-but they aren't. I read what Mr. Burge wrote in hi s book, and although he has a good point here and there, this central idea is wrong.

Texas School teaches Arabic and "Muslim culture" to elementary kids

Mansfield School District was requiring "mandatory" learning of the Arabic language in their elementary school. Also, the children were to be indoctrinated in the Islamic religion (or "Culture," Muslims view religion and culture as the same thing). This is going to be financed with federal funds. So, the American taxpayers are paying for their children to be sent to Islamic madrassas so that the government can convert their children to Islam.

Quote of the Day:

Glen Beck said something to the effect of, "The world is too big to allow one small group-the left-wing, extremist secular-progressive, atheistic liberal democrats-to totally monopolize the news and information as they do." WE MUST break the control the liberals have over the news media , the entertainment industry and education. It is not good for public discourse, freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry for this new established church of the left to criminalize dissent and enforce their dogma over all of society. They are the establishment and they destroy any person they perceive as a threat to themselves and their agenda (Dan Quayle, Judge Bork, Clarence Thomas, Sarah Palin are examples. They have made Mrs. Palin into one of the most hated people in the world. But what has she done that is so bad? She hasn't committed any crimes and seems to have done a pretty good job as governor of Alaska.)

 

 

David Horowitz Exposes ACU in CPAC Address

 

Written by Raven Clabough

Sunday, 13 February 2011 21:00

This year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has dealt with a number of controversies, ranging from the disputed presence of the homosexual Republican organization GoProud to the American Conservative Union's naming of Donald Rumsfeld as this year's Defender of the Constitution recipient. However, none of those controversies have been quite as prominent as the speech delivered by renowned author David Horowitz, in which he implicates a number of ACU board members for potential ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. A 60s leftist, David Horowitz eventually renounced Leftism and embraced conservatism and has made a reputation for himself as a conservative writer and policy advocate. He has authored a number of books, including Reforming Our Universities: The Campaign for an Academic Bill of Rights and Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey. Horowitz recently penned a pamphlet entitled, "Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution," which is modeled after Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. In his February 12 CPAC address, Horowitz indicated the two biggest threats to the American republic are leftism on college campuses as well as the links between the American Left and radical Islam. Horowitz specifically addressed the dangers of radical Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that Horowitz contends has infiltrated both the Democrat and Republican parties, as well as the Conservative movement, by way of the Muslim Brotherhood's front groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim American Society, and the Islamic Society of North America. He stated: "The Muslim Brotherhood has been wildly successful in its plan to become more part of America's civil culture and to infiltrate the institutions of America's civil government, including the White House and both political parties as well, and the conservative moment."According to Horowitz, the infiltration of the conservative movement is evident just by taking a cursory glance at the panel on the board of the American Conservative Union, the very same organization responsible for the annual CPAC conference, at which Horowitz was speaking. Revealing no qualms about implicating the very same people who had him appear at this year's conference, Horowitz named a number of ACU board members that have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood: "[ACU board member] Suhail Khan is the proud son of Mahboob Khan and his protégé as he is also the protégé of the convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi, sponsored by his longtime patron Grover Norquist, who has been the pillar of the Conservative movement." It's worthwhile to note that Suhail's father Mahboob ran a large mosque in Santa Clara, California, that catered to Osama Bin Laden's number two man, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. Suhail Khan was on President George W. Bush's staff at the time of the September 11 attacks, but was quickly transitioned to the Department of Transportation afterward. Likewise, the Cypress Times reports, "Norquist is said to have been the one who got Khan into the White House. Khan has also been an advisor to CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, an un-indicted terror co-conspirator, Hamas front group and Muslim Brotherhood affiliate." The relationship between Norquist and Khan is clear, as observed by Horowitz:

With Grover's support, Suhail has also been made a board member of the American Conservative Union and was a moderator on a panel on religious liberty yesterday at this event. Suhail Khan used his offices at the Bush White House with the support of Grover to carry weight for the terrorist Sami al-Arian and the attempt to ban the use of secret evidence in terrorist trials-a proposal that thanks to Grover's influence was actually endorsed by President Bush and was only thwarted by the September 11 attacks.

The remainder of Horowitz's speech described the current administration's friendly treatment of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the appointments of members of CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America to top positions in the Department of Homeland Security. Yet listeners could not help but find themselves reeling over the information Horowitz provided that implicated members of the ACU board. David Horowitz credits Frank Gaffney, president of the American Center for Security Policy, as the "courageous bringer of the bad news about Grover and Suhail Khan." Specifically addressing the board of the ACU, Horowitz adds: "Many good conservatives on the board of the ACU refuse to believe the evidence of Suhail's Brotherhood allegiances and agendas. They are of the opinion that Suhail's public appearances with Alamoudi and the Muslim Brotherhood fronts took place a decade ago and that he doesn't promote violent agendas. I understand this." Horowitz later explains, "The conservatives are much too civilized and inclusive and should not be making exceptions for people like Suhail." What will it take for Horowitz to be convinced of Suhail Khan's alleged change of heart? "When an honest person has been a member of a destructive movement and leaves it, he will feel compelled to repudiate it publicly and to warn others of the dangers it poses," Horowitz said. Like William Ayers of the Weather Underground, Mr. Khan has yet to repudiate the violent organization with which he has been connected. Horowitz closed his CPAC talk by urging conservatives to educate themselves further on the Muslim Brotherhood and its various front organizations, and to be "vigilant against its spread to the ranks of the conservative movement, the Republican Party, and the government of the country we love." In an exclusive interview with The New American following his enlightening speech, Horowitz explained what being "vigilant" entails: "They have to educate themselves. Discoverthenetworks.org is an excellent guide to the Left. Also books like The Grand Jihad by Andrew McCarthy and my book Unholy Alliance are excellent resources conservatives can use." Horowitz's willingness to stand before the very group that provided him a speaking platform at the conference was certainly a courageous, and controversial, move. When asked what compelled Horowitz to do so, he told The New American, "There was just too much evidence to ignore the facts." Likewise, Horowitz made a number of attempts to allow Suhail Khan and Norquist to vindicate themselves by answering for the information produced against them. According to Horowitz, Norquist simply refused to address any of the allegations made by Gaffney in his report, replying "I'm too busy with the revolution." By contrast, Khan did address the allegations when Horowitz brought them to his attention, adamantly denying their accuracy. Unfortunately, it was Khan who proved to have a problem with accuracy. For example, Khan explained that despite Gaffney's assertions, he is not responsible for the list of people with approved access to the White House. Gaffney, however, disproved Khan's remarks, by sending Horowitz an approved White House guest list with Khan's name on it as the approver of the guest list. Similarly, Khan claimed that his father was merely a member of the mosque, but did not have a fundraiser for terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri-as his father was accused — seemingly unaware that the Washington Post had published an article on the role Khan's father played in the fundraiser. Once Khan realized that each of his assertions were being discredited by hard evidence, he stopped returning Horowitz's calls. Horowitz asserts that Khan is "an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood and a threat to America." When The New American asked if Horowtiz if he believed Norquist to be a conscious subversive, or, to use Lenin's term, simply a "useful idiot," Horowitz stated simply: "He's not an idiot." Horowitz contends that he will not allow the potential consequences of exposing Norquist's and Khan's connections to the Muslim Brotherhood — such as not being invited back to CPAC — intimidate him from doing so. He told The New American, "This is my mission — to wake up the conservative movement."

Critics Slam U.S. Government, Media for 'Weak' Response to Anti-Christian Attacks

Reported by Fox News February 15, 2011

At least 65 Christians have been killed in attacks across the Muslim world in recent months, sparking sharp criticism from human rights groups that charge the U.S. government and media aren't doing nearly enough to speak out against the violence. A shooting in Egypt last month that killed a Christian man and injured five Christian women was just the latest in the series of attacks, several of which occurred around the holiday season: A New Year's bombing at a Coptic Christian church in Alexandria, Egypt, killed 23 people and injured more than 100; Christmas Eve blasts in Nigeria killed at least 32 -- just part of a night of terror across the country that saw three other churches attacked and six worshipers killed; six perished in a Christmas Day Catholic Church bombing on the island of Jolo, in the Philippines; and a string of New Year's Eve bombings in Iraq left two dead and at least 13 wounded. The spate of attacks has some saying that not enough is being done. "The lack of a policy response beyond sending condolences each time a church or Christians are targeted in some horrific act of violence like in Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria etc. is absolutely bewildering," Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom, told FoxNews.com. "This should be seen as not only a humanitarian issue, but a security issue." Even the condolence statements have come up short, said Shea. When the Obama administration first noted an Oct. 31 church bombing in Iraq, for example, it sent "a general condolence to Iraqis that didn't even mention the word Christian or churches." That bombing, claimed by an Al Qaeda-linked organization, left 58 people dead and at least 78 wounded. It was the worst attack ever against Iraq's Christian minority. Critics have also charged the U.S. media hasn't done enough to publicize the plight of persecuted Christians.

CBS and ABC aired nothing on the Nigerian attacks, PBS had one "NewsHour" report, while NBC gave the story three briefs mentions on the morning of Dec. 27, according to L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center. "CBS Evening News" anchor Katie Couric instead found the protests against a new Islamic Center set to be built near Ground Zero to be more newsworthy, labeling the "seething hatred" against Muslims in America as one of the "most disturbing stories to surface this year" on her New Year's Eve Internet show. That night, 11 bombs exploded near Christian homes in Baghdad, killing two people and wounding at least 13. And just minutes into the new year, the bombers in Alexandria struck. "ABC aired nothing. CBS and NBC each aired one brief anchor read," according to Bozell. Not everyone agreed with Bozell. "Christians get massive, massive media coverage, way out of proportion to their importance," said media analyst T.J. Walker. "This is another case of an interest group developing the media strategy of 'working the refs' … No matter how fair or generous your media coverage is, complain bitterly that you are being treated unfairly in the hopes of making reporters give you even more positive coverage just to avoid the headache of dealing with nonsense virulent criticism." But Bozell maintained stories of perceived discrimination against Muslims -- like a Florida pastor's proposition to memorialize the 9/11 attacks with "Burn a Koran Day," or a Seattle-based cartoonist's decision to protest Comedy Central's decision to censor an episode of "South Park" that depicted Muhammad in a bear costume -- pick up far more coverage by comparison. "It's appalling that you've got a worldwide assault on Christianity in place, where every week there's a reported attack on some Christian church somewhere by Muslim fanatics and no one's covering it," Bozell said. "…but one idiot in Florida threatens to burn a Koran and everyone's talking about." Included in that everyone was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "I am heartened by the clear, unequivocal condemnation of this disrespectful, disgraceful act that has come from American religious leaders of all faiths," Clinton said about "Burn a Koran Day" at a Sept. 8 dinner in observance of the Muslim holiday Iftar. "It's regrettable that a pastor in Gainesville, Fla., with a church of no more than 50 people can make this outrageous and distressful, disgraceful plan and get the world's attention," she said the same day, at a Council on Foreign Relations event. But some argued the Florida pastor did a better job of getting Clinton's attention than the string of recent attacks against Christians. While State Department spokesman Mark Toner issued a statement on December 31 condemning the New Year's Eve violence in Iraq, and another spokesman, Phillip Crowley, noted the department was "aware of a recent string of attacks against Christians from Iraq to Egypt to Nigeria, Clinton herself did not publicly address the issue.

President Obama did, however, saying the perpetrators of the Egypt attacks "were clearly targeting Christian worshippers" and "must be brought to justice for this barbaric and heinous act." He offered "any necessary assistance to the Government of Egypt in responding to it," as well as to the Government of Nigeria in responding to its attacks. But Shea argued these governments need pressure, and not assistance. Shea said the U.S., which provides billions of dollars in foreign aid to many of these countries, should push them to protect their Christian communities "through a combination of carrots and sticks, sanctions and incentives." She pointed to Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, who responded to the attacks by calling for the European Union to reduce or cut aid to countries that do not protect their Christian minorities as an example of what the U.S. leaders should be doing. The EU has yet to act on the proposal. Graeme Bannerman, a scholar at the Middle East Institute and expert on U.S.-Arab relations, said the U.S. may be taking the smarter approach. "Take Egypt for example. The critics do not believe the government there is doing enough; they haven't gone after the Muslims enough; they haven't taken the threat upon the Christian community seriously enough. But there are others who say they may have not reacted rapidly enough, but they're certainly taking action," Bannerman told FoxNews.com, pointing to the recent conviction and death sentence for a Muslim man who killed six Christians and a Muslim guard last year outside a Coptic church on Jan. 6, Coptic Christmas Eve. Shea called the death sentence "unprecedented," and said she hopes to see similarly strong action in other countries. She also warned against what might happen if these Christians minorities are wiped out. "Christians are a moderating force in the Middle East. When they are gone, religious diversity and pluralism goes with them," she said. "…It ultimately means there will be a setback for our own national security interests and the ability of these countries to peacefully coexist with us."

 

FINAL COMMENTS:

I do think we are heading towards a global war. And it looks to me like England has some serious problems with Islamic radicals-and refuses to do anything about it or acknowledge the problem exists. I saw that myself when I was there. But I loved England and hope to go back. Robert Spencer has written some very good books about Islam. The Barnabas Fund which does good work, puts out good information. There have also been "signs in the heavens." The apparition that appeared above Jerusalem seems to be an authentic incident and not a fraud. It looks like to me that Islam is going to be a serious political force, that the free peoples of the world are either going to have to fight or be destroyed by it. If our governments had the moral courage, we could easily defeat Islamic forces now. Since we are being non-confrontational it looks like to me, they will strengthen their position and many people are going to die needlessly. It is just like Hitler in world war two. Everyone thought Churchill was a crazy, rightwing fanatic and wouldn't listen to him-and they paid a price. In all over 20 million people died in World War 2.

 

www.youtube.com/aramaic12, www.aramaicherald.blogspot.com

PO BOX 882 Shepherd TX 77371