NEW DIRECTIONS - SPREADING TRUTH - WHY YHWH MAY HAVE GIVEN THE ORAL LAW

l have decided to take my blog in a new direction.  First and foremost it is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to everyone.  YHWH is the God of everyone.  He's not only the God of the Jews as so many call Him and His Son, Christ Jesus.  Abraham, to whom the Promises were given was a Hebrew, not a Jew.  I do know he converted to Judaism at some point after the promises at age 99 but exactly when and where Jewish people became the Chosen, I'm not sure.  I am learning my Jewish roots but I have yet to learn that.  I will someday, God willing and I'll share.  Yahwey is the God of every man, woman and child on earth.  He's all-inclusive.  Of course He's the God of the Jews AND Muslims as well.  We are commanded to share the Gospel of Salvation by Christ Jesus to the world and there are no buts or exclusions in that command.  By that I mean, spread the Gospel to the world EXCEPT to the Muslims, blacks, or anyone.   Everyone is included.   

I urge every Christian to learn as much as they can about Judaism and the Old Testament.  I have this book that by no means claims their views are facts but does give very good solid reasons on why the oral law, known as the Levitical or Mosaic Law, was given and why it was extremely good for that age.  I'll give you a few that I remember and will find the book (it was misplaced when we moved but it's in the house) and I'll share that with you.  When you consider the times and customs of that period, laws that made no sense to us today suddenly enlightens us to the awesome God we worship.  To me, whether or not they are the right answer, at least it gave me some insight that in my case, increased my faith and belief in the Bible and that God indeed created us as only He could know our bodies and what is good and bad for us.  My first is a dietary law on the reason Jews were forbidden of eating pork and shellfish and fish that didn't have both scales and gills (I think that's what they were).

Let's start with pork.  Pigs do not have sweat glands and even though they were called "unclean" doesn't mean that pigs are in any way bad.  God created them and what did He say about everything He created?  It was "good."  So pigs are not to be hated or called bad as they were created to clean the earth.  That is their purpose.  That's a good thing.  That's why even today (although we are no longer under bondage of the Law of Moses), we should either abstain or vastly limit the eating of pork.  They will eat anything, including snakes, rats, mice, worms, trash, etc. and since they have no way of releasing toxins from their bodies, whatever they eat, so do we.  Also, our bodies cannot metabolize and rid our bodies of pork fat.  If you eat a great amount of pork, you are causing damage to your bodies.  That's a proven fact.  Honestly, pork is my favorite meat.  I love BBQ and pork ribs.  I'd eat it everyday if I could but it's rare that I do today.  Sure I miss it and I am quite sure I'm not sinning by eating pork but if I choose to, I have to live with the consequences of it.  My husband had a quad bypass and I love him far more than ribs so I don't cook it.  I may buy it if we go out to eat for me but he abstains except in extremely rare cases.  I'd rather have him breathing.  I don't buy and cook pork.  I also limit beef but he's a very picky eater and doesn't like vegetables.  I tease him about this and say that the reason he won't eat vegetables is that he's not a cannibal.  He's afraid of eating one of his relatives, lol.  A private joke we share.  I'm learning how to hide vegetables in his food but shhhh, don't tell him.  

Now to shellfish.  I didn't know this but shellfish contains iodine and Jewish people have a high population of people allergic to iodine.  Today, we have epi pens and other means of helping people who have severe or life-threatening allergic reactions but back then, they didn't.  The only way to know if one was allergic was to eat it and if they were, it meant instant death.  So, this book believes that this law was given to prevent the death of Jews.  You don't know if you're allergic to iodine so do not eat it because it will end badly for you if you are.  That's a great law!  It is also not specific to Jews as many non-Jews are also allergic to iodine.  Fish without both scales and gills are also ocean cleaners and again, as with pork, what they eat, so do you.  I have never liked fish very much and the few I do eat are healthy.  Tuna, salmon, talapia, flounder, they are fine and extremely healthy as they are rich with Omega 3 so if you like fish, eat as much as you can.  

Also keep in mind we were not created to be meat eaters.  We were to eat the green herbs.  In other words, we were created to be vegetarians.  I'm not sure when we started eating meat, as some say after the fall of man but I believe it says it was after the flood that we became meat eaters but don't quote me on that.  As I said, this book doesn't claim that they know the mind of God and exactly why He gave these laws but from what we know today, it's possible that these are the reasons.  By no means is this meant to be factual but it is at least giving us new insights into things we don't understand.  As I said, it built my faith.  I'm going to cover one or two more.

One of the oral laws that never made sense to me was the no mixing of fabrics.  Here's their thoughts on this law.  Jewish people generally wore clothing made of linen, wool, or cotton.  Natural growing plant materials.  Other cultures wore leather, and other types of clothing mixed with other types of fabric.  These cultures were dangerous to the Jews.  They were not a very well-received people and they were in constant danger.  It goes along with the no cutting yourself or putting any marks (tattoos) on your bodies.  Here's why...if someone of danger tried to infiltrate themselves into their tribes, they would be identified as dangerous immediately by their clothing and/or tattoos.  It was a great way of keeping themselves safe and protected.  Yes, it also probably had something to do with keeping their bloodline pure.  You must keep in mind that the Old Testament is about one thing and one thing only and that's the birth of the Messiah.  No one new when or who would bring Him into the world so it was a must to keep their bloodline absolutely pure in order to fulfill God's plan for all of humanity.  So many people think that the Jewish people today who have not believed that Yeshua is the Messiah continues to keep their bloodline pure because they think they are a superior race.  Not true.  They are still waiting for the promised Messiah as they don't believe Jesus is the fulfillment of that promise.  But before you think more highly of yourself than you ought, remember that they were blinded to Him, in part, for our sake.  Yahwey has great plans for the Jews and has not forsaken them by any means.  They are still His chosen people.  I have a theory on why they are His chosen as I believe they were the only ones who stayed faithful to Him and His sovereignty over the world as the others were worshiping strange and false Gods.  They are His Chosen to be an example and a light of Him to the world.  God is not a respecter of persons.  He loves us all the same.  He doesn't love the Jewish people more than He loves us and today He certainly doesn't love them one bit less.  This is my opinion and I may be right or not.  No true Christian should ever be antisimitic.  That's wrong on every level.  

This is just a few examples I specifically remember that I wanted to share.  As long as you don't obey the law thinking that by doing so it somehow saves you, if you want to follow the law, especially the dietary ones, go for it.  Respect the Jews who do follow the law that have yet to accept the Messiah.  They will one day.  Since tonight begins their Sabbath, out of support for Israel and the Jews, I wanted to share a bit of their history.  Also, for those who think that the oral law was or is somehow bad laws, nothing Yahwey did was ever bad.  While today as we are under grace and most of the laws are no longer really applicable, they're not bad laws.  We're just no longer required to keep because to us Christians, we know that Jesus fulfilled the law.  We are free from the bondage of the law but we should never boast in this.  Christ did this for us, not us.  We are no better than those who are still under the Law nor should be ever be offensive towards this.  I think this applies to those of other faiths as well.  

Learn your Hebrew roots.  It's vital to understanding the New Testament.  Some call it the "better" Testament but I don't.  I think that term is offensive.  I'm not being politically correct here as I feel that's a major reason we're in the mess we're in today but just because we have the right to say things, it doesn't make it right.  On the flip side, I believe in freedom of speech and people are just way over the top with having their feelings hurt and getting offended over the least little thing.  If someone offends you, Jesus told us what to do, turn the other cheek.  Walk away and don't start a fight.  Let it go.  It's not worth going to jail over.  He was the wisest man/God ever!  

Shabbot Shalom and Happy Sabbath to those who keep the traditional Fri/Sat day of rest. Be blessed!

NO TOLERANCE FOR EXTREMISM

• Posted for educational purposes only and the owner of this is the Gatestone Institute.  
• 
  
• At the moment, the bar for taking extremists out of circulation is set ridiculously high. People known for their own extremism that reaches pre-terrorist levels should not be walking the streets when they have expressed support for Islamic State (ISIS) or tried to head to Syria or called for the destruction of Britain and other democracies or allied themselves to people already in prison. Their demand for free speech or freedom of belief must never be elevated above the rights of citizens to live safely in their own towns and cities. It is essential for parliament to lower the bar.
• Is this to be the political landscape for the future, where groups of people demanding death and destruction are given the freedom of the streets whilst those wishing to hold a peaceful celebration are prevented from doing so?
• To see extremist Islam as a "perversion" of Islam misses an important point. The politically correct insistence that radical versions of Islam somehow pervert an essentially peaceful and tolerant faith forces policy-makers and legislators, church leaders, rabbis, interfaith workers and the public at large to leave to one side an important reality. Flatly, Islam in its original and classic forms has everything to do with today's radicals and the violence they commit. The Qur'an is explicit in its hatred for pagans, Jews and Christians. It calls for the fighting of holy war (jihad) to conquer the non-Muslim world, subdue it, and gradually bring it into the fold of Islam. Islam has been at war with Europe since the seventh century.

On the Sunday morning after the terrorist attacks in London the night of June 3, British Prime Minister Theresa May addressed the nation in a powerful speech. It deserves to be read in full, but several points stand out and call for a response.

We cannot and must not pretend that things can continue as they are. Things need to change and they need to change in four important ways.
First, while the recent attacks are not connected by common networks, they are connected in one important sense. They are bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism.
It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam.

Lower down, she enhances that by saying:

Second, we cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide.

No one who has watched the endless stream of radical Muslim preachers who appear on YouTube or who post extremist, anti-Western, anti-democratic, or anti-Semitic opinions on Facebook would object to May's stricture. But given earlier attempts to rein in the providers of so many internet spaces in a demand for better scrutiny and the removal of radicalizing material from their sites, we must remain pessimistic about how far May or any other Western leader can bring effective pressure to bear. Without strong financial disincentives, these rulers of the internet will pay little heed to the concerns of the wider public and our security services.
Perhaps May's strongest statement comes some lines later:

While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is -- to be frank -- far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations.

Here, she puts her finger on the most sensitive yet compelling reason for our vulnerability. The democracies have been and still are weakened by the very things that in other contexts give us strength. May speaks rightly of our "pluralistic British values". But those values include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, open-mindedness, and tolerance -- things that are not held as desirable values in any Muslim country. Such values are key to our survival as free and tolerant people unrestricted by any overarching ideology. Yet May is right. Even toleration has its limits. While allowing Muslims to live in our societies with full freedom to live their lives according to the tenets of their faith is desirable expression of our openness and love for humanity, we have been tolerant of radical Islam and even traditionalist and conservative Islam where it leads into radicalization and an extremism that erupts in physical assaults, fatalities, and, as intended, widespread public fear.
For years, we have known the identities of radical Islamic preachers and extremist organizations, but we have allowed them to bring their hatred for us onto university and college campuses, into mosques and Islamic centres, and even onto our streets, where they set up stalls to speak and hand out literature. Scroll down here or here to find long lists of radical individuals and organizations, few of which have even been banned. Few terrorist suspects have ever been deported. In a Telegraph article from 2015, one reads:

Here is an astonishing figure to mull over. In the past 10 years, the UK has deported just 12 terrorism suspects from its shores under its Deportation with Assurances (DWA) scheme. In the same period, France deported more than 100 more. The British figures come from a review of the DWA programme that is unlikely to be published until after the general election. It suggests, as we have always suspected, that the UK remains a soft touch for foreign-born jihadists.

It took eight years, 15 court cases and a £25 million bill to keep the hate preacher and terrorist fighter Abu Hamza and his huge family in the UK before he was finally deported (to the United States) in 2012, where he was sentenced to life imprisonment. In that same year, Theresa May (then Home Secretary) was frustrated because another sinister figure, Abu Qatada, could not be deported to Jordan because the European Court of Human Rights had ruled against it for fear of his being tortured there. But in 2013, once Jordan agreed not to do so, he was sent there only to be tried and set free. Last year, he used Twitter to urge Muslims to leave the UK for fear of persecution and "bloodshed" -- a possible encouragement to would-be jihadis to head abroad. May spoke vehemently against the Strasbourg ruling:

It is simply isn't acceptable, that after guarantees from the Jordanians about his treatment, after British courts have found that he is dangerous, after his removal has been approved by the highest courts in our land, we still cannot deport dangerous foreign nationals.
...
The right place for a terrorist is a prison cell. The right place for a foreign terrorist is a foreign prison cell far away from Britain.

We constantly undermine ourselves by our need to be principled. This is an ongoing problem in politics. Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain's Labour Party, is frequently described as a man of principle, and in many ways that judgement seems fair. Certainly, he has stuck by his socialist principles even if they have led him to adopt positions not well aimed at creating security for Britain. He has supported the IRA; refused many times to condemn their terrorist attacks; has called Hamas and Hizbullah his "friends" and invited their representatives to the British parliament. If that were not enough, he has boasted of his opposition to every piece of anti-terrorist legislation parliament has tried to pass.
In a 2015 interview just shown by the tabloid newspaper The Sun, Corbyn spoke with the Bahrain-based LuaLua Television. Although The Sun is not a reliable source, the clip from the interview shows Corbyn speaking in English with an accurate Arabic translation in subtitles. The interviewer speaks in Arabic. What are alarming are Corbyn's statements, including a criticism of the UK government laws preventing would-be fighters who have travelled to Syria and from returning to the UK:

The British government's response has been to try to make it impossible for them to travel, to restrict their ability to travel, to take upon themselves the ability to remove passports and, strangely, to deny people the right of return – which is legally a very questionable decision.

Surely no responsible politician would want to make it easy for jihadi fighters to come and go between Syria and the UK, especially while Islamic State is encouraging jihadis who leave to go back to European countries to carry out acts of terror -- which seems to be exactly what has been happening.
In 2002, Corbyn addressed a large anti-Israel rally in London attended by Hizbullah supporters, several radical preachers including Abu Hamza, and 300 members of al-Muhajiroun, a banned extremist organization. According to one left-wing newspaper:

None of these groups called (openly at least) for the destruction of the state of Israel. It was a different story though for the ultra-reactionaries of such organisations as Al Muhajiroun, who held placards reading, "Palestine is muslim". They chanted, "Skud, Skud Israel" and "Gas, gas Tel Aviv", along with their support for bin Laden. Two would-be suicide posers were dressed in combat fatigues with a 'bomb' strapped to their waists. This section accounted for no more than 200-300, but they made a noise far out of proportion to their numbers.[1]

Stories concerning Corbyn's support for jihadis was plastered on the front pages of several newspapers one day before the general election on June 8. He may never take charge of our national security, but following the results of the election, which proved disastrous for May and her Conservative party, it is now not entirely unimaginable that he may yet form a minority government. Overconfidence in her party's strength, a hardline stance on Brexit, and a lack of concern in her Manifesto for public sensitivities concerning the National Health Service, social care and pensions led May to lose the confidence of much of the public, especially some, such as the elderly, who were traditional Tory voters. The campaign she ran turned out to be very badly handled. The two advisers who worked on it have just resigned, and large numbers of citizens, including 60% of Conservatives, are calling on her to resign. She no longer commands the large parliamentary majority of which she was so sure when she called the election, in fact she has no majority at all without pairing with the backward-looking Democratic Unionist Party, founded by bigoted Ian Paisley in 1971 and now the largest party in Northern Ireland. Many predict that the alliance will soon founder.
Whoever remains in power in coming months, the threat of terrorism has risen to the top of the agenda as a public preoccupation. Except that almost nobody talked much about it in the days after the London Bridge attack leading up to the election. Alarmingly, large numbers of young people rushed to vote for the leader of the one party that will do the least to combat that threat. The abolition of student fees or other right-on issues mattered so much more. And yet, in a matter of months, the British people have grown frightened of a beast our political correctness and laxity helped create, a Frankenstein monster that has risen from its slab and shows no signs of lying back down again. This beast has, in a few fell swoops, changed the nature of politics in Britain as it has elsewhere.
Jeremy Corbyn is the last person to whom we should entrust our future safety, yet he is now in a position to water down or cancel any legislation that might ensure more preparedness and better control. Theresa May, whatever her political disaster, has at least promised firmness in our relations with the Muslim community, identifying the problem and calling for action.
That promise of action is exemplified in her statements that:

If we need to increase the length of custodial sentences for terrorist-related offences -- even apparently less serious offences -- that is what we will do. Since the emergence of the threat from Islamist-inspired terrorism, our country has made significant progress in disrupting plots and protecting the public. But it is time to say "Enough is enough".

On June 6, addressing party supporters in Slough, and again speaking about resistance to terrorism, she went farther, saying:

I mean longer prison sentences for those convicted of terrorist offences.
I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terrorist suspects back to their own countries.
And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they are a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
And if our human rights laws get in the way of doing it, we will change the law so we can do it.

Clearly, not even May can ride roughshod over essential human rights values and legislation, things put in place to protect the public. Now, with Corbyn looking over shoulder, tough and measured action is in jeopardy. It is clear nonetheless that an excessive concern for the rights of dangerous individuals and hostile communities has served to take away vital protections for the lives of British citizens. This misguided generosity is linked to a growing worry that we have been too relaxed about individuals who have later gone on to commit atrocities in our midst. Salman Abedi, the suicide bomber who murdered 22 concert-goers, including several children, during an Ariane Grande concert in Manchester, had been reported to the authorities no fewer than five times, yet had been allowed to walk free enough to take forward his mission to kill and maim.
Youssef Zaghba, one of the three attackers on London Bridge and Borough Market on June 3, had been stopped in Bologna in 2016 carrying terrorist literature while trying to fly to Istanbul en route for Syria. He told officers "I am going to be a terrorist", was arrested but later released. His name was flagged on an international terrorism database and the Italian authorities notified the British security services. Allowed to go to the UK, he helped kill seven people and injure more.
Even more alarmingly, his accomplice, Khuram Butt, a Pakistani-born British man, was well above the horizon. He had been reported to the security services and was alleged to have been an associate of Anjem Choudary, a radical preacher now serving time in jail for his support for Islamic State. Butt had defended Choudary by calling a Muslim opposed to the preacher an apostate (murtadd); and in 2016, he had appeared in a Channel 4 television documentary where he was seen with others in a park holding an ISIS flag and at two events attended by radical preachers who had been arrested for radicalizing others. One of those preachers, Mohammed Shamsuddin, has said: "Our message is deadly, we are calling for world domination, and for Sharia for the UK."
In 2015, MI5, the UK's domestic intelligence service, stated that it had 3,000 extremists on its watchlist. According to Business Insider:

There are 6,000 employees at GCHQ and 4,000 at MI5. But there are up to 3,000 terror suspects in the UK. At the French ratio, you would need 60,000 officers to track them all. That's almost half of Britain's total number of police officers, 127,000.

What this means, in effect, is that thousands of potential terrorists are left free to live with little interference from the police or MI5. Raising the number of police, as Jeremy Corbyn demands, would place a heavy strain on the economy of a country sailing into uncharted waters as it leaves the EU. The answer must be, as May suggests, a different approach to human rights legislation. At the moment, the bar for taking extremists out of circulation is set ridiculously high. People who are known for their own extremism that reaches pre-terrorist levels should not be walking the streets when they have expressed support for Islamic State or tried to head to Syria or called for the destruction of the UK and other democracies or allied themselves to people already in prison. Their demand for free speech or freedom of belief must never be elevated above the rights of citizens to live safely in their own towns and cities. It is essential for parliament to lower the bar.
That the police and security services are avoiding any real confrontation with Islamists is clear from the contents of this letter, sent on June 7 to the Daily Mail by pro-Israel activist Clive Hyman. It makes troubling treading:

On 18th June, Muslims will be holding a march in central London to celebrate Al-Quds Day. In previous years these marches have called for the destruction of Israel and death to the Jews, and the marchers have carried signs to this effect and flags supporting Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS. Despite requests from both the Christian and Jewish communities for this march to be cancelled because of the violence it will incite amongst those participating and their followers, Mayor Khan and the Metropolitan police have refused to do so, their reason being that there has been no violence at these marches in previous years.
By comparison, an event to honour Israel organised by Christians United for Israel for 22nd June has been cancelled apparently because Mayor Khan and the Metropolitan Police cannot guarantee the safety of those who wish to attend.
Is this to be the political landscape for the future, where groups of people demanding death and destruction are given the freedom of the streets whilst those wishing to hold a peaceful celebration are prevented from doing so?

As might be expected, leftists have rejected May's appeal for changes in human rights legislation. They argue that she will need to declare a state of emergency, something that can only be invoked when the life of the nation is under threat. This is not incorrect, since all democracies have to avoid potential dictators using changes in the law to give themselves powers they might not otherwise have. But that is not the whole story.
What May plans to do will take us far, but not far enough. Her weakness, set against Corbyn's show of strength, undermines the likelihood of any serious changes to how Britain tackles the Islamic threat. Bit by bit, the political fear of appearing xenophobic or "Islamophobic" will reassert itself. Labour will make sure of that. Members of parliament with substantial numbers of Muslim constituents will answer calls to water down any legislation that can be labelled as discriminatory to Muslims. It is only when we come to terms with the fact that terrorist attacks are not being carried out by Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Baha'is, Quakers or the members of any religion except Islam.
Regrettably May herself fell into a politically-correct trap in her speech, when she said in reference to Islamic radicalism, "It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth." It is easy to see what she means by this -- that she wants to distance radicalism and terrorism from the majority of decent Muslims in the UK, the ones like Sara Khan who work to create a British Islam based on the best Islamic values in alliance with the British values May rightly extols. However, to see extremist Islam as a "perversion" of Islam misses an important point. The politically correct insistence that radical versions of Islam somehow pervert an essentially peaceful and tolerant faith forces policy-makers and legislators, church leaders, rabbis, interfaith workers and the public at large to leave to one side an important reality. If not tackled head-on, that reality will not go away.

In a June 3 speech, British Prime Minister Theresa May regrettably fell into a politically-correct trap, when she said in reference to Islamic radicalism, "It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth." (Photo by Hannah McKay/Pool/Getty Images)

Flatly, Islam in its original and classic forms has everything to do with today's radicals and the violence they commit. The Qur'an is explicit in its hatred for pagans, Jews, and Christians. It calls for the fighting of holy war (jihad) to conquer the non-Muslim world, subdue it, and gradually bring it into the fold of Islam. Muhammad himself led his followers into battle and sent out expeditions out of Arabia before his death in 632. The astonishing Islamic conquests that followed in the Middle East, Europe, and far beyond into Central Asia and India turned a swathe of territories into Islamic fiefdoms, and most of these remain under Muslim rule today. The Ottoman Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453 not only destroyed the Eastern Orthodox Roman Empire (the Byzantine Empire), but is still regarded by Muslims as a turning point in the history of the world. The subsequent Ottoman conquests across eastern Europe were only halted when the King of Poland John III Sobieski (1629-1696) defeated a massive Turkish army under the command of Sultan Soleiman I outside the city of Vienna.
In 2015, after Islamist attacks in Paris, French president François Hollande declared that "We are in a war against terrorism, jihadism, which threatens the whole world." But Islam has been at war with Europe since the seventh century. The beheadings, crucifixions, massacres and demolitions of towns and churches carried out by Islamic State today are replicas of wider atrocities carried out by the Muslim conquerors of Spain in the 8^th century.[2]
Jihad wars against the Byzantines were carried out twice a year. Spain and Portugal were occupied for centuries until the Christian kingdoms of the north drove the Muslims out, in a process that itself took some centuries. The Ottomans continued to be a threat down to their defeat in the First World War. From the sixteenth to late eighteenth centuries, the Muslim slavers, known as the Barbary pirates, dominated the Mediterranean and took more than a million Christian slaves to North Africa. In the nineteenth century, jihad wars against European colonists were frequent.[3] Today, Europeans and others are fighting wars against Islamic radicals from Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria, and on the streets of our own cities.
To be at war is justification for extreme measures. Deportation and internment are unattractive, just as the measures Western countries have been forced to take against their enemies in other wars. But set next to the threat of unending terror in our cities, and given the nature of the people we will deport or intern, they are probably not as bad as the alternative. We will not execute terrorists (just as Israel has never executed the thousands of terrorists who have murdered its citizens) nor torture them or harm their families. Minor adjustments to our human rights laws and the lowering of the bar a bit on what we consider unacceptable are all we need. But that will not stop Jeremy Corbyn and his terrorist-supporting friends crying that such measures will be a "slippery slope" that will set back community relations by decades.

Dr. Denis MacEoin has recently completed a large study of concerns with Islam. He is an Arabist, Persianist, and a specialist in Shi'i Islam. He is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

---

[1] See also here.
[2] See Darío Fernández-Morera, The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise, Wilmington, 2016, chapters 1 and 2.
[3] See Rudolph Peters, Islam and Colonialism: The Doctrine of Jihad in Modern History, The Hague, 1979, especially chapter 3.

HEBREW WORD OF THE DAY

Cough...

Please don't get any ideas, lol

Shabbot Shalom!

SERMONS AND THROUGH THE BIBLE BY J. VERNON McGEE

I have shared many of his sermons and his series and I encourage you to continue listening and going through the series.  Please go to YouTube and search out J. Vernon McGee and you'll get many links.  I will put links up to his sermons on occasion but I find not many listen to what I share.  I'm going to share the Gospel with the world.  I pray you continue in the faith and the truth.  I just have to go where I feel the Holy Spirit is leading me.  God bless and I hope what I share helps you know the truth of Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation.  We are saved by Grace but did Jesus not also tell us to follow Him?  We can't say a "just in case" sinner's prayer and continue in sin.  That's not saving faith.  Be blessed and I hope God blesses my blog but I must please and honor Him, not man.  

J. Vernon McGee's Sermons
Through the Bible by J. Vernon McGee

WHAT CHRISTIANS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ISLAM BY CHRISTIANITY.COM

What Christians Need to Know about Islam Dr. Roger Barrier Editor's Note: Pastor Roger Barrier's "Ask Roger" column regularly appears at Preach It, Teach It. Every week at Crosswalk, Dr. Barrier puts nearly 40 years of experience in the pastorate to work answering questions of doctrine or practice for laypeople, or giving advice on church leadership issues. Email him your questions at roger@preachitteachit.org. Dear Roger, There is so much interest and confusion “swirling around” the issues of Muslims, Islam, acculturalization, burqas, terrorists and Islamic extremism. Could you please give us a simple understanding of what Christians need to know about Islam? Sincerely Rachel One Sunday morning after worship, a young man with Arabic features approached me. He looked to be in his early 30s, nicely dressed with dark slacks and a white button-down shirt.  He wanted to know the differences between Christianity and Islam. When I shared the gospel, he became quite agitated. The idea that our good works counted for nothing on the road to heaven was anathema to him. Our discussion moved to a rapid conclusion when I quoted Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace we are saved through faith--and this is not from ourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works so that no one can boast!” Not out of control, but clearly disagreeing, he punched the Communion Table and firmly said, “No, that cannot be.” He rapidly departed. The Origins of Islam Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was born in 570 A.D. He spent his early years as a camel driver and managed his wife’s estate. One evening as he went to pray he heard a voice commanding him to “Read.” He countered, “But I can’t read.” Mohammed later wrote that he saw a scroll emblazoned with words and miraculously began to read. Then the angel Gabriel appeared to tell him that he was to be Allah’s messenger. For the next several years, he faced exile and persecution while he claimed to receive more messages from Allah.  Mohammed recognized Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus as prophets. However, he set himself above all others. He believed he was the ultimate prophet of God. And he declared that none would follow him. When he was 60, the time had come for Mohammed to take his message to the world. He and his armies captured the city of Mecca and declared it to be “The Holy City of Islam.” Two years later he died. He instructed his followers to carry on the mission. Some of his followers captured Jerusalem in 715 A.D. and started the rapid spread of Islam throughout northern Africa, the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and the United States. That conquest continues today. Much of Islam’s advancement is done by quiet assimilation, over time, into another culture--not by military occupation. The supplanting of one culture with or over another culture is not limited to Muslims. Historically, the assimilation of one culture into another is an ongoing process.  For example, the United States is rapidly becoming a non-European-based country. Hispanics, Asians, Middle Easterners, Moroccans and Balkan refugees are flooding into our country, and their cultures will soon supplant our present European-American culture. Not one gunshot will be needed to accomplish the assimilation. Like Chinatown in San Francisco, people tend to congregate with others from their own background. There will soon be more Muslims in France than Frenchmen. Unofficially, the France government is clamoring for native French people to have more babies. Problems arise when Muslims gather in cultural groups that exclude all others and begin to superimpose their own beliefs. This process is occurring in France where Muslims have carved out their own territory, rejecting the laws of France, and wanting to live by their own laws with their own culture.  But we must remember--with all that being said--many Muslim immigrants are doing their best to respect and honor our American culture. The Beliefs of Islam Christianity has its own set of essential beliefs. The Bible is the Word of God. Jesus Christ is 100 percent God and 100 percent man (the hypostatic union). He died a substitutionary death on the cross in our place to save us from our sins. He was bodily resurrected on Easter Sunday morning. Whoever believes in Him will have their sins forgiven and experience eternal life. Muslims believe that the Koran is the divine word of God. The Koran reads much like the Old Testament--same history, events and teachings. In fact, Muslims believe in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. However, Muslims believe that both Testaments have been altered by the Jews and the Christians. Wherever there are conflicts between the Bible and the Koran, the Koran takes precedent. Muslims also believe that the Koran is God’s last word to the world, and it was written by the followers of Mohammed soon after his death. Muslims believe strongly in the prophets, with Mohammed being the greatest. They believe that Jesus was a prophet sent only to the Jews.  Muslims believe in angels as messengers of God. Muslims believe that all men and women will be judged according to their works. Muslims will enter into Paradise. Non-Muslims will be condemned forever in burning fire. The Five Pillars of Islam The “Five Pillars of Islam” are the actions every Muslim is responsible for during their lifetime. However, not every Muslim group recognizes or agrees about what the five pillars are... or even how many there are.  The majority of Muslims follow the pillars recognized by the Sunni people group. The Sunnis are one of the two main branches of Islam. They seem to be a little more Orthodox than the Shias. Iran is the home for most Shias. The basic differences between the two groups focus upon who is and who isn’t one of the first three (or four) caliphs. 1. Faith: A Muslim must recite this often to show personal belief, “There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.” 2. Prayer: Prayers must be made five times a day facing Mecca. 3. Alms: 1/40 of a Muslim’s income is to be given as alms to the poor. 4. Fast: Fasting throughout the daylight hours during the time of Ramadan, a religious holiday.  5. Pilgrimage: All pilgrims must journey to Mecca sometime in their lives. Note: A large faction of Muslims hold to a Sixth Pillar known as “Jihad” or “Holy War.” In effect, this is a requirement to kill anyone who is an unbeliever--not a faithful Muslim. Incompatibility with Christianity  Islam asserts that the Gospel picture of Jesus is incorrect. They believe that the correct view was given by revelation to Mohammed. In other words, the Jesus revealed in the Koran is not the same Jesus who is portrayed in the Gospels. The Gospels clearly proclaim that Jesus is virgin-born, and therefore He is God. Islam counters with a Jesus who was simply a prophet. According to the Koran, Jesus is also a prophet only for the nation of Israel. In contrast, Mohammed is the Prophet for the whole world. The Bible declares that Jesus is the divine “Word” of God (John 1:1) who created the universe and died on the cross to forgive the sins of the world. “Word” is the Greek word logos which means “the unrevealed wisdom of God.” In John 1:14, the Bible declares that “the unrevealed wisdom of God” (Jesus) has put on an actual body.  The Koran declares that Jesus was neither killed nor crucified. Those things only “appeared” to happen. They do not believe that Jesus has anything to do with salvation or eternal life.  Islam teaches salvation by works. The number and quality of deeds is weighed at the end of life, and if good works outweigh the bad ones, the individual will go to Paradise. However, if the bad ones tip the scale, the individual will go to hell. In contrast, the Bible clearly teaches that we receive salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not because of the works we do on Earth (see Ephesians 2:8-9). Next, Mohammed’s account begins 600 years after the events of the first century. The New Testament contains eyewitness testimony of the life and ministry of Jesus. Therefore, it is more trustworthy. How We Treat Muslims  This is the kicker. No matter what others believe--no matter how they treat us or what their religious beliefs say about who we are--Jesus calls us to love them as we love ourselves. That means we treat Muslims just as Jesus wants us to treat people everywhere.  Julie and I have traveled all over the world, and I can tell you that people everywhere are the same. Most Muslims, like all of us, want to live in peace and safety. They’d like to have a good job and good health. They want good friends and neighbors. They want to watch their children grow up to be well-adjusted adults. When you see a woman wearing a burqa or a hijab, remember that the woman behind the veil is a real person just like everyone else. Love her the same.  I know that’s tough, especially because we see terror strikes by Muslim extremists in the news every day. But catch that word, “extremists.” Muslims who act in hate and violence are the minority. You do not have to fear them. “Perfect love drives out fear” (1 John 4:18). Sincerely, Roger Author’s Note: Much of the material on Islam was gleaned from the book by Josh McDowell, Answers to Tough Questions. I recommend that you look there for more helpful information. Dr. Roger Barrier retired as senior teaching pastor from Casas Church in Tucson, Arizona. In addition to being an author and sought-after conference speaker, Roger has mentored or taught thousands of pastors, missionaries, and Christian leaders worldwide. Casas Church, where Roger served throughout his thirty-five-year career, is a megachurch known for a well-integrated, multi-generational ministry. The value of including new generations is deeply ingrained throughout Casas to help the church move strongly right through the twenty-first century and beyond. Dr. Barrier holds degrees from Baylor University, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Golden Gate Seminary in Greek, religion, theology, and pastoral care. His popular book, Listening to the Voice of God, published by Bethany House, is in its second printing and is available in Thai and Portuguese. His latest work is, Got Guts? Get Godly! Pray the Prayer God Guarantees to Answer, from Xulon Press. Roger can be found blogging at Preach It, Teach It, the pastoral teaching site founded with his wife, Dr. Julie Barrier. Publication date: June 13, 2017 Photo credit: (c)Thinkstock/ferlistockphoto

WE ARE AT A TIPPING POINT, CHRISTIANS

I WILL NOT SUBMIT....by Discover Ministries

SUBMIT TO CHRIST JESUS - HE WILL SET YOU FREE!

First Corinthians 15:1-11

DON'T PUT YOURSELF UNDER BONDAGE!