Was there a flourishing Palestinian society before 1948

NOT by Bob Mendelsohn, but written by Charles Oren
Tuesday July 21, 2009

Published here
http://www.icjs-online.org/index.php?article=2007

Too many writers on ME conflict base their ideas on the premise that there was a flourishing Arab society in Palestine that was destroyed by the creation of Israel.

However, there were 200,000 Arabs here in 1830, and conditions were very bad, just as in every other part of the Ottoman Empire.

Conditions improved after 1832 when Mohamed Ali permitted infidels to buy land since he wanted European support for his campaign against Turkey. Arabs migrated to Palestine attracted by the prosperity created by Christians building churches, consuls providing law & order and then Jews draining the swamps. There were 600,000 Arabs here when the Mandate started. This grew to 1,200,000 by 1948 due to British policy to encourage Arab immigration so as to thwart Jewish efforts to create a state. Most of these 1.2 m Arabs were new immigrants, 'colonialists' just as the Jews ...... except that we returned to the only land we had ever claimed as ours in 3,000 years. Even the Koran recognises this fact.

There were few Jews here in the 19th and 20th century. However, there were 15 m Jews in the world who had dreamt of Zion for 2,000 years. However, not a single Arab anywhere considered Palestine as his or Holy !

The 1947 partition plan was based on demography. A minority of these 1.2 m Arabs lived in the area allocated to Israel, probably less than 400,000. Of these, 150,000 remained in their homes and became Israeli citizens. Hence, only 250,000 Arabs fled rather than remain under Israeli rule. The others lived in areas allocated to them, and so cannot claim refugee status since they did not flee foreign rule.

And yet, everyone repeats the claim that there were 750,000 Arab refugees in 1948 ....... but ignore the 1 m Jews expelled from Arab states.

No one mentions the populations of the countries involved in the conflict. It can be presumed that today's readers do not know that there were only 600,000 Jews here in 1948 and they had no army or weapons since the Brits had confiscated all Jewish arms.

My own grandchildren cannot grasp this!

There were about 100 m Arabs in the countries around Israel who attacked in 1948. With those odds, it should have taken them only a few weeks to drive all the Jews into the sea.

And everyone accepts that they had a right to attack Israel !

This was a war of aggression that has not yet ended. Israel has a right to defend itself and to expect compensation, in cash and/or territory.

The odds were worse in 1967!

Russia had flooded Egypt and Syria with weapons after the 1956 fiasco while there was still a very effective arms embargo on Israeli.

Israel had grown from 600,000 in 1948 to 3 m in 1967. Homes, jobs etc had to be created for all these people. Just imagine the chaos in any other country if the population suddenly tripled ! No country today is able to create even a few new jobs for their unemployed.

It is an insult to human intelligence to claim that 6 m Jews are a threat to 1,500 m Muslims who are supported by the rest of the world that depends on their oil.

And finally, UN resolutions are treated as if they are based on justice without considering the number of Muslim and Jewish states involved.

Does the universe have a beginning?

From the internet...

Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

This article is online at
http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=beginning1

For some Q and A, read
http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=id_qa

Scientific discoveries revive the ancient belief in a beginning to the universe. If we could rewind the history of the universe, what would we discover about its origin and development? Did it really have a beginning, or was it always there?

The influential ancient philosopher Aristotle stated, “It is impossible that movement should ever come into being or cease to be, for it must always have existed. Nor can time come into being or cease to be.”

Meanwhile, the biblical book of Genesis famously starts off, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

Which is it? Is the universe eternal—has it always been here? Or did it have a start at some point in time—did it have a birthday, so to speak? These are the two schools of thought that have enrolled followers since early times. (Actually, there was also a third school that postulated that the universe existed on the back of a giant sea turtle, but they’re mostly gone now.)

The seesaw of opinion has tipped one way or the other over time. But lately the weight of evidence has all been coming down on the side of the birthday universe.

In the old days when the Christian church dominated Western society, the creation of the universe was taken for granted. But slowly the scientific viewpoint pushed aside creation as well as the Creator. Now many scientists are thinking that the idea of a creation may not have been so far off from the truth as they thought. It’s looking like the universe had a beginning after all.

Remarkably, one of the first scientists to swing the pendulum of opinion back to the birthday-universe position was so entrenched in eternal-universe thinking that at first he refused to believe his own conclusions.

A GREAT BRAIN'S BIGGEST BLUNDER

When Albert Einstein developed his revolutionary theory of general relativity in 1916, his mathematical calculations pointed to an extraordinary conclusion—the universe was expanding. And since if you rewind the tape on any expansion, you get back to a point where it started, that meant the universe must have had a beginning too.1

Einstein, however, was like most scientists of his day in that he believed in an eternal universe. Unwilling to accept a beginning to the universe, Einstein fudged the numbers in order to nullify the conclusion that the universe was expanding.

University of California astrophysicist George Smoot explains that Einstein’s main problem with an expanding universe was its implication of a beginning. A beginning pointed to a beginner beyond scientific investigation.2 However, once experimental data proved that the universe really was expanding, Einstein admitted his error, calling it “the biggest blunder of my life.”3

There’s a point worth considering here: if it could happen to Einstein, it could happen to anyone. Rarely is anyone completely objective when it comes to the issue of a Creator. While it is true that religious belief and philosophy became an obstacle for scientific inquiry in the days of Galileo, trends have changed. In the modern era it has at times been a prejudice against the possibility of a cosmic designer that has kept many scientists from honest and open inquiry.

Thankfully, the truth generally comes out in the end and scientists begin to see the light. For Einstein and others, it was something called red shift that started the parade of evidence for a universe with a beginning.

RED SHIFTING THE BIG BANG THEORY INTO HIGH GEAR

In the late 1920s, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble noticed something unusual as he gazed into the heavens. It wasn’t a new planet or little green men waving at him from Mars; it was something both more tedious and at the same time more thrilling.

Hubble had been spending countless nights at the Mount Wilson Observatory, studying the stars and galaxies and especially the spectrum of color in the light they sent our way. He discovered that the light from most other galaxies was shifted to the red end of the spectrum, which indicated they were moving away from us.

Furthermore, the farther a galaxy was away from us, the more red shifted its light was and, thus, the faster it was moving away from us. The only explanation for all of this was that space itself was expanding, causing all galaxies to move away from each other. In an expanding universe, from any point in space (including our own), it would appear that most stars and galaxies were racing away. And the farther away they were, the faster they would be racing.

There it was in the red shift: proof that Einstein had been right in the first place (before he fudged his formula) and that the universe really was expanding. Proof, in other words, that the universe was not eternal but had a beginning.4

And yet not everyone accepted the proof at first, including a scientist named Sir Fred Hoyle (former Plumian professor of astronomy at Cambridge University and founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge). Ironically, it was Hoyle who originally described the event as a “big bang,” meaning to mock the idea. The name stuck. (According to physics professor Brian Greene, the term “big bang” is actually misleading since there was nothing to explode and no space in which an explosion could take place.)5 But unlike Hoyle, many other scientists began coming over to the side of the newly named theory.

The world’s leading astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking, who has held the esteemed position of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, calls Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe “one of the great intellectual revolutions of the twentieth century.”6 The discovery that the universe had a beginning has led to a new science called cosmology, which attempts to understand what happened at the origin of the universe, how it works, and what will happen in its future.

The new science led cosmologists to take another look at a seemingly mundane insight from the 19th century, the second law of thermodynamics.

THE QUESTIONS THAT FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE

Einstein’s theorems based on his theory of relativity predict that the universe could not have begun without an outside force or Beginner.14 Since Einstein’s theory of relativity ranks as the most exhaustively tested and best proven principle in physics, his conclusion is deemed correct.15

Tests from an array of radio telescopes at the South Pole have confirmed the big bang to a still higher degree of accuracy than ever before.16 Background radiation measurements exceed 99.9% of what had been predicted.17 There are now more than 30 independent confirmations that the universe had a one-time origin.18

A SECOND LAW OF FIRST IMPORTANCE

In addition to Hubble’s discovery, the second law of thermodynamics also predicts a beginning to the universe. You say you don’t know the second law of thermodynamics? Think again.

Let’s say you come into a room containing me and a bunch of your other pals, and you find a steaming cup of Starbucks coffee on the table. Being the thoughtful individual that you are, you ask, “Does this belong to anyone?”

To which I reply, “It’s been there for the last month.”

Well, you’d know immediately I was wrong or lying (probably lying). Why? Because the coffee wouldn’t still be hot if it had been there for a month; it would be room temperature.

That’s the second law of thermodynamics in action. This law states that everything continually moves from a state of order to disorder and that heat and energy dissipate over time. This is a law that has been verified by proof after scientific proof and has never been shown to be wrong.

Now let’s apply this law to the universe, just as cosmologists have. If the universe were eternal, it would have gone cold and lifeless long ago. The stars would have burned out. Planets would have broken up into clouds of dust. And even the black holes would have ceased vacuuming the universe of unsightly stars and planets.

When you see flaming suns and scorching meteors, in other words, you’re looking at a steaming cup of coffee that over infinite time would have long since gone room temperature. Since the universe is still full of pockets of heat and energy, it cannot be eternal. Who would have thought heat would be such a helpful clue? And that is just the half of it.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TV INTERFERENCE

There is still another way that the measurement of heat help to prove that the universe is expanding. In the spring of 1964, two researchers at Bell Labs observed a persistent hiss while testing their microwave radiation detector. Regardless of which direction they pointed the antenna, the static was the same. (This is the same static as TV interference. The same static that was supposed to be gone when I paid $150 to have my satellite dish installed.) Those men, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, had discovered what scientists say is the echo from the birth of the universe.7

But how could scientists know for sure that the hiss they were hearing was actually an echo from the beginning of the universe? Mathematicians calculated that heat generated at the moment the universe began would have been enormous beyond comprehension. This heat would have gradually dissipated over the life of the cosmos, leaving only a tiny residual of about 3 degrees Kelvin (-270 degrees C).

Additionally, in order for galaxies to have formed by the explosion needed to have slight variations in the form of waves or ripples.

According to George Smoot, these ripples would result in very slight fluctuations in the predicted temperature and would reveal an identifiable pattern.8 Thus, if the temperatures matched up, the birth of the universe would be scientifically verified. Merely discovering the temperature to be 3 degrees Kelvin would not prove that the universe actually had a beginning, the fluctuations also needed to match.9

But how could we verify fluctuations so subtle?

THE GREATEST DISCOVERY OF ALL TIME?

In 1992, a team of astrophysicists led by Smoot launched the COBE satellite in order to verify the temperatures in space. The satellite would be able to take precise measurements and determine whether fluctuations in temperature existed.

The results stunned the scientific world. Not only was the three-degree temperature confirmed, but more importantly, the profiles of the fluctuations were discovered to be a match with what had been expected.10 Hawking called the discovery “the scientific discovery of the century, if not all time.” Smoot himself excitedly stated to newspaper reporters, “What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.”11 He also said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”12

Astounded by the news, Ted Koppel began his ABC Nightline television program with an astronomer quoting the first two verses of the Bible. The other special guest, a physicist, immediately added his quote of the third Bible verse: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. … And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Genesis 1:1, 3).13

Evidence like that provided by the COBE satellite raises some intriguing questions, to say the least.

New telescopes such as the infrared Spitzer Space Telescope, launched in 2003, have opened up even bigger windows to our universe. They have prompted astronomer Giovanni Fazio, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, to remark, “We are now able for the first time to lift the cosmic veil that has blocked our view.”19

As a result of the accumulating evidence, the scientific community has long since begun asking questions about origins, such as the following:

• What was there before the big bang?

• Why did the big bang result in a universe enabling life to exist?

• How could everything originate from nothing?

Smoot ponders what was there before the beginning: “Go back further still, beyond the moment of creation—what then? What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began?”20 The same astrophysicist notes that “until the late 1910’s … those who didn’t take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning.”21 The Genesis account of creation and the big bang theory both speak of everything coming from nothing. Suddenly the Bible and science agree (a discovery somewhat embarrassing to materialists). Smoot admits, “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”22

The evidence had begun to add up, and some scientists weren’t liking the sum.

A ONE TIME BEGINNING

Hoyle and other scientists fervently pursued alternative explanations to a one-time origin of the universe. Eventually, however, the evidence showed clearly that the universe had a beginning, and the big bang theory was proclaimed victorious. Ironically, it was evidence from Hoyle’s own research that helped confirm that the universe had a one-time beginning.
TRYING TO AVOID THE BAD DREAM

A beginning to the universe was like a bad dream come true for materialists who wanted to believe everything had always existed. It brought scientists face to face with the loical conclusions that primary cause must exist. That argument is a simple logical syllogism:

1. Everything that has a beginning had a cause.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

But admitting a cause leads to the next logical question: who or what is the cause?

Think about it for a minute. Since time, space, matter, and motion are all a part of the created universe, then before the beginning it was timeless, spaceless, and motionless.

What can happen spontaneously from this state of affairs? There’s nothing moving, there’s nothing colliding, there’s … well, nothing. Not even the potential for anything to happen.

The fact everything came from nothing has forced scientists to acknowledge that something outside of space and time, something very powerful and with apparent volition, must have acted to bring about the beginning. That is, there must have been an intelligent Designer of the universe. Some might go ahead and use the name God for this Creator.

Well, in certain academic circles, this line of reasoning simply won’t do. Thus it is that many materialists have looked for a way to prove that the universe didn’t have a beginning. Smoot remarks, “Cosmologists have long struggled to avoid this bad dream by seeking explanations of the universe that avoid the necessity of a beginning.”23

Sir Fred Hoyle (he who mockingly coined the term “big bang”) was one scientist who strongly opposed the concept of a beginning for the universe. In 1948 Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold joined Hoyle in postulating that matter was in a continual state of creation. They called their idea the steady state theory, which was an attempt to show that the universe is eternal after all, even though the evidence had long been trending against such a view. However, the COBE discovery of background radiation was the fatal blow to the steady state theory. 24

Next came the oscillating-universe theory. According to this concept, the universe explodes, contracts, and explodes again, eternally yo-yoing. This would be another way to permit a belief in the eternal existence of the universe. But the physics for this theory didn’t work.

More recently, some scientists, including Hawking, have begun considering the so-called multiverse theory. This theory accepts that our universe is finite, but it suggests that ours is just one of many universes. The whole multi-universe may be eternal, according to this theory, even though our particular universe is not. This theory is covered in more depth in another article in this magazine, but the key point to understand about it right now is that it has no evidence whatsoever to support it.

These theories fit neatly with the philosophy of materialism, whereas a beginning of the universe would raise the obvious question, who was there to start it? Professor Dennis Sciama, Hawking’s supervisor while he was at Cambridge, admits his reasons for supporting the steady state theory: “I was a supporter of the steady state theory, not in the sense that I believed that it had to be true, but in that I found it so attractive I wanted it to be true.”25

An origin of the universe meant materialists were suddenly faced with the questions that threatened their worldview.

Today most cosmologists and physicists accept the big bang theory as the scientific explanation of how our universe began. In fact, scientists believe they can trace the history of the universe all the way back to 10-43 of a second. Prior to that point in the history of our universe, all of our current theories break down and science can see no further back. The very beginning of the universe remains a mystery.

Imagine rewinding the universe back to its beginning, a time when there were no stars. No light, matter, or energy. Not even space or time. Suddenly an enormous explosion erupted from this nothingness at a temperature exceeding a million trillion trillion degrees.26 Time begins along with matter, energy, and space.

When a bomb ejects shrapnel into the air, both the bomb material and the space it blows into have already been there. However, in the beginning of the universe, neither space nor matter existed until the explosion. The space surface of the universe and the newly created matter came into existence.

According to the big bang theory, this explosion launched the entire universe, from the most distant galaxy, to the most colorful nebula, to quasars flashing like beacons, to our own comforting sun and nearby planets, to you and me with our questions about where we came from and what it all means. Since man alone thinks about the meaning and purpose of life, the beginning—and the cause of that beginning—must be fascinating to each one of us.

The verdict is in on the question of whether the universe is eternal or had a beginning. The idea that everything in the cosmos originated out of nothing seems mythical, yet it is now mainstream science.

ENDNOTES

1. Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe (New York: Vintage, 2000), 81-82.

2. George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time (New York: Avon, 1993), 36.

3. Greene, 81-82.

4. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1990), 38-51.

5. Greene, 83.

6. Hawking, 39.

7. Smoot, 80-83.

8. Ibid., 187.

9. Ibid., 240.

10. Ibid., 241.

11. Associated Press, “U.S. Scientists Find a ‘Holy Grail’: Ripples at the Edge of the Universe,” International
Herald Tribune (London), April 24, 1992, 1.

12. Thomas H. Maugh II, “Relics of ‘Big Bang’ Seen for First Time,” Los Angeles Times, April 1992, A1, A30.

13. Nightline with Ted Koppel, ABC, April 25, 1992.

14. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 224.

15. Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 230.

16. E. M. Leitch et al., “Measurement of Polarization with the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer,” Nature 420 (2002): 772-87; J. M. Kovac et al., “Detection of Polarization in the Cosmic Microwave Background Using DASI,” Nature 420 (2002): 772-87; Matias Zalarriaga, “Background Comes to the Fore,” Nature 420 (2002): 747-48.

17. Gregg Easterbrook, “Before the Big Bang,” U.S. News & World Report special edition, 2003, 16.

18. Hugh Ross, “Big Bang Passes Test,” Connections, Qtr 2, 2003.

19. Paul Recer, “Newest Space Telescope: The Spitzer,” Seattle Post Intelligencer, December 19, 2003, A17.

20. Smoot, 291.

21. Ibid., 30.

22. Ibid., 17.

23. Ibid., 291

24. Ibid. 86.

25. Stephen Hawking, ed., Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time: A Reader’s Companion (New York: Bantam, 1992), 63.

26. Bradford A. Smith, “New Eyes on the Universe,” National Geographic, January 1994, 33.

Jewish Christians in the Church?

Beth Hatefutsoth is the diaspora museum in Tel Aviv, Israel. The picture's caption reads:

Jews and Jewish-Christians prepare to worship at the Great Synagogue of Antioch, Syria, 4th century. Chrysostom, one of the fathers of the Church, reproves the Christians and demands that they separate from the Jews.

---Diorama, Beth Hatefutsoth, Permanent Exhibition

When I saw this diorama in Israel in 1983, I was amazed. Here was evidence in the 4th century of the reality that so many knock back...Jews for Jesus. Messianic Jews existed then and now, and caused a stir in each.

Rodney Stark makes a big deal, as do many about St John of Antioch, later titled Chrysostom (Golden tongue). According to Wikipedia, During his first two years as a presbyter in Antioch (386-387), Chrysostom denounced Jews and Judaizing Christians in a series of eight sermons delivered to Christians in his congregation who were taking part in Jewish festivals and other Jewish observances.[See Wilken, p.xv, and also "John Chrysostom" in Encyclopedia Judaica] It is disputed whether the main target were specifically Judaizers or Jews in general. His homilies were expressed in the conventional manner, utilizing the uncompromising rhetorical form known as the psogos (Greek: blame).

One of the purposes of these homilies was to prevent Christians from participating in Jewish customs, and thus prevent the perceived erosion of Chrysostom's flock. In his sermons, Chrysostom criticized those "Judaizing Christians", who were participating in Jewish festivals and taking part in other Jewish observances, such as the shabbat, submitted to circumcision and made pilgrimage to Jewish holy places.

Chrysostom claimed that on the shabbats and Jewish festivals synagogues were full of Christians, especially women, who loved the solemnity of the Jewish liturgy, enjoyed listening to the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, and applauded famous preachers in accordance with the contemporary custom.[37] A more recent apologetic theory is that he instead tried to persuade Jewish Christians, who for centuries had kept connections with Jews and Judaism, to choose between Judaism and Christianity. ( Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity. How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries, (Princeton University Press:1997)p.66-67.)

I'm not writing about church antisemitism against Jewish people today. That is abundant and shamefully abundantly clear throughout the centuries. What I'm referencing is church antisemitism against Jewish believers in Jesus today. And in 350 AD and that's not good by any means.

Chrysostom wanted Jewish believers to separate from the historic Jewish community and there are too many Christian pastors who want us to do the same. Quit eating kosher; quit keeping Shabbat; come over to our side. The title of the diorama was "Bear the Cross"... leave Judaism. Be one of us.

Friends, even the word 'Judaize' is a slur word. Judaize would mean to do Jewish things, or to invite others to do the same. It might even mean to "become Jewish." What exactly is wrong with that? The theme in the book of Galatians warrants another word--"legalize", or to 'seek favour with God by means of works' rather than by faith. But to name this action "judaizing" is a demeaning of the people to whom God gave the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Messiah according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 9.4-5)

The Church has been guilty in so many places of demeaning Jewish people, here in Australia, and around the world. God help the church to stop the wrong of St John of Antioch, to stop the wrong of the Spanish Inquisition (which targeted Jewish Christians, along with Islam converts as well), to stop the wrong of these days. Let Jewish believers practice their faith as they desire. Don't make me eat ham; don't discourage my celebrating Rosh Hashanah. Help us focus our practices and life and culture on Messiah Y'shua, the Saviour of the world and King of Kings.

Jews and Jesus. The Great Divide

AmyJill Levine and BobSydney
Originally uploaded by bobmendo

Jewish people all over the world are thinking about Jesus in unprecedented numbers, and it's not because they believe in him as messiah and Lord. And it may not be because of godly evangelistic campaigns worldwide. Since the turn of the 20th century Jewish academics and theologians have been revisiting the identity and the work and ministry of the Nazarene.

And how significant is that? Today I was witnessing in Bondi Junction, nearby our book shop in Sydney. And three young chassidim, ultra-orthodox Jewish men, were readying themselves for Shabbat. They were out to share what they believed as was I. One wanted to know if I had wrapped myself with tefillin that morning; another wanted to know why I believed in Jesus. But to even mention Jesus with a bit of honour was a surprise. The third used the derogatory slur "Yoshke" for Jesus and I corrected him. He recanted. He started calling him "Y'shua."

Wow, Orthodox Jewish people using the name Y'shua with honour and respect. I was surprised and delighted.

Last night I went to a lecture delievered by my recent friend Amy-Jill Levine (photo). She and I met last year about this time, and spent some good time discussing the issues of Jewish people and faith in Jesus. She had no problem discussing, she knew the terms, the parables, the words of Jesus and the apostles. And spoke them to me without a blink.

Sure, AJ is an academic. And her field of study and professorship is New Testament at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. So it should come as no surprise, except, wait a minute. AJ attends an Orthodox synagogue in Nashville. She's a faithful Jew. She does not believe in Jesus like I do, and tens of thousands of others of us.

So why the apparent comfort in discussing the issues? Isn't the Jesus of the New Testament the great divider? So how can centrist Jewish people who would radically disagree with our theological conclusions be comfortable in using his name and his parables, like it's a series of poems from Keats or stories from John Grisham.

Donald Hagner wrote about this phenomenon in the 1980s. He posited that the reclamationists, those Jewish academics like Neusner and Flusser and (he didn't know her then) AJ, accepted the ethics of Jesus, as little more than Talmudic Judaism re-tooled. But they refused the eschaton of Jesus, that part of the New Testament which allows him to claim to be the only way to the Father. His claims to be the Messiah. His claims to be the fulfillment of biblical Jewish desire for the consummation of all things.

In the Q and A session last night, a Holocaust survivor, a Mr Goldberg couldn't quite figure out what our lecturer was saying. He chronicled his own story from cheder in Poland to Auschwitz at 16 to learning of his parents' death inside the camps. He was saying he was a sufficiently schooled and real Jew, who although he didn't practice his religion and didn't really believe in God, wondered if AJ was using the parables of Jesus to bring Jews like him to believe in Jesus. Is that so? She denied it. Of course. She made it very clear that she found Jesus to be a serious Jewish teacher, not a liberal Jew, not a Roman-obsessed revolutionary. But not God.

It's a great conversation. It's all about the Great Divider. Hear these two quotes.
John 7.43 So there arose a division in the multitude because of Him.
John 10.19 There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words.
Seems that everywhere the real Jesus went, some believed and some didn't.

And that continued last night in Bondi, and today in Bondi Junction, and among people of good will and ill will, and throughout the world.

So what do you think? Who do you think Jesus is?

Coverups and Mystery...it's all so secret...tell me on a Sunday

Seymour Sign City Road
Originally uploaded by bobmendo

The secret things; coverups and mystery... and a revelation

This week news presenters and reporters in the US had a go at President Barack Obama over his smoking habits. He in reply admitted that it was a persistent problem, that he had licked it 95% of the time and that he never smoked in front of the children or his family. That sounded good. That sounded honest. What precipitated this was a bunch of obfuscating, dance-around-the-issue answering that he had given only days before. And he had promised his wife, First Lady Michelle Obama, that he would quit, if she let him run for president so many years earlier.

What prompted this series of Q-and-A was a major health care bill before Congress just now which includes a serious ban on advertising for young people, so that they never get started on cigarette smoking.

In another secrecy caper, Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina admitted to having a year-long affair with a woman in Argentina. Mr. Sanford said he had taken an unplanned trip to the South American country to recharge after a difficult legislative session in which he battled with lawmakers over accepting a portion of the federal stimulus funding. But that was not true. He went to see his mistress in Buenos Aires. The rising star of the Republican party knocked himself out of future candidacies and future fame in exchange for... a secret affair. If he had only titled it "adultery" rather than "an affair" it might have sounded far worse, but not to worry. His exchange of vocabulary is only the beginning of his troubles.

State Senator John Knotts blew the whistle on Sanford. He began investigating because he was worried about the missing executive, in case of a crisis that required swift decisions and Sanford had left no one in charge. Senator Knotts said that he was content to learn that the governor had been hiking on the Appalachian Trail, and would be coming home Wednesday. But when he learned Wednesday morning that the governor was actually in Argentina, he added: “It all could have been avoided if his staff started out not trying to cover up for him.”

Cover-ups and secrecy. The very word "Watergate" comes to mind. In fact, adding 'gate' to anything gives any secret the same juicy news-cycle rendering. Perhaps Obama will have 'smokinggate' or Sanford his 'Appal-tina-gate'. No matter, someone will spin things nicely, and they will both land on safe 'happily ever after' comfort. At least that's the usual for Dianas and Kennedys and even the US Veep, Joe Biden, after his 1992 plagiarism fiasco. We all forget. We're all human after all.

Mystery surrounds hidden things. Consider the case of Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue tunnel, closed since the middle of the 19th century, but still holding fascinating tales of German gas production and diaries of presidential assassins. What else lies beneath a major metropolitan area? How about the case of Prime Minister Harold Holt? The Australian Prime Minister Holt vanished in 1967 while swimming off the coast of the state of Victoria. His body was never recovered. Dozens of wild and strange theories about his disappearance quickly developed. Some people believed he committed suicide or faked suicide to live in Switzerland with his lover. Other rumors included a shark attack, a Chinese submarine kidnapping him and a CIA assassination plot.

We love mystery. We watch CSI and The Mentalist, before it was Alfred Hitchcock and Sherlock Holmes books-turned-movies. We want mystery AND we want them solved. Sometimes in 300 pages; more often lately in 55 minutes including commercials.

One of my favourite Bible books is the one ascribed to Daniel, the prophet. He was a young Jewish man, a political prisoner for a time in Babylon (ancient Iraq) who went to what we might call university with three other mates. While in jail, an offer came to interpret a dream. Here are some select passages to highlight what happened:

Now in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; and his spirit was troubled and his sleep left him. Then the king gave orders to call in the magicians, the conjurers, the sorcerers and the Chaldeans, to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king. (Chapter 2, verses 1 and 2)

Word got out that Nebuchadnezzar demanded that the interpreter of his dream not only had to interpret, but to reveal the dream. In other words, he had to know both what the king dreamed, but then to interpret what it meant. Daniel got the idea to ask his friends to pray for him.

Dan. 2.18 in order that they might request compassion from the God of heaven concerning this mystery, so that Daniel and his friends might not be destroyed with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.
Dan. 2.19 Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven;
Dan. 2.27 Daniel answered before the king and said, “As for the mystery about which the king has inquired, neither wise men, conjurers, magicians, nor diviners are able to declare it to the king.
Dan. 2.30 “But as for me, this mystery has not been revealed to me for any wisdom residing in me more than in any other living man, but for the purpose of making the interpretation known to the king, and that you may understand the thoughts of your mind.
Dan. 2.47 The king answered Daniel and said, “Surely your God is a God of gods and a Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, since you have been able to reveal this mystery.”

Wow, what a heavy, what a day! "Dream-gate" was settled, and Daniel and his friends got seriously rewarded.

Dan. 2.48 Then the king promoted Daniel and gave him many great gifts, and he made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon.
Dan. 2.49 And Daniel made request of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego over the administration of the province of Babylon, while Daniel was at the king’s court.

The rest of the book of Daniel is pretty remarkable as well. And it takes less time to read than an episode of "Law and Order."

One serious mystery Daniel addressed was the coming of the Messiah. This topic is one of the most interesting and time-consuming secrets of the Jewish Bible.

Here's what Daniel wrote in chapter 9 of his book:

“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place. So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary." (Chapter 9, verses 24-26)

Let's see if I can break down "Messiah-gate" with some precision.

According to this text, from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the coming of the Messiah there will be:
7 + 62 "weeks"= 69 groups of seven years so 7 x 69 = 483 years

For Jewish people, a year is 360 days.

483 years x 360 days in a year= 173,880 days

When was the decree to rebuild Jerusalem?

The decree to rebuild Jerusalem was given on the first day of Nisan, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Nehemiah 2:1).
In our Western calendar system (the Julian calendar) that date is 14 March, 445 B.C.E.

The total number of days from 14 March 445 BCE to 6 April 32 CE.: 173,880 days

No wonder Jewish boys don't read this section until they are 30.

No wonder this information is secret.

It appears that the coming of the Messiah, that his very death is predicted with uncanny precision, to fall out in April, during Passover, 32 CE (or 32 AD) The mystery is revealed, a person is going to die (be cut off) from the Jewish people at an exact moment in history, and that will accomplish what has never been done before, "to make atonement for iniquity, to make an end of sin."

Wow, someone is going to die for our sins and bring us to God.

In 32 CE.

In Jerusalem ('the most holy place").

Seems clear to me.

Does it to you? Has the smoke cleared? Has the gate been revealed?

So many more prophecies are out there. The X-Files wondered about the truth "being out there." And now you know. And now you can find out more.

That's good news for you. And for me. And for any humble enough to ask God himself. He won't keep secrets things from you.

Moses told us in Torah: Deut. 29.29 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons."

Y'shua said it this way, "Ask and it shall be given." (Matthew chapter 7, verse 7) He loves to reveal things to you and to know you, and to be known by you. Want eternal life? It's all a prayer away.

Manipulation: Can Somebody Say ‘Amen?’

by Bob Mendelsohn
National Director, Jews for Jesus Australia

I’d never been to a physical therapist until last year. One Friday afternoon I slipped on some concrete and landed on my elbow. That elbow crashing into the ground forced my shoulder blade out of alignment, and my Supraspinatus tendon was torn from its rightful location. The pain was pretty severe that night and subsided over the next week or so, but it never really has gone completely away.

As a result and with some encouragement from some friends, I went to go see a physio. And the therapist seemed to help me in my visits to her. While I was standing at the reception to pay my first bill I saw the assortment of certificates and licenses that the therapist had achieved and the noble institutions from which she had graduated.

But then I saw her category of graduation and the titles of her degrees. And the one that struck me was her degree in “Manipulative Therapy.” Now I’d never heard of such a thing, and I was fascinated. All my life I’d heard that manipulation was a bad thing. Getting someone to do what they don’t naturally want to do and doing it in a deceptive manner, that seemed to be the definition, or at least the street rendering, of the word manipulation. But here I paid good money to have someone manipulate me. And that got me thinking.

There was always something inside me against television as I grew in my faith and desired to live a godly life. Oh of course there are many blessings in it. There’s no end to the possibilities of communicating the Gospel of Y’shua through the agency of television either on rented shows or hired advertisements and commercials. The beauty of film and television and telling stories is well chronicled. And Christian TV is a great boon to evangelism possibilities in Australia.

Nevertheless there are an abundance of television critics and they are increasing in number. Of note are sociologists like Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn who wrote “A Stranger’s Dream: the Virtual Self and the Socialization Crisis.” Also Sam van Eman who wrote “On Earth as it is in Advertising: Moving from Commercial Hype to Gospel Hope.” Their critique of television and its effects are well worth reading and considering.
I probably had only been a Christian for a year or two and was in an African-American church in Kansas City. Things were moving and shaking. The people were enthused about the Gospel and were clapping and shouting and making a joyful noise. They were doing everything right. However, at that time I had a view of Christianity that did not include that particular kind of expression. Why not? I really don’t remember. Perhaps I felt that the only version of Christianity that was right was the one in which I had come to faith. Perhaps it involved more young people or guitars and not organs. Maybe the style of sermon was more conversational and more of a Bible study than this kind, which was a shouting “amen-corner” experience.

Whatever the case I felt that the sermon was filled with manipulations. The pastor would say “Can I get a witness?” and everybody would shout “Amen!” At times it felt contrived. And I wondered if the people were even listening at all. I was reminded of Bill Cosby who talked about being in church and learning the phrases and responses for which he was responsible so that he could detach himself from participating in the service until those moments came. That whole matter of fitting in and looking good is for another article but for now it’s the Pavlovian requirements that can often be manipulative.

I have a friend named Steve who used to imitate the people in those churches. “Turn to the man next to you (and he would encourage us to turn) and say to them “I’m a child of God (we’d repeat: “I’m a child of God”). You’re a child of God (You’re a child of God). And God loves you and so do I (And God loves you and so do I)…” then Steve would add, “I will not (I will not) be manipulated (be manipulated) to repeat other people’s words (to repeat….).” You get it. Although it was in jest, I always felt that there was something to Steve’s perception about pastoral “guidance.”
What is it about manipulation that we detest? After all, we boast about how intelligent we have become as a human race. We read and watch the Internet; we know more about the inner workings of football clubs and scandal-ridden businesses than ever before. So if anyone is going to fall prey to manipulation, it should not be us, right?

And yet, there is a sucker born every minute, a quote (wrongly) attributed to PT Barnum. Whoever said it (MC McDonald, “Paper Collar” Joe Bessimer or Barnum’s archrival Adam Forepaugh); there is still a thought in there, which rings a bell. We recognize the nature of man to try to dominate and to make a person do what he doesn’t naturally want to do. We’ve known this since we were children and did not want to eat our vegetables contrary to our parents’ insistence. We didn’t want to write that essay or sit that exam. And yet, we did them. Were we manipulated or what?

I suppose we have to look at the differences between education or training and manipulation. We have to see the sociology of group behaviour and understand how people relate in all kinds of situations. And that’s a worthy exercise, unfortunately, not for this article. Maybe a more worthy enterprise just now would be to consider how God oversees us, makes us to do what we ought to do, and what our response has been and should be.

The apostle Paul wrote, “it is God who causes us to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2.13) Does that mean we are puppets? Not at all. The apostle continues with the command “Do all things without grumbling or disputing” and again, “I urge you, rejoice in the same way and share your joy with me.” (v. 14, v. 18)
We have a God who cares enough about us, who wants the best for us, that he gets involved and creates situations and opportunities for us by which our choices fall right in line with his best desires for us. And we have a responsibility and opportunity to respond to his sponsorship in this regard.

So God leads us from the inside, from our deepest spirit, to do what he wanted all along. And that’s a big difference from Old Covenant consideration. In the Torah, we see nothing of the kind.

Back in the Older Testament, Israel was responsible to perform God’s bidding. It’s almost as if we were instructed and then sent out to perform. Israel, you were… now you must be different. What’s missing? The assistance of the Holy Spirit is not there, to be sure. No wonder the prophet Jeremiah makes such a big point of the difference in Old and New Covenants in chapter 31.

Some struggle with the idea of being adjustable.

“Openness is essentially the willingness to grow, a distaste for ruts, eagerly standing on top-toe for a better view of what tomorrow brings. A man once bought a new radio, brought it home, placed it on the refrigerator, plugged it in, turned it to WSM in Nashville (home of the Grand Ole Opry), and then pulled all the knobs off! He had already tuned in all he ever wanted or expected to hear. Some marriages are "rutted" and rather dreary because either or both partners have yielded to the tyranny of the inevitable, "what has been will still be." Stay open to newness. Stay open to change.” (Grady Nutt, in Homemade, July 1990)

Rather than dominating or locking us into something we are not sure about or manipulating us, God leads us. He is the Good Shepherd who calls us to follow Him. He gives us information and guidance and although at times the pressure seems to increase in light of His information, He is ever the Gentlemen, ever the Free Will extender.
Here’s the key-- when God tells us to do something, we have the power to accomplish it, AND we ought to do it. Flee immorality, love the brethren, receive Jesus as Saviour, care for the poor, etc. Those are commands with great consequence for obedience and severe consequences for disobedience. God will allow us to make the choice to obey or to disobey. With each choice comes further choices and with each result comes further personal development and character. We become more callous or softer to His word.

I remember a brother telling me about an issue he had with me some years ago. He asked me if he could tell me something. I said, “Sure.” He said, ‘No wait, if I tell you, then you are responsible to do what God requires. If I don’t tell you, you may not know.” In other words we become responsible for what we hear, and he wanted to give me a choice. Of course, if I chose not to hear, that’s another matter, and would lead to more callousness, but that’s another story.

At the end of this article, can I get an ‘amen’ from you? Are you thinking, or simply knee-jerk reacting to the sounds of the preacher?

You decide. And that will make all the difference in the (your) world.


-----------------------
Bob Mendelsohn directs the work of Jews for Jesus in Australasia including Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. He was raised an Orthodox Jew in the US, and came to Christ in 1971. He is married and has three children. The family all lives in Sydney.

Pope visits Israel

Is it good for the Jews? This is the number one question Jewish people ask when given almost any new situation particularly media reports about Israel. A new movie comes out and tells us about the Holocaust, and Jewish people ask, “Is it good for the Jews?” Wayne Swan our treasurer reports a new budget, and there is a deficit, and we wonder about our own situation, and then we question, “is it good for the Jews?” The pope comes to Israel and Jewish people worldwide mutter, “is it good for the Jews?” A Jewish man owns a Melbourne football club, and he comes under scrutiny from the courts. The club asks, “What is happening with our club?” but the Jews ask, “is it good for the Jews?”

The pope’s recent visit highlights the shrinking numbers of historic Christians in the region. Although there are three world religions based in that region, only Christianity and Judaism have founders who were there. Mohammed never visited Jerusalem, nor is it mentioned in the Koran. Even so, the pope sought to reach out to the Muslims in an uncomfortable way. Still, he had to notice the shrinking of Christian presence.

According to John Allen, Jr, senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter and senior Vatican analyst for CNN, “in 1948, Christians represented 20 percent of the population in what is now Israel. Today, he says, less than 2 percent. (150,000) Amidst the 6.4 million Jews and four million Palestinians.

Allen cites a 2005 study in Bethlehem, where the Christian percentage of the population has fallen from 80 to 20 percent, concluded that Christians’ middle-class status and higher education were the most important contributors to their emigration. But what of Muslim pressure to leave?

Some observers believe that if Christianity disappears, the prospects for peace become that much dimmer. Though they were a minority since the rise of Islam in the 7th century, Arab Christians have long played a leading role in the region’s social, political and economic affairs. For example, Syrian Michel Aflaq, the intellectual founder of the Ba’ath Party, was born in Damascus in 1910 to Christian parents. Literary theorist and Palestinian activist Edward Said likewise has Christian parentage.

The reality of Christian influence in the region is unmistakable. Their growth in numbers, and return to the Land may be something for which Alive readers dream and pray.

Pope Benedict XVI landed in Israel in May and immediately entangled himself in the political mire, which is modern Israel. After he lauded the role of security and peace between ‘both’ peoples (Arabs and Israelis), he commented on the evils of anti-Semitism. He called for peace and then sat down. Unlike most of us, he’s not there as a single tourist. He was not a private citizen of Rome. He’s a representative of a billion people on the planet. So when a Muslim activist, Taysir Tamimi spoke for 10 minutes (unscheduled) about the evil of Israel’s occupation, the pontiff was required to respond. He did not. Tamimi said, “Christians and Muslims must work together against Israel.” That’s no security and that’s not peace.

All the while, Jewish people wonder to themselves or aloud, “Is it good for the Jews?”
David Brickner is the leader of Jews for Jesus international and wrote in the February 2009 Australian (JFJ) newsletter about the plight of the persecuted church in Israel. He too says, “The Arab church is rapidly shrinking out of existence. They are being squeezed and pummeled by an increasingly extreme and strident form of Islam, a process that currently seems to be unchecked by an Israeli government that is struggling to cope with numerous political matters.”

Brickner reminds the readers not only of the persecution of Arab Christians, but also of Jewish Christians. Today only 15,000 Israeli Jews are following Jesus as Messiah and Lord. (Reported in Time magazine, 6 June 2008) That’s a big step up from the 3,000 in 1980, but still it’s a far cry from having reached the general populace. Less than one tenth of one percent believe in our Messiah. We have a lot of work to do. He says, “I must admit I felt hesitant about pointing out the persecution that Jewish and Arab believers in Jesus undergo in Israel. I don’t want any of our friends who read this newsletter to misunderstand or jump to conclusions about who and how many are to blame.” Yet it is true, radical Islamists are pushing the envelope using political expediency and gaining world opinion about being the persecuted, instead of the Church, the true believers in the Lord of Heaven and Earth. After citing various episodes of attack, Brickner calls on all believers to pray on behalf of those in distress.

So what is good for the Jews about that?

The ‘good’ is this: according to Brickner, “more Jewish people are open to the gospel than ever before.”

Last year alone tens of thousands of Israelis heard the Gospel directly via Gospel tract on the streets, as well as via phone or mail. No doubt hundreds of thousands of others heard or saw the Gospel from bus and billboard advertisements, from the Morning Talk Shows, and radio adverts--more than ever before. Even as I write this article on the heels of the papal visit to the Land, Jews for Jesus is conducting the third of 12 evangelistic campaign outreaches in another region of Israel, Upper Shefelah. Jewish believers from Israel and from outside the Land are gathered in that historic area and proclaiming the Saviour among Jews, especially Russian Jews, like never before.
There are now over 100 messianic communities and Bible groups meeting from Dan to Beersheba (the biblical way of saying from the northernmost north to the southernmost south). Each of those is constricted by Jewish and Muslim hostility. Each of those is seeking to bring the Gospel to their own. Each of those reports growth and life from heaven as a result of believers’ prayers.

It’s not only happening in Israel, but that’s the focus of this article. We are seeing and hearing about Jewish people in Far East Russia, even the leader of the synagogue in a significant village, who have come to faith in Jesus. We have heard about Jews in Argentina, and Adelaide and Sweden who are now following Jesus. How awesome is God to bring many in the last days to Himself.

We still have a lot of work to do.

The Gospel has to go to the ends of the earth before the end comes.

Larry Derfner is a feature writer for The Jerusalem Post. Derfner admits to being left-wing and a nouveau-Israelophile. He was born in the US but moved to Israel and served in the army, got married, found a job and settled there. As a writer, he covers a wide range of topics, including most recently Messianic Jews (Jews who believe in Jesus as Messiah).

He had an opinion based on popular caricaturing of our being (Aussie term) Bible bashers and anti-government. He intended to run an exposé similar to one of another feature write for the Hebrew daily Yediot Aharanot. She had gone ‘undercover’ in three different messianic congregations and then wrote false information and painting us as unstable. Derfner’s intention was similar, but he would not go undercover. He went above board. And then what he found in his research and reporting was markedly different to the Yediot report.

He says, “they are a benign bunch- native Israelis and immigrants- who were spiritually hungry and found a new ‘faith community.’” He continues, “In a way it’s kind of ironic. They are so shunned by the Israeli establishment, but in their neighborhoods, nobody hassles them.” The “official attitude is not approval, it is disapproval.” Yet his conclusion is “the music is beautiful. People are praying and they are so into it. How can you not like that? How can you not like them?”
Reports from Jewish Christian television hosts Jeffrey Seif (Zola Levitt Presents), David Chagall (The Last Hour), Neil and Jamie Lash (Jewish Jewels) and Jonathan Bernis (Jewish Voice Today) all report significant outreach and personal ministry in the Land of Israel. We hope to write more about those ministries in the months to come. For now, rejoice with us that Jews (and others) are finding Jesus as Saviour and Lord, and although persecution comes, Jesus is indeed ‘good for the Jews!’

Footnotes:
J Allen quotes and references from CNN online edition, World section, 11 May 2009
Brickner quotes are from Volume 10:4, Jews for Jesus newsletter, Sydney, February 2009
Derfner quotes are from Jerusalem Post, 8 August 2008)