Catholic Patriarch-No to Judaization of Jerusalem

IMRA ^ | 2-1-04 | Ahmad F. ZAHRA

[SJackson]

Catholic Patriarch-No to Judaization of Jerusalem

Abu Dhabi 31-01 (SANA-Official Syrian News Agency)

www.sana-syria.com/english/headlines/catholic_patriarch.htm

Patriarch Lutfi Laham of the Roman Catholics in the occupied Palestinian lands urged for maintaining the Arab identity of the occupied city of Jerusalem and facing attempts to Judaize the sacred city.

Patriarch Laham, in an interview published Saturday in the Emirates "Al-Khalij" daily, said Jerusalem is an Arab city and the capital of faiths for Moslems and Christians.

The Patriarch called for deepening a constructive dialogue of civilizations as well as boosting culture and trade interaction between the Arab countries and Europe, warning against Zionist Christians as they are Zionists not Christians.

Ahmad F. ZAHRA

[SJackson]

Thanks for the clarifications

[montag813]

What?! Arab Christians are among the most dedicated, conservative Christian confessions. Americans with Arab roots are among the strongest opponents of abortion in this country

I was speaking very spcifically of Arabs within the Church in the "occupied territories" of Israel. They are notoriously subservient to the Palestinian Authority--a political vassal closer to Arafat than to Rome.

[Ann Archy]

And when was he EVER called Patriarch of Rome...please provide facts....thanks.

[Wordsmith]

Catholic World News

Please see the link above from the Catholic World News. I'm not Roman Catholic, but I assume this is a mainstream Catholic news organ.

It states that "the Pope, who is also the Patriarch of Rome, is chosen by the College of Cardinals, who act for the Roman Catholic Church."

As far as I'm aware, any basic history of Christianity will discuss the original organization of the Church in to five regions, or Patriarchates, each headed by a Patriarch. Rome was one of these five, along with Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.

Peace.

[Wordsmith]

Fair enough. There are certainly all kinds of problems with Arab Christians supporting Arab nationalism, and not just in the so-called occupied territories. Thanks for the clarification. Its easy to generalize, but I wanted to make the point that there are many, many solid allies among Arab Christians, both in the Middle East (for example, in Lebanon) and among Arab immigrants to the US.

Peace.

[montag813]

Thanks for the clarification. Its easy to generalize, but I wanted to make the point that there are many, many solid allies among Arab Christians

Amen, indeed. Joseph Farah stands out as a brave Arab Christian critic of Islam, despite countless death threats.

[CARepubGal]

My OPC brother, once again, you said everything I wish I had said in a wonderful and more expressive way than I could have done. Bush is a communistic CINO ad he makes me sick. Israel in no way deserves special treatment. It can stand or fall as a nation. Now the Homicidal Muslims need to be slapped down NOW but the believers need our support. I am leaning less and less towards GWB and more towards the CP or LP by the day.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

But in the meantime, it remains absolutely TRUE that Pharisaical, Talmudic Judaism is still an Anti-Christ Religion which rejects the True Messiah, declares the all-holy Jesus Christ to be Sorcerer of Satan, and proclaims that The Only Lord and Savior of All is even now being eternally-tortured in boiling excrement in Hell. ~~ Source????? ~~ Jude24

THE TALMUD HATES CHRIST AND CHRISTIANS:
• Jesus was born a bastard (Jewish Encyclopedia, "Jesus"; Yebamoth, 49b).
• Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a whore and "played the harlot with carpenters" (Sanhedrin, 106a,b).
• Jesus "practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy" (Sanhedrin, 43a).
• Jesus was punished and sent to Hell where he ended up in "boiling hot excrement" (Gittin, 56b,57a).
• Christians will go to Hell "and be punished there for all generations" (Rosh Hashanah, 17a).

You know what? I found out that some of the past leaders of My People lied when it came to science, women, children, non-Jews, and Christianity and its leader. I found out that Jesus is the only Messiah and Saviour for everyone on Earth. I found out a lot when I prayed to Jesus and said "If you really are who you say you are in the New Testament, please reveal yourself to me and I will follow and trust you forever."

Guess what. He did and I have been. Sure there are cheap imitations of the real thing (anything of value is counterfeited), but once you really connect with Jesus, you'll know everything you need to know about salvation --- your own salvation!

Not only is genuine salvation free, it makes a person free! ~~ SOURCE: Irving Spielberg

(I'll provide additional sources upon request, but that should do for starters).

Talmudic Judaism is an fundamentally Anti-Christ Religion. It has to be -- it's a simple matter of economics; If Jesus is the Christ, there is no rationale for Talmudic Judaism.

It's a zero-sum game between the True Messiah, and the Talmudic Pharisees. If Jesus is the Messiah -- then their 2,000 years of artificially-constructed, man-made Religion is necessarily Anti-Truth.

• NONE of this changes the fact that Zionist Israel has a 100% bona-fide International Law Right to the Land, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. The good-faith agreements of the Paris Peace Conference are not affected by Islamic Nationalist perfidy.
• NONE of this changes the fact that Israel is, and has always been, the USA's best political Ally in the Middle East.

It simply means that American Christians should not evaluate the Socialist State of Israel romantically, but rather see her for what she is: A deliberately Christ-Rejecting secular Socialist State -- out to accomplish her own geo-political interests, for her own benefit.

I have, of course, no objection to Nation-States looking after their Own Interests -- in fact, I think that the USA should do the same. Zionist-Socialist Israel is, even when she Spies on the United States, simply being realistic. She knows what she needs, and she is pursuing her aims.

But the USA should be realistic also. Israel is our best political Ally in the Region; and Israel is out to accomplish her own Objectives (she'd be foolish not to do so).

We should evaluate Israel on that basis, and treat her as such -- insofar as is useful to our Ends. She can look after her own.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

In other words, slaughter the Jews and push them into the sea... Never again ~~ af_vet_1981

Far from it.

If the Jews of Israel desire as a Nation to confess the True Messiah... His Power is Invincible.

PSALM 2:7-9 --
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my SON; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

This is the Covenantal Promise of Psalm 2. We have seen it written upon the pages of history.

300 years ago, some 3 million Calvinist refugees of the Anglo-Saxon lineage cast themselves upon the unknown shores of the New World with but one Creed: "No King But Jesus". Today, America stands astride the World like a Colossus -- an impregnable Hyper-Power, vulnerable only (if anything) to our own hubris and decay.

If 3 million Anglo-Saxon Calvinists could accomplish this much, what could 5 million Israeli Jews accomplish -- if they confessed the True Messiah?

But the Zionist-Socialist State of Israel has declared Messianic Judaism to be Thought-Crime. And so they do not enjoy the Covenantal Promises of Psalm 2 -- but rather, the Covenantal Wrath:

PSALM 2:8-10 --
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the SON, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.

American Christianity should evaluate Israel on the same basis as every other Christ-Rejecting nation -- a Nation which is under Covenantal Wrath, until they turn and Pay Homage to the SON.

best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I am leaning less and less towards GWB and more towards the CP or LP by the day.

The Libertarian Party has consistently run ANTI-"Roe-v-Wade" Nominees in Three of the last Four Elections (Ron Paul '88; Harry Browne '96 and '00)... either Candidates who were consistently Pro-Life (Ron Paul); or who sincerely believed that Abortion, being Murder, is a matter of State Law (Browne '96 and '00). In either case, I am entirely comfortable with casting my Vote for Pro-Life/State's Rights Libertarians. I have been pleased and gratified to Vote for Pro-Life Libertarians in the past.

However, despite the fact that the Libertarian Platform has been trending Pro-Life in recent Elections, I am afraid that they may flub up and run a Pro-Abortionist in 2004. In such a Case, I will of course never Vote Pro-Abortion. My choice will then be between the Republicans and the Constitutionals.

If that's the Choice, then unless the Constitutional is a right-wing Howard Dean (YEEAAARRGGHH!!!), I'll probably Vote Constitutional. The Republicans will say that I am "throwing away my vote" -- but they haven't earned my vote. Not the way they are going, anyway.

Statistically, I know that I am more likely to be struck by lightning on the way to the Polls, than to affect the outcome of a Major Election by my Vote. That being the case, then, the only way I can see towards not "throwing my Vote away" ... is to Vote for the Candidate who is most True to My Beliefs.

It's the only way I can see to "Make My Vote Count", IMHO.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

In other words, some Christians of Jewish descent, who have turned their back on Judaism, have been ruled not to be Jews? Sounds normal to me!

Sounds "Normal" to you? Then what's all this business about Israel being a "Western Democracy"?

Western Democracy, of which the United States Constitution is the finest example, is founded upon Religious Egalitarianism:

Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an Establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof.

The American Baptists endured over a century of Colonial torture and persecution on this point, before they finally convinced the American Presbyterians of the rightfulness of their Cause and its incorporation into the Bill of Rights.

If Modern Zionist-Socialist Israel is instead a Talmudic Theocracy, which claims the right to deny Hebrew Christians their Israeli "Right of Return" on the basis of their Messianic Religious Beliefs -- That's fine. That's Israel's Choice, as a Sovereign Nation.

• I freely admit that Orthodox Jews do not advocate the hijacking of airliners for the purpose of murdering thousands of innocents.
• I freely admit that Israel is, and has always been, the USA's best political Ally in the Middle East (I only observe the Israel is rightfully self-interested, and should be evaluated as such).

But the Legislative and Juridical Denial of the Jews for Jesus Hebrew "Right of Return" to Israel certainly IS a Pro-Talmudic, Anti-Christian choice on Israel's part, and is absolutely inconsistent with the Baptistic, Presbyterian egalitarianism of the US Constitution: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an Establishment of Religion".

These are Simple Facts. It's not "Anti-Semitism" to recognize Simple Facts.

You are anti-Jewish, not a anti-Semitic. That is a difference without a distinction in the Middle East.

I have already chosen my Labels.

I have not given you permission to re-define my chosen Self-Expression. Nor will I permit you to do so (After all, I do not Label you with any Label which I please, do I?)

You may, if you wish, call me Anti-Judaistic... in the specific context of my absolute rejection of all Christ-Denying False Religions. I do not hate Buddhists, Hindus, Judaists, or Muslims -- but I give you permission to call me Anti-Buddhist, Anti-Hinduistic, Anti-Judaistic, and Anti-Islamic as pertains to my absolute rejection of all Christ-Denying False Religions.

However, I must absolutely reject the Label "Anti-Jewish". The term "Jewish" is generally associated with Hebrew Ethnicity...

...and the Jewish Presbyterians like Meredith Kline and Steven Schlissel have been my most important teachers, my greatest Rabbis, in the development of my Reformed Faith in recent years. Moreso even than the Scot Presbyterians, excepting the incomparable Francis Nigel Lee.

So I will thank you not to falsely impugn me with the Label "Anti-Jewish". That Dog Won't Hunt. You may, if you wish, label me "Anti-Judaistic".

It is True, I do oppose all Christ-Rejecting False Religions. You may label me as such.

best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

So we are Satanists? It seems to me that you are an anti-Pharisee.

Satanists? Pharisees? According to Jesus Christ, it's half-a-dozen of the one, six of the other.

JOHN 8:39-45
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the Truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but He sent Me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the Devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

Talmudic Judaism and Messianic Christianity is a zero-sum game. If Jesus Christ is the Messiah... then Talmudic, Pharisiacal Judaism is, necessarily, an Anti-Truth False Religion.

The Talmudic Jews know this. I am simply agreeing with them.

best, OP

[jude24]

It simply means that American Christians should not evaluate the Socialist State of Israel romantically, but rather see her for what she is: A deliberately Christ-Rejecting secular Socialist State -- out to accomplish her own geo-political interests, for her own benefit.

A lot of that romanticism is probably due to dispensationalism.

[jude24]

This is the Covenantal Promise of Psalm 2. We have seen it written upon the pages of history. 300 years ago, some 3 million Calvinist refugees of the Anglo-Saxon lineage cast themselves upon the unknown shores of the New World with but one Creed: "No King But Jesus". Today, America stands astride the World like a Colossus -- an impregnable Hyper-Power, vulnerable only (if anything) to our own hubris and decay.

Why do you think America is a party to the covenant-promises of Psalm 2? The context is a Messianic covenant, the parties the Father and the Son. (Admittedly, Christ extends his covenant-benefits to the "overcomer" in Rev. 2:26-27, but that certainly is not to a nation.)

I could be missing something, though, and be seeing this through the colored glasses of dispensationalism, but I can't see an exegesis that allows this to be applied to the American nation.

Regards,
Jude24

[jude24]

Jesus was punished and sent to Hell where he ended up in "boiling hot excrement" (Gittin, 56b,57a).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Babylonian Talmud there, first, is certainly not pharisaical Judaism -- the Babylonians hated the Judean elites. Secondly, it does not (explicitly) identify Jesus as being accorded that punish. "Balaam" is tortured with burning semen, but the punishment you describe is generally accorded to those who mock "the words of the Sages."

[George W. Bush]

The Libertarian Party has consistently run ANTI-"Roe-v-Wade" Nominees in Three of the last Four Elections (Ron Paul '88; Harry Browne '96 and '00)... either Candidates who were consistently Pro-Life (Ron Paul); or who sincerely believed that Abortion, being Murder, is a matter of State Law (Browne '96 and '00). In either case, I am entirely comfortable with casting my Vote for Pro-Life/State's Rights Libertarians. I have been pleased and gratified to Vote for Pro-Life Libertarians in the past.

I voted for a Libertarian for Congress in the last few elections. Nice fellow. He is pro-life (without exception) and closed-borders, something that stands out a bit from the national Libertarian party as I understand it. Actually, he's a constitutional conservative IMO. And his Republican opponent is a pinko RINO who was certain to win anyway. So I cast a vote of principle where it didn't actually count but I don't think I threw my vote away. Not at all. He wasn't even a good candidate but got more votes than many expected, demonstrating to the successful RINO the strong appeal that message has here.

If that's the Choice, then unless the Constitutional is a right-wing Howard Dean (YEEAAARRGGHH!!!), I'll probably Vote Constitutional. The Republicans will say that I am "throwing away my vote" -- but they haven't earned my vote. Not the way they are going, anyway.

Recent events have proven you correct.

The roar of outrage from the conservative wing of the party over the spending, lack of decisiveness with key judicial nominees, and the creation of a vast open-ended entitlement (Pill Bill), has awakened them. And the hint at a new amnesty and expanded funding for long-hated symbols like NEA and Departments of Labor and Education were the gasoline thrown upon the smoldering fire, causing it to flare up actively.

They have tried, via throwing money and through symbolic political appeals, to expand their vote base to traditional Dim voters (pro-choicers, blacks, Hispanics, gays). No matter how much money or political captial they've thrown away on this, it makes those groups hate them even more. And it has made the base livid although we have been exceedingly charitable about this matter to date. They finally had to rub our noses in it before we reacted. We have been very patient. To a fault actually.

The Rockefeller wing had hoped to expand their appeal so they could finally rid themselves of the religious right. And it has failed miserably. Now congressional re-elections are being threatened by their liberal spending and there is enough anger in key states to threaten Bush's re-election. This is not a situation the base wanted. To the contrary, we ignored the mounting evidence, in something of a state of denial. But they tried to discard us and failed. Now they would like to blame us because they failed to stab us in the back after all the years we voted for them and supported them.

So now, we have the whip hand. And it is the party faithful, those who would vote GOP if Bush promised them a Stalinist police state, who are the real FRingers. Their votes are assured. But we, who are the margin of victory in many congressional and downstream elections and the re-election of Bush, are in the driver's seat.

There's no reason to decide just yet whether to jump ship. Remember that successful political strategy is not playing one side against the other, it is playing three or more sides against the center. And it is our duty as citizens to instill a fear of the voter in the political class from time to time.

BTW, one notices the references to online conservative forums in articles about conservative anger and the possibility of bolting in November. Don't think that your vote or even your words here at FR or any other conservative site like Townhall.com are meaningless. They aren't. Some very worried GOP operatives are watching, trying to see just how cheaply the conservative vote can be bought. Again.

But conservatives are a little cynical. We voted for a long time and accepted very little return on our vote. First, they had to have the House. We gave them the House. Then they said they had to have the Senate. We gave them the Senate. Then they said that they needed the White House and we got them the White House and even fought the Battle for Floriduh for them.

Now, they turn to us and say that the great Conservative Millennium is just around the corner if only we get them 60% of the Senate, a virtually impossible goal while holding both the White House and the House majority. A historical anomaly.

We're patient. But we ain't dumb.

My vote is not impossible for the GOP to get. But they don't get it automatically when they spit on me and people like me and on the principles in which we have believed and for which we have fought for so many years. And more mealy-mouthed excuses about why they can't deliver what they have promised don't cut it.

Liberals buy votes by spending on voter blocs. And this is what the GOP has tried to do since 2000 in their effort to rid themselves of the conservative 'ball-and-chain'. Well, they've proven what Limbaugh always said, that we can never outbid or out-hate the liberals and their media arm. So they return to us, like an adulterous husband to his wife, begging our forgiveness.

Like the scorned wife, we're going to have some conditions before that we let that known philanderer back into the warmth and comfort of our bed. And if he won't toe the line, he can go back to his whores who've already demonstrated they don't like him however much he 'pays' them.

The funny thing is, you 'buy' conservative votes by refusing to throw money at them and other groups. I suppose this is part of why GOP politicians don't like us. They simply don't trust someone who can't be bought. And that tells us something about their character and politics. The Founders, I think, would not be at all surprised.

[FBD]

Well said, GW!!!

GW quote:>"Liberals buy votes by spending on voter blocs. And this is what the GOP has tried to do since 2000 in their effort to rid themselves of the conservative 'ball-and-chain'. Well, they've proven what Limbaugh always said, that we can never outbid or out-hate the liberals and their media arm. So they return to us, like an adulterous husband to his wife, begging our forgiveness.

Like the scorned wife, we're going to have some conditions before that we let that known philanderer back into the warmth and comfort of our bed. And if he won't toe the line, he can go back to his whores who've already demonstrated they don't like him however much he 'pays' them.

The funny thing is, you 'buy' conservative votes by refusing to throw money at them and other groups. I suppose this is part of why GOP politicians don't like us. They simply don't trust someone who can't be bought. And that tells us something about their character and politics. The Founders, I think, would not be at all surprised."

................................
Yup. The ORIGINAL GW agreed with you 100% :

"Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder."~ George Washington

[Mudboy Slim]

"...one notices the references to online conservative forums in articles about conservative anger and the possibility of bolting in November. Don't think that your vote or even your words here at FR or any other conservative site like Townhall.com are meaningless. They aren't. Some very worried GOP operatives are watching, trying to see just how cheaply the conservative vote can be bought. Again. But conservatives are a little cynical. We voted for a long time and accepted very little return on our vote. First, they had to have the House. We gave them the House. Then they said they had to have the Senate. We gave them the Senate. Then they said that they needed the White House and we got them the White House and even fought the Battle for Floriduh for them. Now, they turn to us and say that the great Conservative Millennium is just around the corner if only we get them 60% of the Senate, a virtually impossible goal while holding both the White House and the House majority. A historical anomaly. We're patient. But we ain't dumb."

Very good post, excellent history of the last ten years of Republican excuse-making...it's high time we on the RightWing saw some payback for our efforts!!

FReegards...MUD

[joanie-f]

George W. Bush, your #116 is excellent (thanks for the pings, Steve and Les)!

My additional two cents, and in response to your thoughtful, intelligent post last night, Steve ....

I believe we probably agree on most (maybe almost all) issues of political importance – even those discussed on the amnesty for illegals thread.

The only area in which we appear to disagree is in our definition of leadership. I feel the need to explain how I feel in that regard, and then I suspect that we can agree to disagree on this point, and continue to commit to supporting together our mutually conservative agenda.

I believe you have told me that Reagan was the first president for whom you had the opportunity to vote (if not, it was some young whippersnapper FReeper whom I have mistaken for you :). I remember, from 1981-88, going about my life with a deep confidence that our republic was in good hands …. finally. I remember the blessed comfort of raising my children, performing my jobs, enjoying the company of family and friends, and relishing my leisure time, without much thought as to what my President was doing, or what, of a threatening nature, was going on in the world.

I would occasionally flick on the news to see what was happening on the political front. I can truthfully say that I can count on the fingers of one hand (actually, I can count on the fingers of two fingers :) the number of times, in eight years, Ronald Reagan let me down in his policy decisions.

And my relative political apathy during his presidency had nothing to do with the fact that I was generally apathetic toward politics. On the contrary. I was extremely politically activist, both locally and occasionally on the national level, during the preceding Carter debacle years. It’s just that, once Reagan assumed office, I knew that we were in good hands and I could once again focus on enjoying my life outside of politics.

That isn’t the case anymore. Hardly a week goes by where I am not confronted with yet another socialist/leftist policy travesty (or travesty by omission) that this president has either authored or endorsed.

You say that you believe this illegal alien amnesty proposal may be just a ploy to garner the Hispanic vote because the President knows full well that it will not pass on a Congressional vote. Whatever happened to character in leadership? Supporting through lip service a catastrophic (as in ‘momentously tragic in its potential to lead to ruin’) national policy, because you know you can depend on the other branch of government to do what is right, is separated by light years from the kind of mindset I want my President to embrace. Leaders are supposed to lead – not pander, and then defer.

As for our holding his feet to the fire …. I never felt the need to do so in eight years with Reagan. Nor did he ever give me reason to. He was too busy governing by conscience, with the genuine good/safety/prosperity of this republic, and the preservation of the individual liberty of her people, being his only focus. He confronted his political enemies, both here and abroad. He didn’t pander to them.

Leaders are supposed to set an example for the rest of us. Their countrymen are supposed to rest assured in that fact, and be able to go about their lives with a confidence that the decisions being made at the top are in their best interest. Genuine conservative leaders are not supposed to routinely and consistently take sharp left-turn detours off the path, simply because the detour is most convenient and provides the least resistance from those who prefer left turns -- and then depend on their right-minded countrymen to continually tap them on the shoulder (or whack them over the head) as a reminder that they are veering far off the course they have promised to follow. The course they were elected to follow.

I’m tired of holding Bush’s feet to the fire. I’m tired of reminding him what his job as a purported conservative leader with character (used to be a redundancy, but not anymore) of the free world entails. I have my own life to live. I elected him to right the wrongs that were done to me and my countrymen by the obscene era known as the Clinton years. Instead he has, in large part, continued taking our republic down the road to a socialist utopia.

I want another Reagan.

~ joanie

[George W. Bush]

I want another Reagan.

I don't see one on the horizon. In the meantime, when it comes to the words and actions of our political classes, we should practice his advice without exception:

Trust but verify. - Ronald Wilson Reagan

You know, that humble wisdom is as good a watchword of American pragmatism as any hoary phrase coined by one of the Founders. It applies equally well to socialists of all stripes, whether it be the communist Gorbachev or our own domestic socialists.