Bible, Jesus and the Evildoers

Kenneth G. Ramey has posted an interesting article at Salem-News, entitled Conduct Based on Belief, in which he exposes the Christian religious and political extremists for distorting Biblical quotes to support their claim of Jesus being prophesized in the Old Testament.

First of all, the Jewish claim that the current Old Testament (Torah) is the true Revelation received by Moses or other Biblical prophets – is debatable. The Old Testament was written between 1500-2000 years after the death of Moses, based on Hebrew forelocks. OT is certainly not the ‘Word of God’ as the RC Church teaches its followers.

“The significance of the Book of Isaiah is that it is Part of the Old Testament; it begins on P. 529 of my Bible. The New Testament begins on P. 756; 227 pages after the Book of Isaiah. Yet Isaiah’s Book introduces the coming of Christ and the rise of Christianity in terms which often differ materially from the Gospels of the New Testament written one hundred years after the fact. The Christian leadership took the thread provided by Isaiah and wove it into the so-called Gospels to suit their wildest imaginations,” wrote Kenneth.

I agree. None of the stories (the so-called ‘prophecies’) in the Book of Isaiah (50:6, 53:5, 53:7, 9:1,26,7 and 53:12) had to do with Jesus. For example, Isaiah 53:7 says: “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth NOT his mouth”. However, according to Mark 14:61-62; Luke 22:70; John 18:37 and Matthew27:11 – Jesus did open his mouth and replied to all the questions put to him by the high priests and by Pilate.

Same can be said about the so-called ‘prophetic quotes’ concerning the arrival of Jesus in Genesis (3:15, 12:3, 17:19, 49:10), Numbers (24:17), Micah (5:2), Daniel (9:25), Jeremiah (31:15), Hosea (11:1), Malachi (3:1), Psalms (2:7, 16:10, 22:7,8; 35:11, 41:9, 69:21 and 110:4), Deuteronomy (18:15) and Zechariah (9:9, 11:12).

“Jesus was named Christ just days before his crucifixion, and only after he finally committed to his role to die to become the symbol of Christianity. But it is the philosophy of the architects – the Christian Coterie whose plan it was, that Isaiah refers to as Lord or God – the real God of Christianity. Jesus was called Lord and God also, but only because he was the Word supposedly made flesh who emerged for the purpose of spreading the Word; i.e., the philosophy of the Coterie whose instruction taught Jesus what to do and say,” wrote Kenneth.

In fact, like the recent Obama’s murder of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad – there is no proof that Jesus did die on Cross in the company of two other ordinary criminals. The R.C. Church says Christ returned from his grave after three days-and-three nights but then disappeared in thin air to return once again in Holy Land to convert Jews to Christianity.

Holy Qur’an has a better explanation to the disappearnce of Jesus. He was not on the Cross but someone of his look-alike (like Obama’s fake Osama Bin Laden) who died on Cross. Pharisees said Jesus met death as prescribed by OT for a false Messiah. The Church to counter these accusation, made Jesus’ death as a pillar of Christian Salvation.

Jesus was NOT Jewish - as the later were “invented”, according to Jewish historian, Shlomo Sand, only a century ago. Jesus, even did not live in Judea, but was resident of Galilee (Matthew 26:69; John 7:41). Holy Qur’an says Jesus was Israelite and related to John the Baptist (Yahya).

“Santa Clause is a fantasy too, but I know of no child who finally learned the Truth who couldn’t handle it logically and accommodating to it comfortably,” wrote Kenneth.

The Santa is only legend and fable but is well accepted by all but small , naive children. Nevertheless, hundreds of millions are spent every year based on the expectations of those children.

Not to mention that billions of dollars are collected each year by the TV evangelists and Zionist Christian leaders – a large portion of which is sent to Israel to build illegal Jewish settlements on land stolen from the Native Muslims and Christians. Christianity has been turned into a big business.

Kenneth has not mentioned that Zionist Christians believe in the Scofield Bible, a Zionist project – which is basis of their blind support for the Zionist entity.

Kenneth Ramey ends his article with the stark truth: “It is much too important, especially now, when politicians rely on what they hope will be a Christian base committed to the Republican Party (of God), a fictitious cognomen, a nickname, by which its leadership hopes to regain the Presidency by any and all means at it disposal, and our expense”.

Palestine and the ‘Parallel states’

In the past I wrote my thoughts on three ‘options’ to resolve the Zonist-Palestinian conflict based on the One State, Two-State and Helen Thomas’ Third option. The recent showdown between the leader of world’s sole military power, Barack Obama and Benji Netanyahu, the leader of world’s sole money power (which Benji won) on the former’s vision of One State option introduced me to a fourth option of Parallel States, Palestine and Israel sharing the same land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.

The ‘Parallel States’ project was conducted within the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University. It was funded by the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Swedish Research Council. It submitted its report in September 2010. The idea which gave birth to the project was; One secular-democratic state solution will never be acceptable Israeli Jews and the so-called ‘Two state’ has no chance to materialize unless it’s based on Israeli ‘wish list’.

I tends to agree with the theory that Obama-Benji conflicting rhetoric were pre-planned to sabotage Hamas-Fatah unity government’s threat to declare a Palestinian State.

In reality, both the ‘Two states’ and the ‘Parallel states’ options are to legitimize the Jewish occupation of Palestine. The current verbal-shooting between the US and Israel is more of a tactical controversy than a strategic one. The reason behind this latest Obama-Benji charade is to hijack the Hamas-Fatah unity government’s possible move to ask United Nations General Assembly to recognize an independent sovereign Palestine based on 1967 borders. The request is sure to be approved by a majority vote – but UN membership will certainly get Washington’s veto at the UN Security Council.

On May 28, 2011 – the pro-Israel Al-Jazeera (English), published an article entitled ‘Parallel states: A new vision for peece’. The ‘vision’ came from two Jewish scholars, professor Mark LeVine (University of California) and Mathias Mossberg, a former Swedish Ambassador. They compared their vision of a Jewish Israel sharing the same land with Native Muslim and Christian Palestinian state in parallel – with European Union (EU).

“Within our research, the most useful example of how various levels of jurisdiction can be shared is the European Union, where the rapid integration of the member states has transferred traditionally national legislative and judicial powers to supranational bodies, diminishing the importance of national boundaries and territorial sovereignty for the benefit of the exercise of transnational freedoms and rights for citizens within the Union,” wrote authors.

I wonder if the authors know that all EU members are Judeo-Christian majority nations which have maintained their original Armed Forces and some are nuclear powers. Each EU member has its own standards of human rights (most persecute Muslim and Gypsy minorities) and even maintain trade relations with some countries (Iran, Lebanon, Serbia, etc.) sanctioned by the EU.

The EU was originally established to ease trade and tourism among the European countries. Later it was politicized to counter the threat of United States’ economic domination of Europe. EU created its own euro currency against US dollar. However, when it comes to wars and colonization of foreign lands – EU has always been an American ally. The EU has resisted the inclusion of Muslim-majority Turkey’s wish to join it for the last 20 years.

“What is clear is that the Oslo era two-state solution was born out of a twentieth century notion of sovereignty that, at least in the case of Israel/Palestine is neither viable nor particularly desirable in the “New Middle East” Oslo’s architects imagined their peace process heralded. Almost two decades later, the region has finally moved towards a new era, but led by ordinary people rather than leaders who more often than not have frustrated rather than helped to realise the legitimate political, economic and cultural aspirations of their peoples,” wrote the authors.

The Oslo Accord signed on September 13, 1993 between PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin – was nothing but a diversion to pre-empt the Islamic Resistance groups taking over the leadership from the discredited secularists leadership. Israelis killed the agreement even before the ink dried.

“In the context of the Arab Spring, a parallel states process might just hold the key to helping Israelis and Palestinians join the region-wide push towards peace, democracy and justice in the fullest, and fairest, way possible,” wrote the authors.

Pity, both the US and Israel have been irked by the ‘Arab Spring’ – because both fear that ‘democracy and justice’ will give power to Islamist groups which will side with Palestinians and Iran against Israel. After watching its puppet-regimes falling in Egypt, Tunisia and Lebanon – Obama has already started his counter-revolution through its Arab proxy, Saudi Arabia.

“These changes have been followed by demonstrations against US domination and Zionism. They politically benefit the ‘Axis of Resistance’, comprised of Iran, Syria at the state level and at the non-state level by Hezbullah and Hamas. To lead the counter-revolution in this region, Washington and Tel-Aviv have relied on their best support: the Sudairi clan which embodies despotism at the service of imperialism unlike any other,” wrote Thierry Meyssan, a French intellectual, author and columnist.

UN: ‘Iran humiliates US-Canada’

On May 26, 2011 – Islamic Republic was re-elected to the 47-member United Nations’ Commission on Population and Development with a majority vote for the next four-year-term despite feverish anti-Iran campaign at United Nations by Washington and Ottawa. The two pro-Israel governments lead by Barack Obama and Stephen Harper used a number of diplomatic maneuvers to try to persuade the member states of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to vote Islamic Republic out of the commission but failed miserably as was the case last time.

American envoy, Zionist Susan Rice, said that his country was “deeply disappointed” that the UN Economic and Social Council voted to extend Iran’s membership in the council’s Commission on Population and Development. Tehran terminated its diplomatic relation with Washington after 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird issued a statement on Iran’s re-election, saying, “Canada deplores the election of Iran to a seat on the United Nations Commission on Population and Development. Canada remains extremely troubled by the outrageous human rights abuses committed by Iran against its own citizens, and by Iran’s threats and actions to undermine the safety, security and stability of its neighbors (read Israel)”. Tehran maintains token diplomatic relation with Ottawa.

In response to Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird’s knee-jerk reaction to Iran’s re-election, Tehran’s envoy at the United Nations, Eshaq Al-Habib remarked: “I do not find Canada’s views so much important to address them because it only follows disciplines and policies of the US”.

Islamic Iran’s candidacy was endorsed by Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines and Turkmenistan.

The United States and Canada also claimed that they opposed the renewal of Iran’s membership in ECOSOC on the grounds that Tehran’s standpoint differs from that of Washington and Ottawa – such as abortion or homosexuality at the UN council but Iran objects to the move and many countries support Iran’s stance in this regard.

Following the failure of attempts by the representatives of the US and Canada to block the renewal of Iran’s membership, Washington requested that the issue be put to a vote.

The majority of the 54 ECOSOC member states voted in favor of renewing Iran’s membership, according to a press release by the office of the Iranian envoy to the United Nations

.