A Christian Perspective On The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

The global community was rudely shocked by the stark reality of jihad on 11th September 2001 when hijacked planes crashed into iconic buildings that symbolize American economic and military power. In response to the specter of religiously-inspired violence, the subsequent ‘war on terror’ would loom large over the early years of the 21st century.

At the center of this worldwide unrest is the long-standing Palestine-Israeli conflict that continues to be a source of its political and religious impetus. Orthodox Jews honor Jerusalem as the city of peace that once housed the temple of Yahweh. Christians make pilgrimage to the Promised Land where Jesus Christ once lived, was crucified and resurrected. Muslims treasure the city as the third holiest site in Islamic history. With the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1949, many adherents from these three major faiths have staked a claim in supporting or opposing it in the name of God or Allah.

However, the idea of ‘holy war’ is not unique to Islam. In the book of Joshua, a scriptural text embraced by both Jews and Christians, we would find the concept of Yahweh as a warrior waging battle against Canaanite deities and nations through His covenant people Israel in the conquest of the Promised Land. In some military campaigns, the Israelites were divinely decreed to utterly destroy an entire population of men, women and children (Joshua 6:18-19).

This raises difficult moral dilemma for sensitive believers as well as concerns that such warfare narratives may be used to justify violence and genocide today.

In this paper I would attempt to answer three questions: “What is Old Testament teaching and justification for ‘Yahweh war’ in the conquest of Canaan? How should Christians perceive the continuity and discontinuity of these Old Testament concepts in light of New Testament revelation of Jesus Christ? Finally, what are the resulting theological implications for how we understand the establishment of the modern state of Israel?”

Yahweh War and Modern Israel

The Messiah, Yesus Tidak Pernah Disalibkan

Sebuah film Yesus yang dituturkan dari cara pandang Islam baru saja diluncurkan di Iran. Hal ini menyebabkan berbagai reaksi dari komunitas Kristen, karena di film tersebut Yesus tidak mati disalibkan tetapi digantikan oleh Yudas Iskariot.

Judul film ini "The Messiah" - ditulis, di produksi dan disutradarai oleh seorang pembuat film dari Iran bernama Nader Talebzadeh. Film ini di buat di Iran dan Yesus pun dimainkan oleh seorang aktor Iran. Film ini dibuat berdasarkan apa yang Alquran tuliskan tentang Yesus dan berdasarkan Injil Barnabas - sebuah kitab yang tidak termasuk dalam kanonisasi Alkitab.

Film ini menyajikan dua penutupan film - dari sudut muslim dan Kristen tentang Yesus dan salib-Nya. Film ini memenangkan penghargaan dari Roma, Rome's Religion Today Film Festifal sebagai nominasi dialog antar umat beragama.

Dr.Emir Caner, seorang dekan dari Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary merekomendasikan untuk orang Kristen menonton film ini, dan menanyakan beberapa hal berikut ini:

• Kapan Yesus digantikan, menurut yang tertulis di Alquran?
• Kenapa ibu dan para murid Yesus tidak mengenali bahwa orang yang mereka ikuti itu telah ditukar sebelum berada di atas kayu salib?
• Apa tujuan 'Allah' membutakan semua kerumununan termasuk murid-murid Yesus dan Maria ibu Yesus, sehingga mereka tetap berpikir bahwa Yesus lah yang sedang disalibkan?
• Caner, yang juga seorang professor bidang sejarah, mengatakan bahwa dia percaya pada akhirnya dengan cara kita menonton sambil bertanya berdasarkan sudut pandang itu, kita bisa menerima film ini.

"Mungkin Orang Muslim dan Kristen akan menyadari melalui film ini bahwa Alquran hanya menawarkan suatu kemungkinan cerita yang mungkin terjadi saat itu, walaupun Alkitab sudah dengan jelas menuliskan sejarah mendetail yang dapat dipercaya dan telah dibuktikan bahkan pada saat ini."Demikian Caner menuliskan pernyataannya.

Hampir secara keseluruhan "The Messiah," penampilan Yesus dalam film ini mirip dengan fersi Yesus yang dibuat oleh dunia barat. Rambut pirang dan melakukan mukjizat. Hanya yang berbeda adalah bagaimana Yudas tiba-tiba secara ajaib berubah menyerupai Yesus dan menggantikan Yesus disalibkan.

"Dia (Yesus-red) bukan Anak Allah dan tidak pernah menjadi Anak Allah. Dia hanya nabi dan Dia tidak pernah disalibkan, itu adalah orang lain yang disalbkan menggantikan Dia,"Talebzadeh menyatakan kepada CNN.

Film fenomenal yang melibatkan hampir lebih dari 1000 orang ini merupakan sebuah film terbesar yang pernah dibuat di Iran. Film ini telah dirilis di Iran saat ini, dan segera akan dapat disaksikan di Internet melalui CNN.


(Author: Unknown)

Link:
Apakah Itu Injil Barnabas? (Islam)

"Kitab IB menuntut sebagai kitab 'Injil Tunggal' dan mendiskreditkan ke-empat Injil kanonik. Nada kitab IB menyalahkan Alkitab (khususnya Perjanjian Baru) dan menonjolkan ajaran Islam. Namun, kamus Islam sendiri menyebut tentang kitab ini bahwa: "Sehubungan dengan Injil Barnabas tidak ada yang keberatan atasnya sebagai suatu kepalsuan zaman pertengahan .... Ia mengandung sejumlah pertentangan yang dipastikan bermula sejak abad pertengahan dan tidak pada zaman sebelum itu." Bahkan, disebutkan pula bahwa buku itu malah tidak sesuai dengan aqidah Islam sendiri: "Ia memutar balikkan keutuhan doktrin Islam, menyebut Isa dengan "al-Masi'ah" yang Islam tidak membenarkannya. Selain ia merupakan pemikiran yang asing dalam sejarah kekeramatan, gaya bahasanya cenderung mengejek Injil, sebagaimana tulisan-tulisan Baha' al-Allah terhadap al-Quran." (Cyril Glasse, Ensiklopedia Islam, hlm.53).

Penulis kitab IB bukanlah Barnabas dalam Alkitab Perjanjian Baru, melainkan seorang Eropah (Italia?) yang hidup pada akhir abad pertengahan yang tidak menguasai geografi Israel, dan kurang memahami adat-istiadat budaya abad pertama dimana Barnabas 'yang asli' hidup. Cara penulisan dan kertas yang digunakan menunjukkan produk abad itu, demikian juga bahasa asli kitab IB merupakan campuran dari dua dialek Italia yaitu 'Tuska & Venezia', padahal bahasa ini belum lahir pada saat Yesus hidup dan baru pada abad-XIII merupakan bahasa tulisan. Kesalahan-kesalahan dalam penulisan bahasa Itali pada kitab IB menunjukkan bahwa penulisnya mempunyai latar belakang Spanyol.

Karena itu, kitab IB ini kemungkinan dikarang oleh seorang Yahudi Spanyol yang tinggal di Italia yang pada abad pertengahan itu dipaksa masuk agama Kristen Katolik, karena itu untuk pembalasan ia berpindah ke agama Islam dan berusaha menyesuaikan kitab Injil dengan ajaran agama Yahudi (panyangkalan Yesus sebagai Messias) dan Islam (Penonjolan Muhammad). Kitab IB ini ditulis sesudah agama Islam berdiri (abad-VII) karena banyak ajaran Islam ada di dalamnya, tetapi lebih tepat diantara abad-XIII s/d XVI karena mencerminkan beberapa teologi Katolik yang lahir pada abad-abad tersebut.

Kiranya informasi ini memperjelas mengenai apa dan bagaimana sebenarnya yang disebut sebagai kitab 'Injil Barnabas' itu sehingga diskusi bisa beranjak dari kenyataan sejarah. Semoga berguna."

Dave: Baca juga Bukti Bukti Penyaliban Yesus

Thoughts on homosexuality and being "gay-friendly"

How should we respond to recent news that a "gay church" is being set up? More importantly, how should we seek to honour Christ in this matter? Here are brief reflections, and I want to stress that this is certainly not the last word!

On the one hand, we desperately need to show love and grace to all our homosexual friends. "Those who accept the Bible’s veto on homosexual behaviour must go out of their way to express genuine love for homosexual people (David Field)". For our unbelieving friends, we see to proclaim the gospel to them, while living out that same gospel, knowing that it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Romans 1:16-17). For our Christian homosexual friends, we continue to love them. If they are persuaded that homosexuality is compatible with being Christian, then we seek to reason from the Scriptures to show that homosexuality is indeed not how God intended it to be without being needlessly insensitive (see link at the end for more on this). At the same time we can rejoice with them that in following Jesus, they have a new identity even stronger than their sexuality. "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11).

If our friends are Christians who uphold the traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality, it is still the same good news that they (and we!) need to hear. We struggle and pray with them, all the while again reminding them of the gospel, reassuring them that Jesus has paid the price and speaks in our defence. (1 John 2:1). There is no longer any condemnation in Jesus.

At the same time, the Scriptures are clear that we are to oppose error (eg. 1 Timothy 1, Jude, 1 Corinthians 5-6 where Paul takes on both the legalists and the hedonists of his day). The gospel is not to be brought into disrepute. So, with regards to Rev. Ou Yang and the MCC, Christians are right to oppose the setting up of a church which affirms homosexuality, and to be public with such opposition. We should pray, not against homosexual people, but against the progress of a sinful agenda. Nevertheless, it should not be done with a sense of triumphalism. In addition, we should take this opportunity to examine ourselves and repent of any homophobic behaviour.

Christians will not be free from sin in this world. Instances of homosexual behaviour, therefore doesn't mean we're excluded from the kingdom of God anymore than if we lie. Nor are we excluded when we fail to model the gospel of grace to our homosexual friends. Instead, we can all pray

'Heavenly Father, you have loved us with an everlasting love. We have
been stubborn and rebellious, but you have been merciful and kind. For
the sake of your Son who died for us, forgive us, cleanse us, and
change us. By your Holy Spirit, enable us to live for you and to
please you in every way, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.'

What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

› This is a summary refinement/restatement of some earlier reflections on homosexuality and the disquiet caused by the Rev. Ou Yang's intentions. Click through too for a list of further reading.

Thoughts on the emerging Ossuary Debate.

You have probably heard the accounts and reports of the finding of the alleged “Tomb of Jesus”. I am not going to write a defense or case here for either side of this debate, but I will give you things to consider as you see this unfold over the next few weeks or months.

Foundational presupposition – it’s not a hoax.

Now remember, when we talk of this ossuary, we presuppose that it’s not another hoax. Do remember that there have been archeological mishaps and frauds in the past (everything from fake paleontological finds to Holy artifacts) and some scholars are now saying that the James ossuary we heard of more than a year ago was an authentic ossuary with a later forged inscription of James name on it.

A case so compelling till you hear the counter arguments.

It has been said by wise philosophers that an argument is so compelling till you have heard the counter argument. Remember your economics class where socialism seemed so good till you heard the capitalist critique of it or vise versa? The fact is that many times when we follow the evidence, we have good arguments for both sides and end up having to make a choice of most plausible rather than from absolute proof – since such proof requires measurements and empiricism that we just can’t get sometimes from matters of history. Sometimes however, Science catches up over time and empirical measures can be obtained from new technology, like the sequencing of the Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has pretty much proven (though debate still exist for a small few) the hypothesis that modern humans arose in Africa before migrating to Europe and replacing the Neanderthal population with little or no interbreeding.

I suspect (with my present ignorance on the matter) that the complexity of the evidence will be compelling both ways and reach a point with no more qualifying experiments to break the stalemate between the arguments for and against. Such stalemates have left some cases in history and archeology unresolved, like the Getty Kuros, but we don’t get so worked up on them because of the low level of vested interest.

So my advice here is that everyone, should hear arguments from both sides, and be left to make up their God given minds – and its our Christian responsibility to make sure that the counter arguments are put out there where people will see them.

Epistemological choice we make on the questions of religion.

You will hear of the use of statistics in this debate (which we must not be too quick to dismiss) and how those inscriptions have to high a probability of the name pool to be talking about anyone else than the Christian Jesus. The thing is, the stats can go both ways, because since it is a probability, it could be that this case is from the minority amount and not the majority. We simply need a lot more test to supplement the use of the statistics. The fact is, you make a choice in subscribing to a theory of what is more plausible from the evidence presented to you – but you have to be very aware of the fact that your making a choice.

Religion is not motivated by rationale alone.

I repeated myself again about the fact that we make a choice of what to believe with the risk of looking like a Postmodern agnostic! But I do so to lay a foundation for this important point, that our decisions on the matters of religion are not motivated by rationale alone. The question of motivation is crucial, as it works to affect our industriousness in examining the evidence, the equality of honest evaluation we give to both sides of the argument and so forth. Motivation can even blind us subconsciously to compelling evidence before our eyes.

I am not saying that this matter will never be resolved; it could be that the evidence is so compelling for one side that any honest person will see it clearly. But no matter how compelling the case will be, there will be some people who would not budge from their position, and when we engage this battle, we have to learn to respect them and let them be.

Also I think its best at some point to resolve this matter for what it is – if it’s a historical issue, let’s leave our emotional baggage and religious zeal aside and engage the arguments and matter with professionalism and with clearly defined historical tools and analysis.

The economics of a controversy.

Lastly, do keep an eye on the economic paradigm of this controversy. Dan Brown has proven the profitability of this genre of media (books, documentaries, movie rights, etc.) and given the cultural climate of the USA, where many feel that the nation has been taken captive by religious zealots (sometimes paranoia, sometimes reality) – there are both monetary and non monetary benefits to shaking up Christianity. One has to wonder if James Cameron has been successful since Titanic, or if the actual motivation for this documentary of theirs was the great money that will follow this great controversy. On the counter side, he could be doing this from a passion of the truth – but the statistics are doubtful I suspect.