dailypage home christianity comments creationorevolution Music

NIRV: New International Reader’s Version

NKJV: New King James Version

NLT: New Living Translation

TNIV: Today’s New International Version

YLT: Young’s Literal Translation

ASV: American Standard Version

DARBY: Darby Bible

ESV: English Standard Version

GW: God’s Word Translation

HCSB: Holman Christian Standard Bible

KJV: King James Version

LEB: Lexham English Bible
      (New Testament only)

NASB: New American Standard Bible

NIV: New International Version

All underlined Bible references on this page will cause a pop-up box with the verse to appear when you hover your mouse cursor over it. You can select your preferred version with the Bible Options below by pressing ‘save’. A tick against ‘Libronix’ will put a letter ‘L’ against the references, which, when clicked on, will open in the Bible.logos.com web site. The different versions available are:

Son of God

The Musical


Son of God Book Son of God Book




Son of God Book



God’s Promises



The Land



Christianity and Islam

Christianity and Israel



Israel, Christians and Islam

Les Sherlock


All scriptures are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright ©1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.


This is a huge, and highly contentious subject: particularly bearing in mind the high tensions in the Middle East at the time of writing.* My aim here is to consider where Judaism and Islam fits into the world-view of a Christian.** So I shall begin by looking at ‘Replacement Theology’ - the theory that God has replaced Israel by the Church - to see if this can be found in the Bible. From there we move on to Israel’s place in the Middle East: do Jews have the right to live there, and how much land is rightfully theirs? Finally a look at Islam and Judaism and how they relate to the nation of Israel and the Christian Church.

* July 2014
** My definition of ‘Christian’ here is one who, through the transformation of a ‘new birth’, accepts the Lordship and teaching of Jesus Christ.

Israel and Replacement Theology

The easiest way for me to describe the theory is by copying a slightly edited * version of part of an email sent to me a few years ago.

* Edited by me.

1 In Exodus 19:3–5 God tells Israel that they would become, “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” The criteria for maintaining this privilege? That they “obey me fully and keep my covenant.”

2 As we know, they blew hot and cold on that requirement and eventually put Jesus to death. They thus lost the right to that special position in God’s eyes. As Jesus said at Matthew 21:43 “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.” He was talking to the Jewish leaders and the context shows that they understood that this was referring to them and that they were the “tenants” he had just mentioned in verse 41 who would have a “wretched end.”

3 The culmination of this rejection by God was the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. by the Romans. The “tenancy” of Matthew 21 would thereafter be given to other tenants. Who were the new “tenants”? Alluding to both Exodus 19 and Matthew 21, Peter wrote to the Christian Church in
1 Peter 2 about the “cornerstone”, Jesus, upon which a “spiritual house” (verse 5) was being built. These were members of the new Christian Church and verse 9 shows they were the new ‘tenants’, appointed to a special position before God since the natural Jews had been rejected. They are “a royal priesthood, a holy nation,” thus taking over these privileges from the nation of Israel.

4 Therefore the Christian Church became spiritual Israel, a spiritually appointed entity from God (with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost 33 A.D.) that was to fulfil what had been promised physical Israel before they rejected Jesus as the Messiah and were in turn rejected by God.

The email continued at much greater length, but this will suffice to explain the theory. Is it valid, though? My response to the above paragraphs was as follows:*

* The paragraphs were not numbered in the original email: I have done this so my response can be compared to the original point.

1 This is true; but it is only half of what God said. There are a number of passages I could quote, but for the sake of comparative brevity I shall give one:

Deuteronomy 29:25, 27–28; 30:1–3 Then people would say: 'Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them out of the land of Egypt;… Then the anger of the LORD was aroused against this land, to bring on it every curse that is written in this book. And the LORD uprooted them from their land in anger, in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day.'

"Now it shall come to pass, when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God drives you, and you return to the LORD your God and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul, that the LORD your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where the LORD your God has scattered you.

So God told them that while they were faithful to Him they would remain under His protection. If they strayed from Him, He would allow them to be scattered from their land; but He would then restore them again when they repented

2 We need to be careful when we blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. We are just as guilty as they were since it is our sins for which He was paying the penalty. It is true that Jesus said the words quoted, and it came to pass. However, He was speaking to the religious leaders rather than the entire nation. Indeed, the common people heard Him gladly (Mark 12:37). But even if it did apply to the entire nation, the key point is: was this forever? The assumption in the quote is that it was, but is this what the Bible specifically says?

3 & 4 Paul does say in Ephesians 2 that Jew and Gentile are united together, so the cutting off of physical Israel is not quite as terminal as is suggested.

Well, that was just a flavour, to introduce the topic. Let’s look a little more closely at it.


God’s Promises

In a quick, rough search, I found 336 verses containing the phrase ‘for ever’ in the Old Testament.* Of those, about 63 relate to God promising to keep physical Israel as His own people for ever. If Replacement Theology is true, then every time God made this promise, either He knew very well He would later be rejecting, forever, physical Israel from being His own people and was therefore lying; or He did not know their future conduct would oblige Him to abandon them, and so is not Omniscient.** I can think of no other alternative. Either way, it denies the most basic teaching of the Bible that God is always truthful and never lies, and that He knows everything that has happened, is happening and will ever happen on this planet.

* This will vary depending on the version – I used the KJV.

** For example, Psalm 105 is unequivocal:

Psalm 105:8–11 He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac, and confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant, saying, "To you I will give the land of Canaan as the allotment of your inheritance,"

Even before Israel entered the promised land, in Leviticus chapter 26 God warned them that if they went away from Him, they would ultimately be cast out of their land; but that He would never, ever cast them away completely.

Lev 26:14, 33, 44–45 'But if you do not obey Me, and do not observe all these commandments…  I will scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you; your land shall be desolate and your cities waste… Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, nor shall I abhor them, to utterly destroy them and break My covenant with them; for I am the LORD their God… But for their sake I will remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.' "

Indeed, knowing that Israel would never be able to obey Him, God provided a different way to ensure they would be faithful to Him:

Jeremiah 31:31–37 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, who disturbs the sea, and its waves roar (the LORD of hosts is His name): "If those ordinances depart from before Me, says the LORD, then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before Me forever." Thus says the LORD: "If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, says the LORD.

The underlined sections show God’s eternal commitment to physical Israel whom He led out of Egypt,* which therefore cannot possibly refer to the Church. He finds fault with the old covenant, because it was broken by them – so the prophecy clearly cannot be applied to spiritual Israel,** who have never broken a covenant with God. If Replacement Theology is correct then the above prophecy can’t be referring to the new covenant described in the New Testament because that was achieved by Jesus’ death, and according to Replacement Theology it was this event that resulted in the Jews being cut off.  So if Jeremiah does not refer to the new covenant initiated by Jesus Christ, what event is he prophesying? According to the above passage God will produce a covenant that Israel cannot break, which is described in Hebrews chapters 8-10 and sealed in Jesus blood (Hebrews 9:14), therefore proving that the new covenant and the New Testament are one and the same.

* First sentence in the above quote

** The Church

Lam 3:31 For the Lord will not cast off forever.

Replacement Theology says God will cast off forever.

Micah 7:18–20 Who is a God like You, pardoning iniquity and passing over the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in mercy. He will again have compassion on us, and will subdue our iniquities. You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea. You will give truth to Jacob and mercy to Abraham, which You have sworn to our fathers from days of old.

To claim that these promises, and very many others like them, have been transferred to the Church and no longer apply to physical Israel is not valid. The church did not exist when they were originally made, so there can be no doubt that they were primarily intended for physical Israel. The Church has certainly been included in them, but that is a different matter and in no way disqualifies physical Israel from them.

If I said to one of my daughters, “At the weekend I promise you I will buy you a new dress,” but then bought the dress and gave it to the other daughter, I have broken my promise. I could not say, “I have transferred the promise to your sister” and get away with it in that way. The promise was to her and if it is not fulfilled it is broken. I could buy both daughters a dress * and this would fulfil the promise. Likewise it simply cannot be claimed that God has transferred these promises to the Church. If He only applies them to the Church and does not apply them to physical Israel, then He has broken His word to them.

* If I did they would probably faint from the shock!

In Romans 11:2 * Paul specifically says that God has not cast away Israel, but that He foreknew physical Israel; and these promises, which do take into account their future transgressions, were made in the full knowledge of what was to come. Replacement Theology effectively means that the literally dozens (if not, hundreds) of verses of promises and prophecies God made to physical Israel, centuries before the Church came into being, were either made because God was lying, or He didn’t know Israel were going to disobey Him in the way they did.

* God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.

In August 2014 Rev Geoff Boland gave an excellent talk on Romans 11 at Canford Magna Parish Church, Dorset, covering this topic. The Church of England follows Lectionary readings, which means that the entire Bible is covered over the course of time. It so happened, at a time when the position of Israel in the world was in the spotlight, that the reading for this week was this passage: remarkable timing! I highly recommend listening to the talk. The audio player is on the right. Below is the Power Point presentation that went along with the talk. You may need to ‘allow blocked content’.

To explain the opening remarks, there are three Churches in the Canford Parish (it is unique in England to have three CoE churches in one parish!): the Parish church in Canford Magna village; The Lantern on the Merley estate at one end of the parish; and St Barnabus in Bearwood at the other end. Chris Tebbit is the Rector of the Parish Church and was away on the Sunday this talk was given; Geoff Boland is the vicar of St Barnabus.

If you click on the slide show will automatically run through at a rate of one slide every five seconds. If you would like to view the slides while listening to the talk, you can move one slide at a time by clicking on < or >.

Before we go on, it is worth remembering that the nation of Israel has been an enormous benefit to the world. See the appendix * for a list of inventions and Jewish people without which/whom we would be much poorer, and it is a list far larger in proportion to the population of the country than any other country in the world!


* If you would like to see the appendix now before continuing with the next section, there is a link at the bottom of it to bring you back to this point.


To make this comprehensive I would need to go right through all the Old Testament, but it would make this far too long. So I will confine myself to sample prophecies. However, there are a great many passages saying very similar things. You don’t have to go very far into the prophets before finding a very clear example.

Isaiah 11:1 There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots.

This chapter begins with a clear description of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, reigning on the Earth in His Kingdom.

Isaiah 11:6 "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

So this is quite obviously still some time in the future: it could not possibly refer to any event in the past or present because these animals have never been at peace together since the early chapters of Genesis, right up to the present day.

Isaiah 11:11–13 It shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Assyria and Egypt, from Pathros and Cush, from Elam and Shinar, from Hamath and the islands of the sea. He will set up a banner for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. Also the envy of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not harass Ephraim.

God will gather the dispersed Jews from around the world.* So clearly, Israel will have been dispersed around the Earth in punishment for their disobedience to God, and He is now restoring them. This will be completed at the time the wolf dwells with the lamb. There is no way this could possibly refer to the Church – spiritual Israel – and it is quite clearly promised by God to physical Israel during the ministry of His prophet Isaiah.

* Here is an excellent 13-minute You Tube presentation of God’s promise to Israel and how it is being fulfilled. Highly recommended!

We are seeing the commencement of that promise today. For the first time in nearly 2000 years, the Jews are back in their own land as a nation. It is only the beginning, since Israel as a nation does not yet recognise Jesus as their Messiah. This is what was prophesied by Ezekiel 37 * when God showed him the valley of dry bones. First the bones came together; then flesh came upon them; then finally breath came into them and they came alive. We are today seeing the bones coming together – perhaps even the flesh coming on the bones. But they will only live when they recognise Jesus as their Messiah.

* The prophecy in Jeremiah from chapters 36 to 39 is quite clearly still future since it refers to the New Covenant, and describes the return of the Jews to their promised land, the attack on them by the nations of the world, and their final deliverance, which will be clearly supernatural:

Eze 36:26  I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

Zechariah 10:6 "I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph. I will bring them back, because I have mercy on them. They shall be as though I had not cast them aside; for I am the LORD their God, and I will hear them.

So God is going to restore physical Israel (because He has never cast off spiritual Israel, so it cannot refer to the Church). When will this be?

Zechariah 12:3 And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it.

All the nations have not yet been gathered to fight against Jerusalem, so it must still be in the future.

Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

At this moment, physical Israel will see their Messiah – Jesus Christ – and repent from their disobedience and unbelief, receiving the salvation which comes through faith in Him as a result.* Throughout the Old Testament God said He would restore them if they repented: this is when their repentance takes place and God therefore restores them. It must be an event taking place after the death of Jesus, because they look on Him ‘whom they have pierced’. So His death does not result in their permanent rejection: far from it – their sins (as ours) are washed away:

* Rom 11:26–27

Zechariah 13:1 "In that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.

This is when the breath comes into the nation and they are restored. Zechariah concludes the book with the great traumas to follow on the Israeli nation – with many being taken captive, killed, exiled and raped (Zechariah 14:2) before the culmination of the mighty battle around Jerusalem, when He fights with His saints.

There is no way any of this could possibly refer to spiritual Israel – other than the fact that they will be the saints who are with Him (Zechariah 14:5).

Jesus said:

Mat 5:17–18 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Here He refers to the law and the prophets, both of which He took literally and told us that not even the smallest detail will fail. Notice the final phrase: “till all is fulfilled.” This is obviously referring to the prophets, as you never fulfil the law, you obey it. So He was saying that nothing will pass from the law until all of prophecy is fulfilled.

Someone might perhaps argue that as He said He had come “to fulfil,” and when He died He said, “It is finished,” then this is all He was referring to here. Certainly it is true that His sacrifice for sin was complete at His death,* but all of Old Testament prophecy concerning Him was not fulfilled: for example Zechariah 12:10 mentioned above. Therefore, Jesus clearly believed and taught that everything spoken by the Old Testament prophets would come to pass exactly as they had said.

* Although there were things still to follow to finish the process: e.g.

Heb 9:12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

This is a serious point for Christians. At the top of this page I suggested that the definition of a Christians is one who, through the transformation of a ‘new birth’, accepts the Lordship and teaching of Jesus Christ. The bottom line is:

Act 16:31 …Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved…

I fail to see how anyone can believe in Jesus and at the same time not believe what He said and taught. I am NOT saying that those who believe in replacement theology are therefore not Christians, but I am saying it produces a serious contradiction, which is for them to explain, not me!


There is a vast number of Bible verses all saying the same thing: God makes no mistakes, He chose Israel as His special people, and although they will be scattered from their own country through their disobedience, He will restore them when they repent (as seen in Zechariah 12:10) and they will be His for eternity.


The Land

The present troubles in the Middle East, which have continued for the best part of one hundred years, surround the land. There are two groups of people arguing passionately that the land is rightfully theirs: the Jews and the Palestinians.* This is an argument impossible to resolve. On the one hand we have Jews, who can trace back their rights to the land for around 3,000 years. On the other hand we have Palestinians who can trace back their possession of the land for many generations. It is perfectly possible for Jews and Arabs to live together peacefully, as can be seen from the thousands of Arabs living in the State of Israel at the present time and enjoying all the advantages of citizenship that their Jewish neighbours experience. It is completely impossible for two different nations to govern the same territory, applying their own religion, laws and customs that in some cases are radically different, to the people living there.

* The name ‘Palestinians’ is contentious, since it presupposes that the land called ‘Palestine’ is rightfully theirs, when the right of ownership is the subject under discussion. However, for simplicity here I use the word as it is commonly understood - the Arabic people who are claiming the land as theirs.

* Gen 17:8; 26:3–4; 28:13–15

** Deut 32:49; Joshua 13:1–33

*** 2 Sam 5:1–9

Historically it is very clear how the situation arose. God promised the land to Abraham and his descendents, a promise repeated to his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob.* During a famine, Jacob and his family went into Egypt to be provided for by Joseph, now second in command to Pharaoh. This finally resulted in their slavery, from which they were delivered after 400 years by Moses. 40 years after the Exodus of the Jewish nation from Egypt, Israel were led back into the land of their ancestors by Joshua,** mostly taking possession of it during his lifetime. Jerusalem become the Jewish capital during the reign of David, the second King of Israel.*** Ever since this time there has been a continual presence of Jewish people in the land. Even during the long years of their exile, firstly into Bablyon, and then around the world after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans followed a few centuries later by the rise of Islam, a small minority of Jews remained in the land - evidence of the fact that this is their homeland. It has never been the case that there have been no Jews in the land, from the time of Joshua to the present day.

With most of the Jews forced out of their land by invading armies, others settled there and remained for many generations. However, this does not stop the land from being Israeli territory: squatting on someone else’s property does not mean it ceases to belong to them. Even though English law may give ‘squatters’ rights’ to someone living in a vacant property for a number of years, there is a moral case to be made for the fact that unless the original owner is paid for the property to change hands, then it must still belong to him and/or his descendents. However, Israel was never fully vacated by Jewish people, so even if ‘squatter’s rights’ were claimed by those who moved in during this time, such ‘rights’ are not valid because the original owners were still there.

Therefore, because the land of Israel was never fully vacated by the Jews, because it was given to them by God, as can be seen in many passages in the Old Testament, and because they can trace their possession of the land for over 3,000 years, I suggest that this fully justifies what the world finally accepted in 1948 when Israel was once again recognised as a nation, living in their own land.

One is forced to ask: if Israel did agree to vacate the land, leaving it in its entirety to the Palestinians, where would they go? To do this would be to swap the problem of the Palestinians for a much greater problem. Israel is a sovereign state; a nation recognised as such by the UN. There is no country in the world that would be willing or able to give them a slice of land large enough to take the whole population. Of course, the solution in the minds of the likes of Hamas is genocide: to annihilate the entire population of Israel, which they would do if they had the capability, as can be seen from their many announcements to their fellow countrymen.

The area of land that should now be recognised as Israeli is another contentious issue. It is certainly the case the the present border is around a much smaller area of territory than was originally the land of Israel. It is larger than the land that was recognised as Israel in 1947/8,* mostly because of gains by Israel during the wars that have ensued since then - which, it must be emphasised, were initiated on every occasion by the surrounding nations. **

* The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, 29 November 1947; Israel declared a State at 1600 on 14 May 1948 in Tel Aviv.

** 1967, 1973,

So there are two main reasons why today’s Palestinians have been displaced from their homes. Initially through the realignment in 1948 when land where they lived became a part of the State of Israel; and then as a result of land lost during the following wars. Let’s look at these in a little more detail.

There were many thousands of Palestinians who had to leave their homes, sometimes where they could trace back their ancestors for many generations. At the same time, both then and ever since, there have been many thousands of Jews who have had to leave their homes in adjoining Arab countries, where they too had lived for many generations, partly through the reallocation of lands, and partly through being forced out due to local hostility.* The Jews who had to leave their homes were assimilated into the Israeli state. However, instead of the Palestinians being likewise assimilated into the surrounding Arab countries, they were largely parked in camps on the borders, trying to put International pressure on Israel to allow them back into the land. If the Arab nations had taken the same action as Israel, then there would be no Palestinian problem: The displaced Jews would have been rehoused in Israel; the displaced Palestinians would have been rehoused in the adjoining Arab countries, and there would be no cause for war.

* 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries were expelled between 1948 and 1951. Many of these Jews fled to Israel to make a new life. There is no "right of return" for these refugees, and the Arab countries who expelled them have never made reparations. In contrast, Israel did not expel Arabs from the land, in fact, many fled of their own accord, due to a war they themselves initiated. Additionally, Israel has made many efforts to accommodate Arabs from British Palestine. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians - with estimates ranging from 400,000 to 750,000 - left Israeli-controlled territory in 1948 and 1949.

Land stolen from Jews in Arab countries equals over 100,000 sq. km: nearly five times the entire size of the state of Israel pre-1967 (22,000 sq. km)

Source. More.

Within hours of Israel’s ‘birth’ as a nation in 1948, the surrounding Arabs nations attacked them, intending to eradicate them completely from the land. However, the opposite happened, and Israel not only survived the attack, but indeed then and in the following wars significantly gained the upper hand; advancing and taking control of large parts of territory that previously had been held by their assailants.

The point has to be made that if one nation attacks another with the intention of entirely removing them from the region, then there is the risk they will lose; and if they lose there will be a price to pay. They could hardly expect things to go back to being exactly the same as before - they tried to take territory from those they viewed as their enemy, and having lost could hardly expect to get back the land that they lost themselves. Would they have given the land back to Israel if they had won? Of course not! So they cannot expect to get back land they lost in the process of trying to gain territory themselves.

However, it is a fact of history that Israel has given back significant parts of the territory they won when they were attacked in the wars of the second half of the 20th century. In particular, as a unilateral act of reconciliation, many thousands of Jews were forced out of homes they had lived in for generations, by their government in 2005, in the process of handing Gaza over to the Palestinians. This demonstrated Israel’s desire to live alongside the Palestinians, trading ‘land for peace’.

 The city of Jerusalem however, is the major sticking point. It has been the Jewish capital since the time of King David. Even when Jordan occupied Jerusalem, it never sought to make it their capital. Jerusalem is mentioned 700 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, but not once in the Koran. Mohammed never visited Jerusalem. The holy city is the rightful capital of the Jewish State and will never be given up by Israel. It has been the site of their temple since the time of Solomon, their third King, although all that now remains is the wailing wall since its destruction by the Romans in AD 70. Jews throughout the world turn toward this place when they pray as an indication of their devotion to it.* So whatever concessions Israel will make in an attempt to reach a two-state settlement and bring about peace to the area, they will never give up this, their most revered site.


* While the Moslems built a mosque on this site, it is not their most holy site, and when they pray they turn their backs to it and face Mecca.


Far from getting peace, the result was further hostility, with hundreds of thousands of rockets being brought into the area to launch bombs at civilian centres of the Jewish population. Indeed, apart from rare periods of ‘quiet’, rockets have been directed at Israel on a daily basis ever since this time. There is no country in the world that would be prepared to be bombed on a daily basis by its neighbour, without retaliation.

It is certainly the case that the terrorist organisation, the Gaza-based Islamist group Hamas, has been largely responsible for the troubles between Gaza and Israel. However the point has to be made that the Palestinians have Hamas, with its rocket launchers, tunnels, and organisation centres, right in the heart of its area. Indeed, Hamas and President Mahmoud Abbas's Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) announced a unity pact on April 23, 2014.* So the Palestinians can hardly pretend the rocket attacks on Israel are not their responsibility - they have joined forces with the people doing it. Of course, most of the Palestinians had no choice in the matter and this was imposed on them; in this respect they are innocent victims.** However, when their leaders choose to fire rockets at Israel it is hardly consistent then to blame Israel for the civilian casualties when they retaliate in order to defend themselves.

* See here for more details.

**  Indeed, according to reports I receive from Jerusalem, contrary to the media claim that the Palestinians fully support the attacks on Israel, a large number do not and simply want to be able to live their lives in peace.

For example, Hamas has accumulated many thousands of rockets in the area: there is only one purpose for these - to attempt to destroy areas in Jewish land. Rockets are no use against an invading army, so they certainly cannot claim they are there to defend against any Jewish invasion. So Hamas, day after day over years, has deliberately targeted civilian centres in Israel, trying to kill as many adults and children as they can.

When Israel attack Hamas, they specifically aim at rocket launchers, tunnels and the properties of Hamas leaders. They do everything they can to try to avoid civilian casualties, by giving warning exactly where and when they will strike. This is unprecedented. Did Germany give warnings to London where and when they were going to drop their bombs during World War 11? Did England warn Berlin where and when they were going to drop their bombs during that conflict? Of course not. The element of surprise is one of the most important aspects of any military enterprise. Yet Israel deliberately gives up any element of surprise from which they could take advantage, in order to try to protect innocent people. Of course, when the military is deliberately intertwined amongst the civilians, as is the case with the Palestinians in Gaza, it is never possible to avoid all such casualties; and one feels the greatest sympathy for those caught up in the middle of it all, through no fault of their own. However the point must be emphasised: they have joined forces with Hamas and this is the consequence.*

* During the incursion into Gaza, Isreali soldiers found many miles of tunnels under residential homes, some leading into Israeli territory, with rockets stored there. Additionally rockets have been stored, and tunnel entrance sited, in or close to schools, hospitals, mosques and people’s homes.

Another contrast can be seen in the attitudes taken during the kidnappings that took place in June/July, 2014. Three Jewish teenagers were kidnapped and then killed, their bodies found some days later. In the Palestinian camp there was rejoicing with congratulations to those responsible. When the bodies were discovered, the only regret expressed by Hamas was that they could no longer be used as a bargaining counter to try to exchange them for those imprisoned in Israel for terrorist activities.

When some Israeli extremists then kidnapped and killed a Palestinian teenager in reprisal, the Israeli Prime Minister immediately condemned this appalling act and within days those responsible were taken into custody by the police, to be put on trial for the crime.

It has been quite rightly said that if Israel were to lay down their arms, disband their military forces, and declare that in future they would be at peace with all their neighbours, the result would be genocide: there would be an immediate invasion and they would all be annihilated. There is good reason for this belief - in the surrounding nations children are taught in schools that Jews are pigs to be killed, suicide martyrs are glorified, and some of the leaders of these nations are on record declaring their intention to totally destroy the Jewish nation and take over the whole of their country.

If the Palestinians, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and other such organisations, were to lay down their arms, there would be peace. There is good reason for this belief - there are thousands of Arabs, Christian and Muslim, living in the State of Israel in perfect safety. During the serious troubles of Muslim fighting Muslim in Syria and Iraq, many Arab casualties have been treated in Israeli hospitals, saving their lives and restoring them to health. Regular medical attention and major operations have been undertaken on Palestinian children for a number of years right up to the present day. A field hospital was set up on the Gaza border when hostilities began in July 2014 for Palestinians, many of whom were prevented from going there by Hamas. Land has been given to the surrounding Arab nations, in land-for-peace deals that were never honoured by their enemies. During one set of negotiations with Yassar Arrafat, Israel was prepared to concede 95% of the PLO demands in return for a peaceful ‘two-state’ settlement, but it was refused. Israel has demonstrated by its actions, many times over, its willingness to live in peace with its neighbours - but it takes two to tango!

On the occasions when, after long periods of rocket attack, Israel have invaded Gaza to root out the cause, there have been thousands of people protesting around the world, campaigning for pressure to be brought on Israel to withdraw. Indeed, even at the UN Israel has been castigated for this action. This is nothing less than anti-Semitism on a national scale. Where have been the protests against Hamas using their own people as a human shield to protect the weapons they have been stockpiling to use against Israel? Where are the protests against Hamas firing bombs at Israel on a daily basis over a period of years? * When Israel warn of an impending attack on a particular area, asking the residents to leave for their own safety, where are the protests against Hamas when its leaders tries to make them return, in total disregard for their safety?

* And where are the protests about the horrendous crimes against humanity - beheadings, torture, rape, theft of property, etc. - by Muslims against Muslims, and Muslims against Christians in Syria, Iraq and may other parts of the world?

Before the war in Gaza of July 2014 began, the Israeli Prime Minister contacted leaders around the world, pointing out that they themselves would never tolerate rockets being fired at them in the way Israel has been attacked. When a cease fire was brokered by Egypt within days of the invasion, Israel immediately agreed to it; Hamas ignored it and continued to fire rockets. When two temporary truces were declared for humanitarian reasons, Israel observed it, but Hamas continued to fire their rockets. So while Internationally there has been a call for a cease fire, the moral high ground is clearly held by Israel. The suffering and loss of life amongst the Palestinians has been appalling, but while Israel are doing everything they can to avoid harming civilians as they take out the Hamas tunnels and rockets, Hamas appear to be doing everything they can to maximise the casualties; so the responsibility for this disaster must surely lie fairly and squarely in their lap.



Is Islam a peaceful religion, or the opposite? For a country like England, this is a crucial question that must be answered. If it is peaceful, then along with everyone else who has been welcomed into the country, they should be allowed to live, work and follow their religious beliefs along with everyone else. On the other hand, if it is a religion that cannot tolerate those of other beliefs, persecuting and killing anyone who does not convert, then it must be opposed: there is no place in civilised society for any organisation that removes basic human rights from those who are committed to a different religious faith to theirs.

In July 2014, 100 UK Islamic Mullahs made public their belief that no Muslim should travel to the Middle East to fight in the wars that had been tearing Syria and Iraq apart over the previous few months and years. This must surely be welcomed by all. I must also say that every Muslim person I have had dealings with has been decent, friendly and as far as I could tell had no desire to push their religion on me by use of force. This too is most welcome, and if it is the case that the whole of Islam is like this, then I would be very willing to live alongside them and have the same kind of relationship as I would with anyone else.

The question must be asked, though: is this true Islam? They would say it is, and no doubt would quote passages from the Koran and other Islamic writings to prove it. However, when one looks at the big picture - what is happening across the world - one sees something very different. Indeed, it appears to be the case that the greater the degree of political and military power Islam has in a country, the greater the degree of oppression is experienced by those who are not Muslims. Since there are far more Muslims living in these countries than there are living in countries like England, where they are in the minority, I can only conclude that true Islam is something very different from what we see in the UK, and from what most of the Muslims in this country would wish.

In the middle of 2013 I received in my email inbox a summary of the effects of Islam throughout the world. It was taken from Dr. Peter Hammond’s best-selling book: SLAVERY, TERRORISM & ISLAM - The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. According to Frontline Fellowship, who published the book, and I quote:

Slavery, Terrorism and Islam was first published in 2005 and quickly sold out. It earned Dr. Peter Hammond a death threat "Fatwa" from some Islamic radicals. We have included the story of that in an appendix of this book. *

* Their web site is here.

Here is the email in full, and while on my web site quotes from the Bible are shown in red and from all other sources in blue, because this quote is so long I am leaving it in the normal font with a yellow background.

Here is a perspective by Dr. Peter Hammond. Dr. Hammond's doctorate is in Theology. He was born in Cape Town in 1960, grew up in Rhodesia and converted to Christianity in 1977.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat:

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%

Australia -- Muslim 1.5%

Canada -- Muslim 1.9%

China -- Muslim 1.8%

Italy -- Muslim 1.5%

Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.  This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%

Germany -- Muslim 3.7%

United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%

Spain -- Muslim 4%

Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%

Philippines -- 5%

Sweden -- Muslim 5%

Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%

The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%

Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions.

In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%

India -- Muslim 13.4%

Israel -- Muslim 16%

Kenya -- Muslim 10%

Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%

Chad -- Muslim 53.1%

Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%

Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%

Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%

Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%

Egypt -- Muslim 90%

Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%

Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%

Iran -- Muslim 98%

Iraq -- Muslim 97%

Jordan -- Muslim 92%

Morocco -- Muslim 987%

Pakistan -- Muslim 97%

Palestine -- Muslim 99%

Syria -- Muslim 90%

Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%

Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%

United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrassas are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%

Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%

Somalia -- Muslim 100%

Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law.

The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend Madrassas. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.

Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers.

Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

There is a lot more information from a Christian perspective at Islam Review.

See this August 1st 2014 CBN News item about the Muslim takeover of Brussels, and evidence that no matter how peaceful Islam may appear, the aim is total domination.

I have to say I have only a small amount of direct knowledge of Islam, other than what I have read. However, while I am in no position to either verify or contradict the adaptation from Hammond’s book, the little I have experienced leads me to suspect it is closer to the truth than many detractors on the Internet would have us believe.

Of the little I have experienced, I saw for myself, when visiting an Arab country a few years ago, the deep wariness by the indigenous Christian population of some Muslim immigrants. “Be very careful what you say when you can be overheard,” we were warned when walking about outside. Why? Because the people with whom we were staying knew of Christians who had ‘gone missing’ after being too outspoken.

In Africa, I met a Christian Pastor who had been attacked and badly beaten several times by Moslems, who were trying to force his C of E Church off the land the Church had owned for several decades, so they could have it for themselves.

In England, several years ago, I was told by an Anglican vicar about a bishop he knew personally in the Midlands who was advised by the police to move away from the area because they could no longer guarantee his safety. At the time of writing much has been in the news about some schools aggressively taking an Islamic agenda and forcing an Islamic way of life on staff and pupils. Back in the 1950’s and 60’s I was told of an Islamic plan to infiltrate all the countries of the world, including England, and ultimately turn them into Moslem states. I could not believe it possible at the time because of the way Christianity was right at the heart of British society. Now, we can see it happening before our eyes.

In the past few decades, Christianity in the UK has been under increasing attack and its influence on society decreasing as a result. This is largely due to the atheistic influence founded on the unscientific * theory of evolution; and the other faiths imported into the UK by immigrants have been filling the resulting vacuum in people’s lives. At the same time as Christianity has been repressed, Islam has been increasing, not only in England but throughout the world. From the rate of change thus far, it is within the realms of possibility that within 10-20 years all UK citizens will be living under Sharia law,** and people wishing to live a Christian life will do so under the threat of torture and murder, as they do in every single country of the world where Islam has gained political power (see here for the latest news). This does not just affect Christians, of course: Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, homosexuals, atheists, indeed anyone living outside of the narrow confines of Islam, will have lost their freedom of choice, and should they wish to continue in their lifestyle, they will suffer the same kind of persecution that can be seen all around the world where Islam has political power.

* As can be seen on many pages of this web site!

 ** See here for examples happening in 2012.

An example of the thinking of ‘normal’ Muslims can be seen in the following You Tube clip, where a large room full of people, all of whom indicate they are not ‘radicals’, agree that men and women should be segregated and that ‘punishment in the Koran or Sunnah, whether it is death, whether it is stoning for adultery, whatever it is… that is the best punishment ever possible for humankind. That is what we should apply in the whole world.’

The response from Islam to all exposure of these things is to cry, “Islamophobia!” This mirrors what is happening in Gaza. From there, rockets are launched to drop bombs on Israel, and when retaliation comes, they cry, “Israelis are killing our people!” Here the agenda to turn the UK into an Islamic State is being followed, and when it is exposed, they cry, “Islamophobia!”

However, this is not merely Muslims against the rest of the world. Now in Syria, Iraq and indeed many other parts of the world the battle between Sunni versus Shia can be clearly seen. Muslim killing Muslim as a part of their religious belief. The actions of organisations such as al-Qaeda, ISIS and Boko Haram demonstrate the ruthlessness of these people determined to bring about their version of Islam to the rest of the world, bringing death, suffering and misery to many people as a result.

Moderate Moslems in the UK will tell me that true Islam is not like this: that it is a peaceful religion, prepared to co-exist with those of other or no faith. If this is so then I applaud them and fully support their right to live according to their beliefs. However, my question to them is this: where does the militant version of Islam, seen all around the world, come from?

We are told that hundreds of radicalised Islamic men and women have travelled from the UK to the Middle East to join in with these terrorist organisations, and now * threaten to return with their newly acquired skills and cause mayhem and terror here. These are people who from early childhood will have been observant Moslems, attending UK mosques, memorising passages of the Koran, etc. If Islam is fundamentally peaceful, then how did they change so easily? The radical terror groups claim their interpretation of Islam is the correct one: on what is this claim based, if it is not the Koran and other revered writings? Is it not the case that the reason for this is that their terror activities are the logical outcome of what can be found in these teachings? Indeed, when I read the Koran,** I see the following:

* In 2014

** I have read it from beginning to end!

IX Repentance; 125 O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness…

XLVII Muhammad; 4 When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds…

I find it difficult to understand how this can in any way be an encouragement to live in peace with those of a different faith! Indeed, with writings like these it is very easy to understand how young Islamic men and women, enthusiastic in their faith, can become ‘radicalised’ so easily.

A further obvious point is that no matter how peace loving UK Moslems are, the fact remains that, as can be seen in every country where Islam has gained power, should they ever achieve their desired aim of political authority, it will be a different version of Islam that will then take over; and the result will be, amongst other things, the death penalty for any Moslem who wishes to convert to a different faith and for any person of another faith who tries to promote their own belief to a Moslem.



What is the Christian response to all this? How should Christians view Jews and Moslems? Let us first of all look at Islam, since this is the topic we have just been considering.

Christianity and Islam

Perhaps the first matter to deal with is the accusation of inconsistency: over the centuries wars and atrocities have been committed by Christians against those of other faiths, therefore they are in no position to complain when Moslems do the same. At first sight, this may appear to be valid, since during the crusades of the middle ages, for example, many Moslems were killed by Christians. However, there are two points to be made here.

1 The Crusades

We have seen very clearly during the course of the past few decades, how some Moslems have been prepared to use force in order to bring about Islamic regimes in countries around the world. It is a fact of history that in the middle ages Moslems were doing the same thing and by overwhelming force was trying to impose Islam across Europe. The crusades were largely Christian countries defending themselves against this assault, and as a result of their superior armed forces were able to repel the invasion. Without this it is almost certainly the case that the whole of Europe would have been entirely Moslem for the past few centuries, with the resulting loss of freedom of choice for its peoples.

Since Christianity is morally, scientifically and intellectually sound, many people have accepted it purely on that basis, without the experience of the new birth * to give them the power and guidance necessary in order to be able to live in accordance with the teaching of Jesus Christ. Therefore it is not surprising when people calling themselves Christian act in ways contrary to its tenets.

* John 3:7; 1 Pet 1:23

So, for example, atrocities which were undoubtedly carried out by ‘Christian forces’ during the Crusades, were certainly not in line with true Christianity. It also must be pointed out that in the heat of battle, attitudes develop which lead to actions most would agree are unacceptable. Of course this was by no means one-way, and the invading Islamic forces were also committing the same atrocities that the likes of al-Qaeda, ISIS and Boko Haram commit today.

2 The Bible

Another accusation of inconsistency concerns passages in the Bible, on which attacks by ‘Christians’ on others have been based. Battles, particularly in previous centuries, between Catholics and Protestants, the State Church against witches, and individuals against those of a different persuasion to themselves, have resulted in the most appalling atrocities. So Moslems may well feel justified in saying that it is hypocrisy to complain about statements promoting violence in their holy writings when the same can be found in the Bible.

It must be pointed out, however, that none of these passages can be found in the New Testament,* and it is called “New” for a very good reason: it has superceded the Old. We live in a very different climate now, thanks to the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. God has not changed; humans have not changed; but the relationship between the two and the way it is achieved has changed radically.

*Even where conflict has arisen over the interpretation of New Testament passages, the use of force, intimidation or violence of any kind in order to promote or defend one’s belief is completely foreign to the New Testament.

The reason Jesus tells us to forgive and love our enemies, is that we can do this because we ourselves have been forgiven by God and loved when we were His enemies. It is only made possible by His sacrifice; and the experience of an intimate relationship with Him takes place when we accept that we have failed to live up to the standard He expects, ask His forgiveness and cleansing from the things we have done that have messed us up, and trust Him to bring about the change in our lives we need by the indwelling of His Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit’s power it is impossible to live the way God wants us to live.

This is the New Testament, or New Covenant;* and to live according to the Old Testament is to step away from what Jesus has won for us, and try to do things for ourselves, which will always fail. So using Old Testament demands and penalties, which is largely what has been done by those mentioned in the first paragraph in this section, quite simply is not Christianity. Only that which is in line with what Jesus Christ taught could possibly be called ‘Christian’.

* This is not to say the Old Testament is unimportant: far from it! Jesus said:

Mat 5:17–18  "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

However in chapters 8-10 of Hebrews we are told the Old Covenant is at an end. E.g.:

Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Imagine if a man was caught stealing a sheep from a farm and brought before the magistrate’s court, and after being found guilty the sentence was passed that he should hang from the neck until dead. Ludicrous, of course: if such a ridiculous situation were to arise, the defence would say that while death was the penalty for sheep stealing hundreds of years ago, that was the old law and there is a new law now.

In the same way we have a New Testament now, and the Old Testament has been superceded by it. So it is not valid to take passages from there to justify actions that conflict with the teaching of Jesus Christ as described by His followers throughout the New Testament. This is not a defence that can be made for the Koran, however. This is a book of writings by Mohammed’s followers of what their leader taught them, and as far as they are concerned is as valid today as it was when it was first written.



Throughout the history of the Church there has been debate regarding the identity of the Antichrist: a man who is prophesied to emerge in end times who is the antithesis of Jesus Christ. He rises to power very quickly, ultimately controlling world governments, and becomes possessed by Satan. It is only the return of Jesus Christ that brings about his downfall.

Much has been made of the number 666, since we are told this is the number of his name in the book of Revelation,* and people have believed various prominent people were this man at the time of their power, from Caligula and Nero in the early centuries to Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev ** and even USA President Bill Clinton in recent times. However, I would suggest that this is looking in the wrong direction.

* Rev 13:18

** The last president of the Soviet Union

* 2 Th 2:3–8 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

I know of nothing in the New Testament that could possibly restrain evil and hold the Antichrist back from appearing that will also be removed, other than the Spirit-filled Church. Jesus said:

Mat 5:13–14 You are the salt of the earth… You are the light of the world.

Salt holds back badness and decay; light holds back darkness. This confirms for me that Antichrist cannot emerge until the Spirit-filled Church is raptured.

* As far as I am aware, the only one that specifically states this.

** Rev 13:7

Prophecy is often obscure and can only be fully understood after the event. So it is likely that until some of the actions of Antichrist can actually be seen in the life of a government leader will we know for sure - indeed it is my belief that the Church will not see this, as it will be removed from the Earth prior to his revelation.* Be that as it may, there are four verses in the New Testament that are not at all obscure and specifically identify the Antichrist.

1 John 2:18; 4:3  Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour… and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.  

We can see from this that there is a ‘spirit of Antichrist’ and that there can be many people of this spirit who are included in the description. However there is also a specific person who is The Antichrist, and we see much about him in the books of Revelation and Daniel. So what is the key aspect of Antichrist - both those who have accepted the spirit of Antichrist and The Antichrist himself?

1 John 2:22  Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

2 John 1:7  For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

It is the denial that Jesus is the Christ and that He is the Son of God. Where do we find the denial that Jesus is the Son of God?

XIX Mary 35: …It is not for God to take a son unto Him.
90: …And they say, ‘The All-merciful has taken unto Himself a son.’ You have indeed advanced something hideous! The heavens are wellnigh rent of it and the earth split asunder, and the mountains wellnigh fall down crashing for that they have attributed to the All-merciful a son; and it behoves not the All-merciful to take a son.*

XXIII The Believers 90: …We brought them the truth, and they are truly liars. God has not taken to Himself a son…

XXV Salvation 1: Blessed be He who has sent down the Salvation upon His servant, that he may be a warner to all beings; to whom belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth; and He has not taken to Him a son…

As an aside, there is a serious contradiction here:

IV Women 155: …Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of God…

So Jesus is clearly shown to be the messenger of God in the Koran, but the message He brought (see below) that He was God’s son, it says is a lie!

Mat 11:27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Is it really tenable that people who lived with Jesus for over three years would be prepared to die for a lie about what He taught them? Of course not! Jesus said to His disciples…

John 15:27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.

…so it is inconceivable that as soon as He had left the earth they conspired to teach a set of lies about Him. In fact Peter said (2 Peter 1:16–18):

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.  For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

Peter heard a voice from heaven confirming that Jesus was God’s Son, and this is why he was prepared to die for his faith. The same people who killed Jesus also persecuted and killed His disciples. Why? Because they were continuing to teach what He taught - there could be no other reason. And the idea that other people have altered what the followers of Jesus originally wrote is equally ludicrous, because we have undeniable evidence that all the writings of the New Testament were completed during their lifetime, with literally hundreds, if not thousands of documents from the period to prove it; so any variation from the truth would have been dealt with immediately. Additionally there is no document in existence written by any of the New Testament writers, which shows any teaching other than that we can read in our Bibles today.

To return to the main point, this is very clear: the Bible teaches that one of the fundamental aspects of the spirit of Antichrist is the denial that Jesus is God’s Son, and the Koran teaches that Jesus is not God’s Son. This does not mean that Moslems are worse people than anyone else, of course: certainly not - many are decent, kind people who want peaceful co-existence with their neighbours. But this too is consistent with the Bible’s teaching that Antichrist deceives many people, and he could not do this without the appearance of common decency to appeal to the large number of people who would wish to ‘live and let live’.

However, perhaps it is significant that at a time when many Christians believe the end times are approaching, and therefore the appearance of Antichrist may be imminent, that the religion * that teaches the very doctrine the Bible identifies as ‘the spirit of Antichrist’ is so rapidly on the rise throughout the world. It is also noticeable that in organisations like Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, ISIS and Boko Haram there is such antagonism toward both Jews and Christians.** A known saying is, “First the Saturday people; then the Sunday people!” Since Jews worship on a Saturday, and Christians on a Sunday this is a clear threat that after obliterating Israel, attention will then be given to doing the same to Christians.

Furthermore there is already serious persecution of Christians,* with many in Iraq being forced to leave the towns and cities where their ancestors have lived for over 1,000 years, being robbed of all their possessions, with the threat of death should they remain,** as Isis continues its advances across that country. It is also noticeable that the method they use to slaughter people is beheading - this too is prophesied as the means of execution utilised by Antichrist.***

* Of course, this has been the case for many years, but it is now significantly increasing.

** This is just one example.

*** Rev 20:4

* 1 Thess 1:10  and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

So what should the Christian attitude be to all of this? There can be only one answer - love. God’s loves Moslems just as much as He loves everyone else. There is only one way for anyone to be brought into a relationship with Him and be rescued from experiencing His wrath,* however - through accepting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, asking forgiveness for a life spent away from Him, and receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit. We should pray for them, do good to them and seek in every way to demonstrate God’s love for them in the way we act.


Christianity and Israel

It is a fact of history that some so called Christians in the past have blamed Israel for the death of Jesus Christ, and persecuted the Jews for this reason. This, of course, is both illogical and unchristian. While it is true that it was some Jews who called for His death and said the responsibility for this was theirs and their children’s,* nevertheless, as mentioned previously, Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. We are all equally responsible for His death, so it is illogical and inconsistent to lay all the blame on one nation.

* Matt 27:25

 It is a fact of history that some German people were responsible for the Second World War, and some Japanese people were responsible for the horrors that took place in their concentration camps. However, quite rightly, no-one continues to hold anything against these nations today.* That was another generation, and life is very different now. The people of Germany, Britain, Japan and other nations that previously were at war now enjoy peaceful relations with each other, to everyone’s benefit. This being the case, why should anyone hold today’s Jews responsible for events that took place nearly 2,000 years - many generations - ago?

* Although people still alive who themselves suffered as a consequence, understandably find it difficult to forgive the horrors they experienced.

It is also unchristian, since one of the most basic elements of Christianity is forgiveness. Even if the Jews had been solely to blame, it is the antithesis of Christianity to hold it against people many generations after those responsible had done the deed.

It is a sad fact that many Jews today feel aggrieved against Christians that the Church has been so antagonistic toward them in the past. However, many Christians today give full support to Israel and I hope that the latter too may reach forgiveness for the actions of previous generations calling themselves Christians who acted in this way. Jesus was Jewish! The first Christians were all Jewish. Indeed, at the start of the Church the main question was if it was possible for Gentiles to become Christians: * Christianity was first and foremost a Jewish faith. The only possible attitude for the Christian toward Jews is love and prayerful support for God’s chosen people, that they all may quickly come to faith in their Messiah - Jesus Christ.

* Acts 11:1–3

However, there is another extreme that has emerged in recent years: the idea that Jewish Christians are in some way superior to Gentiles and that the most valid expression of Christianity is to observe Jewish festivals, eat/avoid certain foods, learn Hebrew and go back to the Jewish roots of our faith.

The teaching of the New Testament however, does not support this. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile Christians. Talking of Jews and Gentiles, Paul said:

Eph 2:18–19 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God…

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Jews do not have to become Gentiles, and Gentiles do not have to become Jews * in order to be Christians. So Paul specifically says it is not obligatory to observe the festivals:

* Of course, this issue was resolved in the very early days of the Church, when some believed it was necessary for Gentile Christians to be circumcised. (Acts 15:1–31)

It was agreed that the only requirements for Gentiles was that they should:

Acts 15:29 …abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.

Of these, Paul’s teaching on food in Rom 14 (see left) seems to indicate that the restrictions on certain foods in Acts 15:29 were more to prevent Jewish Christians from being offended than anything else, since “…there is nothing unclean of itself.”

Rom 14:5–6 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

Regarding eating food he says:

Rom 14:2–3, 6, 14 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him… He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

However, he also says we should be careful our behaviour does not give difficulty to others who may feel differently to ourselves:

Rom 14:15–21 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.

Learning Hebrew is a significant advantage when studying the Old Testament, since it enables one to understand nuances not necessarily clear in English. However, this is the Old Testament and it has been superceded by the New, which is not written in Hebrew, but Greek.* There is a real danger in going back into Old Testament thinking, coming under the law and assuming we can achieve things by the things we do, when the teaching of the New Testament is that we can do nothing to gain favour with God. It is the power of the Holy Spirit within us that enables things to happen, and He operates through faith, not any kind of works - be they the words we use or the actions we take.**

* If the Hebrew language is so important, why did the Hebrew writers use Greek? If it was so important, surely God would have ensured they used it?

** This is not to say that the Old Testament is unimportant: it is not! The old saying, “In the Old Testament is the New concealed, and in the New Testament is the Old revealed,” is perfectly true; and by studying it one is able to understand the character and purposes of God, His dealings with His chosen people, and His plans for our future.

It is perfectly true that Paul says:

Rom 3:1–2 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.

However, while Paul says there are advantages in being Jewish, the main one is their heritage: they are the ones who received the oracles - the utterances - of God. They are the ones who were entrusted with receiving and protecting God’s word. And while the Bible teaches that the Jewish nation will be brought back into a full relationship with God, as previously mentioned, Paul does not say that in the Church Jews have a superior position to Gentiles. Rather, we have both been made one body:

Eph 2:11–16; 3:6 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity… that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,

The main point of the book of Galatians is surely to make this point. Chapter four begins with God’s people, like children, under the stewardship of the law, Gal 4:1–3. But Jesus came to redeem them from under the law, Gal 4:4–7. So why turn back to what you have been delivered from, by observing particular days and seasons, Gal 4:9–10?

In the same way that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and of the flesh, the other by a free woman and of a promise, there are two covenants under which God’s people can be found, Gal 4:22–24. The one is typified by Mount Sinai, the place of law where the ten commandments were given, the other is typified by Jerusalem, the place of freedom, Gal 4:24–26. Even as Hagar’s son (typical of the Old Covenant) persecuted Sarah's son (typical of the New Covenant), so those who wish to live by the law will stand against those who live by grace, Gal 4:29–31.

Therefore we must stand fast in the New Covenant and not be drawn back into the works that some would claim will bring about God’s purposes in our lives, Gal 5:1,4–5. We do not have a list of laws or commandments to follow, but the Presence of the Holy Spirit within us to guide us, Gal 5:15–17.

How can we know if we are following the Holy Spirit or our own thoughts and desires? Simple! If we are following the flesh – our own desires – we will be drawn into one or more of adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like, Gal 5:15–17. If we are following the Holy Spirit’s leading we will exhibit, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, Gal 5:22–23.

It has been claimed that since observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath was instituted as soon as Adam and Eve were created, long before the ten commandments were given, then even though the New Covenant has superceded the Old, this commandment remains. However, I would suggest that once it was incorporated into the Ten Commandments, then thereafter whatever happens to the other nine, happens to this also, and as has previously been mentioned, Paul makes the specific point that there is no obligation with regard to observing one day above another. Of course, it must surely be self-evident that the principle of needing one day’s rest in seven is the way God designed us,* and while it may not be necessary for it to be the same day for everyone, everyone needs such a day evey week!

* The point must be made that the laws and commands of God have never been there because He wants to stop us enjoying ourselves, but to protect us from what will cause us harm. He hates sin because sin will kill us! However, we do not have the ability to obey Him all the time and remain clear of sin: this is why He instituted the New Covenant, in which He does it all for us!

In summary, the book of Galatians teaches us that we have the choice of trying to do things by our own strength and methods, or doing it God’s way and simply trusting Him to do and be all that we need in every situation. If you feel the Holy Spirit is leading you into a way that is different to the way I feel He is leading me, then it is inappropriate for either of us to point the finger and say the other is wrong! However, the New Testament has been given to us as a guide that is far more trustworthy than our ‘leadings’, and we must always be sure our life is in line with everything found in it.

Having said all that, it is true that Christianity has its roots in Judaism: it is the culmination of God’s promise to the founder of the Jewish nation, Abraham. Jesus was Jewish; the early Church was entirely Jewish. Therefore, not only is a knowledge of the Hebrew language an advantage when studying the Old Testament, but a knowledge of the Hebrew way of life in Bible times gives a significant insight into the lives, parables and teaching of Jesus and His followers.


Israel are undoubtedly God’s chosen people. They only exist because he separated Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be the forefathers of a nation through whom He would reveal Himself to the world. The ministry of Jesus Christ, planned from before the creation of the world,* made the way open for every person in the world also to become chosen of God. (Of course, this is not automatic: God never removes anyone’s free will. You ‘choose to be chosen’.) While the Jews may have suffered terribly through their mistakes in the past, their restitution brings about huge benefit.**

* 1 Pet 1:20

** Rom 11:12, 15

Therefore there is no place either to demean Jewish people, or put them on a pedestal. Each Christian has a specific role that God has created them to play; but our attitude must surely be that the gospel is for the Jew first and also for the Greek;* and our life’s work is to see Israelis, Palestinians, Moslems, indeed all nations, all faiths and those of no faith, come to their own revelation of Jesus Christ and experience for themselves the joy of a relationship with their Creator-God that can be achieved in no other way.

* Rom 1:16


I pray and declare God’s richest blessing on every person who visits any page on this web site, that they will be released from every deception of the enemy of our souls, receive a revelation of Jesus Christ, come to an experiential knowledge of Him as Saviour and Lord, and be filled with the joy of salvation, the peace that passes understanding, the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, and the love of God our Father. Amen!


The Jewish people have been responsible for a huge number of inventions and developments that have benefitted mankind. See here and here and here for some lists. Shortly after creating this page, I received the following. As with a previous long quite, this is in standard font with a different coloured background.

A Jewish Boycott

Some time ago, Iran's Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the Muslim World to boycott anything and everything that originates with the Jewish people. In response, Meyer M. Treinkman, a pharmacist, out of the kindness of his heart, offered to assist them in their boycott as follows:

"Any Muslim who has Syphilis must not be cured by Salvarsan discovered by a Jew, Dr. Ehrlich. He should not even try to find out whether he has Syphilis, because the Wasserman Test is the discovery of a Jew. If a Muslim suspects that he has Gonorrhea, he must not seek diagnosis, because he will be using the method of a Jew named Neissner.

"A Muslim who has heart disease must not use Digitalis, a discovery by a Jew, Ludwig Traube.

Should he suffer with a toothache, he must not use Novocaine, a discovery of the Jews, Widal and Weil.

If a Muslim has Diabetes, he must not use Insulin, the result of research by Minkowsky, a Jew. If one has a headache, he must shun Pyramidon and Antypyrin, due to the Jews, Spiro and Ellege.

Muslims with convulsions must put up with them because it was a Jew, Oscar Leibreich, who proposed the use of Chloral Hydrate.

Arabs must do likewise with their psychic ailments because Freud, father of psychoanalysis, was a Jew.

Should a Muslim child get Diphtheria, he must refrain from the “Schick" reaction which was invented by the Jew, Bella Schick.

"Muslims should be ready to die in great numbers and must not permit treatment of ear and brain damage, work of Jewish Nobel Prize winner, Robert Baram.

They should continue to die or remain crippled by Infantile Paralysis because the discoverer of the anti-polio vaccine is a Jew, Jonas Salk.

"Muslims must refuse to use Streptomycin and continue to die of Tuberculosis because a Jew, Zalman Waxman, invented the wonder drug against this killing disease.

Muslim doctors must discard all discoveries and improvements by dermatologist Judas Sehn Benedict, or the lung specialist, Frawnkel, and of many other world renowned Jewish scientists and medical experts.

"In short, good and loyal Muslims properly and fittingly should remain afflicted with Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Heart Disease, Headaches, Typhus, Diabetes, Mental Disorders, Polio Convulsions and Tuberculosis and be proud to obey the Islamic boycott."

Oh, and by the way, don't call for a doctor on your cell phone because the cell phone was invented in Israel by a Jewish engineer.

Meanwhile I ask, what medical contributions to the world have the Muslims made?" The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:


1988 - Najib Mahfooz


1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat

1990 - Elias James Corey

1994 - Yaser Arafat:

1999 - Ahmed Zewai






1960 - Peter Brian Medawar

1998 - Ferid Mourad


The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:


1910 - Paul Heyse

1927 - Henri Bergson

1958 - Boris Pasternak

1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon

1966 - Nelly Sachs

1976 - Saul Bellow

1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer

1981 - Elias Canetti

1987 - Joseph Brodsky

1991 - Nadine Gordimer World


1911 - Alfred Fried

1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser

1968 - Rene Cassin

1973 - Henry Kissinger

1978 - Menachem Begin

1986 - Elie Wiesel

1994 - Shimon Peres

1994 - Yitzhak Rabin


1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer

1906 - Henri Moissan

1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson

1908 - Gabriel Lippmann

1910 - Otto Wallach

1915 - Richard Willstaetter

1918 - Fritz Haber

1921 - Albert Einstein

1922 - Niels Bohr

1925 - James Franck

1925 - Gustav Hertz

1943 - Gustav Stern

1943 - George Charles de Hevesy

1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi

1952 - Felix Bloch

1954 - Max Born

1958 - Igor Tamm

1959 - Emilio Segre

1960 - Donald A. Glaser

1961 - Robert Hofstadter

1961 - Melvin Calvin

1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau

1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz

1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman

1965 - Julian Schwinger

1969 - Murray Gell-Mann

1971 - Dennis Gabor

1972 - William Howard Stein

1973 - Brian David Josephson

1975 - Benjamin Mottleson

1976 - Burton Richter

1977 - Ilya Prigogine

1978 - Arno Allan Penzias

1978 - Peter L Kapitza

1979 - Stephen Weinberg

1979 - Sheldon Glashow

1979 - Herbert Charles Brown

1980 - Paul Berg

1980 - Walter Gilbert

1981 - Roald Hoffmann

1982 - Aaron Klug

1985 - Albert A. Hauptman

1985 - Jerome Karle

1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach

1988 - Robert Huber

1988 - Leon Lederman

1988 - Melvin Schwartz

1988 - Jack Steinberger

1989 - Sidney Altman

1990 - Jerome Friedman

1992 - Rudolph Marcus

1995 - Martin Perl

2000 - Alan J. Heeger


1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson

1971 - Simon Kuznets

1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow

1975 - Leonid Kantorovich

1976 - Milton Friedman

1978 - Herbert A. Simon

1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein

1985 - Franco Modigliani

1987 - Robert M. Solow

1990 - Harry Markowitz

1990 - Merton Miller

1992 - Gary Becker

1993 - Robert Fogel


1908 - Elie Metchnikoff

1908 - Paul Erlich

1914 - Robert Barany

1922 - Otto Meyerhof

1930 - Karl Landsteiner

1931 - Otto Warburg

1936 - Otto Loewi

1944 - Joseph Erlanger

1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser

1945 - Ernst Boris Chain

1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller

1950 - Tadeus Reichstein

1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman

1953 - Hans Krebs

1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann

1958 - Joshua Lederberg

1959 - Arthur Kornberg

1964 - Konrad Bloch

1965 - Francois Jacob

1965 - Andre Lwoff

1967 - George Wald

1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg

1969 - Salvador Luria

1970 - Julius Axelrod

1970 - Sir Bernard Katz

1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman

1975 - Howard Martin Temin

1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg

1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow

1978 - Daniel Nathans

1980 - Baruj Benacerraf

1984 - Cesar Milstein

1985 - Michael Stuart Brown

1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein

1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]

1988 - Gertrude Elion

1989 - Harold Varmus

1991 - Erwin Neher

1991 - Bert Sakmann

1993 - Richard J. Roberts

1993 - Phillip Sharp

1994 - Alfred Gilman

1995 - Edward B. Lewis

1996- Lu RoseIacovino

TOTAL: 129!

The Jews are NOT promoting brainwashing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non-Muslims.

The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants.

There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church.

There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people. The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

Muslims must ask 'what can they do for humankind' before they demand that humankind respects them.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel 's part, the following two sentences really say it all:

If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."

Benjamin Netanyahu: General Eisenhower warned us. It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.

He did this because he said in words to this effect: 'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened'

Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred.

It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

It is now more than 65 years after the Second World War in Europe ended.

Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.

How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center 'NEVER HAPPENED' because it offends some Muslim in the United States?

Return to text



Bible Options