Welcome to my new blog site

I suppose it's time to begin blogging again.

My earlier blog site is at www.antioch.com.sg/th/twp, where you find both my old blogs (which I left off updating over a year ago) and my articles, stories, cartoons, bestselling-novels-to-be, and other regurgitations of an active immagination.

I hope I'll be more regular at updating this one. The old one was too much work, as it was a DIY site, where I wrote all the HTML code by hand, and had to cut and paste some of the code everytime I did an entry.

Anyway, we'll see how it goes...

In case anyone aspires to write Science Fiction, here's a tip from David Langford....

'One of the embarrassments of SF is that at core it's an intellectual sort of fiction -- "a literature of ideas". No harm in that, except that a gripping story often isn't the best way to put across a logical argument. (Emotional arguments are another kettle of fish: Uncle Tom's Cabin packed more of a wallop than whole libraries of statistics on slavery.) You know how it goes: some character foolishly asks "Gee, Professor, how does the quongo ray projector work, exactly?" and the action stops dead for three pages of indigestible lecturing, not counting the equations....'

from: David Langford's review of Arthur C.Clarke's 1984: Spring -- A Choice of Futures reviewed in 1985 www.ansible.demon.co.uk/writing/shortrev.html#clarke1

Does the New Testament call Jews "Christ Killers"?

A question that has come to the surface as the result of the recent release of Mel Gibson's film, The Passion, has been boldly printed on the cover of Newsweek: "Who Really Killed Christ"? The question being asked in this context is, does The Passion support the age old label of the Jews being "Christ Killers?" The fact that it's being asked by many who haven't even seen the film, on hearing that it is rigidly true to the New Testament account, begs the question, is the New Testament, in and of itself seen as anti-Semitic and therefore politically incorrect?
While I've read a number of reviews, I couldn't give a first hand opinion as to the film itself, as I haven't seen it yet. Therefore, I'll restrict my question here to, does the New Testament, in fact, accuse the Jews of killing Christ?
I'm afraid that I couldn't proceed too far in defending the political correctness of the New Testament without beginning to sound like I'm trying to make the Bible sound like something it isn't -- a systematic compendium of well ordered thought, brimming over with twentieth century enlightenment. How would I then explain why Joshua shouldn't have been brought before an international war crimes tribunal for genocide? Why Wasn't King David unceremoniously ejected out the same door as Jim Baaker and Jimmy Swaggart for his relations with Bethsheba -- not to speak of the murder of her husband, while King Saul was rejected for something that would only make the back page of the local rag? What about King David's, and King Solomon's numerous wives? What about Hoseah marrying a prostitute? Or Jepthah sacrificing his daughter? What about Yeshua saying to the Syrophoenecian woman, in effect, "Get lost you dog!"
Do I believe in the Bible?
Yes, very much.
So, how do I explain all of the above?
I don't. I don't take the Bible as a politically correct, systematic compendium of well ordered thought, brimming over with twentieth century enlightenment. Nor do I take it as a mathematically logical set of formulas on how to maintain a well ordered life.
What the Bible does do is get its point across concerning just about every aspect of life, but to understand it you must read it as it was intended to be read.

...but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, and to people living 2000 years from now, politically incorrect... (I Corinthians 1: 23 Baruch's version)
So, back to the question -- er -- what question?
Let's go with this one: What if a few passages of the New Testament do insinuate that the Jews are "Christ Killers"?
Let's look at the context.
Who was Jesus? Was he a Roman Catholic? Was he a Protestant? Was he an Englishman?
No. He was a Jew -- a first century Jew, subject to Jewish law. He wasn't even a Roman citizen, like Paul was.
So, what happened?
A Jewish court tried a Jewish man, and judged, rightly or wrongly, that he had infringed the Jewish law in a way that warranted his death.
Is that such a big scandal? What nation has never been guilty of something like that?
Well, okay, so the one they sent to his death, in this case just happened to be the Messiah.
Okay, but whose Messiah? The Roman Catholic Messiah? The Anglican Messiah?
These institutions didn't even exist yet. Yeshua's only claim to Messiahship was based on Jewish Law and on the utterances of Jewish prophets.
Those Greco-Romans who were present at the crucifixion, far from being aghast at how Jews could do such a thing as kill "Our Christ", fully co-operated in the matter. They went even a step further by providing a crown of thorns and performing a mock coronation as "King of the Jews", a label obviously meant to insult the Jewish community as well. It's ironic that much later, the same Romans began calling the Jews "Christ Killers", but only when "Christ" was no longer thought of as Jewish. Never have we ever heard the accusation, "Killers of the King of the Jews".
When they mocked Him as "King of the Jews", the Greco-Roman world had absolutely no concept of a messiah. That only came later through Jewish preachers who came proclaiming what only became possible through His death. For the Gentiles to have any part in the whole affair to begin with somebody had to kill Christ as the atonement for the sin of humanity. It could happen no other way.
As Yeshua Himself once said, let He who is without sin cast the first stone. I'm very much afraid that we Gentiles, as sinful as we are, have gone and done just that by calling the Jews "Christ Killers", in fact, biting the hand that fed us.
Now, we've looked at how much weight the accusation carries given the historical setting of the act itself, and we've seen that, right or wrong, those making the accusation had no business making it. Now, let's see how the New Testament actually treats it.
Following the death and resurrection of Yeshua, the first one who sounds like he's calling the Jews "Christ Killers", is Peter. He makes the insinuation three times, the first, on the feast of Shavuot (or Pentecost as it was called in Greek) when he preached to the crowd who were attracted to the 120 followers of Messiah speaking in other languages:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)
Perhaps a more telling statement is the one he made to the crowd in the temple following the healing of the paralytic:
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses. And His name, through faith in His name, has made this man strong, whom you see and know. Yes, the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. “Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. (Acts 3:13-18)
We notice three things here. First, he is addressing the members of the general public, and second, he is somewhat lenient with them, saying "I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers". Finally, he acknowledges that this was how it was meant to be from the beginning, so as to fulfill the plan of God.
When addressing the High Priest and other officials the next day, he doesn't sound quite as accommodating, probably because he's speaking to those who were directly involved:
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ (Acts 4:8-11)
So, we see that Peter laid the responsibility directly where it rested, with those who actually did it, not the whole Jewish race, nor even the whole Jewish religion.
Let's now look at Paul's approach. Here is a passage from his speech to the synagogue in Antioch of Pysidia:
“Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this salvation has been sent. For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him. And though they found no cause for death in Him, they asked Pilate that He should be put to death. (Acts 13:26-28)
Here, we see that Paul lays the responsibility with "those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers".
So we see that while both Peter and Paul both state that it was the Jewish leaders who were responsible for the death of Messiah, they are very careful to lay the blame only on those directly involved.
Another point we need to make here is that both Peter and Paul were Jewish themselves. They did not see themselves as starting a new religion in opposition to Judaism. There is a big difference between the member of one group making a general accusation against another group, and someone making a statement about the group to which they belong. Peter and Paul were both insiders. They were not Roman Catholics (or even Protestants) making a sweeping general statement about the Jews. They were, themselves, Jews trying to bring change from within.
Paul was even more of an insider than Peter. He was a Pharisee (an Orthodox rabbi), who played by the rules, even when working for a change in the Jewish attitude towards Yeshua, as demonstrated by the events surrounding his first arrest. It began while he was going to the temple to offer a sacrifice to pay a vow according to Jewish Law. Shortly after that, when brought before the Sanhedrin, he was caught off guard on finding that the president was none other than the High Priest himself (often it was a member of the Pharisee sect, most notable of these being Hillel and Shammai, and later, Gamaliel). He acknowledged that because he hadn't realised this, he had said something out of order, so he apologised. Then, he said, "I am a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee..." and proceeded to use an insider argument to defend his case. Notice, he didn't used to be a Pharisee. He was still a Pharisee.
His approach to spreading the news of Messiah was "to the Jew first, and then the Gentile". He was the one credited with opening the door to Gentiles to become a part of the Messianic community. He didn't intend to start a separate religion. When the synagogue to whom he spoke the words quoted earlier didn't accept his message, he left saying, "I'm going to the Gentiles". He simply went out, with some of the Jews and interested Gentiles following and, in effect, started a new synagogue, officiated a similar way as other synagogues, with a committee of elders. His attitude towards the Jewish community can be summed up by the following passage:
I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. (Romans 9:1-5)
His opening the door to the Gentiles wasn't a totally new thing. Orthodox Judaism then, as now, has a provision for Gentiles who wish to worship God without having to conform to the whole Jewish Law. They have what is called the "Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah", or the "Noachide Law", derived from commandments God gave to Noah after the flood. These are remarkably similar to the guidelines the Apostles in Jerusalem wrote in a letter to believing Gentiles, which we have reproduced for us in Acts 15:23-29.
The only difference with the new Messianic sect was that Gentile believers can be a part as equals, not second class citizens. Again, this is made possible precisely because Messiah was put to death.
Having proclaimed the door open to the Gentiles, Paul gave them a stern warning never to take a superior attitude towards the Jews:
You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? (Romans 11:19-24)
So, faith seems to be a tentative thing. It simply won't co-exist with revenge or any other attitude such as would even come close to applying the Blood Libe. We are forgiven, according to Yeshua, only as long as we forgive. It is ironic that it is this very same church, the Romans, to whom Paul wrote these words, that later became among the biggest offenders (though by no means the only ones).
The point is, it was a Jewish thing. The New Testament is a Jewish book. What we now call "Christianity" was a sect of Judaism. There was no such thing as a convert from Judaism to Christianity. The issue that Paul fought tooth and nail for was for Gentiles to be recognised as fellow believers without having to become Torah observant. There was never the question of whether Jews could or should keep kosher diets or keep the Sabbath etc. etc. -- until about one or two hundred years later. Once there was a Gentile majority in the Church, then leaders began demanding that Jewish converts forsake Jewish observances and pactices. The date for Resurrection Sunday was set so that it would never co-incide with Jewish Passover, because this was a "Christian" thing, not "Jewish". In fact, the name for it became "Easter", borrowed from a pagan Roman holiday (we'd rather be pagan than Jewish!). Now Christianity was a separate religion from Judaism, a concept totally foreign to Peter's and Paul's way of thinking.
My point is, the New Testament is a Jewish book, meant to be read in the context of the Jewish understanding of things. Of course, you'll read rebukes by Jews directed at their fellow Jews, but to use it to support the blood libel against the whole Jewish community, is not only out of context, but is about as far from the original intent as can be imagined. For myself, I humbly apologise to the Jewish community that we've done this.

Lessons my 3 Month Old Son Taught Me

Now our newborn son is three months old, what has fatherhood taught me?
All my life, a baby was always a baby, and usually not someone I tended to want to get to know very closely -- apart from a "goochi goochl goo" and maybe to hold it a time or two. All that has now changed. Not only do I view babies differently, but I now even perceive humanity in a slightly different way.
Our son, Abie, has been with us for three months -- or 9+3 month, depending on how one looks at it. Even now, while holding him, I think, "What a tiny specimine of humanity!" He is a full fledge human being, and yet he can lie down resting his tummy on my forearm, his face in my hand, while dangling his feet at my elbow (which, as you parents know, is the position for the easing of colic).
Okay, so he's tiny. But he's fully a human. There's not a single button, knob or lever on him that we can push, twist or pull that will guarantee a consistent response each time. He's not a pull string doll, nor even one of those that closes its eyes when you lie it down...

LITTLE GIRL: Look mommy, my baby is sleeping! It closes its eyes when it lies down!
PARENT: (sigh) I wish!

He has his own personality, a complicated set of variables within his body and mind, and a will that decides on its own what to do with them. That is the sure mark of humanity. Despite our best intentions, our hopes, our dreams, we can never make up his mind for him. Now, I know just a little of the heart of God. In His profound love for us, his concern, even the sacrifice of sending His own Son to die for us, He won't make up our mind up for us either. Humanity is created in God's image, and that means we have the power of choice. Abie already seems to be reflecting this characteristic of humanity, even if it is on a very basic level.
The only thing Abie lacks is the communication skill to tell us what's wrong with him, and why he won't choose to accept what we've so wisely chosen for him. It's hard to tell whether he's crying for more milk or if he has a tummy ache. He can't hold an intelligent conversation, but he understands the language of love. From the time he was first born, he hungered for love, and he knew when he was receiving it. Now, at three months, he's much more interactive. When we get his attention and talk to him, he laughs and coos, and acts as though he's talking to us. The fact that very little in the way of intellectual content is passing between us seems to make very little difference. The important thing is the fact that we're interacting. That's how it will be for the whole first year of Abie's life, if not the first two or three.
I remember that at the age of six, a family moved next door to us. They had two daughters, one age three and the other, four. The four-year-old was close enough to my age to where we could play intelligently, but I didn't like the three-year-old because she was to far below my intellectual level. However, her older sister would never allow me to exclude her from our activities. She saw things differently. They were sisters.
We adult humans -- even from the age of six -- value our intellect so much! Why, this entire web site is dedicated to intellectual content! Yet for the first three or so years of life we understand only the language of love. In fact, it may be 10 years before Abie will even begin to appreciate the fact that I'm a writer!
Are we adults missing something? Why do we fail to get along? Why do churches split over differences in how we view things intellectually? What happened to the language of love, which is ever so much more basic to our make-up?

He called a child to him, stood him among them, and said, "Yes! I tell you that unless you change and become like little children, you won't even enter the Kingdom of Heaven!" (Matthew 18:2,3 Jewish New Testament)

How Traditions Start

Here's a story I heard once, that probably speaks for itself:

There was a monastery where the abbot and the monks would take in stray animals. They loved the animals, but they had problems with one particular cat. Every day, during the hour of prayer, the cat would come into the chapel and begin meowing loudly, making it difficult for the monks to concentrate on their prayer and meditation. The abbot found an easy solution. He ruled that every day, before prayers, someone would be assigned to take the cat and tie it to the front gate so it couldn't wander into the chapel during prayer time. After prayers, it was, of course, released.
So it was that day after day, before prayers, the cat would be tied up, and prayers went on peacefully, without interruption. Years went by, new monks came, old ones either moved on or died, and finally the old abbot died. He was replaced by one of the newer monks, who was a good leader and knowledgeable in religious matters. Still, the practice continued of tying the cat to the front gate before prayers.
One day, the cat died.
What did the new abbot do? He went out and found another cat to tie to the gate during prayers!

No Questions Allowed

Why is it that in the church scene, if you ask certain questions, people look at you as though you just walked in without your trousers on? I mean, some questions aren't even allowed in discussion groups! I'll list a few examples -- but let me quickly say, lest you feel inclined to look at ME in that way, I am not raising these questions myself. They are the questions asked by people who presently feel alienated from today's church scene, partly because they aren't allowed to ask them, or if they do ask, they're expected to settle for a briefly worded explanation, such as, "The Bible says, blah blah blah. End of discussion." I'm talking about questions like:
-- Did Jesus REALLY die on the cross and rise the third day? (the inquirer cites either Islamic belief, or something about some deep dark secret location somewhere in France, closely kept under cover by the Catholic Church, or the Knights Templar, which is in fact the final resting place of Jesus, son of Joseph)
-- How do we know that the books of the Bible are all inspired by G-d, or if other books shouldn't have been included that weren't, or if some of the books that were, shouldn't have been?
-- How can we be so sure we don't reincarnate? What about people who remember there previous lives?
-- Why can't Christians be gay? (the inquirer either cites Bible references like John leaning on Jesus' bosom, or points out the existence of gay churches)
-- Is hell really eternal? Is it really the destination of every single person on earth who didn't choose the Christian religion?
-- Did the holocaust really happen? (inquirer cites data from Neo-Nazi sources that support their assertion that the systematic extermination of Jews during World War II didn't really happen)
...I'm sure you can think of many more.
My point is, by maintaining an environment in which such things are never to be questioned, even by the serious doubter, we're losing a whole generation, both by barring them from the front door, and by members slipping out the back.
According to an article in the WASHINGTON TIMES, October 18, 2002 FLOCK STRAYS FROM U.S. CHURCHES about a growing number of people who have lost their faith, and have decided that "their earlier choice [to follow Jesus] was no longer right", "... those who leave have often put in years, even decades, of dedicated service ... Others who 'drift away' from their earlier faith often cite logical contradictions between belief and everyday experiences ... Many are felled by a crisis of faith that sends people into agnosticism or antagonism. Others say their faith is irrelevant to their daily lives..." (I found the link to this article on the www.e-church.com blogsite)
Could it be that we've forced people to keep up the mature, confident "know-it-all" front until they've finally buckled under all the pressure? The rest of us who haven't buckled under yet, are we trying so hard to hold on to what we believe, that we refuse to entertain questions? Are we, by our heroic holding of our forts, the ones thus maintaining this stoic "club house" atmosphere?
If so, we're both locking out the current generation that badly needs to see an example of TRUE FAITH, and we're burning ourselves out in the process. If the church were a place where doubts could be freely expressed instead of buried, just maybe, that could relieve some of the pressure, before some of us reached a breaking point in our walk with G-d. That would also make us better prepared to be honest and open and "ready to give a defence to everyone who asks ... a reason for the hope that is in [us], with MEEKNESS and FEAR" (I Peter 3:15). Meekness is something we certainly lack when asked uncomfortable questions, though we seem to be in pleanty of fear -- although I think FEAR OF G-D is what Peter had in mind, not the other.
But the key word I want to dwell on is "true faith". Mental assent to Christian precepts, however hard we cling on to them to maintain our corporate identity, is not true faith. Many of us began with true faith, but ended up in mental assent.
Faith is the opposite of fear. Real faith won't fear what questions people will ask. Mental assent does.
"Without faith, it's impossible to please G-d, because those who approach Him, must believe that He is, and that He rewards those who diligent seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6)
Real faith leads us into relationship. It's a seeking for Him, and having found Him getting to know Him. Knowing Him is a so much more secure place to be. That, of course, leads to opening up to one another. Mental assent only maintains status quo, and does nothing to break down barriers to relationship.
Faith is simple, but for many of us, keeping ourselves in faith, as opposed to mental assent can be an uphill battle at times. The secret is to keep at it. That's what the "good fight of faith" is (I Tim 6:12). The trouble with many of us is we've lost sight of that battle long ago, and have reverted to fighting to maintain our mental assent.
Faith is dependable. You can lean on it. We're afraid to lean on mental assent, out of fear of finding out that what we've held on to all this time wasn't real after all. To find out that G-d doesn't come through when we need him, or that Jesus really didn't rise from the dead 2000 years ago, would simply shatter our self identity. Should anyone actually venture to lean on their faith for any reason, mental assenters always gasp, "Presumption!" (what presumption really is, is thinking you have faith when all you have is mental assent).
Faith keeps us in the real world -- which is filled with people asking the kinds of questions I've listed above. Mental assent isn't strong enough to face the real world, so it keeps us sheltered in a fantasy world where those kinds of questions can't enter -- where those honestly asking those kinds of questions wouldn't want to enter anyway.
Because it's founded in the real world, Faith is based on the actual fact of what Jesus did for us in the real world. Mental assent is afraid, deep down inside, that if one were given the opportunity to travel backwards in time 2000 years minus 33, one just might not find the resurrected Yeshua of Nazareth showing Himself alive to His disciples. Rather, one might find either a Jesus who's still dead, or a Jesus who mysteriously avoided death, only to die naturally many years later, or someone who is the antithesis of who we believe in today. Therefore mental assent goes out of its way to avoid any argument that would possibly lead to that conclusion.
Mental assent is fearful that maybe what we believe in isn't true after all, but must still cling to it for dear life, because ones identity is wrapped up in it. We've been in it too long. We've gained a measure of status in the Christian community, and to keep it requires us to cling on to the tenants of the faith.
So, if we suspect that what we've been living on is mental assent, not faith, what do we do?
If we suspect that we're quickly losing our grip on this whole thing, and about to go the way of many others, what is the urgent first step?
Yeshua said, "Seek and you shall find...", "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness..."
If we seek Him, we'll find Him. But Hebrews 11:6, referred to above, says we must believe that He's there to be found.
But how do we believe when all we have is mental assent?
Often, we have just a teeny weeny bit of faith, but it's buried under a giant pile of mental assent. "G-d has dealt to each one a measure of faith" (Romans 12:3). The secret is to dig it out.
Some hints how to look for it:
Romans 10:17, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by a word regarding Messiah." That can come from the Bible, or from a spoken word inspired by G-d.
Another place to look for it: In the New Testament, we often find faith listed after "repentance": i.e. -- Mark 1:15 "REPENT and BELIEVE the good news"; Hebrews 6:2 "...REPENTANCE from dead works, FAITH towards G-d...", a few places in Acts and others as well.
Repentance can involve a lot of different things depending on who you are. For the rich young ruler, it meant selling everything he owned, giving it to the poor, and following Yeshua. Yeshua required him to give up all his comfort and all his status in the world he lived in, and follow His idea of reality.
What about our status and comfort of the church world we live in? What about all the benefits we're clinging on to by holding our mental assent? ...our "good old boy" image? ...our title of "reverend"?
Maybe for some of us, this means throwing everything we thought we believed up in the air, being honest with G-d, and saying, "If you're real, which just a tiny bit of me genuinely believes you are, take all this and piece it all together again as faith. In the process, I'm willing to give up my standing in this pretend world I've been living in, and lose myself in the real world."
You won't really be lost, because the real world is where G-d lives.

Letter to a Moslem

The following is an answer to an anonymous Moslem who wrote in to the discussion board of Next-Wave. His message was too long to reproduce here, was evangelistic (on behalf of Islam), and was signed, "Your Brother in Humanity". The following with a few edited changes, was a response. I decided to also post this here as an open letter to all Moslems. Footnotes are at the bottom.

MY DEAR BROTHER IN HUMANITY...

I think the only appropriate way for me to begin this is with an apology:
I don't know your background, whether you are from the Middle East, from the Far East, from Central Asia, North Africa or a European who has embraced Islam. You no doubt feel, as I would acknowledge, that your identification with the faith of Islam makes you a son of Ishmail, just as my embracing of faith in Isa* [there are footnotes below], the Word of Allah**, makes me spiritually a son of Isaac.
For myself, I am only a spiritual son, not a natural offspring of Isaac (having come by faith in Isa, not a convert to Judaism). I therefore feel a debt of honour to the physical sons of Isaac and Ishmail. The book of Geneses records blessings for both Ishmail and Isaac. For the gentile nations, to which I belong, no blessing is given at all -- only an opportunity to receive a blessing through the sons of Abraham, as it says, "In you, all the nations of the earth will be blessed", and "I will bless those who bless you, and and curse those who curse you."
I'm afraid that we gentile believers in Isa deserve a curse both for our past and for our present sins against you, the children of Abraham. The Crusades are definitely a blotch on our history. In those dark times, we destroyed whole communities and slaughtered, without mercy, many more Moslems than can even be measured by the recent terrorist attacks. I realise that most Moslems are equally appalled by what happened to the WTC and other attacks, and do not consider terrorism as a good thing, but if that were to be used as a measuring stick, we Christians have still done far more wrong to the Muslim community than the Muslim have, to us.
That is only one example of our past atrocities against the children of Abraham. As for the present: We loudly sing "G-d Save the Queen" at our football matches, and then proceed to bash up anyone supporting the opposite team. We put "In G-d we Trust" on our currency, and with it we finance pornographic and blasphemous films and literature with which we corrupt the rest of the world, including much of the Muslim world.
Although these examples only cover the tip of the iceberg, and my knowledge of history fails me for more, please accept my humble apologies on behalf of the Christian community for our sins. I'm sure other members of this discussion board will also affirm this confession and apology.
Having said that, I must now allude to a point on which your religion doesn't agree -- in which Islam states that no mediator is necessary in order to gain access to Allah. Because of our sins against the rest of humanity, and against the Muslim world in particular, I find I have no choice but to acknowledge our absolute dependence on the intermediary role of Isa, the Word of Allah, in obtaining forgiveness for our sins. In light of what we have done, how we've miss-used the grace of Allah in the past, the only way I feel I can proceed is to humbly acknowledge that it is only because of His mercy that I deserve to be alive, let alone be talking to you. With that in mind please allow me to speak my heart:
HOW WE GOT THIS WAY:
Looking at us now, it's hard to believe that we were, once-upon-a-time, a simple down-to-earth Middle Eastern religion, similar to Islam. In fact, we were not a religion at all, in our own right, but only one of many sects within Judaism. Messiah Isa had revealed Allah to us in a more profound way than we had known Him before, and then, had opened up the way for us to come yet closer to Him -- closer than was possible through simple Torah observance (though we believe that Isa fulfilled the Torah in that regard, so that the final veil between Allah and man was lifted in a way stimulated by the Torah. Thus true Torah observance is the acknowledging of Messiah).
So, we began with a knowledge of Allah as revealed through Isa, Allah's Word.
I think we can be open and honest here. In describing Isa as Allah's Word, of course, I'm simply using a "Islamically Correct" phrase in place of the usual Christian usage, "Son of G-d". Islam states that Allah has no offspring, and no one can be referred to as a son of Allah. Whatever the assumption was, we don't necessarily think of Isa's "Sonship" as being the result of his birth to a human mother. Rather, we see it in the same sense as His being the "Word", spoken by Allah, emanated from Allah in much the same way that the rays of the sun are emanated from the sun itself. If it's only a matter of terminology, I have no trouble on my part in dropping the phrase "Son of G-d", for the sake of this discussion.
In using the analogy of the sun, I think we are on somewhat common ground. The sun, the closest star to earth, is so hot and so full of energy that a human could never even hope to approach it directly. Yet, the rays of the sun are the primary source of sustenance to all life on earth. You have no doubt noticed, in the West, our obsession with turning our skin dark so as to look more like Middle Easterners and North Africans :-) Driven by that, we flock to the beach on our days off, where we can enjoy pure sunlight, so we can come home with darker looking skin. Even though that's as close as we can get to it, we call it being "in the sun".
As the Word of Allah, Isa revealed Him to us in much the same way. In Jewish terminology, He would be the "Shechinah" of Allah, or the "dwelling" of Allah among us. The rabbis speak of the Shechinah of G-d being present among His congregation, or among the two who gather to study Torah, or three who sit to judge, etc. We believe Allah spoke His Word, which emanated to earth in same way as the rays of the sun, and became Shechinah, in the form of a person, Isa.
In those early days, we weren't so intent on defining things, but were content to simply bask in the Shechinah of Allah, in the same way as many today like to bask in the sun. We had come to know Allah as revealed in Isa, and that seemed enough for us, as it should be. As time went on, from being a simple Middle Eastern religion, we began to try to go "up market" by explaining it all to Greek and Roman minds. Oriental religion is of the heart, but Western religion emphasises the mind. We began to search for answers using our heads instead of our hearts, thereby becoming "Westernised". In trying to have it all figured out with our rational minds, and to protect ourselves from a barrage of rational ideas from just about every source imaginable, we came up with creeds. With it, we defined the "Trinity".
To be honest, I do not find any fault with the doctrine of the Trinity*** in and of itself. But I should clarify, the "Trinity" is not about three separate individuals who came together and decided to be "G-d". To me, the word "One" goes much further than the word "Three" in describing Him. It's just that, by offering a scientific sounding definition, people began to depend on what their minds could fathom instead of what their hearts told them. They began to apply it rationally, and began approaching G-d as though there were three gods, or a family of gods. It was very simple matter, then, to add Mary as a fourth member of the "family". That just about describes the state of things when the Prophet Muhammed began his career, so to me it's quite understandable that someone of his calibre would decide to throw out the whole thing and seek to find his revelation directly from Allah Himself. If the word "Son" were to be understood as being a part of a family of gods, then I fully understand the Prophet in his rejection of the idea of Allah having a son.
"One" is an apt description of G-d. If Isa is a part of the G-dhead, then he is inseparable from that oneness. Just as the rays of the sun can't suddenly decide to move to a different part of the universe, and have no more to do with the actual sun -- they would then cease to be rays, or anything for that matter -- so the Word of Allah could never be thought of in isolation of Allah Himself. At the same time, the sun, by its nature, must have rays, or it would become a black hole. Therefore, the sun and its rays are one. The Holy Spirit is the breath of Allah, and the Word is His Shechinah, or radiance. As for His being a person, I would say that Allah can be what He wants. The rabbis say that G-d creates angels, complete with personalities, simply by giving a command, and the angel formed by that command exists for as long as it takes to fulfil that command, and then returns and merges again with the substance of G-d****. Being One G-d isn't about His person-hood, whether one or many, but being One G-d.
The Torah says man is created in G-d's image. I think we could safely say man is a very simplified and abbreviated image of G-d. Man is at his healthiest when he is "one" with himself. Some people are diagnosed with multiple personalities, but such people cannot be described as being "one". Being abbreviated and simplified, that's all man was designed for. Man is limited, but G-d is infinite. Just as the sun is composed of pure energy and too hot and radiant for man to approach any closer than the circle of earth's orbit, so are G-d's ways far above our ways and His thoughts than our thoughts -- so much so that His thoughts could be animated with personalities if He chose. As many of such thoughts G-d would choose to have, they would all agree, as G-d is infinitely "one", far exceeding man's attempts at being "one".
I know you won't agree with most of what I'm saying, but at least I think it's a way of presenting our beliefs in a way that would be of least offence to your sensibilities, and show that Christianity honours Allah as a true expression of monotheism.
As far as I see it, that leaves only one other fundamental area of disagreement: the death of Isa on the cross, and His ressurection*****.
Unlike the issues I've discussed above, this is one that I cannot play down, skirt around, explain away or even apologise for. The "offence of the cross", according to Rabbi Sha'ul, is the offence that defines us. Before the Prophet arrived on the scene, it was already offensive. To the thinking Greeks it was offensive, to the organic Jewish mind it was offensive. Unfortunately, it also offends some of us!
The offence of the cross is the only offence we are allowed (indeed, required) to maintain, but our problem is, we've offended in just about every way BUT that. We've offended you in many ways, so that we now have no choice, before Allah, but to come to you in deep sorrow and repentance. But it is through the cross, our only legitimate offence, that we can, by humbly repenting, receive forgiveness and cleansing from all our other offences that are filthy blotches on our history.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS
I know that nothing I can say right now can make up for the evil that has been done in the name of Messiah. I can only speak for myself, but others of us continue to offend, with militant, nationalistic, racist attitudes towards the Moslem community, while continuing to flaunt sexual and moral permissiveness in a way that would make most in the Moslem world blush.
Yet, there is so much we could learn from you: your morality, your simple faith, your furverancy, your close family unions, honouring of one another (why, in Afghanistan, which we in the West consider the most "backward" of countries, the traditional family unit is still a remarkably solid foundation for society at large, and an example we should be studying for our own benefit). This is not to mention praying three times a day and fasting one month out of the year. Most of us Christians, if we pray once a day, or fast the whole weekend, we think we've achieved sainthood.
But my personal belief is, we are slowly learning that or own ways have got us nowhere. Our only strength is in the offence of the Cross of Isa, the Messiah. Once we learn to not be offended by that ourselves, but to fully rely on that for our strength, and our way forward -- as we thus learn the humility of Isa -- you will see a profound change in us.
In Isa, the Messiah,
baruch

----------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES:
* "Isa" is simply Arabic for "Yeshua", which is Hebrew for "Jesus". Jesus is believed by Moslems as a prophet, and as Messiah, and the Word of Allah.
** "Allah" is simply Arabic for G-d. Even Christian Bibles in Arabic and in Bahasa-Malayu and other Moslem languages use "Allah" as the generic term for the creator of the universe. The only fundamental difference in Moslem belief is their insistence that Allah cannot have children. I personally believe it is a mistake to insist that the Moslems worship a different god than the Christians.
*** Lest any of this is taken as questioning the doctrine of the Trinity, let me just clarify. What I'm saying is simply this: at that point in history, when we sat down and begin rationalising everything and laying down creeds, we lost our innocence.
At the time, it seemed like a necessary move, both to be able to explain it all to Greek and Roman minds, and to protect ourselves from a host of rationalists who tried to steer everything in a totally different direction (ie. Marcion, Arius of Alexandria, Nestorius and others). What SHOULD we have done? I don't know. I'm not even sure that had I lived then, I would have done any better. Never the less, we lost our innocence
Once we've lost our innocence, it's hard to gain it back again. That's why it would be a mistake, at this point in history, to try to backtrack and UN-docterinalise the trinity.
Instead of trying to UN-do 1800 or so years of ecclesiastical evolution, I'd suggest that the challenge for us now, is to try to see where our original innocence (that we lost) would have taken us, and try to steer a course towards that. That is, simply, a clearer revelation of G-d as revealed in Yeshua/Isa/Jesus.
**** That's not to say Isa is no more than one of many angels created by a command of G-d. As the Word of Allah, He is permanent in the same way as the rays that eternally emanate from the sun are permanently part of the sun.
***** Islam states that though the Jews attempted to crucify Isa, they didn't succeed, as Allah rescued Isa at the last minute, so He didn't die on the cross nor rise from the dead.