Matt 24 watch, 89: Al Qaeda Video identifying itself as the End Times Black Flag Army of the Mahdi

Joel Richardson has commented on and linked to a Youtube video on how Al Qaeda is now recruiting on the claim that it and/or the Taliban of Afghanistan constittute the black flag army of Islamist end times thought.

Excerpting his remarks:

An al-Qaida video just released on YouTube titled "The Mahdi Army" reveals for the first time the deep degree to which al-Qaida views itself to be the prophesied apocalyptic Mahdi army. While this is something I and other observers of Islamic apocalyptic movements have been very suspicious of for years, this video offers the first solid proof that al-Qaida is guided by the end-time apocalyptic prophecies of Islam.

The video is a typical al-Qaida recruitment video released under the al-Sahab label, replete with ninja-esque Islamic mujahedeen soldiers flaunting their military skills. What is new, however, is the multiple references to the Islamic end-time prophecies with al-Qaida featured as the frontline soldiers of the Mahdi.

The video begins with a subtitle of several Islamic sacred traditions called "hadith." One of the first hadiths states that in the last days an army of Islamic soldiers will come from the area of "Khorasan" and will march forth to Jerusalem to conquer the land of Israel for the Islamic Mahdi. Khorasan straddles the border of Iran and Afghanistan where al-Qaida is presently still very active.

Featured prominently throughout the film is the imagery and motif of black flags . . . .

According to Islamic sacred tradition, when any Muslim sees the Islamic armies carrying the black flags from Khorasan toward Israel, they are religiously obligated to pledge their allegiance to the army and its leader. This pledge is called the bay'ah. Then the words appear: "That army has already arisen and answered the call to defend Islam."

A Muslim preacher named Imran Hussein Nazir appears giving a sermon in which he states the following:

The Messiah will destroy the false Messiah. And when that happens, then a Muslim army will liberate the Holy Land. The prophet said, "When you see the black flags coming from the direction of Khorasan, go join their army. That army has already started to be established. They know it. And that is why they demonize as a terrorist anyone who supports Allah. That army will liberate every single territory in a straight line, until it reaches Jerusalem. And the heart of Khorasan is Afghanistan. That is why we have occupied Afghanistan. When this army liberates every territory on its way to Jerusalem, there will be in that army, Imam Mahdi. And so the liberation of the Holy Land is not going to come about through any negotiations. …" . . . .

The revelation that al-Qaida is so strikingly apocalyptic in their worldview is a powerfully relevant factor, whether one is a believer in the Bible or not. As Dr. David Cook of Rice University once rightly stated, "There is power in apocalyptic." Much attention has been paid to the apocalyptic vision of the Iranians, but now it is clear that the problem is far more endemic than we had previously known. Believer or unbeliever, skeptical or not, none can deny that we live in desperate and very interesting times.

This issue is so significant that I simply invite you to watch. END

__________

UPDATE/ADDENDUM, Sept 16: In ch 4 of an online book Will Islam be our Future?, Joel Richardson places the rise of the Mahdi in context:

Islamic tradition pictures the Mahdi as joining with the army of Muslim warriors carrying black flags. The Mahdi will then lead this army to Israel and reconquer it for Islam. The Jews will be slaughtered until very few remain and Jerusalem will become the location of the Mahdi’s rule over the Earth. [This is similar to the message of a Christmas 2006 Iranian Government press release, as previously discussed here.]

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo of Guyana and of the Barnabas Fund, adds in his own summary, that:

“Muslims believe that Jesus will come back to earth as a Muslim, will marry and have children, then die and be buried near Muhammad. Some traditions assert that at this second coming He will destroy every cross, kill all Jews, convert the Christians to Islam, and reign as king of all Muslims.”

The Iranian Governmnet Christmas 2006 news release gives a fuller ideological framework, with particular reference to the Islamic version of an eschatological Prophet Isa, intended to be a "corrected" view on Jesus of the NT:

In today's world, science and technology have helped human societies to achieve many of the amenities. But mankind has not yet been able to eliminate poverty and remove the unequal distribution of income in the society, because of the unjust world order imposed by the so-called big powers, which by monopolizing science and technology terrorize weaker nations and plunder their wealth and natural resources. The cold and calculating domineering powers impose on the weaker nations, the methods of production, consumption and technology that are to the benefit of capitalists. In the weird system of today’s powerful counties, moral and spiritual values have no place and are seen as undesirable liabilities that prevent these powers from reaching economic welfare and what they call true prosperity. However, the exploitation of the weak, the unjust system of distribution and denial of the rights of nations, will end with the reappearance of Imam Mahdi (AS). In the government of the Imam man will witness real economic welfare throughout the world without any discrimination. The main issue in his global government is carrying out social justice and one of the main products of social justice is a highly developed economy that leads to the blossoming of moral and spiritual values as emphasized by the dynamic teachings of Islam. [The recent discussion here will show how the idealised "Islamic justice" envisioned by the Iranian Government -- which has just stolen an election that apparently did not go the "right" way -- too often works out on the ground.]

That is, apocalyptic, Mahdist forms of Islamism clearly provide a religious motivation for a global conquest agenda in the name of Allah. (As discussed here in a Jan 2007 blog post on Wehner's analysis of the ongoing global ideological and religious-spiritual conflict over the rise of islamism, Bin Laden was not previously associated with such an explicit statement [Islamism inherently appeals to the themes of subjugation of dar ul Harb under Allah, his prophet and law, through his warriors; which have ample Quranic, hadith and historical support in the founding era of Islam as a global force], but now Al Qaeda is recruiting in light of just such explicitly global conquest end-times themes.)

And, we all need to be alert to that.

PS: I try to embed:

Matt 24 watch, 88: REAL blood for oil deals

Powerline drew my attention to this article from the London Times, headlined: Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil':

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests . . . .

Two letters dated five months apart show that Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country.

In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.

Downing Street had also said Megrahi would not be included under the agreement.

Straw then switched his position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included . . . .

Within six weeks of the government climbdown, Libya had ratified the BP deal. The prisoner transfer agreement was finalised in May this year, leading to Libya formally applying for Megrahi to be transferred to its custody.

Saif Gadaffi, the colonel’s son, has insisted that negotiation over the release of Megrahi was linked with the BP oil deal: “The fight to get the [transfer] agreement lasted a long time and was very political, but I want to make clear that we didn’t mention Mr Megrahi.

“At all times we talked about the [prisoner transfer agreement]. It was obvious we were talking about him. We all knew that was what we were talking about.

“People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil. We signed an oil deal at the same time. The commerce and oil deals were all with the [prisoner transfer agreement].”

His account is confirmed by other sources. Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Libya and a board member of the Libyan British Business Council, said: “Nobody doubted Libya wanted BP and BP was confident its commitment would go through. But the timing of the final authority to spend real money was dependent on politics.”

No wonder, then, that the article goes on to cite a victim's father:

Bob Monetti of New Jersey, whose son Rick was among the victims of the 1988 bombing, said: “It’s always been about business.”

And, worse, AP reports, datelined August 29, 2009, that:

[US] Attorney General Eric Holder warned his Scottish counterpart in June that the man convicted of blowing U.S.-bound Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky could get a hero's welcome if allowed to return to Libya, according to the head of a group representing the families of victims.

Holder's warning to Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill came nearly two months before the bomber, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, was released from a Scottish prison and greeted by a cheering crowd on his arrival in Libya last week.

In short, we have here craven surrender to mass murder fro political purposes, in the interests of a sweetheart oil deal.

Let us see if those who so vehemently protested the military interventions in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, chanting "no blood for oil" will again march to protest this demonstrated case of a blood for oil deal.

But, don't wait with bated breath for it.

In short, we here have a little window on our times . . . END

Mt 24 watch, 87: Confessing Christ in the Iranian Courts

WND has a current report, "2 Christians: 'God decides to whom He talks' " on the case of Maryam Rustampoor, 27, and Marzieh Amirizadeh, 30; who are on trial for "apostasy" in Iran -- effectively treason against Islam because of having been born Muslim but converting to the Christian Faith -- noting that:

Under Shariah law, the penalty for apostasy often is death. According to reports about the punishment system within Iran, for women the execution often is preceded by rape. [Cf previous KF blog post on this here.]

Reports have revealed that both women have been subjected to solitary confinement as well as extended interrogations already, with health problems resulting.

According to a base report from the Elam ministry, during their court appearance on Sunday just past "at which they were supposed to hear their sentences on allegations of apostasy" -- and this point of intended sentencing by the way seems to have been the FIRST time that the women had the benefit of legal representation -- instead there was a public and highly revealing interrogation "by the deputy prosecutor identified only by his surname, Haddad":

. . . [the women] explained that God had convicted them [to become and remain Christians] through the Holy Spirit.

"It is impossible for God to speak with humans," Hadded stated.

"Are you questioning whether God is Almighty?" Amirizadeh asked him.

To which Haddad then replied. "You are not worthy for God to speak to you."

"It is God, and not you, who determines if I am worthy," she said.

Haddad instructed that the women were "to go back to their prison cells and think about their options, and to return to court when they are ready to comply."

The response: "We have already done our thinking."

The Elam report adds that "the fact that no verdict was given in the case indicates the court is focusing solely on the women's Christian faith and no other "offense." "

We may also see that:

Haddad earlier had asked if the women were Christian.

"We love Jesus," they replied.

"You were Muslims and now you have become Christians," Haddad stated.

"We were born in Muslim families, but we were not Muslims," the women said.

The deputy prosecutor asked about their regrets, and they said, "We have no regrets."

"You should renounce your faith verbally and in written form," he warned.

They refused.

The Elam report observed:

At the end of the session, Mr. Haddad told them that a judge will give them his verdict, though it is not clear who will be the judge in their case now. He also allowed Maryam and Marzieh to have a lawyer represent them in the case for the first time since their arrest.

It gives some other relevant background:

Maryam and Marzieh were originally arrested on March 5, 2009 and have suffered greatly while in prison, suffering ill health, solitary confinement and interrogations for many hours while blindfolded. . . . . Marzieh is in pain due to an on-going problem with her spine, as well as an infected tooth and intense headaches. She desperately needs medical attention . . . . Two months ago the prison officials told her the prison had proper medical equipment and that they will attend to her, but so far no proper treatment has been given . . . .

Despite the concentrated effort of officials to pressure them into recanting their faith, Maryam and Marzieh love Jesus and they are determined to stand firm to the very end no matter whatever happens. They have demonstrated their love for Jesus and would offer their lives for Him if they were called to do so. After today’s court session they said, “If we come out of prison we want to do so with honor."

Very understandably and correctly, the Elam report concludes:

Maryam and Marzieh’s case is a clear and harsh violation of human rights and religious liberty by Iran’s authorities. They deserve the support of all those who respect human rights and to be released without charges so they can pursue a life of freedom.

So, we must be utterly clear what our sisters and brothers in Christ in Iran are undergoing even as we ourselves enjoy freedom of conscience and worship here in the Caribbean.

Things that it is plain that the major media houses in the Western World will never report, lest it stir us to a different view of the world situation and what we need to do as free people in free nations, with governments whose policy must by sworn duty reflect principles of democracy and liberty.

So, we now need to begin to petition our Caribbean Governments and Caricom, to stand up against such outrages, especially through those Caribbean states that are closely connected to Venezuela, an ally of Iran.

But most of all, we need to pray that in his grace God will give rescue to these two brave young ladies, and the many others of his people in the global suffering church. And, in so praying let us be willing also to pray that we be a part of the answer to these prayers.

The Voice of the Martyrs Persecuted Church blog gives us some guidance on such prayers, from Elam:

Let us thank [God]:

• For preserving, sustaining and strengthening them in prison.
• For giving them the grace to be steadfast in their faith.
• For the witness they have been in prison.
• For the love, concern and prayer of many believers around the world.

Pray for their court hearing:

• Pray that the court will set them free.
• Pray that the presence and the anointing of the Holy Spirit will be with them.
• That they will receive healing from all illness
• That the peace of God will cover their minds and their hearts, and will keep them safe in Jesus and refresh them tonight.
• That in all this the Lord will be greatly glorified and His perfect will be done.

Thank you so much for praying.

Oh, God, in the grace of Christ, let this be so, Amen. END

Matt 24 watch, 86: BBC Dan Brown-ises a news item on the digitalisation of Codex Sinaiticus

On October 6, 2008, under the banner BBC News, Roger Bolton published an article on the recent digitalisation of the well-known Codex Sinaiticus; which was discovered in 1844 by Tischendorf in a pile of old manuscripts in St Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai -- intended to be fuel for heating cold rooms!

A minor item, hardly worth noticing, you would say.

Until you read the sensationalistic headline: "The rival to the Bible."

For, a la Dan Brown et al on steroids, the article -- duly presented as "news" -- asserts:

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection . . . . the Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament.

One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry . . . . Had this remained in subsequent versions, "the suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse", says the distinguished New Testament scholar Professor Bart Ehrman.

And although many of the other alterations and differences are minor, these may take some explaining for those who believe every word comes from God . . . .

The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.

"When people ask me if the Bible is the word of God I answer 'which Bible?'". . .

Unsurprisingly, Islamic advocates swiftly pounced on such a convenient item, e.g. one forum has a contributor boldly declaring (based on Q 9:29 - 35 etc):

This only enhances what Muslims around the world have been arguing for centuries. I would hope, in a perfect world, that our christian friends will open there minds to the truth and reject the falsehood that has hijacked the teachings of Jesus(Peace be upon him). Sadly many will just ignore these facts that continue to open, crushing falsehood but muslims will not cease to argue and spread the truth of islam regardless. The Proof is there, The bible has many alterations/versions and the true teachings of Jesus(Peace be upon him) are lost and can only be found in islam.

A little "deconstruction" is plainly in order, as the item is highly revealing on not only current trends in radical Bible criticism (and on how Islamic advocates often pounce on such works to advance their own agenda), but also on what is happening to the former gold standard of world news, the BBC:

1--> That the only Bible scholar of consequence consulted and cited in details is a well-known radical skeptic, agnostic and former Evangelical should immediately warn us that this news item is anything but:

a well-informed, easily readable report on a noticeable and significant current event; presented in an accurate, fair, balanced, factually based fashion; and, with enough background context to give the viewer a basis to make up his or her own mind.

2 --> For instance, the article starts by setting up a strawman distortion of the informed conservative position on inerrancy: "those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God." But, this is sharply divergent from the actual long since publicly declared position taken by, say, Article X of the Chicago statement on inerrancy:

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

3 --> Now, from the very first Greek New Testament copies a seminary student will use in Greek 101, theologians are all familiar with the textual critical apparatus resting on the study of 5,000 manuscripts. So, the actual Chicago statement makes a clear distinction between the original letters and books, and the state of particular copies that have been handed down or have survived across the ages. Those careful remarks are unfortunately not reflected in the caricature set up by the article (and evidently by its source, Mr Ehrman).

4 --> Reflecting 2 Peter 1:20 - 21 -- "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" -- the Chicago statement therefore:

(a) affirms God's inspiration of the Apostles and closely associated apostolic men [such as Mark, or Luke] involved in writing the documents in the New Testament (which would thus reflect God's perfection of knowledge, goodness and character),

(b) noting also that such inspiration clearly primarily relates to the autographs. And,

(c) to address the actual copies we can access -- manuscripts, translations and versions -- the statement then adds that God has made adequate provision that the Bibles (providing they are responsible translations) we have in hand adequately reflect the actual original text; sufficiently so that we can use such versions and copies with high confidence.

(d) So, it concludes that this overall result holds, even though of course any one copy or manuscript -- including Codex Sinaiticus --may have in it various textual critical problems (by far and away, mostly mis-spellings, duplicated or omitted words and the like).

[NB: For more detailed background, cf Enc. of NT Textual Criticism here, Theopedia on the general issues of Bible criticism here, the personal perspective by a recently educated Singaporean Evangelical theologian here, the survey and summary here, and Arlandson's remarks here. Also, for useful survey discussions on the technical, theological and philosophical issues raised by Mr Ehrman, cf the blog exchange with N T Wright here, and the Mark D Roberts essay series on inspiration of the text and textual criticism here. Ben Witherington -- who also studied under Bruce Metzger -- has a very useful short and sharp summary here.]

5 --> When we turn to the Old Testament, we may at once gain perspective and balance by following John Wenham's example: pointing to the example of Jesus (whose position as Prophet and Son of God was confirmed to us by his resurrection from the dead with 500+ eyewitnesses [cf Habermas and Licona's The Case for the Resurrection]).

6 --> For, we may easily see that -- simply taking the NT texts (especially the gospels) as "reasonable" classical era historical sources -- Jesus confidently used the manuscripts of his day as the Word of God. Indeed, in Jn 10:35, we see him addressing a theological challenge, and succinctly stating as a premise: " . . . the Scripture cannot be broken . . ."

7 --> In the C1, the Old Testament, Hebrew Scriptures had been handed down over the generations and centuries since Moses and the Prophets [NB: cf. here, here, here, here, here and here for a "101" on historical and archaeological credibility despite many other current media, Internet and academic critic attacks], and had similar variants as are currently noted for the NT; with a significant variation in the case of the texts handed down and in use by the Samaritans, a half-Jewish, somewhat schismatic group living in Samaria.

8 --> Cutting to the chase: notwithstanding such minor concerns, Jesus was supremely confident in the Bible of his day as the Word of God, and confirmed its authenticity by fulfilling its prophecies, including those of Isaiah 53 (which foresaw a Messiah who would bear our sins, carry our sorrows, provide healing for us though his stripes, make his soul an offering for our sins, and then prolong his days and see the light of life; having plainly risen from the dead).

9 --> This attitude apparently includes the Septuagint [the "King James Version" translation of that day], as the Apostles he sent out freely made use of this famous -- and famously loose! -- Greek translation as the Word of God. (E.g., something like 2/3rds of the 300 OT cites in the NT are based on the Septuagint.)

10 --> Indeed, the general apostolic attitude to the 'in-hand" Bible of the C1 can be summed up in Paul's counsel to Timothy in 2 Tim 3:14 - 17:

2 Tim 3: 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

11 --> When it comes to the emerging documents that would form our New Testament, we hear Peter saying, in counsel and warning to his readers shortly before his martyrdom c. 65 AD:

2 Peter 1: 16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit . . . .

3: 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. 14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

12 --> Let us note how Peter speaks of the OT: "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." Similarly, he describes the Gospel tradition recorded in our four canonical Gospels: "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." And, in describing Paul's epistles, he observes and warns that: "[they] contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

13 --> This attitude, plainly, sharply contrasts with that of Dr Ehrman and others of his ilk. Now, further to this, and as James Arlandson summarises in his critical review of Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman argues as follows:

(1) If God inspires his original words in the New Testament, then he should miraculously preserve those original words.
(2) If God miraculously preserves his original words, then we should have them now.
(3) But we do not have those original words now (for they were changed by scribes, not miraculously preserved).
(4) Therefore, God did not inspire any original words in the New Testament.
____________

WE MAY OBSERVE:

(i) As the Chicago statement highlights, this sets up a convenient strawman: what is practically required is that the substantial matter be accurately communicated, not the miraculous preservation of all copies from copyist errors etc (not to mention willful distortions by the likes of a Marcion etc) in all cases across 2,000 years.

(ii) As a matter of the fact of having carefully investigated 5,000 Greek manuscripts and others amounting to 24,000 altogether, we have high confidence that the substantial text has been preserved. (As the Chicago statement notes.)

(iii) In particular, there has been no manipulation of central doctrinal claims or creedal; statements such as Acts 17:16 - 34, Rom 1:1 - 5, 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 , Heb 1:1 - 14, or Phil 2:5 - 11 etc.

(iv) In addition, we have well founded confidence that -- as the Christian faith spread in a more or less unorganised way across threee continents -- it is plain that no central authority was able to recall and willfully modify all texts. (NB: Such recall and modification seems to have been attempted with the Quran, which was standardised on Hafsa's copy; through Caliph Uthman's orders. Even so, divergent manuscripts were preserved down to the current times; and the historical record preserves the protest against the attempt.)

(v) Thus, there is no pattern of overall willful alteration and distortion of the text of the key NT canonical documents and/or of the core faith commitments they teach. (As for the OT, the current Protestant OT is a somewhat differently arranged version of the Hebrew Scriptures.) We can thus identify a central, common-core C1 rooted Christian Faith "once for all delivered to the saints" as Jude 3 describes; rather than Mr Ehrman's claimed competing cluster of irreconcilably conflicting "Christianities."

(vi) In the case of 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, that core gospel teaching traces to the mid 30's AD, and to the circle of 500+ core witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, especially the 20+ member identified inner circle of the Apostles and close associates:

1 Cor 15:1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importancea: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

(vii) So, Mr Ehrman's attempts to knock over the strawman he set up notwithstanding, once we see the implications of the resurrection of Jesus, in light of the prophecies that pointed to such a suffering, dying and rising messiah, we have every good reason for confidence that the NT preserves the counsels of God to us.

14 --> By further contrast to the teachings of such modernist skeptics, it is helpful to note that Paul Barnett reports in his Is the New Testament History? how the very first circle of church fathers whose writings [AD 95 - 115] survive -- Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp -- cite or allude to 25 of 27 of our canonical NT writings as scripture ( they happened not to mention two of the shortest, Jude and 2 John).

15 --> That is, right from the time of those who were the disciples and immediate successors of the Apostles, the main body of NT documents were already accepted by the living church as God-inspired, authoritative and authentic scripture. And since then, these works have continued to be read, accepted as scripture and cited as the Word of God from generation to generation, right up to the invention of printing (which allowed each of us to hold a copy of these precious documents in our own hands).

16 --> In addition, the immediate successors to the apostles, speaking in their own voice, taught as follows:

(i) Clement, 95: Let us fear the Lord Jesus (Christ), whose blood was given for us. The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from the dead.

(ii) Ignatius, 110 – 115: Be ye deaf therefore, when any man speaketh to you apart from Jesus Christ, who was born of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His Father having raised Him . . .

(iii) Polycarp, 110+: . . Jesus Christ who took our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes He endured all things, that we might live in Him . . . . For they loved not the present world, but Him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us . . . . who shall believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father that raised Him from the dead.

17 --> We may thus easily see from these excerpts just how Scripture-saturated their thoughts and teachings were.

18 --> Now, Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas, are similarly Scripture-saturated familiar works of Christian antiquity. But, while they were viewed by some Christians as worthy of inclusion with -- or at least being appended to -- the corpus of recognised Scriptures (alongside, e.g. Didache), it was in the end concluded that they were not provably apostolic (and sometimes had questionable materials that were arguably inconsistent with the tone and/or teachings of the known apostolic works), and so on the "if in doubt leave it out" principle were not accepted as a part of the foundational canon.

19 --> It is easy, of course, to play the antisemitic card in order to poison the atmosphere for discussion; e.g by citing how Barnabas, echoes the rent- a- crowd in Matt 27:25: All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" But in fact it should be noted that the NT writers were -- apart from Luke -- Jews. However, on a fairer reading, the recorded NT debates were over the attitude and conduct of the Judaean leadership and their supporters [quite parallel to the many strong denunciations of earlier generations of leadership of Israel in the OT!], not over hostility to Jewishness as such. (NB: Jesus' base of strongest support was in Galilee, dozens of miles to the north. This probably best explains the contrast between the welcoming crowd of pilgrims to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday and the destructive crowd on Good Friday morning.)

20 --> Indeed, Paul is shockingly vehement on the issue of respect, love for and support of Jews in general:

Rom 9:2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel . . . .

11: 17If some of the branches [of God's Olive Tree of blessing] have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

21 --> Somehow, those who are ever so eager to brand the foundational Christian Faith with the scarlet letter of antisemitism never seem to cite these passages, which just happen to also be pretty explicit on the dangers of apostasy! (Yes, Christians over the ages -- Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant -- have said and done horrible things to Jews, but in light of the just above, the NT can hardly be fairly blamed for such sinful misbehaviour that it goes to great lengths to warn against.)

___________

In short, Mr Bolton has inappropriately sensationalised the significance of the Codex Sinaiticus, and in so doing has failed to consult and give us the counsel of informed experts on both sides of the questions.

Had he done so, a very different picture would have emerged.

That is bad enough, but it is compounded by the emerging pattern that reveals the flawed editorial policy of the BBC in our day: such gross errors and bias SHOULD have been caught at the first step of editorial cross-checking. (After all, Bishop N T Wright of Durham, England, is probably the leading conservative theologian today!)

That it was not, and the fact that a follow up inquiry by this blogger to the head of the relevant Editorial Committee in the BBC, has been unanswered for coming on a fortnight now, speaks volumes about this once gold standard media house. (I treated this issue as a follow up to an earlier complaint on an entertainment programme -- the July 8, 2008 episode of The Bonekickers -- that grossly slandered evangelical Christians as potentially violent, racist terrorists.)

All of which is ever so sad.

Let us hope that BBC will wake up and do better in future reports. END

____________

UPDATE, Aug 5 - 7: Additional information and links; due to the significance of the topic.

Matt 24 watch, 85: understanding the mindset of the Iranian regime

CAUTION: Very disturbing material. (I would not normally circulate so saddening a bit of information, but we need to understand the mindset that we are now dealing with in Iran. given the known pattern of dubious executions of especially young girls [long term readers may recall an invitation to sign up to an international petition for blocking the execution of a young girl who defended herself and a young cousin from rape with a pocket knife and who in so doing happened to kill one of the assailants], the below is all too sadly credible. )

___________________



Mark Steyn gives us a link to a Jerusalem Post article that in turn gives a chilling insight into the mindset of the "justice" that the Iranian regime sees as being established globally by the Mahdi, through a reported interview with a member of the Basiji militia that was involved with the recent suppression of protests on the recently stolen election:

The Basiji member, who is married with children, spoke soon after his release by the Iranian authorities from detention. He had been held for the "crime" of having set free two Iranian teenagers - a 13-year-old boy and a 15-year-old girl - who had been arrested during the disturbances that have followed the disputed June presidential elections.

"There have been many other police and members of the security forces arrested because they have shown leniency toward the protesters out on the streets, or released them from custody without consulting our superiors," he said . . . .

Returning to . . . his decision to set free the two teenage detainees, he said he "honestly" did not know why he had released them, a decision that led to his own arrest, "but I think it was because they were so young. They looked like children and I knew what would happen to them if they weren't released."

He said that while a man is deemed "responsible for his own actions at 13, for a woman it is 9," and that it was freeing the 15-year-old girl that "really got me in trouble.

"I was not mistreated or really interrogated while being detained," he said. "I was put in a tiny room and left alone. It was hard being isolated, so I spent most of my time praying and thinking about my wife and kids."

Nine is of course the age of Aisha, Mohammed's child-bride, when he took her from her dolls and consummated his arranged marriage with her, originally made when she was six.

However, sad as the above is, that is not what is truly chilling.

That comes out in an answer to a follow-up question:

Asked about his own role in the brutal crackdowns on the protesters, whether he had been beaten demonstrators and whether he regretted his actions, he answered evasively.

"I did not attack any of the rioters - and even if I had, it is my duty to follow orders," he began. "I don't have any regrets," he went on, "except for when I worked as a prison guard during my adolescence."

Explaining how he had come to join the volunteer Basiji forces, he said his mother had taken him to them.

When he was 16, "my mother took me to a Basiji station and begged them to take me under their wing because I had no one and nothing foreseeable in my future. My father was martyred during the war in Iraq and she did not want me to get hooked on drugs and become a street thug. I had no choice," he said.

He said he had been a highly regarded member of the force, and had so "impressed my superiors" that, at 18, "I was given the 'honor' to temporarily marry young girls before they were sentenced to death."

In the Islamic Republic it is illegal to execute a young woman, regardless of her crime, if she is a virgin, he explained. Therefore a "wedding" ceremony is conducted the night before the execution: The young girl is forced to have sexual intercourse with a prison guard - essentially raped by her "husband."

"I regret that, even though the marriages were legal," he said.

Why the regret, if the marriages were "legal?"

"Because," he went on, "I could tell that the girls were more afraid of their 'wedding' night than of the execution that awaited them in the morning. And they would always fight back, so we would have to put sleeping pills in their food. By morning the girls would have an empty expression; it seemed like they were ready or wanted to die.

"I remember hearing them cry and scream after [the rape] was over," he said. "I will never forget how this one girl clawed at her own face and neck with her finger nails afterwards. She had deep scratches all over her."

Nor is this merely an unsupported report via anonymous phone interview. Here is a corroborating report from Capitalpunishmentuk.org, which explains the chilling theological reason for the execution eve rapes:

There are no accurate records of just how many men, women and girls were executed in the first years of the Revolution. There is a credible list of 14,028 names available and some sources claim figures of several tens of thousands, although these are not substantiated with names. According to a report published by the Organisation of Women Against Execution in Iran, at least 2,000 women were executed between June 1981 and 1990. They have been able to prepare a list containing 1,428 names. 187 of these women were under the age of 18, with 9 girls under the age of 13 and 14 between the ages of 45 to 70. The youngest girl executed was just 10 years old. Thirty two of these women were reported to have been pregnant at the time of their execution. Many of those executed were high school and college students . . . .

Under Revolutionary law, young girls who were sentenced to death could not be executed if they were still virgins. Thus, they were "married off" to Revolutionary Guards and prison officials in temporary marriages and then raped before their execution, to prevent them going to heaven. The Mullahs believed that these women were ungodly and did not deserve paradise in the next life and that if they were deprived of their virginity, it would ensure that they went to hell. Therefore, on the night prior to execution, the condemned girl was injected with a tranquilliser and then raped by her guard(s). After the execution, the religious judge at the prison would write out a marriage certificate and send it to the victim's family along with a box of sweets.

Similarly, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran ( Correspondence address: B.P. 18, 95430 Auvers-sur-Oise, France) reports in Women, Islam & Equality . . . Chapter Two - Prime Victim:

According to a "religious" decree, virgin women prisoners must as a rule be raped before their execution, "lest they go to Paradise." Therefore, the night before execution, a Guard rapes the condemned woman. After her execution, the religious judge at the prison writes out a marriage certificate and sends it to the victim's family, along with a box of sweets. In a written confession in January 1990, Sarmast Akhlaq Tabandeh, a senior Guards Corps interrogator, recounted one such case in Shiraz prison: "Flora Owrangi, an acquaintance of one of my friends was one such victim. The night before her execution, the resident mullah in the prison conducted a lottery among the members of the firing squads and prison officials to determine who would rape her. She was then forcibly injected with anesthesia ampoules, after which she was raped. The next day, after she was executed, the mullah in charge wrote a marriage certificate and the Guard who raped her took that along with a box of sweets to her parents."

In short, we must stretch our minds to understand a legal mentality that rationalises and "solves" a "legal" and "theological" problem under sacralised law -- making "sure" the executed go to hell (just imagine the further torment to the victims' families on receiving that sickening certificate and box of sweets) -- through in effect legalising rape under the "temporary marriage" provision of Islamic law.

Even, "rewarding" zealous job performance by the privilege of being the designated rapist who ensures that he to-be executed young girl goes to hell.

And, no wonder the victims of such psycho-spiritual and physical torture on the night before they are to be executed are plainly often reduced to near-catatonia or to clawing up themselves: they are not only being viciously violated under false colour of law, but believe they are being doomed to hell and can do nothing about it, even if they try to fight.

Perhaps even worse is this case, the execution of a "mentally incompetent girl, 16-year-old Ateqeh Rajabi on August 16, 2004, the vague charge "acts incompatible with chastity":

. . . informed sources revealed that Ms. Ateqeh was sentenced to death by the judge, a cleric, because during the "trial", she expressed outrage at the misogyny and injustice in the Islamic Republic and its Islam-based judicial system.

“The lower court judge was so incensed by her protestations that he personally put the noose around her neck after his decision had been upheld by the Supreme Court”, the sources reported.

Such a mentality will -- as events have shown us -- easily justify stealing an election and suppressing protest, punishing those who cannot find it in them to destroy the lives of children. The cold blooded sniping of a young girl simply standing on the streetside when a protest was underway suddenly makes a lot of sense.

And worse, much worse.

Sad.

Ever so sad.

In short, we are in a far more dangerous world situation than we are wont to think as the Iranian regime clearly nears end-game in its campaign to acquire nuclear weapons.

It is time to face some very unwelcome facts, think and pray about even more unwelcome implications, and act decisively and determinedly in the face of growing danger.

Before it is too late. END

Matt 24 watch, 84: Iran issues as Ahmadinejad declares intent and as "first nukes" are now credibly six months out

In recent weeks, we have seen an evidently fraudulent re-election of Mr Ahmadinejad in Iran, leading to now suppressed street protests. Now, Mr Ahmadinejad has announced his current intent. According to a July 16, 2009 Reuters report:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Newly re-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday his next government "would bring down the global arrogance," signaling a tougher approach by Tehran toward the West after last month's disputed election.

Ahmadinejad, in his first provincial trip after the June 12 presidential vote, said Iran's enemies had tried to interfere and foment aggression in the country, referring to mass opposition protests against the official election result.

The hardline president, who often rails against the West, said the Islamic Republic wanted "logic and negotiations" but that Western powers had insulted the Iranian nation and should apologize.

Iranian leaders often refer to the United States and its allies as the "global arrogance."

"As soon as the new government is established, with power and authority, ten times more than before, it will enter the global scene and will bring down the global arrogance," he told a big crowd in the northeastern city of Mashhad.

"They should wait as a new wave of revolutionary thinking ... from the Iranian nation is on the way and we will not allow the arrogant (powers) to even have one night of good sleep," Ahmadinejad said, according to state broadcaster IRIB . . . .

He also voiced continued defiance in a row over Iran's disputed nuclear ambitions, saying major powers "will not be able to take away the smallest amount of Iran's rights."

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful power purposes. Western countries suspect it is aimed at making bombs.

In a related development, a Ha'aretz report summarises a German intelligence assessment on Iran and nuclear weapons:

Iran is capable of assembling an atomic bomb within six months, German intelligence analysts told the German weekly newsmagazine Stern.

"If they want to, they will be able to set off a uranium bomb within six months," an analyst with Germany's intelligence service, Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), told the magazine.

German intelligence officials told Stern believe Iran has "mastered" every stage of uranium enrichment and that they have activated enough centrifuges to produce sufficient quantities of weapons-grade uranium for at least one atomic bomb.

"Nobody would have thought this possible some years ago," an intelligence official told Stern.

Israel's own Intelligence agencies are world class and have prioritised Iran as perhaps the most dangerous threat to Israel in the Middle East [no mean achievement in that neighbourhood!]. So, it is thus no surprise to see that in recent weeks, recently elected Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's administration has sent a Dolphin class submarine from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea (and back again) through Egypt's Suez Canal, and ten days later has now sent two of Israel's Saar class Missile Gunboats (which range up to Corvette -- small Destroyer -- size) through the same canal to the Red Sea.

When Mr Netanyahu's spokesman, Mark Regev, was asked about these developments, he responded: "It is not our policy to comment on such reports."

However, another Israeli official has been extensively quoted in the international media as saying:

"This is preparation that should be taken seriously. Israel is investing time in preparing itself for the complexity of an attack on Iran. These maneuvers are a message to Iran that Israel will follow up on its threats."

The original report in the London Times, continues:

It is believed that Israel’s missile-equipped submarines, and its fleet of advanced aircraft, could be used to strike at in excess of a dozen nuclear-related targets more than 800 miles from Israel . . . .

Two Israeli Saar class missile boats and a Dolphin class submarine have passed through Suez. Israel has six Dolphin-class submarines, three of which are widely believed to carry nuclear missiles.

Israel will also soon test an Arrow interceptor missile on a US missile range in the Pacific Ocean. The system is designed to defend Israel from ballistic missile attacks by Iran and Syria. Lieutenant-General Patrick O’Reilly, the director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defence Agency, said that Israel would test against a target with a range of more than 630 miles (1,000km) — too long for previous Arrow test sites in the eastern Mediterranean.

The Israeli air force, meanwhile, will send F16C fighter jets to participate in exercises at Nellis Air Force base in Nevada this month. Israeli C130 Hercules transport aircraft will also compete in the Rodeo 2009 competition at McChord Air Force base in Washington.

“It is not by chance that Israel is drilling long-range manoeuvres in a public way. This is not a secret operation. This is something that has been published and which will showcase Israel’s abilities,” said an Israeli defence official.

He added that in the past, Israel had run a number of covert long-range drills. A year ago, Israeli jets flew over Greece in one such drill, while in May, reports surfaced that Israeli air force aircraft were staging exercises over Gibraltar. An Israeli attack on a weapons convoy in Sudan bound for militants in the Gaza Strip earlier this year was also seen as a rehearsal for hitting moving convoys.

The exercises come at a time when Western diplomats are offering support for an Israeli strike on Iran in return for Israeli concessions on the formation of a Palestinian state.

If agreed it would make an Israeli strike on Iran realistic “within the year” said one British official.

Diplomats said that Israel had offered concessions on settlement policy, Palestinian land claims and issues with neighboring Arab states, to facilitate a possible strike on Iran.

Thus, with an Iranian existential threat hanging over it, Israel is being pressured to make concessions that on the history of events since the Oslo process began in 1993 are unlikely to give it peace with its Palestinian Arab neighbours.

And, on the subject of "concessions," one has to ask:

1] What more concession could Israel reasonably offer than was put on the table in 2000 -- half of Jerusalem, all of Temple Mount, 100% of Gaza, 97% of the W Bank (as a contiguous territory) with compensating territories elsewhere, a causeway linking the two zones, and US% 15 billion in aid -- and which was rejected outright by Arafat leading to the current cycle of war?

2] What does that imply about the likely nature of further "compromises" that now seem to be on the table?

Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily adds that:

According to Israeli defense officials speaking to WND, the Dolphin was carrying out test drills. The officials said the submarine passed through the canal with permission from Egypt, even though the Egyptian government denied any permission was granted.

The Times today quoted an Israeli diplomat explaining the Jewish state has been bolstering its ties with certain Arab nations that are also threatened by Iran. The diplomat cited a "shared mutual distrust of Iran" between Israel and Egypt.

In a report denied by Netanyahu's office, the Times of London two weeks ago claimed Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli warplanes flying over the kingdom in any raid on Iran's nuclear sites.

The Times said Mossad director Meir Dagan had held secret talks with Saudi officials to discuss the possibility.

"The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia," the newspaper quoted a diplomatic source as saying.

Adding these up, it is clear that the Middle East is on the brink of a nuclear arms crisis, with an Israeli Missile and aircraft attack on the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructure very likely within the year. (And in that context, given that Israel has been close to Georgia, which is just across the Caspian Sea from Iran, the recent Russian sabre-rattling about Georgia, following up from its recent invasion is probably not coincidental. For, in 1976, when Israel launched a hostage rescue mission against the terrorists holding a British Airways passenger aircraft in Entebbe Uganda, it did so in cooperation with then friendly Kenya.)

So, it seems the pessimistic assessment on the Iranian situation -- again -- has been the more correct one. In turn, this makes for sobering reading, given the close ties between the Iranian regime and the Chavez regime in Venezuela. (This last is not without relevance to the views of our region's leading opinion makers and the statements and actions of our Foreign Ministries.)

And, as the Middle east pot heats up to the most dangerous boil ever, we need to watch and pray; especially, for the peace of ever-contended for, claimed and counter-claimed Jerusalem. END

Newswatch: Reported media clampdown in Honduras -- a troubling development

Nicholas Casey of The Wall Street Journal, in his July 3, 2009 article, "Honduras Takes Control of Some Media," has reported on a further explosive ingredient in the Honduras mix:

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras -- Honduras's provisional government, while trying to persuade the international community that its overthrow of its president was democratic, is being criticized for taking control of a number of media outlets since the coup.

The country's Channel 36, run by a close associate of expelled Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, was shut down following Mr. Zelaya's ouster and remained off the air this week, with only a blank signal showing up on Honduran televisions.

Channel 8, a state-owned network that had also supported Mr. Zelaya, went off the air on Sunday and then returned with a new cast of anchors, largely delivering news friendly to the government's interim president, Roberto Micheletti.

Radio Globo, a network that spent much energy criticizing Mr. Micheletti before he took power, remains under military guard, according to its owner, Alejandro Villatoro. When it broadcast the first Honduran interview with Mr. Zelaya Wednesday from exile, in which he was addressed as "Mr. President," soldiers turned off the station's transmitter, Mr. Villatoro said.

Other outlets less closely allied with Mr. Zelaya said they had no complaints . . . .

Reporters Without Borders, an advocacy group for press freedom based in France, said Wednesday that some stations "have resumed broadcasting but their coverage of the coup is either closely controlled or nonexistent." It also said international news outlets including U.S.-based CNN and Venezuela's Telesur -- which is run by the government of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and strongly supports Mr. Zelaya -- were no longer available on TV stations and could only be seen on the Internet.

In an interview late Thursday, the country's new interim president, Mr. Micheletti, said he had "not the slightest idea," about why soldiers had disrupted Mr. Zelaya's speech. But he said certain measures were necessary to prevent Hondurans from being incited to violence. A call to the Honduran National Telecommunications Commission seeking comment was not returned.

Now, in a de facto or declared state of emergency, it is normal for media to be restrained to a more than usual extent, in the interests of the public good; on the principle that one has no proper right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Also, while Reporters without Borders reports that CNN etc are not accessible on the broadcast networks, a commenter on the article claiming to be reporting from Honduras remarks:

People say that all we see in Honduras are local news telling us a biased story of the situation, but the media is not saying how CNN is basing most of their news from reporters of TELESUR, a news channel loyal to Chavez. I have been watching CNN since sunday afternoon, which was when electricity and TV were restored. People in Honduras are outraged by the constant news by CNN tellin[g] the international viewers that life and business are not being carried as usual and there has been misinformation inside the country. Totally false, why don't CNN reporters como [sic] to Honduras instead of depending on Telesur or other leftist reporters. Let them go into a restaurant and film how CNN news are being displayed all around We are tired of listening to CNN and CNN in Spanich [sic] portray lies about what's going on in Honduras . . .

It seems likely that CNN etc are accessible on Cable TV, which may be viewed in restaurants etc (as well as in the homes of those well enough off to subscribe -- and, Honduras is one of the poorest nations in the hemisphere) but is not currently extensively broadcast on over the air networks. Also, given that Telesur is Chavez-controlled [Chavez being no mean media manipulator . . . ], Mr Diaz's complaint just above on manipulative reporting that has been broadcast to the world as if it were objective reporting by CNN is not implausible.

As a relevant background note, it is worth looking at the Wikipedia article on Mr Zelaya and his presidency on the subject of media controversies:

On May 24, 2007, Zelaya ordered ten two-hour cadenas (mandatory government broadcasts) on all television and radio stations, "to counteract the misinformation of the news media."[17] The move, while legal, was fiercely criticized by the country's main journalists' union, and Zelaya was dubbed "authoritarian" by his opposition.[18] Ultimately, the broadcasts were scaled back to a one-hour program on the government's plans to expand telephone service, a half hour on new electrical power plants and a half-hour about government revenues. According to the University of New Mexico's electronic bulletin NotiCen, "Zelaya's contention that the media distort his efforts is not without merit," citing reports which gave the public the impression that murder rates were rising, when they actually fell by 3% in 2006.[17] Journalists who have criticized Zelaya's rule have been murdered and harassed.[19] Inter American Press Association (IAPA) and the United Nations criticized murders of journalists during Zelaya rule.[20] In 2008, The Organization of American States (OAS) accused Zelaya of imposing "subtle censorship" in Honduras. A study, "Censura sutil en Honduras: abuso de publicidad oficial y otras formas de censura indirecta", was released in September 2008.[21]

In short, the media situation in Honduras has long been in an unhealthy condition, with contentions over media rising to the level where reporters critical of Mr Zelaya seem to have been murdered in the line of service in the past several years. So, there is a complex and delicate situation with known potential for violence.

That does sound like a fairly crowded theatre.

On balance, then, some restrictions on media in a state of emergency are both inevitable and justifiable in the specific interests of public safety and security. Similarly, it is legitimate that a state-owned broadcast network would reflect the voice of the state (especially in a situation where there are other voices that have independent access to the airwaves). But, once that crosses the line to manipulating the public through suppression of legitimate opinion and reporting and/or intimidation of journalists, that would be going dangerously too far. Also, should restrictions be long extended or should they become clearly draconian, that would be a clear sign that the interim [de facto?] government is itself a threat to civil liberty.

In short, these are troubling developments, but as of yet they are not in themselves decisive.

Let us pray that wisdom, justice, truth and peace will prevail in Honduras, and let us learn from the developments of the past few days, that it is ever more clear that we cannot safely trust or take at face value the news and views in our media, or for that matter the statements and declarations of regional and international fora. END

Newswatch: a senior Honduran voice speaks on the "coup"

Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer, is a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras.

He has just written a column, entitled "A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense," that appears in the July 2, 2009 Christian Science Monitor; and which begins:

Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.

That is nonsense.

In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law . . .

He takes time to explain, having first briefed on the background history and entrenched clauses of the Honduran Constitution:

Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added [by the author]], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day . . . [Emphases added]

This therefore confirms and fills out the picture from the previous newswatch article.

The Honduran Constitution is a bit drastic on the matter, but in the historical context, that is unfortunately understandable; and defiance of clauses -- much less, entrenched clauses -- of a Constitution is most plainly an action that points to lawlessness.

And, in the end, it is better that the rule of law be preserved than that any one man -- however popular or even effective -- continue in office in defiance of plain law. (We can always change the law if it proves unsatisfactory -- in this case by calling a proper constitutional convention under its terms; which is actually one of the particular points that was being defied by what now looks like former president Manuel Zelaya. But, on a lot of painful history, to restore respect for law once a precedent of defiance of law has been set, is not so easy.)

Such confirmatory news is of course of general interest for those of us who are concerned about our region.

But, more to the point, we now see a question of a widening gap between reality and the picture being painted for us by prominent international and regional statesmen and organisations, as well as by media houses. For, we have not heard of headlined complaints that the Honduran Constitution is defective through being overly drastic (which would be understandable and debatable); instead, from seemingly every quarter, we have been hearing the repeatedly headlined outright declaration of "fact" that a coup has taken place against Senor Zelaya and that Honduras is to be subjected to sanctions against a coup.

And that brings us right up against the theme for this blog that much of the news, views, and state-level declarations that so often fill our headlines across the Caribbean plainly cannot be safely taken at face value. With very serious implications for the question of the manipulation and deceiving of the nations. For, if half of a story on one matter can so easily be turned into what now appears to be a false picture on the nation of Honduras and those who have sought to preserve the rule of law there, creating a climate of unjust contempt and even hostility; what about the possibility that the same tactics may one day be deployed against us?

(That is, I am here applying he Golden Rule of Matt 7:12 by asking us to put ourselves in the shoes of those who have been -- on what now has to be viewed as credible evidence -- victimised by distorted and irresponsible reporting. How would we feel were we in their shoes? What would happen if such evidently irresponsible and unfair, imbalanced media coverage were to become routine? [This is Kant's approach: that which is immoral or unjust shows itself by the likely destructive consequences were it to spread unchecked across the community.] How, then should we pray? What, then, should we say and do?)

Not to mention, that the plainly unbalanced responses we have seen raise serious questions about the judgement, actions -- and perhaps even competence on international affairs -- of several regional and international statesmen, starting within Caricom, but extending to the OAS, the White House and even the UN.

Troubling questions in a dangerously turbulent time. END

Newswatch: Another side of the Honduras story

A few days ago, across the region, we woke up to BBC news on yet another apparently anti-democratic Latin American coup; this time in Honduras.

But, according to Ms Maria Anastasia O'Grady of the Wall Street Journal, it seems there may be more to the story than meets the casual eye or ear:

Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback yesterday when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution.

It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking . . . .

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica . . . .

The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it . . . [Emphases added]

Food for thought.

So, even as more and more members of the Caricom grouping rush to join Mr Chavez's ALBA, perhaps we need to0 pause and reflect on this other side of the story.

For, there may be more to this story than meets the eye indeed, END

Matt 24 Watch, 83: On the Fifth Column within the gates

It has been quite a month! (Pardon the quietness on the blogging front.)

Back to work on this front . . .

________________

The term, Fifth Column has an interesting history: on approaching Madrid in 1936, Emilio Mola of Franco's nationalists, said in a radio broadcast that the four columns of troops approaching Madrid from without, would be supported by a fifth column from within that city.

(And, while in the event that fifth column proved relatively ineffective, in the case of Norway, Vidkun Quisling and associates in Norway proved just how devastating willful or naive betrayers of the city within the gates can be. [I find it telling that Wikipedia's article on the topic fails to mention this major success of fifth columnists, even while it seemingly wants to suggest that internment of enemy aliens in a time of war is never justifiable! That telling omission, therefore becomes an apt -- though obviously inadvertent -- illustration of the point for this blog post.] )

Last time around, we reflected on Churchill's The Gathering Storm, on the run-up to the Second World War, on the theme: "How the English-speaking peoples through their unwisdom, carelessness and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm."

In such a situation, plainly, opinion leaders and key decision makers as a class, the educated, their instructors in schools and colleges, and the media houses that have a duty to inform and warn, bear a particular responsibility. One that a key -- and too often forgotten or neglected -- lesson of the 1930's teaches us, can be failed. Failed to the point of betrayal of one's homeland, whether by negligence or by treasonous intent. Failed at predictably bitter cost.

For, if we neglect or reject the lessons of history we are doomed to repeat its worst chapters.

Sadly, this is just what seems to be happening in our time. For instance, since the last remarks in this blog, several further indicators of our mortal peril and in too many cases willfully or negligently foolish blindness have been all across our headlines (if we will read between the lines) and I have seen a case or two personally too:

1] North Korea has repudiated the armistice and is breathing out nuclear and conventional war threats. But, we are being soothingly told that it is just a matter of an internal power transition. (But, if threatening nuclear war in Asia and across the Pacific is how the North Korean elites think 'internal" power transitions should be made, what does that tell us about the danger posed by that oppressive regime? And, what does it imply about the valid point in Mr Bush's remarks so many years ago now when he warned about the danger posed by North Korea and other oppressive regimes that sought nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them? Should we therefore simply accept the disregard for solemn international non-Proliferation agreements by signatories -- and BTW, Israel has never been a signatory -- now openly tied to saber-rattling?)

2] Mr Obama made a widely praised speech in Egypt, at the invitation of two leading Islamic universities. However, while it will be unpopular to raise questions on Mr Obama [a darling of the media elites and the educated public in our region, to the point where I have seen Obama campaign stickers on cars], and while the speech strongly reflects the more or less "standard" media trumpeted conventional wisdom of progressivist post colonial narrative in which Western powers bear a particular burden of having been oppressors, the speech seems to be lacking on a few key points of note, e.g. somehow Mr Obama forgot that the past decade's face of US foreign policy did in fact "look like" him: Mr Powell, and Ms Rice. Similarly, while it was important to say that the holocaust was a real horror, it would have been a key departure to point out, however gently and eloquently, that a founding father of palestinian Arab militancy [mufti Hussein] was (a) implicated in and indicted for crimes connected to that holocaust as a collaborator with the Nazis, and (b) was shielded from having to stand before a bar of justice by Egypt. Similarly, Hamas has enshrined in its charter in clause 7, a hadith that calls for the wholesale end of days massacre of Jews, and Iran's regime has indulged itself in both Holocaust denial and a blatant attempt to acquire nuclear weapons in defiance of its international commitments, while openly declaring intent to wipe Israel off the face of the map. In that context, a call to the Palestinian Arabs of Gaza and the West Bank to walk away from the history of war to destroy not just Israel but its Jews, and instead go back to the principles of the UN mandate of 1947 and the post six-day war resolution 242 -- i.e. mutual recognition and peace -- would have been a much more just start point than the agenda-laced Saudi proposal. So, it would have been an important point to call the Middle East to a general recognition of the rights of all historic Middle Eastern peoples, including Jews, Kurds and the Copts of Egypt; as a first step to real regional peace. Then, a call for reform of the regimes to better balance liberty and justice for all, backed up by a call to re-examine the various theologies, law sources and texts in Islam that have spawned the sort of hostility, violence, terrorism and oppression that we have seen across that region and now spreading to the wider world in recent decades, would have been a key premise for addressing the role of religiously motivated ideology in that region's problems. (And if such a speech could not have been made from that platform, Mr Obama had no business being on the platform. For instance, the UN would have been a very suitable venue for a true "new beginnings" speech, if such a platform was needed.)

3] After Iran's blatantly stolen election, many Iranians have taken to the street in protest, calling for a real election. Only, to be met with beatings and oppression, multiplied by a deafening global silence on the part of leading democratic nations. In short, notwithstanding that the other candidate was also vetted by the mullahs [but has now found himself as the symbol of rejection of Mullah-ocracy, which ironically echoes the role Mr Gorbachev found himself in in the years from 1984 on . . . ] we have strong evidence that the people of Iran want democratic liberation, but are being oppressed. (So, we must ask a sad question: is it that the voices of liberation in our region and in the wider West are concerned for liberation, or is our concern confined to just western oppressors and potential oppressors? [It would be wise to note that none of Britain, France and the USA were lily-pure in 1939 - 1945; but a sober estimate of the circumstances would have shown that Hitler and co. were infinitely more dangerous and destructive. In that light, France's half-hearted-ness in the war (driven by divided counsels and deep mutual animosity) cost it dear, and cost the world dear.])


4] In Pakistan, the Taliban and allies have made a major power grab in the Swat valley, only sixty miles from the capital of that dangerously unstable Islamic nuclear power. This provoked fighting, which for the moment has pushed back the threat, but the overall situation simply underscores the dangers posed by radical Islamism. (And, we should note that in 2001, after the 9/11 attacks, it is clear that Mr Bush sent Mr Musharraf a message: either be the first regional ally in the war on terrorism, or its first target in the axis of evil. An axis that --as our headlines and an atlas will show -- in significant part, is clearly still in business.)

5] In America, a madman has barged into the Holocaust memorial museum, and has murdered a guard there. Immediately, it was trumpeted that this -- following on the heels of the murder of a late term abortionist as he ushered in his church (of which he seems to have been a major financial backer) -- is a second sign of a trend of right wing, religiously motivated "fundamentalist" extremists and the dangers of such. Soon, it turned out -- from his own online writings -- that this latest mad man actually despised Christians and the New Testament, and saw himself as a champion of the racialist form of Social Darwinism [a profile that is remarkably similar to that of the murderers at Columbine High School a decade ago]. But in this year of Darwin 200 celebrations and hagiography, it is not politically correct to point out that not only did Darwin sub-title the first five editions of Origin with "the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for existence," [with the direct implication of the extinction of "unfavoured" ones] but that this was not jut a matter of "races" of cabbages. (Believe it or not, that was put to me in a blog commentary thread some days ago. Similarly, yes, Christians, Jews, and many other individuals and movements have been implicated in racism etc; but such distractive immoral equivalency rhetoric simply blocks us from listening to the moans of over 100 million victims of social Darwinist thought in the hands of powerful elites claiming to act with the culturally dominant warrant of science in the past 100 years. So, with all due regard to other historic sins and dangers, we must now frankly face then address the clear and present danger of Darwinist amorality and associated aggressive elitism. In fact, Darwin's second book, on The Descent of Man, makes it plain in Chs 5 - 7, that he saw the White Germanic European races -- observe his way of speaking of the English as "Saxons" -- as the supremely fit ones, and sees them as exterminating "inferior" ones such as Negroes and Aboriginal Australians over the next few centuries; not to mention his dismissive remarks on fringe European peoples such as the Irish,and mixed race peoples such as in Brazil and the Americas more generally. And in a notorious letter of 1881, he added Turks to the list of inferiors. The insistent refusal to face and soundly address the moral hazard of aggressive elitism that leaps out of Darwinian thought -- now in racist and sexist forms, now in the rise of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, etc -- should tell us that this is not merely a past historical issue, but a still present problem, one that is being covered over by powerful elites flying the flag of Science.)

6] In Iraq, terrorist bombings have again begun to creep back into our headlines, even as media coverage of the war continues to fail to give us an informed and objective analysis of the underlying strategic, ideological and Islamic apocalyptic issues that are driving the global terrorism crisis and associated military campaigns. In that context the new American regime has decided that it will now read captured terrorists the Miranda Rights (an unprecedented step for prisoners of war, much less captured illegal combatants . . . ), while moving away from recognising a global war on terror to speaking about "overseas contingency operations." indeed, I find it astonishing that by far and away most informed people do not know the term "black flag army," or the hadith about how they will come from Khorasan [E. Iran and to the east and north thereof] and under Imam Mahdi will conquer the Middle East, conquer and massacre the Jews in and around Jerusalem then subjugate the world.)

7] In the UK, on a more personal note, I have now received notification on the outcome of my protest on the way a BBC entertainment programme, Bonekickers, on July 8, 2008 recognisably Protestant "fundamentalist" Christians were portrayed as zealous, violent crusaders who -- in a Dan Brownesque scenario full of allusions to pieces of the "true cross" and knights templar etc -- set out on holy war and in that process seized an innocent Asian muslim man and beheaded him. This turnabout of the actual situation where for instance the South Asian islamist terrorist Khalid Sheik Mohammed seized Israeli -American journalist Daniel Pearl and beheaded him, to the cheers of many islamists across the world, reeks of the demonisation of Bible believing Christians that is now ever so common in the western media and among wider elites. In particular, it seems that, under the distorting lens of the postmodern post colonialist progressivist narrative, they seem to think that the current global situation boils down to Western crusaders setting out on unprovoked colonial aggression in Asia yet again, just as 1,000 years ago; never mind the fact that the crusades -- horribly carried out as they were, and with very bad theology turned into war propaganda as well -- were, strictly speaking limited counter-offensives after centuries of Jihad that had carried Islamist conquest and terroristic or piratical raids from Arabia to India and to France. Similarly, they claim -- even post Dan Brown -- that merely labelling and presenting such stereotypes and afrd hominem laced strawmen as fiction suffices to remove harm. So, it is no surprise to learn that my objection has been dismissed right tot he level of the Editorial Standards Committee, which in its report has not even made mention of the Associated Press Style book recommendation that since the term "fundamentalism" has become so much a term of abuse and demonisation, unless a group specifically calls itself "fundamentalist," it should not be labelled as such; indeed, when I received the proposed published report, it -- lamentably -- brimmed over with precisely the problem just pointed out. (I intend to carry the protest forward to he highest level, on a point of principle.)

In short, a lot has been happening, and it raises serious questions on whether we are sober enough and awake enough to truly understand the signs of these times. Much less, to know how to act in the face of rising mortal dangers from without and within, including the words and deeds of the misled and the misleaders within our own gates. (And, it is particularly noteworthy that the educated have a duty of due diligence on matters of opinion, of we will by neglect become just such misleaders.) END