"Arab Christians: The Forgotten Faithful" National Geographic cover story

[Lev23]

Actually, that is a very accurate portrayal of the attitude of a great deal of mainstream Protestant organizations, especially the zionist evangelical mega-church type. They have a very interesting and, in my opinon, warped sense of what’s going on in the Holy land, and I do think they tend to ignore the native Christians there, who just don’t fit into the made-up version of Christian history they have in their heads.

Indeed. This has nothing to do with support of Israel equalling war-mongering, and everything to do with a particular American phenomena of certain groups of Protestant Christians supporting Israel precisely because they believe that the return of Jews to the land of Israel portents the coming of the Battle of Armeggedon.

It’s not an anti-Israel dig, but a recognition of a strong subset of American Protestantism.

Peace and God bless!

Wrong, this comment does give a very accurate portrayal of the attitude of a great deal of mainstream Protestant organizations and indeed, this has everything to do with support of Israel equalling war-mongering.

Im sorry, but both of your “clarifications” for this remark on this remote internet forum does not make up for the writers biased attitude towards Christians that love the people of Israel with a Godly love.

 

[Ghosty]

Wrong, this comment does give a very accurate portrayal of the attitude of a great deal of mainstream Protestant organizations and indeed, this has everything to do with support of Israel equalling war-mongering.

Im sorry, but both of your “clarifications” for this remark on this remote internet forum does not make up for the writers biased attitude towards Christians that love the people of Israel with a Godly love.

What on Earth are you talking about? A reference to Armeggedon is a Biblical reference, and pertains directly to American Dispensationalism. It has absolutely nothing to do with general war mongering. I recommend you read this article, as it references this topic directly, and the book it’s speaking of is quite likely the source of the terminology used in the NatGeo article.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Lev23]

What on Earth are you talking about? A reference to Armeggedon is a Biblical reference, and pertains directly to American Dispensationalism.

Well I hope Armeggedon pertains to all of Christianity. The matter at hand is the blatent smear the writer of the article gives those Christians who wear their love for Israel on their sleeves by claiming they are “stoked” for Armeggedon.

It has absolutely nothing to do with general war mongering. I recommend you read this article, as it references this topic directly, and the book it’s speaking of is quite likely the source of the terminology used in the NatGeo article.

Peace and God bless!

Initially, I stopped reading at “In a recent Time/CNN poll…”, but then skimmed through the article, and it reads like every other article on supporting Israel with the Gospel is a “pop trend”, and will soon fade away. Oh yes, articles like this show the real blueprints behind dispensationalism and it’s relationship with Israel, $$$$$$$$$. It claims to expose how dispensationalists are riding high and are only concerned about their theology holding together, free trips to the “Holy Land”, blah, blah, blah.

What articles never show, like the NG or the one you linked, is the love, blood, sweat, and tears, and money are used by Christians to take the Gospel to Israel, and most importantly, the fruits of such works in the Lord Jesus Christ.

It’s alright, we do not need anybody using secular polls or secular media to tell us our love and support, and belief that God is bringing his people back into the land, is just a passing fad based on misinterpreted scriptures.

 

[Cluny]

Im sorry, but both of your “clarifications” for this remark on this remote internet forum does not make up for the writers biased attitude towards Christians that love the people of Israel with a Godly love.

In the '80’s at some point (can’t tell when) there was an editorial in CHRISTIANITY TODAY entitled “We Can Love Israel Too Much.” A telling quote that has stuck in my mind: “Why do we blind ourselves to the fact that if the Israelis lived anywhere else, they would be called ‘lost’?”

About the same time, there was an editorial in a Catholic publication entitled, “Lay off our Pope, our Bishops, our Church.”

You can probably guess the content of the article from the title.

 

[Ghosty]

Well I hope Armeggedon pertains to all of Christianity. The matter at hand is the blatent smear the writer of the article gives those Christians who wear their love for Israel on their sleeves by claiming they are “stoked” for Armeggedon.

Initially, I stopped reading at “In a recent Time/CNN poll…”, but then skimmed through the article, and it reads like every other article on supporting Israel with the Gospel is a “pop trend”, and will soon fade away. Oh yes, articles like this show the real blueprints behind dispensationalism and it’s relationship with Israel, $$$$$$$$$. It claims to expose how dispensationalists are riding high and are only concerned about their theology holding together, free trips to the “Holy Land”, blah, blah, blah.

What articles never show, like the NG or the one you linked, is the love, blood, sweat, and tears, and money are used by Christians to take the Gospel to Israel, and most importantly, the fruits of such works in the Lord Jesus Christ.

It’s alright, we do not need anybody using secular polls or secular media to tell us our love and support, and belief that God is bringing his people back into the land, is just a passing fad based on misinterpreted scriptures.

Well, dispensationalism is a misinterpretation of Scripture, and any project to bring “God’s people back to the land” is also a misinterpretation of Scripture from the Catholic perspective at least. That is just a bottom-line fact, and one to keep in mind when discussing the issue with Catholics. Armageddon applies to all Christians, but this particular view of Israel does not. The NG article was simply referencing that one particular theological approach, and it did so in passing. Hardly something to get worked up over.

Remember that it was Catholics and Orthodox Christians living in Israel since the beginning of Christianity (themselves Jewish in ancestry), and it was our people whose lives were disrupted by the creation of the secular Nation of Israel. We’re far less likely to hold to a romantic view of the nation given these facts, especially since these “Christian Jews” never left the land, and therefore had no reason to subscribe to any dispensationist theology regarding the “return”.

As for the “blood, sweat, and tears” in bringing the Gospel to Israel, two things: first, the point of the article was to discuss native Christians, not missionary work, and second the Gospel was already in Israel, and has been since the beginning of the Church. It could be found among the native Catholic and Orthodox Christians, precisely the people the article is focusing on, and precisely the people who are ignored when Protestants discuss “bringing the Gospel to Israel”, another point made in the NG article.

Peace and God bless!

 

[JamesStephan]

The National Geographic is apparently unaware that Christians in the Middle East are so dominated by the Muslims that they must toe the Islamist line… or else risk losing their heads. Shame on the National Geographic for doing such a poor job.

 

[Ghosty]

The National Geographic is apparently unaware that Christians in the Middle East are so dominated by the Muslims that they must toe the Islamist line… or else risk losing their heads. Shame on the National Geographic for doing such a poor job.

Depends on which part of the Middle East you’re talking about. What’s more, the article did indeed discuss the difficulties Christians face from Muslims.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Lev23]

Well, dispensationalism is a misinterpretation of Scripture, and any project to bring “God’s people back to the land” is also a misinterpretation of Scripture from the Catholic perspective at least. That is just a bottom-line fact, and one to keep in mind when discussing the issue with Catholics. Armageddon applies to all Christians, but this particular view of Israel does not.

Hmm, thats too bad. So many prophecies concerning Israels regathering and restoration to the land in the last days.

The NG article was simply referencing that one particular theological approach, and it did so in passing. Hardly something to get worked up over.

The “I Heart Israel” crowd takes alot of lumps for doing so, but more importantly, the reference scorns the idea of anyone supporting Israel, which in turn aims at Israels existence. Like I stated in post #2, it is too bad that this issue will be in all sorts of libraries, schools, waiting rooms, etc.

Remember that it was Catholics and Orthodox Christians living in Israel since the beginning of Christianity (themselves Jewish in ancestry), and it was our people whose lives were disrupted by the creation of the secular Nation of Israel. We’re far less likely to hold to a romantic view of the nation given these facts, especially since these “Christian Jews” never left the land, and therefore had no reason to subscribe to any dispensationist theology regarding the “return”.

You do not hold a romantic view of the currant ongoing regathering of “secular” Israel because you do not believe prophecies like this refers to her-
**Ezekiel 36:16-24
Again the word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, when the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight. So I poured out my wrath on them because they had shed blood in the land and because they had defiled it with their idols. I dispersed them among the nations, and they were scattered through the countries; I judged them according to their conduct and their actions. And wherever they went among the nations they profaned my holy name, for it was said of them, ‘These are the LORD’s people, and yet they had to leave his land.’ I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel profaned among the nations where they had gone.

"Therefore say to the house of Israel, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Sovereign LORD, when I show myself holy through you before their eyes.

" 'For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. **

As for the “blood, sweat, and tears” in bringing the Gospel to Israel, two things: first, the point of the article was to discuss native Christians, not missionary work, and second the Gospel was already in Israel, and has been since the beginning of the Church. It could be found among the native Catholic and Orthodox Christians, precisely the people the article is focusing on, and precisely the people who are ignored when Protestants discuss “bringing the Gospel to Israel”, another point made in the NG article.

Peace and God bless!

The native Christians were Jews. Not Palestineans, they were Jews. After the dispersion of Jews from the land of Israel brought on by Rome in 70 AD, the Jewish presence, including the Jewish Church dwindeled. You claim the Gospel was always in Israel, but the fact is Israel was dispersed. How did the Gospel follow them in dispersion? Were the dispersed, broken branches of Israel the last 2000 years the recipients of the Gospel first, like St.Paul said the Gospel is to go to them first? Were they the recipients of the Gospel at all? Or were there many theologians who wrote them off as “accursed” and such?

Who really has been ignored the last 2000 years?

I don’t think I’ll hold my breath for NG to ever write a cover article on that subject.

 

[German_Melkite]

Well the first question is how do the “Zionists within the Israeli government suppress Christians” and in what way do Christians not have the same rights and protections in Israel as any other citizen or resident?

Of course whom am I to argue with your claim that Christians are being persecuted by Moslem’s and the Jews are to blame? (Mel would be proud). I would especially like to hear your ideas how the Jews were behind the persecutions and massacres of Christians during the 19th Century in the Middle .

Why is it that some people immediately go on the attack, if any one dares to suggest that the native Christians of the Middle East have been “put upon” by darn near everyone: including (but certainly not exclusive to) some elements of the Israeli nation? The question is not “who is to blame?” or “who is guiltless?” - - - but rather how do we support the peaceful and ancestral Christians of the Middle East.

The bombed out Melkite Church in Gaza is a tragic example. It was, indeed, Israelis bombs that destroyed the church. I understand that Israel had good reasons for their missile strikes - but the parishioners of that church only wanted to pray. Ascribe the “fault” where ever you would like to - but the victims were Arabic Christians.

It is understandable that a government trying to starve out terrorists, might blockade a territory. It is rational that in such a blockade, ships with food aid might be boarded and seized. But the tragedy is that innocent people - including many native Christians - are denied food aide.

I thought I was clear in my opinion - everyone involved has harmed the remnant Christians of the Middle East.

 

[Ghosty]

Hmm, thats too bad. So many prophecies concerning Israels regathering and restoration to the land in the last days.

No, there aren’t. There are prophesies regarding the Jewish people being brought back from the Babylonian Captivity, but no clear examples of Jews restoring a Jewish nation in the land of Israel in the last days. I’m sorry, but it’s just not there.

The “I Heart Israel” crowd takes alot of lumps for doing so, but more importantly, the reference scorns the idea of anyone supporting Israel, which in turn aims at Israels existence.

You’re making a lot of leaps. First off, the remark in the article doesn’t make ANY claims against Israel, it merely references dispensationist belief. It doesn’t criticize the people who hold to the belief at all, nor does it question the right of Israel’s existence. Your making a passing remark about the presence of a dispensationist sub-sect of American Protestantism in Israel into an attack on the very existence of the nation. Such leaps are utterly uncalled for.

You do not hold a romantic view of the currant ongoing regathering of “secular” Israel because you do not believe prophecies like this refers to her-
**Ezekiel 36:16-24
Again the word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, when the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight. So I poured out my wrath on them because they had shed blood in the land and because they had defiled it with their idols. I dispersed them among the nations, and they were scattered through the countries; I judged them according to their conduct and their actions. And wherever they went among the nations they profaned my holy name, for it was said of them, ‘These are the LORD’s people, and yet they had to leave his land.’ I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel profaned among the nations where they had gone.

"Therefore say to the house of Israel, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Sovereign LORD, when I show myself holy through you before their eyes.

" 'For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. **

That passage refers to Israel all right, but the Israel of 2500 years ago. Ezekiel was a Prophet during the Babylonian Captivity, and his prophecy was indeed fullfilled.

The native Christians were Jews. Not Palestineans, they were Jews.

The Palestinians are the descendents of the Jews who converted to Christianity (and later Islam) and never left. This fact is backed up not only by historical record, but by genetic studies that show that Palestinians and Jews share the same traits and genetic markers. You’re trying to make a distinction between Palestinians and Jews where none exists on an objective level.

We know about these things because our churches have always been in the Holy Land, and the same families have been there since the beginning. Heck, some of them even continue to use the original Jewish language, Aramaic.

All in all I would like to second German Melkite’s observation that some people seem eager to go on the attack when simple facts are brought up, at least when those facts reflect negatively on the nation of Israel (and, again, some of our people are also Israelis). It’s a knee-jerk reaction that is unwarranted; nobody here is attacking Israel or questioning its right to exist, we’re simply bring up the day-to-day (and historical) facts of existence for Palestinian Christians.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Lev23]

No, there aren’t. There are prophesies regarding the Jewish people being brought back from the Babylonian Captivity, but no clear examples of Jews restoring a Jewish nation in the land of Israel in the last days. I’m sorry, but it’s just not there.

That passage refers to Israel all right, but the Israel of 2500 years ago. Ezekiel was a Prophet during the Babylonian Captivity, and his prophecy was indeed fullfilled.

These are remarkable statements considering that all of Israel was never brought back into the land of Israel on return from Babylon. Another proof positive this is not referring to the time period you are referring to, is that the time of Jesus, Rome occupied the land of Israel, the book of Acts makes it clear that Jews were still being pushed around in dispersion.
Acts 18:1-2
After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome.

Furthermore, St.James addresses his epistle this way-
James 1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations:
Greetings.

How can you say this was ever fulfilled?
Ezekiel 36:15
No longer will I make you hear the taunts of the nations, and no longer will you suffer the scorn of the peoples or cause your nation to fall, declares the Sovereign LORD.’ "

 

[malphono]

The Palestinians are the descendents of the Jews who converted to Christianity (and later Islam) and never left.

It would probably be more accurate to say that the vast majority of Palestinians are the descendants of both the Arab Bedouins and those Arab tribes that migrated north of Nabatea before the time of Mohammed.

Heck, some of them even continue to use the original Jewish language, Aramaic.

That particular dialect of Aramaic survives in a few small mountain villages in south-east Syria, north of Mt Hermon.

 

[Ghosty]

It would probably be more accurate to say that the vast majority of Palestinians are the descendants of both the Arab Bedouins and those Arab tribes that migrated north of Nabatea before the time of Mohammed.

There is that in the mix as well, but genetically the Palestinian people are closest to Jews. They share blood disorders and other genetic markers that are typically only found among these two populations.

That particular dialect of Aramaic survives in a few small mountain villages in south-east Syria, north of Mt Hermon.

Yep, in this case I was refering to Middle Eastern Christians in general.

Peace and God bless!

 

[malphono]

There is that in the mix as well, but genetically the Palestinian people are closest to Jews. They share blood disorders and other genetic markers that are typically only found among these two populations.

Undoubtedly there are some Palestinians who would fall into the category, but saying that “Palestinians are the descendents of the Jews who converted to Christianity (and later Islam) and never left” means that Palestinians are really Jews who changed religion, and that is something that is bound to cause bad feelings on both sides. In the case of the Palestinians, it essentially says that they are not Arabs. And of course that’s just not the case for those who identify as being Palestinian.

The shared genetic markers may be (I don’t have a medical degree so there’s not much I can say directly) but if so, it’s more likely that it would come from intermarriage between Jews and Philistines in times long past.

 

[Ghosty]

Undoubtedly there are some Palestinians who would fall into the category, but saying that “Palestinians are the descendents of the Jews who converted to Christianity (and later Islam) and never left” means that Palestinians are really Jews who changed religion, and that is something that is bound to cause bad feelings on both sides. In the case of the Palestinians, it essentially says that they are not Arabs. And of course that’s just not the case for those who identify as being Palestinian.

Saying that Palestinians are the descendants of Jews doesn’t rule out them also being descended from Arabs, it simply means that they have a significant proportion of Jewish blood (they are also descended from Western Europeans and Greeks). This is no different from Azkenazi (Cerntral/Eastern European) Jews who are called Jews but have a significant proportion of European blood (hence they tend to look almost nothing like Jews that are native to the Middle East, even having blonde hair and blue eyes in many cases).

As for causing bad feelings, I honestly don’t care. I’m more interested in accuracy than geopolitics. Too much nonsense is bound up in identity politics and pan-Arabism vs. Jewish identification, IMO, speaking as someone from a non-Arab Middle Eastern background.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Lady0Faith]

I am an Arab Christian. My father immigrated to the USA from Jordan b/c his family at time was under the thumb of many Muslims. I know many American Conservatives don’t like to hear this, but the fact of the matter is both Jews and Muslims leave Arab Christians to the way side in the middle east, if a Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant Arab church is in the way, oh well. And the fact of the matter is Palestinian Christians don’t get special treatment in Israel either. This is how they think and that is the reality of it. Arab Christians are very much forgotten by the media and at times by the USA. Don’t get me wrong my grandfather and family immigrated to the USA b/c we love what it stands for (God Bless the USA) and my father who was born in Jordan is retired US veteran fought in Vietnam, Dessert Storm and has recent helped after retirement. The fact of the matter is many of you who do not know what it is like don’t understand that even the Jews are not perfect when it comes to this struggle with the land!