Posted on 04/03/2008 10:37:09 AM PDT by 2banana
http://joshuafund.blogspot.com/2008/03/big-untold-story-in-middle-east-2008.html
THE BIG (UNTOLD) STORY IN THE MIDDLE EAST: Muslims converting to faith in Jesus Christ in record numbers --
2008 Update
"I will build my church," Jesus said, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)
The lead story on Drudge over the weekend was the Pope baptizing a prominent Egyptian author who converted from Islam to Catholicism, and for good reason. It's a huge story in Italy and the Muslim world, especially coming as it did the week that Osama bin Laden accused the Pope of waging a "crusade" against Islam. But this particular baptism is just the tip of the iceberg.
Despite unprecedented press coverage of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Middle East since September 11, 2001, one big story is generally not being told by the mainstream media. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims are converting to evangelical Christianity and will be celebrating their first Easter this year, even amidst widespread persecution and the very real threat of death.
I first began reporting this story in 2005 after interviewing some three dozen Arab and Iranian pastors and evangelical Christian leaders in the U.S. and the Middle East. Over the last three years, however, I have had the privilege of traveling to Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, the West Bank, Turkey, and Morocco. What's more, I have had the honor of meeting with and interviewing more than 200 Arab, Iranian, Kurdish, Sudanese and other pastors and Christian leaders. With more data, the trend lines are becoming even more clear and the story is even more exciting.
The God of the Bible is moving powerfully in the Middle East to draw men, women and children to His heart and adopt them into His family in record numbers. More Muslims have come to faith in Jesus Christ over the last thirty years -- and specifically over the last seven to ten years -- than at any other time in human history. There is a revival going on among the ancient Catholic, Coptic, and Chaldean churches. Today, the Church is being truly resurrected in the lands of its birth.
Consider the latest evidence:
* AFGHANISTAN -- In Afghanistan, for example, there were only 17 known evangelical Christians in the country before al-Qaeda attacked the United States. Today, there are well over 10,000 Afghan followers of Christ and the number is growing steadily. Church leaders say Afghan Muslims are open to hearing the gospel message like never before. Dozens of baptisms occur every week. People are snatching up Bibles and other Christian books as fast as they can be printed or brought into the country. The Jesus film, a two hour docudrama on the life of Christ based on the Gospel of Luke, was even shown on television in one city before police shut down the entire TV station."God is moving so fast in Afghanistan, we're just trying to keep up," one Afghan Christian worker told me, requesting anonymity. "The greatest need now is leadership development. We need to train pastors to care for all these new believers."
* UZBEKISTAN -- There were no known Muslim converts to Christ there in 1990. Now there are more than 30,000.
* IRAQ -- As I shared during an interview on Fox & Friends on Easter morning, in Iraq, there were only a handful of Muslim converts to Christianity back in 1979 when Saddam Hussein took full control of that country. Yet today, there are more than 70,000 Iraqi Muslim background believers in Jesus (MBBs), approximately 50,000 who came to Christ as refugees in Jordan after the first Gulf War in 1990-91, and another 20,000 who have come to Christ since the fall of Saddam Hussein. John Moser, the executive director of The Joshua Fund, and I just returned from nine days traveling through five provinces in Iraq. We met with 19 Iraqi evangelical Christian leaders. I had the privilege of preaching in a church of more than 100 MBBs from Baghdad -- a church that didn't even exist in 2002 before liberation. We also had the privilege of meeting and interviewing numerous former Islamic jihadist terrorist who have come to Christ and are now pastors and church planters.
* KAZAKHSTAN -- In Kazakhstan, there were only three known evangelical Christian believers before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Today there are more than 15,000 Kazakh Christians, and more than 100,000 Christians of all ethnicities.
* EGYPT -- More than 1 million Egyptians have trusted Christ over the past decade or so, report Egyptian church leaders. The Egyptian Bible Society told me they used to sell about 3,000 copies of the Jesus film a year in the early 1990s. But in 2005 they sold 600,000 copies, plus 750,000 copies of the Bible on tape (in Arabic) and about a half million copies of the Arabic New Testament. "Egyptians are increasingly hungry for God's Word," an Egyptian Christian leader told me. Last Christmas, I had the privilege of visiting the largest Christian congregation in the Middle East, which meets in an enormous cave on the outskirts of Cairo. Some 10,000 believers worship there every weekend. A prayer conference the church held in May 2005 drew some 20,000 believers.
* IRAN -- In 1979 when the Ayatollah Khomeini led the Islamic Revolution, there were only about 500 known Muslim converts to Christianity. Today, interviews with two dozen Iranian pastors and church leaders reveals that there are well over 1 million Shia Muslim converts to Christianity.
* SUDAN -- Despite a ferocious civil war, genocide and widespread religious persecution, particularly in the Darfur region -- or perhaps because of such tragedies -- church leaders there tell me that more than 1 million Sudanese have made decisions to follow Jesus Christ just since 2001. Since the early 1990s, more than 5 million Sudanese have become followers of Jesus. Seminary classes to train desperately-needed new pastors are held mountain caves. Hundreds of churches have been planted, and thousands of small group Bible studies are being held in secret throughout the country.
In December 2001, Sheikh Ahmad al Qataani, a leading Saudi cleric, appeared on a live interview on Aljazeera satellite television to confirm that, sure enough, Muslims were turning to Jesus in alarming numbers. "In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity," Al Qataani warned. "Every day, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity." Stunned, the interviewer interrupted the cleric. "Hold on! Let me clarify. Do we have six million converting from Islam to Christianity?" Al Qataani repeated his assertion. "Every year," the cleric confirmed, adding, "a tragedy has happened."
One of the most dramatic developments is that many Muslims throughout the Middle East and even in the United States are seeing dreams and visions of Jesus. They are coming into churches explaining that they have already converted and now need a Bible and guidance on how to follow Jesus. This is in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. The Hebrew Prophet Joel told us that "in the last days, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days....And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved." (Joel 2:28-32)
In Epicenter: Why The Current Rumblings In the Middle East Will Change Your Future, I devote an entire chapter to these dramatic trend lines and why Muslims are converting in record numbers. I am currently working on a new non-fiction book and documentary film called Inside The Revolution, to be release during Easter 2009, with much more detail on this subject, including first person accounts of former Muslim terrorists who have become the new Apostle Pauls of our time -- murderous religious zealots who had visions of Jesus Christ and are now pastors, evangelists, church planters and powerful Christian leaders. Other books I would highly recommend on this subject are Light Force: A Stirring Account of the Church Caught in the Middle East Crossfire by Brother Andrew and Al Janssen; and Secret Believers: What Happens When Muslims Believe In Christ.
Is life easy for these Muslim converts? By no means. They face ostracism from their families. They face persecution from their communities. They face being fired from their jobs. They face imprisonment by their governments. They face torture and even death at the hands of Muslim extremists. But they are coming to Christ anyway. They are becoming convinced that Jesus is, in fact, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no one comes to the Father in heaven except through faith in Jesus' death on the cross and powerful resurrection from the dead.
One of the reasons my wife and I began The Joshua Fund was to educate the Church around the world at what God of the Bible is doing in the epicenter. We want to mobilize a global movement of Christians praying for these dear brothers and sisters. We want to find ways to encourage and strengthen them. We want to provide them with Bibles and Christian literature, and with humanitarian relief supplies so they can love their neighbors and their enemies, as Jesus tells us to do. Their stories are typically being told by the mainstream media, but they are important stories nonetheless. Theirs are testimonies of the greatness of our great God.
He is risen! He is risen indeed!
As I said you folks take it your way and and I will take it mine. Neither of us will convince the other.
The important thing is to rely on Christ and his atoning death for salvation, the rest we will have eternity to learn about from the Master.
One of the most dramatic developments is that many Muslims throughout the Middle East and even in the United States are seeing dreams and visions of Jesus.
Sorry about my wording. While it may be so that the same Aramaic word was used by Christ, the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek gospel writer to indicate Christ’s meaning when He used “kepha” through the use of 2 distinct Greek words: Petros and Petra. Or are the these particular scripture references in error? If so, which other scriptures are in error. You can’t have it both ways. Either the Holy Spirit has accurately captured the Lord’s intended meaning (with the use of 2 different Greek words to subtitute for the Lord’s own Aramaic usage) or the Scriptures are in error. Further, how is it that other Aramaic words used by the Lord are accurately cited in the gospels (”Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” for example)—yet here, the use of the word kepha has been subtituted by the Greek?
Your reference to Paul’s referring to Peter as Cephas has little bearing on the matter. No argument here about whether Christ changed Peter’s name or not. But Paul referring to Peter as Cephas does not shed any light on the whether Christ will build the church on a man or on a confession of Christ as Lord.
As I read this story, I was awed by the Glory of God in how He has moved these people into life and His Kingdom.
When I read your post, I was dumbfounded that someone would wish to redirect some of that glory to that of their own denomination. Have we become so petty that God must now share credit?
All glory belongs to God!
Sorry, but it doesn't wash. There is zero proof that any of the Gospels were originally written in Greek. It is probable that the only "Greek speaker" among the authors of the Gospels was Luke. If you read a number of different Bibles, you will quickly see that the phrasing varies all over the place just within English-language translations, yet they are all considered equally divinely-inspired. The Holy Spirit obviously doesn't oversee translational variances--only the original--which was in Aramaic, as ALL of the Apostles were Jews.
But it does shed light on the words originally used by Jesus, and proves that the phrase was originally in Aramaic, and not Greek. If so, then it is impossible for the Petros/Petra difference to be anything other than a translational glitch, as the masculine/feminine distinction doesn't exist in Aramaic.
“Translational glitch?” That’s a euphemism for error. Again I ask, where else are the scriptures in error, or is this the only place? That is a serious question. Because if they are in error anywhere, then they are not inerrant and, thus, cannot be relied upon for truth.
As far as there being an ignorance of Greek among people of Jesus’ day, the Hebrew scriptures had been translated into the common (Koine) Greek some 250 or so years before the birth of Christ which would indicate that the Greek language was being widely used and taught. In fact, many of the Jews of Jesus day were multi-lingual. Some examples in scripture seem to bear this out. The inscription on His cross included a translation into the Greek. In the 12th chapter of John, it is indicated that Christ’s disciples (Philip and Andrew) understood Greek (when certain Greeks came up to them and asked to see Jesus). In Mark 7 Jesus, in speaking to the Syrophoenician woman uses a word for dog that has no corresponding equivalent in Hebrew or Aramaic (He must have spoken Greek). In John 21 in talking to Peter during Peter’s restoration, Christ uses 2 different words for love that have no corresponding equivalent in Aramaic.
What is most telling of all is that God, who is able to keep his Scriptures alive and perpetuate them down throught the ages had those very scriptures written down in a living language (the common Greek) and not a dead one (ancient Aramaic).
Sorry, still not convincing. Christ spoke Aramaic. What the translators wrote is irrelevant, as the correct meaning is known from the original language.
And, as I said, the Holy Spirit obviously doesn't mind translational variances (note--NOT errors), as He has allowed so many of them. You CANNOT claim that only the Greek version is the correct "divinely inspired" variant.
Finally, that specific set of verses is NOT the single justification for Peter's authority. There are two other completely separate times and different metaphors that prove it.
I came back to my faith after being convinced (convicted) by the evidence. There is more historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than any other historic event. I'm absolutely certain, completely convinced, that Jesus was who he said he was, and that he laid down his life and had the power to take it up again.
Jesus is light, Islam is darkness. Many Muslims are finding their way out of the darkness, even as the darkness seeks to keep them in its clutches through threats and intimidation.
I think that she had it right and before anyone else.
It’s a shame the truth should be so offensive to some.
I guess nobody heard you but me. Thanks for that thought.
Christianity
Oh yes, because Christians never waged war and atrocities in the name of Jesus.
Let’s not be so quick to shout “glitch,” or “variance” and then leave the discussion of the Matt. 16 verses and the question of the Rock. Here are some verses that would have been familiar to Jesus’ disciples who were standing within earshot when Jesus spoke to Peter:
“He is the Rock, His word is perfect.” Deuteronomy 32:4.
“The Lord is my Rock, and my fortress.” Psalms 18:2.
“For who is a God save the Lord? Or who is a Rock save our God.” Ps18:31
In all instances, the Rock referred to is none other than God Himself. This is what would have been understood by the disciples as Jesus spoke in Matthew. It would have been the height of arrogance and pride for Peter to think anything else given who he understood he was standing before (the Christ the Son of the Living God—who is the Rock according to his understanding of the scriptures) and his own realization of himself (see Luke ch. 5 where he doubts the Lord about continuing his fishing and then, after bringing up nets bursting with fish cries, “Depart from me Lord, for I am a sinful man.”)
In the New Testament, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:4:
“And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”
...and in Romans, Paul writes:
Rom 9:33 “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumblingstone and rock of offense: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”
Once more the Rock refers, not to a man, but to God (this time Christ, the Lord).
And, of course, Peter himself identified the true rock in his first epistle:
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
As with the Old Testament human writers, those who penned the New Testament never used the word “rock” in referring to someone OTHER THAN WHEN REFERRING TO GOD — except, according to your position, when THE LORD HIMSELF refers to a sinful man (who was about to be told “Get behind me, Satan...”, who was soon to deny he ever knew the Lord 3 times, who suffered from a brief spell of spiritual blindness in requiring gentile converts to be circumcised (for which Paul had to rebuke him - see Galatians 2). To arrive at such a conclusion is inconsistent exegesis.
I understand the reference in Ephesians 2:20 about laying on the foundation of the apostles...but the latter phrase seems to be the focus of Paul throughout Ephesians, and all his writings: “Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone”. Where does Paul not indicate Christ as the head of the body, Christ having preeminence, etc? And I understand about the apostles names being contained in the 12 foundation walls of the New Jerusalem. There is no doubt, because of their “special calling” they have been marked out for special rewards (a study of rewards reveals this is so even for those not called apostles.) But both of these references do not single out Peter for any significance beyond the other Apostles (not even Matthias who was appointed after Judas’ death in Acts.) It seems he shares equally in being identified as original “members” of the church and as those so recognized in glory.
To: (use semi-colons to separate multiple recipients)
Antoninus
Your Reply: (HTML auto-detected, see help for more information)
Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):
I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.
Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled The untold story of the Middle East: Muslims converting to faith in Jesus Christ in record numbers, Antoninus wrote:
Nice article, but it starts out with a partial Scriptural quote:
“I will build my church,” Jesus said, “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)
He’re’s the full quote.
“For thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Funny how they left off that beginning bit.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That is because Matthew 16:18 is a pun (a play on words). Two very similar but different words (and different concepts) are used.
Jesus said, “thou art PETER (the Greek word is PETROS), and upon this ROCK (the Greek word is PETRA) I will build My Church.” In other words, He said this: “Thou art PETROS and upon this PETRA I will build my church.”
Let’s think about what these Greek words mean:
1) PETROS
If you wanted to define this word by using just one word you would use the word STONE. See John 1:42 (Peter=Cephas=stone). A stone is a piece that has broken off of or eroded from of a larger rock structure. Thus in the Greek, this usually refers to a loose stone or a movable stone, such as one a man could throw to another (a detached stone or boulder). In context, it can refer to a very large stone, but often this word refers to a small, movable stone. It is used of small stones including flints and pebbles for slings. It is used of a little rock or a little chip off a big rock, a stone, a pebble. This word was also used as a proper name (PETER). Did Peter consider himself to be a stone (1 Peter 2:5)? ________ Would it be wise to build a church on a loose stone? Should a building be erected on a pebble? Would this make a good foundation?
2) PETRA
If you wanted to define this word by using just one word you would use the word ROCK (Matthew l6:18—”upon this ROCK”). Which is bigger (usually), a ROCK or a STONE? ______________________ The word PETRA means a large stone or a massive rock. It often is used to describe a fixed and permanent rock or an immovable rock. This word is often used to describe a cliff by the sea (rock, ledge, cliff). The church is built upon a large, solid, immovable and permanent ROCK! This foundation is so solid and so secure that “the gates of hell (hades) shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).
Peter had JUST made a clear confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. He had clearly pointed to Jesus Christ and WHO HE WAS (Matthew 16:16). The truth that Peter just confessed was the rock foundation upon which the church of Christ would be built. Christ was the BUILDER, Christ was the OWNER (it was His church) and Christ’s identify as God and His divine work was the ROCK FOUNDATION (1 Cor. 3:11).
KJV:
13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Petros (chief disciple and individual stone), and upon this Petra (Peter’s just-mentioned confession of Jesus’ identify and saving work . . . i.e., the GOSPEL . . . and huge rock foundation) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
So, you are willing to ignore God's Glory in this article and piss all over this thread just because of a partial quote?
PS. The Catholic Church is not "a denomination." Keep in mind that without it, there is no chance you'd be who you are or where you are today.
And there you go again. Glorifying your church and ignoring God's glory. I am who I am and what I am because of God. NOT because of any church or denomination including my own. That God may have chosen people, churches or denominations to use to make me what I am, then fine. But people churches and denominations are only tools in the hands of the Creator. It is He who should be glorified and not His lowly tools.
Why do feel that your church must be bigger than your God?
————Hmmm...one satanic ritual killing religion for the religion of love and peace...
Christianity
Oh yes, because Christians never waged war and atrocities in the name of Jesus.-————
Jesus never sanctioned physical aggression to spread his message of salvation and those who preach and practice physical aggression in his name will be repudiated by him in person.
And so what?? God himself chose Peter to be his representative on earth as his steward (the grant of the keys of heaven), and as his assistant shepherd ("feed my sheep"). This despite his sinful nature. Christ was (and is) head of the total Church (which consists of the Church in Heaven AND the Church on earth). Peter (and his successors) were (and are) in charge of the Church on earth in Christ's absence. The Church is built on Peter, and Peter "stands" on Jesus, exactly as a lieutenant's authority derives from his captain. There's nothing whatsoever "inconsistent" about the exegesis.
"I understand the reference in Ephesians 2:20 about laying on the foundation of the apostles...but the latter phrase seems to be the focus of Paul throughout Ephesians, and all his writings: “Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone”. Where does Paul not indicate Christ as the head of the body, Christ having preeminence, etc?"
Which detracts not at all from Peter being in charge of the Church on earth. And you must have missed the point about Paul hiself journeying to Jerusalem to have his ministry "blessed" by Peter and the other apostles (by the "laying on of hands", which indicates his official consecration into priestly office), and spending "forty days" in consultation with Peter before continuing his ministry to the Gentiles.
I’ve found John 1:42 instructive in this discussion:
“Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas’ (which, when translated, is Peter).”
John seems to be saying that Aramaic Cephas is the original of which Peter was the Greek translation.
Also, the Church Fathers as I remember quite clear that the Rock was both Peter *and* Peter’s Confession. We don’t need to unnecessarily limit the text in this regard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.