al-Question

Is the Palestinians claim Israel belongs to them by right of conquest and occupation, why can't Israel claim the land by the same right?

the Jews as a whole are noted for being successful at just about any venture they engage in .......... and the unsuccessful of the western world don't think they have any right to keep and enjoy what they work hard at obtaining.

the redistribution of Jewish wealth began hundreds of years ago.

SamCogar wrote:the Jews as a whole are noted for being successful at just about any venture they engage in .......... and the unsuccessful of the western world don't think they have any right to keep and enjoy what they work hard at obtaining.

the redistribution of Jewish wealth began hundreds of years ago.

Watch it, Sam. You are sounding like a Zionist.

The only problem Keli is that the Jew's were given the land in the Balfour Declaration and then the Jewish Nation was handed their military thus the claim that Jews conquered anyone is a bit devious and dishonest, don't you think!!!

Aaron wrote:The only problem Keli is that the Jew's were given the land in the Balfour Declaration and then the Jewish Nation was handed their military thus the claim that Jews conquered anyone is a bit devious and dishonest, don't you think!!!

Well, not if you count the wars of 1948, 1967, 1973 and 1982, etc. And, the Jews were given the land by a higher authority than the Balfour Declaration or the UN--a long time ago.

Keli wrote:

Aaron wrote:The only problem Keli is that the Jew's were given the land in the Balfour Declaration and then the Jewish Nation was handed their military thus the claim that Jews conquered anyone is a bit devious and dishonest, don't you think!!!

Well, not if you count the wars of 1948, 1967, 1973 and 1982, etc. And, the Jews were given the land by a higher authority than the Balfour Declaration or the UN--a long time ago.

And they lost it...a long time ago. So if God wanted them to have it back, why did it take almost 2000 years and Great Britian to give it back to them in a Declaration? Could have have not created a situation in which the Jewish Nation won the land back?

Aaron wrote:

Keli wrote:

Aaron wrote:The only problem Keli is that the Jew's were given the land in the Balfour Declaration and then the Jewish Nation was handed their military thus the claim that Jews conquered anyone is a bit devious and dishonest, don't you think!!!

Well, not if you count the wars of 1948, 1967, 1973 and 1982, etc. And, the Jews were given the land by a higher authority than the Balfour Declaration or the UN--a long time ago.

And they lost it...a long time ago. So if God wanted them to have it back, why did it take almost 2000 years and Great Britian to give it back to them in a Declaration? Could have have not created a situation in which the Jewish Nation won the land back?

God set the time of their dispersion; therefore, it was God and not Great Britain who brought the Jews back. (Incidentally, there has never been a time that there were not some Jews in Israel for the last two thousand years.) At any rate, it is theirs now by right of conquest and occupation--just as the Palestinians claim.

Keli wrote: (Incidentally, there has never been a time that there were not some Jews in Israel for the last two thousand years.) At any rate, it is theirs now by right of conquest and occupation--just as the Palestinians claim.

Which makes the decendents of the Jews that have been there "for the last two thousand years" ......... Palestinians also and their claim is just as legitimate as any Arab claim.

Claiming to be a Palestinian is akin to claiming to be a West Virginian.

Aaron wrote:The only problem Keli is that the Jew's were given promised the land in the Balfour Declaration and then the Jewish Nation was handed their military thus the claim that Jews conquered anyone is a bit devious and dishonest, don't you think!!!

Those who believe verbatum what they read/hear from the liberal media usually always have a screwed up knowledge of actual history which they will mimic forever and ever.

How did the Arab territory of Transjordan come into being?

The 1922 White Paper (also called the Churchill White Paper) was the first official manifesto interpreting the Balfour Declaration. It was issued on June 3, 1922, after investigation of the 1921 disturbances. Although the White Paper stated that the Balfour Declaration could not be amended and that the Jews were in Palestine by right, it partitioned the area of the Mandate by excluding the area east of the Jordan River from Jewish settlement. That land, 76% of the original Palestine Mandate land, was renamed Transjordan and was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British.

The White Paper included the statement that the British Government:

•… does not want Palestine to become “as Jewish as England is English”, rather should become “a center in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride.”

After the partition, Transjordan remained part of the Palestine Mandate and its legal system applied to all residents, both East and West of the Jordan River, who all carried Palestine Mandate passports. Palestine Mandate currency was the legal tender in Transjordan as well as the area West of the river. This was the consistent situation until 1946, 24 years later, when Britain completed the action by unilaterally granting Transjordan its independence. Thus the British subverted the purpose of the Palestine Mandate, partitioned Palestine and created an independent Palestine-Arab state with no regard for the rights and needs of the Jewish population.

According to Sir Alec Kirkbride, the British representative in the area, Transjordan was:

•… intended to serve as a reserve of land for use in the resettlement of Arabs once the National Home for the Jews in Palestine, which [Britain was] pledged to support, became an accomplished fact. There was no intention at that stage of forming the territory east of the River Jordan into an independent Arab state.

In 1925, the British added 60,000 sq. km. of desert to eastern Transjordan forming an “arm” of land to connect Transjordan with Iraq and to cut Syria off from the Arabian Peninsula. The British continued to favor exclusive Arab development east of the Jordan River by enacting restrictive regulations against the Jews, even when Arab leaders sought Jewish involvement in the development of Transjordan.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_transjordan.php

And this is what the Jews ended up with even though the British tried their damnest to prevent their occupation of what was left of Palestine.

I'm curious Keli, do you think the Jewish people hold the Balfour Declaration which gave the promised land back to the Jewish nation in the same light as other biblical miracles or is this another example of God working in mysterious ways?

Aaron wrote:I'm curious Keli, do you think the Jewish people hold the Balfour Declaration which gave the promised land back to the Jewish nation in the same light as other biblical miracles or is this another example of God working in mysterious ways?

Yes.

If I may "get this in," the Bible said, thousands of years beforehand, that the Jews would be dispersed and then would come back to Israel. I cannot think of any other group in history that has been dispersed throughout the world after losing its country only to get it back 2500 years or so later.

That is a big deal.

SheikBen wrote:If I may "get this in," the Bible said, thousands of years beforehand, that the Jews would be dispersed and then would come back to Israel. I cannot think of any other group in history that has been dispersed throughout the world after losing its country only to get it back 2500 years or so later.

That is a big deal.

The bible says quite a bit more that cannot be ignored. The book of Hebrews and the book of Galations are both discussions of the simple fact the Judasim was replaced by Christainity. When Jesus died on the cross the old covenant was done away with and replaced witht he convenant of Christ or the New teatament. That simple statement is the thrust of the Book of Hebrews.

From AD 66 to AD 70 Roman besieged Jerusalem and ultimately destoryed the city and the temple in AD 70. When it did so, the genology records along with the alter were destoryed. No longer could the priests trace the linage back to Aaron thus the end of those who could serve in the temple and offer sacrifice. Additionaly, the accepted place of sacrifice was completely destoryed. Another way of looking at this is that God himself wiped Judaism from the map.

The Israel we know today doesn't exist because it was foreordained in the bible. It exists because men stuck thier nose where it didn't belong and created the Jewish state in 1948. Another way of looking at this is, that a group of people got together and decided to create Israel, without giving the first thought to the people that already lived on the same land. That is par for the course for mankind, in my humble opinion.

That being said, I don't begrudge the Jewish people the nation is Israel. I do however, think, it is a good idea to understand how it came to be and that it doesn't exist because the bible said it would again, which the bible don't by the way.

Cato wrote:The bible says quite a bit more that cannot be ignored. The book of Hebrews and the book of Galations are both discussions of the simple fact the Judasim was replaced by Christainity.

Willy, did all the Jews get to vote on replacing Judasim with Christainity ..... or did an Obamamessia just issue a Christian Edict mandating it be done?

Cato wrote:When Jesus died on the cross the old covenant was done away with and replaced with the convenant of Christ or the New testament.

Ah so, kinda like what's happening now, huh?

America's Constitutional Republic is dying in the Halls of Congress and the old COTUS and BoM is being done away with and being replaced with the convenant of Socialism or the New Obamamessia testaments, .......... right?

Willy, don'tja think some of those Jews of yesteryear ..... were kinda like the Willy Cato's of this year, ........ they didn't take kindly to that "replacement crapolla" and told the Neo-con Jews to take their new-age religion and shove it up their arses.

Willy, the Jews are not willing to "give up on" 2000+ years of Jewish Religious Heritage ...... any more than you appear to be willing to "give up on" 200+ years of Constitutional Republic Heritage.

HA, ..... Willy, you disagree with the Jews ...... and the Obammaites disagree with you, ..... whatta hoot.

Cato wrote:That simple statement is the thrust of the Book of Hebrews.

Willy, me thinks "the thrust of the Book of Hebrews and the Book of Galatians" is akin to adamently pro-Democratic Editorials and Commentaries published by the Gazette and other liberal lefty media.

To wit:

The Epistle to the Hebrews is one of the books in the New Testament. Its author is not known.

The primary purpose of the Letter to the Hebrews is to exhort Jews and Christians to persevere in the face of persecution. The central thought of the entire Epistle is the doctrine of the Person of Christ and his role as mediator between God and humanity.

No author is internally named. Since the earliest days of the Church, the authorship has been debated.

The epistle casts Jesus as both exalted Son and high priest (ha, just like Obama is being cast nowdays), a unique dual Christology Scholars argue over where Hebrews fits in the 1st century world.

Most scholars today believe the document was written to prevent apostasy. Some have interpreted apostasy to mean a number of different things, such as a group of Christians in one sect leaving for another more conservative sect, one of which the author disapproves. Some have seen apostasy as a move from the Christian assembly to pagan ritual. In light of a possibly Jewish-Christian audience, the apostasy in this sense may be in regard to Jewish-Christians leaving the Christian assembly to return to the synagogue. The epistle dissuades non-Jewish Christians from feeling a need to convert to Judaism. The author writes, "Let us hold fast to our confession." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Hebrews

The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, often shortened to Galatians, is the ninth book of the New Testament. It is a letter from Paul of Tarsus to a number of Early Christian communities in the Roman province of Galatia in central Anatolia. Paul is principally concerned with the controversy surrounding Gentile Christians and the Mosaic Law within Early Christianity, see also Paul of Tarsus and Judaism.

Paul is thought to have composed this letter in grave concern and agitation. It is a rebuke to the Galatians. No original of the letter is known to survive. The earliest reasonably complete version available to scholars today, named P46, dates to approximately the year 200 A.D., approximately 150 years after the original was presumably drafted.

Biblical scholars agree that Galatians is a true example of Paul's writing.

The main arguments in favor of the authenticity of Galatians include its style and themes, which are common to the core letters of the Pauline corpus. Moreover, Paul's description of the Council of Jerusalem (Gal 2:1–10) gives a different point of view from the description in Acts 15:2–29.

The central dispute in the letter concerns the question of how Gentiles could convert to Christianity, which shows that this letter was written at a very early stage in church history, when the vast majority of Christians were Jewish or Jewish proselytes, which historians refer to as the Jewish Christians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Galatians

Cato wrote:

SheikBen wrote:If I may "get this in," the Bible said, thousands of years beforehand, that the Jews would be dispersed and then would come back to Israel. I cannot think of any other group in history that has been dispersed throughout the world after losing its country only to get it back 2500 years or so later.

That is a big deal.

The bible says quite a bit more that cannot be ignored. The book of Hebrews and the book of Galations are both discussions of the simple fact the Judasim was replaced by Christainity. When Jesus died on the cross the old covenant was done away with and replaced witht he convenant of Christ or the New teatament. That simple statement is the thrust of the Book of Hebrews.

From AD 66 to AD 70 Roman besieged Jerusalem and ultimately destoryed the city and the temple in AD 70. When it did so, the genology records along with the alter were destoryed. No longer could the priests trace the linage back to Aaron thus the end of those who could serve in the temple and offer sacrifice. Additionaly, the accepted place of sacrifice was completely destoryed. Another way of looking at this is that God himself wiped Judaism from the map.

The Israel we know today doesn't exist because it was foreordained in the bible. It exists because men stuck thier nose where it didn't belong and created the Jewish state in 1948. Another way of looking at this is, that a group of people got together and decided to create Israel, without giving the first thought to the people that already lived on the same land. That is par for the course for mankind, in my humble opinion.

That being said, I don't begrudge the Jewish people the nation is Israel. I do however, think, it is a good idea to understand how it came to be and that it doesn't exist because the bible said it would again, which the bible don't by the way.

Cato,

If Judaism has been "replaced" by Christianity, why aren't the promises that were made to the Jews applicable to Christians? Also, why are the Jews called the olive branch to which the Gentiles are grafted in, if somehow there is replacement, instead?

I believe that Judaism points to Jesus, God with us, Who is the fulfillment of the OT hopes and expectations. I also believe that one's ethnic (or spiritual) heritage saves you. Still, never in history has a group of people been dispersed, only to have a homeland given to them 1900 years later. There is no "Christian" country from which we come, and the one to which the Christians are going is not made by human hands. There was no dispersion from anywhere, but rather a promise that believers from every tongue, tribe, and nation will live eternally with Jesus.

SheikBen wrote:

If Judaism has been "replaced" by Christianity, why aren't the promises that were made to the Jews applicable to Christians? Also, why are the Jews called the olive branch to which the Gentiles are grafted in, if somehow there is replacement, instead?

I believe that Judaism points to Jesus, God with us, Who is the fulfillment of the OT hopes and expectations. I also believe that one's ethnic (or spiritual) heritage saves you. Still, never in history has a group of people been dispersed, only to have a homeland given to them 1900 years later. There is no "Christian" country from which we come, and the one to which the Christians are going is not made by human hands. There was no dispersion from anywhere, but rather a promise that believers from every tongue, tribe, and nation will live eternally with Jesus.

First of all, before I say what I going to say, you are welcome to beleive as you choose.

Christainity is what the whole of the bible is pointing to. Under the Patriarchs and Mosaic Law the scriptures were looking forward to Christ. Cosider what Jeremiah said regarding a new covenant. In Jeremiah 31:31 he stated the Lord would make a new covenant with Judah, and it wouldn't be like to old covenant. In verse 34 we read that its one major attribute would be the forgiveness of sins.

Christ came and was crusified, dead, and buried. He rose again on the thrid day, and some 50 days later the New Testament church was established as we read in Acts chapter 2. Consider some things that are said in the New Testament. Galations 3:19-29 explains the purpose of the Old Law and that now there is neither Jew nor Greek, but all are one in Christ, verse 28. In Hebrews chapter 8 a discussion takes places where the New Convenant is shown to be a better convenant than the old Covenant.

My point is simple here. The bible states in very plain terms that once Jesus came, now longer would there be Jews and gentiles, but all would be one, Christains. Many self-serving preachers and televangelists have corrupted the pure and simple teachings of the scriptures simply to gain control and power. In fact, this nation has based a good portion of its foreign policy and middle eastern policy on a false interpertation of the bible.

If you study the bible you will soon see, especially if you read the accounts of the the crusifiction that Jesus stated very clearly his kingdom was not of this world. His kingdom is a spiritual kingdom. man so often forgets this simle little fact. The nation of Israel was created in 1948 by an act of men, not of God, nor of the providence of God. Does Israel have the right to exist, yes they do, just as any people have the right to exist. Should we be supporting them, no we should not.