Will Israel Strike First?

[limerickman]

Lim, you and Colorado Rider are both Christians, O.K. Apparently you both believe in the Old Testament as well. So, can you explain to me how the Old Testament urges the children of Israel to wipe out their nearest neighbours while you and CR seem to be at odds with what's directed by the God of Israel in this case.
Surely you either believe in the whole lot of it or none of it?
For me, as a secular individual, it's not so complicated. I'm not motivated by religion. Honestly I believe the Palestinians should be rehoused in all willing Arab States and maybe Israel should turn over some of the vacant land for use as an international centre for refugees of all countries.

I cannot speak for CR, but in the RC context the New Testament takes precedence over the Old Testament.
Essentially the OT is a collection of books detailing the history and the prophises about the Messiah.
The New Testament are the books detailing the ministery of Jesus Christ on earth.
The NT contains the teachings which Jesus Christ, through his Holy Roman Catholic Church, wants mankind to abide by.

In respect of the OT, as a RC, study of the OT was secondary to study of the NT.
In my experience, the OT was regarded as more of an historical account of issues as opposed to the NT which is a set of moral/ethical teachings.
Of course issues like the 10 Commandments are contained in the OT and are
regarded by RC's as the word of God given to Moses.
But except for very limited instances, all RC instruction comes from the NT.

So where the OT may state that the Israelites should wipe out their enemies according to you, this would not tally with Christian teaching and indeed it would be at variance with the 6th Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" as given to the Jewish prophet Moses.
Again, there seems to be an inate contradiction between what Moses says and the lines that you quote above.

As I have explained to you already, one can pick and choose sentences from the Bible and divine a meaning (just like the Jews did when they invoked their territorial claim in Palestine).
The problem with doing this is that there are mixed messages throughout the OT (as in "Thou shalt not kill" - "wipe out your enemies").

 

[Carrera]

The NT is supposed to be a kind of fulfillment of the OT. Jesus was supposed to embody the entire system of Jewish sacrifice in human form, correct?
That is, the sacrifices in the desert of wild beasts which were blood sacrifices were meant to be temporary measures to enable the Jewish priests to enter the Holy Of Holies. Every time a Jewish devotee wanted to be pure, he had to have these blood sacrifices.
Jesus was supposed to be the ultimate human variant of this sacrifice. He was a Jewish messiah, referred to by the name Christos.
As St Paul was Jewish (also a Roman citizen) he understood all of these links between the OT and the NT. It all ties in.
According to NT Christianity, the Jews remain the chosen race but salvation is also offered to all races. Salvation is offered to all nations via the Jews and their messiah. Mary (whom Catholics venerate) was Jewish, supposedly giving birth through immaculate conception. The Apostles were Jewish and Jesus was Jewish.
So, where I get confused is how you and Colorado Rider seem to be so down on this idea of the Jews and the promised land. It's endorsed by the Bible. You can't be anti Jewish and a Christian, surely? I mean, moslems hate Jews so I get confused by yourself and Colorado Rider somehow desiring an Islamic Jerusalem.
Now, my take on this whole issue is different than yours and CR's. My own view isn't based on religion. The way I see it is every race has the right to a homeland and the Jews were effectively in no-mans-land for many centuries. They needed a homeland. Had it not been for ****** and the pogroms maybe Israel never would have been re-established by force.
But in a nutshell, I believe in the survival of the fittest theory as opposed to religion. The Jews were being attacked and persecuted because they were weak. So, they decided to do something about it. Now they have a state called Israel with a well-trained army and probable nuclear missiles. Should another madman such as ****** try to commit genocide again, Israel can give its enemies a bloody nose. This is why Israel flies its fighter planes over Europe as a memorial.
This is my philosophy too so I back Israel. Everybody has the right to self-defence and every race has the right to a homeland. I'm not Jewish and not religious but I can see where Israel is coming from. If Iran is spoiling for a fight or has some idea it will trample over Israelis, Iran could be in a for a rude-awakening. I don't blame any minority for defending itself.

I cannot speak for CR, but in the RC context the New Testament takes precedence over the Old Testament.
Essentially the OT is a collection of books detailing the history and the prophises about the Messiah.
The New Testament are the books detailing the ministery of Jesus Christ on earth.
The NT contains the teachings which Jesus Christ, through his Holy Roman Catholic Church, wants mankind to abide by.

In respect of the OT, as a RC, study of the OT was secondary to study of the NT.
In my experience, the OT was regarded as more of an historical account of issues as opposed to the NT which is a set of moral/ethical teachings.
Of course issues like the 10 Commandments are contained in the OT and are
regarded by RC's as the word of God given to Moses.
But except for very limited instances, all RC instruction comes from the NT.

So where the OT may state that the Israelites should wipe out their enemies according to you, this would not tally with Christian teaching and indeed it would be at variance with the 6th Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" as given to the Jewish prophet Moses.
Again, there seems to be an inate contradiction between what Moses says and the lines that you quote above.

As I have explained to you already, one can pick and choose sentences from the Bible and divine a meaning (just like the Jews did when they invoked their territorial claim in Palestine).
The problem with doing this is that there are mixed messages throughout the OT (as in "Thou shalt not kill" - "wipe out your enemies").

 

[Carrera]

Good point, yes. I really think Israel would be willing to compromise on many issues if the Palestinians stopped bombing civilians.

The "rub" is that the Palestinians were granted a portion of Jeruselum in 1948, acoording to Lim & FredC. Sounds good to me. What happened to that portion they were allotted? That is what they are asking. How come the Palestinians don't have the land they were given in 1948? Right ?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

CR, people like the Cherokee never saw the need for deeds. They believed in a strong honor system.
I am sure you already knew this.

I'm not saying the Indians didn't own their land. I am saying that the Indians don't have legal deeds to the land whereas many Palestinians do have deeds to the land they were removed from. Just pointing out Carerra's argument that the Indians have more right to land without deeds than the Palestinians do with deeds.

 

[Carrera]

I'll try and get involved in it. The more these threads pile up, the more I struggle to keep up. But I appreciate Fred raising the topic and will try to join in later.

Yes Carrera, have you visited that thread yet

 

[Colorado Ryder]

I cannot speak for CR, but in the RC context the New Testament takes precedence over the Old Testament.
Essentially the OT is a collection of books detailing the history and the prophises about the Messiah.
The New Testament are the books detailing the ministery of Jesus Christ on earth.
The NT contains the teachings which Jesus Christ, through his Holy Roman Catholic Church, wants mankind to abide by.

In respect of the OT, as a RC, study of the OT was secondary to study of the NT.
In my experience, the OT was regarded as more of an historical account of issues as opposed to the NT which is a set of moral/ethical teachings.
Of course issues like the 10 Commandments are contained in the OT and are
regarded by RC's as the word of God given to Moses.
But except for very limited instances, all RC instruction comes from the NT.

So where the OT may state that the Israelites should wipe out their enemies according to you, this would not tally with Christian teaching and indeed it would be at variance with the 6th Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" as given to the Jewish prophet Moses.
Again, there seems to be an inate contradiction between what Moses says and the lines that you quote above.

As I have explained to you already, one can pick and choose sentences from the Bible and divine a meaning (just like the Jews did when they invoked their territorial claim in Palestine).
The problem with doing this is that there are mixed messages throughout the OT (as in "Thou shalt not kill" - "wipe out your enemies").

Sounds good to me. The New Testament is instruction on how to obtain salvation.

I believe that God did promise the land to the Jews, but the way it is being carried out is probably not the way God had envisioned it. Seems that both sides behave in ways that make their God ashamed.

 

[jhuskey]

Sounds good to me. The New Testament is instruction on how to obtain salvation.

I believe that God did promise the land to the Jews, but the way it is being carried out is probably not the way God had envisioned it. Seems that both sides behave in ways that make their God ashamed.

I would agree with you on the issue that both sides seem to have rationalized and compromised moral and ethical "accepted standards" to further their cause.
Of course this is not exclusive to these two factions. All humans seem to have the capacity to rationalze their beliefs to an end.

 

[limerickman]

The NT is supposed to be a kind of fulfillment of the OT. Jesus was supposed to embody the entire system of Jewish sacrifice in human form, correct?
That is, the sacrifices in the desert of wild beasts which were blood sacrifices were meant to be temporary measures to enable the Jewish priests to enter the Holy Of Holies. Every time a Jewish devotee wanted to be pure, he had to have these blood sacrifices.
Jesus was supposed to be the ultimate human variant of this sacrifice. He was a Jewish messiah, referred to by the name Christos.
As St Paul was Jewish (also a Roman citizen) he understood all of these links between the OT and the NT. It all ties in.
According to NT Christianity, the Jews remain the chosen race but salvation is also offered to all races. Salvation is offered to all nations via the Jews and their messiah. Mary (whom Catholics venerate) was Jewish, supposedly giving birth through immaculate conception. The Apostles were Jewish and Jesus was Jewish.
So, where I get confused is how you and Colorado Rider seem to be so down on this idea of the Jews and the promised land. It's endorsed by the Bible. You can't be anti Jewish and a Christian, surely? I mean, moslems hate Jews so I get confused by yourself and Colorado Rider somehow desiring an Islamic Jerusalem.
itself.

First of all, first of all, Muslims venerate the Bible.
So let's kill that from the outset.
The Koran is explicit in that it refers to the Jewish/Christian traditions as "people of the Book (Bible)".
In fact, Islam (Koran) venerates Abraham, Moses, Elijah and Jesus Christ (Isa).
The Koran venerates the Mother of Christ (Miriam - known as Mary in the Christian tradition).
So for you to suggest that Muslims hate Jews is inaccurate and totally misleading.
You want to portray Israel/Palestine in religious terms despite claiming to be non-religious:

As regards Christianity and Judaism : we share the same heritage (as do the Muslims) in venerating the OT.
But 2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ's ministery was rejected by the Jewish people and from that juncture, Christianity and Judaism went their separate ways.

Of course, all Christian denominations share the common heritage of the OT with Jewish people.
But to conclude that Christianity and Judaism are the same because they share that common heritage would be mistaken.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

First of all, first of all, Muslims venerate the Bible.
So let's kill that from the outset.
The Koran is explicit in that it refers to the Jewish/Christian traditions as "people of the Book (Bible)".
In fact, Islam (Koran) venerates Abraham, Moses, Elijah and Jesus Christ (Isa).
The Koran venerates the Mother of Christ (Miriam - known as Mary in the Christian tradition).
So for you to suggest that Muslims hate Jews is inaccurate and totally misleading.
You want to portray Israel/Palestine in religious terms despite claiming to be non-religious:

As regards Christianity and Judaism : we share the same heritage (as do the Muslims) in venerating the OT.
But 2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ's ministery was rejected by the Jewish people and from that juncture, Christianity and Judaism went their separate ways.

Of course, all Christian denominations share the common heritage of the OT with Jewish people.
But to conclude that Christianity and Judaism are the same because they share that common heritage would be mistaken.

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity shall the same heritage. Islam departs with Abraham. Christianity departs with Jesus Christ.

The Koran venerates the Mother of Christ (Miriam - known as Mary in the Christian tradition).

Miriam was Mose's sister. She was not the mother of Christ.

 

[Carrera]

Be warned I'm in a bad mood!
I just did my cycling training but it's always the same story - the damned front derailleur buggering up my session.
I can't seem to stop it rubbing against the chain when I'm climbing. I've reset the whole apparatus dozens of times but it will only be O.K. for 2 or 3 weeks and then it's rubbing again. Seems like the actual shift from the big ring to the small ring is causing the derailleur to slip or move somehow. It's no fun trying to mess with mechanics in the middle of a run.
Needless to say, I did manage to get some hard training in. I've been climbing for the last 3 hours. I did repeated climbs up a hill around 20 per cent in some sections.
Mt winter training is alive and kicking but tomorrow I'm gonna take my gears to pieces.

 

[Carrera]

You know, it seems to me that the whole thing is about religion, as Don Shipman hinted earlier.
This is all about control of the Jews' own heritage.
Christians believe Jesus was the messiah but Jews, together with Jehovas Witnesses do not. Moslems believe Jesus was a prophet. Christians hate Jews because Jews don't believe in the same messiah they do. Moslems hate Jews because Jews won't surrender Jerusalem.
Moslems want to make Jerusalem an Islamic State but born again Christians in the U.S. find that intolerable. To the born again Christians in the U.S., the Jews are in error but Israel remains a place that American tourists can visit to venerate Jesus and the the various Christian sites. So, now American born again Bushites hate moslems as they view them as a threat to a Christian Jerusalem.
The Jews suffer anti-semitism because they founded a world religion that other groups wish to gain control of and interpret in their own way. But all the Jewish people want to do is live in peace in the land of their heritage where they practised their beliefs for thousands of years.
There is nothing sinsiter or dark about Jewish people. They are no different than any other ethnic group (apart from their deep religious ideals).
As a non-religious person I can see that as quite reasonable (that Jewish people want to run their own show).

First of all, first of all, Muslims venerate the Bible.
So let's kill that from the outset.
The Koran is explicit in that it refers to the Jewish/Christian traditions as "people of the Book (Bible)".
In fact, Islam (Koran) venerates Abraham, Moses, Elijah and Jesus Christ (Isa).
The Koran venerates the Mother of Christ (Miriam - known as Mary in the Christian tradition).
So for you to suggest that Muslims hate Jews is inaccurate and totally misleading.
You want to portray Israel/Palestine in religious terms despite claiming to be non-religious:

As regards Christianity and Judaism : we share the same heritage (as do the Muslims) in venerating the OT.
But 2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ's ministery was rejected by the Jewish people and from that juncture, Christianity and Judaism went their separate ways.

Of course, all Christian denominations share the common heritage of the OT with Jewish people.
But to conclude that Christianity and Judaism are the same because they share that common heritage would be mistaken.

 

[davidmc]

CR, people like the Cherokee never saw the need for deeds. They believed in a strong honor system.
I am sure you already knew this.

This is a very interesting fact about the us constitution and american indians. I was not aware of this until just 8 month's ago:

[/QUOTE]ABOUT THE IROQUOIS CONSTITUTION (Tuscarora)
Prepared by Gerald Murphy (The Cleveland Free-Net - aa300)

During the bi-centennial year of The Constitution of the United States, a number of books were written concerning the origin of that long-revered document. One of these, The Genius of the People, alleged that after the many weeks of debate a committee sat to combine the many agreements into one formal document. The chairman of the committee was John Rutledge of South Carolina. He had served in an earlier time, along with Ben Franklin and others, at the Stamp Act Congress, held in Albany, New York. This Committee of Detail was having trouble deciding just how to formalize the many items of discussion into one document that would satisfy one and all. Rutledge proposed they model the new government they were forming into something along the lines of the Iroquois League of Nations, which had been functioning as a democratic government for hundreds of years, and which he had observed in Albany.

While there were many desirable, as well as undesirable, models from ancient and modern histories in Europe and what we know now as the Middle East, only the Iroquois had a system that seemed to meet most of the demands espoused by the many parties to the debates. The Genius of the People alleged that the Iroquois had a Constitution which began:
"We the people, to form a union. . ."

http://tuscaroras.com/pages/history/about_iroquois_constitution.html[/QUOTE]

 

[Colorado Ryder]

This is a very interesting fact about the us constitution and american indians. I was not aware of this until just 8 month's ago:

ABOUT THE IROQUOIS CONSTITUTION (Tuscarora)
Prepared by Gerald Murphy (The Cleveland Free-Net - aa300)

During the bi-centennial year of The Constitution of the United States, a number of books were written concerning the origin of that long-revered document. One of these, The Genius of the People, alleged that after the many weeks of debate a committee sat to combine the many agreements into one formal document. The chairman of the committee was John Rutledge of South Carolina. He had served in an earlier time, along with Ben Franklin and others, at the Stamp Act Congress, held in Albany, New York. This Committee of Detail was having trouble deciding just how to formalize the many items of discussion into one document that would satisfy one and all. Rutledge proposed they model the new government they were forming into something along the lines of the Iroquois League of Nations, which had been functioning as a democratic government for hundreds of years, and which he had observed in Albany.

While there were many desirable, as well as undesirable, models from ancient and modern histories in Europe and what we know now as the Middle East, only the Iroquois had a system that seemed to meet most of the demands espoused by the many parties to the debates. The Genius of the People alleged that the Iroquois had a Constitution which began:
"We the people, to form a union. . ."

http://tuscaroras.com/pages/history/about_iroquois_constitution.html[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
The Iroquois constitution does not contain the words "We the people, to form a union. . ."

The Iroquois constitution was supposedly passed down by legend and spoken stories. It wasn't written down till the Europeans came to the land.
The major influence on the Constitution was the Magna Carta and the British form of government. There were others and quite possibly the Iroquois constitution played a part.

 

[limerickman]

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity shall the same heritage. Islam departs with Abraham. Christianity departs with Jesus Christ.


Miriam was Mose's sister. She was not the mother of Christ.

In the Koran, Jesus Mother (Mary) is called Miriam : the Mother of Isa (Jesus) is venerated in Islam.

You're correct about where the major religions depart : in the Koran, Abraham,
Moses, Elijah and Jesus (Isa) are venerated as prophets from God (Allah).
But it is the Islamic belief that Muhammed is the last and authentic prophet sent from Allah.

I was surprised that Mary (Miriam in the Koran) was venerated.
She is venerated because Islam holds great faith in the archangels Gabriel and
Michael and when the Bible recounts the story of how Gabriel visited Mary
(Miriam), the Muslims deemed that She enjoyed God's (Allah's) favour.

 

[Carrera]

""I was surprised that Mary (Miriam in the Koran) was venerated.
She is venerated because Islam holds great faith in the archangels Gabriel and Michael and when the Bible recounts the story of how Gabriel visited Mary(Miriam), the Muslims deemed that She enjoyed God's (Allah's) favour."

This may well be a stupid question I'm raising but I can't help thinking moslems are somehow trying to steal a religion from Jewish people. I say that because they seek to take over Jerusalem and make it an Islamic capital on the basis of their own interpretation of a far older religion than theirs. The prophets, Jesus, Mary, the apostles - they're Jewish.
Now, the Krishna's have their own religion, their own source materials e.t.c. They have their own religion. But moslems and Christians seem to take what they want in the Old Testament and Christians then adopt Jesus as saviour of the gentiles when he was supposed to be a Jewish messiah.
I mean, so what if Judaism doesn't believe Jesus was their messiah?
To my mind, moslems and Christians wouldn't have their religion without Judaism. Therefore, they should respect Jewish religion too and do their own thing. They should respect the history and heritage of this country and cease trying to take over.
Perhaps, it's just me who feels this way but I confess the whole thing leaves me a bit baffled, even if I'm not at all religious.

In the Koran, Jesus Mother (Mary) is called Miriam : the Mother of Isa (Jesus) is venerated in Islam.

You're correct about where the major religions depart : in the Koran, Abraham,
Moses, Elijah and Jesus (Isa) are venerated as prophets from God (Allah).
But it is the Islamic belief that Muhammed is the last and authentic prophet sent from Allah.

I was surprised that Mary (Miriam in the Koran) was venerated.
She is venerated because Islam holds great faith in the archangels Gabriel and
Michael and when the Bible recounts the story of how Gabriel visited Mary
(Miriam), the Muslims deemed that She enjoyed God's (Allah's) favour.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

In the Koran, Jesus Mother (Mary) is called Miriam : the Mother of Isa (Jesus) is venerated in Islam.

After posting I thought that this might be the case.

 

[FredC]

Sounds good to me. The New Testament is instruction on how to obtain salvation.

I believe that God did promise the land to the Jews, but the way it is being carried out is probably not the way God had envisioned it. Seems that both sides behave in ways that make their God ashamed.

From first principles. Prove the Existence of God. Right the whole case is lost. Death Row is a good case in point past and present whereby the condemned have never won an appeal yet referring to ' the voice of god.'

 

[FredC]

Hmm, Genesis and other biblical books have a tendency to reflect historical reality but you can't use them as a reliable source, Lim. The same goes for what the Greeks recorded about themselves and the Romans.
The Romans claimed to have been ruled by Kings prior to the formation of a Republic but we know these same Kings were really Etruscan invaders.
Evidence from multiple sources doesn't suggest the people you refer to as the Palestinians arrived before the Jews. This is now old ground. The closest relatives we have to modern Palestinians are the Philistines who actually migrated from Crete we're not sure when. Crete could actually be their homeland.
And as I keep repeatedly trying to get across to everyone, these Philistine peoples were not Moslems.
We need to be very clear this argument is about religion so it really matters whether the original Philistines were or were not Moslem. It matter because the Arab World wants a totally Islamic Jerusalem. They want this fairly barren strip of land due to Muslim Holy sites and the history that came centuries after the Jews were worshipping their God in the tabernacle.
I really hope there is someone out there who can maybe see this point I'm trying to make as it's important we all follow: It's clearly about religion. It matters a good deal which religion is the oldest.

This argument is about theft, and not religion.

 

[FredC]

I suppose the whole anti semitic issue also has to do with religion. For some reason, alternative religions feel a need to somehow poach the sites of the Mother Religion they all came from.
Without Judaism, there would be no Catholic Faith or Anglican churches. There would be no Islam. So, Christians and Moslems are at each others throats for control over Jerusalem while the Jews remain sandwiched in the middle.
In my view, seeing as the Jews were the source of both these religions, they should be left in peace to practise their heritage.

So Christians and Moslems are at each others throats now over Jerusalem?

 

[FredC]

Yes Carrera, have you visited that thread yet

As usual Dave he hasn't got a ****ing clue. Talk about call my bluff.