[Taliesin]

In this thread I will present the history of zionism and Israel by using only western and jewish sources. The goal is to create a historic context for the Palestine-Israel-conflict:

This is Volume 1, covering the time between 1881 and 1947:


1. Anti-Semitism vs. Anti-Judaism, and the founding of zionism.

a) Not much after, maybe even before, christianity became the state-religion in the roman-empire, anti-Judaism came up, as parts of the christians blamed the jews for the death of their prophet, who they believed was God's son. It's a very contradictory idea to think that, considering that God is the master of life and death and fate. The grudge against jews though was not only there because of the death of Jesus on the crux, but also because they rejected Jesus as the messias and prophet and because parts of the jews didn't become christians. Over the time numerous myths developed that talked about all the myterious and even cruel behaviourings of jews... and some even about their devilish magical powers... Those superstitions and other accusations stirred up the hatred against jews among the christians. It went even so far that the christian states created discriminatory laws that should ban jews from most professions.

Parts of the jews converted to christianity in order to circumvent the state-organized discriminations, those that stood loyal to their jewish religion, engaged in the professions the jews were not banned from, and that were mostly professions surrounding finance and economy, but also medicine and other intellectual positions.

Ironically that stirred up the hatred against jews even more, as they made more money than others, and deep envy came up.

That anti-Judaism was highly emotional and prejudice-rich among the uneducated masses and found its representation in discriminating laws.

b) Anti-semitism is a whole other beast, it's an intellectual concept that came up after Europe achieved its enlightment and modern science, freedom, democracy and capitalism was on its way to fame, when scientists used their newly discovered scientific methods to categorize and study humanity. The concept of races was developed, in which humans could be organized in, and off course there was a hierarchy that put the white race on top, and all others arbitrarily in different classes, with the jews somewhere way under the white, european (eventhough the jews were mostly white and european) race. Then the scientific racism coupled with the emotional anti-Judaism of the masses, and progroms against jews flared up, espescially in Eastern Europe and Russia.
By the way that new scientific racism also justified the european colonialism..

c) After a few years and decades of racism, parts of the jews started to believe themselves in the new race-science, off course not thinking that they are worth less than the other races, but that they were a distinct race, again first in East-Europe and Russia where the racism against jews was the strongest. Zionism was born out of the desire to create a state for the jewish race, in which they could act like they wanted and protect themselves, etc... and off course that state should be created in Palestine, where the ancient Israel was thousands of years back.
The western zionism that came up later wanted the same, but not necessarily in Palestine, it could have been as well in Africa or South-America.
While the eastern zionism started its project in 1881 thinking Palestine was a deserted area, they soon found out that there was already a strong arabic population with an economy, with villages and towns, with manufactories and agriculture..:

"Completely accurate statistics about the number of inhabitants do not presently exist. One must admit that the density of the population does not give the visitor much cause for cheer. In whole stretches throughout the land one constantly comes across large Arab villages, and it is an established fact that the most fertile areas of our country are occupied by Arabs..." (Protocol of the Second Zionist Congress, Pg. 103).

Notice how Palestine was called "our country", "occupied by arabs". Priceless.

and

Ahad Ha'am, the respected Russian Jewish writer and philosopher, refused from the beginning to ignore the presence of Arabs in Palestine. He paid his first visit to the new Jewish settlements in Palestine in 1891. In his essay, The Truth From the Land of Israel, he says that it is an illusion to think of Palestine as an empty country: "We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost completely deserted, a non-cultivated wilderness, and anyone can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires. But in reality this is not the case. It is difficult to find anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow..."

and

While some Jews continued to live in Palestine since their original entrance circa 1000 B.C., in contemporary times the Jewish population at the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 was a mere 7 percent of the 700,000 inhabitants.

Sources: http://www.mediamonitors.net/brownfeld1.html
http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ld/wh0031.html

2. The first worldwar, the British empire and its colonies and the Balfour declaration.

a) During the 19th century Europe, equipped with superior technology, an economy striving for ressources and the ideological and scientific justification (racial superiority-ideas) to be the master of the planet, refueled its colonialistic activities in Africa and Asia. While the colonialism of the former centuries were mostly justified by religion, meaning a mean to bring the message of the true religion to the unbelievers, the new colonialism logically had to use another justification, since the enlightment-phase brought about the division of state and religion. The justification for the new colonialism was the scientific racism described in point 1 of this thread.
The economic interests lay in the ressources as well as the workforce of the indigous populations and were always the driving force, but the masses in Europe needed another ideology and justification in order to be really engaged in colonialism: The white race was declared the civilized race, while the africans and asians were the savages that could be exploited/enslaved...
In a conference in Germany, the european mights divided Africa among themselves at the end of the 19th century.

b) The crown-colony for Britain was India and it kept that colony for more than two centuries. In order to have better connection to India, it was necessary for Britain to secure control over the middle-east. Egypt and Palestine but also Kuwait were perfect for that goal, and the centuries-long-decline and the eventual collapse of the ottoman-empire offered Britain a good opportunity to achieve that.

c) What ignited ww1 is extremely interesting, it was an assassination of an austrian crown-prince in Serbia, with today's terms, it would have been called an act of terrorism. But eventhough that event ignited ww1, it wasn't the cause, because the war was long in the coming, whole Europe basically wanted a great war to set things right again: Russia lost a war against Japan at the beginning of the 20th century and wanted a european war in order to restore Russia's pride, France wanted a revenge-war for the lost war of 1871 against Germany, Germany wanted a war in order to create political realities that would reflect its newly found economic and military power, and Britain and all other countries were dragged into ww1 because of treaties they had signed with those countries that were invaded.
Ironically Austria-Hungary just wanted a limited war against Serbia in order to impose its authority upon the serbians, and basically set the chain-reaction into motion: Russia mobilised its army to defend Serbia, Germany declared war against Russia for that, France declared war against Germany, because of a treaty it signed with Russia. Germany tried to invade France by taking the shortest route through Belgium. Britain declared war against Germany because it had signed a treaty to defend Belgium...
Interesting enough Japan declared war against Germany because Japan had a military agreement with Britain.

d) Worldwar1 was the first total war, since industrialisation, nationalism and capitalism met for the first time to create the potential to equip and send every fighting male to the front, while the other parts of population worked at home to create more weapons and ammunition at a constant rate and to deliver them to the front. Whole Europe, inspired through anti-semitism and the new zionism, thought that jews controlled the economies and financing capabilities of the warfaring countries, and in 1917, when ww1 came to its most fevered stage, Britain tried to assure the support of the jews for the allies by supporting the zionistic goal of a jewish homeland in Palestine with the famous Balfour-declaration.
The idea was to espescially get american jews to convince the US to join ww1 against Germany/Austria (but also to keep Russia engaged in the war, which didn't work out thanks to a communistic revolution).

e) The collapse of the ottoman-empire was a centuries-long-development that culminated at the end of the 19th-century. The reasons for that are widely known, the economic system was dependent on an ever increasing geographical extension of the ottoman empire, once the expansion halted, the economic problems started. The economy was organized feudalistically, and was highly dependent on the monetary influx the ottoman empire enjoyed as it was the main transfer-route for trade between Europe and Asia. Once the shipping-technology in Europe reached a certain level and a route was found around Africa, the influx stopped for the ottoman empire, which threw it into deep crisis.
In 1912-13, the world zionist organization approached the ottoman-sultanate in order to make a deal that would allow the zionists to purchase land around the Jordan-river in the Baysan valley. The palestinians knew that the ottoman-empire would cut the deal as it was economically on its last leg.


Sources:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/balfour.htm
http://europeanhistory.about.com/gi/...sh%2FEAco.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of..._world_economy

3. The establishment of a jewish state in the state in Palestine between the end of ww1 and 1939, the beginning of ww2.

a) Like promised in the 1917-Balfour-declaration, the british empire colonised whole Palestine and started to establish a jewish homeland. It didn't take long until Britain co-founded with the zionists a jewish civil organization, which should grow up to a state within a state in the twenties of the 20th century.

b) Soon palestinian resistance came up against the british assistance of zionistic policies and against the jewish state in the state that was forming and the unrestricted jewish immigration that slowly but surely would turn the palestinians from an overwhelming majority to a minority:

Initially, many British politicians shared the Zionists' assumption that gradual, regulated Jewish immigration and settlement would lead to a Jewish majority in Palestine, whereupon it would become independent, with legal protection for the Arab minority. The assumption that this could be accomplished without serious resistance was shattered at the outset of British rule. Britain thereafter was caught in an increasingly untenable position, unable to persuade either Palestinians or Zionists to alter their demands and forced to station substantial military forces in Palestine to maintain security.

c) In 1920 the zionists founded the militant group Haganah, basically the predecessor of Israel's IDF, which had the goal to protect jewish settlers from arabic rioters and to help british forces in driving out palestinians from land that zionists bought from absent landlords...

d) Since Hitler took over power in Germany in 1933 and also after pogroms against jews in Poland and Russia, the immigration of jews to Palestine increased considerably, parts of the immigrants came into Palestine with approval of the british colonists, while other parts of the jewish immigrants came to Palestine secretly. With more and more palestinians driven off their land and more and more jewish immigrants replacing them there, serious arabic riots came up that culminated in the big rebellion between 1936 and 1939.

e) The Peel-commission that was sent to Palestine in 1937, in order to investigate what led to the big rebellion of the arabs, was greeted by zionists, who offered their interpretation, views and witnesses while the arabs boycotted the commission. The conclusion of the Peel-commission was that there were two nationalisms in competition, the jewish and arabic nationalism, and that therefore those two people couldn't live together in one and the same country and suggested therefore the partition of the Palestine-colony into a jewish and an arabic state. The suggestion was that 55% of Palestine would be given to the jews while 45% should be given to the arabs, eventhough only about 30% of the population was of jewish origin, after it raised due to immigration from 7% since 1881.

f) Due to the arabic rebellion and the findings of the Peel-commission of what may be the reason for the unrest, the British colonial might changed its policy regarding jewish immigration in 1939 and restricted it considerably.

g) The Haganah really came, eventhough it existed in one form or the other since 1909 and under the name Haganah since the first arabic riots in 1920, to its being as an organized and well equipped military force in 1929, after the Hebron-massacre, which killed about 70 jews by a mob of arabs:

Following the Arab riots of 1929, that left 133 Jews dead and led to the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the city of Hebron, the Haganah's role changed dramatically. It became a much larger organization encompassing nearly all the youths and adults in the settlements, as well as thousands of members from the cities. It also acquired foreign arms and begun to develop workshops to create hand grenades and simple military equipment. It went from being an untrained militia to a capable army.

In 1931 the right wing of the Haganah branched off and called itself "Irgun". The reason for the split was that the rightwing thought that the Haganah restrained itself too much regarding arabic and british pressure, and so Irgun went off to attack arabic and british interests. Irgun was financed secretly and received weapons and military training since 1936 by Poland's government, that hoped for a jewish state, so that it could transfer polish jews to that future jewish state.

In 1940 a group named Lehi, also known as Stern-gang branched off of Irgun, and concentrated mainly on attacking british colonists and their interests. The anti-british-empire-ideology of Lehi went so far that they offered Germany in 1940 to actively fight on the side of Germany:

Late in 1940, the Lehi representative Naftali Lubenchik was sent to Beirut where he met the German official Werner Otto von Hentig and delivered a letter from Lehi offering to "actively take part in the war on Germany's side" in return for German support for "the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich". Von Hentig forwarded the letter to the German embassy in Ankara, but there is no record of any official response. Lehi tried to establish contact with the Germans again in December 1941, also apparently without success.

All three groups cooperated espescially after the end of ww2 in Europe by attacking british colonists as well as the arabic population and their interests and representatives, and were integrated into the IDF and secret agencies Mossad and Shin Beth after Israel's foundation in 1948. Ben Gurion from the Haganah, Menachem Begin from the Irgun and Yithzak Shamir became later on primeministers of Israel.

h) When the big arabic rebellion started in 1936, the Haganah worked together with the british army in protecting british interests and in squashing the insurgency, which further strenghtened Haganah's experience and capability in fighting arabic forces, which should later prove useful in the 1948-war. In 1939 after the insurgency was squashed, Britain issued the whitepaper which called for severe restriction of jewish immigration to Palestine. Because both militant groups, the Haganah as well as Irgun restrained from attacking british interests and representatives, the group Lehi was founded as an offshoot of Irgun to fight british colonists, and even tried to fight on the side of Germany during ww2.
Haganah instead opted to organize underground immigration of jews into Palestine, and otherwise to support Britain against Germany.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ory/peel1.html

4. The terrorcampaign of Haganah, Irgun and Lehi after ww2 against brits and arabs, the UN-partition-plan, and the following civil war between zionists and arabs in Palestine.

a) The terror-campaign had the goal to force the withdrawal of the british forces as well as to weaken and scare off the arabic militants and population. Irgun even went as far as to bomb the british embassy in Italy and by this carrying the terror against british interests onto the international stage. Lehi tried to airbomb London but that plot was foiled by the english police before its execution.

b) The zionist world organization bought weapons, ammunition and explosives in Europe but also in the US, in order to supply the jewish militant groups in Palestine, while the funding came espescially from the american jews.

c) After two years of terror by the Haganah, Irgun and Lehi-groups against british interests in Palestine but also abroad, and the tragic fate of the holocaust-victims and the bad situation of the surviving european jews that were refuggees and lived in camps in Europe, the UN general council decided to execute the suggestions that were made in the Peel-Commision-report of ten years earlier, and to partition Palestine into a jewish and arabic part, so that the european jewish refuggees could eventually be directed to the jewish part of Palestine.

The partition plan determined that 52% of Palestine should become the jewish part, and inside the jewish part 49% of the population should be of arabic origin. That happened in 29th November 1947. But the mandate Britain was responsible for lasted until may, 15th of 1948, still five and a half months, during which the Haganah, Irgun and Lehi intensified their attacks on the british colonists and arabic population, in order to prevent that a palestinian state alongside "Israel" gets founded, that would limit "Israel"'s zionistic dreams of "Greater Israel".

Source: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/1662194.php

The next volume dealing with the civil war, the declaration of the state of Israel and the following first arabic-israeli-war and the time between 1948-1964, you can expect in the next two weeks if God wills.

Taliesin

[Macrobat]

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
(Protocol of the Second Zionist Congress, Pg. 103)

Is there actually any such work as this, that has no relation to the thoroughly discredited �Protocols of the Elders of Zion�? I can�t find a single reputable source that quotes this, nor the work it supposedly comes from. One source says it�s from a letter written by Theodore Herzl, but considering Herzl has also often sourced as an author of the so-called Protocols of the Elders� it just makes me wonder. People have been quoting from Zionist �protocols� for so long to shore up ******** arguments, one has to wonder.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
In this thread I will present the history of zionism --snip--

Pfft. you actually BELIEVE this? Wow!

[MacManMikeOSX]

I want to be freinds with Arabs, but Israel is ours, the Arabs can have Yhudah, Shumron and 'Aza but Jerusalem is ours and so's the rest. All the land that's Jewish held in Israel was bought from Arabs they sold it to us. A few things in there are incorrect but I won't drone on about borring Israeli polotics, just because you've read a few books doesn't mean you understand it's very complex. Ha'arvim ycholim lidfoq et 'atzmeichem.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by MacManMikeOSX:
I want to be freinds with Arabs, but Israel is ours, the Arabs can have Yhudah, Shumron and 'Aza but Jerusalem is ours and so's the rest. All the land that's Jewish held in Israel was bought from Arabs they sold it to us. A few things in there are incorrect but I won't drone on about borring Israeli polotics, just because you've read a few books doesn't mean you understand it's very complex. Ha'arvim ycholim lidfoq et 'atzmeichem.

Incorrect, the jewish national fond only possessed about 6% of Palestine in 1947, jewish indivuduals and other jewish speculators/corporations... owned about 23% of Palestine, so together about 30% of the land. Yet, the partition plan of the UN granted the jews about 52% of the land, and when Israel was founded it expanded to about 78% through conquering land during the 48-war, and the rest got occupied since 1967.

But regardless of how much land was actually bought (about 30%), buying land through immigrants doesn't include the right to found a souvereign state upon the land that was bought.

And again regardless of the zionistic project and illegal activities, the palestinians are ready to accept Israel in its pre67-wars, meaning without Westbank, Gaza, Golan and East-Jerusalem, that's the compromise.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by deomacius:
Pfft. you actually BELIEVE this? Wow!

This is not a question of believing, I have researched it and offered the sources, which are all western or jewish sources. If you want to contest my findings, then go on, but your ignorant comment here is not the way to go.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Is there actually any such work as this, that has no relation to the thoroughly discredited �Protocols of the Elders of Zion�? I can�t find a single reputable source that quotes this, nor the work it supposedly comes from. One source says it�s from a letter written by Theodore Herzl, but considering Herzl has also often sourced as an author of the so-called Protocols of the Elders� it just makes me wonder. People have been quoting from Zionist �protocols� for so long to shore up ******** arguments, one has to wonder.

That's an interesting question because the direct and complete protocols, espescially from those zionist congresses before Israel was founded and espescially before 1917 are difficult to obtain, but I found a summary from the second zionist congress:

Second Congress - Basle, 1898

In the face of a more active opposition to Zionism from amongst various Jewish leaders, Herzl called on the Congress to �conquer the communities.� In essence, this was a demand that the Zionist movement focus its attention not only on political activity for Palestine but also on work within the Jewish communities. At this Congress, the foundations were laid for the establishment of the Jewish Colonial Trust, a financial body aimed at the development of Palestine. It was also at this Congress that a group of Socialists first appeared demanding representation within the Zionist leadership.

Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...firstcong.html

Taliesin

[deomacius]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah

Need I say more? And I take exception to your comment about me or my comment being ignorant. If you want to get into low blows then this debate is over. Call me when you're ready to debate like a reasonable, rational adult.

[MacManMikeOSX]

[Chuckit]

rec�re�a�tion
n.
Refreshment of one's mind or body after work through activity that amuses or stimulates; play.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by MacManMikeOSX:

I've debunked that image and argument numerous times, when zimphire used to bring it up, but I'm glad I can do it again:

1. Jesus was a jew, and the Bible contains the jewish scriptures in the form of the old testament, therefore christians and christian countries can be safely regarded as the "New Israel".

2. The zionists that came to Palestine to found a jewish nation where there is already an arabic nation, were europeans, east- and westeuropeans, so secularly Israel can be seen as another european colony.

So combining the religious and secular aspect it's more honest to connect Israel to whole Europe, the US and Australia and identify Israel as an outpost in the arabic world.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by deomacius:


Need I say more? And I take exception to your comment about me or my comment being ignorant. If you want to get into low blows then this debate is over. Call me when you're ready to debate like a reasonable, rational adult. [/B]

Oh, please, you really try to act as a victim and ask for reasonability and rationality? May I remind you that you responded to a long post of mine in which I used western and jewish sources with the words: "Pfft, you really BELIEVE this? Wow!"? How rational, reasonable and ripe was that? That answer fitted perfectly the description of ignorance.

Hey, if you aren't interested in a discussion about Israel's history, policies and strategies, that's ok, after all that topic has been rehashed numerous times, though not with the thoroughness, analysis and new tidbits I bring in, so I can understand if you are bored, but I can't understand your approach of expressing that disinterest in such a way, after all you aren't forced to read or respond to that topic.

Ok, regardless of all that, what are your objections to wikipedia? I know it's an opensource-project, and anyone can contribute, therefore it's not always reliable, but in the case of Haganah the link I provided just reflects wellknown and accepted wisedom, nothing controversial there, Haganah even receives a favourable image there, though Lehi and Irgun not.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
rec�re�a�tion
n.
Refreshment of one's mind or body after work through activity that amuses or stimulates; play.

LOL, and it has a ring of truth to it, though a very sad one.

Taliesin

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
I've debunked that image and argument numerous times, when zimphire used to bring it up, but I'm glad I can do it again:

1. Jesus was a jew, and the Bible contains the jewish scriptures in the form of the old testament, therefore christians and christian countries can be safely regarded as the "New Israel".

2. The zionists that came to Palestine to found a jewish nation where there is already an arabic nation, were europeans, east- and westeuropeans, so secularly Israel can be seen as another european colony.

So combining the religious and secular aspect it's more honest to connect Israel to whole Europe, the US and Australia and identify Israel as an outpost in the arabic world.

Taliesin

1. Yes he was, yes is does, no they cant because the Bible specifies what land is considered Israel.

2. okay so lets say its a european colony... end the unjust european ocupation of muslim land! It still applies.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
1. Jesus was a jew, and the Bible contains the jewish scriptures in the form of the old testament, therefore christians and christian countries can be safely regarded as the "New Israel".

You can say that above all you want, and it wont be true.

The image is legit. And you know it. '

You've debunked nothing. Ever.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The image is legit. And you know it. '

You've debunked nothing. Ever.

The image is classic pro-Zionist misdirection and nothing more.

Just because Muslims live in other countries, Palestinian Muslims should just f*ck off out of their homeland and go live with their own kind and stop causing problems for the poor Israeli Jews?

Nonsense.

[bubblewrap]

Maybe we all should give back our lands. America to the Native tribes.
Austrailians back to the Aboriginies and so on.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Splinter:
1. Yes he was, yes is does, no they cant because the Bible specifies what land is considered Israel.

2. okay so lets say its a european colony... end the unjust european ocupation of muslim land! It still applies.

Regarding point 1: No, the Bible quotes God in the old testament as of saying that the land between the nile- and jordan-river is promised to Abraham and his descendants, which means that not only jews but also christians and muslims are meant with that since part or most of them are also descendants of Abraham.

What's important to note is that God in the old testament promised that land to jews and let them be led there by prophets like Moses and Abraham as a refuge for believers in God in a time and world when the vast majority consisted of pagans. Just because jews at that time were the only believers in God at those times doesn't mean that they have any exclusivity to that land should once other believers in God come to existence.

That's one of the things God probably didn't like about the jewish doctrine, namely that they felt to be the "chosen people" and that they kept their religion strictly to their own chest and chose not to preach God's message to gentiles, and I think that's one of many reasons why Jesus was created as a prophet, in order to open up Judaism to gentiles and to expand it and to bring some easing up...

That's why I call the christian countries "New Israel".

Regarding point 2: If we say Israel were an european colony, then the argument of the image certainly doesn't apply anymore, because then Israel would be part of a much bigger realm, even bigger than the muslim land and it would be surely unjust to occupy more.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Maybe we all should give back our lands. America to the Native tribes.
Austrailians back to the Aboriginies and so on.

That's not a sound argument, because the native tribes and aboriginies were mostly genocided (either through wars or new illnesses or through God's fate, doesn't matter). But the palestinians are still there and are more than ever by now, and therefore Israel has either to annex all occupied areas and give out israeli passports and same rights to islamic palestinians than to jewish israelis or to commit a genocide or to drive them out violently again or to be forever an apartheit-regime,

or to make peace with palestinians and to work towards a palestinian state in all of the Westbank including East-Jerusalem, or at least an internationalised Jerusalem, and Gaza.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

dp

[demograph68]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Maybe we all should give back our lands. America to the Native tribes.
Austrailians back to the Aboriginies and so on.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eklipse:
The image is classic pro-Zionist misdirection and nothing more.

Just because Muslims live in other countries, Palestinian Muslims should just f*ck off out of their homeland and go live with their own kind and stop causing problems for the poor Israeli Jews?

Nonsense.

No, see it's not about that. It's about not letting Jewish people live on that land because they are Jewish.

Hell, they have already purged most Christians out of there.

Nice spin.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Regarding point 1: No, the Bible quotes God in the old testament as of saying that the land between the nile- and jordan-river is promised to Abraham and his descendants, which means that not only jews but also christians and muslims are meant with that since part or most of them are also descendants of Abraham.

No, that isn't what it means. Just Abraham and the descendants of Sarah.

While Hagar and her descendants from Abraham was ALSO BLESSED, he was not referring to them when he said this.

Jesus's bloodline came from God's chosen people. The Descendants of Abraham and Sarah. Not Abraham and Hagar.

That doesn't mean he hates everyone else however.

But hey, lets say what you say is true. Why are the Descendants of Abraham and Hagar trying to force all the Jews and Christians out?

[DBursey]

Because Hagar was horrible?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, see it's not about that. It's about not letting Jewish people live on that land because they are Jewish.

Rubbish.

It's about not letting foreigners found their own country on that land because there were/are people already living there.

Jewishness has little to nothing to do with it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Rubbish.

It's about not letting foreigners found their own country on that land because there were/are people already living there.

Jewishness has little to nothing to do with it.

Maybe in your little word Eklipse.

But in reality, them being Jews has everything to do with it.

Why were all the Christians run off?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Because Hagar was horrible?

Nope, Abraham was disobedient. And because of this, that is why there is strife between the two sides. Well that and when Sarah got Pregnant, she banished Hagar.

I don't really blame her for being pissy. She was ordered to do what she did.

But hey, that is what happened.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Why were all the Christians run off?

Because the evil-Muslim-Satan-worshippers hated the good-Christian-knights-of-purity-and-light?

[Zimphire]

Do you always answer a question with a question?

I am asking you.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

No, that isn't what it means. Just Abraham and the descendants of Sarah.

While Hagar and her descendants from Abraham was ALSO BLESSED, he was not referring to them when he said this.

Jesus's bloodline came from God's chosen people. The Descendants of Abraham and Sarah. Not Abraham and Hagar.

That doesn't mean he hates everyone else however.

May I quote for you the Bible on this aspect:

Genesis (XV, 18 - 21) :
"The Lord made an alliance with Abraham in these terms : It is to your descendants that I give this country, from the river of Egypt to the big river, the river Euphrates."

There you have it, the land is promised to all descendants of Abraham, no matter who the mother was. Besides you seem to overlook the fact that the reason why God gave that land to Abraham and his descendants is because at that time he and his followers were the only believers in God while the rest of the world was involved in polytheism, and it connects with the fact that He promised to invoke prophets/messengers from among his descendants, with Isaac and Ismaeel being the first ones after Abraham.

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Talisan you took it out of context.

Put it within context and there you have it.

He promised both descendants of Abraham riches indeed.

In this case, when taken INTO CONTEXT, it means the children from him and Sarah.

Notice the Bible often differentiates the two. He claimed the lineage from HIM and SARAH would produce the Messiah as well. Not him and Hagar.

Tent, it wasn't Moses, the Jews and Arabs that traveled for 40 years to reach the land.

One of the groups there didn't make the pilgrimage.

Why is that, if they were supposed to have taken part?

That's what I thought.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Talisan you took it out of context.

Put it within context and there you have it.
He promised both descendants of Abraham riches indeed.

In this case, when taken INTO CONTEXT, it means the children from him and Sarah.

Notice the Bible often differentiates the two.

Comeon, provide some proof and quotes for your arguments, it's not that difficult, otherwise the discussion would be too boring and onesided.

It's really not rocket-science: In a world full of polytheists God created a refuge for the people that believed in him, aka jews, as time went on and the messiah was created who opened Judaism to gentiles, aka the christians came up, and when the arabs got their share of the promised prophethood and the muslims entered the worldscene, any promise to jews, aka first script-believers in God, is outdated or as well a promise to christians and muslims.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He claimed the lineage from HIM and SARAH would produce the Messiah as well. Not him and Hagar.

If you are talking about Jesus, yes I know he is a descendant of the line of Isaac, just as Moses was, but what's your point?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Tent, it wasn't Moses, the Jews and Arabs that traveled for 40 years to reach the land.

One of the groups there didn't make the pilgrimage.

Why is that, if they were supposed to have taken part?

That's what I thought.

What is "Tent"?

Your confusion on that aspect is understandable but it's solvable: The arabs at the time of Moses were polytheists, so the arabs at that time were obviously not meant with the promise of the land, since two requirements are necessary to make a claim, a) to be a descendant of Abraham and more important b) to be a believer in God, while the arabs fulfilled a), they certainly didn't fulfill requirement b) at those times.

By the way Moses just freed a few jewish tribes who were enslaved by polytheistic egyptians at that time.

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Comeon, provide some proof and quotes for your arguments, it's not that difficult, otherwise the discussion would be too boring and onesided.

It's really not rocket-science: In a world full of polytheists God created a refuge for the people that believed in him, aka jews, as time went on and the messiah was created who opened Judaism to gentiles, aka the christians came up, and when the arabs got their share of the promised prophethood and the muslims entered the worldscene, any promise to jews, aka first script-believers in God, is outdated or as well a promise to christians and muslims.

This simply is not true, and doesn't go with the scriptures.

If you are saying this is what YOU believe that is fine. But don't use the Bible to support it. Because it doesn't.

If you are talking about Jesus, yes I know he is a descendant of the line of Isaac, just as Moses was, but what's your point?

My point was, both "sides" weren't treated or given all the same things. And to point out who eventually got this promised land 400 years later...

Your confusion on that aspect is understandable but it's solvable: The arabs at the time of Moses were polytheists, so the arabs at that time were obviously not meant with the promise of the land, since two requirements are necessary to make a claim, a) to be a descendant of Abraham and more important b) to be a believer in God, while the arabs fulfilled a), they certainly didn't fulfill requirement b) at those times.

By the way Moses just freed a few jewish tribes who were enslaved by polytheistic egyptians at that time.

Taliesin

No confusion, the Jewish settlers weren't the only God fearing people out there. There was a reason that they got the promise land and no one else did at the time.

Again, the Abrahams STEP children weren't part of this deal. Just like they weren't part of the deal that led to the messiah.

You know God also said Jesus would come from the descendant of Abraham. He didn't mean from Hagar then either.

AGAIN, IN CONTEXT when God spoke about Abraham's descendants, he was speaking about the offspring of him and Sarah. You know, how God originally planned it to be before Abraham disobeyed.

He was speaking about them when he talked about the land, and when he talked about his descendants eventually producing THE messiah.

And REMEMBER God said these things to Abraham BEFORE he disobeyed God and messed around with Hagar. So how you say he was speaking about them as well is beyond me.

Not only that, they wouldn't get said land till 400 years later.

That is, after 400 years of captivity.

"Note that after Abram set out in faith, God showed him where he was to go. To whom did God give the land of Canaan? (Abram's descendants). Note that it was not Abram who received it. Abram did not own any of it. Other than the Cave of Machpelah (Mak PEE luh) and its adjoining field, he never would. How long would it be before his offspring would take the land? (after 400 years of Egyptian captivity.)"

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
This simply is not true, and doesn't go with the scriptures.

If you are saying this is what YOU believe that is fine. But don't use the Bible to support it. Because it doesn't.

That was my analysis and it's a pretty good argumentation that doesn't need the Bible as support, since it goes beyond jews and christians and includes muslims.

But I can even use the Bible as support for that argument, if you like that more, eventhough it's really not necessary: Isn't it true that with the arrival of the messiah, aka Jesus, there also came a new testament, which means a new contract, that supersedes the older contract, the one with the jews, which is then fittingly called old testament?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
My point was, both "sides" weren't treated or given all the same things. And to point out who eventually got this promised land 400 years later...



No confusion, the Jewish settlers weren't the only God fearing people out there. There was a reason that they got the promise land and no one else did at the time.

They may not have been the only god-fearing people at that time, but they were surely the only scripture-believers in God, that is the important point.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Again, the Abrahams STEP children weren't part of this deal. Just like they weren't part of the deal that led to the messiah.

You know God also said Jesus would come from the descendant of Abraham. He didn't mean from Hagar then either.

As far as I know Ismaeel was his real son and not his stepson.
Your point about Jesus and the foretelling of his arrival among the descendants of Abraham and your insistence on the line of Sara is not very convincing, since Jesus was created specifically for his prophethood, which transcendents him from any bloodlines.

But it's not necessary to take that avenue to discredit your argument, because if God promised that prophets would be invoked from the descendants of Abraham, and on the one side Jesus comes up and on the other Muhammad, then God has surely fulfilled his promise, don't you think?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
AGAIN, IN CONTEXT when God spoke about Abraham's descendants, he was speaking about the offspring of him and Sarah. You know, how God originally planned it to be before Abraham disobeyed.

And REMEMBER God said these things to Abraham BEFORE he disobeyed God and messed around with Hagar. So how you say he was speaking about them as well is beyond me.

Ah, now we finally come to the core of your argument, by the way there is no need for screaming, as mostly it doesn't help:

You think that Abraham disobeyed God by having taken Hagar as his second wife and having produced a son with her, and that therefore his liasion with Hagar was not legitimate and therefore the descendants of that bloodline also not legitimate, don't you? That's quite telling and funny to say the least, because it makes it look like as if Abraham has worked against the plan of God.


Maybe you don't know it, but God is a multi-dimensional entity, with allmighty and allknowing powers, He is present in every space- and time-phase and sees as well the future as the past and present, and on top of that He is the one who gives and takes life, which means that Abraham's liasion with Hagar didn't happen out of disobedience, since God gave life to Ismaeel but out of God's wish and will.

So, when God talked with Abraham about his descendants before Abraham chose Hagar to be the mother of his first son, God surely was fully aware that Abraham would create (actually God created them, but you know what I mean) two lines of descendants, and therefore meant both with his promises.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not only that, they wouldn't get said land till 400 years later.

That is, after 400 years of captivity.

"Note that after Abram set out in faith, God showed him where he was to go. To whom did God give the land of Canaan? (Abram's descendants). Note that it was not Abram who received it. Abram did not own any of it. Other than the Cave of Machpelah (Mak PEE luh) and its adjoining field, he never would. How long would it be before his offspring would take the land? (after 400 years of Egyptian captivity.)"

What's your point in saying that the jews, aka the first scripture-believers in God, were enslaved for 400 years, and then returned to that promised land?

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
That was my analysis and it's a pretty good argumentation that doesn't need the Bible as support, since it goes beyond jews and christians and includes muslims.

Well that is what you believe. Then why try to bring Biblical scripture into this, that doesn't prove what you believe?
[quote]
But I can even use the Bible as support for that argument, if you like that more, eventhough it's really not necessary:[/quote
Well you tried to, and failed.

Isn't it true that with the arrival of the messiah, aka Jesus, there also came a new testament, which means a new contract, that supersedes the older contract, the one with the jews, which is then fittingly called old testament?

Yes, I am not denying that.

They may not have been the only god-fearing people at that time, but they were surely the only scripture-believers in God, that is the important point.

No, no they weren't. And that isn't the reason they were the ones that got that land anyhow.

As far as I know Ismaeel was his real son and not his stepson.

Well yes, it was his son, but not in wedlock. Sorry, wrong wording. When God promised the Land to Abraham, Ismaeel was not in the picture.

Your point about Jesus and the foretelling of his arrival among the descendants of Abraham and your insistence on the line of Sara is not very convincing, since Jesus was created specifically for his prophethood, which transcendents him from any bloodlines.

No, Mary's bloodline was a very big part of it all. There was a reason it was used. Again, read the Bible.

But it's not necessary to take that avenue to discredit your argument, because if God promised that prophets would be invoked from the descendants of Abraham, and on the one side Jesus comes up and on the other Muhammad, then God has surely fulfilled his promise, don't you think?

God did not promise PROPHETS He promised ONE prophet. And it was to come from the offspring of SARAH and ABRAHAM. That was the deal.

Ah, now we finally come to the core of your argument, by the way there is no need for screaming, as mostly it doesn't help:

No one was SCREAMING, I was making sure those words STOOD out.

u think that Abraham disobeyed God by having taken Hagar as his second wife and having produced a son with her, and that therefore his liasion with Hagar was not legitimate and therefore the descendants of that bloodline also not legitimate, don't you?

It's not what I think, it's what GOD said. See Abraham was PUNISHED for doing so. So if it wasn't wrong, why did God punish?

That's quite telling and funny to say the least, because it makes it look like as if Abraham has worked against the plan of God.

That wasn't God's plan. Go read the Bible. It was for him to have a child with Sarah. They both got tired of waiting.. Sarah told Abraham to have sex with Hagar to speed to process up. God got angry.. etc. You don't know this story very well.

Maybe you don't know it, but God is a multi-dimensional entity, with allmighty and allknowing powers, He is present in every space- and time-phase and sees as well the future as the past and present, and on top of that He is the one who gives and takes life, which means that Abraham's liasion with Hagar didn't happen out of disobedience, since God gave life to Ismaeel but out of God's wish and will.

Well you can believe that, but it isn't backed scriptually.

So, when God talked with Abraham about his descendants before Abraham chose Hagar to be the mother of his first son, God surely was fully aware that Abraham would create (actually God created them, but you know what I mean) two lines of descendants, and therefore meant both with his promises.

What's your point in saying that the jews, aka the first scripture-believers in God, were enslaved for 400 years, and then returned to that promised land?

Taliesin

Taliesin, the people who eventually got that land were the Jews that was enslaved 400 years later. They were the first to get the land. It even said that in the Bible. No one else got the land there.

But I am SURE you know better, right?

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Well that is what you believe. Then why try to bring Biblical scripture into this, that doesn't prove what you believe?

I brought in the biblical quote once (!), because you seem to believe in biblical scriptures, and the quote said clearly that the land was (!) promised to the (all) descendants of Abraham, you claimed I quoted out of context, that the special quote was written or revealed before Abraham engaged with Hagar... and that basically God didn't know that and really meant only the children of Sara, which I called bogus, since God is allknowing and beyond human time-concepts... which you seemed not to agree with...

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes, I am not denying that.

Ok, you are not denying that Jesus brought with him a new contract between believers and God, and that he opened up Judaism to gentiles..., but you haven't thought through what that ultimately means: It means that every land-promise to the jews is outdated and superseded because with Jesus the whole world has become the promised land, and that any promise made to jews is from then on also for gentiles who have become believers in God...

Originally posted by Zimphire:

No, no they weren't. And that isn't the reason they were the ones that got that land anyhow.

Oh, yes, they were and that is the reason they were the ones that got that land.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Well yes, it was his son, but not in wedlock. Sorry, wrong wording. When God promised the Land to Abraham, Ismaeel was not in the picture.

Again you are severly misunderestimating (hehe, I took the freedom to use a bushism) God, He is not a human that is bound by our timeline, and more important is that God himself created Ismaeel just like He creates every born human or animal/insect, not one human would be born without His will and knowledge, so He surely knew of Ismaeel before He made any promises, which is how fate works.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, Mary's bloodline was a very big part of it all. There was a reason it was used. Again, read the Bible.

Comeon, enlighten me, how was Mary's bloodline a very big part of it, besides the very obvious one of just fulfilling a promise (prophecy)?

Originally posted by Zimphire:

God did not promise PROPHETS He promised ONE prophet. And it was to come from the offspring of SARAH and ABRAHAM. That was the deal.

No, you got your history completely wrong, God promised he would invoke numerous prophets, and He surely did, after Abraham it was Isaac, Ishmaeel, Moses, David, Salomon, Jesus, Mohammed, etc...

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No one was SCREAMING, I was making sure those words STOOD out.

No, no, you are really screaming, if you want to make words stand out, you have to italicize them.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It's not what I think, it's what GOD said. See Abraham was PUNISHED for doing so. So if it wasn't wrong, why did God punish?

Interesting, according to the Bible Abraham was punished? Interesting, very interesting indeed, because according to the Quran he was not punished. Sure, God tested his faith once with a grave order, but I don't think that you mean that. Obviously it's a further sign that the Bible is not very reliable which is understandable considering it was written by numerous humans, inspired or not.

Originally posted by Zimphire:

That wasn't God's plan. Go read the Bible. It was for him to have a child with Sarah. They both got tired of waiting.. Sarah told Abraham to have sex with Hagar to speed to process up. God got angry.. etc. You don't know this story very well.

Obviously I know the story better than you, and just to remind you, everything is God's plan, you really don't know how fate works. It's God's ability to see all times and to know everything that enables Him to make everything His plan, although we mere humans might not understand His ways since we are timebound. God got angry, but nonetheless created Ismaeel? Lol!

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Well you can believe that, but it isn't backed scriptually.

Oh, it is definetly based scriptually, at least accoding to the Quran, our holy book.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Taliesin, the people who eventually got that land were the Jews that was enslaved 400 years later. They were the first to get the land. It even said that in the Bible. No one else got the land there.

But I am SURE you know better, right?

Yes, even if it's true that jews were the first to get that land, which isn't as clear cut as you might think, for all I know there were people in that land before Judaism came up, but ok, let's assume your stance, as it doesn't change the argument: Even if jews were the first to get the land, they were and are surely not the last, the other decendants of Abraham (of Ismaeel's line) got that land later on when they became believers in God, too, like the jews were before, and the promise, both regarding to the land and to prophethood was fulfilled by God.
Everything changed when God created Jesus and the new contract, and fulfilled his promise to Ismaeel's descendants by invoking prophet Muhammad and sent the Quran as the message of God, and turned by this most descendants of Abraham to God-believers.

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
I brought in the biblical quote once (!), because you seem to believe in biblical scriptures, and the quote said clearly that the land was (!) promised to the (all) descendants of Abraham,

The land was promised to Abraham's descendants. The ones God promised him. Not the ones that Abraham disobeyed with. AGAIN read the Bible.

you claimed I quoted out of context, that the special quote was written or revealed before Abraham engaged with Hagar... and that basically God didn't know that and really meant only the children of Sara, which I called bogus, since God is allknowing and beyond human time-concepts... which you seemed not to agree with...

Taliesin you'd have a point, but if you have ever read the Bible seriously., you would know that isn't how God works. We have free will, while God has the ABILITY to see what we choose, we really have no clue what he does up there.

And again, proof that I am right? The people who eventually did settle is said land where decentness from Abraham and Sarah. Not Abraham and Hagar.

Ok, you are not denying that Jesus brought with him a new contract between believers and God, and that he opened up Judaism to gentiles..., but you haven't thought through what that ultimately means:

I haven't? You are being condescending and boring now. Of course I have, I am a Christian.

It means that every land-promise to the jews is outdated and superseded because with Jesus the whole world has become the promised land, and that any promise made to jews is from then on also for gentiles who have become believers in God...

No, that isn't what it means. The promises to the Jews still stands. He made his deal with them ages ago. Again, you fail to understand the Bible.

Oh, yes, they were and that is the reason they were the ones that got that land.

Nope, Not even Biblically related either. 400 years after God promised that land to his people, they got it. None of them were from Hagar's offspring.

Again you are severly misunderestimating (hehe, I took the freedom to use a bushism) God, He is not a human that is bound by our timeline, and more important is that God himself created Ismaeel just like He creates every born human or animal/insect, not one human would be born without His will and knowledge, so He surely knew of Ismaeel before He made any promises, which is how fate works.

You are basically projecting now. You have no clue what God wanted, or what he thought at the time, but since YOU think that is true, it has to be! Stop projecting.

Comeon, enlighten me, how was Mary's bloodline a very big part of it, besides the very obvious one of just fulfilling a promise (prophecy)?

The bloodline had to be "pure" in order for her to even conceive. It's in the Bible. Read it.

No, you got your history completely wrong, God promised he would invoke numerous prophets, and He surely did, after Abraham it was Isaac, Ishmaeel, Moses, David, Salomon, Jesus, Mohammed, etc...

I am speaking about a Messiah, that would come from him. That would be him. You know exaclty what I am talking about, and you are being dishonest now.

BTW God also promised there would be many FALSE prophets. One of the ways to tell who is false and who is not is by testing the spirit.

Ask Mohammed if Jesus was the son of God and see what he would say.

No, no, you are really screaming, if you want to make words stand out, you have to italicize them.

No no no you are being REALLY pretentious now. To think I have to abide by your personal net rules.

Interesting, according to the Bible Abraham was punished? Interesting, very interesting indeed, because according to the Quran he was not punished.

I am sure he wasn't in the Quran. Again YOU DO NOT KNOW YOUR BIBLE. So quit trying to use it to "prove" your illogical reasonings.

Sure, God tested his faith once with a grave order, but I don't think that you mean that. Obviously it's a further sign that the Bible is not very reliable which is understandable considering it was written by numerous humans, inspired or not.

LOL! And the Quran is? Yes, Abraham was punished. He didn't get to be in "his land" and because of his disobedience, the Bible said the two sides of his family will be at war with each other till the end of time.

And guess who has been waring with each other ever since.

Obviously I know the story better than you, and just to remind you, everything is God's plan, you really don't know how fate works. It's God's ability to see all times and to know everything that enables Him to make everything His plan, although we mere humans might not understand His ways since we are timebound. God got angry, but nonetheless created Ismaeel? Lol!

No, we have free will. We choose what we want to do. God lets us. We are responsible for our own actions. You are being a pretentious jerk again.

Oh, it is definetly based scriptually, at least accoding to the Quran, our holy book.

Then stop trying to use the Bible to pass off your beliefs as legit. Because you failed HORRIBLY at it, and embarrassed yourself in the process.

Yes, even if it's true that jews were the first to get that land,

No evens about it. It is true.

which isn't as clear cut as you might think, for all I know there were people in that land before Judaism came up, but ok, let's assume your stance, as it doesn't change the argument:

Yes it does change, it makes you dead wrong.

Even if jews were the first to get the land, they were and are surely not the last, the other decendants of Abraham (of Ismaeel's line) got that land later on when they became believers in God, too, like the jews were before, and the promise, both regarding to the land and to prophethood was fulfilled by God.

No, God said it would be taken from them eventually. And in the end, they would get it back. And a new temple would be built. Again, scripture.

Everything changed when God created Jesus and the new contract, and fulfilled his promise to Ismaeel's descendants by invoking prophet Muhammad and sent the Quran as the message of God, and turned by this most descendants of Abraham to God-believers.

Well you can believe that all you want to. But it's not backed by the Christian bible. From which you were trying to use to prove your point. Which you failed miserably.

If you are going to use the Bible, at least know what you are talking about.

Thanks.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
AGAIN read the Bible.

Ignoring your continued personal attacks on Taliesin could you perhaps quote the Bible for any of your claims? Taliesin has done that. He has used the Bible to prove his point. You haven't. Why is that?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Ignoring your continued personal attacks on Taliesin could you perhaps quote the Bible for any of your claims? Taliesin has done that. He has used the Bible to prove his point. You haven't. Why is that?

I wasn't personally attacking taliesin. He was being a condescending jerk. Telling him so isn't personally attacking.

And he quoted ONE scripture. Out of context.

Just because someone posts scripture after scripture doesn't mean they know what said scripture is about. Obviously this is true after reading this thread.

While HIS Bible may agree with him, I have no qualms with that. He took Biblical scripture out of context. And that is what I was commenting on.

Most of the time I post here from work, when I am at home I am usually not on.

So I really don't have time to do a bunch of scripture searches. If I thought it would change his mind any, I might have actually taken the time out.

The story basically goes like this, God chooses for the messiah to come out of Abraham's lineage. He tells Abraham he will be a great man, a father of nations. His wife would bare him children etc..

Well Abraham got impatient and so did Sarah. After all he was 100 years old.

Sarah told Abraham to take Hagar, their slave to bed and pregnate her.

He did. She had a child. God was angry because Abraham didn't have faith in God, to do what he said he would.

Sarah eventually did have a kid, but told Abraham that the family of him and Sarah would always be in battle with the families of His, and hagars till the end of time. (SO far this has been so)

That was his punishment for disobeying.

God granted BOTH sides with wealth and prosperity.

But choose his original plan of Sarah and Abraham creating the path to Christ.
And his offspring (Through Sarah) would eventually get to the Holy Land 400 years later.

That is the Biblical story.

[von Wrangell]

So you aren't able to prove his quote from the Bible as wrong. Get it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
So you aren't able to prove his quote from the Bible as wrong. Get it.

Bub, you haven't been listening. I proved it many times.

It was out of context.

Please actually read my posts first.

My proof lies in who eventually got to the land.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Bub, you haven't been listening. I proved it many times.

It was out of context.

Please actually read my posts first.

My proof lies in who eventually got to the land.

You say it's out of context but haven't shown any verses from the Bible to prove your point. Just admit that you don't know what you are talking about instead of calling the people you are debating with pretentious jerks.

It is OK that it is your opinion that he is wrong(but always better to back up opinions with some facts) but to state that it is a fact that he is wrong without providing any evidence is just silly.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
You say it's out of context but haven't shown any verses from the Bible to prove your point.

I don't HAVE to show any verses. The fact he was PUNISHED for disobeying GOD is proof enough. Heck He didnt even know in the Bible Abraham was punished. Which goes to show just how LITTLE about the Bible he actually knows about.

Just admit that you don't know what you are talking about instead of calling the people you are debating with pretentious jerks.

Why should I admit I don't know what I am talking about, when I clearly do.

If I don't know what I am talking about, please then, prove me wrong.

It is OK that it is your opinion that he is wrong(but always better to back up opinions with some facts) but to state that it is a fact that he is wrong without providing any evidence is just silly.

I've provided plenty of evidence. Go look it up if you don't believe me.

I don't CARE if you don't believe me. Really.

And now YOU are being a pretentious jerk. Way to go.

The funny part is, you are bitching to me about something I am not doing, but you are. (Saying someone is wrong without proof)

Where is your proof bub?

[ebuddy]

Actually, within the �ovenant is an identifier of the descendants;
Genesis 17;9-10; And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. You might know this was common in no other culture of the time. I might also remind you of your rebuke of me in adding and/or taking away words from Scripture. When I did this to the Quran you were quick to rebut me. I'd expect the same level of respect regarding the doctrine I read. Scripture does not say (all) descendants as you like to suggest regardless of whether or not you think it was "implied" to support your argument.

That said; what is it you hoped to accomplish by this post? What were we to be "educated" on and why? The question is; Can the Palestinian and the Israeli peacefully coexist? If not; why? Is it always the Israeli's fault or can not some of the blame also be placed on the Palestinian? If there are factions within each culture that will not allow peaceful coexistance, what is it we hope to accomplish?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Actually, within the �ovenant is an identifier of the descendants;
Genesis 17;9-10; And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. You might know this was common in no other culture of the time. I might also remind you of your rebuke of me in adding and/or taking away words from Scripture.

Exactly.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Where is your proof bub?

Since you have resorted to personal attacks on me as well now it just shows how insecure you are and therefor I'll stop asking you to back up your beliefs with quotes.

Just one last thing. If you would spend more time on reading the posts instead of finding ways of circumventing the rules about personal attacks you would have seen that I haven't said that either he or you is right. That was you projecting.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Actually, within the �ovenant is an identifier of the descendants;
Genesis 17;9-10; And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

What does that change? Just out of curiosity.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
What does that change? Just out of curiosity.

What do you mean by "what does that change?" The Bible does not say (all) descendants, rather clarifies with an identifier. When I did this to the Quran, I was called to task by Taliesin for it. I then immediately apologized and Taliesin accepted. I'm willing to give him the same respect if he should give it to me.

Why are you curious? Certainly you have a view on the matter, what is it if I might ask?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Since you have resorted to personal attacks on me as well now it just shows how insecure you are and therefor I'll stop asking you to back up your beliefs with quotes.

So let me get this straight, you act like a jerk, so I say you are acting like a jerk, and now you are calling me insecure for it?

I would call that projection bub. Try again.

Just one last thing. If you would spend more time on reading the posts instead of finding ways of circumventing the rules about personal attacks you would have seen that I haven't said that either he or you is right. That was you projecting.

Oh REALLY?

Lets see..

Originally posted by von Wrangell:

Just admit that you don't know what you are talking about

What would you call that?

Again, stop being a pretentious jerk.