To scherzo - about the OT

Originally posted by scherzo
I've combed through the thread and I can't find I time when I was condescending to CalJust.

Let me come in here again - this has nothing to do with being condescending or not, not even argumentative. In fact, it could have profitably been more argumentative IF THERE WAS A POINT!!

Why I lost interest is that scherzo refuses to answer my real question. His "argument" about the Palestinian claim to the land currently called Israel, concerns (as far as I can understand it) the time when certain peoples groups arrived there.

I tried to get answers for a long standing problem that I have, and it remains yet unresolved!

Here, again, for what it's worth:

1 Muslims profess to believe that the OT is also true and inspired, including the narrative of the patriarch Abraham.

2 In this same OT we read that the land of Israel was promised by God to Isaac, son of Abraham, and definitely NOT (in many passages) to Ishmael, son of Abraham.

3 At least a substantial part of current arabic nations descend from Ishmael, whilst the Jews claim to descend from Isaac and Jacob.

Yet Muslims adhere to the OT, and still claim the land of Israel.

In order to resolve this dilemma, IMHO there are only the following two alternatives for Muslims:

1 Say the OT is inaccurate (which is what scherzo alluded to IF there is a conflict between the OT and the Quran)

2 Say that the arabs ARE in fact the true descendants of Isaac, and the Israelies are the imposters.

take your pick.

In peace

CJ

PS: I realise that I have used the terms "arabs" and "muslims" interchangeably. There are, I suppose, arabs that are not muslims. In that case, my question is addressed to Muslims that believe in the OT and also want to claim the land currently occupied by Israel. Fair enough?

Originally posted by CalJust
Let me come in here again - this has nothing to do with being condescending or not, not even argumentative. In fact, it could have profitably been more argumentative IF THERE WAS A POINT!!

Why I lost interest is that scherzo refuses to answer my real question. His "argument" about the Palestinian claim to the land currently called Israel, concerns (as far ...[text shortened]... ieve in the OT and also want to claim the land currently occupied by Israel. Fair enough?

1 Muslims profess to believe that the OT is also true and inspired, including the narrative of the patriarch Abraham.

Somewhat. It is also outmoded, hence why we have the Holy Qur'an in the first place. But if there's a claim in the OT not refuted by the Qur'an or Hadith, we'll take it.

2 In this same OT we read that the land of Israel was promised by God to [b]Isaac, son of Abraham, and definitely NOT (in many passages) to Ishmael, son of Abraham.[/b]

Yes.

3 At least a substantial part of current arabic nations descend from Ishmael, whilst the Jews claim to descend from Isaac and Jacob.

There are Jews all over the world. "Jew" and "Arab" are not the same category anymore because Jews are such a widespread and diverse group.

Yet Muslims adhere to the OT, and still claim the land of Israel.

Palestine. And yes.

And in your options you missed the fact that Allah SWT promised the land to the descendants of Abraham. First of all, this means both descendants of Isaac and Ishmael. Second of all, He did not wish for the Zionists to go in there and kill everyone off to call the land their own.

Originally posted by scherzo
There are Jews all over the world. "Jew" and "Arab" are not the same category anymore because Jews are such a widespread and diverse group.

And in your options you missed the fact that Allah SWT promised the land to the descendants of Abraham. First of all, this means both descendants of Isaac and Ishmael.

Thanks for your response. I think we are getting closer to agreeing on some of the background issues. Stay with me a while longer, please.

I agree that the terms "Jew" and "Arab" have changed over the past few centuries, if not millenia. However, basically the Jews know who they are, which explains how some black-skinned people from Ethiopia call themselves Jews and have emigrated to Israel. Even the most dispersed Jews, whether in Russia, South Africa or Poland, knows that they are Jews.

But that is not my main point. Let me come to your statement And in your options you missed the fact that Allah SWT promised the land to the descendants of Abraham. First of all, this means both descendants of Isaac and Ishmael.

True, so He did, "land" in the broadest context. Read what happened in Gen 17, from v 18 - 21. After Ishmael birth, God appeared again to Abraham and Sarah and said "I will give you a PROPER son". Abraham pleaded with God (v 18): "Please, why can't you accept Ishmael, and let him live before you!" God relented, and said (v 20): "OK, I will do as you ask and also make Ishmael a great nation. However, MY COVENANT will be with Isaac, NOT with Ishmael!"

Then when we read on (Gen 21, 12) we see that when Sarah wanted Abraham to send Ishmael away, (after Isaac was born) Abraham would not do it (because he loved him!) but God said, "It's OK, send him away. Your seed will be called after Isaac, not Ishmael."

This whole episode clearly tells who was God's favourite (if there is such a thing!) Maybe not favourite, that's the wrong word, but "Child of Promise" may be better.

And the later promises of the Land and who gets what (Exodus and Deuteronomy) shows how the twelve sons of Jacob were to parcel up the land (what you call Palestine) between them.

So, again, no matter how we define Arabs and Jews today, and accepting that the lines are blurred, it appears from this passage that Jacob's sons got Palestine, and that the sons of Ishmael got something else (it doesn't say what, only that they became great nations. In fact, most probably the nations that Israel and Judah fought against for their entire history.)

My question to you is: Is Gen 17 and 21 part of the OT that you dispute, and if not, how do YOU interpret it?

In peace,

CJ

Originally posted by CalJust
Thanks for your response. I think we are getting closer to agreeing on some of the background issues. Stay with me a while longer, please.

I agree that the terms "Jew" and "Arab" have changed over the past few centuries, if not millenia. However, basically the Jews know who they are, which explains how some black-skinned people from Ethiopia call themselv ...[text shortened]... t you dispute, and if not, how do YOU interpret it?

In peace,

CJ[/b]

First of all, I do not dispute the passage in question. After skimming through it, I can see that the Holy Qur'an offers no contrary evidence, nor do the Hadiths. This is probably because the religious justification for Israel did not really become widespread until after the '67 war, which was a little late for the Prophet Muhammed PBUH. Now the lines between politics and religion get a bit blurry, as they were intended to be, but all I can say is this:

God may have promised the land to the sons of Jacob, but this was (a) before the Arab emigration to Palestine in the 700s, and (b) under the pretense that God Himself (Allah SWT) would set up the Jewish movement to Palestine. This is why Zionism was so poorly received among the Jewish community until suddenly it became, in their eyes, a necessity. Even now, many Orthodox Jewish sects refuse to recognize Israel, because they believe that God Himself, and only Himself, should relocate the Jews to Palestine/Israel/Canaan/whatever.

There are some minor fact errors in your post, but they're unimportant, and for time's sake I won't point them out.

Originally posted by scherzo
[b]

Hi scherzo,

Thanks again for continuing this conversation. Let me assure you one more time that I am certainly not trying to be confrontational, nor do I try to convince you of the correctness of my "views", I am only seeking understanding.

This is probably because the religious justification for Israel did not really become widespread until after the '67 war

I don't think this is strictly correct. The "religious justification for Israel" goes back to Bibilical times, and in the last few centuries Jews everywhere in the Diaspora prayed "next year in Jerusalem". This was probably THE ONE cohesive factor amongst Jews wordlwide.

God may have promised the land to the sons of Jacob, but this was (a) before the Arab emigration to Palestine in the 700s, and (b) under the pretense that God Himself (Allah SWT) would set up the Jewish movement to Palestine.

Sorry, in this part I don't understand what you are trying to say. You seem to agree that God promised the land to Jacob's sons, but then changed His mind when the Arabs migrated there in the 700s?

Even now, many Orthodox Jewish sects refuse to recognize Israel, because they believe that God Himself, and only Himself, should relocate the Jews to Palestine/Israel/Canaan/whatever.

This is true. But they are in the minority (like many fundamental religious sects). However, over all of history God fulfilled His promises and prophesies in spite of what people believed. The return of the sons of Jacob is foretold in many OT passages, which I could quote to you, but I am sure you know of them. (e.g. Jeremiah 21, 15; Jer 30,3&10)

Finally, I truly believe that if (or better, since) God blessed BOTH sons of Abraham, in spite of the centuries of enmity, there can be peace between them. Perhaps a division of the land is a solution, but I will leave that to the experts...

In peace,

CJ

Originally posted by CalJust
Hi scherzo,

Thanks again for continuing this conversation. Let me assure you one more time that I am certainly not trying to be confrontational, nor do I try to convince you of the correctness of my "views", I am only seeking understanding.

[b]This is probably because the religious justification for Israel did not really become widespread until after t ...[text shortened]... of the land is a solution, but I will leave that to the experts...

In peace,

CJ

I don't think this is strictly correct. The "religious justification for Israel" goes back to Bibilical times, and in the last few centuries Jews everywhere in the Diaspora prayed "next year in Jerusalem". This was probably THE ONE cohesive factor amongst Jews wordlwide.[/b]

I should have been clearer. Zionists only started using the "God-promised-us-the-land" argument a while after 1967 and after the "security reasons" argument wore off. Before then it was a very secular ideology.

Sorry, in this part I don't understand what you are trying to say. You seem to agree that God promised the land to Jacob's sons, but then changed His mind when the Arabs migrated there in the 700s?

No, He knew. He is Omniscient. But he did not say that the Zionists could move there on their own. Humans have faults that God does not.

Finally, I truly believe that if (or better, since) God blessed BOTH sons of Abraham, in spite of the centuries of enmity, there can be peace between them. Perhaps a division of the land is a solution, but I will leave that to the experts...

I don't deny that. But peace is impossible as long as the Zionist state continues to exist.

Originally posted by scherzo

Zionists only started using the "God-promised-us-the-land" argument a while after 1967 and after the "security reasons" argument wore off. Before then it was a very secular ideology.

I'm sorry, but this argument is factually incorrect. The term "Zionism" may have been coined recently, but the drive back to the Holy Land (particularly Jerusalem) has always been an integral part of the Jewish faith. You mentioned yourself that orthodox Jews don't recognise the secular state of Israel, but they are waiting for the Messiah to establish this supernaturally, rather than through people, not realising that Messiah has already come and done it through people! But that is another argument....


. But he (God) did not say that the Zionists could move there on their own. Humans have faults that God does not.

Again, this is debatable. What God said or didn't say cannot be judged by you or me.

But peace is impossible as long as the Zionist state continues to exist.

This has always been the mantra that makes any discussion (and peace!) impossible. How would you respond if I said that I will only negotiate with you after you have killed yourself? It's a no brainer.

So, sadly, I think we have come to the end of this discussion where we will have to leave it.

Certainly I have been too ambitious in my hopes. If we HAD come to any agreement on this matter, I guess we would
have been candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize!



:'(

Originally posted by CalJust
[b]Zionists only started using the "God-promised-us-the-land" argument a while after 1967 and after the "security reasons" argument wore off. Before then it was a very secular ideology.

I'm sorry, but this argument is factually incorrect. The term "Zionism" may have been coined recently, but the drive back to the Holy Land (particularly Jerusalem) has ...[text shortened]... atter, I guess we would
have been candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize!



:'([/b]

Being me, I have to drive the points in.

I'm sorry, but this argument is factually incorrect. The term "Zionism" may have been coined recently, but the drive back to the Holy Land (particularly Jerusalem) has always been an integral part of the Jewish faith. You mentioned yourself that orthodox Jews don't recognise the secular state of Israel, but they are waiting for the Messiah to establish this supernaturally, rather than through people, not realising that Messiah has already come and done it through people! But that is another argument....

I'm referring specifically to the religious justifications for the occupation of what is internationally recognized as Palestinian land, i.e. the West Bank and Gaza. When Israel first occupied the land, there were no Jewish settlements in either region. The military was the only Israeli presence in either region, and the justification was "security" against a "terror threat." In 1968 an ultra-conservative fascist Zionist sect, Gush Eminum, established the first Israeli West Bank settlement. In 1970, after the PFLP hijackings (huzzah!), the "security" argument became silly and stupid and redundant, as what the Israelis defined as "terror" wasn't being stopped by the occupation. This coincided with the rise of a rabbi, Meir Kahane, and the rise of his fanatical West Bank cult (now recognized internationally as the Kach and the JDL, both terrorist organizations). Kahane was the first to use religion to justify the occupation. Now it's an argument used by most settlers in the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

Again, this is debatable. What God said or didn't say cannot be judged by you or me.

If what He said was written down ...

OK, let's continue for one more round...



I'm referring specifically to the religious justifications for the occupation of what is internationally recognized as Palestinian land, i.e. the West Bank and Gaza. ....
In 1968 an ultra-conservative fascist Zionist sect, Gush Eminum, established the first Israeli West Bank settlement.

Historically (from Biblical times) the West bank was Judea and Samaria, Jewish land. That is why (like Jerusalem) they will never leave it, at least not without duress.

Gaza, as I said in an earlier post,was Philistine country, and was never a part of biblical Judah or Israel. So modern Jewry had no, or very little, problems with giving it up.


If what He said was written down ...

Here's the rub - and this is the key theme of this thread - in every debate there has to first be identified what is the common ground, and that defines the boundaries of the debate.

I thought that the OT was that common ground - let's find out what you and I believe about that.

When you say: "God wrote it" you refer to the Qu'ran, which I dispute that it was written by God, just like the Book of Mormon. However yuo and I BOTH believe the OT was written by God, that's why I stuck to that.

Where in the OT does it say that the other sons of Abraham should inherit the land of Palestine?

Originally posted by CalJust
OK, let's continue for one more round...

[b]

I'm referring specifically to the religious justifications for the occupation of what is internationally recognized as Palestinian land, i.e. the West Bank and Gaza. ....
In 1968 an ultra-conservative fascist Zionist sect, Gush Eminum, established the first Israeli West Bank settlement.

Histor ...[text shortened]... OT does it say that the other sons of Abraham should inherit the land of Palestine?[/b][/b]

Historically (from Biblical times) the West bank was Judea and Samaria, Jewish land. That is why (like Jerusalem) they will never leave it, at least not without duress.

Mistake #1: Your equation of Zionism (a secular imperialist philosophy) with Judaism (a faith that stresses peace, tolerance, and justice). It's a common mistake, and one that Zionists want you to make, but the two are very different.

Gaza, as I said in an earlier post,was Philistine country, and was never a part of biblical Judah or Israel. So modern Jewry had no, or very little, problems with giving it up.

Oh, of course not. They just bomb the living daylights out of the region when it suits their fancy.

😕

When you say: "God wrote it" you refer to the Qu'ran, which I dispute that it was written by God, just like the Book of Mormon. However yuo and I BOTH believe the OT was written by God, that's why I stuck to that.

I don't believe I ever said that either the OT or the Holy Qur'an were written by ALLAH SWT. Or God, in English. The OT was written by Abraham some years after ALLAH SWT revealed it, and the Holy Qur'an was written by the Prophet Muhammed PBUH as ALLAH SWT dictated it to him.

Where in the OT does it say that the other sons of Abraham should inherit the land of Palestine?

It refers to the sons of Isaac, but it never specifies a time, and it certainly doesn't say that Zionists can come in and wipe out the Palestinians like they never existed.

We are just playing ping pong - each side just repeats what it said before. It's getting boring.

CJ signing off.

😕😛😴