Middle East Synod and Israel

[Robbinson]

These are not religious questions but we may as well air it out.

To a great extent (although not entirely), modern Israel was populated by illegal immigration of Jews (I understand how and why it happened, considering the holocaust, but we have to take this into account to be fair), and there was terrorism involved. The bombing of the King David hotel being the most notable, killing 91.

The UN resolution was an attempt to achieve peace in a difficult situation by separating the two parties - separate but equal. There is some question whether the UN had the right to establish the State of Israel in the first place. However, I think it was a sincere attempt.

What country do you live in and on what basis do you inhabit the land you live on? I’d suggest Israel is on “firmer” ground than Americans in America, Candadians in Canada, etc. - I think we need to apply equal weights and measures on issues like this one - no?

The thing is, it may have not been an ethically balanced decision on the part of the world community, and we are reaping the results of that now. Actually, the Palestinians (mostly Christian and Muslim, there were still also Palestinian Jews in the 20th century) are descendants of the original Jews with continual residence on top of that.

What is the basis for this statement. Arabs are descendants of Abraham through Ishmael - “Israelites” are descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob (this includes the Jews, descendants of Judah and Benjamin, the sons of Jacob. On what basis are palestinians and muslims of arab descent “jews” or “Israelites”?). They are semites, however.

The population went from being largely Jewish with some Gentiles to largely Christian through conversion, and finally but sadly largely Muslim, but they are essentially the same people, and very likely have a higher percentage of Hebrew/Jewish DNA than the Jews of Europe and elsewhere, which often accepted converts and mixed extensivley with native populations in the places they found themselves.

It is an historical fact that even in Jesus Christ’s day two thousand years ago, the majority of the world’s Jews were living outside of Palestine, and they often accepted converts. Those returning to Israel in the twentieth century simply do not have any more right to the land than those of their very own cousins who occupied it continually all these centuries.

Again - on what basis can you claim to know who is a descendant of the 12 tribes of Israel, other than the Jews who are an indentifiable group descended from Judah and Benjamin?

And if we must resort to the religious argument, the Christian community is still the heir of the Promise. Such an argument therefore cannot reasonably be used by modern Jews (of mostly European origin and ancestry) to justify dispossessing the native inhabitants and engaging in the ethnic cleansing practices in the occupied territories even today.

This is the debate/discussion not addressed by Church teaching - whether the land covenants remain distinct to ethnic Israel or apply to spiritual Israel (which is the Church). That’s a fair discussion. I agree with you that even if its ethnic Israel, there are difficult issues to manage in terms of protection of statehood and recognizing individual rights. We need balance.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Lev23]

Hardened Israel and the land of Israel are connected when it comes to the second advent of Christ to Israel.

 

[scipio337]

What country do you live in and on what basis do you inhabit the land you live on? I’d suggest Israel is on “firmer” ground than Americans in America, Candadians in Canada, etc. - I think we need to apply equal weights and measures on issues like this one - no?

Not to mention, a certain party declined the UN Partition plan, which one?

Israel is the result of a post colonial collapse. You can see the same effect in North Africa, and more directly, the formation of modern Pakistan and India. When a colonial power leaves the region (either the British Mandate or British Raj), new nations form down ethnic and religious lines.

In the case of India and Pakistan, over 12 million Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs crossed borders to be in their newly formed, religious majority state. Over 2 million died In the case of the British Mandate, one party was opposed to a non-Muslim presense.

Robbinson:

What is the basis for this statement. Arabs are descendants of Abraham through Ishmael - “Israelites” are descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob (this includes the Jews, descendants of Judah and Benjamin, the sons of Jacob. On what basis are palestinians and muslims of arab descent “jews” or “Israelites”?). They are semites, however.

I’m not sure what the basis is, either. Numerous studies have linked a vast majority of the world’s Jews (not just Sephardic) to the Middle East. Since the area has been ruled by one colonial power or another for over 2,000 years, who has “more of a claim” is spurious.

 

[Hesychios]

What country do you live in and on what basis do you inhabit the land you live on? I’d suggest Israel is on “firmer” ground than Americans in America, Candadians in Canada, etc. - I think we need to apply equal weights and measures on issues like this one - no?

Are we to justify modern Jews (many of whom are secular, and have been non-religious continually) seizing other peoples lands because it has been done elsewhere in history?

That is not the argument being made by the Jews of the State of israel themselves. The argument being made is that they have been ‘given’ this land by God as the Chosen People. In my opinion, that mantle (chosenness) has fallen upon the Christian branch of Judaism - the followers of Christ, many of whom have lived on those very lands continuously, and usually speak Arabic today.

What is the basis for this statement. Arabs are descendants of Abraham through Ishmael - “Israelites” are descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob (this includes the Jews, descendants of Judah and Benjamin, the sons of Jacob. On what basis are palestinians and muslims of arab descent “jews” or “Israelites”?). They are semites, however.

The historical fact is the inhabitants of the eastern Mediterranean region are overwhelmingly descended from the original inhabitants. The Arabs conquerors (and the Turks to the north) were a small minority. The large percentage of Muslims in the region today is chiefly due to conversion; and the fact that the Arabic language has largely replaced Aramaic (as well as Greek, Coptic and other languages) is an accident of history, a process of acculturation.

For example, the fact that the Irish and Scots speak mostly English does not make them Anglo-Saxons, they are dealing with the historical reality of being swept into the political and economic sphere of England; the fact that Jews and descendants of Jews in the region of Palestine speak mostly Arabic does not make them Arabs any more than speaking Aramaic and Greek (in the time of Christ 2000 years ago) made them Aramaeans or Greeks.

This is the debate/discussion not addressed by Church teaching - whether the land covenants remain distinct to ethnic Israel or apply to spiritual Israel (which is the Church). That’s a fair discussion. I agree with you that even if its ethnic Israel, there are difficult issues to manage in terms of protection of statehood and recognizing individual rights. We need balance.

Blessings,

Brian

Fairly put.

Blessings,
Michael

 

[scipio337]

Are we to justify modern Jews (many of whom are secular, and have been non-religious continually) seizing other peoples lands because it has been done elsewhere in history?

That is not the argument being made by the Jews of the State of israel themselves. The argument being made is that they have been ‘given’ this land by God as the Chosen People. In my opinion, that mantle (chosenness) has fallen upon the Christian branch of Judaism - the followers of Christ, many of whom have lived on those very lands continuously, and usually speak Arabic today.
The historical fact is the inhabitants of the eastern Mediterranean region are overwhelmingly descended from the original inhabitants. The Arabs conquerors (and the Turks to the north) were a small minority. The large percentage of Muslims in the region today is chiefly due to conversion; and the fact that the Arabic language has largely replaced Aramaic (as well as Greek, Coptic and other languages) is an accident of history, a process of acculturation.

For example, the fact that the Irish and Scots speak mostly English does not make them Anglo-Saxons, they are dealing with the historical reality of being swept into the political and economic sphere of England; the fact that Jews and descendants of Jews in the region of Palestine speak mostly Arabic does not make them Arabs any more than speaking Aramaic and Greek (in the time of Christ 2000 years ago) made them Aramaeans or Greeks.

Fairly put.

Blessings,
Michael

Modern Jews not Middle Eastern? That not what the genetics say.

humanitas-international.org/perezites/news/jewish-dna-nytimes.htm

I’m not sure who Jews “stole” this land from. The British? Ottoman Turks? The Abbasid Caliphate?

 

[Hesychios]

Modern Jews not Middle Eastern? That not what the genetics say.

humanitas-international.org/perezites/news/jewish-dna-nytimes.htm

My position is they are not any moreso than the people who have been there all along, and probably somewhat less so.

I am not arguing that the modern Jews do not have Jewish ancestry, but I am arguing that they do not have a better (or prior) claim to the land. Scholars are in general agreement that even in the time of Christ the diaspora of Judaism was considerably greater than the population of Palestinian Jews, and they were already mostly Greek-speaking (hence, the use of the Septuagint was very widespread). Most of the world Jewish community today is descended from these migrants whom, as I stated earlier, certainly accepted converts and did occasionally intermarry with natives of other places.

There is a ‘myth’ afoot that the Palestinians, being “Arabs” to our modern mind, are a different people than the Jews of Palestine in the first century, and who somehow entirely swept away the natives and replaced them. I think that most people innocently make that assumption without thinking it through.

I’m not sure who Jews “stole” this land from. The British? Ottoman Turks? The Abbasid Caliphate?

They are continuing to seize the lands of the Palestinians to this very day.

 

[zarthan]

I would recommend “Blood Brothers” by Elias Chacour. One will be enlightened as to the history of the Melchite Catholics who were living in Israel since the apostles prior to the Zionist immigration in Israel. One will also get a first hand account of the suffering that the Melchite community endured due to the establishment of the nation of Israel.

The fact is, Muslims, Jews and Christians were living in relative peace before the establishment of the nation of Israel. Despite their suffering, Father Elias Chacour with God’s grace established a school in the upper Galilee for Catholics, Muslims, Jews and Druze. Now Archbishop Elias, he continues to work for peace in Israel in the same spirit of his own father who suffered much, learned to forgive, and strove to live in the beatitudes of Jesus’ teachings of the Sermon on the Mount.

May God bring peace among his chosen ones.

 

[chosen_people]

My position is they are not any moreso than the people who have been there all along, and probably somewhat less so.

I am not arguing that the modern Jews do not have Jewish ancestry, but I am arguing that they do not have a better (or prior) claim to the land. Scholars are in general agreement that even in the time of Christ the diaspora of Judaism was considerably greater than the population of Palestinian Jews, and they were already mostly Greek-speaking (hence, the use of the Septuagint was very widespread). Most of the world Jewish community today is descended from these migrants whom, as I stated earlier, certainly accepted converts and did occasionally intermarry with natives of other places.

There is a ‘myth’ afoot that the Palestinians, being “Arabs” to our modern mind, are a different people than the Jews of Palestine in the first century, and who somehow entirely swept away the natives and replaced them. I think that most people innocently make that assumption without thinking it through.
They are continuing to seize the lands of the Palestinians to this very day.

Where does the name Palestine come from? Are Jews also Palestinians? What is the history of Palestine? It’s historical leaders, borders, capital, when did it first gain independence? What were its laws, its institutions, it contributions, its wars? Was Jesus a Palestinian?

 

[Timothy17]

God is going to give Israel the whole Earth, even a renewed Earth, to His faithful, to His elect.

If you think God is content to shut His people into a tiny sliver of land that He Himself made (along with the entire universe) - then you are seriously mistaken. He is going to give them peace “on all sides,” so that no one will threaten them - indeed, there will be no enemies without to threaten them.

The Holy Land is land set aside, set apart, for God, as are His holy people. They work with God to redeem all of mankind, and the whole Earth. God can do anything ; do you really believe He is fixated on a sliver of land or on a single, earthly city in that land, made of stones and bricks and things mutable ?

Heavenly Jerusalem and the New Earth are promised as the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham to all of God’s people, who now live as exiles even in their own countries, who now live as ancient Israel did, wandering through the desert toward that promised land. For us, the Red Sea (baptism) is the first sea to pass to enter into this pilgramige to the promised land, and then the river of death (Jordan) but also renewal must be crossed over before entering into the promised land (of eternity).

Christians are the children of promise : they are the children promised to Abraham, brought forth through his own offspring (Christ). Now a father loves all of his children, and does not favor unjustly one over another. Christians are born of the free woman, Jews of the bondwoman, and accordingly, the former enjoy the liberty of sons by adoption, and the latter remain in bondage to the House, though still part of that house. The Law of Moses is the Law of bondage ; the Law of Christ, the Law of Liberty. The offer to become the Sons of God went first to the members of the Household ; namely, the bond-servants, and those who accepted Him became heirs with Christ in the Father’s house. Those who rejected chose rather to remain in bondage, not recognizing their King, their Saviour, in Christ Jesus.

The State of Israel and the land it holds is not the promised land, or at least not the fulfilled promised land. God’s children are promised everything anew : a new creation, new bodies, and an everlasting, imperishable, imutable kingdom. To compare the latter with the former or confuse the two is unbecoming : much better is the promise of things eternal (and thus unseen) than the things temporal, mutable, etc. Now, Christians show they are children of promise by holding fast to Christ’s promise of these things : things for us and all that remain unseen, and hence require Faith. Thus we show and keep the Covenant through Faith, by holding fast to things unseen.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Timothy17]

Consider also Sarah and Hagar, as St Paul admonished us. Did not Sarah become jealous of Hagar and her children ? So Christians show their ancestry (according to Faith) when we, likewise, show our jealousy of the children of Hagar, who (rightfully) hold up their rights as children, even though children of bondage. Now Abraham permitted Sarah to do as she pleased with Hagar, her bond-woman, but did not God Himself go to Hagar, and console her, and assure her of her children ?

Now we know Sarah is a type of Mary, and Abraham of God the Father, and this story is prophetic until this day, being shown true even in this very thread, when the children of the two still feud in jealousy, as they have ever. Sarah reminds us, therefore, of the Church (the spouse, the bride of Abraham) and Hagar of the Jewish people. All share the same Father, and are of the same House, though of differing mothers. Christians, therefore, should show themselves the Sons of God by doing God’s Will, the Will of their Father, and remember God’s consoling of Hagar and her children, and in the Spirit thereof. Now the Church Fathers tell us that Enoch and Elias have been set aside by God for the children of Hagar, to go to them and show them the Truth veiled in the things Moses taught them, that they might accept Christ, and receive adoption also, and so “all Israel” will be saved. Furthermore, we should never doubt those things yet promised to us, which doubting does risk judgement for us, for it is by Faith in those unseen things that we show ourselves to be His children, and thus have access to the promise of life eternal.

Both children, free and bond, are taught and instructed that God is worshipped now by doing justice, and having mercy upon all. So teach the Prophets, and so taught Christ ; therefore, let us seek to be just, and merciful, and thus please God the Father, and show ourselves His children, lest we incur His anger for giving scandal to His name, for making Him a reproach among the nations.

Pax,
Tim

 

[chosen_people]

God is going to give Israel the whole Earth, even a renewed Earth, to His faithful, to His elect.

If you think God is content to shut His people into a tiny sliver of land that He Himself made (along with the entire universe) - then you are seriously mistaken. He is going to give them peace “on all sides,” so that no one will threaten them - indeed, there will be no enemies without to threaten them.

The Holy Land is land set aside, set apart, for God, as are His holy people. They work with God to redeem all of mankind, and the whole Earth. God can do anything ; do you really believe He is fixated on a sliver of land or on a single, earthly city in that land, made of stones and bricks and things mutable ?

Heavenly Jerusalem and the New Earth are promised as the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham to all of God’s people, who now live as exiles even in their own countries, who now live as ancient Israel did, wandering through the desert toward that promised land. For us, the Red Sea (baptism) is the first sea to pass to enter into this pilgramige to the promised land, and then the river of death (Jordan) but also renewal must be crossed over before entering into the promised land (of eternity).

Christians are the children of promise : they are the children promised to Abraham, brought forth through his own offspring (Christ). Now a father loves all of his children, and does not favor unjustly one over another. Christians are born of the free woman, Jews of the bondwoman, and accordingly, the former enjoy the liberty of sons by adoption, and the latter remain in bondage to the House, though still part of that house. The Law of Moses is the Law of bondage ; the Law of Christ, the Law of Liberty. The offer to become the Sons of God went first to the members of the Household ; namely, the bond-servants, and those who accepted Him became heirs with Christ in the Father’s house. Those who rejected chose rather to remain in bondage, not recognizing their King, their Saviour, in Christ Jesus.

The State of Israel and the land it holds is not the promised land, or at least not the fulfilled promised land. God’s children are promised everything anew : a new creation, new bodies, and an everlasting, imperishable, imutable kingdom. To compare the latter with the former or confuse the two is unbecoming : much better is the promise of things eternal (and thus unseen) than the things temporal, mutable, etc. Now, Christians show they are children of promise by holding fast to Christ’s promise of these things : things for us and all that remain unseen, and hence require Faith. Thus we show and keep the Covenant through Faith, by holding fast to things unseen.

Pax,
Tim

Indeed we can speak of Jews as being “in bondage” in the sense that they are bound forever in the Eternal Covenant between God and the Jewish people.

The book of Genesis is the story of the creation of the Jewish people. Remarkably, it starts not with Abraham but with the story of God’s creation of the earth. This is truly remarkable for two things. The first thing, is the firm declaration to all people that there is one God and He is the creator of all things. As everything was created by Him and everything in the world owes its existence to Him, God and God alone had the right to grant the land of Israel eternally to the Jews. That does not mean that God is limited to a specific geographical place or that any of God’s children are not equally precious in His eyes. This is strongly demonstrated In the story of Jonah (Yonah). We see Jonah being sent by God outside of the borders of Israel to warn Gentiles who repent and are redeemed. It will only be much later, when two large groups of pagans, inspired by the Jews, make their first tentative steps toward ethical monotheism, that these groups will reject this concept and claim that only those who believe exactly as they do can find redemption.

As for the Jewish state of Israel, one does not have to search hard to see God. Not only have the Jews of all the ancient peoples survived, though they make up a mere two tenths of one per cent of the world’s population, though the state of Israel is barely the size of the state of New Jersey, though it is surrounded by a billion enemies, it is seemingly so strong that many consider it “the aggressor”. Despite the fact that Jews were only allowed to begin to be integrated into western society some two hundred years ago, despite the fact that there are barely 14 million Jews in the world, despite the Shoah in which one third of all the Jews were murdered, despite wars and terrorism against the Jewish state, I doubt that there is a single human being in the Western world, who during the next hour will engage in an activity totally devoid of any contribution by Jews or the Jewish state.

The second remarkable thing about the story of creation and the Jews is what is not in the story. For the first time we have God without a story of how God came into existence (born) or ceased to exist (died) or came back to exist (resurrected). We have the concept of a God who has has always existed and who will always exist.

God is not a human being who breaks His Eternal Covenant. God has promised the land eternally to the Jewish people. He has promised that there will always be a remnant of the Jewish people for all time. Even in the darkest times He has stood by the Jewish people even when it seemed that they had been abandoned (see the book of Esther). We don’t have to search for evidence. It’s right there before us for all to see.

 

[Timothy17]

Indeed we can speak of Jews as being “in bondage” in the sense that they are bound forever in the Eternal Covenant between God and the Jewish people.

Yes, you speak of the Jewish notion that the each Jew is utterly bound in mind, body, soul, spirit to Jewishness. It’s actually quite domineering : God endowed all His creatures made in His image with Free Will, Jew and Gentile (or the goy, if you prefer) alike. Undoubtedly, it is better for a Jew to believe he has a place in God’s plan than to foresake that fact and imagine otherwise ; however, it is wrong to deny him the right to emancipate himself from bondage and enter into the liberty of the sons of God.

The book of Genesis is the story of the creation of the Jewish people.

Negative.
The Book of Geneis is the story of God’s i) acting, then ii) acting in human history to fulfill His Will for their salvation. This is made readily obvious by His promise to Eve, and the course of the Book follows that promise down the generations. The human subject of the Books are those who hear, believe and keep God’s promise, and as result are seperated from those who do not. The principle subject is God’s acting and doing, as is made clear from the very beginning.

Remarkably, it starts not with Abraham but with the story of God’s creation of the earth. This is truly remarkable for two things. The first thing, is the firm declaration to all people that there is one God and He is the creator of all things. As everything was created by Him and everything in the world owes its existence to Him, God and God alone had the right to grant the land of Israel eternally to the Jews.

The land you think of is not the “land of Israel,” nor is it called such in the aforementioned book. Please review my previous posts about the error in imagining God has a fixation with a specific piece of land. Why would God not bless His people with all the land ? Certainly He can, yet He felt fit to set aside this part for a purpose and reason. This land will not exist as it is at the end of ages, for it will be renewed along with all of creation, and this renewed creation will be the inheritance of His faithful, the true and better Promised Land for which the land you think of is but a type and prefigurement.

That does not mean that God is limited to a specific geographical place or that any of God’s children are not equally precious in His eyes.

You preach to the choir

(cont’d)

 

[Timothy17]

This is strongly demonstrated In the story of Jonah (Yonah). We see Jonah being sent by God outside of the borders of Israel to warn Gentiles who repent and are redeemed. It will only be much later, when two large groups of pagans, inspired by the Jews, make their first tentative steps toward ethical monotheism, that these groups will reject this concept and claim that only those who believe exactly as they do can find redemption.

Which concept ? The idea that God has imprisoned His elect into a tiny slice of the Earth’s mass, or that the subject and topic of the Book of Genesis is the creation of the Jewish people ?

As for the Jewish state of Israel, one does not have to search hard to see God. Not only have the Jews of all the ancient peoples survived, though they make up a mere two tenths of one per cent of the world’s population, though the state of Israel is barely the size of the state of New Jersey, though it is surrounded by a billion enemies, it is seemingly so strong that many consider it “the aggressor”. Despite the fact that Jews were only allowed to begin to be integrated into western society some two hundred years ago, despite the fact that there are barely 14 million Jews in the world, despite the Shoah in which one third of all the Jews were murdered, despite wars and terrorism against the Jewish state, I doubt that there is a single human being in the Western world, who during the next hour will engage in an activity totally devoid of any contribution by Jews or the Jewish state.

You ignore outright the benevolence of the Christian nations that provided safe refuge for the Jewish people during the two millenia since the pagans destroyed Judea and dispersed the Jews up to the creation of the secular State of Israel, which formation was heavily indebted to the graciousness of the Christian Brittish Empire, and is presently sustained and helped in no small way by the Christian American republic.

The second remarkable thing about the story of creation and the Jews is what is not in the story. For the first time we have God without a story of how God came into existence (born) or ceased to exist (died) or came back to exist (resurrected). We have the concept of a God who has has always existed and who will always exist.

This is the jealousy mentioned in my previous post. Your veiled insults of your King will not be entertained by me. Again, you are a bond-servant, the child of Hagar, as it were. Mind your manners. The convenant you claim is of things temporal, perishable, and therefore not “eternal,” as all these things can, must and will pass away, and are passing away : do you not see the death and destruction of all things about you ? Do you believe God desires things imperfect, things futile ? Do you not understand that God made us in His image, and in His likeness ? How can we be in His likeness when we are corruptible, perishable ? Manifestly we are not ; therefore, the fulfillment of God’s Covenant must be in the form of things non-perishable.

God is not a human being who breaks His Eternal Covenant.

Again, a human being is incapable of making an Eternal Covenant, as he is mutable in the present sense, at least in the sense of your understanding ; however, we Christians know that God is not perishable, and therefore can forge a Covenant both Universal and Eternal, and we know He has chosen to do so, and with us belong the Priesthood, and the Kingdom, and the Temple, and the Worship.

God has promised the land eternally to the Jewish people.

Again, all Creation is in the hand of God, as it were - or do you worship a God who cannot give more than that to those who love Him ? You know He is the sustainer of all things ; therefore, why would He not desire to give His people all things ? He Himself needs none of it, and as we know from the Book of Genesis, God gave man dominion over the whole Earth, over the works of His own hand (again, as it were). Now if God was so good to give Adam dominion over all things, why would He limit His faithful to dominion over a hardly signifcant part of that dominion to which He gave Adam ?

He has promised that there will always be a remnant of the Jewish people for all time. Even in the darkest times He has stood by the Jewish people even when it seemed that they had been abandoned (see the book of Esther). We don’t have to search for evidence. It’s right there before us for all to see.

Nor do we dispute you on this point ; however, and returning to what I wrote : carnal Israel is the servant of the House, and as such has membership in that House, though not perfectly. The children of His House are His heirs and His fruit, and God has extened membership into His House to all the children of Adam through Christ Jesus as His sons, and this Covenant is Eternal as it belongs to immortality, to things non-perishable, to things immutable. This Covenant is the better covenant, the promised Covenant, which Covenant all mankind is invited to join by becoming members of Christ Jesus, our Saviour, King, Lord and Master, who Himself conquered death, and can now say, “O death, where is thy sting ?”

Pax,
Tim

 

[Ghosty]

Where does the name Palestine come from?

It’s a historical appelation, originally made by the Romans, or perhaps the Greeks, IIRC. The name is derived from the Jewish word for the land, however, namely Peleshet, where the Philistines lived.

Are Jews also Palestinians?

Some are, some aren’t. Those that lived in the land of Palestine can be and are called Palestinian.

What is the history of Palestine? It’s historical leaders, borders, capital, when did it first gain independence? What were its laws, its institutions, it contributions, its wars?

I can only assume this is a facetious question, since if you read Scripture you’ll see plenty about the land of Peleshet/Palestine. It is not a national identity first and foremost, but a land that has been continually inhabited for thousands of years. The natives of that land have taken the name of the land as their own, regardless of the existence of a “nationstate” on the land.

Was Jesus a Palestinian?

Of course he was. He was a Palestinian Jew, as were his followers. Their descendents remained in the land, despite waves of various conquerers, and make up the Palestinian people of today.

I thank Hesychios for bringing up the fact that the Palestinians are not “Arab immigrants” to the land. Such a notion is especially false in the case of Palestinian Christians, who obviously would not be part of any Arab invasion/immigration (as the Arabs were Muslim), and they would not be the result of Arab conversion to Christianity because such a thing was punishable by death. The Palestinian Christians whose homes and villages were destroyed to make way for the State of Israel were Jews in every sense of the word except religion (much like the Zionists, who were primarily secular-socialists, and modern Israelis who are primarily atheist/agnostic). These Palestinian Christians do recognize their Jewish blood and descent, too; they’ve never tired of speaking of their ancestors as the first disciples of Christ, and even further back going to the Prophet Elijah, who is celebrated annually by the Christians of Haifa, always with the understanding that he is their ancestor.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Robbinson]

This land will not exist as it is at the end of ages, for it will be renewed along with all of creation, and this renewed creation will be the inheritance of His faithful, the true and better Promised Land for which the land you think of is but a type and prefigurement.

This is a powerful, and beautiful, image. I’d like to study this idea out - are you aware of any Church fathers who expressed the fulfillment of the land covenant in this way? It is a perspective which paralell’s the old covenant being a shadow of a greater fulfillment in the new covenant. Its an interesting image I’ve heard before, but not expressed as eloquently.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Timothy17]

This is a powerful, and beautiful, image. I’d like to study this idea out - are you aware of any Church fathers who expressed the fulfillment of the land covenant in this way? It is a perspective which paralell’s the old covenant being a shadow of a greater fulfillment in the new covenant. Its an interesting image I’ve heard before, but not expressed as eloquently.

Blessings,

Brian

The idea is gathered from a litany of writings of Church Fathers and doctors, as well as Sacred Scripture and the Catechism. If you are very interested in this image, as you put it, or rather conceptualizing the Promised Land of Christians, then learning about the 8th Day is a good place to start. Christians, technically, worship on the “8th day,” the New Day. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, especially the second one, is a scriptural foundation for this, wherein he speaks of how all things are renewed in Christ, and how we presently subsist “in jars of clay,” (our present bodies being the clay) and how we inwardly long and groan to shed off this present “clothing” of decay, and to put on the clothing of immortality.

Now the Catechism teaches that death entered the world through sin, and sin did not just have consequences on humanity in creation, but owing to our special place in creation (e.g., Adam’s dominion over it) spread into and through creation from us ; therefore, it is not only man whose physical (but also spiritual) reality suffers from the effects of sin and death, but also all of creation. And if all of Creation is somehow made defective by the consequences of sin, then it too needs to be restored, and hence St Paul’s saying that “all creation” longs for the restoration - pardon me - rather, the “revealing of the sons of God.”

As for the Promised Land of the Old Covenant being a type and prefigurement, such we know is common in the Old Testament. I spoke of how the crossing through the Red Sea prefigured Baptism, and crossing over the Jordan likewise prefigured our crossing over death into the Heavenly Promised Land, as examples. We could further speak of how God’s people, being enslaved in Egypt, prefigures mankind’s enslavement to the world in general, and to the “mighty ones,” (or strong ones) who are tyrrants, authorities, etc. Man’s wordly subjection, expressed especially economically by the primacy and necessity to work and toil (economic tyranny) to a polluted and corrupt government is the misery of man before being enlightened by God and His Christ, wherein man begins to learn to live by Faith once more (i.e., to subsist off mana in the dessert, which prefigures the Eucharist, and the Living Water of the Rock, which prefigures also Christ).

Personally, I believe the world will more and more - owing to the “nature” of sin - dominate man, especially economically, as the Hebrew enslavement to the Egyptians prefigured. This enslavement, though painful to human dignity, nonetheless draws man inwardly out of his worldly infactuations, making him long and groan for release and to desire a restoration of that dignity. Moses, then, prefigures Christ and His Church who stands up to the powers that be for the sake “of his people,” in order that Pharoah might “let them go,” i.e., release them from their bondage. In like manner the plagues upon Egypt prefigure those plagues God shall also send upon the world at the end of times, and the wonders worked by Pharoah’s magicians shall similarly be worked by the Antichrist and his disciples to stall and confuse God’s people, however, this shall ultimately be of no avail.

But returning to your original inquiry, again I advise you to read up on the 8th day, which doctrine is of the Church Fathers, and to study St Paul’s writings in regards to the new creation in Christ, as these are like links and anchors to core Christian teachings that furnish themselves towards the Christian Promised Land, i.e., Heaven, and Heaven on Earth (“Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven”).

I sometimes think of Heaven as “the Undiscovered Country,” the true “New World” that lies just beyond the horizon of our sight. We know from reports of those who have seen it and returned from there that there is indeed such a place, and like the pioneers and settlers of old, Christians believe in the promise of this place, in the hope it carries with it, and we set out to arrive there, even though the journey may be full of perils and dangers.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Lev23]

Ghosty, Heaven calls the land “Israel”(Matthew 2:20-21/8:10/10:23/15:2–Luke7:9), Jesus is a Israeli Jew(Revelation5:5), not a Palestinean, and his Apostles are Jewish, making up at that time what is the remnant of ISRAEL, not the remnant of “Palestine”.

Scripture speaks of a distinct Jewish people being dispersed from the land of Israel, only to come back in later as a distinct people(Luke21:24/Ezekiel-36,37, etc.) to be ultimately saved by their Messiah(Jesus).

The land and hardened people of Israel, will both be fully restored by Jesus Christ(New Covenant) at His second advent. All Israel will be saved.

 

[Lev23]

The idea is gathered from a litany of writings of Church Fathers and doctors, as well as Sacred Scripture and the Catechism. If you are very interested in this image, as you put it, or rather conceptualizing the Promised Land of Christians, then learning about the 8th Day is a good place to start. Christians, technically, worship on the “8th day,” the New Day. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, especially the second one, is a scriptural foundation for this, wherein he speaks of how all things are renewed in Christ, and how we presently subsist “in jars of clay,” (our present bodies being the clay) and how we inwardly long and groan to shed off this present “clothing” of decay, and to put on the clothing of immortality.

Now the Catechism teaches that death entered the world through sin, and sin did not just have consequences on humanity in creation, but owing to our special place in creation (e.g., Adam’s dominion over it) spread into and through creation from us ; therefore, it is not only man whose physical (but also spiritual) reality suffers from the effects of sin and death, but also all of creation. And if all of Creation is somehow made defective by the consequences of sin, then it too needs to be restored, and hence St Paul’s saying that “all creation” longs for the restoration - pardon me - rather, the “revealing of the sons of God.”

As for the Promised Land of the Old Covenant being a type and prefigurement, such we know is common in the Old Testament. I spoke of how the crossing through the Red Sea prefigured Baptism, and crossing over the Jordan likewise prefigured our crossing over death into the Heavenly Promised Land, as examples. We could further speak of how God’s people, being enslaved in Egypt, prefigures mankind’s enslavement to the world in general, and to the “mighty ones,” (or strong ones) who are tyrrants, authorities, etc. Man’s wordly subjection, expressed especially economically by the primacy and necessity to work and toil (economic tyranny) to a polluted and corrupt government is the misery of man before being enlightened by God and His Christ, wherein man begins to learn to live by Faith once more (i.e., to subsist off mana in the dessert, which prefigures the Eucharist, and the Living Water of the Rock, which prefigures also Christ).

Personally, I believe the world will more and more - owing to the “nature” of sin - dominate man, especially economically, as the Hebrew enslavement to the Egyptians prefigured. This enslavement, though painful to human dignity, nonetheless draws man inwardly out of his worldly infactuations, making him long and groan for release and to desire a restoration of that dignity. Moses, then, prefigures Christ and His Church who stands up to the powers that be for the sake “of his people,” in order that Pharoah might “let them go,” i.e., release them from their bondage. In like manner the plagues upon Egypt prefigure those plagues God shall also send upon the world at the end of times, and the wonders worked by Pharoah’s magicians shall similarly be worked by the Antichrist and his disciples to stall and confuse God’s people, however, this shall ultimately be of no avail.

But returning to your original inquiry, again I advise you to read up on the 8th day, which doctrine is of the Church Fathers, and to study St Paul’s writings in regards to the new creation in Christ, as these are like links and anchors to core Christian teachings that furnish themselves towards the Christian Promised Land, i.e., Heaven, and Heaven on Earth (“Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven”).

I sometimes think of Heaven as “the Undiscovered Country,” the true “New World” that lies just beyond the horizon of our sight. We know from reports of those who have seen it and returned from there that there is indeed such a place, and like the pioneers and settlers of old, Christians believe in the promise of this place, in the hope it carries with it, and we set out to arrive there, even though the journey may be full of perils and dangers.

Pax,
Tim

Now what about the land of Israel being restored and hardened Israel being saved at Christ’s second coming to Israel that scripture speaks so much about?

 

[trdchubi]

Early Jews and Christians in the Holy Land, Palestinians?

Here is one fact, Judea (Iudaea) was the Roman name for the Land of Israel during the prime of the Roman Empire. Judea stretched along both sides of the Jordan and included, besides Judea proper, most of the coastal plain, Samaria, most of the Galilee, the Golan Heights of today and considerable land to the east of there.

The Romans called this land as a whole Iudaea (from the Greek Ioudaia). The land was mainly inhabited by Jews and was ruled by Jews. Therefore, Lord Robert Cecil, acting British foreign secretary, was right to use the name Judea for the whole land in his famous remark: “Our wish is that Arabian countries shall be for the Arabs, Armenia for the Armenians, and Judea for the Jews” (December 2, 1917).

The Roman change of name (Syria Palestina) was part of a complex of related oppressive measures of national desecration, punishment, and oppression. From the start, the name was laden with connotations of Roman hatred for Jewish rebels, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands in the Bar-Kokhba war. Later through the legionaries’ vengeful acts, the ruin of hundreds of Jewish villages and towns, the enslavement of Jewish survivors, expulsion of Jewish people from their homes and lands, etc.

The name Palestine was used and is still being used as an anti Israel slogan. This name was adopted as an official name of a Roman Province, which in its very nature anti-Jewish.

So I ask, should we call them “Palestinian” Jews or “Palestinian” Christians?

Are we, yet again, under the spell of Islamic propaganda?

 

[Dee_Katia]

The statements by Monsignor Bustros regarding Israel, saying the Jews are not the chosen people and can’t “use” Scripture to justify “occupation” is really causing me a quandary.

Fascinating as all this thread is… I’d like to point out that nobody is currently “justifying” the existence of Israel in the spot where it is now in Biblical terms except for the ultra-Orthodox right wing, which uses it to try to claim the whole of Israel and Palestine and leading some of them to live in the settlements, etc. These people are in my opinion as delusional as those that would claim that Israel should cease to exist entirely.

My problem with the Monsignor’s statement would be that it’s (seemingly - I haven’t read all his statement, I’d be happy to be corrected on this if I’m wrong) just as lop-sided, in that it apparently denies Israel the right to exist at all.

I don’t think anybody at this point in either the Israeli or Palestinian government is having this conversation. The point is not whether Israel or Palestine should exist, but how much, and where, their future territory is going to be. Denying the validity of a two-state solution (as those looking to the Bible to justify their claims generally do) is where my problem with his (and with the ultra-Orthodox too, for that matter) statement is. It’s not an either/or. It’s a “how much” question. And that you’re not going to find in the Bible, however authoritative one thinks it to be. Most reasonable individuals on both sides agree that the Jews are there, the Palestinians are there, and neither is going to suddenly pop out of existence.

Which brings me to the question, those of you who deny the right of Israel to exist, what exactly would you do with all the people living there now?