Looks like I lost track of the discussion a bit - the original complaint was that the textbook said Jesus was raised in Palestine (in the village of Nazareth). The first person to say anything about Jesus being Palestinian was the person complaining about that fact - saying that it implied that Jesus was "Palestinian".
Yeah, looks like I lost track also. I don't believe it was an implication. However, I will say this.......people back then didn't consider themselves "born and raised in Palestine" after they popped out of their mommies in that geographical area.
Geographic regions and national identity aren't the same thing. Christ was born in the region of Palestine, but that does not mean he is a Palestinian in the current sense and I've never claimed he was. It's similar to how Mexicans and Canadians are North Americans, but not Americans in the sense of being part of the nation that is the United States of America.
Our children are in danger of not believing “The Truth!” ?
So, have you considered the same for the koran? When it comes to this dispute Indeed it is based upon religious belief. But not "Jewish", nor even "Christian". The Palestinain rejection of a Jewih nation of Israel is religious. And all the terms used are in compliance and agreeable to that religious belief.
In the koran, and their religion, there is every reason to choose any terms that does not conform to their own elitist religious text. As for Christian relations and Arabs. Well certainly, as long as their antisemitism agrees with their religious idology. The church has historically held to replacement theology, of Israel. Why would Arabs be against that? It flows nicely with the koran.
Look at the matter without regard to religion. The article is simply skewed towards antisemitism. As if these were Israels wars. They were attacked by Arabs. So war ensued.
OK, we'll go the religion route.........and according to religion, Ishmael was the son of.........?
It is all you have here. That is who they are according to them, and who they are Historically There is no identification apart from it.
Abraham. A son distinct from his son Isaac.
The issue is based religiously, and there is no escaping this. It is simply a dispute between which son was heir of promise. The koran states Ishmael, The Hebrew scriptures state Isaac is the son of promise. Since this foundation is in the realm of "holy text" of history, there is nowhere else to go.
So....Hazelelponi claims that the Arabs are of a different race than Jesus was.
Arabs and jews are similar in Dna. But the people groups throughout history are not based upon DNA. Circumcision on the eighth day determined who was a JEW, Circumcision determined an Israeli citizenship among converts as well, no matter DNA. Some of the nations of Cannan were completly destoyed out of existence as "nations". The Philistines were such people.
We carry DNA from the noah as well. Dna is not what defind a Jew, or an Ishmealite.
Spiritual Israel is just that, NOT based on flesh (circumcision) Christs ancestry concerns the covenant of circumcison Made with Abraham, Established in Isaac, not Ishmael.
Well it bothers me as well. But a person does not need to be religious what so ever to determine issues in modern events. Religion I think is simply a way to say "evangelical conservative Christians are only on one side because of what they believe is supposed to be. It is a way of slamming evangelicals, and not speak to the injustices concerning Palestinians.
It depends on how you mean "race". Genealogical ancestry is a foundation to religious text. But in this instance it is genealogy based on his sons, not himself. Add to that, ritual and outward sign of circumcision in distinctions of covenant (in the flesh). You can't just pull up principle for same race. Gentiles became affiliated with a "tribe" upon circumcision, a Jew/Israelite. These are what determine how race is used in scripture.
It seems to me the answer is yes, but i would prefer Hazslponi to speak on that. It would appear race is determined by dna. This is not the scritural use of the idea. But Palestinans can use whatever arguments they desire. It is just an appeal to modern people for agreement, apart from the religious belief they are operating on is all.
Sarah's maid , yes.
Father of Isaac, the son through whom the promise of that particular covenant belongs. They conquered 7 nations which became Israel/ 12 son's the Patriarchs of each tribe. Abe's other sons lived in the land between the river of Egypt, to the Euphrates River as well. Israel was given a distinct land, as Son's of Isaac, then Jacob.
If lineage is determined by covenant promises no. But the over arching issue is, how do Palestinians determine this. The very same way.....They just have a different religious text is all, but the principal is identical.
Yes. would we agree to say genealogy in this regard is based upon sons of promise/ sons of covenant inheritance etc.?
Yes. If Israel had not inherited the land the same would be true as well.
I agree. I find it even more disturbing that Christians would support this today, given their own scripture.
Agreed. Remember the story of the vinyard of God. What happened in the end? He finally sends his son, the heir of that vinyard.
So were his gentile servants. You might consider the promise to Abraham himself concerns a land and promises of the next world and the next life.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be dead When this promised seed comes into effect.
