The Land of Palestine had Jews in it says Philo

[Penelope]

XII. (75) Moreover Palestine and Syria too are not barren of exemplary wisdom and virtue, which countries no slight portion of that most populous nation of the Jews inhabits. There is a portion of those people called Essenes, in number something more than four thousand in my opinion, who derive their name from their piety, though not according to any accurate form of the Grecian dialect, because they are above all men devoted to the service of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of holiness and purity.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book33.html

The Works of Philo

EVERY GOOD MAN IS FREE*

He was referring to the Essenes.

 

[JoshuaZ]

What is your point? No one denies that a Roman province named Palestine existed.

 

[MJB12741]

XII. (75) Moreover Palestine and Syria too are not barren of exemplary wisdom and virtue, which countries no slight portion of that most populous nation of the Jews inhabits. There is a portion of those people called Essenes, in number something more than four thousand in my opinion, who derive their name from their piety, though not according to any accurate form of the Grecian dialect, because they are above all men devoted to the service of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of holiness and purity.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book33.html

The Works of Philo

EVERY GOOD MAN IS FREE*

He was referring to the Essenes.

OUTSTANDING POST! But of course the land called Palestine had Jews in it. The Jews were indigenous Palestinians. Not a single Muslim Palestinian among them. And who said Penelope is an imbecile?

 

[JoshuaZ]

I'm not sure that second part helps either. Of course Muslims weren't there because they didn't exist yet. But most national and religious identities around today didn't exist then either. I'm curious, if it turned out that the modern day Palestinians were all descended from Hellenized Jews would you change your mind about anything involving the legitimacy of a Palestinian state?

 

[Penelope]

XII. (75) Moreover Palestine and Syria too are not barren of exemplary wisdom and virtue, which countries no slight portion of that most populous nation of the Jews inhabits. There is a portion of those people called Essenes, in number something more than four thousand in my opinion, who derive their name from their piety, though not according to any accurate form of the Grecian dialect, because they are above all men devoted to the service of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of holiness and purity.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book33.html

The Works of Philo

EVERY GOOD MAN IS FREE*

He was referring to the Essenes.

OUTSTANDING POST! But of course the land called Palestine had Jews in it. The Jews were indigenous Palestinians. Not a single Muslim Palestinian among them. And who said Penelope is an imbecile?

The land of Palestine had Jews in it. Got ya. Never was an Israel.

 

[Kondor3]

...The Works of Philo...

The dual Kingdoms of Judah and Israel - renamed as the province of Philistina by the Roman conquerors - had Jews in it more than 1,000 years before Philo was even born.

So-called Palestine... as a self-aware and self-governing polity... never existed... not that any of that old shit really matters today.

 

[JoshuaZ]

The land of Palestine had Jews in it. Got ya. Never was an Israel.

Under what moral system do you think that the names that an area was referred to 2000 years ago magically confer anything on the moral legitimacy one way or another of a modern nation state? Also, what would you call the country that existed prior to the Roman conquest if not Israel? Also Palestine? If so, why?

 

[Penelope]

The land of Palestine had Jews in it. Got ya. Never was an Israel.

Under what moral system do you think that the names that an area was referred to 2000 years ago magically confer anything on the moral legitimacy one way or another of a modern nation state? Also, what would you call the country that existed prior to the Roman conquest if not Israel? Also Palestine? If so, why?

the Jews here say there never was a Palestine, I say there never was an Israel until 1948.

 

[Penelope]

The Phenicians and the Syrians who dwell in Palestine confess themselves that they have learnt it from the Egyptians, and the Syrians about the river Thermodon and the river Parthenios, and the Macronians, who are their neighbours, say that they have learnt it lately from the Colchians. These are the only races of men who practise circumcision, and these evidently practise it in the same manner as the Egyptians.

Herodotus Book 2: Euterpe [100] go to 104

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh2100.htm


Herodotus is from what 400is BC

 

[Kondor3]

The Phenicians and the Syrians who dwell in Palestine confess themselves that they have learnt it from the Egyptians, and the Syrians about the river Thermodon and the river Parthenios, and the Macronians, who are their neighbours, say that they have learnt it lately from the Colchians. These are the only races of men who practise circumcision, and these evidently practise it in the same manner as the Egyptians.

Herodotus Book 2: Euterpe [100] go to 104

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh2100.htm


Herodotus is from what 400is BC

Moses is from 1200 BC.

So what?

So-called Palestine has never been a self-aware, self-governing polity.

Regardless of which of a dozen more more historical labels we use to imperfectly describe the region.

In the final analysis, though - even though the Jews had it long before the Muslims - it doesn't matter one little bit who had it first...

What matters is who has it now...

And who is going to keep it...

My money is on the Jews of Israel...

So is the money of the United States...

 

[JoshuaZ]

the Jews here say there never was a Palestine, I say there never was an Israel until 1948.

So aside from the generalization to "the Jews" being at best unhelpful, it is important to recognize that when people say this they aren't talking purely an area called Palestine. What they mean is a nation-state that self-identified as the nation state of a Palestinian people. Those aren't the same thing.

 

[Penelope]

the Jews here say there never was a Palestine, I say there never was an Israel until 1948.

So aside from the generalization to "the Jews" being at best unhelpful, it is important to recognize that when people say this they aren't talking purely an area called Palestine. What they mean is a nation-state that self-identified as the nation state of a Palestinian people. Those aren't the same thing.

Gee I don't know. Apparently it was called Palestine in the 5th century BC, it was never called Israel, so for the Israelites to say there never was a Palestine nor Palestinians that is incorrect. I have even read they referred to Palestine as a land without people for a People without a land.

The fact is there were people there and they disregarded them and have been taking and stealing land from them for decades. They are most likely the same people except the Palestinians have been Islamized, whereas apart from some of the Orthodox Jews , about half the Israelites there are secular and not even from there. The Palestinians have never left there, but yet they are treated like scum.

 

[Kondor3]

People who run like rabbits and let their neighbors do their fighting for them stand a better chance of being called 'scum' than those who stand and fight.

 

[JoshuaZ]

the Jews here say there never was a Palestine, I say there never was an Israel until 1948.

So aside from the generalization to "the Jews" being at best unhelpful, it is important to recognize that when people say this they aren't talking purely an area called Palestine. What they mean is a nation-state that self-identified as the nation state of a Palestinian people. Those aren't the same thing.

Gee I don't know. Apparently it was called Palestine in the 5th century BC, it was never called Israel, so for the Israelites to say there never was a Palestine nor Palestinians that is incorrect. I have even read they referred to Palestine as a land without people for a People without a land.

The fact is there were people there and they disregarded them and have been taking and stealing land from them for decades. They are most likely the same people except the Palestinians have been Islamized, whereas apart from some of the Orthodox Jews , about half the Israelites there are secular and not even from there. The Palestinians have never left there, but yet they are treated like scum.

So the first claim is demonstrably false. The Bible repeatedly refers to the land as Israel (well the Hebrew is Eretz Yisrael which is translated literally as "The Land of Israel"). Second, you are again focusing on the *name* not what that name *stands for*. Saying it was called Palestine historically is the same problem I pointed out already: when people say there wasn't a Palestine, they don't mean there was nothing by that name, and that would in fact be a trivially false claim.

Most of your second paragraph is general conclusions and attitudes about broader narrative. It is extremely difficult in such complicated situations to change broader narrative claims, and so it is more helpful to focus on specific factual claims.

 

[montelatici]

Even if there was no "nation-state" of the Palestinian people, it really would not matter. There had never been a "nation-state" of the European Jews either. But in point of fact, depending on how you define a "nation state" the people in the area identified with Pilistu in pre-Hebrew times and subsequent iterations of the name eventually became Palaestina under the Romans. Just because the province of Palaestina was ruled by Rome, doesn't mean the people did not call themselves "Palaestino" (singular) in Latin, as the Romans did.

Furthermore, the Latin Kingdom existed for about a century. The majority of the population were the same people that were always there (many reconverted to Christianity from Islam) ruled by a combination of French and Italian "aristocrats" who were not the first born sons at home. They were also the people of Palestine.

And, the people of Palestine received provisional recognition of statehood under article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

 

[Roudy]

Even if there was no "nation-state" of the Palestinian people, it really would not matter. There had never been a "nation-state" of the European Jews either. But in point of fact, depending on how you define a "nation state" the people in the area identified with Pilistu in pre-Hebrew times and subsequent iterations of the name eventually became Palaestina under the Romans. Just because the province of Palaestina was ruled by Rome, doesn't mean the people did not call themselves "Palaestino" (singular) in Latin, as the Romans did.

Furthermore, the Latin Kingdom existed for about a century. The majority of the population were the same people that were always there (many reconverted to Christianity from Islam) ruled by a combination of French and Italian "aristocrats" who were not the first born sons at home. They were also the people of Palestine.

And, the people of Palestine received provisional recognition of statehood under article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

^^^^^same site you keep quoting states that "Palesrine" and the "Palestinian people" are a NEW PHENOMENON.

OOOOPS!

Troll.

 

[montelatici]

the Jews here say there never was a Palestine, I say there never was an Israel until 1948.

So aside from the generalization to "the Jews" being at best unhelpful, it is important to recognize that when people say this they aren't talking purely an area called Palestine. What they mean is a nation-state that self-identified as the nation state of a Palestinian people. Those aren't the same thing.

Gee I don't know. Apparently it was called Palestine in the 5th century BC, it was never called Israel, so for the Israelites to say there never was a Palestine nor Palestinians that is incorrect. I have even read they referred to Palestine as a land without people for a People without a land.

The fact is there were people there and they disregarded them and have been taking and stealing land from them for decades. They are most likely the same people except the Palestinians have been Islamized, whereas apart from some of the Orthodox Jews , about half the Israelites there are secular and not even from there. The Palestinians have never left there, but yet they are treated like scum.

So the first claim is demonstrably false. The Bible repeatedly refers to the land as Israel (well the Hebrew is Eretz Yisrael which is translated literally as "The Land of Israel"). Second, you are again focusing on the *name* not what that name *stands for*. Saying it was called Palestine historically is the same problem I pointed out already: when people say there wasn't a Palestine, they don't mean there was nothing by that name, and that would in fact be a trivially false claim.

Most of your second paragraph is general conclusions and attitudes about broader narrative. It is extremely difficult in such complicated situations to change broader narrative claims, and so it is more helpful to focus on specific factual claims.

The Old Testament is not believed to be anything but a nice fairy tale by most people in the world. Even Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe it was superseded by the new Covenant. Why do you think anyone would believe a text which is self-serving?

 

[montelatici]

Even if there was no "nation-state" of the Palestinian people, it really would not matter. There had never been a "nation-state" of the European Jews either. But in point of fact, depending on how you define a "nation state" the people in the area identified with Pilistu in pre-Hebrew times and subsequent iterations of the name eventually became Palaestina under the Romans. Just because the province of Palaestina was ruled by Rome, doesn't mean the people did not call themselves "Palaestino" (singular) in Latin, as the Romans did.

Furthermore, the Latin Kingdom existed for about a century. The majority of the population were the same people that were always there (many reconverted to Christianity from Islam) ruled by a combination of French and Italian "aristocrats" who were not the first born sons at home. They were also the people of Palestine.

And, the people of Palestine received provisional recognition of statehood under article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

^^^^^same site you keep quoting states that "Palesrine" and the "Palestinian people" are a NEW PHENOMENON.

OOOOPS!

Troll.

From 1922. Stop trolling.

"If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. "

See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922

 

[JoshuaZ]

the Jews here say there never was a Palestine, I say there never was an Israel until 1948.

So aside from the generalization to "the Jews" being at best unhelpful, it is important to recognize that when people say this they aren't talking purely an area called Palestine. What they mean is a nation-state that self-identified as the nation state of a Palestinian people. Those aren't the same thing.

Gee I don't know. Apparently it was called Palestine in the 5th century BC, it was never called Israel, so for the Israelites to say there never was a Palestine nor Palestinians that is incorrect. I have even read they referred to Palestine as a land without people for a People without a land.

The fact is there were people there and they disregarded them and have been taking and stealing land from them for decades. They are most likely the same people except the Palestinians have been Islamized, whereas apart from some of the Orthodox Jews , about half the Israelites there are secular and not even from there. The Palestinians have never left there, but yet they are treated like scum.

So the first claim is demonstrably false. The Bible repeatedly refers to the land as Israel (well the Hebrew is Eretz Yisrael which is translated literally as "The Land of Israel"). Second, you are again focusing on the *name* not what that name *stands for*. Saying it was called Palestine historically is the same problem I pointed out already: when people say there wasn't a Palestine, they don't mean there was nothing by that name, and that would in fact be a trivially false claim.

Most of your second paragraph is general conclusions and attitudes about broader narrative. It is extremely difficult in such complicated situations to change broader narrative claims, and so it is more helpful to focus on specific factual claims.

The Old Testament is not believed to be anything but a nice fairy tale by most people in the world. Even Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe it was superseded by the new Covenant. Why do you think anyone would believe a text which is self-serving?

The text has massive problems for the early parts, but it is very useful for basic history that there was a pair of monarchies and that after the end of the first exile there was a renewed kingdom in the land. Unless you think that the text was written specifically to win a series of disputes that weren't going to occur until 2000 years later, you might want to take the historical sections somewhat seriously for this purpose. Also a theological note: the Christian groups who believe that there's a "new covenant" aren't rejecting the Old Testament text at any historical level (although anyone's theology is completely irrelevant to evaluating which sections are or are not historically based or at all useful). Pretty close to no serious historian would disagree that primary narrative of the last few books is accurate in broad strokes: there was a kingdom, it got destroyed, many of the people from there left and became the first exile. They then returned around 70-100 years later to refound a new country.

 

[Roudy]

Even if there was no "nation-state" of the Palestinian people, it really would not matter. There had never been a "nation-state" of the European Jews either. But in point of fact, depending on how you define a "nation state" the people in the area identified with Pilistu in pre-Hebrew times and subsequent iterations of the name eventually became Palaestina under the Romans. Just because the province of Palaestina was ruled by Rome, doesn't mean the people did not call themselves "Palaestino" (singular) in Latin, as the Romans did.

Furthermore, the Latin Kingdom existed for about a century. The majority of the population were the same people that were always there (many reconverted to Christianity from Islam) ruled by a combination of French and Italian "aristocrats" who were not the first born sons at home. They were also the people of Palestine.

And, the people of Palestine received provisional recognition of statehood under article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

^^^^^same site you keep quoting states that "Palesrine" and the "Palestinian people" are a NEW PHENOMENON.

OOOOPS!

Troll.

From 1922. Stop trolling.

"If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration. "

See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922

See this and then eat some shi'ite, you lying troll:

Appraisal of the Arab case

A 364 of 3 September 1947

163. The Arabs of Palestine consider themselves as having a "natural" right to that country, although they have not been in possession of it as a sovereign nation.

166. Palestinian nationalism, as distinct from Arab nationalism, is itself a relatively new phenomenon, which appeared only after the division of the "Arab rectangle" by the settlement of the First World War.

175. The Peel Commission, in referring to the matter, had noted in its report that "there was a time when Arab statesmen were willing to consider giving Palestine to the Jews, provided that the rest of Arab Asia was free. That condition was not fulfilled then, but it is on the eve of fulfilment now".