The Land of Palestine had Jews in it says Philo

[Lipush]

"The land of" WHAT?

 

[Phoenall]

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

Which means nothing as it was never ratified by any body. Being a white paper it died on its feet at its first reading and was binned.

If you want to know about British Parliamentary procedure just ask and I will keep you right.

Another fail by the monte team because they refuse to take on what a "white paper" is

 

[Phoenall]

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".

You are repeating the British interpretation of the European Jew position in A364. Why would it be surprising?

Do you mean like you repeat the British interpretation of the arab muslim position in all your links from the UN. Why would that be any more surprising

 

[Phoenall]

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Out of context partial rendering of the Bible that proves nothing. A typical islamomoron trick as that is how the Koran is read and so they believe the Bible is read the same way.

 

[Phoenall]

^^^^^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".

You are repeating the British interpretation of the European Jew position in A364. Why would it be surprising?

Nope. Assessment of the Arab case at the UN. "No such thing as the Palestinians, it's a new phenomenon." Your own historical document. Ha ha ha.

anti semetic pig monte: "European Jew position".

So eat shi'ite, you lying troll.

Learn to spell antisemitic. But if true how do the claims change the fact that the Jews went to Palestine to colonize the area. I don't get what you are trying to say. If you can prove that the European Jews did not go to Palestine to settle and then steal the land from the people living there, then you would have something.

Which spelling would you like us to learn then Abdul ?

Very simple as the people living there did not own the land as it was LoN land that was given freely to the Jews of the world. This meant that the arab muslim recent arrivals were illegal immigrants and were occupying Jewish land they had no claim to. So there is your proof from International law, the arab muslims had no prior claim to the land since 1099 so they are the colonisers and the land thieves who tried to ethnically cleanse the land of all the Jews and Christians. First Saturday and then Sunday, a direct reference to the order of ethnic cleandsing by the arab muslims.

 

[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.

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?

Nazi version of Christianity by a convert to Islam. Ho ho ho.

Jesus was a Jew who practiced and preached from the Old Testament. I doubt Jesus thought of the Old Testament as a fairy tail.

According to real Christians, not scumbuckets like you, Jesus was a fulfilment of the Old Testament.

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Did you forget something?

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

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".

You are repeating the British interpretation of the European Jew position in A364. Why would it be surprising?

Nope. Assessment of the Arab case at the UN. "No such thing as the Palestinians, it's a new phenomenon." Your own historical document. Ha ha ha.

anti semetic pig monte: "European Jew position".

So eat shi'ite, you lying troll.

Learn to spell antisemitic. But if true how do the claims change the fact that the Jews went to Palestine to colonize the area. I don't get what you are trying to say. If you can prove that the European Jews did not go to Palestine to settle and then steal the land from the people living there, then you would have something.

Jews were majority in Jerusalem in late 1800's. Going back to your religious, spiritual, and cultural homeland is not colonialism. It's simply taking it back from the Muslim invaders.

No they say11 to 12 % at about WW!.

 

[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.

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 only place you will find Israel referring to a land or a man is in the OT, no where else. We must look at other writings for a clearer picture, the OT is one sided and not in favor of anyone but the Hebrews. This is the issue, it was mandated Palestine when the Zionist went there, and well it still should be.

 

[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.

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?

Nazi version of Christianity by a convert to Islam. Ho ho ho.

Jesus was a Jew who practiced and preached from the Old Testament. I doubt Jesus thought of the Old Testament as a fairy tail.

According to real Christians, not scumbuckets like you, Jesus was a fulfilment of the Old Testament.

Jews do not recognize Jesus as a "real Jew" they thought he was nuts and at best a bastard, unlearned, and probably had some oral teaching.

Besides, Jesus never wrote anything now did he??

 

[Kondor3]

All this gibbering about old paper... endless... pointless... going nowhere.

What matters is today.

And today, the day belongs to Israel, and the Jews of Israel, in this context.

Tomorrow belongs to them, as well.

The Muslim-Arabs of that region are The Past.

With political aspirations as dead as Julius Caesar.

The idiot-Neanderthal Palestinian approach to all this?

But, in the end, it's all the same.

The Jews win, the Muslims lose.

An interesting and delightful turn of events for the Jews, after 1400 years of Dhimmitude.

Today, it's the Muslims' turn in the barrel.

They don't much care for getting a taste of their own medicine.

Tough shit.

Phukk 'em.

 

[Penelope]

Fairy tales are entertaining, and self serving fairy tales can be very entertaining. In fact, we Roman Catholics reject completely any historical (literal) nuance of the Old Testament. And, we are the majority of Christians.

You pretending to speak for other Christians and Catholics now, Nazi scum?

How important is the Old Testament for Catholics Catholic Answers

How important is the Old Testament for Catholics?
Full Question
How important is the Old Testament to modern Catholics? I know that Christ fulfilled the old Law and all, but should we still feel that the Old Testament is important and viable to our faith?
Answer
The Old Testament is very important for Christians. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men." "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional," the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."
Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism). (CCC 121-123)

I thought we were talking about the land of Palestine. Many Jews or Hebrews are secular and only see it as a tradition. Really according to Jewish writings in your encly. the OT was never meant o be part of the first. Most Jews do not even see Jesus as a real Jew but a bastard. With the Protestant revolution and Martin Luther they got into the end times and begun to see Jesus everywhere in the OT. As a RC most of us do not take the Bible literally.
Also Jesus never wrote a word. We have 4 gospels to coincide with the areas of the teachings, N. E. W. and S. of the Roman Empire. Wanted to include everyone.

 

[Challenger]

All this gibbering about old paper... endless... pointless... going nowhere.

What matters is today.

And today, the day belongs to Israel, and the Jews of Israel, in this context.

Tomorrow belongs to them, as well.

The Muslim-Arabs of that region are The Past.

With political aspirations as dead as Julius Caesar.

The idiot-Neanderthal Palestinian approach to all this?

But, in the end, it's all the same.

The Jews win, the Muslims lose.

An interesting and delightful turn of events for the Jews, after 1400 years of Dhimmitude.

Today, it's the Muslims' turn in the barrel.

They don't much care for getting a taste of their own medicine.

Tough shit.

Phukk 'em.

Nice little rant, and to be fair, you are right as matters stand right now. However, you seem to miss the important point you make, events do turn, the wheel never remains in one place and I, for one, haven't heard any fat ladies singing.

 

[Roudy]

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?

Nazi version of Christianity by a convert to Islam. Ho ho ho.

Jesus was a Jew who practiced and preached from the Old Testament. I doubt Jesus thought of the Old Testament as a fairy tail.

According to real Christians, not scumbuckets like you, Jesus was a fulfilment of the Old Testament.

Jews do not recognize Jesus as a "real Jew" they thought he was nuts and at best a bastard, unlearned, and probably had some oral teaching.

Besides, Jesus never wrote anything now did he??

Don't know, ask Mohammad, Fatima. Didn't he say in the Koran, that the crucifiction was a lie and Christians should break their crosses?

Jews have no opinion of Jesus, he came thousands of years after the OT was written. Your IslamoNazi opinion is worthless.

 

[Roudy]

Fairy tales are entertaining, and self serving fairy tales can be very entertaining. In fact, we Roman Catholics reject completely any historical (literal) nuance of the Old Testament. And, we are the majority of Christians.

You pretending to speak for other Christians and Catholics now, Nazi scum?

How important is the Old Testament for Catholics Catholic Answers

How important is the Old Testament for Catholics?
Full Question
How important is the Old Testament to modern Catholics? I know that Christ fulfilled the old Law and all, but should we still feel that the Old Testament is important and viable to our faith?
Answer
The Old Testament is very important for Christians. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men." "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional," the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."
Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism). (CCC 121-123)

I thought we were talking about the land of Palestine. Many Jews or Hebrews are secular and only see it as a tradition. Really according to Jewish writings in your encly. the OT was never meant o be part of the first. Most Jews do not even see Jesus as a real Jew but a bastard. With the Protestant revolution and Martin Luther they got into the end times and begun to see Jesus everywhere in the OT. As a RC most of us do not take the Bible literally.
Also Jesus never wrote a word. We have 4 gospels to coincide with the areas of the teachings, N. E. W. and S. of the Roman Empire. Wanted to include everyone.

So now you're claiming to know what most Jews think about Jesus, eh?

Looks like your mental illness keeps getting worse, Fatima.

 

[montelatici]

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?

Nazi version of Christianity by a convert to Islam. Ho ho ho.

Jesus was a Jew who practiced and preached from the Old Testament. I doubt Jesus thought of the Old Testament as a fairy tail.

According to real Christians, not scumbuckets like you, Jesus was a fulfilment of the Old Testament.

Jews do not recognize Jesus as a "real Jew" they thought he was nuts and at best a bastard, unlearned, and probably had some oral teaching.

Besides, Jesus never wrote anything now did he??

Don't know, ask Mohammad, Fatima. Didn't he say in the Koran, that the crucifiction was a lie and Christians should break their crosses?

Jews have no opinion of Jesus, he came thousands of years after the OT was written. Your IslamoNazi opinion is worthless.

You can rely on Ruddy for facts. LOL

""Thereupon she pointed to him. They said, 'How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?' Jesus said, 'I am a servant of ALLAH. HE has given me the Book, and has made me a Prophet; 'And HE has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live; 'And HE has made me dutiful towards my mother, and has not made me arrogant and graceless; 'And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.' That was Jesus, son of Mary. This is a statement of the truth concerning which they entertain doubt."—Qur'an, Surah 19:30-35"

What does the Qur an Koran say about Isa Jesus Christ ChristianAnswers.Net

 

[montelatici]

Fairy tales are entertaining, and self serving fairy tales can be very entertaining. In fact, we Roman Catholics reject completely any historical (literal) nuance of the Old Testament. And, we are the majority of Christians.

You pretending to speak for other Christians and Catholics now, Nazi scum?

How important is the Old Testament for Catholics Catholic Answers

How important is the Old Testament for Catholics?
Full Question
How important is the Old Testament to modern Catholics? I know that Christ fulfilled the old Law and all, but should we still feel that the Old Testament is important and viable to our faith?
Answer
The Old Testament is very important for Christians. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men." "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional," the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."
Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism). (CCC 121-123)

I thought we were talking about the land of Palestine. Many Jews or Hebrews are secular and only see it as a tradition. Really according to Jewish writings in your encly. the OT was never meant o be part of the first. Most Jews do not even see Jesus as a real Jew but a bastard. With the Protestant revolution and Martin Luther they got into the end times and begun to see Jesus everywhere in the OT. As a RC most of us do not take the Bible literally.
Also Jesus never wrote a word. We have 4 gospels to coincide with the areas of the teachings, N. E. W. and S. of the Roman Empire. Wanted to include everyone.

So now you're claiming to know what most Jews think about Jesus, eh?

Looks like your mental illness keeps getting worse, Fatima.

Ruddy accusing others of having a mental illness, you can't make this stuff up.

 

[Roudy]

All this gibbering about old paper... endless... pointless... going nowhere.

What matters is today.

And today, the day belongs to Israel, and the Jews of Israel, in this context.

Tomorrow belongs to them, as well.

The Muslim-Arabs of that region are The Past.

With political aspirations as dead as Julius Caesar.

The idiot-Neanderthal Palestinian approach to all this?

But, in the end, it's all the same.

The Jews win, the Muslims lose.

An interesting and delightful turn of events for the Jews, after 1400 years of Dhimmitude.

Today, it's the Muslims' turn in the barrel.

They don't much care for getting a taste of their own medicine.

Tough shit.

Phukk 'em.

Nice little rant, and to be fair, you are right as matters stand right now. However, you seem to miss the important point you make, events do turn, the wheel never remains in one place and I, for one, haven't heard any fat ladies singing.

Is that why you continue the daily mental masturbation to the destruction of a Israel? Typical. "Mahmoud one day we Muslims will conquer the Zionist entity and throw the Jews into the sea". Ha ha ha.

 

[Penelope]

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".

You are repeating the British interpretation of the European Jew position in A364. Why would it be surprising?

Nope. Assessment of the Arab case at the UN. "No such thing as the Palestinians, it's a new phenomenon." Your own historical document. Ha ha ha.

anti semetic pig monte: "European Jew position".

So eat shi'ite, you lying troll.

Learn to spell antisemitic. But if true how do the claims change the fact that the Jews went to Palestine to colonize the area. I don't get what you are trying to say. If you can prove that the European Jews did not go to Palestine to settle and then steal the land from the people living there, then you would have something.

Jews were majority in Jerusalem in late 1800's. Going back to your religious, spiritual, and cultural homeland is not colonialism. It's simply taking it back from the Muslim invaders.

Fairy tales are entertaining, and self serving fairy tales can be very entertaining. In fact, we Roman Catholics reject completely any historical (literal) nuance of the Old Testament. And, we are the majority of Christians.

You pretending to speak for other Christians and Catholics now, Nazi scum?

How important is the Old Testament for Catholics Catholic Answers

How important is the Old Testament for Catholics?
Full Question
How important is the Old Testament to modern Catholics? I know that Christ fulfilled the old Law and all, but should we still feel that the Old Testament is important and viable to our faith?
Answer
The Old Testament is very important for Christians. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men." "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional," the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."
Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism). (CCC 121-123)

I thought we were talking about the land of Palestine. Many Jews or Hebrews are secular and only see it as a tradition. Really according to Jewish writings in your encly. the OT was never meant o be part of the first. Most Jews do not even see Jesus as a real Jew but a bastard. With the Protestant revolution and Martin Luther they got into the end times and begun to see Jesus everywhere in the OT. As a RC most of us do not take the Bible literally.
Also Jesus never wrote a word. We have 4 gospels to coincide with the areas of the teachings, N. E. W. and S. of the Roman Empire. Wanted to include everyone.

So now you're claiming to know what most Jews think about Jesus, eh?

Looks like your mental illness keeps getting worse, Fatima.

Its no secret.

 

[Roudy]

Fairy tales are entertaining, and self serving fairy tales can be very entertaining. In fact, we Roman Catholics reject completely any historical (literal) nuance of the Old Testament. And, we are the majority of Christians.

You pretending to speak for other Christians and Catholics now, Nazi scum?

How important is the Old Testament for Catholics Catholic Answers

How important is the Old Testament for Catholics?
Full Question
How important is the Old Testament to modern Catholics? I know that Christ fulfilled the old Law and all, but should we still feel that the Old Testament is important and viable to our faith?
Answer
The Old Testament is very important for Christians. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men." "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional," the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."
Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism). (CCC 121-123)

I thought we were talking about the land of Palestine. Many Jews or Hebrews are secular and only see it as a tradition. Really according to Jewish writings in your encly. the OT was never meant o be part of the first. Most Jews do not even see Jesus as a real Jew but a bastard. With the Protestant revolution and Martin Luther they got into the end times and begun to see Jesus everywhere in the OT. As a RC most of us do not take the Bible literally.
Also Jesus never wrote a word. We have 4 gospels to coincide with the areas of the teachings, N. E. W. and S. of the Roman Empire. Wanted to include everyone.

So now you're claiming to know what most Jews think about Jesus, eh?

Looks like your mental illness keeps getting worse, Fatima.

Ruddy accusing others of having a mental illness, you can't make this stuff up.

Said the mentally ill troll claiming to speak for all Catholics, looking like an escapee from an asylum.

Monte: "we Catholics consider the OT a fairy tale". Ha ha ha. I agree, you can't make this stuff up.

 

[Roudy]

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".

You are repeating the British interpretation of the European Jew position in A364. Why would it be surprising?

Nope. Assessment of the Arab case at the UN. "No such thing as the Palestinians, it's a new phenomenon." Your own historical document. Ha ha ha.

anti semetic pig monte: "European Jew position".

So eat shi'ite, you lying troll.

Learn to spell antisemitic. But if true how do the claims change the fact that the Jews went to Palestine to colonize the area. I don't get what you are trying to say. If you can prove that the European Jews did not go to Palestine to settle and then steal the land from the people living there, then you would have something.

Jews were majority in Jerusalem in late 1800's. Going back to your religious, spiritual, and cultural homeland is not colonialism. It's simply taking it back from the Muslim invaders.

Fairy tales are entertaining, and self serving fairy tales can be very entertaining. In fact, we Roman Catholics reject completely any historical (literal) nuance of the Old Testament. And, we are the majority of Christians.

You pretending to speak for other Christians and Catholics now, Nazi scum?

How important is the Old Testament for Catholics Catholic Answers

How important is the Old Testament for Catholics?
Full Question
How important is the Old Testament to modern Catholics? I know that Christ fulfilled the old Law and all, but should we still feel that the Old Testament is important and viable to our faith?
Answer
The Old Testament is very important for Christians. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men." "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional," the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."
Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism). (CCC 121-123)

I thought we were talking about the land of Palestine. Many Jews or Hebrews are secular and only see it as a tradition. Really according to Jewish writings in your encly. the OT was never meant o be part of the first. Most Jews do not even see Jesus as a real Jew but a bastard. With the Protestant revolution and Martin Luther they got into the end times and begun to see Jesus everywhere in the OT. As a RC most of us do not take the Bible literally.
Also Jesus never wrote a word. We have 4 gospels to coincide with the areas of the teachings, N. E. W. and S. of the Roman Empire. Wanted to include everyone.

So now you're claiming to know what most Jews think about Jesus, eh?

Looks like your mental illness keeps getting worse, Fatima.

Its no secret.

The garbage they preach in your mosque doesn't count, Fatima.

 

[Roudy]

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?

Nazi version of Christianity by a convert to Islam. Ho ho ho.

Jesus was a Jew who practiced and preached from the Old Testament. I doubt Jesus thought of the Old Testament as a fairy tail.

According to real Christians, not scumbuckets like you, Jesus was a fulfilment of the Old Testament.

Jews do not recognize Jesus as a "real Jew" they thought he was nuts and at best a bastard, unlearned, and probably had some oral teaching.

Besides, Jesus never wrote anything now did he??

Don't know, ask Mohammad, Fatima. Didn't he say in the Koran, that the crucifiction was a lie and Christians should break their crosses?

Jews have no opinion of Jesus, he came thousands of years after the OT was written. Your IslamoNazi opinion is worthless.

You can rely on Ruddy for facts. LOL

""Thereupon she pointed to him. They said, 'How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?' Jesus said, 'I am a servant of ALLAH. HE has given me the Book, and has made me a Prophet; 'And HE has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live; 'And HE has made me dutiful towards my mother, and has not made me arrogant and graceless; 'And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.' That was Jesus, son of Mary. This is a statement of the truth concerning which they entertain doubt."—Qur'an, Surah 19:30-35"

What does the Qur an Koran say about Isa Jesus Christ ChristianAnswers.Net

Actually numbnuts, the Koran says the Jews faked Jesus' crucifiction to save his life.

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them. 4:157a