Palestinians demand return of "their" heritage -- Dead Sea Scolls

[Shusha]

So, when the Chief Rabbinate decides it will re-build the Temple on the Mount, you will, of course, support the Jewish peoples sole and exclusive right to their Holy Place, yes?

 

[Eloy]

So, when the Chief Rabbinate decides it will re-build the Temple on the Mount, you will, of course, support the Jewish peoples sole and exclusive right to their Holy Place, yes?

Jerusalem is not a sole and exclusive place for Jews. In a strict sense, Jerusalem belongs to the three great faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In a broader sense, it is a city that belongs to everyone.

 

[rylah]

I'm sorry but I will not disregard the opinion of the Chief Rabbinate whose clear and binding teaching was delivered on 10th June 1967.

There are two very distinct responses I can make to this.

First, and most importantly, I notice you again dodged the actual question. It is transparently an avoidance. You are perfectly aware that there is only one moral response to the question. Else you would have stated your belief, either way, early on in the conversation. Your reluctance to simply say, "yeah, hey, there is only one moral response to this question" means that your answer is the immoral one and you are unable to justify your immoral response in a social setting which includes multi-ethnic and multi-religious people. Which means, of course, that your immoral response is unjustifiable. And, you are entirely correct, the Muslim insistence that ONLY they have rights to pray and worship and celebrate their faith on a site which is, at best shared and at worst, STOLEN, is immoral. The fact that they use violence to impose their immoral belief is all the more appalling and disgusting.

I am puzzled by your hostility and your determination to put words in my mouth. Everyone except trouble-makers accepts the teaching of the Chief Rabbinate.

Second, you reveal your utterly inadequate knowledge of the Jewish faith and how the Jewish people and their leaders make halakhic decisions. There is a range of thought on how to proceed now that the Jewish people once again have sovereignty on the Temple Mount, all of it halakhically based, whether on Maimondes' understanding of "And you shall build me a sanctuary" or on Rashi's understanding of "The Sanctuary, oh G-d, which your hands have established". No one disagrees that there is only a small portion of the Temple Mount upon which it is prohibited to be present, depending on one's understanding of whether the Shechinah is still present and to what degree. The question is only what to do until we determine where that space is. Given that we can be sure, in many places, where it is NOT, there is plenty of space for the Jewish people to enter the space and pray and worship. And indeed, as previously posted, Israeli law upholds the right of people to freedom of worship.

I can read English and I understand the decision of the Chief Rabbinate. At the same time, I am not and do not claim to be an expert on Jewish dogma.

Keep in mind as well, that all decisions having to do with the presence of the Jewish people on the Mount are political decisions as well as religious ones. The Jewish people are not free to make decisions based solely on religious faith. They are forced to deal with the hissy fits of an overwhelming number of Muslims who are willing to both die and murder people (read: Jews) to enforce their immoral belief.

For the sake of peaceful coexistence, I believe it is best to maintain the status quo on the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade.

Jews who want to pray at their holiest site, while others are cursing, shouting and spitting at them are the trouble makers???

Not those who score goals on the mount, systematically destroy archeology at site, turn their mosque into an ammunition storage and throw stones at the people praying at the wailing wall?

If THIS is "peaceful coexistence", I guess your version of peace is by submission like the word "Salam" means in Arabic (the opposite of Hebrew "Shalom" which means wholeness, perfection).

 

[Eloy]

I'm sorry but I will not disregard the opinion of the Chief Rabbinate whose clear and binding teaching was delivered on 10th June 1967.

There are two very distinct responses I can make to this.

First, and most importantly, I notice you again dodged the actual question. It is transparently an avoidance. You are perfectly aware that there is only one moral response to the question. Else you would have stated your belief, either way, early on in the conversation. Your reluctance to simply say, "yeah, hey, there is only one moral response to this question" means that your answer is the immoral one and you are unable to justify your immoral response in a social setting which includes multi-ethnic and multi-religious people. Which means, of course, that your immoral response is unjustifiable. And, you are entirely correct, the Muslim insistence that ONLY they have rights to pray and worship and celebrate their faith on a site which is, at best shared and at worst, STOLEN, is immoral. The fact that they use violence to impose their immoral belief is all the more appalling and disgusting.

I am puzzled by your hostility and your determination to put words in my mouth. Everyone except trouble-makers accepts the teaching of the Chief Rabbinate.

Second, you reveal your utterly inadequate knowledge of the Jewish faith and how the Jewish people and their leaders make halakhic decisions. There is a range of thought on how to proceed now that the Jewish people once again have sovereignty on the Temple Mount, all of it halakhically based, whether on Maimondes' understanding of "And you shall build me a sanctuary" or on Rashi's understanding of "The Sanctuary, oh G-d, which your hands have established". No one disagrees that there is only a small portion of the Temple Mount upon which it is prohibited to be present, depending on one's understanding of whether the Shechinah is still present and to what degree. The question is only what to do until we determine where that space is. Given that we can be sure, in many places, where it is NOT, there is plenty of space for the Jewish people to enter the space and pray and worship. And indeed, as previously posted, Israeli law upholds the right of people to freedom of worship.

I can read English and I understand the decision of the Chief Rabbinate. At the same time, I am not and do not claim to be an expert on Jewish dogma.

Keep in mind as well, that all decisions having to do with the presence of the Jewish people on the Mount are political decisions as well as religious ones. The Jewish people are not free to make decisions based solely on religious faith. They are forced to deal with the hissy fits of an overwhelming number of Muslims who are willing to both die and murder people (read: Jews) to enforce their immoral belief.

For the sake of peaceful coexistence, I believe it is best to maintain the status quo on the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade.

Jews who want to pray at their holiest site, while others are cursing, shouting and spitting at them are the trouble makers???

Not those who score goals on the mount, systematically destroy archeology at site, turn their mosque into an ammunition storage and throw stones at the people praying at the wailing wall?

If THIS is "peaceful coexistence", I guess your version of peace is by submission like the word "Salam" means in Arabic (the opposite of Hebrew "Shalom" which means wholeness, perfection).

I know about Palestinian children being killed by the Israeli Defense Force when they play football but that is another topic.

 

[rylah]

So, when the Chief Rabbinate decides it will re-build the Temple on the Mount, you will, of course, support the Jewish peoples sole and exclusive right to their Holy Place, yes?

Jerusalem is not a sole and exclusive place for Jews. In a strict sense, Jerusalem belongs to the three great faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In a broader sense, it is a city that belongs to everyone.

And both christians as well as muslims have it plainly stated in their writings that Jews will gather again in zion , it's their land plain and simple.

 

[Hollie]

I'm sorry but I will not disregard the opinion of the Chief Rabbinate whose clear and binding teaching was delivered on 10th June 1967.

There are two very distinct responses I can make to this.

First, and most importantly, I notice you again dodged the actual question. It is transparently an avoidance. You are perfectly aware that there is only one moral response to the question. Else you would have stated your belief, either way, early on in the conversation. Your reluctance to simply say, "yeah, hey, there is only one moral response to this question" means that your answer is the immoral one and you are unable to justify your immoral response in a social setting which includes multi-ethnic and multi-religious people. Which means, of course, that your immoral response is unjustifiable. And, you are entirely correct, the Muslim insistence that ONLY they have rights to pray and worship and celebrate their faith on a site which is, at best shared and at worst, STOLEN, is immoral. The fact that they use violence to impose their immoral belief is all the more appalling and disgusting.

I am puzzled by your hostility and your determination to put words in my mouth. Everyone except trouble-makers accepts the teaching of the Chief Rabbinate.

Second, you reveal your utterly inadequate knowledge of the Jewish faith and how the Jewish people and their leaders make halakhic decisions. There is a range of thought on how to proceed now that the Jewish people once again have sovereignty on the Temple Mount, all of it halakhically based, whether on Maimondes' understanding of "And you shall build me a sanctuary" or on Rashi's understanding of "The Sanctuary, oh G-d, which your hands have established". No one disagrees that there is only a small portion of the Temple Mount upon which it is prohibited to be present, depending on one's understanding of whether the Shechinah is still present and to what degree. The question is only what to do until we determine where that space is. Given that we can be sure, in many places, where it is NOT, there is plenty of space for the Jewish people to enter the space and pray and worship. And indeed, as previously posted, Israeli law upholds the right of people to freedom of worship.

I can read English and I understand the decision of the Chief Rabbinate. At the same time, I am not and do not claim to be an expert on Jewish dogma.

Keep in mind as well, that all decisions having to do with the presence of the Jewish people on the Mount are political decisions as well as religious ones. The Jewish people are not free to make decisions based solely on religious faith. They are forced to deal with the hissy fits of an overwhelming number of Muslims who are willing to both die and murder people (read: Jews) to enforce their immoral belief.

For the sake of peaceful coexistence, I believe it is best to maintain the status quo on the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade.

Jews who want to pray at their holiest site, while others are cursing, shouting and spitting at them are the trouble makers???

Not those who score goals on the mount, systematically destroy archeology at site, turn their mosque into an ammunition storage and throw stones at the people praying at the wailing wall?

If THIS is "peaceful coexistence", I guess your version of peace is by submission like the word "Salam" means in Arabic (the opposite of Hebrew "Shalom" which means wholeness, perfection).

I know about Palestinian children being killed by the Israeli Defense Force when they play football but that is another topic.

Ah, yes. Those Pal'istanian children. They are cheap currency for propagandists.

 

[rylah]

I'm sorry but I will not disregard the opinion of the Chief Rabbinate whose clear and binding teaching was delivered on 10th June 1967.

There are two very distinct responses I can make to this.

First, and most importantly, I notice you again dodged the actual question. It is transparently an avoidance. You are perfectly aware that there is only one moral response to the question. Else you would have stated your belief, either way, early on in the conversation. Your reluctance to simply say, "yeah, hey, there is only one moral response to this question" means that your answer is the immoral one and you are unable to justify your immoral response in a social setting which includes multi-ethnic and multi-religious people. Which means, of course, that your immoral response is unjustifiable. And, you are entirely correct, the Muslim insistence that ONLY they have rights to pray and worship and celebrate their faith on a site which is, at best shared and at worst, STOLEN, is immoral. The fact that they use violence to impose their immoral belief is all the more appalling and disgusting.

I am puzzled by your hostility and your determination to put words in my mouth. Everyone except trouble-makers accepts the teaching of the Chief Rabbinate.

Second, you reveal your utterly inadequate knowledge of the Jewish faith and how the Jewish people and their leaders make halakhic decisions. There is a range of thought on how to proceed now that the Jewish people once again have sovereignty on the Temple Mount, all of it halakhically based, whether on Maimondes' understanding of "And you shall build me a sanctuary" or on Rashi's understanding of "The Sanctuary, oh G-d, which your hands have established". No one disagrees that there is only a small portion of the Temple Mount upon which it is prohibited to be present, depending on one's understanding of whether the Shechinah is still present and to what degree. The question is only what to do until we determine where that space is. Given that we can be sure, in many places, where it is NOT, there is plenty of space for the Jewish people to enter the space and pray and worship. And indeed, as previously posted, Israeli law upholds the right of people to freedom of worship.

I can read English and I understand the decision of the Chief Rabbinate. At the same time, I am not and do not claim to be an expert on Jewish dogma.

Keep in mind as well, that all decisions having to do with the presence of the Jewish people on the Mount are political decisions as well as religious ones. The Jewish people are not free to make decisions based solely on religious faith. They are forced to deal with the hissy fits of an overwhelming number of Muslims who are willing to both die and murder people (read: Jews) to enforce their immoral belief.

For the sake of peaceful coexistence, I believe it is best to maintain the status quo on the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade.

Jews who want to pray at their holiest site, while others are cursing, shouting and spitting at them are the trouble makers???

Not those who score goals on the mount, systematically destroy archeology at site, turn their mosque into an ammunition storage and throw stones at the people praying at the wailing wall?

If THIS is "peaceful coexistence", I guess your version of peace is by submission like the word "Salam" means in Arabic (the opposite of Hebrew "Shalom" which means wholeness, perfection).

I know about Palestinian children being killed by the Israeli Defense Force when they play football but that is another topic.

You forgot to clarify in the beginning "I only want to know..."
So do you want to know the whole picture, or just find more ways to steal the Jewish heritage? You know like they did with christianity and islam invention.

 

[Eloy]

So, when the Chief Rabbinate decides it will re-build the Temple on the Mount, you will, of course, support the Jewish peoples sole and exclusive right to their Holy Place, yes?

Jerusalem is not a sole and exclusive place for Jews. In a strict sense, Jerusalem belongs to the three great faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In a broader sense, it is a city that belongs to everyone.

And both christians as well as muslims have it plainly stated in their writings that Jews will gather again in zion , it's their land plain and simple.

I never heard of such a thing.

 

[rylah]

So, when the Chief Rabbinate decides it will re-build the Temple on the Mount, you will, of course, support the Jewish peoples sole and exclusive right to their Holy Place, yes?

Jerusalem is not a sole and exclusive place for Jews. In a strict sense, Jerusalem belongs to the three great faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In a broader sense, it is a city that belongs to everyone.

And both christians as well as muslims have it plainly stated in their writings that Jews will gather again in zion , it's their land plain and simple.

I never heard of such a thing.

Here just a few examples:

Isaiah 11:11-12
Isaiah 66:7-8
Ezekiel 37:21-22
Zechariah 8:4-8
Ezekiel 36:34-35
Sura 5:21
Sura 17:104
sura 2:40
sura 2:47
sura 2:83

 

[Eloy]

So, when the Chief Rabbinate decides it will re-build the Temple on the Mount, you will, of course, support the Jewish peoples sole and exclusive right to their Holy Place, yes?

Jerusalem is not a sole and exclusive place for Jews. In a strict sense, Jerusalem belongs to the three great faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In a broader sense, it is a city that belongs to everyone.

And both christians as well as muslims have it plainly stated in their writings that Jews will gather again in zion , it's their land plain and simple.

I never heard of such a thing.

Here just a few examples:

Isaiah 11:11-12
Isaiah 66:7-8
Ezekiel 37:21-22
Zechariah 8:4-8
Ezekiel 36:34-35
Sura 5:21
Sura 17:104
sura 2:40
sura 2:47
sura 2:83

None of this is from the New Testament.

 

[rylah]

So, when the Chief Rabbinate decides it will re-build the Temple on the Mount, you will, of course, support the Jewish peoples sole and exclusive right to their Holy Place, yes?

Jerusalem is not a sole and exclusive place for Jews. In a strict sense, Jerusalem belongs to the three great faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In a broader sense, it is a city that belongs to everyone.

And both christians as well as muslims have it plainly stated in their writings that Jews will gather again in zion , it's their land plain and simple.

I never heard of such a thing.

Here just a few examples:

Isaiah 11:11-12
Isaiah 66:7-8
Ezekiel 37:21-22
Zechariah 8:4-8
Ezekiel 36:34-35
Sura 5:21
Sura 17:104
sura 2:40
sura 2:47
sura 2:83

None of this is from the New Testament.

If you weren't biased you could find those too, easily, but it just shows more the "I only want to know about" part about you.

Wanna play trivia- fine:
Acts 1:6-8
Matthew 5:17-18

 

[Hollie]

So, when the Chief Rabbinate decides it will re-build the Temple on the Mount, you will, of course, support the Jewish peoples sole and exclusive right to their Holy Place, yes?

Jerusalem is not a sole and exclusive place for Jews. In a strict sense, Jerusalem belongs to the three great faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In a broader sense, it is a city that belongs to everyone.

And both christians as well as muslims have it plainly stated in their writings that Jews will gather again in zion , it's their land plain and simple.

I never heard of such a thing.

Here just a few examples:

Isaiah 11:11-12
Isaiah 66:7-8
Ezekiel 37:21-22
Zechariah 8:4-8
Ezekiel 36:34-35
Sura 5:21
Sura 17:104
sura 2:40
sura 2:47
sura 2:83

None of this is from the New Testament.

Ah. I get it. You were making a joke.

 

[rylah]

So someone who actually knows less than a school child about the cultures being discussed, argues that the Jewish writings should be transferred to muslims...

1. A song, a psalm by Asaph.
2. O God, do not be silent; do not be quiet and do not be still, O God.
3. For behold, Your enemies are in uproar, and those who hate You have raised their head.
4. They plot deviously against Your nation, and conspire against those sheltered by You.
5. They say, "Come, let us sever them from nationhood, and the name of Israel will be remembered no more.”
6. For they conspire with a unanimous heart, they made a covenant against You...
13. who said, "Let us inherit the dwellings of God for ourselves.”

 

[jillian]

Yes, you read that right -- the Arab Palestinians are going to make a formal request to UNESCO to have "their" cultural heritage, the Dead Sea Scrolls, returned to them.

The audacity of it is shocking.

Next they'll be asking for their Talmud back.

their "heritage" is in jordan. but jordan doesn't want them either

 

[Eloy]

Jerusalem is not a sole and exclusive place for Jews. In a strict sense, Jerusalem belongs to the three great faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In a broader sense, it is a city that belongs to everyone.

And both christians as well as muslims have it plainly stated in their writings that Jews will gather again in zion , it's their land plain and simple.

I never heard of such a thing.

Here just a few examples:

Isaiah 11:11-12
Isaiah 66:7-8
Ezekiel 37:21-22
Zechariah 8:4-8
Ezekiel 36:34-35
Sura 5:21
Sura 17:104
sura 2:40
sura 2:47
sura 2:83

None of this is from the New Testament.

If you weren't biased you could find those too, easily, but it just shows more the "I only want to know about" part about you.

Wanna play trivia- fine:
Acts 1:6-8
Matthew 5:17-18

I am no expert on Biblical exegesis but I will have a go.
Acts 1:6-8 This appears to be a foretelling by Joshua Ben Joseph that the Kingdom of Israel will be restored when the Holy Spirit will come upon His followers and they in turn will witness about Him throughout all of Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria. I suppose Christians believe this has already happened and understand the coming upon them of the Holy Spirit to mean the event of Pentecost followed by preaching that begins in Jerusalem and then spreads just as the Church has done. The "restoration of the Kingdom of Israel" is therefore to be taken to mean the Christian Church.
Matthew 5:17-18 This says all the Jewish Law is fulfilled in Him. This has little bearing on the topic of this thread.

 

[rhodescholar]

Yes, you read that right -- the Arab Palestinians are going to make a formal request to UNESCO to have "their" cultural heritage, the Dead Sea Scrolls, returned to them.

The audacity of it is shocking.

Next they'll be asking for their Talmud back.

When you have no history, cultural identity, or legitimacy - you are forced to steal that from someone else. They are not even a real people, they were conjured in a KGB lab.

 

[Eloy]

Yes, you read that right -- the Arab Palestinians are going to make a formal request to UNESCO to have "their" cultural heritage, the Dead Sea Scrolls, returned to them.

The audacity of it is shocking.

Next they'll be asking for their Talmud back.

When you have no history, cultural identity, or legitimacy - you are forced to steal that from someone else. They are not even a real people, they were conjured in a KGB lab.

Palestinians are recognized by everyone except the Israelis who wish they would disappear.

 

[rylah]

And both christians as well as muslims have it plainly stated in their writings that Jews will gather again in zion , it's their land plain and simple.

I never heard of such a thing.

Here just a few examples:

Isaiah 11:11-12
Isaiah 66:7-8
Ezekiel 37:21-22
Zechariah 8:4-8
Ezekiel 36:34-35
Sura 5:21
Sura 17:104
sura 2:40
sura 2:47
sura 2:83

None of this is from the New Testament.

If you weren't biased you could find those too, easily, but it just shows more the "I only want to know about" part about you.

Wanna play trivia- fine:
Acts 1:6-8
Matthew 5:17-18

I am no expert on Biblical exegesis but I will have a go.
Acts 1:6-8 This appears to be a foretelling by Joshua Ben Joseph that the Kingdom of Israel will be restored when the Holy Spirit will come upon His followers and they in turn will witness about Him throughout all of Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria. I suppose Christians believe this has already happened and understand the coming upon them of the Holy Spirit to mean the event of Pentecost followed by preaching that begins in Jerusalem and then spreads just as the Church has done. The "restoration of the Kingdom of Israel" is therefore to be taken to mean the Christian Church.
Matthew 5:17-18 This says all the Jewish Law is fulfilled in Him. This has little bearing on the topic of this thread.

So are you trying to argue that the new testament nullified all the promises and covenants given to the Jews, in the eyes of the christians?

Did G-d first promise the land to Abraham,then Isaac, then Jacob (Israel), then Moses, then Joshua, then Isaiah, then Jeremiah, Ezekiel and many others...and suddenly changed his mind, broke his promise or worse LIED?


Anyway you go great length to avoid answering simple questions...

 

[Shusha]

Jerusalem is not a sole and exclusive place for Jews.

Really? Why not?

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha, et al,

Somethings are meant, within the human fabric of belief, to be shared.

Jerusalem is not a sole and exclusive place for Jews.

Really? Why not?

(COMMENT)

As you all know, the absolute common thread between the believers in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is that they all worship the very same Devine Supreme Being (DSB).

In the great leap from polytheism to monotheism gave much of the world cultures these three man-made and structured systems of rituals, practices and spiritual beliefs that we call today, a religion. The entire Temple Mount-/-Haram esh-Sharif is a place dedicated to the worship of the God of Abraham (The Supreme Being).

The dispute between the religious constructs is not divinely inspired; but is a political outcome based on the man-made interpretations. The DCB, it it is actually the creator of all that can be surveyed through Devine energy, is simplistically eternal perfection; as opposed to any of the three great religions which are anything but simple. A DSB with the infinite knowledge, unlimited power and energy, and especially holding the characteristic of omnipresence, does not need such a location as the Temple Mount-/-Haram esh-Sharif. That is a human convenience. The (all loving) DSB is just as accessible from my basement, my defensive position in Vietnam (many a time I've heard people speak to the DSB under fire), and even the Presidential Palace in Baghdad.

IF the DSB is the very same, and each of the conflicting parties hold a belief and reverence for the very same DSB, THEN what sense does it make to suggest that the site is exclusive to any worshiper?

It is a misinterpretation --- and maybe a bit of arrogance --- that one side or the other would claim exclusive rights of worship on this sacred ground.

MostRespectfully,
R