Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The holy land historically


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 09:16 PM

Bishop Saliba is correct in saying there is no biblical justification for the sufferings inflicted by zionism. Unfortunately there is justification of this in chapter 5 of the koran. Muslim palestinians should be very worried over this as their very own holy book requires their extermination.

#22 H. Smith

H. Smith

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 March 2012 - 02:11 AM

Dear S. David,

Today in a mission parish outside Harrisburg I noticed the pamphlet I mentioned in the parish's entrance area. It is Father Peter Gillquist's "The Nation of Israel in Prophecy", and looks to be a short summary of the Church's position about Israel.

I found what looks to be the text of the pamphlet online:
http://enxc.blogspot...n-prophecy.html

Kind Regards.

#23 H. Smith

H. Smith

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 March 2012 - 06:03 PM

To cite the first section in Fr. Gillquist's pamphlet:


1. The Old Covenant is over.
The covenant God made with Abraham blessed him and his descendants with the land of Canaan and set them apart as the people of God. This covenant was called "everlasting" because it would be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who reigns forever. The Book of Hebrews calls the old covenant "a shadow of the good things to come" (Hebrews 10:1), for it was a preparation for the new covenant inaugurated by the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In order for the new covenant--which offers salvation to all, Jew and Gentile alike--to take effect, the promises of the old covenant had to be fulfilled. This was done in Christ. Thus, we read that God "has made the first [covenant] obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13). Interestingly, the Book of Hebrews was written about AD 70. That same year the temple in Jerusalem, a last visible sign of the old covenant, was destroyed. Now, the people of God have in view the heavenly Jerusalem, the City of God, as reflected in the Holy Week hymn at the beginning of this booklet.



#24 Bryan J. Maloney

Bryan J. Maloney

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 24 March 2012 - 01:54 PM

Aha! Darbyism raises its foul head again. Darby and his teachings are as blasphemous as are Mohammed and his teachings.

#25 H. Smith

H. Smith

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 26 March 2012 - 06:31 PM

Aha! Darbyism raises its foul head again. Darby and his teachings are as blasphemous as are Mohammed and his teachings.

Bryan,

I don't know about that. Darbyism at least believes in the Trinity, but incorrectly claims its 19th century inventions are "orthodox Christianity." (John Nelson Darby, "Defender of the Faith," http://www.histable.com/JND.html) So I am confused which one is more incorrect. In any case, I am new to the thread: my I ask if we going too far off on a tangent if we discuss Darbyism and Islam?

#26 H. Smith

H. Smith

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:34 PM

Dimitris,

You asked:

I don't know about the Church's official position, but seeing as the Jews were around a couple thousand years before Muhammad was, they've got a decent historical claim.

Well, not the get too political, but do you with your post suggest that the ancestors of the Palestinian people have not been living in that area before Muhammad came?


Evan responded:

the emergence of a distinctly "Palestinian" cultural identity, attested to by unique artwork, literature and the like, is a late development that can be traced to the mid-1800s.

He added:

That the"Arab claim" is driven by more than the desire on the part of the "Palestinians" to occupy their ancestral homeland can be plainly discerned from the fact that they're not denied the right to occupy it now-- so long as they're willing to swear allegiance to Israel, live/work in Israel for three years, and state their intention to reside their permanently

So in other words, Evans apparently is saying that the Palestinian people's ancestors lived there as their ancestral homeland, although he doesn't say if they lived there before the Arab conquest. Instead, he is apparently saying they have a weaker claim because they only developed a unique identity in the mid-1800's, and implies they may not really have an identity, as he generally puts the term "Palestinians" in quotation marks.

In any case, I think writings from the time of the Church fathers suggest people from Palestine do have a unique cultural and regional identity, separate from, say, Egyptians or Turks. For example:

St. Epiphanius was called "the Oracle of Palestine" in the 4th century.
The Church father Eusebius wrote a book called "The Martyrs of Palestine" (http://www.newadvent...athers/2505.htm)
Cyril of Scythopolis wrote "Lives of the Monks of Palestine." The comment on the book is: "During the later fifth and early sixth centuries the most creative developments in Eastern Christian monasticism occurred not in Egypt or in Syria but in Palestine, through the work of St. Euthymus and St. Sabas." (http://www.crossroad...-palestine.html)
A 6th-7th century Aramaic manuscript in the British museum says: "Theodorus wrote to Pilate the Governor: Who was the man against whom there was a complaint before you, that he was crucified by the men of Palestine?" (http://www.orthodox....rs/herpilat.htm)

These are just a few examples of writings that apparently distinguish Palestine and its inhabitants from other important places at that time like Syria, Egypt, and Rome. Naturally, the native people living there, descended from the ancient Israelites, Canaanites, Idumeans, Philistines, etc. had a different ethnicity, vocabularly, and customs, than, say, neighboring peoples like Syrians and Phoenecians.

Kind Regards.


#27 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:47 PM

The problem is those palestinians refered by the Fathers were greek speaking roman citizens, unless it refered to the jews exclusively. Palestinians is what the early romans called the jews of that area.. Never heard of an arab palestinian claim he is the decendants of the byzantines or even that arab was prevalent in any form before the 7th century. Regardless it shows that different groups every few centuries conquers the area and this is no different.

#28 H. Smith

H. Smith

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:19 AM

Dear Kosta,

I agree with your main statement:
"different groups every few centuries conquers the area and this is no different."

See for example this animated map:

However, I am not sure that:

The problem is those palestinians refered by the Fathers were greek speaking roman citizens, unless it refered to the jews exclusively.

Naturally, inhabitants of Palestine in the Church fathers' time were generally Greek-speaking, as Greek was a common language of the eastern Roman Empire. For example, we find the Septuagint to be the version of the Old Testament apparently often quoted in the New Testament.

But I am not sure they were Roman citizens as you say. As I understand it, many of the Roman empires' provinces were to a big extent made of people- Jews and non Jews- who weren't Roman citizens. St Paul was a Roman citizen and thus he got to go to Rome to be tried, and I think his death would have been less extreme. But it sounds like the "Martyrs of Palestine" were treated badly with torture and thus I am doubtful they were all either Roman citizens or Jews exclusively, as you say.

It makes sense when you say "Palestinians is what the early romans called the jews of that area", since naturally they were native to the Roman-era province of Palestine. However, I assume they also called non-Jewish native inhabitants of Palestine "Palestinians", such as the Edomites and Canaanites. For example, there is a story of Jesus and the non-Jewish Canaanite woman, I remember.

Yes, I also don't think I ever heard the arabic language was prevalent in any form before the 7th century, as you say. It became prevalent after the Arab conquests of that time.

But I think I disagree with you when you say:

"Never heard of an arab palestinian claim he is the decendants of the byzantines."

I think it is common knowledge among the Arab-speaking Greek Orthodox of Palestine that they are descended from the Eastern Orthodox inhabitants of the Byzantine empire.
They identify themselves as Arabs in a cultural and linguistic sense, like I suppose Mizrahi Jews may identify as Arabs in a sense. But still, such Palestinian Christians understand that their Orthodoxy comes from the time Palestine was part of Byzantium. In fact, I think there is recognition from even some Arab-speaking Muslims that their roots were Orthodox as part of Byzantium before becoming Muslim after the Arab conquests.

Happy Lent.

#29 S. David

S. David

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 05:52 AM

Saying that British ruled the area does not mean that British was not occupying it, and hence they do not have the right to give it. There were people fighting the Bristish as well. I am a Greek Orthodox Christian in Palestine, why you always connect Arabs with Muslims? Arabs and Muslims are different things. Arabs have existed before Islam, and I think I read once there were old Christian writings in Arabics. All Palestinians treated the same from Israeli soldiers, regardless you are Christian or Muslims. Evan, you seem biased, and do not know enough about the conflict there. Why Jews have to have a state? why you are saying they had no where to go? Why they do not just live as normal citizens in any country?

When God gave the land to Israel there were people over there, they were our ancestors. You said, there was no Palestine as it is known there? Well, at the time of Roman Empire Italy was not known as it is today? So, Italian people do not have the right of their country?!!

Anyway, these are political arguments, and personal views. I was caring more about the Old Testament promises that the People of God will return to the Land after God exiled them. These verses are very critical, because Jews and Anglican Christians build their ideology based on these verses. Now, you and me understand that the Church is the New Israel, but that is not going to work in a biblical argument with the Jews.

Thanks Smith for the link, I will try to read what it says.

Regards

#30 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:38 AM

This area has always been a tinder box and always will be. When the Romans rebuilt Jerusalem and renamed it in 135ad it became a roman colony. Jews were driven out and were forbidden to move back. Up till the 5th century it officially was a Latin city. It evolved as exclusively Greek and it finally collapsed to the Arab invaders in the 630's. Although it did come under the Zoroastrian Persian empire of the Sassanids for a few years. The Christian descendants of that area were the Byzantine citizens, the Rum.

The Arabs are simply a product of the regime change. One regime eclipses another. There were Arab Jews as well, but they simply assimilated into the new regime change of 1948. True, Israeli Jews don't make a distinction between Arab Muslim or Christian likewise Arabs don't make a distinction between Hebrew speaking Jews and Hebrews speaking orthodox Christians. In the future there will be another regime change and a new language to adopt.

Now both sides make idiotic claims that God gave them this land. But the danger lies more so with the Palestinian Muslims, which according to chapter 5 of their Koran, the Jews are obligated by God to kill off any non-Jew that attempts to oust them. .(No, I'm not kidding read it for youselves).

Again read the history there has never been peace in this area. The early Christians refered to the time from about 40bc to about 190 ad as "Pax Romana". Roman peace, a time of tranquility from war EXCEPT for a few hiccups. That is war in Jerusalem and other Jewish uprisings. So you pick which regime, the philistines war with the Hebrews, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Sassanids, the Arabs, the Ottomons, the Jews again... Whose next?

#31 Steve Roche

Steve Roche

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:59 AM

Emperor Julian (circa 360 AD) turned against the "Galilaeans" and assisted the Jews to rebuild the temple. This project was hindered by Julian's untimely death. However, Julian then believed that if he had built the temple for the Jews then the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple would disprove the Christian claim to Israelite prophecies and also disprove the bible by contradicting the prophecies of the OT & NT. This at least was how it was perceived by an unbelieving Roman in the 4th century. He believed that the Jews had no claim to Israel or the temple mount, and if they did actually rebuild then the bible could be proven false. Hippolytus claimed that Israel would become the interest of the Antichrist, and that the antichrist would support the Jews in the end-times.

#32 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:50 AM

Steve,


You are pretty much correct but a few details need to be added. There was Odd hindrances in it's buildings. ST Cyril of Jerusalem makes clear that the 33 acres of the Temple Mount is cursed. That whatever is built on it will eventually collapse including the wailing wall. This is why Christians never built a church upon it.

Julian would have built a pagan temple, but that would have been enough to satisfy Jewish arguments against Christians who believed judgement visited Jerusalem in 70ad. When Julian died it strengthened Christian claims. The crusaders believed the Dome Rock Mosque was the new Temple of Anti-Christ.

Eventually all the mosques will collapse from the temple Mount as ST Cyril teaches. The point though is history shows that regime change is common in this area. Jerusalem was a Christian city for only 300 years before that it was a latinized roman colony rebuilt and even renamed in 135 a.d. So take your pick as to which regime you prefer, the philistines battled with the Jews. It is the palestinian muslims that must worry because it is their koran which teaches the jews inherited this land from God and are obligated to kill or exile anyone who attempts to take it. (Read ch5 of their Koran if you don't believe me). But as far as regime change there was the Babylonians, then the Persians, Then the
Greeks, then the Romans, Then the Sassanids, the Arabs, the Ottomons, Now the Jews, whose next???

There never has been nor ever will be peace in that area. Two Palestinians have taught this clearly that is Eusebius of Caesaria and Cyril of Jerusalem. The term Pax Romana was used by Christians to describe the peace that was ushered in by the Christian era. It was from the time of Augusta in 40bc to about 190 ad. This was a time of calm for the empire without wars EXCEPT... For the Roman Seige of Jerusalem and the Bar Kokba revolt and a later Jewish uprising.

#33 Steve Roche

Steve Roche

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:16 AM

That is true. I don't know of any city with a more interesting history. It is still going through it even now...

#34 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:33 AM

Dear David S,

The problem isn't with Arab Christians, but it has to do with the theology of the Koran. When the Jews were told by God to settle in Palestine, you are correct that people were already there. Unfortunately the Koran explains God punished the Jews fir 40 years in the desert because they were afraid to enter because the philistines were more powerful. The koran makes clear the punishment was because the Jews doubted God that they would conquer the natives and be victors over them. This same chapter also touches upon exile from the land, that exile is punishment for sin and murder is even appropriate to rid the land and make the exile permanent. The Jews were exiled but now there back the koran teaches the Jews will be back once they repent, there back and now the Palestinians are exiles.

The bible taught the Jews were told to settle there but not conquer, the Koran teaches the Jews are obligated to conquer and destroy and exile all who attempt to possess Palestine. Why don't the Arab Muslims tell the Palestinians this? I'll be more than happy to quote the appropriate verses from ch 5 of the Koran.

Also the biblical story of the Jews is actually irrelevant . Many secular Jews immigrated to Israel because of the economic opportunity and the ease of becoming a citizen. If the law of the right of return didn't exist most would be in the United States. When the Zionist movement began in the late 1800's they wanted the island of Cyprus as a homeland not Palestine. Jews may use the biblical story but trust ne the 25% Russians that compromise the population of Israel went there because it was easier than legally coming to New York.

As a Palestinian Christian you have to do what you've always done. Hold onto your property and businesses. Society is more mobile and as easy as it is for a Jew to move in it's just as easy for a Palestinian Christian to take an airplane and move to Chile and America. There has to be an organization that keeps in touch and encourages Palestinian Christians abroad to retain roots in Palestine. There is no easy solution.

#35 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:49 PM

The question was asked, "Why Jews have to have a state?" Three answers: one is they fought for it and succeeded and have fought numerous wars since and have been victorious in each one of those wars. To the victor goes the spoils. The second answer is history. Having had at least one half of their number destroyed by the Nazis, there is a certain sympathy for their desire for their own homeland. There are a few other such cases -- the Armenians, whose population was decimated by the Turks; and the Kurds who have been persecuted by the Iraqis and the Turks, are two cases that come to mind of peoples striving for their own homeland. The final answer is theological, and that runs the gamut, both among Jews and Christians (and presumably Muslims as well). One of the most amazing transformations in my lifetime is the complete turnaround in the attitude toward Zionism among American conservative Protestants, many of whom are millennarians. They have gone from despising Jews for having killed Christ, to saying that modern Zion is a fulfillment of prophecy as well as a sign of the end times, and therefore have become hugely supportive of Israel, with huge consequences in domestic U.S. politics. America was not terribly supportive of Israel, btw, until it was about to be over run in 1973, and President Nixon ordered an emergency airlift of military equipment that saved it.

Of course, American "Evangelicals" do not see the Orthodox "indigenous" people in and around Israel and being Christian at all!

As for Jewish theology, it runs the gamut. Modern Zionism was based on European socialism and had absolutely nothing to do with God or religion or the Temple or any of that. Its founders were being persecuted, not just as Jews, but as socialists, and they wanted a place to implement their political and economic theories. It has only been in recent years with the rising influence of Orthodox Jewry that you have anything like a religious justification for Zionism, but there are factions within Orthodoxy that say it is very untheological for Jews to be Zionists.

One of the Jewish arguments is that they have made something of the land, whereas prior to the founding of modern Israel, it was a poverty stricken hole. One of the reasons why the destruction of Israel is problematic for so many Arabs is that its economy employs a whole lot of Arabs, Christian and Muslim, who otherwise would not have employment.

With all of that said, it is my distinct impression that the Greek Orthodox in Jerusalem and Israel and in the West Bank are very much sympathetic to the Arab Muslim cause and basically anti-Israeli. It is understandable in a certain sense, but short sighted, IMHO. First of all, Orthodoxy must purge itself of anti-Jewish ideology that is supposedly grounded in the Jews' rejection of Christ. Second, just as a practical matter, Arabs, whether Muslim or Christian, are demonstrably better off under the thumb of the Israelis than they would be under the thumb of modern Muslim occupation, where the most violent and extreme and corrupt elements seem to rise to the top. Anti-Jewish rhetoric aside, Muslim nations could really care less about the welfare of their Muslim brothers in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Both Jordan and Egypt reject them as a huge problem, and have quietly worked behind the scenes with the Israelis for decades. The rich Gulf oil states could substantially aid poor Muslims in the area but refuse to do so.

It is a testimony to the insecurity and insularity of most Orthodox Christians around the world, that most people do not know that such a things as Arab Christians in Israel even exist. One can wring their hands over all of these problems, but the spiritual issues regarding living one's Christian life in the midst of all kinds of hardship is not unique to Arab Christians, and that ought to be the central focus.

#36 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 27 November 2012 - 03:47 PM

Jewish leaders against Zionism



#37 H. Smith

H. Smith

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 17 June 2014 - 06:07 AM

Saying that British ruled the area does not mean that British was not occupying it, and hence they do not have the right to give it. There were people fighting the Bristish as well. I am a Greek Orthodox Christian in Palestine, why you always connect Arabs with Muslims?

Dear S. David,

 

It is a pleasure having you here on the forum!



#38 H. Smith

H. Smith

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 17 June 2014 - 06:10 AM

This area has always been a tinder box and always will be.
Now both sides make idiotic claims that God gave them this land. But the danger lies more so with the Palestinian Muslims, which according to chapter 5 of their Koran, the Jews are obligated by God to kill off any non-Jew that attempts to oust them.

I am not sure what you mean.



#39 H. Smith

H. Smith

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 17 June 2014 - 06:23 AM

Steve,


You are pretty much correct but a few details need to be added. There was Odd hindrances in it's buildings. ST Cyril of Jerusalem makes clear that the 33 acres of the Temple Mount is cursed. That whatever is built on it will eventually collapse including the wailing wall. This is why Christians never built a church upon it.

Julian would have built a pagan temple, but that would have been enough to satisfy Jewish arguments against Christians who believed judgement visited Jerusalem in 70ad. When Julian died it strengthened Christian claims. The crusaders believed the Dome Rock Mosque was the new Temple of Anti-Christ.

Eventually all the mosques will collapse from the temple Mount as ST Cyril teaches.

Where did St Cyril say this? I am not saying that you are wrong. But there was a Byzantine (ie Orthodox) church or chapel on the Temple Mount too: http://orthodoxwiki....unt,_Jerusalem)



#40 H. Smith

H. Smith

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 17 June 2014 - 06:25 AM

Dear David S,

The problem isn't with Arab Christians, but it has to do with the theology of the Koran.

As a Palestinian Christian you have to do what you've always done. Hold onto your property and businesses. Society is more mobile and as easy as it is for a Jew to move in it's just as easy for a Palestinian Christian to take an airplane and move to Chile and America. There has to be an organization that keeps in touch and encourages Palestinian Christians abroad to retain roots in Palestine. There is no easy solution.

That's nice.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users