Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: From where did the name "palestinian" come?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Far from the madding crowd
    Posts
    842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theresej View Post
    So the basis of my question; if their prior possession thousands of years ago is a legitimate reason for the land to have been returned to the Jews by the UN, shouldn't the land of the United States be returned to the control of the Native American Indians by the same logic?

    I'm sorry, I thought we were interested in the land of Israel. But, in answer to your question, no.
    Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death , but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Son of George View Post
    Actually, the U.N. has already done this and your land may not be your land anymore!

    http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10612.doc.htm
    well yeah, I know :P Leave it to you lol

    But, all jest aside, back to my point, those who control the laws in this country are not the Native American Indians, and the logic in the argument in the OP, if applied across the board to the United States would mean the Native Americans should be in charge of the United States since they were here first.

    I'm wondering if the OP would support the United States being turned back over to the Native American Indians to govern in the same way this land in the middle east was turned over to Israel to (re)create the nation of Israel?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RossLunch View Post
    I'm sorry, I thought we were interested in the land of Israel. But, in answer to your question, no.
    Well we are, and I am asking you about the logic of the argument in your OP:
    Ownership of the territory is another controversial issue. The Palestinians claim to be the ancient owners of Palestine. Yet we see that they only took possession of the land in the wake of the Turkish campaign through that region in about the tenth century A.D. The claim made by ancient Israel precedes this claim by about 2,300 years.
    So if I understand you correctly, you are arguing, in the above statement, the fact that ancient Israel had a prior claim to this land, ie claimed this land about 2,300 years earlier, that gives them the right to the land today.

    Am I misunderstanding?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theresej View Post
    well yeah, I know :P Leave it to you lol

    But, all jest aside, back to my point, those who control the laws in this country are not the Native American Indians, and the logic in the argument in the OP, if applied across the board to the United States would mean the Native Americans should be in charge of the United States since they were here first.

    I'm wondering if the OP would support the United States being turned back over to the Native American Indians to govern in the same way this land in the middle east was turned over to Israel to (re)create the nation of Israel?
    If the indigenous people of any other land were to have 5,000 (+/-) year old documentation supported by third party documentation that the land was deeded to them by the original owner then I suspect the OP would support their claim.
    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Far from the madding crowd
    Posts
    842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theresej View Post
    Well we are, and I am asking you about the logic of the argument in your OP:
    Ownership of the territory is another controversial issue. The Palestinians claim to be the ancient owners of Palestine. Yet we see that they only took possession of the land in the wake of the Turkish campaign through that region in about the tenth century A.D. The claim made by ancient Israel precedes this claim by about 2,300 years.
    So if I understand you correctly, you are arguing, in the above statement, the fact that ancient Israel had a prior claim to this land, ie claimed this land about 2,300 years earlier, that gives them the right to the land today.

    Am I misunderstanding?

    Actually, you are not misunderstanding all of the statement. The fact that ancient Israel had a claim to this land is not the end all. But, what does make all the difference is the fact that God gave the land to them forever.
    Nothing that man says or does can supersede what God does.
    Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death , but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RossLunch View Post
    Actually, you are not misunderstanding all of the statement. The fact that ancient Israel had a claim to this land is not the end all. But, what does make all the difference is the fact that God gave the land to them forever.
    Nothing that man says or does can supersede what God does.
    So the argument that they were there first isn't really germain to the claim; the right to the land is solely based on God's promise to Abraham?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Far from the madding crowd
    Posts
    842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theresej View Post
    So the argument that they were there first isn't really germain to the claim; the right to the land is solely based on God's promise to Abraham?

    The children of Israel were not the first, but they were there before Islam existed as a religion. So, it is germane, but as I said, not the most important reason. However, as someone posted on another thread, ownership of land throughout history has been dependent on a group of people being able to take the land from the current owners and to keep it. Sometimes, a mediator distributes land ownership to settle disputes as in the case of the UN after WWII giving Canaan to Israel.
    Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death , but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    4,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theresej View Post
    Isn't the Dead Sea, mentioned by Aristotle as being in Palestine, in Israel?



    I wasn't aware that the State of Israel came into existance through the process of conquering the land . . . . I thought the UN gave it to them . .. .
    They fought to keep that land a number of times, winning each time. Surrounding countries came against them, outnumbering them 300 to 1 and in six days, they were able to not only defend the land they were "granted", but take additional land as their invaders pushed back.

    So what made troops, well equipped, armed with tanks and outnumbering their target 300 to 1 turn on their tails and run? God...that's who.


    Don’t buy from a faceless chain.
    Buy from a friend.


    Shop Avon Online! - www.LizMetcalf.com
    Liz Metcalf
    - The Tree of Liberty's Avon Lady

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Far from the madding crowd
    Posts
    842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bethshaya View Post
    They fought to keep that land a number of times, winning each time. Surrounding countries came against them, outnumbering them 300 to 1 and in six days, they were able to not only defend the land they were "granted", but take additional land as their invaders pushed back.

    So what made troops, well equipped, armed with tanks and outnumbering their target 300 to 1 turn on their tails and run? God...that's who.
    That's right. When all is said and done, we say a lot and God gets it done.
    Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death , but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    On the edge
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    Comparing Israel's possession of Israell with the possession of land in the USA is really more like comparing apples with oranges. The only commonality being that they are each, fruit.

    The acerage in the middleast that God apportioned as Israel belongs NOT to people. It belongs to HIM! As the rightful owner of that land, HE decides who lives there and who doesn't. There are tons of scriptures in JOEL alone if you want to look them up. I've pasted a few of those references in another thread.
    God himself had much to say about whose land it is, and who he intends it for. Any protest regarding the Israeli occupation is an argument against God's desires and wishes. Conversely, the Indians came from hither, thither and yon also, same as we did. They conquered territories from other tribes, while eventually the brits won out over them. But Jesus hasn't mourned over the usA wishing that like chicks they would come under his wing, like he did Israel.

    The only way for the middle east to make sense, is to see it from GOD'S pov, and not via the logic of man. Using man's logic, no nation would live anyplace on the earth because all lands have been conquered by somebody. Israel however, is different. It's God's.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •