Why, I imagine so! Do you contend that the modern day members of Tribe Judah are the only surviving Israelites that can claim Abraham's covenant? 
Posted on 05/05/2002 8:14:09 PM PDT by WaterDragon
David Northfield, reporting Saturday morning, 04/06, on KGW-TV (Portland, OR), during tape footage of the "Palestinian" demonstration on Pioneer Square in Portland, mangled the news beautifully by just being ignorant. He didn't offer a single argument to the "Palestinian" claims. When done intentionally, this is called softball interview, and means the "journalist" favors the subject's point of view. That's called bias. When combined with a lack of interest in the facts, it's sloppy work, to boot.
I doubt if Mr. Northfield knows a single thing about the subject -- which proves he belongs in the mainstream media, where "broadcast journalist" is an oxymoron.
Here's what he should have known before airing a report on the subject. Not that he would have used it all. It's what in the news business is known as background research. Media outlets, if they are to be considered credible, must find out this sort of information before dealing with a major news topic. Just sticking a microphone in somebody's face and asking them how they feel is not enough. He could have learned what you are about to read in a half an hour on the internet, but it seems that as far as he is concerned, you aren't worth ten minutes of research.
For a long time prior to the Roman occupation adjacent to the time of Christ, the residents of the area in dispute were referred to in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible (taken from the Jewish Torah) as Canaanites. They had no connection with Islam because the religion would not be created for another thirty-five centuries, give or take a few. The Romans (probably in deference ot local custom) took to calling it "Palestinia," from which we get Palestine, but it isn't in any Latin lexicon to which I have personal or internet access. Arabic is said to have a similar word, falestyn, but no dictionary of that tongue I have found includes the term. The only internet reference to it seems to be in modern documents written in the Russian language. That's a dead end, too, because Russian dictionaries I've checked don't include it, either.
My research on the broader subject indicates that before the land was called Canaan (the Promised Land of the Torah and Old Testament), the area was made up of city states with kings -- quite similar to patterns familiar to students of Athenian/Spartan Greece. Like the inhabitants of ancient Greece, classical Rome and even a great many in modern India, the people of the land to be called Canaan were polytheists. The idea of monotheism (the worship of a single god) seems to have first developed in the tribes of Iron Age Juday, which, if my information is correct, worshipped Yaweh -- the deity today called God by Christians and Allah by Moslems...(snip)
The reason why this matters is that an Arab Mr. Northfield's camera caught on tape said that "Palestinians" have a "right" to include Jerusalem in any settlement because it is their holy capitol. Jerusalem, however, was not founded by Moslems.
It was originally called Urusalim (see historical descriptive below) by the city's earliest residents, the Jebusites. Probably most of them were Semites. (With the possible exception of the lighter-skinned, blue-eyed Circassians, all Arabs are Semitic. So are Jews.) God only knows who the Jebusites prayed to. It could have been "Shalem". Maybe a god named "Jebu". It is certain that none were Moslems. When the legendary King David won the city in battle, he renamed it after himself. Sometime after that it got its current name, which is similar to the Jebusite original but in Hebrew is a word that means "city of peace". Considering its long history of warfare, it's an ironic title....(snip)
A great deal of the scholarship I am aware of has it that the Romans, in order to put it in the Jews' faces in and after AD 70, renamed the land from Judea to Palestina (in mock "honor" of the Jews' ancient and hated rivals, the Philistines). I believe that to have been the case, and it makes sense. The name stuck, so now we are stuck with the name.
The original Israelite invasion under Joshua leveled the city and exterminated its people, whether its then name was "Urusalim" or whatever it was-- it was a Canaanite (Hamitic) city.
The "Jebusites" were just a recent people, just a clan, an extended family, of mixed non-Jewish origin who moved/inwandered into the ruins of the city in the interim, till David found it worthwhile to dispossess them. Their tenure there was not only not the original one, but was post-Joshua! They had been there some 200 years at the most, when David drove them and their weak, primitive village from the site and made it the site of his capital city.
The occupation of the site dates from some 5000 years ago (3000 BC), and there was definitely a (small) city there at the dawn of history, as this passage fails to say. It also was considered holy, and its king a "priest of the Most High God" in c2150 BC when Abraham visited the area and gave tithes to its then king, Melchi-zedek "King of Righteousness."
Neither the Jebusites, nor any other Canaanites, were Semites, as this article says, but were a Hamitic people-- Canaan was a descendant not of Shem, but of Ham!
The coastal area occupied by them, including the present Gaza strip and up through present Tel-Aviv, and extending inland some 15-20 miles, was called "Pleshet" in the Bible.
This people was under constant attack by the Jews under the later judges such as Samuel, then by Saul who battled them to a standstill, then by David who decimated them, and finally by Solomon who killed off the last Philistines some 940 BC.
It is still debated what the exact ethnic origin of these people were, but they were tall, blue-eyed blond "Nordics" not speaking a Greek tongue, ...best guesses today suggest they may have been of Etruscan or Hittite origin, but that just pushes back the question, to ask "Who were the Hittites or Etruscans?" LOL.
We have their pictures, they were expert seamen, we even have snatches of their language, that is how we can know it was not (AFAIK) Greek.
Until Yasser Arafat, no one alive on the earth had been a "Pleshti", plural "Pleshtim"---for some 2900 years! In view of the fate seen for this people in Isa. 14 and in Zechariah, Joel 3, etc. it is ironic that Yasser chose to name himself and the "people" he invented out of Arabs who had FTMP recently come in to work for the Jews...after an ancient people whom the Jews had exterminated!
When the Roman general Pompey conquered Eretz Yisroel about 62 BC, he added that coastal strip to the much larger Roman province of Syria, and the little dangling strip we call "Israel and the Territories" he called "Syria Palestensis," or "Syria of the Philistines," a people still remembered for their ferocity even though they had been extinct for 900 years.
Furthermore, Mad Mo is not stated to have so ascended from Jerusalem necessarily, but from a place of worship called "Al-Aqsa" that is, the furthest-away.
Since Jerusalem is only about 600 miles from Mecca, the Arabs were well aware of many places much further away than Jerusalem, such as Rome, India, Constantinople, Egypt, Spain, China, etc.
It is only when it became politically convenient to Muslims, to claim they had some right to Eretz Yisroel, that they decided the one-night stand or journey had taken place from Jerusalem rather than someplace else!
Also to previous post, it was Pompey at the original Roman conquest of the area, that called it "Syria Palestensis."
Later Roman administrations, in view of the very great cultural and economic importance it came to have, cut "Syria Palestensis" off from the larger Syria, naming it "Judaea"=land of the Jews, and naming Herod as petty-king there, then later making it a separate imperial province with co-capitals at Caesarea and Jerusalem...
Note that this means Rome FIRST called it "S.P" and then later changed it to Judaea. The article at head of thread says the opposite. That it was first called Judaea, then changed to SP.
I would think any good college class in classical Roman or Mediterranean, or Jewish or Biblical, history would do the author of that post a lot of good.
>This people was under constant attack by the Jews under the later judges such as Samuel, then by Saul who battled them to a standstill, then by David who decimated them, and finally by Solomon who killed off the last Philistines some 940 BC.
Correct, but for one detail. Solomon and all who preceded him were not Jews. They were Israelites. All Jews (not to appear until ~500 years later, upon the Southern Kingdoms return from the Babylonian escapade) were Israelites, but only a few Israelites were Jews.
But I submit that my more inclusive definition of "Jews" as allowable anytime after the Exodus, or indeed anytime after the birth of Isaac, is...(drum roll)..
BOTH MORE WIDELY ACCEPTED AND USED BY EDUCATED SPEAKERS AND WRITERS IN AMERICA TODAY...and also (drum roll) PREFERRED BY MOST JEWS, JEWISH SCHOLARS, AND RABBIS THEMSELVES, today,..over your more restrictive definition.
Just so you don't get the idea that anything more than that mere dictionary quibble is involved, I have no problem. I know what your posts mean, and I think you know very well what mine mean.
But in my own lifetime some cultists have taken your (perhaps merely semantic) contention and run 100 or more yards the wrong way for a touchdown, and that is what I am avoiding by using the more inclusive and consistent term as widely as I can.
Remember, ALL of our English language is much newer than even the most RECENT possible date for inception of the use of the word "Jew." You say 500 BC, I say 2000 BC, English hardly goes back more than 600 yrs without requiring translation into our tongue. That makes the whole squabble seem rather childish, doesn't it?
Israel is the spirtitual center of the world.
The geographical hub also; three continents converge there: Asia Europe and Africa.
I believe that Jerusalem will eventually be the capitol of the world. And as Zechariah 12 says Jerusalem will be a cup of trembling (Look at Arafat tremble!) and a burdensome stone to all who come against it.
Araphat is like a moth around a flame he must have Jerusalem and the closer he gets the sooner he will self destruct.
"My" definiton of Jew is a simple one, it is purely historic, and based on a clear historic trail. I have no interest in cultural, political or other claims proffered for whatever reason.
>But I submit that my more inclusive definition of "Jews" as allowable anytime after the Exodus, or indeed anytime after the birth of Isaac, is...(drum roll)..
>BOTH MORE WIDELY ACCEPTED AND USED BY EDUCATED SPEAKERS AND
WRITERS IN AMERICA TODAY...and also (drum roll) PREFERRED BY MOST JEWS,
JEWISH SCHOLARS, AND RABBIS THEMSELVES, today,..over your more restrictive
definition.
I submit that definition is utterly irrelevent. What Jewish politicans desire is based on "what can I steal", not on anything historic. The attempt to pollute the word ISRAELITE by narrowing it to include only Jews is a clear attempt at name theft.
>But in my own lifetime some cultists
I do resent your implication as it is a personal attack and without foundation. However, Cult, in it's practical application simply means "anyone who does not think as I do". Does that make you a cultist?
> You say 500 BC, I say 2000 BC, English hardly goes back more than 600 yrs without requiring translation into our tongue. That makes the whole squabble seem rather childish, doesn't it?
Not at all. I am not squabbling, merely reciting history. If that offends you, I really am sorry. It is not my intention to offend.
You certainly get that feeling when standing on the temple mount, as well as on the plains of megiddo. It is fortunate that God has provided the Jews cousins, the Celts of American and Europe, to provide the massive funding which makes it all possible.
BTW, I do understand what you are referring to, and simply assure you that the dislaimer at the head of my FR PROFILE means what it says.
Why, I imagine so! Do you contend that the modern day members of Tribe Judah are the only surviving Israelites that can claim Abraham's covenant?
And Jerusalem is the center of Israel.
And the Temple Mount is the center of Jerusalem. This is how I feel about it and being Jewish. Can some Christian freepers comment on this? Thanks!
To claim an inheritance from deceased A, descendant B would first HAVE TO KNOW he WAS so descended, and that test is flunked.
I know what you mean of course, that when Elijah comes he will make these genealogies plain, and many non-Jews and anti-Semites will learn of significant Jewish bloodlines in their past, whether in antiquity, medieval ages, or modernity. Will they then claim something based upon that?
I do not know, but it is very, very, likely that the great majority of these have already historically been Christian and thus saved under another method. Those living today may have apostasised like their fellow-former-CINO's-- but they might be just as likely, if they suddenly "got religion," to "get" evangelical Christianity as Judaism, imho.
>...the others are mixed into various non-Jewish nations of the world
Yes, mostly CELTIC nations, which are Israelite, but not Jewish.
>and are not aware of their part-Judaic[ED: ???] or Abrahamic descent.
That is changing.
>To claim an inheritance from deceased A, descendant B would first HAVE TO KNOW he WAS so descended, and that test is flunked.
Now that's just plain silly. When a Will shows up long after the deceased has departed, if that Will clearly spells out the inheritors, it's just a matter of finding them. While this has taken a while, God has no statute of Limitations. The NorthernKingdomIsraelites/Lost Tribes of Israel/Celts/Americans&Europeans have been found. And their claim has been filed.
>I know what you mean of course, that when Elijah comes he will make these genealogies plain,
and many non-Jews and anti-Semites will learn of significant Jewish bloodlines
This is not about "Jewish bloodlines". Its about ISRAELITE blood lines. And you well know that some Jews are Israelites, but the vast majority of Israelites are not Jews.
>I do not know, but it is very, very, likely that the great majority of these have already historically been Christian and thus saved under another method.
Agreed. Which leads off to another topic, that is, can any Jews be saved under the legalism of Judasim?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.