Posted on 01/03/2006 9:34:40 AM PST by Esther Ruth
"That has largely been refuted by a number of books."
Oh sheesh.
You ask for a source... and then refute a source with THAT? "a number of books?"
Ha ha ha ha.
When you follow the example of the Apostles in keeping the Torah as they did (Acts 21), and put aside bowing down before graven images in open defiance of the Second Commandment, then you can attempt to claim to be the Apostles' successors. Until then, you have no better claim (and worse than some) than any who claim to be of the Church of Jesus Christ, Yeshua HaMashiach.
I wasn't going to refute you automatically in a knee-jerk fashion. You gave a book that has no credibility, so I responded.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551228/posts
Land for Land”: Sharon’s Expert Reveals His Plan for Peace
Chiesa ^ | January 3, 2006 | Sandro Magister
Posted on 01/03/2006 1:52:27 PM CST by NYer
ROMA, January 2, 2006 – Two peoples, two lands. Israel, and Palestine. The peace plan that Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon has in mind is fostered by two practical sciences to which he has always paid great attention, as a former military leader: demographics, and geography.
And his models for Jerusalem include the agreement reached between Italy and the Vatican.
This was intimated in an important interview with the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference, “Avvenire,” by one of Sharon’s closest advisers, Sergio Della Pergola, the leading worldwide expert in Jewish demographics.
The peace plan can be summed up in the formula “land for land.” It provides for Israel’s return to boundaries mostly corresponding to those of 1967, with substantial exchanges of land to be made with an attentive eye to the Arab or Jewish populations living there.
The new political party founded by Sharon – “Kadima,” which means “Forward” – is already basing its campaign for the March 28 Israeli elections upon this slogan, “land for land.”
In the exchange – which must be negotiated with the Palestinians – Israel would cede a triangle of territory close to its present boundaries, east of Tel Aviv and Netanya, mostly inhabited by Arabs, plus a cluster of villages around Galilee, also inhabited by Arabs.
The cession would concern around a half million Arabs, one third of those living within Israel’s current boundaries.
In exchange, Israel would absorb within its future boundaries some of the areas of Cisjordan in which there are now around 60,000 Jewish settlers: Ma’ale Adumin, to the east of Jerusalem; Gush Etzion, to the south of Jerusalem along the road that leads to Hebron; and Ariel, further to the north. The remaining settlers, around 150,000 in number, would abandon the areas where they are established, which would pass to the new Palestinian state.
As for Jerusalem, the plan provides for the metropolitan territory to remain entirely under Israeli control, administratively. But sectors of the city would be entrusted to the Palestinians, both in the Old City in the area around the mosques, where the Islamic grand muftis would continue to reside, and in the eastern quarters like Abu Dis, where the new Palestinian state would have its official headquarters.
The Vatican was studied as a model because – although it is an independent state – it is administratively integrated into Italy in terms of its money, water supply, electricity, sewer system, telephone system, railroad, and security services.
There are, of course, many significant obstacles to the success of this peace plan. Gaza is in anarchy. Terrorism is always an imminent threat. Hamas, whose stated aim is the elimination of the Jewish state, has a large electoral following in both Gaza and Cisjordan. Within Israel, the right wing and the settlers are bitterly opposing Sharon’s plan. Even the Arabs residing within the boundaries of Israel in the territories that might be exchanged resist the idea of being annexed to the new Palestinian state, although they exalt the cause with their words.
In any case, to understand the deep meaning of Sharon’s peace plan – with the identity of the Israeli people at its heart – one must read the entire interview, which is reproduced below.
Professor Sergio Della Pergola, 63, was born in Italy but has lived in Israel since 1966. He is head of the division of Jewish demography and statistics at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and is the author of important studies on the Jewish population in Israel and in the diaspora.
Della Pergola is one of the leading scholars of the think tank most closely listened to by Sharon’s government: the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. Its president is Dennis Ross, an American, the former chief of staff for the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in the administration of George Bush, Sr. and Bill Clinton. He is also the author of the book “The Missing Peace,” published in 2004.
The interview was published in “Avvenire” on December 28, 2005, and was conducted by Paolo Sorbi, professor of sociology at the European University of Rome and president of the Milan chapter of the Movement for Life:
Flowering or Decline? The Future of the Jewish People
An interview with Sergio Della Pergola
Q: Professor Della Pergola, why does the Sharon government show such great attention to demographic dynamics?
A: “The prime minister came to this point in his public reflection at the Herzliya meeting in December of 2002, an annual appointment for the Israeli leading class. There is a change in his vision, which simply considers the events of recent years. So, during the 1990’s, Sharon was thinking of a great return to Israel of more than a million educated, modern European and American Jews. This did not happen. The Jews who did come were from Russia. He considered all of this, and decided in favor of a positive solution of the Palestinian conflict, on account of Israel’s diminished allure for the more modern components of Judaism in the world.”
Q: Are the meetings that the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute holds with the government working meetings?
A: “It is interesting to see a prime minister like Sharon diligently take notes on demographic figures and issues, and then, at the end of two hours of exchange, sum up for the ministers and for us consultants the different scientific reports we have submitted to him.”
Q: You were the one who elaborated the proposal of the “land for land” exchange. Can you explain it for us?
A: “Above all, the question must be linked with the positive withdrawal that has taken place in Gaza. This took place in an atmosphere that I define as an extended family. The soldiers firmly proceeded with the withdrawal from the territory, which had an overwhelmingly Palestinian population. But there is also an historical reason. The 1947 United Nations plan of partition provided for distinct boundaries, but since the Arabs rejected it and at the end of the war of 1948 the Israelis, unexpectedly, had improved their position, Israel drew a different line unilaterally. This incorporated a series of areas that were mainly inhabited by Arabs, now numbering around one million, three hundred thousand persons. There is another area that is called the Triangle. It is a zone between the cities of Netanya and Tel Aviv, near the border. So, then, there is the idea giving sovereignty over the Triangle to the future Palestinian state. This would not involve moving persons or their possessions, but simply moving the boundaries. For the current government and for Sharon, nothing is off limits anymore. This means taking into consideration the fact that the Arab populations now living in Israel are increasingly involved in the destiny of the future Palestinian state, and so one must accept their rejection of Zionism and the blue and white flag of the Jewish state, with all of its identity and history. It is likewise necessary to integrate into the state of Israel some of the Jewish settlements adjacent to Jerusalem, like Ma’ale Adumim, Gush Etzion, and a few others. These additions are the result of the war that Israel won in 1967. Some other more isolated settlements will be left alone. The boundary must be returned to the historical green line that separated Jordan from Israel in 1967. The ‘land for land’ exchange involves, altogether, 2 or perhaps 3 percent of the territory, but it concerns almost half a million Arabs, more than 35 percent of the Arabs with Israeli citizenship. This would have a profound effect on Israel’s demographic equilibrium, and make it much more compatible with the dynamics of identity that are decisive today for the future of the Jewish state.”
Q: Your hypothesis also includes a proposal on Jerusalem. What is this?
A: “The paradigm of the indivisibility of Jerusalem must be thoroughly investigated. In 1967, Israel enlarged the municipal area of Jerusalem by incorporating a territory larger than the city of Paris. This was necessary for security reasons. I myself, a university student at the time, was a witness to the bombardment of Hebrew University from the adjacent hills. But now the proposal is to create two municipalities, one Jewish and one Israeli, joined by the coordination of Greater Jerusalem, with even administrative questions of great importance being discussed and decided on jointly. The technical solutions exist, as long as the will and mutual trust are there.”
Q: “Are you planning on other meetings with the government?
A: “Certainly. Already in the first two meetings of 2004, and then in the frequent meetings of the following year, we examined the global scenario of the Israeli situation and the Jewish diaspora in the world. The mandate of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, which is a completely autonomous institution financed by both private and public funds, is based upon the conviction that what counts is the competitive summation between Israel and the diaspora. Will we have a new Jewish flowering, or will we enter into a dramatic decline? It’s all in our hands. There is a significant Jewish presence in all areas of modernity, but also a strong demographic crisis and widespread processes of assimilation. We foresee the formation of a sort of world Jewish forum with the patronage of both the Israeli government and the presidency of the republic. It would be a forum with Jewish personalities present on the international scene at the highest level, who would hold public discussions with Israeli politicians on the great issues of globalization in connection with the destinies of contemporary Judaism. Can Israel keep up this conflict with its neighbors forever? Can Israel again become attractive for the numerous Jewish groups, making up almost 90 percent of all the Jews scattered throughout the world, living in advanced democratic nations? Or will Israel be a peripheral entity with low productivity and frequent deaths in the streets from terrorist attacks? Can we become a shining light for Jews everywhere, and make a spiritual contribution to other nations?”
So says you. If you accept the above, then you must condemn St. Paul for what he did.
Simply being around for a long time or weilding temporal authority over much of Europe by no means proves that one is the Holy Universal Church: The proof of one's annointing by God is obedience to His word (Mat. 7:21ff) and exercise of His gifts of the Spirit--not just the supernatural gifts like prophecy, but the fruits of "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, [and] self-control" (Gal. 5:21-22).
By both those standards, if the Roman papacy ever had the annointing of God, it lost it a long time ago. You've done well in some of your more recent prelates, but that doesn't change centuries of simony, adultery, self-aggrandizment, and false doctrine masquerading under the Christian banner.
And that is why there was a Reformation. The Reformers didn't leave the Church, the true Church (mostly) left Rome.
Not true. In the Greek, the word for "cousins" is anepsios. The word for "brothers" is adelphos, the root word found in "Philadelphia" the "City of Brotherly Love." Guess which one the Gospel writers use.
It was not possible for Jesus to have brothers because Mary remained forever virgin.
It is impossible for Miryam to have remained forever virgin because Yeshua did indeed have brothers. Besides which, had she remained forever virgin, then she and Yoseph were in a sham marriage according to Biblical Hebraic thought (cf. Mat. 19:6).
The Hebrews saw nothing sinful or less worthy in being married and having a normal sex life--just the opposite, in fact. The whole concept of a perpetual virgin Mary is a clear-cut example of Platonic Greek thought being imposed on the Sacred Scriptures, not exegesis from the Scriptures.
And what precisely did Sha'ul (Paul) the Apostle do that deserves condemnation according to the Second Commandment?
"It is impossible for Miryam to have remained forever virgin because Yeshua did indeed have brothers. Besides which, had she remained forever virgin, then she and Yoseph were in a sham marriage according to Biblical Hebraic thought (cf. Mat. 19:6).
The Hebrews saw nothing sinful or less worthy in being married and having a normal sex life--just the opposite, in fact. The whole concept of a perpetual virgin Mary is a clear-cut example of Platonic Greek thought being imposed on the Sacred Scriptures, not exegesis from the Scriptures."
nice work. Doesn't this "Virgin" Mary stem from a mistranslation of ancient Hebrew texts...where the texts prophecied the Savior being born to a 'young woman' which got mistranslated into 'young virgin'?
My next question would be Why does Christianity need the Savior's mother to be perpetually virgin? Asking, NOT flaming. Educate me, rather than insult me!
I agree. The Christian Churches are already in apostacy.
See "The Seduction Of Christianity" and "Beyond Seduction" by Dave Hunt.
"Because every pope that is selected is the one that God wants selected, that's why they conclave, they wait for the Holy Spirit to fill them with the spirit so they can make the choice the Lord wants."
Thank you. That's what the Catholics believe.
Nope.
Why does Christianity need the Savior's mother to be perpetually virgin?
It doesn't. It needs Miryam to be a virgin at the time of Yeshua's birth for three reasons:
1) To fulfill the prophecy of Isa. 7:14But there's no reason why Mary would have to remain a virgin after His birth, and the fact that she did not is indicated by Mat. 1:24-25: "And Joseph, being roused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took his wife, and did not know her until she bore her son, the First-born. And he called His name Yeshua ('Salvation')."
2) To confirm the truth of the accounts of Yeshua's birth as given by Matthew and Luke, and
3) To sidestep the blood-curse placed on the line of Jeconiah (cf. Jer. 22:30)
Thanks for the 'Nope' link!!
Another question: How was it proven that Mary was, indeed, a virgin at the time Jesus was born? Seriously, wouldn't Joseph be the only one who could confirm that? Or is this another 'leap of faith'? Again, just asking. Based on your previous response, I'm sure you'll point me in the right direction!
Why are you still calling him Saul? He took a new name upon his baptism.
Goodness. All this hubbub over where the Church is currently headquartered (and it's not in the historical city of Rome, founded upon the seven hills of Rome). I guess you would condemn the Patriarch of Antioch, whose is the pastor of the Maronite Church, along with all of his flock as well, for recognizing the hierarchy founded by Christ Himself.
We know that there was an irregularity about Miryam's pregnancy with Yeshua. An obscure reference in the Talmud (which of course does not refer to Him by name, to avoid persecution) indicates that it was thought that He was the bastard son of a Roman soldier (sorry, I don't remember the citation off the top of my head). Likewise, in Yochanan's (John's) Gospel account, we find some Pharisees who were none too pleased with what Yeshua was saying to them responding, "We are not born of fornication; we have one father, even God" (8:41). It's not a leap to see what they were implying.
If one trusts the Gospel writers merely as men attempting to write down what they believed to be the truth (without getting into the issue of inerrancy), and if one believes in the Cross and the Resurrection, then it is not difficult to accept the virgin birth. If one doesn't, then it sounds like foolishness--which is why no Christian apologist starts with trying to prove the virgin birth; it simply does not have the secular support (nor should we expect it to) that the Resurrection does.
If you're honestly trying to study this, my advice is to start with the Crucifixion (attested to by secular historians like Tacitus) and Resurrection (which was undeniably accepted by the whole Church right from the beginning, even in Jerusalem where it would the the simplest of matters to disprove) and with those aspects of the Gospel accounts, Acts, and Epistles which can be tested against secular history (to prove their general reliability). Then, once you've estabished those, work forward from the Messianic prophecies contained in the Tanakh (aka the Old Testament) and see if they really were fulfilled.
If you're looking for some reading material, go with Lee Strobel's The Case For Christ if you want something light and Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict if you want nothing but a ton of facts and quotes in the driest arrangement possible. :^)
God bless,
Gotcha. And fire Jezebel and hire Elija! Lets do it.
This is the beginning of Israel's prophesied "Covenant with Sheol".
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.