Posted on 02/15/2008 4:58:53 AM PST by SJackson
Biblical hero Joseph 'was really a Muslim' Palestinians make astonishing claim, deny they'll help restore burned tomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building at Joseph's Tomb site after Palestinian Authority took control in 2000 .
In the wake of an attempt by Palestinians to burn down Joseph's Tomb – Judaism's third holiest site – Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction issued a statement denying it will help restore the shrine, referring to both the shrine and the biblical patriarch as "Muslim."
"Pay no attention to the rumors that we will work with Israel to restore the burial site of the holy Muslim Joseph," said the statement, issued from Nablus, the biblical city of Shechem. "We are going to guard this holy Muslim site."
Joseph's Tomb is the believed burial place of the son of Jacob who was sold by his brothers into slavery and later became viceroy of Egypt.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
The twelve tribes of Israel were:
Asher
Benjamin
Dan
Ephraim
Gad
Issachar
Judah
Manasseh
Naphtali
Reuben
Simeon
Zebulun
Joseph’s sons were each accounted a “tribe” to honor their father Joseph.
The descendants of Jacob’s son Levi became the Priesthood for Israel, thus while they were a separate tribe, they were not given land and are generally not counted as one of the twelve tribes of Israel.
Johnny-come-lately “revelations,” such as Islam and Mormonism, always feel historically inferior and attempt to build a faux history for themselves by reaching back into the past and proclaiming that such and such a figure was REALLY a [Muslim] [Mormon] [fill in the blank] all along.
I’m also very amused to see occasional proclamations by various Muslim nuts, such as Ahmadinejad, that the Muslims really “invented” this that or the other thing, while they clearly did not and barely even know how to use said invention (well, except for the lethal ones - they’re pretty good on mastering stolen weapons technology). It reminds me of the bad old days of the Soviets, who were always announcing that they had “invented” things like electricity, running water, etc.
That is an oxymoron, Muslems and Logic in the same sentence.
Genesis 16:16;17;21 describes Abraham’s first child.
Genesis 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But My covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this *set* time in the nest year.
I have no clue if Joseph’s remains are actually still in this tomb but if they are it sure would be interesting to have a DNA study done to tell us about him.
Joseph, on his death bed, instructed his sons to take his bones out of Egypt when they left and bury him wherever they went. He didn’t want to be buried in Egypt.
Yes that is true. What I do not know nor how it can be established whatever 'bones' are in that tomb can be accurately said to be those of Joseph. There is a long history of grave robbing but I am not doubting his burial spot. I do think it would be most curious and enlightening *if* they are Joseph's bones what the story his DNA would tell.
That would be very interesting.
Abraham’s son was Isaac. (and Ishael)
Isaac’s son was Jacob. (and Esau)
Jacob obtained his own wife on his own from Laban, his maternal uncle, after he fled home in fear of Esau. That is the basis of the story of how he came to be married first to Leah instead of the woman he loved, Rachel.
Therefore, wasn’t it Abraham who obtained Isaac’s wife via his servant’s trip back to his home town in Iraq?
You are correct about the Levites not getting land. You are incorrect that they are not considered a tribe in their own right. Manasseh is a half-tribe.
That’s nothing! They cdlaim Abraham and Noah was well!
There are two equally and opposite errors one can make in approaching the issue of Abraham's religion: To equate to modern Judaism, down to the current traditions, as many of the rabbis do, and to claim that it had no continuity with Judaism as we know it today, as many Christians do.
First, it has to be noted that there is no Hebrew word--indeed, no ancient word that I am aware of--for "religion" in the modern sense. The closest we come in Hebrew is the phrase, "the fear of HaShem." To the ancients, religion was more a matter of which god or gods one worshiped than the specifics of that worship. So in that sense, Abraham was certainly practicing Judaism, which is the worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The error the Christian makes is in taking too broadly the statement that Abraham was given the promise 430 years before the Law (Gal. 3:17). Paul was of course speaking strictly of the Written Torah (possibly also of the precepts of the Oral Torah). However, to suggest that there was no connection at all between the Torah given on Mt. Sinai and the torot (teachings) given to Abraham--even to suggest that the two constitute different religions!--is dispensationalism at its worst and most absurd. If the Holy One is truly the same yesterday, today, and forever, why wouldn't that eternal immutability be reflected in His commands?
Furthermore, suggesting that Abraham knew the moral commandments but not the ceremonial flies in the face of Scripture. The sabbath dates from creation (though we cannot be certain that it was celebrated before Sinai, should it seem strange to us if Abraham chose to imitate his God by likewise resting on the seventh day?), offering sacrifices goes back to at least the time of Abel, Noah knew the distinction between clean and unclean, and Abraham was given the covenant of circumcision.
And yes, salvation has always been by the Holy One's grace received by trusting Him--and that has always been Judaism's belief as well. If you don't believe me, go read the Amidah or the Avinu Malkaynu; I'm working on a series on the Standing Prayer (the Amidah) here.
On the other hand, some of my more zealous Jewish brethren overstate the matter when they claim that Abraham knew the whole Written and Oral Torahs as they were given by God through Moses. The latter is particularly ridiculous, since we can document the evolution of the Oral Torah over the last two thousand years: Just compare the Mishnah to the Gamara to the Shulkhan Aruch, for example. While certain features have remained fixed, others have not.
In fact, the rabbis of Judah HaNasi's time were reluctant to commit the Oral Torah in writing (and agreed only due to the great need) precisely because having it in an unfixed form allows for more flexibility in dealing with unanticipated situations.
Furthermore, how could Abraham have learned the Oral Torah concerning, for example, Passover, when that Feast was not given for another four centuries? Would Abraham have avoided eating the sinew of the thigh nearly a century before Jacob dislocated his wrestling with the Angel of HaShem? Is there anything to suggest that he wore tzitzit, which were given in response to one man's disobedience in keeping the Sabbath (Num. 15)? There is certainly no reason to suppose that he was given all of the specifics of the Tabernacle service, or harvest feasts and commandments that would have meant nothing to a nomadic shepherd, or administrative commands given to govern a nation of millions instead of a single extended family and their servants.
However, as I said, the Eternal One, who does not change, would hardly have given our Patriarch a Torah completely alien to the one which He later gave Moses, or a different religion. And we see in Genesis that Abraham grew into a man given to much thought and great reverence and hospitality. Therefore, I think the article is partially right when it says that Abraham was able to derive, at the least, the underlying principles of God's Torah (Teachings) from both natural law and the revelations that the Holy One gave him.
All sides need to avoid investing the Torah with anachronisms, like the argument that Hebrew refers to a language rather than a people. That is largely true now, but it was not when the Torah was written "in the language of the Hebrews." Abraham was a Hebrew, because he was a descendant from Eber, and because he "crossed over" the Euphrates at God's command. His descendants were known as Hebrews in Egypt because it happened to sound like the Egyptian word apiru, "foreigner."
Likewise, Abraham was not a descendant of Judah nor an inhabitant of Judea, so in one sense one could argue that he was not a Jew. But the fact is that ever since the time of Esther, when Mordecai, a Benjaminite living in the Persian Empire, was called a Jew, the word has had a broader meaning that is synonymous with the term Israelite. Since Abraham was the father if Israel, founding Israel's religion in the worship of the one, true God, calling him "the first Jew" is altogether appropriate.
I was kidding about the Mormon thing.
Thanks, buggs.
ping to #112
Moreover, by their account, Allah sent prophets to spell out his will for humans, and therefore all the Prophets (Moses, whom they call "Musa," etc.) were Muslims, too.
However, they say, sinful people altered, falsified, and corrupted the Scriptures, so God had to keep sending prophets, one of whom was Jesus (they call him "Issa.") However, the Christians, like the Jews, supposedly also falsified and corrupted their Scriptures, so finally Allah sent his word to Mohammad, who was the last and greatest of the Prophets. His teaching, in the Quran, cannot be corrupted because it is word-for-word exactly what Allah said. Memorized verbatim. In Arabic.
This is how they justify their continuous aggressions: because they claim all of the Holy Land belonged to them, certainly from the time of the "Muslim prophet Musa."
And ultimately, since Allah created the world for his submissive Islamic people, all non-Muslims are in effect interlopers and thieves. You are not entitled to the ground you stand on or the air you breathe, because Allah made it all for the Umma, the Muslim Community.
Archaeology shows the Muslim account of things to be hogwash. Not one book or scroll or sentence of these hypothetical "original, uncorrupted" pre-Quran Muslim scriptures exists, and physical archaeology tells an entirely different story.
Therefore the Muslims make a big priority of destroying all non-Muslim historic and archaeological artifacts.
another place to start is here with an essay based upon the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, OBM.
Yawn, what a bunch of palestianian dopes, just more hatred of Israel, some old crap
Is it not necessary to make note of who penned the Torah? Genesis of the Torah is NOT a first hand account, however, sets the stage and foundation upon which the ‘law’ is given.
It won’t be long until Islam claims the Vatican is one of its most holy sites.
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.