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 ...
I don’t think teenager David used hair dye as God found him by looking into his heart.
There are red-headed Jews who have always lived in the mideast.
I think we should agree to disagree on that point. I was thinking that you were aiming to use the “red-headed” bit to prove that the Celts are descended from Israelites
Levitical bloodline is paternal. The priest was restricted from marrying a divorcee, a harlot, a profaned woman, a non-Jew, etc, but must marry a virgin among Israel. The problem in Ezra's time was that Israel was intermarrying with the people of the lands and not among their own (Read Ezra 9:1-2). As for Elizabeth, I have no idea what tribe she would be from.
We either attribute inerrancy to His Word or to our hearts.
I don’t give precedence to preconceived notions about the appearance of particular Biblical characters, but have found that Scripture provides a mechanism for communicating the Word of God. So if Scripture reads David was ruddy, then I accept that in a very literal fashion.
I find that once we begin to convolute His Word with concepts from our heart, especially if we are out of fellowship, then we simply scar our thinking. It is possible to grow through Him by using our heart which has been regenerated to add onto past Bible doctrinal studies with new knowledge as provided by Him, which is why it is so very important to always confess our sins and return to Him immediately prior to any Bible study.
Nowhere is Scripture are we directed to agree to disagree, especially regarding His Word. But through faith in Him, we may allow Him to guide our spirit, our mind, and our hearts, being further sanctified by His grace, again through faith in Christ.
If one cannot accept the literal meaning of Scripture in verses first introducing David, how is one ever going to agree on more delicate issues in Scripture?
The Word of God is powerful, though, for either it grows and changes the mind and hearts of those obedient to Him, or it may harden the hearts of those rebellious to Him. It is not without effect, for it is His Word which holds all things created together and guides all history.
Islamic Bravo Sierra Revisionism bump
BTW, I generally don’t attribute much worth to the 10 lost tribe migration through the English Isles theory with the Celts being one of the lost tribe. IMHO, that is used more frequently by those who allow pagan ideas to infiltrate Scriptural doctrines in an effort to self justify their worldly systems.
That doesn’t mean there might not have been some of the Israelite tribes who may have migrated through that area, I really don’t know.
My perspective was simply accepting Scripture for its implied meaning.
I have read extrabiblical sources which allege such theories, but I also find them to attempt to promote a Covenant Theology with replaces the Israelite nation with the Church. I don’t find the natural interpretation of Scripture when one is led by the Holy Spirit to make such allusions. I’ve found dispensational theology to come closer to properly describing the Plan as provided by His Word, but again, my precedence is not with any one denomination, nor any particular theology, rather simply through faith in God, through Christ, so that God the Holy Spirit is free to grow me as He chooses by His grace.
When religionists like Hosius and historians like Mosheim and dozens of others spoke of the Baptists, they weren’t talking about an organized group or denomination. Nor were they talking about people who would in those days call THEMSELVES Baptists. “Baptist” or “Ana-Baptist” was a derogatory name used by the persecutors (like Hosius was)of these people, who baptized believing, testifying adults.
When people who had been sprinkled as infants by Romish priests, later understood the Redemption work of Christ and became genuine believers, and they were often baptized by immersion by “heretic” preachers (so condemned by the WCC), the Romish priests often labeled the baptizers as “Ana-baptists” or “Baptists.” The name was given to them in derision.
But there were Bible believing people like those men all through Eastern Europe, from the Alps to the Caucuses, and down to the Mediterranean for 1500 years when the Reformers showed up.
Because these people didn’t call THEMSELVES Baptists doesn’t mean that such a heritage didn’t exist. Of course, those KIND of churches didn’t put up signs or distribute much for literature. Often they were being hunted by the henchmen of the WCC (RCC) and were often on the move as whole congregations. Baptists don’t believe that one must call himself, or be called, a “Baptist” to be Biblical and right with God.
That there were some people who split from the Reformers (and we say Hoorah!) and identified with People of the persecuted “Baptist” and “Ana-baptist” heritage, and accepted immersion Baptism as adult believers, and formed congregations teaching the same, is true enough. That’s common knowledge. But that doesn’t prove or even intimate that there were not people like them and believing and practicing like them long prior.
The first sign on a building in England indicating the meeting place of a “Baptist” church was actually an engraving into a stone in the walls of a Philip’s Chapel (and I have forgotten the name of the town, sorry.) It read, “Philip’s Chapel, the Meeting Place of the Baptist Church.” This was NOT until the middle of the 17th Century. That only indicates that people of their doctrine and way in England, began calling THEMSELVES “Baptists” in the mid-1600s. It certainly does NOT indicate that their doctrine and ways did not exist before then.
About “splitting off”: If a man in 2008 who had been sprinkled as an infant by the WCC (RCC), in adulthood latched on to “Justification by Faith” and left the Romish church; and that man were to be baptized by immersion afterward by a Christian pastor who practices immersion on believing adults only, what would the WCC (RCC) proclaim about such an one?
And what if that same man later was called by God to preach the Gospel and began a congregation of Christians and put out a sign which read, “Such-n-Such Baptist Church”?
Somebody could claim that that man was a split off of the WCC (RCC) and that that was the beginning of his doctrine and practice, when in fact, that doctrine and practice had already existed for centruies. When you talk about some who split off from the Reformers, they were by no means the originators of “Baptistic” doctrine and practice.
And all you see, or all you have read about are some who may have split off (thank the Lord) of the Reformers, and latched on to like doctrine with the Anabaptists. What your Romish history books don’t want you to know is that people of Ana-Baptist-type doctrine existed independently for 1,500 years prior to Calvin and Luther.
Calvin and Luther also sorely persecuted the same peoples. They had learned the art of it from their former masters, the WCC (RCC). Hence the abuse and murder of those independent Christians increased for a generation or so when the “Reformation” got into full swing in Geneva.
Yeah, Sure, Right...
And anyone running around in a burka is a NUN......
This group of people may be some of the same children of God that we all are, but they sure are more than a bubble off on my 3’ level....
You really ought to learn about the Catholic Church — it’s not just the Latin rite that you think you know, it’s more catholic than that. It’s also the Western part of the larger orthodox Church — with the Orthodox, the Oriental and Assyrian Churches in the East.
ROMISH is a word not unknown to history books when describing things directly related to, or under the control of, the Vatican.
Romish rites. Religious rites as practiced under the authorization of the Vatican.
Romish priests. Religious men of orders under the authority of the Vatican and its system of doing things.
But, I think you rather knew what I was talking about.
Let me try to discern. You are heavily pushing ecumenical trends, or you are trying to deflect criticism from the Vatican itself, by including Orthodox, Oriental and Assyrian, Apostolic, etc.
Apostolic? That means they claim apostolic authority over . . . what? Certainly it doesn’t mean “like the apostles of our Lord.” There are no organized groups or movements today that bare any resemblance at all to the churches of the Apostles of our Lord. None!
Of course, the Bible says nothing about “lost” tribes of Israel. “Scattered,” yes. “Lost,” no. They were all represented on Pentecost, and James wrote to Twelve Tribes scattered.
You can read the Bible(!) and see something the WCC (RCC) ??
The WCC (RCC) is the biggest historical revisionist society on the planet. Like, “Peter was in Rome,” “Peter was the first pope,” etc. “RCC priests didn’t have people burned at the stake,”
Concur
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.