Doug Shaver

Maybe. Maybe not. But you offer no evidence to the contrary.

That does not contradict what I said.

I'm sure there is, and it just could have something to do with the character of the God they all worship -- the God of Abraham.

premjan

For an old phenomenon.

semiopen

The Hasmonean, John Hyrcanus apparently had forced conversions before Christianity and Islam existed. Herod the Great's father, Antipater the Idumaean (Edomite) was a convert. The reports of forced circumcision are probably wrong since circumcision was common in the area.

True, the Hasmoneans were something of an anomaly since they actually were the only Jewish dynasty to actually control a good portion of Palestine, albeit briefly. Even here though, they were not truly independent.

I didn't notice any comments here about Ishmael, Abraham's son, who was supposedly the patriarch of the Arabs. Granted he is probably about as historical as Abraham, but he is worth mentioning. I thought a son was technically a biological connection. Genesis notes that Abraham's biological relationship to Isaac is a bit questionable, as Sarah was entertaining Avimelekh about nine months before Isaac's birth.

From Avi:

IAJ unwittingly posted a similar link recently. The Palestinians generally appear to be Jews who remained in Palestine after the Jews defeated the Romans... at least IAJ says we won.

DNA is tricky and a lot of the stuff on the net is commercialized and slanted.

is an odd remark, here we have -

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html

This discusses the various population mixtures that define present day Jews.

I think the key message is that there is no such thing as ethnic purity. IAJs views are not only wrong but very close to racist.

steve_bnk

Islam believes Mohammed was the last in the line of Abrahamic prophets with JC being next to last. As I remember it the Koran says the 'people of the book' no longer reprsented the true Abrahamic faith, hence Mohammed as an Abrahamic prophet.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims all pray to the same god. It isn't that odd, Europoeans fought ech other for centuries each with god on their side.

IamJoseph

Mitochondrial DNA studies



This is contrived nonsense. It will be more impressive if a shred of historical evidence was presented instead. The term Palestinians for Muslim Arabs came with Arafat in the 60's. Instead of DNA twisted nonesense, why not show an Islamic Palestinian flag, newspaper, independence day, national anthem, a coin or relic spewed from the grounds - anything at all before Arafat? If the so called Pals have always been here, never exiled like the Jews - what's the problem here?

Same jargon. The Arabic writings came in 400 CE, after Christianity emerged - that is why Abraham is spelled with a Latin 'B' instead of the original Hebrew 'V' [Ibrahim]; and the Quran depictions of Jesus has been overturned exactly how it is done with the Hebrew bible - Mohammed is made transcendent - unilaterally, suddenly and with no thread of history as evidence.

Wow! Judea never existed, the temple is a myth - is that history!? Maybe Rome went to war with the Palestinians?

No sir. The term Philistines has nothing to do with the Arabs. Herodotus was a greek and kin of the Philistines from the Agean region, who were not semetic peoples - he was NOT talking about Arabs! The name Palestine was applied upon Judea - the Jewish homeland, by Rome, as a reference to the ancient enemies of the Jews. In Rome's war, 200,000 pre-islamic Arabs were made paid mercenaries, and who were in the front rows destroying the mythical Jewish temple. There's no such thing as quoting a stray name with a vacuum for centuries either side of that date: where are the Palestinian kings, cities, books, wars.....?

Jews have never stolen anyone's lands in all their 4000 year history. The name 'west bank' emerged 50 years ago - its previous, historical name was Samaria; Gaza, Hebron; Bethehem are 100% Hebrew names and cities.

IamJoseph

Totally false. Better, Islam is one of the most recent religions, and not an original one either. There is Bahai and Scientology which came after it. The pre-Islamic Arabs at no time followed the beliefs of Abraham, Moses or Christianity.

They never followed Jesus for 6 centuries, and only listed him as a prohet when Islam emerged. This was done in the assumption all Christians would follow Islam, as was done with trying to impress the Jews by facing Jerusalem when praying - when this was not accepted, an about face to Mecca bacame the practice. Islam says Jesus was not crucified but lived a ripe old age in Egypt and had a large family. This should be easy to prove - even easier than proving Muslim Arabs are Palestinians! Go for it. :wave:

storytime

Why would you think that either Christianity or Islam should follow Hebrew laws in order to claim Abraham as a forefather? Remember Christians claim "before the days of Abraham there was no circumcision". Of course there is no excuse after Abraham decided to "mark" his territory either. I guess we have to look at all those sons and daughters Abraham sent away with bread and water before a true judgment is made.

Did Jews have a "biological" connection to Abraham? I read the story as Abraham being Syrian and Hebrews connection to Abraham was as confederates who joined to his name[covenanted] via circumcision, and this the only "mark" in the flesh that constituted alliance in the House of Abraham. Biology didn't count for anything. However Penis worship was popular in those days.

As there were many groups of people who joined Abraham as confederates, (begotten sons) where does a biological connection exist? I see the Jews having bragging rights in circumcision only.

Now, Ishmael was the first son of Abraham, and of Egyptian/Syrian in Abraham and Hagar. And, Ishmael did not need a promise as God said he was already blessed as a great nation. That left Isaac of which the same promise of blessing was made and it fulfilled in Jacob, and the nation called Israel comprised of 12 tribal sons all mixed with wives and cocubines of "sooners", meaning, what? Wasn't it little Joseph who his brothers, with Judah at the helm, decided to throw him in a well and leave for dead because Joseph had caught his brothers screwing around with women not of Israel? Who's who in Israel cannot be known due to all the cocubines and out-of-tribal connections. And just what was Ruebin doing when he "went up to his fathers couch?" There's something fishy going on here. And I don't think its a mystery either. :devil1:

As these pious people were behaving like animals in heat, can you imagine what we'd see today had Moses not come along and given them laws to protect the rest of the world from them? :Cheeky:

Christianity emerged thinking Israel was abandoned by God, that God no longer was married to Israel, and so a new wife was necessary to keep God alive in the mouth of NT apostles as they preached "Gods new chosen people are the Christians." Jesus was of course God in the flesh and this was a good enough story that evidently worked its way to where we see it today.

Joseph, you make me crazy silly :Cheeky:

IamJoseph

What you missed is the telling factor. Between Abraham and Islam, a period of 2,500 years, there is a VACUUM relating to anything in your post or what is prescibed by Islam. The disdained truth lies with the Jews - the preferred falsehoods have grown too large to confront.

I say, better an honest disagreement than a dishonest agreement. Here, two king kongs forever bashing Jews with two mutually exclusive beliefs - should look at each other instead. While the Hebrew bible does not even mention anything relating to Christianity - the Quran specifically negates it by making Jesus just another prophet - knowing full well that Christianity becomes totally anihilated by it.

A bona fide judge would tell you to first confront your own contradicting selves and get your hands clean [a legal tort] - both would be thrown out of court and all costs allocated to the two plaintiffs. Here, the two king kongs hellbent on killing the witness for the prosecution is understandable. It won't help clear the air for any of them - in fact it would make it worse.

Jerusalem will be called Al Quds and churches forbidden, the Jewish temple will be made a myth - and there goes your Gospels - which claims one Jesus visited a mythical temple. You both loose even if you win. :wave:

steve_bnk

First, most Muslims I have talked with know who JC was(or alleged to be) and akknkwedge him as a prophet

Second, do you or Christians 'keep kosher' in the food you eat? If not, then you are violating Mosaic Law which Jews today mat follow.

Third, the three Abrahamic traditions all pray to the same god Abarahgam invoked. It is not about specific practices.

IamJoseph

Yes, 600 years later, with no contemporary archives, and no belief of Jesus in that time. Obviously, this was taken from the Gospels and altered, as with the Hebrew bible.

Muslims do not follow kosher: they mix milk and meat.

Agreed. However, these are not practices but laws. And two of the three religions want to wipe one off the map, negating all their rights, history and heritage. The two appear scared of something.