The Nakba Obsession

City Journal ^ | SOL STERN

[ventanax5]

A specter is haunting the prospective Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations—the specter of the Nakba. The literal meaning of the Arabic word is “disaster”; but in its current, expansive usage, it connotes a historical catastrophe inflicted on an innocent and blameless people (in this case, the Palestinians) by an overpowering outside force (international Zionism). The Nakba is the heart of the Palestinians’ backward-looking national narrative, which depicts the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 as the original sin that dispossessed the land’s native people. Every year, on the anniversary of Israel’s independence, more and more Palestinians (including Arab citizens of Israel) commemorate the Nakba with pageants that express longing for a lost paradise. Every year, the legend grows of the crimes committed against the Palestinians in 1948, crimes now routinely equated with the Holocaust. Echoing the Nakba narrative is an international coalition of leftists that celebrates the Palestinians as the quintessential Other, the last victims of Western racism and colonialism.

[stefanbatory]

seems to me that before the land’s rightful inhabitants began arriving in the late 1800s and early 1900s, Israel was essentially a wasteland with a total populationof about 50,000...can’t remember where I read that now...

[combat_boots]

Ping

[Red Badger]

The land belongs to the descendants of Abraham...............period

[Sherman Logan]

The land belongs to the descendants of Abraham...............period

All parties agree to that. Of course, the Arabs consider themselves to be Abraham's descendants thru his son Ishmael.

So you haven't really settled the issue at all.

[Sherman Logan]

In 1922, the first year for which there is solid data, there were about 650,000 Arabs and 85,000 Jews in the area of what is now Israel, FWIW.

Here's an excellent source: http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

[stefanbatory]

ahhhh...I like solid data rather than ghosts of remembered reading...thanks!

[Red Badger]

It’s really a big family squabble just waiting until Daddy gets home.............;^)

[HearMe]

can’t remember where I read that now...

In any truthful and legitimate history book or article?

Or maybe the words of an eyewitness:

Mark Twain's visit to Lebanon, Syria, and the Holy Land in 1867 was published in "The Innocents Abroad", where he described Palestine as follows:

"..... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country." (The Innocents Abroad, p. 361-362)

[Sherman Logan]

You’re an unusual person, then. Most people, in my experience, get ticked off when their beautiful theory is murdered by a gang of brutal facts. Sometimes including myself.

[Sherman Logan]

I’ve read Mark’s book, and his impressionistic observations hardly constitute quantitative data.

[HearMe]

I'm guessing you would also not accept the well researched book:

From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine

The facts speak for themselves. If Palestine was an Arab country, so overwhelmingly populated by Arabs, Jews could not have sneaked in and build cities such as Tel Aviv from nothing.

[stefanbatory]

That website was where I read it! I knew it was online...

[WarEagle]

All parties agree to that. Of course, the Arabs consider themselves to be Abraham's descendants thru his son Ishmael.

They are wrong. The land was promised to Abraham and his seed through Sarah, not through Hagar. The Lord told Abraham he would bless him with descendants (a son), and expected that Abraham (and Sarah) would wait, be patient, and have faith in the promises of the Lord. Sarah in particular (with acquiescence of Abraham) became impatient and got the big idea to speed the process up by giving her maid, Hagar, to Abraham as his concubine. Thus was bornn Ishmael.

After the birth and circumcision of Isaac, Hagar and Ishmael were sent away from Abraham by God, and Ishmael was promised a nation of his own, but not a part of the great nation to be formed from Abraham's descendents.

This is all in the book of Genesis. It's settled.

[SJackson]

Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

An interesting article, but like almost everyone who address' the term Nakba, it misses the point.

The term, Nakba, was coined to refer to the refusal of France to allow the return of "Southern" Syrians to their homes in Syria after the San Remo Conferance in 1920. Can't blame the French, pawn them off on the Brits.

It had this really funny provision in it which I don't understand, maybe someone can help.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

How can that be? Palestine was the accepted home of the Jewish people?

Those high contracting powers must have been high.

[MestaMachine]

palestine was a region, the entire NEAR EAST, not a country, and the brits darn well knew it because THEY coined the term from the gitgo.

[SJackson]

Yeah, the Romans created the term, but every once in a while I suggest the confused, or interested, go back and watch Exodus. Could read the book.

You've got four basic cultural groups.

The Brits, we know who they are.

The good Arabs, there were good Arabs, who get along with teh P----------s.

The bad Arabs, the Mufti's Nazis.

And the Palestinians, aka the Jews.

[Sherman Logan]

It's settled.

How can I put this politely?

It's settled for you, and for those who believe as you do. If you are correct in your belief that God is on the Israeli side, then it really is settled.

But the vast majority of the world's population, most notably the 1B+ Muslims, do not believe as you do about this issue. Christian Zionists are a significant minority in America, but are almost nonexistent in the rest of the world.

So unless God intervenes directly, which according to some interpretations of the Bible he will, it is not settled.

[Sherman Logan]

There is a significant difference between saying "Palestine shall be the national home for the Jews," and being "in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

There is also the uncomfortable fact that these decisions were made as part of backroom deals between the WWI Allies. Not exactly the greatest possible source of legitimacy. Ignored wishes of the inhabitants and all that, exactly what we fought our own Revolution against.

[rmlew]

Too bad, this is after 30 yearsw of Jewish investment and 20 years of Ottoman resettlement of Albanians and Caucus Muslims there.

[FARS]

Here are the details from way back in August 2006 on AntiMullah. One of the reasons some visitors come and browse for two or three hours is the depth of articles.

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2006/08/u-p-d-t-e-d-palestinians-pure.html

[1035rep]

bttt

[mountn man]

The problem is that the "pure" Arabs aren't descendants of Ishmael just some of the mixed Arabs. There were already "Arabs" living in the other lands around Israel that the Ishmaelites intermixed with. So the ONLY "Arabs" who would have claim, IF they had a claim, would be ONLY the Arabs from Ishmaels line.

Second, according to Genesis 21:12 But God said to Abraham, "Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named.

In the New Testament in Galatians 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.

In Hebrews 11 :17, 18 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son;
it was he to whom it was said, "IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED."

Hebrews calls Isaac, Abrahams only begotten son. In other words, only Isaac is considered Abrahams son.

Next Ishmael never settled in the land now called Israel, he settled east of Egypt.

So as far as inhabiting the land, Isaac possesed the land, Ishmael never did.

SO even if we question the claims of Genesis and Hebrews, the fact of possesion goes to Isaac not Ishmael.

So now, if we don't count the Bible but just possesion, we look at Isaacs descendants being scatered called the diaspora after Romes destruction of the temple. IF it is determined that Israel has no claim to the land because of Romes conquest and the scatering of the Jews, then by the very same standard Britain in more recent history laid claim to all of the mideast and divided all the mideast lands and created a land for Israel. If one conqueror can dissolve a nation, another conqueror can create one.

Next, who are todays "Palestinians". Palestinans are a pretty recent creation. Todays Palestinians are basically Jordanians, who left the area during the 6 day war, so that the attacking Arab countries could kill EVERYBODY in the land, and not have to worry about killing other Arabs.

After the 6 day war, which Jordan and the other countries lost, the "Palestinans/Jordanians" who had fled in hopes of returning to a "purged" Palestine WERE NOT welcomed in any other Arab country. The other Arabs set up refuge camps for them, but have not been allowed to settle there.

Meanwhile Arabs ARE allowed to settle in Israel, and to be a part of the Knesset.

Gaza, which Israel claimed by virtue of its victory over an attacking nation has pulled out of Gaza, giving it over for Palestinian settlement.

Funny, this still isn't good enough for the Arabs.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[cricket]

Thanks for posting. . .

[Sherman Logan]

If one conqueror can dissolve a nation, another conqueror can create one.

Of course, if you accept this line of reasoning, which I generally do, if the Jews lose the next war and are conquered they immediately lose their "right" to the land and cease being a nation. The Poles stopped being a "nation" when they were partitioned in the late 18th century. All the nations forced into the USSR lost their legitimacy. France is still part of the German Empire. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Determining legitimate "title" to a land, as opposed to actual possession, is fraught with difficulties. Most people pick whichever theory of title determination meets their predetermined opinion in each case as to who "should" own the land.

I doubt anybody is willing to apply a consistent theory in all cases. For instance, by some such theories all Americans of non-Indian ancestry should immediately leave North America.

[Sherman Logan]

The problem is that the "pure" Arabs aren't descendants of Ishmael just some of the mixed Arabs. There were already "Arabs" living in the other lands around Israel that the Ishmaelites intermixed with. So the ONLY "Arabs" who would have claim, IF they had a claim, would be ONLY the Arabs from Ishmaels line.

As I'm sure you're aware, there ARE no "unmixed" peoples. Genetic research shows the Jews are among the most "pure" of ethnic groups, but the Bible and history makes it very clear they mixed their genes with many other groups in ancient times, sometimes by force, as when the Hasmoneans forcibly converted the Idumeans (Edomites) to Judaism.

As far back as the time of Moses, the Bible speaks of a "vast mixed crowd" accompanying the Israelites out of Egypt, with this group presumably incorporated into the nation eventually. Moses himself married outside the nation of Israel.

The kings of Judah and their people repeatedly married non-Israelites of various nations. Therefore Christ himself was not of anything remotely resembling "pure" Abrahamic descent. The Bible speaks specifically of his descent from Rahab, a Canaanite, and Ruth, a Moabite.

[Yardstick]

*bump*

[mountn man]

The point I was trying to make about mixed ancestry, is that ALL ARABS claim they are descendants of Ishmael. This IS NOT TRUE. Though the Ishmaelites intermarried into SOME of the Arab people, they didn't intermarry to all.

You had one person Ishmael going out into an Arab populace of 10's or maybe 100's of thousands of people. IIRC he had 12 sons, these would be his descendants, heirs.

Now if Ishmael had this many kids, I imagine many of the Arabs did also.

So in a land of, lets say 100,000, Ismael is just 1. He has 12 sons, so now there are 13 Ishmaelites. Meanwhile the Arabs, lets say 1,000 have 12 kids, that brings Arabs to 112,000 to 13.

I think you can see where this goes. Exponentially the Arabs will always out number the Ishmaelites.

Then factor in, that within 2 or 3 generations, clans or tribes will begin to stick together, thereby cousins marrying cousins, in essence slowing down the growth into the Arab line.

Unless there was somewhere that the ENTIRE line of "pure" Arabs was destroyed and Ishmaelites survived, The Ishmaelites will always be a small minority of the Arab world.

[mountn man]

For instance, by some such theories all Americans of non-Indian ancestry should immediately leave North America.

And if this were the line of reasoning, that were applied to the "Palestinian" situation, then the Jews would have more title to the land, because IF the Arabs claim to be from Ishmael, Isaac settled the land AND NOT Ishmael. Thereby nullifying their claim of ancestry.

So it comes down to either lineage or possesionship.

This outcome won't ever be finished-in the secular world, until one or the other is destroyed.

But the secular world is trumped by God. And the Bible tells us that Isaacs descendants are the heirs to the land. And that Isaacs descendants WILL control ALL the land...EVENTUALLY.

The entire land promised to Abraham, is MUCH LARGER than what is currently occupied by Israel today. In fact Israel HAS NEVER occupied the entire land promised by God, as a whole or even as bits and pieces. And since this was a promise of Gods, and God don't lie, Israel WILL SOMEDAY occupy ALL of the Promised Land.

[Sherman Logan]

That’s not the way it works. By this time, there are no pure descendants of Ishmael.

Genetically Ishmael, assuming he existed, was one of the many thousands of progenitors of the Arab peoples. It is likely his “blood” is a tiny percentage of most Arabs, with the percentage varying considerably, but always very small.

OTOH, the genetic contribution of Isaac to the Jewish people is probably much larger.

[Polarik]

Wonderful piece. Could use a few paragraph breaks. Have you ever read Joan Peters “From Time Immemorial,” or seen the film about Arafat, “The Trojan Horse?”

Here’s something to add to what you said.:

To quote Zuheir (Zuhair) Mohsen (1936-79), leader of the Syrian-backed As-Sa’iqa (”thunderbolt or storm”) (main rival to Arafat’s Fatah in the PLO) in Mar. 1977 in an interview with the Dutch newspaper “Trouw”: “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheba and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.” I

[Polarik]

And He will be a wild man, his hand against all nations.

Guess who?

[mountn man]

So your saying that someone who cannot trace their lineage back to Ishmael still has a small amount of Ishmael in them.

That the family tree starts at the leaves and not the root.

Your saying that if you have kids here in the US, with its 300 mil. people, that over 100's of generations, EVERY body would eventually have YOUR dna line in them. Not your brothers or sisters or aunts or uncles or cousins, but YOURS specifically.

[Just mythoughts]

As I'm sure you're aware, there ARE no "unmixed" peoples. Genetic research shows the Jews are among the most "pure" of ethnic groups, but the Bible and history makes it very clear they mixed their genes with many other groups in ancient times, sometimes by force, as when the Hasmoneans forcibly converted the Idumeans (Edomites) to Judaism. As far back as the time of Moses, the Bible speaks of a "vast mixed crowd" accompanying the Israelites out of Egypt, with this group presumably incorporated into the nation eventually. Moses himself married outside the nation of Israel. The kings of Judah and their people repeatedly married non-Israelites of various nations. Therefore Christ himself was not of anything remotely resembling "pure" Abrahamic descent. The Bible speaks specifically of his descent from Rahab, a Canaanite, and Ruth, a Moabite.

Would you quote the Scripture that states that Christ Himself descended from Rahab?

Where did the Moabites come from? IF my memory serves me Moab was a product of Lot and one of his daughters after they fled Sodom. Now Lot would not have descended from Abraham but he most certainly was blood related. And both would have been direct descendants from the Adam and Eve.

Genesis 1-6 if read as written says that there were more than just the Adam and Eve formed from the dust/dirt. Cain fled the area after he killed his brother and he found a woman to marry. Cain has his own different but similar sounding descendants recorded.

[Natufian]

I understood the population at around that time to be about 500,000. He obviously didn’t look very hard.

[mountn man]

Matthew 1:

Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse.

6Jesse was the father of David the king. David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah.

7Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa.

8Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah.

9Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah.

10Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah.

11Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

12After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel.

13Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor.

14Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud.

15Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob.

16Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

---

I Chronicles 2:

11Nahshon became the father of Salma, (Salmon) Salma became the father of Boaz,

12Boaz became the father of Obed, and Obed became the father of Jesse;

13and Jesse became the father of Eliab his firstborn, then Abinadab the second, Shimea the third,

14Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth,

15Ozem the sixth, David the seventh;

---

Ruth 4:

20and to Amminadab was born Nahshon, and to Nahshon, Salmon, 21and to Salmon was born Boaz, and to Boaz, Obed, 22and to Obed was born Jesse, and to Jesse, David.

---

God can even honor a prostitute

Amazing Grace how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me...

[Just mythoughts]

Well Matthew 1 gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Joseph was not the biological flesh father of Christ. It was through Mary that Christ came from the tribe of Judah and Levi.

Oh I do not believe that God said Rahab was a hooker, I think every time it is written it is said by the writer or got translated as her being such.

[mountn man]

So lets see if I understand you. The BIBLE lists Christs geneology through Joseph, but its IRRELEVANT.

So lets look at Luke 3:

23When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,

24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai,

26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,

27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,

28the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,

30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,

32the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,

33the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,

34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah,

36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,

38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

---

I emboldened 31 and 32 for a reason, compare it to Matthew 1:

Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse.

6Jesse was the father of David the king. David was the father of Solomon

---

Did you catch the difference? Matthew mentions Davids son Solomon - Luke mentions Davids son Nathan.

Two seperate lines.

Next heres an excerpt
christiananswers.net

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38 . Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

---

Next lets look at Romans 1:

1Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,

2which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,

3concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,

Lets look at 2 Timothy 2:

8Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David,

Next lets look at Matthew 9:

27As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!"

Next Matthew 12:

22Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw.

23All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, "This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?"

Matthew 15:

22And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed."

Matthew 20:

30And two blind men sitting by the road, hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!"

31The crowd sternly told them to be quiet, but they cried out all the more, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!"

Matthew 21:

9The crowds going ahead of Him, and those who followed, were shouting, "Hosanna to the Son of David; BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD; Hosanna in the highest!"

15But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they became indignant

Now lets take a look at something in Matthew 21

15But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they became indignant

16and said to Him, "Do You hear what these children are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read, 'OUT OF THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABIES YOU HAVE PREPARED PRAISE FOR YOURSELF'?"

At this point Jesus could have straightened everything out-If he wasn't what people were claiming. Which plays right into my next verses
Matthew 22

41Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question:

42"What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to Him, "The son of David."

---

So far we've heard from Paul claiming Jesus was the son of David. We've heard from people all around Jesus calling him son of David, and Jesus does not refute this.

Now lets here from an angel.
Luke 1:

31"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.

32"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;

---

Lastly, lets look at Revelation
First Revelation 5:

5and one of the elders said to me, "Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals."

Revelation 22:

16"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

---

There is a reason geneology is listed. Many times over Jesus is called the "son of David".

Both lineages trace back to David (and to Rahab)

---

Now as far as Rahab being a prostitute.
James2 says:

25In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

The word in the Greek is πόρνῃ (pornē)
It is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 6:

16Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH."

[Sherman Logan]

Would you quote the Scripture that states that Christ Himself descended from Rahab?

Matthew chapter 1:

1 A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:

2Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,

3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram,

4Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon,

5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse,

6and Jesse the father of King David.

There's Rahab and Ruth, both non-Israelites (by descent) in verse 5.

You are correct that Moab was the result of an incestuous (though unknowing, on Lot's part) relationship between Lot and one of his daughters, as was Ammon. I would venture to suggest Lot needed to lay off the sauce.

If I remember correctly Paul speaks of all men being descended from Adam and Eve, removing your non-Adamic pre-flood dudes from the picture. Given the Bible story, it's fairly obvious Lot married a sister. Gross, by our standards, but there really wasn't any option, there not being any other people on the planet.

[Sherman Logan]

Bingo.

[Just mythoughts]

So lets see if I understand you. The BIBLE lists Christs geneology through Joseph, but its IRRELEVANT.

Joseph is NOT listed as Christ's biological genealogy, it is simply NOT possible for Joseph to be the biological 'father' to Christ. Joseph was as you noted in your quote 'foster father' by adoption but NOT related by his providing his DNA to the birth of Christ. IRRELEVANT is your word not mine.

Now I can find NO second witness that the Rahab named in Matthew is the one and the same Rahab of Jericho, a flax merchant by all recorded accounts, not a hooker.

It is just like I hear the majority of Christians claim that it was God speaking when the Adam pointed his finger of accusation to the Heavenly Father and that woman, when asked about his partying in the Garden. Genesis 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, "Where art thou?" 10 And he said, "I heard Thy voice in the garden and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself." 11 And He said, "Who told thee that thou wast naked? Has thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat."

12 And the man said, "The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

There is nothing recorded that describes what Rahab did as being a hooker. All that is recorded is that some one labeled her as such and it stuck even to this time. And there is nothing recorded that says she was a Canaanite. What is said is that she lived in Jericho and after she assisted the spies she lived in Israel being saved by Joshua. Joshua 6:25

The whole lineage of and to Christ was preplanned as to which flesh beings would carry forth, from the Adam and Eve to Mary. Time and time again the devil did whatever he could to disrupt that progression, but he did not prevail. Christ was to be the only perfect unbleminish flesh to ever walk this earth and so He did.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

There is something strange and bizarre to have Rahab labeled a harlot in good standing when the 7th commandment is Thou shalt not commit adultery, and in Jeremiah 3:8 we are told that "And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

I am aware that Tamar had to 'play' a harlot in order to get Judah's attention, which says much regarding the guarded measures taken for that preplanned blood line to be accomplished.

[Just mythoughts]

1 A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham: 2Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 4Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, 6and Jesse the father of King David. There's Rahab and Ruth, both non-Israelites (by descent) in verse 5.

Matthew gives Joseph's genealogy, but Joseph was not the biological father of Christ. And only Matthew gives the name Rahab and does not call this Rahab 'the harlot'... So could be, might be, but I do not find it chiseled in stone it is one and the same.

You are correct that Moab was the result of an incestuous (though unknowing, on Lot's part) relationship between Lot and one of his daughters, as was Ammon. I would venture to suggest Lot needed to lay off the sauce. If I remember correctly Paul speaks of all men being descended from Adam and Eve, removing your non-Adamic pre-flood dudes from the picture. Given the Bible story, it's fairly obvious Lot married a sister. Gross, by our standards, but there really wasn't any option, there not being any other people on the planet.

Well I can't find where Paul says alllll descended from 'the' Adam and Eve. Genesis 1:26 describes the creation of flesh beings, and Genesis 2:4 says these are THE GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND OF THE EARTH.

Verse 5 says ..... 'and there was NOT a man to till the ground.' And it was after the 7th day of REST that we are told that the Adam was formed, and placed in the Garden, farmer.

I have read time and again regarding the time before agriculture became a method of survival, and when there were hunter/gathers instead of farmers. Well consider the history of peoples around this globe and how their culture correlates with what we are told in Genesis 1:26.

Genesis 2 is not a rehash of Genesis 1 but the continuation of the chronology of events. And it was Cain, not Lot that left the Garden and found a woman in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. There is no reason to hint or suggest that this woman Cain married was his sister. She would have been an Easterner not a Westerner.

[mountn man]

OK. Lets look at what the Bible actually says.

First, Joshua 2:

1Then Joshua the son of Nun sent two men as spies secretly from Shittim, saying, "Go, view the land, especially Jericho " So they went and came into the house of a harlot whose name was Rahab, and lodged there.

Here it is in Hebrew

א וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ-בִּן-נוּן מִן-הַשִּׁטִּים שְׁנַיִם-אֲנָשִׁים מְרַגְּלִים, חֶרֶשׁ לֵאמֹר, לְכוּ רְאוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וְאֶת-יְרִיחוֹ; וַיֵּלְכוּ וַיָּבֹאוּ בֵּית-אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה, וּשְׁמָהּ רָחָב--וַיִּשְׁכְּבוּ-שָׁמָּה

And now a Hebrew to English translation

Joshua sent a - a - Nun from - fooling years - people spies, softly saying, go see the - the country, and - of Jericho; They went and came home - a woman a bitch, and put wide - lay - her name

Joshua 6:

17"The city shall be under the ban, it and all that is in it belongs to the LORD; only Rahab the harlot and all who are with her in the house shall live, because she hid the messengers whom we sent.

יז וְהָיְתָה הָעִיר חֵרֶם הִיא וְכָל-אֲשֶׁר-בָּהּ, לַיהוָה: רַק רָחָב הַזּוֹנָה תִּחְיֶה, הִיא וְכָל-אֲשֶׁר אִתָּהּ בַּבַּיִת--כִּי הֶחְבְּאַתָה, אֶת-הַמַּלְאָכִים אֲשֶׁר שָׁלָחְנוּ.

and boycott it and the city - which - which, Lord: only Rahab the harlot live, is all - that you're at home - that I hid, the - angels that we sent.

25However, Rahab the harlot and her father's household and all she had, Joshua spared; and she has lived in the midst of Israel to this day, for she hid the messengers whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

כה וְאֶת-רָחָב הַזּוֹנָה וְאֶת-בֵּית אָבִיהָ וְאֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-לָהּ, הֶחֱיָה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וַתֵּשֶׁב בְּקֶרֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה: כִּי הֶחְבִּיאָה אֶת-הַמַּלְאָכִים, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁלַח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַגֵּל אֶת-יְרִיחוֹ. {פ}

and boycott it and the city - which - which, Lord: only Rahab the harlot live, is all - that you're at home - that I hid, the - angels that we sent.

Hebrews 11:

31By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.

In Greek

πιστει ρααβ η πορνη ου συναπωλετο τοις απειθησασιν δεξαμενη τους κατασκοπους μετ ειρηνης

Now for English

[Pistei] [Ra]ὰ[b] ἡ prostitute [o]ὐ [synapoleto] [to]ῖ[s] ἀ[peithisasin] reservoir [to]ὺ[s] spies [met]' [e]ἰ[rinis

And James 2:

25In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Ῥαὰβ ἡ πόρνη οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη ὑποδεξαμένη τοὺς ἀγγέλους καὶ ἑτέρᾳ ὁδῷ ἐκβαλοῦσα

Greek to English

And just as the prostitute Raav not by works edikaiothi ypodexameni angels and cast out ἑτέρᾳ ὁδῷ

In both Hebrews and James the same word πόρνη pornē is used.

According to Strong's

a woman who sells her body for sexual uses a) a prostitute, a harlot, one who yields herself to defilement for the sake of gain b) any woman indulging in unlawful sexual intercourse, whether for gain or for lust

You can argue all you want about Rahab being a flax merchant-But the BIBLE repeatedly calls her a harlot/prostitute

Here's something to look at
biblestudies.suite101.com/article.cfm/was-rahab-a-prostitute-or-an-innkeeper

John MacArthur, President of The Master's Seminary, writes in Twelve Extraordinary Women that the use of zanah to define a prostitute or prostitution is consistent throughout the Old Testament. In addition, the term porne was understood to mean harlot or prostitute, a fact which Thomas McDaniel acknowledges in his writing. The use of porne to translate zanah in the Septuagint indicates that those early writers identified Rahab as a prostitute.

Rahab's identification as a prostitute was not challenged for centuries according to MacArthur. It was only in the years prior to Jesus' birth that scholastic rabbis became embarrassed that a pagan prostitute was spared from Jericho's destruction and became a proselyte in Israel. Noting that zanah was similar to the word which meant "to feed," the rabbis reasoned that Rahab was probably just an innkeeper.

In "The Real and Ideal Josephus" Ben C. Smith offers the same analysis of Josephus' opinion that Rahab was an innkeeper. Smith notes that Josephus wrote that God had a lowly view of prostitutes and found it unpalatable for a prostitute to be honored in such a prominent way among the Jews.

Conclusion - Was Rahab a Prostitute or Innkeeper? MacArthur suggests that those who view Rahab as an innkeeper may wish to sanitize her occupation to be something more reputable and pleasant; after all, having a prostitute serve as an ancestor of Jesus could be uncomfortable to many people. However, he believes that view is irreconcilable with the clear meaning of the Hebrew term zanah and the Greek word porne.

Instead, her life as a Gentile prostitute shows that God extends his grace to all humans regardless of the circumstances of their lives or the sins they have committed. Remove the sin of prostitution and the need for grace is also removed. As MacArthur concludes, "The disturbing fact about what [Rahab] once was simply magnifies the glory of divine grace, which is what made her the extraordinary woman she became."

I don't know what problem you have with a prostitute being Jesus' great-great-great-great-great...grandmother. His great-great-great-great-great...grandfather David was an adulterer and a murderer (and yet was still called a man after Gods heart) And yet God forbid him from building his temple because he shed blood, but allowed him in Jesus' lineage.

Also Solomon had 1,000 concubines. He indulged himself with whatever he wanted, and later wrote Ecclesiastes about the folly.

Jesus himself ate and associated with prostitutes when the religious leaders refused to do such, on religious grounds.

Also Matthew mentions 5 women in Jesus lineage, Tamar,Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary. This is unusual in the Jewish society, so we have to assume these women were unusual.

Tamar in order to keep her lineage going disguised herself as a prostitute and seduced Judah, and became the mother of Perez.

Ruth was a Moabite who was a widow of a jew. She showed great devotion to her mother in law and followed her back to Israel. She later became the mother to Obed

Bathsheba had an adulterous affair with David, and yet later was the mother to Solomon.

Then of course there is Mary, who no one can show fault with.

All these women stand out in Jesus' lineage. IF the Rahab, listed in Jesus' geneology IS NOT the same Rahab the harlot, who was she, and why was she even mentioned. I'd say that for Jews of the day there was only ONE Rahab. Thats what made her mention so note worthy. Same with Tamar and Ruth and Bathsheba. They were all legendary women in Hebrew lore.

You seem to have an issue with Rahab being called a harlot. It seems to me your issue really is the authority of the Bible. I mean repeatedly she is called a harlot, both in the Old and New Testaments, and by James who most feel was Jesus' half brother, meaning HIS great-great....grandmother was this harlot Rahab.

Either the Bible is authoritative and the word harlot is accurate and accurately applied, or its not and everything thrown out, including the saving grace of Jesus. There is no middle ground. You can't pick and choose what you want.

[Sherman Logan]

Matthew gives Joseph's genealogy, but Joseph was not the biological father of Christ.

True, but irrelevant. Mary was also descended from David, the great-great-grandson of Salmon, and the great-grandson of Boaz. Luke just doesn't include the names of their wives.

"Luke 3: 31: the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon"

Matthew lists only four women in his genealogy: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba. I'm sure it is only coincidence that each is mentioned earlier in the Bible. The wife of Salmon, a different woman from Rahab the harlot, is tossed in for no reason. That makes a lot of sense.

And it was Cain, not Lot that left the Garden and found a woman in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.

You are correct that I mistyped Lot when I meant Cain. Sorry. It might however be relevant to point out that Sarah was Abraham's half-sister.

The Bible does not say how long after the Fall Cain killed Abel. It could have been centuries. Neither does it say how many other children Adam and Eve had by that time. It could have been many, dozens or even hundreds. Although one would suspect Eve would be getting tired of pregnancy if this were the case!

The Bible also does not say that Cain found his wife in the land of Nod, merely that he moved there. It is not unreasonable to speculate that when he killed Abel he was already married and had children, perhaps many children. Possibly when he left, he took his wife and some or all of his children with him.

Finally, I'd like to point out that if there were other people outside the Garden, they did not suffer the Fall and presumably remained without sin. I think that idea calls into question a great deal of the Bible's story. The whole idea of the need for Christ's sacrifice is based on the notion that we're all inherently sinful because we're all descended from Adam.

[neverdem]

BTTT!