Posted on 10/26/2016 7:20:17 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Pope Francis with Ayoub Kara at the Vatican on October 26, 2016. (photo credit:AYOUB KARA)
God promised the Holy Land to the people of Israel, Pope Francis said during a public address at the Vatican in Rome on Wednesday in a speech about migration.
“The people of Israel, who from Egypt, where they were enslaved, walked through the desert for forty years until they reached the land promised by God,” he said.
Pope Francis spoke just before granting a brief audience to Israeli Deputy Minister for Regional Cooperation Ayoub Kara to thank him for his efforts on behalf of the Church and Christians in Israel.
Kara told reporters he felt that the pontiff was sending a direct message to UNESCO, whose World Heritage Committee approved a resolution that ignored Jewish ties to the Temple Mount.
When he spoke with Pope Francis he thanked him for his statement acknowledging Israel’s rights to the Holy Land. He added that there is no question that the resolution is harmful to Christians and the Scriptures because it “distorts historical and theological facts.”
Kara is scheduled to meet on Thursday with Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Cardinal Parolin.
[big snip]
Bayit Yehudi chairwoman Shuli Moalem-Refaeli said: “Arabs in Israel and abroad have a glorious record of harming Jewish, Christian and Muslim holy sites. They also have an impressive record of rewriting history in a way that shames international institutions.”
If Arabs want to disavow the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount and Israel, they should take it one step further, she added: “If we were never here and Jesus was a Palestinian, then I suggest that UNESCO condemn the Palestinians for crucifying Jesus.”
True!
What???
The United States of America, too.
That in itself does not settle history and heritage
What UNESCO had said, is that the Jews had no connection to the Holy Land nor to the Temple. Simply false on historic grounds. The said the whole heritage of the place was exclusively Arab, and that is false on historical grounds as well.
What Pope Francis said, is "The people of Israel, who from Egypt, where they were enslaved, walked through the desert for forty years until they reached the land promised by God."
Nobody has refuted that statement.
DNA studies are helping to shed further light on this issue.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/most-jews-descended-ancient-turkey-new-study-2107639949
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invention_of_the_Jewish_People
The Old and New Testaments do, too.
"Many local Jews converted to Islam and were assimilated among the Arab conquerors. Sand concludes that these converts are the ancestors of the contemporary Palestinians."
Thesis 1: the Jews are really Palestinians.
Thesis 2: the Palestinians are really Jews.
Conclusion: none.
It has no bearing on the UNESCO bullshi'ite, which is that the historic sites of the Holy Land shall henceforth be listed only by their Arabic names and considered only as constituting the Arab cultural heritage. It also has no real bearing on current boundary, building and zoning disputes. These are not determined by a genetic claim on land tenure.
Genealogical studies have established that the majority of modern Jews are descended from Turkic and European ethnic groups. How can one argue that they are, at the same time, the people chronicled in the Old and New Testaments?
Did you miss this?
“...Sand argues that it is likely that the ancestry of most contemporary Jews stems mainly from outside the Land of Israel and that a “nation-race” of Jews with a common origin never existed, and that just as most Christians and Muslims are the progeny of converted people, not of the first Christians and Muslims, Jews are also descended from converts. According to Sand, Judaism was originally, like its two cousins, a proselytising religion, and mass conversions to Judaism occurred among the Khazars in the Caucasus, Berber tribes in North Africa, and in the Himyarite Kingdom of the Arabian Peninsula...”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invention_of_the_Jewish_People
“It also has no real bearing on current boundary, building and zoning disputes. These are not determined by a genetic claim on land tenure.”
On what other basis should such determinations be made? If genetics and descent are excluded from the question, then what are we talking about?
I don't think there is a legal basis for a strictly genetic claim on land tenure. The argument has been more along the lines of ethnicity or "sense of nationhood," more broadly defined.
In some ways it's analogous to my learning in grade school that "our Pilgrim and Puritan" forebears settled in New England, and "our American founding fathers" adopted the Constitution.
I have zero - 0 - Pilgrim/Puritan forebears; when "our" founding fathers were adopting the Constitution, my ancestors were in Rheinpfalz.
Nevertheless it makes a kind of sense to teach history that way to American school children, since it tends to bind us into a shared past, a shared sense of nationhood.
Lose that, and you end up with --- what we have: the centrifugal disintegration of nation, based on "Black history," "La Raza history," "the Americo-Muslim heritage," etc. etc. This is no way to build a nation.
Do not think I am saying here that minority histories and perspectives must be excluded. I myself am scandalized that Catholic history is simply not taught at the classroom level in America, not even in Catholic schools. I am simply saying that nationhood is more generated by shared stories than by shared DNA.
Back to the topic: UNESCO's words were lies; the Pope's words --- in the narrow sense of "what he actually said" --- were true. I'll vouch for that.
Are you implying post VCII popes were "more Christian" than Pope Saint Pius X?
What exactly is your definition of "more Christian"?
But if we're talking about the "people of Israel" as a coherent group, then what exactly are we talking about here if not genetics and ethnic background? It seems to me that this "sense of nationhood" you're talking about is so broadly defined that people who may be of completely non-Semitic background may now be considered Semites. If a German converts to Judaism, does he now have a claim to the Holy Land? What made the descendants of Abraham so special if not their heritage?
Levi's House of priesthood was now dismissed. The Order of Melchisedech became the law in the House of Levi. The "no admittance" sign before the Holy of Holies of the earthly temple was removed. When Christ came into the world to be the fulfillment of the order of Melchisedech, the House of Levi denied Him welcome. In fact, Levi had exacted tithes of Him just a few weeks before His death in demanding temple taxes. But, as the veil of the temple was torn the priesthood of Melchisedech came into its own, and with it the true Holy of Holies, the true Ark of the New Covenant, the true Bread of Life---the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
It is clearly a matter of opinion. I did not live through the 1800’s. But I did live through the pontificate of Saint JP2 and pope Benedict. While very different men ( and while I can point to a few things I didn’t like or agree with), it is just my personal opinion I admired and respected them both very much. One thing we could probably agree on is that the current pope appears quite problematical. I am not convinced he will go down as a blessing for the church _ ( that’s a tactful way of saying what I feel so far about him). We will see. Right now he is quite concerning , IMHO. Best regards,
Your Saint JP2 kissed a Koran and asked St. John the Baptist to protect Islam.
And you think he’s “more Christian” than Pope St. Pius X?
Pope Pius X long ago put forward that the modernist if they take logically their doctrine, would have no grounds for denying the Muslims their “experience” of “ god” as being just as valid as that of another “believer” and hence he states:
“Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam?
What a prophetic insight, Pope Pius X was so accurate that not even the Modernist came to deny what he stated, but only affirm the above with great audacity.
we agree about Islam.
by its fruits ye shall know it
it is Satanic, imho, and must be defeated
“I am simply saying that nationhood is more generated by shared stories than by shared DNA.”
Matthew 1:1 indicates a different perspective.
Genetic citizenship: DNA testing and the Israeli Law of Return
http://jlb.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/06/16/jlb.lsv027.full
“...After the news of this one student’s experience made headlines, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office confirmed that many Jews from the Former Soviet Union (‘FSU’) are asked to provide DNA confirmation of their Jewish heritage in order to immigrate as Jews and become citizens under Israel’s Law of Return....”
good point (I did say we could find certain things they did that would disagree with, your note highlights Numero Uno on that list then). such a statement or prayer would be, imho, just awful.
I hope that means you agree with Pope St. Pius X and not with Pope Saint John Paul II on their views of that satanic cult.
Yes we definitely appear to agree about Mecca cult. Satanic IMHO. Must be fought and defeated so it never can threaten decent human beings again. There are many other “religions” that we may disagree with in various ways, but which do not teach hatred and warfare or terrorism against innocent people. Islamics appear to be unique in this respect - and dangerously evil. Ok, I need now to mostly at least take a break from posting - illness - will try to at least check in as I can later ). Thanks
In
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.