Why Israel belongs to the Jews

[Rational_Mind]

I don't understand why it would appear anyone changed anything, the very context of having a son from a slave girl would be understood to mean it's not the legitimate heir.

Let the Torah answer on the status of Ishmael:

"And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation." (Gen 17:20)

Also the Angel of the Lord said to her, I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be numbered for multitude.
And the Angel of the Lord continued, See now, you are with child and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Ishmael [God hears], because the Lord has heard and paid attention to your affliction. (Gen 16:10-11)

Do you think Genesis 25:6 is forged too?

Apparently the sons of his concubines don't get the land.

It doesn't matter if Ishmael is called a son 'over and over again".

Besides, if the REST of the Scripture clearly refers to Israel, then you'd have to have argument that every reference to Israel was really meant to be Isaac in every other book.

Did not Hagar who is called wife (apparent handsmaid) belong the the Royal Family (King of Egypt)?

So Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar her Egyptian maid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his [secondary] wife. (Gen 16:3)

Human being can be careful enough to swap all the references but not careful enough to catch all the contradictions they create. We cannot walk away from Ishmael clearly being called a son. No matter how hard we try to close our eyes. Let us be fair here. I am not talking about land, I am sticking to the argument of who was sacrificed.

I think I have said for any fair person to understand my point. My argument is clear on the fact that Ishmael was called a "son". Where this status got lost while Hagar is also called "wife" is up to you to base on valid arguments on some solid basis.

 

[Shermana]

Let the Torah answer on the status of Ishmael:

"And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation." (Gen 17:20)

And here are their names: (Unless you think this was also added later).

13These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: Nebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, 14Mishma, Dumah, Massa, 15Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah. 16These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps. 17Altogether, Ishmael lived a hundred and thirty-seven years. He breathed his last and died, and he was gathered to his people. 18His descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility towardc all their brothers.

Also the Angel of the Lord said to her, I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be numbered for multitude.

The Arabs did become pretty numerous. But this was a separate prophecy for Hagar alone.

And the Angel of the Lord continued, See now, you are with child and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Ishmael [God hears], because the Lord has heard and paid attention to your affliction. (Gen 16:10-11)

Okay, so was that supposed to somehow contradict what I said about Isaac?

Did not Hagar who is called wife (apparent handsmaid) belong the the Royal Family (King of Egypt)?

Source?

So Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar her Egyptian maid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his [secondary] wife. (Gen 16:3)

Wife or not, her status as the slave girl would be all the same.

Human being can be careful enough to swap all the references but not careful enough to catch all the contradictions they create. We cannot walk away from Ishmael clearly being called a son. No matter how hard we try to close our eyes. Let us be fair here. I am not talking about land, I am sticking to the argument of who was sacrificed.

You're right, and you cannot walk away from the context of the son of a slave girl and the fact that the rest of scripture always refers to Israel as from Isaac, which you'd have to prove was somehow changed.

I think I have said for any fair person to understand my point. My argument is clear on the fact that Ishmael was called a "son". Where this status got lost while Hagar is also called "wife" is up to you to base on valid arguments on some solid basis.

I have no reason to explain any further why a Slave girl's, even as wife's son would not necessarily be the heir in ancient social status.

 

[Rational_Mind]

The Arabs did become pretty numerous. But this was a separate prophecy for Hagar alone.

Source?
Wife or not, her status as the slave girl would be all the same.

You're right, and you cannot walk away from the context of the son of a slave girl and the fact that the rest of scripture always refers to Israel as from Isaac, which you'd have to prove was somehow changed.
I have no reason to explain any further why a Slave girl's, even as wife's son would necessarily be the heir in ancient social status.

First the prophecy you speak about is in the same context area right beside each other. How you decided that it is not speak of Ishmael is unknown.

You said son of concubines are not heirs (the word in the verse is "son"). Where did you get the idea that she was a concubine? On what basis do you overlook her being called a wife? How did you figure from the bible that not being a "heir" directly entitles not being a "son"? Which verse supports the fact that the word used "son" cannot apply to Ishmael?

I know that Rabbinical Commentators have said that she was the daughter of the Pharoah.

I am basing what I say on clear words that exist (wife, son). Yet you walk away from the words without explaining why. So far the only thing showing your view is one contradicting verse that you have tried to explain without any firm basis on the text. Please try again.

How someone called a "son" multiple times is not a "son" is beyond me. If he did not deserve this status they why call him such and also talk about the blessings....

Please stay on topic. Remember the only question was whether or not it was Ishmael who was offered as sacrifice. You have to show me that he is not considered a son as per the Torah. In this attempt you stated that concubine are not heirs. So you have to show me that Hagar is a concubine despite clearly being called a wife. Then you can show me how a child of a concubine is not a heir despite being called a son.

Remember arguments are not to be supported on opinion but rather evidence. So I actually do not need to show you evidence that Ishmael was a heir (me doing so only strengthened against unsupported statements), because we commonly know a "son" from a "wife" and husband is called a "son" and is a heir. Your statement is something that needs to be supported as it is against common understanding of the language.

 

[beerisit]

This is a religious forum and we are discussing the religious point of view.
What are the religious grounds to the claim that the Land of Israel was given to the Jews? that's the discussion. now if you want to discuss things in modern 21 century legal code, then that's a different topic all together, and in fact can be asked on every nation, where is the signature of god that france belongs to the french? and so on...

Oh whatever you do don't drag ancient religions kicking and screaming into the reality of the 21st century

 

[JacobEzra.]

Huh. I am sorry, but the words of Ancient scribes won't make me support such a silly idea such as some piece of desert belongs to a certain people. It doesn't help the Jewish people when certain members are going around saying it belongs solely to the Jews. It doesn't. It belongs to all people as with any land.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Secondly the evidence is overwhelming from the Bible that Israel belongs to the Jews, the chosen people of G-d. xtians who don't support Israel, or for some reason think that Israel was transferred to "them" because of Jesus (a man who may or may not have even existed) need to read their bible more carefully instead of believing in ugly replacement theology. And same for muslims, since the quran actually says that Israel belongs to the Jewish people.

I am still at loss as to why a Christian needs to support Israel.

From a secular point of view, Israel belongs to the Jews. The facts are that the Jews have occupied the land referred to as either Palestine or Israel for over 3 thousand years of recorded history. Sure they have been invaded and ruled over by many different people and empires. In 625 BC, they were invaded and ruled by the Babylonians, then the Medo-Persians in 558 BC, followed by the Greco-Macedonians in 333 BC, the Roman's in 31 BC and in 638 AD they were invaded and occupied by the muslims. The Jews did not invade Israel or Palestine, as their forefathers have lived there continuously from time immemorial. Beginning in 1890 AD, many Jews began returning to Israel, based on a promise that they could have their own home land, but they never displaced anyone.

Until Zionism gained popularity, the Jewish community in Israel was small. There is no need to really go beyond 67 when the lines were drawn. Yes Israel is a state and deserves to be. But Gaza and West Bank are military occupations and do not truly belong to Israel. The reluctance to leave the area is silly in my opinion.

 

[Shermana]

The word for "wife" is simply "Woman" like in German, Frau. This is not very politically correct in English. Thus, the word "Wife" can also apply to a concubine, as it is still one's woman.

So the question is, were the "Concubines" the "wives" or were they other unmentioned women? The commentaries differ.

Genesis 25:6 Bible Commentary

Yes, a son of a slave girl is still a "son" as much as a "son of a wife" is still a son. But if this was the event that they were equal in share, a King who got a prostitute knocked up would have to make him prince over the Queen's firstborn.

 

[Shermana]

I am still at loss as to why a Christian needs to support Israel.

"Christians", which should be Messianic Jews, should support the return of the exiled and the unfolding the prophetic events where Israel is restored and wins every war and will become the base of the "World to come".

Until Zionism gained popularity, the Jewish community in Israel was small.

A Jewish community nonetheless. What does the size matter, the presence always remained? Why is it different than any other exile like the Babylonian and Assyrian and Greek invasion?

There is no need to really go beyond 67 when the lines were drawn.

Those borders were nearly indefensible, a modern army could cut Israel in two within hours, a buffer zone at the very least is needed, not to mention economic and growth potential. There's really no need to give a newly named "Palestinian" the same land that was held by Jordan, when you could give them Jordan. There's no reason for Israel to retreat a single centimeter.

Yes Israel is a state and deserves to be. But Gaza and West Bank are military occupations and do not truly belong to Israel

.

When was the last time a "military occupation" did not result in something that "Truly belonged" in the borders? Who are they occupying it from? Jordan? The "Palestinians"? It's the land Providence gave them.

The reluctance to leave the area is silly in my opinion.

It's silly to think leaving will do any good.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I can understand that the Jews believe the land of Israel was given to them by God.
However they have done a very poor job of protecting and keeping it over the centuries.
It is hard to think of a time when it was not been fought over or dominated by others.
If God gave it, he is not doing much in the way of long term support.

It seems to me, that it has been no more secure than any other middle eastern country.

Perhaps that is the way God likes it.

 

[beerisit]

This is all predicated on an alleged covenant between an alleged god and the alleged descendants of an alleged Abraham. I don't know how anyone could deny it.

 

[Aquitaine]

All land - regardless of what the Powerfull/Rich/Scriptural/Political influences try to dictate - belongs to all Humanity as well as the other creatures that co-exist alongside us.

Remember: we are Citizens of Earth, not Citizens of Country X etc.

 

[robo]

"Why Israel belongs to the Jews"

What if 51% of Israel embraces Jainism. Will Israel belong to Jains then?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, this thread is certainly helpful.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Well, this thread is certainly helpful.

Oh no doubt bout that!

 

[Chanukah]

The Jews were never chosen because of their race. They were chosen because of the righteousness of their forefathers. If race had anything to do with it, then the entire race of Abraham would have been also chosen , but that never happened, only Abraham alone as he was told in Genesis to 'leave your country and your birthplace to the place that I will show you'. So the Jews were chosen because their forefathers adhered to the word of God, and didn't worship idols unlike the rest of the world who was busy worshipping man made idols of stone and wood. So the argument that the Jews were chosen because of their race is not only idiotic but its also false and unfounded.

The second argument that someone here also suggested was that the Jews just like the Christians and the Muslims 'forced their religions on others'. This is by far one of the most foolish and ignorant things I have heard in a long time. Never in history the Jews went from place to place as other religions and peoples to force their beliefs on others, its just not found and is not there. The Torah doesn't demand conversion from the Gentiles, all they have to do is follow the seven laws of Noah, and they can be granted salvation, that's all, therefore there is no reason for the Jews to force their religion on others, because they just don't need to, and are not obligated to do so. But in Islam and Christianity forcing others to join their religion was and in some aspects even today is a major part of their theology and beliefs, so the differences are astronomical.

As to the atheists who choose not to believe in anything and are in fact here just to discredit religion based on phony and back warded ideas and arguments, I say that its a total waste of time trying to teach you something as the famous saying of King Solomon : "Teach a clown wisdom and he will hate you for it". Clowns don't appreciate wisdom they mock it therefore there is no use to try to explain intelligence and wisdom to those who either don't have the tools to comprehend it, and in fact are not interested in it to begin with, so I won't give you the pleasure of a response to your pathetic and pointless comments about religion. I'm here to discuss why the land of Israel belongs to the Jews from a religious point of view to those who can appreciate history, religion, and facts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As to the atheists who choose not to believe in anything and are in fact here just to discredit religion based on phony and back warded ideas and arguments, ...

I personally hate back warded ideas. It's hard to be up front with a back warded idea.

Of course, to be fair, an a posteriori front warded idea seems at least etymologically awkward. :yes:

 

[beerisit]

The Jews were never chosen because of their race. They were chosen because of the righteousness of their forefathers. If race had anything to do with it, then the entire race of Abraham would have been also chosen , but that never happened, only Abraham alone as he was told in Genesis to 'leave your country and your birthplace to the place that I will show you'. So the Jews were chosen because their forefathers adhered to the word of God, and didn't worship idols unlike the rest of the world who was busy worshipping man made idols of stone and wood. So the argument that the Jews were chosen because of their race is not only idiotic but its also false and unfounded.

The second argument that someone here also suggested was that the Jews just like the Christians and the Muslims 'forced their religions on others'. This is by far one of the most foolish and ignorant things I have heard in a long time. Never in history the Jews went from place to place as other religions and peoples to force their beliefs on others, its just not found and is not there. The Torah doesn't demand conversion from the Gentiles, all they have to do is follow the seven laws of Noah, and they can be granted salvation, that's all, therefore there is no reason for the Jews to force their religion on others, because they just don't need to, and are not obligated to do so. But in Islam and Christianity forcing others to join their religion was and in some aspects even today is a major part of their theology and beliefs, so the differences are astronomical.

As to the atheists who choose not to believe in anything and are in fact here just to discredit religion based on phony and back warded ideas and arguments, I say that its a total waste of time trying to teach you something as the famous saying of King Solomon : "Teach a clown wisdom and he will hate you for it". Clowns don't appreciate wisdom they mock it therefore there is no use to try to explain intelligence and wisdom to those who either don't have the tools to comprehend it, and in fact are not interested in it to begin with, so I won't give you the pleasure of a response to your pathetic and pointless comments about religion. I'm here to discuss why the land of Israel belongs to the Jews from a religious point of view to those who can appreciate history, religion, and facts.

I asked on another thread of a Muslim, so it's only fair that I ask it here. Can you prove that any person on Earth is a descendant of this mythological Abraham?

 

[robo]

The Jews were never chosen because of their race. They were chosen because of the righteousness of their forefathers. If race had anything to do with it, then the entire race of Abraham would have been also chosen , but that never happened, only Abraham alone as he was told in Genesis to 'leave your country and your birthplace to the place that I will show you'. So the Jews were chosen because their forefathers adhered to the word of God, and didn't worship idols unlike the rest of the world who was busy worshipping man made idols of stone and wood. So the argument that the Jews were chosen because of their race is not only idiotic but its also false and unfounded.

The second argument that someone here also suggested was that the Jews just like the Christians and the Muslims 'forced their religions on others'. This is by far one of the most foolish and ignorant things I have heard in a long time. Never in history the Jews went from place to place as other religions and peoples to force their beliefs on others, its just not found and is not there. The Torah doesn't demand conversion from the Gentiles, all they have to do is follow the seven laws of Noah, and they can be granted salvation, that's all, therefore there is no reason for the Jews to force their religion on others, because they just don't need to, and are not obligated to do so. But in Islam and Christianity forcing others to join their religion was and in some aspects even today is a major part of their theology and beliefs, so the differences are astronomical.

As to the atheists who choose not to believe in anything and are in fact here just to discredit religion based on phony and back warded ideas and arguments, I say that its a total waste of time trying to teach you something as the famous saying of King Solomon : "Teach a clown wisdom and he will hate you for it". Clowns don't appreciate wisdom they mock it therefore there is no use to try to explain intelligence and wisdom to those who either don't have the tools to comprehend it, and in fact are not interested in it to begin with, so I won't give you the pleasure of a response to your pathetic and pointless comments about religion. I'm here to discuss why the land of Israel belongs to the Jews from a religious point of view to those who can appreciate history, religion, and facts.

Could you respond to my post #32?

If 51% of Israelis convert to Jainism, what happens next? Does Israel still "belong" to Jews?

 

[Chanukah]

I asked on another thread of a Muslim, so it's only fair that I ask it here. Can you prove that any person on Earth is a descendant of this mythological Abraham?

I don't answer to atheists because anyone who doesn't have the basic intellect to understand that this universe is not a product of any 'accidents' and in fact must have been created by God, is below my level and I don't give them the time and day.

Now if you asked me, 'You know I believe in God and believe that Abraham the father of the Jewish people existed but I'm very ignorant on the details and don't know how to relate to someone that lived thousands of years ago, and therefore can you please explain to me who Abraham was and what he did and how his life effects our lives"? Now that's worth a response, because you're not talking nonsense and are truly interested to learn and know and grow intellectually, but when you come from the standpoint of 'Abraham never existed' even though there is an entire nation who can trace its history to their famous forefather, then this doesn't deserve any response, because its a question asked by a clown who lacks basic intellect, and as I said in a different thread that I don't waste my time talking to clowns, I'll rather use my energy explaining things to those who really want to learn and know.

King Solomon said "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God". If you don't have the fear of god you still didn't even enter the gates of wisdom, so what's the point talking with you at all.

 

[Aquitaine]

As to the atheists who choose not to believe in anything and are in fact here just to discredit religion based on phony and back warded ideas and arguments, I say that its a total waste of time trying to teach you something as the famous saying of King Solomon : "Teach a clown wisdom and he will hate you for it". Clowns don't appreciate wisdom they mock it therefore there is no use to try to explain intelligence and wisdom to those who either don't have the tools to comprehend it, and in fact are not interested in it to begin with, so I won't give you the pleasure of a response to your pathetic and pointless comments about religion. I'm here to discuss why the land of Israel belongs to the Jews from a religious point of view to those who can appreciate history, religion, and facts.

Don't you think that's a rather dismissive thing to say - that Athiests who challenge your own religious beliefs are dumb drones not worthy of any intellectual debate? Although I'm not an Athiest, I am totally in-favour of people challenging (and even defending) Religious "authority" and "truth", along with the rest of their mystical claims.

Debate is always a very healthy think, people learn from debating with each other.

:yes:
​