₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1,994,422 members, 4,210,728 topics. Date: Friday, 27 April 2018 at 09:29 AM

Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews - Religion (1) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews (28867 Views)

TB Joshua Arrives Israel. Deputy Major Of Jerusalem Said This About Him (pics) / #plstellooni: the GOD Of The Yorubas -(Olodumare) Is Not The Same god, The Jews / Buhari’s Ministerial List Shows That He Belongs To Somebody – Cardinal Okogie (1) (2) (3) (4)

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by danvon(m): 4:59pm On Dec 21, 2017
analize701:

No, muhammed is God who decides that the land YHWH gave to the Jews the Arabs should steal it.


Then let them (the Jews) fight Mohammed it's not your war
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by analize701: 5:21pm On Dec 21, 2017
danvon:
Then let them (the Jews) fight Mohammed it's not your war
It's my bloodline.

If you carry fight come my family, na me you dey fight o.


Israel forever.

36 Likes

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by danvon(m): 5:21pm On Dec 21, 2017
analize701:

It's my bloodline.
Then be cursed with them
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by analize701: 5:28pm On Dec 21, 2017
danvon:
Then be cursed with them
The curse can't lay a curse.

You are three times cursed. You inherit the curse placed on Ismael before he was born, and you attract a curse as you engage in wickedness. For, the Curse of the Lord is in the House of the Wicked.
You attract automatic Curse on yourself as you lay a curse on a Jew, For he who Blesses you (Jew) I (YHWH) shell bless, and he who Curses you, i shall curse.

With all you Arabs are doing, you can't pinch Israel.

Goansleep away your frustration, for whom God (YHWH)has blessed, no demon, allah, can curse.


Goanask Balaam.

34 Likes 6 Shares

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by danvon(m): 5:33pm On Dec 21, 2017
analize701:

The curse can't lay a curse.

You are three times cursed. You inherit the curse placed on Ismael before he was born, and you attract a curse as you engage in wickedness. For, the Curse of the Lord is in the House of the Wicked.
You attract automatic Curse on yourself as you lay a curse on a Jew, For he who Blesses you (Jew) I (YHWH) shell bless, and he who Curses you, i shall curse.

With all you Arabs are doing, you can't pinch Israel.

Goansleep away your frustration, for whom God (YHWH)has blessed, no demon, allah, can curse.


Goanask Balaam.
you are how many times cursed? "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."
Revelation:3:9,....."For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."
2 John:1:11,...... "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."
Revelation:2:9....."Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
John:8:44....."And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD."
2 Chronicles:19:2

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by abduljabbar4(m): 10:32pm On Dec 21, 2017
analize701:

What was he? A child had outside of marriage is called what in Islam? In Christianity we call them bastards.

Come chop, she want come commot food for madam mouth.

Muslims are thieves. I just pity anyone who allows those creatures close to them.

Animals like dogs and Cats are better as companions that muslims.

Just give them a little space, they will pretend to be humans and bring their smelling folks around, before you know, they'll want you out of your own land.

If it was a muslim that said these words against christians he would have been banned by now.

7 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Olu317(m): 6:15pm On Dec 22, 2017
Hati13:

I'm just blabbing grin
Jerusalem definitely belongs to Palestine aka Islamized Jews.
No no! The Palestinians aren't islamized Jews.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Hati13(m): 7:14pm On Dec 22, 2017
Olu317:
No no! The Palestinians aren't islamized Jews.
Why?
If they have lived in their present territory for many thousands of years, then it means they followed Judaism before Islam.

6 Likes

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Olu317(m): 6:52am On Dec 23, 2017
Hati13:

Why?
If they have lived in their present territory for many thousands of years, then it means they followed Judaism before Islam.
This is because the Palestine are philistines offshoot with Ishmaelite fusion. The Hebrew were already slaves and captives in different gentile nation as at when ottoman people took over Jerusalem. First of all, the Hebrew were first made captives after their first freedom from Egypt during the lifetime of of Moses then by the Assyrians, the Persians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Then Romans , in which the Hebrew language was already outside the shore of ancient Israel, which was replaced with Aramaic ,which Jesus Christ witnessed, during the days of Roman reigns in Jerusalem. The ottoman Turk presence started from the capturing of Eastern Jerusalem, which these Palestinians had relocated during Jesus existence and the Roman lost the location of the Palestine ,which is Eastern Jerusalem .The sultanate had grip and had taken over Egypt before this time. And around 1260, the mamluks ruled Palestine from Egypt and The Sultan Selim 1, challenge them . And around 1517, his son's Army took over the whole of Israel land that the part the mamluks were were formerly in charge after a war campaign. So, Israel had been in bondage for thousands of years. And Judaism was not accepted by these foreigners known as palenstines and other Arab immigrants because Judaism had left Israel as at this period. Even till today, there are Jewish settlers in Palestine enclave that are bilingual in both Arabic and modern day Jewish language. And some Among them still practise Samaritan goodwill.

18 Likes 2 Shares

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Hati13(m): 10:49am On Dec 23, 2017
Olu317:
This is because the Palestine are philistines offshoot with Ishmaelite fusion. The Hebrew were already slaves and captives in different gentile nation as at when ottoman people took over Jerusalem. First of all, the Hebrew were first made captives after their first freedom from Egypt during the lifetime of of Moses then by the Assyrians, the Persians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Then Romans , in which the Hebrew language was already outside the shore of ancient Israel, which was replaced with Aramaic ,which Jesus Christ witnessed, during the days of Roman reigns in Jerusalem. The ottoman Turk presence started from the capturing of Eastern Jerusalem, which these Palestinians had relocated during Jesus existence and the Roman lost the location of the Palestine ,which is Eastern Jerusalem .The sultanate had grip and had taken over Egypt before this time. And around 1260, the mamluks ruled Palestine from Egypt and The Sultan Selim 1, challenge them . And around 1517, his son's Army took over the whole of Israel land that the part the mamluks were were formerly in charge after a war campaign. So, Israel had been in bondage for thousands of years. And Judaism was not accepted by these foreigners known as palenstines and other Arab immigrants because Judaism had left Israel as at this period. Even till today, there are Jewish settlers in Palestine enclave that are bilingual in both Arabic and modern day Jewish language. And some Among them still practise Samaritan goodwill.
Ok thanks for the explanation.

By the way, scholars are now saying that the cannietes (sorry for the spelling) were the Israelites themselves and they were generally never been enslaved in Egypt and there was also never been an exodus from Egypt to Israel back then (I watched it in a program called "Bible's Buried Secrets" ). Few Israelis might have been enslaved by Egyptians and returned to Israel after some years, but the Israelis in general were never been enslaved by Egyptians rather by few elite Israelis themselves. What do you say about this?
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Olu317(m): 7:38pm On Dec 24, 2017
Hati13:

Ok thanks for the explanation.

By the way, scholars are now saying that the cannietes (sorry for the spelling) were the Israelites themselves and they were generally never been enslaved in Egypt and there was also never been an exodus from Egypt to Israel back then (I watched it in a program called "Bible Secrets Reveled" ). Few Israelis might have been enslaved by Egyptians and returned to Israel after some years, but the Israelis in general were never been enslaved by Egyptians rather by few elite Israelis themselves. What do you say about this?
Let us be honest with ourselves because archeology and ethnography doesn't super this. The most important aspect of Israelis tradition are mostly written in the Bible and Torah and does not support the ancient Canaan as Hebrew people before the new one(isrealis) emerged. The worship of God and animals associated with Israelis made them different. The Israelis used Heifer as sacrifice by house of prophet, which started from Aaronic dynasty, while the house of David uses Ram as sacrifice for replacement for a son that needed to die as a sacrifice to God. This does not change the fact that all ancient Israel uses ram as a form of sacrifice I'm one way or the other. Furthermore, the Islamic religion has adopted this tradition as a yearly sacrifice in their own religion. The first set of Canaanites were offshoot of Cush. The historical Israelis weren't Canaanites but adopted many names due to their migration pattern to the different locations they found themselves. And on the exodus out of Egypt was true even if different conquest had existed in Egypt, with different ethnic groups, which had erased many historical connection to Israel. Till date, the land of Onias still exist in Egypt even if the location had been destroyed because there were written document in Aramaic. Below is an attach document.

7 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Hati13(m): 5:10am On Dec 25, 2017
Olu317:
Let us be honest with ourselves because archeology and ethnography doesn't super this. The most important aspect of Israelis tradition are mostly written in the Bible and Torah and does not support the ancient Canaan as Hebrew people before the new one(isrealis) emerged. The worship of God and animals associated with Israelis made them different. The Israelis used Heifer as sacrifice by house of prophet, which started from Aaronic dynasty, while the house of David uses Ram as sacrifice for replacement for a son that needed to die as a sacrifice to God. This does not change the fact that all ancient Israel uses ram as a form of sacrifice I'm one way or the other. Furthermore, the Islamic religion has adopted this tradition as a yearly sacrifice in their own religion. The first set of Canaanites were offshoot of Cush. The historical Israelis weren't Canaanites but adopted many names due to their migration pattern to the different locations they found themselves. And on the exodus out of Egypt was true even if different conquest had existed in Egypt, with different ethnic groups, which had erased many historical connection to Israel. Till date, the land of Onias still exist in Egypt even if the location had been destroyed because there were written document in Aramaic. Below is an attach document.
Ok, but could you watch this documentary which support what I said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yc5kKSzzUI
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by PastorAIO: 5:30am On Dec 25, 2017
analize701:


After exile, the Jews ran into the dry desert and turned it into an oasis, Muhammed attacked them on Sabbath day, knowing they will not fight back, he killed them all, and stole their land.

Please what year did this event take place. I ask because I am not aware of Muhammad invading any land that wasn't in Arabia.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by PastorAIO: 5:39am On Dec 25, 2017
Olu317:
Let us be honest with ourselves because archeology and ethnography doesn't super this. The most important aspect of Israelis tradition are mostly written in the Bible and Torah and does not support the ancient Canaan as Hebrew people before the new one(isrealis) emerged. The worship of God and animals associated with Israelis made them different. The Israelis used Heifer as sacrifice by house of prophet, which started from Aaronic dynasty, while the house of David uses Ram as sacrifice for replacement for a son that needed to die as a sacrifice to God. This does not change the fact that all ancient Israel uses ram as a form of sacrifice I'm one way or the other.

Actually the archeology and ethnography does support this.

Perhaps you should first look up what he is saying before you dismiss it. You should check out the work of people like Ammon Ben Tor.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by PastorAIO: 5:45am On Dec 25, 2017
History says that Jerusalem was a city built by the Jebusites, and a covetous King David invaded it and stole it from them and then made it his capital city.

Christians shouldn't lie. Unless lying is a core part of your christianity. Along with hatefulness and envy.

7 Likes 2 Shares

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by AgentOfAllah: 9:40am On Dec 25, 2017
PastorAIO:


Please what year did this event take place. I ask because I am not aware of Muhammad invading any land that wasn't in Arabia.

I believe Analize701 is talking of Yathrib (modern day city of Medina), however, this person's understanding of the story is rather very unsophisticated. First of all, Medina is an oasis, but of course, naturally formed. It was not converted by the jews as (s)he claims. Also, I'm not sure about the day Muhammed attacked, but the outcome of that attack was devastating. In some ways also, inevitable. During their stay in Yathrib, the tensions between the Muslim and the leaders of some local Jewish tribes simmered and eroded the trust that allowed the Muslims into Medina in the first instance. I guess the Muslims felt betrayed also, because, in spite of them acknowledging the Jews as among god's chosen, and even praising all their prophets and what not, the Jewish leadership in these tribes, though accepting Muhammed's political leadership, refused to acknowledge the supremacy of his religion. Some did convert to Islam, but many didn't make it a secret that they considered Muhammed's message a fraudulent rip off! On several occasions, they would rebuff his attempts to convert them by asking him difficult questions. So, in spite of his wide acceptance in Medina, he wasn't universally liked by all the leading tribes there.
For some reason, Muhammed chronicled his frustrations with this set of Jews in several parts of the Qur'an, apparently, as god's response to them. This is just one of his responses below:

Q2: 82-88
(82) And (remember) when We made a covenant with the Children of Israel, (saying): Worship none save Allah (only), and be good to parents and to kindred and to orphans and the needy, and speak kindly to mankind; and establish worship and pay the poor-due. Then, after that, ye slid back, save a few of you, being averse.
(83) And when We made with you a covenant (saying): Shed not the blood of your people nor turn (a party of) your people out of your dwellings. Then ye ratified (Our covenant) and ye were witnesses (thereto).
(84) Yet ye it is who slay each other and drive out a party of your people from their homes, supporting one another against them by sin and transgression-and if they came to you as captives ye would ransom them, whereas their expulsion was itself unlawful for you - Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do.
(85) Such are those who buy the life of the world at the price of the Hereafter. Their punishment will not be lightened, neither will they have support.
(86) And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy spirit. Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?
(87) And they say: Our hearts are hardened. Nay, but Allah hath cursed them for their unbelief. Little is that which they believe.
(88) And when there cometh unto them a scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession - though before that they were asking for a signal triumph over those who disbelieved - and when there cometh unto them that which they know (to be the truth) they disbelieve therein. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers.

So what happened?
Before the Muslims arrived Yathrib, it was a relatively stable free market economy with no real leadership, just a bunch of tribes, each having their own tribal representative in a sort of community congress. These tribes were a mix of Arabized Jewish tribes like banu Aws, core Jewish ones like banu Qurayzah and Banu Nadir; as well as other core Arab tribes and perhaps others that were unrecorded. Around the year 622AD, Muhammed was invited to Medina to come and settle a dispute between two of the leading tribes then, Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj, as he was seen as trust worthy. Among the conditions for his participation was that as an independent arbiter, he was to become the de facto leader of Medina, and his decisions would be final. Made sense, as many found his judgements fair; and even became Muslims as a result. He also instituted a representative theocratic government in which Jews were expressly allowed to govern themselves in accordance with their own legal codes, but they were still subject to state taxes instituted for the welfare of the state.

Unfortunately, during one of the battles with the pagans of Mecca, the battle of the trenches (so named because the Muslims were grossly outnumbered and decided to protect themselves by digging trenches around their city),one of the Jewish tribes, Banu Qurayzah, conspired with the Meccans to attack the Muslims from behind, perhaps because they weren't happy with their new subordinate status or maybe their mistrust for the divine claims of Muhammed had reached its climax. Either way, they grossly miscalculated. The Meccans had planned to weaken the Muslims by siege; and then Qurayzah would finish them off, but the siege didn't last long, as the arid climate with its treacherous sand storms frustrated the Meccans. Meanwhile, the Muslims got wind of the intentions of Banu Qurayzah, and marched on them as soon as the battle was over. The leadership of banu Qurayzah had betrayed one of the key provisions in the Medina constitution, and Muhammed, knowing the punishment for this kind of betrayal according to Jewish traditions would be severe; and at the same time, navigating around a tense political situation (at this point, the Jews of Yathrib were still vastly more influential in the city than the Muslims), he appointed the leader of banu Aws who had converted to Islam, to pronounce judgement on banu Qurayzah according to the Torah. The judgement was severe: Kill all male members of the tribe that have attained the age of puberty; and enslave women and children. This was a politically deft move! He at once, eliminated his political opponents, while not incurring the wrath of the powerful Arabised Jewish tribes in Medina. But it was just as stupendously atrocious. Nevertheless, it solidified the Muslims' stronghold on Yathrib and allowed then to subsequently institute more severe strains of their theology.

6 Likes 2 Shares

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Olu317(m): 10:09am On Dec 25, 2017
PastorAIO:


Actually the archeology and ethnography does support this.

Perhaps you should first look up what he is saying before you dismiss it. You should check out the work of people like Ammon Ben Tor.

Well, the information on Ben Tor didn't go beyond sixth century BC. And this period the Israelites were already captives of different kingdoms. The foundation of Israel is the first to reckon with, which stand as the basis for ethnic or tribe's identification. As far as I have gone through many documents, the Israelites were not ancient Canaanites but did married to so many people, which made them lost touch with their God known as Elyion,Eli,Elshadai etc. The language of Israelis developed out of Egyptians language. So, few authors that tend to deviate to proof some point can't be neglected but hold no strong evidence. This is because the history of Israelis started from Abram and to Isaac, etc until they became captives in Egypt. The location of the land Israelis occupied were already occupied during their captivity. Even if that land had been given to Abram before his descendants existed. So, there is no iota of doubt that Israelis inter married to different people but not the original people called Canaanites. Furthermore, the ancient Israelis extended beyond the shore of their land and lived in Arabia axis etc. The Persian of this world was in Iran. The Babylonians was in somewhere in Syria. So,as at sixth century BC, Israelis territory was a cosmopolitan city because they were slaves as at this period. If you have evidence that pinned down Abram as descendants of Canaanites, then you have a point but if otherwise, then he remained a Chaldean /Sumerian —Mesopotamia descendants as evidence has shown . Despite the fact that he even had many children outside Sarah and Hagai the Egyptian.

5 Likes

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Olu317(m): 12:30pm On Dec 25, 2017
Hati13:

Ok, but could you watch this documentary which support what I said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yc5kKSzzUI
I have watched and still referred to Bible as a source that is linked to archaeological finding. There have been postulation about Canaanites as linked to Israelites but originally the Israelites were from Chaldean /Sumerian —Mesopotamian offshoot, considering Abram's ancestors. Despite the fact here traveled to different part within and Middle East and Africa, specifically, the land of Egypt. He was the one that a single God named Elohim—YHMH, Elyion, Eli was known through to his descendants. Furthermore there are no concrete evidence to support this information except the similar archeology that showed pottery that looked alike but the difference is simplicity of Israelis pottery while the Canaanites pottery was complex and they had no known God as Israelis. This didn't take away the fact that the world evolved from same parentage as it seems.

4 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by PastorAIO: 1:04pm On Dec 25, 2017
Olu317:
Well, the information on Ben Tor didn't go beyond sixth century BC. And this period the Israelites were already captives of different kingdoms. The foundation of Israel is the first to reckon with, which stand as the basis for ethnic or tribe's identification. As far as I have gone through many documents, the Israelites were not ancient Canaanites but did married to so many people, which made them lost touch with their God known as Elyion,Eli,Elshadai etc. The language of Israelis developed out of Egyptians language. So, few authors that tend to deviate to proof some point can't be neglected but hold no strong evidence. This is because the history of Israelis started from Abram and to Isaac, etc until they became captives in Egypt. The location of the land Israelis occupied were already occupied during their captivity. Even if that land had been given to Abram before his descendants existed. So, there is no iota of doubt that Israelis inter married to different people but not the original people called Canaanites. Furthermore, the ancient Israelis extended beyond the shore of their land and lived in Arabia axis etc. The Persian of this world was in Iran. The Babylonians was in somewhere in Syria. So,as at sixth century BC, Israelis territory was a cosmopolitan city because they were slaves as at this period. If you have evidence that pinned down Abram as descendants of Canaanites, then you have a point but if otherwise, then he remained a Chaldean /Sumerian descendants. Despite the fact that he even had many children outside Sarah and Hagai the Egyptian.

Well, the information on Ben Tor didn't go beyond sixth century BC.

I don't understand your meaning. Ben Tor is an archaeologists that studies ancient canaanite sites. I don't see what the 6th century bc has to do with his work, or with what we are talking about.


the Israelites were not ancient Canaanites but did married to so many people, which made them lost touch with their God known as Elyion,Eli,Elshadai etc.
Go and research about the Canaanite Gods. What was the name of the chief god of Canaan? I'll save you the effort. His name was El Elyon.

All those gods that you name as Israelite gods are actually Canaanite gods.


The language of Israelis developed out of Egyptians language.

You must really be a christian. Only a christian can make up totally unfounded 'facts' like this and shamelessly post it in a public forum.

Hebrew which was the language of the Hebrews (Israelis did not come into existence until 1948), is related, at least in written form, to Arabic, to Phoenician, and even to ancient Greek.

If you have evidence that pinned down Abram as descendants of Canaanites, then you have a point but if otherwise, then he remained a Chaldean /Sumerian descendants.

Okay, please try and explain this. The chief deity of the Canaanites is El Elyon. The diety of the sumerians are An, Enlil, Enki etc....

Don't you find it curious that the god Abraham worshipped and followed was called El Elyon. And Abram even deferred to his high priest Melchizedek. does it make sense that a Sumerian would decide to start worshipping the god of the Canaanites?

3 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Olu317(m): 3:12pm On Dec 25, 2017
PastorAIO:




I don't understand your meaning. Ben Tor is an archaeologists that studies ancient canaanite sites. I don't see what the 6th century bc has to do with his work, or with what we are talking about.



Go and research about the Canaanite Gods. What was the name of the chief god of Canaan? I'll save you the effort. His name was El Elyon.

All those gods that you name as Israelite gods are actually Canaanite gods.




You must really be a christian. Only a christian can make up totally unfounded 'facts' like this and shamelessly post it in a public forum.

Hebrew which was the language of the Hebrews (Israelis did not come into existence until 1948), is related, at least in written form, to Arabic, to Phoenician, and even to ancient Greek.



Okay, please try and explain this. The chief deity of the Canaanites is El Elyon. The diety of the sumerians are An, Enlil, Enki etc....

Don't you find it curious that the god Abraham worshipped and followed was called El Elyon. And Abram even deferred to his high priest Melchizedek. does it make sense that a Sumerian would decide to start worshipping the god of the Canaanites?
Yes Ben tor is an archaeologist and did studied ancient history of Israelis as it relates to the land of Canaanites. I have seen different archaeologists that have spoken and written about Canaanites. And there are archaeological information that had mentioned existence of Israelis around 2200 BC, 1500 BC, etc. This were partly the information as regards archaeological alphabetic order of ancient Israelis. There are so many info that archeologist don't agree with, yet the Biblical account is still the leeway to archaeological findings. When I mentioned the sixth BC, I know what I am informing because, the archaeological finding showed that Canaanites were neighbors of Israelis, despite the postulation that the Hebrews developed from Canaanites. My take is that the whole world developed from one source yet at every new human tradition formation differentiation occurs. The ancient Hebrews had a God that was different from everyone that existed during that period. I mentioned the Sumerian because before existence of Israelis, Abram and his descendants married to different tribes, according to the Bible, which is the basis of archeological information as regards Israelis formation. Elohim or YHMH was the nearest name of almighty God of Israelis during the Abram existence. And he recognized Melchizedek, despite the fact he came out of Mesopotamia .The important aspect is that Abram himself was a priest as he spoke with God. This was how his descendants came to existence. The most important aspect of the Israelis tradition was through the killing of white ram which made Abram distinct. This is the only way you can firstly Identify the Israelis. And archeology is gradually supporting this point. Even some criticism against David and Solomon existence were shut down when the new scroll testified to the mentioning of existence of the house of David that were captured by pharaoh shershak.There is information of this. The Israelis had the first five book written by Moses known as Torah, despite through many writers that showed the existence of Israelis as different people.

8 Likes

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by analize701: 3:30pm On Dec 25, 2017
[/quote author=AgentOfAllah post=63589249]

I believe Analize701 is talking of Yathrib (modern day city of Medina), however, this person's understanding of the story is rather very unsophisticated[/quote]
lol. You have already adjudged my understand when i didn't give any historical background to what i said.
Weldone.
AgentOfAllah:


First of all, Medina is an oasis, but of course, naturally formed. It was not converted by the jews as (s)he claims.
Jewish tribes arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a culturally, economically and politically dominant position. Why was Muhammed interested in the particular location? Was it not because it has become the center of economy? Who made that possible? The Jews.

AgentOfAllah:

Also, I'm not sure about the day Muhammed attacked, but the outcome of that attack was devastating.
Sir, if you'd call me unsophisticated, i think the best thing you should have done is to get your sophisticated facts out.

Ask yourself why Muhammed who originally comes from Yemen, then settled in Mecca, will be the one to impost his rule on a land he came in to meet people already living and doing peaceful business in.
He made the rules, others accepted to go by his rules, but unsuspectingly, he got up and broke the pact and besieged the Jews beheading 900 Men, stealing all their animals, properties and their women.
AgentOfAllah:


In some ways also, inevitable. During their stay in Yathrib, the tensions between the Muslim and the leaders of some local Jewish tribes simmered and eroded the trust that allowed the Muslims into Medina in the first instance.
The attack on the Jews was inevitable, you mean as it is today? These tribes have been living successfully and peacefully doing business together until the moslems were allowed in, then trouble began.
Just like it is today, moslems come into your area, you allow them, with time they rise up and attack you claiming your land by insisting on you obeying their religious laws or take the Sword.
AgentOfAllah:


I guess the Muslims felt betrayed also, because, in spite of them acknowledging the Jews as among god's chosen, and even praising all their prophets and what not, the Jewish leadership in these tribes, though accepting Muhammed's political leadership, refused to acknowledge the supremacy of his religion
Lolzzz, You guessed the Moslems felt betrayed? Muhammed didn't come to the Jews with 'Live and Let's live', he came with 'There's no other god but allah and muhammed is his prophet. He didn't go to them with the right hand of fellowship of worship yoir YHWH while we worship our allah.

He told the Jews that he was the Promised Prophet Moses talked about in their Torah, The Jews being a people guided by their law, Knew he was lying, since all yhe Prophets who had come had always been Jews, an Arab couldn't be a Prophet of their God YHWH, especially not this man whose reputation went ahead of him in the Arab peninsula.

Besides, there are Criteria to know a prophet of YHWH and Muhammed has had a reputation of stealing as an High Way man. He was known to be a rapist by these same men he was claiming he was their prophet, hence, they rejected him as YHWH's prophet. The narcissistic tendencies in him propelled him to take the move he took. Low self esteem made him not able to handle rejection, hence, he attacked them on a day he knew a Jew won't lift a finger in retaliation.
AgentOfAllah:

. Some did convert to Islam, but many didn't make it a secret that they considered Muhammed's message a fraudulent rip off! On several occasions, they would rebuff his attempts to convert them by asking him difficult questions.
You mean Muhammad presented them with this option, 'The Koran or the Sword?'. pulissssss. Go l[ with the soft peddling of Muhammad's evils. Those who converted were the fearful ones, just like Here in Nigeria, they present the Koran and the sword. choose. The cowards Chooses the koran and die twice.
AgentOfAllah:

So, in spite of his wide acceptance in Medina, he wasn't universally liked by all the leading tribes there.
For some reason, Muhammed chronicled his frustrations with this set of Jews in several parts of the Qur'an, apparently, as god's response to them. This is just one of his responses below:
Pls the facts are on goggle for everyone who is intereated to see, Muhammad was never accepted as a prophet peacefully, whether in Medina or anyehere else, it was by the sword. Right at Medina when he was openly rejected and called a fraud was chased out of town, he came back glorifying demons, the daughters of allah his grandfather and father had worshipped, which he removed an called idols because he wanted the Monotheistic God of the Jews to be his God.

How did the Satanic Verses come about?

17 Likes 3 Shares

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by analize701: 3:39pm On Dec 25, 2017
PastorAIO:


Please what year did this event take place. I ask because I am not aware of Muhammad invading any land that wasn't in Arabia.
The exile of the Jews happened in 70AD with General Titus the first son of the ruling Emperor then, who attacked Israel as a result of a revolt of the Jews against the Roman empire.

The Jews dispersed everywhere, built in the lands they escaped to. Funny enough, no Jew had ever claimed the land they ran to as theirs no matter how long they had stayed in those lands, yet the Arabs settles in peoples lands and wants to take it over because they had been there long.

The Land they call Palestine today was where a Jewish King David came from (Bethlehem), and also a birth place of Jesus. At What point did it become theirs?

Just like Muhammed left Yemen, went to Medina and took it, he moved to Yathrip, lived there for sometime and took it, so also muslims everywhere are doing.
Today, they want Britain and Australia.
Thieves.

15 Likes 2 Shares

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by PastorAIO: 3:58pm On Dec 25, 2017
Olu317:
Yes Ben tor is an archaeologist and did studied ancient history of Israelis as it relates to the land of Canaanites. I have seen different archaeologists that have spoken and written about Canaanites. And there are archaeological information that had mentioned existence of Israelis around 2200 BC, 1500 BC, etc. This were partly the information as regards archaeological alphabetic order of ancient Israelis. There are so many info that archeologist don't agree with, yet the Biblical account is still the leeway to archaeological findings. When I mentioned the sixth BC, I know what I am informing because, the archaeological finding showed that Canaanites were neighbors of Israelis, despite the postulation that the Hebrews developed from Canaanites. My take is that the whole world developed from one source yet at every new human tradition formation differentiation occurs. The ancient Hebrews had a God that was different from everyone that existed during that period. I mentioned the Sumerian because before existence of Israelis, Abram and his descendants married to different tribes, according to the Bible, which is the basis of archeological information as regards Israelis formation. Elohim or YHMH was the nearest name of almighty God of Israelis during the Abram existence. And he recognized Melchizedek, despite the fact he came out of Mesopotamia .The important aspect is that Abram himself was a priest as he spoke with God. This was how his descendants came to existence. The most important aspect of the Israelis tradition was through the killing of white ram which made Abram distinct. This is the only way you can firstly Identify the Israelis. And archeology is gradually supporting this point. Even some criticism against David and Solomon existence were shut down when the new scroll testified to the mentioning of existence of the house of David that were captured by pharaoh shershak.There is information of this. The Israelis had the first five book written by Moses known as Torah, despite through many writers that showed the existence of Israelis as different people.


What you are writing above is hardly coherent. let me just touch on a few points where I think I get what you're trying to say, yet are still very wrong.

One: There was no such thing as Israelis in ancient history. Israelis started in 1948.

Two: There was no such thing as Israelis/Israelite/Hebrews in 2200bc! If you even want to give abram a very early date then you might be able to squeeze 2000bc.

Three: Abram is itself a hebrew name meaning 'the exalted father'. (the name alone is fuel for those who would claim that he was mythological because why would a parent call his child exalted father, it would be the descendants that look back and confer on him the name of exalted father). But my main point here is that if Abram was a Sumerian then how come he didn't have a sumerian name.

four: You are definitely a nigerian christian. Just making things up sha! So Abraham is a priest in your bible. So speaking with God makes you a priest. If you don't speak with god nko? So Aaron that was the founder of the Hebrew priesthood would be less of a priest than Moses.

So in your opinion every prophet was a priest. whether or not they were levites..... abeg I tire.

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by PastorAIO: 5:09pm On Dec 25, 2017
analize701:

The exile of the Jews happened in 70AD with General Titus the first son of the ruling Emperor then, who attacked Israel as a result of a revolt of the Jews against the Roman empire.

The Jews dispersed everywhere, built in the lands they escaped to. Funny enough, no Jew had ever claimed the land they ran to as theirs no matter how long they had stayed in those lands, yet the Arabs settles in peoples lands and wants to take it over because they had been there long.

The Land they call Palestine today was where a Jewish King David came from (Bethlehem), and also a birth place of Jesus. At What point did it become theirs?

Just like Muhammed left Yemen, went to Medina and took it, he moved to Yathrip, lived there for sometime and took it, so also muslims everywhere are doing.
Today, they want Britain and Australia.
Thieves.

But Medina was in Arabia and Mohammed was Arab. How did he take it? Who did he take it from?

Jewish tribes arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a culturally, economically and politically dominant position. Why was Muhammed interested in the particular location? Was it not because it has become the center of economy? Who made that possible? The Jews.


So basically you are saying that Medina belongs to the Jews while at the same time using the very same mouth to say that :

ewish tribes arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a culturally, economically and politically dominant position. Why was Muhammed interested in the particular location? Was it not because it has become the center of economy? Who made that possible? The Jews.

An arab man moves somewhere in Arabia that has a jewish population and you accuse him of stealing Jewish land and yet Jew have never claimed anybody's land.

Even though Canaan was fully populated when according to the bible they arrived there.

I noticed you haven't addressed my point that Jerusalem was not Hebrew and in fact they stole it from the Jebusites.

In my belief, Everything that has a beginning will have an end. Only Eternal things are Eternal.

Israel had a beginning....

Jerusalem had a beginning .....
etc etc

Another sort of belief of mine is that: He who lives by the Sword will die by the Sword.

and a variation of that: if you achieve something violently you will lose it violently.

5 Likes 5 Shares

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by analize701: 11:56pm On Dec 25, 2017
PastorAIO:

But Medina was in Arabia and Mohammed was Arab. How did he take it? Who did he take it from?
No one said it wasn't. That's the reason why the Jews didn't fight Muhammed but accepted his terms even went further to pay the tax he imposed on them.

Yes Muhammed was a Yemini Arab, not a Yathrip Arab. The Yathrip Arabs never had any trouble cohabiting with the Jews who turned their region to a commercial hob. Muhammad not only killed the Jews but killed the Arabs too.

Question you shd answer pls, Why didn't muhammed allow the Jews cohabit with the Arabs in peace as they did before he got there?

Why was he moving from place to place leaving corpses on his trail?

And, he as an Arab wanted the Jews gone, why not evict them?
PastorAIO:

So basically you are saying that Medina belongs to the Jews while at the same time using the very same mouth to say that :
Pls read my posts very well so that you won't lie against me. I think i said clearly that the Jews dispersed into the Arabic Peninsula in the wake of the Romans Empire's attack on the Nation of Israel in 70AD.

I said the Jews escaped General Titus into the Arabic desert and turned it into an economic centre.

I didn't say it was their land, the Jews were not Arabs, but without the economic sense of the Jews, Muhammed wouldn't have been interested in that land.

He was daft without any knowledge of Agriculture.
When he had taken over the land, he gave a very wrong Agricultural procedure to the famers and they almost lost all their produce that year.

Him think say na for mouth.
PastorAIO:

An arab man moves somewhere in Arabia that has a jewish population and you accuse him of stealing Jewish land and yet Jew have never claimed anybody's land.
I hope you realize people are reading you? Maybe you don't care that your throwing your insincerity open.

Why didn't you complete your statement? 'An Arab man left Yemeni and settled in Medina, wanted the land, it was rejected him, he killed everyone and took the land, he moved on to the next town, Yathrip (Mecca) He needed the land which Natives and strangers had already established, he wanted the land, he was denied it. He waged war, he lost, he came back later with a peace pact, the Natives and the Settlers accepted him back, but when unsuspecting he rose up when he knew the settlers won't fight back and killed 900 men. Here you are clapping for him.

Pastor, you really need to clap for yoirself.

Did you read the Post AgentOf Allah posted from Wiki? Did you see Muhammad's deception?
PastorAIO:

Even though Canaan was fully populated when according to the bible they arrived there.
Did the Israelites on their own matched out to take that land? Or better still, did Moses the Jewish leader led an expedition against the Canaanites killing them for their land?

As a Pastor, i believe you know who Canaan was? What he did, how he came to be the reject of God and of man? How he became the slave of slaves?

The land Canaan dwelled on, was it his?

The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Psalm:24:1
, And He will give it to whomever He chooses. He owns the earth and the Canaanites who dwelled in that land. If Canaan did not please Him, and He wanted Canaan out, Canaan gets out.

The Landlord decides who stays on his land and who gets evicted, and Canaan got evicted for his evils of human sacrifice to demons.

How come you didn't know this as a pastor?
PastorAIO:

I noticed you haven't addressed my point that Jerusalem was not Hebrew and in fact they stole it from the Jebusites.
Oh, you meant to say YHWH is a thief who stole his own land from a wicked satan worshipping people and gave it to whom He choose? Oga, i hail o.

Do you remember YHWH promising Abraham that Land? When YHEH promised to give that land to the descendants of Abraham, it was described as being inhabited by many tribes, including the Jebusites (Genesis 15:18–21).

Who were these people, and where did they come from?

According to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, the Jebusites were descended from Noah’s son Ham, through his son Canaan. They were one of the Amorite tribes who were placed under judgment by God for their wickedness (Genesis 15:16). God described their pagan worship as abominable practices (Deuteronomy 20:18), which included child sacrifice to Molech by burning them in the fire.

As a result of that judgment, God told the Israelites to exterminate all of the Amorite tribes when they came into the land. The Israelites were also forbidden to intermarry with them, so the Jebusites would not pass on their pagan practices.

When Moses was asked by YHWH to take the Jews out of Egypt, and to the land of Amorites, its in keeping to the promise He made to his faithful Servant Abraham.
Remember, immediately the Jews crossed the Red Sea, hungry, thirsty and tired, the Amorites (Amalekites) attacked them without any provocation.

Now, tell me, Who commanded Muhammed to remove the Jews in Yathrip and in such a gruesome manner?

Pls, what did the Jews do before muhammed beheaded 900 men in one day? that's not all of the Jews he killed meanwhile.
PastorAIO:

In my belief, Everything that has a beginning will have an end. Only Eternal things are Eternal.
I believe that too. Whatsoever the Lord doeth is forever. No addition, no subtraction and He has given that Land to the Jews, so, no one can take it from them. Anyone who tries it will be swallowed up by that land. With all the money the Arab Leaque has, with all the support they have garnered, why have they not moved to take that land?

make dem try nah. dem try am twice in the past, and lost woefully, and lost some part of their land to Israel sef.
PastorAIO:


Israel had a beginning....

Jerusalem had a beginning .....
etc etc

Another sort of belief of mine is that: He who lives by the Sword will die by the Sword.
and a variation of that: if you achieve something violently you will lose it violently.

That's not your line, that's YHWH talking. That's why Islam will die by the Sword, for they live by the Sword.

Yes, that's why Muslims who used Violence to try to take over the land of Israel have lost it and if dem no dey fear, make dem waka go take am back.

Muhammad lived by killing people, how did he end? By being killed by a Jewish girl. who one of the 900 Men Muhammed killed was her husband. And that was her first day as a bride, Muhammed knew that, but he killed her husband anyways and took her home as a slave and raped her that same day while she was still crying for her husband Kinani, her father and her brothers.
To Show how brave he was, he raped her and kept raping her, until she in turn, killed him.

Pls let's put our hands together for prophet muhammed the World's best man.

17 Likes 5 Shares

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by AgentOfAllah: 9:21am On Dec 26, 2017
analize701:

lol. You have already adjudged my understand when i didn't give any historical background to what i said.
Weldone.
That's precisely the point! Rather than support your claims with facts from history, you chose instead, to back them up with a truck load of opinionated horseshit. This is an unsophisticated way to present an argument. You have repeated the same misguided opinions here again, and I will show you how if you bear with me.

Jewish tribes arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a culturally, economically and politically dominant position.
It is true that the Jews were among the earliest settlers in Yathrib, and that they developed it agriculturally. What this earned them, at best, was political and economical independence, but they were certainly not in a culturally, economically or even politically dominant position. It was the Arabs of Yathrib, who, though were latter settlers, held sway culturally and politically. Jewish tribes allied themselves with the leading Arab ones such as banu Aws and Khazraj. This fact is reflected in the Jewish Encyclopedia. But like I mentioned earlier, the leadership wasn't really structured as such. Just many cooperating feuding client tribes. That said, At the time of Muhammed, Mecca was by far the most dominant city not just in Hijaz, but the whole of the Arabian peninsula; politically, economically and culturally. I will be happy to explain why in detail, but the summary of it is that its leadership exploited the decline of the political power houses of the time. As they fought each other, trading routes became dangerous, and so the Meccans ensured their city was the safest trading route for lucrative commodities such as slaves, spices, gold, and so on. Yathrib pretty much only survived on dates, and was no match for Mecca in terms of importance.

Why was Muhammed interested in the particular location? Was it not because it has become the center of economy? Who made that possible? The Jews.
No, it wasn't. In fact, Muhammed wasn't really interested in Yathrib at all, except for the fact that the inhabitants approached him to assume the role of a dispassionate arbiter in the decades old conflicts between the leading tribes of Yathrib at the time. This happened at a time he was most desperate for succuor because members of his tribe in Mecca were definitely gonna kill him and his weak band of followers. He jumped at the opportunity immediately.

Sir, if you'd call me unsophisticated, i think the best thing you should have done is to get your sophisticated facts out.

I hope you now see why I dismissed your emotional venting as unsophisticated.

Ask yourself why Muhammed who originally comes from Yemen, then settled in Mecca, will be the one to impost his rule on a land he came in to meet people already living and doing peaceful business in.
I cannot ask myself that because the premise of such a question is objectively false. Muhammed and members of his tribe, the Quraish, were born and thoroughbred Meccans.

He made the rules, others accepted to go by his rules, but unsuspectingly, he got up and broke the pact and besieged the Jews beheading 900 Men, stealing all their animals, properties and their women.
Please read the entry on the Jewish encyclopedia. Even though it is a Jewish cite, it is far more objective than the emotional garbage you're presenting here.

The attack on the Jews was inevitable, you mean as it is today?
Focus! You're distracted.

These tribes have been living successfully and peacefully doing business together until the moslems were allowed in, then trouble began.
Wrong! They weren't living peacefully, which was what prompted them to invite Muhammed to arbitrate between them in the first place.

Just like it is today, moslems come into your area, you allow them, with time they rise up and attack you claiming your land by insisting on you obeying their religious laws or take the Sword.
You're all over the place! You seriously need to focus. You seem to enjoy veering off on tangents.

Lolzzz, You guessed the Moslems felt betrayed? Muhammed didn't come to the Jews with 'Live and Let's live', he came with 'There's no other god but allah and muhammed is his prophet. He didn't go to them with the right hand of fellowship of worship yoir YHWH while we worship our allah.
Wrong! Stop making ignorant claims! Again, I implore you to read the entry on the Jewish encyclopedia. Also look up the Constitution of Medina. I've now hyperlinked it twice for you!

He told the Jews that he was the Promised Prophet Moses talked about in their Torah, The Jews being a people guided by their law, Knew he was lying, since all yhe Prophets who had come had always been Jews, an Arab couldn't be a Prophet of their God YHWH, especially not this man whose reputation went ahead of him in the Arab peninsula.
Yes! Most of the Jews didn't believe him because he wasn't as adept as they were in Abrahamism, so they did what they could to expose the fraud of his claims. Of course, this eroded the initial warmth between the groups, and some of the Jewish tribes conspired to get rid of him by supporting the Meccans against him. Both factions became mutually antagonistic, each trying to eliminate the other.

Besides, there are Criteria to know a prophet of YHWH
Yeah, I guess so, but I'm not discussing the accuracy of his claim. I am sure the Jews of Yathrib had legitimate reasons to dismiss his claim to prophethood.

and Muhammed has had a reputation of stealing as an High Way man. He was known to be a rapist by these same men he was claiming he was their prophet, hence, they rejected him as YHWH's prophet. The narcissistic tendencies in him propelled him to take the move he took. Low self esteem made him not able to handle rejection, hence, he attacked them on a day he knew a Jew won't lift a finger in retaliation.
These claims seem dubious. Have you any references for them? In particular, I'm interested to know where you read that he was a rapist, or that he attacked on a Sabbath.

You mean Muhammad presented them with this option, 'The Koran or the Sword?'. pulissssss. Go l[ with the soft peddling of Muhammad's evils. Those who converted were the fearful ones, just like Here in Nigeria, they present the Koran and the sword. choose. The cowards Chooses the koran and die twice.
The Muslims were by no means strong enough to compel anyone to convert. Not before the conquest of Mecca, so there is no way they compelled anyone who accepted Islam in Medina to become Muslim.

Pls the facts are on goggle for everyone who is intereated to see, Muhammad was never accepted as a prophet peacefully, whether in Medina or anyehere else, it was by the sword. Right at Medina when he was openly rejected and called a fraud was chased out of town, he came back glorifying demons, the daughters of allah his grandfather and father had worshipped, which he removed an called idols because he wanted the Monotheistic God of the Jews to be his God.
Maybe take your own advice...but please use Google. I very much doubt the veracity of your "goggle" sources.

How did the Satanic Verses come about?
Seriously, focus!

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Olu317(m): 10:05am On Dec 26, 2017
PastorAIO:



What you are writing above is hardly coherent. let me just touch on a few points where I think I get what you're trying to say, yet are still very wrong.

One: There was no such thing as Israelis in ancient history. Israelis started in 1948.

Two: There was no such thing as Israelis/Israelite/Hebrews in 2200bc! If you even want to give abram a very early date then you might be able to squeeze 2000bc.

Three: Abram is itself a hebrew name meaning 'the exalted father'. (the name alone is fuel for those who would claim that he was mythological because why would a parent call his child exalted father, it would be the descendants that look back and confer on him the name of exalted father). But my main point here is that if Abram was a Sumerian then how come he didn't have a sumerian name.

four: You are definitely a nigerian christian. Just making things up sha! So Abraham is a priest in your bible. So speaking with God makes you a priest. If you don't speak with god nko? So Aaron that was the founder of the Hebrew priesthood would be less of a priest than Moses.

So in your opinion every prophet was a priest. whether or not they were levites..... abeg I tire.





Abram wasn't an Hebrew name because he wasn't an Hebrew in the first place but his descendants were identified with such name. In fact, ISRAEL WAS THEIR ORIGINAL, which was borne out Jacob's name being changed by God. His father was Terah and was of Chaldean origin. Secondly there were account on archaeological that were found to have mentioned the dates I referred. Even your reference whom you acknowledge so dearly, in the person of Ben Tor on the same information on . The most important of Israelis tradition were borne out contact with Eli/Elohim/YHWH,through Abram. And one of the contact with God ; “And when Abram asked whereby he might know that he should inherit it, God said to him, "Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a pigeon." .These were the animals firstly associated with Abram and his descendants. In fact, you are quite funny, because identifying someone's place of origin that history has record of it has nothing incoherent about it as you seem not to be very widely read on this. Below is a journal that mentioned sixth century info and check out the YouTube info about them which has same dates I referred. Lastly, Christianity is a way of life. I know my ancestors tradition and before Jesus came, no human being took away from my ancestors their tradition and until the coming of Jesus Christ, no one will take away from my descendants and family. Christ Jesus was the promise of God to Israel.
There was ancient history , if you have no knowledge of it, doesn't matter. I hope you will agree with the archaeological information you see in it. Kindly let go of the postulation but focus on the archeology.

Check this out :https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yc5kKSzzUI

1 Like

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by analize701: 1:40pm On Dec 26, 2017
AgentOfAllah:

That's precisely the point! Rather than support your claims with facts from history, you chose instead, to back them up with a truck load of opinionated horseshit. This is an unsophisticated way to present an argument. You have repeated the same misguided opinions here again, and I will show you how if you bear with me.
The same horsehit you quoted from earlier and you Moslems can't stand on without? You are a serious being? Do you know what being serious means? Take the Bible away from islam and watch it collapses with nothing to stand on.

You are a very funny character. is the exile of the Jews by Titus, the settling of the Jews in the Arabian peninsular and killing of the Jews by Muhamed in the Bible?
Just say you want a Cop out.

AgentOfAllah:

It is true that the Jews were among the earliest settlers in Yathrib, and that they developed it agriculturally. What this earned them, at best, was political and economical independence, but they were certainly not in a culturally, economically or even politically dominant position. It was the Arabs of Yathrib, who, though were latter settlers, held sway culturally and politically. Jewish tribes allied themselves with the leading Arab ones such as banu Aws and Khazraj. This fact is reflected in the Jewish Encyclopedia. But like I mentioned earlier, the leadership wasn't really structured as such. Just many cooperating feuding client tribes.

[b]That said, At the time of Muhammed, Mecca was by far the most dominant city not just in Hijaz, but the whole of the Arabian peninsula; politically, economically and culturally. I will be happy to explain why in detail, but the summary of it is that its leadership exploited the decline of the political power houses of the time. As they fought each other, trading routes became dangerous, and so the Meccans ensured their city was the safest trading route for lucrative commodities such as slaves, spices, gold, and so on. Yathrib pretty much only survived on dates, and was no match for Mecca in terms of importance.
You have not refuted any of my claims with this^^^.

And, This discourse is not about the political dominance of the Jews in the Arab Peninsular. it is about them giving Mecca the economic and cultural prominence in the Peninsular. As a matter of fact, the activities of the Jews made Mecca politically prominent.

They knew they were exiles there. And, if you knew anything about the Jews, you'd know that a Jew always believed that the Next Jewish Feast of the Tabernacle will be celebrated in Jerusalem, hence they knew they were where they found themselves temporarily.

Good thing you agreed that the Jews developed Mecca(Yathrip) economically and made it where all the Arabs wanted to go.

Why did Muhammed kill the Jews in Yathrip?

AgentOfAllah:

No, it wasn't. In fact, Muhammed wasn't really interested in Yathrib at all, except for the fact that the inhabitants approached him to assume the role of a dispassionate arbiter in the decades old conflicts between the leading tribes of Yathrib at the time. This happened at a time he was most desperate for succuor because members of his tribe in Mecca were definitely gonna kill him and his weak band of followers. He jumped at the opportunity immediately.
When you lie, pls note you are not the only one with access to facts. No one invited Muhammed as an arbiter in the battle of the Trenches, he batched on the tribes and presented a pact because he had a ban of thieves whom everyone in the area feared.

Here is what wiki says.
In 622, the Islamic prophet Muhammad arrived at Yathrib from Mecca and established a pact between the conflicting parties.[1][6][7] While the city found itself at war with Muhammad's native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh, tensions between the growing numbers of Muslims and the Jewish communities mounted.[5]
Where did you see Muhammed being called in to settle any dispute?

AgentOfAllah:

I hope you now see why I dismissed your emotional venting as unsophisticated.
You present lies. Sorry not everyone is lazy to read.
You called what i posted unsophisticated? What is sophisticated about the half truths you posted?

AgentOfAllah:

I cannot ask myself that because the premise of such a question is objectively false. Muhammed and members of his tribe, the Quraish, were born and thoroughbred Meccans
Thoroughbred you called muhammed? Again. do you realize people are reading you?

How many Meccans who were also thoroughbred turned out HighWway Robbers, robbing and killing business owners in trade routs STEALING THEIR GOODS like muhammed?
Oh wait, those other Meccans where not really thoroughbred eventually.
AgentOfAllah:

Please read the entry on the Jewish encyclopedia. Even though it is a Jewish cite, it is far more objective than the emotional garbage you're presenting here.
Why don't you post it out here for others to read too? If there's an emotional one here, it's you by trying to present half truths.

AgentOfAllah:

Focus! You're distracted.
Why not answer me? Do you mean the attack on the Jews was inevitable as it is inevitable for muslims to attack the British and Nigerians today?
AgentOfAllah:

Wrong! They weren't living peacefully, which was what prompted them to invite Muhammed to arbitrate between them in the first place.
Who in particular invited Muhammed, with facts pls.
Muhammed saw the conflicts caused. by his original Yemini tribes who had migrated from Medinah to yhe Yathrip and rushed in for a kill.
Who called him into the matter?

AgentOfAllah:

You're all over the place! You seriously need to focus. You seem to enjoy veering off on tangents.
You are afraid of me? Why does me being all over the place a concern to you?

Did i lie about Moslems moving into peoples territories overtime fighting, and killing them yo take over their land?

If you can't see it, the world can.

Israel went on exile, the land was empty, you moved in thinking you can keep it.

That's Muhammad's stealing spirit.

AgentOfAllah:

Wrong! Stop making ignorant claims! Again, I implore you to read the entry on the Jewish encyclopedia. Also look up the Constitution of Medina. I've now hyperlinked it twice for you!
When was this constitution written? was it when they area was just a group of tribes men dwelling in enclaves or after that?

And, who is talking about Medinah? We are talking about the Yathrip (Mecca) where the Jews settled.

pls stop this Altigyya here.
AgentOfAllah:

Yes! Most of the Jews didn't believe him because he wasn't as adept as they were in Abrahamism, so they did what they could to expose the fraud of his claims. Of course, this eroded the initial warmth between the groups, and some of the Jewish tribes conspired to get rid of him by supporting the Meccans against him. Both factions became mutually antagonistic, each trying to eliminate the other.
He was rejected because he lied about being their prophet and demanding that they left YHWH and turn to the allah they had known as an idol his family haf worshipped long before he was born.

They found it outrageous for the the man they all knew as a thief to come presenting a well known idol as the almighty god, commanding everyone to worship it. This was why, he was rejected, and he rounded them up and killed them taking their sons as slaves and their women as sex slaves.

AgentOfAllah:

Yeah, I guess so, but I'm not discussing the accuracy of his claim. I am sure the Jews of Yathrib had legitimate reasons to dismiss his claim to prophethood.
The Jews knew that allah was an idol moon god in the kaaba with the other 300+ gods in the Arabian Peninsular, where did he get the notion of allah is the almighty from?

AgentOfAllah post=e3615462]
These claims seem dubious. Have you any references for them? In particular, I'm interested to know where you read that he was a rapist, or that he attacked on a Sabbath.[/quote]
From your holy books. it's all there. Muhammed raped women uncountable.
Lets begin with Safiya, Kinani's wife whom he killed on their wedding day and raped her that same day. Haven't you read it in your books.

Use your head, if it wasn't on Sabbath days, a handfull of bandits wouldn't behead 900 strong men. Muhammad knew a Jew won't lift a finger on that day, hence he chose it to attack them.

Criminal is in hellfire already, especially haven been killed by a woman.
[quote author=AgentOfAllah
:

The Muslims were by no means strong enough to compel anyone to convert. Not before the conquest of Mecca, so there is no way they compelled anyone who accepted Islam in Medina to become Muslim.
This guy, your lies knows no boundaries. You just mentioned a Word 'Conquest'. Islam has been having converts through conquest from Muhammad. that's why we still see the same thing playing out today everywhere Muslims are.
AgentOfAllah:

Maybe take your own advice...but please use Google. I very much doubt the veracity of your "goggle" sources.
Seriously, focus!
You are openly lying hoping i don't know how to use the search engine in goggle abi.

Gerarahai.

12 Likes 5 Shares

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by donnie(m): 2:07pm On Dec 26, 2017
danvon:
where did you see that curse in the Bible?

Genesis 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.

16:12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

6 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by AgentOfAllah: 9:51am On Dec 27, 2017
analize701:

The same horsehit you quoted from earlier and you Moslems can't stand on without?
I'm not a Moslem, thank you!

You are a serious being? Do you know what being serious means? Take the Bible away from islam and watch it collapses with nothing to stand on.
You have a tangent for every point on a circle, don't you?

You are a very funny character. is the exile of the Jews by Titus, the settling of the Jews in the Arabian peninsular and killing of the Jews by Muhamed in the Bible?
Just say you want a Cop out.
Seriously, what are you on about? I really don't understand your point.

You have not refuted any of my claims with this^^^.
I know this must be strange to you, but agreeing with the accurate points of your co-discussant is called objectivity. So, while I agreed with your claim that the Jews developed Yathrib economically, your claim that they made it economically, culturally and politically dominant was complete bullocks! It was Mecca, not Yathrib that was the political, economic and cultural powerhouse of the peninsula.

And, This discourse is not about the political dominance of the Jews in the Arab Peninsular. it is about them giving Mecca the economic and cultural prominence in the Peninsular. As a matter of fact, the activities of the Jews made Mecca politically prominent.
They knew they were exiles there. And, if you knew anything about the Jews, you'd know that a Jew always believed that the Next Jewish Feast of the Tabernacle will be celebrated in Jerusalem, hence they knew they were where they found themselves temporarily.
This claim is false! And since you're being a monumental prat about your ignorance, I will start including my references.
There's hardly any historical record of Jewish tribes in Mecca. Mecca didn't become prominent because of Jewish activity. It became prominent because it was the safest trade route at the time, just as I mentioned earlier. See pp 14-15 “A history of Islamic Societies” Lapidus (1988)
Good thing you agreed that the Jews developed Mecca(Yathrip) economically and made it where all the Arabs wanted to go.
Why did Muhammed kill the Jews in Yathrip?
Goodness me! You don’t even know the difference between Yathrib and Mecca!

When you lie, pls note you are not the only one with access to facts. No one invited Muhammed as an arbiter in the battle of the Trenches, he batched on the tribes and presented a pact because he had a ban of thieves whom everyone in the area feared.

Here is what wiki says.
In 622, the Islamic prophet Muhammad arrived at Yathrib from Mecca and established a pact between the conflicting parties. While the city found itself at war with Muhammad's native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh, tensions between the growing numbers of Muslims and the Jewish communities mounted.[5]
Where did you see Muhammed being called in to settle any dispute?
The following is an excerpt from the Wiki page on Muhammed’s emigration to Medina:
“The next year, at the pilgrimage of 622, a delegation of around 75 Muslims of the Banu Aws and Khazraj from Medina came…They invited him to come to Medina as an arbitrator to reconcile among the hostile tribes.”

You present lies. Sorry not everyone is lazy to read.
No, not everyone. Just you!

Thoroughbred you called muhammed? Again. do you realize people are reading you?
Yes I do, with the greatest sense of responsibility.

Why don't you post it out here for others to read too? If there's an emotional one here, it's you by trying to present half truths.
I really cannot be posting several pages of text here for obvious reasons…maybe not so obvious to you. That’s why I included the hyperlink. It’s literally just a tap away!

Who in particular invited Muhammed, with facts pls.
You’re beginning to ask questions, That's good progress, even though I have become a bit weary from your ignorance. Here’s another excerpt from the book, “The Cambridge History of Islam” pp. 40 (Holt, Lambton et al. 1970)
“Contact with the Jews had familiarized the Arabs of Medina with the conception of an inspired religious leader, perhaps even with the expectation of a Messiah. Thus among the six men {from Medina} who met Muhammad in 620 there would be a degree of readiness to accept his claims at the religious level. At the same time they could not but be aware that a neutral outsider to Medina like Muhammad, with authority based on religious claims, would be in a better position to act as impartial arbiter than any inhabitant of Medina

You are afraid of me? Why does me being all over the place a concern to you?
You’re a lightweight. However, your straw men are a little distracting, and just prolong the discourse unnecessarily. It seems you can’t help it, so I guess I’ll just ignore them.

When was this constitution written? was it when they area was just a group of tribes men dwelling in enclaves or after that?
It was written after Muhammad accepted to emigrate to Medina (Yathrib), as the terms of the tribal confederacy that would be operational there.

And, who is talking about Medinah? We are talking about the Yathrip (Mecca) where the Jews settled.
Medina is Yathrib, fool!

Lets begin with Safiya, Kinani's wife whom he killed on their wedding day and raped her that same day. Haven't you read it in your books.

Use your head, if it wasn't on Sabbath days, a handfull of bandits wouldn't behead 900 strong men. Muhammad knew a Jew won't lift a finger on that day, hence he chose it to attack them.

Criminal is in hellfire already, especially haven been killed by a woman.

This guy, your lies knows no boundaries. You just mentioned a Word 'Conquest'. Islam has been having converts through conquest from Muhammad. that's why we still see the same thing playing out today everywhere Muslims are.

You are openly lying hoping i don't know how to use the search engine in goggle abi.

Gerarahai.
Just when we were making progress. You're a real piece of work and I am just really bored of you now. Please read some proper history books if you really wanna know the history of that region and stop pooping all over the internet. It's tedious work cleaning your dung up for you.

References:
Holt, P. M., A. K. S. Lambton and B. Lewis (1970). The Cambridge history of Islam. Cambridge Eng., University Press.
Lapidus, I. M. (1988). A history of Islamic societies. Cambridge Cambridgeshire ; New York, Cambridge University Press.

7 Likes 4 Shares

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by PastorAIO: 7:52pm On Dec 27, 2017
analize701:


Pls read my posts very well so that you won't lie against me. I think i said clearly that the Jews dispersed into the Arabic Peninsula in the wake of the Romans Empire's attack on the Nation of Israel in 70AD.


Okay, let's see who the angry, hateful liar is here.

Please compare and contrast the following posts.

analize701:

After exile, the Jews ran into the dry desert and turned it into an oasis, Muhammed attacked them on Sabbath day, knowing they will not fight back, he killed them all, and stole their land.

analize701:


I said the Jews escaped General Titus into the Arabic desert and turned it into an economic centre.

I didn't say it was their land, the Jews were not Arabs, but without the economic sense of the Jews, Muhammed wouldn't have been interested in that land.




analize701:


Yes Muhammed was a Yemini Arab, not a Yathrip Arab. the Yathrip Arabs never had any trouble cohabiting with the Jews who turned their region to a commercial hob. Muhammad not only killed the Jews but killed the Arabs too.


analize701:
Satan came not, but, to steal, to kill and to destroy. Take a closer look at Muhammed and Islam from inception.

They kill,

they still

they destroy mostly what belongs to the Christians and Jews.


From Hagar, they have been trying to steal from the Jews.


Hagar was brought in as a surrogate to have a child, she tried to.throw sarah out of her home.


Ismael the bastard son, tried to steal Isaac's place by claiming we was the one Abraham sacrificed.






analize701:


Yes Muhammed was a Yemini Arab, not a Yathrip Arab. The Yathrip Arabs never had any trouble cohabiting with the Jews who turned their region to a commercial hob. Muhammad not only killed the Jews but killed the Arabs too.




analize701:


In 622, the Islamic prophet Muhammad arrived at Yathrib from Mecca [/b]and established a pact between the conflicting parties.[1][6][7] While the city found itself at war with [b]Muhammad's native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh
, tensions between the growing numbers of Muslims and the Jewish communities mounted.


analize701:

[b]You present lies. [/b]Sorry not everyone is lazy to read.


So from the above, who is the person that has been lying from her father of lies since the beginning of this thread? Is it not you. I believe that is about 3 or 4 directly contradicting statements that you have made out of one single mouth. Jesus said when you right hand is doing something don't let your left hand know, but I think he will be shocked to see that you've taken that to the extreme of when your mouth says something immediately the same mouth will be ignorant of it and say something totally contradictory in the next breath.

I kind of feel sorry for you because I can tell that you have a lot of angst and to seek relief you are just lashing out incoherently and islam is one of the things that serves as your kind of punchbag to give you a little bit of relief from your violent torment.

6 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by analize701: 7:55pm On Dec 27, 2017
AgentOfAllah:

I'm not a Moslem, thank you!


You have a tangent for every point on a circle, don't you?


Seriously, what are you on about? I really don't understand your point.


I know this must be strange to you, but agreeing with the accurate points of your co-discussant is called objectivity. So, while I agreed with your claim that the Jews developed Yathrib economically, your claim that they made it economically, culturally and politically dominant was complete bullocks! It was Mecca, not Yathrib that was the political, economic and cultural powerhouse of the peninsula.


This claim is false! And since you're being a monumental prat about your ignorance, I will start including my references.
There's hardly any historical record of Jewish tribes in Mecca. Mecca didn't become prominent because of Jewish activity. It became prominent because it was the safest trade route at the time, just as I mentioned earlier. See pp 14-15 “A history of Islamic Societies” Lapidus (1988)

Goodness me! You don’t even know the difference between Yathrib and Mecca!


The following is an excerpt from the Wiki page on Muhammed’s emigration to Medina:
“The next year, at the pilgrimage of 622, a delegation of around 75 Muslims of the Banu Aws and Khazraj from Medina came…They invited him to come to Medina as an arbitrator to reconcile among the hostile tribes.”


No, not everyone. Just you!


Yes I do, with the greatest sense of responsibility.


I really cannot be posting several pages of text here for obvious reasons…maybe not so obvious to you. That’s why I included the hyperlink. It’s literally just a tap away!


You’re beginning to ask questions, That's good progress, even though I have become a bit weary from your ignorance. Here’s another excerpt from the book, “The Cambridge History of Islam” pp. 40 (Holt, Lambton et al. 1970)
“Contact with the Jews had familiarized the Arabs of Medina with the conception of an inspired religious leader, perhaps even with the expectation of a Messiah. Thus among the six men {from Medina} who met Muhammad in 620 there would be a degree of readiness to accept his claims at the religious level. At the same time they could not but be aware that a neutral outsider to Medina like Muhammad, with authority based on religious claims, would be in a better position to act as impartial arbiter than any inhabitant of Medina


You’re a lightweight. However, your straw men are a little distracting, and just prolong the discourse unnecessarily. It seems you can’t help it, so I guess I’ll just ignore them.


It was written after Muhammad accepted to emigrate to Medina (Yathrib), as the terms of the tribal confederacy that would be operational there.


Medina is Yathrib, fool!


Just when we were making progress. You're a real piece of work and I am just really bored of you now. Please read some proper history books if you really wanna know the history of that region and stop pooping all over the internet. It's tedious work cleaning your dung up for you.

References:
Holt, P. M., A. K. S. Lambton and B. Lewis (1970). The Cambridge history of Islam. Cambridge Eng., University Press.
Lapidus, I. M. (1988). A history of Islamic societies. Cambridge Cambridgeshire ; New York, Cambridge University Press.

I didn't read any of your lies. Again, Gerarahia.

6 Likes

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply)

Winners Chapel Pastor's Wife Whose Womb Was Removed During Surgery Gives Birth(p / 5 Reasons Why Pastors Do Not Need Private Jets / Pictures "First Timers" In Church Can Relate To

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2018 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 662
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.