Zionism

[FunctionalAtheist]

As a Jew who believes in doing what G-d Commands us to do, I don't know of any Commandment from G-d that has told either Jews or Israelis to "boot" anyone off of their land for the last 3,000 years or so.

Never heard of Jerico?

 

[Nakosis]

Now you may certainly believe this but the weight of evidence is against you. Over 2000 prophecies accurate in exact detail indicate what you believe is not true for example.

I don't understand, how does a prophecy, regardless of accuracy prove someone is speaking for God.

Could be lucky, science calls them predictions, they make accurate predictions. Could be demons/evil spirits.

I think you statement begs the question. You assume that only God is capable of making accurate predictions. Your claim then is a quantity of accurate predictions equals divine authority is not logically persuasive on it face.

Emotionally persuasive maybe. Makes a cool story, but not rationally.

 

[Moishe3rd]

My point of view is that if there was any chance of peace, it was destroyed when a people were disenfranchised and evicted from their homeland. As long as israel is there and Palestinians are there, how can there be peace? Peace comes when one side is made irrelevant, as jews were irrelevant in the middle-east for the better part of the past 2000 years.

How do you expect a jew, born and raised in israel, to give up. How do you expect a Palestinian, thrown off their land, to give up? I don't like fighting and war, but to expect peace is like asking one side or the other to fall off the face of the earth. There hasn't been a day's peace since israel was established. You can't take everything a people have and wonder why they don't just accept it.

"Oh, I understand your objection... I grant you the problem's not small... But, if you could see it through My eyes.... They wouldn't..."
Another cryptic humorous reference on my part. Sorry. But, it does make me laugh and assists me in my efforts to refrain from sardonic sarcasm...

You are placing the cart before the horse.
The establishment of the Jewish State of Israel is not the cause of the lack of peace in the Middle East; nor is it the cause of the lack of peace among the Arabs called Palestinians.
Relatively speaking, ie: in comparison to ALL other Arab or Muslim countries or tribes, including the Arabs called Palestinians, Israel is the ONLY country where there is peace. Seriously.
Again, I suggest that you study a bit of the history of the Middle East for the last 200 years or so. I would pay particular attention to the relationships between ALL of the various Arab tribes; "countries;" kingdoms; clans; sects; religious groups and families for the last 100 years when ALL of the countries of the Middle East, North Africa, and the near Eastern Muslim countries, were created - as was Israel.
With the exception of Israel, the vast majority of these countries were created by massive conquests and slaughter and by torturous repression and injustice and are presently killing each other in large numbers on a daily basis.

It is rather disingenuous to claim that "There hasn't been a day's peace since israel was established."
This is incorrect. There hasn't been a day's peace in the entire Middle East, North Africa, and near Asia, since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the fratricidal warfare of Arab and Muslim civil wars and sectarian fighting for the purpose of killing or dominating the other factions and sects.
Israel is a pimple on the butt of the mass murder and destruction that is perpetrated by Arabs and Muslims against other Arabs and Muslims, including the Arabs called Palestinians.

 

[Moishe3rd]

I'll look into it further. Perhaps you'd care to point me to a reliable source.

For quick references, I would use Wikipedia.
For a relatively straightforward, more or less non religious Jewish point of view, I would use the Jewish Virtual Library.
For more in depth studies regarding recent and past histories of the area, I would read Paul Johnson and Bernard Lewis in whatever history books they wrote on the Middle East; the Arabs; the Jews; or the Muslims.
Power, Faith and Fantasy by Michael B. Oren is quite good. Hourani's History of the Arab Peoples is decent.
I would look for books or online articles that specifically reference the history of Saudi Arabia; the House of Saud; al Saud; ibn Wahhab; Wahhabism; the conquests of Mecca by the Ikhwan; the Hejaz and the Hashemites; etc.
The consequential effects of the brutal conquest of the Arabian peninsula by the Saudis has largely shaped all of Middle Eastern history since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. There would be no Muslim Brotherhood; no Hamas; no Pakistani ISI; no Taliban; no Usama Who Sleeps With the Fishes; no reactionary forces of Hezbollah and Khomeini's invented Iranian cult of Vilayat al Fiqh without the Wahhabi heresy replacing normative Sunni Islam. Without the conquest of Mecca and Medina along with the oil riches of the Arabian peninsula, most of the problems of the Middle East would be quite different today.
If you read the above and need more, I would be more than happy to point you to other sources.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Never heard of Jerico?

The conquests commanded by G-d in His Torah occurred OVER 3,000 years ago.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The conquests commanded by G-d in His Torah occurred OVER 3,000 years ago.

LOL! I was wondering if you were going to call that. Anyway I chimed in to protest 'the claim' of a god-given right, not a commandment.

 

[Moishe3rd]

LOL! I was wondering if you were going to call that. Anyway I chimed in to protest 'the claim' of a god-given right, not a commandment.

I am of two minds on that point.
First of all, it seems rather obvious that the Jews do not have a G-d given right to exist as today's rather secular Jewish State of Israel.
If this "right" was so "god given," Jews would have ruled Israel for the last 2,000 years.

On the other hand, G-d definitely gave His Land of Israel to the Children of Israel, the Jews. And, He commanded the Jews to live in the Land of Israel that He gave to them.
He also promised that if the Jews did not obey His Commandments that the Land of Israel would "spit them out."

In other words, if the Jews do what G-d Commands them to do in His Torah and live by G-d's Laws, then they are supposed to be doing so in the Land of Israel that G-d gave to them.

On the gripping hand, if they don't do as G-d commands them to do, then what right do they have to "conquer" the Land of Israel?

Nonetheless, as Everything is in the Hands of G-d, He has also allowed His Jewish People to establish a relatively godless state in His Holy Land of Israel.

I'm just waiting for the next chapter to unfold...
:yes:

 

[Nakosis]

Why do i have this deep and inextinguishable dislike(well actually i hate it) for pro zionistic christians?

Its just so... meh.

Didn't Jesus advise giving up on worldly possessions?
I'd assume that means land possession as well. Maybe makes them seem a bit hypocritical?

So why would they support it? Maybe it seems a validation of the Bible to them.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

I am not sure if you are incredibly naive or incredibly vicious.
However, we are instructed by G-d to give everyone the benefit of the doubt so, I will extend that courtesy towards you for now.

....Thank you but no thank you. I prefer you spare me your bogus humility and courtesy.

The video you posted is vicious propaganda and incredibly hateful indoctrination against Jews and Israel. It has nothing to do with Zionism per se.

I'm guessing you prefer western indoctrination and propaganda and I'm also almost sure you didn't watch the whole video.

You claim to agree with the viewpoint:
"The only reason the Jews were given Israel was because they were oppressed by the Nazis. I find it hypocritical that they would turn around and do essentially the same thing to the Palestinians."
This is an historically invalid and quite dishonest point of view.
For you to agree to it indicates that you have zero interest in history or facts.
I would suggest you read some history on the origins of the State of Israel and your comparison of slaughtering millions of Jews with the treatment of the Arabs called Palestinians.

"Zionism claims that Israel belongs to the Jews by right of birth, but the majority of displaced Jews in Israel are of European descent and just happen to follow the Jewish religion. They have no more of a "blood" claim to Israel than I do."
This is *NOT* even a decent dictionary or propaganda definition of Zionism. (Embarrassing on my part. I apologize for leaving out the word NOT)
Again, this would indicate that you don't really understand the things to which you object.
I would suggest you educate yourself outside of those who simply hate Jews and/or Israel.
There is no profit in your observations nor in your video.

I invite you to state some facts for me since there's no profit in my observations and you're obviously more educated on this subject than I am.
You can start off by telling me what Zionism is and how the state of Israel came to be (and please don't refer back to B.C. time).

 

[Avi1001]

Maybe.
I don't post much as most arguments tend to bore me.
If I do a "positive" piece on Zionism, I would just be feeding those who want to make up their own definitions and their own ridiculous histories...
But, maybe...

Yup, same reason I don't post many OPs. But Zionsim is an interesting topic, and the OP for this thread is too negative. Well lets see, maybe someone else will post a new OP on Zionism. Maybe I'll ask CMike to do it next time I run across him. I bet he is very interested in Zionism.

 

[Moishe3rd]

....Thank you but no thank you. I prefer you spare me your bogus humility and courtesy.

I'm guessing you prefer western indoctrination and propaganda and I'm also almost sure you didn't watch the whole video.
I invite you to state some facts for me since there's no profit in my observations and you're obviously more educated on this subject than I am.
You can start off by telling me what Zionism is and how the state of Israel came to be (and please don't refer back to B.C. time).

Well, Wiki says: "a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann."

The Jewish Virtual Library says:
"The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.

Its general definition means the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.

Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism has come to include the movement for the development of the State of Israel and the protection of the Jewish nation in Israel through support for the Israel Defense Forces.

From inception, Zionism avocated tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions - left, right, religious and secular - formed the Zionist movement and worked together toward its goals.

Disagreements in philosophy has led to rifts in the Zionist movement of the years and a number of separate forms have emerged, notably: Political Zionism; Religious Zionism; Socialist Zionism and Territorial Zionism."

The Origins of the State of Israel?
Again, here is Wiki:

State of Israel (1948–present)

Further information: Israeli Declaration of Independence
On May 14, 1948, the last British forces left through Haifa. The same day, in a public ceremony in Tel-Aviv, Ben-Gurion read the Israeli Declaration of Independence, declaring the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.[108] Both superpower leaders, U.S. President Harry S. Truman and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, immediately recognized the new state.
War of Independence
Main article: 1948 Arab–Israeli War

The Arab League members Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq refused to accept the UN partition plan and proclaimed the right of self-determination for the Arabs across the whole of Palestine. The Arab states marched their forces into what had, until the previous day, been the British Mandate for Palestine. The new state of Israel had an organized and efficient army, the Haganah, under the command of Israel Galili. The Arab forces were of varying quality, but Arab states had heavy military equipment at their disposal. The invading Arab armies were initially on the offensive but the Israelis soon recovered from the initial shock of being invaded on all sides. On May 29, 1948, the British initiated United Nations Security Council Resolution 50 and declared an arms embargo on the region. Czechoslovakia violated the resolution supplying the Jewish state with critical military hardware to match the (mainly British) heavy equipment and planes already owned by the invading Arab states. On June 11, a month-long UN truce was put into effect.
Following the announcement of independence, the Haganah became the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The Palmach, Etzel and Lehi were required to cease independent operations and join the IDF. During the ceasefire, Etzel attempted to bring in a private arms shipment aboard a ship called "Altalena". When they refused to hand the arms to the government, Ben-Gurion ordered that the ship be sunk. Several Etzel members were killed in the fighting. Large numbers of Jewish immigrants, many of them World War II veterans and Holocaust survivors, now began arriving in the new state of Israel, and many joined the IDF.[109]
After an initial loss of territory by the Jewish state and occupation of Arab Palestine by the Arab armies, from July the tide gradually turned in the Israelis favour and they pushed the Arab armies out and conquered some of the territory which had been included in the proposed Arab state. At the end of November, tenuous local ceasefires were arranged between the Israelis, Syrians and Lebanese. On December 1, King Abdullah announced the union of Transjordan with Arab Palestine west of the Jordan, the new state name being the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. He adopted the title "King of Arab Palestine"; only Britain recognized the annexation.

I could find other sources but perhaps you would like to narrow it down to specific questions or a specific time frame?

Ordinary history and definitions are not so hard to find.

 

[1robin]

I don't understand, how does a prophecy, regardless of accuracy prove someone is speaking for God.

Could be lucky, science calls them predictions, they make accurate predictions. Could be demons/evil spirits.

I think you statement begs the question. You assume that only God is capable of making accurate predictions. Your claim then is a quantity of accurate predictions equals divine authority is not logically persuasive on it face.

Emotionally persuasive maybe. Makes a cool story, but not rationally.

The ability to predict the future accurately starts near zero and gets far worse with every detail and every year in advance it is made. It is a multiplicative probability which is way worse than an additive probability. For example the prophecy against Tyre has been ball parked at 1 in 70,000 of being right by accident. You take that average probability and apply it across 2000 prophesied details and you get 1 in no chance what so ever.

I did not assume God is the only source. In fact the bible says demons can also predict. However not to predict with complete accuracy. So to begin with you must have the supernatural to explain them (the natural cannot explain them) then you must deal with the fact only God is credited by vast numbers of perfectly accurate prophecies. It is evidence that makes me credit God with accurate prophecies, not preference. Where is the evidence that Nostradamus or Gayce was 100% accurate? It does not exist.

My claim is in summary:

1. A very large number of accurately detailed prediction (some over hundreds of years) is justifiable evidence for the supernatural.
2. The being contained within supernatural (theological literature) that has the most evidence linking them with 100% accurate prophecies is God by many orders of magnitude.
3. It is not even justifiable to use other ancient texts because the bible is the most textually accurate book of any in ancient history of any kind by many many many times over. There is no second place.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The ability to predict the future accurately starts near zero and gets far worse with every detail and every year in advance it is made.

BS!!! You might want to study statistics just a little bit.

I predict the sun will rise tomorrow! 99.999999999% accurate
I predict a flipped coin will come up heads! 50% accurate
I predict a rolled die will come up 4! 16.667% accurate

I'm not familiar with your body of evidence to support your contentions but you should provide the data. E.g. where does the bible prophesy regarding TROY?

And how again to you miraculously jump from an accurate prediciton to the supernatural? How does that follow?

 

[1robin]

BS!!! You might want to study statistics just a little bit.

I predict the sun will rise tomorrow! 99.999999999% accurate
I predict a flipped coin will come up heads! 50% accurate
I predict a rolled die will come up 4! 16.667% accurate

I'm not familiar with your body of evidence to support your contentions but you should provide the data. E.g. where does the bible prophesy regarding TROY?

And how again to you miraculously jump from an accurate prediciton to the supernatural? How does that follow?

1. You are technically right about my claim. I keep expecting context to be included but it never is. The context was sophisticated predictions about things unknown to the predictor. It was a discussion in a prophetic context. Wars, names, dates, conditions, outcomes. It was not about predictable events life Earth's rotation (sunrise is a as technically incorrect as I was). So from now on let's stick with that context and not waste our time talking past each other.

2. I can't supply the bible. That is what you are to have done for your prior to picking a side in a theological debate. I will give you the Troy prophecy just to save time. Hold it a minute I screwed up. I watched Troy the other night and apparently went blind. It was the prophecy of Tyre (not Troy) I meant. I think that probably explains why you were not familiar with it. I will go back and change it.


3. I go the supernatural because the natural contains no ability to accurately predict given sufficient detail events years in the future. You cannot even tell me who will fight the next major war, who will win, and why it was fought. Never mind the exacts nature of the battles, the extent of damage, and what force will conquer what parts as Tyre does and Tyre is not even among the more detailed. In fact in all of human history the natural is virtually never used as an explanation for accurate prophecies of any kind. The natural does not have access to natural events that have not occurred.

 

[Nakosis]

My claim is in summary:

1. A very large number of accurately detailed prediction (some over hundreds of years) is justifiable evidence for the supernatural.

Why is this justifiable? I could say, with as much credibility, that this is evidence of time travel. 2000 years from now science is going to invent time travel, go into the past and tell various people in the past about future events. They may even assume these future scientists are God.

You are assuming a justification that is not reasonable to assume. While you are free to accept the story on faith for what ever reasons you have for doing so, there is no reason to think anyone else should be compelled to do so.

I happy to allow someone else to believe whatever story they wish unless there is solid proof otherwise. However I don't believe an individual should have any expectation of anyone else respecting that belief without justification. And, I don't see where you have any.

You can believe green men on Mars created man, or in my story about future time traveling scientists. Just don't expect a "belief" has any credibility with anyone else.

Now back to the point of the topic, the Bible, Koran, Tanakh need not be respected by anyone outside there particular faiths. So with regard to the existence of Israel, these religious books need not be accepted by anyone as giving legal rights to ownership of land.

Ownership is enforced by might. Our US Constitution is enforced by might.

However belief has a lot to do with what people are willing to enforce. Whether there is any justification for that belief or not.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

1. You are technically right about my claim. I keep expecting context to be included but it never is. The context was sophisticated predictions about things unknown to the predictor. It was a discussion in a prophetic context. Wars, names, dates, conditions, outcomes. It was not about predictable events life Earth's rotation (sunrise is a as technically incorrect as I was). So from now on let's stick with that context and not waste our time talking past each other.

Sorry it doesn't work that way. You are the one taking predictability out of context of what the word actually means and applying some mystical bent to it, as if 'predicting' something you'd like to point out is magical, but something easlily predicted that I point to is mundane.

I know absolutly nothing about you, but I predict you have no higher education, you are married and at home all day without employment, and you have 3 children. If I'm right does that make me a mystic? If I make the same prediction about everyone that frequents this site, I guarantee you I will be correct at least a few times. That in it self is a prediction, and I'm about 98% it is correct.

The fact that you'd like to use a word in a special way to make you point but discount it when you are not able to discuss the word in a meaningful way indicates you argue from your conclusion down, rather than evidence up.

2. I can't supply the bible. That is what you are to have done for your prior to picking a side in a theological debate. I will give you the Troy prophecy just to save time. Hold it a minute I screwed up. I watched Troy the other night and apparently went blind. It was the prophecy of Tyre (not Troy) I meant. I think that probably explains why you were not familiar with it. I will go back and change it.

You do realize that Tyre withstood Nebuchadrezzar's siege for 13 years, ending in a compromise in which the royal family was taken into exile but the city survived intact. In fact Tyre stands and has been continually inhabited to this day . Ezekiel predicted that the city of Tyre would be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and "made a bare rock" that will "never be rebuilt"

3. I go the supernatural because the natural contains no ability to accurately predict given sufficient detail events years in the future. You cannot even tell me who will fight the next major war, who will win, and why it was fought. Never mind the exacts nature of the battles, the extent of damage, and what force will conquer what parts as Tyre does and Tyre is not even among the more detailed. In fact in all of human history the natural is virtually never used as an explanation for accurate prophecies of any kind. The natural does not have access to natural events that have not occurred.

First you haven't demonstrated any meaninful degree of accurate prophecy in the bible. Second, you presume to know the vastness of all the natural has to offer? Third, wars have been predicted with accuracy for millenia. WWII was predicted before the last shot was fired in WWI. The civil war was predicted long before it took place. The american revolution was predicted. The spanish-american war was predicted. And so on and so on.

The natural is virtualy never used as an explanation for prophecy? LOL! No, the natural is allmost 100% universally used as an explanation for every accurate prediciton made. From the rising of the sun, to the travel time from New York to London. The next president. The time for a baseball to dropped from a building to reach the ground.

The natural provides a billion fold increase in predictability over the bible or any supernatural means.

 

[1robin]

Why is this justifiable? I could say, with as much credibility, that this is evidence of time travel. 2000 years from now science is going to invent time travel, go into the past and tell various people in the past about future events. They may even assume these future scientists are God.

What time travel? What evidence? Where are the testimonies? Where is the even the scientific justification for travel to other times? That is not even a thing with a potentiality for evidence. It is a few words strung together that mean nothing. It has no credibility with anything. It is nothing (no-thing).

You are assuming a justification that is not reasonable to assume. While you are free to accept the story on faith for what ever reasons you have for doing so, there is no reason to think anyone else should be compelled to do so.

I am accepting claims on the same basis they are accepted by courtrooms around the world for thousands of years. Testimonial reliability.

I happy to allow someone else to believe whatever story they wish unless there is solid proof otherwise. However I don't believe an individual should have any expectation of anyone else respecting that belief without justification. And, I don't see where you have any.

I do not care if you respect my beliefs or agree with them. I care if they have rational justification. Here is a tiny fraction of it.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

From a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey:
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:

"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the REsurrection has never broken down yet."

"This statement of Lord Lyndhurst was sent to Mr. E. H. Blakeney, of Winchester College, by the late bishop H. C. G. Moule. References to the correspondence appeared in a British periodical, Dawn, some few years ago. I have since had it confirmed in a letter from Mr. Blakeney. In Marty Amoy's The Domestic and Artistic Life of John Copley and Reminiscences of His Son, Lord Lyndhurst, High Chancellor of Great Britain occurs the interesting note - 'A record of Lyndhurst's belief in the truth of religion, and his view of the scheme of redemption, was found in his own handwriting after his death, in the drawer of his writing table.' (Lord Lyndhurst died October 11, 1863, at the age of 91.)"

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university, upon Story's death in 1846.
H. W. H Knott says of this great authority in jurisprudence: "To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is to be ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States."
Greenleaf produced a famous work entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence which "is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure."

In 1846, while still Professor of Law at Harvard, Greenleaf wrote a volume entitled An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In his classic work the author examines the value of the testimony of the apostles to the resurrection of Christ. The following are this brilliant jurist's critical observations:
The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling errors that can be represented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unflinching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.

"Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

You can believe green men on Mars created man, or in my story about future time traveling scientists. Just don't expect a "belief" has any credibility with anyone else.

I can provide far more conclusions from scholars in fields best able to establish the reliability of biblical testimony than you will read, affirming it's reliability. Legendary historian's, judges, legal experts, archeologists, textual critics, even forensic coroners, scientists, philosophers, etc.... that have all claimed to agree with the reliability with biblical claims. Can you do so for little green men, and time travel? If not why are you comparing two things that cannot be more unequal? I argue for faiths validity. Once demonstrated, what is done with it is not my concern. I am tasked with defending the truth not with making anyone accept it. Biblical faith is valid on every level and relatively more valid than any other theological concept and God a virtual scientific and moral necessity.

Now back to the point of the topic, the Bible, Koran, Tanakh need not be respected by anyone outside there particular faiths. So with regard to the existence of Israel, these religious books need not be accepted by anyone as giving legal rights to ownership of land.

Respecting a faith has nothing to do with either my claims about Israel or prophecy. I did not make biblical claims concerning Israel's rights to the land, regardless of the fact it's prophecies and God seem to be consistent with Israel's claims. I actually only used common secular categories by which Israel has the better claim in every one. Your getting theological claims made to another person mixed up with my claims to others about Israel's claim to Israel.

However belief has a lot to do with what people are willing to enforce. Whether there is any justification for that belief or not.

I am happy to discuss Israel's rights to Israel, justification for belief, the supernatural, or even colonialism. However I can not get them all mixed together by someone and have a meaningful discussion. Please pick one at a time and use only the claims I made in that context for it.

 

[Nakosis]

What time travel? What evidence? Where are the testimonies? Where is the even the scientific justification for travel to other times? That is not even a thing with a potentiality for evidence. It is a few words strung together that mean nothing. It has no credibility with anything. It is nothing (no-thing).

Exactly the point... What God? I single word that that is not even a thing with a potentiality for evidence. God is as you put it (no-thing).

I am accepting claims on the same basis they are accepted by courtrooms around the world for thousands of years. Testimonial reliability.

You are missing the point. I'm not arguing against the evidence. I'm pointing out the conclusion you reach from that evidence is not justified.

Your are just making up a story that fits the evidence. My point with the time travelers is that any body can do that. Your story is that it is God, that conclusion holds as much credibility as my story about time travelers being the source of this evidence. As you point out, not much.

 

[Nakosis]

I can provide far more conclusions from scholars in fields best able to establish the reliability of biblical testimony than you will read, affirming it's reliability. Legendary historian's, judges, legal experts, archeologists, textual critics, even forensic coroners, scientists, philosophers, etc.... that have all claimed to agree with the reliability with biblical claims. Can you do so for little green men, and time travel? If not why are you comparing two things that cannot be more unequal? I argue for faiths validity. Once demonstrated, what is done with it is not my concern. I am tasked with defending the truth not with making anyone accept it. Biblical faith is valid on every level and relatively more valid than any other theological concept and God a virtual scientific and moral necessity.

Again, I'm not questioning the reliability of biblical testimony. I'm saying your statement that 2000 accurate predictions requires the conclusion that God is evidence by them.

Respecting a faith has nothing to do with either my claims about Israel or prophecy. I did not make biblical claims concerning Israel's rights to the land, regardless of the fact it's prophecies and God seem to be consistent with Israel's claims. I actually only used common secular categories by which Israel has the better claim in every one. Your getting theological claims made to another person mixed up with my claims to others about Israel's claim to Israel.

I am happy to discuss Israel's rights to Israel, justification for belief, the supernatural, or even colonialism. However I can not get them all mixed together by someone and have a meaningful discussion. Please pick one at a time and use only the claims I made in that context for it.

Sorry, I'm trying to honor the spirit of the OP statement. And my point being that the Bible has no justified authority that anyone needs to respect.

That you choose to as a matter of faith is fine but there is no compelling argument that anyone else should.

Again to clarify, because your statement of the only possible answer to the evidence you present being God is flawed.