اجعلنا صفحة البداية RSS خدمة Add to favorite Facebook Twitter

Advanced

30 Palestinians killed in Israeli attacks since midnight
'Herod the Great' show causes row over artifacts
Published Wednesday 13/02/2013 (updated) 14/02/2013 20:56
Font- Font+
A general view of Herodion, near Bethlehem.(MaanImages/file)
JERUSALEM (Reuters) -- The first major museum exhibition on the divisive biblical figure of Herod the Great has provoked a modern-day row between Israel and the Palestinians over who has the right to dig up his artifacts.

The Israel Museum in Jerusalem on Tuesday unveiled a display dedicated to Herod - branded a baby-killer in the Christian tradition but remembered by many in Israel for rebuilding a Jewish Temple two millennia ago.

Palestinian Authority officials have complained many of the exhibits were taken from the West Bank, under Israeli military occupation since 1967.

The show includes busts and statues of figures from the period when the Romans occupied the Holy Land and appointed Herod the monarch of Judea.

The highlight is a reconstruction of part of Herod's mausoleum housing what experts believe is his sarcophagus.

Palestinians said the artifacts were removed without their consent from Herodion, the builder-king's excavated palace on an arid hilltop near Bethlehem.

The Palestinian Authority minister of tourism and antiquities, Rula Maayah, told Reuters all Israeli archaeological activities in the West Bank were illegal.

"Many dig locations (in the Palestinian territories) fall under Israeli control ... and we are unable to reach them. All the work at digs in the occupied territories are against the law, but Israel carries them out and even if they don't dig themselves they don't allow us to do so," she said.

Israel Museum director James Snyder said archaeological digs on occupied Palestinian territories were carried out according to international conventions and protocols laid down in interim Israeli-Palestinian peace accords.

Snyder said he was unaware of any discussions with Palestinian archaeological officials over the exhibit and there had been no way to study the artifacts properly on site at Herodion.

The relics, he said, would eventually be returned to Herodion once proper facilities to house them were in place.

In the Christian story, Herod ordered his men to kill all baby boys in and around Jesus' birthplace Bethlehem, fearing one would grow up to become "King of the Jews" and challenge his rule.

According to The Gospel of Matthew, Jesus and his family escaped the slaughter by fleeing to Egypt.

Historians said Herod ruled Judea from about 37 BC until his death in 4 BC - four years before Jesus' official birth day, though that date is also contested.

Ma'an staff contributed to this report
Print
1 ) Preserving the past / Or political destruction
13/02/2013 12:04
This could prove to be a rather embarrassing situation for the PA, that denies Jewish history by claiming the Jewish Temple never existed, but wants to benefit from the archaeological discoveries that prove the opposite. There is also the issue of their destruction of other ancient Jewish artifacts found in the area of the Temple Mount. If these are going to be classed as world heritage sites, the world will want to see them looked after by sane people, not by those with a Taliban mentality!

2 ) Abdul-Rahman / Canaan
13/02/2013 13:19
In response to commenter #1, nobody denies the Hellenistic Herodian temple the question comes about the "first temple" for which no serious evidence exists (which is why even calling the Herodian temple an alleged "second temple" is incorrect to start with). As for this situation the State of Palestine is not trying to "deny" anything and merely want occupiers off their land and the artifacts of their land. What is much more telling is Dr. Eran Elhaik has proven "Jews" are KHAZARS!!

3 ) Abdul-Rahman / Canaan not Khazaria
13/02/2013 13:22
Johns Hopkins University geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik, Ph.D. "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses" Genome Biol Evol (2012) doi: 10.1093/gbe/evs119 First published online: December 14, 2012 Gene study SETTLES debate over origin of European Jews" (Jan. 16, 2013) "Jews of European origin are a mix of ancestries, with many hailing from tribes in the Caucasus who converted to Judaism and created an empire that lasted half a millennium"

4 ) Mel / USA
13/02/2013 16:50
Bravo!#2&3:Well said!The details ever in the small print!And,if Israel was a true pluralistic,peace-loving,democracy-as the world would prefer-made up of the world's best Jewish progressive intellectuals on the planet,instead of radical Zionist-Nazi-thugs & rabid Rabbinical theocrats,Israel might not resemble such a cell of fundamental terrorists-WITH WMD's-eager to erase Palestine from a history of progressive civilization! "1shot=2kills"Zionism,"unveils"a display of "baby killer"Herod! Ironic!

5 ) Abdul-Rahman / Canaan not Khazaria
13/02/2013 16:55
The artifacts belong to the State of Palestine not the Khazar occupiers!

6 ) Phil / UK
13/02/2013 17:53
#3. Very few people living in the Levant can claim to be indigenous to the country they live. Arabs are no more indigenous inhabitants of Egypt than Greeks who ruled there for centuries. Some Gazans can at best only claim earliest decent from Philistine invaders around 1000 bc. Neither are Arabs originally from Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia etc. All of these countries were once inhabited by other races. So what is your point?

7 ) JoeFattal / usa
13/02/2013 18:45
He was a Jewish "baby killer". All the male babies he killed were Jews. So how in the world Israel dedicate anything to that killer is beyond me.

8 ) Arnold / Canada
13/02/2013 21:30
Whatever will be found will be for the whole world to see. Not like when the Israelis allowed the Wafq to sift through and throw away anything pertaining to Judaism.

9 ) ian / australia
13/02/2013 22:42
It's pretty basic. Italy can't dig up Roman artifacts in France. Not without agreement and permission from the French. And they can't KEEP artifacts because they're ROMAN. Anything in the ground IN France belongs to France...which doesn't preclude international co-operation and co-French/Italian archeology. Same applies to Palestine. Herodian, the palace of Judea's Arab (Nabatean) baby killing "client king" is in Palestine and BELONGS to Palestine though Israel, behaving like a colonial

10 ) ian / australia
13/02/2013 22:43
(contd.) conqueror just takes whatever it likes. (I hope the exhibition is called: "Herod: Baby killer!")

11 ) Abdul-Rahman / Canaan not Khazaria
14/02/2013 02:01
It is u Zionist propagandists who have always claimed alleged "descent" from the "biblical Israelites" and this claim has now been definitively refuted by Johns Hopkins University geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik, Ph.D. "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses" Professor Emeritus Alan Dowty of Notre Dame University "Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries" Your pwned

12 ) USAUSA / USA
14/02/2013 02:39
There are more DNA studies showing that Jews are related most to each other and come directly from the Middle East. You can find 10 studies that say the opposite. The idea that yiddish is a Turkish language is absolutely absurd. I may not be an expert in DNA but when I read that part of the report, I set it aside as nonsense. Any linguist will tell you yiddish is Germanic at its core

13 ) ian / australia
14/02/2013 04:18
#7 Jews don't believe in the New Testament Joe, which is the only place the Massacre of the Innocents story appears. They think it's a load of rubbish, so they probably don't accept that Herod killed the male children of Judea (though they may think it would have been a good idea if he had, ie. to kill Jesus.) Of course they've got nothing against baby killing in general as Jehovah killed the first-born of Egypt (who were surely "innocents") to make Pharaoh, whose heart he had hardened (!),

14 ) ian / australia
14/02/2013 04:19
(contd.) let the Hebrews go. Go figure.

15 ) Colin Wright / USA
14/02/2013 08:26
To Phil #6 ' Neither are Arabs originally from Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia etc. All of these countries were once inhabited by other races. So what is your point?' You misunderstand the nature of history. The bulk of the people generally stay -- it's how they identify themselves that changes. There was no massive Arab exodus from Arabia -- any more than there was ever a massive Jewish exodus from Palestine. People just came to think of themselves as 'Arabs.'

16 ) Colin Wright / USA
14/02/2013 08:28
To Mel #4 'made up of the world's best Jewish progressive intellectuals on the planet,instead of radical Zionist-Nazi-thugs & rabid Rabbinical theocrats,Israel might not resemble such a cell of fundamental terrorists...' Why would these people ever want to go to Palestine? Presumably, (a) they're reasonable secure where they are, and (b) their identity doesn't need a crutch.

17 ) Colin Wright / USA
14/02/2013 08:29
To Arnold #8: 'Whatever will be found will be for the whole world to see.' As long as it demonstrates Jewish occupancy, of course. Witness this exhibit.

18 ) Oliveland / Palestine
14/02/2013 08:56
Cannanites, Amorites,Jews ,Romans, Byzentinians,Arabs,Crusaders,Turks etc all inhabited this crossroad called Palestine . None have the rights to take away artifacts in Palestine . Palestinians are the melting pot of this rich history and culture .My family home is 300 years old .

19 ) Solomon and David / Israel
14/02/2013 13:49
18) Our family home is 3,500 years old, and you lot have been digging it up and destroying it for best part of the last century.
15) Yes there was a massive Arab exodus from Arabia, it reached all the way to Austria before it was pushed back. A fact forgotten when Arabs start harping on about colonialism.
2) So you want us to believe Herod's temple was built by the Greeks, during the Roman occupation eh? Never letting facts stand in your way, you people will say anything!

20 ) ian / australia
14/02/2013 22:31
#8 "Whatever will be found will be for the whole world to see. Not like when the Israelis allowed the Wafq to sift through and throw away anything pertaining to Judaism." Them's the breaks Arnold. If it's IN Palestine, it belongs to Palestine and they can do whatever they like with it...just like Israel did with the 800-year-old Mughrabi quarter and Sheikh Eid Mosque in 1967 and the Shepherd Hotel last year (which weren't even IN Israel.) What's needed here obviously is cordial relations between

21 ) ian / australia
14/02/2013 22:32
(contd.) neighbours and co-operation in dealing with a shared archeological heritage, which of course isn't possible as long as Israel behaves like a colonial overlord digging up their neighbour's land and stealing their stuff.

22 ) Colin Wright / USA
15/02/2013 00:56
To Solomon #19: '15) Yes there was a massive Arab exodus from Arabia, it reached all the way to Austria before it was pushed back. A fact forgotten when Arabs start harping on about colonialism.' Perhaps you would care to explain how the Arab desert was able to support a hundred million people. It's even more ridiculous than thinking all the Jews came from Palestine.

23 ) Colin Wright / USA
15/02/2013 01:01
But seriously folks... If we want to move past myth manufacture, there is evidence of significant population movement from Arabia into Southern Iraq -- but not elsewhere. In 'Syria' (which term then comprehended Palestine) a few noble families appear to date from the Arab conquest. That would be about it. As to the Jews, it's highly unlikely that more than perhaps twenty percent of the ancestors of those who came to think of themselves as Jews had come from Palestine.

24 ) Colin Wright / USA
15/02/2013 01:04
Nor, at any point, was Palestine itself ever solely Jewish. Most of the time, it wasn't even predominately Jewish. This is all an arbitrary crock, derived from nineteenth century racial nationalism, and it has led to a great deal of expense and a great deal of misery for a great many people in exchange for nothing of any value at all. The modern Israel isn't even a recreation of anything. It's just a recipe for continued human unhappiness.

25 ) JoeFattal / usa
15/02/2013 03:57
#13) Jews shouldn't believe in the old testament either. Tradition hold that Abraham founded the Jewish religion around 2000BC, and if that is the case how in the world Moses in Exodus left Egypt with thousands of Jews over 3000 years ago?. Where did they came from?. Lets go a little bit earlier when God created Adam and Eve, they had three boys. One of them found himself a girl. Where did she came from?. And that is in the old testament. Reality or fiction?. Its up to the individual.

26 ) So you think you can Wright / off 3500 years of history?
15/02/2013 11:24
22) Who said anything about 100 million? The fact is Arab colonialism spread with Islamic conquest. To say that's not true is to deny 1300 yrs of history. Arabs colonized all of the Levant. Where do you think the Hashemites are from? They are an Arabian clan with no indigenous right whatsoever to the land they now occupy. The very name 'Palestine' confirms Jewish history. Why else would Hadrian name the land Syria-Palestina after the historic enemies of the Jews?

27 ) ian / australia
15/02/2013 22:49
#19 "18) Our family home is 3,500 years old..." Except that it isn't. Unlike the "family home" of 'Oliveland' (#18) which is literally a 300-year-old building, standing today, the "family home" of 'Solomon and David' doesn't exist. It's a fantasy, an abstraction, a polemical argument based on a partisan version of history, unsupported by archeology, and the basis of aggressive claims to (already inhabited) contemporary real estate...AKA the Zionism in action.

28 ) The partisan / polemic
16/02/2013 15:12
#27) You appeared impressively intelligent, and so eloquently convincing. Right up to the point when you wrote the words: "unsupported by archeology".

I suggest you go take a running jump off that old wall on the Temple Mount. After all, it's only an abstract fantasy, what harm could it possibly do you?

29 ) Outlier / USA
17/02/2013 01:53
Archeology preserves history. That the archeology at these sites wasn't done by resident Palestinians in Jordan or Trans-Jordan is fact. Whether the future archeology at these sites will be done by Palestinians is conjecture. Plenty of time for finger-pointing now and even more time after a negotiated peace for determining who will own and/or display the artifacts.

30 ) ian / australia
18/02/2013 22:47
#28 Perhaps I could have been clearer. What's "unsupported by archeology" is the "partisan version of history" which is used as a "polemical argument" for Zionism. In plain English, 'Solomon and David' (#19) is arguing Israel's right to the West Bank (today) based on what he says was happening there 3,500 years ago, which, if memory serves, was when Joshua was conquering Canaan so the Israelites, having spent 40 years in the wilderness (on top of 400 years of slavery in Egypt!) could take up

31 ) ian / australia
18/02/2013 22:50
(contd.) the Abrahamic inheritance in the Promised Land. THAT'S the "partisan version of history" wholly "unsupported by archeology"! So what IS supported by archeology...in 1500BC? Certainly nothing biblical. Basically that Canaanite Jehovah-worshippers shared the land with their Canaanite El and Baal-worshipping neighbours. That's it. No Bondage. No Moses. No Exodus. No pillar of cloud (or fire). No Revelation on Sinai. So...not such a compelling basis really for European and Russian Jews

32 ) ian / australia
18/02/2013 22:52
(contd.) (of questionable Semitic ancestry) to claim land inhabited by indubitable Semites for centuries. (And of course, in all likelihood, 2000 years ago, the ancestors of those Semites (Palestinians) were Jehovah-worshipping Judeans and subjects of King Herod (!) and 1,500 years before that, living in the "family home" of 'Solomon and David'!)

33 ) ian / australia
18/02/2013 23:02
#28 "I suggest you go take a running jump off that old wall on the Temple Mount. After all, it's only an abstract fantasy, what harm could it possibly do you?". No, that wall is real and with no (archeological) controversy about it but if I did jump off the TOP of the Western Wall, I'd be jumping off a wall built by Muslims, HaKotel being Herodian for eight courses of stone only.

34 ) Phil / UK
19/02/2013 16:34
#30-33) Ian, your rejection of Jewish history based on a rejection of the Biblical narrative is born from ignorance. Babylonian and Persian history support the Bible. Read the book of Daniel, then consider the indisputable fact that it was translated into Greek by Alexandrian Jews during the 3rd century BC. Thus proving it to be a 100% genuine example of accurate prophecy of events up to AD 70, as well as history going back to 607 BC. Eyes open. The truth will set you free!

35 ) PA (fr) / Pa
19/02/2013 18:43
To Abdul-Rahman of Canaan not Khazaria: "Although Dr Elhaik’s study linked European Jews to the Khazars, there are still questions to be answered. How substantial is the Iranian ancestry in modern day Jews? Since Eastern European Jews arrived from the Caucasus, where did Central & Western European Jews come from? If there was no mass migration out of Palestine at the 7th century, what happened to the ancient Judeans?" Where is your "Scientific rigor" & "due diligence"? He who pretends to be ..

36 ) ian / australia
20/02/2013 22:04
#34 "Babylonian and Persian history support the Bible." That's so general it's meaningless Phil. I'm sure it's true (in some insignificant ways) but a frinstance is needed. WHAT biblical detail is confirmed by WHAT Babylonian or Persian history. But if you're gonna start talking about the Bible predicting the future, Nostradamus style, it's all over coz there's no way to be logical about that. It means we're no longer discussing the Promised Land, coz you've left for La La Land.

37 ) Phil / UK
21/02/2013 12:59
36) There really isn't time or space here to show you how wrong you are, or how silly it is for an 'educated' individual to resort to scoffing when he comes against something he obviously has no understanding of. But "frinstance" #1. Babylonian archeology proves the past existence and destruction of Solomon's temple by Nebuchadnezzar. Persian archeology proves it was rebuilt around 516 BC. "Frinstance" #2. the book of Daniel chapter 9 prophesied the destruction of Herod's temple in AD 70.

38 ) ian / australia
25/02/2013 13:22
#37 That's positively lame Phil. Can't archeology confirm anything sexier than that? The Assyrian and Babylonian conquests of Canaan are well known. They're not in the least contentious. And there being a temple of some sort to Jehovah on Mount Moriah in the 10th century (BC) (and the 6th) is hardly news either. It's a very spiritual place (esp. at dusk looking over Silwan with the valley disappearing into the mist!). People have felt that for a long time. The consensus is a Jebusite shrine

39 ) ian / australia
25/02/2013 13:23
(contd.) probably predates the Jehovahite one, and Neolithic "high places" before that. And of course, after the destruction of Herod's temple in 70, there was a Roman temple, a Christian church and a Muslim masjid, al-Sakhra al-Musharafa, which has been there for 1300 years! So it's NOT an EXCLUSIVELY Jewish holy place! And that's the problem with the Bible as history: it treats it, like it treats ALL history, the whole world, as though it was!

40 ) ian / australia
25/02/2013 13:25
(contd.) No comment on Daniel and his "seventy sevens" because it's too silly to comment on.

41 ) History is a matter of facts / Not some Ozy fantasy
26/02/2013 20:54
38. If you're going to write comments on this subject, at least study it first. There is no consensus on a Jebusite shrine existing on the temple mount before Solomon's temple, it was a grain processing site.

42 ) ian / australia
28/02/2013 23:12
#41 "If you're going to write comments on this subject, at least study it first. There is no consensus on a Jebusite shrine existing on the temple mount before Solomon's temple, it was a grain processing site." That's pretty funny. First you say "History is a matter of facts". Then you deny scholarly conjecture about "a Jebusite shrine", which is easily demonstrated and then insist on the historical truth of a Bible story (in Samuel) about King David buying the threshing floor of Araunah

43 ) ian / australia
28/02/2013 23:13
(contd.) the Jebusite for 600 shekels! Yep. Pretty funny. But let's go through it. The Jebusites are thought to be Hittites. (Araunah just means "the Lord" which suggests a Hittite king or tribal chieftain.) And if the "city" (more a hilltop fort) was Hittite, a shrine to Tzedek (El) on a "high place" (ie. Mount Moriah) is more than likely. And like I said, it's a beautiful place. Do you really think in 10,000 years of human habitation, no-one besides one tribe of (Canaanite) Judeans noticed?

44 ) ian / australia
28/02/2013 23:14
(contd.) "...it was a grain processing site." HAH! Why, I wonder, the pompous technical terminology for the mythic "threshing floor"! To lend a Bible story "scientific" or historical weight? As though archeologists have found it? Like it was Pompeii? But don't you see what you're doing? You're BELIEVING the Bible, accepting it as history, and ignoring the transparent function of the story as etiological (self justifying) myth-making. The story was composed 500 years after the "event"

45 ) ian / australia
28/02/2013 23:14
(contd.) and is obviously designed to establish two things: that it BELONGS to Judah forever coz David BOUGHT it, fair and square, paying full market value, and no descendent of Araunah can ever reclaim it, AND, that it was of NO religious importance to anyone because it was just a mundane threshing floor. Note the subtle devaluing of the Jebusites as an unspiritual people without religion who use a magical "high place" only as a "grain processing site"!

46 ) ian / australia
28/02/2013 23:15
(contd.) And note too the eerie parallel with modern Israel and its dehumanisation of the Palestinians as an "invented people" with no valid religious claim to their 1300-year-old shrine on Mount Moriah because it was SOLD to Judah 3,000 years ago!

47 ) ian / australia
28/02/2013 23:18
#41 A tiny bit more: MOST striking in #41 is the hint of desperation that there MUSTN'T, there just CAN'T be a religious site of ANY kind on Mount Moriah before the "temple" of Solomon. (Even though common sense says there probably was.) The idea really freaks him out. Because it strikes at the heart, the core tenet of the self-absorbed, eccentric religion of the Levites: chosenness, uniqueness and the superiority over ALL others of G-d's "peculiar people". Peace.

48 ) Phil / UK
04/03/2013 11:00
The desperation is entirely on your part. I totally demolished your #27 claim against the existence of Solomon's temple. You have been on the back-foot ever since. Now in desperation, you resort to statements like #47: "Even though common sense says there probably was." Real historians deal in facts. Not subjective opinions of what is, or isn't common sense. But if we did use it. Common sense says the only record is of a threshing floor, and they wouldn't 'process grain' on a religious site.

49 ) ian / australia
07/03/2013 22:12
#48 "I totally demolished your #27 claim against the existence of Solomon's temple." Oh come off it Phil. I made no such claim. I said the 3,500-year-old "family home" of "Solomon and David" (#19), (the poster, not the Kings!) didn't exist. Not now, physically, or then, because in 1,500 BC Jerusalem was a Canaanite/Jebusite village called Yabous. "Real historians deal in facts. Not subjective opinions of what is, or isn't common sense." Maybe in modern history they do but ancient history is full

50 ) ian / australia
07/03/2013 22:14
(contd.) conjecture about what would be likely. So, the archeological issue is what was happening in Jerusalem/Jebus before the "arrival" of David. Well, there's a clue in Genesis: when Abram arrived from Ur, he was greeted by Melchizedek, "king of Salem" and "priest of the most high God (El Elyon)." (Gen 14:18). So, over a thousand years before Solomon's temple, a King and High Priest rules over Jerusalem making a sanctuary, shrine or altar on a commanding spot (like Mount Moriah) unavoidable.

51 ) ian / australia
07/03/2013 22:15
(contd.) There you are Phil...not just godless Jebusites processing grain, but evidence from the Bible for a pre-Davidic priesthood with a temple (dedicated to Zedek, based the king's name or El) predating Solomon by centuries (the scholarly consensus being that "the Temple of Solomon was simply a natural evolution of this sanctuary.")

52 ) ian / australia
07/03/2013 22:16
#48 "Common sense says the only record is of a threshing floor, and they wouldn't 'process grain' on a religious site." Huh? Common sense says the whole story of King David and the threshing floor is a legend made up about the distant past to authenticate something in the present. Like a prequel (or to be fancy, an aetiological myth). What evidence is there that it's true? Do you also believe Jonah made his home in a fishes abdomen? I can't see the difference.

53 ) Phil / UK
09/03/2013 00:00
#50&51) Ha! The fact that the vast majority of scholars agree that Melchizedek, Abram, David and Solomon all worshipped the same God won't deter you history thieves.

#52) "Do you also believe Jonah..."

I believe God said "Let there be light." And the latest scientific opinion favours the photonic basis of what is physical reality. I know Watson and Crick wouldn't support your Darwinian fantacies.

And I know Ezekiel 36 is reet in yer face, and there's nowt yer can do aboot it :)



54 ) Phil / UK
09/03/2013 14:23
#50&51) Ha! The fact that the vast majority of scholars agree that Melchizedek, Abram, David and Solomon all worshipped the same God won't deter you history thieves.

#52) "Do you also believe Jonah..."

I believe God said "Let there be light." And the latest scientific opinion favours the photonic basis of what is physical reality. I know Watson and Crick wouldn't support your Darwinian fantacies.

And I know Ezekiel 36 is reet in yer face, and there's nowt yer can do aboot it :)


55 ) ian / australia
10/03/2013 04:44
#53 "#50&51) Ha! The fact that the vast majority of scholars agree that Melchizedek, Abram, David and Solomon all worshipped the same God..." Rabbis maybe. Hardly scholars. But how is it possible? G-d appeared to Abram and said my Convenant is with YOU and YOUR seed. EXCLUSIVELY. How could he arrive in Canaan and find a Royal High Priest and a people (NOT from HIS loins!) ALSO worshipping Yahweh? Surely what scholars agree on is that if there WAS a Canaanite cult in Salem

56 ) ian / australia
10/03/2013 04:44
(contd.) when Abram arrived, it would have been to Zedek or El or some other Canaanite god. You can't have it every way Phil.

57 ) Phil / UK
10/03/2013 15:30
Ian, the worship of the true God didn't begin with Abram. What began with Abram was God's plan to bless the nations. That is what being chosen means. It has nothing to do with any personal quality. God made Abraham sleep whilst he made his covenant with him. It is one-sided. Only God has obligations. It was made before the Mosaic law was given. And it is the reason (having nothing to do with any individuals righteousness) that Ezekiel 36 is fulfilled before your eyes. God's will shall be done!
Name Country
Comment
Characters
Note: Comments will be reviewed for appropriate content. Click here for more details.

Share/Bookmark

UEFA halts European club matches in Israel
UNESCO grants Battir endangered heritage status
Gaza rocket fire torpedoes Neil Young Tel Aviv gig

Close Next Previous
All Rights Reserved © Ma'an News Agency 2005 - 2014